Tools are simpler and easier to use than ever, and this guy is mistaking nostalgia and innocence for actual difference.
When websites like TopCoder are offering $100-200 bounties for something as simple as changing how a table is sorted it really shows how it's become easier than ever. It's just layer after layer of needlessly complex code and we don't realize how inefficient, poorly designed/coded, and horrible it really is because the speed of the hardware masks it.
Working with a framework and some spreadsheet code things just didn't "feel" right to me, felt sluggish. No one else noticed it, they said it was fine, I was imagining things. It took me almost a full day of digging to discover that a single 37 character line of code was slowing everything down - no one bothered to do any efficiency testing on it because it was a "low level function". Changing it sped up the application a thousand fold. Had the code been well designed and not set on mounds of anonymous functions, hacks, and bad practices it probably would have taken about 20 minutes to locate and fix.
Just because something can accomplish the tasks you need it to simply/easily doesn't mean it's well designed, simple, or easy from a coding perspective.
I have no issue thank you, I refuse to support games with that type of business model.
The app makers are preying on children who haven't developed an understanding of money/self-control and those with addiction/impulse issues - how is that not their fault?
The only in app purchasing I can't decide is legit or not is Collectible Card games... Buying pre-defined sets of cards is fine, no different than DLC, though it severely limits the fun. Are the randomized packs akin to gambling or a necessary evil of the genre? If there was no randomness then buying individual cards/decks just becomes an "outspend" the other guy and developers could just keep upping the ante slightly so new cards are always a little better than the old ones.
The pleasure seeking isn't the problem, it's the money->chance->loop. When you buy a game outright/DLC/etc it's a fixed cost no matter what actual mechanics are in the game. The moment you buy tokens (or gems or whatever name they want to put on it) and you're feeding it into something that has any sort of random generator it creates an entirely different dynamic. Companies would have a vested interest in tweaking the "randomness" of an item/game mechanic/etc.
Same issue arises with non-random items. Take a game that sells health packs - the developers could tweak damage output without the user knowing to encourage more purchases.
In app purchases should be banned. They're horrible for the industry, in some cases they're no better than gambling (ie: buy tokens to feed into this jackpot like system to win a random digital item!). At the very least they should have a maximum any one user can spend before everything becomes free.
I forget the name but there's some theory that suggests that when you reach 80%(?) of the maximum salary for a specific position that you should start looking to move to the next rung up the ladder (salary wise, not necessarily in the same company/industry). It gives you some time to find the job since you're not maxed out and it keeps you in a good bargaining position. You may need to take a short term pay cut when you switch, just so long as the potential is far greater than your current position.
Every time I read these types of studies I am baffled. I could sit in an empty room for days without issue. Just cause you're alone doesn't mean you're without stimuli - I actually enjoy sitting pondering problems and get annoyed when someone comes and distracts me from it.
AdBlock can't block inline scripts, combine that with simple obfuscation and there'd be no way to tell the ads from the images until they're already on your system. That's no different than now with cache but there are a couple things that can happen with local store that can't happen with cache. 1) Typing is meaningless - you can store the data as one type and read it out as another. 2) Just because you download it from X url doesn't mean you have to store it with the same name or even in a single piece. You'd have to be able to correlate the ID system specific to a given site or the piece(s) to the URL which maybe possible for a human to do but not via automation making AdBlock more time consuming and less valuable.
Also, I visit 1,000 websites in a week, if each one of them uses localStorage to the maximum that's 5gb - but when I visit a site that's not just one domain I'm hitting on Slashdot right now, even with AdBlock, I'm hitting 10 domains. There's my 50gb in 1 week... sure not every site will use localStorage, not every site will use it to the max but it can burn through memory like crazy. Cache is a set and forget, I really don't want to manage that crap for local store
Based on the URL - now such ads could be loaded into a variable and committed via the localStorage object. Once on your system they could be loaded without a URL.
I don't think it is open and shut... perhaps for illegal search but they detained him legally, I believe, and released him without charge. The question is whether they had grounds to detain him. He can claim parody but there's not much indication of that. He used actual pictures of the man, made slanderous statements, and may have made claims to be the real mayor (not sure on this as I've not read the tweets). Very little of it seems parody-like from what I've read. I'll bet there will be a counter suit for slander if the statute of limitations hasn't run out.
That's only if you subscribe to Kastings theory. I personally do not as we already have the solution to that problem - it's causing problems for us right now;) Besides, with the level of technology we have, assuming we can survive as a species, I'm sure we'll be able to compensate for a fairly minor issue as CO2 compensation limit. That means that we have anywhere from 1.7 to 3.2 billion years to figure out how to alter the orbit of earth safely to keep it in the habitable zone as long as possible - or move on to other solar systems.
The paradox has to care if the signals are long gone (not the species). I estimated 132 at any given point in time, assuming a 100% survival rate, though that was based on fairly simple math and would likely be reduced if done properly. My argument was not that they wouldn't spread, it's that it wouldn't matter if they spread because the original RF signals going out from their homeworld would reach us before any ships ever could - unless they somehow licked FLT before RF.
So what if they had a common ancestor? Euarchontoglires is a common ancestor between humans and rats. A species is a species - we know how to differentiate between Homo Sapien DNA and Neanderthal DNA because they are different species. That said, lets use your argument that Genus is what's important - that still leaves Pan or even all Hominidae.
Can you definitively say that the genes responsible for intelligence come from the Homo Sapien line or do they come from the 30% of Homo neanderthalensis? (they did have a larger cranial capacity) Maybe they were the smart ones and we were simply more aggressive/faster breeding/hardier species. Maybe the "genius" gene comes from a tiny bit of Denisova hominin DNA and the reason there aren't more Einsteins is because it's a rarer recessive gene... or it could be none of that. It's not unreasonable to posit that, if left isolated, several of the Homo line could have developed similar intelligence. The point isn't that they did or did not, it's that the possibility exists, given thousands/million years of evolution, for other species to develop similar intelligence - especially in the primate line.
My immediate thought was that it's vulnerable to malware once it's local. While website breaches are an issue, they're generally single point fixes by professional staff (hopefully) who can deal with it. My second thought was great, how much of my storage is going to be taken up by ads? Third thought was I want pie. Fourth was that given a 50mb storage capacity per site would mean I'd need 50gb just for the websites I've visited in the past 7 days.
That's not what I'm saying at all that was just an example of now. If a civilization rose a billion years ago on one of those planets and they put out signals we can observe today for a million years they'd be long gone as signals traveling at the speed of light from the very edge of our galaxy would reach the other side in 100,000 years.
I posit that N != N. We don't know what N is but we can safely say that N = N without knowing what it is. That's a severe over simplification of it but I hope you get my point, that by analyzing the bounds of what might be possible one could narrow the range of possible values. Pi as an example, we don't know what it is exactly but if someone narrowed it to between 3.14 and 3.15 that'd be good enough to work with depending on the application. This particular application doesn't need to be 100% accurate - just like all population models we currently use.
Since N ~= L in this case the bounds of L are important. Fermi's argument can pose a reasonable upper limit of 1,000,000 million. The lower bound could be argued to be proportional to our ability to scan the entire sky for these signals. SETI in 36 years has scanned 0.006% of the radio frequency in 2% of the sky - that's a LONG time before we can scan the sky just for radio frequencies and doesn't include signals that might be obscured/blocked by their position in relation to us in the milky way. One could argue, barring some major change in our ability to scan, that the lower bound of L might be as high or higher than 5,000 (arbitrary number but it should be possible to figure out) as anything lower we'd have a near zero chance of detecting anyway.
In the end it might be something completely different, but until the knowledge exists supposition to narrow those bounds as much as possible is all one can do. We've narrowed it from 0 to infinity to 5,000 to 1,000,000 in this conversation... imagine what proper scientists/mathematicians can do?
Slashdot Mirror
No, it isn't.
Tools are simpler and easier to use than ever, and this guy is mistaking nostalgia and innocence for actual difference.
When websites like TopCoder are offering $100-200 bounties for something as simple as changing how a table is sorted it really shows how it's become easier than ever. It's just layer after layer of needlessly complex code and we don't realize how inefficient, poorly designed/coded, and horrible it really is because the speed of the hardware masks it.
Working with a framework and some spreadsheet code things just didn't "feel" right to me, felt sluggish. No one else noticed it, they said it was fine, I was imagining things. It took me almost a full day of digging to discover that a single 37 character line of code was slowing everything down - no one bothered to do any efficiency testing on it because it was a "low level function". Changing it sped up the application a thousand fold. Had the code been well designed and not set on mounds of anonymous functions, hacks, and bad practices it probably would have taken about 20 minutes to locate and fix.
Just because something can accomplish the tasks you need it to simply/easily doesn't mean it's well designed, simple, or easy from a coding perspective.
I have no issue thank you, I refuse to support games with that type of business model.
The app makers are preying on children who haven't developed an understanding of money/self-control and those with addiction/impulse issues - how is that not their fault?
The only in app purchasing I can't decide is legit or not is Collectible Card games... Buying pre-defined sets of cards is fine, no different than DLC, though it severely limits the fun. Are the randomized packs akin to gambling or a necessary evil of the genre? If there was no randomness then buying individual cards/decks just becomes an "outspend" the other guy and developers could just keep upping the ante slightly so new cards are always a little better than the old ones.
Not sure...
The pleasure seeking isn't the problem, it's the money->chance->loop. When you buy a game outright/DLC/etc it's a fixed cost no matter what actual mechanics are in the game. The moment you buy tokens (or gems or whatever name they want to put on it) and you're feeding it into something that has any sort of random generator it creates an entirely different dynamic. Companies would have a vested interest in tweaking the "randomness" of an item/game mechanic/etc.
Same issue arises with non-random items. Take a game that sells health packs - the developers could tweak damage output without the user knowing to encourage more purchases.
In app purchases should be banned. They're horrible for the industry, in some cases they're no better than gambling (ie: buy tokens to feed into this jackpot like system to win a random digital item!). At the very least they should have a maximum any one user can spend before everything becomes free.
lol - there's a job you'd want to jump away from.
I forget the name but there's some theory that suggests that when you reach 80%(?) of the maximum salary for a specific position that you should start looking to move to the next rung up the ladder (salary wise, not necessarily in the same company/industry). It gives you some time to find the job since you're not maxed out and it keeps you in a good bargaining position. You may need to take a short term pay cut when you switch, just so long as the potential is far greater than your current position.
Every time I read these types of studies I am baffled. I could sit in an empty room for days without issue. Just cause you're alone doesn't mean you're without stimuli - I actually enjoy sitting pondering problems and get annoyed when someone comes and distracts me from it.
You described exactly what college in Canada is (vs universities)... and in effect it's getting the employees to pay for their own training.
I've been through both, neither have done anything for me in the job market.
They do use it for anti-adblock scripts
AdBlock can't block inline scripts, combine that with simple obfuscation and there'd be no way to tell the ads from the images until they're already on your system. That's no different than now with cache but there are a couple things that can happen with local store that can't happen with cache. 1) Typing is meaningless - you can store the data as one type and read it out as another. 2) Just because you download it from X url doesn't mean you have to store it with the same name or even in a single piece. You'd have to be able to correlate the ID system specific to a given site or the piece(s) to the URL which maybe possible for a human to do but not via automation making AdBlock more time consuming and less valuable.
Also, I visit 1,000 websites in a week, if each one of them uses localStorage to the maximum that's 5gb - but when I visit a site that's not just one domain I'm hitting on Slashdot right now, even with AdBlock, I'm hitting 10 domains. There's my 50gb in 1 week... sure not every site will use localStorage, not every site will use it to the max but it can burn through memory like crazy. Cache is a set and forget, I really don't want to manage that crap for local store
Based on the URL - now such ads could be loaded into a variable and committed via the localStorage object. Once on your system they could be loaded without a URL.
I don't think it is open and shut... perhaps for illegal search but they detained him legally, I believe, and released him without charge. The question is whether they had grounds to detain him. He can claim parody but there's not much indication of that. He used actual pictures of the man, made slanderous statements, and may have made claims to be the real mayor (not sure on this as I've not read the tweets). Very little of it seems parody-like from what I've read. I'll bet there will be a counter suit for slander if the statute of limitations hasn't run out.
Didn't you know? It's FREE*
*With purchase of power, results may vary. By reading this you agree to give up all your legal rights.
1) No Java on my system, though I do use flash but only with flashblock ;)
2) Zero - adblock takes care of that
3) I was thinking lemon meringue
That's only if you subscribe to Kastings theory. I personally do not as we already have the solution to that problem - it's causing problems for us right now ;) Besides, with the level of technology we have, assuming we can survive as a species, I'm sure we'll be able to compensate for a fairly minor issue as CO2 compensation limit. That means that we have anywhere from 1.7 to 3.2 billion years to figure out how to alter the orbit of earth safely to keep it in the habitable zone as long as possible - or move on to other solar systems.
The paradox has to care if the signals are long gone (not the species). I estimated 132 at any given point in time, assuming a 100% survival rate, though that was based on fairly simple math and would likely be reduced if done properly. My argument was not that they wouldn't spread, it's that it wouldn't matter if they spread because the original RF signals going out from their homeworld would reach us before any ships ever could - unless they somehow licked FLT before RF.
So what if they had a common ancestor? Euarchontoglires is a common ancestor between humans and rats. A species is a species - we know how to differentiate between Homo Sapien DNA and Neanderthal DNA because they are different species. That said, lets use your argument that Genus is what's important - that still leaves Pan or even all Hominidae.
Can you definitively say that the genes responsible for intelligence come from the Homo Sapien line or do they come from the 30% of Homo neanderthalensis? (they did have a larger cranial capacity) Maybe they were the smart ones and we were simply more aggressive/faster breeding/hardier species. Maybe the "genius" gene comes from a tiny bit of Denisova hominin DNA and the reason there aren't more Einsteins is because it's a rarer recessive gene... or it could be none of that. It's not unreasonable to posit that, if left isolated, several of the Homo line could have developed similar intelligence. The point isn't that they did or did not, it's that the possibility exists, given thousands/million years of evolution, for other species to develop similar intelligence - especially in the primate line.
My immediate thought was that it's vulnerable to malware once it's local. While website breaches are an issue, they're generally single point fixes by professional staff (hopefully) who can deal with it. My second thought was great, how much of my storage is going to be taken up by ads? Third thought was I want pie. Fourth was that given a 50mb storage capacity per site would mean I'd need 50gb just for the websites I've visited in the past 7 days.
That's not what I'm saying at all that was just an example of now. If a civilization rose a billion years ago on one of those planets and they put out signals we can observe today for a million years they'd be long gone as signals traveling at the speed of light from the very edge of our galaxy would reach the other side in 100,000 years.
*correction, 1million or 1,000,000... brainfart ;)
I posit that N != N. We don't know what N is but we can safely say that N = N without knowing what it is. That's a severe over simplification of it but I hope you get my point, that by analyzing the bounds of what might be possible one could narrow the range of possible values. Pi as an example, we don't know what it is exactly but if someone narrowed it to between 3.14 and 3.15 that'd be good enough to work with depending on the application. This particular application doesn't need to be 100% accurate - just like all population models we currently use.
Since N ~= L in this case the bounds of L are important. Fermi's argument can pose a reasonable upper limit of 1,000,000 million. The lower bound could be argued to be proportional to our ability to scan the entire sky for these signals. SETI in 36 years has scanned 0.006% of the radio frequency in 2% of the sky - that's a LONG time before we can scan the sky just for radio frequencies and doesn't include signals that might be obscured/blocked by their position in relation to us in the milky way. One could argue, barring some major change in our ability to scan, that the lower bound of L might be as high or higher than 5,000 (arbitrary number but it should be possible to figure out) as anything lower we'd have a near zero chance of detecting anyway.
In the end it might be something completely different, but until the knowledge exists supposition to narrow those bounds as much as possible is all one can do. We've narrowed it from 0 to infinity to 5,000 to 1,000,000 in this conversation... imagine what proper scientists/mathematicians can do?
I was thinking the other way round, that said sandboxes are defeated all the time.
killer whales and dolphins are porpoises you mean? They both belong to the Delphinidae family but are different genus and species.