Well, setting the record straight, that original argument regarding names and versions was posted by an AC who was not me, and frankly I didn't really agree with what he was saying, but it did seem like an interesting starting point for a discussion.
As for the branch that our little sub-thread took, I only responded initially to your statement (emphasis mine):
Your job is never finished until the product is dead. There are always bugs to fix, inconsistencies to remedy.
I accept that you in a later post acknowledge that "In the Real World, software development rarely works out so cleanly." My issue was with your extremely absolute mandate regarding the eternal nature of all software projects. No doubt I brought no new insight to you with what I said, since I am sure you knew it already to be true and employed hyperbole for the sake of making a point, but that can be a dangerous logic game to play. I am glad we are now in agreement (I think).
And yes, when I said "I am more right than you" I was kidding. But as far as making "sweeping judgements about software life-cycle management," I feel you should swallow that pill, for it was I who was massaging your own sweeping statements by pointing out counterexamples, not attempting to make any bold claims of my own.
I also hope anybody who is still reading this thread is enjoying it.
The fine line between hack-and-slash-just-get-it-done coders and software-development-as-deep-science is actually wide enough to capture a lot of real world projects. Not every software project is an operating system with continuous iterations.
Consider a small software project that ends up as the code embedded on a miniature computer attached to an oil pipeline sensor array, buried underground. Or a pacemaker. Or any number of other areas of engineering where it's actually important to get it right the first time, and you don't have another chance. These are just a few obvious examples.
And I would expand my point to be even more general, which is to say that just because intellectuals expound on a subject, the scope of the subject is based on our (you and I and whoever else is discussing it) idea of what it is, not the intellectual's. In other words, just because Brooks or Royce or Joel or anybody else provides a template for projects does not mean that all projects fall under that template.
Perhaps my comments in the post to which you responded were a bit harsh and overly specific (and I apologize if I've offended any bad programmers), but I think in a sense we are both right (though obviously I am more right than you).
Software design is unlike most every other discipline in the world. Your job is never finished until the product is dead. There are always bugs to fix, inconsistencies to remedy.
What are you basing that on??? If a good software engineer has clearly defined goals, executes intelligently and gracefully, and provides abundant documentation, then the job is finished. Period. Contract fulfilled, product delivered, payment received. Done.
The only reason your statement is even partially true is because there are so many shitty "programmers" out there who can't even understand the code they write themselves and feel lucky any time something works, or pull out their broadsword to fix random problems that pop up and then pile crap on crap.
In summary:
True: when the product is dead, your job is finished.
But when your job is finished, and the product dies, then you obviously suck, and how did you get the job in the first place?
I get irritated when I hear people complain about the public's lack of interest in shuttle launches. People aren't interested because we've been doing the same thing over and over again for 20 years now, and frankly it's pointless and boring. And most people have figured that out by now.
Agreed. People like things that are NEW. Or things that are old, but have lots of 15-35 year olds sneaking around and fighting with each other and crying a lot. Oh, and there has to be one black guy there too. Yes, it's RealShuttleTV!
And then every week one of them gets voted off the space station and has to return to earth. Whoever is the last one up there gets to have zero-G sex with a stripper, and then that video is sold for more profit. See, NASA has the potential to get back in the game, but they need to think outside the stale repetitive box they are stuck in.
This post got good moderation: 50% funny, 50% insightful. It is funny, but it's a great idea too!
It would be so easy to pull it off, since the mechanism for uploading data from set top boxes (PPV purchases) exists, the I/O loop exists (remote/box/screen), and it would help people stop getting commercials for douches that they'll never buy.
There is an issue of privacy in that perhaps you don't want "the man" knowing so much about your preferences, but if it's opt-in, then it's up to each consumer to determine if they want custom-tailored ads or douche ads. I know which side I stand on.
All those man hours...could probably be better spent in any number of ways... Sorry, but I just don't see the value in a project such as this one.
And my time could be spent far better than by responding to your obnoxous flamebait post, but I just couldn't let it slide -- I despise this attitude, every time it pops up in technology, government, education,...
There are smart and creative people out there. Every day, these people do things for no particular reason other than their own curiosity, education, and betterment. This is the human spirit at its finest. Sometimes these things become the foundation of new discoveries, sometimes they just get written up and provide inspiration, information, or amusement for others.
But the fact is, it's none of your business how these people you don't know spend their time. And since we're sharing our personal opinions here anyway, mine is that your time would be better spent learning HTML and doing something productive rather than posting anonymous ignorant criticisms of people who accomplish more than you could ever dream of.
Pachamama dictates that bead sequences MUST BE EXACTLY 7 beads. Failure to comply with this sequence pattern MAY RESULT in cataclysmic incident with large asteroid.
Lots of responses so far saying "just make your font bigger" or "just resize your window". But I get your point, which is that it should work without you having to "just" do something. I'm used to seeing this attitude on/. though, typically where somebody complains "I get spam emails when i order online" and the response is "just install a linux firewall with sendmail and spamAssassin and..." Yeah, thanks.
In this case, though, I must weigh in to say that I feel browser windows should be vertical, not horizontal. The typical 8.5"x11" page is of good proportions so that your eyes don't get tired swinging back and forth, nor do you have to page/scroll too often. Emulate this with your browser window (make it about 900px wide, and 1200px tall), and you will be happy in general. Many sites are aimed at users with 800x600 displays (with maximized window, presumably), so will often make hard tables of around 700px width.
This is a non-issue. The artists determine what actions are legal regarding their music by the contracts they sign with their labels and other distributors. So artists: shut up, stop protesting, stop rallying, and if you don't want people downloading singles, then don't release the rights to your own creation such that this evil corruption of your pristine work is realized.
And don't tell me "well the artists can't get distribution unless they sign up with a label, and the contracts are so unfair, and ClearChannel blah blah blah." That may be true, but it's another problem entirely, and its solution has nothing to do with whether I can buy a single, an album, or am forced to buy an 8-CD box set of every musician I'm interested in.
Why buy a one-purpose piece of hardware when there are solutions that perform that purpose well, and do other useful stuff?
It's a fine question to ask, but there are lots of reasons. When you install an OS or application, do you install EVERY component and service along with it? No, you install what you need. Because additional elements introduce more potential bugs, security vulnerabilities, resource requirements, etc. And thus you get away with a server having only 256MB RAM instead of needing 2GB RAM.
And in this case (bringing it back to e-books), you don't have to worry that the e-novel you take on vacation gets deleted because it catches a virus from your bluetooth-enabled cell phone and starts print-spamming chapter 13 to your 802-11 networked printer. No, you just turn it on and you can read a book. And there is a button to turn the page, not a pointing device to open a context-sensitive menu that I need to stare at and click on. That's what I want -- simplicity and functionality.
So the answer is: You buy a one-purpose piece of hardware because the other solutions that perform that purpose more generally are inferior, and the extra benefits they bring are not worth the loss of functionality, usability, simplicity, etc.
Actually an "atlatl" is not technically a "spear-like device", but it is a device used to launch a light spear more accurately and powerfully than by hand. Kind of like a sling conceptually, but for a spear (dart) instead of a rock.
And furthermore, to bring your answer back to his question, lack of rich diet as found in agricultural societies results in poor nutrition (breadth-wise, not calorie-wise), which prevents more sophisticated areas of the body (especially in the brain) from developing and functioning "properly". Take your vitamins, kids.
What's to say that there haven't been lots of civs and lots of apocolypses?
Well the main argument against that is the massive lack of any evidence to support that claim. I agree that such a lack does not prove that there haven't been other civilizations, but it makes it more unlikely, as they would have probably had to develop their technology to the point where it was possible to entirely wipe all evidence of themselves or the technology itself off of the planet.
But hey, who's to say we're not all just part of one big infinitely cyclical postmodern technological revolution 10s of thousands of years old...
OK, I see what you are saying. But the reality is that simple, functional, and easy to understand BASIC interpreters that used to be present in operating systems / ROM are now gone entirely. So somewhere along the line, somebody did make the decision that no programming language is better than BASIC. And it almost seems like an industry conspiracy, as it has happened across the board.
I agree that a better language would be better, as that's a pretty hard statement to put up an argument against. But BASIC is basic, simple, small, fits in tiny ROM, is easy to pick up, and doesn't require conceptual baggage such as compiling, linking, object files, etc. Maybe it isn't the greatest thing ever, but neither is our school system! And, as you said, that doesn't mean we should eliminate it until we come up with something better.
The issue here is that mega-corporations like WalMart (and companies like them) have the ability to subsidize long periods of losses in one division (by even giving product away for FREE) to achieve market dominance and force out little players.
Once in a monopoly position, their power is even more significant, because they can further erect barriers to entry beyond simply impossibly low price expectations. For example, they begin invoking patents, pushing for new legislation, establishing single-vendor agreements with suppliers/distributors, and more.
We've seen ALL of this done before. The examples the Slashdot community is most familiar with are no doubt Microsoft, but they didn't invent Monopoly business practices, they just play it very well.
Your idealist view of the free market sounds like it came from a 7th grade economy textbook. It sounds great on paper, but it just doesn't work that way. I don't mean this as a flame, but it is dangerous when intelligent people (as you appear to be) maintain overly-simplified views of matters of this importance. For example, your last sentence regarding Capitalism. Capitalism doesn't "work" or "not work". It's just a pretty good man-concocted system for keeping economics in rough order, and it has its flaws like any other system.
I too remember Omega. It was an EXCELLENT game. What the did right was that you really didn't have to spend any more time on the programming than you wanted to. I think you could buy (in-game) modules that did various AI/targetting scripts, or you could write your own. Something like that... It's been a while, but I remember that game was very well done. Play it today! Somebody port it to windows with a new face so kids can learn to program once again!
I was 9 when I started programming, and it was in BASIC on a TI-99...
I do not think that BASIC is a good learning language. BASIC encourages bad programming practices.
This is as intellectually dishonest as ex-stoner hippies who tell their kids never to do drugs.
Open up your mind a bit and recognize that maybe if you didn't have BASIC available to you, you wouldn't have been programming, you wouldn't be who you are today, and you wouldn't be wasting your time on slashdot. Wait a minute...
I completely disagree with your post. Java is horribly verbose, overly complex, and entirely lacking in simple ways to make cool things appear on the screen (which is what gets kids interested in programming).
Before you say "you don't understand Java", let me say that I do know it very well. I have used it for several large engineering projects, and am using it now in building a SOAP-based server. But that's not the point.
Furthermore, your point about having to unlearn procedural programming is just plain silly. That would be like saying children should not use computers until they can learn to touch-type properly, because it will be too hard to unlearn hunt-and-peck typing styles. It's silly, but your example is even worse, because while touch-typing is superior to hunt-and-peck, OOP builds on simpler procedural programming styles, and without the foundation, you are a mystic and not an engineer.
Lastly, the biggest problem I see for kids programming these days is that they don't have to. When I was a kid, I turned on my computer, and it didn't do or connect to anything. I had to put a disk in, and then it would do that one thing. And the disks cost money. So if I wanted it to do anything else, I had to make it do it. Now, you just point your browser to goatse.cx and a whole new world is opened up to you, so why bother inventing anything yourself? That's the fundamental problem that I see, which is that there is no longer that boredom that inspired me as a kid.
Nevada Gaming Control, believe it or not, is honest and all but incorruptible, and they've got enough experience that any cheating scheme a casino could use will be spotted pretty quick.
I'll take door #2, please. That would be: uh, no, I don't believe it.
This isn't intended as a flamebait (yeh, go ahead and mod it how you like), but it really bothers me when people place blind faith in large groups of people, especially those dealing with large amounts of money/power.
What evidence could you possibly have to suggest that NGC is either honest or "all but incorruptable"? I'll answer that myself: no evidence, because there is no way to prove that statement. What are you going to say: "My brother's friend worked there and he told me about how nice everybody was"? Or you worked there and are so honest? Doesn't matter.
The fact is, regardless of the NGC's mission statement, it's composed of people, and people are corruptable. And these are people directly embedded in a billion (trillion?) dollar industry. I would be quite surprised if many were not bought off, politically controlled, and highly influenced by the casinos and their lobbies (some nice lobbies in some of them too, you seen the Monte Carlo in Vegas? Marble everywhere...)
As for Why risk that gravy train for an extra fraction of a percent for maybe a year tops?... Come on, that fraction is millions of dollars, huge bonuses, a new car, (more) strippers, (more) coke, (more) parties, and respect. And besides, most criminals don't recognize their actions as risks until after they're caught.
Well it's a fine idea except that it doesn't work consistently in practice outside of a thought experiment or an impossible lab environment. Why? For a couple of reasons.
1. Because things move: wind, dust, heat distortion, light changing, etc. Even more when there is organic matter around (pollen, insects, animals, shadows, etc.). Your brain is good at tricking you into seeing stereoscopically. But all these subtle distortions would break that pipeline. It's like your internal 3D driver is optimized for a specific test case, and then the situation changes. You'd see flickering and geometry popping when it shouldn't, and it won't feel right. Just ask nVidia. All of this could be manually filtered out, but then it's not a real image any more, and it's subject to somebody's interpretation of what things were "supposed to" look like.
2. Because it's actually easier to take two simultaneous pictures with fixed-position mounted lenses than it is to move a single camera a specific distance in a short amount of time and then take another picture. Why add a risk-prone mechanical engineering task to the problem? Just to save on the cost of a second lens/CCD? Come on, the fuel to get out there costs a bit more, and the weight of the mechanics to move and sense position is heavier than a second lens/CCD anyway.
I think it would be great to see some real color 3-D imagery from beyond Earth. They say human-eye height panoramic camera, but how about having two lenses to capture a 3D image? I'd pay $10 for a little View-Master with real 3D pictures from Mars, wouldn't you?
This is one of those things that is *probably* true, but doesn't really matter that much. The reality is that there are people out there who don't work for these companies who have nothing better to do and just think it's fun to write virii.
As the network grew, so did the ability of virii to spread from machine to machine. When floppy disks became popular, there was a tremendous growth of floppy-based virii. The nature of virii is that they will take advantage of whatever hosts and means of spreading are available to them, either evolving randomly or with "divine" (human) intervention.
So do the anti-virus companies have a dark room in a basement in some third world country with a sweat shop of hackers creating the next uber-virus? I think so. But that's just my opinion, and it doesn't change the fact that they still provide a relatively valuable service. Expect that most people and businesses do not operate ethically, but rather in their own self interest. Then get on with your life.
Slashdot Mirror
Hold me.
sob...
As for the branch that our little sub-thread took, I only responded initially to your statement (emphasis mine): I accept that you in a later post acknowledge that "In the Real World, software development rarely works out so cleanly." My issue was with your extremely absolute mandate regarding the eternal nature of all software projects. No doubt I brought no new insight to you with what I said, since I am sure you knew it already to be true and employed hyperbole for the sake of making a point, but that can be a dangerous logic game to play. I am glad we are now in agreement (I think).
And yes, when I said "I am more right than you" I was kidding. But as far as making "sweeping judgements about software life-cycle management," I feel you should swallow that pill, for it was I who was massaging your own sweeping statements by pointing out counterexamples, not attempting to make any bold claims of my own.
I also hope anybody who is still reading this thread is enjoying it.
The fine line between hack-and-slash-just-get-it-done coders and software-development-as-deep-science is actually wide enough to capture a lot of real world projects. Not every software project is an operating system with continuous iterations.
Consider a small software project that ends up as the code embedded on a miniature computer attached to an oil pipeline sensor array, buried underground. Or a pacemaker. Or any number of other areas of engineering where it's actually important to get it right the first time, and you don't have another chance. These are just a few obvious examples.
And I would expand my point to be even more general, which is to say that just because intellectuals expound on a subject, the scope of the subject is based on our (you and I and whoever else is discussing it) idea of what it is, not the intellectual's. In other words, just because Brooks or Royce or Joel or anybody else provides a template for projects does not mean that all projects fall under that template.
Perhaps my comments in the post to which you responded were a bit harsh and overly specific (and I apologize if I've offended any bad programmers), but I think in a sense we are both right (though obviously I am more right than you).
The only reason your statement is even partially true is because there are so many shitty "programmers" out there who can't even understand the code they write themselves and feel lucky any time something works, or pull out their broadsword to fix random problems that pop up and then pile crap on crap.
In summary:
And then every week one of them gets voted off the space station and has to return to earth. Whoever is the last one up there gets to have zero-G sex with a stripper, and then that video is sold for more profit. See, NASA has the potential to get back in the game, but they need to think outside the stale repetitive box they are stuck in.
This post got good moderation: 50% funny, 50% insightful. It is funny, but it's a great idea too!
It would be so easy to pull it off, since the mechanism for uploading data from set top boxes (PPV purchases) exists, the I/O loop exists (remote/box/screen), and it would help people stop getting commercials for douches that they'll never buy.
There is an issue of privacy in that perhaps you don't want "the man" knowing so much about your preferences, but if it's opt-in, then it's up to each consumer to determine if they want custom-tailored ads or douche ads. I know which side I stand on.
All those man hours...could probably be better spent in any number of ways... Sorry, but I just don't see the value in a project such as this one.
...
And my time could be spent far better than by responding to your obnoxous flamebait post, but I just couldn't let it slide -- I despise this attitude, every time it pops up in technology, government, education,
There are smart and creative people out there. Every day, these people do things for no particular reason other than their own curiosity, education, and betterment. This is the human spirit at its finest. Sometimes these things become the foundation of new discoveries, sometimes they just get written up and provide inspiration, information, or amusement for others.
But the fact is, it's none of your business how these people you don't know spend their time. And since we're sharing our personal opinions here anyway, mine is that your time would be better spent learning HTML and doing something productive rather than posting anonymous ignorant criticisms of people who accomplish more than you could ever dream of.
IETF (Inca Engineering Task Force)
RFC # 425
STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT OF
KHIPU (BEAD STRINGS)
Pachana 14, 1282
Revised by
Huaxxula Wuayata
Dept. of Beadworks
Inca Plains University
...
4.2. STRUCTURED BEAD SEQUENCES
Pachamama dictates that bead sequences MUST BE EXACTLY 7 beads. Failure to comply with this sequence pattern MAY RESULT in cataclysmic incident with large asteroid.
Lots of responses so far saying "just make your font bigger" or "just resize your window". But I get your point, which is that it should work without you having to "just" do something. I'm used to seeing this attitude on /. though, typically where somebody complains "I get spam emails when i order online" and the response is "just install a linux firewall with sendmail and spamAssassin and ..." Yeah, thanks.
In this case, though, I must weigh in to say that I feel browser windows should be vertical, not horizontal. The typical 8.5"x11" page is of good proportions so that your eyes don't get tired swinging back and forth, nor do you have to page/scroll too often. Emulate this with your browser window (make it about 900px wide, and 1200px tall), and you will be happy in general. Many sites are aimed at users with 800x600 displays (with maximized window, presumably), so will often make hard tables of around 700px width.
I cut my finger just pulling the floppy disk out of the box!
This is a non-issue. The artists determine what actions are legal regarding their music by the contracts they sign with their labels and other distributors. So artists: shut up, stop protesting, stop rallying, and if you don't want people downloading singles, then don't release the rights to your own creation such that this evil corruption of your pristine work is realized.
And don't tell me "well the artists can't get distribution unless they sign up with a label, and the contracts are so unfair, and ClearChannel blah blah blah." That may be true, but it's another problem entirely, and its solution has nothing to do with whether I can buy a single, an album, or am forced to buy an 8-CD box set of every musician I'm interested in.
Why buy a one-purpose piece of hardware when there are solutions that perform that purpose well, and do other useful stuff?
It's a fine question to ask, but there are lots of reasons. When you install an OS or application, do you install EVERY component and service along with it? No, you install what you need. Because additional elements introduce more potential bugs, security vulnerabilities, resource requirements, etc. And thus you get away with a server having only 256MB RAM instead of needing 2GB RAM.
And in this case (bringing it back to e-books), you don't have to worry that the e-novel you take on vacation gets deleted because it catches a virus from your bluetooth-enabled cell phone and starts print-spamming chapter 13 to your 802-11 networked printer. No, you just turn it on and you can read a book. And there is a button to turn the page, not a pointing device to open a context-sensitive menu that I need to stare at and click on. That's what I want -- simplicity and functionality.
So the answer is: You buy a one-purpose piece of hardware because the other solutions that perform that purpose more generally are inferior, and the extra benefits they bring are not worth the loss of functionality, usability, simplicity, etc.
MOD PARENT UP Insightful!
Actually an "atlatl" is not technically a "spear-like device", but it is a device used to launch a light spear more accurately and powerfully than by hand. Kind of like a sling conceptually, but for a spear (dart) instead of a rock.
A good site about the atlatl.
And the History Channel has an EXCELLENT show called "Conquest" that did an episode that included the atlatl (I think it was "Stone Age Weapons").
And furthermore, to bring your answer back to his question, lack of rich diet as found in agricultural societies results in poor nutrition (breadth-wise, not calorie-wise), which prevents more sophisticated areas of the body (especially in the brain) from developing and functioning "properly". Take your vitamins, kids.
What's to say that there haven't been lots of civs and lots of apocolypses?
Well the main argument against that is the massive lack of any evidence to support that claim. I agree that such a lack does not prove that there haven't been other civilizations, but it makes it more unlikely, as they would have probably had to develop their technology to the point where it was possible to entirely wipe all evidence of themselves or the technology itself off of the planet.
But hey, who's to say we're not all just part of one big infinitely cyclical postmodern technological revolution 10s of thousands of years old...
OK, I see what you are saying. But the reality is that simple, functional, and easy to understand BASIC interpreters that used to be present in operating systems / ROM are now gone entirely. So somewhere along the line, somebody did make the decision that no programming language is better than BASIC. And it almost seems like an industry conspiracy, as it has happened across the board.
I agree that a better language would be better, as that's a pretty hard statement to put up an argument against. But BASIC is basic, simple, small, fits in tiny ROM, is easy to pick up, and doesn't require conceptual baggage such as compiling, linking, object files, etc. Maybe it isn't the greatest thing ever, but neither is our school system! And, as you said, that doesn't mean we should eliminate it until we come up with something better.
Lo, an intelligent sub-thread!
The issue here is that mega-corporations like WalMart (and companies like them) have the ability to subsidize long periods of losses in one division (by even giving product away for FREE) to achieve market dominance and force out little players.
Once in a monopoly position, their power is even more significant, because they can further erect barriers to entry beyond simply impossibly low price expectations. For example, they begin invoking patents, pushing for new legislation, establishing single-vendor agreements with suppliers/distributors, and more.
We've seen ALL of this done before. The examples the Slashdot community is most familiar with are no doubt Microsoft, but they didn't invent Monopoly business practices, they just play it very well.
Your idealist view of the free market sounds like it came from a 7th grade economy textbook. It sounds great on paper, but it just doesn't work that way. I don't mean this as a flame, but it is dangerous when intelligent people (as you appear to be) maintain overly-simplified views of matters of this importance. For example, your last sentence regarding Capitalism. Capitalism doesn't "work" or "not work". It's just a pretty good man-concocted system for keeping economics in rough order, and it has its flaws like any other system.
I too remember Omega. It was an EXCELLENT game. What the did right was that you really didn't have to spend any more time on the programming than you wanted to. I think you could buy (in-game) modules that did various AI/targetting scripts, or you could write your own. Something like that... It's been a while, but I remember that game was very well done. Play it today! Somebody port it to windows with a new face so kids can learn to program once again!
I was 9 when I started programming, and it was in BASIC on a TI-99...
I do not think that BASIC is a good learning language. BASIC encourages bad programming practices.
This is as intellectually dishonest as ex-stoner hippies who tell their kids never to do drugs.
Open up your mind a bit and recognize that maybe if you didn't have BASIC available to you, you wouldn't have been programming, you wouldn't be who you are today, and you wouldn't be wasting your time on slashdot. Wait a minute...
I completely disagree with your post. Java is horribly verbose, overly complex, and entirely lacking in simple ways to make cool things appear on the screen (which is what gets kids interested in programming).
Before you say "you don't understand Java", let me say that I do know it very well. I have used it for several large engineering projects, and am using it now in building a SOAP-based server. But that's not the point.
Furthermore, your point about having to unlearn procedural programming is just plain silly. That would be like saying children should not use computers until they can learn to touch-type properly, because it will be too hard to unlearn hunt-and-peck typing styles. It's silly, but your example is even worse, because while touch-typing is superior to hunt-and-peck, OOP builds on simpler procedural programming styles, and without the foundation, you are a mystic and not an engineer.
Lastly, the biggest problem I see for kids programming these days is that they don't have to. When I was a kid, I turned on my computer, and it didn't do or connect to anything. I had to put a disk in, and then it would do that one thing. And the disks cost money. So if I wanted it to do anything else, I had to make it do it. Now, you just point your browser to goatse.cx and a whole new world is opened up to you, so why bother inventing anything yourself? That's the fundamental problem that I see, which is that there is no longer that boredom that inspired me as a kid.
Nevada Gaming Control, believe it or not, is honest and all but incorruptible, and they've got enough experience that any cheating scheme a casino could use will be spotted pretty quick.
I'll take door #2, please. That would be: uh, no, I don't believe it.
This isn't intended as a flamebait (yeh, go ahead and mod it how you like), but it really bothers me when people place blind faith in large groups of people, especially those dealing with large amounts of money/power.
What evidence could you possibly have to suggest that NGC is either honest or "all but incorruptable"? I'll answer that myself: no evidence, because there is no way to prove that statement. What are you going to say: "My brother's friend worked there and he told me about how nice everybody was"? Or you worked there and are so honest? Doesn't matter.
The fact is, regardless of the NGC's mission statement, it's composed of people, and people are corruptable. And these are people directly embedded in a billion (trillion?) dollar industry. I would be quite surprised if many were not bought off, politically controlled, and highly influenced by the casinos and their lobbies (some nice lobbies in some of them too, you seen the Monte Carlo in Vegas? Marble everywhere...)
As for Why risk that gravy train for an extra fraction of a percent for maybe a year tops?... Come on, that fraction is millions of dollars, huge bonuses, a new car, (more) strippers, (more) coke, (more) parties, and respect. And besides, most criminals don't recognize their actions as risks until after they're caught.
Well it's a fine idea except that it doesn't work consistently in practice outside of a thought experiment or an impossible lab environment. Why? For a couple of reasons.
1. Because things move: wind, dust, heat distortion, light changing, etc. Even more when there is organic matter around (pollen, insects, animals, shadows, etc.). Your brain is good at tricking you into seeing stereoscopically. But all these subtle distortions would break that pipeline. It's like your internal 3D driver is optimized for a specific test case, and then the situation changes. You'd see flickering and geometry popping when it shouldn't, and it won't feel right. Just ask nVidia. All of this could be manually filtered out, but then it's not a real image any more, and it's subject to somebody's interpretation of what things were "supposed to" look like.
2. Because it's actually easier to take two simultaneous pictures with fixed-position mounted lenses than it is to move a single camera a specific distance in a short amount of time and then take another picture. Why add a risk-prone mechanical engineering task to the problem? Just to save on the cost of a second lens/CCD? Come on, the fuel to get out there costs a bit more, and the weight of the mechanics to move and sense position is heavier than a second lens/CCD anyway.
I think it would be great to see some real color 3-D imagery from beyond Earth. They say human-eye height panoramic camera, but how about having two lenses to capture a 3D image? I'd pay $10 for a little View-Master with real 3D pictures from Mars, wouldn't you?
This is one of those things that is *probably* true, but doesn't really matter that much. The reality is that there are people out there who don't work for these companies who have nothing better to do and just think it's fun to write virii.
As the network grew, so did the ability of virii to spread from machine to machine. When floppy disks became popular, there was a tremendous growth of floppy-based virii. The nature of virii is that they will take advantage of whatever hosts and means of spreading are available to them, either evolving randomly or with "divine" (human) intervention.
So do the anti-virus companies have a dark room in a basement in some third world country with a sweat shop of hackers creating the next uber-virus? I think so. But that's just my opinion, and it doesn't change the fact that they still provide a relatively valuable service. Expect that most people and businesses do not operate ethically, but rather in their own self interest. Then get on with your life.