Some languages, like Java, students spend more time dealing with syntax instead of focusing on learning problem solving.
If the goals of the program is to teach fundamentalist, hardcore, empirical programmers then the ability to program with a text editor is great because they learn the basics of everything. If the goals of the program is to teach problem solving within programming languages, then dealing with the heavyweight, primitive tools distracts from the lessons.
In both cases, when students have learned their initial lessons, they should be the ones who make decisions on what works for them and what doesn't.
Have you considered the fact that people die of design faults in mundane technology we have built for thousands of years? Let's take cars for instance, cars break down, fall apart, catch on fire and sometimes expload becauase of design faults.
Every major human milestone is measured with how many lives lost it took to get there. How many people died exploring the world we live in? How many people died in the quest to fly?
At the end of the day people make mistakes that cause people to die and this fact isn't unique to space travel.
This is a very specific plan to require people who are receiving government benefits to be able to demonstrate that they are who they claim to be. Don't like it? Don't participate. If you want the benefits, you have to play by the rules.
As it currently stands; you can't just walk into centrelink and say "Hi, I'm Joe Blow of that place across the street, now give me something". You need to be able to prove your identiy as it is.
This effects the same number of people who have medicare cards; i.e. almost all of them. Given enough time even an idiot can see how it will become the default ID card
I lost all interest in the SCA when some 'white belted lord' came out wearing armour made of carpet and parts found from around the house. That dog dish on his chest sure did complete the picture.
There is a massive shortage of educational software on windows as it currently stands, changing to *nix isn't going to help them out.
I managed windows machines at a school for 5 years and I don't think any of them died in the arse simply because people used them. Normally it was the dodge installation of third party applications and drivers that broke things down.
Which is the art behind game development. Note that Art and Design while related are not the same thing. Design is about planning and affordance, Art is about expression, intuition and emotion.
A good game could be a few tweaks away from a really horrible game,
That's the problem. Game Development is filled with Artists, Scientists and hacks. People often don't really know what people want, how to find out what they want or even what makes something popular.
but it's impossible to know unless someone with a creative side jumps in and adds their creative side to it.
Design is incredably creative, but it isn't art. Also, you seem to assume that formal education limits creativity. In my experiance (as a Designer), nothing is further from the truth. There is a science to a lot of design that affords designers a depth of knowledge that is very hard to achieve without formal education.
I get what you are saying about the book, but I just think you should be more careful about the phrasing of your creative is simply creative point of view
The new system seems to be designed, unlike the AD&D system. AD&D seems to be 75 different thoughs all smushed into one game and never really fleshed out. Then again, I haven't purchased anything after 3rd edition.
AD&D is the old, poorly designed rulset created by TSR. D&D (3.5 ed) is the new edition created by Wizards of the Coast. The D&D ruleset is also what they used as a baseline.
In Patton's case, highly technical skills equals military genius. I'd guess that would make you pretty popular in a war. Besides, Patton understood what made a good person a good soldier. Something which was/is rare in any leadership position.
A critical part of the full understanding of a concept is the ability to express it simply.
In general most modern applications are not expressed clearly or simply to normal every day people and programmers or advanced/expert users (i.e. much of the Slashdot crowd) simply make fun of them. Why should we expect any better when we don't understand something? Pot, meet kettle.
My fiancee is at UCSF, so I have to constantly tell her to use plain English. Skin works just as well as Epidermis, honey. She works with the public, so she has a more critical need to break that habit than most academes.
My Jargon vocabulary was highly limited until I entered the business world. At University we used the specific, word that concisely and precisely describes what we are talking about. The Epidermis -> skin point you use is actually a good example as skin generally covers multiple layers as aspects, while epidermis is precise.
In my studies, if I said Ethnographic study or Ethnomethodological, people know exactly what I mean, or if they don't they can look up the word and learn exactly what I mean. A simple explanation can only be as precise if it is a verbose description.
Just recalling my high school physics, if I'd have written it (and you were responding to a troll, IMO), I'd just have said that all electrical waves are electromagnetic in nature. Maybe talked about the history of ether, and how the electrical and magnetic components provide the medium for each other.
Is that the simplest explanation? Could I take that to an average 5 year old and explain electrical and magnetic energy fields are related and have them understand? I'd guess not. Which of course is the problem, simplicity is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure his answer is a pretty simplistic one for someone in his position. I bet post-grad physicists call people losers when they don't understand basic physics.
Now, if me.. a brown muslim guy, were to go the the American heartland and crack similar jokes at peter's expense. I would eventually run into a christian red neck would think I deserve a punch.
Punch you, or start a riot of epic proportions? Big difference.
Nice generalisation you got there. Some designers are in fact developers. Just because you're not, doesn't include everybody. Note, I also like the fact that you lump designers into the "all designers are visual designers", another great generalisation.
By the time an XP team has a first version of thier UI together they've already begun locking themselves into a way of doing things. There is a resistance to change existing UI code (last time I checked UI was pretty hard to refactor).
Whoa, right there. I don't know what you are preaching, but it sure isn't XP. The users drive XP development and if they want you to re-develop your UI because it looks shit, then surprise, surprise you have to re-develop your UI! You seem to be preaching, "XP doesn't work, because I don't really follow XP principles" , maybe you need to man up and do your job.
I don't even understand your *tear* about refactoring GUI code. Refactoring GUI code happens all the time, in fact I've never written a UI that hasn't been refactored. If you have engineered your application right the first time, you shouldn't find it too hard to slap on an entirely new UI. If for some reason you can't slap on a new UI, then your application really needs refactoring.
Why is there such a fundamental disconnect between the engineers and *everyone* else in a business environment?
If management and marketing don't communicate you get some pretty woeful marketing campaigns. The difference being is that marketing and management are related fields. In fact they are incestuous by nature, which puts them in a field called business. I mean, a manager probably can make a good estimate on how many man-hours marketing would need to put into a new ad campaign before he went downstairs and asked them too.
[
However, when dealing with engineers, managers don't intrinsically understand the complexities of what they ask, and engineers frequently don't know how to define that complexity. In fact, this problem exists when dealing with engineers, designers and artists, they each perceive the world differently than business does.
Hence, for business to truly understand these disciplines and for these disciplines to make themselves understood, they need to communicate with each other in detail.
If you simply looked at the way any pure business discipline is trained, and then compared it to the way anybody in engineer, design or art is trained, it becomes obvious that there are massive differences. Well, at least when I was living with an engineer and a business student at University it was pretty obvious;p
WoW was poorly implemented by people who didn't understand what they were getting into and the technical needs of the project were overshadowed by the artistic nature of Blizzard. Don't get me wrong, WoW is a great game... until the servers start to break around you.
Slashdot Mirror
Some languages, like Java, students spend more time dealing with syntax instead of focusing on learning problem solving.
If the goals of the program is to teach fundamentalist, hardcore, empirical programmers then the ability to program with a text editor is great because they learn the basics of everything. If the goals of the program is to teach problem solving within programming languages, then dealing with the heavyweight, primitive tools distracts from the lessons.
In both cases, when students have learned their initial lessons, they should be the ones who make decisions on what works for them and what doesn't.
Lastly, arn't vi and emacs are IDEs.
Have you considered the fact that people die of design faults in mundane technology we have built for thousands of years? Let's take cars for instance, cars break down, fall apart, catch on fire and sometimes expload becauase of design faults.
Every major human milestone is measured with how many lives lost it took to get there. How many people died exploring the world we live in? How many people died in the quest to fly?
At the end of the day people make mistakes that cause people to die and this fact isn't unique to space travel.
Did you just fall for the:
What's heavier, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?
joke?
Did you just fail physics?
This is a very specific plan to require people who are receiving government benefits to be able to demonstrate that they are who they claim to be. Don't like it? Don't participate. If you want the benefits, you have to play by the rules.
As it currently stands; you can't just walk into centrelink and say "Hi, I'm Joe Blow of that place across the street, now give me something". You need to be able to prove your identiy as it is.
This effects the same number of people who have medicare cards; i.e. almost all of them. Given enough time even an idiot can see how it will become the default ID card
omg bsg so ripped off the greeks! They had Pegasus too!
That's the dumbest thing I've read here all day. Just because you get married and spawn childern doesn't mean you're broke.
On what grounds? We can't defame you anymore than you have already.
Power point is pretty limp. Try paper and wireframe designs.
You need to stop drinking during lunch and search for a new job during lunch.
Good software requires close proximity. I've never seen good software come from offshoring.
I lost all interest in the SCA when some 'white belted lord' came out wearing armour made of carpet and parts found from around the house. That dog dish on his chest sure did complete the picture.
The preception is that moving distribution to the internet destroys traditional markets for non-proven income.
I managed windows machines at a school for 5 years and I don't think any of them died in the arse simply because people used them. Normally it was the dodge installation of third party applications and drivers that broke things down.
It still isn't the Australian Government ...
If it was so easy to clone exchange, lots of people would have done so.
Gaming has always been about what "feels" right.
Which is the art behind game development. Note that Art and Design while related are not the same thing. Design is about planning and affordance, Art is about expression, intuition and emotion.
A good game could be a few tweaks away from a really horrible game,
That's the problem. Game Development is filled with Artists, Scientists and hacks. People often don't really know what people want, how to find out what they want or even what makes something popular.
but it's impossible to know unless someone with a creative side jumps in and adds their creative side to it.
Design is incredably creative, but it isn't art. Also, you seem to assume that formal education limits creativity. In my experiance (as a Designer), nothing is further from the truth. There is a science to a lot of design that affords designers a depth of knowledge that is very hard to achieve without formal education.
I get what you are saying about the book, but I just think you should be more careful about the phrasing of your creative is simply creative point of view
The new system seems to be designed, unlike the AD&D system. AD&D seems to be 75 different thoughs all smushed into one game and never really fleshed out. Then again, I haven't purchased anything after 3rd edition.
AD&D is the old, poorly designed rulset created by TSR. D&D (3.5 ed) is the new edition created by Wizards of the Coast. The D&D ruleset is also what they used as a baseline.
Nice, we should all stop going to uni right now! Oh wait, how many college dropouts are living below the poverty line?
In Patton's case, highly technical skills equals military genius. I'd guess that would make you pretty popular in a war. Besides, Patton understood what made a good person a good soldier. Something which was/is rare in any leadership position.
A critical part of the full understanding of a concept is the ability to express it simply.
In general most modern applications are not expressed clearly or simply to normal every day people and programmers or advanced/expert users (i.e. much of the Slashdot crowd) simply make fun of them. Why should we expect any better when we don't understand something? Pot, meet kettle.
My fiancee is at UCSF, so I have to constantly tell her to use plain English. Skin works just as well as Epidermis, honey. She works with the public, so she has a more critical need to break that habit than most academes.
My Jargon vocabulary was highly limited until I entered the business world. At University we used the specific, word that concisely and precisely describes what we are talking about. The Epidermis -> skin point you use is actually a good example as skin generally covers multiple layers as aspects, while epidermis is precise.
In my studies, if I said Ethnographic study or Ethnomethodological, people know exactly what I mean, or if they don't they can look up the word and learn exactly what I mean. A simple explanation can only be as precise if it is a verbose description.
Just recalling my high school physics, if I'd have written it (and you were responding to a troll, IMO), I'd just have said that all electrical waves are electromagnetic in nature. Maybe talked about the history of ether, and how the electrical and magnetic components provide the medium for each other.
Is that the simplest explanation? Could I take that to an average 5 year old and explain electrical and magnetic energy fields are related and have them understand? I'd guess not. Which of course is the problem, simplicity is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure his answer is a pretty simplistic one for someone in his position. I bet post-grad physicists call people losers when they don't understand basic physics.
Now, if me.. a brown muslim guy, were to go the the American heartland and crack similar jokes at peter's expense. I would eventually run into a christian red neck would think I deserve a punch.
Punch you, or start a riot of epic proportions? Big difference.
Developers are not designers.
Nice generalisation you got there. Some designers are in fact developers. Just because you're not, doesn't include everybody. Note, I also like the fact that you lump designers into the "all designers are visual designers", another great generalisation.
By the time an XP team has a first version of thier UI together they've already begun locking themselves into a way of doing things. There is a resistance to change existing UI code (last time I checked UI was pretty hard to refactor).
Whoa, right there. I don't know what you are preaching, but it sure isn't XP. The users drive XP development and if they want you to re-develop your UI because it looks shit, then surprise, surprise you have to re-develop your UI! You seem to be preaching, "XP doesn't work, because I don't really follow XP principles" , maybe you need to man up and do your job.
I don't even understand your *tear* about refactoring GUI code. Refactoring GUI code happens all the time, in fact I've never written a UI that hasn't been refactored. If you have engineered your application right the first time, you shouldn't find it too hard to slap on an entirely new UI. If for some reason you can't slap on a new UI, then your application really needs refactoring.
Why is there such a fundamental disconnect between the engineers and *everyone* else in a business environment?
If management and marketing don't communicate you get some pretty woeful marketing campaigns. The difference being is that marketing and management are related fields. In fact they are incestuous by nature, which puts them in a field called business. I mean, a manager probably can make a good estimate on how many man-hours marketing would need to put into a new ad campaign before he went downstairs and asked them too.
[However, when dealing with engineers, managers don't intrinsically understand the complexities of what they ask, and engineers frequently don't know how to define that complexity. In fact, this problem exists when dealing with engineers, designers and artists, they each perceive the world differently than business does.
Hence, for business to truly understand these disciplines and for these disciplines to make themselves understood, they need to communicate with each other in detail.
If you simply looked at the way any pure business discipline is trained, and then compared it to the way anybody in engineer, design or art is trained, it becomes obvious that there are massive differences. Well, at least when I was living with an engineer and a business student at University it was pretty obvious ;p
WoW was poorly implemented by people who didn't understand what they were getting into and the technical needs of the project were overshadowed by the artistic nature of Blizzard. Don't get me wrong, WoW is a great game ... until the servers start to break around you.