Well, this is actually pretty good advice for any developer; Don't reinvent the wheel. Look around, search for what's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs. Of course, as a last resort, one can design something new once he has done his homework and made sure nothing that has been done before may be re-used.
Through my life, I have seen a amazing high level of work that has been done in vain because it yielded poor results and that something doing the same better already existed anyway.
Don't get me wrong here, once you have made sure that nothing already existing suits your needs or can be reused, it is fine to innovate and create real new stuff. Just don't get caught trying to reinvent the wheel unless you reinvent it better;-)
Also, an exception to that principle could be allowed for trivial tasks that are really quick to implement and where searching for an existing solution might cost more than implementing it yourself but be really careful applying that exception rule, it is an open door that leads to trying to reinvent the wheel sometimes;-))
I guess we have to keep the hope alive in order to make the population believe that it will be business as usual in the future and avoid some type of revolution as oil runs out.
The idea is to make people believe that we will find a way to replace oil while maintaining the present sale price in our highly dependent oil dependent economy.
Nah, I do not have enough data to conclude that so I would assume he didn't do it on purpose. That's why I choose to enlighten him and I suggested to rethink about the fact that nothing is exact.;-))
Actually, using expression like "approximately" or specifying an error margin instead of using terms like "exact" like the GGP did is a pretty scientific standard and it is overall a good habit in all sphere of life.
In general, one should be doubtful about "absolute truths", "exact calculations", "100% efficiency" or the like;-))
Actually, not that much since you did not specify in which environment it has that "exact speed". Saying the speed of light is 194792442 m/s or any value is just as precise.
Now, saying that c is constant equal to 299792458 m/s is absolutely correct although, the speed of light is actually:
c/n where n is the refraction index.
In a microwave oven at sea level, the speed of light is *approximately* 299792458/1.0003 = 299702547 m/s
The brain makes assumptions while reading, speed implicates something that we imagine moving by itself unless we talk about speed of growth, as it is the case for fat. That, along with the "digestion" topic GP, could explain this mistake from me.
I could believe it is true that they suck at cheating.
They also have the reputation to suck at under-cover operations where their intelligence services get caught or screw-up doing even the simplest things;-))
I agree with the item above, but for the rest are you crazy ?
I wouldn't spend anytime fine tuning that much because Windows doesn't deserve so much attention;-)
I have to admit that I shutdown-set to manual startup-or disable a lot of services although. Apart from that, I never do any specific configuration (desktop/shortcut/task bar/etc.).
I use Windows to play games, edit MS-Documents and watch videos since I stopped installing video support (flash etc..) on my Linux machines. I also use my Windows box to login into Xvnc sessions running on my Linux hosts and this is where the most of the real work takes place.
Not to brag or anything, this is for information purpose only:
I installed the patch on Tuesday but I hadn't rebooted yet (I know, I know...;-).
TFA got me nervous so I figured I might as well find out right now and reboot. I was quite happy that it rebooted without any problems so far;-)
My windows box is a winXP SP2 running on a HP Pavillion a1450n, AMD Athlon dual core.
As a side note, I never managed to install SP3 on that machine although I have tried 3 times with a 4-5 months interval between each try, figuring I would give MS some time to fix stuff;-) I managed to roll back to SP2 every time by going into the windows special boot menu and choosing "Last good known configuration" or something like that.
> It is altogether possible for a closed proprietary system to > ultimately be cheaper than open source because support is much > cheaper and easier to get.
I specified in my OP that long term thinking was essential so let's try that:
What will happen to the costs you are talking about if all major governments switched to open source driven by a politic and social will ?
They would most likely go down as more and more people are taught as early as in school how to manage those systems and that software becomes a public and collective property.
Open source is also said to help the local economy so I can't restrain myself from seeing it as part of a future trend that should take place in many sectors, agriculture for example; We might stop shipping lettuce across the country when the the oil needed to power transportation will run out and grow it locally where feasible, thus helping the local economy...
As I said, switching to open source is a decision that needs long term goals.
After performing analysis at different governmental agencies, I most of the time recommend to stay with their proprietary software. I they ask why, I tell them that switching to open source would require directions and budget from top executives in the government and a clearly defined political will to make the switch succeed.
Also, you must be aware that every company on Earth will lobby against such an idea, don't you?
Slashdot Mirror
> Holding programmers accountable for their coding errors
We used to have a board where we would note "bozo the clown points" for anybody involved in the project, even managers ! ;-))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozo_the_Clown
> As for ranking pages by links to other important pages, that's rather flawed?
I hinted that it was OK to innovate or even re-invent. You have to know what you are doing although.
Actually, I totally agree with you on the quoted phrase but I am still looking for a solution (Holy Grail?) to supplant Google implementation. ;-))
Seriously, I really spent some time thinking about this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinventing_the_wheel
Of course, IMAP, POP and SMTP are so limitative that the World needs proprietary solutions and Exchange servers in order to save itself ;-))
More seriously IMAP is fine ;-)
Well, this is actually pretty good advice for any developer; Don't reinvent the wheel. Look around, search for what's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs. Of course, as a last resort, one can design something new once he has done his homework and made sure nothing that has been done before may be re-used.
Through my life, I have seen a amazing high level of work that has been done in vain because it yielded poor results and that something doing the same better already existed anyway.
Don't get me wrong here, once you have made sure that nothing already existing suits your needs or can be reused, it is fine to innovate and create real new stuff. Just don't get caught trying to reinvent the wheel unless you reinvent it better ;-)
Also, an exception to that principle could be allowed for trivial tasks that are really quick to implement and where searching for an existing solution might cost more than implementing it yourself but be really careful applying that exception rule, it is an open door that leads to trying to reinvent the wheel sometimes ;-))
I guess we have to keep the hope alive in order to make the population believe that it will be business as usual in the future and avoid some type of revolution as oil runs out.
The idea is to make people believe that we will find a way to replace oil while maintaining the present sale price in our highly dependent oil dependent economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
> To the extent that a meter is a theoretical value
Exactly ! ;-)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1552160&cid=31162612
> However, this is circular
Every measurement is. The conclusion that Einstein came to is that nothing is absolute, everything is relative.
You already replied to that post, but here is the link for the others:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1552160&cid=31162034&art_pos=4
> If you're like the average slashdotter
Without regards for the groups I might be considered part of, I am never considered "average" in any case.
Yep, I seem to remember that the girls both used their hands at once at some point...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1552160&cid=31162034
I am on my way, please post the location of your car.
I would have modded you funny if I hadn't already posted.
You are mixing up constant definitions and theoretical values with actual measurements/realty.
Einstein went through this before, I suggest to read what his theories say about "exact measurements". ;-))
For example, a perfect vacuum doesn't exist, so c is a theoretical value. Even outer space is not a perfect vacuum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
Anything else I can do for you today ?
In light of your sig, I hope you do not live in South Korea ;-))
Nah, I do not have enough data to conclude that so I would assume he didn't do it on purpose. That's why I choose to enlighten him and I suggested to rethink about the fact that nothing is exact. ;-))
> Nerd.
Actually, using expression like "approximately" or specifying an error margin instead of using terms like "exact" like the GGP did is a pretty scientific standard and it is overall a good habit in all sphere of life.
In general, one should be doubtful about "absolute truths", "exact calculations", "100% efficiency" or the like ;-))
I should have specified that I have a groovy orgy an every Valentine's day.
Did you miss the fact that we were talking about "Valentine's day" chocolates ?
Now this is very informative ;-)
Actually, not that much since you did not specify in which environment it has that "exact speed". Saying the speed of light is 194792442 m/s or any value is just as precise.
Now, saying that c is constant equal to 299792458 m/s is absolutely correct although, the speed of light is actually:
c/n where n is the refraction index.
In a microwave oven at sea level, the speed of light is *approximately* 299792458/1.0003 = 299702547 m/s
I misread "the speed of FART".
The brain makes assumptions while reading, speed implicates something that we imagine moving by itself unless we talk about speed of growth, as it is the case for fat. That, along with the "digestion" topic GP, could explain this mistake from me.
Anybody else misread the same ?
> Now I'm hungry.
Now I am *horny*. There must still be hope in my case...
Nope, I think that the word "champion" was used in order to raise the chances of the submission to get published ;-)
I submitted the same story yesterday in less flamboyant terms and it did not make it ;-))
http://slashdot.org/submission/1173262/Cyclist-Floyd-Landis-Accused-Of-Hacking
I could believe it is true that they suck at cheating.
They also have the reputation to suck at under-cover operations where their intelligence services get caught or screw-up doing even the simplest things ;-))
Here is one of their most known case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
> Remove automatic updates from your slipstream
I agree with the item above, but for the rest are you crazy ?
I wouldn't spend anytime fine tuning that much because Windows doesn't deserve so much attention ;-)
I have to admit that I shutdown-set to manual startup-or disable a lot of services although. Apart from that, I never do any specific configuration (desktop/shortcut/task bar/etc.).
I use Windows to play games, edit MS-Documents and watch videos since I stopped installing video support (flash etc..) on my Linux machines. I also use my Windows box to login into Xvnc sessions running on my Linux hosts and this is where the most of the real work takes place.
Not to brag or anything, this is for information purpose only:
I installed the patch on Tuesday but I hadn't rebooted yet (I know, I know... ;-).
TFA got me nervous so I figured I might as well find out right now and reboot. I was quite happy that it rebooted without any problems so far ;-)
My windows box is a winXP SP2 running on a HP Pavillion a1450n, AMD Athlon dual core.
As a side note, I never managed to install SP3 on that machine although I have tried 3 times with a 4-5 months interval between each try, figuring I would give MS some time to fix stuff ;-) I managed to roll back to SP2 every time by going into the windows special boot menu and choosing "Last good known configuration" or something like that.
> It is altogether possible for a closed proprietary system to
> ultimately be cheaper than open source because support is much
> cheaper and easier to get.
I specified in my OP that long term thinking was essential so let's try that:
What will happen to the costs you are talking about if all major governments switched to open source driven by a politic and social will ?
They would most likely go down as more and more people are taught as early as in school how to manage those systems and that software becomes a public and collective property.
Open source is also said to help the local economy so I can't restrain myself from seeing it as part of a future trend that should take place in many sectors, agriculture for example; We might stop shipping lettuce across the country when the the oil needed to power transportation will run out and grow it locally where feasible, thus helping the local economy...
As I said, switching to open source is a decision that needs long term goals.
After performing analysis at different governmental agencies, I most of the time recommend to stay with their proprietary software. I they ask why, I tell them that switching to open source would require directions and budget from top executives in the government and a clearly defined political will to make the switch succeed.
Also, you must be aware that every company on Earth will lobby against such an idea, don't you?