That's interesting. I was thinking that I could learn some JavaScript from it, all that neat drag & drop and item placement stuff. Turned out that it uses Yahoo UI library for all the essential stuff, leaving only the actual game engine for the creator.
http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/
The YUI library is available under BSD license. Most probably worth to check out (especially for a JS newbie like me).
I agree with you, but the point is damn well hidden behind one of the crappiest analogies of all time: using duct tape is an indication that you're great engineer - but only if you are one of the naturally talented "pretty boys" who know what they're doing.
It is not an attack towards person. It simply points that a guy selling bug tracking system makes his living from people having bugs in their software.
That's not too accurately summarized. In the linked text they promise to not sue individuals participating noncommercial open source development related to certain covered techologies, which are protocols, languages, file formats and standards. A huge amount of stuff, both technologies and contexts, is left outside the pledge.
Thanks for linking, though; I never bothered to familiarize myself with this before.
I suggest an alternative title for this post: "Some Perl Developers Care About Backwards Compatibility (While Some Don't Give A Hoot And Others Just Try To Keep Up With Conflicting Needs)".
I thought I wasn't clear enough about that part, and so it seems. So I'll clarify.
Earlier, when I was learning to play guitar, I really really wanted to become a good guitar player. So, I spent countless hours to practice, but I wasn't advancing that much. And all the time I knew what the problem was, although I didn't admit it to myself.
It did not come from the heart.
I thought that it is only a matter of decision, and a matter of how much time and effort I put into it. But at the end it is a matter of motivation, and as you all know, motivation is not something you just pick and choose; it is something you look for, but you cannot force it. My motivation for playing guitar was shallow, but I tried not to face it, because becoming a good guitarist would have been so cool.
Eventually I started to hate it, gave up and got rid of the whole instrument.
Only years later I got a new "bite" to the hobby, and this time I was wise enough to admit that I am not willing to practice hard to become a good player - and never have been.
Instead, I just warmed up the old stuff, and started inventing my own music. Composing. Just trying out things, seeking for something that sounds good and then developing on that. Nothing too complicated or special. And boy, have I enjoyed playing guitar since then! I don't push a schedule, I don't push any targets, I just play exactly how I feel like and when I like. And time to time I feel like learning something new, borrow a couple of music books and have a sprint of actually practicing on something. But only as far as I find enjoyment in learning itself.
So, that is what I mean that I would have all the time I wanted, but I just don't (want). Anything more than I currently happen to put on it, would be waste of my time because I wouldn't enjoy it.
Well, I find it insulting when somebody comes and tells people how they should enjoy their music.
I think your comment pretty much validates my image about the people who think they are better in listening to music than others. What has abstract thought to do with music history anyway? I am a software designer, and I truely appreciate useful abstractions that make creating good software a bit easier. But for music, I don't give a damn about the intentions of the composer or the history of the musical style of the composition, if I don't like it or the way how it is performed. Just like the users of my software don't care the slightest bit of how well-crafted the thing is, if it doesn't do what they want. I rather sit down to listen through the music I like 50 times to learn all its twists and turns than to waste my time on something I genuinely couldn't care less.
And how do I tell the music I like from the music I don't? The music I truely like gives me shivers, physically, the first time I hear it. That is the music that gives me joy when I listen to it. That is the experience I hope to get from music every now and then. And that really does not happen too often.
I play guitar as a hobby, and mostly suck at it. That's because I don't have the drive to really study hard and learn it properly. (And probably I don't have that much talent, either.) I would have all the time if I wanted, but I don't, because I want to enjoy playing music - not to have it as yet another burden to bear. So I go and learn new stuff only when I feel I need some new kick to maintain the interest in it.
And this is what I want to say: go and learn, but above all, find enjoyment. Life is short, and everything has its price - so don't waste your (free) time on anything you don't find personally rewarding. Studying music is waste of time - unless you happen to enjoy studying music! ;)
Where did you learn that? To me, art is about experiencing things, not "conversation". Art mostly just sits there to be seen or heard, and it will not care about my saying or thinking. Art may "talk" to me, but I can't talk to art.
To your language analogy: what if I invent a language of my own and try to use it anywhere, how much the failure of communication is divided between me and the receivers? Many times "art" seems to be exactly this. It's not "Korean", it's just some gibberish the artist came up with.
I flipped my monitor at work to 1200 x 1920. Excellent for almost everything, except working with some dusty old collaboration tool which has problems with flexibility.
Many of the commenters here seem not to understand the setup: when a bullying "relationship" has been established, it already has become a difficult issue.
Standing up against a bully works - but only when it is a fair show of balance of power. Let it be sophisticated or vulgar. If this doesn't happen very soon after supposed bullying starts, it is probably not going to happen. And if the resistance works, where is the bullying here?
It can be observed that even in this flow of comments it is not seen that a shy kid is entitled to life without bullying. By not cutting off the bullying, you're raising the shy kid into accepting that yeah, he truely is a victim, and nothing can be done. It's a jungle, live with it. "Civilization" is just a word, "justice" is a joke, and "human rights" just an invention of a twisted mind. The only way left to put things back in balance for a tormented kid is by getting a gun and showing everybody the exact reason why everybody should have some kind of elementary respect to each other.
People, kids, do have different temperaments. The mind is not tabula rasa. You can't tell a shy kid "stand up and show them" and expect it to happen or have any effect.
It is completely useless to offer solutions which apply only to those who don't really have problems.
Kids are really good at low-level social dynamics. They know the balance and go with the flow. That's how bullying often is so successful. For a bully, only limiting factors are fear of punishment and disapproval by peers.
If making bullying a legal case is the only way left to proceed, any parent should just go ahead, and take it as far as necessary. Sometimes it's just the school administration who need a kick in their collective ass to actually do something about it. At the far end, it's the bully himself who is in need of that kick.
You are assuming that somebody wants to make things out of proportion. Is it out of proportion, for example, to call police if your kid has been beaten or robbed on the way home? You can't be seriously claiming that to protect the fragile worldview of the thugs/thieves you should sacrifice the one of the victim?
I don't believe that to be the case. Our temperaments are quite hard-wired in our brains.
IMO a better approach is to:
- honestly learn about oneself, including the sides one or others might deem negative
- accept oneself as such
- learn to balance things in life so that one's personality fits best amongst them
This way for example an intravert person can push their "outgoing side" a bit when it's needed, charging their batteries while that's not necessary, and make most of their lives doing something where solitary is a benefit.
When the everyday experience is positive, the personality tends to shift towards positive. But that is not because of telling oneself "I can do it, I can do it" but because of the daily experience simply indicates success.
Another example might be a person who wants to start a business. While one might benefit by "just doing it" and smashing obstacles one by one, another one might benefit most by making a careful study before doing the "move". Neither of these persons probably don't perform optimally (who of us does?), since the first one doesn't think enough before acting, and the other thinks too far. But for both of them, their approach is the most benefical, since in both cases their confidence to what they are doing rises the most, and on a realistic basis.
Is this really worth an article? iPhone app developers must feel helpless in the face of this new, uncontrollable twist in the history of software development!
I believe that most of the developers have had to take this kind of thing into account at some point of their careers before.