aggronn

Edit:

I'm not trying to make a case either way, but I look at the color scheme, specific typography decisions, and other small things that would have taken a non-trivial amount of time to work on or think about (ie, more than 10 minutes of actual focus) and think to myself: "If that were me, I'd feel like I was just goofing off"

Get the information there. Make sure its nice and and usable. This does more than that though, which is great. I personally just would feel like I was wasting time and energy worrying about picking a color scheme when I had other work to be done.

Third thought: I appreciate the romantic justifications mentioned in the replies. I think they're fairly superficial, but they are romantic, and thats fine. I think the real difference here (and the root of the disagreement) has to do with why I associate this with 'waste of time'. There is obviously opportunity cost of doing this. I expect people most in favor of this stuff are salaried and not really concerned with opportunity cost. If I were salaried, I wouldn't feel like I was doing something wrong by doing this work because I'd do in in addition to my other work. I'd stay late and do it because I enjoyed doing it. I don't have that luxury where there isn't much opportunity cost because I'm paid by the hour. I don't work over-time. I'm not going to spend an extra hour at work one day to take care of this, so if its going to get done, its going to have to be prioritized over my other work. If picking colors (however important it is) is the most important thing on my to-do list, I have a problem.

TLDR: I'm paid by the hour. Thats probably why I feel this way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJcuQQ1eWWI

Its a very good talk, but applied video game AI as a field is kind of a let down.

This is entirely dependent on opportunity cost--ie, whats their take-home pay, and whats the real commitment?

The classic desktop environment is windows 8 style. Apps that are not developed for it, certainly are not Windows 8 style.

This is rife with things that either aren't true or are bad assumptions. Doctors don't carefully research what computer they get because they're smart. You could easily make the argument that they don't specifically because they were rich or because they value their time a lot. Additionally (and this is all out of order), this is not the first time that apple has done commercials appealing to non-tech savvy users. They have almost never tried to appeal to tech savvy users. I would argue that the only reason they're on the radar for tech savvy users is because they coincidentally are unix based.

I meant to suggest that that made it even less significant. The information is already widely disseminated across multiple platforms because its public information. Sure, everyone knows that CL is the original source for the information, but that doesn't meant that only people they say can have the information should have the information. Its public, broadcasted information.

Sure, they can put something on their website along the lines of "You're not allowed to distribute this information", but why does that have any weight if they don't own the information?

In what way is it "their data" if they release it to the public? The law is pretty clear about this--facts can't be copyrighted. They don't own the facts. They don't own the bits that padmapper is referencing. All they own is the db records for the posts that originated the information.

Imagine if they had a CL user meetup in public somewhere, and then they charged users to use a megaphone to announce that they were selling something. Someone writes down the information and has their own meetup for people who couldn't make it to the free, public CL meetup. Whats the difference between that and what padmapper is doing, except that padmapper is getting the information second hand?

If CL thinks they have a right to their data, they should be suing google should they?

I just don't see how someone can say this if they've used windows 8 for any amount of time. I'm never in metro. I don't get it. I don't have any touch devices, and I wouldn't even know that that was an option except for the advertising.

> Microsoft is all-in with this tile-based version of Windows. Even their logo has changed to reflect that. So businesses who don't want to stay on Windows 7 forever, should take into account alternatives.

There is a usability consideration because of interface changes--if the only thing keeping you with windows is the interface, then this makes sense. If a company needs software to work on a platform they're generally familiar with and have support in place for, they're not going to seriously consider switching from windows by the time windows 9 comes around.

You're second point is pretty good though.

Australia may be the exception to the rule, though I doubt that a quarter of Australian CS majors go on to work somewhere using python, rails, or PHP. A good number probably go to java, a compiled language, or iOS dev, but if they're going into web, i'd be hard pressed to believe that a majority aren't going into an ASP.NET operation.

Claiming that most developers under 30 don't use microsoft platforms is just pish-posh. They just don't learn it in class, and don't do it in their free time. That doesn't mean their first job isn't going to be a DB analyst on some 10 year old VB.net application.

In particular, read the comments by Craig himself. Funny how these things change.