I've given numerous speeches, in several countries. The main part of the work is done by the time you arrive. Actually giving the speech is a fraction of the actual work involved, and certainly does not justify the same formal requirements as if you wanted to spend a year in full-time work
You can't seriously expect people to spend more time filling out the forms than they will be actually working. That is bureaucracy gone mad, nothing else. Heck they interviewed him a customs for a considerable part of the time he had planned to "work".
I've avoided them ever since DeCSS (I was a named defendant) and I don't plan to change that. As I see it, for a foreign national in the computer security business, pretty much anything you do while, before or potentially-might-do-after your trip can result in them locking you up indefinitely.
And the real horror is: A couple years ago, people even on/. would've labeled me paranoid and anti-american for that statement. Today, I fear, most will agree and some will post details of the relevant laws.
Yes, it means either continually updating the game, or building it at a size that makes Oblivion one corner of the world.
Very likely, autogenerated, random content is the only way to do this, so instead of writing quests you'd write quest generators. Stuff like that. Plus player interaction. SL is too far to be a game, but in almost all MMORPGs, the world is just too static. Why can't the players build a village, or a city? In AO, you can rent a flat. Why not have the cities expand if they are filled? Why can I gather wood, but not build a hut?
As I said: Whoever comes up with a formula here has a winner.
Yes, I know EVE. The automatic skilling has lots to say for it, and some against. For example, it also makes sure you can never be better than the guy who started two years earlier, no matter what you do.
I don't think EVE's the answer. If anything, it is a first, cautious step into the right direction.
The road to a massive improvement of MMORPGs is simple, really. It's just hard to find it. Here's my theory:
Whoever comes up with a design concept that eliminates the constant grinding has a winner on his hands. Grinding is what: * Makes only freaks with nothing else to do reach the top levels/weapons/armours/etc * Put off lots and lots of casual players who play to get away from work and stupid job * Makes the whole thing so boring and repetitive
Find something to replace grinding as the core gameplay component and you'll start the next era of massive multiplayer online gaming.
I agree with you. It is well within the capability of Apple to make the iPhone usable by people who are blind. They have chose not too. There is some element of callousness to that. Bullshit. They've also not made it useable by people without arms, or by people without brains. So? Your point is what, exactly? That we are an evil society because we (the sighted) dare to actually use our eyes?
I am not advocating removing of features of the iPhone, I propose adding more. No, what you are proposing is a considerable change in the entire design. A highly visual touchscreen device isn't exactly going to be blind-friendly with one or two minor modifications.
I'll support any change that does not impact me or the other 99% of the people in any major negative way. If it costs another $5 to make a blind-friendly iPhone, fine with me. Well, as long as that doesn't mean $5 for the blind, $5 for the arm-less, $5 for the deaf, etc etc etc.
However, I do think there is some wisdom in going forward without looking out for the slowest one at every step. If only because otherwise you wouldn't get forward at all. I'm sure most of the nice technology that makes life easier for disabled people would have never been developed if it had been a requirement from day one.
One reasonable way to judge governments, and people, is to see how they take care of those with disadvantages. That's a way, but not a reasonable one. A reasonable one would be to see how they take care of everyone, including those with disadvantages. Inconveniencing 99% of the population for the advantage of 1% is not what I'd call reasonable.
It is not about being politically correct, it is about being enlightened. Not in the least. Being enlightened would be finding ways to maximize everyones enjoyment of life. Doing things so that everyone wins. Protecting minorities (of whatever kind) is great. Protecting minorities to the detriment of everyone else is stupid.
How can sight-impaired users make use of a buttonless phone? They can't.
Why should the other 99% of the population abstain from it?
I'm all for developing devices that make life easier for disabled people. I'm very strongly against making life more difficult or limited for the rest of us in order to cater to them.
Buttons are intuitive. No interface control is intuitive by itself.
The problem with buttons is that once you have more than a very low number of them, it becomes more and more difficult to find the right one, and the real estate wasted on the interface gets larger and larger.
I bet you that right now you have at least 10 keys on the keyboard in front of you that you press less than once a day on average. I know I do. Your phone probably has at least one button on it that you've not used at all for the past month, if not the past year.
Having it there anyway is a waste of space, weight, complexity and neural processing power because your brain has to work to ignore it.
For example "use CDN" (aka Akamai, etc.) - yeah, right. For Yahoo.com that's an idea. For my private website, that's bullshit. If they really use this internally to rate sites, their rating sucks by definition.
So in summary there are a couple good points there, and a couple that are not really appropriate. Expires: Headers are a nice idea for static webpages. But YSlow still gives me an F for not using one on a PHP page that really does change every time you load it.
Remind me how tracking everyone everywhere is going to do anything whatsoever to prevent that happening again? Just think of the chiiiildren. I mean, really hard. You're not trying! Think hard. Think children... don't think that, you pervert!
If the hardware locks up, there's nothing your software can do. But if something in the hardware is causing your software to lock up, then your hardware abstraction layer and hence your OS is buggy.
Sure we accept this in cars. That's why there are recalls and TSBs. The reason why there are recalls is that we don't accept this. If we would accept it, there would be no recalls.
As much as I consider the bible one of the very few, possibly only, book(s) that really ought to be banned or burned, it did set spelling standards in several countries due to the fact of being so widespread that whatever its spelling was, it was taken as consensus for a long time.
I agree with you entirely. And I'd like to add one thing:
Yes I know modern software is all terribly complex, but if it's too hard to do well, go into a different line of work. Yes, computer software is complex. So are planes. So are rockets. In fact, so are modern cars. We wouldn't accept even half the failure rate in any of those.
The problem with software is the license crap. The part that makes it impossible to return it as defect, even if it contains thousands of critical bugs. We need more consumer protection there. Just like any other items, if it has more than a low number of non-critical problems, one should be able to return any software for a full refund.
Pass that as a law, include that no license, EULA or any other agreement can void that right, and within record time, software quality would go up.
Problems like this happen all the time. In some parts of the computing world.
You would not accept a problem like that with a shrug if it were in your car, or even your television set. Why do we accept computers as inherently faulty? My guess is that a big share of the blame for that goes to Redmond.
In beta software, in Free Software or in a student's freeware project, failures like that would be acceptable. In a commercial software that is being sold for several hundred bucks, they should not be. None of us would buy a car with several thousand known bugs, some of which just might affect the lights or brakes. Few of us would buy a TV that simply breaks down every now and then. None of us would accept "but it's a complicated technology and there are so many parts" as an excuse for a plane crash.
Algorithms are a small part of math. There's a huge difference between saying "you can't solve this algorithmically" and "you can't solve this mathematically".
Now as far as the difference between CS and math is concerned: I'll agree with him as long as we are not speaking about binary turing machines. Too bad 99.999999% of the actual computers out there are just that.
Lots of answers are off, so to speak. The dude was looking at IT manager positions, and sure lots of answers here are from admin guys. Sure you check the logs first thing, look for any emergencies - that's what you get paid for.
Most manager types I know indeed check their email first. That's where anything important for them that didn't reach them on the mobile went.
Few do what a good manager should do: Say hi to the team first thing after coming in.
And that, I think, is what the question was aimed at. Like many questions during interviews, it's a trap. What they are really asking is where you see your primarily responsibility. Any variation of "saying hi to the team" means you consider yourself the leader of your people first. Any variation of "email, slashdot, websites" means you see yourself as a manager of stuff. Variations of "getting coffee" probably say you care about yourself and your own well-being first.
None of that is good or bad in itself. But they might have a preference for the job that's at stake.
Slashdot Mirror
Player-driven games are hard to create. Trust me, I've been working on one for 6+ years (see .sig).
I've given numerous speeches, in several countries. The main part of the work is done by the time you arrive. Actually giving the speech is a fraction of the actual work involved, and certainly does not justify the same formal requirements as if you wanted to spend a year in full-time work
You can't seriously expect people to spend more time filling out the forms than they will be actually working. That is bureaucracy gone mad, nothing else. Heck they interviewed him a customs for a considerable part of the time he had planned to "work".
Halvar, seriously: Don't go to the US anymore.
/. would've labeled me paranoid and anti-american for that statement. Today, I fear, most will agree and some will post details of the relevant laws.
I've avoided them ever since DeCSS (I was a named defendant) and I don't plan to change that. As I see it, for a foreign national in the computer security business, pretty much anything you do while, before or potentially-might-do-after your trip can result in them locking you up indefinitely.
And the real horror is: A couple years ago, people even on
Yes, it means either continually updating the game, or building it at a size that makes Oblivion one corner of the world.
Very likely, autogenerated, random content is the only way to do this, so instead of writing quests you'd write quest generators. Stuff like that. Plus player interaction. SL is too far to be a game, but in almost all MMORPGs, the world is just too static. Why can't the players build a village, or a city? In AO, you can rent a flat. Why not have the cities expand if they are filled? Why can I gather wood, but not build a hut?
As I said: Whoever comes up with a formula here has a winner.
Yes, I know EVE. The automatic skilling has lots to say for it, and some against. For example, it also makes sure you can never be better than the guy who started two years earlier, no matter what you do.
I don't think EVE's the answer. If anything, it is a first, cautious step into the right direction.
The road to a massive improvement of MMORPGs is simple, really. It's just hard to find it. Here's my theory:
Whoever comes up with a design concept that eliminates the constant grinding has a winner on his hands. Grinding is what:
* Makes only freaks with nothing else to do reach the top levels/weapons/armours/etc
* Put off lots and lots of casual players who play to get away from work and stupid job
* Makes the whole thing so boring and repetitive
Find something to replace grinding as the core gameplay component and you'll start the next era of massive multiplayer online gaming.
I'll support any change that does not impact me or the other 99% of the people in any major negative way. If it costs another $5 to make a blind-friendly iPhone, fine with me. Well, as long as that doesn't mean $5 for the blind, $5 for the arm-less, $5 for the deaf, etc etc etc.
However, I do think there is some wisdom in going forward without looking out for the slowest one at every step. If only because otherwise you wouldn't get forward at all. I'm sure most of the nice technology that makes life easier for disabled people would have never been developed if it had been a requirement from day one.
Why should the other 99% of the population abstain from it?
I'm all for developing devices that make life easier for disabled people.
I'm very strongly against making life more difficult or limited for the rest of us in order to cater to them.
The problem with buttons is that once you have more than a very low number of them, it becomes more and more difficult to find the right one, and the real estate wasted on the interface gets larger and larger.
I bet you that right now you have at least 10 keys on the keyboard in front of you that you press less than once a day on average. I know I do. Your phone probably has at least one button on it that you've not used at all for the past month, if not the past year.
Having it there anyway is a waste of space, weight, complexity and neural processing power because your brain has to work to ignore it.
Interesting approach, with lots of flaws.
For example "use CDN" (aka Akamai, etc.) - yeah, right. For Yahoo.com that's an idea. For my private website, that's bullshit. If they really use this internally to rate sites, their rating sucks by definition.
So in summary there are a couple good points there, and a couple that are not really appropriate. Expires: Headers are a nice idea for static webpages. But YSlow still gives me an F for not using one on a PHP page that really does change every time you load it.
So much for the usual "the GPL has never been tested in court" argument.
Since this is the 2nd time, I assume it now rests 12 feet under?
Why comment on "Windows 7" at all?
It's obvious that MS is pushing the PR now in order to draw attention from Vista. Vista is a trainwreck, so they're playing the "look, shiney!" game.
Reality: MS has been found guilty of antitrust violations and leveraging its OS monopoly to support and gain market its shares in other markets.
Check: The only software capable of even competing with the market leader product is being given away for free.
Conclusion: The "desktop computer office suite" market is not an open market.
So... does this speak against Linux, or against bullshit licenses?
True to some extend.
If the hardware locks up, there's nothing your software can do. But if something in the hardware is causing your software to lock up, then your hardware abstraction layer and hence your OS is buggy.
As much as I consider the bible one of the very few, possibly only, book(s) that really ought to be banned or burned, it did set spelling standards in several countries due to the fact of being so widespread that whatever its spelling was, it was taken as consensus for a long time.
Sign me up.
Advertisement is harrassment. It really is as simple as that.
The problem with software is the license crap. The part that makes it impossible to return it as defect, even if it contains thousands of critical bugs. We need more consumer protection there. Just like any other items, if it has more than a low number of non-critical problems, one should be able to return any software for a full refund.
Pass that as a law, include that no license, EULA or any other agreement can void that right, and within record time, software quality would go up.
You would not accept a problem like that with a shrug if it were in your car, or even your television set. Why do we accept computers as inherently faulty? My guess is that a big share of the blame for that goes to Redmond.
In beta software, in Free Software or in a student's freeware project, failures like that would be acceptable. In a commercial software that is being sold for several hundred bucks, they should not be. None of us would buy a car with several thousand known bugs, some of which just might affect the lights or brakes. Few of us would buy a TV that simply breaks down every now and then. None of us would accept "but it's a complicated technology and there are so many parts" as an excuse for a plane crash.
Algorithms are a small part of math. There's a huge difference between saying "you can't solve this algorithmically" and "you can't solve this mathematically".
Now as far as the difference between CS and math is concerned: I'll agree with him as long as we are not speaking about binary turing machines. Too bad 99.999999% of the actual computers out there are just that.
Lots of answers are off, so to speak. The dude was looking at IT manager positions, and sure lots of answers here are from admin guys. Sure you check the logs first thing, look for any emergencies - that's what you get paid for.
Most manager types I know indeed check their email first. That's where anything important for them that didn't reach them on the mobile went.
Few do what a good manager should do: Say hi to the team first thing after coming in.
And that, I think, is what the question was aimed at. Like many questions during interviews, it's a trap. What they are really asking is where you see your primarily responsibility. Any variation of "saying hi to the team" means you consider yourself the leader of your people first. Any variation of "email, slashdot, websites" means you see yourself as a manager of stuff. Variations of "getting coffee" probably say you care about yourself and your own well-being first.
None of that is good or bad in itself. But they might have a preference for the job that's at stake.