NASA is terrible with arbitrary deadlines. Remember how the Mars rovers were only supposed to work for 90 days? They've been at it for years now. The date will be pushed back over and over again.
I hope you're right, but de-orbiting the ISS is a somewhat different matter than a Mars rover breaking down. You can't predict when a breakdown occurs, and as long as it doesn't, it's cheap to keep using it.
De-orbiting the ISS is an active choice, however. It's expensive to keep manned and operational. I suppose they could simply abandon it and leave it up there, but it's going to come down eventually. If I understand correctly, its orbit is so low that it experiences drag from Earth's atmosphere, which means it regularly needs a boost, and therefore fuel. I guess they prefer to have it come down in a controlled manner, so nobody gets hit on the head with the thing.
(I may have started by expressing the hope that the ISS stays up there for a while, but I'm not at all sure that's a good idea. Critics say it's a waste of money with no scientific value whatsoever. So why did we put it up there in the first place? Shouldn't we be figuring out how to mine asteroids instead?)
The Java VM was a good idea, but Sun never bothered to port other languages to it.
You're kidding, right? The JVM is one of the most important platforms right now. Lots of languages have been ported to it (JRuby is one of the fastest Ruby implementations at the moment), and it's also had newer languages specially designed for it. Look up Scala if you ever feel it's time to catch up with modern technology again.
I like to write games about consequences of choices, therefore I have to allow players choices.
But to give you an example, we GMd a murder mystery a few years back where the players decided the victim was such a shit, that instead of trying to find out who killed him, they threw a party instead. Not much of a module if they decide to do that. An most people understood the game had been advertised as a murder mystery and had signed up for it knowing the meta plot is to find out whodunnit.
Well, that's a choice, isn't it? Imagine what the authorities would think when they found out the PCs threw a party after the murder. There's plenty of room for interesting adventure there.
Maybe somebody else decides to try to solve the mystery. Someone with a bigger stake in solving the mystery than the PCs apparently have.
A more interesting license would be PacMan. You've got this guy with a big mouth swallowing pills in a dark club with repetitive electronic music, while chased by some scary goons. Then he swallows a special pill and goes completely berserk, killing the goons. In the sequel he'll do exactly the same thing in a slightly differently shaped club. Only this time he's thinking of his health and occasionally eats some fruit in between the pills.
I guess it's a gangster story revolving around drugs.
We have an axiom from 15 years or so of writing and running tounaments at roleplaying convertions: "No plot survives first contact with the players".
This is especially true of LARPs vs tabletop. Tabletop players tend to be more conservative when it comes to following the plot, this breaks down as soon as you get LARPers at the table.
Not true. Any roleplayer lives to ruin whatever railroad the GM had in mind.
Lesson learned: don't assume in advance that everybody will blindly do what you want. Come prepared, but be flexible.
Charisma has a short shelf life. Every charismatic person I've ever met seems interesting at first, but within about one to three years turns into an asshole.
Either way, the debate is CHARACTER skill advancement models versus CHARACTER level advancement models.
No, the debate is way too muddled to be about anything in particular, and that's because the submitter is an idiot and has no idea what the article he's linking to is really about.
I think the main practical difference between level-based and skill-based (or maybe it's the difference between class-based and skill-based, but classes and levels usually go together) is that classes give everybody his own niche to specialise in, whereas skills give you the freedom to completely customise your character to whatever playstyle or perceived niche you prefer.
The article probably compares the level-up system seen in DnD (or apparently, WoW) compared to the gain-by-use system seen in UO.
Not just that. There are a many different approaches to skill-based systems. There's also systems where you buy skills with experience points, for example. Then there's EVE where you buy skill books with money and then spend time to learn those skills.
The problem is, of course, that tech doesn't have that much of a career path. You go from junior tech, to tech, to senior tech... and then if you want to go further, you go into management. Technical positions don't scale.
Depends on the company.
My dad managed to stay a tech for his entire career. He's good at what he does, but he hates doing management stuff, and refused to be in charge of anybody else. He still got very big raises early in his career, and soon got a bigger salary than his boss. Occasionally he gets put in charge of a project, but mostly he's managed to just do his own thing. He never says anything during meetings, but when he does, people listen, because it's bound to be important.
But it's probably a lot easier to advance that far in a management track. My dad's situation requires a boss who recognises and rewards talent, and a company that's willing to accommodate eccentric talent. But if my dad had even the slightest bit of talent and will to do management, he'd probably have made even more money. He didn't, but he's quite happy where he is.
And if you go the tech route, you really do need to keep learning and improving. My dad was about 50 when he learned Java, and now he does most of his programming in Java, and does open source Java programming in his free time.
This is going to sound more confrontational than I mean it, but when I hear that sort of comment in real life I immediately wonder whether the real problem is a bunch of immature employees who are too proud of their technical skills and unable to figure out what's actually needed in the work place.
Aren't you expecting the techies to do the manager's job here? Figuring out what's needed in the workplace is a manager's job. He needs to figure out what his workers need to get the job done, not the other way around.
There are certainly a lot of bad managers, but there are far more mediocre ones who have some flaws, but more than enough skills to help a talented group succeed. Good employees figures out what those skills are and how to take advantage of them--and most managers appreciate that.
Putting a mediocre manager in charge of good and talented employees can only work out if the manager is aware that the people working for him are more talented than he is. It can work out sometimes (my boss gets us involved with mission statements and vision for the future, as well as helping us how to improve our process in ways he wouldn't be able to figure out), but a surprising number of mediocre managers are not willing to accept their own limitations, and then you've got a recipe for disaster.
Note that it's not the workers who should accommodate the manager so he can do his work, it should be the other way around. The manager should manage, so the workers can work.
One thing I do not understand about your post, however, is how a German court's decision has any bearing on the legal structure of the United States? As I live in the United States, I am, by necessity, bound by the laws of this country.
Keep in mind that not everybody lives in the US, though. That means for a lot of people, EULAs may not be legally binding contracts.
Re:True; Strict is stricter than Transitional
on
XHTML 2 Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
In my head the "X" is the part that adds the sanity.
It helps a bit, but as this discussion proves, the "X" by no means guarantees sanity.
So you're fine with me using your car without your permission as long as I replace the gas/fluids I use and get it back before you wake up?
That's certainly a much better analogy. Not entirely perfect, because you can still crash the car or commit some traffic violation with it or do anything else with it that hurts the original owner. But if you return the car with no damage whatsoever without the owner noticing it was even gone, then it certainly wasn't theft. I think it'd count as joyriding, although that is also potentially more damaging to the owner than copying.
Has that been tested in court? I'm reasonably sure a German court decided EULAs agreed to after the product has already been purchased are not legally binding.
It's like people who go 45 MPH in the left lane on a 55 MPH road. Yeah, that's definitely what the laws say you can do,
Not over here. Dutch traffic law has a rule that basically amounts to: "don't be an ass". It's the most important rule in the traffic code, and it means you don't get to drive slow in the left lane, overtake on busy intersections, and other stupid stuff like that.
It sounds like the researcher violated the "don't be an ass" rule.
Researcher discovers correlation between acting like a jerk and being unpopular would probably be a good headline.
Slashdot Mirror
NASA is terrible with arbitrary deadlines. Remember how the Mars rovers were only supposed to work for 90 days? They've been at it for years now. The date will be pushed back over and over again.
I hope you're right, but de-orbiting the ISS is a somewhat different matter than a Mars rover breaking down. You can't predict when a breakdown occurs, and as long as it doesn't, it's cheap to keep using it.
De-orbiting the ISS is an active choice, however. It's expensive to keep manned and operational. I suppose they could simply abandon it and leave it up there, but it's going to come down eventually. If I understand correctly, its orbit is so low that it experiences drag from Earth's atmosphere, which means it regularly needs a boost, and therefore fuel. I guess they prefer to have it come down in a controlled manner, so nobody gets hit on the head with the thing.
(I may have started by expressing the hope that the ISS stays up there for a while, but I'm not at all sure that's a good idea. Critics say it's a waste of money with no scientific value whatsoever. So why did we put it up there in the first place? Shouldn't we be figuring out how to mine asteroids instead?)
tomato, tomahtoe?
You mean tomayto tomato.
The Java VM was a good idea, but Sun never bothered to port other languages to it.
You're kidding, right? The JVM is one of the most important platforms right now. Lots of languages have been ported to it (JRuby is one of the fastest Ruby implementations at the moment), and it's also had newer languages specially designed for it. Look up Scala if you ever feel it's time to catch up with modern technology again.
The last time I tried NetBeans, it was a pure Java IDE.
The last time I used it, I used it for Ruby. (I eventually switched to RubyMine, though.)
I like to write games about consequences of choices, therefore I have to allow players choices.
But to give you an example, we GMd a murder mystery a few years back where the players decided the victim was such a shit, that instead of trying to find out who killed him, they threw a party instead. Not much of a module if they decide to do that. An most people understood the game had been advertised as a murder mystery and had signed up for it knowing the meta plot is to find out whodunnit.
Well, that's a choice, isn't it? Imagine what the authorities would think when they found out the PCs threw a party after the murder. There's plenty of room for interesting adventure there.
Maybe somebody else decides to try to solve the mystery. Someone with a bigger stake in solving the mystery than the PCs apparently have.
My thoughts exactly.
A more interesting license would be PacMan. You've got this guy with a big mouth swallowing pills in a dark club with repetitive electronic music, while chased by some scary goons. Then he swallows a special pill and goes completely berserk, killing the goons. In the sequel he'll do exactly the same thing in a slightly differently shaped club. Only this time he's thinking of his health and occasionally eats some fruit in between the pills.
I guess it's a gangster story revolving around drugs.
We have an axiom from 15 years or so of writing and running tounaments at roleplaying convertions: "No plot survives first contact with the players".
This is especially true of LARPs vs tabletop. Tabletop players tend to be more conservative when it comes to following the plot, this breaks down as soon as you get LARPers at the table.
Not true. Any roleplayer lives to ruin whatever railroad the GM had in mind.
Lesson learned: don't assume in advance that everybody will blindly do what you want. Come prepared, but be flexible.
"CHA is the only stat that matters in real life."
Charisma has a short shelf life. Every charismatic person I've ever met seems interesting at first, but within about one to three years turns into an asshole.
That's still plenty for a presidential campaign.
I thought RTS games were all about who's most agile with the mouse.
Either way, the debate is CHARACTER skill advancement models versus CHARACTER level advancement models.
No, the debate is way too muddled to be about anything in particular, and that's because the submitter is an idiot and has no idea what the article he's linking to is really about.
I think the main practical difference between level-based and skill-based (or maybe it's the difference between class-based and skill-based, but classes and levels usually go together) is that classes give everybody his own niche to specialise in, whereas skills give you the freedom to completely customise your character to whatever playstyle or perceived niche you prefer.
The article probably compares the level-up system seen in DnD (or apparently, WoW) compared to the gain-by-use system seen in UO.
Not just that. There are a many different approaches to skill-based systems. There's also systems where you buy skills with experience points, for example. Then there's EVE where you buy skill books with money and then spend time to learn those skills.
I don't think that's entirely true. I would never, ever argue anything technical with Andrew Tanenbaum, for instance.
But is that because of his age, or because he's a famous professor?
Anyway, being a professor in charge of a lot of scientists, students and research is also partially management.
money != happiness. EVER.
The only reason I want money is so I can eat, keep a roof over my head and hopefully give my kids the same (or better) opportunities I've had.
So how happy do you think you'd be without food, a roof over your head, and opportunities for your kids?
When you lack the basic necessities, money can do a lot for your happiness.
The problem is, of course, that tech doesn't have that much of a career path. You go from junior tech, to tech, to senior tech... and then if you want to go further, you go into management. Technical positions don't scale.
Depends on the company.
My dad managed to stay a tech for his entire career. He's good at what he does, but he hates doing management stuff, and refused to be in charge of anybody else. He still got very big raises early in his career, and soon got a bigger salary than his boss. Occasionally he gets put in charge of a project, but mostly he's managed to just do his own thing. He never says anything during meetings, but when he does, people listen, because it's bound to be important.
But it's probably a lot easier to advance that far in a management track. My dad's situation requires a boss who recognises and rewards talent, and a company that's willing to accommodate eccentric talent. But if my dad had even the slightest bit of talent and will to do management, he'd probably have made even more money. He didn't, but he's quite happy where he is.
And if you go the tech route, you really do need to keep learning and improving. My dad was about 50 when he learned Java, and now he does most of his programming in Java, and does open source Java programming in his free time.
This is going to sound more confrontational than I mean it, but when I hear that sort of comment in real life I immediately wonder whether the real problem is a bunch of immature employees who are too proud of their technical skills and unable to figure out what's actually needed in the work place.
Aren't you expecting the techies to do the manager's job here? Figuring out what's needed in the workplace is a manager's job. He needs to figure out what his workers need to get the job done, not the other way around.
There are certainly a lot of bad managers, but there are far more mediocre ones who have some flaws, but more than enough skills to help a talented group succeed. Good employees figures out what those skills are and how to take advantage of them--and most managers appreciate that.
Putting a mediocre manager in charge of good and talented employees can only work out if the manager is aware that the people working for him are more talented than he is. It can work out sometimes (my boss gets us involved with mission statements and vision for the future, as well as helping us how to improve our process in ways he wouldn't be able to figure out), but a surprising number of mediocre managers are not willing to accept their own limitations, and then you've got a recipe for disaster.
Note that it's not the workers who should accommodate the manager so he can do his work, it should be the other way around. The manager should manage, so the workers can work.
One thing I do not understand about your post, however, is how a German court's decision has any bearing on the legal structure of the United States? As I live in the United States, I am, by necessity, bound by the laws of this country.
Keep in mind that not everybody lives in the US, though. That means for a lot of people, EULAs may not be legally binding contracts.
In my head the "X" is the part that adds the sanity.
It helps a bit, but as this discussion proves, the "X" by no means guarantees sanity.
Unfortunately, IE sends an Accept header which doesn't include text/html but does include */*
IE claims to accept everything (including aplication/xhtml+xml) but doesn't? I didn't think my regard for IE could drop any lower, but there it is.
Incidentally, IE does render application/xml (or was it text/xml?) better than Firefox, which renders it as xhtml if it encounters an xhtml namespace.
So you're fine with me using your car without your permission as long as I replace the gas/fluids I use and get it back before you wake up?
That's certainly a much better analogy. Not entirely perfect, because you can still crash the car or commit some traffic violation with it or do anything else with it that hurts the original owner. But if you return the car with no damage whatsoever without the owner noticing it was even gone, then it certainly wasn't theft. I think it'd count as joyriding, although that is also potentially more damaging to the owner than copying.
Posting to undo my faulty mod. (I wanted to mod it funny, but Opera closed the box at flamebait)
Has that been tested in court? I'm reasonably sure a German court decided EULAs agreed to after the product has already been purchased are not legally binding.
It's like people who go 45 MPH in the left lane on a 55 MPH road. Yeah, that's definitely what the laws say you can do,
Not over here. Dutch traffic law has a rule that basically amounts to: "don't be an ass". It's the most important rule in the traffic code, and it means you don't get to drive slow in the left lane, overtake on busy intersections, and other stupid stuff like that.
It sounds like the researcher violated the "don't be an ass" rule.
Researcher discovers correlation between acting like a jerk and being unpopular would probably be a good headline.
Don't you people ever read contracts and EULA's anymore?
Why would you? EULA's are not binding in many jurisdictions. They're mostly wishful thinking by the publisher.
For $2.1 million, I'd want to decide for myself what I should and shouldn't do.