The author missed about a million flash games targeting casual audiences, and many of them are pretty damn good. Whoosh, the article doesn't even remotely apply to those.
Also there are plenty of "normal" PC/console games that are universally praised without nary one whit of criticism. Not every game can be counted among the best.
Lastly: everything is *not* amazing. The purpose of games are to be FUN, and fun has nothing to do with the state of current technology and more than you can give someone more expensive paint and expect them to magically become a better artist.
So many times I've worked with IT whose only priority is to minimize work. You get lazy compliance of security and other policy requirements, leading to machines configured with absolutely no regard to usability.
Can we start talking about "Time to a Usable Desktop"? My laptop boots to a login prompt in 15 seconds, but after login it's another 2-5 minutes before it's done thrashing the hard drive. There are precious few (useful) tools available to track down everything the system is doing, and even fewer to help you improve the situation.
We don't live in a world where everything worth using is going to be free or open source. Most people agree that Visual Studio and C# are excellent programming tools, and Windows 7 isn't too bad either. Yay profit motive, there are a bunch of tools MS has made that are actually really damn nice. We have to pay for them. So what?
It may be different for different people, but I think in pictures, not words, and most of the time these pictures aren't visually expressible. Some concepts are practically impossible to communicate.
Language can be terribly limiting, but only in how easily an idea can be passed from one person to another.
That's what we get for electing so many lawyers to write the laws.
Oh come now, that's like complaining that we use programmers to program.
If you're tempted to remark that programmers tend to make lousy UI designers... that is a valid point, but it's a different discipline.
As in programming, how do we get the law ("application") into a state that it can be wielded and understood by everyman? That is entirely a matter of dedicating yourself to accessibility and the elimination of complexity. We don't have people with jobs exactly like that at the moment in law, but in a better world, it would be one of the higher callings of public servants.
In summary: the problem isn't that we use lawyers to write law, but rather other important functions concerning law are neglected.
You cannot teach someone when they are not willing to learn. If a child doesn't want to learn they should be expelled from school and given working papers. Why punish those that are there to learn with disruptive people?
But that's not an excuse for shitty education. Growing up, I sat through so much horseshit... I didn't raise a fuss, but it wasn't "learning".
This is actually an old topic in the engineering and manufacturing fields. A great analyst made a career out of its study and discussed it at great length. He labeled running a company by numbers alone a deadly disease, and called cutting back on quality not cost-savings, but disinvestment. It's just a shame only Japan took his work seriously.
This article about HTML5 proves that no matter what functionality is hardcoded into the specifications, developers might need more or different functionality.
That's because HTML is at too high a level of abstraction to ever sufficiently cover everything an application may need to do, or lend itself to any manageable definition of compliance. The standard needs to be on a lower level and defined by a relatively static object model with versioning defined by a set of unit tests.
.NET's IL could have served this purpose if MS hadn't screwed up Silverlight so bad.
And those guys still stuck in Internet Explorer 6 or whatever from 1999. You want it to work? Don't write to a browser version, write to a standard. I LIKE IT that it will be impossible to write for a browser version. I want a standards compliant browser, not version 12.345.2-19 of a browser and memorization of which sites require -20 and with can't work on anything newer than -18.
You think that browsers are all magically going to be standards-compliant just because version numbers are removed?
You think web developers *like* developing around browser idiosyncrasies and coding conditionally to specific versions? They do it because the HAVE TO.
You think every organization is going to allow all their machines to do automatic, arbitrary versioning of the browsers they allow their users to run?
Sidestep the guy hired you and tell the CFO/CEO/whatever that the CIO is an incompetent jackass? No, you can't do that when you're a contractor. And it's especially aggregating when you see unnecessary, large-scale waste in state or federal IT departments. You look around and say, that's my tax money being wasted right there and not a single yo-yo on the direct payroll cares one bit.
My desktop at work is part of a very large (many thousands) windows domain. My time from boot to usable desktop is measured in minutes, many of them, rarely under 10 minutes. I get to stare at "Applying Personal Settings" for much of that period. Yes, the help desk has been called many times. The only course of action is to completely rebuild the system. Nobody can seem to troubleshoot a windows domain performance problem.
Yes they can. It's a policy issue. Someone at the top who doesn't actually use the computers (or does any useful work, probably) decided they wanted to implement Policies A-Z to all users on the domain, without any regard to performance. I've run into this a number of times from high(er) security customers that give me a laptop I'm supposed to develop remotely on, and I have to come back and ask, 'are you aware that you've made this otherwise fast machine completely unusable to people working remotely over VPN, especially developers?'. And you know what, the policy maker never, ever cares. They do whatever they want because that spot in the food chain where the next higher level is non-technical is a magnet for the callously incompetent.
Re:Experiments performed only on 3 test subjects
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
No, too risky as an excuse sounds about right for investors in an uncertain climate. This is the whole reason for publicly-funded research. Too risky? Duh, yeah we need to go there. Risky, "novel" territory is where all the breakthroughs come from. DARPA understands this. But tell that to people who want to tear down public funding for everything.
between individuals and large organizations. I'll be for abolishing anonymity of individuals when we outlaw all secrecy in government and industry. Yes, even military. Yes, even "trade secrets". You want transparency, start there.
Slashdot Mirror
The author missed about a million flash games targeting casual audiences, and many of them are pretty damn good. Whoosh, the article doesn't even remotely apply to those.
Also there are plenty of "normal" PC/console games that are universally praised without nary one whit of criticism. Not every game can be counted among the best.
Lastly: everything is *not* amazing. The purpose of games are to be FUN, and fun has nothing to do with the state of current technology and more than you can give someone more expensive paint and expect them to magically become a better artist.
In case it wasn't obvious, that was meant to be biting sarcasm. Web apps are total crap.
Amen to that.
So many times I've worked with IT whose only priority is to minimize work. You get lazy compliance of security and other policy requirements, leading to machines configured with absolutely no regard to usability.
Can we start talking about "Time to a Usable Desktop"? My laptop boots to a login prompt in 15 seconds, but after login it's another 2-5 minutes before it's done thrashing the hard drive. There are precious few (useful) tools available to track down everything the system is doing, and even fewer to help you improve the situation.
Stop running McAffee.
We don't live in a world where everything worth using is going to be free or open source. Most people agree that Visual Studio and C# are excellent programming tools, and Windows 7 isn't too bad either. Yay profit motive, there are a bunch of tools MS has made that are actually really damn nice. We have to pay for them. So what?
It may be different for different people, but I think in pictures, not words, and most of the time these pictures aren't visually expressible. Some concepts are practically impossible to communicate.
Language can be terribly limiting, but only in how easily an idea can be passed from one person to another.
because html, javascript, and browsers are soooo robust and versatile
That's what we get for electing so many lawyers to write the laws.
Oh come now, that's like complaining that we use programmers to program.
If you're tempted to remark that programmers tend to make lousy UI designers... that is a valid point, but it's a different discipline.
As in programming, how do we get the law ("application") into a state that it can be wielded and understood by everyman? That is entirely a matter of dedicating yourself to accessibility and the elimination of complexity. We don't have people with jobs exactly like that at the moment in law, but in a better world, it would be one of the higher callings of public servants.
In summary: the problem isn't that we use lawyers to write law, but rather other important functions concerning law are neglected.
'cuz ya know, when you migrate a UI to run in a browser, you get such a feature-rich, stable experience and it's so maintainable
maybe you can tell the new guy to update the broken user interface
You cannot teach someone when they are not willing to learn. If a child doesn't want to learn they should be expelled from school and given working papers. Why punish those that are there to learn with disruptive people?
But that's not an excuse for shitty education. Growing up, I sat through so much horseshit... I didn't raise a fuss, but it wasn't "learning".
This is actually an old topic in the engineering and manufacturing fields. A great analyst made a career out of its study and discussed it at great length. He labeled running a company by numbers alone a deadly disease, and called cutting back on quality not cost-savings, but disinvestment. It's just a shame only Japan took his work seriously.
Slower or not, the battery will still get drained.
... without fear of draining the charge before a real communication crisis arises.
Huh?
how many you give yourself after hacking the site itself?
This article about HTML5 proves that no matter what functionality is hardcoded into the specifications, developers might need more or different functionality.
That's because HTML is at too high a level of abstraction to ever sufficiently cover everything an application may need to do, or lend itself to any manageable definition of compliance. The standard needs to be on a lower level and defined by a relatively static object model with versioning defined by a set of unit tests.
.NET's IL could have served this purpose if MS hadn't screwed up Silverlight so bad.
And those guys still stuck in Internet Explorer 6 or whatever from 1999. You want it to work? Don't write to a browser version, write to a standard. I LIKE IT that it will be impossible to write for a browser version. I want a standards compliant browser, not version 12.345.2-19 of a browser and memorization of which sites require -20 and with can't work on anything newer than -18.
You think that browsers are all magically going to be standards-compliant just because version numbers are removed?
You think web developers *like* developing around browser idiosyncrasies and coding conditionally to specific versions? They do it because the HAVE TO.
You think every organization is going to allow all their machines to do automatic, arbitrary versioning of the browsers they allow their users to run?
Maybe you should get your head out of your ass.
and I'll also be dumping Firefox from the list of "supported browsers" on the sites I release
From TFA: Parachute, followed by retro-rockets, then lowered by a tether.
Yes, it's new. How do they measure how risky it is?
It's risky because it's overly complicated. The God of our race is named Murphy, and he has but one law.
I bet the flyer will sail off to "safely" ditch 3 miles away from the landing site, with the rover still attached.
Preachin to the choir bud, preachin to the choir.
Sidestep the guy hired you and tell the CFO/CEO/whatever that the CIO is an incompetent jackass? No, you can't do that when you're a contractor. And it's especially aggregating when you see unnecessary, large-scale waste in state or federal IT departments. You look around and say, that's my tax money being wasted right there and not a single yo-yo on the direct payroll cares one bit.
My desktop at work is part of a very large (many thousands) windows domain. My time from boot to usable desktop is measured in minutes, many of them, rarely under 10 minutes. I get to stare at "Applying Personal Settings" for much of that period. Yes, the help desk has been called many times. The only course of action is to completely rebuild the system. Nobody can seem to troubleshoot a windows domain performance problem.
Yes they can. It's a policy issue. Someone at the top who doesn't actually use the computers (or does any useful work, probably) decided they wanted to implement Policies A-Z to all users on the domain, without any regard to performance. I've run into this a number of times from high(er) security customers that give me a laptop I'm supposed to develop remotely on, and I have to come back and ask, 'are you aware that you've made this otherwise fast machine completely unusable to people working remotely over VPN, especially developers?'. And you know what, the policy maker never, ever cares. They do whatever they want because that spot in the food chain where the next higher level is non-technical is a magnet for the callously incompetent.
No, too risky as an excuse sounds about right for investors in an uncertain climate. This is the whole reason for publicly-funded research. Too risky? Duh, yeah we need to go there. Risky, "novel" territory is where all the breakthroughs come from. DARPA understands this. But tell that to people who want to tear down public funding for everything.
There are a lot of existing examples
Story: One toddler dead, another critical after house fire.
Ad: Burn, baby, burn!
The inevitability of inappropriateness... can ya feel it?
between individuals and large organizations. I'll be for abolishing anonymity of individuals when we outlaw all secrecy in government and industry. Yes, even military. Yes, even "trade secrets". You want transparency, start there.
The author should read this article.