To "code something up (using a lot of prints to debug)" means hacking, i.e. rigging software together with the emphasis of doing it as quickly as the intuition allows, at the expense of readability, reusability, reliability and ease of change.
Agile software development, in a nutshell, means acknowledging the fact that noone can really know what true final requirements for the eventual finished product are, so the idea is to start small and simple with a small feature set and gradually evolve into what the customer really wanted in the way of iterations - but at all times keeping the code tested, clean, readable, reusable and version controlled. It's about always having working version of the software, whose expected functionality can be demonstrated and verified with automatic tests, while using them to constantly refactor the code to better and clearer. It's about keeping the cost of changing the software low, while on the other hand, the cost of changing quickly hacked-together applications increases exponentially with complexity.
If the US blocks any web sites, the European governments should just block sites like Amazon or Ebay.
No, thank you.
If you read the negative comments here, you can easily spot the trend: "had high hopes, preordered the game, played for a month, it *sucked*, and even though I haven't touched it for a year I'm sure it still sucks (because I'll be damned if I give Funcom any money to try it again)".
At launch the game wasn't finished and complaints were grounded in reality. But the fact that Funcom has worked hard on the game for a year, fixing problems, adding content, rethinking bad design decisions and actually ended up with a polished, *genuinely good* MMORPG has gone completely unnoticed.
AOC's main problem isn't the game, but its public perception that was throughly ruined by the game's post-launch half-bakedness. If you ask newcomers who've just signed up to AOC about how they feel about it, they're usually having fun and are very much puzzled about the hate it's getting.
Funcom is facing a heck of a task battling people's existing prejudices in order to try and convince its 600,000 lost customers that they have indeed made the game playable and fun.
It's far cheaper for Microsoft to just give very, very big campaign contributions to Russian legislators.
You're a bit confused. Bribing the Russian legislators wouldn't do much good because they're not really holding much power.
The gent who wakes up and finds himself a success hasn't been asleep.