Yeah, double cheeseburger meals usually with small fry and prefer water. Both appropriate amount of food and cheaper. Occasionally I'll get a big mac meal with a soda.
I eat fast food regularly, I never eat whole wheat, I live at a desk. I'm 5'9", weight 145 pounds and can bench press 175, not great but acceptable. Maybe I have a better metabolism that most everyone else or I just eat when I need to and no more.
I've seen plenty of brilliant people producing kids who are dumb and irresponsible. "Giving these genetic lines "more opportunities" to proliferate is counter-productive."... wait, did we just kill off the entire human population?
I was tempted to post a comment about this article going woosh over most everyone. Though I think its partially the fault of the article not explaining why this thinking is necessary rather than just explaining what the necessary thinking is.
What it seems like to my vaguely educated opinion is we need to find a way to identify those capable of learning, rather than those who currently have a certain level of knowledge. The existing tests for entering college test what someone already knows, this hints at their ability to learn but does not prove someone has the ability to further their learning. Too often I've seen highly qualified, intelligent people fail miserably at college and barely qualified people find their ability to learn and excel in college.
Seems like if we could identify those who will excel regardless of their background, we could keep the wealthy but unable to learn out of college and get the poorly trained by highly intelligent individuals into college. Probably an impossible task though.
I think ultimately this shows a complete failure of the educational system in this particular aspect. People complain about the educational system taking over the jobs of parents (and I don't particularly like that either) but who is supposed to take the job when the parents aren't bothering to do it? It isn't the child's fault when no one who is responsible for the child are doing anything for that child but how do we fix it?
Maybe saying the educational system failed is putting too much on the educational system but again, how do we give someone opportunities when those responsible are failing to?
"Short of amending the State Constitution, a Herculean task, racial minorities in Michigan are deprived of even an opportunity to convince Michigan's public colleges and universities to consider race in their admission plans..."
It sounds like what she wants is colleges to consider race during admissions. Please explain to me how race would even factor in unless a higher qualified person of one race is rejected in favor of a lesser qualified person of another race?
I'll admit I'm about as white as they come so according to many who are not white I am unqualified to provide an opinion. However I will say if I was given preferential treatment for anything to my knowledge because of my color and not my qualifications I would be pissed off to the point of declining that treatment.
Agreed, the summary (and the article too) seems to cover the what of the thought process when I think why this is complex is probably more interesting. They why this is necessary is the consequences when these items are not thought out.
One example I can think of off the top of my head is, a door that is being used to prevent access to a special area in an MMO. If it isn't designed to restrict access appropriately, it devalues that room. Another question comes in when you consider if you actually need a door preventing access or if some other method would be more appropriate.
I think this article would be far more interesting with examples of real life systems showing the consequences of not fully thinking out the design of something simple. Why was the chosen design implemented and why did it turn out not to the be best decision when that part of the game was played?
In medical and avionics the designers are forced to take regulations and certification into account because failure can have sever consequences (injury or death). This (hopefully) means the design process will get things more things right before development starts and everything right before the application is released.
In computer game and basic application development these regulations don't exist. This means that either the designers use the same amount of discipline used up front in critical application development, or they take a lot more time later when the software ends up not working as intended (if they decide to fix the issues anyway).
Ultimately development of non critical (games, windows apps that do not affect life and limb) or critical (medical, avionics, etc) applications is the same. Both take inputs, process them and produce outputs. Both have the same immediate consequences if not coded correctly, the wrong outputs for a given set of inputs. It is only the impact of using those outputs that has differing levels of consequence, ex annoyance, injury, death.
It has little to do with technology coping and how you implement these behaviors in code in a way that works smoothly and consistently.
So what I read is you think the "technology" should be able to implement reality? "Technology" does not exist, code written by humans does and writing this code takes time. Say it takes ten hours to implement code for a non realistic door to be coded up, a hundred hours for a fairly realistic door to be implemented and a thousand hours for a completely realistic door. Is the developer going to go with the simple door that cost $250 to implement and makes most users happy or the complex door that cost $25,000 to implement?
Now look at the fact that that door is 0.001% of the total complexity of the game. If the entire game is implemented with the same complexity, how many people have to buy this $2.5Bn game for it to be profitable?
5. What happens if there are two players? Doors behave the same for all players. It's a door. See point 2.
Great, it behaves the same for all players. Does that mean when one player unlocks the door it always remains unlocked for everyone or do we have a door that automatically relocks after it is closed? Say access to an area is restricted as part of a high level quest. When one player completes the quest after hours of questing and gains access to the special area we want all players, including those who just started the game, to be able to enter this hard to attain room?
It isn't just about making a door behave like a door, its a question of what does this door mean to the whole game, what does each door mean to the whole game?
This is where the power company needs to improve their power storage capability, rather than their power generation capability. If they could store enough power to smooth out the peaks and valleys, those coal plants could run at peak efficiency 24/7.
I've watched multiple companies die when they go public, though some flourish. I think the problem is public companies respond to the investors thinking they need growth each and every quarter. Public companies seem to lose the ability to put aside short term growth for long term growth and end up digging themselves into a deep hole.
I've seen these jobs get shipped back quite quickly when management did not account for the issues produced when the oversees people aren't bound by much in the way of ethics (when one of our companies commented about bad tests the response from India was "We didn't think you would catch that"). Things get shipped back rather quickly when they stop working.
There is an advantage to working for software companies with regulatory oversight (aviation, medical). On the other hand, this regulatory oversight is often mangled to the point of being unrecognizable as such. Though it gets rather interesting when the regulatory groups suddenly realize what is going on.
I have MS Office because I had to have specific formatting for a thesis and a paper that was published from it. Since I have it I've just kept using it but I'm not sure I would start a new computer with MS Office.
I would be more concerned with ads giving away free knives, those lead to more murders than rifles do. Now handguns are a whole other matter.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius20...
Slashdot Mirror
More likely killed more people who were looking down at their cell phone "Why isn't this damn thing working!".
Well these days it seems like EA is buying all the best developers
My cholesterol sucked when I was living at home and eating plain chicken with no fat and ate out maybe every other week.
Yeah, double cheeseburger meals usually with small fry and prefer water. Both appropriate amount of food and cheaper. Occasionally I'll get a big mac meal with a soda.
I eat fast food regularly, I never eat whole wheat, I live at a desk. I'm 5'9", weight 145 pounds and can bench press 175, not great but acceptable. Maybe I have a better metabolism that most everyone else or I just eat when I need to and no more.
IMHO the X-Wing books are most deserving of movie treatments.
Just got an S5 and I like it but it is honestly too big. My Droid Bionic was just fine but not running so well any more.
I've seen plenty of brilliant people producing kids who are dumb and irresponsible. "Giving these genetic lines "more opportunities" to proliferate is counter-productive." ... wait, did we just kill off the entire human population?
I was tempted to post a comment about this article going woosh over most everyone. Though I think its partially the fault of the article not explaining why this thinking is necessary rather than just explaining what the necessary thinking is.
What it seems like to my vaguely educated opinion is we need to find a way to identify those capable of learning, rather than those who currently have a certain level of knowledge. The existing tests for entering college test what someone already knows, this hints at their ability to learn but does not prove someone has the ability to further their learning. Too often I've seen highly qualified, intelligent people fail miserably at college and barely qualified people find their ability to learn and excel in college.
Seems like if we could identify those who will excel regardless of their background, we could keep the wealthy but unable to learn out of college and get the poorly trained by highly intelligent individuals into college. Probably an impossible task though.
You mean they didn't want to spend exorbitant money to implement that vision.
I think ultimately this shows a complete failure of the educational system in this particular aspect. People complain about the educational system taking over the jobs of parents (and I don't particularly like that either) but who is supposed to take the job when the parents aren't bothering to do it? It isn't the child's fault when no one who is responsible for the child are doing anything for that child but how do we fix it?
Maybe saying the educational system failed is putting too much on the educational system but again, how do we give someone opportunities when those responsible are failing to?
"Short of amending the State Constitution, a Herculean task, racial minorities in Michigan are deprived of even an opportunity to convince Michigan's public colleges and universities to consider race in their admission plans..."
It sounds like what she wants is colleges to consider race during admissions. Please explain to me how race would even factor in unless a higher qualified person of one race is rejected in favor of a lesser qualified person of another race?
I'll admit I'm about as white as they come so according to many who are not white I am unqualified to provide an opinion. However I will say if I was given preferential treatment for anything to my knowledge because of my color and not my qualifications I would be pissed off to the point of declining that treatment.
Agreed, the summary (and the article too) seems to cover the what of the thought process when I think why this is complex is probably more interesting. They why this is necessary is the consequences when these items are not thought out.
One example I can think of off the top of my head is, a door that is being used to prevent access to a special area in an MMO. If it isn't designed to restrict access appropriately, it devalues that room. Another question comes in when you consider if you actually need a door preventing access or if some other method would be more appropriate.
I think this article would be far more interesting with examples of real life systems showing the consequences of not fully thinking out the design of something simple. Why was the chosen design implemented and why did it turn out not to the be best decision when that part of the game was played?
In medical and avionics the designers are forced to take regulations and certification into account because failure can have sever consequences (injury or death). This (hopefully) means the design process will get things more things right before development starts and everything right before the application is released.
In computer game and basic application development these regulations don't exist. This means that either the designers use the same amount of discipline used up front in critical application development, or they take a lot more time later when the software ends up not working as intended (if they decide to fix the issues anyway).
Ultimately development of non critical (games, windows apps that do not affect life and limb) or critical (medical, avionics, etc) applications is the same. Both take inputs, process them and produce outputs. Both have the same immediate consequences if not coded correctly, the wrong outputs for a given set of inputs. It is only the impact of using those outputs that has differing levels of consequence, ex annoyance, injury, death.
So what I read is you think the "technology" should be able to implement reality? "Technology" does not exist, code written by humans does and writing this code takes time. Say it takes ten hours to implement code for a non realistic door to be coded up, a hundred hours for a fairly realistic door to be implemented and a thousand hours for a completely realistic door. Is the developer going to go with the simple door that cost $250 to implement and makes most users happy or the complex door that cost $25,000 to implement?
Now look at the fact that that door is 0.001% of the total complexity of the game. If the entire game is implemented with the same complexity, how many people have to buy this $2.5Bn game for it to be profitable?
5. What happens if there are two players? Doors behave the same for all players. It's a door. See point 2.
Great, it behaves the same for all players. Does that mean when one player unlocks the door it always remains unlocked for everyone or do we have a door that automatically relocks after it is closed? Say access to an area is restricted as part of a high level quest. When one player completes the quest after hours of questing and gains access to the special area we want all players, including those who just started the game, to be able to enter this hard to attain room?
It isn't just about making a door behave like a door, its a question of what does this door mean to the whole game, what does each door mean to the whole game?
I had that at under 65k, I could do a lot at 100k+
Wait, Tesla is Apple and Nissan is Android... I can completely reprogram a Leaf?
This is where the power company needs to improve their power storage capability, rather than their power generation capability. If they could store enough power to smooth out the peaks and valleys, those coal plants could run at peak efficiency 24/7.
I've watched multiple companies die when they go public, though some flourish. I think the problem is public companies respond to the investors thinking they need growth each and every quarter. Public companies seem to lose the ability to put aside short term growth for long term growth and end up digging themselves into a deep hole.
I've seen these jobs get shipped back quite quickly when management did not account for the issues produced when the oversees people aren't bound by much in the way of ethics (when one of our companies commented about bad tests the response from India was "We didn't think you would catch that"). Things get shipped back rather quickly when they stop working.
There is an advantage to working for software companies with regulatory oversight (aviation, medical). On the other hand, this regulatory oversight is often mangled to the point of being unrecognizable as such. Though it gets rather interesting when the regulatory groups suddenly realize what is going on.
"Record profits forced them to raise the rates on all their customers", next?
I have MS Office because I had to have specific formatting for a thesis and a paper that was published from it. Since I have it I've just kept using it but I'm not sure I would start a new computer with MS Office.
I would be more concerned with ads giving away free knives, those lead to more murders than rifles do. Now handguns are a whole other matter. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius20...