"I'm talking about the process that you learn with maturity-- things like, "Check the evidence first, before making a decision," and "Let the other guy speak in his defense," and so on."
And again, how does this apply to a venue that's not part of the justice system? There is, and will never be, due process on the Internet.
You'd have a point, if somehow the "mob justice" affected a legal decision, but in this case, since there isn't even any ongoing legal proceedings yet, nothing of the sorts is happening.
His employer, being that it works in the "politics industry", had a policy forbidding employees from political activity to avoid any impropriaties. He violated the policy and was fired.
An employer I used to work for was creating lottery systems. It forbid employees from playing lottery games. Violations were dealt very harshly.
"So basically, non of these kid enter college with a solid idea or plan on how to reach their end goal of designing games. Few understand basic business practices and development processes and it shows."
So, let me get this straight.
A bunch of geeks go to school to learn how to make games.
You criticize them for not knowing how to make games.
Well, duh! Isn't that exactly why they went to school in the first place?
Ah, but hiring people with academic or professional qualifications would require the gaming companies to pay competitive salaries and not the slave wages they pay to fresh graduates.
Think about it. How many people get to write Java rather than write applications using Java? Or how many people get to write a brand new sorting algorithm compared to how many people get to use it?
I don't think there's anything wrong here. It makes perfect sense schools would create more consumers of computer science than computer scientists. If everyone coming out of these schools was a "creator", either the unemployment rates would go sky high, or there'd be a whole bunch of overqualified people working on tedious crap.
"I'm not sure FPS is the ideal genre for a spectator sport either. The number of players and the limitation of the first-person view make it tough for the audience to really keep track of what is happening and where all the players are."
This goes directly to the post I made about knowing the rules and nuances to be able to appreciate the game.
In FPS games unless you know the maps, you have no idea what the people playing are trying to do. No amount of presentation will change that. Showing the maps would make it faster for the audience to learn the maps, but they'd still have to figure it out themselves to truly appreciate what's going on.
PBS, I think, ran a documentary recently that explored the South Korean video game competition phenomenom.
What they kinda found is that you need to know the rules and nuances of the game to appreciate watching it.
If you don't know that, you can't appreciate what's happening before your eyes.
I'm a big sports fan and while I know the rules of practically any competition sport enough to understand what's going on, I have no clue about the finer points of the sports apart from the few sports I watch frequently. The sports I don't know enough about I don't really enjoy watching especially if I'm with someone who does know the finer points. The whole experience just goes right above my head while my friend is hollering about some magical play that just happened.
The same applies to watching video games. I'm a relatively good racing game player and I most definitely enjoy watching the great racers compete against each other, because I "get" how they race so fast. I'm not very good at Halo 2, and I just can't get into watching competitive Halo 2 matches, because I just don't see what's so great about the performance of some of the top players.
You got that right. This bill does NOTHING to address the wholesale abuse of our privacy by the information brokers (Choicepoint, Acxiom, etc.)
If I were running an organized credit card fraud operation, rather than pay hackers or carders for the information, I'd just pay for a monthly report of US people with income over $150K and a credit card balance over $50K. And I would get the information completely legally. My marks list would be much higher quality, and I could probably even sell that to every Russian mobster out there for massive profit.
Does this apply to recruiters and other people whose job it is to keep track of people? They pass people's contact information around all the time.
How about social networking site operators, whose site leaks contact information to third parties?
How about corporate officers of information broker firms like Acxiom? These companies never have permission directly from the people whose information they have.
The information broker firms are also the reason why this sort of law would never even pass in the US.
1. Ignoring "unsubscribe" requests. 2. List "repurposing." 3. Providing unclear privacy checkbox instructions, and ignoring users' responses.
If the "legitimate" emailer is doing any of these, that's not "being mistaken for a spammer". That's good old fashioned spam, pure and simple.
1) and potentially 3) are violations of the CAN SPAM Act and will land the "legitimate" marketer in legal trouble (well, they would, if someone was actually enforcing the CAN SPAM Act).
"That hardly constitutes cutting off all Internet access."
No! Really?
If the botnet phenomena had happened during that era, I have no doubts Russia would've been cut off the net quite fast. Obviously these days it would be impossible to pull it off, even if people in the position to do it thought it would be a good idea.
Just think about it...the botnets are a tool used overwhelmingly to attack the Internet infrastructure itself directly threatening the very same "ecosystem" they live in. Most of the operators are localized in one geographical location...a large one, for sure, but one location nevertheless. It would be entirely logical to cut that location off.
If I was the Dictator of Internet, that's exactly what I would do until the Russian law enforcement community started thinking it'd be a swell idea to cut down on the abuse from their mobsters.
This is nothing but a PR campaign to convince Canadian legislators to pass the new copyright bill they're considering at the moment. It's the one that would eliminate fair use from Canada.
So far there hasn't been any will to go after botnet operators. A few small time, unorganized crooks, who've been too stupid to cover their tracks properly, have been caught and convicted, but nobody is even thinking of going after the big fish operating from Russia.
In the "good old days" this problem would've been fixed in 10 seconds by cutting all of Eastern Europe off the net completely. Too bad it can't be done any more.
When I graduated I had the same fear the OP has. With (positive) experience most of it goes away in time. At the very least you learn how to deal with the quite normal fear of failure. You learn to break the task into smaller more digestable parts. You also get a better sense of your limits, so you know when not to bang your head against the wall but rather go and do some research first.
I still do hesitate starting new development efforts when I have a choice whether to start it or not. Obviously at work I have no choice...I have to start and finish what I'm tasked with, otherwise I'd be fired, but personal projects are another matter. I'm not afraid of failing like I was 10 years ago, but more afraid of wasting my time. What if I put 100 hours into something that turns out to be crap or I can't finish for whatever reason? My wife's gonna kick my ass for ignoring her and I've wasted good Sunday football time on something that has very little value. I don't have the time and stamina for all-nighters like I used to.
I guess growing older has benefits and downsides:)
"Each iteration will make you better, and remember it takes time."
This is a great piece of advice.
I used to work as a consultant for a long time, and it really bugged me to no end that I never had the chance to do more than one iteration of any application I was developing. I'm not an uber-guru programmer, so the first iteration never was of acceptable quality to me for various reasons (crazy schedules, learning curve on new technologies, etc.). I always wanted to go back a month or two later to improve things, but at that point the consulting engagement was already over and I'd moved on to the next project.
Not that it's that much better now when I'm in an in-house development team, but at least I get a chance to revisit my own (and others') code after the first iteration.
You really do learn a lot by doing several iterations of the same code. It's especially useful to see other people's approaches to the same problem and trying to improve on that.
Slashdot Mirror
I buy that. Thanks for clarifying.
"I'm talking about the process that you learn with maturity-- things like, "Check the evidence first, before making a decision," and "Let the other guy speak in his defense," and so on."
And again, how does this apply to a venue that's not part of the justice system? There is, and will never be, due process on the Internet.
You'd have a point, if somehow the "mob justice" affected a legal decision, but in this case, since there isn't even any ongoing legal proceedings yet, nothing of the sorts is happening.
Well, fuck you, too.
Witness the subtle difference of being a troll and being a felon.
(But, hey, at least I am not sending death threats)
"Due process is not happening here."
What the hell are you talking about? There is no due process on the Internet, because no such concept exists at all outside of the justice system.
Oh, fuck you.
Whenever did death threats become "trolling", you idiot!
The stupid morons so clearly crossed the line and should be held criminally responsible for the fullest extend of the law.
Well, he says he quit. The employer says he was fired.
Who knows who's right. Maybe he was quifred?
There is no beef.
His employer, being that it works in the "politics industry", had a policy forbidding employees from political activity to avoid any impropriaties. He violated the policy and was fired.
An employer I used to work for was creating lottery systems. It forbid employees from playing lottery games. Violations were dealt very harshly.
"So basically, non of these kid enter college with a solid idea or plan on how to reach their end goal of designing games. Few understand basic business practices and development processes and it shows."
So, let me get this straight.
A bunch of geeks go to school to learn how to make games.
You criticize them for not knowing how to make games.
Well, duh! Isn't that exactly why they went to school in the first place?
Ah, but hiring people with academic or professional qualifications would require the gaming companies to pay competitive salaries and not the slave wages they pay to fresh graduates.
Think about it. How many people get to write Java rather than write applications using Java? Or how many people get to write a brand new sorting algorithm compared to how many people get to use it?
I don't think there's anything wrong here. It makes perfect sense schools would create more consumers of computer science than computer scientists. If everyone coming out of these schools was a "creator", either the unemployment rates would go sky high, or there'd be a whole bunch of overqualified people working on tedious crap.
"I'm not sure FPS is the ideal genre for a spectator sport either. The number of players and the limitation of the first-person view make it tough for the audience to really keep track of what is happening and where all the players are."
This goes directly to the post I made about knowing the rules and nuances to be able to appreciate the game.
In FPS games unless you know the maps, you have no idea what the people playing are trying to do. No amount of presentation will change that. Showing the maps would make it faster for the audience to learn the maps, but they'd still have to figure it out themselves to truly appreciate what's going on.
PBS, I think, ran a documentary recently that explored the South Korean video game competition phenomenom.
What they kinda found is that you need to know the rules and nuances of the game to appreciate watching it.
If you don't know that, you can't appreciate what's happening before your eyes.
I'm a big sports fan and while I know the rules of practically any competition sport enough to understand what's going on, I have no clue about the finer points of the sports apart from the few sports I watch frequently. The sports I don't know enough about I don't really enjoy watching especially if I'm with someone who does know the finer points. The whole experience just goes right above my head while my friend is hollering about some magical play that just happened.
The same applies to watching video games. I'm a relatively good racing game player and I most definitely enjoy watching the great racers compete against each other, because I "get" how they race so fast. I'm not very good at Halo 2, and I just can't get into watching competitive Halo 2 matches, because I just don't see what's so great about the performance of some of the top players.
You got that right. This bill does NOTHING to address the wholesale abuse of our privacy by the information brokers (Choicepoint, Acxiom, etc.)
If I were running an organized credit card fraud operation, rather than pay hackers or carders for the information, I'd just pay for a monthly report of US people with income over $150K and a credit card balance over $50K. And I would get the information completely legally. My marks list would be much higher quality, and I could probably even sell that to every Russian mobster out there for massive profit.
Too many problems.
Does this apply to recruiters and other people whose job it is to keep track of people? They pass people's contact information around all the time.
How about social networking site operators, whose site leaks contact information to third parties?
How about corporate officers of information broker firms like Acxiom? These companies never have permission directly from the people whose information they have.
The information broker firms are also the reason why this sort of law would never even pass in the US.
1. Ignoring "unsubscribe" requests.
2. List "repurposing."
3. Providing unclear privacy checkbox instructions, and ignoring users' responses.
If the "legitimate" emailer is doing any of these, that's not "being mistaken for a spammer". That's good old fashioned spam, pure and simple.
1) and potentially 3) are violations of the CAN SPAM Act and will land the "legitimate" marketer in legal trouble (well, they would, if someone was actually enforcing the CAN SPAM Act).
"That hardly constitutes cutting off all Internet access."
No! Really?
If the botnet phenomena had happened during that era, I have no doubts Russia would've been cut off the net quite fast. Obviously these days it would be impossible to pull it off, even if people in the position to do it thought it would be a good idea.
Just think about it...the botnets are a tool used overwhelmingly to attack the Internet infrastructure itself directly threatening the very same "ecosystem" they live in. Most of the operators are localized in one geographical location...a large one, for sure, but one location nevertheless. It would be entirely logical to cut that location off.
If I was the Dictator of Internet, that's exactly what I would do until the Russian law enforcement community started thinking it'd be a swell idea to cut down on the abuse from their mobsters.
Think very, very early Internet. IRC access to all of Finland was cut off due to abuse.
This is nothing but a PR campaign to convince Canadian legislators to pass the new copyright bill they're considering at the moment. It's the one that would eliminate fair use from Canada.
So far there hasn't been any will to go after botnet operators. A few small time, unorganized crooks, who've been too stupid to cover their tracks properly, have been caught and convicted, but nobody is even thinking of going after the big fish operating from Russia.
In the "good old days" this problem would've been fixed in 10 seconds by cutting all of Eastern Europe off the net completely. Too bad it can't be done any more.
"I don't travel outside of the US because I don't care for the way I am treated there."
Well, now you know how many foreigners feel about travelling to the US.
mod parent up
This is clearly soliciting someone to commit a felony crime, which in itself is a felony crime, I believe.
I can't believe none of the press coverage on the story hasn't covered that.
Senator Durbin's biggest campaign contributor will be the healthcare industry and his interest in this issue has mysteriously gone away.
I'm with you on this.
Illinois State tax payers basically paid $520K for the Governor's election campaign.
Great post Aladrin.
:)
When I graduated I had the same fear the OP has. With (positive) experience most of it goes away in time. At the very least you learn how to deal with the quite normal fear of failure. You learn to break the task into smaller more digestable parts. You also get a better sense of your limits, so you know when not to bang your head against the wall but rather go and do some research first.
I still do hesitate starting new development efforts when I have a choice whether to start it or not. Obviously at work I have no choice...I have to start and finish what I'm tasked with, otherwise I'd be fired, but personal projects are another matter. I'm not afraid of failing like I was 10 years ago, but more afraid of wasting my time. What if I put 100 hours into something that turns out to be crap or I can't finish for whatever reason? My wife's gonna kick my ass for ignoring her and I've wasted good Sunday football time on something that has very little value. I don't have the time and stamina for all-nighters like I used to.
I guess growing older has benefits and downsides
"Each iteration will make you better, and remember it takes time."
This is a great piece of advice.
I used to work as a consultant for a long time, and it really bugged me to no end that I never had the chance to do more than one iteration of any application I was developing. I'm not an uber-guru programmer, so the first iteration never was of acceptable quality to me for various reasons (crazy schedules, learning curve on new technologies, etc.). I always wanted to go back a month or two later to improve things, but at that point the consulting engagement was already over and I'd moved on to the next project.
Not that it's that much better now when I'm in an in-house development team, but at least I get a chance to revisit my own (and others') code after the first iteration.
You really do learn a lot by doing several iterations of the same code. It's especially useful to see other people's approaches to the same problem and trying to improve on that.