Since parts of the python standard library can dramatically change every x.x release. I found learning to apply and maintain code written in the "standard library" to be cyclical hell in a hand basket. Much of the documentation these days is along the lines of:
No, usage of this or that feature was deprecated. No, though not documented, it's done this way now. No your getting this error because.. well.. we don't know, its ether 2.5, 2.6, or 3.0, figure it out.
Given this experience, I don't see how a dead tree covering a particular one is of all that much value. To me a selling proposition would be one which provides a continuity in documentation with fully explained use-cases of features after 2.5- for those of us who have had to pick up the language and deal with the mess of non-versioned code. A mess that whether the authors of the language like it or not, do have a hand in being responsible for.
The assumption that I've un-friended someone because I hate them is flat out wrong. To me, facebook is a tool to keep up on real life friends. I don't pretend to keep up or care what the other 50+ people that qualify as weak acquaintances are doing, I just don't have the cognitive overhead for it. Additionally, I prefer to avoid divulging who I am to weak acquaintances that walk the line of total strangers -it's an issue of trust, it has nothing to do with hate, and it is a function of time. Removal is forced because I don't want to maintain what is a dishonest relationship with someone.
And this is why it is still in use. It's about TV specials, movies, and instilling enough fear to protect government IT sector jobs -and thus necessitating the lumping of enough bad guys together to justify contractor expenditures.
Ever heard of US merchant marines getting plundered in the news? No? This is why. Cheap, Low Tech, Takes 5 minutes to train and use- resulting in a much more recognizable deterrence.
Wake me up when we have a viable option to Earth. Given Peak Oil, U.S. foreign policy, and global warming etc it seems we aren't learning from our mistakes and are going to need it.
The problem with documentation is that everyone wants it but no one truly values it. When I think of an important project, do I think of the poor bastard that took the time to document it -usually not.
Pay someone to abstract it for your particular domain. If the API works and has solid corresponding documentation, you shouldn't have a reason to complain.
Instead of rating, I'll respond. For what it's worth, I've played this game single player, for nearly 3 years absent of _any_ mods. This is due to the fact that I've found the complexity of the existing game more than adequate. (This is coming from a hardcore RTS player who used to level to the 30s on WC3 and hold top ranks in SC, in case you want to discount what I'm describing as to the depth of Civ4 alone).
Is for them to fix the half-assed multiplayer of Civ4. Actually getting to a decent low ping match-up was a chore on Gamespy. Thus far, nothing else out of this release seems compelling.
> bachelor's degrees from state schools are trashed on arrival.
Hah! Judging by this and this, it is your loss. I'm curious though as to what industry domain you work in- with companies that are so ludicrously selective. It sounds like nothing less than an opportunity.
One may choose to judge their position based on press releases and what amounts to speculation of their current allocation of resources. I prefer to instead judge them based on concrete facts of past release dates and current market position (>60%): http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart7.html
This leads to a likely conclusion: Blizzard is not compelled to innovate in a certain gaming domain, so they have chosen not to do so. The press releases may in fact be accurate as to the delays caused by technical issues, but this should be put into the context of the larger issues that I have cited.
In addition to their market position, in this case it is necessary to look at the sheer amount of expertise that a company such as Blizzard has acquired through development of WoW, and pre-existing battle.net software. It is foolish to think that a technical hang-up constitutes the sole reason for delay, especially given a 1 to 2 year release cycle that preceded Brood War. There are more factors at work here than simply the complexity of battle.net(2), which itself is subjective.
Hardly. I suspect that Blizzard just has little business incentive to release it. Why risk the extra cost overhead of releasing another product- when you have an existing one that brings in continuous revenue through essentially the same division of labor?. Never mind the fact that the original SC is still in a league of its own, with little to no competition that forces innovation. Blizzard can pick and choose when to enter the market at this point. This is possibly the best position for a company to be in.
After serving 6 years in the Navy and thus having grown adapt to the bureaucratic sludge of it all, I would in fact propose that military service in general causes brain damage. On a daily basis, I surprise many civilians with my ability to tolerate things otherwise thought nonsensical.
The main mistake Circuit City made IMHO was that their prices were always higher than their primary competitors (Best Buy, CompUSA, etc.).
I'm not sure how you are supporting this claim, but In the big cities that I have lived in on the East Coast (Charleston, SC),(Norfolk, VA) Circuit City was consistently lower then Best Buy on hardware/games/dvds, and it was my preference since I never was hassled about warranty extensions et al there. This news is rather unfortunate.
I'd be also willing to speculate that despite the kind of money the U.S. spends on "defense", we could achieve air superiority in most conflicts with a sufficient quantity of Sopwith Camels. This is conflict resolution at a discount.
I would guess the question boils down to this: if collaboration between vender's on _any_ UI behavior will result in leaving power-users out in the cold. I am willing to accept this risk. Thus far, I have not seen the domination of GNOME or KDE by themselves impacting power users, which leads me to believe that this will continue if a possible consolidation of parts the two UI's were to occur. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
I think that competition is good as well. However, I would like to make the prediction that due to market forces, we will indeed see, or should see some common behavior between UI's being pushed by commercial venders in the future, especially in the area of system/OS configuration (ALA Control Panel). This can only improve usability and provide a lower barrier of entry. I do not think that the kernel API is adequate, nor are the gnu console tools -for end-users. There must be a middle ground between those and competing UI's.
Slashdot Mirror
Arctic Wildcatters
Since parts of the python standard library can dramatically change every x.x release. I found learning to apply and maintain code written in the "standard library" to be cyclical hell in a hand basket. Much of the documentation these days is along the lines of: No, usage of this or that feature was deprecated. No, though not documented, it's done this way now. No your getting this error because.. well.. we don't know, its ether 2.5, 2.6, or 3.0, figure it out. Given this experience, I don't see how a dead tree covering a particular one is of all that much value. To me a selling proposition would be one which provides a continuity in documentation with fully explained use-cases of features after 2.5- for those of us who have had to pick up the language and deal with the mess of non-versioned code. A mess that whether the authors of the language like it or not, do have a hand in being responsible for.
The assumption that I've un-friended someone because I hate them is flat out wrong. To me, facebook is a tool to keep up on real life friends. I don't pretend to keep up or care what the other 50+ people that qualify as weak acquaintances are doing, I just don't have the cognitive overhead for it. Additionally, I prefer to avoid divulging who I am to weak acquaintances that walk the line of total strangers -it's an issue of trust, it has nothing to do with hate, and it is a function of time. Removal is forced because I don't want to maintain what is a dishonest relationship with someone.
And this is why it is still in use. It's about TV specials, movies, and instilling enough fear to protect government IT sector jobs -and thus necessitating the lumping of enough bad guys together to justify contractor expenditures.
Ever heard of US merchant marines getting plundered in the news? No? This is why. Cheap, Low Tech, Takes 5 minutes to train and use- resulting in a much more recognizable deterrence.
Is the whack a mole machine broken or something?
Wake me up when we have a viable option to Earth. Given Peak Oil, U.S. foreign policy, and global warming etc it seems we aren't learning from our mistakes and are going to need it.
So in summary- critical mass.
The problem with documentation is that everyone wants it but no one truly values it. When I think of an important project, do I think of the poor bastard that took the time to document it -usually not.
Wait, so it isn't God's vengeance for Bee homosexuality?
It violates YRO because actions of one government often influences those of another. People rarely realize what they've lost until they have.
Pay someone to abstract it for your particular domain. If the API works and has solid corresponding documentation, you shouldn't have a reason to complain.
Instead of rating, I'll respond. For what it's worth, I've played this game single player, for nearly 3 years absent of _any_ mods. This is due to the fact that I've found the complexity of the existing game more than adequate. (This is coming from a hardcore RTS player who used to level to the 30s on WC3 and hold top ranks in SC, in case you want to discount what I'm describing as to the depth of Civ4 alone).
Is for them to fix the half-assed multiplayer of Civ4. Actually getting to a decent low ping match-up was a chore on Gamespy. Thus far, nothing else out of this release seems compelling.
> bachelor's degrees from state schools are trashed on arrival.
Hah! Judging by this and this, it is your loss. I'm curious though as to what industry domain you work in- with companies that are so ludicrously selective. It sounds like nothing less than an opportunity.
One may choose to judge their position based on press releases and what amounts to speculation of their current allocation of resources. I prefer to instead judge them based on concrete facts of past release dates and current market position (>60%):
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart7.html
and release cycles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_games
This leads to a likely conclusion: Blizzard is not compelled to innovate in a certain gaming domain, so they have chosen not to do so. The press releases may in fact be accurate as to the delays caused by technical issues, but this should be put into the context of the larger issues that I have cited.
In addition to their market position, in this case it is necessary to look at the sheer amount of expertise that a company such as Blizzard has acquired through development of WoW, and pre-existing battle.net software. It is foolish to think that a technical hang-up constitutes the sole reason for delay, especially given a 1 to 2 year release cycle that preceded Brood War. There are more factors at work here than simply the complexity of battle.net(2), which itself is subjective.
> Blizzard has already stated openly that the delay of SC2 (to mid 2010) is because they misjudged the time it would take to develop Battle.net 2.0
This wouldn't sound so laughably ridiculous if it weren't coming from a company that leads the MMORPG market.
> Apparently, that's a much greater challenge.
Hardly. I suspect that Blizzard just has little business incentive to release it. Why risk the extra cost overhead of releasing another product- when you have an existing one that brings in continuous revenue through essentially the same division of labor?. Never mind the fact that the original SC is still in a league of its own, with little to no competition that forces innovation. Blizzard can pick and choose when to enter the market at this point. This is possibly the best position for a company to be in.
After serving 6 years in the Navy and thus having grown adapt to the bureaucratic sludge of it all, I would in fact propose that military service in general causes brain damage. On a daily basis, I surprise many civilians with my ability to tolerate things otherwise thought nonsensical.
The main mistake Circuit City made IMHO was that their prices were always higher than their primary competitors (Best Buy, CompUSA, etc.).
I'm not sure how you are supporting this claim, but In the big cities that I have lived in on the East Coast (Charleston, SC),(Norfolk, VA) Circuit City was consistently lower then Best Buy on hardware/games/dvds, and it was my preference since I never was hassled about warranty extensions et al there. This news is rather unfortunate.
I'd be also willing to speculate that despite the kind of money the U.S. spends on "defense", we could achieve air superiority in most conflicts with a sufficient quantity of Sopwith Camels. This is conflict resolution at a discount.
I would guess the question boils down to this: if collaboration between vender's on _any_ UI behavior will result in leaving power-users out in the cold. I am willing to accept this risk. Thus far, I have not seen the domination of GNOME or KDE by themselves impacting power users, which leads me to believe that this will continue if a possible consolidation of parts the two UI's were to occur. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
I think that competition is good as well. However, I would like to make the prediction that due to market forces, we will indeed see, or should see some common behavior between UI's being pushed by commercial venders in the future, especially in the area of system/OS configuration (ALA Control Panel). This can only improve usability and provide a lower barrier of entry. I do not think that the kernel API is adequate, nor are the gnu console tools -for end-users. There must be a middle ground between those and competing UI's.
"Constructive" and "Destructive" are also very objective terms, especially in the mind of a terrorist.