... but I do with they'd picked a different format name. AVS is also the name of an ancient video format from the early 1990s, supported by Intel's ActionMedia II boards. Back in the day, it rocked all over AVI and Quacktime.
Have you tried Ephedra? Yes, I know there are other health risks involved, and yes, it's probably going to be banned sooner rather than later (at least, in the U.S.), but I've found that it seems to have much the same effect.
I don't think it'll come as a shock to anyone that when you let the engineers decide when a product is ready to ship, that it will never ship.
That's only true if you have a culture that encourages (or forces) engineers to add features at their whim. If you have a culture that says, "This is what we're going to do in this release; we may do less, but we won't do more unless we are told we have to," then you have a much better chance to ship.
Reading that, you may think that it's a Dilbertesque way of working ("less work! more pay!"), but it's one strategy for actually getting things done.
Having been in the game industry, it's about 180 degrees from the way they work, though... it's nothing to come in on a Monday and find that over the weekend, some programmer got uppity late Saturday night and coded an AWESOME NEW (unplanned) FEATURE that will plague you with bugs in six months. Maybe things have changed in the past few years, but that was the state when I was there.
Additionally, I don't know what segment of the industry you work in, but most channels have such a long lead time that if you don't have your marketing people putting out tendrils and your sales people booking units long before the ship date, you'll be burning through a lot of cash before you get dollar #1 out of the customer...
[cue ominous music] Dr. Evil: "We will deploy a world-wide network to which any business or personal computer can connect, called the [finger-quotes] "Internet". However, we will build into the [finger-quotes] "Internet" a limitation of four billion addresses. A few years later, when the network grinds to a halt because of the lack of address space, we will give out increased address space for... a hefty ransom..." [pinky-to-mouth] Number 2: Ahem... the Internet has been deployed, it is running out of address space, and the IETF is working on deploying IPv6, which provides a larger address space. Dr. Evil: Shit. Well, why don't we just do what we always do: find a vulnerability in Windows and send everyone an Outlook virus. [nods of agreement]
Indeed. The fact that a number has no name is irrelevant, since there are names for numbers both larger and smaller than the number of addresses in IPV6. You could easily say, "This rock is enormous: its mass in kilos is equal to 214.198748 times pi--a number that doesn't even have a name!"
Seriously, binding to email doesn't look like have anything rational in requirements to version/configuration management.
I disagree. If your goal is to have a decentralized system, anything you write is going to pretty much look like a set of store-and-forward servers per site. Hmm... looks like one just happens to already exist; it's called SMTP. Why NOT use the one that's already been tested and debugged?
That just proves that a good software architect is always a bad project manager (as too focused on theries) and vice versa, a good project manager is always a bad software architect (as too focused on daily practical tasks).
Always, huh? There's no human in existence that can do both? Damn. I must have been hallucinating the good ones I've worked for.
Take Savannah, for instance. An open SourceForge clone (product, hosting, free public machines, support, all included).
Actually, Savannah isn't a clone of SourceForge, it's a fork (from version 2.0, just before they closed the source). I believe that the resources to create a bottom-up clone of BK would be much larger than those required to created Savannah.
Interesting use of the false dichotomy. You would suggest that either the FSF is not selling "quite a bit" of software, or else a large proportion of FSF software was paid for, when neither need be true.
I don't personally have the sales figures for the FSF, but I don't think they're concerned with optimizing the ratio of paid to free versions of their software. They're content with selling enough to pay the bills (in conjunction with donations and other means of support).
So using lighter weights would be advantageous, up until the point where the projectile becomes too light to keep a decent trajectory in a cross wind.
Not just cross winds, but also deflection due to things like brush or light cover. Same reason my.243 is a poorer 'brush gun' than the.32 I've used on occasion. Smaller slug goes funny when it hits a leaf.
Diablo 2 fails more in not showing you all of the stats that are actually used by the game, and how each item effects them.
I disagree. I personally don't like when games show me all the mechanics of how everything works. I suppose some minimaxers like it, but the world is a little bit richer when you don't have all the keys.
For example, Back In The Day, I played Bard's Tale quite a bit. The mechanics of the game were far, far simpler than what I'd built up in my head as far as theories of what might be happening. I remember having the distinct impression that the more you used the same weapon, the better you got with that weapon; if you 'traded up' to a better one of a different type, you'd have to balance the improvement against the loss you'd take until you got experienced with it.
I was, of course, utterly wrong. But I didn't find that out until after long, colorful, and interesting discussions with friends who also played. If the designer had laid out all the rules and tables up front, I'd have missed out on the interaction with other players. This is even more true now in the age of fan boards and players' sites.
1. Angry hippie 2. Squatting sumo 3. Knitting a fez 4. Hands full of glue 5. Rastafarian argument 6. Hands holding a brassiere 7. Dragonfly frog 8. Tying a bowtie 9. Superhero with massive forearms 10. Cowboy on a pegasus
In the U.S., NASCAR consistently outdraws most other sports, including their playoff/championship series. I mean, even the TRUCK races outdraw Slashdot darlings like Farscape (both were getting around a 1.5 or 1.6 last I looked).
I recently read an article going into some of the numbers. When a mid-season race can outdraw the NBA finals, I'd say somebody's watching, and it's not just rednecks. NASCAR kicks (for example) both the NBA's and NHL's asses in the $75,000+ demographic.
Re:CDBurners not the end for high-capacity Zip dri
on
DVD Burner Round-up
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Not only that, but the prices are coming down quickly, and the capacities are increasing almost as fast--you can get 2GB keychains now.
USB keychain drives are in that silly pricing phase right now where you can pay more for a 32MB model than a 128MB model if you're not careful (the local Walmart had a 128MB model last week for $40.00). High-capacity IDE hard drives went through the same thing.
I think keychain USB drives are going to be a real sleeper hit.
My take? The article is a troll. But by the time everyone reads it and reports that the contents are bull, the author has what he wanted: a nice, tidy pile of ad impressions (the majority of the web users don't have popup blocking capabilities).
Pardon me for self-replying but it just occurred to me: maybe Slashdot itself might have an interest in becoming a NYT affiliate? Surely the NYT gets a good chunk of pageviews (and therefore ad revenue, modulo the minority that block them) every time one of their articles shows up here.
As the poster mentioned, Google already has a way to opt out of caching, so "talks" sounds like this is something different. My guess is that Google will become an affiliate of the NYT (in other words, if you hit a NYT link from Google, you're exempted from registering), and will then drop the caching.
Wrong again. Unlike software licenses, OSS development is not an ongoing cost. You develop (or enhance) the software to meet your needs, release your changes back unto the community, and then forget about it. If those development costs are less than that of proprietary licenses, you are saving money.
There are plenty of valid pro-FLOS arguments, but this isn't one of them. Your 'if' should be at least all caps--licensing a proprietary solution is almost always cheaper (monetarily) than developing the same thing in-house, because in the proprietary case, the cost of development is spread across all the licensees.
Take Office as an example. Say you need 100 licenses; call it US$80,000 in licensing. $80,000 of paid, full-time developers is unlikely to get you anywhere near the functionality of an office suite.
Take your favorite FLOS software and do a cost-of-development estimate using whatever figures you want, with whatever model you want (COCOMO is probably the best-known, albeit an old one, and there are FLOS tools that will do COCOMO analysis for you on most languages). I was astounded the first time I tried this.
The rest of your comment is sound, and I'm a proponent of FLOS software myself, but the idea that developing in-house is cost-effective vs. licensing proprietary software is rarely true except in the most specialized or most trivial cases.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, here's some more information on the original AVS format.
... but I do with they'd picked a different format name. AVS is also the name of an ancient video format from the early 1990s, supported by Intel's ActionMedia II boards. Back in the day, it rocked all over AVI and Quacktime.
Have you tried Ephedra? Yes, I know there are other health risks involved, and yes, it's probably going to be banned sooner rather than later (at least, in the U.S.), but I've found that it seems to have much the same effect.
I believe that you are describing a pathological symptom, not a useful feature.
I don't think it'll come as a shock to anyone that when you let the engineers decide when a product is ready to ship, that it will never ship.
That's only true if you have a culture that encourages (or forces) engineers to add features at their whim. If you have a culture that says, "This is what we're going to do in this release; we may do less, but we won't do more unless we are told we have to," then you have a much better chance to ship.
Reading that, you may think that it's a Dilbertesque way of working ("less work! more pay!"), but it's one strategy for actually getting things done.
Having been in the game industry, it's about 180 degrees from the way they work, though... it's nothing to come in on a Monday and find that over the weekend, some programmer got uppity late Saturday night and coded an AWESOME NEW (unplanned) FEATURE that will plague you with bugs in six months. Maybe things have changed in the past few years, but that was the state when I was there.
Additionally, I don't know what segment of the industry you work in, but most channels have such a long lead time that if you don't have your marketing people putting out tendrils and your sales people booking units long before the ship date, you'll be burning through a lot of cash before you get dollar #1 out of the customer...
[cue ominous music]
Dr. Evil: "We will deploy a world-wide network to which any business or personal computer can connect, called the [finger-quotes] "Internet". However, we will build into the [finger-quotes] "Internet" a limitation of four billion addresses. A few years later, when the network grinds to a halt because of the lack of address space, we will give out increased address space for... a hefty ransom..." [pinky-to-mouth]
Number 2: Ahem... the Internet has been deployed, it is running out of address space, and the IETF is working on deploying IPv6, which provides a larger address space.
Dr. Evil: Shit. Well, why don't we just do what we always do: find a vulnerability in Windows and send everyone an Outlook virus.
[nods of agreement]
Indeed. The fact that a number has no name is irrelevant, since there are names for numbers both larger and smaller than the number of addresses in IPV6. You could easily say, "This rock is enormous: its mass in kilos is equal to 214.198748 times pi--a number that doesn't even have a name!"
You forgot to put your pinky up to your lips.
Seriously, binding to email doesn't look like have anything rational in requirements to version/configuration management.
I disagree. If your goal is to have a decentralized system, anything you write is going to pretty much look like a set of store-and-forward servers per site. Hmm... looks like one just happens to already exist; it's called SMTP. Why NOT use the one that's already been tested and debugged?
That just proves that a good software architect is always a bad project manager (as too focused on theries) and vice versa, a good project manager is always a bad software architect (as too focused on daily practical tasks).
Always, huh? There's no human in existence that can do both? Damn. I must have been hallucinating the good ones I've worked for.
Take Savannah, for instance. An open SourceForge clone (product, hosting, free public machines, support, all included).
Actually, Savannah isn't a clone of SourceForge, it's a fork (from version 2.0, just before they closed the source). I believe that the resources to create a bottom-up clone of BK would be much larger than those required to created Savannah.
Interesting use of the false dichotomy. You would suggest that either the FSF is not selling "quite a bit" of software, or else a large proportion of FSF software was paid for, when neither need be true.
I don't personally have the sales figures for the FSF, but I don't think they're concerned with optimizing the ratio of paid to free versions of their software. They're content with selling enough to pay the bills (in conjunction with donations and other means of support).
Linus's mailbox. Seriously.
That's why moving to BK was an efficiency win.
BitKeeper is decentralized; it doesn't require a central server, so it's much easier to work with several dozen people each in their own branches.
So using lighter weights would be advantageous, up until the point where the projectile becomes too light to keep a decent trajectory in a cross wind.
.243 is a poorer 'brush gun' than the .32 I've used on occasion. Smaller slug goes funny when it hits a leaf.
Not just cross winds, but also deflection due to things like brush or light cover. Same reason my
My former boss worked on something like this years ago, although if I recall correctly, it was based on dead reckoning and computer vision, not GPS.
Diablo 2 fails more in not showing you all of the stats that are actually used by the game, and how each item effects them.
I disagree. I personally don't like when games show me all the mechanics of how everything works. I suppose some minimaxers like it, but the world is a little bit richer when you don't have all the keys.
For example, Back In The Day, I played Bard's Tale quite a bit. The mechanics of the game were far, far simpler than what I'd built up in my head as far as theories of what might be happening. I remember having the distinct impression that the more you used the same weapon, the better you got with that weapon; if you 'traded up' to a better one of a different type, you'd have to balance the improvement against the loss you'd take until you got experienced with it.
I was, of course, utterly wrong. But I didn't find that out until after long, colorful, and interesting discussions with friends who also played. If the designer had laid out all the rules and tables up front, I'd have missed out on the interaction with other players. This is even more true now in the age of fan boards and players' sites.
1. Angry hippie
2. Squatting sumo
3. Knitting a fez
4. Hands full of glue
5. Rastafarian argument
6. Hands holding a brassiere
7. Dragonfly frog
8. Tying a bowtie
9. Superhero with massive forearms
10. Cowboy on a pegasus
Hmm... What Would Freud Make of This?
Ahh, yes, of course the fact that it's been around longer than dirt makes it invulnerable. Just ask anyone who works at Barings Bank..
What? You can't find anyone? Hmm...
+1 Funny, -1 Wrong.
In the U.S., NASCAR consistently outdraws most other sports, including their playoff/championship series. I mean, even the TRUCK races outdraw Slashdot darlings like Farscape (both were getting around a 1.5 or 1.6 last I looked).
I recently read an article going into some of the numbers. When a mid-season race can outdraw the NBA finals, I'd say somebody's watching, and it's not just rednecks. NASCAR kicks (for example) both the NBA's and NHL's asses in the $75,000+ demographic.
Not only that, but the prices are coming down quickly, and the capacities are increasing almost as fast--you can get 2GB keychains now.
USB keychain drives are in that silly pricing phase right now where you can pay more for a 32MB model than a 128MB model if you're not careful (the local Walmart had a 128MB model last week for $40.00). High-capacity IDE hard drives went through the same thing.
I think keychain USB drives are going to be a real sleeper hit.
My take? The article is a troll. But by the time everyone reads it and reports that the contents are bull, the author has what he wanted: a nice, tidy pile of ad impressions (the majority of the web users don't have popup blocking capabilities).
*sigh*
Pardon me for self-replying but it just occurred to me: maybe Slashdot itself might have an interest in becoming a NYT affiliate? Surely the NYT gets a good chunk of pageviews (and therefore ad revenue, modulo the minority that block them) every time one of their articles shows up here.
As the poster mentioned, Google already has a way to opt out of caching, so "talks" sounds like this is something different. My guess is that Google will become an affiliate of the NYT (in other words, if you hit a NYT link from Google, you're exempted from registering), and will then drop the caching.
Wrong again. Unlike software licenses, OSS development is not an ongoing cost. You develop (or enhance) the software to meet your needs, release your changes back unto the community, and then forget about it. If those development costs are less than that of proprietary licenses, you are saving money.
There are plenty of valid pro-FLOS arguments, but this isn't one of them. Your 'if' should be at least all caps--licensing a proprietary solution is almost always cheaper (monetarily) than developing the same thing in-house, because in the proprietary case, the cost of development is spread across all the licensees.
Take Office as an example. Say you need 100 licenses; call it US$80,000 in licensing. $80,000 of paid, full-time developers is unlikely to get you anywhere near the functionality of an office suite.
Take your favorite FLOS software and do a cost-of-development estimate using whatever figures you want, with whatever model you want (COCOMO is probably the best-known, albeit an old one, and there are FLOS tools that will do COCOMO analysis for you on most languages). I was astounded the first time I tried this.
The rest of your comment is sound, and I'm a proponent of FLOS software myself, but the idea that developing in-house is cost-effective vs. licensing proprietary software is rarely true except in the most specialized or most trivial cases.
Of course, Bill probably did a little too much LDS in the 60s.
Funny, he doesn't look Mormon...
(+1 if you get the bad sci-fi movie reference)