a) Three or four people with a clue join the project.
b) Seven hundred and eighty six people with absolutely zero clue, but a great deal of enthusiasm, join the project.
c) The project starts, to all manner of slashdot-augmented fanfare.
d) Two months into it, a three month long set of newsgroup/forum/wiki threads slowly converges on the fact that approximately two people on the project have the resources and wherewithal to actually build and test any given component. The rest want the plans to be reifiable on a $200 budget, employing but a nail file and two hours of high school shop class. Guidelines are implemented, prescribing any given component to be buildable using a nail file and $250.
e) Two of the four people with a clue withdraw from the project. Three hundred people with no clue withdraw as well, intimidated by the $250 investment. They return to their jobs bagging groceries.
f) Alpha release comes out, to all manner of slashdot-augmented fanfare, accompanied by three hundred prototypes manufactured in Kyrgyzstan. The prototypes sell out immediately, primarily to the parents of project participants and alumni.
g) A Ford employee writes a blog post describing a crucial design flaw in the prototype. Slashdot responds by dubbing him a "Ford shill." Twenty eight hundred and seventy two posts ask the unfortunate individual "how much Ford is paying him to subvert the OpenCar project." The remainder merely speculate on the amount.
g) All three hundred of prototypes simultaneously explode, causing their inhabitants to summarily expire in a fiery inferno of flesh and steel.
h) The survivors form a support group. The project is never mentioned again, until someone floats the idea of OpenShuttle.
I'm guessing this will be either -1,Troll or +5,Funny. I'm shooting for +5,Troll. Help me out here, folks.
Hell, just try to compile any complex template in VC8.
More fear-mongering. Loki compiles under 2005. Boost compiles under 2005. I've personally done a stupid amount of template metaprogramming in 2005. Try again.
Not standards compliant? Can you name a portion of the standard that 2005 implements in a more restricted manner than GCC does, or are you just spouting bullshit because you're a karma whore, and slashdotters like to bash on Microsoft? Do you have *any* idea what you're talking about?
I don't disagree with any particular point. I'm not attacking the results, I'm attacking the idea of an objective quantitative analysis of fluff to substance being currently possible.
Vague references to a nebulous methodology do not a "content analysis process" make. Similarly, quoting said vague references verbatim does not an argument make. There is no definition of substance in TFA, and I believe you'll find it difficult to find a quantitative measure of it that doesn't smack of charlatanism and pseudoscience.
As much as I like the Daily Show (for a number of reasons), as much as I dislike mainstream media (for a number of completely different reasons), et cetera et cetera, I have to wonder if this makes any sense. "Substance" is not a quantifiable concept, right. A better title for the article would be "an assistant professor with some grad students in tow finds the Daily Show to have more substance than the mainstream media" -- but I guess that makes for a far less interesting headline.
I used to have a monitor where the green CRT kept going out (for some reason it's always the green one, anyone know why?). So at first, a semi-gentle tap to the side would fix it -- that'd happen about once a day for about six months, wasn't a huge deal. At some point, that stopped helping, so I'd have to hit it progressively harder and harder for the next three months. By harder I mean, it went from a tap a day to a smack to a hard smack to a series of very hard smacks a few times a day, to the point where I had to hold the monitor with my left hand so that it wouldn't go flying across the desk. Now, as this progressed, the monitor would get somewhat wobbly for a few seconds after I was done beating the absolute living bejeezus out of it, at some point I had to start lifting it about an inch off the desk and dropping it, etc.
So here's the fun part. Apparently, at some point, the monitor got tired of my abuse and just started working. Flawlessly. Worked without an incident for about a year after that, until I had to get rid of it (was moving out of state and had too much stuff).
-goltrpoat
Re:one time at computer camp...
on
Computer Voodoo?
·
· Score: 1
This is quite common. FFTW (Fastest Fourier Transform in the West) has large amounts of C code that are dumped out by an ML program. Closer to the original example, it's not uncommon to write tools that serialize stuff to XML (because, say, the types we care about already serialize to and from XML), and then use XSLT to go to HTML and publish the results on a local website. Most UI designer tools (.Net Forms editor in Visual Studio, various wxWidgets designer tools, etc) dump out source from a visual definition of the UI. Etc.
-goltrpoat
The Wii itself is going to be helping the little guy. While we can expect a plethora of FPS and Lightsaber games (ohpleaseohpleaseohplease), the dev kit for the Wii is a mere $2000!
Trouble is, you won't be able to buy one (unless Nintendo is going way against the grain this time around). As a general rule of thumb, you can't buy a devkit if you're not a licensed developer for that console. You can't become a licensed developer for a console if you haven't shipped a game on that console. You can't ship a game on the console unless you have a devkit. The catch-22 is typically resolved by a publisher, or by having very good contacts, or by doing contract work on the console, thereby acquiring experience on it, or by convincing the console company that the members of your team have had experience with the console earlier in their career, and that this is enough to warrant developer status. The latter rarely works.
Basically, the console companies don't want to dilute their title lineup by letting everyone and their mother crank out crap games for it. In order to help ensure that this doesn't happen (whether or not this is a misguided way of going about it is a different story), they make it very difficult for an unproven team to get anywhere near a devkit.
As far as gamedev articles posted to Slashdot go, this one is the first one in years where the author actually has a clue what they're talking about. Many people in the industry have been making similar points for a couple of years now, myself included. One of the points ("increased risk means decreased creativity") has been valid much longer, and is the primary reason for the current consolidation trend -- big companies trying to hedge their bets and spread the risk amongst as many projects and studios as possible. This is inextricably tied to the following myth: throwing 200 monkeys on a project means it'll ship in 12 months. That's what [insert large company that shall remain unnamed] does, and it's a trend that will not suistain itself, simply because technology is evolving even faster than their employee turnover rate. In other words, grabbing fifteen senior monkeys out of 200 and making them implement global illumination is just not feasible, while the shop down the street with a team of 30 and five superstar programmers will have the tech. More importantly, the current state of the art is in enough flux that the production pipeline changes drastically as we progress; the word "designer" means a very different thing now than it did five years ago; the term "technical artist" is relatively new, etc. It's very difficult to implement those changes in a giant production team -- especially considering the sheer number of suits that a team of that size requires, and their reluctance to rock the boat.
Personally, I'm cautiously optimistic about this, in the sense that the industry is way past due for a major overhaul, and that won't happen until it's painfully obvious to everyone involved that the current model is not feasible.
"An average apple tree nowadays holds enough fruit to fill several baskets, weaved in your local apple-centric
basket-weavery, which are carried by human power, or simply loaded onto a truck. Particular to Golden Delicious
afficionados, the announcement of new apple tree fertilizer means that future apple trees will laugh at the
nominal apple load requirements of current baskets (e.g. hearth baskets, berry baskets, ribbed baskets, and gourds).
Regardless of the negligible vitamin C per pound hit compared to oranges, major fruit farms, as well as a lot of
freelance fruitpickers, prefer oranges for major baking projects even though apples are easier to bake a pie with,
often have a shorter development time, and are just as powerful as citrus. What does the Slashdot community think
of the current state of apples versus oranges? Is it time to jump in the boat of apples? Do pastry chefs feel that
they are losing - an arguably needed - dose of vitamin C when they eat apples? What would we be losing besides
lemon merengue?"
Slashdot Mirror
...would at least try to spell authors' names correctly. Brodsky, not "Brodskey."
Here's what's going to happen.
a) Three or four people with a clue join the project.
b) Seven hundred and eighty six people with absolutely zero clue, but a great deal of enthusiasm, join the project.
c) The project starts, to all manner of slashdot-augmented fanfare.
d) Two months into it, a three month long set of newsgroup/forum/wiki threads slowly converges on the fact that approximately two people on the project have the resources and wherewithal to actually build and test any given component. The rest want the plans to be reifiable on a $200 budget, employing but a nail file and two hours of high school shop class. Guidelines are implemented, prescribing any given component to be buildable using a nail file and $250.
e) Two of the four people with a clue withdraw from the project. Three hundred people with no clue withdraw as well, intimidated by the $250 investment. They return to their jobs bagging groceries.
f) Alpha release comes out, to all manner of slashdot-augmented fanfare, accompanied by three hundred prototypes manufactured in Kyrgyzstan. The prototypes sell out immediately, primarily to the parents of project participants and alumni.
g) A Ford employee writes a blog post describing a crucial design flaw in the prototype. Slashdot responds by dubbing him a "Ford shill." Twenty eight hundred and seventy two posts ask the unfortunate individual "how much Ford is paying him to subvert the OpenCar project." The remainder merely speculate on the amount.
g) All three hundred of prototypes simultaneously explode, causing their inhabitants to summarily expire in a fiery inferno of flesh and steel.
h) The survivors form a support group. The project is never mentioned again, until someone floats the idea of OpenShuttle.
I'm guessing this will be either -1,Troll or +5,Funny. I'm shooting for +5,Troll. Help me out here, folks.
-goltrpoat
Not standards compliant? Can you name a portion of the standard that 2005 implements in a more restricted manner than GCC does, or are you just spouting bullshit because you're a karma whore, and slashdotters like to bash on Microsoft? Do you have *any* idea what you're talking about?
Yeah, thought so.
-goltrpoat
I don't disagree with any particular point. I'm not attacking the results, I'm attacking the idea of an objective quantitative analysis of fluff to substance being currently possible.
-goltrpoat
Vague references to a nebulous methodology do not a "content analysis process" make. Similarly, quoting said vague references verbatim does not an argument make. There is no definition of substance in TFA, and I believe you'll find it difficult to find a quantitative measure of it that doesn't smack of charlatanism and pseudoscience.
-goltrpoat
As much as I like the Daily Show (for a number of reasons), as much as I dislike mainstream media (for a number of completely different reasons), et cetera et cetera, I have to wonder if this makes any sense. "Substance" is not a quantifiable concept, right. A better title for the article would be "an assistant professor with some grad students in tow finds the Daily Show to have more substance than the mainstream media" -- but I guess that makes for a far less interesting headline.
-goltrpoat
-goltrpoat
I used to have a monitor where the green CRT kept going out (for some reason it's always the green one, anyone know why?). So at first, a semi-gentle tap to the side would fix it -- that'd happen about once a day for about six months, wasn't a huge deal. At some point, that stopped helping, so I'd have to hit it progressively harder and harder for the next three months. By harder I mean, it went from a tap a day to a smack to a hard smack to a series of very hard smacks a few times a day, to the point where I had to hold the monitor with my left hand so that it wouldn't go flying across the desk. Now, as this progressed, the monitor would get somewhat wobbly for a few seconds after I was done beating the absolute living bejeezus out of it, at some point I had to start lifting it about an inch off the desk and dropping it, etc.
So here's the fun part. Apparently, at some point, the monitor got tired of my abuse and just started working. Flawlessly. Worked without an incident for about a year after that, until I had to get rid of it (was moving out of state and had too much stuff).
-goltrpoat
This is quite common. FFTW (Fastest Fourier Transform in the West) has large amounts of C code that are dumped out by an ML program. Closer to the original example, it's not uncommon to write tools that serialize stuff to XML (because, say, the types we care about already serialize to and from XML), and then use XSLT to go to HTML and publish the results on a local website. Most UI designer tools (.Net Forms editor in Visual Studio, various wxWidgets designer tools, etc) dump out source from a visual definition of the UI. Etc. -goltrpoat
The Wii itself is going to be helping the little guy. While we can expect a plethora of FPS and Lightsaber games (ohpleaseohpleaseohplease), the dev kit for the Wii is a mere $2000!
Trouble is, you won't be able to buy one (unless Nintendo is going way against the grain this time around). As a general rule of thumb, you can't buy a devkit if you're not a licensed developer for that console. You can't become a licensed developer for a console if you haven't shipped a game on that console. You can't ship a game on the console unless you have a devkit. The catch-22 is typically resolved by a publisher, or by having very good contacts, or by doing contract work on the console, thereby acquiring experience on it, or by convincing the console company that the members of your team have had experience with the console earlier in their career, and that this is enough to warrant developer status. The latter rarely works.
Basically, the console companies don't want to dilute their title lineup by letting everyone and their mother crank out crap games for it. In order to help ensure that this doesn't happen (whether or not this is a misguided way of going about it is a different story), they make it very difficult for an unproven team to get anywhere near a devkit.
-goltrpoat
As far as gamedev articles posted to Slashdot go, this one is the first one in years where the author actually has a clue what they're talking about. Many people in the industry have been making similar points for a couple of years now, myself included. One of the points ("increased risk means decreased creativity") has been valid much longer, and is the primary reason for the current consolidation trend -- big companies trying to hedge their bets and spread the risk amongst as many projects and studios as possible. This is inextricably tied to the following myth: throwing 200 monkeys on a project means it'll ship in 12 months. That's what [insert large company that shall remain unnamed] does, and it's a trend that will not suistain itself, simply because technology is evolving even faster than their employee turnover rate. In other words, grabbing fifteen senior monkeys out of 200 and making them implement global illumination is just not feasible, while the shop down the street with a team of 30 and five superstar programmers will have the tech. More importantly, the current state of the art is in enough flux that the production pipeline changes drastically as we progress; the word "designer" means a very different thing now than it did five years ago; the term "technical artist" is relatively new, etc. It's very difficult to implement those changes in a giant production team -- especially considering the sheer number of suits that a team of that size requires, and their reluctance to rock the boat.
Personally, I'm cautiously optimistic about this, in the sense that the industry is way past due for a major overhaul, and that won't happen until it's painfully obvious to everyone involved that the current model is not feasible.
-goltrpoat
There, fixed some typos for ya.
"An average apple tree nowadays holds enough fruit to fill several baskets, weaved in your local apple-centric basket-weavery, which are carried by human power, or simply loaded onto a truck. Particular to Golden Delicious afficionados, the announcement of new apple tree fertilizer means that future apple trees will laugh at the nominal apple load requirements of current baskets (e.g. hearth baskets, berry baskets, ribbed baskets, and gourds). Regardless of the negligible vitamin C per pound hit compared to oranges, major fruit farms, as well as a lot of freelance fruitpickers, prefer oranges for major baking projects even though apples are easier to bake a pie with, often have a shorter development time, and are just as powerful as citrus. What does the Slashdot community think of the current state of apples versus oranges? Is it time to jump in the boat of apples? Do pastry chefs feel that they are losing - an arguably needed - dose of vitamin C when they eat apples? What would we be losing besides lemon merengue?"