If she gets what she wants and I get what I want, how is that not equal? This isn't a zero-sum game. We can both come out ahead. The problem is that when I say I like Asian girls, people assume that means I want a weak-willed submissive woman, rather than what I actually want, which is a woman who will work with me on a mutually beneficial partnership.
No offense man, but you sure as hell don't seem like you're "not really trying to convince anyone of anything." Now, I have no problem with your way of life. I'm straddling the fence here trying to decide if I'd like to get married or just go the loner route. Both ways have a lot of appeal to me.
But this is the second topic I've seen you posting in, and you always fill it with "Yeah I'm not tied down and have sex with lots of women! Anyone who doesn't have a lot of partners is missing out!" I've seen you respond to a lot of people who are happily married and building families with a vague sense of disapproval and condescension.
My point is that you're not trying to understand other peoples' needs, and you project an attitude that says, "If you're not living your life like I live mine, then you're wasting it." If I choose to get married, I sure as hell don't want someone repeatedly telling me I'm wasting my life, just as much as you don't want to be told that you wasting yours. People should do what makes them happy, whether thats a motorcycle and tons of women on the side, or a loving partner and a family.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, maybe try to respect other peoples' decisions a bit more. I've seen you laugh at married people a lot, while those same people simply defend their choices and choose not to attack yours.
It makes me wonder if you're trying to compensate for something, to be honest.
Yeah. I like dating Asian girls because the culture is more conducive to equal partnerships rather than something lopsided, at least in my personal experience. Too bad I can't say that around women, because they tend to translate that into "I want a weak woman to dominate, LOL."
Good design has less to do with creativity and more to do with experience and hard work. Creativity in a game is important, but its not nearly as important as a lot of people make it out to be. An idea can be very creative and make a horrible game. An idea can be creative and potentially be a good game, but be ruined by bad design. Comming up with ideas is easy. Fleshing those ideas out into a good design is hard, and takes more perspiration than inspiration.
In hobby game development, you tend to see a lot of newbies with super-secret ideas, because if everyone knew their awesome idea, obviously they'd steal it and make millions. One of the points that people try to drill home is, "Your idea is worthless, no matter how cool you think it is. Whats important is your ability to adapt that into a fun, engaging game."
If they don't emphasize creativity, sure, they will probably get solid but bland games. If they emphasize it too much, however, they'll get unique games that are about as much fun as a trip to the dentist.
I don't remember saying anything about faster. I said its more feature-full, which is true. I can run emulators for systems like the Playstation. My games are prettier and have more features. My word processor checks my spelling and grammar as I type. My IDE checks for syntax errors, displays possible methods to use, compiles documentation, checks my coding for various coding standards. I'm streaming, transcoding, and playing video. I'm doing video chat. You have web apps giving you a more user-friendly experience, like gmail. Granted, a lot of these things were possible or even implemented in '98, but were they widespread, stable, useful, and feature-full? I'm sure you could make an argument that you're doing the exact same things on your computer today that you were doing 10 years ago, but only if you generalize it to a degree that it becomes meaningless ("coding", "writing a document", etc).
Your comment about having more memory is wrong. My programs didn't crash because I didn't have enough memory. They crashed because they were shoddily written and didn't do a lot of stuff that modern languages and programmers do as a matter of course. I mean, C++ programmers make heavy use of RAII and smart pointers these days. They slow down the program but they prevent memory leaks. C# and Java have garbage collection to do the same things. Most modern languages have containers that do bounds-checking automatically. Thats slower than if you just threw the input at it. More validation, etc.
And yeah, my OS is better these days. Thats an improvement in the OS. And some of those improvements take *drumroll* more processing power, because bugs need to be coded around, and more checks and validations need to be performed.
To be sure there are some things that are designed to save developer time given programming time. The.Net remoting framework often generates overly-verbose network traffic compared to something that you wrote using plain sockets. But at the same time, in addition to being quicker, you also get strong typing, and the libraries take care of making sure the data you pass between layers is appropriate.
Its just irritating to have people repeatedly say that developers are lazy and writing inefficient code. These days I worry more about the code I'm writing than I was in the past. And most developers I know are the same. You may be able to get your super-awesome "bloat" free programs, but they'll probably take twice as long to develop with less features, be full of bugs, crash all the time, and leak like a sieve. The 90's was not the golden age of computer software that a lot of people make it out to be.
How about McCain? How about after his campaign is over? Any particular reason that Obama would suddenly decide not to support nuclear after he is elected while McCain would? Your question is meaningless.
I think that if you looked at the software 10 years ago, you'd find that it did less, was less stable, and was less secure. I know that I'm doing a lot more with my computer these days than I ever did 10 years ago and my programs crash less. Hell, my development environment alone is light-years ahead of where it used to be.
Commercial software licenses being hard to read doesn't make the GPL easy to read necessarily. But I think that its more that software developers tend to not read any license, and get their information third-hand. Most developers I know that use the GPL have never actually read it. Just anecdote though.
Lets see... Clones of proprietary games, games that look five to ten years old (at best), games flirting with trademark and copyright violations... ok, looks like the "free" game scene still hasn't progressed much.
I'd agree with that. Everything that Bush has done to handle the "War on Terror" has been done in flagrant violation of the accepted procedures, checks, and balances needed to handle this properly. From getting involved with flimsy evidence and no formal declaration of war, to warrant-less wiretaps, to Gitmo... Now that its all blowing up in his face, we're having to face the consequences, and his neo-conservative base is throwing a hissy fit about a problem they created.
If we can't figure out who to declare war on, we shouldn't be over there blowing stuff up and occupying countries. If we're not at war, they aren't POWs, and so they should be tried in a court.
If we were at war with Britain then our troops would be uniformed, troops would be captured in combat, the Geneva conventions would be respected, and then they would be released when the war was concluded. There would be little doubt as to why they would be held, because we would know they were soldiers fighting with Britain.
Civilians that are not wearing uniforms would probably be put through their civil system, like members of the IRA were. Which is exactly what we should do.
But its a moot point because we're not at war with anyone. No formal declaration of war was made. We have no stated enemy, and thus we have no way of knowing who qualifies as a solider, or when the conflict ends. Thus we should have to prove that person is a combatant, or has committed some other crime.
How do we know that they're the government's enemies? You're assuming that because they're there they deserve to be there. Me, I'd kinda like there to be, you know, evidence... that whole pesky due-process thing. I'd rather not be wasting government money and what little good-will we have left in the world holding people when we can't even reasonably say that they are a threat.
Here's a little thought experiment. The British (or Germans, or Japanese,...) sieze an American. They say that for, national security reasons, they can't reveal why they are imprisoning him, or provide any evidence that this person deserved to be imprisoned. We only have their word. Is that ok? Thats what we're doing right now, and it needs to stop.
Of the two dissenting opinions, Justice Antonin Scalia's was the more apocalyptic, predicting "devastating" and "disastrous consequences" from the decision. "It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed," he said. "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today."
Wow, thats some grade-A bullshit right there. We're not going to just turn these prisoners out on the street. All this decision means is that they can challenge their detainment and force us to produce evidence and a reason for why they're detained. Yeah, I'm fucking trembling in my boots that my life is in danger. After all, we can't produce evidence about why they're being detained so, obviously, they're extremely bad people who want to kill me.
The fact that this is what passes as a reasonable objection just caused a little piece of me to die. I'm far more scared of Scalia than "terrorists."
I was speaking out of principle. In practice, yes we need to treat them as POWs after we prove that they are, indeed, POWs. Some of the guys in there are there because they were caught firing on US soldiers, which is a legitimate reason to hold someone. Some of them are there because of dubious reasons. Its hard to tell why because they don't have the right to challenge their detainment, and they haven't had a trial.
I'd be fine with calling them POWs if we actually declared a war. Congress authorized the use of our military in Afghanistan and Iraq but we are not technically at war with anyone, and thus there's no way of knowing when the "war" ends. I vehemently oppose the idea that we should imprison people as war prisoners when there is no way of knowing when that war is over (and thus forcing us to imprison them indefinitely).
There's a difference between citizen's rights (voting, welfare) and human rights which are universally applicable (free speech, etc). My personal belief is that not being imprisoned without just cause, and being able to challenge your imprisonment is in the latter set.
I'm at a loss as to how anyone can be upset at this decision. Its not like we're turning known terrorists out onto American streets. We're just saying that the people being detained have a right to challenge their detainment.
I guarantee that these are not small, scripts, or tools. You're making assumptions about my work based on no information whatsoever. These are production applications, and in some cases have millions of dollars in revenue flowing through them. Is it that you just can't imagine that anyone can learn tools quickly and use them effectively?
Well I did say it was my first job, so technically I was a newbie. But you missed the part where within the month I was doing development. You also missed the part where I was hired to write a Java web service (from scratch) using two technologies I wasn't familiar with on a tight deadline, and did so. Unless writing a completely new service doesn't count as development. But if thats the case what does?
And my experience at most of my companies was that most of the work fixing defects or adding features to an already-existing app. Every software developer I've met, save you, would call that development. You're trying to move the goal posts here.
You've honed in to one sentence that confirms your pre-existing beliefs. Congrats. Luckily I tend to work with people who are not quite so close minded. They tend to appreciate that I can bring myself up to speed quickly. Of course when I see a hiring manager look for a candidate that can just "jump right in," they usually spend several months where they could have hired a "newbie" that could learn.
And yeah, a new guy isn't going to be able to be the architect for, say, a new software service that generates billions in revenue. But they can contribute (without x years of experience), and build up their skills to the point where they can design add-ons. But the tone of your post seems to indicate that you view development as "building everything from scratch on own," which isn't a view thats applicable in my professional career.
Of course its not that cut and dried, but saying that developers have no ability to jump technologies and become a "newborn" is absurd.
My first job was doing C#.Net and SQL, with absolutely no experience in either of those. In a week I was fixing small defects. A week after that, larger defects. A week after that, new features. I was brought in to fix a PHP application with no PHP experience and did so within the time allotted. I was brought in to make a Java webservice hosted on Tomcat with only academic Java experience, no Tomcat experience, and no webservice experience, and was able to complete that in the time allotted with plenty to spare.
People often over-estimate the experience that developers need and under-estimate their ability to pick up new technologies.
If you want to call me naive thats fine, but I've done it before and I can do it again.
Slashdot Mirror
So, kinda off-topic but what was that like? Did you work? Odd jobs? Or did you just travel? How long did it last?
If she gets what she wants and I get what I want, how is that not equal? This isn't a zero-sum game. We can both come out ahead. The problem is that when I say I like Asian girls, people assume that means I want a weak-willed submissive woman, rather than what I actually want, which is a woman who will work with me on a mutually beneficial partnership.
No offense man, but you sure as hell don't seem like you're "not really trying to convince anyone of anything." Now, I have no problem with your way of life. I'm straddling the fence here trying to decide if I'd like to get married or just go the loner route. Both ways have a lot of appeal to me.
But this is the second topic I've seen you posting in, and you always fill it with "Yeah I'm not tied down and have sex with lots of women! Anyone who doesn't have a lot of partners is missing out!" I've seen you respond to a lot of people who are happily married and building families with a vague sense of disapproval and condescension.
My point is that you're not trying to understand other peoples' needs, and you project an attitude that says, "If you're not living your life like I live mine, then you're wasting it." If I choose to get married, I sure as hell don't want someone repeatedly telling me I'm wasting my life, just as much as you don't want to be told that you wasting yours. People should do what makes them happy, whether thats a motorcycle and tons of women on the side, or a loving partner and a family.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, maybe try to respect other peoples' decisions a bit more. I've seen you laugh at married people a lot, while those same people simply defend their choices and choose not to attack yours.
It makes me wonder if you're trying to compensate for something, to be honest.
Yeah. I like dating Asian girls because the culture is more conducive to equal partnerships rather than something lopsided, at least in my personal experience. Too bad I can't say that around women, because they tend to translate that into "I want a weak woman to dominate, LOL."
And yes, this is a generalization.
Good design has less to do with creativity and more to do with experience and hard work. Creativity in a game is important, but its not nearly as important as a lot of people make it out to be. An idea can be very creative and make a horrible game. An idea can be creative and potentially be a good game, but be ruined by bad design. Comming up with ideas is easy. Fleshing those ideas out into a good design is hard, and takes more perspiration than inspiration.
In hobby game development, you tend to see a lot of newbies with super-secret ideas, because if everyone knew their awesome idea, obviously they'd steal it and make millions. One of the points that people try to drill home is, "Your idea is worthless, no matter how cool you think it is. Whats important is your ability to adapt that into a fun, engaging game."
If they don't emphasize creativity, sure, they will probably get solid but bland games. If they emphasize it too much, however, they'll get unique games that are about as much fun as a trip to the dentist.
I don't remember saying anything about faster. I said its more feature-full, which is true. I can run emulators for systems like the Playstation. My games are prettier and have more features. My word processor checks my spelling and grammar as I type. My IDE checks for syntax errors, displays possible methods to use, compiles documentation, checks my coding for various coding standards. I'm streaming, transcoding, and playing video. I'm doing video chat. You have web apps giving you a more user-friendly experience, like gmail. Granted, a lot of these things were possible or even implemented in '98, but were they widespread, stable, useful, and feature-full? I'm sure you could make an argument that you're doing the exact same things on your computer today that you were doing 10 years ago, but only if you generalize it to a degree that it becomes meaningless ("coding", "writing a document", etc).
.Net remoting framework often generates overly-verbose network traffic compared to something that you wrote using plain sockets. But at the same time, in addition to being quicker, you also get strong typing, and the libraries take care of making sure the data you pass between layers is appropriate.
Your comment about having more memory is wrong. My programs didn't crash because I didn't have enough memory. They crashed because they were shoddily written and didn't do a lot of stuff that modern languages and programmers do as a matter of course. I mean, C++ programmers make heavy use of RAII and smart pointers these days. They slow down the program but they prevent memory leaks. C# and Java have garbage collection to do the same things. Most modern languages have containers that do bounds-checking automatically. Thats slower than if you just threw the input at it. More validation, etc.
And yeah, my OS is better these days. Thats an improvement in the OS. And some of those improvements take *drumroll* more processing power, because bugs need to be coded around, and more checks and validations need to be performed.
To be sure there are some things that are designed to save developer time given programming time. The
Its just irritating to have people repeatedly say that developers are lazy and writing inefficient code. These days I worry more about the code I'm writing than I was in the past. And most developers I know are the same. You may be able to get your super-awesome "bloat" free programs, but they'll probably take twice as long to develop with less features, be full of bugs, crash all the time, and leak like a sieve. The 90's was not the golden age of computer software that a lot of people make it out to be.
How about McCain? How about after his campaign is over? Any particular reason that Obama would suddenly decide not to support nuclear after he is elected while McCain would? Your question is meaningless.
I think that if you looked at the software 10 years ago, you'd find that it did less, was less stable, and was less secure. I know that I'm doing a lot more with my computer these days than I ever did 10 years ago and my programs crash less. Hell, my development environment alone is light-years ahead of where it used to be.
Commercial software licenses being hard to read doesn't make the GPL easy to read necessarily. But I think that its more that software developers tend to not read any license, and get their information third-hand. Most developers I know that use the GPL have never actually read it. Just anecdote though.
Out of curiosity are you still in game development?
Lets see... Clones of proprietary games, games that look five to ten years old (at best), games flirting with trademark and copyright violations... ok, looks like the "free" game scene still hasn't progressed much.
The sad thing is that I knew a girl who was an EE major and the type of audiophile thought bought into this shit. I could never figure that one out.
I'd agree with that. Everything that Bush has done to handle the "War on Terror" has been done in flagrant violation of the accepted procedures, checks, and balances needed to handle this properly. From getting involved with flimsy evidence and no formal declaration of war, to warrant-less wiretaps, to Gitmo... Now that its all blowing up in his face, we're having to face the consequences, and his neo-conservative base is throwing a hissy fit about a problem they created.
If we can't figure out who to declare war on, we shouldn't be over there blowing stuff up and occupying countries. If we're not at war, they aren't POWs, and so they should be tried in a court.
China violating rights is no excuse for us to do so.
If we were at war with Britain then our troops would be uniformed, troops would be captured in combat, the Geneva conventions would be respected, and then they would be released when the war was concluded. There would be little doubt as to why they would be held, because we would know they were soldiers fighting with Britain.
Civilians that are not wearing uniforms would probably be put through their civil system, like members of the IRA were. Which is exactly what we should do.
But its a moot point because we're not at war with anyone. No formal declaration of war was made. We have no stated enemy, and thus we have no way of knowing who qualifies as a solider, or when the conflict ends. Thus we should have to prove that person is a combatant, or has committed some other crime.
How do we know that they're the government's enemies? You're assuming that because they're there they deserve to be there. Me, I'd kinda like there to be, you know, evidence... that whole pesky due-process thing. I'd rather not be wasting government money and what little good-will we have left in the world holding people when we can't even reasonably say that they are a threat.
...) sieze an American. They say that for, national security reasons, they can't reveal why they are imprisoning him, or provide any evidence that this person deserved to be imprisoned. We only have their word. Is that ok? Thats what we're doing right now, and it needs to stop.
Here's a little thought experiment. The British (or Germans, or Japanese,
Wow, thats some grade-A bullshit right there. We're not going to just turn these prisoners out on the street. All this decision means is that they can challenge their detainment and force us to produce evidence and a reason for why they're detained. Yeah, I'm fucking trembling in my boots that my life is in danger. After all, we can't produce evidence about why they're being detained so, obviously, they're extremely bad people who want to kill me.
The fact that this is what passes as a reasonable objection just caused a little piece of me to die. I'm far more scared of Scalia than "terrorists."
I was speaking out of principle. In practice, yes we need to treat them as POWs after we prove that they are, indeed, POWs. Some of the guys in there are there because they were caught firing on US soldiers, which is a legitimate reason to hold someone. Some of them are there because of dubious reasons. Its hard to tell why because they don't have the right to challenge their detainment, and they haven't had a trial.
I'd be fine with calling them POWs if we actually declared a war. Congress authorized the use of our military in Afghanistan and Iraq but we are not technically at war with anyone, and thus there's no way of knowing when the "war" ends. I vehemently oppose the idea that we should imprison people as war prisoners when there is no way of knowing when that war is over (and thus forcing us to imprison them indefinitely).
There's a difference between citizen's rights (voting, welfare) and human rights which are universally applicable (free speech, etc). My personal belief is that not being imprisoned without just cause, and being able to challenge your imprisonment is in the latter set.
I'm at a loss as to how anyone can be upset at this decision. Its not like we're turning known terrorists out onto American streets. We're just saying that the people being detained have a right to challenge their detainment.
This has made my day that much better. Its nice to be able to hope that things will get better.
I guarantee that these are not small, scripts, or tools. You're making assumptions about my work based on no information whatsoever. These are production applications, and in some cases have millions of dollars in revenue flowing through them. Is it that you just can't imagine that anyone can learn tools quickly and use them effectively?
Well I did say it was my first job, so technically I was a newbie. But you missed the part where within the month I was doing development. You also missed the part where I was hired to write a Java web service (from scratch) using two technologies I wasn't familiar with on a tight deadline, and did so. Unless writing a completely new service doesn't count as development. But if thats the case what does?
And my experience at most of my companies was that most of the work fixing defects or adding features to an already-existing app. Every software developer I've met, save you, would call that development. You're trying to move the goal posts here.
You've honed in to one sentence that confirms your pre-existing beliefs. Congrats. Luckily I tend to work with people who are not quite so close minded. They tend to appreciate that I can bring myself up to speed quickly. Of course when I see a hiring manager look for a candidate that can just "jump right in," they usually spend several months where they could have hired a "newbie" that could learn.
And yeah, a new guy isn't going to be able to be the architect for, say, a new software service that generates billions in revenue. But they can contribute (without x years of experience), and build up their skills to the point where they can design add-ons. But the tone of your post seems to indicate that you view development as "building everything from scratch on own," which isn't a view thats applicable in my professional career.
Of course its not that cut and dried, but saying that developers have no ability to jump technologies and become a "newborn" is absurd.
My first job was doing C#.Net and SQL, with absolutely no experience in either of those. In a week I was fixing small defects. A week after that, larger defects. A week after that, new features. I was brought in to fix a PHP application with no PHP experience and did so within the time allotted. I was brought in to make a Java webservice hosted on Tomcat with only academic Java experience, no Tomcat experience, and no webservice experience, and was able to complete that in the time allotted with plenty to spare.
People often over-estimate the experience that developers need and under-estimate their ability to pick up new technologies.
If you want to call me naive thats fine, but I've done it before and I can do it again.