Personal attention can do much better than a computer program, imho. If at all possible, though, I believe the most important way for people with disabilities to adapt to society is for them to be exposed to society. We are all imitative, adaptive creatures, and in my experience people with disabilities will very often rise to the occasion if they have "normal" interactions with "normal" people as often as possible.
I run Windows for the following reasons:
I'm used to it. I know the interface, and I know where all the crap is and how to turn it off.
Games are written for it. Good games.
My programs (ProTools, SoundForge, Finale, others) that don't run on Linux run on it. I've paid lots of money for them, and alternatives of equal quality either do not exist or I haven't bothered trying to learn them.
I prefer to only have to maintain one operating system.
Consistency of user experience.
It feels fast.
It's software. It doesn't decay. It doesn't wear out.
Why aren't we all running the same software we did in 1993 then? Software is made up of many parts, all of which need to be upgraded at times. Sometimes these upgrades break things, which in turn need to be upgraded. Neglect one upgrade, it decays. The same is true of Windows (perhaps more so) if you don't maintain it.
Where are the "immense tomes" you're refering to?
Man pages, readme files, etc... they all add up. There's something to be said for one-click installation Wizards. No typing or anything!
If Windows works so well for you and Linux sucks so badly, then WHY were you ever against Microsoft?
For their monopolistic, anticompetitive behavior and overpriced software. I use it because, weighing the tradeoffs between quality, learning curve, maintenance, familiarity, and compatibility, it works for me at the present.
But OpenOffice.org is free (like beer). So it shouldn't be the price.
Free in money, yes. Free in time spent finding my way around and matching my documents to the MSOffice users with whom I associate? No. Free beer gets you drunk as effectively as non-free beer; not the case with office apps.
Is MSOffice also unstable for you?
For $15, I get complete compatibility with everyone I exchange documents with. I kick myself for supporting MS in this way, but them's the breaks. I haven't checked out OpenOffice in a few years, perhaps I'll give it another go in the summer when I have time for such luxuries.
Ah, the old "I used Linux x years ago and it sucked".
Indeed. It's probably time for me to try another install, but system-tinkering-and-experimentation ceased to be one of my hobbies a few years ago. When someone tells me honestly that it will be easier for me to learn, set up, and maintain a linux box than to keep doing what I'm doing, I'm game. In any case, I'm keeping my Windows box around for the reasons (at least the important ones) listed above... maintaing two Operating Systems for very little gain is not worth my time.
It's strange how you don't view finding AdAware, downloading it and running it to be too burdensome (no, it did NOT come with Windows), but Linux takes too much of your time.
Finding and downloading AdAware takes 3 minutes. I can grab lunch while it runs. Linux takes longer than 3 minutes to maintain.
And without running anti-virus software, how will you know if you don't have a virus?
I know people who excel at acquiring viruses. My system does not perform like theirs. When "stuff goes wrong," I've got one. I back up important documents and don't keep anything sensitive on my machine. Yes, I'm living dangerously.
I'm not disagreeing with you; I think it would be great, ideologically and practically, if most (perhaps all) software was open source. For my given situation, though, it's just too much trouble at the moment.
I suppose I'm just lazy when it comes to Linux. However, of the listed utilities, I only run Windows Update, and perhaps the semiannual defrag and adaware, and my system runs perfectly.
We need a new feature on Slashdot. For each news story, there should be a "scream in horror, pain, and disgust" button. This way, whenever a story is reported where otherwise well-thinking people do something that makes no logical sense whatsoever, you can simply press the button to register your "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGH."
Each thread would have a scream counter, and perhaps also rate them by severity/incoherence. Perhaps a high-bandwidth version could be introduced in which posters can record their screams, and visitors can listen to all of them together, a la "millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."
I bring this up because there is an increasing number of stories, like this one, where I think a good scream is necessary, but can't be made into a coherent thread.
It deteriorates and dies quite easily. First a little thing goes wrong that I don't fix, then another. I botch a couple installations of things because I don't bother reading the immense tomes. Pretty soon I have trouble booting. All the while, I'm using it less often, because I already spend ENOUGH time coding things I consider productive. It dies when I need the disk space to install Knights of the Old Republic II.
Regarding updates, yes, Windows Update is irritating. I'm careful with my computer setup though. I use Opera, watch what I download, and haven't had a virus in years, despite not using antivirus software. AdAware comes up clean (aside from a couple registry keys) when I run it every few months. I'd never heard of the apt-get update command, but apparently I didn't dig deep enough into manpages to find it. My 2001 Mandrake (the "friendly" one?) install sure didn't have an obvious link to it, and if I'm going to read 200 pages to find such things I'll much sooner pick up some good fiction.
I have nothing against open source, per se, and am delighted to see programs like Firefox doing well. I attribute this largely to an increasing emphasis on user-friendliness, which is exactly what open source needs to succeed.
A few years ago, I was very big into the "Linux shall overthrow Microsoft" crowd (running Linux, Mozilla, and OpenOffice, very unstably), and would still quite like to see it happen, and I do indeed consider Bill Gates to be a turd sandwich. I just feel that a switch to Linux at the moment involves a lot of work and research on my part, time I'd rather spend elsewhere.
Granted, money talks, I'm a big hypocrite, and if I wasn't getting academic pricing on Office, I'd probably have ditched it years ago.
I gotta agree with you. This is why I eventually let my linux partition deteriorate and die. For a while it was fun, but I found myself falling behind on the maintenance. With all the other stuff I have going on, I simply don't have the time or effort to significantly investigate the workings of the OS, not to mention make it work like I want it to.
I've opted to have one less thing to talk about with great knowledge in computer circles, and I haven't really minded.
The problem, I think, is that open source software wants to have its cake and eat it too. It often goes for raw functionality without usability, with the mentality of "if I can figure it out, so can you!" This is fine, if you want "open-source-types" to use your software, but you really can't complain if Joe User doesn't want to do a significant amount of research before setting up a computer.
It's like modernist composers who write art music very inaccessible to the average listener... sure, it may be an absolutely magnificent piece of music, and I'm not saying you shouldn't write it, and I'm not saying whether it's better or worse than something more common-listener-friendly. However, if you complain that nobody wants to listen to it, you have only yourself to blame.
This could be a boon for B-horror-movie producers... "You thought it was safe to walk in the yard. You thought the only hungry thing in your lawn was the earthworms. You thought Colonel Scruffles ran away from home. You thought wrong. [SCREAM!] Coming This July. Steven Seagal. [GET OUT OF THERE!] Angelina Jolie. [THIS IS BAD] 'Keep Off the Grass'"
It was an off-the-top-of-my-head example, meant for, perhaps, the end of your first or second semester. And I've seen people graduate from universities who couldn't code their way out of a paper bag.
Indeed. My comments were mainly directed toward the notion of game degrees in general, compared to non-game-specialized CS degrees. Personally, I'd lean toward LESS game-specialization rather than more. I might consider an SC game degree more relevant than one from a tech school, but I'd rank a CS degree with an unrelated minor above either of those.
I think computer science departments should be run like music departments:
Every semester, we have juries. You appear in front of a panel of 3-5 professors for 10-15 minutes and demonstrate what you've done this semester. For most, it means playing a piece (composition majors bring what they've written). If you fail, you are placed on probation and have to pay for your own lessons the next semester. If you fail again the next semester, you are dropped from the department.
Oh, and senior projects/recitals are mandatory for all.
I think a similar program in CS departments could really shake things up. You show up on the last day of classes in front of an empty terminal and are given instructions such as "You have one hour. Code and debug a heap."
And yet our "game development" programs and electives still seem obsessed with "making pretty graphics." Sure, it's an important segment of programming, and the one you need the most people to do lately. It's also the most easily outsorceable.
Why it is that a "game development" course most often focuses on DirectX is beyond me. You can learn DirectX from a book if the need arises.
I'm having trouble visiting the link. However, according to the posted text, it's tech-school accredited, which is different from university accredited.
On the other hand, often a person who hasn't one-sidedly specialized in the said field is the best hire. Sure, a game company does need a frightening number of graphics drones lately, but someone with experience in, say, Shakespeare, advanced music theory, German literature, dance, fencing, or biochemistry might be a more worthwhile hire.
You can train a new hire to do the game stuff, but other interests often make for more well-rounded people who are easier to get along with and communicate better. Not to mention that someone's lack of "dedication to the profession" might give them insight to issues such as "The sound is funky here," or "Why does the jouster's foot look wonky?" or "Why on earth our game have so much grammatical errors?"
If anything, I'd prefer to work with and hire at least some people who are NOT historically dedicated to the profession. THEY are often the ones with the "Why don't we just _____ instead?" ideas.
The game degree will get a person started and make them extremely relevant for the first few years until the technology changes. After that, the edge such a degree gives is greatly reduced.
It's a shame that such "game development" classes so often center on "game development graphics," rarely spending more than a sidenote on sound, user interface, etc., which can really make or break a game.
Or am I the only person who abhors graphics code, and the industry's latest obsession on pretty-realism?
Is it accredited? I can teach classes on Shakespeare out of a van by the river and call it a Bachelor of Arts in English Literature degree. Perhaps a better metric is this: Could you apply to a master's program at a university with a Bachelor's from DigiPen?
If an institution with some clout AND quasi-objective say in the matter made such a quote, I'd give it more weight. However, anything you read on an institution's OWN webpage should be taken with a grain of salt.
Some of the computer-generated "what letters do you see here" images can be extremely tricky. I've been to sites where I can't tell the difference between a P, B, or D, what with all the deformations and gridlines and whatnot. The systems tend to get upset when I take a few tries to get it right.
The author is quite kind. I'd hardly call a very pretty FPS "groundbreaking." Then again, with the extremely low amount of groundbreakery in video games lately, perhaps it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you see the same trailer? This one is new and does indeed show Vogon Constructor Ships.
And if the punishing of that company for its negligence forces it out of business ... tough.
So long as they don't have a "Going Out of Business" sale...
Personal attention can do much better than a computer program, imho. If at all possible, though, I believe the most important way for people with disabilities to adapt to society is for them to be exposed to society. We are all imitative, adaptive creatures, and in my experience people with disabilities will very often rise to the occasion if they have "normal" interactions with "normal" people as often as possible.
Complete honesty follows:
I run Windows for the following reasons:
I'm used to it. I know the interface, and I know where all the crap is and how to turn it off.
Games are written for it. Good games.
My programs (ProTools, SoundForge, Finale, others) that don't run on Linux run on it. I've paid lots of money for them, and alternatives of equal quality either do not exist or I haven't bothered trying to learn them.
I prefer to only have to maintain one operating system.
Consistency of user experience.
It feels fast.
It's software. It doesn't decay. It doesn't wear out.
Why aren't we all running the same software we did in 1993 then? Software is made up of many parts, all of which need to be upgraded at times. Sometimes these upgrades break things, which in turn need to be upgraded. Neglect one upgrade, it decays. The same is true of Windows (perhaps more so) if you don't maintain it.
Where are the "immense tomes" you're refering to?
Man pages, readme files, etc... they all add up. There's something to be said for one-click installation Wizards. No typing or anything!
If Windows works so well for you and Linux sucks so badly, then WHY were you ever against Microsoft?
For their monopolistic, anticompetitive behavior and overpriced software. I use it because, weighing the tradeoffs between quality, learning curve, maintenance, familiarity, and compatibility, it works for me at the present.
But OpenOffice.org is free (like beer). So it shouldn't be the price.
Free in money, yes. Free in time spent finding my way around and matching my documents to the MSOffice users with whom I associate? No. Free beer gets you drunk as effectively as non-free beer; not the case with office apps.
Is MSOffice also unstable for you?
For $15, I get complete compatibility with everyone I exchange documents with. I kick myself for supporting MS in this way, but them's the breaks. I haven't checked out OpenOffice in a few years, perhaps I'll give it another go in the summer when I have time for such luxuries.
Ah, the old "I used Linux x years ago and it sucked".
Indeed. It's probably time for me to try another install, but system-tinkering-and-experimentation ceased to be one of my hobbies a few years ago. When someone tells me honestly that it will be easier for me to learn, set up, and maintain a linux box than to keep doing what I'm doing, I'm game. In any case, I'm keeping my Windows box around for the reasons (at least the important ones) listed above... maintaing two Operating Systems for very little gain is not worth my time.
It's strange how you don't view finding AdAware, downloading it and running it to be too burdensome (no, it did NOT come with Windows), but Linux takes too much of your time.
Finding and downloading AdAware takes 3 minutes. I can grab lunch while it runs. Linux takes longer than 3 minutes to maintain.
And without running anti-virus software, how will you know if you don't have a virus?
I know people who excel at acquiring viruses. My system does not perform like theirs. When "stuff goes wrong," I've got one. I back up important documents and don't keep anything sensitive on my machine. Yes, I'm living dangerously.
I'm not disagreeing with you; I think it would be great, ideologically and practically, if most (perhaps all) software was open source. For my given situation, though, it's just too much trouble at the moment.
I suppose I'm just lazy when it comes to Linux. However, of the listed utilities, I only run Windows Update, and perhaps the semiannual defrag and adaware, and my system runs perfectly.
Since when did precedent matter a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys in U.S. copyright law?
We need a new feature on Slashdot. For each news story, there should be a "scream in horror, pain, and disgust" button. This way, whenever a story is reported where otherwise well-thinking people do something that makes no logical sense whatsoever, you can simply press the button to register your "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGH."
Each thread would have a scream counter, and perhaps also rate them by severity/incoherence. Perhaps a high-bandwidth version could be introduced in which posters can record their screams, and visitors can listen to all of them together, a la "millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."
I bring this up because there is an increasing number of stories, like this one, where I think a good scream is necessary, but can't be made into a coherent thread.
It deteriorates and dies quite easily. First a little thing goes wrong that I don't fix, then another. I botch a couple installations of things because I don't bother reading the immense tomes. Pretty soon I have trouble booting. All the while, I'm using it less often, because I already spend ENOUGH time coding things I consider productive. It dies when I need the disk space to install Knights of the Old Republic II.
Regarding updates, yes, Windows Update is irritating. I'm careful with my computer setup though. I use Opera, watch what I download, and haven't had a virus in years, despite not using antivirus software. AdAware comes up clean (aside from a couple registry keys) when I run it every few months. I'd never heard of the apt-get update command, but apparently I didn't dig deep enough into manpages to find it. My 2001 Mandrake (the "friendly" one?) install sure didn't have an obvious link to it, and if I'm going to read 200 pages to find such things I'll much sooner pick up some good fiction.
I have nothing against open source, per se, and am delighted to see programs like Firefox doing well. I attribute this largely to an increasing emphasis on user-friendliness, which is exactly what open source needs to succeed.
A few years ago, I was very big into the "Linux shall overthrow Microsoft" crowd (running Linux, Mozilla, and OpenOffice, very unstably), and would still quite like to see it happen, and I do indeed consider Bill Gates to be a turd sandwich. I just feel that a switch to Linux at the moment involves a lot of work and research on my part, time I'd rather spend elsewhere.
Granted, money talks, I'm a big hypocrite, and if I wasn't getting academic pricing on Office, I'd probably have ditched it years ago.
I gotta agree with you. This is why I eventually let my linux partition deteriorate and die. For a while it was fun, but I found myself falling behind on the maintenance. With all the other stuff I have going on, I simply don't have the time or effort to significantly investigate the workings of the OS, not to mention make it work like I want it to.
I've opted to have one less thing to talk about with great knowledge in computer circles, and I haven't really minded.
The problem, I think, is that open source software wants to have its cake and eat it too. It often goes for raw functionality without usability, with the mentality of "if I can figure it out, so can you!" This is fine, if you want "open-source-types" to use your software, but you really can't complain if Joe User doesn't want to do a significant amount of research before setting up a computer.
It's like modernist composers who write art music very inaccessible to the average listener... sure, it may be an absolutely magnificent piece of music, and I'm not saying you shouldn't write it, and I'm not saying whether it's better or worse than something more common-listener-friendly. However, if you complain that nobody wants to listen to it, you have only yourself to blame.
have a gene that makes it eat the leaves.
This could be a boon for B-horror-movie producers... "You thought it was safe to walk in the yard. You thought the only hungry thing in your lawn was the earthworms. You thought Colonel Scruffles ran away from home. You thought wrong. [SCREAM!] Coming This July. Steven Seagal. [GET OUT OF THERE!] Angelina Jolie. [THIS IS BAD] 'Keep Off the Grass'"
It was an off-the-top-of-my-head example, meant for, perhaps, the end of your first or second semester. And I've seen people graduate from universities who couldn't code their way out of a paper bag.
Indeed. My comments were mainly directed toward the notion of game degrees in general, compared to non-game-specialized CS degrees. Personally, I'd lean toward LESS game-specialization rather than more. I might consider an SC game degree more relevant than one from a tech school, but I'd rank a CS degree with an unrelated minor above either of those.
Indeed!
I think computer science departments should be run like music departments:
Every semester, we have juries. You appear in front of a panel of 3-5 professors for 10-15 minutes and demonstrate what you've done this semester. For most, it means playing a piece (composition majors bring what they've written). If you fail, you are placed on probation and have to pay for your own lessons the next semester. If you fail again the next semester, you are dropped from the department.
Oh, and senior projects/recitals are mandatory for all.
I think a similar program in CS departments could really shake things up. You show up on the last day of classes in front of an empty terminal and are given instructions such as "You have one hour. Code and debug a heap."
And yet our "game development" programs and electives still seem obsessed with "making pretty graphics." Sure, it's an important segment of programming, and the one you need the most people to do lately. It's also the most easily outsorceable.
Why it is that a "game development" course most often focuses on DirectX is beyond me. You can learn DirectX from a book if the need arises.
Tech-school accredited, which is great, but different from university accredited.
I'm having trouble visiting the link. However, according to the posted text, it's tech-school accredited, which is different from university accredited.
On the other hand, often a person who hasn't one-sidedly specialized in the said field is the best hire. Sure, a game company does need a frightening number of graphics drones lately, but someone with experience in, say, Shakespeare, advanced music theory, German literature, dance, fencing, or biochemistry might be a more worthwhile hire.
You can train a new hire to do the game stuff, but other interests often make for more well-rounded people who are easier to get along with and communicate better. Not to mention that someone's lack of "dedication to the profession" might give them insight to issues such as "The sound is funky here," or "Why does the jouster's foot look wonky?" or "Why on earth our game have so much grammatical errors?"
If anything, I'd prefer to work with and hire at least some people who are NOT historically dedicated to the profession. THEY are often the ones with the "Why don't we just _____ instead?" ideas.
The game degree will get a person started and make them extremely relevant for the first few years until the technology changes. After that, the edge such a degree gives is greatly reduced.
$45k over for years for USC? Try $30k/year
It's a shame that such "game development" classes so often center on "game development graphics," rarely spending more than a sidenote on sound, user interface, etc., which can really make or break a game.
Or am I the only person who abhors graphics code, and the industry's latest obsession on pretty-realism?
Is it accredited? I can teach classes on Shakespeare out of a van by the river and call it a Bachelor of Arts in English Literature degree. Perhaps a better metric is this: Could you apply to a master's program at a university with a Bachelor's from DigiPen?
If an institution with some clout AND quasi-objective say in the matter made such a quote, I'd give it more weight. However, anything you read on an institution's OWN webpage should be taken with a grain of salt.
...welcome the chance to beat the living daylights out of the first idiot to broadcast an advertisement.
Some of the computer-generated "what letters do you see here" images can be extremely tricky. I've been to sites where I can't tell the difference between a P, B, or D, what with all the deformations and gridlines and whatnot. The systems tend to get upset when I take a few tries to get it right.
This game will not be popular with people named Bill.
The author is quite kind. I'd hardly call a very pretty FPS "groundbreaking." Then again, with the extremely low amount of groundbreakery in video games lately, perhaps it is.
Either that, or it will undergo a SMEF.
(Sudden Massive Existence Failure)