I tend to get very angry, but it doesn't change my personality.
That doesn't compute. It has changed your personality, albeit temporarily. You argue that your personality is an immutable property of your brain alone, but I don't think that there is any evidence for this at all. Your personality, observable to others only through your behaviour of course, is a property of the sum of your brain and all the chemicals floating around in it. Not all these chemicals are manufactured in the brain.
An AC below mentions also the sympathetic nervous system, another non-cranial input into your personality.
Put it this way, I bet your personality would change if your head were transplanted, mars-attacks-style, onto a small yappy dog.
Unfortunately I and I suspect most here are in the camp of understanding *code*(especially if its well designed) over a *formal specification*, and had a working implementation.
Well I'm certainly not. Documentation is invaluable. You know what we don't need? More re-implementations / re-imaginings of existing things (protocols, new languages, etc etc). You know what we do need? More and better documentation - and possibly better tools too.
Also I don't understand your use of the term 'Unfortunately' here. Are you saying that your position here is unfortunate? And if so, why don't you change your position? Or are you saying that it's unfortunate for those that do think documentation is a good idea, in which case I agree with you.
Why is it ok to be extremely rude on the internet, but not ok to react to the extreme rudeness by deleting people's comments?
It takes a certain amount of maturity to express differing opinions on a public and largely anonymous forum in a constructive and polite matter, but I think that maturity should be expected - and people who fail to show it should be censured appropriately. Having your comments removed from someone's personal blog because they are rude and immature is perfectly acceptable.
I noticed at least one person in the linked comments owning up to their rudeness and apologising. That is the short of behaviour that should be encouraged, not the development of a 'thick skin'.
if your database does not have the capability to make changes to single fields, you're doing it wrong (TM).
I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is a technical reason that people's gender's can't be changed in individual databases. But I bet there's plenty of databases where the gender field is either 'M' or 'F' - with no other value allowed. In addition I bet there are plenty of front ends to databases that don't allow such fields to be changed, probably to help avoid mistakes in data entry in other fields.
Granted I didn't bother reading TFA,
Oh, I see.
The problem is not about gender and the trouble they go through,
Actually, I think it is. For the purposes of databases, why do we need to know what gender people are? If we're going to have relativley large numbers of people for whom the common categories of male and female don't work, I don't image that we're going to find any finite categorisation scheme that will work for everyone. So rather than design a technical solution to this, maybe we should just stop asking? From the point of view of (say) the drivers licence database, why does it matter whether I am a boy or a girl? You have my picture, my age, my full name, my address, my social security number (I assume, we don't have those over here) etc. Isn't that enough?
If I remember correctly, you could get some pretty terrible VCR's back in the day. I acquired, and used until the kids filled it up with sandwihches, a really nice Sony VCR that worked fantastically. Great freeze frame, frame advance, slow motion, all that. But my folks, for whatever reason, were always happy with the cheapest and nastiest players they could find. They made awful plastic grinding noises upon inserting a table, and generally died after about a year - usually taking whatever tape was inside them at the time with them.
DVD players, on the other hand, even the cheapest of the cheap, generally worked pretty well. Even if the lifetime of the really cheap ones wasn't all that much better than the lifetime of the cheap VCRs.
It's amazing what was inside those VCRs, just from a mechanical engineering point of view. SO complicated, so many oddly shaped moving bits of silicone-lubricated plastic. It's amazing they worked at all.
It's the quite-cleverly-named equivalent of explorer.
You see, with the "Finder" you find things, whereas with "Explorer" you have no fucking idea where you are - and you're just exploring.
It's pretty limited in some respects compared to explorer, but in other respects it's much nicer. Also in common with explorer it looks after drawing the desktop and handling the dock (the equivalent of the taskbar in windows).
And again in common with Explorer it will occasionally hang. However, unlike in windows, you can get to a bash prompt and type "killall Finder", which will kill the process. Something inside OSX, probably launchd, will automatically relaunch it for you.
All security can be broken; A door can be bashed in, or even left unlocked by accident. In both the cases the crime of entering an area for which you are not authorised is the same. Except that if you bash in the door they'll probably get you for criminal damage too.
The idea that as soon as you're talking about the internet, anything you can do should be legal, is a bit strange. If faced with a login screen, behind which javascript implements completely inadequate security, do you think it should be any more legal to break that security just because it was weak? Stealing money that's sitting poking out of someone's bag while they're not looking is still stealing, even though the 'security' was all but non-existent.
There is no communication with the chargers, save the presence of a resistive divider in the charger to indicate its power output.
However, and this is a distinction that you appear to unable to grasp, everything charges via the data cable these days. Which means, Apple device or otherwise, when you plug into a charger you're plugging into a data cable and thus it's probably going to game over if someone really wants to try.
Yes, I have a completely irrational fear of machines designed specifically for the purpose of killing people. Same as I have an irrational fear of landmines, or would, if they were widely available and present in most people's houses. Which they aren't. Because they are banned.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't be scared of guns. That seems irrational to me. They're only safe when they don't have ammo in them, and then what's the point of owning them at all?
Fact is, America is for some reason that completely escapes me, fascinated with firearms. Not just handguns, but automatic weapons, explosives, etc etc. Why any civilised person would imagine that he or she has an inalienable right to build up a large collection of machines for killing is totally beyond me. Surely the burden of proof of why this is a sensible idea lies with those that believe it? So, why? What for? Self defence? Seriously? Go learn Karate, it will almost certainly keep you safer, and it'll keep you fit too.
Dali, sure. And that's some pretty epic wallpaper. If I had that behind all my windows I'd probably be angry most of the time:)
Check this guy out. And keep in mind that these are oil paintings usually about two meters across. Unfortunately none of his most dramatic paintings are in the US, as far as I know, so you'd have to head on over to the Tate Britain to see them. They are pretty epic though.
What data? Haven't you already said a thousands words with the picture?
And I don't think that anyone would suggest that entering machine-language programs on a C64 wasn't content creation, unless you were just copying them from a magazine. And even then, it still felt a little bit like creation.
In that case, I'm still keen to find out what your taste is. Just out of interest, not to poke fun at, just out of genuine interest. I'm sure lots of people don't like Picasso, but maybe they just haven't stood in front of Guernica in real life. Similarly lots of people didn't like Van Gough, myself amongst them, until they stood in front of a real one. That changed my mind in one revelatory instant.
Nothing to do with tablets of course, but to keep a thread of this thread on-topic, they have begun to and will continue to change the face of day to day computing for nearly everyone. That new humongous Samsung phone is basically a tablet in all but name.
Unlike those silly glasses everyone keeps banging on about:).
Regarding a PC and a wacom. Not very portable. Not very sketchbook - like. I don't think he'd be all that keen.
A tablet is portable, cheap, boots more-or-less instantly, is hassle-free, and is great for many types of content creation. In fact, it's probably better for writing than a laptop, if you allow for a bluetooth keyboard, because it gets out of your way and lets you get on with it more than a laptop generally does.
Yes, because all content is created with a keyboard hardwired into a computer. Content never consists of music, or pictures, or words typed in using a bluetooth keyboard.
Slashdot Mirror
I tend to get very angry, but it doesn't change my personality.
That doesn't compute. It has changed your personality, albeit temporarily. You argue that your personality is an immutable property of your brain alone, but I don't think that there is any evidence for this at all. Your personality, observable to others only through your behaviour of course, is a property of the sum of your brain and all the chemicals floating around in it. Not all these chemicals are manufactured in the brain.
An AC below mentions also the sympathetic nervous system, another non-cranial input into your personality.
Put it this way, I bet your personality would change if your head were transplanted, mars-attacks-style, onto a small yappy dog.
Unfortunately I and I suspect most here are in the camp of understanding *code*(especially if its well designed) over a *formal specification*, and had a working implementation.
Well I'm certainly not. Documentation is invaluable. You know what we don't need? More re-implementations / re-imaginings of existing things (protocols, new languages, etc etc). You know what we do need? More and better documentation - and possibly better tools too.
Also I don't understand your use of the term 'Unfortunately' here. Are you saying that your position here is unfortunate? And if so, why don't you change your position? Or are you saying that it's unfortunate for those that do think documentation is a good idea, in which case I agree with you.
Why is it ok to be extremely rude on the internet, but not ok to react to the extreme rudeness by deleting people's comments?
It takes a certain amount of maturity to express differing opinions on a public and largely anonymous forum in a constructive and polite matter, but I think that maturity should be expected - and people who fail to show it should be censured appropriately. Having your comments removed from someone's personal blog because they are rude and immature is perfectly acceptable.
I noticed at least one person in the linked comments owning up to their rudeness and apologising. That is the short of behaviour that should be encouraged, not the development of a 'thick skin'.
how fragmented the tomato landscape is.
I don't know - I quite liked that part. Trippy.
if your database does not have the capability to make changes to single fields, you're doing it wrong (TM).
I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is a technical reason that people's gender's can't be changed in individual databases. But I bet there's plenty of databases where the gender field is either 'M' or 'F' - with no other value allowed. In addition I bet there are plenty of front ends to databases that don't allow such fields to be changed, probably to help avoid mistakes in data entry in other fields.
Granted I didn't bother reading TFA,
Oh, I see.
The problem is not about gender and the trouble they go through,
Actually, I think it is. For the purposes of databases, why do we need to know what gender people are? If we're going to have relativley large numbers of people for whom the common categories of male and female don't work, I don't image that we're going to find any finite categorisation scheme that will work for everyone. So rather than design a technical solution to this, maybe we should just stop asking? From the point of view of (say) the drivers licence database, why does it matter whether I am a boy or a girl? You have my picture, my age, my full name, my address, my social security number (I assume, we don't have those over here) etc. Isn't that enough?
Yeah, but it's the anticipation that makes it so good, so I'm going for Sony.
If I remember correctly, you could get some pretty terrible VCR's back in the day. I acquired, and used until the kids filled it up with sandwihches, a really nice Sony VCR that worked fantastically. Great freeze frame, frame advance, slow motion, all that. But my folks, for whatever reason, were always happy with the cheapest and nastiest players they could find. They made awful plastic grinding noises upon inserting a table, and generally died after about a year - usually taking whatever tape was inside them at the time with them.
DVD players, on the other hand, even the cheapest of the cheap, generally worked pretty well. Even if the lifetime of the really cheap ones wasn't all that much better than the lifetime of the cheap VCRs.
It's amazing what was inside those VCRs, just from a mechanical engineering point of view. SO complicated, so many oddly shaped moving bits of silicone-lubricated plastic. It's amazing they worked at all.
I view C++ as designed to be completely unfocused.
That's because it's a general-purpose programming language. In what way would it be focussed exactly?
It's the quite-cleverly-named equivalent of explorer.
You see, with the "Finder" you find things, whereas with "Explorer" you have no fucking idea where you are - and you're just exploring.
It's pretty limited in some respects compared to explorer, but in other respects it's much nicer. Also in common with explorer it looks after drawing the desktop and handling the dock (the equivalent of the taskbar in windows).
And again in common with Explorer it will occasionally hang. However, unlike in windows, you can get to a bash prompt and type "killall Finder", which will kill the process. Something inside OSX, probably launchd, will automatically relaunch it for you.
See it's not really like that though.
All security can be broken; A door can be bashed in, or even left unlocked by accident. In both the cases the crime of entering an area for which you are not authorised is the same. Except that if you bash in the door they'll probably get you for criminal damage too.
The idea that as soon as you're talking about the internet, anything you can do should be legal, is a bit strange. If faced with a login screen, behind which javascript implements completely inadequate security, do you think it should be any more legal to break that security just because it was weak? Stealing money that's sitting poking out of someone's bag while they're not looking is still stealing, even though the 'security' was all but non-existent.
There is no communication with the chargers, save the presence of a resistive divider in the charger to indicate its power output.
However, and this is a distinction that you appear to unable to grasp, everything charges via the data cable these days. Which means, Apple device or otherwise, when you plug into a charger you're plugging into a data cable and thus it's probably going to game over if someone really wants to try.
There is nothing in your linked article to suggest that Apple are using DRM in any form in any of their chargers.
No expert he may be, but he is right. And you are rude.
I suspect he probably is.
Yes, I have a completely irrational fear of machines designed specifically for the purpose of killing people. Same as I have an irrational fear of landmines, or would, if they were widely available and present in most people's houses. Which they aren't. Because they are banned.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't be scared of guns. That seems irrational to me. They're only safe when they don't have ammo in them, and then what's the point of owning them at all?
Fact is, America is for some reason that completely escapes me, fascinated with firearms. Not just handguns, but automatic weapons, explosives, etc etc. Why any civilised person would imagine that he or she has an inalienable right to build up a large collection of machines for killing is totally beyond me. Surely the burden of proof of why this is a sensible idea lies with those that believe it? So, why? What for? Self defence? Seriously? Go learn Karate, it will almost certainly keep you safer, and it'll keep you fit too.
little late for work and really got caught in it....
...BANG! Crash... tinkle... wimper... silence
In twenty years, fusion will be 149,600,000 km away, and will continue to be for the next 4.5 billion years or so.
Just sayin'
Dali, sure. And that's some pretty epic wallpaper. If I had that behind all my windows I'd probably be angry most of the time :)
Check this guy out. And keep in mind that these are oil paintings usually about two meters across. Unfortunately none of his most dramatic paintings are in the US, as far as I know, so you'd have to head on over to the Tate Britain to see them. They are pretty epic though.
What data? Haven't you already said a thousands words with the picture?
And I don't think that anyone would suggest that entering machine-language programs on a C64 wasn't content creation, unless you were just copying them from a magazine. And even then, it still felt a little bit like creation.
In that case, I'm still keen to find out what your taste is. Just out of interest, not to poke fun at, just out of genuine interest. I'm sure lots of people don't like Picasso, but maybe they just haven't stood in front of Guernica in real life. Similarly lots of people didn't like Van Gough, myself amongst them, until they stood in front of a real one. That changed my mind in one revelatory instant.
Nothing to do with tablets of course, but to keep a thread of this thread on-topic, they have begun to and will continue to change the face of day to day computing for nearly everyone. That new humongous Samsung phone is basically a tablet in all but name.
Unlike those silly glasses everyone keeps banging on about :).
David Hockey. Un-artistic. That's a new one.
I personally find his work fantastic. Perhaps you could share with the class what you do find artistic. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I doubt it.
Regarding a PC and a wacom. Not very portable. Not very sketchbook - like. I don't think he'd be all that keen.
A tablet is portable, cheap, boots more-or-less instantly, is hassle-free, and is great for many types of content creation. In fact, it's probably better for writing than a laptop, if you allow for a bluetooth keyboard, because it gets out of your way and lets you get on with it more than a laptop generally does.
Yes, because all content is created with a keyboard hardwired into a computer. Content never consists of music, or pictures, or words typed in using a bluetooth keyboard.
Only sense thus far spoken.
The police just need to enforce the law against obstructing traffic.
I doubt it's that easy, plenty of other widely-enforced laws are also widely broken.
And then there will be another threat. The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Face it: Violence will not bring peace.