Sure, but the solution isn't to just keep providing more money. That's just a positive feedback loop, and the results are predictable.
Right. The alternative is to make education unavailable to more people, driving down demand. Screw the poor, they're already too stupid to defy gravity and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps... who's fault is that? There's, obviously. And don't talk to me about scholarships, all that does is distort the market and drive up tuition by increasing demand...
Nah, you're not alone. Ignoring some of the more ridiculous science moments, the movie devolved into a retarded zombie movie half way through... god what a letdown. *sigh*
A season and a half, dude. I really wanted to like Futurama, but just couldn't find anything there which made me care about the characters
Then you weren't looking. Seriously. Go watch Jurassic Bark, Luck of the Fryfish, or particularly the montage at the end of Leela's Homeworld, and tell me again how the show wasn't packed with serious, heartfelt moments.
I can count on my hand the number of Simpsons episodes that reached that level of depth and emotional honestly. And yet you expect every fucking episode of Futurama to be a life-changing experience...
No, you're a snob. At best, your expectations are *insanely* high, coloured by a view of The Simpsons that's clearly, to say the least, rose-coloured. Even the best of The Simpsons had it's "dumb jokes", around which the emotional stuff was peppered. Or are you telling me the scene where Homer sticks his head in the bowling ball polisher in "And Maggie Makes Three" is a somehow deeply moving moment for you?
Futurama never had a soul. -Which is a shame, because it could have done. It offers a huge and fun world to explore, but it never gets serious for even a second
Are you fucking *kidding* me? Have you never watched "Jurassic Bark", "Luck of the Fryfish", or "The Sting"? The Simpsons had some brilliant, emotional moments in it's golden years, but Futurama is easily its equal.
I love Futurama, but not just for the intellectual side. How many comedy cartoons have had really good tear-jerker moments? Fry's dog, the story of his five-leaf clover, Leela's parents, etc. That's a damned rare thing for me, and like most guys pretty hard to admit, but Futurama's been able to pull it off more than a couple times.
Indeed. They were able to do the same thing during the golden years of The Simpsons, and it was magical: "And Maggie Makes Three...", "Marge Be Not Proud", "Lost Our Lisa"... The Simpsons was great when the characters weren't simply caricatures, a spirit that went to live on in Futurama.
Yeah, I really don't get this. With the relative sophistication of fios set-top boxes, you'd think they'd gather every channel change, data link is taken care of, and Verizon would be frothing at the mouth to sell some of this data, no?
Pity there are regulations limiting this kind of activity. Citation.
Seems like it's a better strategy nowadays, to sell dreams and lies, than to create actual value.
Riiight. So you equate computing and rendering power with "value". Not fun games. Not an enjoyable user experience. Not accessibility or approachability. Simply computing power. And anyone who isn't selling high-powered, over-priced consoles at a loss is, apparently, "[selling] dreams and lies"...
Gee, I can't imagine why MS and Sony are getting their asses handed to them, given this *obvious* failing on Nintendo's part.
I don't really know, I'm speculating here. I can tell you this much, though: they won't get any worse because of this technology. And at least they'll be better targeted.
Incidentally, I have a whole other set of privacy concerns, here, but those are unrelated to the OPs original complaint.
I've been on the internet since 1984. Back then, there was all kinds of discussion and many, many 'services' and info. And guess how it all got there? Why, what do you know? It was done out of the kindness of people's hearts.
Right, sure, because you can deploy a massive service like gmail to millions and millions of people out of the "kindness of people's hearts".
Seriously, dude, get out of your mom's fucking basement and learn to live in the real world. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars building and supporting a service for free isn't kind, it's *stupid*. Well, unless you're Warren Buffet and have billions just laying around to burn on a whim.
In fact, better targeted may mean *less* intrusive, as you would theoretically see higher conversion rates, and so less need to blast people in the face in order to get their attention.
Because we don't live in a fantasy world, and understand that advertising will *always* exist, particularly if people continue to insist on free-to-access content.
Make no mistake. The internet as you see it today, with free sites like Slashdot, Freshmeat, Penny Arcade, and so forth, not to mention services like gmail, are possible only because advertising make it financially feasible to offer that content. The only alternative is to lock things up behind paywalls, and let's face it, *most* people aren't interesting in paying for subscriptions, no matter how high quality the content is.
Well, its not just me. You're attempting to look at it as a TCO (total cost of operation) however this is completely counter to human reasoning for the most part.
And therefore negative externalities don't exist, and shouldn't be compensated for by, for example, tax policy.
I'm not a fan of cats either. They are feral pests that should go. High-rises... blah blah blah
Wow, way to say a lot and yet say nothing. Well done!
Ah, yes, but what about bats?
What about them? There's already research into approaches to drive them away. And at least that involves cheap technology we already have.
You have all those same costs with wind farms. Have you considered the Toshiba 4S Reactor?
You mean the design that isn't even in the prototype phase? Shit, why don't we just move to fusion, if we're gonna propose "solutions" that haven't even been built, yet?
Even AWEA admits that it is not cost-competitive. They instead invoke unquantified "hidden subsidies"
Well, if you're willing to ignore facts like the existence of negative externalities, you can believe anything...
Really the whole wind farm thing is a ploy by special interests to get government subsidies for building these things, which they can then bill you at a higher electric rate.
Yeah, because it doesn't cost an order of magnitude more to build a nuclear plant... and that's ignoring ongoing disposal costs, maintenance and inspections, security-related costs, etc.
Lastly, they aren't as green as you think.
Wow, way to lose all credibility. High-rise towers and house cats kill far *far* more birds than any wind farm, particularly given modern low-RPM designs.
Maybe I changed something which breaks something else, but I don't care about this something, because I'm working on a whole different module?
What you want are multiple projects hosted in the same solution. In that case, you can build and run just a single project within the overall solution, and VS won't require that the rest of the solution build.
Btw, where is the incremental compiler in C#?
Alas, it does not exist... while VS does a good job catching coding errors at edit time, it isn't until you complete a compile cycle on at least the current project that the source is actually built out.
'course, in truth, Java is the weird outlier here. But I'll freely admit it's an interesting feature.
Most of all I'm missing the Outline-frame from Eclipse. I want to see all members of the current class at one time.
Eclipse will generate me the Ctors for the fields of the class; it will generate the Ctors based on the parent class; It will generate Getter and Setter; It will generate delegates methods; equals and hashCode methods;
VS will do all of that. Seriously, how hard did you look?:) For example, if you indicate that a class subclasses another, or implements an interface, VS pops up a little indicator that lets you choose to stub out a constructor, virtual methods, interface methods, etc. If you want a getter or setter, just right-click on the member, select Refactor, and tell it you want a getter/setter.
And actually, I rather work with Jar files then with the C or C++ libraries.
But that's the whole point: working with a higher level language that binds against those libraries means you don't have to work directly against a C or C++ library. You just work with clean bindings that allow you to leverage the power of existing OSS software. So, for example, I could write a multimedia app using gstreamer and all the power it affords. That's an incredible good thing, as you're fully integrating with the underlying platform, as opposed to living in a fenced off little world of your own.
A simple jar file can contain all dependencies and all (default) configuration.
Sure, a simple jar. But no real application is simple. Worse, do you really want a bunch of applications each shipping with it's own copy of common libraries? That's insane, IMHO. Meanwhile, the whole purpose of platform package management is to centralize the process of installing software. Anything which chooses to step outside that paradigm is a royal pain in the ass.
Why have Perl a CPAN for the Perl libraries and software? Why is Perl creating a whole new ecosystem if there is already DEP and RPMs?
Actually, funny you should mention that. Perl, Python, Ruby, and most other scripting languages in the Unix world bind against existing platform libraries. For example, the most common XML parser used in Perl isn't one written in Perl. It's a binding to expat. Similarly, you can find bindings against the Gtk and Gnome APIs, and god knows what else. Those languages actively work to leverage existing OSS software if it makes sense. Kinda like Mono. Java is, once again, the outlier, here.
Additionally, Ubuntu and others include Perl, Python, Ruby, et, packages in their packaging ecosystem. So while I certainly *can* use CPAN, most of the time I don't, as I *want* to use apt if at all possible (not the least of which because it makes package removal easier).
I'll give you that... though, TBH, I don't find I need refactoring tools all that often. I'm not sure if that's just because I haven't found the value in them yet, or because I'm just spectacular at designing software.:)
navigation in the code
I don't understand this... VS provides an outliner, jump-to-declaration and similar features... what are you missing, exactly?
source code formatting
I *really* don't get this. If there's one thing VS does exceedingly well, it's format code.
automatic generation of code.
Should never be required in the first place. If you're autogen'ing actual code (as opposed to, say, XML definitions for forms, etc), IMHO, the framework is doing something wrong.
Incremental compiler; I can run code that have compiler errors in it.
I also don't understand this at all. Your code didn't compile. Why the hell would you want to run it?
Visual Studio 2003 doesn't had any unit test integration at all
2k5 and on can integrate nicely with nunit.
Code completion, don't get me started on that crap that is called IntelliJ.
And I'm not sure what you're saying here. Your sentence suggests that IntelliJ sucks... but being a Java fanboi, that seems oddly evenhanded.;)
I can say I've been incredibly impressed with IntelliSense... it's the one thing I thing VS does better than anything else I've seen, though to be fair, I haven't worked in a lot of other IDEs in the last little while, so it's possible they've caught up or exceeded the intelligence in VS.
It's true that Swing don't look so good and I hope that Sun/Oracle will do something about it
That's really my entire point. Swing has improved in recent years, but it still sucks balls. And don't get me started on the horror of SWT (the last I used it, it was *terrible*, and I have no reason to believe it's improved greatly).
Additionally, at least in the past, integrating with platform installation systems has never worked well with Java (eg, creating a deb or RPM that could be simply installed)... maybe that's changed recently, I don't know. Maybe it's something I should re-examine.
Incidentally, the other thing Mono does *very* well is integrate with existing platform libraries. I *like* the fact that I can build against well-known, well-documented GTK and Gnome APIs, both for the GUI and the backend (eg, gstreamer, sqlite and mysql, etc). Hell, I would argue that Mono's ecosystem is actually far more OSS-friendly than Java, as their entire approach is to expose well-known OSS projects to the Mono/C#/.NET world so they can be leveraged, rather than building an entire new ecosystem.
You feel wrong. Wikipedia provides an excellent overview of current literature on the topic. If you doubt that overview, you're free to read the rather long-ish list of cited papers and other sources on that page.
Slashdot Mirror
what my dad did in the late 50's and 60's I think he should still get any money generated from it
Err... why? That was *50 fucking years ago*. Why the hell should he be able to continue to make income on works he created half a lifetime ago?
what about those who aren't capable of making public performances due to age or disability?
The same thing my grandfather, unable to work construction anymore, does: live on his retirement savings, or find another line of work.
Why the hell should your artist father be any different?
And speaking of shitty education, apparently I'm having a bad homonym day... stupid their/there BS...
Sure, but the solution isn't to just keep providing more money. That's just a positive feedback loop, and the results are predictable.
Right. The alternative is to make education unavailable to more people, driving down demand. Screw the poor, they're already too stupid to defy gravity and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps... who's fault is that? There's, obviously. And don't talk to me about scholarships, all that does is distort the market and drive up tuition by increasing demand...
Nah, you're not alone. Ignoring some of the more ridiculous science moments, the movie devolved into a retarded zombie movie half way through... god what a letdown. *sigh*
A season and a half, dude. I really wanted to like Futurama, but just couldn't find anything there which made me care about the characters
Then you weren't looking. Seriously. Go watch Jurassic Bark, Luck of the Fryfish, or particularly the montage at the end of Leela's Homeworld, and tell me again how the show wasn't packed with serious, heartfelt moments.
I can count on my hand the number of Simpsons episodes that reached that level of depth and emotional honestly. And yet you expect every fucking episode of Futurama to be a life-changing experience...
No, you're a snob. At best, your expectations are *insanely* high, coloured by a view of The Simpsons that's clearly, to say the least, rose-coloured. Even the best of The Simpsons had it's "dumb jokes", around which the emotional stuff was peppered. Or are you telling me the scene where Homer sticks his head in the bowling ball polisher in "And Maggie Makes Three" is a somehow deeply moving moment for you?
Ahh, I see... you fancy yourself an intellectual snob. *sigh* Pity I wasted time reading the "insipid nonsense" that is your comment...
Dude, they don't even have basic IPv6 deployed... Slashdot, for all it's "News for Nerds" BS is amazingly conservative when it comes to technology.
Futurama never had a soul. -Which is a shame, because it could have done. It offers a huge and fun world to explore, but it never gets serious for even a second
Are you fucking *kidding* me? Have you never watched "Jurassic Bark", "Luck of the Fryfish", or "The Sting"? The Simpsons had some brilliant, emotional moments in it's golden years, but Futurama is easily its equal.
I love Futurama, but not just for the intellectual side. How many comedy cartoons have had really good tear-jerker moments? Fry's dog, the story of his five-leaf clover, Leela's parents, etc. That's a damned rare thing for me, and like most guys pretty hard to admit, but Futurama's been able to pull it off more than a couple times.
Indeed. They were able to do the same thing during the golden years of The Simpsons, and it was magical: "And Maggie Makes Three...", "Marge Be Not Proud", "Lost Our Lisa"... The Simpsons was great when the characters weren't simply caricatures, a spirit that went to live on in Futurama.
Yeah, I really don't get this. With the relative sophistication of fios set-top boxes, you'd think they'd gather every channel change, data link is taken care of, and Verizon would be frothing at the mouth to sell some of this data, no?
Pity there are regulations limiting this kind of activity. Citation.
Seems like it's a better strategy nowadays, to sell dreams and lies, than to create actual value.
Riiight. So you equate computing and rendering power with "value". Not fun games. Not an enjoyable user experience. Not accessibility or approachability. Simply computing power. And anyone who isn't selling high-powered, over-priced consoles at a loss is, apparently, "[selling] dreams and lies"...
Gee, I can't imagine why MS and Sony are getting their asses handed to them, given this *obvious* failing on Nintendo's part.
Unfortunately no, we haven't. Sadly, we don't yet live in a utopia. Most power structures are dominated by men, racism still exists, etc, etc.
*Should* this be news? No. But the sad fact is, it is.
I don't really know, I'm speculating here. I can tell you this much, though: they won't get any worse because of this technology. And at least they'll be better targeted.
Incidentally, I have a whole other set of privacy concerns, here, but those are unrelated to the OPs original complaint.
I've been on the internet since 1984. Back then, there was all kinds of discussion and many, many 'services' and info. And guess how it all got there? Why, what do you know? It was done out of the kindness of people's hearts.
Right, sure, because you can deploy a massive service like gmail to millions and millions of people out of the "kindness of people's hearts".
Seriously, dude, get out of your mom's fucking basement and learn to live in the real world. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars building and supporting a service for free isn't kind, it's *stupid*. Well, unless you're Warren Buffet and have billions just laying around to burn on a whim.
Better targeted != more intrusive.
In fact, better targeted may mean *less* intrusive, as you would theoretically see higher conversion rates, and so less need to blast people in the face in order to get their attention.
Why have advertising in the first place?
Because we don't live in a fantasy world, and understand that advertising will *always* exist, particularly if people continue to insist on free-to-access content.
Make no mistake. The internet as you see it today, with free sites like Slashdot, Freshmeat, Penny Arcade, and so forth, not to mention services like gmail, are possible only because advertising make it financially feasible to offer that content. The only alternative is to lock things up behind paywalls, and let's face it, *most* people aren't interesting in paying for subscriptions, no matter how high quality the content is.
Well, its not just me. You're attempting to look at it as a TCO (total cost of operation) however this is completely counter to human reasoning for the most part.
And therefore negative externalities don't exist, and shouldn't be compensated for by, for example, tax policy.
Uhuh. Genius.
No kidding! All blogs are worthless. AMIRITE??
Yes, because god knows those are the only types of blogs in existence...
I'm not a fan of cats either. They are feral pests that should go. High-rises ... blah blah blah
Wow, way to say a lot and yet say nothing. Well done!
Ah, yes, but what about bats?
What about them? There's already research into approaches to drive them away. And at least that involves cheap technology we already have.
You have all those same costs with wind farms. Have you considered the Toshiba 4S Reactor?
You mean the design that isn't even in the prototype phase? Shit, why don't we just move to fusion, if we're gonna propose "solutions" that haven't even been built, yet?
Even AWEA admits that it is not cost-competitive. They instead invoke unquantified "hidden subsidies"
Well, if you're willing to ignore facts like the existence of negative externalities, you can believe anything...
Really the whole wind farm thing is a ploy by special interests to get government subsidies for building these things, which they can then bill you at a higher electric rate.
Yeah, because it doesn't cost an order of magnitude more to build a nuclear plant... and that's ignoring ongoing disposal costs, maintenance and inspections, security-related costs, etc.
Lastly, they aren't as green as you think.
Wow, way to lose all credibility. High-rise towers and house cats kill far *far* more birds than any wind farm, particularly given modern low-RPM designs.
Maybe I changed something which breaks something else, but I don't care about this something, because I'm working on a whole different module?
What you want are multiple projects hosted in the same solution. In that case, you can build and run just a single project within the overall solution, and VS won't require that the rest of the solution build.
Btw, where is the incremental compiler in C#?
Alas, it does not exist... while VS does a good job catching coding errors at edit time, it isn't until you complete a compile cycle on at least the current project that the source is actually built out.
'course, in truth, Java is the weird outlier here. But I'll freely admit it's an interesting feature.
Most of all I'm missing the Outline-frame from Eclipse. I want to see all members of the current class at one time.
You mean like the VS class view?
Eclipse will generate me the Ctors for the fields of the class; it will generate the Ctors based on the parent class; It will generate Getter and Setter; It will generate delegates methods; equals and hashCode methods;
VS will do all of that. Seriously, how hard did you look? :) For example, if you indicate that a class subclasses another, or implements an interface, VS pops up a little indicator that lets you choose to stub out a constructor, virtual methods, interface methods, etc. If you want a getter or setter, just right-click on the member, select Refactor, and tell it you want a getter/setter.
And actually, I rather work with Jar files then with the C or C++ libraries.
But that's the whole point: working with a higher level language that binds against those libraries means you don't have to work directly against a C or C++ library. You just work with clean bindings that allow you to leverage the power of existing OSS software. So, for example, I could write a multimedia app using gstreamer and all the power it affords. That's an incredible good thing, as you're fully integrating with the underlying platform, as opposed to living in a fenced off little world of your own.
A simple jar file can contain all dependencies and all (default) configuration.
Sure, a simple jar. But no real application is simple. Worse, do you really want a bunch of applications each shipping with it's own copy of common libraries? That's insane, IMHO. Meanwhile, the whole purpose of platform package management is to centralize the process of installing software. Anything which chooses to step outside that paradigm is a royal pain in the ass.
Why have Perl a CPAN for the Perl libraries and software? Why is Perl creating a whole new ecosystem if there is already DEP and RPMs?
Actually, funny you should mention that. Perl, Python, Ruby, and most other scripting languages in the Unix world bind against existing platform libraries. For example, the most common XML parser used in Perl isn't one written in Perl. It's a binding to expat. Similarly, you can find bindings against the Gtk and Gnome APIs, and god knows what else. Those languages actively work to leverage existing OSS software if it makes sense. Kinda like Mono. Java is, once again, the outlier, here.
Additionally, Ubuntu and others include Perl, Python, Ruby, et, packages in their packaging ecosystem. So while I certainly *can* use CPAN, most of the time I don't, as I *want* to use apt if at all possible (not the least of which because it makes package removal easier).
Hmm, very well, let me rephrase: Your opinion is idiotic.
Better?
Refactoring comes in mind
I'll give you that... though, TBH, I don't find I need refactoring tools all that often. I'm not sure if that's just because I haven't found the value in them yet, or because I'm just spectacular at designing software. :)
navigation in the code
I don't understand this... VS provides an outliner, jump-to-declaration and similar features... what are you missing, exactly?
source code formatting
I *really* don't get this. If there's one thing VS does exceedingly well, it's format code.
automatic generation of code.
Should never be required in the first place. If you're autogen'ing actual code (as opposed to, say, XML definitions for forms, etc), IMHO, the framework is doing something wrong.
Incremental compiler; I can run code that have compiler errors in it.
I also don't understand this at all. Your code didn't compile. Why the hell would you want to run it?
Visual Studio 2003 doesn't had any unit test integration at all
2k5 and on can integrate nicely with nunit.
Code completion, don't get me started on that crap that is called IntelliJ.
And I'm not sure what you're saying here. Your sentence suggests that IntelliJ sucks... but being a Java fanboi, that seems oddly evenhanded. ;)
I can say I've been incredibly impressed with IntelliSense... it's the one thing I thing VS does better than anything else I've seen, though to be fair, I haven't worked in a lot of other IDEs in the last little while, so it's possible they've caught up or exceeded the intelligence in VS.
It's true that Swing don't look so good and I hope that Sun/Oracle will do something about it
That's really my entire point. Swing has improved in recent years, but it still sucks balls. And don't get me started on the horror of SWT (the last I used it, it was *terrible*, and I have no reason to believe it's improved greatly).
Additionally, at least in the past, integrating with platform installation systems has never worked well with Java (eg, creating a deb or RPM that could be simply installed)... maybe that's changed recently, I don't know. Maybe it's something I should re-examine.
Incidentally, the other thing Mono does *very* well is integrate with existing platform libraries. I *like* the fact that I can build against well-known, well-documented GTK and Gnome APIs, both for the GUI and the backend (eg, gstreamer, sqlite and mysql, etc). Hell, I would argue that Mono's ecosystem is actually far more OSS-friendly than Java, as their entire approach is to expose well-known OSS projects to the Mono/C#/.NET world so they can be leveraged, rather than building an entire new ecosystem.
is inherently invalid.
You feel wrong. Wikipedia provides an excellent overview of current literature on the topic. If you doubt that overview, you're free to read the rather long-ish list of cited papers and other sources on that page.