i'm a senior software developer at a LAMP shop; i write a lot of SQL for ad-hoc queries and what-not. i capitalize SQL queries, even in my ad-hoc queries (it's a good habit to get into if only for readability), but i don't ever use the caps lock key. it is more efficient for me to hold down the shift key (which is closer to my pinky than the caps lock key) while continuing to type at the same pace than it is to stop and press and release the caps lock key. i suspect this is likely the case with most people who are able to type at any reasonable pace.
so, your example fails to convince.
the only reason i can see for keeping the caps lock key is for old and/or braindead systems that don't speak anything but uppercase.
an independent firm by the name of westwood studios confirmed this in a 1996 research project utilizing software models of conventional and guerrilla warfare. the work was entitled "Command & Conquer: Red Alert". fascinating research.
If your boss ever decides, "Hey, this source code you wrote? Yeah, you don't own it, so you can't say you wrote it. You see, copyright has 'failed as a social contract,' which means nobody has the rights to anything they worked on, so I'm not going to give you a paycheck this month," don't go crying to anybody.
if my boss ever decided that, he'd merely be speaking the truth. any code i write at work using work equipment becomes the explicit property of work. maybe you should check into that, johnnie cochran.
you argue that playing live is somehow different from recording yourself playing live
that's an incredibly inane comment for you to make. you and i both know that 98% of records aren't recordings of live music, nor are they recorded by the artist. most of it is manufactured by huge studios for the money hungry record companies. the artist gets the money when they play live. the record companies get the money when the artist signs a record deal.
in the end, the loser is the individual and the profiteer is the faceless megaconglomerate. this is why i support the indie labels. the profiteering record conglomerates can kiss my ass.
why is this modded insightful? this does't fix the problem. the issue is with people looking for utube.com visiting youtube.com instead. the only thing your suggestion does is divert traffic from utube.com to youtube.com, increasing youtube.com's advertising revenue and introducing complexity into the web experience, potentially harming sales from confused individuals.
i think another issue with the boosters is safety. they can't be shut down after ignition. so they light, provide a shitton of trust, and then separate immediately. the exact definition of "booster".
so, you're looking at a combined weight of 2130 tons just for fuel, fuel housing, and associated feed assemblies. that sucks so much ass. imagine how much easier it would be if the fuel used weighed nothing. it's too bad that nothing we have provides as much thrust as chemical rockets.
i was brimming with pride when i annouced to the other guys at work that nasa was prepping discovery for launch.
the new guy said, "what?"
"discovery. you know, the space shuttle?" "where is it going? the moon?" "uh, no. it's going to the same place it always goes. into orbit. it can't go to the moon!" "why not? it's a rocket isn't it?"
a rocket.:/
more conversation continued, in which i exclaimed that the orbiter can't make it to the moon and back without shitloads of fuel. but then i began to question that, as i suppose it's possible to fit the cargo bay with additional fuel.
so, it begs the question, can the orbiter make it to the moon and back? what about landing on the moon? obviously without an atmosphere, the fact that it is winged makes it quite useless as a traditional aircraft.
fuck drm. digital shmigital. sure, if the MPAA and the RIAA had their way, we'd be paying cents for each time we watched a chapter from a dvd or each time we played our favorite songs.
however, the last time i checked, those functions (watch, play, listen, etc) are analog functions. no matter what twisted digital software crap is wedging its way into our media formats, we still have the ability to dub it off. sure, maybe we won't get the perfection of progressive-scan dvd and 5.1 surround sound, but it's still *possible*. even dubbing the surround sound and reencoding the separate streams sans DRM is possible.
the MPAA and RIAA can hawk DRM all they want to. piracy is not going anywhere, though. they can eliminate fair-use rights and have total control over cd/dvd media and players, and piracy will STILL be as rampant as it is today. it won't be as easy to do, but the scene will not wither and die because they excercise more control over the consumer.
Today, we have two languages (XHTML and CSS) instead of one (HTML), and while it certainly does a lot to improve interoperability and platform independence, it is two languages to learn, not one. Throw in stuff like JavaScript, and you have even more.
CSS is hardly a language, any more than C++ class definitions are a language separate from C++ functional syntax.
javascript, on the other hand, is much more of a language than either CSS or HTML. HTML is markup, and CSS is a syntax for style definition. IMHO, XHTML+CSS doesn't count as two languages. it hardly counts as one.
tons of american companies practice CSR. like worldcom, adelphia, charter, infineon, rambus, intel, microsoft, enron, etc, etc...
get real. most companies do that sort of thing for advertising purposes. give a chunk of change here and become a "platinum sponsor" and get your name in bigger letters than all the other sponsors!
there is no such thing as corporate social responsibility. corporations, for the most part, are out to fuck consumers over. there are some, i'm sure, that have some measure of social responsibility. but the behemoth, as a whole, cares about nothing but its own bottom line. sponsoring amnesty international is good for reebok's future, i'm sure they see increased sales because of it.
by the way, if you're going to title a link "Rebook is a good example and, for many years, has sponsored Amnesty International", the link should actually link to a document detailing reebok's relationship with amnesty international and not their front page. i will now assume that you are lying and an idiot.
oooh, they both have "finger mice" - you mean pointing sticks? whooopidity do, who cares, that's not a reason for buying another company's PC division.
corporate social responsibility? open your eyes. no such thing exists.
in any case, that's no reason why lenevo can't have ibm's pc division. western culture has expanded far enough. quit with your quest for world domination.
actually, that's already been done. the main character's name was oj simpson.
-mike
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal?
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 2, Informative
how's 640x480 pretty large?
compare the physical size of a 640x480 image on your screen to the physical size of a standard print.
If I want a good picture for viewing on monitor I want it to be at least that big (probably bigger since it's easy to make it smaller if needed but you can't make it larger (without loosing quality)).
granted. i don't want to have to resize an image to look at it quickly. i suppose that thumbnail viewers are the obvious answer, though, to me, a photograph is a photograph. for the majority of pictures, a "small" image (640x480) is more than large enough for me. hence my comment regarding taking pictures of blueprints. there are situations where a high resolution would come in handy, but for the majority of photographs, 3200x2400 is insane unless you are making huge prints (and even then, you can't get much bigger than letter-size with acceptable quality).
and why would you say that you'll use 35mm for prints? it makes no sense, if the digital camera can give the same results...
the digital camera cannot give the same results. 3200x2400 (~8MP) at 300dpi is only ~8" x ~10.5" -- a digital camera is not as versatile as film if i want this image blown up to something along the size of 3' x 5'.
as the other poster said, his 2.2MP camera is only good enough for prints up to around 5" x 7" -- anything larger than that is going to look pretty crappy.
-mike
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal?
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 1
so it's all about the quickness, right? ie, you can take the picture and *immediately* have it available on your computer for scrutinizing, etc...
do you feel that the only reason you have prints made is because your grandparents still like to keep a tangible photo album?
in my case, i don't see the need to keep prints anymore. i do, because i don't own a digital camera and haven't really had the wild hair up my ass to buy one, but i'll freely give away my prints, since i scan my negatives in with a negative scanner. i like my 35mm and it serves me well. paying for development sucks, but i don't take an excessive amount of pictures.
inkjet printers don't have red or blue inks, either...
you're forgetting that light and pigments combine differently to produce certain colors.
-mike
Re:For me, its the optical zoom ability
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
i agree with you.
unfortunately, i haven't seen many (if any) cameras with an optical zoom capability higher than 3X. they'll advertise the "859869X digital zoom" all day long, but digital zoom is an absolutely worthless feature, in my opinion.
i imagine they make such a big deal of it in order to attract the dolts that number-shop.
-mike
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal?
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
to tell you the truth, i've not taken a picture with a digital camera that i've not resized to something smaller than 640x480. even that's pretty large, i usually size them down to 320x240 so they look like pictures and not overly magnified illustrator documents.
i mean, 1600x1200 is only 2MP, and that's freakin' huge. the only reason i'd need something like 8MP (~3200x2400) would be if i was taking pictures of blueprints, bond-style, or needed a picture to be blown up to letter-sized proportions or larger. and, truthfully, if i was going to take a picture of something i needed to blow up to large proportions, i sure as hell wouldn't be using a digital camera.
interesting to note: 3200x2400 @ 300 dpi yields an image about the size of standard letter-sized paper. sorry, if i want prints, i'll use 35mm. no reason to print pictures out if i have a digital camera. i'll keep my 640x480 pictures.
last job that i worked at for 6 years, 4 of them as sole sysad:
primary dns server: mudflap (old office joke that began: "once, i was a mudflap...on a truck, and rocks kept hitting me and shit")
various mail servers: ornery (because the 3ware card was a bitch to get working, turns out i had a defective card from a bad fab), westsavannah (named for an outkast song), sighup (no particular reason)
radius server: findane (fin d'ane, french, something about ass)
accounting web server: doppio (this one was also some foreign translation of something, but i have no idea what of)
postgres server: escuelle (because people like to call it 'sequel', and yeah i know it looks like eskwell)
my win98 development box: illadelph (shortened version of philladelphia, named after hip hop band "the roots" album, illadelph halflife)
old cisco 1000 providing primary routing back when we only had a single T1: ribbit
that same cisco 1000 when it was replaced by a cisco 7000 and became a router for a cross-town RADSL link: spatula
routes traced into the network were amusing to say the least.
we used to use livingston portmaster 3 units in addition to ascend max units for dialup. we phased out the pm3s in favor of the ascend max units, particularly when livingston was bought out by lucent. in order to have a legal license to use lucent's radiusd, we bought an old portmaster2 off ebay for pennies, hooked it up, assigned it an ip address and hostname, then used it to prop open the door downstairs. it became "doorstop" in the zone files...
we also had a few/24s for dial-up pools that we began naming after simpsons characters, though other things started taking precedence over playing with hostnames.
Last time I checked, usability had nothing to do with allowing a user created process to stomp all over memory, like DOS / Win 16 / Win 32 did (and does). Usability also had nothing to do with being able to extend Office applications with Visual Basic For Applications, giving the world Marco virii.
readily countered, of course, with Polo anti-virus.
Slashdot Mirror
i'm a senior software developer at a LAMP shop; i write a lot of SQL for ad-hoc queries and what-not. i capitalize SQL queries, even in my ad-hoc queries (it's a good habit to get into if only for readability), but i don't ever use the caps lock key. it is more efficient for me to hold down the shift key (which is closer to my pinky than the caps lock key) while continuing to type at the same pace than it is to stop and press and release the caps lock key. i suspect this is likely the case with most people who are able to type at any reasonable pace.
so, your example fails to convince.
the only reason i can see for keeping the caps lock key is for old and/or braindead systems that don't speak anything but uppercase.
an independent firm by the name of westwood studios confirmed this in a 1996 research project utilizing software models of conventional and guerrilla warfare. the work was entitled "Command & Conquer: Red Alert". fascinating research.
uhm, there's nothing there, just a black screen that says "this image no longer available"
that's an incredibly inane comment for you to make. you and i both know that 98% of records aren't recordings of live music, nor are they recorded by the artist. most of it is manufactured by huge studios for the money hungry record companies. the artist gets the money when they play live. the record companies get the money when the artist signs a record deal. in the end, the loser is the individual and the profiteer is the faceless megaconglomerate. this is why i support the indie labels. the profiteering record conglomerates can kiss my ass.
why is this modded insightful? this does't fix the problem. the issue is with people looking for utube.com visiting youtube.com instead. the only thing your suggestion does is divert traffic from utube.com to youtube.com, increasing youtube.com's advertising revenue and introducing complexity into the web experience, potentially harming sales from confused individuals.
think before you post, slapout.
We can see lightyears and lightyears away with Hubble, and other large telescopes. So how is it were still finding moons in the solar system?
i read that as: "so how is it were still finding morons in the solar system?"
my first reaction was, DOOD ARE YOU CRAZY? THEY'RE EVERYWHERE, YOU DONT NEED A TELESCOPE TO FIND THEM!
all work and no play makes mike see words that are not there...must have nap...
-mike
duh that means the computer is broken.
you just have to throw it away and buy a new one. wal-mart has them for cheap.
1600 gal/s
that's insane.
orbiter: 2250 tons
fully filled external tank: 830 tons
fully filled booster: 650 tons
percentage of thrust provided by boosters: 71
i think another issue with the boosters is safety. they can't be shut down after ignition. so they light, provide a shitton of trust, and then separate immediately. the exact definition of "booster".
so, you're looking at a combined weight of 2130 tons just for fuel, fuel housing, and associated feed assemblies. that sucks so much ass. imagine how much easier it would be if the fuel used weighed nothing. it's too bad that nothing we have provides as much thrust as chemical rockets.
-mike
i was brimming with pride when i annouced to the other guys at work that nasa was prepping discovery for launch.
:/
the new guy said, "what?"
"discovery. you know, the space shuttle?"
"where is it going? the moon?"
"uh, no. it's going to the same place it always goes. into orbit. it can't go to the moon!"
"why not? it's a rocket isn't it?"
a rocket.
more conversation continued, in which i exclaimed that the orbiter can't make it to the moon and back without shitloads of fuel. but then i began to question that, as i suppose it's possible to fit the cargo bay with additional fuel.
so, it begs the question, can the orbiter make it to the moon and back? what about landing on the moon? obviously without an atmosphere, the fact that it is winged makes it quite useless as a traditional aircraft.
comments from aerospace experts?
-mike
i read that title as "boson argon arrest"
i was quite interested until i realized my mistake...now it's just boring arson.
fuck drm. digital shmigital. sure, if the MPAA and the RIAA had their way, we'd be paying cents for each time we watched a chapter from a dvd or each time we played our favorite songs.
however, the last time i checked, those functions (watch, play, listen, etc) are analog functions. no matter what twisted digital software crap is wedging its way into our media formats, we still have the ability to dub it off. sure, maybe we won't get the perfection of progressive-scan dvd and 5.1 surround sound, but it's still *possible*. even dubbing the surround sound and reencoding the separate streams sans DRM is possible.
the MPAA and RIAA can hawk DRM all they want to. piracy is not going anywhere, though. they can eliminate fair-use rights and have total control over cd/dvd media and players, and piracy will STILL be as rampant as it is today. it won't be as easy to do, but the scene will not wither and die because they excercise more control over the consumer.
-mike
Today, we have two languages (XHTML and CSS) instead of one (HTML), and while it certainly does a lot to improve interoperability and platform independence, it is two languages to learn, not one. Throw in stuff like JavaScript, and you have even more.
CSS is hardly a language, any more than C++ class definitions are a language separate from C++ functional syntax.
javascript, on the other hand, is much more of a language than either CSS or HTML. HTML is markup, and CSS is a syntax for style definition. IMHO, XHTML+CSS doesn't count as two languages. it hardly counts as one.
-mike
tons of american companies practice CSR. like worldcom, adelphia, charter, infineon, rambus, intel, microsoft, enron, etc, etc...
get real. most companies do that sort of thing for advertising purposes. give a chunk of change here and become a "platinum sponsor" and get your name in bigger letters than all the other sponsors!
there is no such thing as corporate social responsibility. corporations, for the most part, are out to fuck consumers over. there are some, i'm sure, that have some measure of social responsibility. but the behemoth, as a whole, cares about nothing but its own bottom line. sponsoring amnesty international is good for reebok's future, i'm sure they see increased sales because of it.
by the way, if you're going to title a link "Rebook is a good example and, for many years, has sponsored Amnesty International", the link should actually link to a document detailing reebok's relationship with amnesty international and not their front page. i will now assume that you are lying and an idiot.
-mike
you're an idiot.
oooh, they both have "finger mice" - you mean pointing sticks? whooopidity do, who cares, that's not a reason for buying another company's PC division.
corporate social responsibility? open your eyes. no such thing exists.
in any case, that's no reason why lenevo can't have ibm's pc division. western culture has expanded far enough. quit with your quest for world domination.
-mike
actually, that's already been done. the main character's name was oj simpson.
-mike
how's 640x480 pretty large?
compare the physical size of a 640x480 image on your screen to the physical size of a standard print.
If I want a good picture for viewing on monitor I want it to be at least that big (probably bigger since it's easy to make it smaller if needed but you can't make it larger (without loosing quality)).
granted. i don't want to have to resize an image to look at it quickly. i suppose that thumbnail viewers are the obvious answer, though, to me, a photograph is a photograph. for the majority of pictures, a "small" image (640x480) is more than large enough for me. hence my comment regarding taking pictures of blueprints. there are situations where a high resolution would come in handy, but for the majority of photographs, 3200x2400 is insane unless you are making huge prints (and even then, you can't get much bigger than letter-size with acceptable quality).
and why would you say that you'll use 35mm for prints? it makes no sense, if the digital camera can give the same results...
the digital camera cannot give the same results. 3200x2400 (~8MP) at 300dpi is only ~8" x ~10.5" -- a digital camera is not as versatile as film if i want this image blown up to something along the size of 3' x 5'.
as the other poster said, his 2.2MP camera is only good enough for prints up to around 5" x 7" -- anything larger than that is going to look pretty crappy.
-mike
so it's all about the quickness, right? ie, you can take the picture and *immediately* have it available on your computer for scrutinizing, etc...
do you feel that the only reason you have prints made is because your grandparents still like to keep a tangible photo album?
in my case, i don't see the need to keep prints anymore. i do, because i don't own a digital camera and haven't really had the wild hair up my ass to buy one, but i'll freely give away my prints, since i scan my negatives in with a negative scanner. i like my 35mm and it serves me well. paying for development sucks, but i don't take an excessive amount of pictures.
-mike
inkjet printers don't have red or blue inks, either...
you're forgetting that light and pigments combine differently to produce certain colors.
-mike
i agree with you.
unfortunately, i haven't seen many (if any) cameras with an optical zoom capability higher than 3X. they'll advertise the "859869X digital zoom" all day long, but digital zoom is an absolutely worthless feature, in my opinion.
i imagine they make such a big deal of it in order to attract the dolts that number-shop.
-mike
to tell you the truth, i've not taken a picture with a digital camera that i've not resized to something smaller than 640x480. even that's pretty large, i usually size them down to 320x240 so they look like pictures and not overly magnified illustrator documents.
i mean, 1600x1200 is only 2MP, and that's freakin' huge. the only reason i'd need something like 8MP (~3200x2400) would be if i was taking pictures of blueprints, bond-style, or needed a picture to be blown up to letter-sized proportions or larger. and, truthfully, if i was going to take a picture of something i needed to blow up to large proportions, i sure as hell wouldn't be using a digital camera.
interesting to note: 3200x2400 @ 300 dpi yields an image about the size of standard letter-sized paper. sorry, if i want prints, i'll use 35mm. no reason to print pictures out if i have a digital camera. i'll keep my 640x480 pictures.
-mike
routes traced into the network were amusing to say the least.
we used to use livingston portmaster 3 units in addition to ascend max units for dialup. we phased out the pm3s in favor of the ascend max units, particularly when livingston was bought out by lucent. in order to have a legal license to use lucent's radiusd, we bought an old portmaster2 off ebay for pennies, hooked it up, assigned it an ip address and hostname, then used it to prop open the door downstairs. it became "doorstop" in the zone files...
we also had a few
-mike
Last time I checked, usability had nothing to do with allowing a user created process to stomp all over memory, like DOS / Win 16 / Win 32 did (and does). Usability also had nothing to do with being able to extend Office applications with Visual Basic For Applications, giving the world Marco virii.
readily countered, of course, with Polo anti-virus.
holy crap, your whole computer segfaulted? was your cpu forcefully ejected out the front of the case and 'dumped' on the floor?
hey, dork, it's called methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA for short) or, as most of the fear-ridden world knows it as, the evil club-drug ecstasy.
"damn ravers."
--
the junglist movement