But video games just let the market decide what will happen if it is too expensive and you don't want to pay that amount then don't buy the game. It is only a game you don't need it.
Aye! I am happier now and I have nothin'. I play tiny old games with ascii characters instead of sprites.
This is very interesting. This is the real threat to US dollar hegemony, and hence, US hegemony. But if Iran has nukes, that's a pretty good defense against the inevitable US invasion. Even so, it's never been a better time to live in a remote place in the US. Think of the false flag operation that would be required (bodycount) to "justify" such a response. I hope I'm wrong.
GTA's physics are pretty good. They are particularly instructive when it comes to collisions between large and small vehicles (e.g. truck vs SUV, or SUV vs compact car, or car vs motorbike). Safety ratings don't mean anything when the difference in mass means you get punted like a soccer ball in a collision. If you drive a small car or motorbike, you need to drive defensively if you value your life at all.
Seriously, what mouth-breather decided you should only be able to search tags instead of a full-text search?
About the only time I don't preferentially use google to search on any site (e.g. {site:stackoverflow.com words I want to search for}) is when I want to search for all posts by a given user. That's the only case I can think of where google isn't superior.
When it comes to unintended consequences, Murphy's Law predicts outcomes pretty well in my experience. Especially when whatever is changed is irreversible.
A drag coefficient of 0.08 is amazingly awesome. For example, it's equal third place in the wikipedia concept car drag coefficient list (first is 0.07). And the frontal area is next to nothing, so the CD*A figure is going to be excellent too. Put a 100cc engine in it with appropriately tall gearing and it would most likely get better than 0.5 litres per 100km. Consider that the PAC-II has a Cd of 0.075 and gets 0.017l/100km equivalent.
The internet is a lady of ill repute. My approach to security when "connected" to the internet is like 3 layers (hardware firewall, running as unprivileged user, whitelisting javascript/flash) of prophylactic separated by 2 layers of Deep Heat (logging, and tripwire). If either of the outer layers are "breached", I get a prompt warning.
A professional athlete - at the very least they'll have a personal trainer working with them if not a specialist coach, either of which will bawl them out big time for sloppy diet or training programs. I have met athletes competing at a national level. Great natural potential, certainly. But the age of John L. Sullivan is gone.
Get the macronutrients (protein, calories) right and the rest will follow. Hell, it is certainly possible to be ripped eating nothing but McDonalds if it is done right - getting the minimum protein won't be hard, you just need to limit the calories per day. If you can add and read nutritonal information panels, you can do this. Couple it with some basic exercise if you want to have some muscle or cardio along with the low bodyfat %. http://www.smh.com.au/olympics/articles/2004/08/25/1093246623182.html
I think this is what Spolsky is getting at with his Duct Tape Programmer idea. Every problem has a different set of fundamental requirements. Provided you understand the basic requirements of what it is you are trying to achieve (one of which may include long term maintainability), nothing else matters. So then everything else is literally a waste of time/effort/money.
Huh? Erlang is a programming language, not a database.
I know that. Something like PostgreSQL is written in C, not Erlang. I'd imagine Oracle is as well. No major RDBMS is written in Erlang AFAIK. I see no real reason such an RDBMS couldn't be used successfully for that application. You get a well tested, powerful RDBMS that has been pretty well debugged over the years and will do what you want it to do. You are not reinventing the wheel. It is ACID compliant. It will not treat your data like junk. It will be reliable. This seems like a typical fit for something that has been used for many years dealing with lots of transactions.
What I don't understand is what the original poster suggested be done with Erlang for that application. Build an RDBMS in Erlang? Build a custom application that does much the same thing as a RDBMS, in Erlang? Use Erlang somehow in the application layer? (Which doesn't make much sense to me as most of the heavy lifting would be done by the RDBMS.) Use Erlang to query the database instead of SQL? The only thing that would really seem applicable are the first two options, but I don't understand what is so special about that problem domain to require would would most probably be a labor intensive, custom solution when compared with the alternative.
The context sensitive ribbon... what 'contexts' are there exactly?
I'm guessing that it scans the page for thumbnails. If it finds more than say, 2, it assumes that you are downloading pr0n and brings up a button to add everything to the download queue.
An ex-cop I know once told me that during a search they would compete with each other to see who could find the vibrator first. Apparently there was always, without fail, a vibrator somewhere in every home.
Say what you will about nuclear weapons but they are probably the only reason that humanity hasn't fought World War III yet.
I think that "yet" needs some more emphasis. The current situation appears stable, but just how robust is it? Robustness for MAD needs to extend permanently (at least, millenia). If you were to compare stability of MAD with operating systems, 60 years for MAD is the equivalent of 5 minutes for an operating system. 5 minutes without a crash for an OS won't adequately differentiate the stability of Windows ME from OpenBSD. It's not a sufficient test. Unfortunately, 60 years for MAD feels like a long time in human scale and humans are not optimized for dealing with long term catastrophic risks. Hence we get complacent, and when we get complacent we take stupid risks.
MAD has a series of inputs that will cause the apparently stable system to fail catastrophically. Neither side can be aware of all the inputs, or how the other side processes/perceives its set of inputs. This leads to unwarranted confidence, complacency, and skirting too close to the edge.
If you don't like Ubuntu, it's not the end of the world. There is certainly a price that must be paid in order to get up to speed running it, compared to something you are more familiar with. (At least, if you are going to maintain it yourself.)
And unless you personally gave money to Ubuntu, you are not a customer. They do not owe you anything.
I think I've been using Ubuntu for 2 years now, or so. I'll be honest. Sometimes things break or don't work well. e.g. -Tremulous hangs on my machine more than I'd like. -There are several windows games I can't get to run. -A quick flick of the trackball to scroll sometimes will cause firefox to die. -Copying files from a camera craps out a lot of the time, using F-spot (unless I copy the files across from the card using a card reader).
There are probably more, and certainly many I've nutted out through googling etc.
Are they dealbreakers? No. I still wouldn't go back to XP. Why? -free, and I'm not stealing. -I like being part of the community, I help and receive help. It's kind of like how things were back in the days of DOS, but worldwide. -I LOVE apt-get and the repositories - probably the biggest selling point. Far better than playing russian roulette with some random.exe files. -Still not one sign of malware. -I like the idea that there are as few BLOBs as possible, the open source nature, I feel like I own my system and am not beholden to anyone else. Compare windows EULA with GPL, open source with closed. I like not feeling like I'm some sort of cow having to avoid being milked of money all the time, with craplets and hooks to buy yet more crap. -unix CLI, pipes, perl, vim, postgresql, all that good stuff on tap when you need it.
But that's just me. I wouldn't expect everyone to embrace Ubuntu.
I think he means it like this: "Just like sleeping with no one whatsoever doesn't mean you read slashdot".
That fact could just mean you're just hella ugly, have really bad BO, have some really creepy mannerisms you are oblivious to (or worse, are affected), or play D&D. Maybe some combination of all 4. But if you combine the above with several other tidbits of information like "has no friends IRL", "lives in mom's basement", "laughs at 'overlords' jokes" or "codes for profit or pleasure", you start to narrow the possibilities down.
Hell yes. And in a global, net outcome way, it is obvious that there are more people dumping proprietary for FOSS. The user base of Linux started out from zero before 1991, and now it's many - more people dumped proprietary than vice versa. And this is the same with many FOSS solutions, although some do capture new users in the beginning rather than court users away from proprietary solutions. Especially if those solutions are pricey or new.
The summary (moreso than the article) seems very slashvertisement. In my experience I'll give something FOSS a test before running it, and if the test doesn't work out I don't say that I've "dumped" it, merely that it's not yet ready for me. Give it a year or two, often it is usable. If the test does work, then I use it and over time become more skilled using the FOSS than with the equivalent, and this cements my adoption of the FOSS. I hardly think I'm unique here.
But here, who is leaving whom? AFAIK, Ramji left Microsoft. But I would think that Microsoft fits the mold of the US much more so than Linux - Microsoft being a very well funded, top-down, conventional type force and FOSS being an underfunded but extremely resourceful, often ideologically motivated and relentless opponent with whom fighting resembles playing a game of whack a mole. And if we cast the role of FOSS as Viet Nam, also receiving some funding from other large conventional powers (e.g. IBM), and has the public onside.
But perhaps the domino theory does apply more to MS than to Viet Nam. If MS didn't fight Linux, I wonder what the installed base of Linux would be today. e.g. "Here! We'll document all our proprietary protocols so you can build a nice competitor for exchange, samba etc., we'll end the Microsoft tax, we'll let you have the netbook market and while we're at it we'll make ODF the standard save option in Office."
Slashdot Mirror
Have you checked out my package?
No need to teach children soon-to-be obsolete skills. In the post-singularity future, strong AI will have eliminated spam.
Aye! I am happier now and I have nothin'. I play tiny old games with ascii characters instead of sprites.
This is very interesting. This is the real threat to US dollar hegemony, and hence, US hegemony. But if Iran has nukes, that's a pretty good defense against the inevitable US invasion. Even so, it's never been a better time to live in a remote place in the US. Think of the false flag operation that would be required (bodycount) to "justify" such a response. I hope I'm wrong.
GTA's physics are pretty good. They are particularly instructive when it comes to collisions between large and small vehicles (e.g. truck vs SUV, or SUV vs compact car, or car vs motorbike). Safety ratings don't mean anything when the difference in mass means you get punted like a soccer ball in a collision. If you drive a small car or motorbike, you need to drive defensively if you value your life at all.
About the only time I don't preferentially use google to search on any site (e.g. {site:stackoverflow.com words I want to search for}) is when I want to search for all posts by a given user. That's the only case I can think of where google isn't superior.
When it comes to unintended consequences, Murphy's Law predicts outcomes pretty well in my experience. Especially when whatever is changed is irreversible.
I'm sure the RIAA, MPAA or Microsoft could help you out there.
A drag coefficient of 0.08 is amazingly awesome. For example, it's equal third place in the wikipedia concept car drag coefficient list (first is 0.07). And the frontal area is next to nothing, so the CD*A figure is going to be excellent too. Put a 100cc engine in it with appropriately tall gearing and it would most likely get better than 0.5 litres per 100km. Consider that the PAC-II has a Cd of 0.075 and gets 0.017l/100km equivalent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient
The internet is a lady of ill repute. My approach to security when "connected" to the internet is like 3 layers (hardware firewall, running as unprivileged user, whitelisting javascript/flash) of prophylactic separated by 2 layers of Deep Heat (logging, and tripwire). If either of the outer layers are "breached", I get a prompt warning.
Get the macronutrients (protein, calories) right and the rest will follow. Hell, it is certainly possible to be ripped eating nothing but McDonalds if it is done right - getting the minimum protein won't be hard, you just need to limit the calories per day. If you can add and read nutritonal information panels, you can do this. Couple it with some basic exercise if you want to have some muscle or cardio along with the low bodyfat %. http://www.smh.com.au/olympics/articles/2004/08/25/1093246623182.html
I think this is what Spolsky is getting at with his Duct Tape Programmer idea. Every problem has a different set of fundamental requirements. Provided you understand the basic requirements of what it is you are trying to achieve (one of which may include long term maintainability), nothing else matters. So then everything else is literally a waste of time/effort/money.
I know that. Something like PostgreSQL is written in C, not Erlang. I'd imagine Oracle is as well. No major RDBMS is written in Erlang AFAIK. I see no real reason such an RDBMS couldn't be used successfully for that application. You get a well tested, powerful RDBMS that has been pretty well debugged over the years and will do what you want it to do. You are not reinventing the wheel. It is ACID compliant. It will not treat your data like junk. It will be reliable. This seems like a typical fit for something that has been used for many years dealing with lots of transactions.
What I don't understand is what the original poster suggested be done with Erlang for that application. Build an RDBMS in Erlang? Build a custom application that does much the same thing as a RDBMS, in Erlang? Use Erlang somehow in the application layer? (Which doesn't make much sense to me as most of the heavy lifting would be done by the RDBMS.) Use Erlang to query the database instead of SQL? The only thing that would really seem applicable are the first two options, but I don't understand what is so special about that problem domain to require would would most probably be a labor intensive, custom solution when compared with the alternative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Ted's_Excellent_Video_Game_Adventure
Excuse me if I'm being ignorant, but why wouldn't a standard RDBMS be suitable for that application?
For that you will need a persuadatron. (hehehehe)
You don't understand; Linux is infinitely valuable. If you compare the utility to the cost, I don't think you can come to any other conclusion.
Welcome to the dawn of a new era!
I'm guessing that it scans the page for thumbnails. If it finds more than say, 2, it assumes that you are downloading pr0n and brings up a button to add everything to the download queue.
An ex-cop I know once told me that during a search they would compete with each other to see who could find the vibrator first. Apparently there was always, without fail, a vibrator somewhere in every home.
I think that "yet" needs some more emphasis. The current situation appears stable, but just how robust is it? Robustness for MAD needs to extend permanently (at least, millenia). If you were to compare stability of MAD with operating systems, 60 years for MAD is the equivalent of 5 minutes for an operating system. 5 minutes without a crash for an OS won't adequately differentiate the stability of Windows ME from OpenBSD. It's not a sufficient test. Unfortunately, 60 years for MAD feels like a long time in human scale and humans are not optimized for dealing with long term catastrophic risks. Hence we get complacent, and when we get complacent we take stupid risks.
MAD has a series of inputs that will cause the apparently stable system to fail catastrophically. Neither side can be aware of all the inputs, or how the other side processes/perceives its set of inputs. This leads to unwarranted confidence, complacency, and skirting too close to the edge.
This would be an appropriate time to mention Hellman's risk analysis again. http://www.nuclearrisk.org/
If you don't like Ubuntu, it's not the end of the world. There is certainly a price that must be paid in order to get up to speed running it, compared to something you are more familiar with. (At least, if you are going to maintain it yourself.)
And unless you personally gave money to Ubuntu, you are not a customer. They do not owe you anything.
I think I've been using Ubuntu for 2 years now, or so. I'll be honest. Sometimes things break or don't work well. e.g.
-Tremulous hangs on my machine more than I'd like.
-There are several windows games I can't get to run.
-A quick flick of the trackball to scroll sometimes will cause firefox to die.
-Copying files from a camera craps out a lot of the time, using F-spot (unless I copy the files across from the card using a card reader).
There are probably more, and certainly many I've nutted out through googling etc.
Are they dealbreakers? No. I still wouldn't go back to XP. Why? .exe files.
-free, and I'm not stealing.
-I like being part of the community, I help and receive help. It's kind of like how things were back in the days of DOS, but worldwide.
-I LOVE apt-get and the repositories - probably the biggest selling point. Far better than playing russian roulette with some random
-Still not one sign of malware.
-I like the idea that there are as few BLOBs as possible, the open source nature, I feel like I own my system and am not beholden to anyone else. Compare windows EULA with GPL, open source with closed. I like not feeling like I'm some sort of cow having to avoid being milked of money all the time, with craplets and hooks to buy yet more crap.
-unix CLI, pipes, perl, vim, postgresql, all that good stuff on tap when you need it.
But that's just me. I wouldn't expect everyone to embrace Ubuntu.
I think he means it like this: "Just like sleeping with no one whatsoever doesn't mean you read slashdot".
That fact could just mean you're just hella ugly, have really bad BO, have some really creepy mannerisms you are oblivious to (or worse, are affected), or play D&D. Maybe some combination of all 4. But if you combine the above with several other tidbits of information like "has no friends IRL", "lives in mom's basement", "laughs at 'overlords' jokes" or "codes for profit or pleasure", you start to narrow the possibilities down.
Good, fast, cheap; pick any two.
... and if you are wondering how to do space flight fast and cheap, just ask. I have a few nice bridges for sale too.
Hell yes. And in a global, net outcome way, it is obvious that there are more people dumping proprietary for FOSS. The user base of Linux started out from zero before 1991, and now it's many - more people dumped proprietary than vice versa. And this is the same with many FOSS solutions, although some do capture new users in the beginning rather than court users away from proprietary solutions. Especially if those solutions are pricey or new.
The summary (moreso than the article) seems very slashvertisement. In my experience I'll give something FOSS a test before running it, and if the test doesn't work out I don't say that I've "dumped" it, merely that it's not yet ready for me. Give it a year or two, often it is usable. If the test does work, then I use it and over time become more skilled using the FOSS than with the equivalent, and this cements my adoption of the FOSS. I hardly think I'm unique here.
LOL... So true.
But here, who is leaving whom? AFAIK, Ramji left Microsoft. But I would think that Microsoft fits the mold of the US much more so than Linux - Microsoft being a very well funded, top-down, conventional type force and FOSS being an underfunded but extremely resourceful, often ideologically motivated and relentless opponent with whom fighting resembles playing a game of whack a mole. And if we cast the role of FOSS as Viet Nam, also receiving some funding from other large conventional powers (e.g. IBM), and has the public onside.
But perhaps the domino theory does apply more to MS than to Viet Nam. If MS didn't fight Linux, I wonder what the installed base of Linux would be today. e.g. "Here! We'll document all our proprietary protocols so you can build a nice competitor for exchange, samba etc., we'll end the Microsoft tax, we'll let you have the netbook market and while we're at it we'll make ODF the standard save option in Office."