lol - yeah, I wondered if anyone would comment on that. Fortunately, this one is actually under a "real" name both for the site and using my actual name. although the banking will go through my fiancee so as to remain offshore.
The series of sentences around "Opera" and "Mac" were just poorly constructed and look like I was implying Opera was solely on a Mac.
What I meant was that I haven't looked at Opera in a long time. End of that thought. Then it hit me that there are a series of browsers on the Mac that I technically should test for as well... but I don't own a Mac.
In the end, while they are two separate thoughts, I then concluded that it probably doesn't matter since the majority of my future clients are daytraders and hedge fund managers - nearly all of which use IE on Windows systems.
When I was in college from 95-99, it was easy for me to be anti-Microsoft. I didn't particularly know much about it, but I knew that my Win95 machine crashed and therefore those MS people must be morons. I knew that there were a lot of others that hated them, so I just sort of figured it was the cool thing to do, hate those bastards.
Then I started learning more econ and started thinking less as a college student and more rationally in terms of how MS got there, and I stopped hating MS.
That said, I did hate IE. It sucked nuts. Mosaic was total ass, and at the time Netscape was the bees knees. I continued to use Netscape throughout college and was annoyed whenever I had to use IE.
Then I graduated and began to actually program - my particular projects were nearly all DHTML web applications that were large scale ports of existing legacy apps, moving to the web to allow easier use and upkeep... so they said. DHTML on Netscape sucked the hugest and hairy nuts, so we told our clients that they would have to use IE (these were private applications, used in house at many large universities, we weren't designing storefronts that needed to be cross-browser). I hadn't seen IE in a long time and was really enjoying working with it compared to the clunky and awkward Netscape.
As a result, up until about a week ago, I was all for IE. It was fast, worked well with DHTML, and most importantly in the past year or two - it has the Google Toolbar.
I have been trying out Mozilla for the past few years, but haven't been all that impressed by it - in fact I was really put off by it at first. But I just installed 1.4 last week and was really impressed with it - and once I saw that I could get the same Google Toolbar functionality that I used all the time, I realized that I really had a reason to switch now.
I personally am still sticking with IE at work, b/c I do a lot of IT admin stuff on an MS network, and using IE makes it easier to do some of the MS updates.
At home I will likely make the switch over to Mozilla to keep track of many e-mail accounts, as well as for my personal web surfing.
I'm at the point now where I am starting up my own web venture, so I am actually going to have to test for cross browser look and feel, as well as functionality. My first test at it showed that Mozilla 1.4 is better at dealing with png graphics than IE 6.something. Mozilla also renders a page faster.
I haven't used Opera in over two years, I suppose I will need to test that as well on the site. I don't have a Mac, so I can't test any of their browsers. I think those should totally cover my target market (I actually think in terms of the business, it will be nearly 99% IE users).
What does this have to do with anything? Not a whole lot I guess.
I hate witches even more. And a level 3 warlock that can block spells of enchantment due to some punk ass cloak that he got by caching in bags of coins just pisses me off. I don't have anything particularly against trolls, as long as my sword has the sheath of enlightenment maxed out after enough potions and one ups.
I suppose I don't really know anything about that sort of thing, but I was trying to think of what the people that I saw in college sword fighting in the quad while wearing Elizabethan garb might have to say about your hatred for Wizards.
Back when I thought Michael Chritchton (I think I probably spelled both of those wrong, I'm retarded) was the greatest, I read all of his books.
In Disclosure, they were testing out these goggles that do the same thing, but on airplanes.
I'm not sure when that book was published, but I would guess prior to or during '95 because I don't think I read his stuff while I was in college and was too busy. I certainly haven't read anything of his since college.
I guess then it was vaporware, and now it is for real. Hot damn.
I'm guessing that you either live in some sort of time warp that is a few years back, or you live in another country than the States.
Check out www.pricewatch.com - but if your country is anything like where I live now (Bermuda), it is a pain in the ass to get stuff shipped to you from the States.
There are plenty of form factor cases out there that are half the size of an XBox - and they will hold a P4 and more.
It isn't like the XBox burns DVDs - the players are cheap these days.
The money aspect just doesn't cut it in the end - if you wanted a faster, better, small, DVD playing Linux box, then get the Ice Cube off of thinkgeek, throw in an HD, your DVD player, and whatever graphics card you want.
Sure instead of $180 it will cose about $380 - but it will be newer and faster.
If you are using the agrument that the XBox looks better, then your design sense is interesting at best.
To claim that they are doing it for price is a bit off. The people do it so that they can feel in some way they have gotten away with something. They are told that they shouldn't, then they do, and they gain bragging rights. They gain a tiny amount of control in a world that has little of it for the average perosn - they are briefly a David to the Goliath of Microsoft. The money isn't an issue.
True, to get a PIII 733, a NVidia graphics card, etc etc for $200 is a good deal at first glance I suppose. Were I in the States, I could go to pricewatch and order me up some parts. PIII 733 by itself is $67, you figure you still need a motherboard and case, that is easily another $80 at least, and then you need the graphics card...
But looking again, you can get a PIII 1G and the motherboard as a combo for $65. You can get a case for about $30. You can get the video card for about $80. So a better system for cheaper... and the thing is, that is only if you are still looking for the PIII, if you stepped up to an Athlon XP, you would then get far more processing power, and you would only be spending a little more.
Granted, that doesn't help you if you have no clue how to put together a system, and you only have $200... but I have a feeling the type of person willing to hack a perfectly good game system, and then run Linux on it, is going to be able to put together a computer system on their own.
In the end, I think the monetary reasons for hacking are non-existant, aside from those bad at math. It is the fun factor and the thumb-your-nose-at-MS factor.
and I think in terms of performance in C, "++C" instead of "C++" is faster and more efficient since it can just dump over it instead of using it first and then incrementing it up.
I haven't bothered testing it in C++, but it should be faster in anything I would imagine for the same reason.
So if C++ is theoretically D (assuming that we have already used C, and therefore have something new) - ignoring that language already exists and is different - then the new language should actually now be E... So why don't we do --F so that we get the better performance of prepending instead of postpending (although it is removal in this case) and then we are doing something different for a change and going down to E.
I don't know, I'm just rambling.
the reality of it is that it isn't a new language, just an update to C++, so there is no new name.
we are just geeks and this is how we have fun I guess. if only I wore glasses, then I'd push them up my nose right now and chortle.
I once had someone tell me that the two ways to deal with a sheep when trying to have sex with it is to either get their head into a corner so they can't run off, or wear high rubber boots so that you can then put the sheep's rear legs into your boots... again, being rendered unable to run away.
I feel like the same person told me it was good to get 'em young too - in reference to sheep at the time, but looking back, I suppose he probably meant that in any sexual encounter.
aside from the fact that I spelled "standard" as "stanard" - it also as just poorly worded, as you so dutifully pointed out. That is the best part of slashdot, thousands of editors right on hand.:)
I suppose a "currency backed standard" would make more sense in the context of what I was saying than the reverse (being what I actually wrote) would.
In the end a standard does exist for currencies, which isn't gold (did I say that it was?) anymore, but instead just the relative value of various commodities. But we can assign fixed (even if temporary) value to currencies, whereas getting rid of "money" in the way that I interpreted the orig guy to say, would be to go back to a barter system, which then, as you say would allow the fantastic practice of trading sheep for goods and services (and when you are doing that, they make excellent sex toys). But then that leads to confusion - do you trade by the level of wool quality, their weigh, sheer volume, fat content?
But in the end, yes, like you and I both said, "money" is just a concept and you couldn't "get rid of it" any more than you could get rid of the concept of communication or free will.
if we all just walk up on our tiptoes and flail our arms around while swining our right legs out in big sweeping arcs, then we turn invisible.
seriously, try this out at the mall and suddenly it is like you aren't even there, people won't notice or look at you at all. and if you are there with anyone, they too will suddenly not see you anymore.
Seriously, I haven't been attacked and mauled by bears in the entire time that I've had my phone set on this ringtone.
I don't mean to brag, but the ringtone was built into the phone - I didn't have to pay anything extra for it.
I have a Nokia 8890 if anyone else also wants a phone that repels bear attacks. I haven't tested it in the deep woods, and I have most recently lived in Boston where bear attacks are an incredibly frequent ofccurace (if you don't have this phone). Now I live in Bermuda and I have continued my streak of non-bear attack days.
I'll bet it is probably in other Nokia phones too since they share a lot of the common ringtones.
"money" is just the current term that we use to refer to a single form of barter.
were you to get rid of money, people would then just revert to a more diverse bartering system, which would not solve what you see as an overall problem, and in fact would then exacerbate the issue due to the inefficiency of the system (and hence why societies have moved to the stanard backed currencies instead).
your statement is a cop out, and so incredibly lacking in... well, logic, that I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it should be taken as a joke.
Either that or assume that you were totally lost in much of any econ, psychology, history, and perhaps even science classes that go into great detail on the dynamics at play and why things have moved the way they have.
that doesn't at all sound biased. not in the least.
it is good to see someone writing about it, especially when they have no reasons (not even financial) for one or the other to come out looking better in their analysis.
it references that and points out how much of "reading the player" is overhyped and easily faked out.
whereas the real information is in the trade at hand - the exchange of money. watching the bets and the amounts in them at varying spots in the game.
I have a few friends that have won online tournaments and they approach it from a very mathematical point of view. They do very well in person or over the net. Using the "read" approach, unless the read is of the play on the table, is only going to work with people that aren't aware of the read and therefore not faking the attributes.
I personally prefer to look for the security holes in the online software:) (There was a famous one in '96 or so where the system was using the random function built in - I think in Turbo Pascal IIRC - they had it exposed by posting their random code on the net to prove that they were being fair. A consulting firm then exploited that to show that they only needed to see one or two cards beyond what was in their card to then show what everyone else in the game was holding... there is much higher security in it all these days, and better/smarter programming).
Another firend in college found a site that had a hole, not in the security, but in the method at which they gave out tokens - as long as you kept playing, there was a reward of some number of tokens as an incentive to keep you playing. He then ran some numbers and proved that with that, they were open to an exploit of the Martingale system. He ran it on them for a good amount of time and it failed - he basically proved that their code was cheating on the inside. He called them on it and after a few heated e-mails, got all his money back and was banned from the site. I could go on and on - but that is going off topic.
Or even make use of the fact that subscribed users get to see it early - so if some threshold of them mark it as a dupe, then don't display it to the masses.
Slashdot Mirror
lol - yeah, I wondered if anyone would comment on that. Fortunately, this one is actually under a "real" name both for the site and using my actual name.
although the banking will go through my fiancee so as to remain offshore.
I am aware of this.
The series of sentences around "Opera" and "Mac" were just poorly constructed and look like I was implying Opera was solely on a Mac.
What I meant was that I haven't looked at Opera in a long time.
End of that thought.
Then it hit me that there are a series of browsers on the Mac that I technically should test for as well... but I don't own a Mac.
In the end, while they are two separate thoughts, I then concluded that it probably doesn't matter since the majority of my future clients are daytraders and hedge fund managers - nearly all of which use IE on Windows systems.
When I was in college from 95-99, it was easy for me to be anti-Microsoft. I didn't particularly know much about it, but I knew that my Win95 machine crashed and therefore those MS people must be morons.
I knew that there were a lot of others that hated them, so I just sort of figured it was the cool thing to do, hate those bastards.
Then I started learning more econ and started thinking less as a college student and more rationally in terms of how MS got there, and I stopped hating MS.
That said, I did hate IE. It sucked nuts. Mosaic was total ass, and at the time Netscape was the bees knees.
I continued to use Netscape throughout college and was annoyed whenever I had to use IE.
Then I graduated and began to actually program - my particular projects were nearly all DHTML web applications that were large scale ports of existing legacy apps, moving to the web to allow easier use and upkeep... so they said.
DHTML on Netscape sucked the hugest and hairy nuts, so we told our clients that they would have to use IE (these were private applications, used in house at many large universities, we weren't designing storefronts that needed to be cross-browser).
I hadn't seen IE in a long time and was really enjoying working with it compared to the clunky and awkward Netscape.
As a result, up until about a week ago, I was all for IE. It was fast, worked well with DHTML, and most importantly in the past year or two - it has the Google Toolbar.
I have been trying out Mozilla for the past few years, but haven't been all that impressed by it - in fact I was really put off by it at first.
But I just installed 1.4 last week and was really impressed with it - and once I saw that I could get the same Google Toolbar functionality that I used all the time, I realized that I really had a reason to switch now.
I personally am still sticking with IE at work, b/c I do a lot of IT admin stuff on an MS network, and using IE makes it easier to do some of the MS updates.
At home I will likely make the switch over to Mozilla to keep track of many e-mail accounts, as well as for my personal web surfing.
I'm at the point now where I am starting up my own web venture, so I am actually going to have to test for cross browser look and feel, as well as functionality.
My first test at it showed that Mozilla 1.4 is better at dealing with png graphics than IE 6.something. Mozilla also renders a page faster.
I haven't used Opera in over two years, I suppose I will need to test that as well on the site. I don't have a Mac, so I can't test any of their browsers.
I think those should totally cover my target market (I actually think in terms of the business, it will be nearly 99% IE users).
What does this have to do with anything? Not a whole lot I guess.
ahh, that would make more sense since I really don't recall anything about airplanes in Disclosure.
:)
Airframe was 1997, so while I was in college, or probably over the summer.
that would at least explain my poor memory of it
thanks
I hate witches even more. And a level 3 warlock that can block spells of enchantment due to some punk ass cloak that he got by caching in bags of coins just pisses me off.
I don't have anything particularly against trolls, as long as my sword has the sheath of enlightenment maxed out after enough potions and one ups.
I suppose I don't really know anything about that sort of thing, but I was trying to think of what the people that I saw in college sword fighting in the quad while wearing Elizabethan garb might have to say about your hatred for Wizards.
Back when I thought Michael Chritchton (I think I probably spelled both of those wrong, I'm retarded) was the greatest, I read all of his books.
In Disclosure, they were testing out these goggles that do the same thing, but on airplanes.
I'm not sure when that book was published, but I would guess prior to or during '95 because I don't think I read his stuff while I was in college and was too busy. I certainly haven't read anything of his since college.
I guess then it was vaporware, and now it is for real. Hot damn.
I'm guessing that you either live in some sort of time warp that is a few years back, or you live in another country than the States.
Check out www.pricewatch.com - but if your country is anything like where I live now (Bermuda), it is a pain in the ass to get stuff shipped to you from the States.
There are plenty of form factor cases out there that are half the size of an XBox - and they will hold a P4 and more.
It isn't like the XBox burns DVDs - the players are cheap these days.
The money aspect just doesn't cut it in the end - if you wanted a faster, better, small, DVD playing Linux box, then get the Ice Cube off of thinkgeek, throw in an HD, your DVD player, and whatever graphics card you want.
Sure instead of $180 it will cose about $380 - but it will be newer and faster.
If you are using the agrument that the XBox looks better, then your design sense is interesting at best.
To claim that they are doing it for price is a bit off. The people do it so that they can feel in some way they have gotten away with something. They are told that they shouldn't, then they do, and they gain bragging rights. They gain a tiny amount of control in a world that has little of it for the average perosn - they are briefly a David to the Goliath of Microsoft. The money isn't an issue.
True, to get a PIII 733, a NVidia graphics card, etc etc for $200 is a good deal at first glance I suppose.
Were I in the States, I could go to pricewatch and order me up some parts.
PIII 733 by itself is $67, you figure you still need a motherboard and case, that is easily another $80 at least, and then you need the graphics card...
But looking again, you can get a PIII 1G and the motherboard as a combo for $65.
You can get a case for about $30. You can get the video card for about $80.
So a better system for cheaper... and the thing is, that is only if you are still looking for the PIII, if you stepped up to an Athlon XP, you would then get far more processing power, and you would only be spending a little more.
Granted, that doesn't help you if you have no clue how to put together a system, and you only have $200... but I have a feeling the type of person willing to hack a perfectly good game system, and then run Linux on it, is going to be able to put together a computer system on their own.
In the end, I think the monetary reasons for hacking are non-existant, aside from those bad at math.
It is the fun factor and the thumb-your-nose-at-MS factor.
everyone knows that JavaScript is where its at.
I do all my cluster number crunching in JavaScript.
pure speed baby
detox?
and I think in terms of performance in C, "++C" instead of "C++" is faster and more efficient since it can just dump over it instead of using it first and then incrementing it up.
I haven't bothered testing it in C++, but it should be faster in anything I would imagine for the same reason.
So if C++ is theoretically D (assuming that we have already used C, and therefore have something new) - ignoring that language already exists and is different - then the new language should actually now be E...
So why don't we do --F so that we get the better performance of prepending instead of postpending (although it is removal in this case) and then we are doing something different for a change and going down to E.
I don't know, I'm just rambling.
the reality of it is that it isn't a new language, just an update to C++, so there is no new name.
we are just geeks and this is how we have fun I guess. if only I wore glasses, then I'd push them up my nose right now and chortle.
perhaps this explains why I sometimes shit myself when using templates.
I had always blamed Korean food.
Isn't it technically already an implied D?
(we have used C, and then after that incremented it to D)
So it would actually be better to have the new one called "D++"?
I once had someone tell me that the two ways to deal with a sheep when trying to have sex with it is to either get their head into a corner so they can't run off, or wear high rubber boots so that you can then put the sheep's rear legs into your boots... again, being rendered unable to run away.
I feel like the same person told me it was good to get 'em young too - in reference to sheep at the time, but looking back, I suppose he probably meant that in any sexual encounter.
He was a strange fellow.
as long as I can refer to them as sluts, skanks, bitches, whores, cum dumpsters, and cunts... then I guess I can live without using the word "bimbo"
thanks for the tip!
aside from the fact that I spelled "standard" as "stanard" - it also as just poorly worded, as you so dutifully pointed out. :)
That is the best part of slashdot, thousands of editors right on hand.
I suppose a "currency backed standard" would make more sense in the context of what I was saying than the reverse (being what I actually wrote) would.
In the end a standard does exist for currencies, which isn't gold (did I say that it was?) anymore, but instead just the relative value of various commodities.
But we can assign fixed (even if temporary) value to currencies, whereas getting rid of "money" in the way that I interpreted the orig guy to say, would be to go back to a barter system, which then, as you say would allow the fantastic practice of trading sheep for goods and services (and when you are doing that, they make excellent sex toys).
But then that leads to confusion - do you trade by the level of wool quality, their weigh, sheer volume, fat content?
But in the end, yes, like you and I both said, "money" is just a concept and you couldn't "get rid of it" any more than you could get rid of the concept of communication or free will.
can I borrow $50,000?
if we all just walk up on our tiptoes and flail our arms around while swining our right legs out in big sweeping arcs, then we turn invisible.
seriously, try this out at the mall and suddenly it is like you aren't even there, people won't notice or look at you at all. and if you are there with anyone, they too will suddenly not see you anymore.
nothing can collide with you if it can't see you.
seriously - perfect logic.
fear me.
"Quick n Dirty" is my middle name.
I'm thinking of getting it tattooed over my back in gangsta script.
west-syyyde
I don't want a phone that repels anything.
I want a phone that makes me a magnet for hot easy women.
it should ring and then I find myself at the bottom of a pile of mini-skirt clad, top heavy bimbos.
And ideally the sound is also an aphrodesiac, so that by the time I get out from the pile of skank, they're ready for hot sweaty action.
I'd pay more than $2.50 for that.
Seriously, I haven't been attacked and mauled by bears in the entire time that I've had my phone set on this ringtone.
I don't mean to brag, but the ringtone was built into the phone - I didn't have to pay anything extra for it.
I have a Nokia 8890 if anyone else also wants a phone that repels bear attacks.
I haven't tested it in the deep woods, and I have most recently lived in Boston where bear attacks are an incredibly frequent ofccurace (if you don't have this phone). Now I live in Bermuda and I have continued my streak of non-bear attack days.
I'll bet it is probably in other Nokia phones too since they share a lot of the common ringtones.
"money" is just the current term that we use to refer to a single form of barter.
were you to get rid of money, people would then just revert to a more diverse bartering system, which would not solve what you see as an overall problem, and in fact would then exacerbate the issue due to the inefficiency of the system (and hence why societies have moved to the stanard backed currencies instead).
your statement is a cop out, and so incredibly lacking in... well, logic, that I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it should be taken as a joke.
Either that or assume that you were totally lost in much of any econ, psychology, history, and perhaps even science classes that go into great detail on the dynamics at play and why things have moved the way they have.
that doesn't at all sound biased. not in the least.
it is good to see someone writing about it, especially when they have no reasons (not even financial) for one or the other to come out looking better in their analysis.
oops, I forgot my sarcasm tags
reading the article is too much I see.
:)
it references that and points out how much of "reading the player" is overhyped and easily faked out.
whereas the real information is in the trade at hand - the exchange of money. watching the bets and the amounts in them at varying spots in the game.
I have a few friends that have won online tournaments and they approach it from a very mathematical point of view. They do very well in person or over the net.
Using the "read" approach, unless the read is of the play on the table, is only going to work with people that aren't aware of the read and therefore not faking the attributes.
I personally prefer to look for the security holes in the online software
(There was a famous one in '96 or so where the system was using the random function built in - I think in Turbo Pascal IIRC - they had it exposed by posting their random code on the net to prove that they were being fair. A consulting firm then exploited that to show that they only needed to see one or two cards beyond what was in their card to then show what everyone else in the game was holding... there is much higher security in it all these days, and better/smarter programming).
Another firend in college found a site that had a hole, not in the security, but in the method at which they gave out tokens - as long as you kept playing, there was a reward of some number of tokens as an incentive to keep you playing.
He then ran some numbers and proved that with that, they were open to an exploit of the Martingale system. He ran it on them for a good amount of time and it failed - he basically proved that their code was cheating on the inside.
He called them on it and after a few heated e-mails, got all his money back and was banned from the site.
I could go on and on - but that is going off topic.
Or even make use of the fact that subscribed users get to see it early - so if some threshold of them mark it as a dupe, then don't display it to the masses.