I can't remember if it's my ad blocker or NoScript but one of them lets you block all and tags. That shuts down all HTML5 video and audio. Of course, that blocks everything so sites like youtube don't work. But if you're fine with that, it's a viable option.
My turn for what? Am I supposed to go along with the strawman you're presenting suggesting that I said all online posting is equal when it's blatantly clear I never said or implied any such thing?
Posting even the most vile vitriol on the internet pales in comparison to actually doing something in the real world. Do you really mean to suggest that talking bad on the internet is equivalent to lynching? Or even in the same ballpark?
I mean, let's be clear about what you are equivocating here.
If books work for you, keep using them. I wouldn't tell anyone to change what works for them.
I used to have a huge room full of books that I never used any more. I have since gotten rid of most of them except for the ones that have sentimental value, like my first edition K&R C Programming book. These days, I personally don't bother buying a book for anything new because the resources out there are as good as or better than the books you can buy. In large part because the online resources tend to be kept more up to date than the book on the shelf. I taught myself Qt and the only paper involved was the pad I kept my notes in. And now that I'm familiar with it, I rarely refer to those notes.
The systems I work on have too much going on to fit in neat, pretty little pictures. We document everything we do (as we are doing safety-critical work). But we encompass our design in the documentation and it works well enough for us to get rockets into space.
Proper formatting and commenting was possible in the old BASIC. It was just rarely done. When dealing with spaghetti code I start by going through the original source and clean it up with a coding standard and it makes the job of reading it so much easier. Well formatted code is, to me, more useful than a flow chart.
True story. When I was in my assembly class, we were in the computer lab doing an assignment. One of my classmates asked me for help. His code had no spacing and his labels were just L1, L2, etc. so they didn't convey any meaning. I told him to go clean up his code and apply a decent coding standard with meaningful labels before I would help him. He found his problems pretty quick when he did that.
Absolutely this. I learned my programming back before the Internet. And I learned by reading manuals and text books. And I can still do that.
But why should I have to? I can get the same information faster by looking on the Internet. I still teach myself how to do new things by reading about it. The only difference is that I use my computer screen instead of dead trees. Well, that and the difference is that I can find answers to my questions in the literature a whole lot faster on the Internet than I can by digging through the appendix in the book(s).
While it's a good idea to learn the basics without having people on the Internet do your homework for you (so you actually learn it), having the Internet as a resource makes the day-to-day job of programming so much easier and I take full advantage.
I guess they weren't needed for object-oriented programming (OOP).
The flow chart method is only good for iterative programming. OOP is an entirely different way of approaching programming and flow charts aren't really useful.
And to be quite honest, flow charts were never really all that useful for a lot of us. I started coding in the 70's. I learned how to design flow charts but figured out that they were superfluous and wasted time when I could be getting real work done. I can't remember the last time I wasted the effort to draw a flow chart. Sure, I do actual design and planning on larger projects. But I never add flow charts.
There's really a complete lack of scientific reasoning from most humans, whether they're religious nuts, or into some social cause (which seems to be another religion of sorts). People believe things without any actual evidence at all, or based on some "evidence" which can't be cross-checked or validated in any way.
Not only do they believe things without any scientific reasoning behind it, if you do present them with any actual scientific reasoning that contradicts them, they will dismiss it out of hand, either calling the research flawed in some way or just plain ignoring it because it doesn't agree with their opinion.
And I've seen the SJW attitude in just about every corner of the religious and political spectrums. A lot of people are content to live their lives without being pushy about their beliefs. But no matter the topic or the "side" taken on it, you can find a sub-group trying to push their opinion on the world.
I'm not so sure. SJWs usually aren't smart enough to be that Machiavellian. They're usually true believers who "just know" that this kind of thing will work and once the trolls are "outed", they'll do a completely 180 and become born again good citizens. I mean, all it takes is someone who knows what's best for them telling them the "truth" to straighten them out...
Though that's not to say others won't try to capitalize on the failure that this campaign will surely turn out to be. But I doubt the ones sponsoring this idiocy are going into it with those kinds of long term goals.
This kind of passive-aggressive whining will only encourage the trolls. Trolls thrive on the reaction they get. Giving them a billboard full of their trolling will stoke their ego more than anything else. This approach will only encourage them to troll harder so they get more billboards dedicated to their trolling.
Cable companies have been fighting being classified as common carriers because they want to extort money out of the customers they hold under regional monopolies. If they were classified as common carriers, they would be immune. It's their own damn fault.
Everyone complains about intrusive and malware infested advertisement. But I see that as an opportunity.
There is a lot of potential money to be made if a company were started that would screen the advertisements to not be intrusive or full of malware before providing them. They could refuse to serve flash based ads. They could be mobile aware to send only lower bandwidth ads to mobile devices. They could reject ads that push themselves in front of the page's contents. Sure, the extra work would cost money to implement and reduce revenue but people would be less likely to want to reject ads entirely if the ad provider did a little vetting of the ads beforehand. And fewer people running ad blockers would increase the number of ads served which would balance out the cost of vetting the ads.
The difference is that Star Wars started out as an action movie. Trek did not. Turning Trek into an action movie was a "questionable" move at best. Keeping Wars an action movie is staying with it's roots. Still, I'm hedging my expectations so as to not be completely disappointed.
Trek will never die. If this one fails, they'll reboot it again. And again. And again. And every time they do, the fans will line up to pay money to see it. I mean, it's not like they give a damn if they rewrite the entire story line. They've got unlimited possibilities to work with until they find something that keeps the fans in the seats.
Well of course. There's tons of money to be made milking the franchise. But until they do a "Han, the early years" series, go read the books and have a temporary patch over the holes. Who knows. It may just stay there for a while.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't remember if it's my ad blocker or NoScript but one of them lets you block all and tags. That shuts down all HTML5 video and audio. Of course, that blocks everything so sites like youtube don't work. But if you're fine with that, it's a viable option.
My turn for what? Am I supposed to go along with the strawman you're presenting suggesting that I said all online posting is equal when it's blatantly clear I never said or implied any such thing?
It was written clearly and directly in plain English.
Do you really mean to suggest that talking bad on the internet is equivalent to lynching? Or even in the same ballpark?
I know you'll probably dance around the question with your strawman arguments but I really would like an honest answer.
That's interesting. Care to answer my question?
Posting even the most vile vitriol on the internet pales in comparison to actually doing something in the real world. Do you really mean to suggest that talking bad on the internet is equivalent to lynching? Or even in the same ballpark?
I mean, let's be clear about what you are equivocating here.
You just described every SJW "awareness" campaign ever.
Right. Because inappropriate posting on the internet is "extreme racism". Talk about false equivalence.
If books work for you, keep using them. I wouldn't tell anyone to change what works for them.
I used to have a huge room full of books that I never used any more. I have since gotten rid of most of them except for the ones that have sentimental value, like my first edition K&R C Programming book. These days, I personally don't bother buying a book for anything new because the resources out there are as good as or better than the books you can buy. In large part because the online resources tend to be kept more up to date than the book on the shelf. I taught myself Qt and the only paper involved was the pad I kept my notes in. And now that I'm familiar with it, I rarely refer to those notes.
The systems I work on have too much going on to fit in neat, pretty little pictures. We document everything we do (as we are doing safety-critical work). But we encompass our design in the documentation and it works well enough for us to get rockets into space.
Proper formatting and commenting was possible in the old BASIC. It was just rarely done. When dealing with spaghetti code I start by going through the original source and clean it up with a coding standard and it makes the job of reading it so much easier. Well formatted code is, to me, more useful than a flow chart.
True story. When I was in my assembly class, we were in the computer lab doing an assignment. One of my classmates asked me for help. His code had no spacing and his labels were just L1, L2, etc. so they didn't convey any meaning. I told him to go clean up his code and apply a decent coding standard with meaningful labels before I would help him. He found his problems pretty quick when he did that.
Absolutely this. I learned my programming back before the Internet. And I learned by reading manuals and text books. And I can still do that.
But why should I have to? I can get the same information faster by looking on the Internet. I still teach myself how to do new things by reading about it. The only difference is that I use my computer screen instead of dead trees. Well, that and the difference is that I can find answers to my questions in the literature a whole lot faster on the Internet than I can by digging through the appendix in the book(s).
While it's a good idea to learn the basics without having people on the Internet do your homework for you (so you actually learn it), having the Internet as a resource makes the day-to-day job of programming so much easier and I take full advantage.
I guess they weren't needed for object-oriented programming (OOP).
The flow chart method is only good for iterative programming. OOP is an entirely different way of approaching programming and flow charts aren't really useful.
And to be quite honest, flow charts were never really all that useful for a lot of us. I started coding in the 70's. I learned how to design flow charts but figured out that they were superfluous and wasted time when I could be getting real work done. I can't remember the last time I wasted the effort to draw a flow chart. Sure, I do actual design and planning on larger projects. But I never add flow charts.
There's really a complete lack of scientific reasoning from most humans, whether they're religious nuts, or into some social cause (which seems to be another religion of sorts). People believe things without any actual evidence at all, or based on some "evidence" which can't be cross-checked or validated in any way.
Not only do they believe things without any scientific reasoning behind it, if you do present them with any actual scientific reasoning that contradicts them, they will dismiss it out of hand, either calling the research flawed in some way or just plain ignoring it because it doesn't agree with their opinion.
And I've seen the SJW attitude in just about every corner of the religious and political spectrums. A lot of people are content to live their lives without being pushy about their beliefs. But no matter the topic or the "side" taken on it, you can find a sub-group trying to push their opinion on the world.
We're all racist. The only difference between people is the degree to which we are racist and the amount of racism we're willing to admit to.
I'm not so sure. SJWs usually aren't smart enough to be that Machiavellian. They're usually true believers who "just know" that this kind of thing will work and once the trolls are "outed", they'll do a completely 180 and become born again good citizens. I mean, all it takes is someone who knows what's best for them telling them the "truth" to straighten them out...
Though that's not to say others won't try to capitalize on the failure that this campaign will surely turn out to be. But I doubt the ones sponsoring this idiocy are going into it with those kinds of long term goals.
This kind of passive-aggressive whining will only encourage the trolls. Trolls thrive on the reaction they get. Giving them a billboard full of their trolling will stoke their ego more than anything else. This approach will only encourage them to troll harder so they get more billboards dedicated to their trolling.
I already have to deal with Comcast here.
Cable companies have been fighting being classified as common carriers because they want to extort money out of the customers they hold under regional monopolies. If they were classified as common carriers, they would be immune. It's their own damn fault.
I didn't say they were the worst. Just that I have no sympathy for them.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer company...
Everyone complains about intrusive and malware infested advertisement. But I see that as an opportunity.
There is a lot of potential money to be made if a company were started that would screen the advertisements to not be intrusive or full of malware before providing them. They could refuse to serve flash based ads. They could be mobile aware to send only lower bandwidth ads to mobile devices. They could reject ads that push themselves in front of the page's contents. Sure, the extra work would cost money to implement and reduce revenue but people would be less likely to want to reject ads entirely if the ad provider did a little vetting of the ads beforehand. And fewer people running ad blockers would increase the number of ads served which would balance out the cost of vetting the ads.
The article seemed to be far fetched. It all made sense when I looked up and saw that it's just another idiotic dice "insights" spam.
The difference is that Star Wars started out as an action movie. Trek did not. Turning Trek into an action movie was a "questionable" move at best. Keeping Wars an action movie is staying with it's roots. Still, I'm hedging my expectations so as to not be completely disappointed.
Trek will never die. If this one fails, they'll reboot it again. And again. And again. And every time they do, the fans will line up to pay money to see it. I mean, it's not like they give a damn if they rewrite the entire story line. They've got unlimited possibilities to work with until they find something that keeps the fans in the seats.
Well of course. There's tons of money to be made milking the franchise. But until they do a "Han, the early years" series, go read the books and have a temporary patch over the holes. Who knows. It may just stay there for a while.