I don't see how that would stop them - they could just use a liquid explosive that isn't too toxic to drink a little of and which doesn't smell too much.
Inevitably these errors pile up and it'll come down to a human - or team of humans - to dig into the guts of the code and find out what's really wrong. If all this automation actually happens, who will get the job experience to fix all the bugs that got by the automated software checkers?
The people who end up being the ones to fix all the bugs that got by the automated software checkers?
I guess everyone hoarding security problems and releasing them shortly after the Vista release will actually improve the security situation for Vista. This way, the issues may not get fixed before release, but they get fixed or at least reported pretty soon there after. So security is improved, even if this tactic will make Vista look more insecure than is warranted at launch, because the results of several months of vulnerability testing by outside parties will be released all at once rather than over that period of months.
Also, surely, some people will report vulnerabilities before launch.
> Honestly, being a regular on slashdot will keep you pretty current on > the latest fads in the industry. > Yeah, especially if they have something to do with Google.
I do not understand how to possibly put ads in many games without breaking those games. This is especially true for games where the settings is completely different from the real world. Imagine playing World of Warcraft, and then suddenly seeing a big ad for Coca Cola outside Ogrimmar... that would break immersion. I could see something like that in GTA, though.
I don't have a Slashdot hit on the first page in a Google search for my name either, but there is one on the second page, and there are several more on the following pages. The way I remember it, the last time I did a search for my name, there were several Slashdot hits on the first page. Maybe my memory is wrong or maybe Google changed their algorithm.
In any case the point stands: If you don't want to have what you are posting to Slashdot (or similar places) to be attached to your name in 10 years time, do not use your real name. It is worth considering that many of one's opinions can change in 10 years.
I myself have some 5 year old postings to Slashdot and other places on the net in my name that I would like to have removed. I absolutely believed in what I was writing at the time, but I since have changed my mind radically on some things. I do not like having these things available anymore as they do not reflect me as I am now.
I can definately recommend using pseudonyms. Yes, I realize that I am not doing that myself right now.
Unfortunate postings to Slashdot are also pretty, well, unfortunate, because Slashdot has a high Google-rank, so your Slashdot postings will place highly in Google on a search for your name. I don't think you can get a Slashdot comment removed.
" But anyone else think this is what they're going to do witht he Fallout franchise? I don't know whether to be scared or ecstatic..."
The Fallout franchise is owned by Bethesda Softworks, and they are just now getting ready to work on Fallout 3 after having completed the Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion, so I do not think so. Except if Bioware and Bethesda Softworks are related, which is something I have not heard about.
"The findings are bogus: [...] The counterargument is that plenty of people who wound normally go to grad school insead choose to work in industry. This small lifestyle difference for four years in a subject's late twenties should not effect tests given at age 65+."
I am not so sure that education does not have a larger effect on later outcome in life than you grant, but anyway this is not necessary to offer an explanation of the findings outside of "it is bogus". One explanation would be that the number of years of education is correlated with IQ and IQ is correlated with some physical properties of the brain such as nerve conduction velocity. In this way, these physical correlates of IQ could be causing both more education (through increased IQ) and a different reaction to Alzheimer's.
I do not know anything about Alzheimer's, so I am in no way saying that this is actually the case - I am merely pointing out that there are other reasonable explanations than "it is bogus".
If I hired you, I suspect I'd end up having to re-do a lot of what you did, because you seem to be very good at coming up with excuses, which is what a good programmer doesn't do.
Ad hominem (attacking the man instead of the argument).
Anyone who thinks that not documenting code is practical in any environment is not someone I'd respect as a "good programmer".
Ad hominem and strawman (attacking a different argument than the one actually offered). I did not say not documenting is practical, I said that one special type of documentation is often superior, and that sometimes conventional documentation is necessary too.
Talk to me when you've developed commercial software that has sold millions of copies and recieved numerous honors and awards. I know what that's like.
This is appeal to authority and also ad hominem. Also, even if it is true that you've been involved with making such a product, that does not imply that any specific one of your opinions about a good programmer are true.
1. It has nothing to do with money. You can find good quality developers at both ends of the pay spectrum. In fact, I adamantely believe that the further you get towards the high end of the pay spectrum, the worst the quality is. Too cheap is bad too, but not as bad as too expensive.
Maybe you are not guaranteed good programmers by paying alot, but good programmers still cost more. I just do not see how things could be different, except if you are saying that companies are completely unable to recognize quality.
2. A good programmer isn't limited to a narrow set of tools or technologies. He will pick the best platform and language/tools based on the application's needs. A bad programmer is one who only knows a small subset of technology and ends up forcing applications to operate within the confines of resources which limit stability, flexibility, performance and productivity.
A good programmer will not only think of the needs of the application when choosing tools, but will also consider the context he is in. Chossing an unknown and complex tool might well be a very bad idea, even if it fits the job perfectly. I realize that you might intend this to go under "the application's needs".
3. A good programmer spends a lot of time researching the project before ever writing a single line of code. A good programmer demands the client/employer be as detailed as possible regarding the specs of the application. A bad programmer is comfortable with ambiguity relating to product specs. A good programmer, in lieu of getting detailed specs from the client, will create his own outline of what the application will involve and make it finite before coding even starts and make sure the client signs off. Good programmers don't tolerate ambiguity in specs.
Most projects are not of the form "implement a correct compiler for Java" or something equally well defined. In many contexts, demanding exact specifications will result in endless preparations, and as soon as the spec is "perfect", requirements will have changed. Specifications change because needs change and the knowledge of the users and developers increases as the project progresses. This is not a bad thing, it is a very good thing, even if it can be annoying to the programmer. I think eXtreme Programming gets this right: get some code out of the door as quickly as possible so people can try it out.
4. A good programmer/sub-contractor is more likely to charge a flat rate for the development of the project than an ambiguous time-based wage (but all sub-contractors have to have provisions to deal with project creep and problem clients).
Specifications change so a flat fee is a bad idea for everyone.
Good programmers expose bugs in applications and platforms. Bad programmers create them where they didn't exist.
Good programmers are human, so they make mistakes too. Of course they may do it less frequently, but they still do it.
6. Good programmers always exceed the client's expectations in terms of flexibility and versatility. Bad programmers tend to literally interpret feature lists and make program structure more finite than modular.
Unneded flexibility and versatility can increase code complexity, introduce bugs, make the program harder to use in the common case and lengthen development time. It is much better to get the program out there in use quickly, and then implement just those things people actually end up needing. Of course, in some cases things can be made more general "for free", and then the good programmer will try to spot it and do that. Sometimes the flexibility and versatility is really useful og necessary, and only in those caes will the good programmer make the program that way.
7. Good programmers ALWAYS DOCUMENT THEIR CODE WELL! Bad programmers take great pride in making sure nobody can understand what they're doing.
Actually, the theory backing IQ tests (factor analysis and lots and lots of data) does NOT back the claim that pattern recognition is what makes humans intelligent as a compared to things that are not human.
Rather, the theory says that if you want to pick the people who generally do well in a lot of things compared to other people, then pattern recognition problems of the kind that IQ tests use is a very good way to do that.
So IQ tests is a way to pick out the intelligent among humans (in a certain sense of intelligence). That does not mean that the questions IQ tests use is also a good way to pick out the most intelligent entities among a group of entities that is not or only partly human. Of course, it doesn't mean it is a bad way either, it is just that the theory behind IQ tests is completely silent on the matter.
> So ANY religious fundamentalism is bad, not JUST > Islamic fundamentalism or Christian > fundamentalism, or fundamentalism under the > guise of > any other religion. Hey, if you want to believe > strongly in something, you're free to do so, but > don't try to change my thinking or impose it > upon > me. > If you only meant that about religions, never mind. If you meant it about "beliefs" in general, are you sure you really mean that?
Do you think it's ok to force people to pay involuntary taxes?
Most people do, but it is clearly imposing someone elses belief on those who do not. I realise that you might really mean it, I'm just asking if you have considered the far-reaching implications of that standpoint.
Personally, I think this situation cannot be avoided. Having other peoples beliefs imposed on one is a fact of life, anytime, anywhere. Except if you happen to agree with the beliefs being imposed, or you are on a desert island.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how that would stop them - they could just use a liquid explosive that isn't too toxic to drink a little of and which doesn't smell too much.
Competent people make simple programming mistakes once in a while too.
Inevitably these errors pile up and it'll come down to a human - or team of humans - to dig into the guts of the code and find out what's really wrong. If all this automation actually happens, who will get the job experience to fix all the bugs that got by the automated software checkers?
The people who end up being the ones to fix all the bugs that got by the automated software checkers?
I guess everyone hoarding security problems and releasing them shortly after the Vista release will actually improve the security situation for Vista. This way, the issues may not get fixed before release, but they get fixed or at least reported pretty soon there after. So security is improved, even if this tactic will make Vista look more insecure than is warranted at launch, because the results of several months of vulnerability testing by outside parties will be released all at once rather than over that period of months.
Also, surely, some people will report vulnerabilities before launch.
I've heard of the possibility of using something else than water to do the cooling that will not impair the computer if it is sprayed over the it.
> Honestly, being a regular on slashdot will keep you pretty current on
> the latest fads in the industry.
>
Yeah, especially if they have something to do with Google.
I think I speak for most of us who has only read the summary when I say: huh?
I do not understand how to possibly put ads in many games without breaking those games. This is especially true for games where the settings is completely different from the real world. Imagine playing World of Warcraft, and then suddenly seeing a big ad for Coca Cola outside Ogrimmar... that would break immersion. I could see something like that in GTA, though.
I don't have a Slashdot hit on the first page in a Google search for my name either, but there is one on the second page, and there are several more on the following pages. The way I remember it, the last time I did a search for my name, there were several Slashdot hits on the first page. Maybe my memory is wrong or maybe Google changed their algorithm.
In any case the point stands: If you don't want to have what you are posting to Slashdot (or similar places) to be attached to your name in 10 years time, do not use your real name. It is worth considering that many of one's opinions can change in 10 years.
I myself have some 5 year old postings to Slashdot and other places on the net in my name that I would like to have removed. I absolutely believed in what I was writing at the time, but I since have changed my mind radically on some things. I do not like having these things available anymore as they do not reflect me as I am now.
I can definately recommend using pseudonyms. Yes, I realize that I am not doing that myself right now.
Unfortunate postings to Slashdot are also pretty, well, unfortunate, because Slashdot has a high Google-rank, so your Slashdot postings will place highly in Google on a search for your name. I don't think you can get a Slashdot comment removed.
Thank you for clearing that up. One learns something every day :-)
" But anyone else think this is what they're going to do witht he Fallout franchise? I don't know whether to be scared or ecstatic..."
The Fallout franchise is owned by Bethesda Softworks, and they are just now getting ready to work on Fallout 3 after having completed the Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion, so I do not think so. Except if Bioware and Bethesda Softworks are related, which is something I have not heard about.
Oblivion is coming out for the xbox 360 and PC on March 20. I think that is pretty exciting.
"The findings are bogus: [...] The counterargument is that plenty of people who wound normally go to grad school insead choose to work in industry. This small lifestyle difference for four years in a subject's late twenties should not effect tests given at age 65+."
I am not so sure that education does not have a larger effect on later outcome in life than you grant, but anyway this is not necessary to offer an explanation of the findings outside of "it is bogus". One explanation would be that the number of years of education is correlated with IQ and IQ is correlated with some physical properties of the brain such as nerve conduction velocity. In this way, these physical correlates of IQ could be causing both more education (through increased IQ) and a different reaction to Alzheimer's.
I do not know anything about Alzheimer's, so I am in no way saying that this is actually the case - I am merely pointing out that there are other reasonable explanations than "it is bogus".
"Intelligence? Intelligent at what? An apache helicopter is pretty intelligent at dishing out bullets."
You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means. It seems the concept you are actually talking about is "skill".
Meanwhile, that post was spelled perfectly, as far as I can tell.
If I hired you, I suspect I'd end up having to re-do a lot of what you did, because you seem to be very good at coming up with excuses, which is what a good programmer doesn't do.
Ad hominem (attacking the man instead of the argument).
Anyone who thinks that not documenting code is practical in any environment is not someone I'd respect as a "good programmer".
Ad hominem and strawman (attacking a different argument than the one actually offered). I did not say not documenting is practical, I said that one special type of documentation is often superior, and that sometimes conventional documentation is necessary too.
Talk to me when you've developed commercial software that has sold millions of copies and recieved numerous honors and awards. I know what that's like.
This is appeal to authority and also ad hominem. Also, even if it is true that you've been involved with making such a product, that does not imply that any specific one of your opinions about a good programmer are true.
I do not agree.
1. It has nothing to do with money. You can find good quality developers at both ends of the pay spectrum. In fact, I adamantely believe that the further you get towards the high end of the pay spectrum, the worst the quality is. Too cheap is bad too, but not as bad as too expensive.
Maybe you are not guaranteed good programmers by paying alot, but good programmers still cost more. I just do not see how things could be different, except if you are saying that companies are completely unable to recognize quality.
2. A good programmer isn't limited to a narrow set of tools or technologies. He will pick the best platform and language/tools based on the application's needs. A bad programmer is one who only knows a small subset of technology and ends up forcing applications to operate within the confines of resources which limit stability, flexibility, performance and productivity.
A good programmer will not only think of the needs of the application when choosing tools, but will also consider the context he is in. Chossing an unknown and complex tool might well be a very bad idea, even if it fits the job perfectly. I realize that you might intend this to go under "the application's needs".
3. A good programmer spends a lot of time researching the project before ever writing a single line of code. A good programmer demands the client/employer be as detailed as possible regarding the specs of the application. A bad programmer is comfortable with ambiguity relating to product specs. A good programmer, in lieu of getting detailed specs from the client, will create his own outline of what the application will involve and make it finite before coding even starts and make sure the client signs off. Good programmers don't tolerate ambiguity in specs.
Most projects are not of the form "implement a correct compiler for Java" or something equally well defined. In many contexts, demanding exact specifications will result in endless preparations, and as soon as the spec is "perfect", requirements will have changed. Specifications change because needs change and the knowledge of the users and developers increases as the project progresses. This is not a bad thing, it is a very good thing, even if it can be annoying to the programmer. I think eXtreme Programming gets this right: get some code out of the door as quickly as possible so people can try it out.
4. A good programmer/sub-contractor is more likely to charge a flat rate for the development of the project than an ambiguous time-based wage (but all sub-contractors have to have provisions to deal with project creep and problem clients).
Specifications change so a flat fee is a bad idea for everyone.
Good programmers expose bugs in applications and platforms. Bad programmers create them where they didn't exist.
Good programmers are human, so they make mistakes too. Of course they may do it less frequently, but they still do it.
6. Good programmers always exceed the client's expectations in terms of flexibility and versatility. Bad programmers tend to literally interpret feature lists and make program structure more finite than modular.
Unneded flexibility and versatility can increase code complexity, introduce bugs, make the program harder to use in the common case and lengthen development time. It is much better to get the program out there in use quickly, and then implement just those things people actually end up needing. Of course, in some cases things can be made more general "for free", and then the good programmer will try to spot it and do that. Sometimes the flexibility and versatility is really useful og necessary, and only in those caes will the good programmer make the program that way.
7. Good programmers ALWAYS DOCUMENT THEIR CODE WELL! Bad programmers take great pride in making sure nobody can understand what they're doing.
I might agree, depending on what yo
This just in:
Water is wet.
Falling down staircases hurts... Ouch!
Remember, you heard it here first.
1) Does it Prase Linux: NO :( :| :) :D
2) Does it Bash Microsoft: YES
3) Does it talk about Firefox: YES
4) Is it duplicating something from today: NO
Hmm... doesn't it only pass 2 og the 4 checks?
nice whining there
Actually, the theory backing IQ tests (factor analysis and lots and lots of data) does NOT back the claim that pattern recognition is what makes humans intelligent as a compared to things that are not human.
Rather, the theory says that if you want to pick the people who generally do well in a lot of things compared to other people, then pattern recognition problems of the kind that IQ tests use is a very good way to do that.
So IQ tests is a way to pick out the intelligent among humans (in a certain sense of intelligence). That does not mean that the questions IQ tests use is also a good way to pick out the most intelligent entities among a group of entities that is not or only partly human. Of course, it doesn't mean it is a bad way either, it is just that the theory behind IQ tests is completely silent on the matter.
The new GPL: all your changes are belong to us!
Spacefligt is done to get chicks. Manned fligts gets more chicks than unmanned flights. The equation is something like this:
prestige = penis
> So ANY religious fundamentalism is bad, not JUST
> Islamic fundamentalism or Christian
> fundamentalism, or fundamentalism under the
> guise of
> any other religion. Hey, if you want to believe
> strongly in something, you're free to do so, but
> don't try to change my thinking or impose it
> upon
> me.
>
If you only meant that about religions, never mind. If you meant it about "beliefs" in general, are you sure you really mean that?
Do you think it's ok to force people to pay involuntary taxes?
Most people do, but it is clearly imposing someone elses belief on those who do not. I realise that you might really mean it, I'm just asking if you have considered the far-reaching implications of that standpoint.
Personally, I think this situation cannot be avoided. Having other peoples beliefs imposed on one is a fact of life, anytime, anywhere. Except
if you happen to agree with the beliefs being imposed, or you are on a desert island.