You've muddled a few dozen issues into one.
1. The first amendment and its implications are extremely complicated. If you think otherwise, go ahead and remotely access a federal computer and explain yourself using some combination of first amendment rights and that your tax dollars paid for the computer and therefore they don't get to decide your level of access to it.
2. Constitutional rights have always been very murky with regard to minors. Although we have the first amendment, teachers can and will tell students to be quiet and force compliance with punishment.
3. The students won't own these computers until graduation, so until then, they're property of the state or municipality, and as such the state of municipality has the right to determine how their equipment should be used. The same reason you can't tinker with the municipal water meter even though it's in your home or on your property. Tax payers don't individually get to decide how municipal equipment is used.
4. Even if a student's access is restricted, the first amendment doesn't guarantee access to content, it only guarantees expression.
There's so many layers of complication between the technology and rights/legalities of the situation that questioning what authority the school has to monitor/restrict student access is futile.
I find it interesting that we're still figuring out how to implement games on a 32/64-bit 2+ gigahertz computer that barely rival games we previously implemented on an 8-bit 2 megahertz platform (NES). I would have imagined that even in a worst case scenario, emulation of an NES system in JavaScript would be trivial just by throwing more processor cycles at it, but the games people are creating in ActionScript and JavaScript are closer to Atari 2600 games than anything else. The games that are more complex tax a modern computer as much as the latest 3D games.
Your rights and the licensing options of the software you write are valid concerns. However, these concerns should be addressed before you write even a single line of code. It's just a bad strategy to write the code and then try to sort out who it belongs to.
I realize this doesn't help the current situation, but that situation may or may not be salvageable. It's a better plan to go forward resolving to solidify your stance and awareness of who your work belongs to before you do the work.
I think The Simpsons episode covered this when the kids collectively bought Radioactive Man.
Video games have been around for about 40 years. To put them in some kind of special category that needs unique oversight or attention is just ridiculous, alarmist behaviour. Kids have been entertaining themselves with one thing or another as long as humankind has been around. They play with fire, fight, pick on and make fun of each other, climb to dangerous heights in trees or towers, toy with combustibles and explosives... sometimes they get hurt, sometimes they die, but video games haven't altered childhood in any significant way.
Of course parents should be aware of the games they're playing, but no more so than they should be aware of everything their child is doing.
It's frustrating that the world is scrambling to deal with computers, cellphones, video games, movies, etc. They haven't really changed the nature of what it is to be human. We had Sweeney Todd, The Tell-Tale Heart, King Lear, and MacBeth long before we had video games. Kids have been getting warped ideas into their head as long as human imagination has existed. Sometimes kids even act out those fantasies to horrific ends which I don't believe is any more frequent either before or after the advent of video games.
As much as people want to attribute violence to video games, people are very quick to hush up once they realize the perpetrator of the latest school shooting, mall shooting, or spree killing wasn't even a gamer. For the first 48 hours, dozens of investigative reporters tried to draw a line between the Virginia Tech killer and Quake/GTA/Halo until they realized he didn't like video games or TV for that matter.
The whole video games : violence angle is a dead horse.
Over-eating is a behavior problem, but I don't believe it is selfish because it is not motivated by self-interest. It's an out of control biological urge, but the behavior is not beneficial to the self.
Over-eating isn't the only behavioral problem. There are millions of behavioral problems that all cost us money in one way or another, and it's selfish for each of us to go through the list and make a case for why the other behavioral problems should be charged extra for it. We could run through the entire APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and assess a societal cost for each condition. Obviously people who have conditions that are undiagnosed and thus untreated should be charged because their untreated behavioral issues are costing society.
When it comes to airfare, you're not just paying for an obese person's extra room, you're paying the customer service cost of the people who can't be satisfied and need $1000 worth of customer support for a $200 seat. Quiet, well-mannered people are still paying for the flight attendants even when we don't require their services. Orderly people still have to pay for the time and congestion caused by people who never have their their ID, wallet, credit card, and checkbook ready even though they're standing in a line and they know they're about to be asked for these things. We have to pay for the security cost of people who couldn't be bothered to read the regulations about what they're allowed to travel with.
Alternatively, we could just agree that we all have problems, and we're not going to play a game where we start assessing the costs of each individual.
Okay, this is my fourth draft of this post. I had wrote a whole lot about intolerance, but really, what's the fucking point. You people are obviously so wrapped up in what it costs you, what it means for you, why can't you get x or y because how DARE someone get allowances for their problem without you getting something too. It doesn't really matter.
Live your selfish fucking life in your self-centered little world. I'll stay in the world where people look out for each other and think about what we can do for each other, how we can help, instead of worrying about how other people's problems might inconvenience us.
Apple and Google were never found guilty of anti-trust violations, Microsoft was. Microsoft's business practices are public knowledge, there are literally scores of internal memos and emails floating around the internet from Microsoft executives talking about their plans to sabotage competing platforms in one technology or another.
Nobody can pull the same "trick" on Google or Apple because, to our knowledge, they have been open and honest in their business practices. Microsoft's disreputable tactics are a matter of public record. I'm sorry if you can't see the distinction.
How about the famed "Halloween" documents, how's that for your reference? In them, Microsoft routinely refers to open platforms as an enemy combatant and talks about how Microsoft can pretend to open certain platforms to give the appearance of being favorable. (Essentially admitting that Microsoft Share is a tactic to open as little as possible, mostly legacy technologies, to appear like they intend to collaborate with open standards). That's where people get the mantra "embrace, extend, extinguish".
I'm not even sure why I'm replying to someone who is apparently unaware of Microsoft's tactics of subterfuge and deception. Search the web, it's all there for everyone to see.
Anything Microsoft creates will not work with iPhone/Mac/Linux/etc. They will always sabotage the other systems whenever possible. Even if it works on release, an update will break it. Listening to anything Microsoft says is like believing an abusive spouse won't hit you again.
What makes you think it would be a civil case if the victim of a crime presses charges? A civil case is when the victim asks a civil court for recompense. A criminal case is when criminal charges are brought against the perpetrator. By definition, if the victim is pressing criminal charges, it's a criminal case.
I'm also not sure how you think law enforcement should work if officers must be honest in pursuing criminals. Asking people if they're a cop before you deal with them would be hugely effective. It rules out any form of undercover work, and it would generally be really difficult to trap the criminals because you'd always have to tell them why you wanted to setup a meeting.
::phone rings::
Drug Dealer: "Hello?"
Police Officer: "Hi, this is officer Johnson. I'm just making a courtesy call to let you know I'll be stopping by to inspect your home for drugs. As you know, because of the non-deception act of 2009, an unannounced visit would be dishonest."
Drug Dealer: "Thanks for the call."
::1 hour later an officer knocks on the door::
Drug Dealer: "Who are you?"
Police Officer: "I'm officer Jackson. Officer Johnson got a call and couldn't make it so he sent me in his place to do the inspection."
Drug Dealer: "I call deception! I was told officer Johnson would be doing the inspection! That's a violation of my right to not be deceived!"
If nothing else, this year's campaigns have shown me how easily manipulated the general public is. It's not just people in Texas, but close friends of mine. I can't even vocalize how shocked I was to have someone I always believed to be an intelligent person confide in me his belief that Barack Obama is a "secret Muslim".
I can't believe how often and with how much confidence I see pundits, news anchors, editors, and journalists make claims about one candidate and simultaneously brush off exactly the same claim about their favored candidate. I mean to watch Bill Kristol essentially say, with a smile on his face, "It's only socialist if a Democrat does it." or "They're only radical associates if we're talking about Barack Obama." and then brush off the entire conversation the moment Palin's associations are mentioned.
It makes me think of one of Dr. Phil's favorite phrases "Right Fighters". They don't want to do what works, they want to be right. 95% of the people in this country wouldn't care if the candidate they've chosen blew up the whole fucking world, they'd never admit to being wrong. They'd just smile as their skin boiled off and say "Yeah, well your guy would have been worse."
I'm ashamed to even participate in this process. I'm ashamed to be saddled with the burden of even having to share a species with Sean Hannity. I don't want the other species of the world to make the mistake of thinking we've got anything in common. More than anything else, I think this election has just made me feel hugely ashamed. It doesn't matter who wins, humanity already lost.
The political interests now directly control the media. Journalists aren't even reporting or investigating anymore, they work for lobbyists and politicians while pretending to be informing the people. It's sad that comedians like Jon Stewart are so much closer to reporting reality than Fox News or CNN. As I'm sure everyone has now watched, they discussed Marsha Brady on CNN like she's a real person. That's what this whole thing is about. People who can't differentiate between reality and fantasy. Of course so many people believe Obama is a secret Muslim, anyone who thinks the Brady Bunch is a documentary is prone to believe anything.
Wow, I haven't played Diablo 2 in quite some time, I guess I missed a lot of content. This Barack Hussein Obama character has really extended the Diablo mythology quite a bit, I didn't even know there were cars, internet, and government in the game now. I guess that's cool and all, I just wished they would have balanced the Paladin a little better.
The final trick: preloading desktop environment files while waiting for the user to type the password."
The final trick: preloading desktop environment files while waiting for the user to type the correct password."
The final trick: preloading desktop environment files while waiting for the user to type a password."
The final trick: preloading desktop environment files while waiting for the user to type a correct password."
All of those achieve grammatical correctness while maintaining gender neutrality. I believe gender neutrality is the message the OGN (original grammar nazi) was trying to get across.
The show "Seinfeld" was not about Jerry or his observational humor. There were very brief bits (the opener and closer) where there was a peak at his standup act, but the show probably only has about 20% to do with Jerry. There are 4 main characters that share about equal screen time, and the show became most well known for the supporting characters that they interact with. Jerry is the central person where our viewpoint spirals out from, he's more of an anchor to keep the show grounded in a specific location or about specific people. The show could easily have been named after any of the other characters.
Saying that Seinfeld is about Jerry's observational humor is only slightly more accurate than saying Friends is about dancing in a water fountain. I don't mind if people don't like the show, that's fine, it's not everyone's cup of tea, but if you don't watch the show, don't bother trying to explain what it's about.
Perhaps this is something we'll never be able to agree on. The complexity of the UI is a tremendous example of wasted resources. Our UIs are far more complicated than is reasonable. The UIs we have now are largely based on programmer's ideas, assembling things piecemeal as the idea occurs to them, but they're not representative of what a usability expert would recommend. The people creating the interfaces are the same people creating the other parts of the browser. When they add a function, they add an input for that function, they don't look at the browser as a whole and consider consolidating those inputs. We've got far more menus, menu bars, and input boxes than we need. Address bar, search bar, find bar, etc. when a single bar that changes modes contextually would be far more efficient use of resources, but it would require changing our code instead of adding more code. Adding more code is just easier than rethinking our old ideas.
The XUL framework doesn't alter our processing and memory requirements. The XUL is interpreted at specific points, it's not something that needs to be resident in memory the entire time the browser is running. (and correctly, it isn't). It's not even a factor in the average resources consumed by the browser.
A perfect browser would not be orders of magnitude larger and more complex than Mosaic, it would be smaller, both in binary size and in processing requirements. I'm not saying that Firefox is a memory hog or a processor hog, but to claim that it's anywhere close to peak efficiency as it could be is ridiculous. Software production is driven by cost, and at this point there's no savings in miniaturization.
Frankly, I'm shocked that at least a few people can't even imagine how the browser could be smaller, less complex, and less resource intensive. You don't always need more code to do more, you need code to be refactored, which isn't happening right now. With our current methods of development, when we want new features, we add code, when we should be altering our existing code to meet our new requirements. But going through the entire source tree of a project like Firefox to review everything that could be combined and simplified is an enormous task which we just don't have the manpower, money, desire, or knowledge to do at this point.
"Physics does not apply to software."
First, software is almost always an abstract representation of the physical world. The more we understand about physics, the easier it is to efficiently model our ideas in software. Software and hardware only scale in opposite directions because software construction is in its infancy and still resistant to traditional engineering procedures. In contrast, we've been refining hardware for thousands of years.
Our software currently scales up because immature practices leads us to add code rather than refactor code. As programmers, once we get something working, we're often encouraged to move on, leave existing code untouched. We add new functionality by writing new code; we rarely change existing code. Creating generic data structures, methods, functions, and procedures is encouraged in the initial construction phase; once a specialized module makes its way into an application, we seldom bother promoting it to a generic form.
Software may have limitations, but we're nowhere near those limitations. Software construction is optimized to be as cost effective as possible, not to be as efficient as possible. If you think otherwise, that's the definition of clueless.
Re:Not a bad thing.
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Advancement in technology means miniaturization, simplification. More advanced technologies require less power, not more. The modern desktop computer is thousands of times smaller than our first computers, millions of times faster, but you can run them on a battery, where as our first computers required their own power grid.
The fact that new software requires more CPU cycles, more raw power, is a mark of the immaturity of software technology. As we advance, our applications should require less memory and less power as we trim out redundant features. The resources a technology consumes is not a sign of how powerful it is.
Modern browsers do not demand more resources than Mosaic because of how powerful they are, they demand more resources because memory is inexpensive, and it's cheaper to eat up resources than it is to refine our methods.
Boycotts work just fine. I'm not sure why you think it doesn't work, that's possibly the strangest thing I've ever heard. My goal in boycotting Windows Vista was to send a $400 message, a financial vote against the product. Any way you slice it, my vote was exactly as effective as I intended it to be.
Maybe you view boycotts on an all-or-nothing scale. If the product fails, the boycott was successful? Personally, I don't concern myself with the success or failure of people's ventures. Flash doesn't work on my computer, and I'll vote against it with my web development work. I focus my development efforts on forward-looking technologies. As it stands, Flash isn't in my picture of the future. I have never built a web site that uses Flash and I'll continue to build sites the same way. If I ever did use flash it would be for the most trivial possible design elements, like border coloring, or a background imagery. For the time being, Adobe doesn't even exist in my sphere of influence. If they start playing nice, they'll show up on the radar screen. I don't have a problem with proprietary software. If it works, I'll use it. But if the proprietor doesn't care enough about their product to make it work, why should I care more about it than they do?
There's hundreds of thousands of open source projects that need every bit of time and effort they can get. Adobe doesn't want any help. I think we should go with the flow. If Adobe opens up their code, in essence asking for help, we could help them. Things being what they are, they're on their own. Either they make their software work, or they don't.
"The only thing that prevents many game dev houses from using open source methodologies is the fact that the algorithms contained in the code are still very valuable to developers..."
That's wrong thinking on their part. Algorithms are basic components of software, they're only valuable in an academic sense, they shouldn't be something a company needs to guard.
"...if the source were available, all a competitor or jerk has to do is fetch it and make himself a rip-off to sell at a lower price, or flood the market with free clones..."
That's the key scenario many people fear about open sourcing their software, but it's not grounded in reality. There isn't a single example of that ever happening because it's not nearly as simple as it sounds.
Closely guarding source code and artwork seems like a natural response because we instinctively horde the things we believe are most valuable. When it comes to open source software, it is not our instincts that are wrong, but our assessment of where that value lies. Our ideas are far more valuable than the resources which go into them. Production/construction is grunt work; when you need a door installed, anybody with a screwdriver will do the job just fine. The value lies in the design and vision, you can't seamlessly replace the designer or visionary without losing something. Steve Jobs is the perfect example of this. When he left Apple, the company still had every technical resource, every piece of source code, every ounce of sweat that anyone who had ever set foot in the company had given them, but without their designer, they really had nothing at all. If they thought the company's value was in all the source code they had amassed, a decade of steady downfall should have been a rude awakening.
A fear of open sourcing software is akin to fearing that if you tell people the route you take to work, anybody will be able to steal your job. If your route to work is one of your most valuable assets, or even a significant asset, you have a big problem. Source code is just a set of instructions for how to arrive at a particular place, and there are an infinite number of instructions which will give you exactly the same result. How you got there is immaterial, more important is your understanding of why you're there and your knowledge of what to do once you're there.
It's an important point that bears repeating with a different analogy. There are millions of web sites which will tell you the recipes for every single menu item at McDonalds, KFC, Burger King, Subway, and every other restaurant. But people still go to these places. A lot of them have long held (like KFC) that their 'secret recipe' is what people like. It's not. Do they honestly believe that the millions of people who go to KFC every year do so because they're incapable of making their own, good tasting, fried chicken? They could give their recipes away on index cards with every order and they'd still have a line out the door for the next century.
A small developer has a lot to gain from open sourcing their product. The one thing they lack is manpower, and making it possible for the world at large to help you out and fix problems that your small team doesn't have the time or resources to deal with should be a huge incentive. Yes it's scary, especially when you believe that guarding your carefully typed source code is the only thing your company has going for it. The truth is, that source code isn't valuable, no matter how much you might believe it is.
I identify most with a group which I'll label "The Conditional Pirates". Pirates who see a critical flaw in your product. They can be converted to sales, but you flubbed something significant that's a barrier to their willingness to buy. Game lacks crucial features or was abandoned.
The flaws I notice the most which will prevent me from buying is overzealous tamper protection (like GameGuard, PunkBusters, etc.) which somehow restricts my use of software which I paid for (or would have). As a Linux user I'm particularly offended when developers use tamper protection to make sure I don't run their program in Linux. Once I pay for their software, they shouldn't care or have any say over which computer, operating system, or environment I run it in. Because of that, I won't pay for software which will police how I use it after I buy it.
The other flaw is abandonment of a game. Buying a game comes with an expectation of support because game developers ship games fully aware of the many bugs it contains and intend to patch them later. When I buy a game, I'm not given the option of "abandoning my payment", but game developers/publishers choose to abandon each game at an arbitrary point, sometimes that point is acceptable, many times it's not, and pirating games is really the only weapon people have against abandoned game rot.
If you build a relationship based on lies and deception, expect it to go both ways. Game developers/publishers lie about the fitness of their product, and the consumer lies about their purchasing status.
A few specific cases:
Shadowrun(Windows Vista/XBox 360) - Released June 2007, Abandoned September 2007. Company closed a few months after release, the game still has many critical bugs that lead the game to have about a 20% crash rate. There are no game servers, it's entirely peer-to-peer so the company was able to wash their hands of this mess 100%. Take notice, the game developers felt no obligation to let players know they closed the studio and abandoned the game. For 8 months after the release, the game's web site still had information leading people to believe it was a vibrant an active game supported by the company with a message that you could "play against the developers!"
Giants: Citizen Kabuto - Released December 2000, Abandoned immediately upon release. I bought this game on the day of the release and the game's link to play online brought you to a web page which said they had changed their mind about supporting online play, and recommended you give Gamespy Arcade a shot if you want to play multiplayer. To make a decision to pull a game's support on or before the release date is shady by any definition. It didn't stop them from talking up the multiplayer features on the box or on their official web site.
Tribes: Vengeance - Abandoned upon release. The company even stated in future messages on the forums that support of the game was conditional on the game's success. They knew the game had a lot of flaws when they released it, and even completed development of a patch, but decided not to release the patch because they didn't see a future in supporting the game. That's real hard for my mind to process. That they would actually pay for a patch, get it, and decide not to release it for spite of poor sales. Their refusal to release a patch they had already developed was nothing short of malicious.
When game developers are so willing to treat customers maliciously, why should I feel like I owe them something? To address the argument that "My company doesn't screw people like that..." As an industry, developers and publishers who do screw people aren't ostracized by the ones who don't. The first time Vivendi Universal screwed people, every development company under their umbrella should have turned their backs on them. It should have become virtually impossible for Vivendi to stay in the industry. But companies which have poor practices aren't ostracized, it's seen as business-as-usual or a "toug
Microsoft doesn't share, ever. They exchange, acquire, barter, steal, strategically release, but under no circumstances do they share. Nothing goes out of the company without a bean counter being able to draw a direct map of how the outflow will lead to a corresponding influx. If you have something of value to Microsoft, they will examine scenarios in which they get what you have in exchange for something they have. If you have nothing of value to Microsoft, you get nothing. It's not sharing if there's always an angle, that's bargaining.
Sharing is a human behavior. Microsoft is not human. It's a corporate entity whose mentality is closer to a reptile or shark. It is to our great detriment that we anthropomorphize them. Sometimes they exhibit behaviors which seem to mimic the emotions we are accustomed to: fear, sadness, joy, remorse... but when it comes down to it, they feel nothing, it's just another feeding strategy. Reptiles don't smile, their mouths are just curved sometimes.
We must always remember, corporations are more vicious than a shark. Unlike a mindless predator, they actually know we anthropomorphize them and they use that too as a weapon against us. The problem we have when dealing with corporations is that, as people, we have a tendency to believe other people have the same altruistic intentions we have. And the worst part is, the corporate agents you meet at these gatherings DO have altruistic intentions. They're not in on the plan, they're just corporate agents who are fulfilling their duty and their only duty is to earn your trust. It's the corporate agents you don't meet who are assigned to violate your trust, and they have no problem doing it because they've never even met you, they didn't shake your hand, they didn't have a beer with you. But the corporation operates as a single entity. The hands which embrace you don't know they're holding you in place for the mouth to bite, so the hands may even genuinely like you.
The corporation is counting on the fact that you think the agents walking around OSCON are normal people just like everyone else. Don't be fooled.
Although it's true that the potential for problems rises (perhaps exponentially) with the complexity, advancement does not have to mean an increase in complexity. Simplification is a much greater mark of advancement than complexity is.
The submitter commented that this seems to have promise. How so? It's obviously just a filter that's specific to the comment format of Amazon Electronics. It's not like this plugin does any type of natural language processing. The person who developed the extension obviously noticed a pattern that's specific to how people comment at that specific web site. If that's the case, the application has no promise for any wider application. If that's not the case, this person has done some world class work in breaking the barriers between humans and machine, which means they can understand us now!
One problem with examining good design principles is that a lot of successful projects seem to succeed in spite of what would be considered poor design by any computer science theory. A lot of large open source projects are famous for just how disorganized, unmaintainable, and poorly documented they are. They barrel forward by sheer volumes of code that are submitted and are perpetually in a state of being put together with patchwork.
There just isn't a metric for the scalability level of one project is versus another. Scalable, maintainable, etc. are common buzzwords but nobody really has been able to say project x has a maintainability level of 5 while project y has a maintainability level of 8. Current software publishers pretty much use their bottom line to determine good design principles. And the vast majority of software doesn't have a long enough life cycle to extract any realistic data about what's maintainable and what isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
You've muddled a few dozen issues into one. 1. The first amendment and its implications are extremely complicated. If you think otherwise, go ahead and remotely access a federal computer and explain yourself using some combination of first amendment rights and that your tax dollars paid for the computer and therefore they don't get to decide your level of access to it. 2. Constitutional rights have always been very murky with regard to minors. Although we have the first amendment, teachers can and will tell students to be quiet and force compliance with punishment. 3. The students won't own these computers until graduation, so until then, they're property of the state or municipality, and as such the state of municipality has the right to determine how their equipment should be used. The same reason you can't tinker with the municipal water meter even though it's in your home or on your property. Tax payers don't individually get to decide how municipal equipment is used. 4. Even if a student's access is restricted, the first amendment doesn't guarantee access to content, it only guarantees expression. There's so many layers of complication between the technology and rights/legalities of the situation that questioning what authority the school has to monitor/restrict student access is futile.
I find it interesting that we're still figuring out how to implement games on a 32/64-bit 2+ gigahertz computer that barely rival games we previously implemented on an 8-bit 2 megahertz platform (NES). I would have imagined that even in a worst case scenario, emulation of an NES system in JavaScript would be trivial just by throwing more processor cycles at it, but the games people are creating in ActionScript and JavaScript are closer to Atari 2600 games than anything else. The games that are more complex tax a modern computer as much as the latest 3D games.
Your rights and the licensing options of the software you write are valid concerns. However, these concerns should be addressed before you write even a single line of code. It's just a bad strategy to write the code and then try to sort out who it belongs to.
I realize this doesn't help the current situation, but that situation may or may not be salvageable. It's a better plan to go forward resolving to solidify your stance and awareness of who your work belongs to before you do the work.
I think The Simpsons episode covered this when the kids collectively bought Radioactive Man.
Video games have been around for about 40 years. To put them in some kind of special category that needs unique oversight or attention is just ridiculous, alarmist behaviour. Kids have been entertaining themselves with one thing or another as long as humankind has been around. They play with fire, fight, pick on and make fun of each other, climb to dangerous heights in trees or towers, toy with combustibles and explosives... sometimes they get hurt, sometimes they die, but video games haven't altered childhood in any significant way.
Of course parents should be aware of the games they're playing, but no more so than they should be aware of everything their child is doing.
It's frustrating that the world is scrambling to deal with computers, cellphones, video games, movies, etc. They haven't really changed the nature of what it is to be human. We had Sweeney Todd, The Tell-Tale Heart, King Lear, and MacBeth long before we had video games. Kids have been getting warped ideas into their head as long as human imagination has existed. Sometimes kids even act out those fantasies to horrific ends which I don't believe is any more frequent either before or after the advent of video games.
As much as people want to attribute violence to video games, people are very quick to hush up once they realize the perpetrator of the latest school shooting, mall shooting, or spree killing wasn't even a gamer. For the first 48 hours, dozens of investigative reporters tried to draw a line between the Virginia Tech killer and Quake/GTA/Halo until they realized he didn't like video games or TV for that matter.
The whole video games : violence angle is a dead horse.
Over-eating is a behavior problem, but I don't believe it is selfish because it is not motivated by self-interest. It's an out of control biological urge, but the behavior is not beneficial to the self.
Over-eating isn't the only behavioral problem. There are millions of behavioral problems that all cost us money in one way or another, and it's selfish for each of us to go through the list and make a case for why the other behavioral problems should be charged extra for it. We could run through the entire APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and assess a societal cost for each condition. Obviously people who have conditions that are undiagnosed and thus untreated should be charged because their untreated behavioral issues are costing society.
When it comes to airfare, you're not just paying for an obese person's extra room, you're paying the customer service cost of the people who can't be satisfied and need $1000 worth of customer support for a $200 seat. Quiet, well-mannered people are still paying for the flight attendants even when we don't require their services. Orderly people still have to pay for the time and congestion caused by people who never have their their ID, wallet, credit card, and checkbook ready even though they're standing in a line and they know they're about to be asked for these things. We have to pay for the security cost of people who couldn't be bothered to read the regulations about what they're allowed to travel with.
Alternatively, we could just agree that we all have problems, and we're not going to play a game where we start assessing the costs of each individual.
Okay, this is my fourth draft of this post. I had wrote a whole lot about intolerance, but really, what's the fucking point. You people are obviously so wrapped up in what it costs you, what it means for you, why can't you get x or y because how DARE someone get allowances for their problem without you getting something too. It doesn't really matter.
Live your selfish fucking life in your self-centered little world. I'll stay in the world where people look out for each other and think about what we can do for each other, how we can help, instead of worrying about how other people's problems might inconvenience us.
Apple and Google were never found guilty of anti-trust violations, Microsoft was. Microsoft's business practices are public knowledge, there are literally scores of internal memos and emails floating around the internet from Microsoft executives talking about their plans to sabotage competing platforms in one technology or another.
Nobody can pull the same "trick" on Google or Apple because, to our knowledge, they have been open and honest in their business practices. Microsoft's disreputable tactics are a matter of public record. I'm sorry if you can't see the distinction.
How about the famed "Halloween" documents, how's that for your reference? In them, Microsoft routinely refers to open platforms as an enemy combatant and talks about how Microsoft can pretend to open certain platforms to give the appearance of being favorable. (Essentially admitting that Microsoft Share is a tactic to open as little as possible, mostly legacy technologies, to appear like they intend to collaborate with open standards). That's where people get the mantra "embrace, extend, extinguish".
I'm not even sure why I'm replying to someone who is apparently unaware of Microsoft's tactics of subterfuge and deception. Search the web, it's all there for everyone to see.
Anything Microsoft creates will not work with iPhone/Mac/Linux/etc. They will always sabotage the other systems whenever possible. Even if it works on release, an update will break it. Listening to anything Microsoft says is like believing an abusive spouse won't hit you again.
What makes you think it would be a civil case if the victim of a crime presses charges? A civil case is when the victim asks a civil court for recompense. A criminal case is when criminal charges are brought against the perpetrator. By definition, if the victim is pressing criminal charges, it's a criminal case.
::phone rings::
::1 hour later an officer knocks on the door::
I'm also not sure how you think law enforcement should work if officers must be honest in pursuing criminals. Asking people if they're a cop before you deal with them would be hugely effective. It rules out any form of undercover work, and it would generally be really difficult to trap the criminals because you'd always have to tell them why you wanted to setup a meeting.
Drug Dealer: "Hello?"
Police Officer: "Hi, this is officer Johnson. I'm just making a courtesy call to let you know I'll be stopping by to inspect your home for drugs. As you know, because of the non-deception act of 2009, an unannounced visit would be dishonest."
Drug Dealer: "Thanks for the call."
Drug Dealer: "Who are you?"
Police Officer: "I'm officer Jackson. Officer Johnson got a call and couldn't make it so he sent me in his place to do the inspection."
Drug Dealer: "I call deception! I was told officer Johnson would be doing the inspection! That's a violation of my right to not be deceived!"
If nothing else, this year's campaigns have shown me how easily manipulated the general public is. It's not just people in Texas, but close friends of mine. I can't even vocalize how shocked I was to have someone I always believed to be an intelligent person confide in me his belief that Barack Obama is a "secret Muslim".
I can't believe how often and with how much confidence I see pundits, news anchors, editors, and journalists make claims about one candidate and simultaneously brush off exactly the same claim about their favored candidate. I mean to watch Bill Kristol essentially say, with a smile on his face, "It's only socialist if a Democrat does it." or "They're only radical associates if we're talking about Barack Obama." and then brush off the entire conversation the moment Palin's associations are mentioned.
It makes me think of one of Dr. Phil's favorite phrases "Right Fighters". They don't want to do what works, they want to be right. 95% of the people in this country wouldn't care if the candidate they've chosen blew up the whole fucking world, they'd never admit to being wrong. They'd just smile as their skin boiled off and say "Yeah, well your guy would have been worse."
I'm ashamed to even participate in this process. I'm ashamed to be saddled with the burden of even having to share a species with Sean Hannity. I don't want the other species of the world to make the mistake of thinking we've got anything in common. More than anything else, I think this election has just made me feel hugely ashamed. It doesn't matter who wins, humanity already lost.
The political interests now directly control the media. Journalists aren't even reporting or investigating anymore, they work for lobbyists and politicians while pretending to be informing the people. It's sad that comedians like Jon Stewart are so much closer to reporting reality than Fox News or CNN. As I'm sure everyone has now watched, they discussed Marsha Brady on CNN like she's a real person. That's what this whole thing is about. People who can't differentiate between reality and fantasy. Of course so many people believe Obama is a secret Muslim, anyone who thinks the Brady Bunch is a documentary is prone to believe anything.
It's still odd wording. Most people would ask about unique web sites, like asking about unique restaurants or unique tourist attractions.
"Come to Epcot Center, it's a singleton!"
Wow, I haven't played Diablo 2 in quite some time, I guess I missed a lot of content. This Barack Hussein Obama character has really extended the Diablo mythology quite a bit, I didn't even know there were cars, internet, and government in the game now. I guess that's cool and all, I just wished they would have balanced the Paladin a little better.
The final trick: preloading desktop environment files while waiting for the user to type the password."
The final trick: preloading desktop environment files while waiting for the user to type the correct password."
The final trick: preloading desktop environment files while waiting for the user to type a password."
The final trick: preloading desktop environment files while waiting for the user to type a correct password."
All of those achieve grammatical correctness while maintaining gender neutrality. I believe gender neutrality is the message the OGN (original grammar nazi) was trying to get across.
The show "Seinfeld" was not about Jerry or his observational humor. There were very brief bits (the opener and closer) where there was a peak at his standup act, but the show probably only has about 20% to do with Jerry. There are 4 main characters that share about equal screen time, and the show became most well known for the supporting characters that they interact with. Jerry is the central person where our viewpoint spirals out from, he's more of an anchor to keep the show grounded in a specific location or about specific people. The show could easily have been named after any of the other characters.
Saying that Seinfeld is about Jerry's observational humor is only slightly more accurate than saying Friends is about dancing in a water fountain. I don't mind if people don't like the show, that's fine, it's not everyone's cup of tea, but if you don't watch the show, don't bother trying to explain what it's about.
Perhaps this is something we'll never be able to agree on. The complexity of the UI is a tremendous example of wasted resources. Our UIs are far more complicated than is reasonable. The UIs we have now are largely based on programmer's ideas, assembling things piecemeal as the idea occurs to them, but they're not representative of what a usability expert would recommend. The people creating the interfaces are the same people creating the other parts of the browser. When they add a function, they add an input for that function, they don't look at the browser as a whole and consider consolidating those inputs. We've got far more menus, menu bars, and input boxes than we need. Address bar, search bar, find bar, etc. when a single bar that changes modes contextually would be far more efficient use of resources, but it would require changing our code instead of adding more code. Adding more code is just easier than rethinking our old ideas.
The XUL framework doesn't alter our processing and memory requirements. The XUL is interpreted at specific points, it's not something that needs to be resident in memory the entire time the browser is running. (and correctly, it isn't). It's not even a factor in the average resources consumed by the browser.
A perfect browser would not be orders of magnitude larger and more complex than Mosaic, it would be smaller, both in binary size and in processing requirements. I'm not saying that Firefox is a memory hog or a processor hog, but to claim that it's anywhere close to peak efficiency as it could be is ridiculous. Software production is driven by cost, and at this point there's no savings in miniaturization.
Frankly, I'm shocked that at least a few people can't even imagine how the browser could be smaller, less complex, and less resource intensive. You don't always need more code to do more, you need code to be refactored, which isn't happening right now. With our current methods of development, when we want new features, we add code, when we should be altering our existing code to meet our new requirements. But going through the entire source tree of a project like Firefox to review everything that could be combined and simplified is an enormous task which we just don't have the manpower, money, desire, or knowledge to do at this point.
"Physics does not apply to software." First, software is almost always an abstract representation of the physical world. The more we understand about physics, the easier it is to efficiently model our ideas in software. Software and hardware only scale in opposite directions because software construction is in its infancy and still resistant to traditional engineering procedures. In contrast, we've been refining hardware for thousands of years. Our software currently scales up because immature practices leads us to add code rather than refactor code. As programmers, once we get something working, we're often encouraged to move on, leave existing code untouched. We add new functionality by writing new code; we rarely change existing code. Creating generic data structures, methods, functions, and procedures is encouraged in the initial construction phase; once a specialized module makes its way into an application, we seldom bother promoting it to a generic form. Software may have limitations, but we're nowhere near those limitations. Software construction is optimized to be as cost effective as possible, not to be as efficient as possible. If you think otherwise, that's the definition of clueless.
Advancement in technology means miniaturization, simplification. More advanced technologies require less power, not more. The modern desktop computer is thousands of times smaller than our first computers, millions of times faster, but you can run them on a battery, where as our first computers required their own power grid.
The fact that new software requires more CPU cycles, more raw power, is a mark of the immaturity of software technology. As we advance, our applications should require less memory and less power as we trim out redundant features. The resources a technology consumes is not a sign of how powerful it is.
Modern browsers do not demand more resources than Mosaic because of how powerful they are, they demand more resources because memory is inexpensive, and it's cheaper to eat up resources than it is to refine our methods.
No pigs have flown. The actual news is about Duke Nukem 3D being released for XBox Live Arcade. There is nothing about DNF.
Boycotts work just fine. I'm not sure why you think it doesn't work, that's possibly the strangest thing I've ever heard. My goal in boycotting Windows Vista was to send a $400 message, a financial vote against the product. Any way you slice it, my vote was exactly as effective as I intended it to be. Maybe you view boycotts on an all-or-nothing scale. If the product fails, the boycott was successful? Personally, I don't concern myself with the success or failure of people's ventures. Flash doesn't work on my computer, and I'll vote against it with my web development work. I focus my development efforts on forward-looking technologies. As it stands, Flash isn't in my picture of the future. I have never built a web site that uses Flash and I'll continue to build sites the same way. If I ever did use flash it would be for the most trivial possible design elements, like border coloring, or a background imagery. For the time being, Adobe doesn't even exist in my sphere of influence. If they start playing nice, they'll show up on the radar screen. I don't have a problem with proprietary software. If it works, I'll use it. But if the proprietor doesn't care enough about their product to make it work, why should I care more about it than they do? There's hundreds of thousands of open source projects that need every bit of time and effort they can get. Adobe doesn't want any help. I think we should go with the flow. If Adobe opens up their code, in essence asking for help, we could help them. Things being what they are, they're on their own. Either they make their software work, or they don't.
"The only thing that prevents many game dev houses from using open source methodologies is the fact that the algorithms contained in the code are still very valuable to developers..."
That's wrong thinking on their part. Algorithms are basic components of software, they're only valuable in an academic sense, they shouldn't be something a company needs to guard.
"...if the source were available, all a competitor or jerk has to do is fetch it and make himself a rip-off to sell at a lower price, or flood the market with free clones..."
That's the key scenario many people fear about open sourcing their software, but it's not grounded in reality. There isn't a single example of that ever happening because it's not nearly as simple as it sounds.
Closely guarding source code and artwork seems like a natural response because we instinctively horde the things we believe are most valuable. When it comes to open source software, it is not our instincts that are wrong, but our assessment of where that value lies. Our ideas are far more valuable than the resources which go into them. Production/construction is grunt work; when you need a door installed, anybody with a screwdriver will do the job just fine. The value lies in the design and vision, you can't seamlessly replace the designer or visionary without losing something. Steve Jobs is the perfect example of this. When he left Apple, the company still had every technical resource, every piece of source code, every ounce of sweat that anyone who had ever set foot in the company had given them, but without their designer, they really had nothing at all. If they thought the company's value was in all the source code they had amassed, a decade of steady downfall should have been a rude awakening.
A fear of open sourcing software is akin to fearing that if you tell people the route you take to work, anybody will be able to steal your job. If your route to work is one of your most valuable assets, or even a significant asset, you have a big problem. Source code is just a set of instructions for how to arrive at a particular place, and there are an infinite number of instructions which will give you exactly the same result. How you got there is immaterial, more important is your understanding of why you're there and your knowledge of what to do once you're there.
It's an important point that bears repeating with a different analogy. There are millions of web sites which will tell you the recipes for every single menu item at McDonalds, KFC, Burger King, Subway, and every other restaurant. But people still go to these places. A lot of them have long held (like KFC) that their 'secret recipe' is what people like. It's not. Do they honestly believe that the millions of people who go to KFC every year do so because they're incapable of making their own, good tasting, fried chicken? They could give their recipes away on index cards with every order and they'd still have a line out the door for the next century.
A small developer has a lot to gain from open sourcing their product. The one thing they lack is manpower, and making it possible for the world at large to help you out and fix problems that your small team doesn't have the time or resources to deal with should be a huge incentive. Yes it's scary, especially when you believe that guarding your carefully typed source code is the only thing your company has going for it. The truth is, that source code isn't valuable, no matter how much you might believe it is.
I identify most with a group which I'll label "The Conditional Pirates". Pirates who see a critical flaw in your product. They can be converted to sales, but you flubbed something significant that's a barrier to their willingness to buy. Game lacks crucial features or was abandoned.
The flaws I notice the most which will prevent me from buying is overzealous tamper protection (like GameGuard, PunkBusters, etc.) which somehow restricts my use of software which I paid for (or would have). As a Linux user I'm particularly offended when developers use tamper protection to make sure I don't run their program in Linux. Once I pay for their software, they shouldn't care or have any say over which computer, operating system, or environment I run it in. Because of that, I won't pay for software which will police how I use it after I buy it.
The other flaw is abandonment of a game. Buying a game comes with an expectation of support because game developers ship games fully aware of the many bugs it contains and intend to patch them later. When I buy a game, I'm not given the option of "abandoning my payment", but game developers/publishers choose to abandon each game at an arbitrary point, sometimes that point is acceptable, many times it's not, and pirating games is really the only weapon people have against abandoned game rot.
If you build a relationship based on lies and deception, expect it to go both ways. Game developers/publishers lie about the fitness of their product, and the consumer lies about their purchasing status.
A few specific cases:
Shadowrun (Windows Vista/XBox 360) - Released June 2007, Abandoned September 2007. Company closed a few months after release, the game still has many critical bugs that lead the game to have about a 20% crash rate. There are no game servers, it's entirely peer-to-peer so the company was able to wash their hands of this mess 100%. Take notice, the game developers felt no obligation to let players know they closed the studio and abandoned the game. For 8 months after the release, the game's web site still had information leading people to believe it was a vibrant an active game supported by the company with a message that you could "play against the developers!"
Giants: Citizen Kabuto - Released December 2000, Abandoned immediately upon release. I bought this game on the day of the release and the game's link to play online brought you to a web page which said they had changed their mind about supporting online play, and recommended you give Gamespy Arcade a shot if you want to play multiplayer. To make a decision to pull a game's support on or before the release date is shady by any definition. It didn't stop them from talking up the multiplayer features on the box or on their official web site.
Tribes: Vengeance - Abandoned upon release. The company even stated in future messages on the forums that support of the game was conditional on the game's success. They knew the game had a lot of flaws when they released it, and even completed development of a patch, but decided not to release the patch because they didn't see a future in supporting the game. That's real hard for my mind to process. That they would actually pay for a patch, get it, and decide not to release it for spite of poor sales. Their refusal to release a patch they had already developed was nothing short of malicious.
When game developers are so willing to treat customers maliciously, why should I feel like I owe them something? To address the argument that "My company doesn't screw people like that..." As an industry, developers and publishers who do screw people aren't ostracized by the ones who don't. The first time Vivendi Universal screwed people, every development company under their umbrella should have turned their backs on them. It should have become virtually impossible for Vivendi to stay in the industry. But companies which have poor practices aren't ostracized, it's seen as business-as-usual or a "toug
"I'm a scorpion; it's my nature."
Microsoft doesn't share, ever. They exchange, acquire, barter, steal, strategically release, but under no circumstances do they share. Nothing goes out of the company without a bean counter being able to draw a direct map of how the outflow will lead to a corresponding influx. If you have something of value to Microsoft, they will examine scenarios in which they get what you have in exchange for something they have. If you have nothing of value to Microsoft, you get nothing. It's not sharing if there's always an angle, that's bargaining.
Sharing is a human behavior. Microsoft is not human. It's a corporate entity whose mentality is closer to a reptile or shark. It is to our great detriment that we anthropomorphize them. Sometimes they exhibit behaviors which seem to mimic the emotions we are accustomed to: fear, sadness, joy, remorse... but when it comes down to it, they feel nothing, it's just another feeding strategy. Reptiles don't smile, their mouths are just curved sometimes.
We must always remember, corporations are more vicious than a shark. Unlike a mindless predator, they actually know we anthropomorphize them and they use that too as a weapon against us. The problem we have when dealing with corporations is that, as people, we have a tendency to believe other people have the same altruistic intentions we have. And the worst part is, the corporate agents you meet at these gatherings DO have altruistic intentions. They're not in on the plan, they're just corporate agents who are fulfilling their duty and their only duty is to earn your trust. It's the corporate agents you don't meet who are assigned to violate your trust, and they have no problem doing it because they've never even met you, they didn't shake your hand, they didn't have a beer with you. But the corporation operates as a single entity. The hands which embrace you don't know they're holding you in place for the mouth to bite, so the hands may even genuinely like you.
The corporation is counting on the fact that you think the agents walking around OSCON are normal people just like everyone else. Don't be fooled.
Although it's true that the potential for problems rises (perhaps exponentially) with the complexity, advancement does not have to mean an increase in complexity. Simplification is a much greater mark of advancement than complexity is.
The submitter commented that this seems to have promise. How so? It's obviously just a filter that's specific to the comment format of Amazon Electronics. It's not like this plugin does any type of natural language processing. The person who developed the extension obviously noticed a pattern that's specific to how people comment at that specific web site. If that's the case, the application has no promise for any wider application. If that's not the case, this person has done some world class work in breaking the barriers between humans and machine, which means they can understand us now!
One problem with examining good design principles is that a lot of successful projects seem to succeed in spite of what would be considered poor design by any computer science theory. A lot of large open source projects are famous for just how disorganized, unmaintainable, and poorly documented they are. They barrel forward by sheer volumes of code that are submitted and are perpetually in a state of being put together with patchwork. There just isn't a metric for the scalability level of one project is versus another. Scalable, maintainable, etc. are common buzzwords but nobody really has been able to say project x has a maintainability level of 5 while project y has a maintainability level of 8. Current software publishers pretty much use their bottom line to determine good design principles. And the vast majority of software doesn't have a long enough life cycle to extract any realistic data about what's maintainable and what isn't.