Tell that to the Big Boy publishing industry, who still predominantly take queries and submissions only in hard copy handed to them by a postal worker. It's changing, but glacially...
I worked in publishing for several years, and I shudder to think of the volume of garbage that would ensue if the barrier of printing and mailing a manuscript (as low a barrier as that might be) were removed. The industry does move at a glacial pace in all regards, but the poor sucker who has to manage the slush pile is right in the calving zone.
Discerning the inner workings of an electronic parking meter is one thing. Using that knowledge to park for free is no different from fooling a coin slot with a slug (ah, the lost art of physical craftsmanship).
This is just petty crime with a dab of "Hey, everybody, lookit how smart I am". Okay. Wow, you got free parking. Nice work, tool.
I got skeptical with the anti-government rant and quit when you cited a fictional sci-fi television show for "evidence". Note in my original comment that I mentioned applying my own filter even to professionally gathered news.
All human communication is vulnerable to bias. As a mature adult, I recognize this and make the appropriate adjustments to my credulity. Professional news is, in a sense, the devil we know. We know it is biased towards the governmental and corporate status quo. That is an easy bias to correct for when reading the news.
Eyewitnesses about whom we know nothing WRT their agenda or credibility are hardly a more reliable source.
Breaking a story and reporting are not the same thing. Obviously, the vast majority of news stories are "broken" by eyewitnesses who are rarely journalists. That's not reporting.
There is a difference between being out in the cold from a technological perspective and being irrelevant. Professional news gathering is very relevant to me, even if I have to apply my own filters to it. What are the alternatives? Blogging? "Social Media"? Please.
Or are you implying that information about current events itself is no longer relevant? If so, I would say that process started when syndicated sit-com re-runs started competing with network evening news broadcasts, giving people who would rather be entertained than informed more and more options.
If there was a tiny button like "spam" or "off topic", I would click it and have the really mattering ads show. It is not something can be done by Google or Slashdot.
There are not ads that matter to me, ever. I never follow unsolicited advertisements and make a purchase (or I didn't before I got browser software that blocked them from appearing in the first place).
There are specific sites and types of sites where people may be inclined to click on ads -- but these are not ads dropped in by a third party. As far as I am concerned, the type of ads sold by Google are for suckers, by suckers. Its an underworld of commerce that doesn't interest or concern me.
Suffice it to say, I don't see much future in the "quality control" of ads. Advertisers are customers to Google, et al., not partners in improving the user experience.
For a long time, I don't click to software "want to download...., click here?" ads too. I don't trust them, I go to site itself or a trusted, edited download site. That is where my "mcafee siteadvisor" idea comes from..
. . . if AT&T tries to defend its existing business model by hamstringing the iPhone, it may work in the short-term, but in the long-term its going to make it easier for other phones to displace the iPhone as the mobile device of choice, which will hurt Apple and AT&T both.
There is no "long-term" in business any more. ATT's only concern is wringing as much money out of today's subscribers as it can today. Apple's only concern is soaking up customer's disposable income with disposable gadgets.
All companies, if they wish to remain in buisness, have just one goal: make the most money they can out of each individual customer.
What does that have to do with anything? You say that as though there were some objective manner in which to do so -- as though this corporate prime directive excuses the actions of any of these companies.
Even if we reject the fuzzy notion of a "good" company, I think we can judge companies on the intelligence of the decisions they make. Is Apple making smart choices WRT apps on the iPhone -- as in, choices that make the platform, their services and the services of their partners more attractive to you? Not to me, FWIW.
Then again, I think most of their products are diminished by their overweening design "philosophy".
Don't forget all the clerks and typists who lost their jobs due to the computer; hope you "spoke out" for them.
Ugh, what a cheap response. I suppose we should all suffer the same fate as clerks and typists, lest we fall the victim to "well, you aren't perfect or blameless". I'll keep my job and attempt to learn from history, thanks.
Beyond that, I think the most you can say is that Python seems more approachable due to its relatively simplistic syntax. That doesn't translate to "readability" in terms of understanding the code though. Picking up on syntactical conventions is a fairly superficial aspect of learning to read code.
First they came for the "lame" apps that wanted to be distributed on the iPhone, but I didn't care because I didn't have and iPhone and/or trust Apple to filter apps for me. . .
Its easy to shrug your shoulders now, when you don't care about a particular functionality. Or if you happen to be the type that habitually runs their cash through Apple's distribution system to buy gimmicky apps that you only use once.
just don't know how it can save "55 million tons of CO2 a year"....people who drive a little will continue to drive a little with this insurance or not.
I drive so little that while $4/gallon gas was annoying it wasn't really an incentive to change my driving habits. I easily pay more for insurance a year than gas, and those hundreds of dollars in cost are more than annoying. If driving less meant that I could cut that cost down it would be an effective incentive to drive even less. I would still have a car for times when I truly need it, but I would cut down on small trips that I really could do on foot or by bike if the insurance savings justified the inconvenience.
Use of these kinds of obviously bogus metrics is common in many industries. Its disturbing to consider their cumulative influence on our economy and national psyche.
What happened to innovation? Most games now are all sequels to previous games with better graphics or newer engines than the previous release and the principal is still the same. Where is the cutting edge ? Something new that hasn't been done before ?
Complaints about lack of innovation in games are hardly innovative.
I think back on earlier rpg's for e.g. The player was actually allowed to input text instead of choosing from some stupid presets. Think of this with today's technology.
Thinking back to earlier games for features to re-tread is hardly innovative.
Who gave you the idea that anyone bought a Pre solely to use iTunes on a non-Apple handset?
This is just a dick move on Apples part, period. They are embroiling for their own software and content customers in their pissing war with another handset manufacturer.
If it were easy to buy any of these devices and use them on any network, maybe you would have a point about "competition" and leveraging exclusive features.
Re:A better book would be "How New Systems Succeed
on
Why New Systems Fail
·
· Score: 1
Because why they fail is not all that interesting
Be sure to tune in for tonight's episode of "When animals don't attack".
Bing is just the latest iteration of Microsoft's search engine. Just a quick glance seems to indicate that "official" search engines from Google and MS have been around since 1998 and 1999, respectively.
1 out of 1(0) users know what they want and can express it.
5 out of 10 times they want something that can't be done. 4 out of 10 times they want something that can be done but shouldn't. 1 out of 10 times they want something both worthwhile and achievable.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell that to the Big Boy publishing industry, who still predominantly take queries and submissions only in hard copy handed to them by a postal worker. It's changing, but glacially...
I worked in publishing for several years, and I shudder to think of the volume of garbage that would ensue if the barrier of printing and mailing a manuscript (as low a barrier as that might be) were removed. The industry does move at a glacial pace in all regards, but the poor sucker who has to manage the slush pile is right in the calving zone.
Discerning the inner workings of an electronic parking meter is one thing. Using that knowledge to park for free is no different from fooling a coin slot with a slug (ah, the lost art of physical craftsmanship).
This is just petty crime with a dab of "Hey, everybody, lookit how smart I am". Okay. Wow, you got free parking. Nice work, tool.
I got skeptical with the anti-government rant and quit when you cited a fictional sci-fi television show for "evidence". Note in my original comment that I mentioned applying my own filter even to professionally gathered news.
All human communication is vulnerable to bias. As a mature adult, I recognize this and make the appropriate adjustments to my credulity. Professional news is, in a sense, the devil we know. We know it is biased towards the governmental and corporate status quo. That is an easy bias to correct for when reading the news.
Eyewitnesses about whom we know nothing WRT their agenda or credibility are hardly a more reliable source.
Breaking a story and reporting are not the same thing. Obviously, the vast majority of news stories are "broken" by eyewitnesses who are rarely journalists. That's not reporting.
There is a difference between being out in the cold from a technological perspective and being irrelevant. Professional news gathering is very relevant to me, even if I have to apply my own filters to it. What are the alternatives? Blogging? "Social Media"? Please.
Or are you implying that information about current events itself is no longer relevant? If so, I would say that process started when syndicated sit-com re-runs started competing with network evening news broadcasts, giving people who would rather be entertained than informed more and more options.
Sorry AP,
In an age when everyone carries an internet-enabled phone with a camera, you just aren't needed.
We're not sure who your replacement will be. But it won't be you.
It sure as hell won't be everyone and their internet-enabled phone.
Ugh. You just made paying for news much more appealing.
If there was a tiny button like "spam" or "off topic", I would click it and have the really mattering ads show. It is not something can be done by Google or Slashdot.
There are not ads that matter to me, ever. I never follow unsolicited advertisements and make a purchase (or I didn't before I got browser software that blocked them from appearing in the first place).
There are specific sites and types of sites where people may be inclined to click on ads -- but these are not ads dropped in by a third party. As far as I am concerned, the type of ads sold by Google are for suckers, by suckers. Its an underworld of commerce that doesn't interest or concern me.
Suffice it to say, I don't see much future in the "quality control" of ads. Advertisers are customers to Google, et al., not partners in improving the user experience.
For a long time, I don't click to software "want to download ...., click here?" ads too. I don't trust them, I go to site itself or a trusted, edited download site. That is where my "mcafee siteadvisor" idea comes from..
Good grief, why would ever have trusted them!?
. . . if AT&T tries to defend its existing business model by hamstringing the iPhone, it may work in the short-term, but in the long-term its going to make it easier for other phones to displace the iPhone as the mobile device of choice, which will hurt Apple and AT&T both.
There is no "long-term" in business any more. ATT's only concern is wringing as much money out of today's subscribers as it can today. Apple's only concern is soaking up customer's disposable income with disposable gadgets.
All companies, if they wish to remain in buisness, have just one goal: make the most money they can out of each individual customer.
What does that have to do with anything? You say that as though there were some objective manner in which to do so -- as though this corporate prime directive excuses the actions of any of these companies.
Even if we reject the fuzzy notion of a "good" company, I think we can judge companies on the intelligence of the decisions they make. Is Apple making smart choices WRT apps on the iPhone -- as in, choices that make the platform, their services and the services of their partners more attractive to you? Not to me, FWIW.
Then again, I think most of their products are diminished by their overweening design "philosophy".
Don't forget all the clerks and typists who lost their jobs due to the computer; hope you "spoke out" for them.
Ugh, what a cheap response. I suppose we should all suffer the same fate as clerks and typists, lest we fall the victim to "well, you aren't perfect or blameless". I'll keep my job and attempt to learn from history, thanks.
By "read" do you mean read aloud?
Beyond that, I think the most you can say is that Python seems more approachable due to its relatively simplistic syntax. That doesn't translate to "readability" in terms of understanding the code though. Picking up on syntactical conventions is a fairly superficial aspect of learning to read code.
Or phishy.
To be fair, the summary presents this as a debate of "the merits of their various languages", not an attempt to cast one as the "best".
Its kind of ironic that you are projecting this "Highlander" attitude that you deride.
Agree, except it seems like someone named Rod Johnson would be a Python kind of guy.
First they came for the "lame" apps that wanted to be distributed on the iPhone, but I didn't care because I didn't have and iPhone and/or trust Apple to filter apps for me. . .
Its easy to shrug your shoulders now, when you don't care about a particular functionality. Or if you happen to be the type that habitually runs their cash through Apple's distribution system to buy gimmicky apps that you only use once.
You missed the point. Its a quality argument, not a quantity argument.
just don't know how it can save "55 million tons of CO2 a year"....people who drive a little will continue to drive a little with this insurance or not.
I drive so little that while $4/gallon gas was annoying it wasn't really an incentive to change my driving habits. I easily pay more for insurance a year than gas, and those hundreds of dollars in cost are more than annoying. If driving less meant that I could cut that cost down it would be an effective incentive to drive even less. I would still have a car for times when I truly need it, but I would cut down on small trips that I really could do on foot or by bike if the insurance savings justified the inconvenience.
Use of these kinds of obviously bogus metrics is common in many industries. Its disturbing to consider their cumulative influence on our economy and national psyche.
What happened to innovation? Most games now are all sequels to previous games with better graphics or newer engines than the previous release and the principal is still the same. Where is the cutting edge ? Something new that hasn't been done before ?
Complaints about lack of innovation in games are hardly innovative.
I think back on earlier rpg's for e.g. The player was actually allowed to input text instead of choosing from some stupid presets. Think of this with today's technology.
Thinking back to earlier games for features to re-tread is hardly innovative.
See, innovating is not so easy.
Who gave you the idea that anyone bought a Pre solely to use iTunes on a non-Apple handset?
This is just a dick move on Apples part, period. They are embroiling for their own software and content customers in their pissing war with another handset manufacturer.
If it were easy to buy any of these devices and use them on any network, maybe you would have a point about "competition" and leveraging exclusive features.
Because why they fail is not all that interesting
Be sure to tune in for tonight's episode of "When animals don't attack".
Please?
So its either maximize efficiency or maximize jobs? Go stand over there with the Commies and the Captains of Capital. Noses to the corner, please.
Good enough is often as close as you are going to get for a massive user base.
Also, I see that you don't even credit any of the "competition" for rising to the the lowly standard you castigate Microsoft for settling on.
"I'll see your crappy 'good enough' Office and raise you with my 'very useable' Open Office". LOL
Bing is just the latest iteration of Microsoft's search engine. Just a quick glance seems to indicate that "official" search engines from Google and MS have been around since 1998 and 1999, respectively.
1 out of 1(0) users know what they want and can express it.
5 out of 10 times they want something that can't be done.
4 out of 10 times they want something that can be done but shouldn't.
1 out of 10 times they want something both worthwhile and achievable.