If it were 13 billion light years away or some shit, then yeah I'd get it. But 6,000???? Can someone with some legit knowledge explain this?
There is no law that I'm aware of that states that objects closer to us have to be somehow newer. The Big Bang happened all around us - yes, right there where you are standing. And everywhere else in the universe. So the oldest thing in the universe may very well be very close to us. In fact, all the sub-atomic particles that you and I are made of are as old as the universe, so that statement is trivially true.
This intuition that old things are very far away probably originates from the fact that when we look at objects very far away, we are looking into the past at "old" objects, because of the limitations imposed by the speed of light. That does not mean that objects closer to us have to be somehow "newer".
The actual article (which I read two days ago) is bad enough for not providing an updated context, but I suppose it can be considered some kind of personal experience. The slashdot summary, however, make this seem as if it is the normal state of affairs.
"Digital Foundry has published an article from an anonymous but trusted developer outlining the challenges of developing for the Nintendo Wii U. The piece confirms some common perceptions of Nintendo, such as their attitude to third party developers, and presents a few surprises, like networking code not being made available to outside developers until the console was almost on sale."
I have read that time and time again, and every time it seems to indicate that this is the current state of affairs.
I don't mind negative things about something I like. I mind negative news about something I like, when the consensus is that the thing is hardly representative, without mentioning that fact.
Ah, just another insight into the wonderful word of management theory. I wonder if the esteemed people who concern themselves with the knowledge of what it takes to run a successful company will ever just admit to themselves that perhaps this about as useful as trying to understand a winning strategy of casino slots?
I don't know - I listened to Jane's TED talk and in spite of totally liking the idea, I just don't think her argument is very sound. Take her calculation of 21 billions hours a week - she came upon that number by simply extrapolating it from some historical account, where people in a society (I think it was some ancient Greek region) were asked to play games in order to keep their minds of the fact that they don't have food. Multiply the amount of hours spent by ancient starving Greek with today's population size - bam! 21 billion hours per week!
Instead, blame the OS manufactures, and the owners of the bot-ridden machines. Seriously. It's your fault if you don't know enough about your car that you ignore the oil light and it seizes up on a highway.
Well, if an idiot ignores his oil light and ends up stranded on the highway, that is generally his problem. If an idiot allows a bot to run on his server, that becomes everybody's problem.
I don't know. Reading the article, all I'm thinking is: how many ways can Jimmy find to fuck up his code now? At least with Groovy and Scala, these language features were pretty much limited to programmers who knew what they were doing. With Java, it's a bit like giving everybody in the world a glock and expecting everything to get better.
What developers see as iterative and flexible, users see as disorganized and never-ending
The danger, he cautions, is when Big Design becomes Big Commitment — as sometimes business sponsors see this plan as something that needs to be tracked against.
Anyone who expects predictability and tractability from what is fundamentally an uncertain project is going to be unhappy. But that is the sort of unhappiness that you can't really do much about.
Baseball, and virtually all pro sports have audiences that pay to attend, advertising deals, television deals, and ongoing source of income. First Person Shooter games? Not so much.
You fail to understand your own logic. If there was no money coming into the system, there would be no money to pay the players with.
From an academic standpoint, food production outweighs entertainment.
Maybe that statement is generally true (although I do wonder why you consider academia to be the adjudicators of what is important), but we are not talking about an essential food resource here. We can feed the world without killing whales.
Developers can make more work for themselves by causing bugs, and with the specifications I write there is no excuse for not testing their code.
This hugely contradicts my experience. Although it may be possible to write specs that are so good, so coherent and incorporate so many edge case that any code realizing it *must* be bug-free, I have never seen it happen for any modestly complicated software project.
Software development is a continuous process (like gardening). If you are worried about bugs, then you must be pro-active about it. Tools like Sonar can give you valuable information about which parts of the code base are under-tested, overly complicated and require careful attention. Also, testing is a multi-level discipline - you can't get away with *only* unit testing, or *only* integration testing. If you want your code to be bug free, you need to invest a lot of time and effort in automating your different test strategies.
There is no guaranteed, affordable process for having bug-free code. You *will* end up with bugs, without requiring this to be attributable to someone's incompetence. You need to actively manage this.
Matt Riley of "The Rational Optimist" (http://www.rationaloptimist.com/) also argues for increased use of GM crops. GM crops can produce higher yields, using fewer insecticides and chemicals than even organic foods do.
Of course, the question is: what will we do with this increased yield? If we use it to convert redundant farm land into nature reserves and green spaces, then I'm all for it. If we use it to help ourselves to a nice population burst, then hell no.
Although everything you said is true, it is all irrelevant. David Cameron does not care whether you can stop accessing pornography through public hot spots. He just needs to prove to his voters that he is doing his best.
Slashdot Mirror
If it were 13 billion light years away or some shit, then yeah I'd get it. But 6,000???? Can someone with some legit knowledge explain this?
There is no law that I'm aware of that states that objects closer to us have to be somehow newer. The Big Bang happened all around us - yes, right there where you are standing. And everywhere else in the universe. So the oldest thing in the universe may very well be very close to us. In fact, all the sub-atomic particles that you and I are made of are as old as the universe, so that statement is trivially true.
This intuition that old things are very far away probably originates from the fact that when we look at objects very far away, we are looking into the past at "old" objects, because of the limitations imposed by the speed of light. That does not mean that objects closer to us have to be somehow "newer".
Although I think you make a few good points, I find it ironic that you use Apple as a counter-example to Nintendo's zealous lawsuit culture.
By the letter of that law it is illegal for me to drive with my mobile phone laying on the passenger seat, or in the storage area below the radio.
When there are plenty of contrary sources available, from non-anonymous developers.
The actual article (which I read two days ago) is bad enough for not providing an updated context, but I suppose it can be considered some kind of personal experience. The slashdot summary, however, make this seem as if it is the normal state of affairs.
A link is not an excuse for a misleading summary, and neither is the fact that you only spent five seconds on it.
"Digital Foundry has published an article from an anonymous but trusted developer outlining the challenges of developing for the Nintendo Wii U. The piece confirms some common perceptions of Nintendo, such as their attitude to third party developers, and presents a few surprises, like networking code not being made available to outside developers until the console was almost on sale."
I have read that time and time again, and every time it seems to indicate that this is the current state of affairs.
I don't mind negative things about something I like. I mind negative news about something I like, when the consensus is that the thing is hardly representative, without mentioning that fact.
An argument stands by its premises, not by who makes it. Ad hominem much?
From an anonymous source? But OK, go on believing everything you read on the interwebs.
Apparently some other devs have come to a different conclusion: http://nintendoenthusiast.com/news/harder-develop-games-wii-u-case-says-renegade-kid/.
But hey, a bit of FUD keeps the day going.
Ah, just another insight into the wonderful word of management theory. I wonder if the esteemed people who concern themselves with the knowledge of what it takes to run a successful company will ever just admit to themselves that perhaps this about as useful as trying to understand a winning strategy of casino slots?
I don't know - I listened to Jane's TED talk and in spite of totally liking the idea, I just don't think her argument is very sound. Take her calculation of 21 billions hours a week - she came upon that number by simply extrapolating it from some historical account, where people in a society (I think it was some ancient Greek region) were asked to play games in order to keep their minds of the fact that they don't have food. Multiply the amount of hours spent by ancient starving Greek with today's population size - bam! 21 billion hours per week!
Any users accessing a Freedom Hosting hosted site since 8/2 with javascript enabled
Is this like an American August 2nd, or a rest-of-the-world 8 February?
And no, I did not RTFA. Worried that the FBI would be tracking everybody who is even interested in this news.
Instead, blame the OS manufactures, and the owners of the bot-ridden machines. Seriously. It's your fault if you don't know enough about your car that you ignore the oil light and it seizes up on a highway.
Well, if an idiot ignores his oil light and ends up stranded on the highway, that is generally his problem. If an idiot allows a bot to run on his server, that becomes everybody's problem.
I don't know. Reading the article, all I'm thinking is: how many ways can Jimmy find to fuck up his code now? At least with Groovy and Scala, these language features were pretty much limited to programmers who knew what they were doing. With Java, it's a bit like giving everybody in the world a glock and expecting everything to get better.
If technologies are no good, that's when only rich people have them. Successful technologies, everyone gets access to eventually
That seems like question begging. The popularity of a technology defines its success, not the other way around.
What developers see as iterative and flexible, users see as disorganized and never-ending
The danger, he cautions, is when Big Design becomes Big Commitment — as sometimes business sponsors see this plan as something that needs to be tracked against.
Anyone who expects predictability and tractability from what is fundamentally an uncertain project is going to be unhappy. But that is the sort of unhappiness that you can't really do much about.
Because gaming is not a sport no matter how you try and word it.
Maybe its art then?
But seriously, who cares? How does the word we use to describe the thing change the concept of it?
Baseball, and virtually all pro sports have audiences that pay to attend, advertising deals, television deals, and ongoing source of income. First Person Shooter games? Not so much.
You fail to understand your own logic. If there was no money coming into the system, there would be no money to pay the players with.
Economics 101.
From an academic standpoint, food production outweighs entertainment.
Maybe that statement is generally true (although I do wonder why you consider academia to be the adjudicators of what is important), but we are not talking about an essential food resource here. We can feed the world without killing whales.
Developers can make more work for themselves by causing bugs, and with the specifications I write there is no excuse for not testing their code.
This hugely contradicts my experience. Although it may be possible to write specs that are so good, so coherent and incorporate so many edge case that any code realizing it *must* be bug-free, I have never seen it happen for any modestly complicated software project.
Software development is a continuous process (like gardening). If you are worried about bugs, then you must be pro-active about it. Tools like Sonar can give you valuable information about which parts of the code base are under-tested, overly complicated and require careful attention. Also, testing is a multi-level discipline - you can't get away with *only* unit testing, or *only* integration testing. If you want your code to be bug free, you need to invest a lot of time and effort in automating your different test strategies.
There is no guaranteed, affordable process for having bug-free code. You *will* end up with bugs, without requiring this to be attributable to someone's incompetence. You need to actively manage this.
Matt Riley of "The Rational Optimist" (http://www.rationaloptimist.com/) also argues for increased use of GM crops. GM crops can produce higher yields, using fewer insecticides and chemicals than even organic foods do.
Of course, the question is: what will we do with this increased yield? If we use it to convert redundant farm land into nature reserves and green spaces, then I'm all for it. If we use it to help ourselves to a nice population burst, then hell no.
To an American, the UK is socialist end of story. I mean, we have stuff like universal medical care and welfare and stuff.
Although everything you said is true, it is all irrelevant. David Cameron does not care whether you can stop accessing pornography through public hot spots. He just needs to prove to his voters that he is doing his best.