I'm not sure how you read that I implied there was anything efficient with MS formats vs XML. It is not a shocker that something could be worse than XML.
I'm not a microsoft user, but I had that experience a few years back at a place where they (ugh) used a Word to edit an xml/html file that they were using as a database. The amount of useful data was maybe a few hundred k, but the file was many megabytes big.
I mentioned that because the gp post seemed to be saying. "of course, don't use a text editor to edit xml, use word" and I was showing how absurd that can be.
Ya know, I could slap a corvette body over a lawnmower engine. It might look nicer, but its really not going to be better.
Yes, I have delt with using MS Word to edit something like this. Was so huge it took the file over 15 minutes to save, mainly because the editor insisted in putting all sorts of redundant junk in the tag properties.
I have tried to view an MS Word document without using Word. There is a handy program called 'strings'.
<lit><token><llama xmlns:xdc="http://www.xmlsucks.com/rocks" xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/HTML/1998/html4" > <freown>No its <![CDATA[<]]> really <![CDATA[>]]> not <reasons> <reason>Poor Compression<![CDATA[>>]]> other languages <examples><example>JSON</example><example>YAML</example><example>CSV</example> <examples><reason> <reason>Goofy namespace</reason> <reason>Bad For Lists</reason> <reason>Packs too much in a node<examples><example>Its a scalar</example><example>its a list</example><example>has namespaces</example><example>Is a hash</example><example> and parsing is h orrid when a value <interruption>Interrupt</interruption> can be interspersed <kitten meow="woof"/> with sub<![CDATA[-]] nodes </reasons></freown></llama></token>
This gets worse when you have thousands of lines of the crap to deal wtih. </lit>
Late 90s sometime. There were a few years I skipped. When was the uid wipe? Wondering if that is what changed my name from 'Phantom of the Operating System'
At the very least, research into the effect of virtual reality on young minds may shed some light into the cognitive development of the human mind.
To be honest, I think TV is worse than games by a big stretch. I think virtual worlds will change development. In what way, I can't be sure. Maybe this is how the borg might have started.
I appreciate the articles you have gathered together. The language skills and economy articles seem good, but the others seem highly speculative and read more like fluff opinion pieces rather than real research. The articles contradict each other. From the physical health article:
The downside, however, was that the gamers reported more cases of depression and substance abuse than their compatriots. "They may be drawn to use the game to help deal with emotional distress," says team member Scott Caplan of the University of Delaware.
What is lacking from these articles is the effects of games and virtual worlds on very young children, whos brains are in development. Pediatricians recommend that children under two not watch any tv. While I think TV is far worse than games, I believe that early immersion in games and virtual worlds is going to change people in fundamental ways. Maybe good, maybe bad, but it would be foolish to pretend that it would not.
One thing that I'm not saying is that the games are bad. I'm saying that we don't know if they are or not. My gut tells me that most anything done in moderation is not going to be a problem.
Or parents could be parents. Don't want you kids looking at something? Act as the filter don't let them buy/play games that expose them to things you don't want 'em to see....
Take some responsibility here folks!
That is very true. That is also very easy to say. Raising an average kid takes as much time/energy that is commonly available if you work a modern job and want any semblance of a life.
I'd be more concerned with what sort of effect being plugged into a virtual world does on brain development, physical coordination, compulsive behaviours, addiction, muscle tone and face to face socialization.
The focus on dirty words makes this whole thing a stupid joke.
Re:What's with all the Drupal hate?
on
Drupal Multimedia
·
· Score: 1
I used to hate on windows. This was the 90s and it just wasn't there yet.
Now it can be pleasant. When I have to use it, I just get a reasonable music player, use outlook for meeting reminders, have firefox open and putty to a development box. I get an equivalent experience from linux though, so I use that, especially since linux can be the development box itself.
When I hear 'Drupal', it reminds me of the words drop, droop, and Ru Paul.
The claim I frequently hear is that, in order for Linux to really work as intended, you need to buy a machine with 'Linux supported' hardware.
The other claim I hear is that Linux has vastly superior hardware support than Windows.
A linux kernel has superior hardware support. A full bells and whistles linux distribution may not.
People have put the linux kernel on tiny processors like phones, ARM and weird stuff like http://www.deviceguru.com/tiny-6-chip-open-computer-runs-linux/ without much effort. Its just that the kernel might not support all the programs that ubuntu comes with.
http://www.cdi.org/adm/725/ (excerpt : Senator GRASSLEY [R Iowa]: The Defense Department wants you to believe that they are making dramatic changes in the way things are purchased, particularly spare parts. I think the most out-standing example is the $600 toilet seat of 1983. And we thought that we had that problem taken care of and, 16 years later, the $600 toilet seat was costing $1800. )
Really? Bonuses for individual employees that do great work are more important to you than the greater social good that is potentially created by a fair and balanced taxation system?
Why, yes. While I recognize the need for a certain level of taxes (maintaining infrastructure, financial costs of the government's operation), I would much rather reward and retain individuals that are skilled and industrious workers than distribute that money as a free handout to everyone in the US.
Right now, a lot of my money is being taken and given to some fabulously wealthy defence contractors for their thousand dollar toilet seats. I'd prefer that it go to something worthwhile that will improve the quality of life in this country, which would include a universal healthcare. There is a sweet spot between the government spending no money and the government spending some money. We spend too much on defence, not enough on health. Disclaimer - I think that welfare is implemented in a way that does more harm than good to the recipients.
Remember, the money you made, you did not make and secure it on your own. You made it with the help of roads, public education (for you or your customers who can read your ads), the internet (how was that made?). It's protected with emergency services, the armed forces (yes, its necessary to a degree), and the FDIC.
I suppose the spin I could put on it is that Sudan, Iran, Russia, China and any non-democracy can say 'neener, neener, neener - your not better than us'.
Still, thinking about possible fraud like this makes my blood boil. Not everyone cares so much though.
I have to say I tend to loath XML. Don't assume those who make the decisions would be able to understand one word of why it would be a bad idea. Remember, these are people who paid a grand or more per toilet seat.
Think of it from a Wintel/Cisco perspective. The upsides are :
* it requires hideously more processing power * it requires hideously more bandwidth
This is why there is, in agile methodologies (or at least the descriptions I've seen of them, there's a whole lot that passes under that name) the usual recommendation is write a unit test, write the code to make it pass, rinse, repeat./b
I agree with you. I've seen it work beautifully. It just works less good in chaotic situations. It may not be feasible in a time frame to write unit tests for legacy code as things get tangled (think entanglement with production database entanglements and tight schedules)
My compromise methodology now is to add a unit test whenever a bug is found, for detecting that bug. That way, I don't wast time with testing things almost as trivial as x = 1; x++;..check if x is now 2. That way, I'm confident that the bugs unearthed by usage will not remain. Evidence that this works? Our team's bug count was 2 minor last I checked. The average for other teams (with admittedly larger code bases) is in the dozens.
I was thrilled with unit tests until the Puppy happened. I was lucky enough to get an early start on a project. Early on, I wrote a suite of tests that I'd run to make sure nothing broke, and that edge cases were working. Then I continued to develop and write code, making the odd entry to the unit tests, but only in cases where I thought it was needed.
Then the Puppy came to my team. As the lead, I encouraged him to write unit tests. Those soon grew to epic proportions. I was buried in a sea of special one off requests from upper management for a period of two-three weeks and kept my eye off of him. When I finally could take a breather and get back into the swing of thing, I discovered mountains of tests - it was all he had written. No implementations!
Then requirements change as they often do. About a third of the tests were rendered useless do to the changes. Now, I still run my unit tests from time to time, but I am a little leery of putting that much time in to testing when the situation can be so volatile. And I have to keep a closer eye on the Puppy.
Hmm, really? Its not the doing right that gets you there, its pissing off more one more powerful than you. A little social skill and this whole thing isn't always an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure how you read that I implied there was anything efficient with MS formats vs XML. It is not a shocker that something could be worse than XML.
I'm not a microsoft user, but I had that experience a few years back at a place where they (ugh) used a Word to edit an xml/html file that they were using as a database. The amount of useful data was maybe a few hundred k, but the file was many megabytes big.
I mentioned that because the gp post seemed to be saying. "of course, don't use a text editor to edit xml, use word" and I was showing how absurd that can be.
Ya know, I could slap a corvette body over a lawnmower engine. It might look nicer, but its really not going to be better.
Yes, I have delt with using MS Word to edit something like this. Was so huge it took the file over 15 minutes to save, mainly because the editor insisted in putting all sorts of redundant junk in the tag properties.
I have tried to view an MS Word document without using Word. There is a handy program called 'strings'.
<lit><token><llama xmlns:xdc="http://www.xmlsucks.com/rocks"
xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/HTML/1998/html4" >
<freown>No its <![CDATA[<]]> really <![CDATA[>]]> not
<reasons>
<reason>Poor Compression<![CDATA[>>]]> other languages <examples><example>JSON</example><example>YAML</example><example>CSV</example>
<examples><reason>
<reason>Goofy namespace</reason>
<reason>Bad For Lists</reason>
<reason>Packs too much in a node<examples><example>Its a scalar</example><example>its a list</example><example>has namespaces</example><example>Is a hash</example><example> and parsing is h
orrid when a value <interruption>Interrupt</interruption> can be interspersed <kitten meow="woof"/> with sub<![CDATA[-]]
nodes
</reasons></freown></llama></token>
This gets worse when you have thousands of lines of the crap to deal wtih.
</lit>
As a cyberpunk RPG'r, I'm excited for the opportunity to live just a little cyberpunk.
It's starting.
Late 90s sometime. There were a few years I skipped. When was the uid wipe? Wondering if that is what changed my name from 'Phantom of the Operating System'
that woke me up, but I think I saw someone in double digits somewhere around here.
I remember reading posts like yours in the days of old, decrying the decline of /.
At the very least, research into the effect of virtual reality on young minds may shed some light into the cognitive development of the human mind.
To be honest, I think TV is worse than games by a big stretch. I think virtual worlds will change development. In what way, I can't be sure. Maybe this is how the borg might have started.
I appreciate the articles you have gathered together. The language skills and economy articles seem good, but the others seem highly speculative and read more like fluff opinion pieces rather than real research. The articles contradict each other. From the physical health article :
What is lacking from these articles is the effects of games and virtual worlds on very young children, whos brains are in development. Pediatricians recommend that children under two not watch any tv. While I think TV is far worse than games, I believe that early immersion in games and virtual worlds is going to change people in fundamental ways. Maybe good, maybe bad, but it would be foolish to pretend that it would not.
One thing that I'm not saying is that the games are bad. I'm saying that we don't know if they are or not. My gut tells me that most anything done in moderation is not going to be a problem.
Or parents could be parents. Don't want you kids looking at something? Act as the filter don't let them buy/play games that expose them to things you don't want 'em to see....
Take some responsibility here folks!
That is very true. That is also very easy to say. Raising an average kid takes as much time/energy that is commonly available if you work a modern job and want any semblance of a life.
I'd be more concerned with what sort of effect being plugged into a virtual world does on brain development, physical coordination, compulsive behaviours, addiction, muscle tone and face to face socialization.
The focus on dirty words makes this whole thing a stupid joke.
I used to hate on windows. This was the 90s and it just wasn't there yet.
Now it can be pleasant. When I have to use it, I just get a reasonable music player, use outlook for meeting reminders, have firefox open and putty to a development box.
I get an equivalent experience from linux though, so I use that, especially since linux can be the development box itself.
When I hear 'Drupal', it reminds me of the words drop, droop, and Ru Paul.
The claim I frequently hear is that, in order for Linux to really work as intended, you need to buy a machine with 'Linux supported' hardware.
The other claim I hear is that Linux has vastly superior hardware support than Windows.
A linux kernel has superior hardware support. A full bells and whistles linux distribution may not.
People have put the linux kernel on tiny processors like phones, ARM and weird stuff like http://www.deviceguru.com/tiny-6-chip-open-computer-runs-linux/ without much effort. Its just that the kernel might not support all the programs that ubuntu comes with.
Sorry, I'm an old fart. This was a big scandal in the 80s.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-16-pentagon-travel_x.htm
http://armedservices.house.gov/list/speech/armedsvc_dem/AndrewsOS092409.shtml
http://www.cdi.org/adm/725/
(excerpt :
Senator GRASSLEY [R Iowa]: The Defense Department wants you to believe that they are making dramatic changes in the way things are purchased, particularly spare parts. I think the most out-standing example is the $600 toilet seat of 1983. And we thought that we had that problem taken care of and, 16 years later, the $600 toilet seat was costing $1800. )
Really? Bonuses for individual employees that do great work are more important to you than the greater social good that is potentially created by a fair and balanced taxation system?
Why, yes. While I recognize the need for a certain level of taxes (maintaining infrastructure, financial costs of the government's operation), I would much rather reward and retain individuals that are skilled and industrious workers than distribute that money as a free handout to everyone in the US.
Right now, a lot of my money is being taken and given to some fabulously wealthy defence contractors for their thousand dollar toilet seats. I'd prefer that it go to something worthwhile that will improve the quality of life in this country, which would include a universal healthcare. There is a sweet spot between the government spending no money and the government spending some money. We spend too much on defence, not enough on health. Disclaimer - I think that welfare is implemented in a way that does more harm than good to the recipients.
Remember, the money you made, you did not make and secure it on your own. You made it with the help of roads, public education (for you or your customers who can read your ads), the internet (how was that made?). It's protected with emergency services, the armed forces (yes, its necessary to a degree), and the FDIC.
I suppose the spin I could put on it is that Sudan, Iran, Russia, China and any non-democracy can say 'neener, neener, neener - your not better than us'.
Still, thinking about possible fraud like this makes my blood boil. Not everyone cares so much though.
Time to call on Article 3 if this really is an attempt to influence the vote?
The drag caused by the AC unit is TINY.
That was not always so. Technology and previous pesky regulations are at fault for that.
I'm going to assume you're trying to be funny.
I have to say I tend to loath XML. Don't assume those who make the decisions would be able to understand one word of why it would be a bad idea. Remember, these are people who paid a grand or more per toilet seat.
Think of it from a Wintel/Cisco perspective. The upsides are :
* it requires hideously more processing power
* it requires hideously more bandwidth
if only! I sense XML based packets.
going back? If you went back in time, maybe there wouldn't be any matter or stuff, since it moved forwards in time to now.
This is why there is, in agile methodologies (or at least the descriptions I've seen of them, there's a whole lot that passes under that name) the usual recommendation is write a unit test, write the code to make it pass, rinse, repeat. /b
I agree with you. I've seen it work beautifully.
It just works less good in chaotic situations. It may not be feasible in a time frame to write unit tests for legacy code as things get tangled (think entanglement with production database entanglements and tight schedules)
My compromise methodology now is to add a unit test whenever a bug is found, for detecting that bug. That way, I don't wast time with testing things almost as trivial as x = 1; x++;..check if x is now 2. That way, I'm confident that the bugs unearthed by usage will not remain. Evidence that this works? Our team's bug count was 2 minor last I checked. The average for other teams (with admittedly larger code bases) is in the dozens.
I was thrilled with unit tests until the Puppy happened. I was lucky enough to get an early start on a project. Early on, I wrote a suite of tests that I'd run to make sure nothing broke, and that edge cases were working. Then I continued to develop and write code, making the odd entry to the unit tests, but only in cases where I thought it was needed.
Then the Puppy came to my team. As the lead, I encouraged him to write unit tests. Those soon grew to epic proportions. I was buried in a sea of special one off requests from upper management for a period of two-three weeks and kept my eye off of him. When I finally could take a breather and get back into the swing of thing, I discovered mountains of tests - it was all he had written. No implementations!
Then requirements change as they often do. About a third of the tests were rendered useless do to the changes. Now, I still run my unit tests from time to time, but I am a little leery of putting that much time in to testing when the situation can be so volatile. And I have to keep a closer eye on the Puppy.
Yes, that is correct. I've had a friend quit after being asked to do that. He didn't wind up under a bridge, but got an other job.
Hmm, really? Its not the doing right that gets you there, its pissing off more one more powerful than you. A little social skill and this whole thing isn't always an issue.