Doesn't matter how fast or how slow I go. I still can't see into the forest using my headlights. I'd need some kind of spot on a swivel to accomplish that, and those are illegal to use while driving here.
And I've used HUD's. I know exactly how they work, and what they look like. But the problem remains, the HUD should not be a color which is efficient at destroying night vision *and* which is the same color as weak but important cues from the real world. Looking through something which destroys night vision could be "ok" when driving in a well lit city environment, but it's disaster in a forest near the polar circle. When you don't see another light for hours of driving, why impair night vision as a matter of course?
Not far enough to the sides to help me spot animals at the edge of the forest by the road. And there's a lot of unlit roads through forest around here. And my car is built for these kinds of roads (a SAAB 9-5), nothing wrong with its headlights, it just passed annual inspection of them with a blank sheet.
Usually I spot animals by light reflected in their eyes. A glint of blue-white light in the forest, followed by a madly dashing animal trying to cross the road - by which time it is too late to brake. I need to do that when I see the glint. And there is no way I'll see a blue-white glint if I have a blue HUD sparkling on the screen.
Facts are useless if you don't comprehend their relevance. While you drive down the road, it's normal for your night vision to be impaired anyway due to reflections, oncoming traffic, stationary light sources...
Quite so. But that is not a reason to further impair night vision. When I drive along roads with no stationary lights and little traffic, I rely on my night vision to spot animals and people at the side of the road. It doesn't matter how good my headlights are (as long as they are legal), they will not help me do that.
Try a flight simulator sometime, like Falcon BMS. The HUD in the fighter aircraft will be consistent, with everything always in the same place - except for state changes by the pilot, such as providing landing cues when the pilot has turned them on, and aiming system adapting to selected weapons (without changing location).
Heck, even the warnings in the HUD have specific locations, not interfering with either the view or the rest of the HUD. And this is for trained fighter pilots, selected for high ability to handle high cognitive load.
This is exactly like the parent wants things to be to reduce cognitive load, and exactly how a car HUD should function.
There is debate with chemical fact? Rhodopsin is bleached when it absorbs light, and it absorbs maximally in the blue-green region of light and minimally in the red region. That is not up for debate; it is simple and pure chemistry.
It has improved bearings and gears, steel shift paddles and a leather covered wheel. All those are things I want in a steering wheel. I do not want a six speed shifter, so removing that makes the wheel a lot more interesting than the G27.
The controls on the wheel are for selecting things in driving games, not for use as a controller for games where the wheel is not used.
Ah yes, just because I recognize a detail means I am a "SJW". And instead of trying to see if there is any merit to a chain of arguments, it's a lot easier to just latch on to a single observation, slap a label on someone because of it and declare everything discussed without value.
A shame you refuse to learn anything new, but instead cling to dogma for dear life. This could have turned into a very good discussion if you weren't that kind of person.
You're stuck in the "force people to do things or nothing happens" mind set, which has been shown over and over to be not only false, but counterproductive. That's why you sit in "either capitalism forces people to do things or the five year plan does", and you are unable to think outside the box.
With a living wage system in place, the whip of people not getting food on the table unless they accept whatever job is available vanishes. But that is ALL that vanishes. No other aspect of competition vanishes. People who want to have luxury goods will still work, and build things they compete to sell. People who enjoy being enterpreneurs will still be starting up companies and try to find the smartest, best people to work in them. And they will find it EASIER to do so, since more smart people are freed up from flipping burgers to make ends meet.
People will still do what others value so that they can have the things they value. They just won't get stuck on the lowest rung for life. And if you don't care about that, then you're a white male.
A living wage FREES UP people to work on WHAT THEY WANT. The exact opposite of your only way of thinking outside of raw capitalism. No central committee. No five year plan. Just people, working with what they like at the pace they like. You know, like those who invented modern science and made huge advances used to do, when they were not contrained by the need to sell their time for peanuts.
Seriously, at least learn the first thing about your opponents arguments before you barge off into la-la land.
Correct, I can't understand it as that, because that is not what it means. A vast majority of both goods and services provided are not needed but merely *wanted*. Your failure to understand the difference is key here.
And yes, implementing a living wage will reduce some availability of luxury goods. In exchange it will increase the availability of investment capital and improve scientific advance rates, especially over the long term, immensely.
If your reasoning is correct, then everyone working in restaurants, stores and other service oriented jobs are providing zero to what "we have", as they do not make anything.
Having a job and making something is not equivalent. The majority of jobs in the US are in the service industry, and are non-productive in the sense of creating part of "all we have". No games with money can change that, as you correctly point out.
Therefore, the change in providing a living wage will be minimal. Those who are motivated and burn to make things will still be making things, and in fact, many who today have a job adding nothing to what "we make" will change that situation and *get* a job making things, improving the economy.
Keeping people trapped in low skill, non-production jobs just to punish them for not getting out of the trap cannot survive much longer.
Special chips for offloading the CPU are standard today. Your PC has a sound chip, a GPU and various other chips (or even whole cards) which offload the CPU. It scales just fine. That was in no way the downfall of the Amiga. Commodore being inept was.
So where do I insist on anyone using any particular tool?
You have a maturity problem because it's not enough to dislike something; you have to justify it by calling it obsolete, and insulting people who disagree with your attempt at justifying your opinion.
Maybe when you get to be half my age you'll know better. But I'm not holding my breath, youngster. Now git off my lawn!
The editor you use is just as obsolete as vi. This is what you fail to comprehend and acknowledge. You make this into some form of "newer exists so the older is inherently inferior", and this is precisely wrong. Just because something does not fit in your brain does not mean it is obsolete. If anything, it is likely to mean *you* are obsolete.
I refuse to believe you use whatever serves your current purpose best because you present a dogmatic attitude. That means you will choose based on incorrect criteria. That you do not even realize this makes your position worse.
Where have I "insisted" there's "One True Editor"? Your arguments against vi grow out of some kind of small minded misunderstanding you acquired back when I was selling my first software commercially (if, indeed, you used it during the 1970's), and that is what I reacted against. Nothing else.
Maybe by the time you act your age you'll realize how absurdly you're acting, spitting venom on an editor you last used as intended decades ago (if ever) on a/. thread where using IDE's and editors as intended is discussed. But I won't be holding my breath. Keep pushing your opinion on what is the best editor for occasional one line edits on a thread discussing heavy duty programming as if it's relevant, no skin off my back.
That is the whole point of git, that you're able to work that way. It's not like a centralized version control system. Using git you do indeed get multi-file undo, and the ability to keep your own version history on exactly what you did when, to a level which no IDE can match with its own built-in tools. All without affecting the branch you're developing against until you're ready to commit.
And when you work that way, you're not tied to any IDE or editor, and you can do all manner of interesting statistics and analysis on your change history. Heck, you can even work fully without an editor or IDE and just integrate code using git.
The "average user" does not use an IDE, does not do programming and will use neither nano nor vim, and thus has no relevance to this/. posting. The average *developer* is quite likely to find the need to perform changes or updates on embedded systems or over dicey connections, and therefore has quite valid reasons to use vi which has nothing to do with your dislike of anything well tested.
"The rest of the world" tends to use vi and emacs. You're the one stuck in some form of rut, and posting to get that rut validated. Get with the times, vi today is not what you remember from back when you (possibly) had a valid opinion on the subject.
So the proper way is for the IDE to intentionally break the code?
I can't even begin to fathom such an approach. Worst of all, it's probably considered proper by a huge chunk of the people working with C++. Small wonder software projects are perpetually late, over budget and bug ridden.
Are you trying to make the case that embedded systems requiring text file reconfiguration and low bandwidth connectivity to such systems is something *rare*?
Indeed you are.
Remind me never to pay attention to your quite uninformed opinion.
Oh, and anything on a command line is "obscure" and "unintuitive" until learned. I don't find vi to be either. That you do speaks more of you than of vi.
Must be nice to only work with systems having plenty of resources and huge default installs. and always over high bandwidth low latency connections. Not all of us have that luxury, and the one editor you can always count on exists on a limited system, and the best editor for use over high latency connections, is vi.
If you know it well, that is. Otherwise you simply can't work efficiently under those conditions. Which you evidently never have to do.
If they needed more than 30 days, they could have said so quite amicably without lawyers (or with them, but in a friendly request manner) within a week, and asked the researcher to withhold release until they were ready. Instead they barge in, lawyers blazing, trying to suppress any and all information release.
That is an attempt to sweep the whole thing under the rug, and deserves only information release and the Streisand effect as a response.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't matter how fast or how slow I go. I still can't see into the forest using my headlights. I'd need some kind of spot on a swivel to accomplish that, and those are illegal to use while driving here.
And I've used HUD's. I know exactly how they work, and what they look like. But the problem remains, the HUD should not be a color which is efficient at destroying night vision *and* which is the same color as weak but important cues from the real world. Looking through something which destroys night vision could be "ok" when driving in a well lit city environment, but it's disaster in a forest near the polar circle. When you don't see another light for hours of driving, why impair night vision as a matter of course?
Not far enough to the sides to help me spot animals at the edge of the forest by the road. And there's a lot of unlit roads through forest around here. And my car is built for these kinds of roads (a SAAB 9-5), nothing wrong with its headlights, it just passed annual inspection of them with a blank sheet.
Usually I spot animals by light reflected in their eyes. A glint of blue-white light in the forest, followed by a madly dashing animal trying to cross the road - by which time it is too late to brake. I need to do that when I see the glint. And there is no way I'll see a blue-white glint if I have a blue HUD sparkling on the screen.
Facts are useless if you don't comprehend their relevance. While you drive down the road, it's normal for your night vision to be impaired anyway due to reflections, oncoming traffic, stationary light sources...
Quite so. But that is not a reason to further impair night vision. When I drive along roads with no stationary lights and little traffic, I rely on my night vision to spot animals and people at the side of the road. It doesn't matter how good my headlights are (as long as they are legal), they will not help me do that.
Try a flight simulator sometime, like Falcon BMS. The HUD in the fighter aircraft will be consistent, with everything always in the same place - except for state changes by the pilot, such as providing landing cues when the pilot has turned them on, and aiming system adapting to selected weapons (without changing location).
Heck, even the warnings in the HUD have specific locations, not interfering with either the view or the rest of the HUD. And this is for trained fighter pilots, selected for high ability to handle high cognitive load.
This is exactly like the parent wants things to be to reduce cognitive load, and exactly how a car HUD should function.
There is debate with chemical fact? Rhodopsin is bleached when it absorbs light, and it absorbs maximally in the blue-green region of light and minimally in the red region. That is not up for debate; it is simple and pure chemistry.
Yeah, the US doesn't believe in political prisoners. It prefers direct action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?titl...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Those are the ones that stand out, and it seems they're done a lot more discreetly these days.
Your G27 does not have bearings and gears as good as the new ones. That is the main difference. If you don't want that, then don't buy it!
It has improved bearings and gears, steel shift paddles and a leather covered wheel. All those are things I want in a steering wheel. I do not want a six speed shifter, so removing that makes the wheel a lot more interesting than the G27.
The controls on the wheel are for selecting things in driving games, not for use as a controller for games where the wheel is not used.
It's a steering wheel with force feedback. You will need to bolt it down. It won't stay in place, or be precise enough to actually use, otherwise.
Ah yes, just because I recognize a detail means I am a "SJW". And instead of trying to see if there is any merit to a chain of arguments, it's a lot easier to just latch on to a single observation, slap a label on someone because of it and declare everything discussed without value.
A shame you refuse to learn anything new, but instead cling to dogma for dear life. This could have turned into a very good discussion if you weren't that kind of person.
You're stuck in the "force people to do things or nothing happens" mind set, which has been shown over and over to be not only false, but counterproductive. That's why you sit in "either capitalism forces people to do things or the five year plan does", and you are unable to think outside the box.
With a living wage system in place, the whip of people not getting food on the table unless they accept whatever job is available vanishes. But that is ALL that vanishes. No other aspect of competition vanishes. People who want to have luxury goods will still work, and build things they compete to sell. People who enjoy being enterpreneurs will still be starting up companies and try to find the smartest, best people to work in them. And they will find it EASIER to do so, since more smart people are freed up from flipping burgers to make ends meet.
People will still do what others value so that they can have the things they value. They just won't get stuck on the lowest rung for life. And if you don't care about that, then you're a white male.
Wat.
Really, wat.
A living wage FREES UP people to work on WHAT THEY WANT. The exact opposite of your only way of thinking outside of raw capitalism. No central committee. No five year plan. Just people, working with what they like at the pace they like. You know, like those who invented modern science and made huge advances used to do, when they were not contrained by the need to sell their time for peanuts.
Seriously, at least learn the first thing about your opponents arguments before you barge off into la-la land.
Correct, I can't understand it as that, because that is not what it means. A vast majority of both goods and services provided are not needed but merely *wanted*. Your failure to understand the difference is key here.
And yes, implementing a living wage will reduce some availability of luxury goods. In exchange it will increase the availability of investment capital and improve scientific advance rates, especially over the long term, immensely.
If your reasoning is correct, then everyone working in restaurants, stores and other service oriented jobs are providing zero to what "we have", as they do not make anything.
Having a job and making something is not equivalent. The majority of jobs in the US are in the service industry, and are non-productive in the sense of creating part of "all we have". No games with money can change that, as you correctly point out.
Therefore, the change in providing a living wage will be minimal. Those who are motivated and burn to make things will still be making things, and in fact, many who today have a job adding nothing to what "we make" will change that situation and *get* a job making things, improving the economy.
Keeping people trapped in low skill, non-production jobs just to punish them for not getting out of the trap cannot survive much longer.
Special chips for offloading the CPU are standard today. Your PC has a sound chip, a GPU and various other chips (or even whole cards) which offload the CPU. It scales just fine. That was in no way the downfall of the Amiga. Commodore being inept was.
So where do I insist on anyone using any particular tool?
You have a maturity problem because it's not enough to dislike something; you have to justify it by calling it obsolete, and insulting people who disagree with your attempt at justifying your opinion.
Maybe when you get to be half my age you'll know better. But I'm not holding my breath, youngster. Now git off my lawn!
I am quite curious how it's dogmatic to simply use the best tool for the job, without trying to make the claim that one or the other is "obsolete".
You've got a serious maturity problem, kiddo.
The editor you use is just as obsolete as vi. This is what you fail to comprehend and acknowledge. You make this into some form of "newer exists so the older is inherently inferior", and this is precisely wrong. Just because something does not fit in your brain does not mean it is obsolete. If anything, it is likely to mean *you* are obsolete.
I refuse to believe you use whatever serves your current purpose best because you present a dogmatic attitude. That means you will choose based on incorrect criteria. That you do not even realize this makes your position worse.
Where have I "insisted" there's "One True Editor"? Your arguments against vi grow out of some kind of small minded misunderstanding you acquired back when I was selling my first software commercially (if, indeed, you used it during the 1970's), and that is what I reacted against. Nothing else.
Maybe by the time you act your age you'll realize how absurdly you're acting, spitting venom on an editor you last used as intended decades ago (if ever) on a /. thread where using IDE's and editors as intended is discussed. But I won't be holding my breath. Keep pushing your opinion on what is the best editor for occasional one line edits on a thread discussing heavy duty programming as if it's relevant, no skin off my back.
That is the whole point of git, that you're able to work that way. It's not like a centralized version control system. Using git you do indeed get multi-file undo, and the ability to keep your own version history on exactly what you did when, to a level which no IDE can match with its own built-in tools. All without affecting the branch you're developing against until you're ready to commit.
And when you work that way, you're not tied to any IDE or editor, and you can do all manner of interesting statistics and analysis on your change history. Heck, you can even work fully without an editor or IDE and just integrate code using git.
The "average user" does not use an IDE, does not do programming and will use neither nano nor vim, and thus has no relevance to this /. posting. The average *developer* is quite likely to find the need to perform changes or updates on embedded systems or over dicey connections, and therefore has quite valid reasons to use vi which has nothing to do with your dislike of anything well tested.
"The rest of the world" tends to use vi and emacs. You're the one stuck in some form of rut, and posting to get that rut validated. Get with the times, vi today is not what you remember from back when you (possibly) had a valid opinion on the subject.
So the proper way is for the IDE to intentionally break the code?
I can't even begin to fathom such an approach. Worst of all, it's probably considered proper by a huge chunk of the people working with C++. Small wonder software projects are perpetually late, over budget and bug ridden.
Are you trying to make the case that embedded systems requiring text file reconfiguration and low bandwidth connectivity to such systems is something *rare*?
Indeed you are.
Remind me never to pay attention to your quite uninformed opinion.
Oh, and anything on a command line is "obscure" and "unintuitive" until learned. I don't find vi to be either. That you do speaks more of you than of vi.
Must be nice to only work with systems having plenty of resources and huge default installs. and always over high bandwidth low latency connections. Not all of us have that luxury, and the one editor you can always count on exists on a limited system, and the best editor for use over high latency connections, is vi.
If you know it well, that is. Otherwise you simply can't work efficiently under those conditions. Which you evidently never have to do.
If they needed more than 30 days, they could have said so quite amicably without lawyers (or with them, but in a friendly request manner) within a week, and asked the researcher to withhold release until they were ready. Instead they barge in, lawyers blazing, trying to suppress any and all information release.
That is an attempt to sweep the whole thing under the rug, and deserves only information release and the Streisand effect as a response.