Did Sony pay you or did Mr. Kutaragi come over to your house and type it for you.
Have you seriously never seen anything like this before? As a professional ps2/360/ps3 developer I have to say that I was seriously underwhelmed by this demo. Every one of the effects has been used before. THe original xbox has every effect he mentioned. And HL2 has a significantly more complex lighting system and postprocessing effects. The demo appears to be a single high-poly character in a texture mapped box. The demoer admits that this is a cut-scene quality model. I believe this scene could be rendered on an original xbox with similar 'visual' quality. Why not use some of those polys to make a realistic background? Black on PS2 looked better. And they couldn't even show a solid second of actual gameplay. I think it will be an amaxing game, but the demo was no technical achievement. It was a hurried render test for an obviously incomplete engine. Bragging about poly count when your competition can push 1.5x-3x as many is not going to win them any points either.
The US runs the navel exercises with our allies with the odds weighed usually in the allies favor, and with random restrictions. We don't learn anything if we always win, and we would discourage allies from participating. The US generals pride themselves on being able to go up against same-size or larger fleets and still win. Must have been a shock (or lucky) to find australiens as well trained.
Where did you ever get that idea? If that were true broadcast TVs and DVD would look exactly the same. I mean if broadcast TV is already better than a TV could support, how could DVDs possibly improve the picture? I would think anyone who has ever watched a DVD on their television has already empirically proved your statement incorrect.
What are you smoking, DVDs don't come close to broadcast signal quality, which is still the stardard television displays are built too. DVDs were created to do away with VCRs not broadcast television. Plus your TV has a limited number of phospors on each line. But the signal from the Television camera is not phosphor limited so it is a pure analog horizontal slice, only limited in information by the broadcast frequency. Many devices such as picture capture cables make use of this extra undisplayable information to create higher res (horizontally) images. And we know that using statistical methods, if we can create a higher res horizontal image we can also increase the res of the vertical. (with higher error but good quality)
Some other people have posted that digital signals and DVDs could not be enhanced this way, and that is true to some extent. But if you have access to the frequency and quantization tables from the compressed signal you can do a much better job scaling and articfact removing.
In fact, broadcast TV is a far lower resolution than your TV can support (525 scanlines, of which 480 is picutre information, of which 330 is the theoretical max that will be displayed). Rather than try to explain it myself, some very good technical explanations of how it all works can be found here and here.
what exactly is your point? There is no such thing as broadcast resoluction verses tv resolution. They both have the same number of vertical lines! The difference is the ammount of information your TV can display horizontally, which could technically only be limited by the frequency of the broadcast. (and interference when mixing all colors into one signal)
I was talking about real languages:), German and Italian specifically (ohh god). But you were right to ask thats exactly the sort of clueless response you can expect on slashdot.
There is a 99% chance that the press release was completely written by Creative. Usually in licensing deals the company with the upper hand writes the press release, including the quotes. I have been in business situations where my company wrote quotes for the CEOs of another company with no oversight whatsoever. Noone really cares since noone reads press releases critically anyway.
I think you do not have a good understanding of the meaning of the word quantum. Quantum means 'a level, or fixed amount'. In Quantum mechanics this refers to the smallest observable physical effects. At which point changes in energy are in fixed 'Levels' (ohh like Qunatums) rather than smooth functions.
So in this article he is saying that this has reached the next level. And that you are a dimwit.
Actually IMHO java exceptions seem to be the one thing that keeps it from working in large projects. (that and speed, but speed has been mostly dealt with). The 'Horribly Twisted Hack on C" as you call it seems to be infinitely easier to maintain in large projects. Exception handling works like magic in college level applications but as soon as you get into larger applications it begins to break down maintainability and readability. That is if the programmers have not already decided to catch all and simply ignore them.
Exceptions. 1. Seperates errors from error handling. Great for modular small project. Shit for maintaining a large program with many modules. Impossible to debug without complete knowledge of the code, and perfect error messages. (NOTE: programmers rarely comment or include useful error messages in exceptions.)
2. Slow, hog processor and resources, This makes them basically useless in real code for anything but fatal or near fatal error conditions.
3. Useless Complexity! Compare the C code if (NULL) {
printf(GetError());
assert(false); }
with a standard java exception block. Try it with an exception block which processes 4 different error messages. 20 times the length (I will not post it here, if you have seen one you know.
Now remember that this: It, adds NO end user functionality, takes time to program where end user functionality is not being added, Must be maintained with every library/version change, and may never actually be called or tested.
The C version has none of these problems and solves the problem quite eloquently. That is it returns an error if the function doesn't work as intended. The programmer can then debug it.
4. Want to modify a library and add an exception condition? How do you feel about updateing every class in your entire project which uses that library?
4. Want to include a large 3rd party library? They probably hacked around these problems in their own way. A way which breaks or eats all of your exceptions when in use.
etc. etc. here are some articles which put it more eloquently
I don't think its the thought of the life forms themselves on mars that will give people 'sciencegasms'. It's the implications of what it would mean if we found similar cellular life to our own somewhere else in the universe.
It gives us hope that somewhere else in the universe there would be life as well. After all if two planets in our own system have life it must develop quite easily, Or at least show that interplanet panspermia is possible.
And most important to our motivations, it addresses two very basic interests inherant to our physque. Loneliness and the divine.
A standard of decency never hurt anyone, except for those who don't want a standard to exist for the very reason they don't have one and don't want the rest of society to have one either.
Actually A standard of decency was responsible for the death of my entire family.
A windows app could do either of these things if it really wanted to. But that would just make it mor confusing for people used to a different layout. That is the whole point, people get used to one style and can use the same control in any application.
This is one of the major advantages of windows over OS apps. You can just dive in and know how to use the app with no extra work.
But your high speed jet of water is still moderated by conventional explosive physics. Even more so because of the limited expansion of water. So although you could get a huge specific impulse. (as with any reaction drive large enough) to get this high would take an immense array of nozzles and more fuel then its worth.
We already have the atom bombs just lying around right now. That I think was the point. Plus you get a reaction mass that is all the available air the atomic explosion can affect. You could never approach this by burning on-board fuel.
You are obviously not a programmer, or not a good one at least. None of the candidates I have gotten out of college could be asked to write anything from scratch. And it takes years of experince before you can trust them to write it correctly.
Programmers don't give a damn about languages, not real ones. It only takes a couple days to learn a new language, if they can't learn like that they aren't worth the time train.
Its experience in developing complete systems that makes a good programmers. Even the bad programmers understand this. Could you have developed the project you are working on now from scratch given enough time?
I don't think this comment is correct. Not in programming at least. Ture it may take only a few days for a good programmer to learn a language. THe majority of programmers need at least 5 years out of college to get to the level where they can write the engine around a product or start from scratch on a new project. This is what I look for and it takes experience.
Once you find someone like this they can lead a team and make up for the deficiencys in the younger programmers, and as a lead myself I can say that this takes a good deal of my time.
With your startegy you would end up with a bunch of intelligent guys who had to try try and error until the project got into the debugging stage. There is no substitute for working experience.
Re:Symptoms of the zone
on
Gaming Zone?
·
· Score: 1
It does actually get worst than this, when working on programming problems I have been so immersed that even at home my mind would continually return to it. So i end up muttering nonsense even when not activily engagaged in what I am thinking about.
My wife hears me muttering things under my breath now and just assumes I am working on something challenging at work. For me it usually happens right after I wake up. For some reason my unconcious mind believes it has to help me out with programming problems. SO you dream about it until you get it worked out, which isn't much help because you can't program in your sleep, your not logical enough.
I know exactly what you mean, I was IN the programming zone yesterday. I redesigned the complete applet based scripting system for our product. I coded as fast as I could type and didn't make a single logical mistake. Nine hours straight. The other 2 guys on the team (I am the lead) came in and sat down at their computers and jaw dropped. 'My god you checked out every single file, and added, lemme see almost 1000 lines of code'.
But seriously thats something everyone experiences. But I don't believe that this 'scientists' is cpable of testing that. For one he used a self completed questionaire. Everyone lies on questionaires, especially when it involves what they consider their professional abilities. There are objective ways to measure brainwave activity, a questionaire is not one of them. Second, although alpha waves are seen during moments of the activity. The only reliable way to stay in an alpha state is still meditation. I believe that his linking alpha in sports figures to alpha in meditation is flawed to begin with. And if you take away the pseudo-scientific mumble about alpha brain waves that he hasn't even tried to prove objectively. You just end up with a guy who says that sports figured and video game players get in the 'groove' and we already knew that.
Crontab always seems to be the goto feature for dumb geek jokes. It does have a silly name, but then so does linus.
Regards,
Re:Review is confusing
on
The Chronoliths
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Umm you seem to be thinking this is a high school book report. What you have here is actually a book REVIEW and is meant to do nothing but whet your appetite for reading the book, as well as give a few opinions about how it stacks up relative to other books. Also the only kind of book reports that give chapter subjects and highlights are for purchasing technical or text books.
But since you are obviously some sort of alien who only reads slashdot this may have been the only kind of book review you've seen.
If you find that your sexual prowess is affected by what programming language you use maybe you need to spend less time at the computer and more time with your wife or girlfriend.
THere may come a point in your life when you are impotent without programming a small packet server.
If you store the fuel inside the lower gravity field then remove it it will lose energy in some other way to make up for the effect. The most likely method is that turning on or off the field changes the temperature of anything inside the field. So if the mass goes up 2% the heat energy goes down 2% of m in e=mc^2 thus making there be no net gain in effect from using the rocket. If this was not true then this would be a perpetual motion machine which impossible.
There will be some sort of automatic balancing if it works, and balancing makes it impossible for this effect to help a self-contained spacecraft.
Also one other thing to note is that this device could be a gravity lense rather than mass reducer. This makes more sense since it has to be placed between the gravity source (earth) and the object to be mass reduced. In which case it is sort of free because it increases the gravity elswhere to make up. But it wouldn't work outside a major gravity well. So again it is useless for spacecraft. (NASA hints at this a few times)
Good point but you completely missed the one big reason it won't work. If you use this device to reduce the mass of a ship it would also reduce the potential energy of everything in the ship, including the fuel. Rocket engines are basically a more complicated manner of throwing mass the other direction. If the fuel has less mass it will cause less forward motion as it moves away, this is simple highschool physics.
The person who wrote the article probably thought of this himself but just couldn't think it all the way through with his 4th grade education.less it will
It seems to me like their proposed solution just replaces the nat hub with a cat hub that can enumerate all of the devices it is providing internal ip addresses for.
An easy way to get around this would be just to connect a NAT hub to The CAT hub and have all your devices go through that. Or even if they do specifically detect if there is a NAT hub in line you can still hook up a cheap linux box and use it as a router. Then the linux box will be the only device enumerated on your subnet, and you can still keep giving out the free bandwidth. (power to you)
In the case of a major (or any) exploit, there is no excuse for a large outfit like MS to require more than an hour or two to verify that a problem exists.
Wow! you really have no idea how software development and engineering departments work. With an engineering department that can switch gears and start projects as fast as the one you described we would be able to get a new version of windows ever 2 months.
I will explain to you how most large bug reporting/engineering systems work. First a secretary or intern will be assigned to read the bug mail and sort out the legitimate problems from the lunatics writing in that your product just SUCKS. If it is a legitimate bug report and it includes all the information necessary to reproduce it then it gets entered in the bug tracking/administration system. An email or memo will be sent to the manager of the division that handles testing. The manager will assign the bug to a tester who will try to reproduce it. That is after he has worked on all the other items in his queue that have a higher priority. Once he has reproduced it he identifys what component causes the problem (or guesses). And add adds the item as a reproduced bug to the bug tracking system. The manager in charge of the division that handles that system or component will get the notice and eventually get around (depending on priority) to assigning the bug to an engineer. The engineer will then start working on the bug, but only after he has already completed what he was working on at the time, and cleared any higher priority items out of his queue as well.
It would take at least a day to go through any one of these steps. And even more time depending on how busy people are and what priority rating the bug gets. Plus in larger companies these things actually go through more steps such as priority assignment meetings and impact analysis.
In short your expenctations are insane. When you are dealing with a company of any size about 30 employees you have to use a system to kepp all of them working, or you are loosing money. That means you need to manage tasks and verify bugs before assigning them to engineers. And you don't have 30 engineers just sitting in the back room waiting to work on whatever you give them. They are probably already working on fixing another terrible exploit. The resources have to be allocated as you go based on what you see the threat as.
Anyway i hope this gives you a little more respect for the engineers who actually do this.
Slashdot Mirror
Did Sony pay you or did Mr. Kutaragi come over to your house and type it for you.
Have you seriously never seen anything like this before? As a professional ps2/360/ps3 developer I have to say that I was seriously underwhelmed by this demo. Every one of the effects has been used before. THe original xbox has every effect he mentioned. And HL2 has a significantly more complex lighting system and postprocessing effects.
The demo appears to be a single high-poly character in a texture mapped box. The demoer admits that this is a cut-scene quality model. I believe this scene could be rendered on an original xbox with similar 'visual' quality. Why not use some of those polys to make a realistic background? Black on PS2 looked better. And they couldn't even show a solid second of actual gameplay.
I think it will be an amaxing game, but the demo was no technical achievement. It was a hurried render test for an obviously incomplete engine. Bragging about poly count when your competition can push 1.5x-3x as many is not going to win them any points either.
Regards,
The US runs the navel exercises with our allies with the odds weighed usually in the allies favor, and with random restrictions. We don't learn anything if we always win, and we would discourage allies from participating.
The US generals pride themselves on being able to go up against same-size or larger fleets and still win. Must have been a shock (or lucky) to find australiens as well trained.
Where did you ever get that idea? If that were true broadcast TVs and DVD would look exactly the same. I mean if broadcast TV is already better than a TV could support, how could DVDs possibly improve the picture? I would think anyone who has ever watched a DVD on their television has already empirically proved your statement incorrect.
What are you smoking, DVDs don't come close to broadcast signal quality, which is still the stardard television displays are built too. DVDs were created to do away with VCRs not broadcast television.
Plus your TV has a limited number of phospors on each line. But the signal from the Television camera is not phosphor limited so it is a pure analog horizontal slice, only limited in information by the broadcast frequency. Many devices such as picture capture cables make use of this extra undisplayable information to create higher res (horizontally) images.
And we know that using statistical methods, if we can create a higher res horizontal image we can also increase the res of the vertical. (with higher error but good quality)
Some other people have posted that digital signals and DVDs could not be enhanced this way, and that is true to some extent. But if you have access to the frequency and quantization tables from the compressed signal you can do a much better job scaling and articfact removing.
In fact, broadcast TV is a far lower resolution than your TV can support (525 scanlines, of which 480 is picutre information, of which 330 is the theoretical max that will be displayed). Rather than try to explain it myself, some very good technical explanations of how it all works can be found here and here.
what exactly is your point? There is no such thing as broadcast resoluction verses tv resolution. They both have the same number of vertical lines! The difference is the ammount of information your TV can display horizontally, which could technically only be limited by the frequency of the broadcast. (and interference when mixing all colors into one signal)
I was talking about real languages :), German and Italian specifically (ohh god). But you were right to ask thats exactly the sort of clueless response you can expect on slashdot.
There is a 99% chance that the press release was completely written by Creative. Usually in licensing deals the company with the upper hand writes the press release, including the quotes. I have been in business situations where my company wrote quotes for the CEOs of another company with no oversight whatsoever. Noone really cares since noone reads press releases critically anyway.
You make it sound like you are doing the company a favor by actually buying a commercial product rather than stealing it.
And you offhandedly throw in that you might learn a new language so you can fool around with this software.
As someone, who has been forced to learn new languages for work and pays for his software all the time, Good or Bad, this had me LOL.
You could cut the Hubris with a knife.
I think you do not have a good understanding of the meaning of the word quantum.
Quantum means 'a level, or fixed amount'. In Quantum mechanics this refers to the smallest observable physical effects. At which point changes in energy are in fixed 'Levels' (ohh like Qunatums) rather than smooth functions.
So in this article he is saying that this has reached the next level. And that you are a dimwit.
Thank you very much,
QED
Actually IMHO java exceptions seem to be the one thing that keeps it from working in large projects. (that and speed, but speed has been mostly dealt with).
m l
The 'Horribly Twisted Hack on C" as you call it seems to be infinitely easier to maintain in large projects. Exception handling works like magic in college level applications but as soon as you get into larger applications it begins to break down maintainability and readability. That is if the programmers have not already decided to catch all and simply ignore them.
Exceptions.
1. Seperates errors from error handling. Great for modular small project. Shit for maintaining a large program with many modules. Impossible to debug without complete knowledge of the code, and perfect error messages. (NOTE: programmers rarely comment or include useful error messages in exceptions.)
2. Slow, hog processor and resources, This makes them basically useless in real code for anything but fatal or near fatal error conditions.
3. Useless Complexity!
Compare the C code
if (NULL) {
printf(GetError());
assert(false);
}
with a standard java exception block. Try it with an exception block which processes 4 different error messages. 20 times the length (I will not post it here, if you have seen one you know.
Now remember that this: It, adds NO end user functionality, takes time to program where end user functionality is not being added, Must be maintained with every library/version change, and may never actually be called or tested.
The C version has none of these problems and solves the problem quite eloquently. That is it returns an error if the function doesn't work as intended. The programmer can then debug it.
4. Want to modify a library and add an exception condition? How do you feel about updateing every class in your entire project which uses that library?
4. Want to include a large 3rd party library? They probably hacked around these problems in their own way. A way which breaks or eats all of your exceptions when in use.
etc. etc.
here are some articles which put it more eloquently
http://www.artima.com/intv/handcuffs.html
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2003/10/13.ht
I don't think its the thought of the life forms themselves on mars that will give people 'sciencegasms'. It's the implications of what it would mean if we found similar cellular life to our own somewhere else in the universe.
It gives us hope that somewhere else in the universe there would be life as well. After all if two planets in our own system have life it must develop quite easily, Or at least show that interplanet panspermia is possible.
And most important to our motivations, it addresses two very basic interests inherant to our physque. Loneliness and the divine.
You insensitive bastard!
A windows app could do either of these things if it really wanted to. But that would just make it mor confusing for people used to a different layout. That is the whole point, people get used to one style and can use the same control in any application.
This is one of the major advantages of windows over OS apps. You can just dive in and know how to use the app with no extra work.
Why the hell is this off topic? Did the moderator actually read the article?
Shame on you stupid pasty faced geek.
But your high speed jet of water is still moderated by conventional explosive physics. Even more so because of the limited expansion of water. So although you could get a huge specific impulse. (as with any reaction drive large enough) to get this high would take an immense array of nozzles and more fuel then its worth.
We already have the atom bombs just lying around right now. That I think was the point. Plus you get a reaction mass that is all the available air the atomic explosion can affect. You could never approach this by burning on-board fuel.
You are obviously not a programmer, or not a good one at least. None of the candidates I have gotten out of college could be asked to write anything from scratch. And it takes years of experince before you can trust them to write it correctly.
Programmers don't give a damn about languages, not real ones. It only takes a couple days to learn a new language, if they can't learn like that they aren't worth the time train.
Its experience in developing complete systems that makes a good programmers. Even the bad programmers understand this. Could you have developed the project you are working on now from scratch given enough time?
In short you sir are a fool.
I don't think this comment is correct. Not in programming at least. Ture it may take only a few days for a good programmer to learn a language. THe majority of programmers need at least 5 years out of college to get to the level where they can write the engine around a product or start from scratch on a new project. This is what I look for and it takes experience.
Once you find someone like this they can lead a team and make up for the deficiencys in the younger programmers, and as a lead myself I can say that this takes a good deal of my time.
With your startegy you would end up with a bunch of intelligent guys who had to try try and error until the project got into the debugging stage. There is no substitute for working experience.
It does actually get worst than this, when working on programming problems I have been so immersed that even at home my mind would continually return to it. So i end up muttering nonsense even when not activily engagaged in what I am thinking about.
My wife hears me muttering things under my breath now and just assumes I am working on something challenging at work. For me it usually happens right after I wake up. For some reason my unconcious mind believes it has to help me out with programming problems. SO you dream about it until you get it worked out, which isn't much help because you can't program in your sleep, your not logical enough.
I know exactly what you mean, I was IN the programming zone yesterday. I redesigned the complete applet based scripting system for our product. I coded as fast as I could type and didn't make a single logical mistake. Nine hours straight. The other 2 guys on the team (I am the lead) came in and sat down at their computers and jaw dropped. 'My god you checked out every single file, and added, lemme see almost 1000 lines of code'.
But seriously thats something everyone experiences. But I don't believe that this 'scientists' is cpable of testing that. For one he used a self completed questionaire. Everyone lies on questionaires, especially when it involves what they consider their professional abilities.
There are objective ways to measure brainwave activity, a questionaire is not one of them. Second, although alpha waves are seen during moments of the activity. The only reliable way to stay in an alpha state is still meditation. I believe that his linking alpha in sports figures to alpha in meditation is flawed to begin with. And if you take away the pseudo-scientific mumble about alpha brain waves that he hasn't even tried to prove objectively. You just end up with a guy who says that sports figured and video game players get in the 'groove' and we already knew that.
Regards,
George
Crontab always seems to be the goto feature for dumb geek jokes. It does have a silly name, but then so does linus.
Regards,
Umm you seem to be thinking this is a high school book report. What you have here is actually a book REVIEW and is meant to do nothing but whet your appetite for reading the book, as well as give a few opinions about how it stacks up relative to other books.
Also the only kind of book reports that give chapter subjects and highlights are for purchasing technical or text books.
But since you are obviously some sort of alien who only reads slashdot this may have been the only kind of book review you've seen.
Regards,
If you find that your sexual prowess is affected by what programming language you use maybe you need to spend less time at the computer and more time with your wife or girlfriend.
THere may come a point in your life when you are impotent without programming a small packet server.
You are forgetting conservation of energy.
If you store the fuel inside the lower gravity field then remove it it will lose energy in some other way to make up for the effect. The most likely method is that turning on or off the field changes the temperature of anything inside the field. So if the mass goes up 2% the heat energy goes down 2% of m in e=mc^2 thus making there be no net gain in effect from using the rocket.
If this was not true then this would be a perpetual motion machine which impossible.
There will be some sort of automatic balancing if it works, and balancing makes it impossible for this effect to help a self-contained spacecraft.
Also one other thing to note is that this device could be a gravity lense rather than mass reducer. This makes more sense since it has to be placed between the gravity source (earth) and the object to be mass reduced. In which case it is sort of free because it increases the gravity elswhere to make up. But it wouldn't work outside a major gravity well. So again it is useless for spacecraft. (NASA hints at this a few times)
Good point but you completely missed the one big reason it won't work.
If you use this device to reduce the mass of a ship it would also reduce the potential energy of everything in the ship, including the fuel.
Rocket engines are basically a more complicated manner of throwing mass the other direction. If the fuel has less mass it will cause less forward motion as it moves away, this is simple highschool physics.
The person who wrote the article probably thought of this himself but just couldn't think it all the way through with his 4th grade education.less it will
At 6000 dollars a shot the enemy can just start firing rocks at us and wait for us to go bankrupt.
It seems to me like their proposed solution just replaces the nat hub with a cat hub that can enumerate all of the devices it is providing internal ip addresses for.
An easy way to get around this would be just to connect a NAT hub to The CAT hub and have all your devices go through that. Or even if they do specifically detect if there is a NAT hub in line you can still hook up a cheap linux box and use it as a router. Then the linux box will be the only device enumerated on your subnet, and you can still keep giving out the free bandwidth. (power to you)
Regards
In the case of a major (or any) exploit, there is no excuse for a large outfit like MS to require more than an hour or two to verify that a problem exists.
Wow! you really have no idea how software development and engineering departments work. With an engineering department that can switch gears and start projects as fast as the one you described we would be able to get a new version of windows ever 2 months.
I will explain to you how most large bug reporting/engineering systems work. First a secretary or intern will be assigned to read the bug mail and sort out the legitimate problems from the lunatics writing in that your product just SUCKS.
If it is a legitimate bug report and it includes all the information necessary to reproduce it then it gets entered in the bug tracking/administration system. An email or memo will be sent to the manager of the division that handles testing.
The manager will assign the bug to a tester who will try to reproduce it. That is after he has worked on all the other items in his queue that have a higher priority. Once he has reproduced it he identifys what component causes the problem (or guesses). And add adds the item as a reproduced bug to the bug tracking system.
The manager in charge of the division that handles that system or component will get the notice and eventually get around (depending on priority) to assigning the bug to an engineer.
The engineer will then start working on the bug, but only after he has already completed what he was working on at the time, and cleared any higher priority items out of his queue as well.
It would take at least a day to go through any one of these steps. And even more time depending on how busy people are and what priority rating the bug gets. Plus in larger companies these things actually go through more steps such as priority assignment meetings and impact analysis.
In short your expenctations are insane. When you are dealing with a company of any size about 30 employees you have to use a system to kepp all of them working, or you are loosing money. That means you need to manage tasks and verify bugs before assigning them to engineers. And you don't have 30 engineers just sitting in the back room waiting to work on whatever you give them. They are probably already working on fixing another terrible exploit. The resources have to be allocated as you go based on what you see the threat as.
Anyway i hope this gives you a little more respect for the engineers who actually do this.
Regards,