There's nothing wrong with the word 'patriot', but I find something inherently offensive about the way that it's being used as a political toy to manipulate public opinion. It's the same with all of Bush's "god" stuff.
As a programmer who many years ago swore blind that there was no reason for using classes and objects on website
I put together a javascript/php-based web aministration tool for a web site, that without classes, would have been a nightmare. Classes aren't necessary in every case, but when the problem space reaches a certain level of complexity, NOT using them can be a very poor choice. But then, after one decides that classes would be appropriate, using them effectively is a whole different ball game.
You and I are saying the same thing, it's just that I didn't articulate it very well. The architect and (software) engineer design, the bricklayers and programmers implement.
Perhaps one could say that a programmer applies a degree of engineering when it comes to how to construct a class (if this is even left up to them), but an 'engineer' (at least in my opinion), requires knowledge and appreciation of the bigger picture - the engineer is the one that takes all variables into consideration, and comes up a best-fit solution - it's the programmer's responsibility to produce that solution (much the way that carpenters, bricklayers, masons, and steelworkers would construct a building designed by an architect).
I'd say, at least in some cases, programmers are to software engineering as graphic artists are to effective web design. As much as those involved would like to flatter themselves into thinking otherwise, I think the results often speak for themselves.
Well, well, well...looks like the phone companies are tightening the thumbscrews on new technology. Now that media covergence is drastically changing the landscape, turning voice data into just another type of packet on the network, the phone companies are surely in a tizzy. The whole concept of a "long distance call" is undergoing a complete rennaissance, since one can now pass voice data over the internet, completely bypassing the traditional call switching mechanism. One could conceivably setup a couple of PSTN gateways and pass calls end-to-end without any long distance charges. There's at least one thing they'll have to reconcile: It's not considered a "long distance" service if I interact with a remote server from my local ISP connection, but somehow, it magically turns into a "long distance" issue if voice data is involved. What do you bet that they propose slapping a charge on ALL interstate internet traffic- you know, just so everything is consistent?
If this law is in fact targeting this kind of technology, how are they going to prevent it? Are they simply going to outlaw voice over IP?
There is a big difference between a patriot (someone who willingly supports whatever are efforts required sustain a country's constitutionally-defined structure, and constitutionally-guaranteed freedom), and a nationalist (someone who blindly accepts whatever atrocities their government wishes to enact). This begs the question as to who the 'patriots' really are - the people protesting this kind of legislation, and perhaps even the war effort in Iraq, or the ones who blindly accept it as a 'cost of doing freedom.' Oh, the irony.
One of the players engaging in this automated counterfeiting, a 29-year-old financial planner from Texas, said he did so without apology (although he did not want to be identified by name). "I think the bots actually level the playing field for people who have day jobs," he said. "When I play an online game, I can't be the best because there are some college kids out there spending 14 hours a day."
Judging by his definition of leveling the playing field, he must have been an Anderson intern.
Why would I be interested? I'd just be fueling the fire. If you're as good as you think you are, why don't you put your talent toward something productive - something that demonstrates a sense of integrity, as opposed to one of outright contempt.
I guess I can understand why it might sound funny, but I assure you that my interest in the Mac was quite technical. Since there were few development options on the Mac, I was drawn into 68000 assembly language programming. Not for the faint-of-heart, I assure you.
If you're so proud of your coding prowess, show your face...let us know who you are, and your online moniker. And if you did play for money using any kind of cheat, I'd HOPE that you'd be tried for fraud. People like you make online gaming a miserable experience for a great many honest players. Get a life. Play honestly, or don't play at all.
When the Mac first came out, I spent about six months reading technical manuals for IBM's OS370. I wanted to actually work with mainframes, but the people that ran the shops acted like it was some holy grail or something, as though you had no chance of setting FOOT in a data center unless you knew a super-secret magic chant or something. I still think the big iron is fascinating, but I've never been quite motivated to resume my interest (the salaries don't really help, either).
As for C++ programmers - someone made a comment regarding competition among "qualified" c++ programmers. I'd argue that the ability to toss some code into a class so that it compiles with a C++ compiler does NOT a C++ programmer make. If you count only those who know both the language, and how to use it effectively, I'd guess that your competition goes way down.
I hope Redhat completely rewrite Disk Druid (as used with the installer). I never thought it was possible to pack so much aggravation into such a small space, but it has been done, and quite handily.
Often times, I've wanted to report a bug, but run into a number of obstacles...like the requirement that I create yet another account, on yet another server, with yet another password. While I have a great deal of respect for those that participate in open source development, one of the ways that developers help us help them is allow the means to report bugs without hassling with a bunch of unnecessary overhead.
I think you're forgetting that when you walk out in PUBLIC (it's called that for a reason) you are no longer PRIVATE.
You are taking a situation of necessity, and turning it into a justification for something that isn't correct, ethical, or warranted. If I want to get from my home to another location, I have no other reasonable alternative than to use the public roadways, walkways, and other areas. I believe these are often referred to as the commons - that is, resources available for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone. One of many problems that exist with modern-day surveillance it that government agencies have engaged in a massive usurpation of the commons, turning them into their own, private, often unsupervised, playground for spying and profiling, and all, I'd argue, in violation of the 4th Amendment.
On another note, just because I am in public does not mean that I relinquish any and all rights to conduct my life without intrusion or interference. It does not bestow upon anyone any more right to know who I am, what I am doing, or why I am there - the only difference is that when I am in public, I am at a location that is equally accessible by everyone. That's ALL. Nothing more.
Consider this quote from the article: Many country domain managers are furious at ICANN's constant efforts to get them to sign up to a new set of ICANN terms and conditions - often under threat of withholding vital services - that would effectively hand over control of their domain to the organisation.
This an issue that people all over the world face , both collective entities and individuals, as more and more centralized authorities attempt to both aggregate and control information, as well as any associated privileges it may confer.
While some might argue that a centralized authority is necessary for an organized, well-structured effort, I'd point out that centralized authorities are a form of power and control. Human nature being what it is, this often leads to an effort to acquire more of the same, regardless of its effect on any initial objectives. ICANN should be looking for ways to centralize control over matters related to manage a set of general guidelines within which each member must operate, while still allowing them an appropriate degree of autonomy. It all boils down to an issue of sovreignty, and how this will manifest itself with respect to the internet.
You're confusing cause and effect. The way to make money - and the publishers know this - is to sell the market what it wants at a price it is willing to pay.
I think you're being a little too generous. The publishers sell the market what they know works. They know it works because they've already done it - that's why sequels are so common. Granted, any given sequel can sport some really poor gameplay compared to a prior version, but all things being equal, it's probably the option with the least amount of risk and the greatest potential ROI. I'd also suggest that while it might appear as though this is what the market wants, but it's also all the market has to offer.
This is actually a very interesting comment, since it relates to the very issue that's being discussed in the article. It seems that any industry that involves any kind of publishing entity, faces the same problems. Publishers are in it to make money, and they'll do what will make that happen - even if it means throttling back things like creativity and innovation. What I'd like to see (and quite frankly, what I'm surprised hasn't happened in a more visible given the presence of the internet), is for publishing companies to fall by the wayside, while the creative types establish either a centralized or easily-accessible e-distribution channel.
This whole publishing thing, it seems, is just BEGGING for a different, more efficient business model (both monetarily and in terms of intangible factors like creativity). Games developers who aren't with any of the 'big few' who make big bucks on a good release, are stuck with working with publishers. I get the impression that publishers often make the process more tedious, and are in a prime position to lower the integrity of the process by dorking around with royalties, net revenue figures, etc - all of which are used to ascertain how much the game developer gets paid. I'd love to see this process changed so that games developers, like music artists, get more of what they deserve, and and a lot less of the burden introduced by the current business model.
I have a younger friend who is considering some level of involvement in programming/designing games. Particular questions include:
- What specialized areas of knowledge will be most useful (math, physics, for example?)
- What's a reasonable expectation for an annual income?
- If one is using a pre-existing gaming engine, what exactly is it that needs to be programmed (he's thinking c++)?
Basically, he's wondering if he can turn his passion for playing games into one that involves creating them, but he also wants to sure he won't have to starve in order to do it.
I wasn't so much questioning the quality of Amazon's service, as I was questioning their greed and their and ethics. For me, it doesn't matter how 'good' it is- if they suck because they're patent whores (or just plain unethical like Microsoft), I'd rather give my money to someone else. It all boils down to how much you as a consumer are willing to give up in terms of convenience in order to stand up for some well-founded principles. It's the same problem with RIAA and the music biz.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing wrong with the word 'patriot', but I find something inherently offensive about the way that it's being used as a political toy to manipulate public opinion. It's the same with all of Bush's "god" stuff.
As a programmer who many years ago swore blind that there was no reason for using classes and objects on website
I put together a javascript/php-based web aministration tool for a web site, that without classes, would have been a nightmare. Classes aren't necessary in every case, but when the problem space reaches a certain level of complexity, NOT using them can be a very poor choice. But then, after one decides that classes would be appropriate, using them effectively is a whole different ball game.
You and I are saying the same thing, it's just that I didn't articulate it very well. The architect and (software) engineer design, the bricklayers and programmers implement.
Perhaps one could say that a programmer applies a degree of engineering when it comes to how to construct a class (if this is even left up to them), but an 'engineer' (at least in my opinion), requires knowledge and appreciation of the bigger picture - the engineer is the one that takes all variables into consideration, and comes up a best-fit solution - it's the programmer's responsibility to produce that solution (much the way that carpenters, bricklayers, masons, and steelworkers would construct a building designed by an architect).
I'd say, at least in some cases, programmers are to software engineering as graphic artists are to effective web design. As much as those involved would like to flatter themselves into thinking otherwise, I think the results often speak for themselves.
Well, well, well...looks like the phone companies are tightening the thumbscrews on new technology. Now that media covergence is drastically changing the landscape, turning voice data into just another type of packet on the network, the phone companies are surely in a tizzy. The whole concept of a "long distance call" is undergoing a complete rennaissance, since one can now pass voice data over the internet, completely bypassing the traditional call switching mechanism. One could conceivably setup a couple of PSTN gateways and pass calls end-to-end without any long distance charges. There's at least one thing they'll have to reconcile: It's not considered a "long distance" service if I interact with a remote server from my local ISP connection, but somehow, it magically turns into a "long distance" issue if voice data is involved. What do you bet that they propose slapping a charge on ALL interstate internet traffic- you know, just so everything is consistent?
If this law is in fact targeting this kind of technology, how are they going to prevent it? Are they simply going to outlaw voice over IP?
There is a big difference between a patriot (someone who willingly supports whatever are efforts required sustain a country's constitutionally-defined structure, and constitutionally-guaranteed freedom), and a nationalist (someone who blindly accepts whatever atrocities their government wishes to enact). This begs the question as to who the 'patriots' really are - the people protesting this kind of legislation, and perhaps even the war effort in Iraq, or the ones who blindly accept it as a 'cost of doing freedom.' Oh, the irony.
One of the players engaging in this automated counterfeiting, a 29-year-old financial planner from Texas, said he did so without apology (although he did not want to be identified by name). "I think the bots actually level the playing field for people who have day jobs," he said. "When I play an online game, I can't be the best because there are some college kids out there spending 14 hours a day."
Judging by his definition of leveling the playing field, he must have been an Anderson intern.
If you are interested download my bot and RE it.
Why would I be interested? I'd just be fueling the fire. If you're as good as you think you are, why don't you put your talent toward something productive - something that demonstrates a sense of integrity, as opposed to one of outright contempt.
I guess I can understand why it might sound funny, but I assure you that my interest in the Mac was quite technical. Since there were few development options on the Mac, I was drawn into 68000 assembly language programming. Not for the faint-of-heart, I assure you.
If you're so proud of your coding prowess, show your face...let us know who you are, and your online moniker. And if you did play for money using any kind of cheat, I'd HOPE that you'd be tried for fraud. People like you make online gaming a miserable experience for a great many honest players. Get a life. Play honestly, or don't play at all.
Guilty until proven innocent.
How else will they be able to reconcile erroneous data?
When the Mac first came out, I spent about six months reading technical manuals for IBM's OS370. I wanted to actually work with mainframes, but the people that ran the shops acted like it was some holy grail or something, as though you had no chance of setting FOOT in a data center unless you knew a super-secret magic chant or something. I still think the big iron is fascinating, but I've never been quite motivated to resume my interest (the salaries don't really help, either).
As for C++ programmers - someone made a comment regarding competition among "qualified" c++ programmers. I'd argue that the ability to toss some code into a class so that it compiles with a C++ compiler does NOT a C++ programmer make. If you count only those who know both the language, and how to use it effectively, I'd guess that your competition goes way down.
I hope Redhat completely rewrite Disk Druid (as used with the installer). I never thought it was possible to pack so much aggravation into such a small space, but it has been done, and quite handily.
What's even more criminal is the poor English:
Which is great news for the survival of your company.
Don't you understand that your right to keep your cell phone private is far less important than everyone else's right to make money selling it?
This public service message brought to you by USA, Inc.
Often times, I've wanted to report a bug, but run into a number of obstacles...like the requirement that I create yet another account, on yet another server, with yet another password. While I have a great deal of respect for those that participate in open source development, one of the ways that developers help us help them is allow the means to report bugs without hassling with a bunch of unnecessary overhead.
I think you're forgetting that when you walk out in PUBLIC (it's called that for a reason) you are no longer PRIVATE.
You are taking a situation of necessity, and turning it into a justification for something that isn't correct, ethical, or warranted. If I want to get from my home to another location, I have no other reasonable alternative than to use the public roadways, walkways, and other areas. I believe these are often referred to as the commons - that is, resources available for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone. One of many problems that exist with modern-day surveillance it that government agencies have engaged in a massive usurpation of the commons, turning them into their own, private, often unsupervised, playground for spying and profiling, and all, I'd argue, in violation of the 4th Amendment.
On another note, just because I am in public does not mean that I relinquish any and all rights to conduct my life without intrusion or interference. It does not bestow upon anyone any more right to know who I am, what I am doing, or why I am there - the only difference is that when I am in public, I am at a location that is equally accessible by everyone. That's ALL. Nothing more.
Just ban Microsoft, since it supplies the software being pirated.
Consider this quote from the article: Many country domain managers are furious at ICANN's constant efforts to get them to sign up to a new set of ICANN terms and conditions - often under threat of withholding vital services - that would effectively hand over control of their domain to the organisation.
This an issue that people all over the world face , both collective entities and individuals, as more and more centralized authorities attempt to both aggregate and control information, as well as any associated privileges it may confer.
While some might argue that a centralized authority is necessary for an organized, well-structured effort, I'd point out that centralized authorities are a form of power and control. Human nature being what it is, this often leads to an effort to acquire more of the same, regardless of its effect on any initial objectives. ICANN should be looking for ways to centralize control over matters related to manage a set of general guidelines within which each member must operate, while still allowing them an appropriate degree of autonomy. It all boils down to an issue of sovreignty, and how this will manifest itself with respect to the internet.
You're confusing cause and effect. The way to make money - and the publishers know this - is to sell the market what it wants at a price it is willing to pay.
I think you're being a little too generous. The publishers sell the market what they know works. They know it works because they've already done it - that's why sequels are so common. Granted, any given sequel can sport some really poor gameplay compared to a prior version, but all things being equal, it's probably the option with the least amount of risk and the greatest potential ROI.
I'd also suggest that while it might appear as though this is what the market wants, but it's also all the market has to offer.
This is actually a very interesting comment, since it relates to the very issue that's being discussed in the article. It seems that any industry that involves any kind of publishing entity, faces the same problems. Publishers are in it to make money, and they'll do what will make that happen - even if it means throttling back things like creativity and innovation. What I'd like to see (and quite frankly, what I'm surprised hasn't happened in a more visible given the presence of the internet), is for publishing companies to fall by the wayside, while the creative types establish either a centralized or easily-accessible e-distribution channel.
This whole publishing thing, it seems, is just BEGGING for a different, more efficient business model (both monetarily and in terms of intangible factors like creativity). Games developers who aren't with any of the 'big few' who make big bucks on a good release, are stuck with working with publishers. I get the impression that publishers often make the process more tedious, and are in a prime position to lower the integrity of the process by dorking around with royalties, net revenue figures, etc - all of which are used to ascertain how much the game developer gets paid. I'd love to see this process changed so that games developers, like music artists, get more of what they deserve, and and a lot less of the burden introduced by the current business model.
I have a younger friend who is considering some level of involvement in programming/designing games. Particular questions include:
- What specialized areas of knowledge will be most useful (math, physics, for example?)
- What's a reasonable expectation for an annual income?
- If one is using a pre-existing gaming engine, what exactly is it that needs to be programmed (he's thinking c++)?
Basically, he's wondering if he can turn his passion for playing games into one that involves creating them, but he also wants to sure he won't have to starve in order to do it.
I hope this isn't too far OT.
What G**gle is doing is basically quantifying word of mouth.
What probably makes it special and innovative is that it has the words using a computer somewhere in the definition.
I wasn't so much questioning the quality of Amazon's service, as I was questioning their greed and their and ethics. For me, it doesn't matter how 'good' it is- if they suck because they're patent whores (or just plain unethical like Microsoft), I'd rather give my money to someone else. It all boils down to how much you as a consumer are willing to give up in terms of convenience in order to stand up for some well-founded principles. It's the same problem with RIAA and the music biz.
You're right. I got this mixed up with the article mentioned just before that discusses the issues with Windows Update.