I find it inefficient to take lots and lots of photos and keep only the best few. Makes for too many photos to review and evaluate before deleting the crap ones...
This is what I do... I take my time, and I visualise what I want to get on the final image BEFORE even looking through the viewfinder or lcd screen.
Of course then you miss the photo...
By the time you've done that the baby isn't standing for the first time, it has fallen down.
According to the file names generated by my camera it's taken 3000 or so photos of my 8 month old son. (And the last month has been slower due to my wife returning to work 2 days a week - less photos get taken when there's only one person who has to both prevent the baby from committing suicide and take the photo).
Then there's also the issue of too many people deleting perfectly good photos because they personally dont like "how they look" on the photos, due to being way too self-conscious. This will lead to a biased of what the past really looked like, in the future, when looking at those carefully selected pictures.
Looking at the baby photos of me, and the ones of my son, you can see this already. Every photo we put in an album the best of a large bunch, whereas my baby album is full of blinking/squinting/crossed eye pictures (of course it could just be the case that I was a particularly ugly baby...)
Non-baby photos are different, I guess. Other people actually look where you ask them to instead of you having to get lucky, And most people don't burst into tears if you take more than 5 seconds setting up a shot:)
My wife also *enjoys* sorting through the photos.
Re:for actually using a computer (writing document
on
Is Caps Lock Dead?
·
· Score: 1
A person I used to work with typed like that, they would hit caps-lock,key,caps-lock to type a single capital letter.
They were a much better typist then me, and it didn't seem to do too much harm.
I always thought about how annoying it must be for them to login on systems which pop up a little tool tip or something whenever caps locks is on when typing in the password field.
Is the serial number in the flash/eeprom/eprom/whatever in the first place?
Using the LAN MAC address as the password might be better, it is after all accessable by the device already. Unless the MAC address is obtainable from the WAN side of course in which case it's not much more secure than a default password...
Of course then they'd have to print the MAC address on the box/manual/whatever which might also cost something (tracking which device had which MAC).
As good an example as you have ever seen? Is this your first time on the interweb or something?
The statement is:
If the author doesn't understand why famous Technology Product A won its market then it is a good bet he doesn't understand why Technology Product B will win its market.
Do you also consider this a non sequitur:
If I can't understand road maps of Sydney, it is a good bet I can't understand road maps of other cities.
How about:
If I failed calculus in high school, it's a good bet I'll fail calculus in University.
Israel has a nulcear arsenal (or at the very least pretends to have one just as Saddam did with chemical and biologicals). Kuwait has the support of the US (well last time someone tried they did anyway).
In a conventional was, size matters. Both economic and population wise. Once WMD are introduced size isn't so important, hence Saddam's reason to pretend to have something to hide.
Of course, I'm not arguing he was smart about it. But pretending to have such things doesn't seem such a completely stupid thing to do. It wasn't in the Soviet's interests to show there wasn't a "missile gap" in the 50s either...
Instead, he let his ego get in the way of his politics, he fought the inspecters tooth and nail, and it ended up running his regime into the ground.
And the Islamic Regime next door, three times larger than his country would just sit idly by and ignore the undefended neighbour with which they had a rather serious war with not so long ago.
Or maybe he took the gamble that the US wouldn't be stupid enough to take him seriously or at least not stupid enough to inflict the occupation of a serious chunk of the middle east upon themselves.
Of course he lost the gamble, but to me he seemed to be playing with the odds.
Did you manage to miss the bit where I mentioned more complicated database applications. You know the bit where I said that the choice of database they use is just as fundamental as choice of implementation language.
You don't expect such an application to just work with every database engine you throw at it. You design for the engine you are using, and the features it has (in a perfect world you choose the engine based upon the features you need).
However, the *vast* majority of database using programs are not like that, they use trivial operations in which a simple join is a rarity.
Take mysql as an example. An extremely popular database choice, do you really think most people are doing complex joins with it? Or do you think they are storing blog entries in a table with about five fields and comments in another table with about five fields and probably not bothering with a join?
I know what I think is the most common usage. Especially amongst the "oh a new open source database, better make the program work with it too" crowd.
But no I haven't done J2EE/JDBC, I have however done a fair bit of Sybase crap but that was a long time ago and I'd rather keep the memories repressed.
DBI handles the trivial stuff like what needs to be quoted.
Differing SQL dialects are another matter, but for the *vast* majority of stuff you don't use anything but simple selects and simple inserts.
If you do anything more complicated you need to do some work, it's not after all magic. Then again the last perl program I moved from mysql to postgresql needed a one line change to make it work (using a case-insensitive hash for results) - though the fact that the database stuff was all in Database.pm probably had a lot to do with that (rather than having SQL scattered in random locations throughout the 10000 lines of code.
I'm willing to bet that any code whose author thinks "oh look a new opensource database I better make it work with that just in case someone cares" isn't doing anything other than simple inserts and selects, maybe with an update or delete somewhere...
For more database feature using programs the database tends to be as fundamental a design choice as the implementation language, at least it should be. Of course sometimes the decision is to place all the logic in the code and use the database as a simple storage area (maybe the decrepid database server is overloaded and...slow...) which makes for relatively database neutral code.
Then clearly you pick the database which gives you want you need and code for it. If you want to support more than one you write your application specific abstraction layer - which will be done with far less code than would be needed without the DBI abstraction layer.
A non-toy application doesn't have to run with every open source database engine that happens to exist this week.
The solar sail on the ship is disconnected and accelerates away from the ship reflecting the light back to the ship and deccelerating the ship via a second smaller solar sail facing the other way.
At least that's how it was done in "The Flight of the Dragonfly" by Robert L. Forward.
Don't bother spending 30 seconds actually doing it by country and hence significantly reducing the size of the tarpit while still blocking 95% of the garbage.
Just blow away the entire pacific. Way to treat those who stood up and sent troops for the "war on terror"...
D O U O S V A V V M
68 79 85 79 83 86 65 86 86 77 - as ASCII values
5 7 4 7 2 5 2 5 5 5 - digits added
\_____/ \_____/ \_____/ \_____/ \_____/
3 2 7 7 1 - digits added
Thus, "D O U O S V A V V M" is 32771.
Add 1964, the year Beatles with "Can't buy me love" topped the charts in a very mysterious way - the result is 34735.
Add 5181 to it - this is the year first commercial cheese factory was established, written backwards - you will get 39916.
Turn the number backwards, and add 1954 - the year Elvis recorded his debut single, putting the end to all morality and good taste. The number is now 63947.
Add 1591 to it - this is the year the Rosenbergs were sentenced to death for spying by the US, written backwards - you will get 65538.
Add 1792, the year guillotine was first used - the result is 67330.
This, when read backwards, gives 03376. This is 1790 in octal, the year US patent system was established (eevil)...
Microsoft, nor does any other company, have a civic duty - their only duty is to make the shareholders money.
The scary thing, the *people* actually believe that is how it should be.
The whole concept of corporate charters seems to have been completely forgotten and the idiotic notion "corporate personhood" accepted without question.
It didn't take all that long for America to chain itself back up with most of the chains it broke free from in 1776.
Since the binaries on the CD are architecture specific what does it matter if the boot system it too?
Do you really want to be able to boot the x86 binary CD on Solaris? How would that help achieve anything? Other than making the boot system completely unintelligible to everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it inefficient to take lots and lots of photos and keep only the best few. Makes for too many photos to review and evaluate before deleting the crap ones...
:)
This is what I do... I take my time, and I visualise what I want to get on the final image BEFORE even looking through the viewfinder or lcd screen.
Of course then you miss the photo...
By the time you've done that the baby isn't standing for the first time, it has fallen down.
According to the file names generated by my camera it's taken 3000 or so photos of my 8 month old son. (And the last month has been slower due to my wife returning to work 2 days a week - less photos get taken when there's only one person who has to both prevent the baby from committing suicide and take the photo).
Then there's also the issue of too many people deleting perfectly good photos because they personally dont like "how they look" on the photos, due to being way too self-conscious. This will lead to a biased of what the past really looked like, in the future, when looking at those carefully selected pictures.
Looking at the baby photos of me, and the ones of my son, you can see this already. Every photo we put in an album the best of a large bunch, whereas my baby album is full of blinking/squinting/crossed eye pictures (of course it could just be the case that I was a particularly ugly baby...)
Non-baby photos are different, I guess. Other people actually look where you ask them to instead of you having to get lucky, And most people don't burst into tears if you take more than 5 seconds setting up a shot
My wife also *enjoys* sorting through the photos.
A person I used to work with typed like that, they would hit caps-lock,key,caps-lock to type a single capital letter.
They were a much better typist then me, and it didn't seem to do too much harm.
I always thought about how annoying it must be for them to login on systems which pop up a little tool tip or something whenever caps locks is on when typing in the password field.
Is the serial number in the flash/eeprom/eprom/whatever in the first place?
Using the LAN MAC address as the password might be better, it is after all accessable by the device already. Unless the MAC address is obtainable from the WAN side of course in which case it's not much more secure than a default password...
Of course then they'd have to print the MAC address on the box/manual/whatever which might also cost something (tracking which device had which MAC).
As good an example as you have ever seen? Is this your first time on the interweb or something?
The statement is:
If the author doesn't understand why famous Technology Product A won its market then it is a good bet he doesn't understand why Technology Product B will win its market.
Do you also consider this a non sequitur:
If I can't understand road maps of Sydney, it is a good bet I can't understand road maps of other cities.
How about:
If I failed calculus in high school, it's a good bet I'll fail calculus in University.
Israel has a nulcear arsenal (or at the very least pretends to have one just as Saddam did with chemical and biologicals). Kuwait has the support of the US (well last time someone tried they did anyway).
In a conventional was, size matters. Both economic and population wise. Once WMD are introduced size isn't so important, hence Saddam's reason to pretend to have something to hide.
Of course, I'm not arguing he was smart about it. But pretending to have such things doesn't seem such a completely stupid thing to do. It wasn't in the Soviet's interests to show there wasn't a "missile gap" in the 50s either...
Instead, he let his ego get in the way of his politics, he fought the inspecters tooth and nail, and it ended up running his regime into the ground.
And the Islamic Regime next door, three times larger than his country would just sit idly by and ignore the undefended neighbour with which they had a rather serious war with not so long ago.
Or maybe he took the gamble that the US wouldn't be stupid enough to take him seriously or at least not stupid enough to inflict the occupation of a serious chunk of the middle east upon themselves.
Of course he lost the gamble, but to me he seemed to be playing with the odds.
Your English parsing skills need some work.
Did you manage to miss the bit where I mentioned more complicated database applications. You know the bit where I said that the choice of database they use is just as fundamental as choice of implementation language.
You don't expect such an application to just work with every database engine you throw at it. You design for the engine you are using, and the features it has (in a perfect world you choose the engine based upon the features you need).
However, the *vast* majority of database using programs are not like that, they use trivial operations in which a simple join is a rarity.
Take mysql as an example. An extremely popular database choice, do you really think most people are doing complex joins with it? Or do you think they are storing blog entries in a table with about five fields and comments in another table with about five fields and probably not bothering with a join?
I know what I think is the most common usage. Especially amongst the "oh a new open source database, better make the program work with it too" crowd.
But no I haven't done J2EE/JDBC, I have however done a fair bit of Sybase crap but that was a long time ago and I'd rather keep the memories repressed.
The mysql->postgres I did used autoincrement and worked fine thanks...
A sequence works just fine. There's even the serial "type" which does the sequence creation for you.
DBI handles the trivial stuff like what needs to be quoted.
...slow...) which makes for relatively database neutral code.
Differing SQL dialects are another matter, but for the *vast* majority of stuff you don't use anything but simple selects and simple inserts.
If you do anything more complicated you need to do some work, it's not after all magic. Then again the last perl program I moved from mysql to postgresql needed a one line change to make it work (using a case-insensitive hash for results) - though the fact that the database stuff was all in Database.pm probably had a lot to do with that (rather than having SQL scattered in random locations throughout the 10000 lines of code.
I'm willing to bet that any code whose author thinks "oh look a new opensource database I better make it work with that just in case someone cares" isn't doing anything other than simple inserts and selects, maybe with an update or delete somewhere...
For more database feature using programs the database tends to be as fundamental a design choice as the implementation language, at least it should be. Of course sometimes the decision is to place all the logic in the code and use the database as a simple storage area (maybe the decrepid database server is overloaded and
Then clearly you pick the database which gives you want you need and code for it. If you want to support more than one you write your application specific abstraction layer - which will be done with far less code than would be needed without the DBI abstraction layer.
A non-toy application doesn't have to run with every open source database engine that happens to exist this week.
You use a non-toy language which abstracts out the peculiarities of those databases.
"use DBI;" and all those databases work.
Because what you described is the very definition of a fork.
A fork doesn't have to be a "bad" thing.
Firefox is a fork (an internal one mind you) of Mozilla without any "badness".
The solar sail on the ship is disconnected and accelerates away from the ship reflecting the light back to the ship and deccelerating the ship via a second smaller solar sail facing the other way.
At least that's how it was done in "The Flight of the Dragonfly" by Robert L. Forward.
Yeah, real intelligent.
Don't bother spending 30 seconds actually doing it by country and hence significantly reducing the size of the tarpit while still blocking 95% of the garbage.
Just blow away the entire pacific. Way to treat those who stood up and sent troops for the "war on terror"...
A far more slashdot friendly interpretation:
D O U O S V A V V M
68 79 85 79 83 86 65 86 86 77 - as ASCII values
5 7 4 7 2 5 2 5 5 5 - digits added
\_____/ \_____/ \_____/ \_____/ \_____/
3 2 7 7 1 - digits added
Thus, "D O U O S V A V V M" is 32771.
Add 1964, the year Beatles with "Can't buy me love" topped the charts in a very mysterious way - the result is 34735.
Add 5181 to it - this is the year first commercial cheese factory was established, written backwards - you will get 39916.
Turn the number backwards, and add 1954 - the year Elvis recorded his debut single, putting the end to all morality and good taste. The number is now 63947.
Add 1591 to it - this is the year the Rosenbergs were sentenced to death for spying by the US, written backwards - you will get 65538.
Add 1792, the year guillotine was first used - the result is 67330.
This, when read backwards, gives 03376. This is 1790 in octal, the year US patent system was established (eevil)...
You don't have to bother with running cables.
Your cables don't get chewed on by the toddler.
Microsoft, nor does any other company, have a civic duty - their only duty is to make the shareholders money.
The scary thing, the *people* actually believe that is how it should be.
The whole concept of corporate charters seems to have been completely forgotten and the idiotic notion "corporate personhood" accepted without question.
It didn't take all that long for America to chain itself back up with most of the chains it broke free from in 1776.
How is that 'an anti-"MS" jab'.
It's the two most well known examples of what was being talked about.
Coding was never math.
But then again, CS was never coding.
Code monkeys don't need math. CS, however, *is* math.
Firewalls aren't enough.
Someone always manages to bring an infected laptop inside the firewall.
Those 'technical consultancies' need to include keeping the systems patched in that TCO they love to rant about so much.
b) Most of our machines won't run XP. They won't run win2k very well
Maybe you could invest in some machines made sometime this century.
My home machine is a 300Mhz PII which I got in 1998. It runs XP just fine.
I never would have believed it but "hwsquaredcubed" isn't available at Yahoo. I didn't think it was that popular of a name...
s/Solaris/sparc/
Since the binaries on the CD are architecture specific what does it matter if the boot system it too?
Do you really want to be able to boot the x86 binary CD on Solaris? How would that help achieve anything? Other than making the boot system completely unintelligible to everyone.