The other point I'd make is that there are some/. users in the process of resurrecting old-skool/. in a different venue, so Bruce could give it a try, but I don't think he needs to: one way or another the user base will be giving a big goodbye to Dice.
Also, it's worth noting that this response from timothy was written only after a fairly serious effort to replace slashdot.org with something better (as noted in both our sigs). The suits are thinking something along the lines of "We're going to lose to a competitor! Do something!" and decided that we'd trust timothy more than some PR flak. Of course, the fact that they'd think that indicates to me that they do not know their community - timothy is actually one of the less-respected "editors".
What the ISPs really want is all the benefits of being a common carrier without any of the responsibilities. And that's exactly what they got with the Net Neutrality ruling. Given that AT&T is in the running for the top campaign donor in the country, it's unlikely that will change anytime soon (Seriously, it would be easier to list the politicians not on the take from AT&T).
And then I won't want my hard earned money going to poor people like I was.
Also, if the government didn't force me to give any of my money to those people, then I'd be rich.
(Seriously, a lot of people think that this is the only effect of government programs designed to help poor people, even when they know people who are benefiting from those programs.)
There's another argument here as well: If you've made a really successful game, but the copyright is going to run out before you retire, you'll be more motivated to make a second successful game because you know your gravy train is going to dry up. And yes, that works for all kinds of copyrighted things: For example, many one-hit wonders happily call it quits because that's good enough, rather than trying to write more hits.
Gentlemen, phase three. We place a giant "laser" on the moon. Let me demonstrate.... The laser is powerful enough to destroy every city on the planet at will. We'll turn the moon into what I like to call a "Death Star".... Since my "Death Star" laser was invented by the noted Cambridge physicist, Dr. Parsons. I thought we'd name it in his honor - the Alan Parsons Project.
That's not entirely true though: There is such a thing as objectively bad code. Bad code takes forever to run, has security holes a mile wide, is extremely verbose and repetitive, makes unwarranted and undocumented assumptions about how the universe interacts with the code, and of course has no automated tests whatsoever.
Now, when you discover this, the right approach is not to rewrite the whole thing, but instead to isolate and fix one small part of the problem. Fixing that one small part of the problem usually goes like this: 1. Create a complete (with 100% case coverage) and passing unit test suite for the one small piece. If there's a bug in the program that makes correct unit tests fail, first verify that it is in fact a bug in the program and not your tests, then make the smallest possible change to make the tests pass. 2. Write the new and better version that satisfies all those tests. 3. Put the new version in place in a test environment, and manually poke at it for a while to ensure that everything that relies on it works properly. 4. Then, and only then, make it live.
If you're a contractor who's just started, there's also a polite way to bow out or reset their plans: "After evaluating the situation more closely than I was able to during contract negotiations, this is not a task I am capable of completing to your expectations. I have put together this estimate of what it would take to do what you asked for. Would you like me to continue with the goal of meeting this new estimate, or would you like to find another contractor that might be able to better suit your needs?"
Doing A does not preclude doing B. In fact, they'd probably enjoy it if someone volunteered to do B.
My guess as to why they did A is: 1. There's the "ooh, shiny" effect that makes donors to the project know that their money went to what the grant applications said it was for. 2. The people who put it together probably believe (with good reason) that they might have expertise in fitting the maps together, and the goal of the project was more to make use of that expertise to make things more coherent than it was to simply put the maps online. 3. The maps are almost definitely available in their library to those who want them. They may even already have simple digital scans of the book available since it's public domain.
Well, you're right that it would be bad for you personally: Supply and demand means that scarcity of qualified engineers raises the price (a.k.a. your income) of engineering services, whereas a surplus of qualified engineers lowers the price.
That doesn't mean that all immigrants are bad for you: Immigrants engaged in any other profession increase economic activity overall, which increases demand for all sorts of things, which may well increase demand for engineers.
Sure he can. Here's how: Put a hold on all legislation going through his committee. Any senator can do this, and the effect is to gum up the works so much that the rest of the Senate can either do as the one senator asks, or not be able to engage in any legislative activity at all that relates to whatever committee he's on. The other senators will likely decide that it's easier to fund his pork project than to deal with the hold.
If he gave money to the poor, who would it trickle down to?
My view of trickle-down economics is that it's better described as tinkle-down economics: It's just dandy for those who are on top and don't care about anyone else, but the rest of us just get pissed on.
You apparently failed to read the last paragraph: GP blames both Bush and Obama for the TSA, which I think is fair.
I react somewhat differently as to what should be done with them, because I think George W Bush and Dick Cheney should be in roughly the same situation as the defendants at Nuremberg for their crimes against humanity and crimes against the peace - I want them to experience a humiliating trial in which the entire world sees exactly who these guys were and what they did, and then send them to the firing squad.
There are a large number of places in the United States where the engineers flubbed. Dead Man's Curve, in Cleveland Ohio has lots of optical warnings that the curve is unsafe at speeds over 35 mph - but they seem to fail, as year after year, idiot manage to wipe out in that curve.
I live only a few miles from there, and yes, it's a problem. Interestingly, it met all the safety standards in place in 1955 when it was designed, and also accommodated various political wranglers who were trying to knock down some buildings and preserve others. It's not really an engineering problem though, but a political one: there's been a plan to solve it sitting in the Ohio Department of Transportation office for years, but it's never gotten close to being on the list of things to do. Part of it is that the Republican-controlled state government hates the Democratic stronghold of Cleveland, but it's also simply expensive and not high on anyone's priority list.
So your basic point stands: It's not an engineering problem, it's not a know-how problem, it's a political problem.
Those groups begin with women and gays, and continue with Muslims, atheists, and ends God knows where.
Please explain why women, gay people, Muslims, atheists, etc can't be good military personnel. I know this much: The soldiers I've talked to and seen polled about it overwhelmingly either support or don't care about these kinds of measures. This might have something to do with the fact that when you're in a firefight you care more about whether the rest of your unit are good shots than who they like to kiss or what they think about spirituality.
Now consider that beards have been outlawed by our military for decades, based on "discipline" considerations. No redneck, no Jew, no mountain man has been permitted to display a beard while in uniform.
Please explain why wearing a beard displays a lack of discipline or lack of military readiness. I'm really not understanding what the purpose of that kind of rule could possibly be, except some silly holdover from the 1950's that stereotyped bearded men as drunkards and foreigners. During the Civil War, wearing a beard was very common, and it doesn't seem to have had any effect on the skill or bravery or readiness on the troops (or at least not enough that anyone made any mention of it whatsoever in any military documents).
While a liberal or a progressive may feel that to be a "good thing", the fact is, our military is being improperly used to advance a number of political agendas.
Well, let me tell you of another time the military was used to "advance a political agenda": Racial integration. In 1948, Harry Truman issued an executive order desegregating the US military. Today, black people are more likely to join the military than white people, in large part because they know that the organization will treat them fairly and give them a good chance of a career. We'd probably lose 5-10% of our military personnel had Truman not done that.
We no longer have the military that we had thirty or forty years ago.
No, we don't, and we're at the very least no worse off for it. Running down the list of US military operations between 1974 and 1984 (the "glory days" you seem to be yearning for), the most significant military actions were the evacuation of Vietnam and the invasion of Grenada. Do you really think those were more difficult military operations than the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?
"Fast-paced work environment" actually means "We don't actually make any management decisions about prioritization or scheduling".
That's important, because a company that is understaffed who's trying to hire people is doing the right thing, whereas a company that has stupid management who's trying to hire people is doing the wrong thing. The second company will never be satisfied with the team's performance, because it's always a lot easier to sit in a meeting and say "We should make a..." than it is to make it.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you remember the rules of Slashdot polls? "If you're using these numbers for anything important, you're insane."
Of course, there was one poll that was for something very important, and thankfully it worked out well. Ahh, the memories.
The other point I'd make is that there are some /. users in the process of resurrecting old-skool /. in a different venue, so Bruce could give it a try, but I don't think he needs to: one way or another the user base will be giving a big goodbye to Dice.
Also, it's worth noting that this response from timothy was written only after a fairly serious effort to replace slashdot.org with something better (as noted in both our sigs). The suits are thinking something along the lines of "We're going to lose to a competitor! Do something!" and decided that we'd trust timothy more than some PR flak. Of course, the fact that they'd think that indicates to me that they do not know their community - timothy is actually one of the less-respected "editors".
Bernard Marx, perhaps?
Oh, it's much better to be a Beta! Alphas have to work so hard! I love being a Beta!
I concur: They should have simply put in the OMG Ponies! design and been done with it.
<SEAN-CONNERY>
I have to ask you about the Penis Mightier.
Gussy it up however you like, the question is does it work?
<SEAN-CONNERY>
Under an evil dictator we're stuck until the dictator dooms us with one of the classic blunders -- getting involved in a land war in Asia.
Of course, no democratic leader would ever make that mistake, right? How soon we forget ...
What the ISPs really want is all the benefits of being a common carrier without any of the responsibilities. And that's exactly what they got with the Net Neutrality ruling. Given that AT&T is in the running for the top campaign donor in the country, it's unlikely that will change anytime soon (Seriously, it would be easier to list the politicians not on the take from AT&T).
And then I won't want my hard earned money going to poor people like I was.
Also, if the government didn't force me to give any of my money to those people, then I'd be rich.
(Seriously, a lot of people think that this is the only effect of government programs designed to help poor people, even when they know people who are benefiting from those programs.)
There's another argument here as well: If you've made a really successful game, but the copyright is going to run out before you retire, you'll be more motivated to make a second successful game because you know your gravy train is going to dry up. And yes, that works for all kinds of copyrighted things: For example, many one-hit wonders happily call it quits because that's good enough, rather than trying to write more hits.
Gentlemen, phase three. We place a giant "laser" on the moon. Let me demonstrate. ... The laser is powerful enough to destroy every city on the planet at will. We'll turn the moon into what I like to call a "Death Star". ... Since my "Death Star" laser was invented by the noted Cambridge physicist, Dr. Parsons. I thought we'd name it in his honor - the Alan Parsons Project.
That's not entirely true though: There is such a thing as objectively bad code. Bad code takes forever to run, has security holes a mile wide, is extremely verbose and repetitive, makes unwarranted and undocumented assumptions about how the universe interacts with the code, and of course has no automated tests whatsoever.
Now, when you discover this, the right approach is not to rewrite the whole thing, but instead to isolate and fix one small part of the problem. Fixing that one small part of the problem usually goes like this:
1. Create a complete (with 100% case coverage) and passing unit test suite for the one small piece. If there's a bug in the program that makes correct unit tests fail, first verify that it is in fact a bug in the program and not your tests, then make the smallest possible change to make the tests pass.
2. Write the new and better version that satisfies all those tests.
3. Put the new version in place in a test environment, and manually poke at it for a while to ensure that everything that relies on it works properly.
4. Then, and only then, make it live.
If you're a contractor who's just started, there's also a polite way to bow out or reset their plans: "After evaluating the situation more closely than I was able to during contract negotiations, this is not a task I am capable of completing to your expectations. I have put together this estimate of what it would take to do what you asked for. Would you like me to continue with the goal of meeting this new estimate, or would you like to find another contractor that might be able to better suit your needs?"
Doing A does not preclude doing B. In fact, they'd probably enjoy it if someone volunteered to do B.
My guess as to why they did A is:
1. There's the "ooh, shiny" effect that makes donors to the project know that their money went to what the grant applications said it was for.
2. The people who put it together probably believe (with good reason) that they might have expertise in fitting the maps together, and the goal of the project was more to make use of that expertise to make things more coherent than it was to simply put the maps online.
3. The maps are almost definitely available in their library to those who want them. They may even already have simple digital scans of the book available since it's public domain.
Well, you're right that it would be bad for you personally: Supply and demand means that scarcity of qualified engineers raises the price (a.k.a. your income) of engineering services, whereas a surplus of qualified engineers lowers the price.
That doesn't mean that all immigrants are bad for you: Immigrants engaged in any other profession increase economic activity overall, which increases demand for all sorts of things, which may well increase demand for engineers.
but a lone senator can't keep a program funded
Sure he can. Here's how: Put a hold on all legislation going through his committee. Any senator can do this, and the effect is to gum up the works so much that the rest of the Senate can either do as the one senator asks, or not be able to engage in any legislative activity at all that relates to whatever committee he's on. The other senators will likely decide that it's easier to fund his pork project than to deal with the hold.
Obligatory Mel Brooks - politicians have been doing that since time immemorial.
If he gave money to the poor, who would it trickle down to?
My view of trickle-down economics is that it's better described as tinkle-down economics: It's just dandy for those who are on top and don't care about anyone else, but the rest of us just get pissed on.
Is there a new rule that desktops have to look the same as tablets now? Why wasn't I consulted?
That does in fact seem to be all the rage, for reasons that I have yet to figure out, beyond people looking at tablets and going "Ooh, shiny!"
You apparently failed to read the last paragraph: GP blames both Bush and Obama for the TSA, which I think is fair.
I react somewhat differently as to what should be done with them, because I think George W Bush and Dick Cheney should be in roughly the same situation as the defendants at Nuremberg for their crimes against humanity and crimes against the peace - I want them to experience a humiliating trial in which the entire world sees exactly who these guys were and what they did, and then send them to the firing squad.
There are a large number of places in the United States where the engineers flubbed. Dead Man's Curve, in Cleveland Ohio has lots of optical warnings that the curve is unsafe at speeds over 35 mph - but they seem to fail, as year after year, idiot manage to wipe out in that curve.
I live only a few miles from there, and yes, it's a problem. Interestingly, it met all the safety standards in place in 1955 when it was designed, and also accommodated various political wranglers who were trying to knock down some buildings and preserve others. It's not really an engineering problem though, but a political one: there's been a plan to solve it sitting in the Ohio Department of Transportation office for years, but it's never gotten close to being on the list of things to do. Part of it is that the Republican-controlled state government hates the Democratic stronghold of Cleveland, but it's also simply expensive and not high on anyone's priority list.
So your basic point stands: It's not an engineering problem, it's not a know-how problem, it's a political problem.
Those groups begin with women and gays, and continue with Muslims, atheists, and ends God knows where.
Please explain why women, gay people, Muslims, atheists, etc can't be good military personnel. I know this much: The soldiers I've talked to and seen polled about it overwhelmingly either support or don't care about these kinds of measures. This might have something to do with the fact that when you're in a firefight you care more about whether the rest of your unit are good shots than who they like to kiss or what they think about spirituality.
Now consider that beards have been outlawed by our military for decades, based on "discipline" considerations. No redneck, no Jew, no mountain man has been permitted to display a beard while in uniform.
Please explain why wearing a beard displays a lack of discipline or lack of military readiness. I'm really not understanding what the purpose of that kind of rule could possibly be, except some silly holdover from the 1950's that stereotyped bearded men as drunkards and foreigners. During the Civil War, wearing a beard was very common, and it doesn't seem to have had any effect on the skill or bravery or readiness on the troops (or at least not enough that anyone made any mention of it whatsoever in any military documents).
While a liberal or a progressive may feel that to be a "good thing", the fact is, our military is being improperly used to advance a number of political agendas.
Well, let me tell you of another time the military was used to "advance a political agenda": Racial integration. In 1948, Harry Truman issued an executive order desegregating the US military. Today, black people are more likely to join the military than white people, in large part because they know that the organization will treat them fairly and give them a good chance of a career. We'd probably lose 5-10% of our military personnel had Truman not done that.
We no longer have the military that we had thirty or forty years ago.
No, we don't, and we're at the very least no worse off for it. Running down the list of US military operations between 1974 and 1984 (the "glory days" you seem to be yearning for), the most significant military actions were the evacuation of Vietnam and the invasion of Grenada. Do you really think those were more difficult military operations than the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Did the government make sure to inform you about how we're all in imminent danger of being eaten by a giant mutant space goat?
"Fast-paced work environment" actually means "We don't actually make any management decisions about prioritization or scheduling".
That's important, because a company that is understaffed who's trying to hire people is doing the right thing, whereas a company that has stupid management who's trying to hire people is doing the wrong thing. The second company will never be satisfied with the team's performance, because it's always a lot easier to sit in a meeting and say "We should make a ..." than it is to make it.
What they're saying they want is people who will happily be in the office 100 hours a week, plugging away and barely stopping to eat.
In other words, it's a red flag, and I'll pretty much reject out of hand a contact from a company that makes a big deal about it.