I just took point that generalizing scientists, and then females as being bad at math, which is just wrong.
Of course. The parent post's impression that woman are bad at math must have been a bad joke. I'm going to generalize from my countries data (which I'd expect to apply to most of Europe and the US), but pure mathematics has one of the largest populations of female students (about 33%) of any hard science.
I don't have the data on how many graduate, but clearly, those that start don't seem to think math is "too hard".
It's a line of study where a geek has an actual chance of landing a girlfriend!
Very rarely do they understand what they are doing, they just throw some numbers into SPSS and hope the right answer comes out. Today's xkcd seems appropriate: http://xkcd.com/882/
They probably do know what they're doing: getting publishable results. They're just optimizing their situation. Who cares if it's just wrong (because of lack of multiple-test adjustment)? They're encouraged to publish (i.e. get past peer review), not to be right.
The conclusions are worthless? Well, I never had the impression much people in academia cared. In the fields I'm familiar with, most of the published improvements are good for the trashcan. There ain't a good enough feedback loop between publishing useful results and getting funding, I guess.
The G9x has a similar shape and design if you use the "big" cover. I used it to replace my MX510 after it wore out completely.
You can argue that a G9x doesn't add much over an MX518 for the price, but then again, 60 bucks for critical computer equipment that lasts 7 years? What a bargain!
So, we use one crappy example to draw a generic conclusion? Silly.
At best you can conclude that your particular mouse needs to be turned in for replacement, or that this is a very bad model (in which case one would hope reading enough reviews beforehand can avoid a bad purchase).
But some of them are good. The Logitech MX518 was mentioned here, and I second that. I used it until it was completely worn out. Now I have a G9x, and it's also good. They just work. Everywhere.
Why is the non-profit Mozilla Corp not spending that money to hire developers to add new features to their browser?
Just look at their jobs page...
Re:All good except DirectWrite font rendering.
on
Firefox 4 Released!
·
· Score: 1
No, as far as I'm concerned this is a serious regression and not an improvement. The fonts look really ugly and the font rendering in Firefox make it stand out as a non-native app (it looks distinct and different from any other Windows app).
The "good" news is that this is now the recommended way of doing things on Windows to utilize the HW acceleration in the GPU and IE9 is doing it as well, with more apps likely to follow.
No really, I hope that a better solution than just turning off HW acceleration turns up.
It can really pay off to do some optimizing of your userChrome.css file. For example, one thing that annoyed me greatly was that the tabs don't move next to the menu, losing precious vertical screen estate. And most of the context menu entries just get in the way. All of this is fixable without any plugins or whatever.
There are many examples of annotated userChromes around, if you're anything beyond a casual user it pays off to have a quick look.
And you're right, people should know SQL.... CSS or web services? Those I don't care so much about.
If you're hiring people to do database development, that makes sense. But as a general rule, it's stupid. I wouldn't see what advantage a programmer has over knowing a domain-specific language for databases over knowing a domain-specific one for webapps. I would expect anyone with programming skills to be able to figure out either. But requiring hands-on knowledge of a specific technology? You're needlessly narrowing the candidate field or unwilling to invest in your key asset: your people.
What else is new? "Imitate Chrome" has been the mantra for the entire Firefox 4 project. Everything about it reeks of "we can't think of anything original, so let's just copy Chrome".
Chrome has a pretty nice UI, so that ain't that bad. While I agree the "new" design can be more fragile, it maximizes the screen estate for reading, which matters. I'm happy with a Chrome-like browser that doesn't send everything I do off to Google, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I just took point that generalizing scientists, and then females as being bad at math, which is just wrong.
Of course. The parent post's impression that woman are bad at math must have been a bad joke. I'm going to generalize from my countries data (which I'd expect to apply to most of Europe and the US), but pure mathematics has one of the largest populations of female students (about 33%) of any hard science.
I don't have the data on how many graduate, but clearly, those that start don't seem to think math is "too hard".
It's a line of study where a geek has an actual chance of landing a girlfriend!
Very rarely do they understand what they are doing, they just throw some numbers into SPSS and hope the right answer comes out. Today's xkcd seems appropriate: http://xkcd.com/882/
They probably do know what they're doing: getting publishable results. They're just optimizing their situation. Who cares if it's just wrong (because of lack of multiple-test adjustment)? They're encouraged to publish (i.e. get past peer review), not to be right.
The conclusions are worthless? Well, I never had the impression much people in academia cared. In the fields I'm familiar with, most of the published improvements are good for the trashcan. There ain't a good enough feedback loop between publishing useful results and getting funding, I guess.
As far as I know it's limited to 120Hz on Windows (I guess the interrupt is really just on a timer, then).
USB can do far more.
Polling rate on USB is configurable. (Many gaming mouse change this, but on Windows it's just a registry setting so it can be done manually too).
So I guess this is a myth.
The G9x has a similar shape and design if you use the "big" cover. I used it to replace my MX510 after it wore out completely.
You can argue that a G9x doesn't add much over an MX518 for the price, but then again, 60 bucks for critical computer equipment that lasts 7 years? What a bargain!
So, we use one crappy example to draw a generic conclusion? Silly.
At best you can conclude that your particular mouse needs to be turned in for replacement, or that this is a very bad model (in which case one would hope reading enough reviews beforehand can avoid a bad purchase).
But some of them are good. The Logitech MX518 was mentioned here, and I second that. I used it until it was completely worn out. Now I have a G9x, and it's also good. They just work. Everywhere.
Why is the non-profit Mozilla Corp not spending that money to hire developers to add new features to their browser?
Just look at their jobs page...
No, as far as I'm concerned this is a serious regression and not an improvement. The fonts look really ugly and the font rendering in Firefox make it stand out as a non-native app (it looks distinct and different from any other Windows app).
The "good" news is that this is now the recommended way of doing things on Windows to utilize the HW acceleration in the GPU and IE9 is doing it as well, with more apps likely to follow.
No really, I hope that a better solution than just turning off HW acceleration turns up.
There's an Anti-Aliasing Tuner plugin.
It can really pay off to do some optimizing of your userChrome.css file. For example, one thing that annoyed me greatly was that the tabs don't move next to the menu, losing precious vertical screen estate. And most of the context menu entries just get in the way. All of this is fixable without any plugins or whatever. There are many examples of annotated userChromes around, if you're anything beyond a casual user it pays off to have a quick look.
Look at the status-4-evar extension.
I think your problem is DirectWrite, not ClearType. It's what makes the canvas demos so fast, at the "slight" cost of making text almost unreadable.
You can try switching the page view to compatibility mode, which disables it.
I'm glad you posted this: the reactions to your post are stellar in how misguided or narrow-minded the common view on computer science seems to be.
To the responders, this article is a good start:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchools.html
And you're right, people should know SQL.... CSS or web services? Those I don't care so much about.
If you're hiring people to do database development, that makes sense. But as a general rule, it's stupid. I wouldn't see what advantage a programmer has over knowing a domain-specific language for databases over knowing a domain-specific one for webapps. I would expect anyone with programming skills to be able to figure out either. But requiring hands-on knowledge of a specific technology? You're needlessly narrowing the candidate field or unwilling to invest in your key asset: your people.
This is the relevant bug. The developers don't seem to think this is a serious issue. So feel free to upvote it.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635490
What else is new? "Imitate Chrome" has been the mantra for the entire Firefox 4 project. Everything about it reeks of "we can't think of anything original, so let's just copy Chrome".
Chrome has a pretty nice UI, so that ain't that bad. While I agree the "new" design can be more fragile, it maximizes the screen estate for reading, which matters. I'm happy with a Chrome-like browser that doesn't send everything I do off to Google, anyway.
Not only under Windows 7 (Vista here). And yes, it's really weird that they ship the browser with default settings that make webpages look like shit!
I don't *think* there's a way of making closed-source apps without buying a commercial license (unlike for GTK, interestingly)
This has been possible ever since they went LGPL instead of GPL.
I guess some things like the Visual Studio integration are not open source. But that one can live without...
I agree with your point. It's starting to become the most reliable way to provide cross-platform user interfaces.
Yes, that's why I asked for the link, which you just provided :)
What makes you think those don't already exist?
Yeah, but those are users, not developers.
You know that you won't have to worry about any of these legal threats if you just license h.264
You think the MPEG-LA owns all the patents on H264? Really? Ask them if they can guarantee that the moment you put down your $$$.
Really, who?
Yes. The stock market seems to realize how bad this is:
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Announcement+of+strategic+partnership+with+Microsoft+leads+to+sharp+falls+in+Nokia+stock+in+Helsinki/1135263731421