I'm glad I wasn't the only one confused by that statement. My guess is that he means software players. I've never cared for PowerDVD or WinDVD, though in all fairness, I haven't used them in ages. The lack of variety does, in general, reduce the incentive to make your player really good.
It's definitely smoother. However since you always see tab bars with Chrome, that's possibly one reason why reattachment is easier. Actually, without dragging the tab specifically, you might reattach when you didn't mean to just while you're reorganizing your windows.
Other than that I really like the tab tear off system (much better than Safari since you can _reattach_ tabs back into the main window) and the integrated search / location bar (which seems to be able to read my mind...).
Firefox does both of those quite nicely, does it not?
I didn't know that you could reattach tabs to Firefox. I always seemed to have trouble with it on OS X, but I did finally manage to do it.
The tab management is kind of weak on Firefox, anyway. With Safari, you can pull off the tab without e.g. restarting a Flash video. Not so with Firefox. Furthermore, Firefox always seems to create the new window in the "new window" position, rather than wherever I've dragged the mouse pointer. It's a minor annoyance, but it's there.
Really, the only extension I use on Firefox is Noscript, but it's important enough to me that I don't dally with other browsers often.
There's nothing wrong with Lynx. It's just that you can get more from a graphical browser like Safari.
Chrome is quick. Or it appears quick. I guess it could all be smoke and mirrors, but what ultimately matters is the end user experience, and it seems faster to me. That's not something wrong with Firefox, it's something extra with Chrome.
Is that how JSON took hold? By being easy to parse using eval?
Man, that really stinks. If they'd bothered to care about security in the first place, they could have just used XML instead of inventing a new serialized object format.
Javascript has a lot of neat little features, but some of the design leaves me wanting. I wish it were a little more C-like in its design. I'd like block-level scope. It's not a flaw or a problem, but it's definitely something I'd like. I can see people calling that a wart. 'typeof' is just plain broken. To quote Douglas Crockford:
typeof [] produces 'object' instead of 'array'. That isn't totally wrong since arrays in JavaScript inherit from objects, but it isn't very useful. typeof null produces 'object' instead of 'null'. That is totally wrong.
Further down, he explains how to differentiate between objects and arrays constructed in a different frame. That you need so much code for that is, in my opinion, a wart on an otherwise concise language.
Define "flaw." The fact that it's different from other languages is not a flaw.
Variables are global by default, leading to accidental memory leaks, conflicts and various other fun things.
There's a mechanism for declaring variables with either global scope or functional scope. Without a var prefix, it has global scope. I'm not sure I'd consider that "default." If anything, in my opinion, the preferred behavior would be to only have explicit scope and not allow variables to be declared without a prefix. Something like "global b" or "local a" to declare the scope. That said, if you see a variable declared without var, you know that it's global, and you should treat it as such.
A lack of namespaces.
This is probably my single biggest gripe. I've also been disgusted with the same problem in PHP.
But it's not entirely true. You can simulate namespaces well enough. The real problem is people redefining Object and cluttering up the global namespace. This means that it can be impossible to use two libraries together if they both try to (re)define the same methods.
It would be nice if the language held our hands on this, but ultimately the real blame lies with the developers who don't know the language that they're coding in, or who don't care about interoperability.
Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks)
This is nothing more than a design decision. It's not a flaw. One of the biggest problem programmers have with Javascript is that it looks a lot like C, but it doesn't act very much like C. This causes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, and leads to programming errors, such as assuming that Javascript has block scope.
A weirder example looks like this:
a = 1; function f() { alert (a); var a = 2; alert (a); }
IIRC, the first alert will be undefined because the variable is declared somewhere in the function, even though it's declared after the first use. Most C programmers probably expect the value of the variable to only be overridden after the local declaration.
If you were on vacation and called, were you expected to fly back if you had to? What sort of response time was expected?
Having a single person on call 24/7/365 seems like a really bad way to run things. I think I'd need to be desperate for money or be paid enough to retire in a few years to work in those circumstances.
Here's the thing. The government really doesn't like going to court. They'd much rather save time and money by convincing the defendant to plead guilty. They do this by trumping up charges and offering to let you plead guilty to a lesser charge (something more in line with what you actually did.) The risk of spending the rest of one's life in jail is often too much to handle, so people plea down.
I agree 100%. I'm sick and tired of people thinking that we should treat captured Al Qaeda as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.
That said, we don't know that everyone captured and held at our various camps are actually Al Qaeda, or if they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's exactly why a certain amount of humane treatment is necessary.
Re:"'independent' no longer equates to 'sucks.'"".
on
Review: Eufloria
·
· Score: 1
That's the problem with providing a score (e.g. between 0 and 10) but not an explanation of what they mean. It's probably not reasonable to use the median because there are a lot of crappy games out there. So much so that it would probably inflate the scores of any reasonably hyped, passable game up to the 8 or 9 range.
Furthermore, the median only makes sense at a particular point in time. As an exercise, suppose that I release a large number of really crappy games--a number so large as to equal the total number of games in existence. All of these games are rated below 3. According to your metric, that would push up all of the rest of the games to higher-than-average scores. But no one's going to go back and review those game scores to correct them, and it doesn't change the fact that the games were still crappy to begin with.
I don't want to give my data away to some server outside without strong encryption
Man, no one reads anymore!
Depending upon how much work and money you're willing to expend, you might check out Tarsnap. It's not going to have a pretty GUI or anything, and you'll need Cygwin to get it running on Windows, but it's got pretty much everything you want.
It's snapshotting, so you only transfer small changes. It encrypts (and it does so on the client, before sending it to the server) and the source code to the client is available for review. Unfortunately, the terms of use for the Tarsnap server do not allow modifications to the client. I'm not sure if this counts for your open source requirement. The back-end is Amazon S3, much like Jungle Disk (though unfortunately, you wouldn't be able to continue using Jungle Disk to access this data, as you hoped.)
The biggest problem I have with it is that it doesn't do true syncing. There's nothing stopping you from writing a few scripts to effectively get syncing. I could envision storing/backing up your subversion repository with Tarsnap and downloading the last snapshot any time you need to start working on a new machine.
There's really not much else that suitable without running your own server somewhere.
The way most encryption works, if you change a piece of the plaintext file, you get a wildly different ciphertext file. It's different enough that transmitting only the parts which changed will cause you to end up transmitting most of the file.
I don't know if this is the case with Truecrypt's volumes, but I bet that it is.
Well, it probably won't decrease their revenue by 3%.
First of all, most people probably won't demand refunds of any sort, and if they're on a recurring payment plan, they may well forget to remove it. They may choose not to, as well, since they can still use their Live account on another Xbox.
Second, in the computer industry, lost sales are equated with lost revenue. By disallowing pirates to access the network, Microsoft probably believes that they will start getting more revenue. At the very least, some percentage of these people will probably buy a new Xbox for Live, and use the old one for piracy. People who do this will probably buy the games that they want to play with Live, meaning more revenue.
Lastly, it sends a signal that they're cracking down, the benefits of which are hard to measure (though since they're not reflected in revenue, I suppose that it's irrelevant to your point.)
You know, any given piece of software from Microsoft will have a different set of developers, from Word to IE to Windows to Bing. But you know what they all have in common? They all get vulnerabilities and showstopping bugs. The lack of care and attention to detail is ingrained in the culture over there.
This statement undermines any credibility you may think you have on the topic of Rush Limbaugh.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. My points on entertainers (I wasn't the one to initially call his show entertainment) having blind followers is irrespective of the circumstances.
If I misused the term because it's thrown around so much, or because every self-proclaimed ditto that I know treats Rush like he's the second coming of Christ, so what? Do you deny that there are a large number of people who parrot what Rush says? If a misused word invalidates everything that a person says on a subject, then we've all got some problems.
I listened to Rush, Hannity, and one other guy (I can't remember his name, unfortunately--it was on a Dallas station--internet feed--, but I believe it was a national syndication) for about a year in 2005. It was the least productive year of my life, because I'd constantly fact-check things that I heard which were simply beyond belief. Rush and Hannity were the worst. The other guy tended to be factually correct and provide context, and it was actually pleasant to listen to him even if we disagreed on a few things.
My point is that conservatives got the majority, when you combine the Conservative and Republican votes (which normally wouldn't be split.) This isn't a sign that NY-23 is becoming more liberal, it's a sign that conservatives screwed up.
That said, the numbers were much closer this time than in the past few elections, which might indicate a more liberal trend.
Ooh, they lost a district because their vote was split. That's not exactly a win, it just further solidifies the need for the Republican party to unite, and it illustrates the dangers if they have a rift.
Slashdot Mirror
This box runs Linux. Plugging in the Bluray drive won't get you anywhere towards watching Bluray movies.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one confused by that statement. My guess is that he means software players. I've never cared for PowerDVD or WinDVD, though in all fairness, I haven't used them in ages. The lack of variety does, in general, reduce the incentive to make your player really good.
There's no playback on Linux or Mac, whatsoever.
It's definitely smoother. However since you always see tab bars with Chrome, that's possibly one reason why reattachment is easier. Actually, without dragging the tab specifically, you might reattach when you didn't mean to just while you're reorganizing your windows.
Other than that I really like the tab tear off system (much better than Safari since you can _reattach_ tabs back into the main window) and the integrated search / location bar (which seems to be able to read my mind...).
Firefox does both of those quite nicely, does it not?
I didn't know that you could reattach tabs to Firefox. I always seemed to have trouble with it on OS X, but I did finally manage to do it.
The tab management is kind of weak on Firefox, anyway. With Safari, you can pull off the tab without e.g. restarting a Flash video. Not so with Firefox. Furthermore, Firefox always seems to create the new window in the "new window" position, rather than wherever I've dragged the mouse pointer. It's a minor annoyance, but it's there.
Really, the only extension I use on Firefox is Noscript, but it's important enough to me that I don't dally with other browsers often.
There's nothing wrong with Lynx. It's just that you can get more from a graphical browser like Safari.
Chrome is quick. Or it appears quick. I guess it could all be smoke and mirrors, but what ultimately matters is the end user experience, and it seems faster to me. That's not something wrong with Firefox, it's something extra with Chrome.
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.
Is that how JSON took hold? By being easy to parse using eval?
Man, that really stinks. If they'd bothered to care about security in the first place, they could have just used XML instead of inventing a new serialized object format.
Javascript has a lot of neat little features, but some of the design leaves me wanting. I wish it were a little more C-like in its design. I'd like block-level scope. It's not a flaw or a problem, but it's definitely something I'd like. I can see people calling that a wart. 'typeof' is just plain broken. To quote Douglas Crockford:
typeof [] produces 'object' instead of 'array'. That isn't totally wrong since arrays in JavaScript inherit from objects, but it isn't very useful. typeof null produces 'object' instead of 'null'. That is totally wrong.
Further down, he explains how to differentiate between objects and arrays constructed in a different frame. That you need so much code for that is, in my opinion, a wart on an otherwise concise language.
Define "flaw." The fact that it's different from other languages is not a flaw.
Variables are global by default, leading to accidental memory leaks, conflicts and various other fun things.
There's a mechanism for declaring variables with either global scope or functional scope. Without a var prefix, it has global scope. I'm not sure I'd consider that "default." If anything, in my opinion, the preferred behavior would be to only have explicit scope and not allow variables to be declared without a prefix. Something like "global b" or "local a" to declare the scope. That said, if you see a variable declared without var, you know that it's global, and you should treat it as such.
A lack of namespaces.
This is probably my single biggest gripe. I've also been disgusted with the same problem in PHP.
But it's not entirely true. You can simulate namespaces well enough. The real problem is people redefining Object and cluttering up the global namespace. This means that it can be impossible to use two libraries together if they both try to (re)define the same methods.
It would be nice if the language held our hands on this, but ultimately the real blame lies with the developers who don't know the language that they're coding in, or who don't care about interoperability.
Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks)
This is nothing more than a design decision. It's not a flaw. One of the biggest problem programmers have with Javascript is that it looks a lot like C, but it doesn't act very much like C. This causes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, and leads to programming errors, such as assuming that Javascript has block scope.
A weirder example looks like this:
a = 1;
function f() {
alert (a);
var a = 2;
alert (a);
}
IIRC, the first alert will be undefined because the variable is declared somewhere in the function, even though it's declared after the first use. Most C programmers probably expect the value of the variable to only be overridden after the local declaration.
If you were on vacation and called, were you expected to fly back if you had to? What sort of response time was expected?
Having a single person on call 24/7/365 seems like a really bad way to run things. I think I'd need to be desperate for money or be paid enough to retire in a few years to work in those circumstances.
Here's the thing. The government really doesn't like going to court. They'd much rather save time and money by convincing the defendant to plead guilty. They do this by trumping up charges and offering to let you plead guilty to a lesser charge (something more in line with what you actually did.) The risk of spending the rest of one's life in jail is often too much to handle, so people plea down.
Why are you limiting it to black people? Irish immigrants were portrayed as monkeys in the 19th century by the same types of people.
I agree 100%. I'm sick and tired of people thinking that we should treat captured Al Qaeda as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.
That said, we don't know that everyone captured and held at our various camps are actually Al Qaeda, or if they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's exactly why a certain amount of humane treatment is necessary.
That's the problem with providing a score (e.g. between 0 and 10) but not an explanation of what they mean. It's probably not reasonable to use the median because there are a lot of crappy games out there. So much so that it would probably inflate the scores of any reasonably hyped, passable game up to the 8 or 9 range.
Furthermore, the median only makes sense at a particular point in time. As an exercise, suppose that I release a large number of really crappy games--a number so large as to equal the total number of games in existence. All of these games are rated below 3. According to your metric, that would push up all of the rest of the games to higher-than-average scores. But no one's going to go back and review those game scores to correct them, and it doesn't change the fact that the games were still crappy to begin with.
Fair enough. Thanks for the great product, regardless!
I don't want to give my data away to some server outside without strong encryption
Man, no one reads anymore!
Depending upon how much work and money you're willing to expend, you might check out Tarsnap. It's not going to have a pretty GUI or anything, and you'll need Cygwin to get it running on Windows, but it's got pretty much everything you want.
It's snapshotting, so you only transfer small changes.
It encrypts (and it does so on the client, before sending it to the server) and the source code to the client is available for review. Unfortunately, the terms of use for the Tarsnap server do not allow modifications to the client. I'm not sure if this counts for your open source requirement.
The back-end is Amazon S3, much like Jungle Disk (though unfortunately, you wouldn't be able to continue using Jungle Disk to access this data, as you hoped.)
The biggest problem I have with it is that it doesn't do true syncing. There's nothing stopping you from writing a few scripts to effectively get syncing. I could envision storing/backing up your subversion repository with Tarsnap and downloading the last snapshot any time you need to start working on a new machine.
There's really not much else that suitable without running your own server somewhere.
The way most encryption works, if you change a piece of the plaintext file, you get a wildly different ciphertext file. It's different enough that transmitting only the parts which changed will cause you to end up transmitting most of the file.
I don't know if this is the case with Truecrypt's volumes, but I bet that it is.
It seems unlikely that Jefferson was referring to the ability to facilitate massive amounts of lawbreakers in his comment.
I mean, the forefathers put copyright into the Constitution for a reason.
You people are what is wrong with Slashdot (and lots of other community-driven sites) these days.
Well, it probably won't decrease their revenue by 3%.
First of all, most people probably won't demand refunds of any sort, and if they're on a recurring payment plan, they may well forget to remove it. They may choose not to, as well, since they can still use their Live account on another Xbox.
Second, in the computer industry, lost sales are equated with lost revenue. By disallowing pirates to access the network, Microsoft probably believes that they will start getting more revenue. At the very least, some percentage of these people will probably buy a new Xbox for Live, and use the old one for piracy. People who do this will probably buy the games that they want to play with Live, meaning more revenue.
Lastly, it sends a signal that they're cracking down, the benefits of which are hard to measure (though since they're not reflected in revenue, I suppose that it's irrelevant to your point.)
Why would they? Your account isn't banned, and you can still log into it. You just can't use your account from the banned Xbox 360.
You know, any given piece of software from Microsoft will have a different set of developers, from Word to IE to Windows to Bing. But you know what they all have in common? They all get vulnerabilities and showstopping bugs. The lack of care and attention to detail is ingrained in the culture over there.
This statement undermines any credibility you may think you have on the topic of Rush Limbaugh.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. My points on entertainers (I wasn't the one to initially call his show entertainment) having blind followers is irrespective of the circumstances.
If I misused the term because it's thrown around so much, or because every self-proclaimed ditto that I know treats Rush like he's the second coming of Christ, so what? Do you deny that there are a large number of people who parrot what Rush says? If a misused word invalidates everything that a person says on a subject, then we've all got some problems.
I listened to Rush, Hannity, and one other guy (I can't remember his name, unfortunately--it was on a Dallas station--internet feed--, but I believe it was a national syndication) for about a year in 2005. It was the least productive year of my life, because I'd constantly fact-check things that I heard which were simply beyond belief. Rush and Hannity were the worst. The other guy tended to be factually correct and provide context, and it was actually pleasant to listen to him even if we disagreed on a few things.
My point is that conservatives got the majority, when you combine the Conservative and Republican votes (which normally wouldn't be split.) This isn't a sign that NY-23 is becoming more liberal, it's a sign that conservatives screwed up.
That said, the numbers were much closer this time than in the past few elections, which might indicate a more liberal trend.
Ooh, they lost a district because their vote was split. That's not exactly a win, it just further solidifies the need for the Republican party to unite, and it illustrates the dangers if they have a rift.