"Many so-called "ordinary" users think that they prefer a power vs time curve that grows logarithmically"
In other words, those lusers don't know what they really want. They just THINK they know what they want.
Their goal is to "save time", but often they are not aware of the best way to save time in the long run, because they are trying to save time in the short term. This is not a revolutionary concept.
Honestly, user interface in F/OS software tends to suck. There are exceptions- Firefox isn't too bad. OpenOffice, however... well, let's compare one thing to MS Word. Headers. In both Word and Writer, you go to the page formatting dialog box, then go to the part where you fiddle with header settings. In Word, everything is right there. Want a different header on the first page? Check the box. Want a different header on even vs. odd pages? Check the box. In Writer, the even vs. odd check box is there, and you can format the header with your various visual styles and so on... but how do you make a different header on the first page? Well, let's see, everything else for headers is here, let's try to find it... no, it's not on this page. Maybe under "more"? Nope, not there. Read the help file- hm, it doesn't say. There is a hint, for the "same content left/right" check box. "Adds the header to both even and odd pages. This option is only available for the Default page style." Hmm, I wonder what the "Default page style" is.
It's quite simple, it's just a different approach. Headers are part of the page style in open office, not part of the "header popup". You add headers by going from "Insert" to "Header" and then selecting the page style to put a header on, which is usually "Default". If you want to turn off the header on the first page, you just go to the first page, click the Styles and Formatting button on the left side, or choose it from the menu, or press F11, then click on the "page" button, and click "First Page". Then your page is a different style, and has no header. Now if you go back into "Insert" and "Header", you'll see "First Page" under there as well, with no header selected. You can enable that as well, and even have a header for the first page that is a different size.
Note that the procedure is the same for left/right pages, and that new page styles can be created and added to this list as well. I don't believe that was an example of open source software having inferior interfaces. That was just an example of you having more experience with one product over another, since the procedure doesn't seem to be any more complicated (and the first google hit I find has instructions for this).
FOSS packages tend to be designed using baroque interface methods that are preferred only by hardcore 'elite' types who like to lord their 'mastery' over others.
It has nothing to do with "lording mastery". The difference is in the power vs time curve. Many so-called "ordinary" users think that they prefer a power vs time curve that grows logarithmically so that they can learn it quickly. The developers of FOSS, on the other hand, prefer a power vs time curve that looks more exponential, so that as soon as they invest a little time learning how to do something, they can accomplish tasks more quickly, and save more time overall.
The problem is that in only a few cases have people figured out how to have software that has a logarithmic type curve, and an exponential type for users seeking more advanced usage. The "unix model" of having text-based backends with graphical frontends is one solution to this, but sometimes tends to favor the text-based portion if not everything is included in the frontend. The model of having a gui-based program with a scripting language is another solution to this, but in many cases the dependence on the gui makes it difficult to automate integration with other software.
If not, the car doubles the delay between accepting another response.
Huh, this calls for pranks to lock hundreds of legitimate car owners out of their cars on a parking lot.:-)
Think about it. Because the delay doubles, you can't lock someone's remote access to their car for any longer than an equal time period to how long you're willing to stand there and keep broadcasting yourself. This puts some serious constraints on ability to deny service. And if you setup an automatic unmanned denial of service device, then this is no different from planting a permanent jamming device, which is not going to be prevented by an algorithm choice.
And it's much better to have to return to your car and use the physical key, then to return and not find your car...
Just encrypt a challenge with a random number stored in your car and on a cheap 128 MB memory stick, in order. Only other thing is something to keep track and something to XOR. Of course, there should be a way for the dealer to break in as well.
Why even xor? Why not just have 128 MB of data in the car, and the same 128 MB of data in each wireless key for that car. Then the car just says "Send me the 375th 64-bit number to unlock the doors". If the wireless key transmits the right number, it gets in. If not, the car doubles the delay between accepting another response. Then when the car is opened correctly, the car just increments the key it asks for, and the next time it asks for the 376th 64-bit number. The net cost of the memory cards would be almost zero, no amount of cryptographic trickery would ever break the system, the odds of getting in are less than one in a thousand trillion, and the system would be valid for opening the door 16 million times before repeating or needing refreshed (and I do expect the car would biodegrade before this happened, as this is the equivalent of opening the car doors 100 times a day for 460 years).
Given the cost of flash memory, a simple OTP list of keys is superior to a cryptographic solution for this purpose, as the OTP is both cheap and unbreakable.
I am some days. Perl is my first choice for short and quick data manipulation, particularly for tasks which are aided by regular expressions or which need to be written in a matter of minutes. But I try to avoid it for anything complex for which non-trivial data structures would be more useful.
And since you bring it up, to stay on topic a bit, I think perl could be an interesting choice as a first language to teach children.
Umm, there's a HUGE difference between compiled ("programs") and interpreted ("scripts") programs.
There didn't used to be. In the 80s people did not go around calling Basic programs "Basic scripts", yet it was usually an interpreted language.
I think the dictionary's definition seems more reasonable than yours here, where it states, "A simple program in a utility language or an application's proprietary language." The keys here are that a script must be "simple" and in some sort of "utility language". So if you write a short program in perl to parse some data as part of system administration, then it's a script. If you write a 100,000 line java program, then it is not reasonable to call it a script.
> I've never been able to understand this. Why do so many otherwise > intelligent people have this irrational phobia about parentheses? > What is it about them that causes people's minds to lock up? I can > understand complaining about other aspects of Lisp, but this?
It's quite simple, really. Each parenthesis has a slightly different function in the context of the larger program, yet you cannot tell this quickly from looking at them. I mean, look at the above joke sequence, and tell me if there are 7 or 8 parentheses at the opening left side of the sentence (by glancing, without counting). And yes, you can use a program that does parenthesis matching to avoid having mismatches, but it is about more than having the numbers balance, because an infinite number of different configurations of parentheses can have balanced numbers but different behaviors.
Control structures more like the C style have been significantly more popular because there are visual markers indicating function. { and ( are used in different contexts, as are ", ',;, and so forth. It's always reasonably clear upon looking at C code what is a function, what is a parameter, and where the return values are going. LISP can have the same function, parameters, and return values, but which goes where is determined entirely by the ordering of parentheses.
So it's not that people are afraid of the parentheses, it's that the parentheses are cumbersome to visually parse into meaning whenever complexity rises. In C style code, a single routine which is becoming more complex tends to simply get longer sequentially. In LISP, a single routine which is becoming more complex tends to get more depth of parentheses, and you start getting structures that look like: ))) (( in the middle. Let's take a piece of example code:
(cond ((< x 400) (cond ((< x 100) (prin1 'XC) (decf x 90) ) (T (prin1 'C) (decf x 100) ) ) ) (T (prin1 'CD) (decf x 400) ) ) )
I now take a working piece of code, change only a few parentheses, and the behavior has changed. In this case, it should crash, but there are less trivial cases where code will actually run but do something different. Either one is of course bad, since in an ideal situation, a human programmer should be able to discern the function and behavior of a program easily by visual inspection.
(cond (< x 400) (cond (< x 100) ((prin1 'XC) (decf x 90) ) (T ((prin1 'C) (decf x 100) ) ) ) (T ((prin1 'CD) (decf x 400) ) ) ) )
And I'm sure any reasonably competent LISP program can look at the simple code example above and figure out what is wrong with it, but this isn't the point. The point is, the language hinders this process with its symmetry, rather than helps it. For most tasks, languages shouldn't be chosen for their reductionist beauty, but instead, for their ease of use for forming complex structures with human psychology in mind.
I hope that clears it up. :) <-- (This parenthesis functions as a smiley, and not as a comment closing.)
How can this apparently high approval rating from a purported supporter of civil liberties be reconciled with Rep. Degette's recent anti-privacy action? Was the ACLU on crack when they scored her?
It appears from her own words that a representative from the DOJ told her a carefully constructed sob story about child pornography, complete with anecdote about how this precise law would have saved a child, and including the availability fallacy. She says she considered this "eye-opening", and so apparently she believes she drafted this law "for the children".
In other words, this bill was lobbied for by the DOJ by means of emotional appeal. It probably hasn't occured to Diana DeGette yet to consider how internet anonymity can be a potent tool for the longterm preservation of freedom in a democracy. Perhaps a few sob stories about China would be "eye-opening" to her. *nudges people from Colorado to action*
now all this case is about is absence of evidence as THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for what you're implying.
Do you really think the federal government has the political capital to spend right now going around and covering up wiretapping that they're NOT doing?
When C++/Java/Perl/Python have long since been consigned to the garbage colletor in the sky Lisp/Smalltalk/C will still be used to solve problems. I rather think the current period of programming will be seen as the dark ages before the re-birth.
I fear we're entering the age where people who are interested in a NPOV are outmanned by those with a profit interest
Maybe this will make people a little smarter about their blind faith in Wikipedia's authority. After all, the problems with Wikipedia are not so much in its content, as in the interpretation of information as "true" by the reader. In most cases, the problems with wikipedia articles are subtle, and so the typical reader doesn't notice them and believes that all of the information in the article should be believed without verifying it. But when the problems are more blatant, perhaps this will help the general public be more conscious of who is editing articles, and of the fact that the information in the article always comes from SOME viewpoint, no matter what the policy says.
In reality, with passwords being case sensitive and people having to remember dozens of passwords for different systems at work and personal web sites, three attempts will end up locking out numerous legitimate users.... Give 10 or 20 attempts, dammit.
I've seen people use this "feature" for practical jokes plenty of times. I don't think increasing it to 10 or 20 would deter this. And if it's used as a practical joke, it can certainly be used as a serious attempt at a DoS.
If anything, it should simply lock people out from the terminal or ip they are attempting it from. And if you want something that will do a smarter job of defeating brute force attacks, simply have a variable delay that doubles each time for that particular terminal or ip. If the password is wrong once, wait two seconds before giving that location another chance. If the password is wrong four times, wait 16 seconds. By the 10th attempt from that location, it would take 17 hours for the 11th attempt, and by the 20th, this would be 12 days, effectively preventing a brute force attack while only minimally inconveniencing real users, and requiring essentially no complex reset procedures.
Talk about opportunities for loss of privacy. In a truely cashless society, there would be no way to have private transactions. Everything would be accounted for.
All you would need is a mechanism for buying a disposable and untraceable temporary debit card. If your bank has a pile of $100 debit cards with no name associated, and they can hand you one without them swiping the number of which one was pulled out of the box, then you would have privacy in a cashless society. All that would be necessary would be for this to be legal and supported by the major transaction companies or organizations.
Unfortunately, it's hard without a simplified movie to get citizens/consumers to stop and think about the impact privacy or the lack of privacy has on their lives, and without a strong demand, privacy does not benefit corporations, and thus, there is none.
I'm slightly more worried about what could happen if somebody didn't log these transactions. There goes my entire statement history and the company's and government's ability to make things right if a financial mistake has been made.
But where is your ability to walk into a convenience store, plop down $100 in cash, and buy a temporary debit card with $100 which is not associated with your name? You can buy a phone card in this manner, but where can you buy an anonymous debit card?
And by the way. I, personally, enjoy my 5% cash back on gasoline, groceries, and drugstore purchases.
You think that cash back comes from nowhere? The prices of all those products have been forced upward to pay for that cash back, so you are not winning one cent here. Your enjoyment of this is enjoyment of a well-structured illusion.
The THX "Find a cinema" search function told me my ZIP Code didn't appear to be valid! I appear to live over 100 miles from the nearest theater that plays this supposedly "famous" sound.
So take advantage of the newly evolved Netflix envelope... The THX sound is at the start of many rentals too.
I remember the days when technology was exciting. Every new product promised so much possibility and opportunity. Hell, some of them even made me want to run out and buy the thing. These days, however, new technology just leaves me feeling sick.
People used to focus on inventing products that someone wants to buy. Now they seem to focus on inventing products that someone wants to sell. The accumulated power of huge corporations has shifted the balance of power.
I just bought an Inspiron E1505 laptop, and I don't agree about the shoddy product. It's better built than my last Toshiba, and the HP/Compaqs I've had at work.
If you grip the display with two hands and apply a little contortion, does the Dell still feel like it's held on by squeeky twist ties? That and the brittleness of the plastic used are the major factors keeping me away from Dell these days. It'll be nice when they fix these problems so there will be more substantial competition.
First of all, its not 'slightly' better. glxgears without nvidia drives runs the and FPS in the hundreds, and with and FPS in the 13000s with nvidia drivers.
And exactly how many frames can your superhuman eyes distinguish per second?
Ounce you have bought the software and read the EULA ((It being too long is not an excuse for not reading it)) you can still say no, and you can return it for the most part.
So, this is basically Google looking up the search phrases in a thesaurus and then returning hits on those words too? Probably would help if I read the article first, I imagine, but I wouldn't want to seem atypical:>
Since the idea is worth something, it seems that details have not been released yet. But I would imagine it is possible to construct proximity ratings between search terms by an algorithm which assesses the number of corresponding links to pages containing other terms. This could digest a network of links in a way similar to how Google does now, but also extracting a set of link-related terms for each search item. For example, pages talking about "basketball" are likely to have a lot of links to pages talking about "hoops" or the "final four", so an algorithm could then link those terms as similar terms to look up if a searcher attempts to look up basketball.
The best part is at the end of the one video where the bot hits the box and falls flat on its "face." I'm sure I probably disturbed one of my neighbors' sleep cycles with my cackling.:)
For greater amusement, watch this in slow motion.:)
Why do you computer people use such strange words like "push" and "pop"? Why not call it 'stick it on the end' and 'take it off the end?' It's so needlessly complicated".
SequentialCollectionOfObjects *my_sequential_collection_of_objects = new SequentialCollectionOfObjects();
Slashdot Mirror
"Many so-called "ordinary" users think that they prefer a power vs time curve that grows logarithmically"
In other words, those lusers don't know what they really want. They just THINK they know what they want.
Their goal is to "save time", but often they are not aware of the best way to save time in the long run, because they are trying to save time in the short term. This is not a revolutionary concept.
Honestly, user interface in F/OS software tends to suck. There are exceptions- Firefox isn't too bad. OpenOffice, however... well, let's compare one thing to MS Word. Headers. In both Word and Writer, you go to the page formatting dialog box, then go to the part where you fiddle with header settings. In Word, everything is right there. Want a different header on the first page? Check the box. Want a different header on even vs. odd pages? Check the box. In Writer, the even vs. odd check box is there, and you can format the header with your various visual styles and so on... but how do you make a different header on the first page? Well, let's see, everything else for headers is here, let's try to find it... no, it's not on this page. Maybe under "more"? Nope, not there. Read the help file- hm, it doesn't say. There is a hint, for the "same content left/right" check box. "Adds the header to both even and odd pages. This option is only available for the Default page style." Hmm, I wonder what the "Default page style" is.
It's quite simple, it's just a different approach. Headers are part of the page style in open office, not part of the "header popup". You add headers by going from "Insert" to "Header" and then selecting the page style to put a header on, which is usually "Default". If you want to turn off the header on the first page, you just go to the first page, click the Styles and Formatting button on the left side, or choose it from the menu, or press F11, then click on the "page" button, and click "First Page". Then your page is a different style, and has no header. Now if you go back into "Insert" and "Header", you'll see "First Page" under there as well, with no header selected. You can enable that as well, and even have a header for the first page that is a different size.
Note that the procedure is the same for left/right pages, and that new page styles can be created and added to this list as well. I don't believe that was an example of open source software having inferior interfaces. That was just an example of you having more experience with one product over another, since the procedure doesn't seem to be any more complicated (and the first google hit I find has instructions for this).
FOSS packages tend to be designed using baroque interface methods that are preferred only by hardcore 'elite' types who like to lord their 'mastery' over others.
It has nothing to do with "lording mastery". The difference is in the power vs time curve. Many so-called "ordinary" users think that they prefer a power vs time curve that grows logarithmically so that they can learn it quickly. The developers of FOSS, on the other hand, prefer a power vs time curve that looks more exponential, so that as soon as they invest a little time learning how to do something, they can accomplish tasks more quickly, and save more time overall.
The problem is that in only a few cases have people figured out how to have software that has a logarithmic type curve, and an exponential type for users seeking more advanced usage. The "unix model" of having text-based backends with graphical frontends is one solution to this, but sometimes tends to favor the text-based portion if not everything is included in the frontend. The model of having a gui-based program with a scripting language is another solution to this, but in many cases the dependence on the gui makes it difficult to automate integration with other software.
If not, the car doubles the delay between accepting another response.
:-)
Huh, this calls for pranks to lock hundreds of legitimate car owners out of their cars on a parking lot.
Think about it. Because the delay doubles, you can't lock someone's remote access to their car for any longer than an equal time period to how long you're willing to stand there and keep broadcasting yourself. This puts some serious constraints on ability to deny service. And if you setup an automatic unmanned denial of service device, then this is no different from planting a permanent jamming device, which is not going to be prevented by an algorithm choice.
And it's much better to have to return to your car and use the physical key, then to return and not find your car...
Just encrypt a challenge with a random number stored in your car and on a cheap 128 MB memory stick, in order. Only other thing is something to keep track and something to XOR. Of course, there should be a way for the dealer to break in as well.
Why even xor? Why not just have 128 MB of data in the car, and the same 128 MB of data in each wireless key for that car. Then the car just says "Send me the 375th 64-bit number to unlock the doors". If the wireless key transmits the right number, it gets in. If not, the car doubles the delay between accepting another response. Then when the car is opened correctly, the car just increments the key it asks for, and the next time it asks for the 376th 64-bit number. The net cost of the memory cards would be almost zero, no amount of cryptographic trickery would ever break the system, the odds of getting in are less than one in a thousand trillion, and the system would be valid for opening the door 16 million times before repeating or needing refreshed (and I do expect the car would biodegrade before this happened, as this is the equivalent of opening the car doors 100 times a day for 460 years).
Given the cost of flash memory, a simple OTP list of keys is superior to a cryptographic solution for this purpose, as the OTP is both cheap and unbreakable.
And you're not a perl programmer?
I am some days. Perl is my first choice for short and quick data manipulation, particularly for tasks which are aided by regular expressions or which need to be written in a matter of minutes. But I try to avoid it for anything complex for which non-trivial data structures would be more useful.
And since you bring it up, to stay on topic a bit, I think perl could be an interesting choice as a first language to teach children.
Umm, there's a HUGE difference between compiled ("programs") and interpreted ("scripts") programs.
There didn't used to be. In the 80s people did not go around calling Basic programs "Basic scripts", yet it was usually an interpreted language.
I think the dictionary's definition seems more reasonable than yours here, where it states, "A simple program in a utility language or an application's proprietary language." The keys here are that a script must be "simple" and in some sort of "utility language". So if you write a short program in perl to parse some data as part of system administration, then it's a script. If you write a 100,000 line java program, then it is not reasonable to call it a script.
> I've never been able to understand this. Why do so many otherwise
;, and so forth. It's always reasonably clear upon looking at C code what is a function, what is a parameter, and where the return values are going. LISP can have the same function, parameters, and return values, but which goes where is determined entirely by the ordering of parentheses.
:) <-- (This parenthesis functions as a smiley, and not as a comment closing.)
> intelligent people have this irrational phobia about parentheses?
> What is it about them that causes people's minds to lock up? I can
> understand complaining about other aspects of Lisp, but this?
It's quite simple, really. Each parenthesis has a slightly different function in the context of the larger program, yet you cannot tell this quickly from looking at them. I mean, look at the above joke sequence, and tell me if there are 7 or 8 parentheses at the opening left side of the sentence (by glancing, without counting). And yes, you can use a program that does parenthesis matching to avoid having mismatches, but it is about more than having the numbers balance, because an infinite number of different configurations of parentheses can have balanced numbers but different behaviors.
Control structures more like the C style have been significantly more popular because there are visual markers indicating function. { and ( are used in different contexts, as are ", ',
So it's not that people are afraid of the parentheses, it's that the parentheses are cumbersome to visually parse into meaning whenever complexity rises. In C style code, a single routine which is becoming more complex tends to simply get longer sequentially. In LISP, a single routine which is becoming more complex tends to get more depth of parentheses, and you start getting structures that look like: ))) (( in the middle. Let's take a piece of example code:
(cond
((< x 400)
(cond
((< x 100)
(prin1 'XC) (decf x 90) )
(T
(prin1 'C) (decf x 100) ) ) )
(T
(prin1 'CD) (decf x 400) ) ) )
I now take a working piece of code, change only a few parentheses, and the behavior has changed. In this case, it should crash, but there are less trivial cases where code will actually run but do something different. Either one is of course bad, since in an ideal situation, a human programmer should be able to discern the function and behavior of a program easily by visual inspection.
(cond
(< x 400)
(cond
(< x 100)
((prin1 'XC) (decf x 90) )
(T
((prin1 'C) (decf x 100) ) ) )
(T
((prin1 'CD) (decf x 400) ) ) ) )
And I'm sure any reasonably competent LISP program can look at the simple code example above and figure out what is wrong with it, but this isn't the point. The point is, the language hinders this process with its symmetry, rather than helps it. For most tasks, languages shouldn't be chosen for their reductionist beauty, but instead, for their ease of use for forming complex structures with human psychology in mind.
I hope that clears it up.
How can this apparently high approval rating from a purported supporter of civil liberties be reconciled with Rep. Degette's recent anti-privacy action? Was the ACLU on crack when they scored her?
It appears from her own words that a representative from the DOJ told her a carefully constructed sob story about child pornography, complete with anecdote about how this precise law would have saved a child, and including the availability fallacy. She says she considered this "eye-opening", and so apparently she believes she drafted this law "for the children".
In other words, this bill was lobbied for by the DOJ by means of emotional appeal. It probably hasn't occured to Diana DeGette yet to consider how internet anonymity can be a potent tool for the longterm preservation of freedom in a democracy. Perhaps a few sob stories about China would be "eye-opening" to her. *nudges people from Colorado to action*
now all this case is about is absence of evidence as THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for what you're implying.
Do you really think the federal government has the political capital to spend right now going around and covering up wiretapping that they're NOT doing?
When C++/Java/Perl/Python have long since been consigned to the garbage colletor in the sky Lisp/Smalltalk/C will still be used to solve problems. I rather think the current period of programming will be seen as the dark ages before the re-birth.
e -birth)will(be))))(car)(car)cdr car)(()readable))(.)car)
(((((((Hopefully(the))(result(of(the))car)(cdr)(r
I fear we're entering the age where people who are interested in a NPOV are outmanned by those with a profit interest
Maybe this will make people a little smarter about their blind faith in Wikipedia's authority. After all, the problems with Wikipedia are not so much in its content, as in the interpretation of information as "true" by the reader. In most cases, the problems with wikipedia articles are subtle, and so the typical reader doesn't notice them and believes that all of the information in the article should be believed without verifying it. But when the problems are more blatant, perhaps this will help the general public be more conscious of who is editing articles, and of the fact that the information in the article always comes from SOME viewpoint, no matter what the policy says.
Hence my *lead-weighted* document folders. Bwahahahah.
Aren't the ones at the top of the stairs supposed to get the highest grades?
In reality, with passwords being case sensitive and people having to remember dozens of passwords for different systems at work and personal web sites, three attempts will end up locking out numerous legitimate users. ...
Give 10 or 20 attempts, dammit.
I've seen people use this "feature" for practical jokes plenty of times. I don't think increasing it to 10 or 20 would deter this. And if it's used as a practical joke, it can certainly be used as a serious attempt at a DoS.
If anything, it should simply lock people out from the terminal or ip they are attempting it from. And if you want something that will do a smarter job of defeating brute force attacks, simply have a variable delay that doubles each time for that particular terminal or ip. If the password is wrong once, wait two seconds before giving that location another chance. If the password is wrong four times, wait 16 seconds. By the 10th attempt from that location, it would take 17 hours for the 11th attempt, and by the 20th, this would be 12 days, effectively preventing a brute force attack while only minimally inconveniencing real users, and requiring essentially no complex reset procedures.
Talk about opportunities for loss of privacy. In a truely cashless society, there would be no way to have private transactions. Everything would be accounted for.
All you would need is a mechanism for buying a disposable and untraceable temporary debit card. If your bank has a pile of $100 debit cards with no name associated, and they can hand you one without them swiping the number of which one was pulled out of the box, then you would have privacy in a cashless society. All that would be necessary would be for this to be legal and supported by the major transaction companies or organizations.
Unfortunately, it's hard without a simplified movie to get citizens/consumers to stop and think about the impact privacy or the lack of privacy has on their lives, and without a strong demand, privacy does not benefit corporations, and thus, there is none.
I'm slightly more worried about what could happen if somebody didn't log these transactions. There goes my entire statement history and the company's and government's ability to make things right if a financial mistake has been made.
But where is your ability to walk into a convenience store, plop down $100 in cash, and buy a temporary debit card with $100 which is not associated with your name? You can buy a phone card in this manner, but where can you buy an anonymous debit card?
And by the way. I, personally, enjoy my 5% cash back on gasoline, groceries, and drugstore purchases.
You think that cash back comes from nowhere? The prices of all those products have been forced upward to pay for that cash back, so you are not winning one cent here. Your enjoyment of this is enjoyment of a well-structured illusion.
The THX "Find a cinema" search function told me my ZIP Code didn't appear to be valid! I appear to live over 100 miles from the nearest theater that plays this supposedly "famous" sound.
So take advantage of the newly evolved Netflix envelope... The THX sound is at the start of many rentals too.
I remember the days when technology was exciting. Every new product promised so much possibility and opportunity. Hell, some of them even made me want to run out and buy the thing. These days, however, new technology just leaves me feeling sick.
People used to focus on inventing products that someone wants to buy. Now they seem to focus on inventing products that someone wants to sell. The accumulated power of huge corporations has shifted the balance of power.
how's that a change?
It would probably reduce the popularity of hot peppers...
I just bought an Inspiron E1505 laptop, and I don't agree about the shoddy product. It's better built than my last Toshiba, and the HP/Compaqs I've had at work.
If you grip the display with two hands and apply a little contortion, does the Dell still feel like it's held on by squeeky twist ties? That and the brittleness of the plastic used are the major factors keeping me away from Dell these days. It'll be nice when they fix these problems so there will be more substantial competition.
What he found might be intriguing if the accuracy of the source's memory were slightly more reliable...
First of all, its not 'slightly' better. glxgears without nvidia drives runs the and FPS in the hundreds, and with and FPS in the 13000s with nvidia drivers.
And exactly how many frames can your superhuman eyes distinguish per second?
Ounce you have bought the software and read the EULA ((It being too long is not an excuse for not reading it)) you can still say no, and you can return it for the most part.
Where do you shop that software is returnable?
So, this is basically Google looking up the search phrases in a thesaurus and then returning hits on those words too? Probably would help if I read the article first, I imagine, but I wouldn't want to seem atypical :>
:)
Since the idea is worth something, it seems that details have not been released yet. But I would imagine it is possible to construct proximity ratings between search terms by an algorithm which assesses the number of corresponding links to pages containing other terms. This could digest a network of links in a way similar to how Google does now, but also extracting a set of link-related terms for each search item. For example, pages talking about "basketball" are likely to have a lot of links to pages talking about "hoops" or the "final four", so an algorithm could then link those terms as similar terms to look up if a searcher attempts to look up basketball.
But, this is just sleepy speculation.
The best part is at the end of the one video where the bot hits the box and falls flat on its "face." I'm sure I probably disturbed one of my neighbors' sleep cycles with my cackling. :)
:)
For greater amusement, watch this in slow motion.
Why do you computer people use such strange words like "push" and "pop"? Why not call it 'stick it on the end' and 'take it off the end?' It's so needlessly complicated".
E nd(my_first_object_being_stuck_on_the_end);
t er_c << my_sequential_collection_of_objects->TakeItOffTheE nd();
:)
SequentialCollectionOfObjects *my_sequential_collection_of_objects = new SequentialCollectionOfObjects();
my_sequential_collection_of_objects->StickItOnThe
standard_output_object_for_the_language_coming_af
Ah yes, so much simpler.