Watch, it'll become immune to radiation. Now THAT's a scary bug.
Re:Beware of overusing patterns.
on
Design Patterns
·
· Score: 2
I have always viewed design patterns to be something that are used during the planning phase of a project. (Emphasis added.)
Design and planning are partners in crime. Trying to use design patterns "as an afterthought to implementation" is a really bad idea.
I really laughed when I read your post, because I imagined another book, "Kludge Patterns." When you're well past the design phase on your application, and the damned thing doesn't work, abandon Design Patterns and riffle through the pages of Kludge Patterns looking for some clever hack that can save the day... =)
It's also St. Crispin's Day! The day made famous by Shakespeare's Henry V.
WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here But one ten thousand of those men in England That do no work to-day!
KING. What's he that wishes so? My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin. If we are mark'd to die, we are enow To do our country loss; and if to live, The fewer men, the greater share of honour. God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more. By Jove, I am not covetous for gold, Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost; It yearns me not if men my garments wear; Such outward things dwell not in my desires; But if it be a sin to covet honour, I am the most offending soul alive. No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England. God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour As one man more, methinks, would share from me For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more! Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host, That he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart. His passport shall be made, And crowns for convoy put into his purse. We would not die in that man's company That fears his fellowship to die with us. This day is call'd the feast of Crispian. He that outlives this day, and comes safe home, Will stand a tip-toe when this day is named, And rouse him at the name of Crispian. He that shall live this day, and see old age, Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours, And say, "To-morrow is Saint Crispian." Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars, And say, "These wounds I had on Crispian's day." Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages What feats he did that day. Then shall our names, Familiar in his mouth as household words, Harry the King, Bedford, and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester, Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red. This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by, From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remembered, We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition; And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
how many rewrites do most people expect from their CDRW media
Zero. Actually, I find that CDRW are actually CDW. I can write to them, but I never expect to be able to read back from them. I've tried on dozens of CDRW drives, and I've never had luck archiving for a month or more on CDRW. Sure, "most" of the time it works - but it falls far short of my expected success ratios.
I've learned not to trust CDRW. I always use CDR instead.
Frink: Well, it should be obvious to even the most dim-witted individual who holds an advanced degree in hyperbolic topology, n'gee, that Homer Simpson has stumbled into...[the lights go off] the third dimension.
Lisa: [turning the lights back on] Sorry.
Frink: [drawing on a blackboard] Here is an ordinary square --
Wiggum: Whoa, whoa -- slow down, egghead!
Frink: -- but suppose we extend the square beyond the two dimensions of our universe - along the hypothetical Z axis, there.
Everyone: [gasps]
Frink: This forms a three-dimensional object known as a "cube", or a "Frinkahedron" in honor of its discoverer, n'hey, n'hey.
I believe that I only ever really type with about six fingers : left index, left thumb only for Control and Alt, right index, right middle, right ring only for Enter and Shift, right thumb on Space.
Left middle will get used for typing Alt-F4, right ring gets used for typing Shift-number combos, left pinky does hit Control for Control-Alt-Delete, and I do use ALL of my fingers (except for right pinky), when I play Quake III.
I do not hunt and peck. I know exactly where all of the keys are (I don't look at the keyboard, except for maybe Shift-Number combos), and I get tremendously high scores on typing tests - I'm in the very high range on speed, and I'm quite good on accuracy - especially when coding. (Unfortunately, I'm a horrible speller.)
I guess that's what happens when you learn to type on a mini keyboard like the TRS-80 MC-12 Micro Color Computer. You don't have the "real" tacticile feedback that a keyboard is supposed to give you - it's more like trying to type on a TI-85 calculator, but the keys were at least in the proper locations - not alphabetical. *shudder* Cursed for life. I'll be typing this way for ever.
I've tried to learn to touch type, with my fingers in the proper locations, but my left hand really, honestly does better getting to roam all over the keyboard, and pecking away with my left index finer.
I made an experiment of myself, trying to go from "four-finger typing" to proper touch typing on Dvorak. I had some success, but I really, really didn't like the Dvorak layout for coding. It was fine for English, but bad for typing code - at least for me.
By the way, if I type on ANYTHING but a Microsoft Natural Keyboard Pro, I get really pissed, really quick.
According to this, The Simpsons are going to be on Inside The Actor's Studio, on Nov. 18. How freaking cool is that?
James Lipton: Homer, what is your favorite curse word? Homer Simpson: D'oh!
Unfortunately, Nov. 18 is when they tape it, not when they broadcast it...
Re:ebay? (Re:3d for Business)
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 2
What you're describing requires true "3D". What this device does is much more like "2.5D" - two dimensional images, with a depth component. What I mean is that you won't be able to look *around* the product just by taking a stereo pair of photos of it.
Actually constructing a true 3D model of something from photographs alone is a much harder problem than merely presenting two images to a user who does the spatial integration in their head. Sure, there's work being done, but it's fairly primitive, very sensitive to noise, etc. It's not yet ready-for-primetime.
You obviously haven't listened to any new music. =)
Introduce enough falsified experiments, and you definitely will go backwards. My point is that there's normally a "best hypothesis" for any given phenomenon, or set of phenomena. One goal of science is to always improve understanding, by rejecting a hypothesis which is demonstrated incorrect by repeated experimentation - in favor of a hypothesis which does a better job of predicting the data. If enough bad experiments are reported, bad hypothesies may begin to be accepted over better ones. That's going backwards.
Granted, the old work still exists, but tricking people into accepting bad science definitely hurts. Especially if you're the sucker who bases your work on the bad hypothesis.
Science only has validity as long as it has credibility. We've gone for so long being able to implicitly trust "science" that it's hard to imagine a world where "science" had been so harmed that it was no longer trustworthy. It could happen. Sure, the scientific method will still remain and be valid, but the problem is that any given experiment normally incorporates at least SOME assumptions, and if those assumptions are based on bad science - it's hard to do good experiments.
Especially if some external agiency *cough*Catholic church*cough* gets to decide for society which hypothesies are "good" and which are "bad."
Also, music does not have a permanent lifetime. I defy you to locate a copy of the Goober and the Peas song, "Dear Grandpa." Therefore, it is possible for music to get worse, as good music can be lost, and bad music produced.
When a company cannot deliver the best product to the best price they don't get any income.... The big profit will go to the one making the best product at the best price. (emphasis added)
No, profits will go to anyone who figures out how to release a product that satisfies some customers. Your belief that you can somehow release the "best product" while simultaneously achieving the "best price" is silly. Generally, price goes up with quality, because there are costs associated with improving quality, and they get passed on to the consumer as increased price.
There's a curve that you're talking about - to get a higher quality product, you generally have to pay more. If products exist at different points along that curve, it is entirely possible for the companies that produce them to co-exist.
I could easily see ATI and nVidia fighting for a long time. Just as AMD and Intel. And Sony and Nintendo. And GM and Ford. And McDonalds and Burger King. Consumers win, in this scenario, because they're more likely to find a product that satisfies them - as long as there's no collusion.
I mean seriously - how hard could it be to write a filter which checks to see if the URLs in a story are identical to the URLs in a previous story? And if so, it at least WARNS the story poster (or submitter?) that what they're saying has already been posted on/.
Let me just go back, one more time, and point out how inaccurate and inconsistent your arguments are. This statement is inaccurate:
The code is the behavior its SUPPOSED to have.
For instance, if you code a bug, by your axiom, the buggy behavior is the behavior the code is SUPPOSED to have.
So, sometimes there is a need to distinguish between what code says (and literally does), and what it means (and what it's supposed to do). One truly excellent way to express that code has meaning beyond the actual text of the code is to comment it.
And here's an example of your inconsistency:
Inline Documentation is evil
And then you said:
I have been known to use TODO comments though and I agree that they are useful.
Maybe it's naive of me, but I guess I thought that "evil" and "useful" were complete opposites, in the framework of this discussion. Although, I guess I believe that Microsoft is evil and can be useful, so I guess I can't completely mock your opinion on this point. =)
Thanks for bringing boost::call_traits::param_type to my attention. I'll look into it.
Thanks. I wish we were all so lucky. =) I agree, there are situationa when anything beyond minimal documentation just gets in the way. Especially when an API is changing dramatically. *shrug*
Damnit. Why isn't there a magic bullet that fixes all problems?! =)
Or, better yet, how about if we just overload operator() on the class to make it into a functor, and overload it for every possible function - using new classes to specify the types of parameters.
Slashdot Mirror
Alright, I'll bite.
What differentiates "antibacterial soap" from "soap"?
I like antibiotic soap, too.
Comic Book Guy: Worst. Idea. Ever.
Watch, it'll become immune to radiation. Now THAT's a scary bug.
I have always viewed design patterns to be something that are used during the planning phase of a project. (Emphasis added.)
Design and planning are partners in crime. Trying to use design patterns "as an afterthought to implementation" is a really bad idea.
I really laughed when I read your post, because I imagined another book, "Kludge Patterns." When you're well past the design phase on your application, and the damned thing doesn't work, abandon Design Patterns and riffle through the pages of Kludge Patterns looking for some clever hack that can save the day... =)
"all kinds of things"
Can you name some others? I've always enjoyed thinking about doing computing in weird forms.
It's also St. Crispin's Day! The day made famous by Shakespeare's Henry V.
WESTMORELAND.
O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!
KING.
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin.
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires;
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart. His passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse.
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say, "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say, "These wounds I had on Crispian's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words,
Harry the King, Bedford, and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered,
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
how many rewrites do most people expect from their CDRW media
Zero. Actually, I find that CDRW are actually CDW. I can write to them, but I never expect to be able to read back from them. I've tried on dozens of CDRW drives, and I've never had luck archiving for a month or more on CDRW. Sure, "most" of the time it works - but it falls far short of my expected success ratios.
I've learned not to trust CDRW. I always use CDR instead.
76.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot by an idiot.
Frink: Well, it should be obvious to even the most dim-witted individual who holds an advanced degree in hyperbolic topology, n'gee, that Homer Simpson has stumbled into...[the lights go off] the third dimension.
Lisa: [turning the lights back on] Sorry.
Frink: [drawing on a blackboard] Here is an ordinary square --
Wiggum: Whoa, whoa -- slow down, egghead!
Frink: -- but suppose we extend the square beyond the two dimensions of our universe - along the hypothetical Z axis, there.
Everyone: [gasps]
Frink: This forms a three-dimensional object known as a "cube", or a "Frinkahedron" in honor of its discoverer, n'hey, n'hey.
And now, of course, it's time for the famous questionnaire invented by Bernard Pivot for Bouillon de Culture...
What is your favorite word?
What is your least favorite word?
What turns you on?
What turns you off?
What is your favorite curse word?
What sound or noise do you love?
What sound or noise do you hate?
What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
What profession would least like to attempt?
If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?
One Time Pad is current, secure, and well understood.
I believe that I only ever really type with about six fingers : left index, left thumb only for Control and Alt, right index, right middle, right ring only for Enter and Shift, right thumb on Space.
Left middle will get used for typing Alt-F4, right ring gets used for typing Shift-number combos, left pinky does hit Control for Control-Alt-Delete, and I do use ALL of my fingers (except for right pinky), when I play Quake III.
I do not hunt and peck. I know exactly where all of the keys are (I don't look at the keyboard, except for maybe Shift-Number combos), and I get tremendously high scores on typing tests - I'm in the very high range on speed, and I'm quite good on accuracy - especially when coding. (Unfortunately, I'm a horrible speller.)
I guess that's what happens when you learn to type on a mini keyboard like the TRS-80 MC-12 Micro Color Computer. You don't have the "real" tacticile feedback that a keyboard is supposed to give you - it's more like trying to type on a TI-85 calculator, but the keys were at least in the proper locations - not alphabetical. *shudder* Cursed for life. I'll be typing this way for ever.
I've tried to learn to touch type, with my fingers in the proper locations, but my left hand really, honestly does better getting to roam all over the keyboard, and pecking away with my left index finer.
I made an experiment of myself, trying to go from "four-finger typing" to proper touch typing on Dvorak. I had some success, but I really, really didn't like the Dvorak layout for coding. It was fine for English, but bad for typing code - at least for me.
By the way, if I type on ANYTHING but a Microsoft Natural Keyboard Pro, I get really pissed, really quick.
According to this, The Simpsons are going to be on Inside The Actor's Studio, on Nov. 18. How freaking cool is that?
James Lipton: Homer, what is your favorite curse word?
Homer Simpson: D'oh!
Unfortunately, Nov. 18 is when they tape it, not when they broadcast it...
What you're describing requires true "3D". What this device does is much more like "2.5D" - two dimensional images, with a depth component. What I mean is that you won't be able to look *around* the product just by taking a stereo pair of photos of it.
Actually constructing a true 3D model of something from photographs alone is a much harder problem than merely presenting two images to a user who does the spatial integration in their head. Sure, there's work being done, but it's fairly primitive, very sensitive to noise, etc. It's not yet ready-for-primetime.
Medical imaging.
You want the neurosurgeon to have a REAL GOOD idea of the spacial relationships of things in your brain before your skull gets cracked open.
You obviously haven't listened to any new music. =)
Introduce enough falsified experiments, and you definitely will go backwards. My point is that there's normally a "best hypothesis" for any given phenomenon, or set of phenomena. One goal of science is to always improve understanding, by rejecting a hypothesis which is demonstrated incorrect by repeated experimentation - in favor of a hypothesis which does a better job of predicting the data. If enough bad experiments are reported, bad hypothesies may begin to be accepted over better ones. That's going backwards.
Granted, the old work still exists, but tricking people into accepting bad science definitely hurts. Especially if you're the sucker who bases your work on the bad hypothesis.
Science only has validity as long as it has credibility. We've gone for so long being able to implicitly trust "science" that it's hard to imagine a world where "science" had been so harmed that it was no longer trustworthy. It could happen. Sure, the scientific method will still remain and be valid, but the problem is that any given experiment normally incorporates at least SOME assumptions, and if those assumptions are based on bad science - it's hard to do good experiments.
Especially if some external agiency *cough*Catholic church*cough* gets to decide for society which hypothesies are "good" and which are "bad."
Also, music does not have a permanent lifetime. I defy you to locate a copy of the Goober and the Peas song, "Dear Grandpa." Therefore, it is possible for music to get worse, as good music can be lost, and bad music produced.
When a company cannot deliver the best product to the best price they don't get any income. ... The big profit will go to the one making the best product at the best price. (emphasis added)
No, profits will go to anyone who figures out how to release a product that satisfies some customers. Your belief that you can somehow release the "best product" while simultaneously achieving the "best price" is silly. Generally, price goes up with quality, because there are costs associated with improving quality, and they get passed on to the consumer as increased price.
There's a curve that you're talking about - to get a higher quality product, you generally have to pay more. If products exist at different points along that curve, it is entirely possible for the companies that produce them to co-exist.
I could easily see ATI and nVidia fighting for a long time. Just as AMD and Intel. And Sony and Nintendo. And GM and Ford. And McDonalds and Burger King. Consumers win, in this scenario, because they're more likely to find a product that satisfies them - as long as there's no collusion.
His name is Christopher Reeve.
Everyone deals with grief in their own way.
Don't deny me mine.
If you want to move on, don't watch CNN right now. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to do your best to ignore our sorrow.
Ths s fntstc! Th mst dns mmry vr md!
Mb th hckrs knw smthng we dn't..
I mean seriously - how hard could it be to write a filter which checks to see if the URLs in a story are identical to the URLs in a previous story? And if so, it at least WARNS the story poster (or submitter?) that what they're saying has already been posted on /.
Let me just go back, one more time, and point out how inaccurate and inconsistent your arguments are. This statement is inaccurate:
The code is the behavior its SUPPOSED to have.
For instance, if you code a bug, by your axiom, the buggy behavior is the behavior the code is SUPPOSED to have.
So, sometimes there is a need to distinguish between what code says (and literally does), and what it means (and what it's supposed to do). One truly excellent way to express that code has meaning beyond the actual text of the code is to comment it.
And here's an example of your inconsistency:
Inline Documentation is evil
And then you said:
I have been known to use TODO comments though and I agree that they are useful.
Maybe it's naive of me, but I guess I thought that "evil" and "useful" were complete opposites, in the framework of this discussion. Although, I guess I believe that Microsoft is evil and can be useful, so I guess I can't completely mock your opinion on this point. =)
Thanks for bringing boost::call_traits::param_type to my attention. I'll look into it.
Thanks. I wish we were all so lucky. =) I agree, there are situationa when anything beyond minimal documentation just gets in the way. Especially when an API is changing dramatically. *shrug*
Damnit. Why isn't there a magic bullet that fixes all problems?! =)
Okay, let's call it "f".
Or, better yet, how about if we just overload operator() on the class to make it into a functor, and overload it for every possible function - using new classes to specify the types of parameters.
I think you're onto someting. *chuckle*
Actually, I back-peddled too far, in my original response to this message.
You're still naming the attribute you're looking for - you're just using a different mechanism to do it. (New classes instead of new functions.)
And, like I originally responded, functors are a better general mechanism.