This means that in the case of digital audio, half of the bits in each sample are allocated to the top decibel of loudness
Each additional bit adds 6.02dB of dynamic range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio#Fixed_point).
That's 6dB for one bit, not 1dB for half of the bits.
From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.
For me as an outsider (I'm Belgian), McCain actually seemed to try really hard to look like Bush Jr - which makes that statement look more like fact than mudslinging.
The fact that so many of you see it as negativity goes to show how much G.W. Bush ruined politics for those who believe in small government. I get the distinct feeling that McCain could have won the election if he hadn't been pandering so much to the NeoCon side all of a sudden. Of course, he wouldn't have made it through the primaries if he didn't. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
I was actually firmly on Obama's side until I saw a balanced documentary on the both of them, and now I understand why the race is close. McCain actually stood for something in his previous bid.
Still, getting a stable release out on the dot is a pretty interesting feat. Microsoft sure didn't manage it with Vista though they kept scrapping announced features.
I would think almost all ISPs *do* allow you to monitor your usage (I know Telenet in Belgium does), but either nobody bothers with it until they get warning e-mails that they're approaching the limit, or they are too clueless to find the monitor.
A particular implementation of DRM might work if it expands what you can legally do with your files (relative to the normal terms-of-service). For example temporarily transfer your license to a friend for a weekend, selling your license to someone else, creating mash-ups based on the licensed files, etc...
Of course that's still limited compared to a totally free unrestricted public domain file, but there just aren't that many of those around.
"Make surveillance invisible and people won't object to it!"
Still, the implementation details would be interesting. How quickly will this be broken? Probably before it ever gets popular.
That's great logic... Limit the exploitation of the fault to the people that put the fault there in the first place, but lets not let the other team know about it!
If this information comes out after the election and it does turn out there was a really simple-to-exploit flaw, it should void the results of all these machines.
I'm not holding my breath for that though (and why would I, it's none of *my* business, I'm not an American citizen.)
My Vista Home Basic 64-bit is usable as soon as the desktop actually appears. Might be that all the add-on crap to persuade people that they need Vista Ultra Super Duper Special Racing Stripe Edition with Extra Cheese is slowing it down?
Note: it booted even faster before the first driver updates:-/. I'm sure it will be dog-slow by the time application compatibility catches up enough with 64-bit.
That system is still vulnerable to a vote invalidation technique. You don't have to generate extra votes for YOUR guy, just destroy more votes of the other guy by punching extra holes in them during counting.
First, you write tests first, based on clear user stories.
Which is cute, except that a lot of real world software development doesn't fall into neat little boxes like that. You can test examples, but you can't test every possible document a user might type into your word processor, every possible data set you might collect with a scientific instrument, every possible configuration designed in a CAD application, or every possible state of a game world in a MMORPG.
That's only partially true. Unit Tests are not black-box tests, they are written by the developers ideally before the actual code is written, and they ideally exercise most if not all of the special cases of the code. To use the document analogy: you won't test every document (QA can't do that either), but you will test all "classes" of documents that are actually different to the handling code.
Depending on the complexity of the system that can still be impossible. TDD evangelists might claim that this means the system is badly designed and should be broken up into pieces that *are* testable. I personally do not have enough experience with TDD to subscribe to this point of view - it seems to me that sometimes you have to do something that's simply too hard to predict or test accurately (uncontrolled hardware, random input, multithreading..).
Still, putting together a set of 100% covered and tested blocks of code will give rise to a whole new set of untested behaviours, and stuff will still break.
You know, performance isn't the only consideration, and not even the main consideration. Confusing the living daylights out of other programmers by writing something that's twice as complex as the obvious solution is not good. Especially if it is for no real gain other than not wanting to bother to figure out why your design is so wrong that you're having to use exceptions to control flow.
So there's one item in there that you might disagree with, and that makes it "horrifically outdated"?
Err. No.
It's still one of the best non-technical starter books for developers to know what the true spirit of software development is. Like another reply says: every book is likely to have something you disagree with. Many times the items you disagree with are the most interesting ones, because they may contain wisdom you have not previously considered.
Slashdot Mirror
This means that in the case of digital audio, half of the bits in each sample are allocated to the top decibel of loudness
Each additional bit adds 6.02dB of dynamic range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio#Fixed_point).
That's 6dB for one bit, not 1dB for half of the bits.
From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.
For me as an outsider (I'm Belgian), McCain actually seemed to try really hard to look like Bush Jr - which makes that statement look more like fact than mudslinging.
The fact that so many of you see it as negativity goes to show how much G.W. Bush ruined politics for those who believe in small government. I get the distinct feeling that McCain could have won the election if he hadn't been pandering so much to the NeoCon side all of a sudden. Of course, he wouldn't have made it through the primaries if he didn't. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
I was actually firmly on Obama's side until I saw a balanced documentary on the both of them, and now I understand why the race is close. McCain actually stood for something in his previous bid.
Still, getting a stable release out on the dot is a pretty interesting feat. Microsoft sure didn't manage it with Vista though they kept scrapping announced features.
Just imagine how much it would sell if it reassuringly said "Don't Panic!" in large blocky lettering on the front!
I would think almost all ISPs *do* allow you to monitor your usage (I know Telenet in Belgium does), but either nobody bothers with it until they get warning e-mails that they're approaching the limit, or they are too clueless to find the monitor.
Then they should just run a Eurofighter on a runway trying not to take off... Just as much a "car" as this thing.
A particular implementation of DRM might work if it expands what you can legally do with your files (relative to the normal terms-of-service). For example temporarily transfer your license to a friend for a weekend, selling your license to someone else, creating mash-ups based on the licensed files, etc...
Of course that's still limited compared to a totally free unrestricted public domain file, but there just aren't that many of those around.
ROT-26: TWICE as good as ROT-13!
"Make surveillance invisible and people won't object to it!"
Still, the implementation details would be interesting. How quickly will this be broken? Probably before it ever gets popular.
Just like locked doors are annoying as hell to legitimate visitors.
Genuine Advantage? (FireFox now has a genuine advantage over IE7)
Genetic Algorithm? (They are interbreeding the best FireFoxes?
That's pretty cool - mod parent informative please. TrueCrypt goes even further than my suggestion allowing an entire decoy OS.
Just have two keys. The real key, and a key that when used de-scrambles all the data as 18th century political tracts.
Hand out the second one.
I'm holding off for the Ultimate Edition of that. Though that will probably be renamed Penultimate Edition when Windows 8 comes out.
"We were going to calculate the spin-up with our laptops, but the DHS confiscated them."
Good idea. Let's ban cars!
;-)
What, you mean you've never been tempted to show off while driving your car?
Liar!
That's great logic... Limit the exploitation of the fault to the people that put the fault there in the first place, but lets not let the other team know about it!
If this information comes out after the election and it does turn out there was a really simple-to-exploit flaw, it should void the results of all these machines.
I'm not holding my breath for that though (and why would I, it's none of *my* business, I'm not an American citizen.)
My Vista Home Basic 64-bit is usable as soon as the desktop actually appears. Might be that all the add-on crap to persuade people that they need Vista Ultra Super Duper Special Racing Stripe Edition with Extra Cheese is slowing it down? :-/. I'm sure it will be dog-slow by the time application compatibility catches up enough with 64-bit.
Note: it booted even faster before the first driver updates
That system is still vulnerable to a vote invalidation technique. You don't have to generate extra votes for YOUR guy, just destroy more votes of the other guy by punching extra holes in them during counting.
Because the next guy is level 72 and I'm only 71 and we just can't have that! ;-)
First, you write tests first, based on clear user stories.
Which is cute, except that a lot of real world software development doesn't fall into neat little boxes like that. You can test examples, but you can't test every possible document a user might type into your word processor, every possible data set you might collect with a scientific instrument, every possible configuration designed in a CAD application, or every possible state of a game world in a MMORPG.
That's only partially true. Unit Tests are not black-box tests, they are written by the developers ideally before the actual code is written, and they ideally exercise most if not all of the special cases of the code. To use the document analogy: you won't test every document (QA can't do that either), but you will test all "classes" of documents that are actually different to the handling code.
Depending on the complexity of the system that can still be impossible. TDD evangelists might claim that this means the system is badly designed and should be broken up into pieces that *are* testable. I personally do not have enough experience with TDD to subscribe to this point of view - it seems to me that sometimes you have to do something that's simply too hard to predict or test accurately (uncontrolled hardware, random input, multithreading..).
Still, putting together a set of 100% covered and tested blocks of code will give rise to a whole new set of untested behaviours, and stuff will still break.
SILENCE! I kill you.
You know, performance isn't the only consideration, and not even the main consideration. Confusing the living daylights out of other programmers by writing something that's twice as complex as the obvious solution is not good. Especially if it is for no real gain other than not wanting to bother to figure out why your design is so wrong that you're having to use exceptions to control flow.
So there's one item in there that you might disagree with, and that makes it "horrifically outdated"?
Err. No.
It's still one of the best non-technical starter books for developers to know what the true spirit of software development is. Like another reply says: every book is likely to have something you disagree with. Many times the items you disagree with are the most interesting ones, because they may contain wisdom you have not previously considered.