As the industry matures over time, competent people will gradually start to displace the incompetent and things will start to improve... But this will take a very long time.
Define "very long". The software industry has been around since the 1960s now, it's really not that new any more. It's just gotten a lot bigger, as instead of a few mainframes here and there, we have computers everywhere, and we're using them for so many more things. But we've had the internet in widespread public usage for almost 20 years now, so again it isn't all that new any more.
The previous comment states clearly "I use open souorce. It has a much smaller number of bugs", obviously there is no claim about absence of bugs there.
The software makers who sell software have never claimed their wares are free from bugs either.
Also, the value of a settlement should not be related to what you have paid for the product, but what damage was produced by the negligence of the organization that produced the product in question.
Open-source software is used in all kinds of mission-critical places: internet servers, stock market exchanges, etc. You think a stock exchange should be able to sue Linus when something goes wrong (though admittedly, it never seems to)?
Paying for goods or services implies a level of expectation that does not exist when you receive something for free.
No it doesn't. What if the price is dirt cheap? What if the software is being sold for $0.99? Somehow the maker is suddenly liable for every bug that might be in there? What if they make two versions, one for $1 that has no ads, and one for free which has ads? Are you saying now they should be absolved of liability for the ad-laden version, but made to pay millions if their $1 version deletes all the contacts on some billionaire's smartphone supposedly making him lose millions in business, even though he was too stupid to keep them backed up? Even though both are essentially the same software, and both are producing profit for the software maker?
Yet in all those cases, it was very, very close. The 2000 election was only a 0.5% difference between the two in the popular vote. 47.9% of the voters elected Bush; while not a clear majority, it's only a mere 2.1% away from one.
You merely ignore the evidence I do present. Did you forget about the Amendment where a bunch of crazy religious people got alcohol banned, not by a simple Act of Congress, but a full-blown Constitutional Amendment? You fools keep acting like the Constitution is constant and unchanging in both writing and interpretation, and that hasn't been the case at all. The country is getting more and more right-wing all the time, yet you religiously cling to your blind faith that there's no way Creationism can be taught in schools. I'll bet all the alcohol-drinkers thought the same thing around the turn of the (20th) century, that it could never be banned in the "land of the free".
Right, so why can't I do the same with a scanned document sent by email? It's utterly stupid. And don't say the law offices are just bound by the law; who do you think writes the laws?
Yep, but to play devil's advocate, what else can they do? If they let people take off from work (with pay) every time they're sick, then what's to keep everyone from calling in "sick" all the time? There'd have to be a certain amount of extra days designed into the schedule for random "sick outs". Of course, if they gave everyone 6 weeks of vacation per year (with no extra sick days), instead of the lame 2 weeks that is common now, then people might be more likely to just call in sick on those days they really are sick.
Doesn't matter, just go with the bare minimum. Any intelligent human should know instinctively that murder is a far, far, far worse crime than any amount of file sharing. So if any murderer, ever, for any level or murder or manslaughter or anything like that, gets a lesser sentence than the biggest file-sharer, there's something horribly wrong with the legal system.
What this post has to do with TFA, I have no idea. However, I would like to point out this one line here, and expand on it. It's not the "black race", it's everyone. Every group of people is their own worst enemy. White people are their own worst enemy, women are their own worst enemy, Muslims are their own worst enemy, Christians are their own worst enemy, Americans are their own worst enemy, the Rapa Nuians were their own worst enemy. It's human nature I think.
And if you look at the level of technology used in most law offices, the lawyers wouldn't miss out on all the things that would go away. Hell, most law offices are still using faxes!
Depends on the manager. It's a myth that managers make more money than developers; usually, the lowest-level manager (the one who directly supervises the developers) doesn't make much more (if any) than the developers. It's the levels above him that get paid exponentially more at each level. The only reason someone goes into management is because either 1) they're not that great a developer, and prefer talking and being in meetings and bossing people around to doing actual work, and/or 2) they want to go higher in management, where the real money is, so this is just a stepping stone.
This is frequently (but not always) the case, but it still has bugs. Should users be able to sue open-source developers for bugs then, even though they paid nothing for the product? No? Then why should they be able to sue a for-profit company for any more than they spent on the software?
There absolutely is an excuse, it's called incompetence and ignorance. The problem is, you can't expect all software developers to be highly competent. In fact, everyone here was incompetent at some point, before they learned enough to be competent. Do they teach about SQL injection attacks in college? I doubt it. A lot of things you learn on the job, with experience, and you only get there by working and making mistakes. In better-run organizations, there's checking and validation and pairing of less-experienced people with more-experienced ones, so you don't have so many problems. In poorly-run or small organizations, there's a lot more "winging it", and mistakes are bound to pop up from people learning as they go.
People don't sue nearly as much when things are more rigorously defined. Just look at all the patent wars going on right now: company A thinks that a rectangle with rounded corners is protected IP, another thinks that's bollocks, and off to court they go, spending millions of dollars arguing about it. The lawyers are making tons of money with these cases. If the government changed the IP laws to make this stuff more clear-cut, then there wouldn't be much arguing or so many lawsuits, and that means less money for lawyers.
Wow, unless I'm missing something, those are %volume, which is the same as most alcoholic beverages these days list their alcohol content. The lowest one there was 20%, and many were in the 40+% range. A typical red wine (my drink of choice) is usually only a little over 10%, so these are all quite high, in the hard liquor territory. Thanks for the link, I didn't realize cold medicines were so potent.
Unfortunately, not driving with a cold frequently isn't an option. What if you need to go to work? Most workplaces these days make you burn up your vacation days if you call in sick, and I'd rather have more vacation (esp. since we don't get much vacation in this country anyway). Or what if you need to go to the doctor because of your sickness, and you don't have someone to drive you?
Honestly, I don't know what the "proof" of cough medicine is. I have heard of (and even known in one case, back in college) people who drank it because they were alcoholics. But with today's very low BAC limits, I wouldn't take any chances with the stuff, and wouldn't drink any before driving.
There's one other factor I believe: headlights. Prior to around 1990, in the USA (but not Europe, because they're much more advanced) there was a stupid DOT requirement that all cars had to use "sealed beam" headlights. This greatly constrained the styling on the front ends of cars at the time. Remember back in the 80s, most of the cars had those ugly rectangular sealed-beam headlights. Some cars went to lengths to try to get around this; this is where the pop-up headlight craze came from, the idea being that at least during the daytime your car could look sleek and attractive, and it'd only look ridiculous at night. Somewhere around 1990, they changed the requirement to be like Europe's, where you just had to use a standard halogen bulb that was easily replaced, so manufacturers switch very, very quickly to the new plastic headlight housings (with interior lenses or reflectors) that are still used today; with these, they had an enormous amount of flexibility in how they could style the front end of the car while not having to resort to pop-up headlights. One holdout was the Corvette, which has had pop-ups (or something like it) since the 60s, and finally switched to fixed headlights with the C6 model in the early 2000s, but most other cars (including high-end ones) switched to fixed plastic-housing headlights back in the 90s.
Really? I think almost all contemporary cars are ugly now, except for some with genuinely retro styling (Dodge Challenger is nice) and some super cars.
Maybe you're an older person. At nearly 40, I think today's cars are mostly pretty boring, not ugly, and they've gotten more boring. Except for Fords; those are mostly very ugly with those horrible chrome grilles. To me, cars were most attractive in the 1990s; they finally shed the horrible boxiness of the 80s, but they hadn't gotten so boring as they are now. There were lots of great Japanese sports cars in the 90s; then, those disappeared, and have only recently been making a comeback. Cars were ugliest in the 70s, when they were generally huge gas-guzzlers with horrible handling, though the Datsun 280ZX was a giant exception. I'll grant you that there were a lot of great-looking cars in the 30s and even 40s, but the 60s had a lot of nice cars too, except they were mostly made in Europe. There's still a few really nice-looking cars these days with a non-supercar price; the Hyundai Genesis (coupe) is quite attractive IMO, and Suburu/Scion have a new rear-drive sports coupe that's quite affordable.
But you're right about the Metro/plain squares/no shading/bland logos stuff. As I was saying before, this is all part of the new trends toward extreme minimalism.
Dear intelligent citizens of the USA that agree with this:
You're far too few, and the idiots have you vastly outnumbered, and the idiocy is spreading like a cancer. It's a lost cause. Get out while you still can.
- another intelligent citizen of the USA who's given up hope
I guess what this incident shows is that instead of wearing a T-shirt insulting the TSA, you should wear a T-shirt that insults Delta Airlines. TSA policies do suck ass, but they let the guy through and didn't complain about his T-shirt; it's the bitches at Delta that threw a hissy-fit.
Not only that, but attractive women need to eat lots of unhealthy food, stop exercising, and stop bathing regularly, so that they can make themselves unattractive, so rapists will be less likely to be interested in them.
It reminds me of when Southwest kicked off some girl for wearing skimpy clothes. The airlines can be arbitrary and capricious, and aren't bound by the rules that the government is. Luckily, there are multiple airlines still, so you have some choice in which one you take your business to, though it's really not that much in practicality.
Gnome2 wasn't really for techies only, either; it was highly minimalized from what they had in Gnome1. Gnome3 is simply a continuation of their philosophy of minimalism and de-featurization.
Slashdot Mirror
There's only one vaccine for stupidity, and yes, the parents missed it. The vaccine is called "a vasectomy".
Bare minimum for any murder, any jurisdiction in the country.
Of course, as an aside, the fact that sentencing differs based on state or federal is itself a big problem too.
As the industry matures over time, competent people will gradually start to displace the incompetent and things will start to improve... But this will take a very long time.
Define "very long". The software industry has been around since the 1960s now, it's really not that new any more. It's just gotten a lot bigger, as instead of a few mainframes here and there, we have computers everywhere, and we're using them for so many more things. But we've had the internet in widespread public usage for almost 20 years now, so again it isn't all that new any more.
The previous comment states clearly "I use open souorce. It has a much smaller number of bugs", obviously there is no claim about absence of bugs there.
The software makers who sell software have never claimed their wares are free from bugs either.
Also, the value of a settlement should not be related to what you have paid for the product, but what damage was produced by the negligence of the organization that produced the product in question.
Open-source software is used in all kinds of mission-critical places: internet servers, stock market exchanges, etc. You think a stock exchange should be able to sue Linus when something goes wrong (though admittedly, it never seems to)?
Paying for goods or services implies a level of expectation that does not exist when you receive something for free.
No it doesn't. What if the price is dirt cheap? What if the software is being sold for $0.99? Somehow the maker is suddenly liable for every bug that might be in there? What if they make two versions, one for $1 that has no ads, and one for free which has ads? Are you saying now they should be absolved of liability for the ad-laden version, but made to pay millions if their $1 version deletes all the contacts on some billionaire's smartphone supposedly making him lose millions in business, even though he was too stupid to keep them backed up? Even though both are essentially the same software, and both are producing profit for the software maker?
Yet in all those cases, it was very, very close. The 2000 election was only a 0.5% difference between the two in the popular vote. 47.9% of the voters elected Bush; while not a clear majority, it's only a mere 2.1% away from one.
You merely ignore the evidence I do present. Did you forget about the Amendment where a bunch of crazy religious people got alcohol banned, not by a simple Act of Congress, but a full-blown Constitutional Amendment? You fools keep acting like the Constitution is constant and unchanging in both writing and interpretation, and that hasn't been the case at all. The country is getting more and more right-wing all the time, yet you religiously cling to your blind faith that there's no way Creationism can be taught in schools. I'll bet all the alcohol-drinkers thought the same thing around the turn of the (20th) century, that it could never be banned in the "land of the free".
Right, so why can't I do the same with a scanned document sent by email? It's utterly stupid. And don't say the law offices are just bound by the law; who do you think writes the laws?
Yep, but to play devil's advocate, what else can they do? If they let people take off from work (with pay) every time they're sick, then what's to keep everyone from calling in "sick" all the time? There'd have to be a certain amount of extra days designed into the schedule for random "sick outs". Of course, if they gave everyone 6 weeks of vacation per year (with no extra sick days), instead of the lame 2 weeks that is common now, then people might be more likely to just call in sick on those days they really are sick.
Doesn't matter, just go with the bare minimum. Any intelligent human should know instinctively that murder is a far, far, far worse crime than any amount of file sharing. So if any murderer, ever, for any level or murder or manslaughter or anything like that, gets a lesser sentence than the biggest file-sharer, there's something horribly wrong with the legal system.
The black race is its own worst enemy.
What this post has to do with TFA, I have no idea. However, I would like to point out this one line here, and expand on it. It's not the "black race", it's everyone. Every group of people is their own worst enemy. White people are their own worst enemy, women are their own worst enemy, Muslims are their own worst enemy, Christians are their own worst enemy, Americans are their own worst enemy, the Rapa Nuians were their own worst enemy. It's human nature I think.
And if you look at the level of technology used in most law offices, the lawyers wouldn't miss out on all the things that would go away. Hell, most law offices are still using faxes!
Depends on the manager. It's a myth that managers make more money than developers; usually, the lowest-level manager (the one who directly supervises the developers) doesn't make much more (if any) than the developers. It's the levels above him that get paid exponentially more at each level. The only reason someone goes into management is because either 1) they're not that great a developer, and prefer talking and being in meetings and bossing people around to doing actual work, and/or 2) they want to go higher in management, where the real money is, so this is just a stepping stone.
This is frequently (but not always) the case, but it still has bugs. Should users be able to sue open-source developers for bugs then, even though they paid nothing for the product? No? Then why should they be able to sue a for-profit company for any more than they spent on the software?
There absolutely is an excuse, it's called incompetence and ignorance. The problem is, you can't expect all software developers to be highly competent. In fact, everyone here was incompetent at some point, before they learned enough to be competent. Do they teach about SQL injection attacks in college? I doubt it. A lot of things you learn on the job, with experience, and you only get there by working and making mistakes. In better-run organizations, there's checking and validation and pairing of less-experienced people with more-experienced ones, so you don't have so many problems. In poorly-run or small organizations, there's a lot more "winging it", and mistakes are bound to pop up from people learning as they go.
People don't sue nearly as much when things are more rigorously defined. Just look at all the patent wars going on right now: company A thinks that a rectangle with rounded corners is protected IP, another thinks that's bollocks, and off to court they go, spending millions of dollars arguing about it. The lawyers are making tons of money with these cases. If the government changed the IP laws to make this stuff more clear-cut, then there wouldn't be much arguing or so many lawsuits, and that means less money for lawyers.
What's really lame is that PCI is an interconnect bus on computers, and this PCI group ripped off the name. They should be forced to change it.
Wow, unless I'm missing something, those are %volume, which is the same as most alcoholic beverages these days list their alcohol content. The lowest one there was 20%, and many were in the 40+% range. A typical red wine (my drink of choice) is usually only a little over 10%, so these are all quite high, in the hard liquor territory. Thanks for the link, I didn't realize cold medicines were so potent.
Unfortunately, not driving with a cold frequently isn't an option. What if you need to go to work? Most workplaces these days make you burn up your vacation days if you call in sick, and I'd rather have more vacation (esp. since we don't get much vacation in this country anyway). Or what if you need to go to the doctor because of your sickness, and you don't have someone to drive you?
Honestly, I don't know what the "proof" of cough medicine is. I have heard of (and even known in one case, back in college) people who drank it because they were alcoholics. But with today's very low BAC limits, I wouldn't take any chances with the stuff, and wouldn't drink any before driving.
There's one other factor I believe: headlights. Prior to around 1990, in the USA (but not Europe, because they're much more advanced) there was a stupid DOT requirement that all cars had to use "sealed beam" headlights. This greatly constrained the styling on the front ends of cars at the time. Remember back in the 80s, most of the cars had those ugly rectangular sealed-beam headlights. Some cars went to lengths to try to get around this; this is where the pop-up headlight craze came from, the idea being that at least during the daytime your car could look sleek and attractive, and it'd only look ridiculous at night. Somewhere around 1990, they changed the requirement to be like Europe's, where you just had to use a standard halogen bulb that was easily replaced, so manufacturers switch very, very quickly to the new plastic headlight housings (with interior lenses or reflectors) that are still used today; with these, they had an enormous amount of flexibility in how they could style the front end of the car while not having to resort to pop-up headlights. One holdout was the Corvette, which has had pop-ups (or something like it) since the 60s, and finally switched to fixed headlights with the C6 model in the early 2000s, but most other cars (including high-end ones) switched to fixed plastic-housing headlights back in the 90s.
Really? I think almost all contemporary cars are ugly now, except for some with genuinely retro styling (Dodge Challenger is nice) and some super cars.
Maybe you're an older person. At nearly 40, I think today's cars are mostly pretty boring, not ugly, and they've gotten more boring. Except for Fords; those are mostly very ugly with those horrible chrome grilles. To me, cars were most attractive in the 1990s; they finally shed the horrible boxiness of the 80s, but they hadn't gotten so boring as they are now. There were lots of great Japanese sports cars in the 90s; then, those disappeared, and have only recently been making a comeback. Cars were ugliest in the 70s, when they were generally huge gas-guzzlers with horrible handling, though the Datsun 280ZX was a giant exception. I'll grant you that there were a lot of great-looking cars in the 30s and even 40s, but the 60s had a lot of nice cars too, except they were mostly made in Europe. There's still a few really nice-looking cars these days with a non-supercar price; the Hyundai Genesis (coupe) is quite attractive IMO, and Suburu/Scion have a new rear-drive sports coupe that's quite affordable.
But you're right about the Metro/plain squares/no shading/bland logos stuff. As I was saying before, this is all part of the new trends toward extreme minimalism.
Dear intelligent citizens of the USA that agree with this:
You're far too few, and the idiots have you vastly outnumbered, and the idiocy is spreading like a cancer. It's a lost cause. Get out while you still can.
- another intelligent citizen of the USA who's given up hope
I guess what this incident shows is that instead of wearing a T-shirt insulting the TSA, you should wear a T-shirt that insults Delta Airlines. TSA policies do suck ass, but they let the guy through and didn't complain about his T-shirt; it's the bitches at Delta that threw a hissy-fit.
Not only that, but attractive women need to eat lots of unhealthy food, stop exercising, and stop bathing regularly, so that they can make themselves unattractive, so rapists will be less likely to be interested in them.
Good luck with that. Who do you think writes the laws and picks the candidates who are elected?
It reminds me of when Southwest kicked off some girl for wearing skimpy clothes. The airlines can be arbitrary and capricious, and aren't bound by the rules that the government is. Luckily, there are multiple airlines still, so you have some choice in which one you take your business to, though it's really not that much in practicality.
Gnome2 wasn't really for techies only, either; it was highly minimalized from what they had in Gnome1. Gnome3 is simply a continuation of their philosophy of minimalism and de-featurization.