It seems interesting to me that we have little difficulty in deciding whether or not a particular thing is alive; 1) People - yes 2) Rocks - no 3) Fire - no 4) Viruses - in a sense but not really
But we seem to have extraordinary difficulty in actually writing down a definition of life.
This is absurd. Artists read books, and therefore fully understand the beauty of the written word.
It's not that the command line is 'ugly' - it's that it's inconsistent, difficult to remember if you don't use it for a period of time, and very much not well suited to certain tasks. Such as creating visual art, for instance. And yes, I know you can use code to generate art, but you know perfectly well what I'm talking about.
Of course it's a huge challenge, which is why the people who (claim) to do it well get paid millions of dollars.
I frankly think that the films were utter garbage, and arguing that the reason they were rubbish is because translating large works of literary fiction into film is 'hard' is just making excuses for poor work. These people are supposed to be good, and of course it's hard. We deserve, as the movie-ticket-buying public, much better than what we (generally) get.
I always turn back to 'Trainspotting' as a good example. The book isn't long, but it contains far more than finally turned up in the film. The job that the writers did is, I think, a model of how a book should be turned into a movie. Just leave most of it out, and concentrate on making a coherent narrative from what remains.
My dSLR (A Canon 50D) does exactly the same thing. But it has autofocus that can track a moving subject, allowing me to get shots that would be impossible with any mirror less camera.
f/8.0 is the sharpest aperture, beyond that you lose sharpness but gain depth of field. As you get to even smaller apertures,f/16.0 and above, point light sources start to give you lovely starburst effects.
Important points that I didn't know about until recently.
Well that's a pretty good point. My experience has always been a fixed amount of traffic per month, and if you bust your cap then your site gets replaced with a boilerplate 'over limit' page. Related: Telecom NZ advertised an unlimited service and chose to keep the asterisk to themselves, when they tried to apply the hidden asterisk the government stepped in a mentioned some details about fair trading etc and now Telecom NZ are stuck supporting truly unlimited traffic for those fortunate enough to buy the unlimited plan for the brief time during which it was available.
I'm sorry, but how is this related to putting kids in front of the TV?
While I don't disagree that one should spend time with one's children and in general TV should be avoided, at some point those little darlings of yours are going to have to learn to play by themselves. Despite what you appear to imagine it is not physically possible to closely supervise one's offspring every minute of the day.
So you were right, and then you went off on some odd tangent. But that's ok - don't feel bad.
I don't know about that. I mean, I realise that what Burger Christ or whatever they're called probably photograph pieces of painted styrofoam instead of food, but this page seems to indicate that respectable images of actual food are entirely possible.
It's pretty clear that the balance is exactly what's being debated.
Also, don't answer the phone when you're driving your car. It's dangerous. Let the phone ring, your call is not nearly as important as you think it is.
See, this is what happens with analogies. People end up arguing over the analogy instead of the actual issue.
Apple make stuff for the markets they are interested in, and not the others. This is a simple fact. But not I don't think an especially interesting one. The same can be said for pretty much every other company in the world. The only reason the argument comes up when apple is the object of a discussion, is that everyone wants apple gear (because it's so beautifully designed) but not everyone can actually have it. It's either too expensive, or they don't make the product that a particular individual really wants.
These items are also in the 'view' menu, exactly where one might expect to find them.
And obviously there's something wrong with me, but I don't have a problem with the way they address book looks like an address book (although I have seen these type of interfaces done horribly in the past, certain soft-phones come to mind). You can scroll the list on the left, it behaves elegantly (the letter heading remains in view for instance), and when you click you see the selected item on the right. Seems fine to me.
Except what you seem to be really arguing there is that *less* choice is better. Because if those other 275 simply didn't exist, then there would be a wider pool of talent for you to draw on for your team. But having those 275 out there dilutes that pool, making it harder to find programmers.
Of course most people use java/c/c++/c#/delphi for application development, so the actual choice is only from five.
Yeah - but whenever I come across any C code that's moderately well-structured it always ends up re-inventing C++ constructs. Like objects, and constructors and destructors and so-on. Except of course each project does this type of thing in its own way, sometimes using the preprocessor, sometimes not, etc etc. The code generated is exactly the same as if the programmer had chosen C++, but the code is far less readable (and less maintainable) than the C++ version.
And in what sense are inline functions hard to understand? Multiple inheritance is simple. Friend classes should be avoided, like gotos, but sometimes you just wind up needing them (unlike goto's:) ). Templates are functional programming, and are hugely powerful. Why on earth would you want to code without the standard template library? I've written enough linked list classes to last a lifetime, thanks very much.
This irrational fear/hatred of C++ is something that in my 15 years of C++ development I have never understood. When I first saw C (after hobbying in basic as a kid) I was overwhelmed by its power and expressiveness. The same sensation occurred a few years later when I was introduced to C++. Perhaps you should invest some time in learning C++ so that things like inline (which I'm pretty sure exists in C also, BTW) and friends and so-on are no longer so baffling to you.
Just wanted to point out that there's nothing actually wrong with using HDR techniques to show what those rooms look like - those images actually reflect much better what the experience of being in the room would be like.
It's a long way from modifying the physical shape of a model to present an unrealistic body image that will cause anxiety for many millions of young & impressionable women (and to a lesser extent apparently, men).
Slashdot Mirror
It seems interesting to me that we have little difficulty in deciding whether or not a particular thing is alive;
1) People - yes
2) Rocks - no
3) Fire - no
4) Viruses - in a sense but not really
But we seem to have extraordinary difficulty in actually writing down a definition of life.
This is absurd. Artists read books, and therefore fully understand the beauty of the written word.
It's not that the command line is 'ugly' - it's that it's inconsistent, difficult to remember if you don't use it for a period of time, and very much not well suited to certain tasks. Such as creating visual art, for instance. And yes, I know you can use code to generate art, but you know perfectly well what I'm talking about.
Not to mention Beowulf, which is so old that we don't even know how old it is.
It's completely fantastic, and the new translation by Seamus Heaney should be read by everyone. And I do mean everyone.
Of course it's a huge challenge, which is why the people who (claim) to do it well get paid millions of dollars.
I frankly think that the films were utter garbage, and arguing that the reason they were rubbish is because translating large works of literary fiction into film is 'hard' is just making excuses for poor work. These people are supposed to be good, and of course it's hard. We deserve, as the movie-ticket-buying public, much better than what we (generally) get.
I always turn back to 'Trainspotting' as a good example. The book isn't long, but it contains far more than finally turned up in the film. The job that the writers did is, I think, a model of how a book should be turned into a movie. Just leave most of it out, and concentrate on making a coherent narrative from what remains.
Plus the songs, don't forget how annoying the songs are.
"But a computer is highly versatile and can be put to pretty much any task"
Except making a half-way acceptable cup of tea.
My dSLR (A Canon 50D) does exactly the same thing. But it has autofocus that can track a moving subject, allowing me to get shots that would be impossible with any mirror less camera.
Want to add to this:
f/8.0 is the sharpest aperture, beyond that you lose sharpness but gain depth of field. As you get to even smaller apertures ,f/16.0 and above, point light sources start to give you lovely starburst effects.
Important points that I didn't know about until recently.
It certainly is, but sensor size is also a lot more expensive than megapixels...
Well that's a pretty good point. My experience has always been a fixed amount of traffic per month, and if you bust your cap then your site gets replaced with a boilerplate 'over limit' page. Related: Telecom NZ advertised an unlimited service and chose to keep the asterisk to themselves, when they tried to apply the hidden asterisk the government stepped in a mentioned some details about fair trading etc and now Telecom NZ are stuck supporting truly unlimited traffic for those fortunate enough to buy the unlimited plan for the brief time during which it was available.
Since you're not offering them unlimited cash you can kind of see their point of view.
I'm sorry, but how is this related to putting kids in front of the TV?
While I don't disagree that one should spend time with one's children and in general TV should be avoided, at some point those little darlings of yours are going to have to learn to play by themselves. Despite what you appear to imagine it is not physically possible to closely supervise one's offspring every minute of the day.
So you were right, and then you went off on some odd tangent. But that's ok - don't feel bad.
I don't know about that. I mean, I realise that what Burger Christ or whatever they're called probably photograph pieces of painted styrofoam instead of food, but this page seems to indicate that respectable images of actual food are entirely possible.
And get off the phone, that will help too.
No it isn't, it's stating the obvious.
It's pretty clear that the balance is exactly what's being debated.
Also, don't answer the phone when you're driving your car. It's dangerous. Let the phone ring, your call is not nearly as important as you think it is.
See, this is what happens with analogies. People end up arguing over the analogy instead of the actual issue.
Apple make stuff for the markets they are interested in, and not the others. This is a simple fact. But not I don't think an especially interesting one. The same can be said for pretty much every other company in the world. The only reason the argument comes up when apple is the object of a discussion, is that everyone wants apple gear (because it's so beautifully designed) but not everyone can actually have it. It's either too expensive, or they don't make the product that a particular individual really wants.
These items are also in the 'view' menu, exactly where one might expect to find them.
And obviously there's something wrong with me, but I don't have a problem with the way they address book looks like an address book (although I have seen these type of interfaces done horribly in the past, certain soft-phones come to mind). You can scroll the list on the left, it behaves elegantly (the letter heading remains in view for instance), and when you click you see the selected item on the right. Seems fine to me.
C++0x:
void main() {
()[]{}();
}
compiles, runs, does nothing. What's not to like?
Except what you seem to be really arguing there is that *less* choice is better. Because if those other 275 simply didn't exist, then there would be a wider pool of talent for you to draw on for your team. But having those 275 out there dilutes that pool, making it harder to find programmers.
Of course most people use java/c/c++/c#/delphi for application development, so the actual choice is only from five.
Yeah - but whenever I come across any C code that's moderately well-structured it always ends up re-inventing C++ constructs. Like objects, and constructors and destructors and so-on. Except of course each project does this type of thing in its own way, sometimes using the preprocessor, sometimes not, etc etc. The code generated is exactly the same as if the programmer had chosen C++, but the code is far less readable (and less maintainable) than the C++ version.
And in what sense are inline functions hard to understand? Multiple inheritance is simple. Friend classes should be avoided, like gotos, but sometimes you just wind up needing them (unlike goto's :) ). Templates are functional programming, and are hugely powerful. Why on earth would you want to code without the standard template library? I've written enough linked list classes to last a lifetime, thanks very much.
This irrational fear/hatred of C++ is something that in my 15 years of C++ development I have never understood. When I first saw C (after hobbying in basic as a kid) I was overwhelmed by its power and expressiveness. The same sensation occurred a few years later when I was introduced to C++. Perhaps you should invest some time in learning C++ so that things like inline (which I'm pretty sure exists in C also, BTW) and friends and so-on are no longer so baffling to you.
Oh, hi mike!
Just wanted to point out that there's nothing actually wrong with using HDR techniques to show what those rooms look like - those images actually reflect much better what the experience of being in the room would be like.
It's a long way from modifying the physical shape of a model to present an unrealistic body image that will cause anxiety for many millions of young & impressionable women (and to a lesser extent apparently, men).
Not really, because no-one really cares about whether or not magazine covers are photoshopped.
Which isn't to say that they shouldn't - the practice should be banned if you ask me, but for some reason no-one ever does :)
According to quantum theory, you're wrong.
According to maths he's wrong too.
"and the current value cannot be the same or it rerolls"
Which makes it no longer random of course.