Indeed, that's a distinct possibility. Still wouldn't say that guy panicked - going at ~200 km/h with the perception of having no control is a corner case for the human psyche, and he made it through.
Usually, frameworks are not written and maintained by one person. And thus, you are free to worry about your own code and its bugs, and have others worry about the framework's bugs (within reason, for crucial bugs you will of course need to worry about finding a viable workaround). Code reuse is a good thing, and no single person is smarter than > 1 person.
Also, frameworks do not usually change completely in less than a year, and the change that does happen is gradual - as long as you keep the framework you use up to date the learning curve is flat.
Hehe, yeah, you're sooo much smarter than those idiots who wrote this framework with the sole purpose to enable other idiots to take shortcuts instead of doing things properly[tm]. Anyways, "Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans."
I don't know about that specific case, but from your description it doesn't apply to my argument: Either the car worked and the guy was joyriding, which isn't panicking, just general douchebaggyness, or the car did indeed fail, and the guy killed neither himself nor anyone else, which also isn't panicking.
Generally yes, in most cases the guy operating the "failing" machine is himself the point of failure. But that doesn't mean that's always the case.
As you understand the argument on bad road conditions, all that's left is a situation where the road condition turns from bad to worse unexpectedly. Shifting back into gear still takes some time.
Plus, using the hydraulic brakes where the engine brake would do causes additional wear. However, I don't know how much wear would warrant how much additional fuel intake.
Provided the car did indeed work, maybe. However, had he really panicked he would have crashed his car into the next concrete wall. Instead, he managed to keep it on the road, not crash it, and call emergency services. Not exactly the signs of mental problems.
While those stats are interesting, it doesn't matter. It's not enough to warrant the loss in vehicle control you get by detaching your engine from the drivetrain.
Well, that guy made it through an hour of uncontrolled cruising at high speeds. I think it's safe to say his mind works well enough. Many, maybe most, people I know would panic.
Interesting. However, we need to figure out what the car will do at high speeds. One could argue that it's a bad idea to turn off the engine then, as it will leave all control of the vehicle to the brakes (plus inertia and friction of course) - provided there is no such critical malfunction of course. The brakes in the story did not work with the engine running, no way to know how they would react without engine power.
It's dangerous to get turn your car into a very heavy soapbox. You are left with only your brakes to control your speed, overusing them unnecessarily, and as you said, actually accelerating requires you to match the rpm (and gear) to the actual speed first. Just not accelerating will let the wheels keep the engine at the correct rpms. Plus, as superdave80 said, modern cars stop fuel intake when not using the acceleration pedal.
Probably the first that was used in the movie that was fileshared more often than bought ^^ Which probably would be a commercial film, thus CGI -.-
Still doesn't make stop motion outdated! *shake fist*
...and it looks a lot better than even modern 3D CGI. So no real irony - stop motion obviously is not obsolete, just a hell of a lot more expensive to make than CGI, limiting it to shorts. Still, not outdated.
What's that strangeness, there are multiple interviews? Besides that, yes, some social skills might be helpful, but don't people usually learn those automatically in a corporate environment? About when they notice they won't get what they need for their project, that they themselves won't get anywhere without getting into office politics and generally socializing with other people.
Of course, they probably won't quite acquire the sales-person level of communicative skills on their own.
Not to mention Skype's interest in offering their services where ever it makes good business sense to do so, i.e. China. And they do, it is not blocked by the Great Firewall. That alone strongly suggests there are ways to controlling Skype that go beyond just blocking it.
It's even worse. Supporting Linux is expensive, there are a bunch of distributions with fundamental differences, not to mention desktop managers and audio systems . Supporting them all is.. hard, way too hard for most purposes.
When their stats say you people are like 0.001% of total users, and responsible for like 0.000001% of the revenue, can you seriously blame them for not being overly eager to expose themselves to the support nightmare that is Linux?
Of course, opening their protocol would allow them to have the Linux crowd support itself, but what's the gain?
I'm not sure that's going to work out very well, you will still need to authenticate yourself to the network and an easily reachable "this fucker's spamming me" button will keep those people at bay.
Unless of course there are holes in that authentication mechanism...
If its protocol's secrecy really is the only thing securing their revenue stream, they probably deserve to go under. It doesn't seem very likely though.
a) There's a whole industry of Skype related hardware and a little also for the "Extras" (little pieces of software extending the Skype client, like games and collaboration applications). When a network's revenue stream and therefore existence is based on just its secrecy, it doesn't seem likely so many people will invest there.
b) Skype itself offers additional features of their network for paying customers. Those features are bound not to their protocol's secrecy, but to the infrastructure they have build over quite some years. They're not easily duplicated.
Skype is a business tool to many. Somehow crippling their MacOS client doesn't seem like a smart move then, given how many Macs are used in offices. But maybe that's just my impression and their stats say the MacOS part of their network is insignificant compared to the cost of maintaining the MacOS client. In which case, who could blame them for concentrating on something more worthwhile? It wouldn't even be all bad, as that could legalize reverse engineering for interoperability.
Not really disagreeing with your point, but the term "network" does not necessarily mean it's something physical. With its huge amount of (locked in) users, many of which depend on its services, Skype is a network. One build on another one, but in itself a defined structure.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, that's a distinct possibility. Still wouldn't say that guy panicked - going at ~200 km/h with the perception of having no control is a corner case for the human psyche, and he made it through.
If that was the AC's point, he didn't bring it across in any sensible way. He literally said "I code everything by hand", and that's plain stupid.
Usually, frameworks are not written and maintained by one person. And thus, you are free to worry about your own code and its bugs, and have others worry about the framework's bugs (within reason, for crucial bugs you will of course need to worry about finding a viable workaround). Code reuse is a good thing, and no single person is smarter than > 1 person.
Also, frameworks do not usually change completely in less than a year, and the change that does happen is gradual - as long as you keep the framework you use up to date the learning curve is flat.
Hehe, yeah, you're sooo much smarter than those idiots who wrote this framework with the sole purpose to enable other idiots to take shortcuts instead of doing things properly[tm]. Anyways, "Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans."
I don't know about that specific case, but from your description it doesn't apply to my argument: Either the car worked and the guy was joyriding, which isn't panicking, just general douchebaggyness, or the car did indeed fail, and the guy killed neither himself nor anyone else, which also isn't panicking.
Generally yes, in most cases the guy operating the "failing" machine is himself the point of failure. But that doesn't mean that's always the case.
As you understand the argument on bad road conditions, all that's left is a situation where the road condition turns from bad to worse unexpectedly. Shifting back into gear still takes some time. Plus, using the hydraulic brakes where the engine brake would do causes additional wear. However, I don't know how much wear would warrant how much additional fuel intake.
Provided the car did indeed work, maybe. However, had he really panicked he would have crashed his car into the next concrete wall. Instead, he managed to keep it on the road, not crash it, and call emergency services. Not exactly the signs of mental problems.
While those stats are interesting, it doesn't matter. It's not enough to warrant the loss in vehicle control you get by detaching your engine from the drivetrain.
Well, that guy made it through an hour of uncontrolled cruising at high speeds. I think it's safe to say his mind works well enough. Many, maybe most, people I know would panic.
Steering lock is not the same thing as non-powered steering.
Interesting. However, we need to figure out what the car will do at high speeds. One could argue that it's a bad idea to turn off the engine then, as it will leave all control of the vehicle to the brakes (plus inertia and friction of course) - provided there is no such critical malfunction of course. The brakes in the story did not work with the engine running, no way to know how they would react without engine power.
It's dangerous to get turn your car into a very heavy soapbox. You are left with only your brakes to control your speed, overusing them unnecessarily, and as you said, actually accelerating requires you to match the rpm (and gear) to the actual speed first. Just not accelerating will let the wheels keep the engine at the correct rpms. Plus, as superdave80 said, modern cars stop fuel intake when not using the acceleration pedal.
Probably the first that was used in the movie that was fileshared more often than bought ^^ Which probably would be a commercial film, thus CGI -.- Still doesn't make stop motion outdated! *shake fist*
...and it looks a lot better than even modern 3D CGI. So no real irony - stop motion obviously is not obsolete, just a hell of a lot more expensive to make than CGI, limiting it to shorts. Still, not outdated.
Most people don't stand a chance in politics when they don't have some connections. Those they get with social skills.
What's that strangeness, there are multiple interviews? Besides that, yes, some social skills might be helpful, but don't people usually learn those automatically in a corporate environment? About when they notice they won't get what they need for their project, that they themselves won't get anywhere without getting into office politics and generally socializing with other people.
Of course, they probably won't quite acquire the sales-person level of communicative skills on their own.
Oh noes, not 'ls' too! Is nothing sacred anymore.. :(
Not to mention Skype's interest in offering their services where ever it makes good business sense to do so, i.e. China. And they do, it is not blocked by the Great Firewall. That alone strongly suggests there are ways to controlling Skype that go beyond just blocking it.
It's even worse. Supporting Linux is expensive, there are a bunch of distributions with fundamental differences, not to mention desktop managers and audio systems . Supporting them all is.. hard, way too hard for most purposes.
Really, Windows gamers would accept having to reboot their system to play a game? I know I wouldn't, but then, I'm not them.
When their stats say you people are like 0.001% of total users, and responsible for like 0.000001% of the revenue, can you seriously blame them for not being overly eager to expose themselves to the support nightmare that is Linux?
Of course, opening their protocol would allow them to have the Linux crowd support itself, but what's the gain?
I'm not sure that's going to work out very well, you will still need to authenticate yourself to the network and an easily reachable "this fucker's spamming me" button will keep those people at bay.
Unless of course there are holes in that authentication mechanism...
If its protocol's secrecy really is the only thing securing their revenue stream, they probably deserve to go under. It doesn't seem very likely though.
a) There's a whole industry of Skype related hardware and a little also for the "Extras" (little pieces of software extending the Skype client, like games and collaboration applications). When a network's revenue stream and therefore existence is based on just its secrecy, it doesn't seem likely so many people will invest there.
b) Skype itself offers additional features of their network for paying customers. Those features are bound not to their protocol's secrecy, but to the infrastructure they have build over quite some years. They're not easily duplicated.
Skype is a business tool to many. Somehow crippling their MacOS client doesn't seem like a smart move then, given how many Macs are used in offices. But maybe that's just my impression and their stats say the MacOS part of their network is insignificant compared to the cost of maintaining the MacOS client. In which case, who could blame them for concentrating on something more worthwhile? It wouldn't even be all bad, as that could legalize reverse engineering for interoperability.
Not really disagreeing with your point, but the term "network" does not necessarily mean it's something physical. With its huge amount of (locked in) users, many of which depend on its services, Skype is a network. One build on another one, but in itself a defined structure.