so does this mean maybe reporters will stop pulling statistics out of their asses once they have a tool to provide reliable statistics with a minimum of effort?
So you're saying coding should be a minimum/low wage job? Man, that's great incentive for us programmers to work on tools that make us irrelevant in the marketplace.
Perhaps it would make sense for games companies to put together a spec for a console, the spec can be rehashed every 5 years or so like current consoles, and multiple manufacturers can build hardware that conforms to the spec, with thorough tests to ensure compliance.
Nobody will ever do that again though, since the 3D0 failed so miserably.
One of the big problems facing game programmers today is actually the requirement of an extra layer of abstraction. In order to get a simultaneous release on PS3 and 360 companies have to either a.) write parallel code for different platforms, or b.) create an API to deal with development for both consoles at the same time. Both options are a pain in the ass, and the easier option (adding an extra API) leads to less than optimal code. Of course, you can still improve the API over time, and you still only have to deal with 2 target systems, but its still more difficult than just dealing with a single platform.
Indeed. I was disappointed by my CS education (they didn't offer a compiler design class), and decided to teach myself. I looked at the dragon book and couldn't make heads or tails of it. Then I read Compiler Construction: Principles and Practice. It does a great job of teaching the theory, then giving an example in C. The project in the book is really good too.
Add a vote for K&R2, and one that may seem off the wall:
"Oh! Pascal", by Cooper and Clancy. It's probably out of print, but it had the most lucid, understandable explanation of pointers that I have ever seen in my life.
I'm going to have to disagree with that one.. That book gave me the complete wrong impression about how to program. Luckily I already knew that, but it took some of my fellow students years to unlearn what they learned in that book.
If they want me as a customer, they'll still cater to the single player, linear but good experience, much like a good book or movie, that's how I see the majority of games I play.
I will not pay for installments or addons and they will never see my money, period - I don't like being nickel and dimed. I won't buy a mobile phone for ZERO DOLLARS!!! with a 45$ a month plan. I won't get an internet account with ZERO DOLLARS!!! signup but 99$ a month access. etc.
If they want me, they have me buying stuff now, if they want more from me, tough luck.
$45/month for a cell phone isn't bad, assuming it includes enough minutes to get you through a month and that they actually have decent coverage. My main complaint about cell carriers isn't the monthly fee, its the 2-3 year contracts they make you sign in order to get service.
Sounds like you should mention this to the local postmaster.
Probably, though I doubt it would do much good. But my point is that a pneumatic tube system would take the lazy jackass out of the equation and move the mail delivery into a centralized location, where it would be easier to ensure that the postal workers are doing their jobs.
The emphasis is on "drives off without delivering the mail". I tend to get a big packet of mail about once or twice a week, often with letters from 2 miles away that are postmarked 10 days prior. I also often see him sit in his truck on days where I had outgoing mail, and checked after he had left to find that he did not pick it up. One of these times was especially bad, because my girlfriend wrote her ailing grandmother a letter that did not get picked up on that date, and subsequently did not reach her grandmother until she had fallen into a coma. I don't care if he sits in his mail truck if he's actually doing his job. What bothers me is when he sits in his truck and doesn't actually pick up or deliver mail.
I would love to have a pneumatic tube delivery to my front door.. Would beat the crap out of the lazy mail carrier who drives down the street, sits in his truck for half an hour, then drives off without actually delivering any mail (I've seen him do this at least a dozen times). Not to mention it might drastically improve local delivery time.
The real problem with C++ is that it keeps changing all the time. I learned C++ around 1995, shortly after learning C, and it was pretty simple and straightforward. Sure, there was the template annoyance, but nobody used them so it didn't really matter. Now it's some strange bastardized beast with lots of syntax that's not even remotely derived from its C roots. What was wrong with simply having an object oriented version of C? I know it can still be used that way, but it seems to be more and more difficult to only code that way using C++, because you're going to have to use libraries at some point or another.
That's pretty subjective. Some people prefer their favourite statically typed language to be a little more conservative in added features (language, not runtime libraries).
Some people don't like the fact that, though the standard library developers are allowed to use certain language principles, the average programmer is not. I've hated Java since day one when I learned that, though the String class had an overloaded operator, *I* could not overload an operator. Not that its very often that I would want to, but just the fact that I'm not to be trusted with that much power as a programmer pisses me off. It would be a different matter entirely if the lang
Well, you specified the size of the tank in liters, but not the rate of the leak. I worked under the assumption that a.) the tank would not completely empty, causing a premature drop to a leak rate of zero, b.) that it started at midnight of the first day of the month, and c.) it was a month of 30 days, which is the average length of a month.
I'm trying to find, where in my copy of the Constitution that an education is somehow a right.
I think it's arguably covered under that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing. Yes, I know Jefferson probably meant "property", but he wrote "pursuit of happiness".
That statement is filled with logical fallacies.. First of all, I assume you're including those scientific pioneers who lived back when scientific education was rare or non-existent. Second, to assume we'd be 30% behind without them would be to assume that nobody else would come up with the idea. Would we lose out on calculus because Newton wasn't around? Nope, because we'd still have Leibniz.
That being said, it is true that a rigorous scientific education system can reduce the creative output of an individual.. But individuals can gain an education outside of the scholastic hierarchy. I mean, with the right books and some innate aptitude you could become the greatest mathematician the world has ever known. But for some things, like building robots, you'd need an advanced lab too, which is hard to get outside of academia or a corporate environment. But please, don't discount the value of learning, whether it be on your own or through a university.
One of the most talented programmers I know doesn't have any sort of higher education degree, and has no trouble finding work. That being said, he also had 20 years experience in coding for the Air Force and the NSA. I'd say it'd be easier to get a degree than to go through that, especially with the market as it is now.
Okay, so first off I'm not familiar with Mackie. I hated Ethics (my specialty was Philosophy of Mind), so I avoided the classes to the best of my abilities.
That being said, I would say that Plato and Aristotle rarely described ethics in reference to pleasure. Plato was obsessed with some nebulous "Good" which was the form of everything, or something along those lines (also hated Plato). Aristotle was more about virtues (honor, courage, justice, etc.). As far as ethics not being universal, I never said they actually were, but rather that the goal of ethics is to find something that could apply to everyone and be obvious from the standpoint of reason. I say morals are prescriptive when ethics are not because ethics goes something like "you should't do x because...", whereas morals are more along the line of "thou shalt not do x..".
I guess the point I've been getting to in this thread, is (in slashdot reader terms) ethics is to morals as science is to engineering. They're often used interchangeably, but there is a very distinct difference.
Arg.. Why does everybody post this shit without actually looking it up?
Once again class, this is the distinction: Ethics, the branch of philosophy that deals with what is right, what is wrong, and how to distinguish the two. There are a lot of different ethical theories out there (utilitarianism, Kantian, virtue ethics, etc.). Ethical views tend to differ between individuals, but most ethical theories (the exception being Relativism and all its branches) state that the ethical code should apply to all people in all walks of life. Example: Kant said to a.) treat all people as an end, not merely as a means, and b.) act only in a way that could be applied as a universal maxim (i.e. if its okay for me to steal, its okay for everyone to steal, all of the time).
Morals, on the other hand, are culturally based. For instance, in the Jewish and Islamic cultures, it is immoral to eat pigs. In the Christian culture, it is not. Morals are a standardized code of conduct. The major differences here are that a.) morals are culturally based, whereas ethics are universal, and b.) morals are prescribed, where ethics are up for debate.
The problem is that people get 'ethics' confused with 'applied ethics', which are actually moral codes that are to be applied certain professions (doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc.). In fact, because any breach of an applied ethics code is typically punishable by law, its more a legal code than anything else. The Hippocratic Oath could be considered a moral code, but doctor/patient confidentiality is definitely a legal code. Applied ethics are somewhere between moral and legal, depending on what you're talking about.
I realize someone somewhere probably told you the opposite was true. That person was wrong, and made you wrong. Deal with it and learn from it.
Something that can't be unethical or ethical is probably going to be more ethical than something that is unethical. In other words, if robots are neutral and humans are either evil or good, neutral is more good than evil.
It depends on if they are lawful neutral, chaotic neutral, or true neutral.
Slashdot Mirror
so does this mean maybe reporters will stop pulling statistics out of their asses once they have a tool to provide reliable statistics with a minimum of effort?
So you're saying coding should be a minimum/low wage job? Man, that's great incentive for us programmers to work on tools that make us irrelevant in the marketplace.
Yeah! WASPs prefer Ryder trucks full of ammonium nitrate.
Yes they do. I often get a chill when I see a hick driving a moving van.
Perhaps it would make sense for games companies to put together a spec for a console, the spec can be rehashed every 5 years or so like current consoles, and multiple manufacturers can build hardware that conforms to the spec, with thorough tests to ensure compliance.
Nobody will ever do that again though, since the 3D0 failed so miserably.
One of the big problems facing game programmers today is actually the requirement of an extra layer of abstraction. In order to get a simultaneous release on PS3 and 360 companies have to either a.) write parallel code for different platforms, or b.) create an API to deal with development for both consoles at the same time. Both options are a pain in the ass, and the easier option (adding an extra API) leads to less than optimal code. Of course, you can still improve the API over time, and you still only have to deal with 2 target systems, but its still more difficult than just dealing with a single platform.
Indeed. I was disappointed by my CS education (they didn't offer a compiler design class), and decided to teach myself. I looked at the dragon book and couldn't make heads or tails of it. Then I read Compiler Construction: Principles and Practice. It does a great job of teaching the theory, then giving an example in C. The project in the book is really good too.
Add a vote for K&R2, and one that may seem off the wall:
"Oh! Pascal", by Cooper and Clancy. It's probably out of print, but it had the most lucid, understandable explanation of pointers that I have ever seen in my life.
I'm going to have to disagree with that one.. That book gave me the complete wrong impression about how to program. Luckily I already knew that, but it took some of my fellow students years to unlearn what they learned in that book.
Nope.
If they want me as a customer, they'll still cater to the single player, linear but good experience, much like a good book or movie, that's how I see the majority of games I play.
I will not pay for installments or addons and they will never see my money, period - I don't like being nickel and dimed.
I won't buy a mobile phone for ZERO DOLLARS!!! with a 45$ a month plan.
I won't get an internet account with ZERO DOLLARS!!! signup but 99$ a month access.
etc.
If they want me, they have me buying stuff now, if they want more from me, tough luck.
$45/month for a cell phone isn't bad, assuming it includes enough minutes to get you through a month and that they actually have decent coverage. My main complaint about cell carriers isn't the monthly fee, its the 2-3 year contracts they make you sign in order to get service.
Sounds like you should mention this to the local postmaster.
Probably, though I doubt it would do much good. But my point is that a pneumatic tube system would take the lazy jackass out of the equation and move the mail delivery into a centralized location, where it would be easier to ensure that the postal workers are doing their jobs.
The emphasis is on "drives off without delivering the mail". I tend to get a big packet of mail about once or twice a week, often with letters from 2 miles away that are postmarked 10 days prior. I also often see him sit in his truck on days where I had outgoing mail, and checked after he had left to find that he did not pick it up. One of these times was especially bad, because my girlfriend wrote her ailing grandmother a letter that did not get picked up on that date, and subsequently did not reach her grandmother until she had fallen into a coma. I don't care if he sits in his mail truck if he's actually doing his job. What bothers me is when he sits in his truck and doesn't actually pick up or deliver mail.
I would love to have a pneumatic tube delivery to my front door.. Would beat the crap out of the lazy mail carrier who drives down the street, sits in his truck for half an hour, then drives off without actually delivering any mail (I've seen him do this at least a dozen times). Not to mention it might drastically improve local delivery time.
The real problem with C++ is that it keeps changing all the time. I learned C++ around 1995, shortly after learning C, and it was pretty simple and straightforward. Sure, there was the template annoyance, but nobody used them so it didn't really matter. Now it's some strange bastardized beast with lots of syntax that's not even remotely derived from its C roots. What was wrong with simply having an object oriented version of C? I know it can still be used that way, but it seems to be more and more difficult to only code that way using C++, because you're going to have to use libraries at some point or another.
Please tell me this isn't going to lead to a meme similar to the (hopefully defunct) Chuck Norris ones.
Example: Donald Knuth has actually created and proven correct the perfect operating system. He just refuses to test it.
C# is a better language
That's pretty subjective. Some people prefer their favourite statically typed language to be a little more conservative in added features (language, not runtime libraries).
Some people don't like the fact that, though the standard library developers are allowed to use certain language principles, the average programmer is not. I've hated Java since day one when I learned that, though the String class had an overloaded operator, *I* could not overload an operator. Not that its very often that I would want to, but just the fact that I'm not to be trusted with that much power as a programmer pisses me off. It would be a different matter entirely if the lang
prepare to hear about known unknowns
Well, you specified the size of the tank in liters, but not the rate of the leak. I worked under the assumption that a.) the tank would not completely empty, causing a premature drop to a leak rate of zero, b.) that it started at midnight of the first day of the month, and c.) it was a month of 30 days, which is the average length of a month.
194.4 units.
Ah, but you forget that refreshment is on a bell curve, with each pepsi indicating one standard deviation
I'm trying to find, where in my copy of the Constitution that an education is somehow a right.
I think it's arguably covered under that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing. Yes, I know Jefferson probably meant "property", but he wrote "pursuit of happiness".
That statement is filled with logical fallacies.. First of all, I assume you're including those scientific pioneers who lived back when scientific education was rare or non-existent. Second, to assume we'd be 30% behind without them would be to assume that nobody else would come up with the idea. Would we lose out on calculus because Newton wasn't around? Nope, because we'd still have Leibniz.
That being said, it is true that a rigorous scientific education system can reduce the creative output of an individual.. But individuals can gain an education outside of the scholastic hierarchy. I mean, with the right books and some innate aptitude you could become the greatest mathematician the world has ever known. But for some things, like building robots, you'd need an advanced lab too, which is hard to get outside of academia or a corporate environment. But please, don't discount the value of learning, whether it be on your own or through a university.
One of the most talented programmers I know doesn't have any sort of higher education degree, and has no trouble finding work. That being said, he also had 20 years experience in coding for the Air Force and the NSA. I'd say it'd be easier to get a degree than to go through that, especially with the market as it is now.
Ditch that crap and play GURPS
Wow, a reasoned response! Finally!
Okay, so first off I'm not familiar with Mackie. I hated Ethics (my specialty was Philosophy of Mind), so I avoided the classes to the best of my abilities.
That being said, I would say that Plato and Aristotle rarely described ethics in reference to pleasure. Plato was obsessed with some nebulous "Good" which was the form of everything, or something along those lines (also hated Plato). Aristotle was more about virtues (honor, courage, justice, etc.). As far as ethics not being universal, I never said they actually were, but rather that the goal of ethics is to find something that could apply to everyone and be obvious from the standpoint of reason. I say morals are prescriptive when ethics are not because ethics goes something like "you should't do x because...", whereas morals are more along the line of "thou shalt not do x..".
I guess the point I've been getting to in this thread, is (in slashdot reader terms) ethics is to morals as science is to engineering. They're often used interchangeably, but there is a very distinct difference.
Arg.. Why does everybody post this shit without actually looking it up?
Once again class, this is the distinction: Ethics, the branch of philosophy that deals with what is right, what is wrong, and how to distinguish the two. There are a lot of different ethical theories out there (utilitarianism, Kantian, virtue ethics, etc.). Ethical views tend to differ between individuals, but most ethical theories (the exception being Relativism and all its branches) state that the ethical code should apply to all people in all walks of life. Example: Kant said to a.) treat all people as an end, not merely as a means, and b.) act only in a way that could be applied as a universal maxim (i.e. if its okay for me to steal, its okay for everyone to steal, all of the time).
Morals, on the other hand, are culturally based. For instance, in the Jewish and Islamic cultures, it is immoral to eat pigs. In the Christian culture, it is not. Morals are a standardized code of conduct. The major differences here are that a.) morals are culturally based, whereas ethics are universal, and b.) morals are prescribed, where ethics are up for debate.
The problem is that people get 'ethics' confused with 'applied ethics', which are actually moral codes that are to be applied certain professions (doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc.). In fact, because any breach of an applied ethics code is typically punishable by law, its more a legal code than anything else. The Hippocratic Oath could be considered a moral code, but doctor/patient confidentiality is definitely a legal code. Applied ethics are somewhere between moral and legal, depending on what you're talking about.
I realize someone somewhere probably told you the opposite was true. That person was wrong, and made you wrong. Deal with it and learn from it.
Something that can't be unethical or ethical is probably going to be more ethical than something that is unethical. In other words, if robots are neutral and humans are either evil or good, neutral is more good than evil.
It depends on if they are lawful neutral, chaotic neutral, or true neutral.