How is someone going to make out, from a distance, the shape of a key, that is inside a pocket, and on a keychain along with a multitude of other keys (so X-raying wouldn't even help)?
If one is repeatedly redeveloping their app and getting it rejected, then there is clearly something they are doing wrong (specifically, they are probably not paying attention to the reasons it was rejected in the first place). It's certainly true that Apple can decide, based entirely on their own agenda, whether or not they'll allow an app, but the fields that don't interfere with that agenda are, in reality, not remotely narrow. Obviously, if a developer wants to develop software in niches that Apple does not permit, then it's ill advised to keep redeveloping the app for that platform. In fact, there's little reason to develop it in the first place, assuming any real market research was done beforehand. A person who goes broke trying to keep getting something into the Apple store that Apple has already said they won't allow is, IMO, a classic example of the cliche about "a fool and his money..."
My point still stands.
Apple app development can be unimaginably lucrative. It is only dependent on the developer's ability to realize or anticipate what the general public actually wants. If the only thing that a developer can imagine that people want is something that Apple simply won't allow, even if their reason for not allowing it seems entirely stupid or unfair, then that's ultimately a limitation of the developer's own imagination or creativity *FAR* more than it is an indication of how much Apple doesn't allow.
I sound like an Apple apologist. I'm not. I really don't like the direction Apple is heading, but things are the way they are. Apple is popular right now. For good or bad, that's still reality. People can either jump on board and try to make whatever money they can before that boat sinks (because, to continue with that metaphor, there's absolutely nothing stopping developers from jumping off the ship off at any time), or they can sit back and watch, doing little more than waiting for their upcoming chance to tell Apple fans "I told you so".
Why the hell would I want to target a platform known for giving devs the boot for reasons ranging from "editorial" to "petty" to "borderline illegal vindictive"?
Because if you can design the right kind of application, there's one helluva lot of money to be made, obviously.
Not that I'm saying money should necessarily motivate everything you do, but the potential for profit is pretty substantial... and really is only dependent on a programmer's own ability to know what other people will find entertaining or useful.
Your point is so utterly contrary to the context in which I made that remark that I'm not entirely sure if you're being sarcastic or not.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you didn't even really read the entire post I was responding to, I was actually addressing the tone in which the post to which I responded to was phrased in. It was not "good thing he's dead [so that he's not in any pain]", it was "good thing he's dead [because the world is better off without him]". It was that insensitivity that prompted me to respond as I did. Heck, the post to which I responded above went so far as to suggest that he would be in hell, which, allegedly, is *FAR* worse pain than any suffering that one might endure in this life.
I recall fairly vividly playing around with a mandelbrot set exploration program which used a single left click to zoom in on the area centered on the click. This would have been in the 1990's.
.... but as long as [C++] needs header files, I don't put it into a modern language category.
From a usage perspective, there is no real difference between header files and import statements. The only significant difference between them, in fact, is in their creation, where a programmer must explicitly separate the interface from the implementation.
As it's entirely possible to write software that generates header files from an implementation (with suitable markup), and this phase can be added to the initial part of any automatic build process, I really wouldn't agree with your notion that this characteristic alone makes C++11 unworthy of the "modern language" category, while at the same time Java or C# would be.
One star is similar in size to our Sol however it only provides approximately 84% of the light, the other is smaller measuring one third of the size of our Sol and emits less than 1% the light.
This isn't saying that one star provides 84% of the light in the system, it's saying that one star provides 84% of the light as our own sun. The other 1%. Obviously, the total amount of light is only 85% of our own sun.
Nowhere do the percentages read as being relative to the total light in that system, but only relative to our own. The percentages don't have to add up to a hundred in that case... they can add up to less, or more, because they are being compared to something else, not to their own net total.
"Command lines are vastly more powerful than traditional GUIs" - sure but how many people can actually use it?
The only thing stopping most people from being able to use a command line is their own perception that command lines are hard to use, and the difficulty that they encounter when they try is largely psychomatic
In reality, a command line is extremely simple for anybody to learn, with the caveat that a certain degree of literacy is required. Half the battle is just getting to a place psychologically where one genuinely wants to learn it.
Is it as easy as a GUI? No. But it's not hard. And once accustomed to it, there's no small amount of things that are far easier and faster.
No moreso than evolution is forced down peoples throats when they go into school.... and yet somehow, there's no lack of people that manage to not believe it.
My point being that an individual always ends up deciding for themselves what they believe, regardless of what they are taught.
I'm only going on historical practice... the CAFE improvements have *NEVER* kept up with the rate that cars are being added on the road, entirely because the terms that they use are too long. This one looks no different to me.
For what it's worth, there will be more than double the number of cars there are now before the end of the decade, let alone 2025... It's not nonsense... it's simple extrapolation. The only thing that might significantly alter that is some major catastrophe or global event, or unless gasoline prices skyrocket to somewhere in the vicinity of $15 to $20 a gallon in today's dollars.
But all I'm really saying is that in these proposed fuel economy improvements, they need to start seriously accounting for the exponentially increasing use of automobiles... because they never have before, and this 13 year projection certainly isn't accounting for it now.
There will be a few more cars, but not enough to eliminate the benefits of raising CAFE from 27 to 54 (basically halving fuel consumption).
This hypothesis is unsupported by historical precedent. Historically, fuel consumption standards have *NEVER* kept up with the rate at which cars are being added to the road. If the doubling of efficiency were over a period of maybe 3 or 4 years, rather than 13, it would not only keep up with the exponential rise in automobile use, but it would actually start to improve matters.
It doesn't matter if you believe in global warming or not. Improving fuel consumption standards at a rate that won't even keep up with the rate at which automobiles are getting added to the road may be better than no lowering at all, but it's still *far* from what is actually needed to make things better than what they are now.
Fuel efficiency and emission standards should, IMO, be improving exponentially, such that they are doubling in strictness every few years, instead of progressing at a snail's pace that can't hope to keep up with the rapid increase in automobile use over time.
And personally, I don't believe that's even an entirely unattainable goal. Difficult perhaps, but probably not physically impossible. One thing I'm damn certain of, however, is that nobody's going to bother to even try unless it's made mandatory.
It doesn't matter that these stricter fuel consumption standards will be in place in 13 years, because by then there will be so many more cars on the road than there are now, that we will *STILL* be consuming and polluting far more than we are today.
These standards need to be made to keep *AHEAD* of the curve, and account for the fact that the number of vehicles being used daily is continually rising. Instead of coming up with these standards for 13 years in the future, they should be making them for 3. If automobile manufacturers can't pull it off with all new cars by then, then it means less automobiles on the road anyways.... so it's win-win!
Most of the sorts of people who would teach something like creationism to their kids don't force it on them any more than Mr. Nye's plea for parents to not do that is actually forcing parents not to.
But really, the biggest problem with this kind of request is that the people who would be inclined to pay attention to it don't actually need to, since they don't do the things that are being discouraged, and the people who might have reason to need to listen to this recommendation wouldn't pay any attention to it at all.
It's simply a waste of time... because people who teach their kids those sorts of things are doing it because it ties into their religious beliefs, and trying to tell them not to invariably comes across as intolerance to that belief. And just as intolerant as their beliefs are towards others.
One is compelled to wonder why it is acceptable for him to implore such a thing, while at the same time condoning said parents' continued attitudes? This seems sort of self-contradictory to me. If one is not okay, why is the other, or vice versa?
Slashdot Mirror
I bought Sims Medieval just last year, not long after it was released. It has absolutely no multiplayer component that i am aware of.
How is someone going to make out, from a distance, the shape of a key, that is inside a pocket, and on a keychain along with a multitude of other keys (so X-raying wouldn't even help)?
If one is repeatedly redeveloping their app and getting it rejected, then there is clearly something they are doing wrong (specifically, they are probably not paying attention to the reasons it was rejected in the first place). It's certainly true that Apple can decide, based entirely on their own agenda, whether or not they'll allow an app, but the fields that don't interfere with that agenda are, in reality, not remotely narrow. Obviously, if a developer wants to develop software in niches that Apple does not permit, then it's ill advised to keep redeveloping the app for that platform. In fact, there's little reason to develop it in the first place, assuming any real market research was done beforehand. A person who goes broke trying to keep getting something into the Apple store that Apple has already said they won't allow is, IMO, a classic example of the cliche about "a fool and his money..."
My point still stands.
Apple app development can be unimaginably lucrative. It is only dependent on the developer's ability to realize or anticipate what the general public actually wants. If the only thing that a developer can imagine that people want is something that Apple simply won't allow, even if their reason for not allowing it seems entirely stupid or unfair, then that's ultimately a limitation of the developer's own imagination or creativity *FAR* more than it is an indication of how much Apple doesn't allow.
I sound like an Apple apologist. I'm not. I really don't like the direction Apple is heading, but things are the way they are. Apple is popular right now. For good or bad, that's still reality. People can either jump on board and try to make whatever money they can before that boat sinks (because, to continue with that metaphor, there's absolutely nothing stopping developers from jumping off the ship off at any time), or they can sit back and watch, doing little more than waiting for their upcoming chance to tell Apple fans "I told you so".
Because if you can design the right kind of application, there's one helluva lot of money to be made, obviously.
Not that I'm saying money should necessarily motivate everything you do, but the potential for profit is pretty substantial... and really is only dependent on a programmer's own ability to know what other people will find entertaining or useful.
Your point is so utterly contrary to the context in which I made that remark that I'm not entirely sure if you're being sarcastic or not.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you didn't even really read the entire post I was responding to, I was actually addressing the tone in which the post to which I responded to was phrased in. It was not "good thing he's dead [so that he's not in any pain]", it was "good thing he's dead [because the world is better off without him]". It was that insensitivity that prompted me to respond as I did. Heck, the post to which I responded above went so far as to suggest that he would be in hell, which, allegedly, is *FAR* worse pain than any suffering that one might endure in this life.
I certainly didn't like Jobs either, but that's just a bit too insensitive, IMO.
I recall fairly vividly playing around with a mandelbrot set exploration program which used a single left click to zoom in on the area centered on the click. This would have been in the 1990's.
I'm sorry, but don't you think that your post treads dangerously close to being a bit too on-topic for this article discussion?
From a usage perspective, there is no real difference between header files and import statements. The only significant difference between them, in fact, is in their creation, where a programmer must explicitly separate the interface from the implementation.
As it's entirely possible to write software that generates header files from an implementation (with suitable markup), and this phase can be added to the initial part of any automatic build process, I really wouldn't agree with your notion that this characteristic alone makes C++11 unworthy of the "modern language" category, while at the same time Java or C# would be.
This isn't saying that one star provides 84% of the light in the system, it's saying that one star provides 84% of the light as our own sun. The other 1%. Obviously, the total amount of light is only 85% of our own sun.
Nowhere do the percentages read as being relative to the total light in that system, but only relative to our own. The percentages don't have to add up to a hundred in that case... they can add up to less, or more, because they are being compared to something else, not to their own net total.
Sorry, that's not right
You're short just one syllable
Check out your first line.
It certainly is,
Five syllables, then seven
Ending with five more.
The only thing stopping most people from being able to use a command line is their own perception that command lines are hard to use, and the difficulty that they encounter when they try is largely psychomatic
In reality, a command line is extremely simple for anybody to learn, with the caveat that a certain degree of literacy is required. Half the battle is just getting to a place psychologically where one genuinely wants to learn it.
Is it as easy as a GUI? No. But it's not hard. And once accustomed to it, there's no small amount of things that are far easier and faster.
Just wait. Now we'll see
Everyone posting haikus
Typical Slashdot.
Just because there isn't a proven causal relationship, doesn't mean that there isn't one.
More to the point... has circumcision ever been shown to be linked to something harmful?
"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
No moreso than evolution is forced down peoples throats when they go into school.... and yet somehow, there's no lack of people that manage to not believe it.
My point being that an individual always ends up deciding for themselves what they believe, regardless of what they are taught.
I'm only going on historical practice... the CAFE improvements have *NEVER* kept up with the rate that cars are being added on the road, entirely because the terms that they use are too long. This one looks no different to me.
For what it's worth, there will be more than double the number of cars there are now before the end of the decade, let alone 2025... It's not nonsense... it's simple extrapolation. The only thing that might significantly alter that is some major catastrophe or global event, or unless gasoline prices skyrocket to somewhere in the vicinity of $15 to $20 a gallon in today's dollars.
But all I'm really saying is that in these proposed fuel economy improvements, they need to start seriously accounting for the exponentially increasing use of automobiles... because they never have before, and this 13 year projection certainly isn't accounting for it now.
This hypothesis is unsupported by historical precedent. Historically, fuel consumption standards have *NEVER* kept up with the rate at which cars are being added to the road. If the doubling of efficiency were over a period of maybe 3 or 4 years, rather than 13, it would not only keep up with the exponential rise in automobile use, but it would actually start to improve matters.
It doesn't matter if you believe in global warming or not. Improving fuel consumption standards at a rate that won't even keep up with the rate at which automobiles are getting added to the road may be better than no lowering at all, but it's still *far* from what is actually needed to make things better than what they are now.
Fuel efficiency and emission standards should, IMO, be improving exponentially, such that they are doubling in strictness every few years, instead of progressing at a snail's pace that can't hope to keep up with the rapid increase in automobile use over time.
And personally, I don't believe that's even an entirely unattainable goal. Difficult perhaps, but probably not physically impossible. One thing I'm damn certain of, however, is that nobody's going to bother to even try unless it's made mandatory.
It doesn't matter that these stricter fuel consumption standards will be in place in 13 years, because by then there will be so many more cars on the road than there are now, that we will *STILL* be consuming and polluting far more than we are today.
These standards need to be made to keep *AHEAD* of the curve, and account for the fact that the number of vehicles being used daily is continually rising. Instead of coming up with these standards for 13 years in the future, they should be making them for 3. If automobile manufacturers can't pull it off with all new cars by then, then it means less automobiles on the road anyways.... so it's win-win!
Most of the sorts of people who would teach something like creationism to their kids don't force it on them any more than Mr. Nye's plea for parents to not do that is actually forcing parents not to.
But really, the biggest problem with this kind of request is that the people who would be inclined to pay attention to it don't actually need to, since they don't do the things that are being discouraged, and the people who might have reason to need to listen to this recommendation wouldn't pay any attention to it at all.
It's simply a waste of time... because people who teach their kids those sorts of things are doing it because it ties into their religious beliefs, and trying to tell them not to invariably comes across as intolerance to that belief. And just as intolerant as their beliefs are towards others.
One is compelled to wonder why it is acceptable for him to implore such a thing, while at the same time condoning said parents' continued attitudes? This seems sort of self-contradictory to me. If one is not okay, why is the other, or vice versa?
Faith may not be earned, but can *definitely* be subject to review.
"Poisoning the well" is not a logical argument.