When I was shopping around, I began leaning toward DLP, particularly because there are monitors out there that do full 1920x1080 resolution. More pixels have to be better, right?
Well, when I started comparing DLP and Plasma side-by-side (I was looking at 50" models, BTW), I looked at the detail of both, and even though Plasma theoretically had fewer pixels, the amount of detail was much superior. What I noticed was that DLP pixels are very "fuzzy" (presumably from the projection aspect of DLP), whereas the Plasma was razor sharp from the direct-light aspect.
When you also factor in that Plasma is far brighter with a much better viewing angle, I decided to spend the extra money for the Plasma screen. Of course, only you can decide if the additional quality is worth the extra money, but it worked out that way for me.
I didn't really look that closely at LCD. The Plasma seemed superior enough that if I was going to go for a "sub resolution", then I'd go Plasma.
Sheesh. With a microsecond of thought, you'd realize that the police aren't going to just stick your encryption key into YOUR software. They'll lift the drive, make a copy of it, and use THEIR software to decode it.
Research JNI and see if that would allow you to incrementally pull things over to Java as you need them, while leaving the rest C++. C++ is so wonderfully... ahh... I'll go with "powerful" that it's hard to tell how things will interact, but if you can pull things over incrementally, you can at least not toss everything all at once. Because that's a guaranteed recipe for disaster.
Exactly what I was going to suggest. Throwing everything out is just complete insanity. If he can't talk them into fixing their processes rather than looking for the "silver bullet", then they should take an incremental approach. Either rewrite a small subsystem or (preferably) add a new subsystem in Java into the existing framework. If that's successful, then do a gradual, planned, architected rewrite of old code.
Speaking of silver bullets, getting this idiot manager a copy of "Mythical Man Month" and highlighting the chapter on "No Silver Bullets" would probably do some good.
Not that rewriting a project is always bad (in fact, it's often a necessary part of the evolution of a product), but doing it because you think some new language is going to solve all your problems is just stupidity.
At least they aren't run by a bunch of motherfucking liars.
Sheesh, what planet are you living on? Generally speaking, small business are much more desperate for business than large companies, hence rules are bent much more in my experience.
One company I worked for had a full-blown pathological liar in charge. Oh, the stories I could tell of that guy.
laughingcoyote responds by explaining at length how you can see that the changes to society are not caused by terrorism, that this is just an excuse for grabbing more power.
And he backed it up with a bunch of wrong nonsense that I didn't feel like unraveling before I could even get to the main issue, which was (in essence) repeating the original assertion.
Sure, some of it is about grabbing more power. But most of it is NOT about that, and that's not even relevant to anything. It doesn't matter how improbable it is. The reality is that civilization IS affected by barbarians determined to use our freedom against us.
And frankly, I'm bored with this discussion. If you want to interpret that as "victory" and that my arguments have been "demolished", OK with me.
Conveniently redefining your arguments, as to why you need not present any real arguments to motivate your assertions, as not being part of the debate. Brilliant. If you're in the business of splitting hairs and avoiding the real issue that is.
No, I just said that I didn't want to debate the whole thing, because the other poster didn't raise an argument worth debating. It it makes you happy to declare unilateral victory my from lack of response, be my guest.
How about giving defending your original assertions a shot, instead spouting all this bull on why you need not?
Because time is precious. Just because some posters throw out some foolish arguments doesn't mean I'm under some obligation to refute every single one. Maybe this debate is all new to you, but I assure you I've been down this road a lot of times. Sometimes a debate is just pointless.
Just FYI, the reason I didn't bother to refute the other guy is that he making the laughable assertion that private entities and the government are both under the same constutional obligations. When someone is so ignorant of fundamental law, there's not much room to debate. He needs too much groundwork repaired. I did make that much of a point, but further debating is pointless.
Translation: I believe this, my mind is closed, and I will persist in believing that anyone who disagrees is wrong despite my lack of ability to assert it.
No, the translation is that you haven't raised any point worth debating, and it's pointless because I know I won't change your mind, even if I point out irrefutable facts.
Let a private party insist on strip searches if they like. They will shortly be getting hit with a massive lawsuit.
You are so laughably wrong in your assertions. Fine, do a lawsuit. Many have tried (e.g., searches at concerts). Your right is exactly this: DON'T ATTEND. If you don't like the policy, ask for a refund. You would only have a point if someone forced a strip search on you.
I don't feel like debating this; I made my point, and it stands on its own. But I have to take issue with this, because this is so pervasively wrong by so many people...
We have bag searches at all major public events. [...] Which is no one's right, see Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. This should be stopped at once.
Two points to make. First of all, the fourth amendment is about GOVERNMENT search and seizure. Private events such as concerts, sporting events, etc, can insist on strip searches if they want. Note the same point can be made about the first amendment when fools scream about censorship by a private entity.
Second of all, note that pesky word "unreasonable" in the fourth amendment. Airline searches are perfectly reasonable because of the number of lives at stake, and the ease with which someone can blow up a plane. Searches at events where the president is speaking is perfectly reasonable.
Even though you have a higher chance of dying from car accidents (why don't we ban all cars?), people are scared shitless of terrorists.
I'm not scared of dying from a terrorist attack per se, I'm afraid of the effect on civilization. Look at airline travel in the US: it used to be easy, because it was relatively trustworthy. Now it's way slower and a bigger PITA.
People are afraid to build tall buildings because they might be a target. We have bag searches at all major public events.
Government intrusions into privacy is just a symptom of a larger attack on civilization by the terrorists, and THAT'S what should concern people who are concerned about privacy. When these people are exterminated, there will no longer be a reason for these problems, and things can go back to the way it used to be when we didn't have to be paranoid and cautious.
In short, don't blame politicians for being overly cautious -- that's their job. They can't just sit back and do nothing, their job is to solve problems, even if you don't like the solutions. When the problem goes away, so will these privacy issues.
And yes, privacy will return. Privacy has been an issue before (notably in the 50s and 60s) and it ebbs and flows with the current climate.
If you don't want your daughter to expect people to take care of her, buy her anything she wants, come to her rescue so she doesn't have to take care of her own problems, and give in to her every demand, then why are you raising her as a pink Disney princess?
That's your bizarre assumption that I'm raising her as some spoiled slave owner who can't take care of herself.
You know, I've been trying to figure out exactly what your deal is with pink and princesses, and I think I've figured it out. You won't agree, but I'm pretty sure I'm right: You're a misogynist.
You have some frothing loathing of femininity. Look at your characterizations of princesses and the color pink. I bet you hate any sort of pastel color -- anything that might smack of being feminine. The whole princess thing is just a metaphor for "those kind of women". Any woman who is especially feminine must also be controlling, shallow, messed up in the head, and looking for someone to take care of her pathetic self.
Let me make a guess: you feel the same way about cheerleaders.
And it goes without saying that in your world, girls that pretend to be princesses and girls that like pink and girls that are cheerleaders are stupid, and utterly incapable of being scientists or doctors or name-your-significant-profession.
Re:Purple Moon, John Romero, and sexist games
on
Sims the New Dolls?
·
· Score: 1
Here is a press release that should explain why you're such a sucker to buy into that corporate princess crap:
So I suppose your point is that anything that's popular must automatically be bad? "I'm sorry, sweetie, but I've checked the sales figures. Too many other people like that toy, so I'm afraid we have to conclude that it's bad for you." Do you realize how stupid this is?
Of course, by your logic, we can only assume that The Sims is monstrously bad, since it's one of the best selling games of all time. And, irony of ironies, you criticize Disney, yet we're also talking about EA, not exactly the most controversy-free company in the world. And, of course, The Sims doesn't milk their brand for all its worth. -rolls eyes-
The hypocrisy around here is stunning.
Let's see. Should my girl play with princess dolls and use her imagination, or should she stare blankly at a screen trying to make The Sims do something interesting that was programmed by others? I think most reasonable people would conclude that imaginative play with dolls is a little bit better for her mental development.
Re:Purple Moon, John Romero, and sexist games
on
Sims the New Dolls?
·
· Score: 1
Why does your daughter have to imagine that she's a princess, to think she's beautiful? Why can't ordinary girls, scientists, toll collectors, prime ministers, prostitutes and programmers be beautiful too?
Who said that? That's coming completely out of YOU.
Where did your daughter get the idea that the color pink and the profession princess represent beauty?
SHE LIKES THE FREAKING COLOR. It's a nice, gentle, pretty color. Am I supposed to tell her, "no, you're not allowed to like that color. It's an EVIL COLOR being pushed on you by the EVIL CORPORATE AMERICA." Dude, it's just a color. What is it about you and pink? Did your mom dress you in pink because she wanted a girl? I had no idea that some electromagnetic frequences were evil and some aren't.
My impression of what a princess is comes from meeting one and experiencing her pathetic personality first-hand.
God, who CARES what some real princess is like?? What part of "fantasy" don't you understand? And even if it did matter what real princesses are like, are we supposed to conclude from one sample that all princesses are screwed up? Believe it or not, they're people too, with different personalities.
It sounds like you, like many parents, have a strong case of "my shit doesn't stink" and "my kid is the best in the world".
No, I have strong case of common sense.
Re:Purple Moon, John Romero, and sexist games
on
Sims the New Dolls?
·
· Score: 1
Why is it so hard for you to see how fucking creepy that is?
And why do you jump from a girl liking pink and princesses to assuming that it's some sort of unhealthy obsession? Does the word "moderation" mean anything to you? Is it so foreign to your philosophy that a girl might have a healthy interest in fantasy as simply a part of your life?
A less extreme metaphore might involve candy cigarettes. Do you buy candy cigarettes for your daughter, and tell her "you've come a long way, baby"?
This is a good example of why you're so wrong. I don't buy her candy cigarettes because there's nothing healthy about smoking. I encourage her imagination, because there's NOTHING unhealthy about fantasy and imagination. That you think the whole idea of princesses is harmful is something wrong with you, not with her. Got news for you -- fantasy of the type is hundreds, if not thousands of years old. Do you think Disney invented the idea of fantasy adventure? Give me a break.
You don't say whether this is a personal relationship or not, but either way, just explain your situation and point them to Geek Squad at Best Buy. If it's personal, they'll understand that it's been a rough year. If it's a business relationship, then screw 'em. They're going to keep asking as long as they get free customer support. Again, tell them your time situation is such that you can't do it anymore, and that's it. That's a lot easier than a personal relationship.
The bottom line, however, is that you need to learn to say "no". It really is OK to not give out free customer support to people, even if they're friends or family. If friends/family don't understand that you're not up to it after the year you've had, they're not much in the way of friends anyway.
Just be sure to give them an alternative, then it'll at least seem like you care about them getting a solution.
Re:Purple Moon, John Romero, and sexist games
on
Sims the New Dolls?
·
· Score: 1
Being a princess is simply a metaphore for doing anything you damn well please, demanding other people provide you with whatever you want right this very minute, pouting and carrying on like a little brat, and treating other people as inferior to yourself.
That might be how YOU would "play princess", but I assure you that that's not the fantasy my child plays. I submit that this tells us more about your personality than anything else.
To my girl, princesses represents beauty (beautiful castles, beautiful clothes, and yes, beautiful princesses), freedom, magic, adventure, etc. It's not about being a "slave owner", as you seem to (bizarrely) think.
I suppose next you'll tell me that it's unhealthy for her to fantasize about beautiful things. Well, that's crap, says I. Sure, if I was a bad parent and spoiled her, then it might be a problem. But when a boy imagines himself to be Superman, he imagines himself to be hugely strong and powerful -- the male equivalent of beauty. Is that just as unhealthy for them? Will they grow up thinking that they'll control everyone around them through their brute strength? Of course, many boys have those sort of fantasies -- but they grow out of them, assuming they're healthy, just as most girls grow up of their fantasies.
You have a completely unrealistic view of children.
Re:Purple Moon, John Romero, and sexist games
on
Sims the New Dolls?
·
· Score: 1
I think you're wrong to characterize The Sims as reducing game design to the lowest common denominator.
I wasn't specifically characterizing The Sims that way; I'm just saying that not every game has to appeal to the widest possible variety of people. There is room in the world for games that appeal only to a narrow segment of people. To make a silly comparison, plain missionary-style porn probably appeals to the widest variety of people, but that doesn't mean you can't have specialty porn that appeals to a smaller range.
I think you're insulting your own daughter's intelligence by pandering to her pink princess addiction that she picked up from society.
And what if someone said that exact same thing to you, except they said "pandering to a video game addiction"? I could see your logic if you were, I dunno, arguing that she should be practicing her piano lessons more rather than playing with princess dolls, but don't you think you're being unbelievably hypocritical speaking of this as a VIDEO GAME DESIGNER? One of the biggest wasters of time there is? And I like video games! But it's hilarious that you don't see the irony of this militant stand against childhood fantasy when you design something so mentally fluffy yourself.
Will you also start buying her cocaine and coke spoons and scales for her birthday, if she picks up a taste for cocaine from the society she lives in? It's the real thing, and it adds life, you know from watching TV. What if she begs and pleads with you for cocaine, as much as she begs for pink princess stuff?
Look, I don't know why you're so threatened by the color pink or with princesses, but to compare them to drug addiction is just... bizarre.
Slashdot Mirror
Ironic also doesn't mean 'humorously sarcastic'.
Ironic DOES NOT mean contradictory! It also doesn't mean improbable, funny, or coincidental.
I was pretty sure that was a non-issue these days, but here's a reference: it's apparently 60,000 hours now.
Well, when I started comparing DLP and Plasma side-by-side (I was looking at 50" models, BTW), I looked at the detail of both, and even though Plasma theoretically had fewer pixels, the amount of detail was much superior. What I noticed was that DLP pixels are very "fuzzy" (presumably from the projection aspect of DLP), whereas the Plasma was razor sharp from the direct-light aspect.
When you also factor in that Plasma is far brighter with a much better viewing angle, I decided to spend the extra money for the Plasma screen. Of course, only you can decide if the additional quality is worth the extra money, but it worked out that way for me.
I didn't really look that closely at LCD. The Plasma seemed superior enough that if I was going to go for a "sub resolution", then I'd go Plasma.
That's what the whole lawsuit's about. They ARE producing the "suggestion list", hence the lawsuit about WHAT they're suggesting.
Sheesh. With a microsecond of thought, you'd realize that the police aren't going to just stick your encryption key into YOUR software. They'll lift the drive, make a copy of it, and use THEIR software to decode it.
Exactly what I was going to suggest. Throwing everything out is just complete insanity. If he can't talk them into fixing their processes rather than looking for the "silver bullet", then they should take an incremental approach. Either rewrite a small subsystem or (preferably) add a new subsystem in Java into the existing framework. If that's successful, then do a gradual, planned, architected rewrite of old code.
Speaking of silver bullets, getting this idiot manager a copy of "Mythical Man Month" and highlighting the chapter on "No Silver Bullets" would probably do some good.
Not that rewriting a project is always bad (in fact, it's often a necessary part of the evolution of a product), but doing it because you think some new language is going to solve all your problems is just stupidity.
Sheesh, what planet are you living on? Generally speaking, small business are much more desperate for business than large companies, hence rules are bent much more in my experience.
One company I worked for had a full-blown pathological liar in charge. Oh, the stories I could tell of that guy.
And he backed it up with a bunch of wrong nonsense that I didn't feel like unraveling before I could even get to the main issue, which was (in essence) repeating the original assertion.
Sure, some of it is about grabbing more power. But most of it is NOT about that, and that's not even relevant to anything. It doesn't matter how improbable it is. The reality is that civilization IS affected by barbarians determined to use our freedom against us.
And frankly, I'm bored with this discussion. If you want to interpret that as "victory" and that my arguments have been "demolished", OK with me.
He didn't even address my assertion, he just repeated the assertion made in the post I responded to. Hence, the reason it was pointless to debate him.
Original point: death by terrorism is improbable.
My point: I not worried about death, I'm worried about the effect on civilization.
Poster's point: death by terrorism is improbable.
Sorry, but I don't feel like repeating myself. If you don't understand, reread my post until you do.
To quote myself, "Note that pesky word 'unreasonable.'."
No, I just said that I didn't want to debate the whole thing, because the other poster didn't raise an argument worth debating. It it makes you happy to declare unilateral victory my from lack of response, be my guest.
How about giving defending your original assertions a shot, instead spouting all this bull on why you need not?
Because time is precious. Just because some posters throw out some foolish arguments doesn't mean I'm under some obligation to refute every single one. Maybe this debate is all new to you, but I assure you I've been down this road a lot of times. Sometimes a debate is just pointless.
Just FYI, the reason I didn't bother to refute the other guy is that he making the laughable assertion that private entities and the government are both under the same constutional obligations. When someone is so ignorant of fundamental law, there's not much room to debate. He needs too much groundwork repaired. I did make that much of a point, but further debating is pointless.
(Psst! You don't know of what sophistry means. Hint: I wasn't making an argument in a debate)
Gotta love Slashdot.
No, the translation is that you haven't raised any point worth debating, and it's pointless because I know I won't change your mind, even if I point out irrefutable facts.
Let a private party insist on strip searches if they like. They will shortly be getting hit with a massive lawsuit.
You are so laughably wrong in your assertions. Fine, do a lawsuit. Many have tried (e.g., searches at concerts). Your right is exactly this: DON'T ATTEND. If you don't like the policy, ask for a refund. You would only have a point if someone forced a strip search on you.
I don't feel like debating this; I made my point, and it stands on its own. But I have to take issue with this, because this is so pervasively wrong by so many people...
We have bag searches at all major public events. [...] Which is no one's right, see Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. This should be stopped at once.
Two points to make. First of all, the fourth amendment is about GOVERNMENT search and seizure. Private events such as concerts, sporting events, etc, can insist on strip searches if they want. Note the same point can be made about the first amendment when fools scream about censorship by a private entity.
Second of all, note that pesky word "unreasonable" in the fourth amendment. Airline searches are perfectly reasonable because of the number of lives at stake, and the ease with which someone can blow up a plane. Searches at events where the president is speaking is perfectly reasonable.
I'm not scared of dying from a terrorist attack per se, I'm afraid of the effect on civilization. Look at airline travel in the US: it used to be easy, because it was relatively trustworthy. Now it's way slower and a bigger PITA.
People are afraid to build tall buildings because they might be a target. We have bag searches at all major public events.
Government intrusions into privacy is just a symptom of a larger attack on civilization by the terrorists, and THAT'S what should concern people who are concerned about privacy. When these people are exterminated, there will no longer be a reason for these problems, and things can go back to the way it used to be when we didn't have to be paranoid and cautious.
In short, don't blame politicians for being overly cautious -- that's their job. They can't just sit back and do nothing, their job is to solve problems, even if you don't like the solutions. When the problem goes away, so will these privacy issues.
And yes, privacy will return. Privacy has been an issue before (notably in the 50s and 60s) and it ebbs and flows with the current climate.
(er wait, I'm over 30...)
Never trust anyone over 40!
(Uh oh, I'm 41...)
Never trust anyone over 50! Those bastards always keepin' us down! Down with The Man! I'm keepin' it real.
That's your bizarre assumption that I'm raising her as some spoiled slave owner who can't take care of herself.
You know, I've been trying to figure out exactly what your deal is with pink and princesses, and I think I've figured it out. You won't agree, but I'm pretty sure I'm right: You're a misogynist.
You have some frothing loathing of femininity. Look at your characterizations of princesses and the color pink. I bet you hate any sort of pastel color -- anything that might smack of being feminine. The whole princess thing is just a metaphor for "those kind of women". Any woman who is especially feminine must also be controlling, shallow, messed up in the head, and looking for someone to take care of her pathetic self.
Let me make a guess: you feel the same way about cheerleaders.
And it goes without saying that in your world, girls that pretend to be princesses and girls that like pink and girls that are cheerleaders are stupid, and utterly incapable of being scientists or doctors or name-your-significant-profession.
So I suppose your point is that anything that's popular must automatically be bad? "I'm sorry, sweetie, but I've checked the sales figures. Too many other people like that toy, so I'm afraid we have to conclude that it's bad for you." Do you realize how stupid this is?
Of course, by your logic, we can only assume that The Sims is monstrously bad, since it's one of the best selling games of all time. And, irony of ironies, you criticize Disney, yet we're also talking about EA, not exactly the most controversy-free company in the world. And, of course, The Sims doesn't milk their brand for all its worth. -rolls eyes-
The hypocrisy around here is stunning.
Let's see. Should my girl play with princess dolls and use her imagination, or should she stare blankly at a screen trying to make The Sims do something interesting that was programmed by others? I think most reasonable people would conclude that imaginative play with dolls is a little bit better for her mental development.
Who said that? That's coming completely out of YOU.
Where did your daughter get the idea that the color pink and the profession princess represent beauty?
SHE LIKES THE FREAKING COLOR. It's a nice, gentle, pretty color. Am I supposed to tell her, "no, you're not allowed to like that color. It's an EVIL COLOR being pushed on you by the EVIL CORPORATE AMERICA." Dude, it's just a color. What is it about you and pink? Did your mom dress you in pink because she wanted a girl? I had no idea that some electromagnetic frequences were evil and some aren't.
My impression of what a princess is comes from meeting one and experiencing her pathetic personality first-hand.
God, who CARES what some real princess is like?? What part of "fantasy" don't you understand? And even if it did matter what real princesses are like, are we supposed to conclude from one sample that all princesses are screwed up? Believe it or not, they're people too, with different personalities.
It sounds like you, like many parents, have a strong case of "my shit doesn't stink" and "my kid is the best in the world".
No, I have strong case of common sense.
And why do you jump from a girl liking pink and princesses to assuming that it's some sort of unhealthy obsession? Does the word "moderation" mean anything to you? Is it so foreign to your philosophy that a girl might have a healthy interest in fantasy as simply a part of your life?
A less extreme metaphore might involve candy cigarettes. Do you buy candy cigarettes for your daughter, and tell her "you've come a long way, baby"?
This is a good example of why you're so wrong. I don't buy her candy cigarettes because there's nothing healthy about smoking. I encourage her imagination, because there's NOTHING unhealthy about fantasy and imagination. That you think the whole idea of princesses is harmful is something wrong with you, not with her. Got news for you -- fantasy of the type is hundreds, if not thousands of years old. Do you think Disney invented the idea of fantasy adventure? Give me a break.
Yeah, I should've made an exception for one's parents. The in-laws are pretty hard to say no to, too. :)
The bottom line, however, is that you need to learn to say "no". It really is OK to not give out free customer support to people, even if they're friends or family. If friends/family don't understand that you're not up to it after the year you've had, they're not much in the way of friends anyway.
Just be sure to give them an alternative, then it'll at least seem like you care about them getting a solution.
That might be how YOU would "play princess", but I assure you that that's not the fantasy my child plays. I submit that this tells us more about your personality than anything else.
To my girl, princesses represents beauty (beautiful castles, beautiful clothes, and yes, beautiful princesses), freedom, magic, adventure, etc. It's not about being a "slave owner", as you seem to (bizarrely) think.
I suppose next you'll tell me that it's unhealthy for her to fantasize about beautiful things. Well, that's crap, says I. Sure, if I was a bad parent and spoiled her, then it might be a problem. But when a boy imagines himself to be Superman, he imagines himself to be hugely strong and powerful -- the male equivalent of beauty. Is that just as unhealthy for them? Will they grow up thinking that they'll control everyone around them through their brute strength? Of course, many boys have those sort of fantasies -- but they grow out of them, assuming they're healthy, just as most girls grow up of their fantasies.
You have a completely unrealistic view of children.
I wasn't specifically characterizing The Sims that way; I'm just saying that not every game has to appeal to the widest possible variety of people. There is room in the world for games that appeal only to a narrow segment of people. To make a silly comparison, plain missionary-style porn probably appeals to the widest variety of people, but that doesn't mean you can't have specialty porn that appeals to a smaller range.
I think you're insulting your own daughter's intelligence by pandering to her pink princess addiction that she picked up from society.
And what if someone said that exact same thing to you, except they said "pandering to a video game addiction"? I could see your logic if you were, I dunno, arguing that she should be practicing her piano lessons more rather than playing with princess dolls, but don't you think you're being unbelievably hypocritical speaking of this as a VIDEO GAME DESIGNER? One of the biggest wasters of time there is? And I like video games! But it's hilarious that you don't see the irony of this militant stand against childhood fantasy when you design something so mentally fluffy yourself.
Will you also start buying her cocaine and coke spoons and scales for her birthday, if she picks up a taste for cocaine from the society she lives in? It's the real thing, and it adds life, you know from watching TV. What if she begs and pleads with you for cocaine, as much as she begs for pink princess stuff?
Look, I don't know why you're so threatened by the color pink or with princesses, but to compare them to drug addiction is just... bizarre.