Obie Fernandez

It's a clever way of suing your provider. Accenture was sued using the same strategy: http://blog.obiefernandez.com/content/2008/03/sap-sued-for-ty.html But Does Sky need to demonstrate EDS sales team was acting in bad faith? These kind of sales processes are so long and complex that badly selling the solution does not imply bad faith. I'm completely sure that the sales team had not all the information of how things were going to be delivered and for sure they took some optimistic assumptions, but I'm sure they're not trying to swindle sky. Just for laughs, I recommend this scribd presentation: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2304178/Confessions-of-an-Ex-Enterprise-Sale…

Agreed. Google shared with us early last year that the revenue split on Adsense is 68% (http://adsense.blogspot.com/2010/05/adsense-revenue-share.html) - meaning you keep 68% of what they are paid to run the ad and they keep 32%. You can imagine some very respectable proportion of their income every year is the 1/3 coming from spam/scraped/etc. adsense placements. Another interesting article on HN just new is that Google's algorithms already seem to know what crap content is and what good content is: http://blog.obiefernandez.com/content/2011/01/google-probably-knows-wh… and my guess is that Google will only roll out improved search results when the cost to the company is great enough to justify the loss of income. It is a publicly traded company, I don't think Google can just cut out millions of dollars of revenue from their bottom line because they want to not be evil - the shareholders would probably ask for people's heads on platters. Of course only Google knows the extent of which their income-from-spam is, but I imagine it is significant otherwise they would have solved that problem already as the interest in Duck Duck GO, Blekko and Bing/Yahoo continues to rise/be-discussed-more (Don't know if the ACTUAL usage suggests that people are doing more than just talking or moving over to using different services full time) Google's compute power is other-worldly. This WP article doesn't do it justice:…

You can buy the MSA + SOW that hashrocket uses with its clients http://blog.obiefernandez.com/content/2008/09/master-services-agreemen…

There are many. For example: http://blog.obiefernandez.com/content/2008/08/the-hashrocket-way-pair-…

I've summed up my thoughts in a blog post: http://blog.obiefernandez.com/content/2009/02/rails-maturity-model.htm… Totally backing off the idea of certification, but still think a defined RMM is a good idea. Cheers, Obie

"...static typing becomes a big convenience in enforcing coherency across all the systems. You can guarantee that your dataflow is more or less going to work, and focus on the functional aspects...But as we move into a light-weight Service Oriented Architecture model, static typing becomes a genuine productivity boon." A 'productivity boon'? I don't understand. At the risk of invoking the ancient static vs. dynamic religious war, this statement makes no sense to me. I get that if your codebase is tangled enough, and your unit test suite is inadequate to "guarantee that your dataflow is more or less going to work" that maybe rewriting significant portions of it in a type-safe system makes sense. I guess. But without specific code examples it's hard to say exactly what he's talking about. Myself, I've spent many years in both static and dynamic environments and I know exactly where I'm more productive -- and it's not wrestling complex parameterized types to the ground, pulling up abstract classes or interfaces, and/or configuring IOC containers, abstract factories and the like. I wonder though -- this has echoes of Alex Payne's criticisms a couple of years ago, which I think Obie Fernandez addressed pretty well: http://blog.obiefernandez.com/content/2009/04/my-reasoned-response-abo…