A good thing? That most of the *actual* power lies with a bunch of people who are not only not democratically elected, but they stay right where they are for decades, through all changes at the supposed "top"?
I'm not so sure it's a good thing.
Car analogy time:
Pretty much anyone I know who has a car and a driver's license has speeded at least once. You can't even pretend that most drivers have speeded, and a lot do so regularly.
I don't see the world or even the car industry clamoring for speed-limited cars though. The speed limit is different in different places because sometimes circumstances allow more or less. So far, it's been more than enough to say "you can't go faster than X here" and do a few spot checks.
For software and music/movies there isn't even a legal requirement. And yet people just put up with it? I don't see the world falling over themselves to buy cars that are limited at the lowest possible speed limit (which is like 5MPH).
or we need psych evaluations to weed out the overzealous people who go too far, too fast, without consideration that someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty.
We already have those, they are called elections. Unfortunately the people still haven't figured out that the loser should be euthanized instead of given power.
In building, "implementation" means leveling ground, pouring concrete, fabricating structural members, welding, etc.
In software, "implementation" means writing a bunch of code. It's not nearly the same. Rework the design, rework the code; not that big a difference.
I feel there's a big difference between reworking the design and reworking the code.
Firstly, it has been shown empirically over and over in studies that the later in the process that you catch and fix bugs, the more expensive they are (for deeper analysis, see The Cost of Bugs.) Design bugs should be caught early, because they ripple through the whole project and can cost an enormous amount.
Secondly, unless you are working alone or in a tiny team there is a significant difference between design and implementation: you have a larger team working on implementation than on design. If you sign off too soon on a bad design, you'll have a lot of people writing a lot of code in a short time. Depending on how "off" the design was a lot of that code may have to be thrown away, and when you go into redesign, a lot of the team has to be idled because you can't all work on the design efficiently.
Actually I'm a 100% non-web programmer, and I find no shortage of work, but I do notice more and more what you are saying. Often, even if the project is completely off-line, people higher up will try to push for web-technologies "just in case".
I'm reminded of this:
"If kids today were truly influenced by computer games, they would all be hanging around dark rooms munching pills and listening to repetitive music."
Suddenly I wonder how much of the "loudness war" might be related to hearing loss in the audience and producers? Even if you consider the main reason to be just trying to stand out by being the "loudest" on the radio, again that could well be because people are more and more listening to music (or trying to) against very loud ambient noise?
The thing I wish I knew years ago, was that everything would go web. So many folks I know who are jobless because they didn't bother to learn web.
You may have forgotten the.com boom / bust - a lot of the early "everything will go web" people got seriously burned, because they got it mostly wrong.
Which is? If it's along the lines of "It's easier and cheaper to fix a blueprint than a building", then it does not apply to software.
Yes it does.
Consider all the useless implementation work you've done while your design was wrong (before you reworked it). It's just as important in software as in building.
Also, having blueprints / a design allows you to separate the work between many different teams with clear, agreed-on-beforehand interfaces between the sections that each team is working on. This is something that a lot of developers seem to miss (I know I did for the longest time) - perhaps because a lot of us tend to prefer working and thinking alone?
By the way, working out a design is not a solo 1-hour effort. It's just as much "development" as actually writing the code. Often you may actually want to write code while doing it just to make sure that what you are thinking of does work. But that's not the final software, it's still just the design. Don't give in to the temptation to "improve" that design prototype until it ships as finished software though...
And hiring managers are cheap ass bastards that know they can get fresh-out-of-college kids for pennies. So what if they cant do the job and screw everything up; it shows up on the monthly balance as a win so bonuses for all the managers!
Over here those fresh-out-of-college kids aren't asking for pennies, they often have wildly unrealistic expectations of what they will be paid. On the other hand, the "experienced guys" don't even apply for jobs. They already *have* jobs.
No offense, but people like you must have a hell of a lot of money to blow if you would budget 3.5 hours of your time to go see a movie (travel+film) only to walk out and then have to figure something else to do with your remaining ~3 hours.
No offense, but you must have no idea about the economic theory of Sunk Costs.
It doesn't matter how much it cost to see the movie - you are not going to get that money back, and if you find out it's not worth your time you are economically better off leaving and doing something you do enjoy.
Nintendo's own releases for the Wii are generally quite well-regarded.
The third party titles are nearly all dogs. This might actually be because Nintendo is one of the few developers focused very tightly on *gameplay* instead of being flashy and "huge".
Slashdot Mirror
A good thing? That most of the *actual* power lies with a bunch of people who are not only not democratically elected, but they stay right where they are for decades, through all changes at the supposed "top"?
I'm not so sure it's a good thing.
They don't sell the summer house filled with expensive art to hire poor people.
No, the smart ones sell YOUR summer house filled with expensive art to fund "poor people" (themselves).
See also "banking crisis".
Is everyone busy texting?
Car analogy time:
Pretty much anyone I know who has a car and a driver's license has speeded at least once. You can't even pretend that most drivers have speeded, and a lot do so regularly.
I don't see the world or even the car industry clamoring for speed-limited cars though. The speed limit is different in different places because sometimes circumstances allow more or less. So far, it's been more than enough to say "you can't go faster than X here" and do a few spot checks.
For software and music/movies there isn't even a legal requirement. And yet people just put up with it? I don't see the world falling over themselves to buy cars that are limited at the lowest possible speed limit (which is like 5MPH).
Pah, going out for 50 light-years. I can make that run in less than 12 parsecs.
or we need psych evaluations to weed out the overzealous people who go too far, too fast, without consideration that someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty.
We already have those, they are called elections. Unfortunately the people still haven't figured out that the loser should be euthanized instead of given power.
I feel there's a big difference between reworking the design and reworking the code.
Firstly, it has been shown empirically over and over in studies that the later in the process that you catch and fix bugs, the more expensive they are (for deeper analysis, see The Cost of Bugs.) Design bugs should be caught early, because they ripple through the whole project and can cost an enormous amount.
Secondly, unless you are working alone or in a tiny team there is a significant difference between design and implementation: you have a larger team working on implementation than on design. If you sign off too soon on a bad design, you'll have a lot of people writing a lot of code in a short time. Depending on how "off" the design was a lot of that code may have to be thrown away, and when you go into redesign, a lot of the team has to be idled because you can't all work on the design efficiently.
Actually I'm a 100% non-web programmer, and I find no shortage of work, but I do notice more and more what you are saying. Often, even if the project is completely off-line, people higher up will try to push for web-technologies "just in case".
Computer desktop image of my manager:
"WARNING!! This machine has no brain. USE YOUR OWN."
I'm reminded of this:
"If kids today were truly influenced by computer games, they would all be hanging around dark rooms munching pills and listening to repetitive music."
Suddenly I wonder how much of the "loudness war" might be related to hearing loss in the audience and producers? Even if you consider the main reason to be just trying to stand out by being the "loudest" on the radio, again that could well be because people are more and more listening to music (or trying to) against very loud ambient noise?
Splitter.
The thing I wish I knew years ago, was that everything would go web. So many folks I know who are jobless because they didn't bother to learn web.
You may have forgotten the .com boom / bust - a lot of the early "everything will go web" people got seriously burned, because they got it mostly wrong.
Which is? If it's along the lines of "It's easier and cheaper to fix a blueprint than a building", then it does not apply to software.
Yes it does.
Consider all the useless implementation work you've done while your design was wrong (before you reworked it). It's just as important in software as in building.
Also, having blueprints / a design allows you to separate the work between many different teams with clear, agreed-on-beforehand interfaces between the sections that each team is working on. This is something that a lot of developers seem to miss (I know I did for the longest time) - perhaps because a lot of us tend to prefer working and thinking alone?
By the way, working out a design is not a solo 1-hour effort. It's just as much "development" as actually writing the code. Often you may actually want to write code while doing it just to make sure that what you are thinking of does work. But that's not the final software, it's still just the design. Don't give in to the temptation to "improve" that design prototype until it ships as finished software though...
One step closer to real AI?
As opposed to artificial AI?
Of *course* the lawsuit made it past the EULA - who reads those, ever?
The judge probably just thought "blah blah blah, click OK".
I think "Ridulan" would be a pretty cool brand name for these.
And hiring managers are cheap ass bastards that know they can get fresh-out-of-college kids for pennies. So what if they cant do the job and screw everything up; it shows up on the monthly balance as a win so bonuses for all the managers!
Over here those fresh-out-of-college kids aren't asking for pennies, they often have wildly unrealistic expectations of what they will be paid. On the other hand, the "experienced guys" don't even apply for jobs. They already *have* jobs.
Solution: preprocess the data into a map of keys to pointers, and sort that.
I'm a psychologist.
How does that make you feel?
So you are saying it's an Eastern?
I think you must've been! C'mon out of your vault, the war is long over and we all use vi on Linux with the GNU Hurd kernel now.
FTFY.
On an even more amicable note: I LOVE Avatar, if only for the regular fun bashing-sessions to be had ;-)
No offense, but people like you must have a hell of a lot of money to blow if you would budget 3.5 hours of your time to go see a movie (travel+film) only to walk out and then have to figure something else to do with your remaining ~3 hours.
No offense, but you must have no idea about the economic theory of Sunk Costs.
It doesn't matter how much it cost to see the movie - you are not going to get that money back, and if you find out it's not worth your time you are economically better off leaving and doing something you do enjoy.
Suspenseful as in "is it going to start getting better now? Okay no. What about now? No. Now? No.".
For hours and hours and hours.
Nintendo's own releases for the Wii are generally quite well-regarded.
The third party titles are nearly all dogs. This might actually be because Nintendo is one of the few developers focused very tightly on *gameplay* instead of being flashy and "huge".