I completely agree with you.

What annoys me is how the term "hardcore" has been co-opted to imply violent and adult-themed content. The best way to add value to and glorify this type of content is to make it look more realistic, which necessitates more processing power. Therefore, more powerful consoles become associated with "hardcore" gaming, resulting in an army of inflated egos preaching the downfall of anything that won't improve the graphics of their favorite military shooter. It is a shame.

I meant to say "conversely", rather than "likewise".

Likewise, Asian-looking people who succeed will be preferred over others because employers will "know" that they are actually better educated.

The end result of this policy is a society where different ethnicities are held to different standards, which will only exacerbate the economic inequalities between light-skinned people and dark-skinned people. It addresses the symptom rather than the root cause (which seems pretty typical of how we North Americans deal with most of our problems).

It is terrible policy.

What the hell are you talking about? No racism is "okay".

I kinda wish that too, honestly, but it would probably mean losing market share to PCs as gamers (and developers) decide they want a better looking game. You'd pretty much need to stop advancement of game-oriented hardware, in all its forms, in order to make this happen.

I suppose it depends on what the developers are comparing. I've read the GPU is pretty well ahead of current console hardware, but the CPU is not. The power consumption should be lower as well, which won't make games look prettier, but might factor into the whole "how advanced the hardware is" issue. The statements have been so ambiguous, it's hard to tell...

Yup. Anyone mocking another's technology doesn't deserve to have their opinion on technology taken seriously. It may come as a strange and wonderful surprise to some, but different humans like different things.

I think it would be detrimental to society to have people specialize at such an early age. First, many excel at subjects that they were forced to repeat earlier in life. Second, even if the student never makes direct use of the knowledge, it provides them a better understanding of our society. Put another way: It's ok to suck at chemistry - it's not ok to not know what chemistry *is*.

I think people need to be more comfortable with failure (or lack of excellence, for that matter). There's really nothing wrong with not being great, just do what you like and try your best.

He wasn't arguing in favor of public investment. Don't know why you're in such a huff.

This single event doesn't indicate a failure of "capital markets" (as an idea). It does, however, indicate that the analysts and investors involved made a [huge] mistake. When taken into context of the last 10-15 years, I think it points to the general inability of analysts to provide accurate, or even remotely rational, valuation of tech firms. But hey, that's just me.

If you were reincarnated as a newborn today, with all of your current knowledge (but none of your money), what kind of career would you pursue down the line? Would you leverage your software skills in the same manner, or do something completely different?

Despite the current and past crappy rulings on this case...the first thing I think about is what kind of name is "Jammie" anyway? Is it pronounced like "Jaimie", or like some weird singular form of the slang for pajamas ("Ja-mee")? Either way, I wonder wtf is wrong with parents and naming these days. For me, this is a hard case to read about.

Care to back that up?

He who controls the beans...

I'm a less-than 30 year old developer. I've worked in organizations with 1:10 manager:dev ratio, sometimes higher. These managers did no coding whatsoever (some barely understood what we were doing), and spent their time inventing metrics, discussing/presenting these metrics, and making sure devs did the absolute minimum required to satisfy the customer because all they ever looked at were those metrics. While this may not apply to you, I can see where he's coming from. I now work for a company that has roughly a 1:70 ratio of manager:dev, and it's great. Devs participate in all levels of decision making, including the assignment of features/projects to younger devs, and oversight of their proteges. You could say that the managerial-level decision making is informally shared among the senior engineers. But they code just as much as I do. Coders are given independence and have ownership, and quality is their mandate. I hear Valve operates in a similar manner and their success mirrors our own. Ok maybe they are a bit more successful ;).

Good devs shouldn't stop coding unless they are bored with it. They should continue to work and be compensated according to their skill and experience. I feel a lot of firms have devalued experienced engineers to their peril. They dangle the $$ carrot in front of engineers who are at the top of their game, drawing them into an occupation where they no longer add demonstrable value to the company's products (again, not necessarily you), and then hire a newbie to fill the hole at the bottom rung. Worse, they farm out the work. The end result is invariably a crappier product.