Is this like an American August 2nd, or a rest-of-the-world 8 February?
And no, I did not RTFA. Worried that the FBI would be tracking everybody who is even interested in this news.
Instead, blame the OS manufactures, and the owners of the bot-ridden machines. Seriously. It's your fault if you don't know enough about your car that you ignore the oil light and it seizes up on a highway.
Well, if an idiot ignores his oil light and ends up stranded on the highway, that is generally his problem. If an idiot allows a bot to run on his server, that becomes everybody's problem.
If technologies are no good, that's when only rich people have them. Successful technologies, everyone gets access to eventually
That seems like question begging. The popularity of a technology defines its success, not the other way around.
What developers see as iterative and flexible, users see as disorganized and never-ending
The danger, he cautions, is when Big Design becomes Big Commitment — as sometimes business sponsors see this plan as something that needs to be tracked against.
Anyone who expects predictability and tractability from what is fundamentally an uncertain project is going to be unhappy. But that is the sort of unhappiness that you can't really do much about.
Because gaming is not a sport no matter how you try and word it.
Maybe its art then?
But seriously, who cares? How does the word we use to describe the thing change the concept of it?
Baseball, and virtually all pro sports have audiences that pay to attend, advertising deals, television deals, and ongoing source of income. First Person Shooter games? Not so much.
You fail to understand your own logic. If there was no money coming into the system, there would be no money to pay the players with.
From an academic standpoint, food production outweighs entertainment.
Maybe that statement is generally true (although I do wonder why you consider academia to be the adjudicators of what is important), but we are not talking about an essential food resource here. We can feed the world without killing whales.
Developers can make more work for themselves by causing bugs, and with the specifications I write there is no excuse for not testing their code.
This hugely contradicts my experience. Although it may be possible to write specs that are so good, so coherent and incorporate so many edge case that any code realizing it *must* be bug-free, I have never seen it happen for any modestly complicated software project.
Software development is a continuous process (like gardening). If you are worried about bugs, then you must be pro-active about it. Tools like Sonar can give you valuable information about which parts of the code base are under-tested, overly complicated and require careful attention. Also, testing is a multi-level discipline - you can't get away with *only* unit testing, or *only* integration testing. If you want your code to be bug free, you need to invest a lot of time and effort in automating your different test strategies.
There is no guaranteed, affordable process for having bug-free code. You *will* end up with bugs, without requiring this to be attributable to someone's incompetence. You need to actively manage this.