Despite all evidence to the contrary.
176 karma · joined March 20, 2011
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
The former seems possibly okay to me, but the latter is definitely not.
You're basically saying that software can be used in a shitty way. That's not exactly unique to this space.
At any rate, this all started with a glib "garbage software" comment, so I suppose I should happy that you acknowledge that the implementation requirements set by the organization have at least something to do with overall user satisfaction.
A lot of it does depend on the organization you're working with, as some are more dysfunctional than others when it comes to setting up best practices and build for their physicians. Others actually listen to their clinical users and tailor the system for them.
I don't mean to pile on you personally, but this issue always pushes my buttons. It seems like whenever it comes up, there's always those who are absolutely incredulous that anyone wouldn't want to be all over the internet. Worse, I've even seen the reaction where some people think that it means the person must be untrustworthy, as if they are the ones who did something wrong.
If someone wants to be all over the front page of Google when someone searches their name, I think that's fine if that's what they want. Just don't assume that everyone wants (or should want) the same thing.
"The technology, which the agency has used since at least 2008, relies on a covert channel of radio waves that can be transmitted from tiny circuit boards and USB cards inserted surreptitiously into the computers."
Oh, so they only need physical access to the machine, and then they can do stuff to it? It's like magic!
Good enough for me!
Oh, lord. No pesky routers, phones, cabling, or other infrastructure-level things, then? Machines never upgraded? Hardware never fails?
By hiring enough qualified people to handle setting it up properly instead of relying on a wing and a prayer and an under-appreciated, underpaid worker doing too many things at once?
What are the advantages that git has over SVN in merging? I've never had any problems merging while using SVN.
I've been at a company with thousands of developers, where a guy that was just hired came in, saw a need for a tool that had been missing, prototyped something, and showed how useful it could be.
When there are missing needs like this, it's a tremendous opportunity for someone who is sufficiently motivated.
Of course, there's a balance between a good company that is just missing some things here and there, and a very bad company that is missing just about everything...