So in other words, the fact that papers attempting to disprove intelligent design are starting to appear means that there's merit to intelligent design?
No, it means the papers attempting to disprove intelligent design are as moronic as those that are supporting it. You can't disprove intelligent design. You can only show that scientific theories adhere to certain rules. Intelligent design doesn't adhere to those rules, adn therefore even qualify as a scientific theory. That's why it should not be taught in a scienc class.
Yes, shame on him. This is Slashdot, how can he expect you to have some idea of what you're talking about? We all make wild over-generalized claims based on our own ignorance here. What rock has he been living under?
Their business practices can get a bit on the shady side sometimes, though they problably aren't deserving of quite the amount of hate they get around these parts.
I think they deserve every bit of hate they get due to their business practices, and then some. But I do have to agree that they make some good products, Visual Studio.Net being the one I use the most right now. It's a fantastic IDE. Better than anything else out there. I give Microsoft respect where they deserve it, but I will always be a critic of their business practices as long as they continue their shady and outright criminal ways.
Actually, giving users abilities that were previously accessible only to programmers is a worthy pursuit, and one that many if not most software projects are working towards, at least in part. Think of all the things that we can do with our computers today that we couldn't do 5 years ago, or 10 years ago. Coming up with good interfaces and studying the way users think about the software they're using is valuable work. It may not be a new field of study, but it's still cutting edge in a way. Software is forever advancing and people's perceptions and expectations are advancing with it. Coming up with new ways to meet and exceed user's expectations with software is something that I wish more companies and development teams would take on. They don't always succeed (e.g. Clippy), but the more study they do, the better things get over the long run.
Anyway, there is a easier way to defend the anti-spyware guys. Since this crappy EULA says "it is forbidden to..." Then you simply classify this crappy as spy-aware, no analysis needed... as simple as this...
The real trick in that case will be actually finding the applicable EULA and associating it with the piece of software on the user's computer. I don't see that as a feasible solution.
What's nice about this is that it works out no matter whether such a clause would be accepted: if it is accepted, then the spyware maker would have violated the anti-spyware product's EULA by looking at how it classifies the spyware. If it's not accepted, on the other hand, then the corresponding clause in the spyware's EULA would also not be accepted.
Umm.. what exactly would they have to look at? All they would have to do is run the software on a machine that had their spyware proggy on it and the anti-spyware app should come right out and tell them that it's spyware. It's kind of the main thing that it's supposed to do. I don't see how you can tell people that they're not allowed to look at the very information that they're using your product to obtain. Your second point seems more valid to me. Guess it's up to the courts.
If I were a betting man I would lay all of my money on an announcement at E3 next year which put Starcraft: Ghost as a title to be released on the PS3, XBox 360 and (quite possibly) the Revolution.
Yeah, announced at E3 2006 and released around 2010 or so...:-/
I'm not going to link to porn sites on Slashdot. Go google.
Yeah, because Slashdot is just a bastion of wholesomeness and light, right? I did google it. Which is why I was asking. I found lots of people talking about making a porn mod or wishing there was one, but no links to any actual porn mod, let alone one that was for sale. So again, is someone actually selling one, or are you talking out of your ass?
A manager shouldn't have to enumerate all the things that an employee is not allowed to do - they should be intelligent enough to know that they should check with someone before embarking on extra work outside of the scope of what they were assigned, especially when a client is involved.
I doubt that the engineer took classes in how to screw over the customer, while I'm quite sure that the manager did. The engineer is concerned with building a good product and takes pride in that. So, while the manager is trying to think of ways to get more money out of the customer while giving them as little functionality as possible, the engineer is trying to figure out how to give them the most bang for their buck. See the disconnect? That's why the manager needs to make certain things clear before a meeting like that. Manager thinking is not at all intuitive to most engineers.
Agreed, they've started selling salads and healthier offerings (what isn't healthier than a mound of fried greasy stuff) but I have to think it's going to be a tough sell to their regular customer base.
Have you looked at the nutritional info on their salads? They aren't what I would consider healthy. When you count in the salad dressing, they really aren't much better than a Big Mac.
Overall, it would almost certainly be more cost effective for everybody to abolish drug and medical device patents altogether, have government and scientists set the goals for what to develop, and have all research, development, and testing of such devices paid for by the tax payer. Private companies can still get involved through contract work and work-for-hire.
I was right with ya up to that last part. The solution isn't to have government take over and do everything. The solution is for the government to quit using our money to subsidise something that we'll be charged huge prices for eventually anyway. The solution is for the pharma corporations and other medical reasearch companies to pay their own way, and for government to use its buying power to negotiate the best prices we can get for our tax dollars. They'll still make plenty of money. Maybe their CEOs won't be able to buy that third yacht, but I'm sure they'll make it through somehow. I'm just tired of Congress handing our money out for nothing.
There are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples out there of high-quality code being produced by a single standalone programmer, some of them fairly complex applications/utilities, and that is true not only in the DOS/Windows shareware and open source software environments but also in the corporate mainframe environments where I've worked.
That's great, but as far as mainstream software that is actually sold to people, the vast majority of it is written by a team. If the solution doesn't address that issue, then it isn't a solution.
Yes, but if the hypothetical law was written that the coder was responsable, as recomended by the ex-cybersecurity czar, it wouldn't matter how many levels of incorporation you hid behind.
Well, it would probably eliminate at least 90% of the software being written, since there aren't many coders who would want to be held personally responsible for flaws in the code, especially since it's usually a complex team process where they don't always have the final say in the outcome. So I guess that would reduce the overall number of bugs, right?:) Seriously though, I think this guy is barking up the wrong tree. You can put methods in place to improve software quality, but I don't believe it's possible to produce perfectly secure software, of anything more than very basic complexity, in a timely manner and for a price that people are willing to pay. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I haven't seen it done yet.
It just so happens to be that the people we're "depriving of *potential* income" are the big bad record labels -- so nobody much gives a shit. If it actually/was/ the artist, how would you justify it then?
If that was the case, music would probably cost a lot less than the record labels charge for it now. You do recall them being convicted, twice I believe, of price-fixing? And getting away with a relative slap on the wrist which is hardly going to prevent them from continuing the practice. So, they steal from us, we steal from them. If it was actually artists making the money, we'd probably be paying less, and we most likely wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Now, go one step further, and ask yourself why millions of people feel their lives are so empty that they'll pay astronomical prices to go sit in a chair and be force-fed bad fantasy for a couple hours.
Ignoring the insertion of your own assumption that they feel that their lives are empty, I'd say because they find it to be a fun time. Perhaps their assholes aren't quite as puckered as your own and they are still able to enjoy themselves even if the movie isn't up to your lofty standards, or perhaps especially if it isn't.
Just because we have a dumbed-down population full of morons that will pay to see this junk doesn't make it not junk.
Yes, of course. It is, after all, your opinion that makes it junk. Maybe it's not high art, and it won't change your life. But how many people go to the theater expecting that? As I understand it, a lot of people go just to be entertained for a couple of hours. They're willing to pay high ticket prices and astronomical food and drink prices, so hollywood must be getting at least something right some of the time.
That person will also have more direct competitors, and even enemies. He'll also have more "responsibilities", since he'll most likely have joined a more "prestigious" corp.
Right. He'll be more "in the game" than the other player. I don't see competitors being any worse than someone who only plays a few hours a week though. If anything he'll have more experience and time to deal with them. All in all, he'll be moving at a much faster pace.
A person with good social skills can form relationships with others in the game. A person with a lot of free time and good social skills can form a lot more relationships, and since they'll be in-game a lot more often, they'll be in on more opportunities and advance much faster in a corp than someone with less free time. Sure, the mechanics are easy, but it takes time and experience to learn how to interpret what others are telling you and what you're seeing in the game. Ultimately both social skills and free time are important, but two people with roughly equivalent social skills, the one with more free time should advance proportionately faster.
Slashdot Mirror
adn therefore even qualify as a scientific theory.
My typing apparently went wacko there. Should be "and therefore doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory."
So in other words, the fact that papers attempting to disprove intelligent design are starting to appear means that there's merit to intelligent design?
No, it means the papers attempting to disprove intelligent design are as moronic as those that are supporting it. You can't disprove intelligent design. You can only show that scientific theories adhere to certain rules. Intelligent design doesn't adhere to those rules, adn therefore even qualify as a scientific theory. That's why it should not be taught in a scienc class.
Be a girl.
More specifically, be at least a reasonably hot girl.
Maybe you should write a letter to some of the folks involved. The article mentions at least these three:
Mass. Commission for the Blind
MATP Massachusetts Assistive Technology Partnership
The National Council on Disability
There may be others that should be included as well, but that would be a start.
ah, you're assuming that I read the "press".
Yes, shame on him. This is Slashdot, how can he expect you to have some idea of what you're talking about? We all make wild over-generalized claims based on our own ignorance here. What rock has he been living under?
Their business practices can get a bit on the shady side sometimes, though they problably aren't deserving of quite the amount of hate they get around these parts.
.Net being the one I use the most right now. It's a fantastic IDE. Better than anything else out there. I give Microsoft respect where they deserve it, but I will always be a critic of their business practices as long as they continue their shady and outright criminal ways.
I think they deserve every bit of hate they get due to their business practices, and then some. But I do have to agree that they make some good products, Visual Studio
Guffaw! At least they are well financed.
Actually, giving users abilities that were previously accessible only to programmers is a worthy pursuit, and one that many if not most software projects are working towards, at least in part. Think of all the things that we can do with our computers today that we couldn't do 5 years ago, or 10 years ago. Coming up with good interfaces and studying the way users think about the software they're using is valuable work. It may not be a new field of study, but it's still cutting edge in a way. Software is forever advancing and people's perceptions and expectations are advancing with it. Coming up with new ways to meet and exceed user's expectations with software is something that I wish more companies and development teams would take on. They don't always succeed (e.g. Clippy), but the more study they do, the better things get over the long run.
Anyway, there is a easier way to defend the anti-spyware guys. Since this crappy EULA says "it is forbidden to ..." Then you simply classify this crappy as spy-aware, no analysis needed ... as simple as this ...
The real trick in that case will be actually finding the applicable EULA and associating it with the piece of software on the user's computer. I don't see that as a feasible solution.
What's nice about this is that it works out no matter whether such a clause would be accepted: if it is accepted, then the spyware maker would have violated the anti-spyware product's EULA by looking at how it classifies the spyware. If it's not accepted, on the other hand, then the corresponding clause in the spyware's EULA would also not be accepted.
Umm.. what exactly would they have to look at? All they would have to do is run the software on a machine that had their spyware proggy on it and the anti-spyware app should come right out and tell them that it's spyware. It's kind of the main thing that it's supposed to do. I don't see how you can tell people that they're not allowed to look at the very information that they're using your product to obtain. Your second point seems more valid to me. Guess it's up to the courts.
If I were a betting man I would lay all of my money on an announcement at E3 next year which put Starcraft: Ghost as a title to be released on the PS3, XBox 360 and (quite possibly) the Revolution.
:-/
Yeah, announced at E3 2006 and released around 2010 or so...
I'm not going to link to porn sites on Slashdot. Go google.
Yeah, because Slashdot is just a bastion of wholesomeness and light, right? I did google it. Which is why I was asking. I found lots of people talking about making a porn mod or wishing there was one, but no links to any actual porn mod, let alone one that was for sale. So again, is someone actually selling one, or are you talking out of your ass?
and they don't do anything to stop the people who are selling pornographic mods to their game,
Who, exactly, is selling pornographic mods? And how exactly would EA have the power to stop them if someone were?
A manager shouldn't have to enumerate all the things that an employee is not allowed to do - they should be intelligent enough to know that they should check with someone before embarking on extra work outside of the scope of what they were assigned, especially when a client is involved.
I doubt that the engineer took classes in how to screw over the customer, while I'm quite sure that the manager did. The engineer is concerned with building a good product and takes pride in that. So, while the manager is trying to think of ways to get more money out of the customer while giving them as little functionality as possible, the engineer is trying to figure out how to give them the most bang for their buck. See the disconnect? That's why the manager needs to make certain things clear before a meeting like that. Manager thinking is not at all intuitive to most engineers.
Agreed, they've started selling salads and healthier offerings (what isn't healthier than a mound of fried greasy stuff) but I have to think it's going to be a tough sell to their regular customer base.
Have you looked at the nutritional info on their salads? They aren't what I would consider healthy. When you count in the salad dressing, they really aren't much better than a Big Mac.
Overall, it would almost certainly be more cost effective for everybody to abolish drug and medical device patents altogether, have government and scientists set the goals for what to develop, and have all research, development, and testing of such devices paid for by the tax payer. Private companies can still get involved through contract work and work-for-hire.
I was right with ya up to that last part. The solution isn't to have government take over and do everything. The solution is for the government to quit using our money to subsidise something that we'll be charged huge prices for eventually anyway. The solution is for the pharma corporations and other medical reasearch companies to pay their own way, and for government to use its buying power to negotiate the best prices we can get for our tax dollars. They'll still make plenty of money. Maybe their CEOs won't be able to buy that third yacht, but I'm sure they'll make it through somehow. I'm just tired of Congress handing our money out for nothing.
How about one developer producing an MTA for free?
It's possible.
How long did it take him to get it to its bug-free state?
There are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples out there of high-quality code being produced by a single standalone programmer, some of them fairly complex applications/utilities, and that is true not only in the DOS/Windows shareware and open source software environments but also in the corporate mainframe environments where I've worked.
That's great, but as far as mainstream software that is actually sold to people, the vast majority of it is written by a team. If the solution doesn't address that issue, then it isn't a solution.
Yes, but if the hypothetical law was written that the coder was responsable, as recomended by the ex-cybersecurity czar, it wouldn't matter how many levels of incorporation you hid behind.
:) Seriously though, I think this guy is barking up the wrong tree. You can put methods in place to improve software quality, but I don't believe it's possible to produce perfectly secure software, of anything more than very basic complexity, in a timely manner and for a price that people are willing to pay. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I haven't seen it done yet.
Well, it would probably eliminate at least 90% of the software being written, since there aren't many coders who would want to be held personally responsible for flaws in the code, especially since it's usually a complex team process where they don't always have the final say in the outcome. So I guess that would reduce the overall number of bugs, right?
EFF action page to oppose the Broadcast Flag
It just so happens to be that the people we're "depriving of *potential* income" are the big bad record labels -- so nobody much gives a shit. If it actually /was/ the artist, how would you justify it then?
If that was the case, music would probably cost a lot less than the record labels charge for it now. You do recall them being convicted, twice I believe, of price-fixing? And getting away with a relative slap on the wrist which is hardly going to prevent them from continuing the practice. So, they steal from us, we steal from them. If it was actually artists making the money, we'd probably be paying less, and we most likely wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Now, go one step further, and ask yourself why millions of people feel their lives are so empty that they'll pay astronomical prices to go sit in a chair and be force-fed bad fantasy for a couple hours.
Ignoring the insertion of your own assumption that they feel that their lives are empty, I'd say because they find it to be a fun time. Perhaps their assholes aren't quite as puckered as your own and they are still able to enjoy themselves even if the movie isn't up to your lofty standards, or perhaps especially if it isn't.
Just because we have a dumbed-down population full of morons that will pay to see this junk doesn't make it not junk.
Yes, of course. It is, after all, your opinion that makes it junk. Maybe it's not high art, and it won't change your life. But how many people go to the theater expecting that? As I understand it, a lot of people go just to be entertained for a couple of hours. They're willing to pay high ticket prices and astronomical food and drink prices, so hollywood must be getting at least something right some of the time.
More time spent playing can also mean bigger losses.
:)
If you're losing more the more you play, then you should probably play a different game
That person will also have more direct competitors, and even enemies. He'll also have more "responsibilities", since he'll most likely have joined a more "prestigious" corp.
Right. He'll be more "in the game" than the other player. I don't see competitors being any worse than someone who only plays a few hours a week though. If anything he'll have more experience and time to deal with them. All in all, he'll be moving at a much faster pace.
A person with good social skills can form relationships with others in the game. A person with a lot of free time and good social skills can form a lot more relationships, and since they'll be in-game a lot more often, they'll be in on more opportunities and advance much faster in a corp than someone with less free time. Sure, the mechanics are easy, but it takes time and experience to learn how to interpret what others are telling you and what you're seeing in the game. Ultimately both social skills and free time are important, but two people with roughly equivalent social skills, the one with more free time should advance proportionately faster.