Doesn't matter in the slightest. Whoever signs the checks can demand that programmers code in INTERCAL while wearing lederhosen. It is the competence of someone who would dictate design well beyond his area of expertise that is in question.
Programmers are hired for technical ability, not business domain knowledge.
Now I know the scope of your ignorance.
But programmers... tend to be bad at designing UI's because they lack the perspective of someone trying to use their system for the very first time.
I could claim that your anger at bad software has clouded your ability to reason, but it is obvious you lack the experience to even support that generalization.
> How is a programmer any more qualified to do UI design than a business person
How is a business person more qualified to understand business than a programmer, who we can assume has at least some idea of the business domain he is modeling?
Sounds pretty stupid when you put it that way, doesn't it? So why do you assume that user interface design isn't part of the repertoire of any programmer who writes customer-facing applications?
> A good programmer would make suggestions for UI design, but not become offended if those suggestions get rejected.
A good programmer has the freedom to find clients or an employer at a competence level appropriate to his own.
It is remarkable, though, that people will blindly trust a programmer to make decisions on the safe handling of billions of dollars worth of data, and yet second-guess everything that programmer does that they can actually see.
Doesn't this guy sound like every drunk imbecile who, upon finding out you write software, wants to sell you on how he's got this great idea for the next Facebook or Apple or eBay? For the percent of a percent of them who act on their delusions, they are the ones you see ridiculed on the Internet for ridiculous job postings.
These people have a conception of software development derived from 24, and have the intelligence necessary to remain that ignorant.
But do you know what's most funny? He betrays the shibboleth of every incompetent business person, and assumes the same of his audience: he thinks he is an expert in user interface design. "Write a detailed walk-through of every click." When you see any spec like that, withhold your laughter, and decline whatever they are offering.
Are you suggesting that the human brain does not have specialized regions for processing language? I think you'll find your ignorance embarrassing in the face of all the scientific evidence to the contrary.
> Probably not. Our brains weren't exactly built for reading
Yes they were. They're made for processing the complex grammar of spoken language, which adapts naturally to written language and symbolic computation.
Jebus Crust! You mean for any application there is a 5% risk you'll end up sitting in limbo, and the weeks of time and money you spent developing the application could be wasted?
That's a service level availability of "one nine". No business would tolerate that, but fanboys think it is great.
I'm guessing they put this on every "classic" work of literature they publish. You know, the ones busybodies are always trying to censor for the bad words, but really because they portray slavery and racism realistically.
when you mean "present evidence against" an argument. To disprove something means that you demonstrate that it contradicts axioms or established truths.
I'm sure they'll work out some deal where everything you buy on your crippled tablet includes in the price the bandwidth used to download it. This price hike and bandwidth cap is just preliminary step to stick it to those freeloaders who are downloading free content, or selling you things outside of iTunes, which in both cases deprive Apple and AT&T of their rightful revenue.
No, that's not "intelligent design". What the ID proponents posit is that there is an irreducible complexity in life that demonstrates manipulation by an intelligent agent with purpose in mind. It rejects natural selection as the cause of human evolution, or as the cause of life in general. Of course, they can't really define "irreducible complexity", much less measure it, while there is ample evidence for evolution by natural selection, so the theory is a bunch of "God in the gaps" hooey.
What's so funny about it is that the movie 2001 as every bit as an authoritative explanation for "intelligent design" as the Bible.
(And did you notice that you misspelled "a part" like "alot" earlier, right after you got snooty about the grammar of a colloquial expression? Yeah, good times.)
But I do think that people frequently uncritically accept science that matches their cultural perceptions.
Which is of course why you invent straw man evolutionary psychologists, because until it came along, the prevailing psychology coincided with your moral and ideological preconceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't matter in the slightest. Whoever signs the checks can demand that programmers code in INTERCAL while wearing lederhosen. It is the competence of someone who would dictate design well beyond his area of expertise that is in question.
Now I know the scope of your ignorance.
I could claim that your anger at bad software has clouded your ability to reason, but it is obvious you lack the experience to even support that generalization.
No, there aren't. And the malware that takes advantage of them are not exploits, they're jailbreaks (for somebody, not necessarily the owners).
Those who forget history are doomed to make poor generalizations.
I can't wait to see all the new stuff that I had on my Android phone a year and a half ago.
> How is a programmer any more qualified to do UI design than a business person
How is a business person more qualified to understand business than a programmer, who we can assume has at least some idea of the business domain he is modeling?
Sounds pretty stupid when you put it that way, doesn't it? So why do you assume that user interface design isn't part of the repertoire of any programmer who writes customer-facing applications?
> A good programmer would make suggestions for UI design, but not become offended if those suggestions get rejected.
A good programmer has the freedom to find clients or an employer at a competence level appropriate to his own.
It is remarkable, though, that people will blindly trust a programmer to make decisions on the safe handling of billions of dollars worth of data, and yet second-guess everything that programmer does that they can actually see.
Doesn't this guy sound like every drunk imbecile who, upon finding out you write software, wants to sell you on how he's got this great idea for the next Facebook or Apple or eBay? For the percent of a percent of them who act on their delusions, they are the ones you see ridiculed on the Internet for ridiculous job postings.
These people have a conception of software development derived from 24, and have the intelligence necessary to remain that ignorant.
But do you know what's most funny? He betrays the shibboleth of every incompetent business person, and assumes the same of his audience: he thinks he is an expert in user interface design. "Write a detailed walk-through of every click." When you see any spec like that, withhold your laughter, and decline whatever they are offering.
Huh. My Macbook Pro is louder than my desktop machine while running World of Warcraft. (Which I don't play anymore. Honest!)
And because the keyboard and speaker grill is the vent, I have to keep it open. Very annoying.
Democrats play the same game (remember the South Carolina Bush vs McCain primary in 2000?).
The game of standing back while two Republicans spread lies about each other? That don't make no sense.
Again, processing the grammar of spoken language and processing the grammar of written language are the exact same thing.
This is different to Walmart deciding not to carry content its store owners find objectionable, how?
Way to defend the cause, fanboy. "Apple is no different than a bunch of censoring conservative twats!"
Are you suggesting that the human brain does not have specialized regions for processing language? I think you'll find your ignorance embarrassing in the face of all the scientific evidence to the contrary.
> Probably not. Our brains weren't exactly built for reading
Yes they were. They're made for processing the complex grammar of spoken language, which adapts naturally to written language and symbolic computation.
Apple could give you permission to ignore the restriction document before, simply stating this in the restriction document is meaningless.
Jebus Crust! You mean for any application there is a 5% risk you'll end up sitting in limbo, and the weeks of time and money you spent developing the application could be wasted?
That's a service level availability of "one nine". No business would tolerate that, but fanboys think it is great.
I'm guessing they put this on every "classic" work of literature they publish. You know, the ones busybodies are always trying to censor for the bad words, but really because they portray slavery and racism realistically.
No, you can't, because the highest you can go is 0x1F.
Can you count?
when you mean "present evidence against" an argument. To disprove something means that you demonstrate that it contradicts axioms or established truths.
Yeah, I'm excited. This means Motorola's and HTC's next high-end Android phones are going to have an even higher density display.
I'm sure they'll work out some deal where everything you buy on your crippled tablet includes in the price the bandwidth used to download it. This price hike and bandwidth cap is just preliminary step to stick it to those freeloaders who are downloading free content, or selling you things outside of iTunes, which in both cases deprive Apple and AT&T of their rightful revenue.
No, that's not "intelligent design". What the ID proponents posit is that there is an irreducible complexity in life that demonstrates manipulation by an intelligent agent with purpose in mind. It rejects natural selection as the cause of human evolution, or as the cause of life in general. Of course, they can't really define "irreducible complexity", much less measure it, while there is ample evidence for evolution by natural selection, so the theory is a bunch of "God in the gaps" hooey.
What's so funny about it is that the movie 2001 as every bit as an authoritative explanation for "intelligent design" as the Bible.
(And did you notice that you misspelled "a part" like "alot" earlier, right after you got snooty about the grammar of a colloquial expression? Yeah, good times.)
it can neither be proved nor disproved in any scientifically valid sense.
It contradicts all existing evidence. To the extent any scientific theory can be disproved, it is.
Always bragging about how Android does this, how Android does that.
Well, the iPhone was doing this *first*! Put that in your I/O socket and smoke it.
Preventing me from cheating on my taxes is working against me?
I guess all laws that inhibit me from doing what I want are working against me.
But I do think that people frequently uncritically accept science that matches their cultural perceptions.
Which is of course why you invent straw man evolutionary psychologists, because until it came along, the prevailing psychology coincided with your moral and ideological preconceptions.