They're leveraging the dominant position of Windows in the desktop market (where games need to be sold) to enhance their position in the console market.
This is the kind of thing that can be considered an abuse of monopoly power.
That isn't even remotely an abuse of a monopoly, and Nintendo and Sony are welcome to make a cross-platform PC API any day that they'd like to capitalize on the same cross-platform efficiency.
Fine. The point is that the emerging stack could add up to a competitor to Flash so that Flash would be replaced as various hypertext formats were replaced by HTML and its associated standards.
Let me put it another way: Those who see these technologies as black and white "Which little square hole can I fit it into" will only be disappointed if they look for simplistic existing roles that it can replace. SVG is a powerful relatively new standard adding a lot of power to the web standards body. Looking at it as a "How does this replace Flash?" will only lead to completely incorrect comparisons where it is diminished for every failing that it has against Flash while ignored for every superiority. I suppose it's the nature of the beast that people will always try to simplify these things though in ways that people can understand. HTML is just a competitor to Postscript though, right?
The classic defense of the wannabe Engineer: The bogus attempt to portray his profession at a "higher level" than he has the training or experience for.
And those who criticize the KKK do so just because they don't have a nice white robe and a supply of torches: It's all about the envy, right? Keep on convincing yourself of that if you really want to make yourself feel special.
I personally have no desire to be a professional engineer (though I could be with ease if that was my goal, but it is not) so it really goads me to see that association, much like a union, trying to expand its presence to "Build its empire" if you will. The PEO is attempting to muscle in on software development, and it truly will be their downfall if they assert the myth a little too heavily. The software industry has a large number of existing quality standards that apply organization wide, and we don't need the mythical, and empirically unprovable, "quality" that a bonafide "engineer" brings to the table.
I find it laughable that the same people who deride the engineering associations and the government for enacting a standard of education and experience that people must attain in order to call themselves engineers are the same ones who want to put that word under their name on their business card. Kind of like chiropractors calling themselves doctors. They're not. And neither are you.
Funny, but I don't call myself an engineer or a doctor, but that doesn't mean that I don't find it hilarious when people like yourself try to portray yourself as extra special to the world.
You clearly seem to be missing the point, however an "engineer" is someone who performs the act of engineering. "Engineering" is the application of mathematic or scientific principals. NEITHER requires a card carrying union-due paying membership in a professional Engineering assocation because they're both basic English words describing an act, not a membership. It's the engineering associations that have attempted to take what should be no more than a marketable association (just like many other certifications. I see a PEO membership no different than a MCSE: Sell the value to the business community and if they value it, then so be it. If they don't then deal with it) and basically co-opt longstanding basic English words for their own gain. How ridiculous. "I'm sorry but `programmer' and `programming' is now the owned property of the Professional Programmer Association of North America. You must now call yourself a peon, and only our members can call themselves programmers". Give me a break.
Again I laugh to see that Microsoft is one of the first to take a stand, and I've yet to see a concerted response to it, and I suspect that I know why: The ridiculous gangsterism of the professional associations wouldn't hold up in real practice.
By the same token SVG works in concert with HTML, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to say that SVG therefore is looking to replace Adobe Acrobat (though the complete solution may very well). SVG is a vector graphic addition to the standards compilation, basically, and while using it in concert with other standards allows for a Flash "like" solution, SVG fills a vector graphic gap in the web technology grab bag.
SVG is a vector graphics standards with dynamic DOM style elements intended to work in concert with other W3C web standards. It isn't intended to be a super, all-encompassing multimedia solution, as Flash strives for. Don't get me wrong here: I personally find that about 98% of the uses of Flash on the web are absolutely atrocious, and represent pure arrogance and ignorance of some web developers ("look at how COOL my intro page is! Look scrolling text! Techno music!"). However I truly believe that Flash and SVG are targeting separate uses and markets.
SVG isn't going to replace Flash anymore than Flash is going to replace binary games (i.e. We're not going to play Doom 3 as a Flash game): Each has its place. Having said that, in some situations SVG will supplant Flash were it's a better choice: For instance for charts and graphs the vector graphics capabilities of SVG are absolutely first-rate, and it's unnecessary to resort to a proprietary tool such as Flash when dynamically generated XML will work stunningly. The SVG standard is extremely comprehensive even in its 1.0 form, so I don't see very many ways that it can be coopted by anyone.
Ok, as a recent P.Eng. applicant here in BC, I have to take issue with a lot of what you said, mostly because it is the sort of drivel spouted by semi-trained clowns who want to call themselves "Engineer".
The classic defense of the P.Eng. (or applicant): The bogus attempt to portray it as a "higher level" that is only assaulted by those unworthy of its grand abilities. I find it especially laughable that the Professional Engineering associations have decided that they can coopt a basic english word (engineer or engineering), as you have masterfully demonstrated (how dare people think they are engineering if they haven't ponied up the dough!). How absurd. These "engineers" apply some grand, wide title over virtually anything they do, no matter how woefully unskilled in that realm. You're a P.Eng even if you're performing software design, even though your training was in building bridges (oh, right....engineers are god like creatures who are masters of all).
I find it heartening that Microsoft of all people, recently threatened by the PEO, basically responded after consulting their lawyers by telling them to bring it on, and continue to title their infamous MCSE title with Engineer. The reason, of course, is that if the PEO or other Engineering associations actually pursue their ridiculous campaign to own an element of the language (as you pretend they do) they will be put in their place.
The professional designation, P.Eng. is there to provide the public with the peace of mind that engineering work will be performed to at least a minimum standard of quality as determined by other practitioners in the field. You spout off here saying such things aren't necessary, but I doubt you'de ever go to a doctor with a mail-order degree in holistic medicine. And seriously I doubt you'd trust yourself to drive over a bridge designed by some guy who's sole training was playing with erector sets as a kid.
Firstly, I won't bother trying to reason as to why doctors and engineers are worlds apart (though Engineers will immediately proclaim that they wield power over life and death, such as in the infamous bridge collapse in Quebec which the fabled ring is hypothetically forged from. They wield as much power as the guy cooking the burger at McDonalds has if he fails to cook it to a high enough temperature, or that guy driving in the opposing lane looks at his radio and smashes into you. We ALL wield the power over life or death, with the responsibility and consequences, daily). Secondly, it's called "market forces": Companies will go to great lengths to impose a process of quality to ensure that the bridges that they build and the software that they create is of a high enough quality for the job at hand. Why? Well firstly they can be sued out of existence in a civil court if they fail to, not even considering the commercial aspects of negative implementations, but secondly because ANYONE, not just the fabled heroic "Engineer" with the masterful designation, can be held CRIMINALLY LIABLE due to negligence. There is virtually no additional onus that an Engineer is taking on that every one of us doesn't in our daily lives of doing our job. Engineers just like to make a big deal about it. As mentioned: When I drive down the road if I exercise undue care I can be put in jail for the rest of my life.
I happen to be an engineer, not because of an economic barrier, but because I managed to study x years in a University.
Yet plenty of people study >x years in University and don't get a P.Eng, yet suddenly they find barriers to their professions by arbitrary membership rules. If a professional engineering designation is a signal of education, then isn't that amply filled by existing programs?
And since you are in Ontario, which is where I got my engineering degree you should know that money is not the issue to getting an education.
No, but it's job mobility. John pursued advanced computer monkeyology and then became an expert software developer in the field of Monkeyology. Jim went through and become a "P.Eng in Computer Software", knows nothing about Monkeyology, but you're saying that John should be barred from writing software as Jim is certified? _BS_ It is a barrier of job mobility specifically to maintain exclusivity for its members. The P.Eng is trying to get its greedy hands into software development (as a mandatory element of software development, rather than a "marketforce" certification much like an MCSE or Cisco certificate), and they won't have a chance in hell.
Also engineering certification does not mean quality. It means that you studied so many years and have gone through specific procedures. Just like police people and fire people. Some police people are good and some are baffoons, but regardless you know that they have gone through police trainning....
Total agree with you here (and it's common for any certification/degree/diploma), but then you say...
You just need enough engineers to sign off legally on designs
Now that's just offensive. So we have some people who have joined the exclusive club, and now they have special rights and responsibilities to look over us common folks? I have known a couple of P.Eng's who were the dumbest (literally), laziest people I've had the displeasure of meeting (note that I'm not saying that all P.Engs are. Indeed, the same group includes some of the most honourable and brilliant. My point is that the membership in and of itself means exceedingly little), but suddenly these people are a signing force for a passport? How ridiculous is that. Don't tell me about the great responsibility they take by signing something, as the same holds true for ALL OF US: We all can have careers ruined, lawsuits, criminal complaints, etc, if we sign off on something negligent, incompetently, etc.
How absurd. This whole certification thing is such a tired argument, though it's one that the IEEE is revving up as a new source of income (and I'm an IEEE member, but that doesn't mean that I agree with ridiculous certifications). Certifications and licensing are not, in most cases, a guarantee of quality. In reality in many cases these licensing boards turn into self-protective entities that allow their members to get away with things that they would never get away with if not surrounding by the shroud of, err, "persona responsibility" (see some of the medical boards that act more like shields against personal responsibility). Did you know that one of the P.Eng criteria, at least here in Ontario, is that you cannot discredit another P.Eng?
Most certifications are nothing more than an economic barrier to entry: A club, if you will, whose membership betrays zero information about the capabilities of their members, but rather excludes those who haven't signed up. P.Eng is a particularly notorious one because they've tried to get their grubby hands on virtually all aspects of society, while provably offering nothing in return. No thank you. I don't need a "P.Eng of Burger Making" to make my Big Mac, even if that does help Bob get his friends a job through his exclusive club.
And that it's $95 CDN, or $75 US? (at current exchange rates $75 US is about $118 CDN). That could be explained away by saying that it cost more to process non-Canadian applications, however they don't differentiate by nationality, but simply by currency.
Another poster mentioned that they say secure server but it's not, and he is correct: The link they give is to a completely plaintext, totally insecure link. Some moron forgot the s (i.e. https://secure.golden.net/cdnastro/online-pilot-ap p.htm when they linked it on their page), and another moron didn't configure the "secure." subdomain to prohibit non-SSL. Tragedy of errors.
I grew up in the town where this project is based, but I have to say that something smells incredibly fishy about this...non-refundable "dream" applications for a pipe-dream? If anyone is actually sending in money, please be aware that I have a really big bridge for sale.
Because Key3media is one of the most ANNOYING companies on the planet?
So true. Indeed, I wonder if they are fraudulent about the number of attendees, etc. To give you an idea a group I was with each signed up for COMDEX one year: Each following year we each received from 3 - 7 copies of their guides and other mailings. Right now I get their email spans not one, not two, but SIX times (all sent at the same time. It's happened several times now so it isn't a fluke). How hard is it to SELECT DISTINCT email_address FROM SpamTable? The same thing for the snailmailings where again my name and address were constant on all of these volumous, expensive looking mailings.
Re:License to print money
on
The Last Comdex?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Unless you attend special sessions, virtually no one actually pays to attend COMDEX as a visitor. Vendors do pay, but of course the number of vendors has dropped precipitously in the past few years. COMDEX Canada used to fill the entire Toronto Convention Center, however as years passed the "Computer Case and Fans" section grew like a virus, while the software and technology companies shrunk. Now it's a little part of one small section of the convention center. I dropped by at a lunch, but seeing a line figured that it wasn't worth the wait and left.
Personally I think COMDEX, and trade shows like it, is a relic of the past. The reason is simple: The Internet. In the past it was very difficult for organizations to get the word out about new products, so they actually would pent up all of their launches for the big trade shows when they would unleash their killer video cards (Trident 8990, now with SVGA!), hard drives, software, etc. All of the media was there and they would print it all up, and we'd get the extra-large edition of Computer Shopper or PC Magazine full of COMDEX-released goodies, and it really was an exciting time in the computer world. Nowadays no company actually withholds products until a trade show (well..maybe Apple is the one exception. They still like to do the grand release thing), but instead they let the net do the distribution of information. It really is amazing to think how much this really has changed our industry even though it seems so normal now. Hell, I remember dialing up to the Diamond Multimedia BBS with my 14.4 modem to grab a newer Windows 3.1 driver for my Diamond Speedstar 24x videocard (one of the first supporting a 24-bit colour mode): It was a huge undertaking. Now I'm leaving a message that's readable around the world with ease.
Hehe, I have been troll baited. There are so many posts to ever Slashdot article yapping about having heard it somewhere else I just presumed this was legit. Looking that the Kuro5hin page it appears that it is not.
Sidenote: Is Jägermeister a really popular type of beer in some places? I've never seen one in my life, however I do find it humorous even seeing that name now...especially as it's often associated with ESR.
Really, eh? I mean, I turned on CNN today and they were reporting a story that I'd already heard on ABC News! The nerve! I sent them a letter saying "Um, excuse me, but I already heard that on ABC l053rZ!" They haven't replied yet.
To make matters even worse, when I was on the train I overheard two people talking about the Israeli conflict. I couldn't believe it! I mean, I heard someone talking about that LAST YEAR for crying out loud! That is so 2001! I told them that they're l4m3rZ for being so dated. They just seemed to ignore me though.
Well...yeah, which I think was the previous point: service packs = annoying.
I shouldn't have mentioned "tiny changes". Most IT shops hate any changes. They most certainly don't prefer massive, complete organizational changes, much less even service packs. Apologies if I worded that wrong.
Those businesses who didn't go with SA won out, and this isn't too terrible for them...they can keep running 2k and thumbing their nose at the SA sheep. But still, in 2012 win2k sure will seem a bit out of date. Can you imagine where Linux will be by the time Blackcomb comes out? Wow.
Microsoft has been upgrading their operating systems outside of the normal venues for a while now. i.e. While I mention that 95-98-Me was a small change, the reason really is that Microsoft didn't withhold development until the next OS release: i.e. we got lots of versions of Internet Explorer, DirectX, media player, etc. I certainly don't think all of them are going to change so substantially.
As per Linux, how much progress do you really think the base OS has made in the past several years? Fundamentally it's the same UNIX style derivative that was around in the 70s. NT 4 has an extremely solid base foundation, and truth be told there isn't an awful lot of improvements that can happen to it.
What in the world are they thinking putting them up as 3MB GIFs? I understand the need for super accuracy for some purposes, hence the need for lossless TIFFs, but there should be JPEGs for people who don't need perfect reproductions: The smooth gradients lend themselves to JPEG compression.
Security patches are to be reckoned with. However, the long interval between new Windows server releases means that there will be large differences inbetween versions. If there's something that the IT departments don't like, it's large differences...So - I really have to wonder what crack Microsoft is smoking.
Obviously not as potent as the stuff you're smoking. Here are the facts as I see them. Please feel free to disagree.
IT departments HATE non-stop tiny changes, each of which requires new testing, and likely breaks several of their applications. This can be seen in the reality that many shops still use NT 4.0 even with its successor 2000, and its successor XP, available. Hell, most IT departments shun at even installing service packs.
Microsoft has oft been berated for doing what Apple now is the champion of, which is pushing minor changes as new versions (see 95, 98, 98SE, Me) and getting people to pay up. People don't like being "behind" when applications start using some esoteric feature of XP that adds little value, but suddenly renders obsolete their 2000 base.
Because Microsoft has moved at such a rapid rate, many organizations have simple ceased moving with them: By the time they get a plan together and start to act, they're behind again. There are still a large number of organizations that aren't using Active Directory. There literally is such a thing as being too-rapid in your development (at least in areas where users and IT have to move with you) because the early-adopters will give up, and the late adopters will always feel that something better is just around the corner.
First person shooters are a well trod genre, so to really keep people interested you need to bring something new to the table (otherwise wouldn't we all be playing games on our Atari 2600, still plugging away at Centipede). Doom 3, from all appearances, brings primarily a remarkable new graphics engine: It doesn't matter what the gameplay is like if it's really a variation of Q3/Unreal Tournament (notice the absolute quiet when Unreal Tournament 2003 came out: It's just more of the same so people really aren't that interested), but if the graphics are a whole new level, then that does matter. The last thing they need is for everyone to consider them par for the course by the time it comes out.
Perhaps you missed my own self-correction, but I noted that of course I was referring to Doom 3 rather than the stated Q3. I was in the middle of a game of Urban Terror and was thinking Q3 for some reason.
BTW: Why do you think all of the showings of Doom 3 have been so low key? I believe it's for exactly the reason that I stated. Indeed, another great example would be Halo: When Halo was demoed early in its development at a Mac conference it raised interest throughout the industry. By the time it was actually released it was so ho hum and seemingly ordinary (ordinary because we all were long used to the things that Halo brought to the table, having read countless articles discussing them, and watching videos showing them) that it was just another game release.
I didn't say they weren't profitable: Indeed, we were talking historically. Historically Google had zero (nada) ads, however they then decided to capitalize and we got adwords and it's predecessor. I don't fault them for that at all, though many hyper defensive Google defenders see it as a big insult.
Regarding the loading up comment: While I can't seem to duplicate it, some searches would get me 8 or more adword ad boxes running down the right of the screen. Whether adwords has been a failure or they imposed some limits, now I can't get more than two. They might not not be big graphics, but they still are ads.
Re:Agree.. but...
on
Gaming Goodness
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Even John can't possibly turn down the free promotion Doom is getting from all of this. I mean, christ, it was an Alpha that barely worked, and people were going nutso over it!
The reason he gets upset is because of the Duke Nukem syndrome: Duke Nukem was a great game, however they came out with the demo version of it so many months before the actual release that by the time people could buy it, most people were sick of it: The novelty had worn off. Because Q3 brings a lot of graphical "invention" to gaming, if people have seen it for months before the actual game comes out, suddenly it might seem run of the mill instead of special.
It is. Because of that I've just always played on the same server (VVM), however as it was down this evening I finally downloaded "The All-Seeing Eye". Very nice server browser.
Hehe, Venture Capitalists: The people with the $ behind many of the.COM mistakes. Basically they were looking to lend some start-up money and then get the hell out with loads of profit before everyone realized that the fundamentals just weren't there.
Re:I remember when it was the best...
on
Altavista Renewed
·
· Score: 1
Google relased a browser/OS to crush other search engines by making it hard for people to use other search engines?
Oh, right, IE stops me from installing Mozilla or Opera. Hey, wait, it must not be working because I have those installed. Weird.
Wow, someone so critical uses it exclusively?
Yes, you can clearly see that I'm incredibly critical of Google. I mean look where I said...uh...oh...uh... wait, no I wasn't critical of Google. Lay off the Google love. Are you a Google's Gate cult member? I suspect so.
It's very easy for people to change which search engine they use, much easier than changing an OS or even a web browser. Google doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head. People like you CHOOSE to use it (and exclusively!), then complain when it's too popular and has "too much power."
Oh yes, you can clearly see where I said that it's too popular. I can't seem to find that right now, so would you mind quoting where I said that? Oh, right, I didn't and you're just a raving Google's Gate member looking to smote all those who dare say anything but pure accolades for your deity.
Slashdot Mirror
They're leveraging the dominant position of Windows in the desktop market (where games need to be sold) to enhance their position in the console market.
This is the kind of thing that can be considered an abuse of monopoly power.
That isn't even remotely an abuse of a monopoly, and Nintendo and Sony are welcome to make a cross-platform PC API any day that they'd like to capitalize on the same cross-platform efficiency.
Fine. The point is that the emerging stack could add up to a competitor to Flash so that Flash would be replaced as various hypertext formats were replaced by HTML and its associated standards.
Let me put it another way: Those who see these technologies as black and white "Which little square hole can I fit it into" will only be disappointed if they look for simplistic existing roles that it can replace. SVG is a powerful relatively new standard adding a lot of power to the web standards body. Looking at it as a "How does this replace Flash?" will only lead to completely incorrect comparisons where it is diminished for every failing that it has against Flash while ignored for every superiority. I suppose it's the nature of the beast that people will always try to simplify these things though in ways that people can understand. HTML is just a competitor to Postscript though, right?
The classic defense of the wannabe Engineer: The bogus attempt to portray his profession at a "higher level" than he has the training or experience for.
And those who criticize the KKK do so just because they don't have a nice white robe and a supply of torches: It's all about the envy, right? Keep on convincing yourself of that if you really want to make yourself feel special.
I personally have no desire to be a professional engineer (though I could be with ease if that was my goal, but it is not) so it really goads me to see that association, much like a union, trying to expand its presence to "Build its empire" if you will. The PEO is attempting to muscle in on software development, and it truly will be their downfall if they assert the myth a little too heavily. The software industry has a large number of existing quality standards that apply organization wide, and we don't need the mythical, and empirically unprovable, "quality" that a bonafide "engineer" brings to the table.
I find it laughable that the same people who deride the engineering associations and the government for enacting a standard of education and experience that people must attain in order to call themselves engineers are the same ones who want to put that word under their name on their business card. Kind of like chiropractors calling themselves doctors. They're not. And neither are you.
Funny, but I don't call myself an engineer or a doctor, but that doesn't mean that I don't find it hilarious when people like yourself try to portray yourself as extra special to the world.
You clearly seem to be missing the point, however an "engineer" is someone who performs the act of engineering. "Engineering" is the application of mathematic or scientific principals. NEITHER requires a card carrying union-due paying membership in a professional Engineering assocation because they're both basic English words describing an act, not a membership. It's the engineering associations that have attempted to take what should be no more than a marketable association (just like many other certifications. I see a PEO membership no different than a MCSE: Sell the value to the business community and if they value it, then so be it. If they don't then deal with it) and basically co-opt longstanding basic English words for their own gain. How ridiculous. "I'm sorry but `programmer' and `programming' is now the owned property of the Professional Programmer Association of North America. You must now call yourself a peon, and only our members can call themselves programmers". Give me a break.
Again I laugh to see that Microsoft is one of the first to take a stand, and I've yet to see a concerted response to it, and I suspect that I know why: The ridiculous gangsterism of the professional associations wouldn't hold up in real practice.
By the same token SVG works in concert with HTML, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to say that SVG therefore is looking to replace Adobe Acrobat (though the complete solution may very well). SVG is a vector graphic addition to the standards compilation, basically, and while using it in concert with other standards allows for a Flash "like" solution, SVG fills a vector graphic gap in the web technology grab bag.
SVG is a vector graphics standards with dynamic DOM style elements intended to work in concert with other W3C web standards. It isn't intended to be a super, all-encompassing multimedia solution, as Flash strives for. Don't get me wrong here: I personally find that about 98% of the uses of Flash on the web are absolutely atrocious, and represent pure arrogance and ignorance of some web developers ("look at how COOL my intro page is! Look scrolling text! Techno music!"). However I truly believe that Flash and SVG are targeting separate uses and markets.
SVG isn't going to replace Flash anymore than Flash is going to replace binary games (i.e. We're not going to play Doom 3 as a Flash game): Each has its place. Having said that, in some situations SVG will supplant Flash were it's a better choice: For instance for charts and graphs the vector graphics capabilities of SVG are absolutely first-rate, and it's unnecessary to resort to a proprietary tool such as Flash when dynamically generated XML will work stunningly. The SVG standard is extremely comprehensive even in its 1.0 form, so I don't see very many ways that it can be coopted by anyone.
Ok, as a recent P.Eng. applicant here in BC, I have to take issue with a lot of what you said, mostly because it is the sort of drivel spouted by semi-trained clowns who want to call themselves "Engineer".
The classic defense of the P.Eng. (or applicant): The bogus attempt to portray it as a "higher level" that is only assaulted by those unworthy of its grand abilities. I find it especially laughable that the Professional Engineering associations have decided that they can coopt a basic english word (engineer or engineering), as you have masterfully demonstrated (how dare people think they are engineering if they haven't ponied up the dough!). How absurd. These "engineers" apply some grand, wide title over virtually anything they do, no matter how woefully unskilled in that realm. You're a P.Eng even if you're performing software design, even though your training was in building bridges (oh, right....engineers are god like creatures who are masters of all).
I find it heartening that Microsoft of all people, recently threatened by the PEO, basically responded after consulting their lawyers by telling them to bring it on, and continue to title their infamous MCSE title with Engineer. The reason, of course, is that if the PEO or other Engineering associations actually pursue their ridiculous campaign to own an element of the language (as you pretend they do) they will be put in their place.
The professional designation, P.Eng. is there to provide the public with the peace of mind that engineering work will be performed to at least a minimum standard of quality as determined by other practitioners in the field. You spout off here saying such things aren't necessary, but I doubt you'de ever go to a doctor with a mail-order degree in holistic medicine. And seriously I doubt you'd trust yourself to drive over a bridge designed by some guy who's sole training was playing with erector sets as a kid.
Firstly, I won't bother trying to reason as to why doctors and engineers are worlds apart (though Engineers will immediately proclaim that they wield power over life and death, such as in the infamous bridge collapse in Quebec which the fabled ring is hypothetically forged from. They wield as much power as the guy cooking the burger at McDonalds has if he fails to cook it to a high enough temperature, or that guy driving in the opposing lane looks at his radio and smashes into you. We ALL wield the power over life or death, with the responsibility and consequences, daily). Secondly, it's called "market forces": Companies will go to great lengths to impose a process of quality to ensure that the bridges that they build and the software that they create is of a high enough quality for the job at hand. Why? Well firstly they can be sued out of existence in a civil court if they fail to, not even considering the commercial aspects of negative implementations, but secondly because ANYONE , not just the fabled heroic "Engineer" with the masterful designation, can be held CRIMINALLY LIABLE due to negligence. There is virtually no additional onus that an Engineer is taking on that every one of us doesn't in our daily lives of doing our job. Engineers just like to make a big deal about it. As mentioned: When I drive down the road if I exercise undue care I can be put in jail for the rest of my life.
You
I happen to be an engineer, not because of an economic barrier, but because I managed to study x years in a University.
Yet plenty of people study >x years in University and don't get a P.Eng, yet suddenly they find barriers to their professions by arbitrary membership rules. If a professional engineering designation is a signal of education, then isn't that amply filled by existing programs?
And since you are in Ontario, which is where I got my engineering degree you should know that money is not the issue to getting an education.
No, but it's job mobility. John pursued advanced computer monkeyology and then became an expert software developer in the field of Monkeyology. Jim went through and become a "P.Eng in Computer Software", knows nothing about Monkeyology, but you're saying that John should be barred from writing software as Jim is certified? _BS_ It is a barrier of job mobility specifically to maintain exclusivity for its members. The P.Eng is trying to get its greedy hands into software development (as a mandatory element of software development, rather than a "marketforce" certification much like an MCSE or Cisco certificate), and they won't have a chance in hell.
Also engineering certification does not mean quality. It means that you studied so many years and have gone through specific procedures. Just like police people and fire people. Some police people are good and some are baffoons, but regardless you know that they have gone through police trainning....
Total agree with you here (and it's common for any certification/degree/diploma), but then you say...
You just need enough engineers to sign off legally on designs
Now that's just offensive. So we have some people who have joined the exclusive club, and now they have special rights and responsibilities to look over us common folks? I have known a couple of P.Eng's who were the dumbest (literally), laziest people I've had the displeasure of meeting (note that I'm not saying that all P.Engs are. Indeed, the same group includes some of the most honourable and brilliant. My point is that the membership in and of itself means exceedingly little), but suddenly these people are a signing force for a passport? How ridiculous is that. Don't tell me about the great responsibility they take by signing something, as the same holds true for ALL OF US: We all can have careers ruined, lawsuits, criminal complaints, etc, if we sign off on something negligent, incompetently, etc.
How absurd. This whole certification thing is such a tired argument, though it's one that the IEEE is revving up as a new source of income (and I'm an IEEE member, but that doesn't mean that I agree with ridiculous certifications). Certifications and licensing are not, in most cases, a guarantee of quality. In reality in many cases these licensing boards turn into self-protective entities that allow their members to get away with things that they would never get away with if not surrounding by the shroud of, err, "persona responsibility" (see some of the medical boards that act more like shields against personal responsibility). Did you know that one of the P.Eng criteria, at least here in Ontario, is that you cannot discredit another P.Eng?
Most certifications are nothing more than an economic barrier to entry: A club, if you will, whose membership betrays zero information about the capabilities of their members, but rather excludes those who haven't signed up. P.Eng is a particularly notorious one because they've tried to get their grubby hands on virtually all aspects of society, while provably offering nothing in return. No thank you. I don't need a "P.Eng of Burger Making" to make my Big Mac, even if that does help Bob get his friends a job through his exclusive club.
And that it's $95 CDN, or $75 US? (at current exchange rates $75 US is about $118 CDN). That could be explained away by saying that it cost more to process non-Canadian applications, however they don't differentiate by nationality, but simply by currency.
p p.htm when they linked it on their page), and another moron didn't configure the "secure." subdomain to prohibit non-SSL. Tragedy of errors.
Another poster mentioned that they say secure server but it's not, and he is correct: The link they give is to a completely plaintext, totally insecure link. Some moron forgot the s (i.e. https://secure.golden.net/cdnastro/online-pilot-a
I grew up in the town where this project is based, but I have to say that something smells incredibly fishy about this...non-refundable "dream" applications for a pipe-dream? If anyone is actually sending in money, please be aware that I have a really big bridge for sale.
Because Key3media is one of the most ANNOYING companies on the planet?
So true. Indeed, I wonder if they are fraudulent about the number of attendees, etc. To give you an idea a group I was with each signed up for COMDEX one year: Each following year we each received from 3 - 7 copies of their guides and other mailings. Right now I get their email spans not one, not two, but SIX times (all sent at the same time. It's happened several times now so it isn't a fluke). How hard is it to SELECT DISTINCT email_address FROM SpamTable? The same thing for the snailmailings where again my name and address were constant on all of these volumous, expensive looking mailings.
Unless you attend special sessions, virtually no one actually pays to attend COMDEX as a visitor. Vendors do pay, but of course the number of vendors has dropped precipitously in the past few years. COMDEX Canada used to fill the entire Toronto Convention Center, however as years passed the "Computer Case and Fans" section grew like a virus, while the software and technology companies shrunk. Now it's a little part of one small section of the convention center. I dropped by at a lunch, but seeing a line figured that it wasn't worth the wait and left.
Personally I think COMDEX, and trade shows like it, is a relic of the past. The reason is simple: The Internet. In the past it was very difficult for organizations to get the word out about new products, so they actually would pent up all of their launches for the big trade shows when they would unleash their killer video cards (Trident 8990, now with SVGA!), hard drives, software, etc. All of the media was there and they would print it all up, and we'd get the extra-large edition of Computer Shopper or PC Magazine full of COMDEX-released goodies, and it really was an exciting time in the computer world. Nowadays no company actually withholds products until a trade show (well..maybe Apple is the one exception. They still like to do the grand release thing), but instead they let the net do the distribution of information. It really is amazing to think how much this really has changed our industry even though it seems so normal now. Hell, I remember dialing up to the Diamond Multimedia BBS with my 14.4 modem to grab a newer Windows 3.1 driver for my Diamond Speedstar 24x videocard (one of the first supporting a 24-bit colour mode): It was a huge undertaking. Now I'm leaving a message that's readable around the world with ease.
Hehe, I have been troll baited. There are so many posts to ever Slashdot article yapping about having heard it somewhere else I just presumed this was legit. Looking that the Kuro5hin page it appears that it is not.
Sidenote: Is Jägermeister a really popular type of beer in some places? I've never seen one in my life, however I do find it humorous even seeing that name now...especially as it's often associated with ESR.
Really, eh? I mean, I turned on CNN today and they were reporting a story that I'd already heard on ABC News! The nerve! I sent them a letter saying "Um, excuse me, but I already heard that on ABC l053rZ!" They haven't replied yet.
To make matters even worse, when I was on the train I overheard two people talking about the Israeli conflict. I couldn't believe it! I mean, I heard someone talking about that LAST YEAR for crying out loud! That is so 2001! I told them that they're l4m3rZ for being so dated. They just seemed to ignore me though.
Well...yeah, which I think was the previous point: service packs = annoying.
I shouldn't have mentioned "tiny changes". Most IT shops hate any changes. They most certainly don't prefer massive, complete organizational changes, much less even service packs. Apologies if I worded that wrong.
Those businesses who didn't go with SA won out, and this isn't too terrible for them...they can keep running 2k and thumbing their nose at the SA sheep. But still, in 2012 win2k sure will seem a bit out of date. Can you imagine where Linux will be by the time Blackcomb comes out? Wow.
Microsoft has been upgrading their operating systems outside of the normal venues for a while now. i.e. While I mention that 95-98-Me was a small change, the reason really is that Microsoft didn't withhold development until the next OS release: i.e. we got lots of versions of Internet Explorer, DirectX, media player, etc. I certainly don't think all of them are going to change so substantially.
As per Linux, how much progress do you really think the base OS has made in the past several years? Fundamentally it's the same UNIX style derivative that was around in the 70s. NT 4 has an extremely solid base foundation, and truth be told there isn't an awful lot of improvements that can happen to it.
You mean like this colour palette that I got from hitachi_4_color.gif.
What in the world are they thinking putting them up as 3MB GIFs? I understand the need for super accuracy for some purposes, hence the need for lossless TIFFs, but there should be JPEGs for people who don't need perfect reproductions: The smooth gradients lend themselves to JPEG compression.
Obviously not as potent as the stuff you're smoking. Here are the facts as I see them. Please feel free to disagree.
First person shooters are a well trod genre, so to really keep people interested you need to bring something new to the table (otherwise wouldn't we all be playing games on our Atari 2600, still plugging away at Centipede). Doom 3, from all appearances, brings primarily a remarkable new graphics engine: It doesn't matter what the gameplay is like if it's really a variation of Q3/Unreal Tournament (notice the absolute quiet when Unreal Tournament 2003 came out: It's just more of the same so people really aren't that interested), but if the graphics are a whole new level, then that does matter. The last thing they need is for everyone to consider them par for the course by the time it comes out.
Perhaps you missed my own self-correction, but I noted that of course I was referring to Doom 3 rather than the stated Q3. I was in the middle of a game of Urban Terror and was thinking Q3 for some reason.
BTW: Why do you think all of the showings of Doom 3 have been so low key? I believe it's for exactly the reason that I stated. Indeed, another great example would be Halo: When Halo was demoed early in its development at a Mac conference it raised interest throughout the industry. By the time it was actually released it was so ho hum and seemingly ordinary (ordinary because we all were long used to the things that Halo brought to the table, having read countless articles discussing them, and watching videos showing them) that it was just another game release.
I didn't say they weren't profitable: Indeed, we were talking historically. Historically Google had zero (nada) ads, however they then decided to capitalize and we got adwords and it's predecessor. I don't fault them for that at all, though many hyper defensive Google defenders see it as a big insult.
Regarding the loading up comment: While I can't seem to duplicate it, some searches would get me 8 or more adword ad boxes running down the right of the screen. Whether adwords has been a failure or they imposed some limits, now I can't get more than two. They might not not be big graphics, but they still are ads.
Even John can't possibly turn down the free promotion Doom is getting from all of this. I mean, christ, it was an Alpha that barely worked, and people were going nutso over it!
The reason he gets upset is because of the Duke Nukem syndrome: Duke Nukem was a great game, however they came out with the demo version of it so many months before the actual release that by the time people could buy it, most people were sick of it: The novelty had worn off. Because Q3 brings a lot of graphical "invention" to gaming, if people have seen it for months before the actual game comes out, suddenly it might seem run of the mill instead of special.
It is. Because of that I've just always played on the same server (VVM), however as it was down this evening I finally downloaded "The All-Seeing Eye". Very nice server browser.
Hehe, Venture Capitalists: The people with the $ behind many of the .COM mistakes. Basically they were looking to lend some start-up money and then get the hell out with loads of profit before everyone realized that the fundamentals just weren't there.
Google relased a browser/OS to crush other search engines by making it hard for people to use other search engines?
Oh, right, IE stops me from installing Mozilla or Opera. Hey, wait, it must not be working because I have those installed. Weird.
Wow, someone so critical uses it exclusively?
Yes, you can clearly see that I'm incredibly critical of Google. I mean look where I said...uh...oh...uh... wait, no I wasn't critical of Google. Lay off the Google love. Are you a Google's Gate cult member? I suspect so.
It's very easy for people to change which search engine they use, much easier than changing an OS or even a web browser. Google doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head. People like you CHOOSE to use it (and exclusively!), then complain when it's too popular and has "too much power."
Oh yes, you can clearly see where I said that it's too popular. I can't seem to find that right now, so would you mind quoting where I said that? Oh, right, I didn't and you're just a raving Google's Gate member looking to smote all those who dare say anything but pure accolades for your deity.