I am not sure whether you agree with the tripe at this site or if you are just trolling, but this site offers NO facts, just pro-gun propanda. Much of the discussion about Hattiro's death is blamed on himself/the holiday/the Japanese ignorance of customs/whatever. The 'poor' man who shot Yoshihiro is 'the victim'.
This whole link is nothing but a diatribe against the 'anti-gun' lobby. At least the link to the Canadian DoJ has some factual information. Guns may or may not be useful/helpful/essential but whoever uses them should have to own up to the consequences of their actions - just like any other tool (car, hammer, aircraft).
There are so many holes in this study, it's hard to choose just one to attack. First, they talk about universities that are known to use Napster heavily through 'anecdotal evidence'; do they have any information on that? Does the amount of Napster usage (quantitive or even semi-quantitative) reflect the 'drop' in sales? Do universities with more Napster usage have a lower sales amount? Do universities with higher tuition have higher amounts? This report doesn't even pretend to cover any of this.
Next, the studies uses three years of past data, along with data from the population in general as a control - this is not entirely valid. For a true internal control, they would have had to compare the college growth rate with the general growth rate in the past (for more than three years). Maybe the numbers that we are seeing reflect an already existing trend - the report sure doesn't talk about this. The numbers there look convincing but what are the standard deviations of the measurements - are these differences even meaningful?
One of the last problems is mentioned in the article - on-lines sales. The report shows no information about this point-of-sale, which is almost certainly taking a bit out of the brick-and-mortar market.
I hope that they do present this report for 'evidence' of bad-napsterism - any monkey with more than three minutes of stats or experimental design would tear it apart into confetti.
The problem with this arguement is that while many companies think that they can't afford to do it, what they really can't do is afford NOT to do it. Software is becoming more complex - it's the nature of the beast. For the most part, design is not; we are all still using procedures that were brought into being in 'dawn of computer age', with the exception of higher order languages and more focus on OO.
You are correct in that it may be expensive, THE FIRST TIME. This is called a 'learning curve' and the cost is amortized over the number of times you use this technique. You may also say that the process itself is expensive but that is incorrect, or at least only partially correct. The process allows errors to be caught EARLY, which reduces cost. Please don't tell me that you believe a code-compile-fix routing can catch these sorts of errors as early as a well thought out design.
Also, rigourous design allows for flexibility - this may sound contradictory but consider the use of design patterns. They are NOT things that can just be thrown into the code ad hoc; they require thought and intelligence. A good upfront design means the ability to use these tools. Consequently, use of these design patterns allows for a certain level of flexibility in statisfying the lower to medium level nasty customer requests, and certainly helps on the more egregious ones. Does a code now, look later approach allow this? (if you think so, I have this bridge I'd like to sell you...)
In short, yes, using these techniques is expensive. But they also produce code that cuts development time (i.e., no stuck in debug/extra request phase for 2 years) and once people get used to the process, the extra cost/load is minimal.
Unfortunately, you are the type of knuckle-dragger that stands to benefit the most from reading both the article and the reply. Even if he had been a "[GURPS-playing] fat, ugly 30-40 year old man", what the fuck difference does that make to his point?
I pray that you are just trolling and that this comment does not actually reflect your true state of mind. If it does, why not go pound on some hippies? Hey, why not take a baseball bat to some homosexuals? The point is that YOU are one of "sheeple"... try understanding instead of insulting, and you _may_ just crack the 80 IQ layer, sparky (oops, now I just insulted you - don't report me, eh?)
Slashdot Mirror
This whole link is nothing but a diatribe against the 'anti-gun' lobby. At least the link to the Canadian DoJ has some factual information. Guns may or may not be useful/helpful/essential but whoever uses them should have to own up to the consequences of their actions - just like any other tool (car, hammer, aircraft).
Next, the studies uses three years of past data, along with data from the population in general as a control - this is not entirely valid. For a true internal control, they would have had to compare the college growth rate with the general growth rate in the past (for more than three years). Maybe the numbers that we are seeing reflect an already existing trend - the report sure doesn't talk about this. The numbers there look convincing but what are the standard deviations of the measurements - are these differences even meaningful?
One of the last problems is mentioned in the article - on-lines sales. The report shows no information about this point-of-sale, which is almost certainly taking a bit out of the brick-and-mortar market.
I hope that they do present this report for 'evidence' of bad-napsterism - any monkey with more than three minutes of stats or experimental design would tear it apart into confetti.
The problem with this arguement is that while many companies think that they can't afford to do it, what they really can't do is afford NOT to do it. Software is becoming more complex - it's the nature of the beast. For the most part, design is not; we are all still using procedures that were brought into being in 'dawn of computer age', with the exception of higher order languages and more focus on OO.
You are correct in that it may be expensive, THE FIRST TIME. This is called a 'learning curve' and the cost is amortized over the number of times you use this technique. You may also say that the process itself is expensive but that is incorrect, or at least only partially correct. The process allows errors to be caught EARLY, which reduces cost. Please don't tell me that you believe a code-compile-fix routing can catch these sorts of errors as early as a well thought out design.
Also, rigourous design allows for flexibility - this may sound contradictory but consider the use of design patterns. They are NOT things that can just be thrown into the code ad hoc; they require thought and intelligence. A good upfront design means the ability to use these tools. Consequently, use of these design patterns allows for a certain level of flexibility in statisfying the lower to medium level nasty customer requests, and certainly helps on the more egregious ones. Does a code now, look later approach allow this? (if you think so, I have this bridge I'd like to sell you ...)
In short, yes, using these techniques is expensive. But they also produce code that cuts development time (i.e., no stuck in debug/extra request phase for 2 years) and once people get used to the process, the extra cost/load is minimal.
Unfortunately, you are the type of knuckle-dragger that stands to benefit the most from reading both the article and the reply. Even if he had been a "[GURPS-playing] fat, ugly 30-40 year old man", what the fuck difference does that make to his point?
... try understanding instead of insulting, and you _may_ just crack the 80 IQ layer, sparky (oops, now I just insulted you - don't report me, eh?)
I pray that you are just trolling and that this comment does not actually reflect your true state of mind. If it does, why not go pound on some hippies? Hey, why not take a baseball bat to some homosexuals? The point is that YOU are one of "sheeple"