My guess is that the most creative software opportunities will remain in the US for some time, and the more routine development efforts will continue to be transfered overseas
It's like this with most industries, why not software? Levi's designs jeans here and gets poor workers in taiwan to make them in sweatshops. I'm not saying it's right, it's not, but that's the way American companies do business and make a profit.
Moderators, this isn't a troll. Put down the crack pipe and think... jeez, even the picture is worth a laugh, and it's relevant to the article. Alf, I laughed. Wish I had a mod point.
Alright. Well, you say IT, and I know at other schools there is an IT degree, but at my school it was only CS. That was my mapping of the group of people you spoke of, and none of us were like that. I guess I took slight offense because in my mind, you were addressing, albeit indirectly, me and I've avoided M$ whenever I can (though it's hard in this M$ centered world)
And I've always been too nice to be a BOFH, at least in this reality, but yeah, I guess I would have loved to "help" people the way I should have.
*bzzzz* Thanks for playing. As someone that graduated in '98 with a CS degree, I can tell you I didn't touch VB while in school. We had only one MS machine in my department, and that was my senior year.
You are right and wrong on one account though: I couldn't program my way out of a paper bag because I WAS learning how to solve real problems. Most of the stuff I did was all theory and enough programming to illustrate it. Did I master C? Not really, but enough to solve problems in my OS class. Did I talk about Lisp in my sleep? No, but I knew enough to create a variation on battleship for my AI class. Is ORCA useful for anything nonacademic or does anyone actually use the Amoeba distriubted OS? No, but it taught me to think that way. My Computer Science degree was just that: Computer SCIENCE. I've had enough of a problem solving background to figure out a way to do almost anything I put my mind to, including installing, running and progrmming for Linux. I'd rather hire someone who thinks about a problem first and then applies what they know to it, including where to look if they don't know the answer.
Lastly, it's been my experience that at most computer labs the staff has been the more clueless than those asking the questions.
I read in an EGM article (I think that's where I read it) a couple months ago that the first documented easter egg was in "Adventure" way back when. The creator had the hero pick up a pixel (big back then) that was the same color of the wall it was embedded in. By carrying it around to some far part of the board, you could get into a room that had the game creator's name in it.
mabey who knows. Probably not. the point is there isn't a set speed
But you just pointed out that a human can't outrun a car. A car going at X speed will outrun a human. That in and of itself is a speed barrier. I'm not saying that since the fastest person alive can run 16mph, that no one in the next 200 years will beat it. I'm saying that because the fastest human alive can run 16mph, no one in the next hundred years is going to run 30mph. At some point the human body just isn't designed for that kind of speed. Why can't a horse run as fast as a cheetah? Because their muscular and skeletal structure isn't designed the same as a cheetahs. It may be somewhat similar, but cheetahs have a different size, gait, etc that all contribute to it being able to run 70mph.
I see what you're saying, that the human body and the science of running is constantly evolving and that because of that there isn't a set human limit, but I think there has to be because at somepoint the human body just isn't designed to go any faster.
But there is still a limit unless you use teleportation. Even if an athelete is no longer considered human, there is still a limit to how fast someone can move. Will the 100m eventually come dow to whoever can jump 100m quicker (assuming that one jump, through the air, is the path of least resistance)? That's my question. Assuming a human is still a human, what is the physical limitation of the human body to move itslef and thus compete. Would four legs actually make us move faster or would the human body need a complete skeletal change. Example: Cows don't (generally) move faster than people. Dogs run fairly more quickly than humans, and cheetahs much faster. All have four legs, but cheetash's bodies are specifically designed for speed. At what point does the human body, being a human, stop being able to improve?
What I've been wondering over the past couple Olymipcs is: What is _the_ absolute fastest a human can do something, no matter how much we enchance them? Records get broken year after year because of new breakthroughs in diet, practice technique, etc, but there has to be a physical limit to how fast a human can theoretically run, swim, etc. Example: There is simply no way a human can cover 100 meters in 5 seconds (current records are like 9.8 seconds). It just can't be possible for a human body to move at 20 m/s under its own power. Even if we engineer the perfect athelete, at some point we are going to hit that wall. Then what? We keep bumping up against it every year? I'm curious what others think about this.
Lets get over ourselves and the secret handshakes to get in the clubhouse where non geeks are not allowed.
While I see where you are coming from, you need to understand that some people do not feel this way for good reasons. Lowering the barrier for entry decreases the signal to noise ratio.
Imagine a super hard to use OS where only five people can use it. Any conversation about it among the five users would most likely be useful banter. Now imagine they lower the barrier for entry. Now joe bob idiot is asking "How do I use my printer?" "Why do I need to login?". Conversations devolve into hand-holding sessions and the original five now can't spend the time doing what they used to do: be productive.
It really comes down to the question of "Do you want your OS to be useful to you or useful to others?" and if you choose the latter, who are the others? Joe PhD engineer, billy high school smartkid, or grandma who thinks TV's are new fangled devil boxes? As far as OpenBSD is concerned, I got the impression Theo wanted to make it for himself (and his group of developers). If other people wanted to use it, great, but they are on their own if they don't take the time to delve into the nitty gritty like Theo and company do (not the extent obviously, but you get my point)
The truth is, we probably won't win until Linux is established more as a consumer OS and not just a server OS. Do most homes have servers? No. Do most homes have PC's that kids and grownups play games on? yeah. If more people use Linux exclusively, then there will be more demand for apps for it. If there is more demand for apps, developers will put effort into making them. If developers put the effort in, and this is key, and there is money to be made by putting in this effort, then a market will be established. If a market is established for it, then Linux will become more of a desktop OS. It's a big circle. It's sad but it really does come down to making Linux a more consumer level/friendly/accepted/whatever OS first (and I applaud those that work towards this).
This'll be modded down, but moderators go for it, I've got the karma to burn.
I can't believe your complaining that the company has put forth at least _some_ effort in this. They could easily turn around and say "If you want to play the game at all, you have to install Windows". There is no market for Linux games, no matter how many posts you see on/. that seem to the contrary. Maybe later when Linux has more of a foothold in the desktop OS space (that's another whole other holy war), but for right now, it makes no sense for a company to invest ANY money in developing a game's client for Linux. Should they invest in developing/porting server side code? Yes. The more servers, the more people can connect and enjoy the game which hopefuly means more sales, but the fact they are making an effort to provide _something_ to a market that they will lose money on should be applauded.
Face it, we live in a windows based world. It's great that there are people that don't have windows installed at all. I seriously, truly envy you. I wish I could get rid of my install of Win98, but there is just too much stuff I'm not willing to give up yet. People like me that won't buy any new Windows software are in the minority in the consumer pool, and people like you that don't even run windows is even smaller. Don't complain that id (or whoever) is making a smart business choice by not investing their time and money into what is in the grand scheme of things, a black whole.
Why won't people go to them? Because they're X rated. If they weren't X rated, would there be a market for their same content? Yup. Therefore, they're being censored.
Read my post again. Maybe you'll get it this time.
Read MY post again. People don't avoid movies because they are X-rated, they avoid them because they don't want to see a movie that warrants an X rating. Your post says that simply a rating of X deters people from seeing it, not because what is in the movie. Example. A movie is ultraviolent, but has no sex. It warrants an X rating. According to your post, anyone (including people that like ultraviolent movies but hate sex) will not go simply because the movie has an X rating, regardless of content, which is simply not true. If someone likes ultraviolent content and knows a movie has it, they will go regardless of what rating the movie is.
What I _do_ agree with you on is a rating system that makes value judgements for you. Just because somebody thinks gameA is acceptable for "Teen" doesn't mean I do. I also agree that the proper thing is a content descriptor, but I don't think ratings systems = censorship. If a person truly wants to make an X rated movie, they will make it. If they want to make a buck, they will release a toned down movie. Censorship implies that personA is preventing personB from expressing themselves. Capitalism is a person doing what it takes to make a dollar and making sacrifices to maximize profit. You can't claim censorship when you release a product intentionally changed to maximize your profit. This is of course assuming studios, etc are not involved, which may be the difference in our viewpoints
*bzzz* Most movies aren't rated X because 99% of the mass consumer market doesn't want to see what's in an X rated movie. Granted there is a market for hardcore sex and or violence, but it's not that people are afraid to go to an X rated movie, they just don't want to. If people aren't going to go, Cinemas won't show them, and they'll lose money on a screen that they could have put a PG-13 movie on. The government only imposes ratings systems when there is public outcry that the government isn't doing anything to inform the parents and protect the children.
Ratings != Censorship. Rating Systems = (hopefully) informed consumers.
If I make a game that has psychos drowning kittens, should the government deny me that right to publish my game? No, of course not. But the government should force me to put some sort of labeling on my product so that consumers are made aware of its contents. Think FDA and stuff you buy at the grocery store. You may not know what half the crap in your Velveeta is, but they tell you so if you want to become informed, you can.
psxndc
someday I'll get educatedparents.com up and we can all be done with this...
Not necessarily. Tissue like nerve tissue doesn't grow. If it's damaged, you're screwed. I guess in theory you could extend the life of some organs this way, but certain other ones, like the brain or CNS don't repair themselves (w/out great amounts of help from modern medicine)
IANAB but AFAIK (more acronyms to follow) cells know when to divide and how far to grow (they tend to stop when they bump into other cells). Cancer cells don't express this protein correctly (or don't react to the protein's presence, I can't remember which) and just keep growing and divinding regardless of their surroundings. The smart bomb may be able to differentiate by trying to bind at the protein receptor site for the "Stop growing" protein. If it binds, the cell is normal. If it doesn't, kill it.
As for how this may of may not effect other tissue, it may simply be a matter of collateral damage. Cancer cells grow among normal cells.
I'm not a biologist, I just played one in college.
Not true with games. I have frequently been at the local EB, had the employee tell me that they don't have the game yet, the day it's supposed to come out, and then the UPS man walks in, drops off boxes which the employees open to, lo and behold, the game.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like this with most industries, why not software? Levi's designs jeans here and gets poor workers in taiwan to make them in sweatshops. I'm not saying it's right, it's not, but that's the way American companies do business and make a profit.
psxndc
psxndc
psxndc
And I've always been too nice to be a BOFH, at least in this reality, but yeah, I guess I would have loved to "help" people the way I should have.
psxndc
psxndc
You are right and wrong on one account though: I couldn't program my way out of a paper bag because I WAS learning how to solve real problems. Most of the stuff I did was all theory and enough programming to illustrate it. Did I master C? Not really, but enough to solve problems in my OS class. Did I talk about Lisp in my sleep? No, but I knew enough to create a variation on battleship for my AI class. Is ORCA useful for anything nonacademic or does anyone actually use the Amoeba distriubted OS? No, but it taught me to think that way. My Computer Science degree was just that: Computer SCIENCE. I've had enough of a problem solving background to figure out a way to do almost anything I put my mind to, including installing, running and progrmming for Linux. I'd rather hire someone who thinks about a problem first and then applies what they know to it, including where to look if they don't know the answer.
Lastly, it's been my experience that at most computer labs the staff has been the more clueless than those asking the questions.
psxndc
http://www.warrenrobinett.com/adventure/
psxndc
psxndc
psxndc
But you just pointed out that a human can't outrun a car. A car going at X speed will outrun a human. That in and of itself is a speed barrier. I'm not saying that since the fastest person alive can run 16mph, that no one in the next 200 years will beat it. I'm saying that because the fastest human alive can run 16mph, no one in the next hundred years is going to run 30mph. At some point the human body just isn't designed for that kind of speed. Why can't a horse run as fast as a cheetah? Because their muscular and skeletal structure isn't designed the same as a cheetahs. It may be somewhat similar, but cheetahs have a different size, gait, etc that all contribute to it being able to run 70mph.
I see what you're saying, that the human body and the science of running is constantly evolving and that because of that there isn't a set human limit, but I think there has to be because at somepoint the human body just isn't designed to go any faster.
psxndc
Can a human outrun a car? Didn't think so. There must be some limit. And yes, I used to run track, 'mkaythanksbye.
psxndc
psxndc
While I see where you are coming from, you need to understand that some people do not feel this way for good reasons. Lowering the barrier for entry decreases the signal to noise ratio.
Imagine a super hard to use OS where only five people can use it. Any conversation about it among the five users would most likely be useful banter. Now imagine they lower the barrier for entry. Now joe bob idiot is asking "How do I use my printer?" "Why do I need to login?". Conversations devolve into hand-holding sessions and the original five now can't spend the time doing what they used to do: be productive.
It really comes down to the question of "Do you want your OS to be useful to you or useful to others?" and if you choose the latter, who are the others? Joe PhD engineer, billy high school smartkid, or grandma who thinks TV's are new fangled devil boxes? As far as OpenBSD is concerned, I got the impression Theo wanted to make it for himself (and his group of developers). If other people wanted to use it, great, but they are on their own if they don't take the time to delve into the nitty gritty like Theo and company do (not the extent obviously, but you get my point)
psxndc
psxndc
I can't believe your complaining that the company has put forth at least _some_ effort in this. They could easily turn around and say "If you want to play the game at all, you have to install Windows". There is no market for Linux games, no matter how many posts you see on /. that seem to the contrary. Maybe later when Linux has more of a foothold in the desktop OS space (that's another whole other holy war), but for right now, it makes no sense for a company to invest ANY money in developing a game's client for Linux. Should they invest in developing/porting server side code? Yes. The more servers, the more people can connect and enjoy the game which hopefuly means more sales, but the fact they are making an effort to provide _something_ to a market that they will lose money on should be applauded.
Face it, we live in a windows based world. It's great that there are people that don't have windows installed at all. I seriously, truly envy you. I wish I could get rid of my install of Win98, but there is just too much stuff I'm not willing to give up yet. People like me that won't buy any new Windows software are in the minority in the consumer pool, and people like you that don't even run windows is even smaller. Don't complain that id (or whoever) is making a smart business choice by not investing their time and money into what is in the grand scheme of things, a black whole.
psxndc
psxndc
Read my post again. Maybe you'll get it this time.
Read MY post again. People don't avoid movies because they are X-rated, they avoid them because they don't want to see a movie that warrants an X rating. Your post says that simply a rating of X deters people from seeing it, not because what is in the movie. Example. A movie is ultraviolent, but has no sex. It warrants an X rating. According to your post, anyone (including people that like ultraviolent movies but hate sex) will not go simply because the movie has an X rating, regardless of content, which is simply not true. If someone likes ultraviolent content and knows a movie has it, they will go regardless of what rating the movie is.
What I _do_ agree with you on is a rating system that makes value judgements for you. Just because somebody thinks gameA is acceptable for "Teen" doesn't mean I do. I also agree that the proper thing is a content descriptor, but I don't think ratings systems = censorship. If a person truly wants to make an X rated movie, they will make it. If they want to make a buck, they will release a toned down movie. Censorship implies that personA is preventing personB from expressing themselves. Capitalism is a person doing what it takes to make a dollar and making sacrifices to maximize profit. You can't claim censorship when you release a product intentionally changed to maximize your profit. This is of course assuming studios, etc are not involved, which may be the difference in our viewpoints
psxndc
psxndc
If I make a game that has psychos drowning kittens, should the government deny me that right to publish my game? No, of course not. But the government should force me to put some sort of labeling on my product so that consumers are made aware of its contents. Think FDA and stuff you buy at the grocery store. You may not know what half the crap in your Velveeta is, but they tell you so if you want to become informed, you can.
psxndc
someday I'll get educatedparents.com up and we can all be done with this...
psxndc
As for how this may of may not effect other tissue, it may simply be a matter of collateral damage. Cancer cells grow among normal cells.
I'm not a biologist, I just played one in college.
psxndc
psxndc
psxndc