Show it to me then Mr. Can't Show the Facts From The Link.
All you had to do was post the part that proved it. Instead, all you did was claim it was in the link again. If it is in there, why didn't you quote the part from link?
Oh, and btw. That link only dealt with jails. Meaning, county lock up. Where you're likely to find people that have been arrested and can't post bail, and lesser crimes.
It's my experience that you just made up stats you can't prove (because you made them up).
Furthermore Mr Lying His Ass Off, if you have a fucking clue you'd realize that none of this shit has to do with people that smoke pot (which I'd like to legalize personally) because those people are not in jail but are on probation (there's always the.001 exception, but the exception doesn't prove your point).
Get a clue. Your made crap and your imaginary system where people go to jail for weed (hell, I know someone caught with a POUND that only got probation) doesn't count for crap except that people are willing to offer opinions like they had a clue on shit they know nothing about.
Seems to me those requirements are rather trivial and wouldn't take much time at all. Test, analysis, etc.. are not really constraints of the language (testing can be) as much as methodology and your implementation of it.
You're talking about rather trivial tasks. Display data. Update data. Authenticate. Things.NET/Java do well and have built in support for and can be used to develop rather quickly.
As far as waiting for the compiler, the wait is usually only a few seconds. Few meaning 4 or 5 or 6. Not minutes. For many aspects you do not even need to wait for the compiler depending on how you've architected the system. Though I am not saying having all your code inline and outside of classes is good design it can be done.
I really don't think the example you picked was a good one for you case and I'm surprised that was the one you picked.
And based on your response and the very generic and specific to your use requirements you've listed, I think it's safe to say you believe Perl is that much quicker to develop in for the tasks you had to accomplish because that is what you know.
Please, give one example of something you *could* do in an 8 hour shift it would take a C#/Java developer a month to do.
I don't think you could name *anything*, let alone *everything* as you claim.
But please, bring forth the specific examples and actually support your claim.
I don't even believe by conventional programming languages they meant Java/C#. More likely they meant C++ without letting people use their own libraries they normally tote around with them. Now, that's just speculation on my part as to what they meant, but I just don't believe huge claims on face value. Just because it's a claim for a *friendly* item, doesn't mean these sweeping claims are any more valid that the Gartner crap that gets slammed here whenever it's released.
See my other post to the same parent. How can you say it hasn't dented it?
You can repeat the same ol' tired mantra, over and over, it doesn't make it true.
.Net is getting heavy use in the enterprise, and in this thread, has about 80% of the jobs that Java has advertised. Now personally, I don't think that's the best possibly way to determine use. But it is what is used in this thread..NET is about 3 years old, Java's about 10. That's a dent.
And I'll even make the logical case showing how it is a *dent*, and not just a VB rollover (which I'm sure much of it is).
Apps, that due to scope and criticality, would never have been done in VB (mostly due to it's lack of support for true OO design) are getting done in.NET now. For certain apps, there really was no competition for Java. Now there is. And it comes down to a few criteria for the managers (experience of the current staff if any, what marketing smoke was blown up their ass and by who, what buzzwords their boss is big on at the moment, and if there's anyone actually technical in the decision making process that actually is able to point out the best tool for the task at hand, amongst others).
Also, it used to be split, you had MS goons writing ASP for web (with maybe some really crappy custom COM being a DAL, or some specialized functionality), VB for desktop. Now, it's all wrapped into one package,.NET
And it is being heavily used in Enterprise development.
I don't agree. And even if the search results were the same, Java was being heralded as a language that would change the face of programming. Python is not getting the same *buzz* Java had.
I've been making a living writing software for the past 8 years now. Before that, I was smack-dab in IBM country, in an area about 30 miles North of NYC. If you're familiar with IBM locations you'll understand what I mean by IBM country.
Working at a Software Etc. in a very large mall at the time, the IBMers would come in constantly buying/ordering Java books. And they would do so with zealotry. There was a major push for Java coming from one of the most influential companies (if not *the* most influential company for the time). I knew a lot of them as *regulars* and from the Computer shows in the area that all us geeks went to grab Simpsons Doom on floopy, RAM, etc.., and they were all telling me the same thing. Java is the future, Java is where it's at. Learn Java (They knew I was aspiring to be a programmer. Set low goals and you rarely fail, that's my moto).
Is Python getting that same push? I mean, I think/. is influential in it's own right, but I don't see much about it outside of here and it's own little niche communities. Google is certainly influential in it's own way, but until they get into the business of solution provider/developer for custom business software I'm not going to give Google the same level of influence IBM had.
And I certianly, without doubt, will say Python is not even close to having the *hype* that Java had in it's early days.
I had to debate whether to reply or mod you down. Considering I don't like modding down, I chose the later.
.NET search at dice returned 7516 matches to Java's 9186.
If that doesn't qualify as a *dent* to you, then you have issues that are not worth arguing over. Especially considering how new.NET is, that's a large dent. The kind of dent that in a few years could ever surpass Java in terms of enterprise development.
Let's get one thing straight here..Net does not.Suck.
You may not like the source behind.NET, but there's no need for you to resort to fiction to try and make your point.
Look at KoTOR. It doesn't matter that it wasn't an MMORPG. Make an MMORPG with a few different jedi classes (warrior-tank, rogue-dmg, priest-doctor, mage-force dmg, etc...) Can easily be done. Add in a bounty hunter class, maybe a droid class (that are *just* as powerfull as the jedi classes), and you can come up with around 10 base classes to work with. More if you want to specialize (I think 10's plenty, look at WoW) into enchanter like classes (easily doable with jedi powers), monks, etc...
Now, they should have also done what KoTOR did and pick a time in the extended universe that wasn't already filled so they would have more leeway and there could be tons and tons of jedi.
Ignoring this, SWG still just had a crappy system. Wasn't like AD&D or EQ or anything. More like UO style basic combat.
Really, it's the worst designed MMORPG ever IMO. Horizon's kicked it's ass in gameplay (it just didn't have the SW name attached to it) and that's sad cause Horizons was pathetic.
No one worth listening to claims that current scientific knowledge is perfect. Quite the opposite actually.
However, I cringe anytime anyone breaks out the "the world was flat, that the sun rotated around the world".
Ignoring that science was used to create a theory that the Earth was round several thousand years ago and that it was religion that tried to squash that, you need to understand how science works.
Say I attempt to uncover the shape of the Earth. I go out and measure a field. I measure several fields. All flat. I conclude then that the Earth is flat. No problem. My theory matches the evidence.
But then on a trip to the coast I notice that ship's masts appear over the horizon before the rest of the ship. I also note that the higher up I am the further away the horizon. Why would that be? I think about it some and then theorize that if the Earth was round and *very* large, it would explain not only why ship's masts appear first over the horizon, but would also explain my earlier findings that the Earth appeared flat.
See, evidence and facts don't usually go away. Any theory that comes along to replace an existing theory *must* also explain the evidence that lead to the earlier theory.
Good theories are not just pulled from the asses of mules. They are based upon empherical evidence. Even if the theories are wrong, that evidence that pointed at them won't go away.
Do not agree with you. I have not seen any evidence to support what you claim. Having read the article and having known about this even before the/. posting. There are possibly plenty of times a major deviation happens and there are no major events and there are also times events happen with no major deviation.
Until I see all the data noting any kind of event that could be seen as "major" it's appears to be a case of going back into a huge amount of data and trying to connect the dots by highlighting what you want to find and ignoring that which you don't. Every time there's a deviation they go and actively look to match it to something. Not very scientific to me.
I think that this article debunks it pretty well. There's nothing here that we wouldn't expect to be here. But when you only partially show your hand, giving people what you want to show them, it becomes sensationalistic.
That's because you have never paid for the upgrade and are trying to access disabled features in the shareware version. If you buy the full version of "Wife" then all the features are unlocked.
Some people are really talented though and if you work at it you can unlock several features of Wife in the Girlfriend version including the back door access.
However if you do upgrade to Wife remember that you are actually just paying for a license that allows you to use Wife and you will often have to shell out even more cash in the future if you wish to continue to use Wife. And certainly remember that if you even decide to cancel your subscription to Wife early you also have to pay out.
Often the biggest issue when considering COTS vs custom software is existing processes.
Typically, when we evaluate COTS products 9 out of 10 are missing *something*. Not to mention 8 out of 10 cost more then it would take to write from scratch because 50% of the COTS offering wouldn't be used so doesn't have to be developed when writing custom.
The existing processes is really the key though. Too often the person who needs the software has the money to get it (either COTS or custom) but not the authority nor the desire to change an existing process to fit a COTS offering. This is a more of a problem with bigger organizations. And it hurts the chances of using a COTS product. But let's not pretend there are not some cases where changing the process is not sensible nor possible.
If your mission is housing inmates, do you think generic COTS inventory software is really going to suffice? No. The only commercial offerings are custom software written elsewhere that the original developers will sell you. Basically they'll gut the code that doesn't fit and shoe-horn in some new code. Thanks, but I'll pass on that.
Also, another area where COTS products typically struggles is interfacing with existing software and data. Commercial app that tracks training? Easy to find. One that will leverage existing data such as an HR database? Well you just lost 90% of your potential COTS prodcuts and those other 10% are going to be just as expensive and take just as long to develop most likely.
And lets not forget that in most places, COTS products are the majority of software. We don't write word processing application, we use MS Word. We don't write a web browser from scratch, we use an existing one. Etc..
But when it comes down to supporting an existing process, use it where it makes sense.
Now, as to custom software sucking...
A lot of it sucked. I believe the best thing that ever happened to custom software was the trend of making it web-enabled. Whether it was PowerBuilder, C++, VB, FoxPro, etc..., too much custom software built in the 90's sucked because of their interfaces. I've seen literally 100's of custom client server software written in the 90's and about 95% of them suck and allmost no two act or look alike. Of course this can be overcome with strong development methodologies. But in the real world not every place nor project is wrapped under a strong methodolgy. And very few projects I've done for custom software and anything even close to a working UI team. Not to mention that in the changing software world technology changes fast and even the best and most disciplined development teams can have interfaces that look nothing alike even if they were developed just two years apart.
To me the greatest strength of web-apps isn't ease of deployment. It's that is forces developers to write simple interfaces. Web apps written by the same software teams generlly do look alike. And even where they don't they at least act alike. MS tried came to us trying to sell us on the ability to use.NET to write regular windows forms apps that are run in the browser. Why I asked? So we can go back to the days of complicated UI's that confuse the user and make maintanence when you were the original developer nearly impossible? No thank you. I understand there will always be applications that have requirements that are not suited for the web. But they are, I will use that. I will keep my interfaces as simple and clean as possible and users that are not 1st and foremost computer people will continue to be able to operate them without a steep learning curve.
Unfortunately, in this case, it is you who are incorrect. Citing a dictionary definition of theft, or common usage of the word "steal" in popular discourse, do not a legal argument make.
Strawman. The post I was replying to was not a legal document. In fact, he was arguing against someone else calling it "stealing". Not a list of charges as presented to a court. And here we are at the heart of the problem.
If the RIAA comes out and has a press release and calls it stealing, that is not wrong. They are using a well defined term and using it correctly. That one can use a partial quote from a legal part of defintion for "stealing" that requires someone is deprived does not mean that it cannot be called "stealing".
Stealing is a well defenined term. And even in the legal world is not strictly limited in the way you, and unforntuately many other's here, would like us to believe.
I love this quote of yours.
Unfortunately, this is not something that we can argue about, if we both accept that we're using legal terms, not colloquial ones. You're simply wrong.
What a load of bullshit. 1st, because you couldn't, in the legal world, define it soley as you want to because that doesn't exist.
And secondly, because you confuse the issue and rely on a strawman of arguing the use of the term with a legal document. As if you were being charged with manslaughter and the prosecuter stated to the press that you killed someone. I'm sure you would spend time arguing against that, right?
If I steal your CD, you no longer have it. I've deprived you of the use of your property.
If I copy your CD without your permission, YOU STILL HAVE IT. You've been deprived of *nothing*, except the highly speculative "loss" a sale (which presumes that I would have paid your asking price in the first place, and that I won't buy a "legitimate" copy later)
I see this over and over again. Sadly, for you and the rest of the/. crowd that keeps spouting this same old story, it's not true.
You have made up your own definition for "stealing". No common dictionary agrees with you. You can steal thoughts, ideas, and even, by a very obvious use of the word, IP and copyright.
Look, I hate the RIAA and all the other draconian orgs that care more about the bottom line then a quality product or their customers. I wish the world wasn't so full of them. But that doesn't give you the authority to redefine words in an attempt to bolster your presupposition.
I take it you are new to MMORPG's or have never been one to worry about their dynamics.
The end game isn't in yet. It is always, as it should be, the last part to get implemented. It makes perfect sense as that is the last part of the game people will get to. So they focus their efforts on making the climb to 60. If you didn't notice, a they've been adding several new areas for level 40+ over the last months. Soon, they'll start adding the end game encounters.
It could be like EQ was, and people might hit level 60 before Blizzard gets a lot of their end game content out. But as is, there's just as much end game now as EQ had at release.
So don't worry if you're bored at 60 now. You are supposed to be for the most part and Blizzard never pretended otherwise.
It's basically like this. You've seen 50% of the game and seem to have really liked it. But then you have no faith that the other 50% won't be to your liking. That to me doesn't make much sense.
So are you going to pay my mortgage when I lose my job due to the devestated economy?
There's a lot to worry about besiced a direct threat to life. Florida will basically become Wyoming with coastline and warm weather if we have seasons like this one for the next 10 years.
You can tell how long a person has been with the department by the numbers at the end of thier password.
myLittlePony24
They've been there at least 4 years
darthVaderRulez4
Newbie
What I don't like about all the new password rules like miniumum of 8 characters, must have a special character and a number, change ever X days, etc... is:
They ignore the social engineering aspect.
Walk around where I work after hours and after fun logging in as other people simply by reading the post-it notes stuck on their monitor.
It's hard to concinve the operations people that there's a happy medium in regards to password rules. By making them too strict they actually seem to make them easier to break because people don't remember hard passwords very easily. Espeically since we're generally talking about non-IT people.
So in regards to the topic, I'm hoping that within a few years places learn to respect the social engineering side and find a happy medium in regards to password rules.
I was thinking about writing my user review of Doom 3 for gamerankings.
While I won't trash the game, it certainly isn't revolutionary in regards to graphics and Mario 64 was the game the came to mind when I thought about what "revolutionary" really means.
I think my catch phrase I'm using to describe Doom 3 is "1995 meets DirectX9". I don't think the game is anything more then that. There's nothing wrong with old-school game play, but don't pretend that it's revolutionary or anything.
I've already played the game for several hours and I don't find it that fun. In fact, I'd only give the game a 7/10 or an 8/10 if best. And most of that number comes from the graphics (which are good but not revolutionary).
You might like the game as is. But I don't like it that much and am going to try this because I don't like the pace of the game; always having to switch back and forth between my flashlight and my weapons. It's like the games in the 22nd century and my marine's tech is from 1984. And the gameplay is like 1995 meets DirectX9. Nothing wrong with old-school play, but it's not worth all the mega-hype.
I think your advice would be better stated as "try the game a bit to see if you like it as is or if you want to use the mod".
Whether the gameplay itself warrants it or not, the game deserves more press in places like this because of the history of Doom and ID and Carmack.
If you haven't noticed there is a bit of Geek culture here and this game is a big deal for the Geek community.
Before we all saw the LotR in theaters we were all still hyped about it. And that's OK. Sure, Doom 3 could flop, but it's lofty place in our current Geek culture is justified.
COH had a very good release. Server's were very good, login and regestration were no problem.
DAoC had a very good release. I experienced no hiccups but some did. Overall it was more like an A- release.
EQ's release wasn't that bad really. People make it out to be worse then it was. The 1st 3 days of release had as much downtime then uptime due mostly to the login servers. Overall though, it didn't go that bad.
Horizon's launch went smoothly. Mostly because no one was playing it.
I would say all of those at the least had acceptable launches. With CoH being nearly flawless (even though I don't care much for the game itself) and DAoC being good enough to be what I would call optimal.
SWG, AO, WWIIO, all had horrible launches with more problems then should be acceptable.
What sets the top from the bottom apart the most was that the client and server source code was stable in the top list of games. Where DAoC and EQ had problems were in there login servers being overloaded. DAoC was able to handle it a little better (but of course it was two years later).
Where as that bottom group all had bugs that crashed the client or the server with regularity. That to me is not acceptable in a commercial game. I can understand being a victim of popularity, and thankfully it seems like that side of things have been addressed for the most part. I cannot understand releasing a non-stable codebase in a commerical product.
That was my 1st question. And the review site mentions this as a possibility.
This is something Intel seems to be a master at. Releasing CPU's to review sites that you can't buy for a long time just to get the hype and "title" of the fastest. Other companies do it, just not as bad as Intel.
My personal opinion is/. shouldn't be participating in the hype-machine by promoting CPU's who we can't even be sure will ever be released as reviewed unless they are truely groundbreaking. And this isn't groundbreaking.
I don't hold it against MBR for submitting his own site. But this is not newsworthy. This is "Intel creates a really fast CPU we might one day be able to buy". Maybe as part as a CPU roundup story, but not as the story itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Show it to me then Mr. Can't Show the Facts From The Link.
All you had to do was post the part that proved it. Instead, all you did was claim it was in the link again. If it is in there, why didn't you quote the part from link?
Oh, and btw. That link only dealt with jails. Meaning, county lock up. Where you're likely to find people that have been arrested and can't post bail, and lesser crimes.
:)
Thanks for playing though
No, his link doesn't prove anything he said.
If he did, it wouldn't have just sent me fishing though a link to find his supporting facts.
His claim was that up to 15% of the prison population was incarcerated for breaking laws that weren't just.
Tell me Mr. Post Before You Think, where in that link does it show that?
It's my experience that you just made up stats you can't prove (because you made them up).
.001 exception, but the exception doesn't prove your point).
Furthermore Mr Lying His Ass Off, if you have a fucking clue you'd realize that none of this shit has to do with people that smoke pot (which I'd like to legalize personally) because those people are not in jail but are on probation (there's always the
Get a clue. Your made crap and your imaginary system where people go to jail for weed (hell, I know someone caught with a POUND that only got probation) doesn't count for crap except that people are willing to offer opinions like they had a clue on shit they know nothing about.
Seems to me those requirements are rather trivial and wouldn't take much time at all. Test, analysis, etc.. are not really constraints of the language (testing can be) as much as methodology and your implementation of it. You're talking about rather trivial tasks. Display data. Update data. Authenticate. Things .NET/Java do well and have built in support for and can be used to develop rather quickly.
As far as waiting for the compiler, the wait is usually only a few seconds. Few meaning 4 or 5 or 6. Not minutes. For many aspects you do not even need to wait for the compiler depending on how you've architected the system. Though I am not saying having all your code inline and outside of classes is good design it can be done.
I really don't think the example you picked was a good one for you case and I'm surprised that was the one you picked.
And based on your response and the very generic and specific to your use requirements you've listed, I think it's safe to say you believe Perl is that much quicker to develop in for the tasks you had to accomplish because that is what you know.
Please, give one example of something you *could* do in an 8 hour shift it would take a C#/Java developer a month to do.
I don't think you could name *anything*, let alone *everything* as you claim.
But please, bring forth the specific examples and actually support your claim.
I don't even believe by conventional programming languages they meant Java/C#. More likely they meant C++ without letting people use their own libraries they normally tote around with them. Now, that's just speculation on my part as to what they meant, but I just don't believe huge claims on face value. Just because it's a claim for a *friendly* item, doesn't mean these sweeping claims are any more valid that the Gartner crap that gets slammed here whenever it's released.
See my other post to the same parent. How can you say it hasn't dented it?
.Net is getting heavy use in the enterprise, and in this thread, has about 80% of the jobs that Java has advertised. Now personally, I don't think that's the best possibly way to determine use. But it is what is used in this thread. .NET is about 3 years old, Java's about 10. That's a dent.
.NET now. For certain apps, there really was no competition for Java. Now there is. And it comes down to a few criteria for the managers (experience of the current staff if any, what marketing smoke was blown up their ass and by who, what buzzwords their boss is big on at the moment, and if there's anyone actually technical in the decision making process that actually is able to point out the best tool for the task at hand, amongst others).
.NET
You can repeat the same ol' tired mantra, over and over, it doesn't make it true.
And I'll even make the logical case showing how it is a *dent*, and not just a VB rollover (which I'm sure much of it is).
Apps, that due to scope and criticality, would never have been done in VB (mostly due to it's lack of support for true OO design) are getting done in
Also, it used to be split, you had MS goons writing ASP for web (with maybe some really crappy custom COM being a DAL, or some specialized functionality), VB for desktop. Now, it's all wrapped into one package,
And it is being heavily used in Enterprise development.
I don't agree. And even if the search results were the same, Java was being heralded as a language that would change the face of programming. Python is not getting the same *buzz* Java had.
/. is influential in it's own right, but I don't see much about it outside of here and it's own little niche communities. Google is certainly influential in it's own way, but until they get into the business of solution provider/developer for custom business software I'm not going to give Google the same level of influence IBM had.
I've been making a living writing software for the past 8 years now. Before that, I was smack-dab in IBM country, in an area about 30 miles North of NYC. If you're familiar with IBM locations you'll understand what I mean by IBM country.
Working at a Software Etc. in a very large mall at the time, the IBMers would come in constantly buying/ordering Java books. And they would do so with zealotry. There was a major push for Java coming from one of the most influential companies (if not *the* most influential company for the time). I knew a lot of them as *regulars* and from the Computer shows in the area that all us geeks went to grab Simpsons Doom on floopy, RAM, etc.., and they were all telling me the same thing. Java is the future, Java is where it's at. Learn Java (They knew I was aspiring to be a programmer. Set low goals and you rarely fail, that's my moto).
Is Python getting that same push? I mean, I think
And I certianly, without doubt, will say Python is not even close to having the *hype* that Java had in it's early days.
I had to debate whether to reply or mod you down. Considering I don't like modding down, I chose the later.
.NET search at dice returned 7516 matches to Java's 9186.
.NET is, that's a large dent. The kind of dent that in a few years could ever surpass Java in terms of enterprise development.
.Net does not .Suck.
.NET, but there's no need for you to resort to fiction to try and make your point.
If that doesn't qualify as a *dent* to you, then you have issues that are not worth arguing over.
Especially considering how new
Let's get one thing straight here.
You may not like the source behind
The Star Wars Universe can be done correctly.
Look at KoTOR. It doesn't matter that it wasn't an MMORPG. Make an MMORPG with a few different jedi classes (warrior-tank, rogue-dmg, priest-doctor, mage-force dmg, etc...) Can easily be done. Add in a bounty hunter class, maybe a droid class (that are *just* as powerfull as the jedi classes), and you can come up with around 10 base classes to work with. More if you want to specialize (I think 10's plenty, look at WoW) into enchanter like classes (easily doable with jedi powers), monks, etc...
Now, they should have also done what KoTOR did and pick a time in the extended universe that wasn't already filled so they would have more leeway and there could be tons and tons of jedi.
Ignoring this, SWG still just had a crappy system. Wasn't like AD&D or EQ or anything. More like UO style basic combat.
Really, it's the worst designed MMORPG ever IMO. Horizon's kicked it's ass in gameplay (it just didn't have the SW name attached to it) and that's sad cause Horizons was pathetic.
No one worth listening to claims that current scientific knowledge is perfect. Quite the opposite actually.
However, I cringe anytime anyone breaks out the "the world was flat, that the sun rotated around the world".
Ignoring that science was used to create a theory that the Earth was round several thousand years ago and that it was religion that tried to squash that, you need to understand how science works.
Say I attempt to uncover the shape of the Earth. I go out and measure a field. I measure several fields. All flat. I conclude then that the Earth is flat. No problem. My theory matches the evidence.
But then on a trip to the coast I notice that ship's masts appear over the horizon before the rest of the ship. I also note that the higher up I am the further away the horizon. Why would that be? I think about it some and then theorize that if the Earth was round and *very* large, it would explain not only why ship's masts appear first over the horizon, but would also explain my earlier findings that the Earth appeared flat.
See, evidence and facts don't usually go away. Any theory that comes along to replace an existing theory *must* also explain the evidence that lead to the earlier theory.
Good theories are not just pulled from the asses of mules. They are based upon empherical evidence. Even if the theories are wrong, that evidence that pointed at them won't go away.
Do not agree with you. I have not seen any evidence to support what you claim. Having read the article and having known about this even before the /. posting. There are possibly plenty of times a major deviation happens and there are no major events and there are also times events happen with no major deviation.
Until I see all the data noting any kind of event that could be seen as "major" it's appears to be a case of going back into a huge amount of data and trying to connect the dots by highlighting what you want to find and ignoring that which you don't. Every time there's a deviation they go and actively look to match it to something. Not very scientific to me.
I think that this article debunks it pretty well. There's nothing here that we wouldn't expect to be here. But when you only partially show your hand, giving people what you want to show them, it becomes sensationalistic.
That's because you have never paid for the upgrade and are trying to access disabled features in the shareware version. If you buy the full version of "Wife" then all the features are unlocked.
Some people are really talented though and if you work at it you can unlock several features of Wife in the Girlfriend version including the back door access.
However if you do upgrade to Wife remember that you are actually just paying for a license that allows you to use Wife and you will often have to shell out even more cash in the future if you wish to continue to use Wife. And certainly remember that if you even decide to cancel your subscription to Wife early you also have to pay out.
"...have shown that growing black holes release a blast of energy"
And apparently they blow as well.
Often the biggest issue when considering COTS vs custom software is existing processes.
.NET to write regular windows forms apps that are run in the browser. Why I asked? So we can go back to the days of complicated UI's that confuse the user and make maintanence when you were the original developer nearly impossible? No thank you. I understand there will always be applications that have requirements that are not suited for the web. But they are, I will use that. I will keep my interfaces as simple and clean as possible and users that are not 1st and foremost computer people will continue to be able to operate them without a steep learning curve.
Typically, when we evaluate COTS products 9 out of 10 are missing *something*. Not to mention 8 out of 10 cost more then it would take to write from scratch because 50% of the COTS offering wouldn't be used so doesn't have to be developed when writing custom.
The existing processes is really the key though. Too often the person who needs the software has the money to get it (either COTS or custom) but not the authority nor the desire to change an existing process to fit a COTS offering. This is a more of a problem with bigger organizations. And it hurts the chances of using a COTS product. But let's not pretend there are not some cases where changing the process is not sensible nor possible.
If your mission is housing inmates, do you think generic COTS inventory software is really going to suffice? No. The only commercial offerings are custom software written elsewhere that the original developers will sell you. Basically they'll gut the code that doesn't fit and shoe-horn in some new code. Thanks, but I'll pass on that.
Also, another area where COTS products typically struggles is interfacing with existing software and data. Commercial app that tracks training? Easy to find. One that will leverage existing data such as an HR database? Well you just lost 90% of your potential COTS prodcuts and those other 10% are going to be just as expensive and take just as long to develop most likely.
And lets not forget that in most places, COTS products are the majority of software. We don't write word processing application, we use MS Word. We don't write a web browser from scratch, we use an existing one. Etc.. But when it comes down to supporting an existing process, use it where it makes sense.
Now, as to custom software sucking...
A lot of it sucked. I believe the best thing that ever happened to custom software was the trend of making it web-enabled. Whether it was PowerBuilder, C++, VB, FoxPro, etc..., too much custom software built in the 90's sucked because of their interfaces. I've seen literally 100's of custom client server software written in the 90's and about 95% of them suck and allmost no two act or look alike. Of course this can be overcome with strong development methodologies. But in the real world not every place nor project is wrapped under a strong methodolgy. And very few projects I've done for custom software and anything even close to a working UI team. Not to mention that in the changing software world technology changes fast and even the best and most disciplined development teams can have interfaces that look nothing alike even if they were developed just two years apart.
To me the greatest strength of web-apps isn't ease of deployment. It's that is forces developers to write simple interfaces. Web apps written by the same software teams generlly do look alike. And even where they don't they at least act alike. MS tried came to us trying to sell us on the ability to use
Unfortunately, in this case, it is you who are incorrect. Citing a dictionary definition of theft, or common usage of the word "steal" in popular discourse, do not a legal argument make.
Strawman. The post I was replying to was not a legal document. In fact, he was arguing against someone else calling it "stealing". Not a list of charges as presented to a court. And here we are at the heart of the problem.
If the RIAA comes out and has a press release and calls it stealing, that is not wrong. They are using a well defined term and using it correctly. That one can use a partial quote from a legal part of defintion for "stealing" that requires someone is deprived does not mean that it cannot be called "stealing".
Stealing is a well defenined term. And even in the legal world is not strictly limited in the way you, and unforntuately many other's here, would like us to believe.
I love this quote of yours. Unfortunately, this is not something that we can argue about, if we both accept that we're using legal terms, not colloquial ones. You're simply wrong.
What a load of bullshit. 1st, because you couldn't, in the legal world, define it soley as you want to because that doesn't exist. And secondly, because you confuse the issue and rely on a strawman of arguing the use of the term with a legal document. As if you were being charged with manslaughter and the prosecuter stated to the press that you killed someone. I'm sure you would spend time arguing against that, right?
If I steal your CD, you no longer have it. I've deprived you of the use of your property. If I copy your CD without your permission, YOU STILL HAVE IT. You've been deprived of *nothing*, except the highly speculative "loss" a sale (which presumes that I would have paid your asking price in the first place, and that I won't buy a "legitimate" copy later)
/. crowd that keeps spouting this same old story, it's not true.
I see this over and over again. Sadly, for you and the rest of the
You have made up your own definition for "stealing". No common dictionary agrees with you. You can steal thoughts, ideas, and even, by a very obvious use of the word, IP and copyright.
Look, I hate the RIAA and all the other draconian orgs that care more about the bottom line then a quality product or their customers. I wish the world wasn't so full of them. But that doesn't give you the authority to redefine words in an attempt to bolster your presupposition.
You don't need to have blind faith.
I take it you are new to MMORPG's or have never been one to worry about their dynamics.
The end game isn't in yet. It is always, as it should be, the last part to get implemented. It makes perfect sense as that is the last part of the game people will get to. So they focus their efforts on making the climb to 60. If you didn't notice, a they've been adding several new areas for level 40+ over the last months. Soon, they'll start adding the end game encounters.
It could be like EQ was, and people might hit level 60 before Blizzard gets a lot of their end game content out. But as is, there's just as much end game now as EQ had at release.
So don't worry if you're bored at 60 now. You are supposed to be for the most part and Blizzard never pretended otherwise.
It's basically like this. You've seen 50% of the game and seem to have really liked it. But then you have no faith that the other 50% won't be to your liking.
That to me doesn't make much sense.
Florida has very little to worry about.
So are you going to pay my mortgage when I lose my job due to the devestated economy?
There's a lot to worry about besiced a direct threat to life. Florida will basically become Wyoming with coastline and warm weather if we have seasons like this one for the next 10 years.
You can tell how long a person has been with the department by the numbers at the end of thier password.
myLittlePony24 They've been there at least 4 years
darthVaderRulez4 Newbie
What I don't like about all the new password rules like miniumum of 8 characters, must have a special character and a number, change ever X days, etc... is:
They ignore the social engineering aspect.
Walk around where I work after hours and after fun logging in as other people simply by reading the post-it notes stuck on their monitor.
It's hard to concinve the operations people that there's a happy medium in regards to password rules. By making them too strict they actually seem to make them easier to break because people don't remember hard passwords very easily. Espeically since we're generally talking about non-IT people.
So in regards to the topic, I'm hoping that within a few years places learn to respect the social engineering side and find a happy medium in regards to password rules.
I think it's interesting you bring that up.
I was thinking about writing my user review of Doom 3 for gamerankings.
While I won't trash the game, it certainly isn't revolutionary in regards to graphics and Mario 64 was the game the came to mind when I thought about what "revolutionary" really means.
I think my catch phrase I'm using to describe Doom 3 is "1995 meets DirectX9". I don't think the game is anything more then that. There's nothing wrong with old-school game play, but don't pretend that it's revolutionary or anything.
What do you mean don't do it?
I've already played the game for several hours and I don't find it that fun. In fact, I'd only give the game a 7/10 or an 8/10 if best. And most of that number comes from the graphics (which are good but not revolutionary).
You might like the game as is. But I don't like it that much and am going to try this because I don't like the pace of the game; always having to switch back and forth between my flashlight and my weapons. It's like the games in the 22nd century and my marine's tech is from 1984. And the gameplay is like 1995 meets DirectX9. Nothing wrong with old-school play, but it's not worth all the mega-hype.
I think your advice would be better stated as "try the game a bit to see if you like it as is or if you want to use the mod".
Because it's Doom 3 maybe?
Whether the gameplay itself warrants it or not, the game deserves more press in places like this because of the history of Doom and ID and Carmack.
If you haven't noticed there is a bit of Geek culture here and this game is a big deal for the Geek community.
Before we all saw the LotR in theaters we were all still hyped about it. And that's OK. Sure, Doom 3 could flop, but it's lofty place in our current Geek culture is justified.
COH had a very good release. Server's were very good, login and regestration were no problem.
DAoC had a very good release. I experienced no hiccups but some did. Overall it was more like an A- release.
EQ's release wasn't that bad really. People make it out to be worse then it was. The 1st 3 days of release had as much downtime then uptime due mostly to the login servers. Overall though, it didn't go that bad.
Horizon's launch went smoothly. Mostly because no one was playing it.
I would say all of those at the least had acceptable launches. With CoH being nearly flawless (even though I don't care much for the game itself) and DAoC being good enough to be what I would call optimal.
SWG, AO, WWIIO, all had horrible launches with more problems then should be acceptable.
What sets the top from the bottom apart the most was that the client and server source code was stable in the top list of games. Where DAoC and EQ had problems were in there login servers being overloaded. DAoC was able to handle it a little better (but of course it was two years later).
Where as that bottom group all had bugs that crashed the client or the server with regularity. That to me is not acceptable in a commercial game. I can understand being a victim of popularity, and thankfully it seems like that side of things have been addressed for the most part. I cannot understand releasing a non-stable codebase in a commerical product.
That was my 1st question. And the review site mentions this as a possibility.
/. shouldn't be participating in the hype-machine by promoting CPU's who we can't even be sure will ever be released as reviewed unless they are truely groundbreaking. And this isn't groundbreaking.
This is something Intel seems to be a master at. Releasing CPU's to review sites that you can't buy for a long time just to get the hype and "title" of the fastest. Other companies do it, just not as bad as Intel.
My personal opinion is
I don't hold it against MBR for submitting his own site. But this is not newsworthy. This is "Intel creates a really fast CPU we might one day be able to buy". Maybe as part as a CPU roundup story, but not as the story itself.