Slashdot Mirror

Computer Programmer - Convert project specifications and statements of problems and procedures to detailed logical flow charts for coding into computer language. Develop and write computer programs to store, locate, and retrieve specific documents, data, and information. May program web sites.

Computer Systems Analyst - Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.

Note my italics. The first job is certainly one that is "easier" and the second one is "harder" --- certainly, the second person might make a bit more money or do higher-level thinking. It could be argued that the second job is "better" --- we want more people making sure widgets are built correctly rather than bolting in Section 7-G into hundreds of widgets a day.

Well, here's a table showing how those two jobs did. Make no mistake, we lost computer programmers. About 130,000 of them from 1999 to 2004. That's a lot of jobs. We're also spending less overall on these computer programmers: about $6 billion less.

But... what happened to the Systems Analyst, the one who "may" supervise the programmers? Well, we've added 70,000 of those jobs and since 1999 we're spending $7 billion more employing these guys. Overall, we're spending $1 billion more (inflation-adjusted) on Computer Programmers and Computer Systems Analysts, eventhough there's 60,000 less people being employed (out of a starting pool of almost a million people).

That, to me, looks like resources being shifted. It looks like there are more jobs supervising, and those jobs not only earn more, but their wages are steadily increasing. The old "lost" job is out of the door and on a desk in Romania or Bangalore. The new "replacement" job has arrived and it pays Americans more.

Overly simplified? Of course. There's any number of factors which can muddle up this data. But, this is hard data at least, and slightl

Computer Programmer - Convert project specifications and statements of problems and procedures to detailed logical flow charts for coding into computer language. Develop and write computer programs to store, locate, and retrieve specific documents, data, and information. May program web sites.

Computer Systems Analyst - Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.

Note my italics. The first job is certainly one that is "easier" and the second one is "harder" --- certainly, the second person might make a bit more money or do higher-level thinking. It could be argued that the second job is "better" --- we want more people making sure widgets are built correctly rather than bolting in Section 7-G into hundreds of widgets a day.

Well, here's a table showing how those two jobs did. Make no mistake, we lost computer programmers. About 130,000 of them from 1999 to 2004. That's a lot of jobs. We're also spending less overall on these computer programmers: about $6 billion less.

But... what happened to the Systems Analyst, the one who "may" supervise the programmers? Well, we've added 70,000 of those jobs and since 1999 we're spending $7 billion more employing these guys. Overall, we're spending $1 billion more (inflation-adjusted) on Computer Programmers and Computer Systems Analysts, eventhough there's 60,000 less people being employed (out of a starting pool of almost a million people).

That, to me, looks like resources being shifted. It looks like there are more jobs supervising, and those jobs not only earn more, but their wages are steadily increasing. The old "lost" job is out of the door and on a desk in Romania or Bangalore. The new "replacement" job has arrived and it pays Americans more.

Overly simplified? Of course. There's any number of factors which can muddle up this data. But, this is hard data at least, and slightl

Let us for a minute forget that Microsoft's software lineup was less than thrilling. Let us also cast aside that the 360 is/was geared (mainly) towards FPSs and online gaming, neither of which are as big in Japan as they are here. Let's ignore that it was a console following up on the catastrophic failure (in Japan at least) that was the original Xbox.

Even if we wipe the slate clean, and a new American company comes out with a system in Japan, and it had some interesting games for that market, the mere fact that it's American causes some contempt among the Japanese. To put it in other terms, this is like asking why Toyotas don't sell better amongst American UAW union workers. Or why France doesn't have a major California wine festival. From my understanding of speaking with people who live(d) in Japan, there is a very big sense of nationalism with video games, more so than in any other country. The three superpowers of the last two decades, Sony, Sega and Nintendo, were all Japanese. It is almost offensive to suggest to a Japanese customer that Microsoft could do a better job than the homegrown heroes.

Simply put, the deck was stacked against Microsoft from the very beginning.

This is not to say that Microsoft is at a complete loss with the 360 in Japan, but certainly some of those resources could be better used at launching that console more strongly in other markets where this console xenophobia may not exist. Maybe India. Maybe it's China. Or Korea. Maybe it's another country. (Look at the estimated makeup of internet-connected Xbox 360 owners around the globe). My guess is Blizzard is not focusing on Japan as WoW's third biggest market.

It would take some amazing feat, like Zelda, Biohazard and Dragonquest all launching only on the next Xbox, for Microsoft to be anywhere near the top in Japan. That's not going to happen, so you need to focus your resources where they are best spent. And it's not Japan.

If that seems depressing, think of the executives in Japan that can't seem to understand why dating sims and DOA-based patchinko games aren't automatic big sellers here. I don't think they're losing much sleep over it.

Others here mentioned the quality of games as being in decline the past one or two years. I found this odd as each year, that I can remember, had several pretty good games. I was never one to buy more than a game every few months, so while the barrel of gaming per se was always filled to me, I never drank enough from it to see how quickly I reached the bottom.

So, I took it upon myself to look at some information on MetaCritic. While critical aggregation is not foolproof, it does have some useful data. I counted all the games that were rated at least a 90, that came out no earlier than 2001, and that were for the PS2, Xbox, Xbox 360, Gamecube, or PC. (Sorry, no handhelds or older consoles).

Here is how that turned out:

2001: 25
2002: 34
2003: 38
2004: 30
2005: 21
2006: 7

So if it seems that there's not as many good games as there were three years ago, you're correct. Extrapolating 2006, we come up with an awfully low total. Even with another twenty great games this year, which is extremely unlikely, it's still less compared to 2002-2004.

Here's a detailed chart with a per-system breakdown.

Now have critics gotten tougher after the past two years? Or is the conventional wisdom correct, and have titles really just gotten worse?

Disclaimer: I design.

So you said, and I saw two AC at 0 flaming your own designs. I thought they were trolling, but well... if you would design something similar if you got "free reigns", then I'm sorry to say I agree with them. I don't like them at least, YMMV. However, I do agree that this contest is almost like Tom Sawyer making people paint the fence, because it's basicly the same fence afterwards.

>> Disclaimer: I design.

Yes, you do. And based on your web sites portfolio I don't think you are in position to criticize anyone. At least not yet.

Hate to say this, but your site and all of the sites in your portfolio reek of bad design. While I think your comments above are perfectly valid, I'm glad that you didn't submit anything.

That link is nice, so I wrote a short summary of it.

I put this together last time, but by the time I had it done the story was gone off the front page.

A previous story here on /. commented on costs to provide wi-fi access to a 16-sq. mile area to be about $600,000. Based on that, as well as old Census data, I came up with a highly simplified cost chart for the major metropolitan areas in the U.S.

Based on that, there's no clear evidence that wi-fi is absolutely cost-effective or absolutely not cost effective. It really depends on your city and a lot of other factors. I would hazard a guess that low-density areas are not going to do well. (That's why Casper, Wymoing and Yuma, Arizona, and Bismarck, North Dakota all are at the bottom of the list).

If you have better cost info, you can always play with the data yourself.

First off, let me just say I just downloaded your free sample. Second, I'm listening to it right now. I enjoy listening to it, and it's not bad music for its genre.

But that ends where we agree.

Your music is not, well, the kind of music that would turn out to be popular. That is not to say you guys don't have talent (which I can't judge from one song), or that you don't work hard (again, I can't tell if you guys do or not). But you're dealing in drum 'n' bass played by a live band. That's not the broadest possible genre, and I imagine it's a turn off to 80% or 90% of the population, if not more. And for such a super-niche-y type of music, you have to be REALLY REALLY good to break into any sort of mainstream popularity. Even bands like Breakestra don't have door-smashing commercial success. Everyone once in a while you'll have someone like Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, who within a few day's time suddenly appears profiled in Time Out NY, Pitchfork, and the NY Press and now "everyone on the internet"* knows about them.

What you guys have to do is try and connect with the audiences that might see you. I'm sure you know of all these names, but look at artists like Greyboy (and Greyboy Allstars), the New Mastersounds, LTJ Bukem, Disco Biscuits, and other artists that are in a similar genre. Find out where they play live and follow them there. Play in that same club. Try and connect with that audience. A lof of these artists do well for themselves with a tiny tiny amount of record sales. Someone might not want to pay $10 for your CD, but they will pay to see you in a live show for $10 (or more), and you will make more money off that $10 that they contributed. (I just looked on your site and you have one show in June and one in July --- you need to have two a week at least).

(I'm listening to your song now for the second time and I'd have to say, I don't know if I would buy your CD, but I would probably really enjoy your live show. And I know a few other people who would probably like it too.)

Blogs aren't the end-all and be-all, even if "everyone on the internet"* reads them. As I have opined before, I don't think they are all that great, and what's worse (for you), they are reaching a TINY audience that is spread all across the globe. Most people don't read blogs, most people don't even know what a blog is. Don't put all your faith into them, because they will not make or break you. They can help in either direction, but they are still sub-sub-mainstream media, outside of maybe a couple of very specific sites.

I can't stress live shows enough. Over here in the US, if you "make it" as a DJ, you are making money off of live shows, not CD sales. Compare the amount of discs that say, Tall Paul, sells, versus the sheer number of people he can pack into clubs. Your music seems like it would be fun to dance/move to.

I don't mean to sound discouraging. Put your energy into blogs, as you have, but don't be afraid to contact smaller papers, college/small-market radio stations, and do a LOT of shows. To be honest, your music is not good enough were you guys will be able to make a go out of it simply by doing a show a month. Not many bands can do that.

I hope all the best for you. Make it work for you.

* Everyone on the internet = A couple of hundred people.

So a blogger that is participating in this bubble is a... blubber?

I do predict that this blog will continue to be relevant, even if it never updates. *shrug*

That's why I like my "blog". It never needs to be updated but is always current. And no RSS feeds or anything to worry about. The other good thing is that it can be your blog too, if you agree with its views.

Also, worst word of the past two years = "blogosphere".

1. Jersey City, NJ PMSA
   
2. New Britain, CT PMSA
   
3. Bridgeport-Milford, CT PMSA
   
4. Stamford, CT PMSA
   
5. Trenton, NJ PMSA
   
6. Norwalk, CT PMSA
   
7. Brockton, MA PMSA
   
8. Lowell, MA-NH PMSA
   
9. Salem-Gloucester, MA PMSA
   
10. Bristol, CT PMSA
    
11. Fall River, MA-RI PMSA
    
12. Waterbury, CT MSA
    
13. New Bedford, MA MSA
    
14. Manchester, NH MSA
    
15. Wilmington, NC MSA
    
16. Fitchburg-Leominster, MA MSA
    
17. Middletown, CT PMSA
    
18. Lewiston-Auburn, ME MSA
    
19. Pittsfield, MA MSA
    

The solution to the anagram...!

Here!

Wow, it looks like scans of the cover have already hit the net.

*sigh*

I wanted to do that as well and call it the "1995" skin. Instead I just did this: FD1995. I think most good web page design is a mix between knowledge of organization / spacing / interface, good coding, good visual design. Most people are good at one, if any.

I use Paint over Photoshop. Sure, the pixel by pixel work is a bit tedious, but I think of it like making a mosaic. Just one with millions and millions of pixels. I start with a base and slowly add more detail. I'm working on a picture of Johnny Carson right now. I think it's coming together quite nicely.

Wait, which keyboard? This one? or this one?