allowedRange = new Range(startDate, endDate); if (allowedRange.Contains(enteredDate))// blah blah
So that's not abstracted at all... you have merely created an unneccessary object for use in this one situation and forced the inclusion of whatever type library the Range object belongs to, resulting in bloated code.
Youe implication is that your range is created solely for the purpose of making the test in the following line... ergo that makes it redundant, as it's not reusable in that situation, it has been created solely for that one purpose.
So how is creating a Range object any better than using >= and <= in that situation ?
Yes, I mean don't get me wrong, there are a lot of useful types out there.
The danger is "type overload", the obsession with using types for every sundry purpose, i.e. the same logic the parent displayed when automatically thinking that using the Range type was helping him or anyone else.
Anything that abstracts out the conditional tests you are doing, so that one or even both halves of the tests have to be looked up elsewhere, is a bad thing. But you give someone too many types to play with, and he'll feel obliged to use them whenever the can.
Give a man a hammer, and watch him build. Give a man 100 hammers, and watch him hit himself on the thumb.
It is this level of function (mis)use that makes me cringe.
So instead of being able to see both the variable AND the range it is being tested against IN THE SAME LINE, I now have to go trawling back through the code looking for the place where you created the Range object to find the low and high boundaries of it.
So yet more jumping all over the place hunting for stuff, when the original version was completely fit for purpose, clear, and most importantly, IN ONE BLOODY PLACE.
Of course, it get's even "better"... not all range checking will use the same ranges... so then some bright spark will create Range2, Range3, Range4 objects with different ranges in each one. You see how this function does nothing for either readability or speed of debugging, but simply hides information that a programmer NEEDS to know in the context of the line he is looking at ?
The only "situation" as I see it is your overblown ego believing that everything you have to say should instantly be seen by the masses.
I thought TOR was supposed to be the ultimate in "anonymous" browsing... if it's so easy to sniff an end node, then it's just as unsecured as anything else... therefore seek an alternative if you are concerned about privacy.
And as for posting rubbish on Slashdot... well, goatse, grit, russia, profit, myminicities to you sir. There's plenty of rubbish ALREADY here... ergo the original point that AC start at -1.
The fact you choose to end your diatribe with an expletive for no other reason than you are devoid of sufficient vocabulary to manage anything better reinforces even more why AC should be -1.
Thankfully, as I have an account, I can reciprocate by telling you sir, to fuck off (The difference being everyone will see what I wrote).
So you are worried about an account you didn't want in the first place being sniffed and hi-jacked by someone else ?
If you are so paranoid about identity theft, that you think someone would steal your Slashdot account over say, your online Credit Card payments or online Banking Details, then maybe you'd be better not using the Internet at all.
As opposed to coal (and in some respects plutonium too), which has only one variable which is decreasing all the time i.e. it won't last forever.
Now admittedly the sun and wind won't last for ever either, but surely 5-6 billion years is a lot better than 10-30 years (oil), 50 years (plutonium), 100 years (natural gas) and 200 years (coal) ?
(No sources for these numbers other than generally accepted values... depends who you choose to believe).
To my mind, there's too much negative poo-pooing about peak demand and alternative energy's suitability... okay, if peak demand is a problem, then the research needs to be done into superconducting and other technologies that will allow a much better storage and distribution of the energy.
There's plenty of unlimited energy sources about (solar, wind, water), this isn't the issue... the problem is storing the damn stuff and releasing it as needed.
So that $14 million is about an hour and a halfs worth of investment, on one of the technologies that would stop us having to fight any more "wars for oil" ever again.
Yes, because if it did, they'd just be accused of anti-competitive practices ONCE AGAIN, bad old Microsoft, stealing the food from the mouths of poor SSH client developers, naughty naughty.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't:-(
I've gone from 0 offtopic to -1 troll in a matter of minutes ?
I know I'm new here, but can someone explain how a comment about the Google / Doubleclick merger could possibly be offtopic, when the topic is about whether Google (and others) would serve ads with your personal details on them ???
As for troll ? Erm, well...
Do you just get a handful of mod points and play pin the tail on the donkey with them ?
Yes, I know, the preview button is there for a reason:-(
And as a side note for slashdot... chr(13) + chr(10) can interpreted as when rendering as HTML... do I really have to type in between each paragraph ???
Read the requirements on the box! Every PC game I've ever bought has been *perfectly* clear about its video card requirements up front. After all, PC developers don't want pissed off consumers any more than you like getting disappointed when a game won't run. And seriously, if you're buying things like Lego Star Wars for your child, anything higher than a GeForce 6600 will run it buttery smooth, and that's a $50-100 card these days.
Ah you mean the statutory:-
Windows Operating System
Direct x9.0
1GHZ Processor or better
512MB RAM
2GB Hard Disk Space
CD-ROM
Mouse
Soundblaster Compatible Soundcard
That appears on the majority of the boxes ?
Then you get home, spend an hour installing the N CD's, click the magical icon and nothing happens except some Illegal Instruction at x00FC45e7 dialog.
Only then of course, are you able to find the file called "readme.txt" on the CD, which actually describes the REAL requirements for the game, suitable graphics cards, issues with pixel shader 1.N that mean it won't run with older graphics cards etc.
Regardless of whatever is said on the box, the readme.txt file invariably tells a fuller story.
I'm not taking issue with your point about "me demanding better and better graphics"... who wouldn't want that ?
BUT, if my "antiquated" PC with it's three month old graphic card isn't up to the job, it would be nice if I could tell the game to use a lower res, lower detail mode that would work... the majority of the latest games I've bought (and subsequently taken back), can't even get past the splash screen, never mind to the configuration menu.
ANY game that doesn't allow that has been coded in a "lazy" manner... the ethos of the producer being, yout must have this, or you are having nothing. And more and more these days, this is sadly the case.
Amen to that... I'm so tired of buying games for my 10 year old, then having to disappoint her when it won't install because it doesn support pixelshader 1.N, and 10^27 polygons per second etc... perhaps it's time for them to realise that I don't want to buy a new graphics card every 3 months just because they are too lazy to put anything in code anymore and rely solely on the GPU functions.
DOOM was a cracking game, and works on everything, even Intel integrated chipsets... why can't they follow that model for success ?
Slashdot Mirror
allowedRange = new Range(startDate, endDate); // blah blah
... you have merely created an unneccessary object for use in this one situation and forced the inclusion of whatever type library the Range object belongs to, resulting in bloated code.
... ergo that makes it redundant, as it's not reusable in that situation, it has been created solely for that one purpose.
if (allowedRange.Contains(enteredDate))
So that's not abstracted at all
Youe implication is that your range is created solely for the purpose of making the test in the following line
So how is creating a Range object any better than using >= and <= in that situation ?
Yes, I mean don't get me wrong, there are a lot of useful types out there.
The danger is "type overload", the obsession with using types for every sundry purpose, i.e. the same logic the parent displayed when automatically thinking that using the Range type was helping him or anyone else.
Anything that abstracts out the conditional tests you are doing, so that one or even both halves of the tests have to be looked up elsewhere, is a bad thing. But you give someone too many types to play with, and he'll feel obliged to use them whenever the can.
Give a man a hammer, and watch him build. Give a man 100 hammers, and watch him hit himself on the thumb.
It is this level of function (mis)use that makes me cringe.
... not all range checking will use the same ranges ... so then some bright spark will create Range2, Range3, Range4 objects with different ranges in each one. You see how this function does nothing for either readability or speed of debugging, but simply hides information that a programmer NEEDS to know in the context of the line he is looking at ?
So instead of being able to see both the variable AND the range it is being tested against IN THE SAME LINE, I now have to go trawling back through the code looking for the place where you created the Range object to find the low and high boundaries of it.
So yet more jumping all over the place hunting for stuff, when the original version was completely fit for purpose, clear, and most importantly, IN ONE BLOODY PLACE.
Of course, it get's even "better"
You can keep your Range object thanks.
The only "situation" as I see it is your overblown ego believing that everything you have to say should instantly be seen by the masses.
... if it's so easy to sniff an end node, then it's just as unsecured as anything else ... therefore seek an alternative if you are concerned about privacy.
... well, goatse, grit, russia, profit, myminicities to you sir. There's plenty of rubbish ALREADY here ... ergo the original point that AC start at -1.
I thought TOR was supposed to be the ultimate in "anonymous" browsing
And as for posting rubbish on Slashdot
The fact you choose to end your diatribe with an expletive for no other reason than you are devoid of sufficient vocabulary to manage anything better reinforces even more why AC should be -1.
Thankfully, as I have an account, I can reciprocate by telling you sir, to fuck off (The difference being everyone will see what I wrote).
Thank you and good night
So you are worried about an account you didn't want in the first place being sniffed and hi-jacked by someone else ? If you are so paranoid about identity theft, that you think someone would steal your Slashdot account over say, your online Credit Card payments or online Banking Details, then maybe you'd be better not using the Internet at all.
"fitness for purpose" and "value for the money"
:-)
A Reliant Robin is "fit for purpose", that doesn't mean it's any damn good !
"Value for the money" is something of a misnomer for free software don't you think ?
Anyway, I'll stuck with my idiom, "you get what you pay for", thanks
they are too dependent on the other variables
... depends who you choose to believe).
... okay, if peak demand is a problem, then the research needs to be done into superconducting and other technologies that will allow a much better storage and distribution of the energy.
... the problem is storing the damn stuff and releasing it as needed.
As opposed to coal (and in some respects plutonium too), which has only one variable which is decreasing all the time i.e. it won't last forever.
Now admittedly the sun and wind won't last for ever either, but surely 5-6 billion years is a lot better than 10-30 years (oil), 50 years (plutonium), 100 years (natural gas) and 200 years (coal) ?
(No sources for these numbers other than generally accepted values
To my mind, there's too much negative poo-pooing about peak demand and alternative energy's suitability
There's plenty of unlimited energy sources about (solar, wind, water), this isn't the issue
Meanwhile, in other news, the cost of the war in Iraq is approximately $275 million USD per DAY. http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
...
So that $14 million is about an hour and a halfs worth of investment, on one of the technologies that would stop us having to fight any more "wars for oil" ever again.
Makes you think
Yes, because if it did, they'd just be accused of anti-competitive practices ONCE AGAIN, bad old Microsoft, stealing the food from the mouths of poor SSH client developers, naughty naughty. Damned if they do, damned if they don't :-(
I've gone from 0 offtopic to -1 troll in a matter of minutes ?
...
I know I'm new here, but can someone explain how a comment about the Google / Doubleclick merger could possibly be offtopic, when the topic is about whether Google (and others) would serve ads with your personal details on them ???
As for troll ? Erm, well
Do you just get a handful of mod points and play pin the tail on the donkey with them ?
Well now that the EU have approved the Google / Doubleclick merger, expect ads VERY soon with your name on them ... and possibly a lot more.
Well, they'll need somewhere to store all the cookies ;-)
Yes, well Paul will be needing that extra 400m to cover his divorce settlement.
... prenuptual agreement
Paul, two words for you
Yes, I know, the preview button is there for a reason :-(
And as a side note for slashdot ... chr(13) + chr(10) can interpreted as ... do I really have to type
when rendering as HTML
in between each paragraph ???
Read the requirements on the box! Every PC game I've ever bought has been *perfectly* clear about its video card requirements up front. After all, PC developers don't want pissed off consumers any more than you like getting disappointed when a game won't run. And seriously, if you're buying things like Lego Star Wars for your child, anything higher than a GeForce 6600 will run it buttery smooth, and that's a $50-100 card these days. Ah you mean the statutory :-
Windows Operating System
Direct x9.0
1GHZ Processor or better
512MB RAM
2GB Hard Disk Space
CD-ROM
Mouse
Soundblaster Compatible Soundcard
That appears on the majority of the boxes ?
Then you get home, spend an hour installing the N CD's, click the magical icon and nothing happens except some Illegal Instruction at x00FC45e7 dialog.
Only then of course, are you able to find the file called "readme.txt" on the CD, which actually describes the REAL requirements for the game, suitable graphics cards, issues with pixel shader 1.N that mean it won't run with older graphics cards etc.
Regardless of whatever is said on the box, the readme.txt file invariably tells a fuller story.
I'm not taking issue with your point about "me demanding better and better graphics" ... who wouldn't want that ?
BUT, if my "antiquated" PC with it's three month old graphic card isn't up to the job, it would be nice if I could tell the game to use a lower res, lower detail mode that would work ... the majority of the latest games I've bought (and subsequently taken back), can't even get past the splash screen, never mind to the configuration menu.
ANY game that doesn't allow that has been coded in a "lazy" manner ... the ethos of the producer being, yout must have this, or you are having nothing. And more and more these days, this is sadly the case.
I think that says more about the stupidity of cat owners, than the smarts of the cats themselves.
Amen to that ... I'm so tired of buying games for my 10 year old, then having to disappoint her when it won't install because it doesn support pixelshader 1.N, and 10^27 polygons per second etc ... perhaps it's time for them to realise that I don't want to buy a new graphics card every 3 months just because they are too lazy to put anything in code anymore and rely solely on the GPU functions.
DOOM was a cracking game, and works on everything, even Intel integrated chipsets ... why can't they follow that model for success ?