Better tools and languages just allow bad programmers to create more bad code.
No, this just isn't true.
Toolset deficiencies negatively impact good and bad programmers alike. The old argument "I'm good so they don't affect my productivity" is just a fallacy.
What I find more confusing is that I know of at least two products labelled "homeopathic" that actually work because they contain real medicine at resonable concentrations ("2x HPUS", or even "1xHPUS"). ZICAM contains zinc glycine glucconate, which had been proven in double-blind clinical trials to reduce the severity and length of a common cold (and I can attest to this from personal experience), and Arnica gel, which contains a powerful anti-inflammatory extracted from a plant. Another product that I know from personal experience that actually works pretty damn well.
Can someone explain to me why the FDA thinks is OK to label real medicine "homeopathic"? And why would a company chose to label real medicine "homeopathic", when it's likely to put off people who know that homeopathy is bunk?
These people have access to all the modern conveniences via their jobs. They have chosen not to learn anything about them which would be O.K. if it wasn't critical to their job performance.
Actually the SCOTUS has shown they are more than willing to learn about something required for them to do their jobs.
Go back a few years when they had a specific case about video games and free speech in 2011. They set up a lab and played the ultra-violent games for a few days, both online and off, to help make a decision. (All of them agreed with the free speech, two dissented saying it was not regulating speech, but was regulating the sale of products.)
Historically the judges have been willing to get their hands dirty and view the gritty details when they are called to review them for a case. They have traveled to remote locations, dug through physical evidence, and gotten their hands dirty. They may not be hardcore gamers or telecom experts, but when it comes to ruling on the law they are making determinations based on the exact wording on the law. Such a decision can be made based on reviewing the facts, reviewing details provided by experts, and looking at the specific items enough to satisfy their opinions.
... which makes the shocking naïveté they've shown in certain opinions pertaining to campaign finance even more unsettling.
You know, some people still have to write real applications.
There's a whole crop of big internal LOB web applications that are showing serious aging problems since they only work with older browser types. As they're being chucked at great cost, it's been getting easier and easier to convince people that desktop apps are better - you get a higher quality, more stable UI, and they don't just randomly break with browser upgrades.
I wrote a fairly large (100KLOC+) LOB.NET application in 2002, and it's still running without issue today. If it only ran in a browser it would have been scrapped long ago.
.NET is alive and well, and business for desktop apps is picking up.
I asked my teachers to teach me advanced math in grade school. They didn't like it, it was a 'problem' because it would take up too much time and resources. Extra time and resources already spent in copious amounts on a couple of retards. One grew up to be that guy you see picking his nose while he bags your groceries.
Until you manage to produce undeniable proof that someone is physically unable to be cured from mental illness, we should always, as a society, strive to cure them.
Let's take an analogy that's perhaps closer to home: some people in hospitals have neither the money nor the physical wellness to get cured. Should we simply abandon them, or should we strive to the very end to attempt to cure them, even (and especially) if it ultimately fails?
Attempt at reform is pointless for many; it's a well-established fact that you cannot 'cure' a sociopath.
I played WoW for a while back when it was newer, when you had to actually form social ties and groups in order to get anything accomplished. That's what I liked, the social part of it. Much later I came back to it and realized that nobody was forming groups any more, there was this new queuing system to get you into dungeons and you got grouped up with strangers and there was no incentive to even talk to each other. I guess it was to please the 'casual' crowd. I wasn't impressed.
ITER is at the wrong end of the scale - we need to get fusion working in a nanoscale device first, then refine it for printed arrays. Not this nonsense.
CGI humans in movies--pre-rendered by giant server farms for as long as it takes--still fall into the uncanny valley.
It'll be a long, long time before graphics can be rendered in real time with no uncanny valley.
The uncanny valley has nothing to do with rendering any more, but modelling.
They've gotten better, but kinematic models are still crap. This will be fixed when someone bothers to spend the money to actually make a facial model based on data collected from fast fMRI, instead of by the hand of an "artist", or a clumsy inverse kinematics algorithm.
Trying to cover all cases with one universal standard is rarely the best solution. Covering the core with a small number of good standards, and having a few others that work differently to handle the rest is often the best way. This is simply because the 'solution space' covered by a single universal standard has many more regions of possibility that will never be touched than a few more focussed standards. Whilst it's massively oversimplifying, imagine the problem of covering a bounded region of a plane, that has an interesting shape, with squares. Hardcore minimalists will point out that one big square will do. That is what the universal standard approach tries to do. The trouble is that a few interesting cases can push the required size of the square to large proportions. If one wants to optimise for area, many small squares are better, but at the expense of having to manage many squares. A balance between these two, with a very small number of large squares and a slightly larger number of smaller squares, tends to be the best solution. Things work similarly with languages, both human and computer ones.
The problem isn't that the standard tries to be universal, it's that it's applied at a completely inappropriate level of abstraction.
Accountability is inversely proportional to the size of the project; bigger budgets means more managers with the incentive to paint everything as a success regardless of outcome ("are you a team player?"), with their own little fiefdoms, self-interests and priorities. Get big enough and you get the added affect of the client being afraid of the contractor's ability to litigate (yes - US government included). Once you get passed a certain point of insulation from consequences of failure, profitability goes way up because you can aggressively cut cost at the expense of quality - quality not only in terms of deliverables, but also sanity in estimates and expectations.
Maybe you should turn away from the vagueries and demands of industry for a while and focus on some personal enrichment that will make you a better programmer (yes, even after 15 years), and smarter, too, using the language you already know. Do the first 100 problems at Project Euler. Then later if you still want to learn a new language, you can do them again in that one. Learning new languages this way is whip-crack fast.
If they want to teach creationism in science class, there should also be a requirement to teach 'alternative' religions in their churches. Just imagine how rabid they'd get if we required their Sunday schools to include Islam and Hinduism... would be totally worth it since it would reveal these people for what they are - violent, bigoted assholes.
Wow, the bullshit that gets points these days. Piracetam won't make you remember every word in a book that you have read. Think about it. If that was the case, you would have heard about this miracle drug. Taking piracetam will have a slight unnoticeable effect. Nothing to write home about at all.
Of course everyone responds differently, but I know you don't know what you're talking about - double-troll! There is most definitely an effect to 'write home about' (which has nothing to do with memory) that everyone I know who's taken it mentions. Instead of being all sour grapes why don't you try it yourself.
Not sure if it's the right band-aid for you. Treat the sleep disorder first.
I tried Piracetam for a while... seemed like a safe, cheap miracle drug for memory. And you know what? It does what it says on the tin.... but I stopped taking it. After a while I realized that I remembered all the words to the books I'd been reading. It was awful. I looked at them and thought, I will never read these again. Every book I'd read on it, I ended up getting rid of.
Having your memory force-stuffed isn't all it's cracked up to be. Unless you need to reverse age-related cognitive decline, I don't recommend it.
At issue is whether the result is really paradoxical or simply an ordinary consequence of the way the experiment is set up. For example, perhaps the experiment measures the properties of different neutrons in each of these places.
Uncertainty here kind of negates the credibility of the whole experiment, doesn't it?
I had a warranty issue with my UltraSharp a while ago, and I had to call 8 times before I got someone that would accept that there was no computer service tag number, since I didn't buy a computer with it. Everyone I spoke with was from India and had extreme difficulty going off their script, which started with the computer service tag number.
I did eventually get my monitor replaced, so a year ago I thought, well maybe I'll buy another one. Before I purchased I wanted them to confirm which hardware rev I'd be getting... but because "hardware rev" wasn't on the call center script, the person on the other end couldn't even understand me. Every time I repeated my question, she'd just keep ticking down to the next question on the list to see if that's what I really meant. I finally told her, "You just lost a sale, and I will never buy Dell again, because you can't speak English".
Slashdot Mirror
Better tools and languages just allow bad programmers to create more bad code.
No, this just isn't true.
Toolset deficiencies negatively impact good and bad programmers alike. The old argument "I'm good so they don't affect my productivity" is just a fallacy.
Many solutions posted there are masterful examples of elegance in programming. Some are so good they may change the way you think about code.
But to see them, you actually have to care enough to solve the problems yourself first.
What I find more confusing is that I know of at least two products labelled "homeopathic" that actually work because they contain real medicine at resonable concentrations ("2x HPUS", or even "1xHPUS"). ZICAM contains zinc glycine glucconate, which had been proven in double-blind clinical trials to reduce the severity and length of a common cold (and I can attest to this from personal experience), and Arnica gel, which contains a powerful anti-inflammatory extracted from a plant. Another product that I know from personal experience that actually works pretty damn well.
Can someone explain to me why the FDA thinks is OK to label real medicine "homeopathic"? And why would a company chose to label real medicine "homeopathic", when it's likely to put off people who know that homeopathy is bunk?
These people have access to all the modern conveniences via their jobs. They have chosen not to learn anything about them which would be O.K. if it wasn't critical to their job performance.
Actually the SCOTUS has shown they are more than willing to learn about something required for them to do their jobs.
Go back a few years when they had a specific case about video games and free speech in 2011. They set up a lab and played the ultra-violent games for a few days, both online and off, to help make a decision. (All of them agreed with the free speech, two dissented saying it was not regulating speech, but was regulating the sale of products.)
Historically the judges have been willing to get their hands dirty and view the gritty details when they are called to review them for a case. They have traveled to remote locations, dug through physical evidence, and gotten their hands dirty. They may not be hardcore gamers or telecom experts, but when it comes to ruling on the law they are making determinations based on the exact wording on the law. Such a decision can be made based on reviewing the facts, reviewing details provided by experts, and looking at the specific items enough to satisfy their opinions.
... which makes the shocking naïveté they've shown in certain opinions pertaining to campaign finance even more unsettling.
You know, some people still have to write real applications.
.NET application in 2002, and it's still running without issue today. If it only ran in a browser it would have been scrapped long ago.
.NET is alive and well, and business for desktop apps is picking up.
There's a whole crop of big internal LOB web applications that are showing serious aging problems since they only work with older browser types. As they're being chucked at great cost, it's been getting easier and easier to convince people that desktop apps are better - you get a higher quality, more stable UI, and they don't just randomly break with browser upgrades.
I wrote a fairly large (100KLOC+) LOB
I asked my teachers to teach me advanced math in grade school. They didn't like it, it was a 'problem' because it would take up too much time and resources. Extra time and resources already spent in copious amounts on a couple of retards. One grew up to be that guy you see picking his nose while he bags your groceries.
mobile games have been around for thousands of years. Did you mean to say 'electronic'?
Until you manage to produce undeniable proof that someone is physically unable to be cured from mental illness, we should always, as a society, strive to cure them. Let's take an analogy that's perhaps closer to home: some people in hospitals have neither the money nor the physical wellness to get cured. Should we simply abandon them, or should we strive to the very end to attempt to cure them, even (and especially) if it ultimately fails?
Attempt at reform is pointless for many; it's a well-established fact that you cannot 'cure' a sociopath.
I played WoW for a while back when it was newer, when you had to actually form social ties and groups in order to get anything accomplished. That's what I liked, the social part of it. Much later I came back to it and realized that nobody was forming groups any more, there was this new queuing system to get you into dungeons and you got grouped up with strangers and there was no incentive to even talk to each other. I guess it was to please the 'casual' crowd. I wasn't impressed.
ITER is at the wrong end of the scale - we need to get fusion working in a nanoscale device first, then refine it for printed arrays. Not this nonsense.
Back in high school, someone at our table in the caf would read a single, random page out of The Naked Lunch while we ate.
I heard that particular page read just after the infamous fetal pig intestine fight in biology.
That was an awesome, fucked up day.
Why is America a super power? Because we work our asses off. Nuff said.
The dollar is the root of our empire, not our labor force.
CGI humans in movies--pre-rendered by giant server farms for as long as it takes--still fall into the uncanny valley.
It'll be a long, long time before graphics can be rendered in real time with no uncanny valley.
The uncanny valley has nothing to do with rendering any more, but modelling.
They've gotten better, but kinematic models are still crap. This will be fixed when someone bothers to spend the money to actually make a facial model based on data collected from fast fMRI, instead of by the hand of an "artist", or a clumsy inverse kinematics algorithm.
Car electronics are perpetually shit, out of date, and overpriced. Put the feature on my phone I don't care if it won't be as accurate.
I saw one, mopping the floor in building 2 at MIT in 1994. I shit you not.
Trying to cover all cases with one universal standard is rarely the best solution. Covering the core with a small number of good standards, and having a few others that work differently to handle the rest is often the best way. This is simply because the 'solution space' covered by a single universal standard has many more regions of possibility that will never be touched than a few more focussed standards. Whilst it's massively oversimplifying, imagine the problem of covering a bounded region of a plane, that has an interesting shape, with squares. Hardcore minimalists will point out that one big square will do. That is what the universal standard approach tries to do. The trouble is that a few interesting cases can push the required size of the square to large proportions. If one wants to optimise for area, many small squares are better, but at the expense of having to manage many squares. A balance between these two, with a very small number of large squares and a slightly larger number of smaller squares, tends to be the best solution. Things work similarly with languages, both human and computer ones.
The problem isn't that the standard tries to be universal, it's that it's applied at a completely inappropriate level of abstraction.
Accountability is inversely proportional to the size of the project; bigger budgets means more managers with the incentive to paint everything as a success regardless of outcome ("are you a team player?"), with their own little fiefdoms, self-interests and priorities. Get big enough and you get the added affect of the client being afraid of the contractor's ability to litigate (yes - US government included). Once you get passed a certain point of insulation from consequences of failure, profitability goes way up because you can aggressively cut cost at the expense of quality - quality not only in terms of deliverables, but also sanity in estimates and expectations.
No.
Maybe you should turn away from the vagueries and demands of industry for a while and focus on some personal enrichment that will make you a better programmer (yes, even after 15 years), and smarter, too, using the language you already know. Do the first 100 problems at Project Euler. Then later if you still want to learn a new language, you can do them again in that one. Learning new languages this way is whip-crack fast.
the to every interview question is always "I'm sorry, there's been a mistake. If you'll excuse me."
I'll never go back.
If they want to teach creationism in science class, there should also be a requirement to teach 'alternative' religions in their churches. Just imagine how rabid they'd get if we required their Sunday schools to include Islam and Hinduism... would be totally worth it since it would reveal these people for what they are - violent, bigoted assholes.
Wow, the bullshit that gets points these days. Piracetam won't make you remember every word in a book that you have read. Think about it. If that was the case, you would have heard about this miracle drug. Taking piracetam will have a slight unnoticeable effect. Nothing to write home about at all.
Of course everyone responds differently, but I know you don't know what you're talking about - double-troll! There is most definitely an effect to 'write home about' (which has nothing to do with memory) that everyone I know who's taken it mentions. Instead of being all sour grapes why don't you try it yourself.
Nootropics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic
Not sure if it's the right band-aid for you. Treat the sleep disorder first.
I tried Piracetam for a while... seemed like a safe, cheap miracle drug for memory. And you know what? It does what it says on the tin.... but I stopped taking it. After a while I realized that I remembered all the words to the books I'd been reading. It was awful. I looked at them and thought, I will never read these again. Every book I'd read on it, I ended up getting rid of.
Having your memory force-stuffed isn't all it's cracked up to be. Unless you need to reverse age-related cognitive decline, I don't recommend it.
At issue is whether the result is really paradoxical or simply an ordinary consequence of the way the experiment is set up. For example, perhaps the experiment measures the properties of different neutrons in each of these places.
Uncertainty here kind of negates the credibility of the whole experiment, doesn't it?
Must... reopen... Dell financing account.
Don't buy Dell. Seriously.
I had a warranty issue with my UltraSharp a while ago, and I had to call 8 times before I got someone that would accept that there was no computer service tag number, since I didn't buy a computer with it. Everyone I spoke with was from India and had extreme difficulty going off their script, which started with the computer service tag number.
I did eventually get my monitor replaced, so a year ago I thought, well maybe I'll buy another one. Before I purchased I wanted them to confirm which hardware rev I'd be getting... but because "hardware rev" wasn't on the call center script, the person on the other end couldn't even understand me. Every time I repeated my question, she'd just keep ticking down to the next question on the list to see if that's what I really meant. I finally told her, "You just lost a sale, and I will never buy Dell again, because you can't speak English".