I played through Bioshock, it didn't impress me at all. I was surprised it even got good reviews.
The art direction in Bioshock was possibly the best I've seen in a video game. The visual design combined with the voice acting and soundtrack created an outstanding and coherent setting for the story of the game. In addition, Andrew Ryan is one of the most interesting and memorable video game characters of all time. The gameplay was also fairly creative.
That being said, the story (once you get past the terrific setting) was forgettable, and the gameplay got somewhat repetitive once you got used to it. I also wasn't impressed by the "morality" aspect of the game (though I never am impressed by morality elements in games). So the game was generally enjoyable to play, but there are much more "fun" games out there.
The art direction alone is enough to make this game significant, and it should be appreciated for its achievements in this area, if for no other reason.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can understand how having complete control over your data would be important. So here is my suggestion:
Set up at least two linux boxes to use as file storage. Separate them geographically so at least one will survive if a building burns down. If you don't have two controlled physical locations (e.g. home and office), then set up one or more virtual machine accounts at a hosting company to fill in the gaps.
Set up pre-shared ssh keys on the boxes to establish secure communication.
Place files on one machine (the local machine, if there is one) and send them to the other(s) using rsync or rdiff-backup over ssh (probably in a cron job)
Use some sort of disk/file encryption to protect the data at rest (I won't make any recommendations because I haven't personally done this part, but there are several tools available).
Protect the keys very carefully
Even if you have to use a third party, they won't have access to the data because it is encrypted on the disk.
Your argument by analogy fails completely. There are tons of people out there who can build a successful prototype using breadboard, wire wrap, etc but have no business designing and manufacturing production-quality PCBs. I recommend building to prototype yourself. If you don't have the skills, you should learn them. Once you have a working prototype, pay good money for a quality shop to design and fab the PCBs. You could even try something like ExpressPCB for a low-quantity run.
Right. In the real world, it's 2 months of trying to understand what the customer actually wants you to do, and 3 weeks of hacking together some minimal pile of garbage that just barely does it, then you iterate this process several times.
'm not some hippie liberal douche but I tend to believe that there are more important things than the bottom line.
Then you shouldn't run a business. Seriously. Business is about making money. If you want that other stuff, you should give money to charity. In fact, some of the people at the top of Microsoft and Dell have gone above and beyond in terms of charitable contribution.
H1B's make on average 23% less than their citizen counterparts.
23% doesn't sound like much of a difference to me. I read the article and the data provided said that the average hardware engineer (for example) makes X and the average H1B hardware engineer makes Y (where Y is less than X). It is very likely that the average H1B worker has less experience than the average American worker. That difference alone easily accounts for the stated difference in pay.
I can't help but shake the feeling that Google's stated motivation for opposing this law isn't really valid anyway. Let A be the set of people who will not live in California if same-sex marriage is not allowed (e.g. homosexuals who want to get married, extreme gay sympathizers). Let B be the set of people who will not live in California if same-sex marriage is allowed (e.g. religious types). Google asserts that there are more people in set A than in set B. Is there any logic to back up this claim? It seems to go against my observations (though I've spent my entire life in the south and the midwest). Maybe Google wouldn't want to hire anyone in set B anyway?
Plus you need proof that the sensor wasn't malfunctioning. And proof that the operator was using it correctly. Honestly, I find it pretty appalling that the output of this sort of device can be used as evidence at all.
It should be very difficult to accept a simple true/false value from a computer as evidence in court. The device must instead produce some sort of verifiable physical/chemical evidence.
If the computer doesn't do what she needs it to do in the first place, why does better security matter? She could put a rock on the desk, call it a computer and be just as productive and free from computer viruses.
I understand security was one of the primary motivations behind the development of the Apple iRock. You get all the social benefits of owning an Apple product with absolutely no security concerns or learning curve. The user interface of the iRock is completely free from the buttons, dials, and LEDs that clutter up competing products. Plus the iRock comes in your choice of 4 fabulous colors.
We're not living in any semblance of a free country when your neighbors...
We have a free society. That is, society is free to do whatever it wants, including taking away rights from individual members of that society. Our society is free, but individuals within that society are not.
I agree with this, but I don't think it is responsible to store a gun in a safe requiring a key . The problem is that the key must be kept in a reasonably accessible place. Even if it is hidden, a teenager will find it eventually. So it's probably better to use a combination or biometric lock.
That sort of thing is a big part of The Battle for Wesnoth. You recruit an army and level up each individual member. Death is permanent, so there is a lot of strategy involved when trying to decide how to make use of your high-level characters without getting them killed. See here for more info.
The company measures my performance by what I get done.
This is a great sentiment that I think many of the "salaried" folks in this discussion are missing. If you are required to work X hours per week, at certain times of day, then your employer hasn't really embraced what it means to have salaried employees. I have never accepted a salaried position in which my schedule was determined by the company. As long as you are being productive, you should be able to take a few hours off in the middle of Tuesday to go to the dentist, or work less than 40 hours this week because work is kind of slow. As long as I am generally at work during the core "meeting hours" (10-3), I feel like I am satisfying my "presence" requirements.
It's time we all stop punching the clock and start acting like professionals.
why is "more money for more work" such a taboo? really?
I think the "taboo" is the fact that you run an outside consulting business in addition to your full-time job. Even if you didn't sign an agreement with your current employer that says you will not engage in outside money-making activities in your technical field, it will probably be "frowned upon."
My father went to state school in RI, and was recruited by Raytheon before he'd even graduated. He was working alongside graduates from all the Ivy Leagues, getting paid the same. It doesn't matter what the name on the diploma is, what matters is the effort you put in and the skills you provide for your employer.
If you are trying to decide whether to go to a big name school or Podunk State University, please don't listen to the anecdotal evidence of parent poster. Whether you are trying to make it in industry or academia, the reputation or your school will significantly factor into your success. The same goes for the reputation of the companies you choose to work for.
It is very common for people to blame all of the problems of software engineering on some particular methodology. We've been shifting blame from one method to another for decades, and the result is that we just get new processes that aren't necessarily better than the old ones.
The fact is that software development is very difficult. I think there are several reasons why it is more difficult to develop robust software now than it was 20 years ago. Some of these reasons are:
The customer expects more from software: more features, flashier interfaces, bigger datasets -- all of these things make the software much more complicated. The mainframe systems of a few decades ago can't even compare to the level of complexity of today's systems (ok, maybe OS/360).
There is just more software out there. So any new software that we create is not only supposed to do its job, but also interconnect with various other systems, using the standards and interfaces of various governing bodies. This effect has been growing unchecked for years, but we are starting to counter it with things like SOA, etc.
The software engineering talent has been diluted. There, I said it. The programmers of 20-30 years ago were, on average, better than the programmers of today. The reason is we have more need for software developers, so more mediocre developers slip in there. Aggravating this issue is the fact that the skilled folks, those who develop successful architectures and programming languages, don't tend to consider the ability level of the people who will be working with the systems they develop. This leads to chronic "cargo cult programming" (i.e. code, test, repeat) in many organizations.
Software has become a part of business in nearly every industry. This means that people who make high-level decisions about software don't necessarily know anything about software. In the old days, only nerds at IBM, Cray, EDS, etc got involved with software development. These days, the VP of technology at Kleenex (who has an MBA) will decide how the new inventory tracking software will be built.
I'm sure there are more causes and other folks will chime in.
And for all those that blame GMs' problems on the unions, wake up - GM makes crap cars nobody wants - THAT is the problem with GM.
In 2007, GM sold approximately 9.37 million vehicles. Toyota also sold 9.37 million vehicles that year. It sounds to me like plenty of people want GM's cars -- GM just can't seem to be able to turn a profit when they sell them.
As usual, people have set themselves up on two sides of the "what's wrong with GM issue". It seems the problem is either totally with the unions or totally with management. However, also as usual, the problem is more complicated and is probably a combination of those two factors and several others.
I think a FPS would work great with *eye* tracking. If you look at something at the edge of the screen, the screen centers on the thing you were looking at. Of course, you would still need to aim with some sort of controller (e.g. light gun), and you would need some way to disable the eye tracking while aiming (e.g. button on light gun).
Slashdot Mirror
The art direction in Bioshock was possibly the best I've seen in a video game. The visual design combined with the voice acting and soundtrack created an outstanding and coherent setting for the story of the game. In addition, Andrew Ryan is one of the most interesting and memorable video game characters of all time. The gameplay was also fairly creative.
That being said, the story (once you get past the terrific setting) was forgettable, and the gameplay got somewhat repetitive once you got used to it. I also wasn't impressed by the "morality" aspect of the game (though I never am impressed by morality elements in games). So the game was generally enjoyable to play, but there are much more "fun" games out there.
The art direction alone is enough to make this game significant, and it should be appreciated for its achievements in this area, if for no other reason.
Even if you have to use a third party, they won't have access to the data because it is encrypted on the disk.
Your argument by analogy fails completely. There are tons of people out there who can build a successful prototype using breadboard, wire wrap, etc but have no business designing and manufacturing production-quality PCBs. I recommend building to prototype yourself. If you don't have the skills, you should learn them. Once you have a working prototype, pay good money for a quality shop to design and fab the PCBs. You could even try something like ExpressPCB for a low-quantity run.
Right. In the real world, it's 2 months of trying to understand what the customer actually wants you to do, and 3 weeks of hacking together some minimal pile of garbage that just barely does it, then you iterate this process several times.
I'd like to double-check that assertion. I just need to source a dictionary.
I just heard from the installer. He will be here between 2500 and 4500 A.D. It's no big deal -- I was planning on staying home from work, anyway.
Then you shouldn't run a business. Seriously. Business is about making money. If you want that other stuff, you should give money to charity. In fact, some of the people at the top of Microsoft and Dell have gone above and beyond in terms of charitable contribution.
23% doesn't sound like much of a difference to me. I read the article and the data provided said that the average hardware engineer (for example) makes X and the average H1B hardware engineer makes Y (where Y is less than X). It is very likely that the average H1B worker has less experience than the average American worker. That difference alone easily accounts for the stated difference in pay.
We could do something like that in the US, but first we would have to change the Constitution.
I have the same degree, but I prefer to think of myself as a mathematician. Honestly, I don't know how the word "science" ever got in there.
I can't help but shake the feeling that Google's stated motivation for opposing this law isn't really valid anyway. Let A be the set of people who will not live in California if same-sex marriage is not allowed (e.g. homosexuals who want to get married, extreme gay sympathizers). Let B be the set of people who will not live in California if same-sex marriage is allowed (e.g. religious types). Google asserts that there are more people in set A than in set B. Is there any logic to back up this claim? It seems to go against my observations (though I've spent my entire life in the south and the midwest). Maybe Google wouldn't want to hire anyone in set B anyway?
Plus you need proof that the sensor wasn't malfunctioning. And proof that the operator was using it correctly. Honestly, I find it pretty appalling that the output of this sort of device can be used as evidence at all.
It should be very difficult to accept a simple true/false value from a computer as evidence in court. The device must instead produce some sort of verifiable physical/chemical evidence.
If the computer doesn't do what she needs it to do in the first place, why does better security matter? She could put a rock on the desk, call it a computer and be just as productive and free from computer viruses.
I understand security was one of the primary motivations behind the development of the Apple iRock. You get all the social benefits of owning an Apple product with absolutely no security concerns or learning curve. The user interface of the iRock is completely free from the buttons, dials, and LEDs that clutter up competing products. Plus the iRock comes in your choice of 4 fabulous colors.
We have a free society. That is, society is free to do whatever it wants, including taking away rights from individual members of that society. Our society is free, but individuals within that society are not.
I agree with this, but I don't think it is responsible to store a gun in a safe requiring a key . The problem is that the key must be kept in a reasonably accessible place. Even if it is hidden, a teenager will find it eventually. So it's probably better to use a combination or biometric lock.
That sort of thing is a big part of The Battle for Wesnoth. You recruit an army and level up each individual member. Death is permanent, so there is a lot of strategy involved when trying to decide how to make use of your high-level characters without getting them killed. See here for more info.
This is a great sentiment that I think many of the "salaried" folks in this discussion are missing. If you are required to work X hours per week, at certain times of day, then your employer hasn't really embraced what it means to have salaried employees. I have never accepted a salaried position in which my schedule was determined by the company. As long as you are being productive, you should be able to take a few hours off in the middle of Tuesday to go to the dentist, or work less than 40 hours this week because work is kind of slow. As long as I am generally at work during the core "meeting hours" (10-3), I feel like I am satisfying my "presence" requirements.
It's time we all stop punching the clock and start acting like professionals.
I think the "taboo" is the fact that you run an outside consulting business in addition to your full-time job. Even if you didn't sign an agreement with your current employer that says you will not engage in outside money-making activities in your technical field, it will probably be "frowned upon."
If you are trying to decide whether to go to a big name school or Podunk State University, please don't listen to the anecdotal evidence of parent poster. Whether you are trying to make it in industry or academia, the reputation or your school will significantly factor into your success. The same goes for the reputation of the companies you choose to work for.
The fact is that software development is very difficult. I think there are several reasons why it is more difficult to develop robust software now than it was 20 years ago. Some of these reasons are:
I'm sure there are more causes and other folks will chime in.
I don't think we share a common definition for the word "the".
In 2007, GM sold approximately 9.37 million vehicles. Toyota also sold 9.37 million vehicles that year. It sounds to me like plenty of people want GM's cars -- GM just can't seem to be able to turn a profit when they sell them.
As usual, people have set themselves up on two sides of the "what's wrong with GM issue". It seems the problem is either totally with the unions or totally with management. However, also as usual, the problem is more complicated and is probably a combination of those two factors and several others.
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? I would love to see a study.
I think a FPS would work great with *eye* tracking. If you look at something at the edge of the screen, the screen centers on the thing you were looking at. Of course, you would still need to aim with some sort of controller (e.g. light gun), and you would need some way to disable the eye tracking while aiming (e.g. button on light gun).
"Who can tell me the atomic weight of bolognium?"