The appearance of that is Clearly Clear

Just by asking this question this way you loose the root. The appearance of that is clearly clear. The world is fucked up. It's not the governments even, it's human nature. You see someone hurt me, I am extremely capable being utterly intelligent but I am here signaling and no one hears so what do I do? That's so simple right? I don't know what to do. I am intelligent and capable. I try with CIA I try with FBI I try with NSA being true natural born quantum cryptologist and I have no response so what do I do? I become violent. No one gives me education I have zero chance to meet another intelligent better to put my brain into place they I need do I contain my anger and listen to imbeciles telling me I gotta kill myself to actually get heard. Oooooh that's now that's it I got it. You did right? I hope you did. I myself I only want to live the life with Allah, I love Allah, he teaches me my value while I am alive you see he or she rather she oh my goodness Allah is she? cares but am I value? That's it. Can I take a decision to kill myself for the name of God killing innocent who may had been my beloved child? Who are they to decide? Who have them the right? Like circumstances. Gun dons. We gotta kill gun dons. That's what we gotta do, sons.

On the other hand you see some children you say you want to kill because they has just no value just stupid unneeded scam reproducing disfunction and violence. That's tour ISIS. But then you say hey I had been molested stolen from in a really bad way shut up in a really bad way by those who attempted to steal from me and hey they are like “mommy with a kid” and the law doesn't help who is gonna revenge for me? Die you bitches you don't deserve to live. That's your ISIS minus connection to gun dons.

Islam created ISIS by its various doctrines, which most Muslims ignore, but a few did not, including that we all should imitate Muhammed’s own actions, that the words in the Koran must be obeyed now (including that apostates be killed), that there should be no separation of power between mosque and state, that Muhammed’s rule (i.e. a dictatorship) should be duplicated now, etc.

To embrace the modern world requires reforming Islam. This can be done by indirection, as in Turkey and Indonesia where unfavorable doctrines are ignored, or it can be done directly, which some modern Muslim theologians in the west are trying to do.

ISIS is the result of not doing this. Islam has always had these strains, violently put down by those in power, or co-opted, or ignored. When there is a power vacuum they emerge in force. Most Muslims in the world of course do not want to live the way Muslims did in the 700s, but absent a reformation this will occur again and again.

Thus when the US destroyed the only central power source in Iraq, it emerged as Al Queda in Iraq and later took the name ISIS, also moving into Syria when the civil war created a power vacuum there, too.

Germany in Weimar days had a related problem: the population was divided, and the centrists who wanted liberal democracy were not the majority. Until a country has a decent majority that wants it, and is willing to die and fight for it, extremists will cause havoc.

So the US was the short-term cause of the power vacuum by destroying Saddam’s army and decommisioning it. But Iraq had no majority centrists willing to fight and die to hold it together; instead Kurds hate Arabs (and Turkmen), Shiites hate Sunni (and Yazidis, Mandans, etc.), pro-Iranian Saadists hate secularists, etc. The same situation exists in Syria.

But the US did not create this disunity, nor could it end it, nor did it create Muslim theology, nor is it the cause of the failure of Arabs to be willing to fight and die for democracy.

Yes TOTALLY and willingy. Beliving in that Bush was stupid and naive enough to not see consequences is nonsense. They have planned everything. US government makes at least 100 year plans. They use these tool terrorist puppets to weaken middle east and have whatever they want.

Currently US supports another terrorist group directly which is PYD. They are same as PKK. Does PKK and ISIS have any difference? Not at all

Also i don't see anyone mentioning that invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan lead over 2 million civilian murder. Moreover they have raped tortured millions. And what happens to relatives of these poor people? If US have left middle east alone none of these terrorist groups could have become real.

They also give logistic and monetary and weaponry support to these groups Not only US but it's allies in EUROPE as well

Look PKK and see US support to them. PKK is the biggest problem of Turkey and they keep supporting them internationally.

Also one of the objective of the ISIS is clearing area then leaving them to PKK terrorists.

What is now called ISIS was founded in 1999 by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the same Zarqawi who was killed in 2006 by US Forces in Iraq. At that time it was know as Al-Qaeda in Iraq or AQI. By 2009-2010 what was left AQI or then known as Islamic State of Iraq or ISI went to Syria so as not to be completely destroyed by US Forces. The outbreak of the Arab Spring in Syria in 2011 started the Syrian civil war gave rise to what is now known as ISIS. It can be argued that by leaving Iraq by the US at the end of 2011, ISIS was able to go back into Iraq and gain more power. It can also be argued that the failed intervention by the US in Libya gave ISIS more weapons and power.

So, clearly, according to the geniuses here on Quora, the USA is responsible for ISIS and EVERY other thing that has gone wrong in the Middle East for the last, what 100 years? The Middle East has always been a very happy place, where everyone got along just fine and there was no turmoil at all until the USA got involved. Now, what sort of idiot thinks that? The USA is not perfect, by any means, but to try to blame the USA for all of the problems in the Middle East is just, well, there is no way to even describe such foolishness. I guess that the USA was responsible for the Crusades, even though it had not yet been formed until over 500 years later. Saddam Hussein was a great guy, and the only problem with him was that the USA decided to attack him after he attacked and invaded other countries and was trying to develop nuclear weapons to exterminate the Jews and take over all of the Middle East. I guess that you geniuses would have preferred that the USA just stay out of it and allow Saddam to develop his nuclear weapons and that Israel should not have attacked the facility that was developing such weapons. Yep, Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons and other WMD’s in the Middle East, I’m sure that most of you wish that the USA had just stayed out of it and let him go forward and have those weapons. Yep, the USA should have just stayed out of it entirely and left you all alone to deal with Saddam and his nuclear weapons and other WMDs. The world would surely be a much better place right now, and the Middle East would be like Nirvana. That damned Bush just screwed up all of that Peace and Harmony that The Middle East had enjoyed for thousands of years.

Read More »

Nammalvar Unsung hero from India

Nammalvar Unsung hero from India

He never recognized by Indian government. because of his activities against Indian government and their killing policy on agriculture. He struggled for us and left him unsung. If you want to more detail about him. Please do a google search by his name.

According to me greatest person in this world are Indian Farmers. Among them I feel the Great Green Crusader Dr G Nammalvar is greatest of all and unsung hero of India.

He is a Green Crusader of India. The Name Green Crusader says it all about him. He crucified himself for well being of nature.

Nammazhlwar was born in 1938 in Elangadu, Thanjavur District, and he graduated from Annamalai University with a BSc degree in Agriculture. In 1963, he began working for the Agricultural Regional Research Station, a government organisation in Kovilpatti, as a scientist, conducting trials on spacing and manure levels of various chemical fertilisers in cotton and millet crops. During his tenure there, the government had conducted various experiments in rain fed land, using expensive inputs like hybrid seeds, chemical fertilisers and chemical pesticides which Nammazhwar considered futile as the rain fed farmers were resource poor. Based on his experience, he felt very strongly that it was imperative to totally reorient the research work being undertaken. But his peers at the institute paid little attention to his advice. Frustrated, he left the institute in 1969.

For the next 10 years, he was an agronomist for Island of Peace, an organisation founded by the Nobel Laureate Dominique Pire. His focus was on improving the standard of living through agricultural development in the Kalakad block of Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu. It was at this time that he realised that in order to get optimal results in farming, farmers should rely only minimally on external inputs. All inputs should come from within the farm. So called wastes should be recycled and used as input. This revelation was a turning point in his life. He completely lost trust in conventional farming practices and began experimenting with sustainable agricultural methods.

In the late 1970s, Nammazhwar became greatly influenced by Paulo Freire and Vinoba Bhave and their theories on education. The purpose of education should be freedom. Freedom is essentially self-reliance. Self-sufficiency means that one should not depend on others for one’s daily bread. Secondly, one should have developed the power to acquire knowledge for oneself. And last but not the least, a man should be able to rule himself, to control his thoughts and feelings.

Eager to propagate these new theories on education, specifically to aid farmers in becoming self-sufficient, he started a Society, Kudumbham in 1979. “Participatory Development” was the way forward. There can be no education without action. Nor can there be any action without education. Both go hand in hand. Nammazhwar interacted with local farmers, understood their needs, and based on their input, evolved farming practices suited to the local farmers.

In 1987, Nammazhwar attended a 4-week training course conducted by the ETC Foundation, Netherlands, on ecological agriculture. In 1990, he founded a network called LEISA (Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture) to promote the concepts of ecological farming, specifically the importance of self-reliability and low external inputs. During the same year, he started an ecological research centre for rain-fed cultivation in Pudukottai district.

Nammazhwar was also greatly influenced by Mr Bernard de-Clerk of Auroville fame, whom he had worked with since 1984. In 1995 he was nominated as the Tamil Nadu state coordinator for ARISE (Agricultural Renewal in India for Sustainable Environment). Concurrently, Bernard was the coordinator at the national level. During his tenure he travelled widely across India promoting the principles of sustainable agriculture.

When the Tsunami hit India on 26 December 2004, Nammazhwar was actively involved in the rehabilitation process. In 2005, he helped farmers across various villages in Nagapattinam district to rehabilitate. In 2006, he left for Indonesia and assisted in reclaiming several farms in Tsunami affected areas.

Recognising his extensive work in the field of agriculture, the Gandhi Gram Rural University, Dindugal honoured Nammazhwar with a Doctorate of Science degree in 2007.

Nammazhwar travelled widely across the world, observed the agricultural practices in various different ecological systems and based on his findings, trained several farmers and NGO workers. He has written several books and articles in the Tamil language. He had a wide readership across different sections of society. His works may soon be translated to the English language, making his writings easily accessible.

Nammazhwar spent a substantial part of his time actively touring the south and conducting training classes on ecological farming. He was in the process of setting up several research cum training centres across South India. The first was at Surumanpatti, Kadavur in Karur district. He was also actively involved in linking different farms and institutes around the world so as to accelerate the process of ecological development.

He lead the Historic Protest against The Methane Gas project which was Started by Great Eastern Energy Corporation an American multinational. The project was proposed in the Fertile Cauery Delta region of Tamilnadu which is the Source of Food for almost all the people of Tamilnadu. Thanks to his Efforts and the farmers agitation the project was cancelled.

Nammazhwar was the Chief Guest for the practical session conducted on organic farming titled "iniyellam iyarkai" (Now all natural) on 20 & 21 July 2013 by the Ramanathapuram district collector.

Death

Nammazhwar died on 30 December 2013, near Pattukottai, while on a trip to protest against methane programme (ONGC) that he had been opposing for a long time.

Nammalvar in Methan protest

Above picture shows how much fond people are around him,

Read More »

William Walker

William Walker.

I'd hesitate to say he was a great person. However, I'm always surprised that more people haven't heard of William Walker.

As is very well known, 43 individuals have held the post of President of the United States of America. From George Washington to Barack Obama, the stories of these men are well documented. Even astonishing underachievers such as Millard Fillmore, 'Silent' Calvin Coolidge and William Henry Harrison (who died a month into his first term) have had huge volumes dedicated to them.

But then there's another man, a less well known fellow by the name of William Walker. Surgeon, journalist, lawyer - the Tennessee native wore any number of hats during his relatively short life. Of the titles he held, one in particular stands out - 1st President of the Republic of Nicaragua.

Nicknamed 'The Grey-Eyed Man Of Destiny', Walker had long held ambitions of seizing power in Central America. Indeed, had circumstances been different he might have set up shop in Baja California. Kicked out of Mexico, Walker - whose popularity in the mid-1800s was such that he received far more press coverage than then President Franklin Pierce - gathered up a small army of mercenaries and, with the backing of transport magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, set forth for Nicaragua.

Walker's conquest of the country is a feat by equal turns remarkable and despicable. With a disease and drink-ridden fighting force and little in the way of supplies, Walker - a charismatic man widely believed to be invulnerable to gun fire - ought to have been heading home to Nashville within a week of his arrival. That he could galvanize those around him says much for his leadership. Meanwhile, the fact he later reintroduced slavery to Nicaragua points to the lack of humanity that underpinned his operation.

Of course, the concept of Manifest Destiny - in short, a notion that America had a divine right to control the western hemisphere in its entirety - meant Walker felt his actions were completely justified. Fortunately for Latin America, others weren't as keen and the former University Of Edinburgh student was sent packing within a year of his arrival. Walker would later to return to the area with an eye to taking Honduras hostage, only to fall into enemy hands and be put to death by firing squad on May 8 1860. He was 36-years-old.

William Walker - More dangerous than he looks.

A major figure of his time - it's been surmised that, had Time been around in 1856, he'd have been the magazine's Man Of The Year - Walker's now little known outside his native Nashville, where a plaque outside his birthplace identifies him as the only American ever to have become president of a foreign power. For those who want to know more about this reprehensible but utterly fascinating individual, we urge you to watch Alex Cox's Walker Starring Oscar nominee Ed Harris (The Right Stuff, The Rock, Pollock) as the man of the hour, it's anything but your standard biopic with Walker's filibustering being used by Cox to comment on the Reagan administration and its illegal efforts to destabilise Nicaragua's democratically elected leader Daniel Ortega. With great performances from Harris, Sy Richardson, Peter Boyle and The West Wing's Marlee Matlin, an ace Joe Strummer score and a script by the incomparable Rudy Wurlitzer (Pat Garrett And Billy The Kid), once encountered, Walker's never forgotten. Rather like the man himself...

Read More »

Leon Walras

Leon Walras

Leon Walras

(1834-1910 )

Joseph Schumpeter: "Walras is the greatest of all economists. His system of economic equilibrium, uniting, as it does, the quality of ‘revolutionary" creativeness with the quality of classic synthesis, is the only work by an economist that will stand comparison with the achievements of theoretical physics."
Schumpeter call the system of equations set out in Walras’ Elements "the Magna Carta of Economics" 

In 1941, George Stigler (Nobel in Economic Sciences in 1982) wrote about Walras:"There is no general history of economic thought in English which devotes more than passing reference to his work. … This sort of empty fame in English-speaking countries is of course attributable in large part to Walras' use of his mother tongue, French, and his depressing array of mathematical formulas."

Historian of economic thought Mark Blaug wrote that Walras
“may now be the most widely-read nineteenth century economist after Ricardo and Marx”

Separately but almost simultaneously with William Stanley Jevons and Carl Menger, French economist Leon Walras developed the idea of marginal utility and is thus considered one of the founders of the “marginal revolution.” But Walras’s biggest contribution was in what is now called general equilibrium theory. Before Walras, economists had made little attempt to show how a whole economy with many goods fits together and reaches an equilibrium. Walras’s goal was to do this. He did not succeed, but he took some major first steps. First, he built a system of simultaneous equations to describe his hypothetical economy, a tremendous task, and then showed that because the number of equations equaled the number of unknowns, the system could be solved to give the equilibrium prices and quantities of commodities. The demonstration that price and quantity were uniquely determined for each commodity is considered one of Walras’s greatest contributions to economic science.

But Walras was aware that the mere fact that such a system of equations could be solved mathematically for an equilibrium did not mean that in the real world it would ever reach that equilibrium. So Walras’s second major step was to simulate an artificial market process that would get the system to equilibrium, a process he called “tâtonnement” (French for “groping”). Tâtonnement was a trial-and-error process in which a price was called out and people in the market said how much they were willing to demand or supply at that price. If there was an excess of supply over demand, then the price would be lowered so that less would be supplied and more would be demanded. Thus would the prices “grope” toward equilibrium. To keep constant the equilibrium toward which prices were groping, Walras assumed—highly unrealistically—that no actual exchanges were made until equilibrium was reached. If, for example, people who wanted to buy ketchup wanted more than sellers were willing to sell, then they would buy none at all. This assumption limits the usefulness of Walras’s simulated process as an aid to understanding how real markets work.
Walras’s sole academic job was as an economics professor at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland. This location was not ideal: because the dominant thinking in economics at the time was in Britain, it was difficult for Walras to affect the rest of the profession. Also, because his students were more interested in becoming lawyers than in becoming economists, Walras did not have disciples. Although his impact on economics was limited during his lifetime, it has been much greater since the 1930s. Historian of economic thought Mark Blaug wrote that Walras “may now be the most widely-read nineteenth century economist after Ricardo and Marx”

Walras’s father, the French economist Auguste Walras, encouraged his son to pursue economics with a particular emphasis on mathematics. After sampling several careers—he was for a while a student at the school of Mines, a journalist, a lecturer, a railway clerk, a bank director, and a published romance novelist—Walras eventually returned to the study and teaching of economics. In that scientific discipline Walras claimed to have found “pleasures and joys like those that religion provides to the faithful.” Walras retired in 1902 at age fifty-eight.

Read More »

Who do not have the Education

Who do not have the Education.

For those who don’t know about this stuff, thalidomide is an anti-nausea medication that had never been tested on women before it was approved for general use. Doctors immediately started prescribing it for morning sickness after it got on the market in Europe.

However, it affected the development of fetuses, resulting in many children being born with underdeveloped or nonexistent limbs. It’s still used in some instances since it can be a useful drug, as long as the person taking it isn’t or has no chance of becoming pregnant.

She saved so very many people from disability, and nowdays no one even knows who she is.

I really cannot say about him being the greatest person in the history, but he is the reason green revolution came into action and billions of people were fed all over the world.

                                            Norman Borlaug
                              The Man Who Saved a Billion Lives

Photograph by CIMMYT

Norman Ernest Borlaug (March 25, 1914 – Sept. 12, 2009) was an American biologist, humanitarian and Nobel laureate who has been called “the father of the Green Revolution”, “agriculture’s greatest spokesperson” and “The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives”. He is one of seven people to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal and was also awarded the Padma Vibhushan, India’s second highest civilian honour.

Borlaug received his B.Sc. Biology 1937 and Ph.D. in plant pathology and genetics from the University of Minnesota in 1942. He took up an agricultural research position in Mexico, where he developed semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties. During the mid-20th century, Borlaug led the introduction of these high-yielding varieties combined with modern agricultural production techniques to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. As a result, Mexico became a net exporter of wheat by 1963. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, greatly improving the food security in those nations. These collective increases in yield have been labeled the Green Revolution, and Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people worldwide from starvation. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply.

This is a pretty subjective question but there is one man I think who definitely deserves a better place in history than the one afforded him. His name is KING JADI RANA:

Soon after when the shrines and fire temples were destroyed, mosques would be built in their place, often of the same materials. Many libraries were burned and much cultural heritage was lost. Gradually there were increased number of laws regulating Zoroastrian behavior, limiting their ability to participate in society. Over time, persecution of Zoroastrians became more common and widespread, and the number of believers decreased significantly.

The refugees accepted the conditions and founded the settlement of Sanjan (Gujarat), which is said to have been named after the city of their origin. This attracted other Zoroastrians from Iran and they have since lived in peace with the Hindus and their relationship with Hindus is full of accord and amity. Above all they are free to practice their faith.

Today, the community exists in western India and Mumbai, and it currently contains the largest concentration of Zoroastrians in the world, numbering around 100,000. All because of the kindness and generosity of this pious king, the last remnants of this titanic former superpower lives on.

This isn’t a terribly serious answer, but the question reminded me of a story from my family. My grandparents had a complete encyclopedia back in the 1930s and loved to play trivia games at home. In particular my grandmother and uncle would try to stump each other by naming some historical figure that they didn’t know.

Once my grandmother asked if my uncle knew of a British member of Parliament, who was later created a lord, and was a controversial yet celebrated historian of World War I. She continued to list his many accomplishments, but my uncle was totally flummoxed and couldn’t guess his name. My grandmother triumphantly said it was George Peabody Gooch, but my uncle thought the name sounded so ridiculous that it had to be made up and refused to believe her. Sure enough, that was his real name, and he really did all the things she said. Yet how many people have heard of him? Not many, I’ll wager.

The point is that ultimately history tends to “forget” an awful lot. Even during what we strangely call “recorded” history, the vast majority of people go totally unnoticed by us today, simply for lack of a complete historical record. Even as major a figure as Jesus Christ — or Pontius Pilate, for that matter — is barely known outside the Gospels. Other figures like King Arthur became so embellished over time that the person we think of today bears no resemblance at all to whomever the original historical figure was (if he ever existed at all, which is doubtful). Even in this day and age where it seems like everything is written down somewhere, it is striking how much remains unaccessible to the general public. Go back 200 years ago, 500 years ago, or 1000 years ago, and the amount of things that were actually written down and which survived to the present day in libraries or museums drops logarithmically. Just by way of illustration, how many people can trace their ancestry back beyond the 1700s? Not terribly many, especially on a global scale.

Read More »

But this should be really easy. This shouldn't take much time to develop

Well I’ll share a few opening sentences that tend to make my heart sink a bit as a programmer. I’m an independent software author so I don’t have any problems with others telling me what to do, but often get requests from users. I’ve found ways to work with this over the years, so it’s much easier now than it was. But I used to get many frustrating questions, and still do sometimes.

1. It’s not working - and then when you ask for details they don’t answer and expect you to solve it without knowing what the problem is. Still get this sometimes. Usually I manage to get details eventually but it can take quite a few messages back and forth. It’s understandable but frustrating at times.
2. It’s working now - sometimes good news, but not if you haven’t fixed the bug yet. Users have a different perspective from the developer. As a developer, if you can’t reproduce the bug yourself, you are dependent on them to reproduce it. So - especially if you’ve spent maybe several hours or days trying to fix a bug, and have nearly got there - narrowed it down to a few lines of code perhaps - then suddenly the user says ”it’s working now” and no longer is interested in reporting back and helping you go through the last few steps to find out what really caused it and fix it - it can be quite frustrating. You just have to wait for someone else to report it to continue the debugging. That happens much less often now because I’ve got much better automatic reporting from the program, so long as they send me the necessary data on request.
3. I know how you can fix this bug - when users say that they almost invariably are wrong. They haven’t written the code, and I wouldn’t be able to say that to another programmer even, if I didn’t have the code. Sometimes you can see how to fix a bug right away. But if not, it’s often a bit like trying to solve a mystery in a detective story - it’s almost never the culprit you thought it was. If you can’t see it as programmer right away it is very rare for the user to see it somehow.
   
   Unless of course it is something unusual about their machine e.g. “I’m using a third party shell for all the windows” - that was the answer to one rather strange user interface bug - the menus were buggy, they couldn’t see some items - because they had a non standard third party shell that was displaying the menus in a slightly different way, (I forget the details now). It took several messages back and forth before we figured out that it might be due to their UI shell - it’s the sort of thing people tend to install and forget.
   
   That sort of thing is very useful to know as of course you can’t know that without being told. I found a work around for them in that example. I installed their preferred UI shell on my computer, duplicated the bug, and then played around until I found a solution - I added some extra spaces into the menu item names which had no impact on other uses but fixed their issue - it was a workaround for a bug in their UI shell basically.
4. I’ve got this great idea for your program - sometimes it is a good idea but often it’s something like e.g. - a text editor that plays a different note for each letter typed (okay made that one up) - Now that I have a wish list, this is no longer a “sinking feeling” type email or message. Instead it is quite fun now, I just add it to the wish list and they are satisfied by that also, and from time to time I implement some of the ideas. Bounce Metronome Pro Wish List And the user never has a clue about whether there idea will be easy to implement - sometimes astonish them by doing it in a few hours - or next to impossible - something that seems dead easy to do for a user may be a one or three year project for a team of a dozen developers, as in this xkcd cartoon.
   xkcd: Tasks

1. This idea is so great it’s going to earn both of us a fortune: I get this from time to time, maybe once every few years, not that often, but when it does happen they are often very sure of themselves and persistent about it. “I know lots of people will like it, and it’s incredibly important to do it, please do it and give me 50% of the royalties.” - nowadays I have a clear statement on my website that I never make royalty agreements in exchange for ideas and send them to read that. It’s at the bottom of this page: Standard Disclaimer
   “I WILL NOT ENTER INTO ANY ARRANGEMENT INVOLVING PERCENTAGES OF SALES OR FUTURE RECOMPENSE IN RETURN FOR SUGGESTIONS, BUG REPORTS, ALTERNATIVE GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES, OR ANY OTHER PROPOSALS FOR MODIFICATIONS OF MY PROGRAMS.”
   
   If they say it is secret and I have to agree to share royalties before they tell me, I just say, please don’t send it to me. If they are still keen for me to do it, I then add it to the wish list, or program it if it is easy to do. The reality is that if something is an outstanding business idea for a software program, then nearly always someone has done it already, probably dozens of developers done different versions of it.
   
   If not done already, then it’s a reasonable guess that it is perhaps of great interest to a small group of people, but they are greatly overestimating how much it would earn. If say 0.01% of the population are interested in it, that may mean there are tens of thousands of potential buyers. But advertising to reach them would probably cost much more than you’d earn. And the chances are that most will want it for free. The reality of the situation is that there are very few programs with millions or thousands of sales, rather more that make a few sales per week, and the majority of programs by independent developers will only make a few sales a year or ever. It’s best to do a program that you want for yourself, or have friends who want it and just do it because you think it is fun and interesting and useful, and then if you earn anything from it, that’s a bonus.
2. “Oh, that’s not what I wanted” - after working on it for weeks or months. This used to be very frustrating - though some of the ideas I programmed in this way were useful for other users though not for the person who originally asked for them. The problem is that users don’t really have a good insight into how the UI will work, so they may say that they think you need to do x, y, z in great detail but when they see it they realize it is not what they want at all.
   
   The main issue here is that it is natural to interpret what they say as if they were programmers talking to you about your program. It’s important not to deal with user requests as if they were program specifications, but instead ask them to explain why they want these features and try to learn what it is they are trying to do. Often you find the program does it already, just that the help was a bit confusing, or that the obvious way of doing things is buggy, so you have to fix that bug and they are trying to get you to program a work around for a bug they haven’t thought to report, etc.
   
   Nowadays I deal with that by going over it more clearly, like that. Also once the idea is clear, or as clear as I can, I get a rough version for them to see at an early stage, instead of implementing the whole thing, just some part of what they want. Then if it is still interesting, if they say “Great that’s just what I wanted” etc then I take it further. If not, haven’t spent too much time chasing that particular red herring.
3. Please make this program more user friendly - that’s reasonable enough as is, but then you go on to say “Okay, do you mind testing it for me and giving some feedback” and they say “no, why do you need to test it? Just make it work better”. If I was the likes of Microsoft I could have teams of users to test everything. But an independent software author can’t do that, you test it yourself, get a few friends to test perhaps - but if that is not enough you are dependent on your users to give some feedback. If they can’t answer questions or don’t want to, you just have to give up on it, and wait until someone comes along who will explain what the issue is for them.
   
   And if it is something very specialized, the only people who can test it are the ones who would be using it. At least in detail. You can go a certain way towards this goal by following user interface guidelines, relying on past experience etc. But after doing that if they still say “make the program more user friendly” - where do you go next when you’ve already done everything you know how to do? You need feedback from the users of the software otherwise it is just randomly changing things in hope that it will help, which is as likely to make it worse as better, and also to annoy previous users of your program who are used to the way it is now.
   
   I deal with that by explaining the situation somewhat better than I used to. It’s a tricky one though, as you need to be a programmer I think to understand quite how complex UI programming is. The modern friendly UI - e.g . the editing UI for quora as an example - it seems so simple but is a result of thousands, or more likely millions of carefully thought out ideas, many sketches, programming, user interface testing, this UI - which I think is very good as a user - it must involve so much by way of thought and testing and experience… And to most people all that is totally invisible except when it goes wrong.

My worst experiences with non-programmers usually has two repeat elements:

1. Can you just…
2. Why don’t you just…

The first issue starts off with someone asking for something that is seemingly simple to them (“can you just…”) but in reality, is tremendously complex. I can’t give them a technical answer, because they have zero technical knowledge. But when the person I’m talking to is a supervisor, company executive, or someone with a controlling budget, I’m forced to give an explanation because they need to weigh it against ROI, valuation, or opportunity costs.

This often results in trying to explain complex technical issues using analogy or metaphor. In so doing, I get the point across, but then they try to solve the problem—as though I’m incapable of it—thereby compounding the abstraction by trying to solve the metaphorical concept. This results in them responding with “why don’t you just…” as though I’m completely daft and never thought of that. But this often destroys the metaphor, because I didn’t use an analogy for the purpose of solving the problem, I used it to explain the situation. They think they’re being helpful by solving at an abstract level, but all they’re doing is compounding their ignorance and forcing me to come up with an even worse analogy.

Some examples of this pattern:

• Can you just… show their account information in the checkout?
• Answer: “Yes, but not easily… the account information is in a proprietary database behind a firewall, and the website is hosted in the cloud. We’d have to create an API into the back end system. Kind of like building a bridge between the website and our database, but it needs security, so more like a controlled-access bridge, which would require more effort. It might take a month or more.”
• Response: “Well bridges are for crossing rivers, and computers don’t have rivers between them. So why don’t you just skip the bridge by just putting the database on the website?”
• Can you just… move our customer data from that system to the new one? We’d like the new system in place next month so we can train everyone.
• Answer: “Our customer data is our custom-built system, and the new system is an off-the-shelf product. They’re not compatible. We’d have to completely restructure the database or build conversion scripts. It will take months. It’s kind of like trying to stick a gasoline car engine into a diesel car and expecting it to just work. They’re not compatible. We can do it, but it’s a ton of work, and it won’t be done in a month.”
• Response: “Well even engines follow basic patterns, and use standardized parts, so it can’t be that difficult. Didn’t you design the custom database correctly in the first place? Why don’t you just use Access to get the data out, and push it into the other one? My nephew can do that. It’s just data.”
• Can you just… change the forms to go straight into our database instead of emailing us?
• Answer: “Yes, I can, but the site was developed by a third party and they used a custom form tool that they have the only license to, I don’t have access to their code, and we’re using email as the receiver because we don’t have an API to connect to our database. It would be like trying to make your iPhone control your microwave by just making a wire that plugs into the phone and the thermostat jack inside the microwave. We’d have to know how the systems on both ends work, and both devices would have to understand each other. We’d have to spend research time on that and see if it’s possible. I don’t know how long it will take.”
• Response: “Well, I need it for next week, and you’re making this too complicated. If the third party developed the site, then they must know how to do it. Why don’t you just… outsource it?”

That last one is the worst. It assumes that because you’re asking for something that you don’t understand and you’re too impatient to wait (or you failed to plan ahead), you think a third party can do it faster because we’re too dumb to just make the magic happen.

“That should be easy.”

I hear this a lot.

My immediate emotional response to this is “The fuck you say.” I honestly don’t care if it is easy, they should not be saying it. They are in no place to evaluate the easiness and the hardness of anything. They are almost always wrong.

What is often the case is that the things they think are easy are hard and the things they think are hard are easy. It kills me how often they look at me with serious, pleading eyes and ask “can you, is it at possible, please dear sir, would you be able to change that icon to cornflower blue?”

Just as I am smirking to myself they drop on:

“And calculate the number of atoms in the universe…while you are at it.”

Insert obligatory xkcd(xkcd: Tasks):

Usually the thing they want. They thing they have already written off as completely trivial. That thing. That thing is the wrench that messes up the whole works.

Now, if you are talking with non-developers just in general, then it is:

“Hey, I have this great idea where you do all the work and I sit over here and supply the idea and we will both make millions of dollars.”

After reading most of the answers here and considering my very own experiences through the years, I'd break it down to the really most annoying and irrational words I presonally heared way too much in my career:

"But this should be really easy. This shouldn't take much time to develop."

Every time I heared this, I just asked myself:

Why can people without any knowledge in software development, espacially completely non technically oriented people, claim that they are definitely able to estimate the complexity and amount of time of a development task?

Immediately after this, I often smile and laugh to my inner self because I have to imagine how it would be if everyone of us would show this behavior in everydays life on any situations. Imagine those situations like me, as a software developer, I would ...

• tell the doctor performing a surgery on me, that it is easy fixing my heart with a by-pass and it won't take long
• tell the mechanic that disassembling and reassembling the engine of my car is so easy and it shouldn't take long
• tell the grocery store employee, that placing the 4 tons of delivered wares in the shelvings is that easy and it shouldn't take long
• tell the architects and construction supervisors, that building my new house is damn easy and it shouldn't take any time
• tell any random mother around me, that raising a baby and providing it food and safety and a warm home is just damn easy and it shouldn't take long for it to grow up

...and so indefinitely many more.

Twisted reality.

Read More »