The real problem is that the majority of software that is written is fairly lousy. People often code to moving requirements, push code in directions it was never intended to go in, and work with designs that are in desperate need of landing on the compost heap.
Honest debugging is most useful when something is being developed in the first place. Domain knowledge is what is most useful when ancient and decrepit software is being modified to do something it shouldn't.
Software applications should be thought of as prarie lands. From time to time, lightning strikes, and burns out a huge chunk, which is all replaced by newer and healthier stuff. You need talented people to make sure the new code will work well with what's already there - but the end result is that the application will be healthier if frequent refactoring is done intelligently.
I agree Junks Jerzey - I'm SO SICK of seeing this posted, AGAIN and AGAIN on Slashdot. It's like people read it once, and it sticks in their heads, and they're convinced they're right. The effect is called "pseducertainty" - also known as "being a moron".
I also love reading that "people can't tell the difference between more than 256 shades of grey". Grrrr...
How many people do you see complaining about flicker at the cinema?
That's because people like the Director of Cinematography know what they can and cannot shoot given those 24fps.
As a counter-example, try watching Pulp Fiction again, in the theater, when they first go into Jackrabbit Slims. Tarantino does this camera move from right to left where the flicker is HORRIBLE. Most of the time, they work hard to avoid problems like this - that's why you don't normally notice them.
Also, keep in mind that a TV signal has 2 half-frames per full refresh, so effectively they get 60hz.
What you don't seem to get is that Microsoft dictates OS technology. They don't offer an alternative, they force upon you the ONLY alternative.
Imagine if the government declared that every operating system had to implement.Net technology. Everyone would rush out to do it, to keep up with the law.
Imagine instead that Microsoft has the same power to dictate artificial market conditions, and the ability to stop their competitors from keeping up. That's what I (and many others, apparently) think is the current situation.
The nail is new technology that Microsoft says everyone has to have, whether they want it or not - the hammer is their abuse of IP law to enforce their control over the market.
On the other hand, would you buy a game that got better based on how many people were playing it?
The attraction of computer games is that they seem cooler than they actually are. You're intrigued by the possibility that the game could be anything, that the world your character is in is as real as the one you're in, that the many possibilities will all result in interesting outcomes. I first discovered this phenomena when playing Yankee Trader, the original space/trading BBS door game by Alan Davenport. The game turned out to be far less interesting than it first appeared, but the allure of a fully interactive simulated world with complex rules and interactions was immense.
People still play NetHack! It's an amazingly simple game, but the permutations are immense, and many of the imaginable combinations of items and creatures actually work.
Part of what you buy into, when you play an online game, is that other people will play, and that collectively, you're making something that didn't exist before. You like to think that the developers are doing everything they can to make the experience even better. A non-profit company would probably have a better chance of actually succeeding... (If they got off the ground.)
Part of the problem with what you're saying is that "Everyone wants to buy a great game right away, not buy it and hope everyone plays so the game gets better." (Emphasis added.)
Who says you have to buy the game? What you'd need to pay for is the ability to connect to the servers. Heck, the games can be open source, if you figure out how to do it without letting people cheat.
For that matter... I could see Yahoo! Games having role-playing games, just as a dumb idea. They already have a bunch of other games.
*shrug* I dunno. I've played EverQuest and Dark Age of Camelot and also some Neverwinter Nights. They're all fun for about a month, then they're fun with problems for about a month, and then it's just problems. I think it's possible to have more fun online than that, and I wish someone else would worry about making it possible, so I could just have fun playing with it. =)
Interesting concept: form a non-profit company to release an online role-playing game.
What exactly are the requirements for being a non-profit company?
The point, then, is that every dollar earned in fees is returned to trying to improve the experience for the players. Granted, different non-profit companies could have varying levels of success, but that's natural - that's competition.
Sony must be making a huge profit from EverQuest. Imagine if the profit were instead entirely turned around into actually improving the game (and releasing better games.)
I once saw a comedian talk about how times have changed. That during the Civil War 18 year-old soldiers would write letters like this:
My dearest Rosalyn,
Each day apart from you, my heart grows ever more sorrowful. It pains me to think that in the coming spring, I'll not be able to look upon your pearlescent skin and deep, sad, blue eyes.
Yours, always, Archibald
But during the Gulf War, you had 18 year-old soldiers writing letters like this:
Rosie,
Hey, girl. It is hot here in the dessert. There is camels and shit. The sand is pissin me of. Your all I think about. I miss you a lot. Dont fuck nobody while Im gone.
Maybe I'm just not L33T enough, but I think that console versions of First-Person Shooters suck. I think the mouse+ASDW combo is pretty hard to beat. Maybe some people are better on a console, but I really doubt it.
Or we're all just being modded -1 Flamebait or -1 Offtopic.
*grumble*
I didn't watch any trailers for Die Another Day, I will not watch any for Star Trek : Nemesis, The Two Towers, Matrix 2, Terminator 3, or X-Men 2.
I guess I care too much about these movies to allow the trailers to ruin them for me. And trust me, I have a near photographic memory when it comes to trailers.
I've actually been closing my eyes in the movie theater when Two Towers trailers come on. I tried plugging my ears, but theaters are too loud - you can still hear everything. One of my friends actually steps out into the hallway while they play trailers, exactly because of this.
To everyone who doesn't believe me that trailers ruin movies - pick a movie that you know is coming out, but possibly haven't seen any trailers for, yet. For instance, The Matrix 3. Whenever you realize that you're watching a trailer for it, or seeing footage from it, close your eyes or turn the channel. I bet you'll like the movie more, because of it. I first tried this with Face/Off, and I think I was one of the few people in the theater who enjoyed it, because every stunt was brand new for me, when I was watching it in the movie.
Lou: "Do you hold a grudge against Montgomery Burns?" Moe: "No!" BZZZ
"OK, maybe I did, but I didn't shot him!" DING! Lou: "Checks out chief. OK, sir, you're free to go." Moe: "Good, because I got a hot date tonight!" BZZZ
"A date." BZZZ
"Dinner with friend." BZZZ
"Dinner alone." BZZZ
"Watching TV alone." BZZZ
"Alright, alright! I'm gunna sit at home and oggle the girls in the Victoria's Secret Catalog!" BZZZ
"Sears catalog." DING
"Now will you unhook this thing already! I don't desirve this shabby treatment!" BZZZ
I bet I could spoil Ender's Game pretty quick - and I bet some people would get pretty pissed.
Like I said, I'm not complaining about this specific incident - but in general a "spoilers" category, or at least warning, doesn't hurt anyone, and it could certainly make ME happy.
I haven't read the books in 15 years. I've read a bunch of sci-fi/fantasy in the meantime, so it's fairly easy to not THINK about Lord of the Rings, so I don't ruin it for myself.
[W]hy not just filter out the Movies topic?
Because I like movie retrospectives (how they animated Final Fantasy, etc.), and I like being informed about new movies coming out that I might not have already heard about. But I detest movie spoilers so much so that I can't watch trailers at all - they show far too much, and I guess my visual memory is far too good. I end up anticipating every scene I've already seen.
I'm not really that pissed about this specific event, but I would appreciate some consideration on this point in the future.
How about a new category? "Movie SPOILERS". That way, I can filter out articles on it, so I don't have to accidentally read about "the most anticipated scene" in a movie that's not out yet, just in case I've been working very hard to NOT see anything about the movie, so that I can fully enjoy it when it finally DOES come out?
Damnit.
Oh by the way: It's a sled. They drive off the cliff. It's a guy. Rose lives, Jack dies. He's dead.
When you were going to beam down to the planet for the last time in Episode 25 - that's where you and the crew of the Enterprise get attacked by these spores and started acting real weird, like hippies and stuff - well, I was wondering if you could settle a bet for me and my friends, okay? When you left your quarters for the last time - and you opened up your safe - what was the combination?
Slashdot Mirror
The real problem is that the majority of software that is written is fairly lousy. People often code to moving requirements, push code in directions it was never intended to go in, and work with designs that are in desperate need of landing on the compost heap.
Honest debugging is most useful when something is being developed in the first place. Domain knowledge is what is most useful when ancient and decrepit software is being modified to do something it shouldn't.
Software applications should be thought of as prarie lands. From time to time, lightning strikes, and burns out a huge chunk, which is all replaced by newer and healthier stuff. You need talented people to make sure the new code will work well with what's already there - but the end result is that the application will be healthier if frequent refactoring is done intelligently.
So, where's the Do-Not-Email List?
I agree Junks Jerzey - I'm SO SICK of seeing this posted, AGAIN and AGAIN on Slashdot. It's like people read it once, and it sticks in their heads, and they're convinced they're right. The effect is called "pseducertainty" - also known as "being a moron".
I also love reading that "people can't tell the difference between more than 256 shades of grey". Grrrr...
How many people do you see complaining about flicker at the cinema?
That's because people like the Director of Cinematography know what they can and cannot shoot given those 24fps.
As a counter-example, try watching Pulp Fiction again, in the theater, when they first go into Jackrabbit Slims. Tarantino does this camera move from right to left where the flicker is HORRIBLE. Most of the time, they work hard to avoid problems like this - that's why you don't normally notice them.
Also, keep in mind that a TV signal has 2 half-frames per full refresh, so effectively they get 60hz.
small versions of their images on Google cache
Wonderfully put.
Not to mention the Mothers Against Kids Against Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence website going offline, too! The battle is getting cut-throat!
What you don't seem to get is that Microsoft dictates OS technology. They don't offer an alternative, they force upon you the ONLY alternative.
.Net technology. Everyone would rush out to do it, to keep up with the law.
Imagine if the government declared that every operating system had to implement
Imagine instead that Microsoft has the same power to dictate artificial market conditions, and the ability to stop their competitors from keeping up. That's what I (and many others, apparently) think is the current situation.
The nail is new technology that Microsoft says everyone has to have, whether they want it or not - the hammer is their abuse of IP law to enforce their control over the market.
Well, 86.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot by an idiot.
On the other hand, would you buy a game that got better based on how many people were playing it?
The attraction of computer games is that they seem cooler than they actually are. You're intrigued by the possibility that the game could be anything, that the world your character is in is as real as the one you're in, that the many possibilities will all result in interesting outcomes. I first discovered this phenomena when playing Yankee Trader, the original space/trading BBS door game by Alan Davenport. The game turned out to be far less interesting than it first appeared, but the allure of a fully interactive simulated world with complex rules and interactions was immense.
People still play NetHack! It's an amazingly simple game, but the permutations are immense, and many of the imaginable combinations of items and creatures actually work.
Part of what you buy into, when you play an online game, is that other people will play, and that collectively, you're making something that didn't exist before. You like to think that the developers are doing everything they can to make the experience even better. A non-profit company would probably have a better chance of actually succeeding... (If they got off the ground.)
Part of the problem with what you're saying is that "Everyone wants to buy a great game right away, not buy it and hope everyone plays so the game gets better." (Emphasis added.)
Who says you have to buy the game? What you'd need to pay for is the ability to connect to the servers. Heck, the games can be open source, if you figure out how to do it without letting people cheat.
For that matter... I could see Yahoo! Games having role-playing games, just as a dumb idea. They already have a bunch of other games.
*shrug* I dunno. I've played EverQuest and Dark Age of Camelot and also some Neverwinter Nights. They're all fun for about a month, then they're fun with problems for about a month, and then it's just problems. I think it's possible to have more fun online than that, and I wish someone else would worry about making it possible, so I could just have fun playing with it. =)
Interesting concept: form a non-profit company to release an online role-playing game.
What exactly are the requirements for being a non-profit company?
The point, then, is that every dollar earned in fees is returned to trying to improve the experience for the players. Granted, different non-profit companies could have varying levels of success, but that's natural - that's competition.
Sony must be making a huge profit from EverQuest. Imagine if the profit were instead entirely turned around into actually improving the game (and releasing better games.)
I once saw a comedian talk about how times have changed. That during the Civil War 18 year-old soldiers would write letters like this:
My dearest Rosalyn,
Each day apart from you, my heart grows ever more sorrowful. It pains me to think that in the coming spring, I'll not be able to look upon your pearlescent skin and deep, sad, blue eyes.
Yours, always,
Archibald
But during the Gulf War, you had 18 year-old soldiers writing letters like this:
Rosie,
Hey, girl. It is hot here in the dessert. There is camels and shit. The sand is pissin me of. Your all I think about. I miss you a lot. Dont fuck nobody while Im gone.
Archie
You're nuts.
The people who stand in line for two hours know to turn off their cell phones and watch alarms, not to bring their babies, and to not talk.
Also, being in an audience which actually cheers, or just laughs at the right time, can be really fun.
Another way to look at this is that people are willing to spend a lot more to make sure that their bridges and airplanes are well-designed.
The money simply isn't there to do the same thing for software.
Highways cost over a $1,000,000 per mile.
How much money is allocated to write a line of code?
Maybe I'm just not L33T enough, but I think that console versions of First-Person Shooters suck. I think the mouse+ASDW combo is pretty hard to beat. Maybe some people are better on a console, but I really doubt it.
Fool's War by Sarah Zettel
The Dragon's Egg by Robert L. Forward
The Mote In God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
Beggars In Spain by Nancy Kress
Armageddon Inheritance and On Basilisk Station by David Weber
A Fire Upon The Deep by Vernor Vinge
The Demons at Rainbow Bridge by Jack L. Chalker
And of course Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson
And Hitchhiker's, Ender's Game, DUNE, Foundation, Ringworld, most LeGuinn, all things by Philip K. Dick, etc...
That's cool.
I have a few weirdo political/social/economic views, myself. =)
Or we're all just being modded -1 Flamebait or -1 Offtopic.
*grumble*
I didn't watch any trailers for Die Another Day, I will not watch any for Star Trek : Nemesis, The Two Towers, Matrix 2, Terminator 3, or X-Men 2.
I guess I care too much about these movies to allow the trailers to ruin them for me. And trust me, I have a near photographic memory when it comes to trailers.
Good Lord! Someone actually agreed with me?!
I've actually been closing my eyes in the movie theater when Two Towers trailers come on. I tried plugging my ears, but theaters are too loud - you can still hear everything. One of my friends actually steps out into the hallway while they play trailers, exactly because of this.
To everyone who doesn't believe me that trailers ruin movies - pick a movie that you know is coming out, but possibly haven't seen any trailers for, yet. For instance, The Matrix 3. Whenever you realize that you're watching a trailer for it, or seeing footage from it, close your eyes or turn the channel. I bet you'll like the movie more, because of it. I first tried this with Face/Off, and I think I was one of the few people in the theater who enjoyed it, because every stunt was brand new for me, when I was watching it in the movie.
I thought I'd farm one out to the female crowd.
Well, the female contingent.
Okay, okay, the one female who reads Slashdot.
Lou: "Do you hold a grudge against Montgomery Burns?"
Moe: "No!" BZZZ
"OK, maybe I did, but I didn't shot him!" DING!
Lou: "Checks out chief. OK, sir, you're free to go."
Moe: "Good, because I got a hot date tonight!" BZZZ
"A date." BZZZ
"Dinner with friend." BZZZ
"Dinner alone." BZZZ
"Watching TV alone." BZZZ
"Alright, alright! I'm gunna sit at home and oggle the girls in the Victoria's Secret Catalog!" BZZZ
"Sears catalog." DING
"Now will you unhook this thing already! I don't desirve this shabby treatment!" BZZZ
I bet I could spoil Ender's Game pretty quick - and I bet some people would get pretty pissed.
Like I said, I'm not complaining about this specific incident - but in general a "spoilers" category, or at least warning, doesn't hurt anyone, and it could certainly make ME happy.
I haven't read the books in 15 years. I've read a bunch of sci-fi/fantasy in the meantime, so it's fairly easy to not THINK about Lord of the Rings, so I don't ruin it for myself.
[W]hy not just filter out the Movies topic?
Because I like movie retrospectives (how they animated Final Fantasy, etc.), and I like being informed about new movies coming out that I might not have already heard about. But I detest movie spoilers so much so that I can't watch trailers at all - they show far too much, and I guess my visual memory is far too good. I end up anticipating every scene I've already seen.
I'm not really that pissed about this specific event, but I would appreciate some consideration on this point in the future.
How about a new category? "Movie SPOILERS". That way, I can filter out articles on it, so I don't have to accidentally read about "the most anticipated scene" in a movie that's not out yet, just in case I've been working very hard to NOT see anything about the movie, so that I can fully enjoy it when it finally DOES come out?
Damnit.
Oh by the way:
It's a sled.
They drive off the cliff.
It's a guy.
Rose lives, Jack dies.
He's dead.
When you were going to beam down to the planet for the last time in Episode 25 - that's where you and the crew of the Enterprise get attacked by these spores and started acting real weird, like hippies and stuff - well, I was wondering if you could settle a bet for me and my friends, okay? When you left your quarters for the last time - and you opened up your safe - what was the combination?
"Fewer Employees + Same Work = Higher Productivity"
The real title of the article should be:
"Fear Of Losing Job + Same Work = Higher Productivity"
Fear is the greatest motivator.