Eclipse has to be the worst environment ever made--and I've used Lotus Designer.
It's great Adobe made a legit IDE for their various tech(Flash, ActionScript, ColdFusion). But when it's built on top of the steaming pile that's Eclipse, how effective of a tool can it really be?
I do Flash and ColdFusion development. I've tried to use Flex Builder 3, and the Flash Builder 4 betas. It just isn't good. Every time I try to write code with something based on Eclipse, I'm fighting the IDE more than I'm actually writing code. The same can be said for CFEclipse, or Aptana.
There NEEDS to be better tools. But as soon as I see Eclipse, it's a pass.
The ended up frying his brain so he would forget the woman--and all sorts of other stuff like his job. I think in the end it was actually something different and they fried his brain for nothing.
They aren't paying you money to ask a bunch of guys on Slashdot. Do it your damn self or find another job that you're actually qualified to do without submitting an "Ask Slashdot" anonymously to do it.
Trademarks help protect corporate and product identity, and Photoshop is one of Adobe's most valuable trademarks. By following the below guidelines, you can help Adobe protect the Photoshop brand name.
The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized and should never be used in possessive form, or as a slang term. It should be used as an adjective to describe the product, and should never be used in abbreviated form. The following examples illustrate these rules:
Trademarks are not verbs.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software. INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
Trademarks are not nouns.
CORRECT: The image pokes fun at the Senator. INCORRECT: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator.
Always capitalize and use trademarks in their correct form.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software. INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped. INCORRECT: The image was Photoshopped. INCORRECT: The image was Adobe® Photoshopped.
Trademarks must never be used as slang terms.
CORRECT: Those who use Adobe® Photoshop® software to manipulate images as a hobby see their work as an art form. INCORRECT: A photoshopper sees his hobby as an art form. INCORRECT: My hobby is photoshopping.
Trademarks must never be used in possessive form.
CORRECT: The new features in Adobe® Photoshop® software are impressive. INCORRECT: Photoshop's features are impressive.
Trademarks are proper adjectives and should be followed by the generic terms they describe.
CORRECT: The image was manipulated using Adobe® Photoshop® software. INCORRECT: The image was manipulated using Photoshop.
Trademarks must never be abbreviated.
CORRECT: Take a look at the new features in Adobe® Photoshop® software. INCORRECT: Take a look at the new features in PS.
The trademark owner should be identified whenever possible.
Adobe and Photoshop are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries.
In the United States it varies state to state. But I'm in Pennsylvania, and that's how it is here. You get a DUI, they will charge you with both. The state considers them separate offenses.
Which goes against the thinking for a lot of developers. They seem to take reviews of code personally, and believe everything they did is correct.
I go the other way. If my code is good, it will stand the test of a review. If one or a group of my colleagues looks at my code and doesn't find a fault then I KNOW it's good. I don't have to just THINK it because I believe so. If I can't explain why I did something in a review, it shouldn't get into production code.
Sometimes it's even simple stuff. I Do X, and someone goes "oh, we had to do it too, and wrote this bunch of code for it. Maybe we could combine the code into one usable module for both". It's stuff like that you can only really do in a good code review. It shouldn't JUST be done at a commit. It's something that should be part of the development process.
Even made a point of saying "facial recognition systems aren't all that secure. They can't tell the difference between a person and a photo of the person". Then he proceeded to break into the room by holding up a picture of someone that had access.
Apple will NEVER get more than maybe 10% of the market. The company doesn't scale well. And they tie OSX to their hardware.
Let's say Apple releases Snow Leopard. It's the greatest OS known to man. it's 50% faster than 10.5, runs ALL Windows applications faster than Windows, has ZFS as the filesystem, and has zero security flaws.
Ok, great, let's run it. But I have to buy a machine from Apple. Now if I just want a machine, I can get one. But Apple has enough problems with releasing new systems with their 8% share now. What happens when this goes to 20%? 30%? They are bottlenecked by the number of systems they can produce. They physically can't get the number of systems out there to get any real marketshare. Is OSX better than Vista? No arguments here. But what already has more share? When you have one company releasing something, and everyone else releasing something else, Windows will win every time. It doesn't matter how great OSX is, or how shitty Windows is. Which this is something most people figured out ages ago. Except for the Apple people, who somehow think OSX can take over the world.
Now if they licensed OSX, and then you have Dell, HP, et.al. selling them, it's another thing. But Jobs will never do this, so talking about it is a moot point.
There's been A LOT of negative stuff with regards to games--mostly on the PC site. DRM, DLC that's promised and never delivered, poor quality. You know something else? None of these seems to have any real effect on sales.
Spore still sold millions of copies. Mass Effect sold well. As much as people SAID "Oh, I'm not buying this DRM crap" or "I hate these buggy games", they are still selling by the millions. Could these titles have sold BETTER if they didn't have all these negative points? Maybe, maybe not.
As soon as you have a major title that comes out, that will have some code like this...people will still buy it. And if publishers can put these kind of restrictions on games, why shouldn't they do it? There's no downside.
As far as piracy, or even renting goes(and when did THAT become evil)..it's limited to people that never really planned on buying it anyways. Those aren't lost sales despite what their studies say. The vast majority of people still still just go to a store and buy it. Good games still sell well. A cry of "OMG PIRACY KILLED OUR SALES" from a publisher is just trying to defend a bad title. Maybe Crysis would have sold better if it actually ran on more than 10% of the PCs sold at the time.
Expect these things to continue. Also expect them to be tolerated by the gaming public. All that crying about SecuROM is going to go away when Mirror's Edge comes out and you HAVE to play it. Having to have some code to get the last level of a game will be cried about on every forum--until Bioshock 2 has one. And it will sell millions of copies.
What can anyone do about it? Nothing. What COULD everyone do? Ignore the game. Don't pirate it. Don't purchase it. Don't talk about it on forums. But that won't happen. Most will happily take whatever the game publisher does to them just so they can have that shiny new version of their favorite game.
I thought secret agents about various towns would go to these websites and put in their "special" information. Then they could get secure messages back and forth. If someone else used them, they just got some boiler plate thing. I thought the whole thing was a vast government project. Like those CIA numbers stations.
I'm disappointed to find out it's nothing more than spam for a "dating" site. Really kills my faith in conspiracy theories.
Slashdot Mirror
Billy Ripkin already has that trademarked...
*context
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ripkenffcard.jpg
Didn't Handspring--now defunct--already do this like 12 years ago? There were all sorts of devices for their PDAS, including a GSM module.
Eclipse has to be the worst environment ever made--and I've used Lotus Designer.
It's great Adobe made a legit IDE for their various tech(Flash, ActionScript, ColdFusion). But when it's built on top of the steaming pile that's Eclipse, how effective of a tool can it really be?
I do Flash and ColdFusion development. I've tried to use Flex Builder 3, and the Flash Builder 4 betas. It just isn't good. Every time I try to write code with something based on Eclipse, I'm fighting the IDE more than I'm actually writing code. The same can be said for CFEclipse, or Aptana.
There NEEDS to be better tools. But as soon as I see Eclipse, it's a pass.
The ended up frying his brain so he would forget the woman--and all sorts of other stuff like his job. I think in the end it was actually something different and they fried his brain for nothing.
This problem was solved in the 80's with The Animal: The Animal
Spirit Rover engineers should have played with more 80's toys. Can anything stop...THE ANIMAL?!
I don't know why people like to toss that extra "en" in there. It's like when people spell ligthening for lightning.
They aren't paying you money to ask a bunch of guys on Slashdot. Do it your damn self or find another job that you're actually qualified to do without submitting an "Ask Slashdot" anonymously to do it.
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THE HURD IS THE WORD! ..some random text to get past filter...I WANTED to yell!
Trademarks help protect corporate and product identity, and Photoshop is one of Adobe's most valuable trademarks. By following the below guidelines, you can help Adobe protect the Photoshop brand name.
The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized and should never be used in possessive form, or as a slang term. It should be used as an adjective to describe the product, and should never be used in abbreviated form. The following examples illustrate these rules:
Trademarks are not verbs.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
Trademarks are not nouns.
CORRECT: The image pokes fun at the Senator.
INCORRECT: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator.
Always capitalize and use trademarks in their correct form.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Adobe® Photoshopped.
Trademarks must never be used as slang terms.
CORRECT: Those who use Adobe® Photoshop® software to manipulate images as a hobby see their work as an art form.
INCORRECT: A photoshopper sees his hobby as an art form. INCORRECT: My hobby is photoshopping.
Trademarks must never be used in possessive form.
CORRECT: The new features in Adobe® Photoshop® software are impressive.
INCORRECT: Photoshop's features are impressive.
Trademarks are proper adjectives and should be followed by the generic terms they describe.
CORRECT: The image was manipulated using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: The image was manipulated using Photoshop.
Trademarks must never be abbreviated.
CORRECT: Take a look at the new features in Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: Take a look at the new features in PS.
The trademark owner should be identified whenever possible.
Adobe and Photoshop are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries.
In the United States it varies state to state. But I'm in Pennsylvania, and that's how it is here. You get a DUI, they will charge you with both. The state considers them separate offenses.
They probably have 10 different laws on the books that overlap. They can just pick one of the others to charge you with.
It's like when you get a DUI, and they charge you for both "drunk driving" and "driving with a BAC of .08".
How long does a bear have to be? Is it proportional to long cat?
So when is one of Obama's relatives going to buy him a Cadillac so Jack Klompus can start the impeachment hearings?
Let's just hope Biden didn't steal anyone's marble rye.
Which goes against the thinking for a lot of developers. They seem to take reviews of code personally, and believe everything they did is correct.
I go the other way. If my code is good, it will stand the test of a review. If one or a group of my colleagues looks at my code and doesn't find a fault then I KNOW it's good. I don't have to just THINK it because I believe so. If I can't explain why I did something in a review, it shouldn't get into production code.
Sometimes it's even simple stuff. I Do X, and someone goes "oh, we had to do it too, and wrote this bunch of code for it. Maybe we could combine the code into one usable module for both". It's stuff like that you can only really do in a good code review. It shouldn't JUST be done at a commit. It's something that should be part of the development process.
I was wondering when they were going to annex Joehio.
Why not take it to small claims court? They broke your laptop, they should fix it.
you'll never be a member of the 5 digit UID club--so it works itself out
Even made a point of saying "facial recognition systems aren't all that secure. They can't tell the difference between a person and a photo of the person". Then he proceeded to break into the room by holding up a picture of someone that had access.
It's not going to be long before this is THE thing to have on a desk or shelf.
I want to be the first in line to purchase one.
Apple will NEVER get more than maybe 10% of the market. The company doesn't scale well. And they tie OSX to their hardware.
Let's say Apple releases Snow Leopard. It's the greatest OS known to man. it's 50% faster than 10.5, runs ALL Windows applications faster than Windows, has ZFS as the filesystem, and has zero security flaws.
Ok, great, let's run it. But I have to buy a machine from Apple. Now if I just want a machine, I can get one. But Apple has enough problems with releasing new systems with their 8% share now. What happens when this goes to 20%? 30%? They are bottlenecked by the number of systems they can produce. They physically can't get the number of systems out there to get any real marketshare. Is OSX better than Vista? No arguments here. But what already has more share? When you have one company releasing something, and everyone else releasing something else, Windows will win every time. It doesn't matter how great OSX is, or how shitty Windows is. Which this is something most people figured out ages ago. Except for the Apple people, who somehow think OSX can take over the world.
Now if they licensed OSX, and then you have Dell, HP, et.al. selling them, it's another thing. But Jobs will never do this, so talking about it is a moot point.
Not since v24SP1
There's a different version of ddwrt that does support IPv6 that is all but hidden on their site. But the standard dd-wrt doesn't do IPv6 anymore.
Use two different virtual machines. One for dev, one for test. Which VM to use, is an exercise for the reader. /thread
Meh, I WAS going to join in....but 11142 doesn't hold to 3 digit numbers.
Although I do have 111, which is low, and then a 42 after it, which is always good.
There's been A LOT of negative stuff with regards to games--mostly on the PC site. DRM, DLC that's promised and never delivered, poor quality. You know something else? None of these seems to have any real effect on sales.
Spore still sold millions of copies. Mass Effect sold well. As much as people SAID "Oh, I'm not buying this DRM crap" or "I hate these buggy games", they are still selling by the millions. Could these titles have sold BETTER if they didn't have all these negative points? Maybe, maybe not.
As soon as you have a major title that comes out, that will have some code like this...people will still buy it. And if publishers can put these kind of restrictions on games, why shouldn't they do it? There's no downside.
As far as piracy, or even renting goes(and when did THAT become evil)..it's limited to people that never really planned on buying it anyways. Those aren't lost sales despite what their studies say. The vast majority of people still still just go to a store and buy it. Good games still sell well. A cry of "OMG PIRACY KILLED OUR SALES" from a publisher is just trying to defend a bad title. Maybe Crysis would have sold better if it actually ran on more than 10% of the PCs sold at the time.
Expect these things to continue. Also expect them to be tolerated by the gaming public. All that crying about SecuROM is going to go away when Mirror's Edge comes out and you HAVE to play it. Having to have some code to get the last level of a game will be cried about on every forum--until Bioshock 2 has one. And it will sell millions of copies.
What can anyone do about it? Nothing. What COULD everyone do? Ignore the game. Don't pirate it. Don't purchase it. Don't talk about it on forums. But that won't happen. Most will happily take whatever the game publisher does to them just so they can have that shiny new version of their favorite game.
I thought secret agents about various towns would go to these websites and put in their "special" information. Then they could get secure messages back and forth. If someone else used them, they just got some boiler plate thing. I thought the whole thing was a vast government project. Like those CIA numbers stations.
I'm disappointed to find out it's nothing more than spam for a "dating" site. Really kills my faith in conspiracy theories.