Thoughts on the movie...
on
Resident Evil
·
· Score: 2, Informative
After seeing this piece of trash, someone pointed me to a review of the movie by Roger Ebert. Here's the link, and below is the first paragraph of the review. It's pretty funny, and it sums up the movie very well:
"Resident Evil" is a zombie movie set in the 21st century and therefore reflects several advances over 20th century films. For example, in 20th century slasher movies, knife blades make a sharpening noise when being whisked through thin air. In the 21st century, large metallic objects make crashing noises just by being looked at.
The guy didn't continue to compare the tech-journalism whores to the rest of the journalism whores. For some reason, he seems to think that most other journalists out there are honest and ethical. What a steaming pile of crap that is. How many anti-disney stories run on the ABCnews wires? How often does your local newspaper criticizes its parent or affiliate companies? Even if a jouranlist finds a problem with a parent company or major advertiser, there's no way in hell they'd be allowed to report it. The only reason non-tech-jouranlists get any bonus points is because they're in a field where they can cover things that don't upset their companies and advertisers. It's ridiculously easy to cover a war without stepping on any toes, so what? Tech-journalists are simply in a field where the scope of their coverage is equivalent to the scope of their advertising and holding influences. I still think everyone at CNN and NBC/ABC/CBS/any other company you care to name in 'journalism' are just as much whores as the dumbasses as PC Magazine.
The simple fact is that journalism controlled by large companies has long since ceased to be objective or worthwhile in any sense. Just because Microsoft and NBC can afford the extra dollars to make their brainwashing and subliminal logo/advertisement branding much more subtle doesn't mean they're better. Just because they get to cover things which won't affect them one way or the other doesn't make them better. The fact of the matter is that when some fresh kid who finds out about the latest impropriety by a sponsor hands a story to their editor, their editor will give them a one-finger salute and files the report right into the incinerator, with an added note that if said fresh kid ever tries to pull any more shit like that he'll be back to copy-editing and filing.
Large companies are just like large governments, they lie, they cheat, they steal, and they cover up. And they feed off the disinterest and lack of enlightenment of the public like a leech who has attached itself to your neck. Just as when you are looking to buy something used, you don't simply blindly trust the seller anymore, you should not trust the large companies out there who want to spoon-feed you the news. You're only going to hear what they want you to hear, and see what they want you to see. And everything you read, or wear, or see on tv is a product begging for your.. dollar.
The solution? Somewhat of it is to read independant press, if you can stand the preachiness and one-sidedness of that, they at least don't have the professional training to skew facts. Beyond that, if you're really interested in something, do your own research. In the world of today all you can trust for sure are your own senses. Believe what you see, what you hear, what you feel, not what someone else shows you and plays for you and tells you to feel.
Am I paranoid? A little too untrusting? Maybe, but then, I'd rather be a little untrusting than too trusting and get fucked in the end.
On modern (4.3+) FreeBSD systems, the tuning(7) manpage is chock-full of fascinating information about system tuning. This brief article seems to have gleamed the most important bits out of it and presented them in an executive summary form, however, if you are a real performance-squeaker, I recommend going through all of tuning(7).
In general, section 7 of the manpages is full of interesting reads. You can get a list of available section 7 pages with:
$ apropos 7 | egrep -v '^.+\([12345689]\)'
I have several I've self-designed for zsh, they require using the 'prompt' system in 3.1.9/4.0.*:
here's what they look like (color not shown, screenshot links available later):
Here's a screenshot to see the four I made for zsh (there are others). Here's a link to my conf files in a.tgz (feel free to look through all of these files). The most important thing to note is the creation of ~/.zsh and the copying of the 'prompt_*_setup' files into that directory, and then the setting of fpath in,zshrc.
For awesome custom prompting, I *really* recommend zsh, you can have a lot of fun with a minimal amount of effort. Whipping up those prompts only took me a couple of hours all told. They're also color customizable (see 'prompt -h' for help).
If you want to try the existing zsh prompts on for size:
% autoload prompt
% prompt -h
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
Au contrair! The user chooses to use a product which modifies your page. The user chooses to leave the re-write setting on.
Let's say I make a website, one part of it is full of obscenity and nasty things which filter software (netnanny and what have you) blocks. The other part is full of good christian decency and all that stuff. I have copyrighted the website as a whole, but netnanny (or whatever) only displays the second (decent) half. Can I sue the makers of netnanny (...) for violating my copyrigh? Absolutely not. If you could, someone would have tried this already.
Let's say you buy a shitty, american-made (*wink*) television and your picture comes in fuzzy all the time. Can the broadcasters sue the TV manufacturer for affecting their content at the end-user point (by makiong a shitty product)? No. It's my your own damn fault for buying a shitty TV.
And if your content is rewritten by your shitty browser, it's also your own damn fault for using the shitty browser and not turning off the features. We still have a modicum of personal responsibility, at least in the western world, and even in the US. Let's *PLEASE* try and keep it that way. -wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
Of course, IANAL, but I do watch LOTS of Law & Order. Notwithstanding:
Copyright and IP may not apply here, simply because it's an end-user modification. For example, while stations are required to rebroadcast NFL games unmodified, there is nothing which says the person receiving the broadcast cannot tailor it to suit his needs (let's say, a few years ago, you wrote some code to make that cool yellow line on the first down marker and watched games through your computer). This basically qualifies as an end-user modification, and an optional one at that. There would, similarly, be no copyright/IP issues if I tucked some code into Mozilla to statically change any unlinked reference to MSDN to a link to goatse.
This qualifies as end-user modification. It's like ripping the pages out of books. As long as you do not try to redistribute your changed version to the world at large, you're in the clear. -wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
I've noticed a recent trend towards trashing FreeBSD's SMP because of "the giant spinlock." What people don't realize is that one large spinlock can be a viable method of locking for the purposes of threading (that is, multiprocessing). It would seem that someone who has a moderate clue about threading and writing SMP-capable operating systems has commented on this, and feels it's bogus, and one or more of the general breed of "BSD is ubersux" trolls has gotten a hold of this and thinks it's the ultimate death knell for FreeBSD/smp. Obviously, you don't really know much about locking at all. It should at least be pointed out that no matter how many locks you have, it is more important to keep the system OUT of a locked state as much as possible, and FreeBSD does this well enough. It's not as if the system is constantly locked and able to use only one CPU. Most processing occurs in userland, far away from kernel locks, so it doesn't tend to matter all that much.
Now, granted, using one spinlock isn't necessarily the best way to do things, at least not in an OS. However, it's not the worst either. Combined with the fact that it allowed fairly rapid updating and deployment of FreeBSD/SMP, I think the choice to use that 'giant spinlock' was valid. It allowed SMP code that by all accounts worked better at least than the 2.0 Linux kernel's (if not 2.2 as well) to be deployed until a better solution could be created. A better solution will be deployed in FreeBSD 5.0 with the introduction of SMPng. I do not doubt that the 2.4 Linux kernel does a better job at SMP than FreeBSD (release/stable) does, but I think it's worth noting that Linux's SMP has been now five or six years in the making to get to this point, and that the Linux and FreeBSD development and advancement models are significantly different. Where Linux takes gradual steps, FreeBSD (and BSDs in general) tend to take large leaps. That's just a difference in implementation timing.
Furthermore, it's perfectly reasonable to expect two open-source systems to leapfrog each other in terms of capability as ideas and code move from one to the other, and it's really not something to gloat over. What one does better today, the other will do better tomorrow. It doesn't really matter.
To those of you babbling on and on about 'the giant spinlock', you might want to go do some research into the theory, and practice, of implementing locks in threaded systems. Until then, shut up, please. -wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
I think the two (RPG) games I've found with the best replay value are Chrono Trigger (SNES, find a ROM, it's all over I'm sure) and Chrono Cross (PSX).
Chrono Trigger was probably, barring Final Fantasy 4 (2 in the US) the best RPG for the SNES, hell, it might even be better. Wicked plot, great character development, and all-around FUN gameplay. The premise is basically that you need to travel through time in order to stop an immense destructive force that will (in the future) completely obliterate life as we know it on the planet. The time-travel is well done (unlike in Zelda: Ocarina), in that things you do in the past tend to have a reasonable impact on the future. For instance, if you get a treasure in 600 A.D. you cannot get it in 1000 A.D. even if it would be available, however you can get it in 1000 A.D. *and* 600 A.D. To top it off, the game has over 20 endings to find. Once you beat it normally (which can be done in one of a few ways), you get to play in what is called a 'New Game+'. This is exactly like starting a new game, except you keep all of your items and equipment (except for key items needed to move the plot along), and you keep all your stats at the end of the last game. Plus, you get to fight the final boss effectively whenever you want, and by doing so at different points during the story, you get new endings (whcih reflect the situation of the story at the time). It's a LOT of fun to tear through the beginning of the game with high-level guys too.
Chrono Cross is a lot like Chrono Trigger, except you move around between dimensions instead of between time. It has a 'New Game+' and multiple endings as well. Not only that, it features 44 characters, lots of side-quests, and a branching storyline. You need to play through the game at least three times to get all the characters, and to go through the different branches.
If you haven't played the Chrono series, and you're looking for good replay, give them a go. I *STRONGLY* recommend playing Chrono Trigger first, since Chrono Cross has lots of references to it, and is much more enjoyable for having played CT. -wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
I have a certain kind of albinism which not only affects my skin pigment, but also my eyes. On a very good day I can achieve maybe 20/150 vision, and it is much more blurry than normal 20/20 and normal eyes as well. As cases go I am in the 99th percentile of *GOOD* vision for people with albinism. I had a friend who was 20/2000 (2000, yes). This is incredibly exciting for me.
My vision is not correctable with glasses, as the problem exists primarily in my retina (lacking rods/cones). Short of something like this I have no way to significantly improve my vision. No laser surgery does this, in fact there is really nothing on the market to do this. Personally, I would be willing to be a test subject or pay $20,000 for this treatment.
If you have correctable vision (say you can get to about 20/40 or so somehow) I envy you. I can't drive, I have to take a magnifier with me anywhere I go, and it is very difficult for me to get around. The consequences of being unable to drive are manifold, most people can hardly comprehend it. I can't live in places without above average to excellent public transpotation. This means only major cities, and only major cities with good transit. For reference, in the US, there are perhaps 5 major cities with really manageable public transport (for me). Of these, I would need to live typically in or within walking distance of the downtown area. It's basically like being told you can only ever live in a select few places.
If you're curious about the '20/x' scale, here's a brief description. The first number (typically 20) is the average distance (in any unit you like) that an individual can see an object with clairty. The x is the distance at which, if I could see the object at '20' a person with normal vision could get the same image. So if I have, say, 20/150 then what I see at 20 feet, you could see at 150 feet. That is a factor of 7.5x. The thought of having 20/20 or better vision is like a distant dream for me, and the faster this comes around the happier I will be.
Needless to say, I do not play golf.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
DISCLAIMER: I am not a Creationist (let alone a Christian).
The human genome proves nothing. The basics of Creationism state that some omnipotent being (God) created the universe. If this Being did this, then there is no reason he couldn't have setup our genetics in such a way as to supposedly lend credit to such an argument. Proof schmoof.
What nobody refuses to explore is how humans evolved so rapidly in comparison with all other species. It would be interested for someone to take the genome project, map out the genome of our closest 'ancestor' in the animal kingdom, and see what is different and why. I would be fascinated to find out the answers behind this, and I would be interested to hear an account of what caused the rapid evolution of humans. Trying to use science to disprove the unprovable is absolutely ridiculous, however, and people need to stop wasting their time. -wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
While reading the initial portion of this, it occured to me that love online is a lot like love in real life. It has its pitfalls, its triumphs and tragedies. The more said about the foibles of online love the more I thought about regular, every day, "real life" love. The more the internet merges with our lives like telephones and televisions, the more common it will be to find a partner online.
The circumstances may have changed, instead of selecting partners in many cases based on physical appearance, partners in many cases are being selected on the basis of intelligence. While physical appearance and age still play a part in online relationships, they are less significant. It may in fact be just one more domino falling as our evolution continues to shift focus from physical to mental prowess. Perhaps in one hundred years, the vast majority of relationships will be formed online, and only those who are matched on an intellectual level with their partner (not being equally intelligent, necessarily, but being mentally compatible in a strong way) will end up in relationships. Compare this to even one hundred years ago when dowrys and betrothal were still commonplace.
All said and done, it should be interesting to watch the continual progression of mankind into a world where information is more precious than gold, and life revolves around it. Romance is just one more channel in which this is happening now. -wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
Okay, what exactly is a PDA or a computer? It is a storer of information. What is a booklet, a notebook, or a filing cabinet? The same thing, but less efficient. Quite simply saying that "young people are becoming stupid because of computers" is like saying that anyone who takes notes on a pad of paper and then looks at those notes later is also "stupid." These people aren't stupid, they're at least smart enough to know when they need something to help store their information.
Doubly funny is that a doctor would say this. Doctors typically have nurses and staff secretaries to help keep track of the things that they quite simply forget. How a secretary or a nurse cleaning up after you is better than you taking notes in a notebook (or PDA) is beyond me. This is just somebody who has some sour grapes in regards to PDAs blowing off steam. -wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
After browsing the comments here, I think one of the things this post has done is strongly magnify the (lack of) attention span of the average/.er. Given that the average/. reader tends to be at the more enlightened (or at least aware) end of the spectra of average people, this is very disturbing. People are asking "so what?" and "who cares?" without thinking about what this means, or why they should care.
I think the most significant part of the posted sentence was the part about destroying the space program. Challenger *did* set the US space program back incredibly. So what? Given the large number of posts on/. about space, space exploration, terraforming, the ISS, Mir, etc that question should answer itself. Where would we be today had Challenger not exploded in front of hundreds of thousands (or millions) of people live on TV? Perhaps the ISS would be done. Perhaps investors would be more interested in commercial space travel. The possibilities are limitless here. Think about all of that for a few moments.
So who cares? If you don't, you probably should. The vast majority of/. readers will live to see a greater exploration of space, and I'd dare say a lot of us may even get the chance to go into space some time in the future. If this sounds like crazy talk, remember that it took only about 75 years from the invention of the airplane to commercially viable, relatively inexpensive air travel for the masses. After 100 years, air travel has become even more affordable (if not more comfortable). Now, for simplicity we will say space travel began in 1960. It seems reasonable to say that space travel for the masses may be viable as early as 2030 or so. Even if it was not viable until 2060, given the upward trend of life expectancy, you or I have a decent chance of being around to see that. Therefore, understanding the mentality of those who are running the programs putting people in space _NOW_ is very important, because they will undoubtedly influence the future. History is the only tool we have with which to model the future.
The whole point of this post was to elicit discussion, unfortunately the discussion so far has been just depressing. Think about where we are 15 years after the Challenger incident vs. where we might be if it had never happened at least. I personally wasn't old enough to remember the Challenger incident, but it still saddens me. Not only were lives lost when they shouldn't have been, but progress was held back by foolishness yet again. So today, please try and pull yourself from the four hour pregame shows for just a few minutes to really think about the impact Challenger has had and will have on all of us, and spare a thought for those lost, the world will be that much better.
Apologies for the longwindedness. -wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
First off, I'll say I recommend a combination of C, Unix (any flavor will do), any compiler that is ANSI standard, your favorite editor, make, debugging statements and light gdb use. These get me farther than any IDE I've had to work with or tried to work with. Incidentally, every developer I can think of who I admire for producing absolutely brilliant code, especially quickly, tends to use the above. Just a favorite editor, whatever their language choice is, and simple tools. Remember the KISS principle.
#1: Can you really switch your language or OS?
At best I'm dubious as far as your suggestion of switching language or operating system. Unless your project is only at the very first stages, you have almost undoubtedly invested far too much effort to reasonably consider backing out. Why did you choose C++ and GNU/Linux in the first place? Surely more thought went into it than "we like C++" and "Linux is nifty", so go back to those decisions and sift for clues.
#2: Why are you spending so much time in a debugger?
You should be spending more time with your concepts, flow charts, and whatever else you came up with before you laid it all into code. Spend some time pondering what exactly you're trying to do, then go look at your code and make sure it's really doing what you want. A few well-placed debugging output statements (printf/cout/whatever), some good comments, and a clear head will get you much farther than a debugger, even the best. Debuggers absolutely cannot tell you what you're thinking.
#3: Do you really need threads?
Is your application specifically designed to be run on parallel systems? Is it designed to take the majority of a system's resources? Chances are you don't need threads, most programs don't. There are usually better ways to do things than multithreading. Also, writing threaded code is considerably more time-consuming than non-threaded code. Are you writing something so complex you need threads? If you haven't really evaluated this, now is the time. -wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@anduril.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
Slashdot Mirror
After seeing this piece of trash, someone pointed me to a review of the movie by Roger Ebert. Here's the link, and below is the first paragraph of the review. It's pretty funny, and it sums up the movie very well:
...
"Resident Evil" is a zombie movie set in the 21st century and therefore reflects several advances over 20th century films. For example, in 20th century slasher movies, knife blades make a sharpening noise when being whisked through thin air. In the 21st century, large metallic objects make crashing noises just by being looked at.
Fine, he's a cab.
The guy didn't continue to compare the tech-journalism whores to the rest of the journalism whores. For some reason, he seems to think that most other journalists out there are honest and ethical. What a steaming pile of crap that is. How many anti-disney stories run on the ABCnews wires? How often does your local newspaper criticizes its parent or affiliate companies? Even if a jouranlist finds a problem with a parent company or major advertiser, there's no way in hell they'd be allowed to report it. The only reason non-tech-jouranlists get any bonus points is because they're in a field where they can cover things that don't upset their companies and advertisers. It's ridiculously easy to cover a war without stepping on any toes, so what? Tech-journalists are simply in a field where the scope of their coverage is equivalent to the scope of their advertising and holding influences. I still think everyone at CNN and NBC/ABC/CBS/any other company you care to name in 'journalism' are just as much whores as the dumbasses as PC Magazine.
.. dollar.
The simple fact is that journalism controlled by large companies has long since ceased to be objective or worthwhile in any sense. Just because Microsoft and NBC can afford the extra dollars to make their brainwashing and subliminal logo/advertisement branding much more subtle doesn't mean they're better. Just because they get to cover things which won't affect them one way or the other doesn't make them better. The fact of the matter is that when some fresh kid who finds out about the latest impropriety by a sponsor hands a story to their editor, their editor will give them a one-finger salute and files the report right into the incinerator, with an added note that if said fresh kid ever tries to pull any more shit like that he'll be back to copy-editing and filing.
Large companies are just like large governments, they lie, they cheat, they steal, and they cover up. And they feed off the disinterest and lack of enlightenment of the public like a leech who has attached itself to your neck. Just as when you are looking to buy something used, you don't simply blindly trust the seller anymore, you should not trust the large companies out there who want to spoon-feed you the news. You're only going to hear what they want you to hear, and see what they want you to see. And everything you read, or wear, or see on tv is a product begging for your
The solution? Somewhat of it is to read independant press, if you can stand the preachiness and one-sidedness of that, they at least don't have the professional training to skew facts. Beyond that, if you're really interested in something, do your own research. In the world of today all you can trust for sure are your own senses. Believe what you see, what you hear, what you feel, not what someone else shows you and plays for you and tells you to feel.
Am I paranoid? A little too untrusting? Maybe, but then, I'd rather be a little untrusting than too trusting and get fucked in the end.
On modern (4.3+) FreeBSD systems, the tuning(7) manpage is chock-full of fascinating information about system tuning. This brief article seems to have gleamed the most important bits out of it and presented them in an executive summary form, however, if you are a real performance-squeaker, I recommend going through all of tuning(7).
In general, section 7 of the manpages is full of interesting reads. You can get a list of available section 7 pages with:
$ apropos 7 | egrep -v '^.+\([12345689]\)'
Read and enjoy!
Maybe in the next release we can ask them to do: /kreskin/ && message =~ /bsd is dying/) {
if (message =~
drop_message_into_flaming_pit();
}
the world would be a better place.
Which begs the question: How did she dial the phone?
(user@host:ttyxx) (Day/HH:MM) (right-aligned cwd)
%
(user@host:ttyxx) (Day/HH:MM) (right aligned last command)
% (right aligned cwd)
[user@machine/ttyxx(cwd)%]
\user@machine[ttyxx] * cwd\%
Here's a screenshot to see the four I made for zsh (there are others). Here's a link to my conf files in a
For awesome custom prompting, I *really* recommend zsh, you can have a lot of fun with a minimal amount of effort. Whipping up those prompts only took me a couple of hours all told. They're also color customizable (see 'prompt -h' for help).
If you want to try the existing zsh prompts on for size:
% autoload prompt
% prompt -h
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
Au contrair! The user chooses to use a product which modifies your page. The user chooses to leave the re-write setting on.
Let's say I make a website, one part of it is full of obscenity and nasty things which filter software (netnanny and what have you) blocks. The other part is full of good christian decency and all that stuff. I have copyrighted the website as a whole, but netnanny (or whatever) only displays the second (decent) half. Can I sue the makers of netnanny (...) for violating my copyrigh? Absolutely not. If you could, someone would have tried this already.
Let's say you buy a shitty, american-made (*wink*) television and your picture comes in fuzzy all the time. Can the broadcasters sue the TV manufacturer for affecting their content at the end-user point (by makiong a shitty product)? No. It's my your own damn fault for buying a shitty TV.
And if your content is rewritten by your shitty browser, it's also your own damn fault for using the shitty browser and not turning off the features. We still have a modicum of personal responsibility, at least in the western world, and even in the US. Let's *PLEASE* try and keep it that way.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
Of course, IANAL, but I do watch LOTS of Law & Order. Notwithstanding:
Copyright and IP may not apply here, simply because it's an end-user modification. For example, while stations are required to rebroadcast NFL games unmodified, there is nothing which says the person receiving the broadcast cannot tailor it to suit his needs (let's say, a few years ago, you wrote some code to make that cool yellow line on the first down marker and watched games through your computer). This basically qualifies as an end-user modification, and an optional one at that. There would, similarly, be no copyright/IP issues if I tucked some code into Mozilla to statically change any unlinked reference to MSDN to a link to goatse.
This qualifies as end-user modification. It's like ripping the pages out of books. As long as you do not try to redistribute your changed version to the world at large, you're in the clear.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
I've noticed a recent trend towards trashing FreeBSD's SMP because of "the giant spinlock." What people don't realize is that one large spinlock can be a viable method of locking for the purposes of threading (that is, multiprocessing). It would seem that someone who has a moderate clue about threading and writing SMP-capable operating systems has commented on this, and feels it's bogus, and one or more of the general breed of "BSD is ubersux" trolls has gotten a hold of this and thinks it's the ultimate death knell for FreeBSD/smp. Obviously, you don't really know much about locking at all. It should at least be pointed out that no matter how many locks you have, it is more important to keep the system OUT of a locked state as much as possible, and FreeBSD does this well enough. It's not as if the system is constantly locked and able to use only one CPU. Most processing occurs in userland, far away from kernel locks, so it doesn't tend to matter all that much.
Now, granted, using one spinlock isn't necessarily the best way to do things, at least not in an OS. However, it's not the worst either. Combined with the fact that it allowed fairly rapid updating and deployment of FreeBSD/SMP, I think the choice to use that 'giant spinlock' was valid. It allowed SMP code that by all accounts worked better at least than the 2.0 Linux kernel's (if not 2.2 as well) to be deployed until a better solution could be created. A better solution will be deployed in FreeBSD 5.0 with the introduction of SMPng. I do not doubt that the 2.4 Linux kernel does a better job at SMP than FreeBSD (release/stable) does, but I think it's worth noting that Linux's SMP has been now five or six years in the making to get to this point, and that the Linux and FreeBSD development and advancement models are significantly different. Where Linux takes gradual steps, FreeBSD (and BSDs in general) tend to take large leaps. That's just a difference in implementation timing.
Furthermore, it's perfectly reasonable to expect two open-source systems to leapfrog each other in terms of capability as ideas and code move from one to the other, and it's really not something to gloat over. What one does better today, the other will do better tomorrow. It doesn't really matter.
To those of you babbling on and on about 'the giant spinlock', you might want to go do some research into the theory, and practice, of implementing locks in threaded systems. Until then, shut up, please.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
I think the two (RPG) games I've found with the best replay value are Chrono Trigger (SNES, find a ROM, it's all over I'm sure) and Chrono Cross (PSX).
Chrono Trigger was probably, barring Final Fantasy 4 (2 in the US) the best RPG for the SNES, hell, it might even be better. Wicked plot, great character development, and all-around FUN gameplay. The premise is basically that you need to travel through time in order to stop an immense destructive force that will (in the future) completely obliterate life as we know it on the planet. The time-travel is well done (unlike in Zelda: Ocarina), in that things you do in the past tend to have a reasonable impact on the future. For instance, if you get a treasure in 600 A.D. you cannot get it in 1000 A.D. even if it would be available, however you can get it in 1000 A.D. *and* 600 A.D. To top it off, the game has over 20 endings to find. Once you beat it normally (which can be done in one of a few ways), you get to play in what is called a 'New Game+'. This is exactly like starting a new game, except you keep all of your items and equipment (except for key items needed to move the plot along), and you keep all your stats at the end of the last game. Plus, you get to fight the final boss effectively whenever you want, and by doing so at different points during the story, you get new endings (whcih reflect the situation of the story at the time). It's a LOT of fun to tear through the beginning of the game with high-level guys too.
Chrono Cross is a lot like Chrono Trigger, except you move around between dimensions instead of between time. It has a 'New Game+' and multiple endings as well. Not only that, it features 44 characters, lots of side-quests, and a branching storyline. You need to play through the game at least three times to get all the characters, and to go through the different branches.
If you haven't played the Chrono series, and you're looking for good replay, give them a go. I *STRONGLY* recommend playing Chrono Trigger first, since Chrono Cross has lots of references to it, and is much more enjoyable for having played CT.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
I have a certain kind of albinism which not only affects my skin pigment, but also my eyes. On a very good day I can achieve maybe 20/150 vision, and it is much more blurry than normal 20/20 and normal eyes as well. As cases go I am in the 99th percentile of *GOOD* vision for people with albinism. I had a friend who was 20/2000 (2000, yes). This is incredibly exciting for me.
My vision is not correctable with glasses, as the problem exists primarily in my retina (lacking rods/cones). Short of something like this I have no way to significantly improve my vision. No laser surgery does this, in fact there is really nothing on the market to do this. Personally, I would be willing to be a test subject or pay $20,000 for this treatment.
If you have correctable vision (say you can get to about 20/40 or so somehow) I envy you. I can't drive, I have to take a magnifier with me anywhere I go, and it is very difficult for me to get around. The consequences of being unable to drive are manifold, most people can hardly comprehend it. I can't live in places without above average to excellent public transpotation. This means only major cities, and only major cities with good transit. For reference, in the US, there are perhaps 5 major cities with really manageable public transport (for me). Of these, I would need to live typically in or within walking distance of the downtown area. It's basically like being told you can only ever live in a select few places.
If you're curious about the '20/x' scale, here's a brief description. The first number (typically 20) is the average distance (in any unit you like) that an individual can see an object with clairty. The x is the distance at which, if I could see the object at '20' a person with normal vision could get the same image. So if I have, say, 20/150 then what I see at 20 feet, you could see at 150 feet. That is a factor of 7.5x. The thought of having 20/20 or better vision is like a distant dream for me, and the faster this comes around the happier I will be.
Needless to say, I do not play golf.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
all your alliteration are belong to us.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
DISCLAIMER: I am not a Creationist (let alone a Christian).
The human genome proves nothing. The basics of Creationism state that some omnipotent being (God) created the universe. If this Being did this, then there is no reason he couldn't have setup our genetics in such a way as to supposedly lend credit to such an argument. Proof schmoof.
What nobody refuses to explore is how humans evolved so rapidly in comparison with all other species. It would be interested for someone to take the genome project, map out the genome of our closest 'ancestor' in the animal kingdom, and see what is different and why. I would be fascinated to find out the answers behind this, and I would be interested to hear an account of what caused the rapid evolution of humans. Trying to use science to disprove the unprovable is absolutely ridiculous, however, and people need to stop wasting their time.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
While reading the initial portion of this, it occured to me that love online is a lot like love in real life. It has its pitfalls, its triumphs and tragedies. The more said about the foibles of online love the more I thought about regular, every day, "real life" love. The more the internet merges with our lives like telephones and televisions, the more common it will be to find a partner online.
The circumstances may have changed, instead of selecting partners in many cases based on physical appearance, partners in many cases are being selected on the basis of intelligence. While physical appearance and age still play a part in online relationships, they are less significant. It may in fact be just one more domino falling as our evolution continues to shift focus from physical to mental prowess. Perhaps in one hundred years, the vast majority of relationships will be formed online, and only those who are matched on an intellectual level with their partner (not being equally intelligent, necessarily, but being mentally compatible in a strong way) will end up in relationships. Compare this to even one hundred years ago when dowrys and betrothal were still commonplace.
All said and done, it should be interesting to watch the continual progression of mankind into a world where information is more precious than gold, and life revolves around it. Romance is just one more channel in which this is happening now.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
Okay, what exactly is a PDA or a computer? It is a storer of information. What is a booklet, a notebook, or a filing cabinet? The same thing, but less efficient. Quite simply saying that "young people are becoming stupid because of computers" is like saying that anyone who takes notes on a pad of paper and then looks at those notes later is also "stupid." These people aren't stupid, they're at least smart enough to know when they need something to help store their information.
Doubly funny is that a doctor would say this. Doctors typically have nurses and staff secretaries to help keep track of the things that they quite simply forget. How a secretary or a nurse cleaning up after you is better than you taking notes in a notebook (or PDA) is beyond me. This is just somebody who has some sour grapes in regards to PDAs blowing off steam.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
After browsing the comments here, I think one of the things this post has done is strongly magnify the (lack of) attention span of the average /.er. Given that the average /. reader tends to be at the more enlightened (or at least aware) end of the spectra of average people, this is very disturbing. People are asking "so what?" and "who cares?" without thinking about what this means, or why they should care.
/. about space, space exploration, terraforming, the ISS, Mir, etc that question should answer itself. Where would we be today had Challenger not exploded in front of hundreds of thousands (or millions) of people live on TV? Perhaps the ISS would be done. Perhaps investors would be more interested in commercial space travel. The possibilities are limitless here. Think about all of that for a few moments.
/. readers will live to see a greater exploration of space, and I'd dare say a lot of us may even get the chance to go into space some time in the future. If this sounds like crazy talk, remember that it took only about 75 years from the invention of the airplane to commercially viable, relatively inexpensive air travel for the masses. After 100 years, air travel has become even more affordable (if not more comfortable). Now, for simplicity we will say space travel began in 1960. It seems reasonable to say that space travel for the masses may be viable as early as 2030 or so. Even if it was not viable until 2060, given the upward trend of life expectancy, you or I have a decent chance of being around to see that. Therefore, understanding the mentality of those who are running the programs putting people in space _NOW_ is very important, because they will undoubtedly influence the future. History is the only tool we have with which to model the future.
I think the most significant part of the posted sentence was the part about destroying the space program. Challenger *did* set the US space program back incredibly. So what? Given the large number of posts on
So who cares? If you don't, you probably should. The vast majority of
The whole point of this post was to elicit discussion, unfortunately the discussion so far has been just depressing. Think about where we are 15 years after the Challenger incident vs. where we might be if it had never happened at least. I personally wasn't old enough to remember the Challenger incident, but it still saddens me. Not only were lives lost when they shouldn't have been, but progress was held back by foolishness yet again. So today, please try and pull yourself from the four hour pregame shows for just a few minutes to really think about the impact Challenger has had and will have on all of us, and spare a thought for those lost, the world will be that much better.
Apologies for the longwindedness.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
First off, I'll say I recommend a combination of C, Unix (any flavor will do), any compiler that is ANSI standard, your favorite editor, make, debugging statements and light gdb use. These get me farther than any IDE I've had to work with or tried to work with. Incidentally, every developer I can think of who I admire for producing absolutely brilliant code, especially quickly, tends to use the above. Just a favorite editor, whatever their language choice is, and simple tools. Remember the KISS principle.
#1: Can you really switch your language or OS?
At best I'm dubious as far as your suggestion of switching language or operating system. Unless your project is only at the very first stages, you have almost undoubtedly invested far too much effort to reasonably consider backing out. Why did you choose C++ and GNU/Linux in the first place? Surely more thought went into it than "we like C++" and "Linux is nifty", so go back to those decisions and sift for clues.
#2: Why are you spending so much time in a debugger?
You should be spending more time with your concepts, flow charts, and whatever else you came up with before you laid it all into code. Spend some time pondering what exactly you're trying to do, then go look at your code and make sure it's really doing what you want. A few well-placed debugging output statements (printf/cout/whatever), some good comments, and a clear head will get you much farther than a debugger, even the best. Debuggers absolutely cannot tell you what you're thinking.
#3: Do you really need threads?
Is your application specifically designed to be run on parallel systems? Is it designed to take the majority of a system's resources? Chances are you don't need threads, most programs don't. There are usually better ways to do things than multithreading. Also, writing threaded code is considerably more time-consuming than non-threaded code. Are you writing something so complex you need threads? If you haven't really evaluated this, now is the time.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@anduril.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire