If you're paying attention that is. You can edit code, save it, pop up the window and type "make", see stuff actually build, then hit your debugger and it's loading the wrong code. Happens if you're forced to use some lame IDE or debugger for the chip while using better tools to develop with (because every damn chip maker thinks they should make some proprietary half assed IDE rather than make open debugging tools).
I stick with the ";" for loop bodies but it's always on a line by itself so that it's obvious. Another problem along lines with this is to not trust the indentation from other people's code. So you miss the ";" at the end of the line with the "while" because the indentation is fooling you. Some people just insist on their own indentation style even if the code above and blow it use different styles. I even had a boss once who cut and pasted code without re-indenting afterwords.
This is tough in college when it happens. No one believes the student who says things aren't working because of a hardware problem, the other students don't even believe it. There are a lot of software people who are trained to assume hardware never has problems; some even think operating systems don't have problems.
So in my class at school we always got the new minicomputers, the ones that had never been tested on a full classroom yet. One of them had a bug in a divide instruction, and when used incorrectly it would crash the machine. But the OS never used that instruction incorrectly. The problem was that this machine was used for the compiler class, and we were generating machine code directly. We were getting crashes which kicked off 30 students at once which meant that it very quickly became an issue to try and figure out what was going wrong rather than the usual practice of waiting and hoping it goes away. Eventually one student group figured out it must be them, because it always crashed when they executed their program and it was probably their code. Even then the system admins were dubious at first, because it wasn't the sort of thing to cause crashes. They did figure out which instruction it was though and everyone avoided it after that.
The government support of PBS is minor. The majority of funding comes from individual donors and corporate donors. Actually some of the biggest PBS supporters in congress come from sparsely populated areas, like Alaska, because such services like PBS and NPR are much more valued, even though such areas tend to swing towards limited taxation and limited government. And those are also the areas where most of the government support to BPS/NPR goes.
It opens faster than that for me, about a couple seconds max. I have a lot of scripts turned off though and don't have additional google services. I have nothing to compare it too though as I don't use other social media sites.
If you talk to some people, apparently no one uses credit cards or checks anymore either, no one uses thumb drives because it's all in the cloud, no one programs in C, and no one buys clothes off the rack.
I had to turn off the "what's hot" feed on Google+. After last November's election is became dominated by hard left and hard right politics with no voices of reason. It went from having some occasional interesting things to see from around the web to utter crap. I have no idea how they decide what's "hot" or not, it did not seem like it was number of responses or +1s or reposts. And no advertisements really (except for the "Windows 10 is out!" fan posts which are really astroturfed marketing).
You could just overlap the circles. Have the "kitten pictures" circle if you like. Or make one giant circle instead. Or post to the world, but then that would be just a facebook clone with slightly less stupidity. Why create a circle for those you don't care about and pretend they don't exist when you can just ignore them?
This only makes sense in the world of 20 to 30 somethings who have never experienced the concept of privacy in their lives. Having some measure of being selective and reserved should be the default state for people (or at least those not in politics). The goal of Google+ I think was not to be a Facebook replacement, but to be an alternative. Thus you don't see mindless fluff every day about what someone ate for lunch.
But Facebook has an even worse reputation regarding privacy. But I see people justify it by claiming they have to be on Facebook anyway so they put up with it and just be careful about what they post.
You think they'll turn it off? I know people have been saying it's "failed" but in today's internet environment, failure means that it's not used within your own microbubble ("no one eats gluten anymore!").
Why is having all your friends on the same service important? Of the sorts people in my non-work social circle that I see at least once a month right now, more of them have Google+ accounts than those who have Facebook accounts. Though there's still the non-trivial subset of friends with neither Facebook nor Google+ (maybe still waiting for the Apple Ecosystem Friendship Network).
Google+ was a better product though, it was not just a stupid Facebook clone. Having distinctive groups of circles that you could post to was a big advantage. Plus you could follow someone without having them reciprocate by approving your request, so that Minor Celebrity is not pretending to be your friend.
If you blame someone for the one account thing, so NOT blame Google+, blame Google. Google+ was and is a great service, and it did not force Google against its will to tie in idiotic unrelated services like gmail or youtube. If Google+ vanished you should not go back to saying that Google is awesome again. You may not think it's a big deal, but those of us who like Google+ don't like it being trashed while things like gmail and youtube are praised. People who had 9 separate Google accounts have their own monoculture problems to deal with without dumping on the people who used Google+ as their one and only Google service.
It's kind of nice to not have massive corporate interest in Google+. It's supposed to be for social networking, not to have people try to sell us crap we don't need.
Then you need to visit Google+, we have minor celebrities there and they do "push" it in the sense of mentioning where their posts are. I have indeed seen the "Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, or Google+" tag lines.
And yet you're still at Facebook that still has real name rules, you're just skirting the rules and hoping. Whereas all along in Google+ you could skirt the rules and hope:-)
Was Hangouts ever distinct from Google+? I thought Hangouts was created specifically for Google+. Though I may be wrong, I don't keep up with google drama.
I have one relative on both Google+ and Facebook, so I see him post all his gripes and bitchings about work on Google+ where it's safe from prying eyes. That's a feature Facebook really missed out on, the separate groups of people that you need to keep distinct without inadvertent crossover. Talk politics in group A, work drama in group B, baby pictures in group C, and pretend to be a public internet celebrity by posting to Everyone.
I see some sites that only allow Facebook sign on, which means I never go to those sites more than once. There are a LOT of people out there who naively assume everyone on the planet above the age of 2 is on Facebook. The best feature of Google+ was precisely that it was not Facebook (next best feature was circles).
Some Google services sort of made sense to tie in with Google+. Ie, photos with Picassa. If you want to share photos you need some sort of photo service and some sort of sharing service, so tying them together is reasonable. However they should have provided some sort of generic API to allow you some choice (not sure what Facebook does here, they probably were forced by necessity to have an API). It also would have been better to allow associating different accounts together rather than requiring a single account.
(I only got the youtube account because one day I hit a +1 button on video, then I could never find the undo button cancel that account)
No, only the ads are horrendous. And they wouldn't even be called that if they weren't the primary vector source of malware, popups, and browser sluggishness. Just like rats wouldn't be called vermin if they didn't spread disease and eat your food supply.
This was a Google flaw, not a Google+ flaw. But if Facebook had similar services it would have tied them together too. It does tend to tie all the android phone stuff together when it doesn't need to, yet Apple gets a free pass on the same sort of thing, and Microsoft is trying to get a universal ID for all users as well.
Got a new phone this weekend, and the person in the store setting it up was surprised that I didn't have a gmail account so that he could transfer data from the old phone, and I had to convince him that it would work with my google+ login instead.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're paying attention that is. You can edit code, save it, pop up the window and type "make", see stuff actually build, then hit your debugger and it's loading the wrong code. Happens if you're forced to use some lame IDE or debugger for the chip while using better tools to develop with (because every damn chip maker thinks they should make some proprietary half assed IDE rather than make open debugging tools).
I stick with the ";" for loop bodies but it's always on a line by itself so that it's obvious.
Another problem along lines with this is to not trust the indentation from other people's code. So you miss the ";" at the end of the line with the "while" because the indentation is fooling you. Some people just insist on their own indentation style even if the code above and blow it use different styles. I even had a boss once who cut and pasted code without re-indenting afterwords.
This is tough in college when it happens. No one believes the student who says things aren't working because of a hardware problem, the other students don't even believe it. There are a lot of software people who are trained to assume hardware never has problems; some even think operating systems don't have problems.
So in my class at school we always got the new minicomputers, the ones that had never been tested on a full classroom yet. One of them had a bug in a divide instruction, and when used incorrectly it would crash the machine. But the OS never used that instruction incorrectly. The problem was that this machine was used for the compiler class, and we were generating machine code directly. We were getting crashes which kicked off 30 students at once which meant that it very quickly became an issue to try and figure out what was going wrong rather than the usual practice of waiting and hoping it goes away. Eventually one student group figured out it must be them, because it always crashed when they executed their program and it was probably their code. Even then the system admins were dubious at first, because it wasn't the sort of thing to cause crashes. They did figure out which instruction it was though and everyone avoided it after that.
The government support of PBS is minor. The majority of funding comes from individual donors and corporate donors. Actually some of the biggest PBS supporters in congress come from sparsely populated areas, like Alaska, because such services like PBS and NPR are much more valued, even though such areas tend to swing towards limited taxation and limited government. And those are also the areas where most of the government support to BPS/NPR goes.
There aren't ads on Google+. Or I've never seen them anyway with adblock...
(quick check, still no ads even with adblock off)
It opens faster than that for me, about a couple seconds max. I have a lot of scripts turned off though and don't have additional google services. I have nothing to compare it too though as I don't use other social media sites.
If you talk to some people, apparently no one uses credit cards or checks anymore either, no one uses thumb drives because it's all in the cloud, no one programs in C, and no one buys clothes off the rack.
I had to turn off the "what's hot" feed on Google+. After last November's election is became dominated by hard left and hard right politics with no voices of reason. It went from having some occasional interesting things to see from around the web to utter crap. I have no idea how they decide what's "hot" or not, it did not seem like it was number of responses or +1s or reposts. And no advertisements really (except for the "Windows 10 is out!" fan posts which are really astroturfed marketing).
You could just overlap the circles. Have the "kitten pictures" circle if you like. Or make one giant circle instead. Or post to the world, but then that would be just a facebook clone with slightly less stupidity. Why create a circle for those you don't care about and pretend they don't exist when you can just ignore them?
If you had argumentative people screwing things up, couldn't you just drop those people from the circles you post to? That's the whole point.
This only makes sense in the world of 20 to 30 somethings who have never experienced the concept of privacy in their lives. Having some measure of being selective and reserved should be the default state for people (or at least those not in politics). The goal of Google+ I think was not to be a Facebook replacement, but to be an alternative. Thus you don't see mindless fluff every day about what someone ate for lunch.
But Facebook has an even worse reputation regarding privacy. But I see people justify it by claiming they have to be on Facebook anyway so they put up with it and just be careful about what they post.
You think they'll turn it off? I know people have been saying it's "failed" but in today's internet environment, failure means that it's not used within your own microbubble ("no one eats gluten anymore!").
Doesn't facebook still require you to post to all your friends rather than grouping your "friends" into subsets?
Why is having all your friends on the same service important? Of the sorts people in my non-work social circle that I see at least once a month right now, more of them have Google+ accounts than those who have Facebook accounts. Though there's still the non-trivial subset of friends with neither Facebook nor Google+ (maybe still waiting for the Apple Ecosystem Friendship Network).
Google+ was a better product though, it was not just a stupid Facebook clone. Having distinctive groups of circles that you could post to was a big advantage. Plus you could follow someone without having them reciprocate by approving your request, so that Minor Celebrity is not pretending to be your friend.
If you blame someone for the one account thing, so NOT blame Google+, blame Google. Google+ was and is a great service, and it did not force Google against its will to tie in idiotic unrelated services like gmail or youtube. If Google+ vanished you should not go back to saying that Google is awesome again. You may not think it's a big deal, but those of us who like Google+ don't like it being trashed while things like gmail and youtube are praised. People who had 9 separate Google accounts have their own monoculture problems to deal with without dumping on the people who used Google+ as their one and only Google service.
It's kind of nice to not have massive corporate interest in Google+. It's supposed to be for social networking, not to have people try to sell us crap we don't need.
Then you need to visit Google+, we have minor celebrities there and they do "push" it in the sense of mentioning where their posts are. I have indeed seen the "Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, or Google+" tag lines.
And yet you're still at Facebook that still has real name rules, you're just skirting the rules and hoping. Whereas all along in Google+ you could skirt the rules and hope :-)
Was Hangouts ever distinct from Google+? I thought Hangouts was created specifically for Google+. Though I may be wrong, I don't keep up with google drama.
I have one relative on both Google+ and Facebook, so I see him post all his gripes and bitchings about work on Google+ where it's safe from prying eyes. That's a feature Facebook really missed out on, the separate groups of people that you need to keep distinct without inadvertent crossover. Talk politics in group A, work drama in group B, baby pictures in group C, and pretend to be a public internet celebrity by posting to Everyone.
I see some sites that only allow Facebook sign on, which means I never go to those sites more than once. There are a LOT of people out there who naively assume everyone on the planet above the age of 2 is on Facebook. The best feature of Google+ was precisely that it was not Facebook (next best feature was circles).
Some Google services sort of made sense to tie in with Google+. Ie, photos with Picassa. If you want to share photos you need some sort of photo service and some sort of sharing service, so tying them together is reasonable. However they should have provided some sort of generic API to allow you some choice (not sure what Facebook does here, they probably were forced by necessity to have an API). It also would have been better to allow associating different accounts together rather than requiring a single account.
(I only got the youtube account because one day I hit a +1 button on video, then I could never find the undo button cancel that account)
No, only the ads are horrendous. And they wouldn't even be called that if they weren't the primary vector source of malware, popups, and browser sluggishness. Just like rats wouldn't be called vermin if they didn't spread disease and eat your food supply.
This was a Google flaw, not a Google+ flaw. But if Facebook had similar services it would have tied them together too. It does tend to tie all the android phone stuff together when it doesn't need to, yet Apple gets a free pass on the same sort of thing, and Microsoft is trying to get a universal ID for all users as well.
Got a new phone this weekend, and the person in the store setting it up was surprised that I didn't have a gmail account so that he could transfer data from the old phone, and I had to convince him that it would work with my google+ login instead.