Not mine - Dems and Pubs are both asshats. Any change that reduces the intrusion of government into my daily habits is a good change, regardless of party.
I can't recall: which book/verse exactly is it where your god tells you to arm yourself to the teeth to protect yourself?
Much of the Old Testament, actually. There's a ton of war stories with the theme of "our tribe won because our god was better" in there, and the idea that it's fine, or even required, to raid the neighboring tribe isn't questioned. To many Christians the New Testament deprecated all of that stuff, but that gets into specific faiths, and I never could keep them all straight.
You have a warped sense of politeness. Shooting someone for texting is always justified. Heck, I'd give a gangbanger a pass on a drive-by shooting if he accidentally winged a bystander who was texting.
Different people have differing values - isn't that neat.
H L Menken was a humorist (seems obsessive literalist geeks need that pointed out). Actually, almost all the humor he wrote is still funny today - really worth reading what you can find.
The nice thing is after 10-15 year or so, all problems start to look familiar to you, but not so much to the young guys or the managers. You can either rebel against the latest old thing new again and seem a Luddite, or seem a genius for immediately seeing all the pitfalls and optimizations entailed in the "new" idea.
The dock is the taskbar (well, the quicklaunch icons on the taskbar, before they were later merged). The start menu is just showing you the filesystem in a cleaned-up way (rooted in a well-known place). The taskbar is really "what if the dock also showed icons for running applications".
ATM number keyboards are special: they never let a PIN into the RAM of the ATM, only a slated hash of the PIN. (Most of them are also horribly flawed in that they also have a "normal" mode, allowing a hacked ATM to display a UI to harvest PINs in that mode. Sigh.)
Use this same technique for card readers: the magstripe reader doesn't ever put the raw bits on the wire, only a salted hash of those bits, so that's all that's available to a RAM scraper.
The Win2000/XP UI was the natural evolution of the idea in NextSTEP. The taskbar was a great evolution of the dock. Context menus were a better idea than tear-able menus, IMO (plus say that out loud: "my job is to write tear-able menus").
There's one great idea in Metro: the ability to show app content on a medium-size chunk of the desktop. I'd like some tiles on my desktop: for a calendar, for a sticky note or two. But they make a poor Start menu: you just can't see enough of them, and there's no good expression of hierarchy.
The fun part is MS does this with every new version of Windows ever. I wonder if it's been the same guy all along. If so, I think actual medieval measure are needed.
The results are in: Anonymous Coward just loves metro. Rather predictable, really.
I don't think that Metro per se is a vile abomination: if I actually had any apps from the Windows Store, it's not a bad way to interact with them. As the years go one, there probably will be apps written for phone/tablet that I want to run on my desktop, and seeing metro as a way to launch those would be OK.
But Metro seriously needs to die the death for administrative tasks, especially on a server, and the jarring transition when I'm launching a non-Metro program just in general blows goats. I like my Start button and menu tree, but I could get used to a Start button and tiles if it didn't destroy my context with a jarring transition away from what I'm doing.
In the long run, the Sun goes out. In the mean time, do you really think there will come a time when we've made every process we depend on as efficient as physically possible? Sure each specific process has limits: a chip can only be so efficient. Hauling cargo 100 miles can only be so efficient. Delivering prescriptions by drone can only be so efficient. Most of that has nothing to do with "Information theory and quantum physics". But each time we do, we discover new goods and services are now in practical reach of the common man, and these new, just barely possible things... are inefficient.
Again, "technology" is not "gate size" or any other such specific details, it's improvements to the overall efficiency of achieving some abstract task with the least resources.
Right - this is my very argument for search-based CLI in a nutshell. "It's easy to search for help when you're not sure of the command name - just type 'man -k'". A CLI where all command names are encrypted is not a good model for anything,usability-wise. Reasonably named commands without random letters removed or changed, with a search function, works pretty well in practice. You can still learn an arbitrary short sequence of letters to type if you're in a hurry (or make aliases), but now it's somewhat discoverable. I don't think the idea is complete yet, but it sure does seem like the right direction.
Sure, my point was just that the industry only cares about money, and a quite unfortunate effect of torrents is that it makes incoherent effects movies the center of the target, because they're now selling only what people who can see a movie for free on their iPad would pay to see one for.
The worst part is: if the studios would embrace an iTunes-like model for movies, making it easier to pay than torrent (assuming you didn't mind paying), that incentive for crap movies would be greatly diminished.
I was going to say, does "hey baby, I can buy you food with my food stamps" really work as a pickup line? Seemed unlikely. But "help us, we need someone like you", that I can see as a not-one-night-stand desire.
Branson is more focused on creating a new space-related business than on creative new engineering to service existing business. I'm not sure whether such a market exists in the first place, but he's more about exploring new markets than new planets. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think VGal will ever be about putting payloads in orbit.
That's a large part of it. But I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around something that was in the summary: it said that 1 in 7 Americans are on stamps. That's an appalling statistic -- 1 in 7 Americans are poor enough that they wouldn't be able to feed themselves without government assistance?
These two things are not related. A portion of the government wants as many people on food stamps as possible, because as soon as you condition a person to free handouts you get power over them. There's plenty of food in America, to the point where obesity is inversely correlated with income.
In my childhood my family was quite poor (rural trailer park poor, not like them fancy trailer parks in the big cities). I believe the only reason we escaped that was my mother's refusal to depend on government handouts, and determination to make it on her own (and a far more valuable inheritance than money that was).
America doesn't need to resort to a program like that to feed it's people either - it's a deliberate trap, to ensure a dependable, dependent underclass.
When I was a student and got most my food at the convenience store, along with the cheapest alcohol money could buy, it wasn't rare for someone to approach me for a food-stamps-for-liquor swap. I really didn't have to go out of my way to notice. That was quite some time ago, however.
The notion that exercise burns few calories can only be said when compared to modern, high-calorie foods and large portions. For most of human history, finding enough calories to survive was a daily struggle, and doing a lot of exercise to get meat only makes sense for the protein, while the calories to survive came from gathering, not hunting.
I don't, rather the opposite - but the animal itself need to have that fat in the first place. Animals with a lot of fat can be run down without needing an ultramarathon to do it. A short run for a large animal is the way to go. Chasing a lean animal for days is beyond ridiculous.
But on the whole, it seems unlikely that stone age societies got many calories from hunting (fishing can be a different story), but rather hunting filled in the gaps in protein while calories came primarily from gathering.
Slashdot Mirror
Not mine - Dems and Pubs are both asshats. Any change that reduces the intrusion of government into my daily habits is a good change, regardless of party.
I can't recall: which book/verse exactly is it where your god tells you to arm yourself to the teeth to protect yourself?
Much of the Old Testament, actually. There's a ton of war stories with the theme of "our tribe won because our god was better" in there, and the idea that it's fine, or even required, to raid the neighboring tribe isn't questioned. To many Christians the New Testament deprecated all of that stuff, but that gets into specific faiths, and I never could keep them all straight.
You have a warped sense of politeness. Shooting someone for texting is always justified. Heck, I'd give a gangbanger a pass on a drive-by shooting if he accidentally winged a bystander who was texting.
Different people have differing values - isn't that neat.
H L Menken was a humorist (seems obsessive literalist geeks need that pointed out). Actually, almost all the humor he wrote is still funny today - really worth reading what you can find.
A better name would be Sim Town: at least then it would be old-school (a friend of mine was a dev on that - wow, that was a long time ago).
Or, one could call it "push based, instead of pull based" if one were eschewing obfuscative nomenclature.
The nice thing is after 10-15 year or so, all problems start to look familiar to you, but not so much to the young guys or the managers. You can either rebel against the latest old thing new again and seem a Luddite, or seem a genius for immediately seeing all the pitfalls and optimizations entailed in the "new" idea.
Slashdot 2015: Google announces end of life for Nest products, citing low advertising revenue from the platform.
Oh, well, one gone, but three more will pop up hoping for that multi-billion buyout.
So close to the right joke.
Gates Foundation gives $100,000 to help invent micro, soft condoms.
There we go.
The dock is the taskbar (well, the quicklaunch icons on the taskbar, before they were later merged). The start menu is just showing you the filesystem in a cleaned-up way (rooted in a well-known place). The taskbar is really "what if the dock also showed icons for running applications".
Wow, AC totally flubbed that joke.
"Don't Drink and Derive!"
There, was that so hard?
ATM number keyboards are special: they never let a PIN into the RAM of the ATM, only a slated hash of the PIN. (Most of them are also horribly flawed in that they also have a "normal" mode, allowing a hacked ATM to display a UI to harvest PINs in that mode. Sigh.)
Use this same technique for card readers: the magstripe reader doesn't ever put the raw bits on the wire, only a salted hash of those bits, so that's all that's available to a RAM scraper.
The Win2000/XP UI was the natural evolution of the idea in NextSTEP. The taskbar was a great evolution of the dock. Context menus were a better idea than tear-able menus, IMO (plus say that out loud: "my job is to write tear-able menus").
There's one great idea in Metro: the ability to show app content on a medium-size chunk of the desktop. I'd like some tiles on my desktop: for a calendar, for a sticky note or two. But they make a poor Start menu: you just can't see enough of them, and there's no good expression of hierarchy.
The fun part is MS does this with every new version of Windows ever. I wonder if it's been the same guy all along. If so, I think actual medieval measure are needed.
The results are in: Anonymous Coward just loves metro. Rather predictable, really.
I don't think that Metro per se is a vile abomination: if I actually had any apps from the Windows Store, it's not a bad way to interact with them. As the years go one, there probably will be apps written for phone/tablet that I want to run on my desktop, and seeing metro as a way to launch those would be OK.
But Metro seriously needs to die the death for administrative tasks, especially on a server, and the jarring transition when I'm launching a non-Metro program just in general blows goats. I like my Start button and menu tree, but I could get used to a Start button and tiles if it didn't destroy my context with a jarring transition away from what I'm doing.
I'm struggling to think of a field with less credibility than nutritionists. Investment bankers maybe?
In the long run, the Sun goes out. In the mean time, do you really think there will come a time when we've made every process we depend on as efficient as physically possible? Sure each specific process has limits: a chip can only be so efficient. Hauling cargo 100 miles can only be so efficient. Delivering prescriptions by drone can only be so efficient. Most of that has nothing to do with "Information theory and quantum physics". But each time we do, we discover new goods and services are now in practical reach of the common man, and these new, just barely possible things ... are inefficient.
Again, "technology" is not "gate size" or any other such specific details, it's improvements to the overall efficiency of achieving some abstract task with the least resources.
Right - this is my very argument for search-based CLI in a nutshell. "It's easy to search for help when you're not sure of the command name - just type 'man -k'". A CLI where all command names are encrypted is not a good model for anything,usability-wise. Reasonably named commands without random letters removed or changed, with a search function, works pretty well in practice. You can still learn an arbitrary short sequence of letters to type if you're in a hurry (or make aliases), but now it's somewhat discoverable. I don't think the idea is complete yet, but it sure does seem like the right direction.
Sure, my point was just that the industry only cares about money, and a quite unfortunate effect of torrents is that it makes incoherent effects movies the center of the target, because they're now selling only what people who can see a movie for free on their iPad would pay to see one for.
The worst part is: if the studios would embrace an iTunes-like model for movies, making it easier to pay than torrent (assuming you didn't mind paying), that incentive for crap movies would be greatly diminished.
I was going to say, does "hey baby, I can buy you food with my food stamps" really work as a pickup line? Seemed unlikely. But "help us, we need someone like you", that I can see as a not-one-night-stand desire.
Branson is more focused on creating a new space-related business than on creative new engineering to service existing business. I'm not sure whether such a market exists in the first place, but he's more about exploring new markets than new planets. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think VGal will ever be about putting payloads in orbit.
That's a large part of it. But I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around something that was in the summary: it said that 1 in 7 Americans are on stamps. That's an appalling statistic -- 1 in 7 Americans are poor enough that they wouldn't be able to feed themselves without government assistance?
These two things are not related. A portion of the government wants as many people on food stamps as possible, because as soon as you condition a person to free handouts you get power over them. There's plenty of food in America, to the point where obesity is inversely correlated with income.
In my childhood my family was quite poor (rural trailer park poor, not like them fancy trailer parks in the big cities). I believe the only reason we escaped that was my mother's refusal to depend on government handouts, and determination to make it on her own (and a far more valuable inheritance than money that was).
America doesn't need to resort to a program like that to feed it's people either - it's a deliberate trap, to ensure a dependable, dependent underclass.
When I was a student and got most my food at the convenience store, along with the cheapest alcohol money could buy, it wasn't rare for someone to approach me for a food-stamps-for-liquor swap. I really didn't have to go out of my way to notice. That was quite some time ago, however.
The notion that exercise burns few calories can only be said when compared to modern, high-calorie foods and large portions. For most of human history, finding enough calories to survive was a daily struggle, and doing a lot of exercise to get meat only makes sense for the protein, while the calories to survive came from gathering, not hunting.
I don't, rather the opposite - but the animal itself need to have that fat in the first place. Animals with a lot of fat can be run down without needing an ultramarathon to do it. A short run for a large animal is the way to go. Chasing a lean animal for days is beyond ridiculous.
But on the whole, it seems unlikely that stone age societies got many calories from hunting (fishing can be a different story), but rather hunting filled in the gaps in protein while calories came primarily from gathering.