Well, as with many things, it depends on the circumstances. It can depend on local opportunities, other responsibilities, local college prices, local cost of living, and availability of particular majors. I knew people who worked their way through college debt free, people who worked their way through college and still had to take on debt, and people who did not really have the option to work.
Wait, the game industry treats its people badly, so that means it is morally ok for fans to treat them badly too because it is their own fault for being game developers?
I would go another direction and say it is a case of 'no good deed goes unpunished'. Developers have increasingly been building relationships with their player base, interacting in forums and such,.. and while you get some good feedback out of listening to the community you also get a LOT of very soul crushing abuse, much of it coming from people who do not understand game design or balance, or even consider other types of players.
'Wish' is right. This might make a nice bit of speculative fiction, maybe the core of some future story about a dystopian eduction system where the heroin discovers that evil people have altered the universal animation program to deliver subconscious ads for soyelnt green into the minds of impressionable youth causing an increase in demand for human flesh resulting in a sharp population decline allowing the villains to buy up all the twinky factories before a radioactive comet hits the earth (which they have been suppressing) allowing only them to live. Add a cute side kick and a puppy and we have next summer's blockbuster movie... all thanks to Bill Gates and his wonderful imagination.
While historically true, just like pieces of land over the centuries the internet has changed hands several times. Who originally built it is a footnote but not of all that much importance at this point, esp since after the alphabet soup it went through decades of primarily being shaped by academics and researchers, then decades of being shaped by private enterprise. Even if they had a historical claim to the 'internet' it could be argued they lost it a long time ago and what exists today is only abstractly connected to 'their' internet.
That is my interpretation. Sounds like the person was doing what they usually did, only this time the CEO was in a bad mood. Thus the person had a reasonable expectations of not being fired.
Yeah, Patch always struck me as really badly publisized. I found out about it when I was trying to find out about a local news piece and have been hooked since.
One downside of the backlash against 'long tail' stuff is that we have such a heavy focus on getting as many eyeballs as possible, so most news sites either cater to subcultures or very wide audiences. Finding news that is relavent to small local areas is getting increasingly frustrating.
Yeah, I am thinking back to all the drama around the word choice for using a 'trick' on data. No implication of falsification, but the word choice got people up in a tissy.
Well, it did involve boobies.. and we all know boobies are far more immoral then petty things like corruption. Money and power are holy pursuits after all.
As with so many things, it is a matter of balance. We now have what, 60 years or so of computer science under our collective belts, and there are a lot of good lessons learned in that time... but on the down side most people only know (or choose to see) a subset of that knowledge and over apply some particular way of doing things,.. then they get promoted, and whatever subculture within CS they like becomes the dogma for where they work.
That is what I suspect. Payroll systems are kinda hard to mess up, they are one of the most well understood problems in IT. I suspect, if anything, IBM needs more of a backbone when dealing with flakey customers.
I think the idea is that the system tends to reward prosecution that matches up with pre-conceived bias of the group. So cops go after the types of people that 'everyone knows' are trouble, or who meet with a political narrative. Do not forget, promotions and public office are linked to arresting people who others think are the types you should be going after. So if there is a moral panic around some group or activity, if your numbers go up in that slice then your career goes better. You are also less likely to get scrutiny for your arrests and prosecutions then if you seem to be harassing 'normal' people.
Meh, that is what they say every decade. It look a lot of rich people having their cash cows threatened to actually have one, and today the rich are just doing too well. Plus, for the vast majority of the population, the reasons given for why they would want a civil war are largely abstract or philosophical.. they make great talk over drinks and posturing, but do not really rise to the level of putting one's life on the line. Crow, things for the average person are a hell of a lot better today then what a lot of the population was dealing with pre-civil rights, and even that did not result in war.
In general things either have to be really bad in concrete ways where death is a risk worth taking, or enough rich people have to bankroll things. Neither is going to be the case here any time soon.
I think that part of the rant is more talking about the limitations of the 'free market will fix everything' concept, and is bringing in another example of where it can break down, specifically opt-in consumers not being aware that their upstream provider is filtering messages they requested and instead assuming no messages are being sent.
Sad thing is that is what the FCC is supposed to be doing. Limited resource for the public good, but the current meme of 'private enterprise is the solution to all problems' has twisted their mandate into enforcing who gets exclusive lucrative access to what is essentially a shared resource.
Oil seems to be a bit of a source of assholes. Any place that seems to have a lot of former sees a rise in the later, or at least ones who can actually do something with their attitudes.
Heh, actually, when you look at meta studies on the topic, 'there is not one right way to evolve' is pretty much the human credo. People argue back and forth about if we are biologically monogamous and point to various historical and modern examples, including various people who seem to have 'wiring' for it. But what it comes down to is we have both behaviors in our geneset, and which one is more common at any given time and place is a product of that context.
On the other hand, it has also become popular to immediately dismiss the usage simply because of the word. Sometimes it applies, sometimes it does not. Of course people over use it, but you see that with pretty much everything.
From the complaint it sounds like they have a subscription service they charge for, then a couple companies came along, subscribed themselves, and they are reselling it to other companies. Kinda like someone buying a cable subscription then starting 'joe's cable company' reselling the connection to other people.
Sadly, people like to think that their tool of choice is the best, and it is the best everywhere and applicable to all situations, thus language designers over time try to make their preferred language more and more like every other language till it becomes and over complicates mess that you basically have to learn half a dozen dialects in order to understand any random chunk of code. Just look at C++, you can almost tell which year the person who wrote the code learned it in.
I think in general people use the term 'syntactic sugar' when they feel that it does not increase readability. I know I tend to use it to describe features that neither add functionality nor seem to make the code easier or harder to write. Things that do one or the other I just call 'useful'.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, as with many things, it depends on the circumstances. It can depend on local opportunities, other responsibilities, local college prices, local cost of living, and availability of particular majors. I knew people who worked their way through college debt free, people who worked their way through college and still had to take on debt, and people who did not really have the option to work.
Wait, the game industry treats its people badly, so that means it is morally ok for fans to treat them badly too because it is their own fault for being game developers?
I would go another direction and say it is a case of 'no good deed goes unpunished'. Developers have increasingly been building relationships with their player base, interacting in forums and such, .. and while you get some good feedback out of listening to the community you also get a LOT of very soul crushing abuse, much of it coming from people who do not understand game design or balance, or even consider other types of players.
Heh. Amusing what dropping a silent e can do ^_^
'Wish' is right. This might make a nice bit of speculative fiction, maybe the core of some future story about a dystopian eduction system where the heroin discovers that evil people have altered the universal animation program to deliver subconscious ads for soyelnt green into the minds of impressionable youth causing an increase in demand for human flesh resulting in a sharp population decline allowing the villains to buy up all the twinky factories before a radioactive comet hits the earth (which they have been suppressing) allowing only them to live. Add a cute side kick and a puppy and we have next summer's blockbuster movie... all thanks to Bill Gates and his wonderful imagination.
Problem is, 'stupid' is relative. There are plenty of things that potentially benefit the individual but increase the risk to everyone else.
While historically true, just like pieces of land over the centuries the internet has changed hands several times. Who originally built it is a footnote but not of all that much importance at this point, esp since after the alphabet soup it went through decades of primarily being shaped by academics and researchers, then decades of being shaped by private enterprise. Even if they had a historical claim to the 'internet' it could be argued they lost it a long time ago and what exists today is only abstractly connected to 'their' internet.
That is my interpretation. Sounds like the person was doing what they usually did, only this time the CEO was in a bad mood. Thus the person had a reasonable expectations of not being fired.
Yeah, Patch always struck me as really badly publisized. I found out about it when I was trying to find out about a local news piece and have been hooked since.
One downside of the backlash against 'long tail' stuff is that we have such a heavy focus on getting as many eyeballs as possible, so most news sites either cater to subcultures or very wide audiences. Finding news that is relavent to small local areas is getting increasingly frustrating.
Yeah, but would you fire they guy if the action was something he did at most meetings, indirectly as part of his job?
This is kinda like firing the caterer because you don't like the coffee, even though it is the same one they have been serving for years.
Yeah, I am thinking back to all the drama around the word choice for using a 'trick' on data. No implication of falsification, but the word choice got people up in a tissy.
Well, it did involve boobies.. and we all know boobies are far more immoral then petty things like corruption. Money and power are holy pursuits after all.
For the hell of it?
As with so many things, it is a matter of balance. We now have what, 60 years or so of computer science under our collective belts, and there are a lot of good lessons learned in that time... but on the down side most people only know (or choose to see) a subset of that knowledge and over apply some particular way of doing things,.. then they get promoted, and whatever subculture within CS they like becomes the dogma for where they work.
That is what I suspect. Payroll systems are kinda hard to mess up, they are one of the most well understood problems in IT. I suspect, if anything, IBM needs more of a backbone when dealing with flakey customers.
I think the idea is that the system tends to reward prosecution that matches up with pre-conceived bias of the group. So cops go after the types of people that 'everyone knows' are trouble, or who meet with a political narrative. Do not forget, promotions and public office are linked to arresting people who others think are the types you should be going after. So if there is a moral panic around some group or activity, if your numbers go up in that slice then your career goes better. You are also less likely to get scrutiny for your arrests and prosecutions then if you seem to be harassing 'normal' people.
Meh, that is what they say every decade. It look a lot of rich people having their cash cows threatened to actually have one, and today the rich are just doing too well. Plus, for the vast majority of the population, the reasons given for why they would want a civil war are largely abstract or philosophical.. they make great talk over drinks and posturing, but do not really rise to the level of putting one's life on the line. Crow, things for the average person are a hell of a lot better today then what a lot of the population was dealing with pre-civil rights, and even that did not result in war.
In general things either have to be really bad in concrete ways where death is a risk worth taking, or enough rich people have to bankroll things. Neither is going to be the case here any time soon.
I think that part of the rant is more talking about the limitations of the 'free market will fix everything' concept, and is bringing in another example of where it can break down, specifically opt-in consumers not being aware that their upstream provider is filtering messages they requested and instead assuming no messages are being sent.
Sad thing is that is what the FCC is supposed to be doing. Limited resource for the public good, but the current meme of 'private enterprise is the solution to all problems' has twisted their mandate into enforcing who gets exclusive lucrative access to what is essentially a shared resource.
Oil seems to be a bit of a source of assholes. Any place that seems to have a lot of former sees a rise in the later, or at least ones who can actually do something with their attitudes.
Heh, actually, when you look at meta studies on the topic, 'there is not one right way to evolve' is pretty much the human credo. People argue back and forth about if we are biologically monogamous and point to various historical and modern examples, including various people who seem to have 'wiring' for it. But what it comes down to is we have both behaviors in our geneset, and which one is more common at any given time and place is a product of that context.
On the other hand, it has also become popular to immediately dismiss the usage simply because of the word. Sometimes it applies, sometimes it does not. Of course people over use it, but you see that with pretty much everything.
'behaving like this?'
From the complaint it sounds like they have a subscription service they charge for, then a couple companies came along, subscribed themselves, and they are reselling it to other companies. Kinda like someone buying a cable subscription then starting 'joe's cable company' reselling the connection to other people.
Sadly, people like to think that their tool of choice is the best, and it is the best everywhere and applicable to all situations, thus language designers over time try to make their preferred language more and more like every other language till it becomes and over complicates mess that you basically have to learn half a dozen dialects in order to understand any random chunk of code. Just look at C++, you can almost tell which year the person who wrote the code learned it in.
I think in general people use the term 'syntactic sugar' when they feel that it does not increase readability. I know I tend to use it to describe features that neither add functionality nor seem to make the code easier or harder to write. Things that do one or the other I just call 'useful'.