I'm sorry I wasted so much of your time and mine. I should have simply responded to your first post with this.
I don't think looking ahead to a future where this will require additional electrical code is "FUD". I'm sorry you don't see it that way. Let's say they did have a deliverable, and failed to consider installation issues until that day. Now *that* would be an "end run around reality". Anybody bringing product to market should definitely be considering how it will fit in the regulatory regime.
And while we're on the subject of products that haven't hit the market yet; that's a much more obvious criticism here. The Slashdot community of "ass holes" or whatever it was you said is skeptical because we've seen A LOT OF PROMISES THAT DIDN'T PAN OUT from companies that said they had some new PV tech. Remember a little company called Solyndra?
Anyway, I'm kinda done for the night. I have a late-night Illuminati disinterment meeting at the local grave yard. It'll be a long night, then I've gotta get up, recover from the blood hangover and get to the office in time to review the kitten-killing report. Damn that report. I hope they put the proper cover-sheet on it this time.
Nerd fight! Nerd fight! Oh wait, I'm a participant. Would a disinterested 3rd party please mock us by shouting "Nerd fight! Nerd fight!"?
Sorry but I think this is just another example of how the Internet is a flawed communication medium. I can't imagine that it would be like this at a cocktail party.
I mean, try to imagine me with a beer in my hand saying, "Won't there be code compliance issues, since you're trying to route power around window frames?" and you immediately throwing down your martini and shouting "Industry Shill" before anybody has a chance to say, "chill out dude, He's just a programmer".
Dude, switch to a different strain or just toke once next time. The medical stuff is not like the ditch weed you smoked in high school.
If I had grey windows, I'd get less heat from open blinds in the Winter. I'd have to burn more gas.
That said, tinted windows on office building are already the norm so it could work in that setting. It all comes down to cost. Also, what kind of innovative code compliance will you need for wiring from every window?
He has Google, FaceBook and Twitter on his list. In those three cases the product is You.
I had millions of "KILL YOUR SMARTPHONE" bumper stickers ready to ship. Now what?
Microsoft's brain-dead default of "hide file extensions" is cited in the article as part of the social engineering aspect that gets users to click on the files. It's the gift that keeps on giving... to black hats.
Hiding the file extension does NOTHING to make things easier on the user or make the UI any cleaner. It's not like we have 40 column displays where the file extension is "too long" and going to take away "screen real estate".
This has been going on literally for DECADES NOW. How can Microsoft be so blind? Whenever I get a new Windows box, it's the first thing I disable because if I don't, I'll just end up creating files with names like, "DailyLog.txt.txt".
Whoever is at MS, insisting that this remain the default needs to be hauled out, shot, drawn, quartered, and the pieces sent to be displayed in the lobbies of their 4 largest offices.
The maintainability requirement ultimately flows from the "one rule" as well. It's not as urgent as "runs without crashing every five minutes" but it's a valid concern. If everything goes well the company grows organically, turns the corner, and Chuck's code is gradually superseded by the process weenies that come in when the company gets large.
If you hold on to unmaintainable code too long, it will be impossible to add features, maintain performance, port to new systems or do things that customers want and need.
So I agree that it's important; but not that it needs to be its own rule. If you go on a witch-hunt for Chuck before he is "in season" you'll bag Chuck but the customer will get away.
The aspects you look for in code are as follows:
The list can be reduced to:
1. Does it serve the users well.
Note that I have not said, "does it do what the users asked for" or "what the user wants". Users may make requests that fall short of what is possible, or are impossible, or will not be workable in the long run. Part of your organization's job is to let the user know what will work. Part of your job is also to surprise the users in a pleasant way. Pleasant surprises are "oh wow, we can use keyboard shortcuts for that now" as opposed to "we re-arranged the UI and added dancing bears because everybody is doing that now".
Anyway, I digress. It all reduces to the one rule cited.
For the next rev, they need a way to keep crypto-currency within an exchange rate band. The band could be a basket of currencies, commodities, etc. The currency needs to float *some* but not too much. That seems challenging since we're talking about pulling in data that's external to the protocol; but it's a real problem. Real functioning currencies have to be a more reliable store of value. Central banks are criticized these days for trashing their currencies; but they also have the ability to defend their currencies against attacks like this, peg them to other currencies and/or commodities, etc.
To Congress, make haste!
That's one problem. The other problem is the inevitably compromised "internet of things" that allows regular old criminals to pull up a list of "hot targets". They'll have a nice little map that shows them the optimal route to drive by houses where people aren't at home, and where their consumption of items from certain stores makes it a juicy target. Regular criminals won't have access to this technology of course. Just like any other business, the 1%er organized criminals will squeeze out Mom n Pop.
Arguably this goes for anything on TV; but I found myself keeping it particularly in mind while watching the NSA segment. You have to watch it thinking, "How much of this will later be revealed as a lie?".
I bet a lot of people took that approach. It's called "credibility" and the NSA has lost it. They can't get it back with one dog and pony show. At least... you shouldn't let them get it back that easily.
I *did* take a look at the Angry Birds example. I skipped over the parts that I got right away, skimming the whole thing in about five minutes. Here's my take on it.
It's a lot like working with a GUI builder. When they started coming out with tools that let us position buttons and other elements on dialog boxes, it was a godsend. If you looked at the code that MSVC++ spat out, you'd see things like, INPUT(59,545,20) or some such, which would have been tedious to do with compile, view, edit... cycles. Tools like that save programmer hours of tedium.
The Angry Birds example does that with logic, which is less tedious than positioning elements on a dialog box, so that seems less useful to an experienced programmer.
I would tend to agree that using a GUI builder is not programming; but this leads us to something. If you can do programming with something as easy to use as a GUI builder, then why program at all? I don't know anybody who gets upset with people who prefer to use a GUI builder as opposed to typing in pixel coordinates by hand. There may come a day when more programming, even logic programming is dominated by tools that resemble GUI builders.
We should always retain the ability to go under the hood; but honestly, I've never had a buggy GUI builder where I had to edit the coordinates by hand. I haven't done assembly from C. Ever. Other people do though, at least the latter. I don't feel like not doing assembly from C disqualifies me as a "real programmer". As the tools become more advanced, the bar for "real programmer" gets lower.
It's just that right now, no serious developers are using GUI builder style interfaces for logic. Twenty years from now, it might be the norm.