What I hate is the float:left and clear:both bullshit in CSS. That's got to be the dumbest, most non-intuitive thing I've ever seen. "Let me express this in the most bass-ackward way possible."
What bugs me about the scientific world-view is, basically, for all of human history, groups of people have said "well, trust us, THIS is the shit that's got it all figured out. Just listen to this shit and you'll be A OH TAY."
And what does the science world view tell us?
The sciency people are just as ass hole ey as any religion people ever was:-)
I didn't think the 3d was "that" amazing. The 3d previews and the "stuff being jammed in your face" looked exactly like 3d has always looked (Jaws 3 in 3D!).
Some of the more subtle 3d was OK, but when I took my glasses off, it looked nearly identical. I think Hollywood is selling us the same old gimmic in slightly glitzier packaging.
it was nice but not a game changer. and some of it was super cheesy, the same way 3d has been cheesy since the 50s.
The real world doesn't look a thing like the 3d effects in that movie.
I always figured my employer would be really, really pissed off if they found out I did that. At best you're pointing out a massive security hole in the network. They'd just assume I'd be running ANYTHING (kiddie porn) over the tunnel, and if anything accidentally happened, and I'd been using a "hole", I'd get in huge trouble.
I do mostly C# + SQL, and have gotten into using StyleCop since it came out. It forces you to use xml comments on every method, field, property, public or private. For properties you have to use "Gets or sets the value of Foo" or "Gets or sets a value indicating Foo" (for bool). Since the only duplicate comment allowed is "The parameter is not allowed," what I do is fill in by default ALL the comment parts (summary, param, returns) with "The parameter is not used."
Then I get my code to be StyleCop clean, and go back and search for "The parameter is not used." I update the comments appropriately.
For comments in the body I use "// TODO refactor" or something terse. I find putting SOME comment block on everything makes it nice and readable, and if I see a huge block of stuff with "The parameter is not used." I know it's something that's not important to comment (like a million TextBox field declarations), or else it's somethign important I haven't gotten around to commenting yet.
So this is working all well for me:-) The gist is I use the StyleCop guidelines, a boilerplate for "no comment comments", and terse inline things usually indicating work items in the body.
Works for me and I explain it to the next guy and he can figure out my intentions. Right balance of anal retentiveness and terseness for me.
The lack of a trite name for this decade has been the coolest, because people haven't been able to call something the "blank of the blank", mimndlessly.
I've seen some of the Windows Source code when I worked there. Trust me, it's WAY more professional than the Linux source code.
Microsoft's problem with code quality isn't the engineers - they're the same as everywhere else. In Windows 2000, they set out to eliminate BSOD, and they mostly did. In XP SP2, they set out to make it secure, and it's better.
The problem is no one asks them to do the right things.
Anyway, trust me - it's very professional, clean code, nice design, and not filled with hacks like the Big Global Lock that used to be in the Linux kernel.
When I was young I used to wonder whether they couldn't wrap people in a stiff rubber like material that would just bounce off the ground if the plane crashed.
Of course, it would take some time to find you after your superball bounced around the country 23 times.
I think that theories about the weather are theories, models, and I really don't think that people are clever enough to understand a complex nonlinear system like the earth's climate to the point where the fact that a whole bunch of ice melting bothers me in the slightest.
I'm not saying your data isn't true; I'm saying the conculsions that any of it even matters seems suspicious.
You're doing exactly the same stuff the guys did in the emails. It's just bad science; bad attitude.
I'm making a non-inflamatory, casual statement that I saw ordinary people making ordinary claims that different calculations had to be revised, the evidence isn't all one way, it's complicated, etc. - and here you're trying to blast these statements to smithereens instead of casually acknowledging that data sometimes surprises one.
Yeah, they were just regular stories on the regular news saying there was more ice than they had calculated before, and the gulf stream brought more cold water than they thought before.
I didn't hear this stuff from the Heartland institute - a guy on the the weather channel said the thing about only 100 years of data; the ice measurements and gulf stream were on CNN, regular science stuff.
That's not true! I've heard a million people say "we only have data as far back as at most 100 years; that's nothing in geologic time"; heard people say "well, it turns on the gulf stream brings a lot more cold water back than we first realized;" realize they mismeasured the amount of ice in the arctic by a huge amount; and the most recent data saying global warming has temporarily halted; heard a lot of people say it's bad science to take non-linear systems and extrapolate from a small amount of data.
The people who believe in manifolds don't say the string theorists need to shut up.
I say again, exactly as I said before, why the need to tell people to shut up?
Slashdot Mirror
What I hate is the float:left and clear:both bullshit in CSS. That's got to be the dumbest, most non-intuitive thing I've ever seen. "Let me express this in the most bass-ackward way possible."
What bugs me about the scientific world-view is, basically, for all of human history, groups of people have said "well, trust us, THIS is the shit that's got it all figured out. Just listen to this shit and you'll be A OH TAY."
And what does the science world view tell us?
The sciency people are just as ass hole ey as any religion people ever was :-)
Nobody has nothing figured out.
I didn't think the 3d was "that" amazing. The 3d previews and the "stuff being jammed in your face" looked exactly like 3d has always looked (Jaws 3 in 3D!).
Some of the more subtle 3d was OK, but when I took my glasses off, it looked nearly identical. I think Hollywood is selling us the same old gimmic in slightly glitzier packaging.
it was nice but not a game changer. and some of it was super cheesy, the same way 3d has been cheesy since the 50s.
The real world doesn't look a thing like the 3d effects in that movie.
Maybe nice if you were on acid or something.
I always figured my employer would be really, really pissed off if they found out I did that. At best you're pointing out a massive security hole in the network. They'd just assume I'd be running ANYTHING (kiddie porn) over the tunnel, and if anything accidentally happened, and I'd been using a "hole", I'd get in huge trouble.
I do mostly C# + SQL, and have gotten into using StyleCop since it came out. It forces you to use xml comments on every method, field, property, public or private. For properties you have to use "Gets or sets the value of Foo" or "Gets or sets a value indicating Foo" (for bool). Since the only duplicate comment allowed is "The parameter is not allowed," what I do is fill in by default ALL the comment parts (summary, param, returns) with "The parameter is not used."
Then I get my code to be StyleCop clean, and go back and search for "The parameter is not used." I update the comments appropriately.
For comments in the body I use "// TODO refactor" or something terse. I find putting SOME comment block on everything makes it nice and readable, and if I see a huge block of stuff with "The parameter is not used." I know it's something that's not important to comment (like a million TextBox field declarations), or else it's somethign important I haven't gotten around to commenting yet.
So this is working all well for me :-) The gist is I use the StyleCop guidelines, a boilerplate for "no comment comments", and terse inline things usually indicating work items in the body.
Works for me and I explain it to the next guy and he can figure out my intentions. Right balance of anal retentiveness and terseness for me.
I don't believe that's true. You can only debug processes you "own" (or have appropriate permissions to open the handle).
You just need to be a member of the Debugger Users group, and VStudio works fine without being Admin.
It's not impossible to not be an administrator. I install all my services as an ordinary user and make sure things work OK.
It's a lot more comfortable to just be the administrator, sure, no question - but it's not impossible.
Doesn't the example on the contest page qualify as Useless Use of Cat?
i.e., shouldn't this line: ./lug UA129086 - - -
cat luggage.dat |
be this: ./lug UA129086 - - - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_(Unix)#Useless_use_of_cat
http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=864
It runs - I don't use VIM so I never ran it.
The lack of a trite name for this decade has been the coolest, because people haven't been able to call something the "blank of the blank", mimndlessly.
The next decade is even better!
Why wouldn't Google's AdBlock extension just phone home and say the user saw the ad? It would be more to their advantage.
I bet what they found was some of our astronaut's pee pee on the moon.
Or maybe a discarded moon pie wrapper.
Or maybe a bottle of scotch.
Grand Central seems to be closer to Windows I/O Completion Ports (PostQueuedCompletionStatus, etc.)
Read Darkness at Noon.
I've seen some of the Windows Source code when I worked there. Trust me, it's WAY more professional than the Linux source code.
Microsoft's problem with code quality isn't the engineers - they're the same as everywhere else. In Windows 2000, they set out to eliminate BSOD, and they mostly did. In XP SP2, they set out to make it secure, and it's better.
The problem is no one asks them to do the right things.
Anyway, trust me - it's very professional, clean code, nice design, and not filled with hacks like the Big Global Lock that used to be in the Linux kernel.
I saw it the first time and loved it. (Very young kid).
When I was young I used to wonder whether they couldn't wrap people in a stiff rubber like material that would just bounce off the ground if the plane crashed.
Of course, it would take some time to find you after your superball bounced around the country 23 times.
The picture is not the bits - I don't see bits, I see the picture.
That the guy that I guess history will say started commercial space flight for real, owned a company that used to sell cassettes and records.
I think that theories about the weather are theories, models, and I really don't think that people are clever enough to understand a complex nonlinear system like the earth's climate to the point where the fact that a whole bunch of ice melting bothers me in the slightest.
I'm not saying your data isn't true; I'm saying the conculsions that any of it even matters seems suspicious.
You're doing exactly the same stuff the guys did in the emails. It's just bad science; bad attitude.
I'm making a non-inflamatory, casual statement that I saw ordinary people making ordinary claims that different calculations had to be revised, the evidence isn't all one way, it's complicated, etc. - and here you're trying to blast these statements to smithereens instead of casually acknowledging that data sometimes surprises one.
Yeah, they were just regular stories on the regular news saying there was more ice than they had calculated before, and the gulf stream brought more cold water than they thought before.
I didn't hear this stuff from the Heartland institute - a guy on the the weather channel said the thing about only 100 years of data; the ice measurements and gulf stream were on CNN, regular science stuff.
The stuff I mentioned above all came out in the last year or so.
That's not true! I've heard a million people say "we only have data as far back as at most 100 years; that's nothing in geologic time"; heard people say "well, it turns on the gulf stream brings a lot more cold water back than we first realized;" realize they mismeasured the amount of ice in the arctic by a huge amount; and the most recent data saying global warming has temporarily halted; heard a lot of people say it's bad science to take non-linear systems and extrapolate from a small amount of data.
The people who believe in manifolds don't say the string theorists need to shut up.
I say again, exactly as I said before, why the need to tell people to shut up?