There's a lot of dependent programs out there. In addition to organizations running older versions of Internet Explorer, there are also those running earlier versions of Java and other constructs which have changed over time. I know some of this is happenstance, you can't force a language to continue supporting everything you put into your program. But some of this is people putting in deprecated objects and functions. Why would you do that? Maybe it'll be faster, but they've already warned you that, "Hey, this probably won't be here in the near future!" Doing it another way isn't going to be better for you now, but it'll keep you from being completely locked in later.
Remember when Facebook used to have a Wall to Wall feature? You know, you'd be able to click on someone's post on your wall, and then you'd see every wall post either of you had ever made to each other. I'm pretty sure you could use it on two friends, but this was a while ago and I can't quite remember. I also believe they removed the feature when they added comments on wall posts. If they didn't they sure hid it from me.
Now we have the See Friendship tool. It does... the same thing, pretty much, perhaps a little more extensively. Essentially you're all complaining about Facebook adding a feature they removed earlier out of redundancy. Do you have a right to complain? Yeah, of course you do. However, if you were fine with that feature before, don't you think it's a little hypocritical to criticize Facebook for putting it back in now, just because it's shiny and "new"?
You want to see what I see on the Internet, man? I will show you things, man. Crazy things, man. Things you've never even seen before, man. You won't be able to handle it, man. Your mind will melt, man! Game over, man! Game OVER, man!
You want to see what I view on the internet, man? I will show you things, man. Crazy things, man. Things you never even dreamed of, man. Your mind won't be able to handle it, man! Game over, man! Game OVER, man!
Let's put aside the ramifications of giving the President this power and just consider the hypothetical situation. A server is being bombarded by requests, or there's a malicious attack, or whatever. Wouldn't the administrators be smart enough to just pull the server off the network for a while until they get the system under control? You know, remove connections to the outside Internet, physical or otherwise. It's just a cable or configuration setting away.
It seems to me something you'd notice and get done before the bureaucracy even got their foot out the door.
Here's a mental exercise for the problem. Treat all your data sources like they were petulant little children. All of them are screaming for your attention, and you should acknowledge they exist, but you can only actually pay attention to one at a time. Once you've fixed one child's problem as well as you can, move on to the next one. If that child starts screaming again, well, you'll get back to him at some point in the rotation. If one of the children comes up to you and he's lit on fire, prioritize!
The main developers are making somewhat easier games (with difficulty settings) because that's the way the market works. If you make every game require the same level of memorization, reflexes, and skill as Battletoads, a large portion of people are going to stop buying your games pretty quickly. They're a business, they have to make money, so no surprise here that they try to cater to the larger demographic.
There are, however, independent developers who are still making difficult games. They don't have to answer to the bottom-line so much. Some of them even do it for fun. If you want a difficult challenge, go looking around for IWBTG and its ilk. Theyr'e not hard to find, and they won't cost you anything, except perhaps the keyboard you broke in half.
Well, everyone organizes things differently and has different mannerisms. What works well for one person might work poorly for another, and what's great for one group is not neccessarily good for another. The default configuration might be a solid general solution, but in game development you shouldn't figure the general solution is the optimal one for all your players.
I know the meat of this discussion is on the next expansion and the map editor, but the comment about the 1.2 patch boggles my mind. This is StarCraft. A game which is taken so seriously in competition that we actually measure a player's actions per minute. Who at Blizzard had the bright idea to disallow full hotkey mapping, and did he get canned for overlooking a "feature" which should be blatantly obvious?
I dunno, maybe they split up the work load. Maybe there's a lead software engineer for implementing the Zerg, the Protoss, the Terrans, the single-player engine, and the multiplayer backbone. Then all five of them report to and coordinate with the [insert title here] of the project. I don't know much about business hierarchies, but that's just one possibility which occured to me.
I think your last sentence is the real kicker. We could come up with a TLD that costs less than a.com, but if it doesn't have the recognition factor, it's not going to matter. People will use what they're familiar with and tend to avoid the unknown.
You're absolutely right! He could have manufactured the tools neccessary to collect the bacteria, found the bacteria, collected them, manufactured the tools to process the bacteria, and collect all the Butanol he could have possibly needed to get back home in time for dinner. It's so obvious!
Except for, you know, the fact that would take an incredibly long time and he'd be killed long before he succeeded.
Actually, you did say legislation only. I'm looking at your post right now and you mention nothing outside of legislation.
Also, considering I do work for state right now, I have an idea of the magnitude of personal information is held by the government. I see how protected it is. I see how significant it is. I won't even say my experience on the issue. You say yourself that more important data is less protected. What does that tell you about making a relation for voter information in a database?
Right, because legislation prevents crimes from happening. That's why we bulldozed all the jails. Oh, wait...
Secret ballots ultimately exist to stifle coercion. Of course, it still happens, but said coercers would actually have to be in the booth with you while you voted to know for sure whether or not you bent to pressure.
Actually, wait. If that's a direct quote, they just said when you buy the game, it becomes your property. Not that you buy a LICENSE to use the copy, but that you actually OWN the copy. There's an interesting wrench in the legal process if I ever saw one.
No no no, NASA, you've got it all wrong! You're supposed to ask for less funds than you need! Then when you do pull off your mission to Mars, you look like miracle workers!
Well, he came up with concepts, and not really the science behind it. What's happened is the scientific community sees these kinds of things, and thinks, "Hey, we can make that!" Then they try to develop the science, and they're succeeding at a reasonible pace. I'd actually argue that starting with the design in mind makes the process easier, because then you already know the end result you're trying to reach.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a lot of dependent programs out there. In addition to organizations running older versions of Internet Explorer, there are also those running earlier versions of Java and other constructs which have changed over time. I know some of this is happenstance, you can't force a language to continue supporting everything you put into your program. But some of this is people putting in deprecated objects and functions. Why would you do that? Maybe it'll be faster, but they've already warned you that, "Hey, this probably won't be here in the near future!" Doing it another way isn't going to be better for you now, but it'll keep you from being completely locked in later.
Remember when Facebook used to have a Wall to Wall feature? You know, you'd be able to click on someone's post on your wall, and then you'd see every wall post either of you had ever made to each other. I'm pretty sure you could use it on two friends, but this was a while ago and I can't quite remember. I also believe they removed the feature when they added comments on wall posts. If they didn't they sure hid it from me.
Now we have the See Friendship tool. It does... the same thing, pretty much, perhaps a little more extensively. Essentially you're all complaining about Facebook adding a feature they removed earlier out of redundancy. Do you have a right to complain? Yeah, of course you do. However, if you were fine with that feature before, don't you think it's a little hypocritical to criticize Facebook for putting it back in now, just because it's shiny and "new"?
Slashdot ate my freaking comment the first time, man. :[
You want to see what I see on the Internet, man? I will show you things, man. Crazy things, man. Things you've never even seen before, man. You won't be able to handle it, man. Your mind will melt, man! Game over, man! Game OVER, man!
You want to see what I view on the internet, man? I will show you things, man. Crazy things, man. Things you never even dreamed of, man. Your mind won't be able to handle it, man! Game over, man! Game OVER, man!
Forget this, I'll just wait for the next release. They can call it the Double Rainbow.
Let's put aside the ramifications of giving the President this power and just consider the hypothetical situation. A server is being bombarded by requests, or there's a malicious attack, or whatever. Wouldn't the administrators be smart enough to just pull the server off the network for a while until they get the system under control? You know, remove connections to the outside Internet, physical or otherwise. It's just a cable or configuration setting away.
It seems to me something you'd notice and get done before the bureaucracy even got their foot out the door.
Well how many distractions could there be while filling out aOOOH SHINY!
Here's a mental exercise for the problem. Treat all your data sources like they were petulant little children. All of them are screaming for your attention, and you should acknowledge they exist, but you can only actually pay attention to one at a time. Once you've fixed one child's problem as well as you can, move on to the next one. If that child starts screaming again, well, you'll get back to him at some point in the rotation. If one of the children comes up to you and he's lit on fire, prioritize!
Guess you're going to have to quit /. because we're using vanilla http at the moment as well.
Nonsense. All Blizzard products are the same. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to play some World of Diablo: Starclysm.
The main developers are making somewhat easier games (with difficulty settings) because that's the way the market works. If you make every game require the same level of memorization, reflexes, and skill as Battletoads, a large portion of people are going to stop buying your games pretty quickly. They're a business, they have to make money, so no surprise here that they try to cater to the larger demographic.
There are, however, independent developers who are still making difficult games. They don't have to answer to the bottom-line so much. Some of them even do it for fun. If you want a difficult challenge, go looking around for IWBTG and its ilk. Theyr'e not hard to find, and they won't cost you anything, except perhaps the keyboard you broke in half.
Well, everyone organizes things differently and has different mannerisms. What works well for one person might work poorly for another, and what's great for one group is not neccessarily good for another. The default configuration might be a solid general solution, but in game development you shouldn't figure the general solution is the optimal one for all your players.
I know the meat of this discussion is on the next expansion and the map editor, but the comment about the 1.2 patch boggles my mind. This is StarCraft. A game which is taken so seriously in competition that we actually measure a player's actions per minute. Who at Blizzard had the bright idea to disallow full hotkey mapping, and did he get canned for overlooking a "feature" which should be blatantly obvious?
I dunno, maybe they split up the work load. Maybe there's a lead software engineer for implementing the Zerg, the Protoss, the Terrans, the single-player engine, and the multiplayer backbone. Then all five of them report to and coordinate with the [insert title here] of the project. I don't know much about business hierarchies, but that's just one possibility which occured to me.
I think your last sentence is the real kicker. We could come up with a TLD that costs less than a .com, but if it doesn't have the recognition factor, it's not going to matter. People will use what they're familiar with and tend to avoid the unknown.
Nah, I just do improv a lot, and so have a very quick mind. ...maybe my mind glows in the dark? o_o;
So how long until I start getting spam messages about how I can use this to make my penis glow in the dark?
You're absolutely right! He could have manufactured the tools neccessary to collect the bacteria, found the bacteria, collected them, manufactured the tools to process the bacteria, and collect all the Butanol he could have possibly needed to get back home in time for dinner. It's so obvious!
Except for, you know, the fact that would take an incredibly long time and he'd be killed long before he succeeded.
Sue Marcellus Gilmore Edson.
Actually, you did say legislation only. I'm looking at your post right now and you mention nothing outside of legislation.
Also, considering I do work for state right now, I have an idea of the magnitude of personal information is held by the government. I see how protected it is. I see how significant it is. I won't even say my experience on the issue. You say yourself that more important data is less protected. What does that tell you about making a relation for voter information in a database?
Right, because legislation prevents crimes from happening. That's why we bulldozed all the jails. Oh, wait...
Secret ballots ultimately exist to stifle coercion. Of course, it still happens, but said coercers would actually have to be in the booth with you while you voted to know for sure whether or not you bent to pressure.
Actually, wait. If that's a direct quote, they just said when you buy the game, it becomes your property. Not that you buy a LICENSE to use the copy, but that you actually OWN the copy. There's an interesting wrench in the legal process if I ever saw one.
No no no, NASA, you've got it all wrong! You're supposed to ask for less funds than you need! Then when you do pull off your mission to Mars, you look like miracle workers!
Well, he came up with concepts, and not really the science behind it. What's happened is the scientific community sees these kinds of things, and thinks, "Hey, we can make that!" Then they try to develop the science, and they're succeeding at a reasonible pace. I'd actually argue that starting with the design in mind makes the process easier, because then you already know the end result you're trying to reach.