I'd rather not work with people who aren't careful. It's darwinism in software development.
Since when did sloppy software keep people from making lots of money? The market has consistently shown it usually values features over high-reliability/quality.
By some accounts Jack Tramiel eventually doomed himself when he took over Atari. Atari's suppliers wanted to renegotiate their contracts when Jack came on board because they had been so burned by Commodore that they didn't want any wiggle room in the new contracts.
I once contracted for a medium-small company that was under contract with Disney to supply services. Disney was a royal pain in the ass to this company in that they were super picky, but the company used them for bragging rights when attempting to sign on other companies. Eventually they dropped Disney when it was realized the bragging rights were not worth the abuse.
I bet he's going to make the Middle East stable...
The best way to deal with the M.E. is to bud out. Our tinkering has made it worse far more often than better. I wish the Office of the President was split into a domestic prez and a foreign policy prez.
I'd vote Ron Paul for foreign policy prez in the heartbeat. I just don't like his domestic plans.
C# - As a language, ignoring MS's platform-lockage API games, it seems to tick off the fewest. And one can use its brother, VB.Net, if they don't like the punctuation-heavy style and/or prefer type descriptors on the right of variable names.
If you master its "different" framework, perhaps you are right. But the problem is that the learning curve is too high. A master swordsman can probably beat a generic cop with a gun in a urban environment. However, it takes a heck of a lot of training to reach that point. Cops with guns are cheaper and easier to find and train.
Ruby will probably fail to go mainstream for the same reason Lisp has. It's wonderfully flexible in that it's almost a meta language that allows you to shape your "language" into just about any construct you want.
The downside is that everybody thinks different, and shaping a language to fit your head de-fits it for other heads. Standards are often preferred because they provide consistency between individuals and teams even when they don't perfectly fit a specific situation in terms of parsimony and compactness of expression.
The lesson of the market is that inter- and and intra-team communication trumps parsimony economically, in most cases.
The laws of probability suggest humanity is doomed, at least in our current form. We as human ponderers are roughly a sampling of the average human pondering their existence. About 60 billion humans have come before us, which suggests roughly just 60 billion will come after us since we are most likely to be in the middle of the pack rather than near the beginning or the end of the pack. (Roughly the Copernican principle as applied to human population density and time.)
If most of our future is to be Borg-like, then we'd more likely be Borgs contemplating our existence, not humans. But us (here now) being at such a coincidental position would be violating the Copernican principle. Either way, we are either doomed to end soon or become Borg-like, neither is a pleasant thought.
Of course coincidences do happen and we may indeed coincidentally be at the start of the human expansion curve; but if I were in Vegas, I wouldn't bet on it. We're doomed, guys.
Indeed. Fear and paranoia are often the main ingredients to colossal disasters.
USA's post-9/11 fears drove us to invade Iraq for no decent reason whatsoever, and create a power-vacuum that haunts us and the Middle East to this day. Saddam may have been a jerk, but he served to stabilize other jerks (Iran gov't, ISIS, etc.). We upset the Balance of Jerks (we lost Jerk Jenga).
"Let's throw Terminators at the problem. What can possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong..."
The main antenna folded similar to an umbrella when in launch packaging. It failed to open all the way, perhaps due to the lubricant hardening in storage caused by the launch backlog from the first shuttle disaster. A back-up omnidirectional antenna was used instead, which produced a usable signal of something roughly like 1/200 of the intended primary antenna.
Too bad Galileo had antenna problems. It could have taken far more snapshots from far more angles with less image compression. Overall it was a successful mission because it had other powerful instruments, but was light on the imaging side.
Then why not equally focus on removing barriers in other lucrative fields, including CEO, where females are underrepresented? Play the whole piano, not just the STEM key.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when did sloppy software keep people from making lots of money? The market has consistently shown it usually values features over high-reliability/quality.
When Jengo found out, he threw a fett.
By some accounts Jack Tramiel eventually doomed himself when he took over Atari. Atari's suppliers wanted to renegotiate their contracts when Jack came on board because they had been so burned by Commodore that they didn't want any wiggle room in the new contracts.
I once contracted for a medium-small company that was under contract with Disney to supply services. Disney was a royal pain in the ass to this company in that they were super picky, but the company used them for bragging rights when attempting to sign on other companies. Eventually they dropped Disney when it was realized the bragging rights were not worth the abuse.
The best way to deal with the M.E. is to bud out. Our tinkering has made it worse far more often than better. I wish the Office of the President was split into a domestic prez and a foreign policy prez.
I'd vote Ron Paul for foreign policy prez in the heartbeat. I just don't like his domestic plans.
It's what the next Duke Nukem will be written in.
Then name a language Cloud++ and it will fly off the shelves (even if it's a steaming mass of unicorn farts).
They just ask for 15 years of experience in R&R regardless....and get it (per claims).
Several coders once told me, "you gotta learn to lie better" when I was struggling to find a new gig. Dealing with HR is a game.
C# - As a language, ignoring MS's platform-lockage API games, it seems to tick off the fewest. And one can use its brother, VB.Net, if they don't like the punctuation-heavy style and/or prefer type descriptors on the right of variable names.
If you master its "different" framework, perhaps you are right. But the problem is that the learning curve is too high. A master swordsman can probably beat a generic cop with a gun in a urban environment. However, it takes a heck of a lot of training to reach that point. Cops with guns are cheaper and easier to find and train.
JavaScript is widespread because of "QWERTY syndrome". It's available everywhere simply because it's available everywhere...unfortunately.
(It's fine for light-duty "gluing and scripting", but people are trying to do OS-like things with it.)
Ruby will probably fail to go mainstream for the same reason Lisp has. It's wonderfully flexible in that it's almost a meta language that allows you to shape your "language" into just about any construct you want.
The downside is that everybody thinks different, and shaping a language to fit your head de-fits it for other heads. Standards are often preferred because they provide consistency between individuals and teams even when they don't perfectly fit a specific situation in terms of parsimony and compactness of expression.
The lesson of the market is that inter- and and intra-team communication trumps parsimony economically, in most cases.
But it's a bear to shut off
The laws of probability suggest humanity is doomed, at least in our current form. We as human ponderers are roughly a sampling of the average human pondering their existence. About 60 billion humans have come before us, which suggests roughly just 60 billion will come after us since we are most likely to be in the middle of the pack rather than near the beginning or the end of the pack. (Roughly the Copernican principle as applied to human population density and time.)
If most of our future is to be Borg-like, then we'd more likely be Borgs contemplating our existence, not humans. But us (here now) being at such a coincidental position would be violating the Copernican principle. Either way, we are either doomed to end soon or become Borg-like, neither is a pleasant thought.
Of course coincidences do happen and we may indeed coincidentally be at the start of the human expansion curve; but if I were in Vegas, I wouldn't bet on it. We're doomed, guys.
It's far cheaper to the beat the holy sh8t out of somebody rather than create these disease and aging simulators.
Indeed. Fear and paranoia are often the main ingredients to colossal disasters.
USA's post-9/11 fears drove us to invade Iraq for no decent reason whatsoever, and create a power-vacuum that haunts us and the Middle East to this day. Saddam may have been a jerk, but he served to stabilize other jerks (Iran gov't, ISIS, etc.). We upset the Balance of Jerks (we lost Jerk Jenga).
"Let's throw Terminators at the problem. What can possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong..."
...a Bill Cosby shirt [ducks head]
I assume you are jesting. It did have RTGs.
The main antenna folded similar to an umbrella when in launch packaging. It failed to open all the way, perhaps due to the lubricant hardening in storage caused by the launch backlog from the first shuttle disaster. A back-up omnidirectional antenna was used instead, which produced a usable signal of something roughly like 1/200 of the intended primary antenna.
Too bad Galileo had antenna problems. It could have taken far more snapshots from far more angles with less image compression. Overall it was a successful mission because it had other powerful instruments, but was light on the imaging side.
looks like a mammogram
IT is not special.
Yes, it's called "Googling for images". (You didn't say "original".)
Is it really "deceive" or just following the rules as written?
Timing is everything :-)
Then why not equally focus on removing barriers in other lucrative fields, including CEO, where females are underrepresented? Play the whole piano, not just the STEM key.