You didn't understand what the client wanted. Probably, your skill set is not appropriate to the needs of the client. They want a graphic designer to create a visually impressive collection of views. They don't care about middle logic.
Just get the truth out on the table, and everyone will be happier in the long run.
Regardless of the jokes, I think the truth is that a hacker is about 10x more likely to be able to find an anatomical g-spot than is a testosterone-poisoned ape-man. Hacking the female anatomy is a grand challenge enterprise.
It matters a lot whether your CO2 comes from petroleum or corn: The carbon in the corn comes *out* of the atmosphere, while the the carbon in the petroleum comes out of prehistory, i.e. it is a source, not a recirculator.
Thermodynamics doesn't lie, but thermodynamics doesn't know jack about economics. You keep waving "efficiency" around like some sort of magic talisman. 99.999% thermodynamic efficiency doesn't mean *anything* if the $$ in > $$ out.
> Is there something else out there that is as > portable as autoconf to use instead?
Yeah. It's called GNU Make.
Seriously, if you write your makefiles and your code in a responsibly portable manner, there's absolutely no reason for autoconf or automake. And it's not hard. I've done it repeatedly. The auto* tools are an antipattern virus.
I will repeat for the hard of hearing. He's not a common carrier. He is a service provider, under the definition in the law referenced by the link above. Please read the definition in the law before using the term in the context of the law.
It's the the game devs who pull this kind of barratry -- they would rather see the game be a success. It's the lawyers who don't stand to make any money from the success of the game, but do stand to profit by sucking everyone else's blood (including the businesses stupid enough to pay them to chop them off at the knees).
It seems obvious to me that the person who created a screenshot is the person who performed the gameplay required to put the game into that configuration.
Pissing on your customers is bad business, by the way.
Re:Let's not forget synthetics...and politics...
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
Oh definitely, there is great potential in Methane hydrates, but significant problems as well. The inefficiencies of converting hydrates into octane or dodecane will make it uneconomical without a change in the basic technologies, even post-peak -- in other words, don't look to hydrates as a source of jet fuel or automotive fuel. What it will be good for is producing the ammonium nitrate required to maintain grain production in industrial agriculture, and to a lesser degree for the production of LNG heating fuel.
Re:In the land of empty tanks
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
The role of hydrocarbons in the production of a bicycle, while significant relative to the set of resources used in producing the bicycle, is vanishing in comparison to their role in supplying the food energy which is burned to operate the bicycle.
The amount of fuel required to produce monoculture corn and wheat is substantial, largely in the form of ammonium nitrate produced from natural gas, and fuel burned by engines of tractors, combine harvesters, grain trucks, bakeries, delivery trucks, etc. Basically, you are eating oil.
Re:Let's not forget synthetics...and politics...
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 2, Informative
> someone explain to me how that one works
Thomas Gold of Cornell University (now deceased) predicted this decades ago. His view was that substantial hydrocarbon deposits in the crust were the result of concentration and metamorphosis of primordial methane, methane which was present in the material which formed the earth's crust aboriginally.
The amount of non-fossil hydrocarbon available commercially appears to be quite small, however. I would not count on natural hydrocarbons as a fuel source past the Hubbert peak. The only real mitigating factor which may result in a substantial correction to Hubbert's original numbers appears to be oil- and tar-sands.
I don't think the value of the code changed. Was anyone offering money for it before? Actually, the number of people interested in licensing the source may increase, now that they can see it -- if it's any good that is. Or are you saying that now everyone knows it's crap?
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't understand what the client wanted.
Probably, your skill set is not appropriate to the
needs of the client. They want a graphic designer
to create a visually impressive collection of views.
They don't care about middle logic.
Just get the truth out on the table, and everyone
will be happier in the long run.
Regardless of the jokes, I think the truth is that
a hacker is about 10x more likely to be able to
find an anatomical g-spot than is a
testosterone-poisoned ape-man. Hacking the female
anatomy is a grand challenge enterprise.
> And how exactly are you going to transport all this energy?
By bicycle? Whoops...
And what, exactly, is wrong with that idea? Or by
"nutcase" did you mean "genius"?
This is bullshit. Nobody ever took this issue to
"the public". To "the media" perhaps. I know I
never got to vote on it.
It matters a lot whether your CO2 comes from
petroleum or corn: The carbon in the corn comes
*out* of the atmosphere, while the the carbon in
the petroleum comes out of prehistory, i.e. it is
a source, not a recirculator.
> Nuclear is not a temporary solution, those fuel
> rods are going to be dangerous for almost
> geological time.
So take it out of your mouth. Sheesh.
You forgot about Three Mile Island?
Thermodynamics doesn't lie, but thermodynamics
doesn't know jack about economics. You keep waving
"efficiency" around like some sort of magic talisman.
99.999% thermodynamic efficiency doesn't mean *anything*
if the $$ in > $$ out.
Yeah, coffee, bacon and water. Now that's gotta
be healthy!
Given the $$ and watts consumed by these pigs,
I'd much rather have a dual athlon system.
Is there anything out there in an SFF box?
That's what ifdef is for.
But more importantly, if you're writing application
code using a system call layer, you've already lost
the game.
> Is there something else out there that is as
> portable as autoconf to use instead?
Yeah. It's called GNU Make.
Seriously, if you write your makefiles and your
code in a responsibly portable manner, there's
absolutely no reason for autoconf or automake.
And it's not hard. I've done it repeatedly.
The auto* tools are an antipattern virus.
Thank you very much (really) for NOT using automake,
which is an abomination on top of a hack on top of
an obfuscation on top of an abortion.
I will repeat for the hard of hearing. He's not a
common carrier. He is a service provider, under
the definition in the law referenced by the link
above. Please read the definition in the law before
using the term in the context of the law.
novel and derivative are not mutually exclusive
categories. if they were, 'novel derivation' would
be oxymoronic.
A uses B's work to produce a novel work. C has no
copyright claim against A as a result.
He's definitely not a common carrier, but he is just as certainly a service provider, under the definitions of the pertinent law.
You, sir, are a coward.
Funny? More like Insightful.
It's the the game devs who pull this kind of barratry --
they would rather see the game be a success.
It's the lawyers who don't stand to make any money
from the success of the game, but do stand to profit
by sucking everyone else's blood (including the
businesses stupid enough to pay them to chop them
off at the knees).
It seems obvious to me that the person who created
a screenshot is the person who performed the gameplay
required to put the game into that configuration.
Pissing on your customers is bad business, by the way.
Oh definitely, there is great potential in
Methane hydrates, but significant problems as well.
The inefficiencies of converting hydrates into
octane or dodecane will make it uneconomical without
a change in the basic technologies, even post-peak -- in other
words, don't look to hydrates as a source of
jet fuel or automotive fuel. What it will be good
for is producing the ammonium nitrate required to
maintain grain production in industrial agriculture, and to a lesser degree for the
production of LNG heating fuel.
The role of hydrocarbons in the production of a bicycle,
while significant relative to the set of resources
used in producing the bicycle, is vanishing in
comparison to their role in supplying the food
energy which is burned to operate the bicycle.
The amount of fuel required to produce monoculture
corn and wheat is substantial, largely in the form
of ammonium nitrate produced from natural gas, and
fuel burned by engines of tractors, combine harvesters,
grain trucks, bakeries, delivery trucks, etc.
Basically, you are eating oil.
> someone explain to me how that one works
Thomas Gold of Cornell University (now deceased)
predicted this decades ago. His view was that
substantial hydrocarbon deposits in the crust were
the result of concentration and metamorphosis of
primordial methane, methane which was present in
the material which formed the earth's crust
aboriginally.
The amount of non-fossil hydrocarbon available
commercially appears to be quite small, however.
I would not count on natural hydrocarbons as a
fuel source past the Hubbert peak. The only real
mitigating factor which may result in a
substantial correction to Hubbert's original
numbers appears to be oil- and tar-sands.
I don't think the value of the code changed.
Was anyone offering money for it before?
Actually, the number of people interested in
licensing the source may increase, now that they
can see it -- if it's any good that is.
Or are you saying that now everyone knows it's
crap?