I hope no FOSS developers look at that source. It could "taint by association" -- which makes me wonder if that wasn't the real reason for the release. MS now realizes the fight is over source code.
Anyone who assoiciates with Microsoft is a "taint by association" - as in this kind of taint.
PCI-E is about making the video processor useful for more than just dumping graphics data. Modern graphics chips are essentially giant geometry calculators, and could be used for far more than they currently are. Due to the fact that PCI-E allows data to be communicated back to the system after it has been processed on the card, this opens up a whole new realm of possibilities. Many 'glitches' in current rendering techniques should dissapear now that the card can relay what the output looks like back to the game driver, allowing it to make on the fly corrections to the image.
The real question is, will it run Linux?
Hmm. Wait a minute - an embedded OS and WM included with the graphics card. Now we're talking!
Even more interesting is how those many of those interoperability problems were designed into the proprietary software to prevent just such a migration, so that one day their architects could say "look at all the problems that other software is causing!"
I refuse to believe this assertion, simply because that would require some kind of thought-out design of Windows. Not only that, but they don't even handle migrations to their own products gracefully!
I recently had to move off of Win98 at work, and was forced to go to XP, as it is the new corporate standard. Now, whenever my network password expires, I cannot change it. It says I do not have rights to do so. However, our server didn't change, just my client. Several other people also have this problem. The solution? You have to call up IT whenever your password expires to have them change it. Or you can just use a test machine (running NT) like I do. And before you laugh that I was running Win98, it was only mraginally worse than XP. Oh sure, it would BSOD more often, but XP isn't much better. But instead of crashing, it gets all funky and slow, and apps won't launch. So I have to reboot anyway. It could be the apps we are running that are causing the problems (Rational apps), but as an end user the app shouldn't affect the OS that much.
Re:It is still better than anything else....
on
The Simpsons Movie
·
· Score: 1
Seriously, it is good advice. If I remember correctly, Munich chose Linux over Windows, even though the Linux solution cost more.
What, does this guy think some government is going to trust its infrastructure to some home-grown distro that they downloaded off the 'net for free? Please.
Re:It is still better than anything else....
on
The Simpsons Movie
·
· Score: 1
I have taken to name my dog "Bort" because it reminds me of that very episode. Besides, Bort is a great name for a dog (I do not want to offend anyone named Bort, BTW).
We are out of Bort license plates in the gift shop. Repeat. More Bort license plates to the gift shop.
he he.
Re:It is still better than anything else....
on
The Simpsons Movie
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Oh, please. The show "CAN'T" get tired? How about when they've made every "Homer is stupid and injures himself frequently" joke and had a theme show about every minor character (a show about Apu, a show about Principal Skinner, a show about Ralph Wiggum... and by now they're scraping the bottom of the barrel).
The new shows are just forced. The humor used to be social satire, and is now either either zany slapstick or lazy surrealism.
I didn't say it couldn't get tired, I said it couldn't jump the shark. There is that "turning point" for the show where it is just never the same. I don't think the Simpsons can do that, just because there will always be shining moments, even in the new episodes.
They have their moments of satire, the medical marijuana was pretty good, if not very direct. The whole Armen Tanzarian episode was a risky attempt. But what other show could even try something like that? It says something when the writers poke fun at themselves, and mention some of these questionable attempts in later episodes. Like when they were deciding where they should go on vacation, and they had a map of the US with Xs through states they had been to. At the end of that episode, which was the last of the season, they said "The Simpsons are going to Delaware!" and there was an exchange where Bart says "I want to visit a screen door factory!" Then the next season, they were on their way to Delaware. They did the same exchange. Of course, they never got there, that is the episode where they hopped the rail and rode with the Hobo who told them stories.
They have an amazing cast of secondary and third-tier characters. They can draw on it when some of the jokes get old with the main characters. And they get creative with the flow of the episodes. Like the one episode from three different perspectives (with Linguo the robot). Or they just rip off things, and don't try to hide it. Yeah, it may get tired, but there was never a shark to jump. I think they have great episodes throughout all of their seasons. Some are better from early on, but some of the early ones clearly stink too. I think some of the premises are getting old, like Sideshow Bob, so I hope they lay off of that. Unless he dies this season! Some ancillary character is supposed to die this season. Kelsey Grammer may want to go out in a blaze of glory. That would be kind of cool.
It is still better than anything else....
on
The Simpsons Movie
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Have the people who OK'd this movie actually SEEN and COMPARED newer episodes of Simpsons to ones that aired back in its' glory days?
Jumped the shark a few seasons ago at least, as much as I hate to say it. This is one of those shows I wish they'd take off the air for its' own good.
Ahh, but tell me exactly where they jumped the shark. That is the key. They haven't. They CAN'T. The nature of the show makes it impossible. Some would say that they did it when they did the 3D Homer episode - or it could be considered a classic! Maude dies? Risky, but no shark there. The rake scene? Classic.
Here is why the Simpsons amazes me. When I see a show in first run, I think it is OK or good, and sometimes bad. But it seems that when I see it in re-run, it gets better. I think some of the ones in the last few years are really good. In fact, I thought last week's was pretty funny.
Everyone has their favorite. Mine is an oldie - Selma's Choice. That is the one where Aunt Gladys dies, Lionel Hutz is the executor of the will, Homer eats the huge sandwich and gets sick, so Patty and Selma have to take the kids to Duff Gardens, where Lisa trips on the water and Bart tries on Beer Goggles. There is hardly a moment in that episode that I can't laugh at.
I still love their Halloween episodes, and when they go back and enact classic stories. Behind the Laughter was awesome. Their "milestone" episode show was brilliant, with outtake clips.
Aren't they doing that this season?
on
The Simpsons Movie
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Y'know, that's a great suggestion! Matt might have them jump a shark in this movie just for the joke. He knows the show is old, and mocking himself would be perfectly in keeping with his style.
I swear I saw Homer jumping a shark on skis in the previews for this season. It made me crack up. I am actually surprised they haven't done it on the show yet. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if it became a running gag. I don't know if the Simpsons could ever truly jump the shark, they are all about the shark.:-)
For those who don't know about this phenomenon, "jumping the shark" is a term a guy coined to describe when a TV show (or anything for that matter) has started to go downhill. It comes from Happy Days, when Fonzie jumped a shark on water skis. It was made up to be a scary and serious episode, but was clearly very very lame. After that, the show was never the same. See jumptheshark.com for more info.
Vary the brightness of a small light bulb. Vary the speed of a small motor. Drive an old-style swing needle meter. (Variant of above) Drive a tachometer.
Heck, why not interface to a slot-car and have it go faster the higher your load average is?
I am sure you can take his code and modify it to do just that if you like. (and that answers part of your WHY question). The other part is just "because". This is true hacking.
I do like the idea of an analog gauge to show the CPU load.
You are right that I'm not very professional about my job. I don't enjoy the work, and need to get into another field. The day I walked out of college I was handed a high-paying software testing job, and took it. I regret having done that because now I have no "actual" experience in other areas of software development and it is hard to make a switch.
Actually, I have found that it has helped me. You know what colleges turn out? Programmers. I got a BS-CS, so I did my share of programming. My job out of college was doing configuration managment, and from that I went on to testing. I did a LOT of shell scripting those first few years. (not quite programming, but is better than nothing) Sure, programmers make more than I do, but I also know several who are out of work. The market got saturated. They don't teach testing in school, at least they didn't when I was there. It was at best a chapter in a software development course. So my advantage is that I do something that they don't teach in school, you need someone who has experience to do it well.
You don't need to tell me I'm in the wrong job, I already know this. It sounds like there are some people out there that really enjoy their jobs in QA, but I don't for the reasons I already pointed out - I'm not detail-oriented, and this is a detail-oriented position.
That sucks that you don't like your field, and I can see where it would be hard to switch. I enjoy it about as much as I can, but it isn't really an enjoyable job. I am a detail-oriented person, so maybe that helps. The one thing about it is that you can only go so far up the ladder without getting into management (shudder). At least in programming, you can get into architecture design and whatnot.
You should think about getting certified as a CSTE (Certified Software Test Engineer) or CQA (Certified in Quality Assurance) from the Quality Assurance Institute.
By the way, I'm a software tester, and I hate my job. And don't worry about being too over-prepared for your job. All the testing jobs I've had (4 now) have been pretty simple.
You must be a contractor. I have been in software testing for 11 years now, and it can get very complicated. Of course, every place you work looks at testing differently. If you get in somewhere that values testing, your job can get very complicated - "Here, learn how this entire program works in a week. Oh, and learn how it interfaces with these two other products."
It's the easiest, most mind-numbing job for a computer professional. Not fun if you ask me... If you are detail-oriented, and not problem-solving oriented, it might be a good match for you. But don't expect to do much thinking on the job...
Sorry, but you don't sound like a professional to me. Sure, it can be boring and un-technical, but if you take that attitude then you'll be doing the same job forever. There are tons of opportunities to work directly with developers to debug code, or get into complex system configurations, or performance testing and tuning, or tracking down some elusive customer problem. It all depends on where you are working, and their level of sophistication. Test automation is a whole nuther ball-o-wax too. There are requirements, design, and sometimes code inspections. And if where you are working is into the whole CMM thing, then QA is not testing, but is process oriented.
Believe me, a good quality tester is a valuable asset. They think differently than programmers, which can strike a very good balance. If a workplace doesn't value their QA/testing people, then it probably shows in their products.
Every company I've worked at seems to have their own standards idea of what testing software is. What a "Software Tester" does can be anything from following a written 'script' and pushing buttons in the product to writing test harnesses for unit testing, building the configuration management and build machines, and building automated tests to first check to see if each feature works - then make sure it stays working once it does.
What you'll need depends on what the corporate culture is for QA there and how much initiative and experience you're bringing to the table.
Just a note - Software QA (i.e. Quality Assurance) can mean anything from a tester in the trenches to someone who only works on process improvement. Note that in the CMM, Software Quality Assurance has nothing to do with testing. It is a process job. Keep this in mind, depending on where you are working.
You're that guy that really likes Ted Turner style colored-in movies, right?
Or are you the guy that prefers the US version of Brazil, with incidental heavy-metal music and a happy ending?
Naah! I know! You're the guy that likes Winnie the Pooh hanging ten on Waikiki beach and Bugs Bunny has to slam-dunk with Michael Jordan to be funny.
Let's not forget one of the worst remakes, La Femme Nikita, with Brigette Fonda instead of the original French version, which is 10x better.
Hey, I understand Lucas may want to release his half-assed versions of the film, but he should still release the originals. You can't expect a movie with such a huge fanbase, which MADE Lucas who he is, to not have emotions about it. Lucas owes his fame to these people. And yet, they aren't asking for anything outrageous, just simply the original movie that they love.
Companies (and home users) should choose to leave Windows because of its licensing, first and foremost. The MS EULA basically says, "we own you" and people should take issue with that. If we all followed every license to the letter of the law, very few people would be using proprietary software -- especially Windows.......What is the hidden cost of being tied down by fascist licensing? It costs you your freedom and subjects you to software audits. Violation of the EULA is US$200,000 and up to five years in jail...
OK, I feel this way too sometimes. But I have to look at it realistically too. Businesses - yeah, they have to consider TCO and licensing terms. Home users? No consideration whatsoever. I understand that *technically* Microsoft could audit everyone for license compliance, but it is not feasable that they would do so. Licensing of Windows sucks, if you care about it at all. Ask any home user of Windows what their major beef with it is, and I'll bet nobody says anything about Freedom. Hell, most people don't even like computers, let alone have a philosophy regarding them. That is why Microsoft has such a huge marketshare - they cater to the lowest common denominator. Not that the LCD is bad, just that the majority of people aren't tech-heads. People don't get it, nor do they WANT to get it. They don't care. Virus hits, they can't do email for a few days, they get over it. As Homer would shrug and say "Hmm, whadaya gonna do?"
If there is any kind of "Linux Revolution" it won't start in the U.S. All of a sudden, U.S. companies will look around and realize that the rest of the world has embraced this "new" technology and we'll have to play catch-up. Fine by me, maybe then I can get a job doing something I like - but I feel sorry for all the MCSEs...... Nah.:-)
And this is what people at Slashdot don't get. While it may not have had a point to you, to anybody who wasn't in the know, he seemed very informed, and very good at what he does. The purpose of the meeting was really not to inform you of anything, but to rally the troops behind him.
Well, let me just add that if that was his goal, he failed. Everyone I talked to after the meeting didn't feel better about their job. Example: Outsourcing did come up. The answer was that we don't do that, our people have product knowledge that outsourcing couldn't cover, etc etc. And then at the end added that the company has done some outsourcing overseas, but that it probably wouldn't happen in our group.
Another example: When the issue of raises and compensation came up, he went into the normal "the market is bad, we need to be cautious, we chose to lower raises instead of cutting jobs, the bonus program was cut, etc." (even though I have inside information from a manager that left that they still have the management bonus program in place) Then at the end, he said something that upper management should never say. He said "You are all lucky to have jobs." That should never come out of the mouth of an exec. All of the other stuff could be considered valid reasons, but to say that we should essentially shut up and be thankful for what we do have is an insult. Yes, it is true that I do feel I am lucky to be working right now, but that should never come from up above. Because when the market does get better, then we'll see who is the lucky one when I leave. Bridges can be burned from the other side too. Maybe I am overly optimistic, but they are also lucky that I am working here. They are lucky anyone is working for them. It just so happens that right now, there is not much else out there, but what is going to happen when there is? I know what the answer is for me.
The only Disney movies I've actually paid to see in the last few years were all Pixar animations. Now that Pixar's gone, Disney doesnt have much left, and I dont think a little cell phone screen is going to make their animations look any better. I think they need to focus on creating quality features before they try and start selling them...unless they're trying to bypass stores all together and go to a direct-to-phone distribution..
To be quite honest, you don't matter to Disney (unless you are a parent). They market their tripe to the mass-market of parents. Good, wholesome family values. They get parents to buy every friggin thing they put out with this method. Who wants to hear a kid screaming over and over that they want to watch The Lion King 1 1/2? Just buy the DVD so the kid will shut up for a couple of hours. Go into a mall, and look at who is actually buying things in the Disney store. Go to that train-wreck Disney themed indoor amusement thingy. Go to Disney World. Ugh. They aren't concerned with quality, they are concerned with $$$$$. Microsoft is the way to go for them...
Recently went to a mandatory *shudder* all-employee meeting because the VP was in town. Big, big company. Anyway, the morning of the meeting, the head of operations comes around, and he hands me a slip of paper. It has a topic on it. It seems like nobody asks questions at these meetings, so they decided to hold a "focus group" to come up with questions. Then they took those questions, and gave them to people to ask.
I was surprised by the whole thing, so I didn't get a chance to say no. I was actually given a topic, not a question. "The use of the rating and ranking system in the company" They use a ratings and ranking system in the company, commonly known as "rank and yank" where all the managers have to rank their people from 1 to N. Then all the managers get together and put their lists together, aka horse trading. Eventually, there is a top 15%, bottom 15%, and middle 70%. I decided that I wouldn't just ask what it was, I would ask them a hardline question about it. Something along the lines of "Why did we choose to implement a rating and ranking system, even though the only people it really benefits is upper management?"
Well, the meeting ran long, and some of the planted people got to ask their question, but not me. Wow, you could really tell that the questions were planted too, it was embarassing. So after the meeting, I talked to the op director and asked why they didn't just give the questions to the VP instead of making it seem like people were just coming up with them? He said that it was the VP's idea to plant the questions in the audience, and he did know what they were going to be. He just wanted it to look spontaneous.
Yeah, but if everything was spot-on-topic this place would be a little more boring.
What I was getting at is that if you insult people, they will mod you down later on. Perhaps you used a similar term like nutsack in a previous post that pissed someone off? Just because you were modded down during a ROTK-love-in, doesn't mean it's because you were bashing it.
I think that is exactly what happened. Moderators are supposed to moderate the POST, not the poster. If someone has that good of a memory, then they really need to back away from the keyboard.:-)
Really, I loved the movies, and I did think Sean Astin did a wonderful job (honestly, look at the other nominees - are they that much better? Johnny Depp?!)
My brutally honest take? I was sick of his character in the first movie. I thought he was a whiny, weak character. And I saw his transformation from weak to strong, I just didn't care. I am sure there was something in the books that explained why he called Frodo "Mr. Frodo" but it annoyed the crap out of me. I thought his character pouted and cried too much. As for other nominees, I can't comment on too many of them. Of these movies, I only saw Lost in Translation and The Last Samurai. I thought the nominees for both of these movies would deserve it much more.
Johnny Depp - PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL Ben Kingsley - HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG Jude Law - COLD MOUNTAIN Bill Murray - LOST IN TRANSLATION Sean Penn - MYSTIC RIVER
ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE Alec Baldwin - THE COOLER Benicio Del Toro - 21 GRAMS Djimon Hounsou - IN AMERICA Tim Robbins - MYSTIC RIVER Ken Watanabe - THE LAST SAMURAI
but there/were/ problems - wargs were completely useless, Aragorn's "fall to his death" wasn't necessary (and reminded us of the repetitive nature of the first movie), the Ents were too easily tricked for being some of the oldest and wisest creatures in Middle Earth, etc.etc.
Hmm. Good points I didn't even consider. I did notice that everyone seemed to be piss-poor fighters except for the main characters. One or two of these things are "passable" but they seem to really add up in ROTK, at least for me. Lengthy, cinematic pans can only carry a movie for so long.
But nothing's perfect - I could pick apart Monster or Mystic River, both beautiful movies, by why bother?
That is part of getting to what is REALLY good. I like to pick movies apart (even if I like them) just because I can then really appreciate the good ones. And I like some movies that can be picked to death. Sometimes weak movies are still good for various reasons. But I like them in spite of their bad points, I don't try to ignore them. I remember seeing Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon in the theater, and I knew what Chinese hero movies were like. When they were flying around the screen, there were some people in there laughing, saying "yeah, right". To me, that is a really dumb thing to pick at, because it was intentional! Sometimes the annoying things about the movie are good. Heck, look at 2001: A Space Odyssey. That movie is kind of painful and boring at times, but it is supposed to be. It plays with your emotions. But it isn't painful and boring in a "Moulin Rouge" kind of way.:-)
don't want a dream job...
Dream jobs eliminate the one good thing about life. Vacation. Whether that be on the weekends, your random days off in the middle of the week, or the two weeks you spend lounging in Jamaica.
They don't call work "work" for nothing. If it was fun they would call it Vacation. Work gives me something to look forward to when I don't have to do it. It shouldn't be an escape from your family, it shouldn't be fun, and it certainly be something you overly enjoy...
Ahh, a topic that truly makes me feel like a pendulum....
I go back and forth on this issue all the time.
I am not my job. But what if everyone was like that? We wouldn't get very far. I like what I do, but what I do is not me. But what if I did do something that I absolutely loved? Would it lose its magic because it was then my job? At what point does work become no fun anymore? My wife is a teacher. She loves it and hates it at the same time. She obviously isn't doing it for the money. But she gets rewards at her job that I will never ever get at mine. She has touched kids lives, and when it happens I am a little jealous. She has actually made a difference because she truly cares about teaching. Teachers are always teachers.
What if cops weren't their jobs? What about doctors? Hey man, you have to lie there and bleed because I am off today. Not make sense? What if Linus wasn't the embodiment of the Linux kernel? What if he didn't make his love his work? What about Van Gogh, or Mozart? They were their art. Of course, there is no guarantee that if you live your job you will love it, but can you really love it without living it?
People always complain about the crappy service they get from the wait staff at restaurants. How do you expect people to love their job if you make it miserable for them? What about chefs? They work a LOT, they live their jobs. They are always a chef. That is how they get to be that good. Same with professional athletes, they have to always be doing their job, or at least considering it.
Man, I really waver on this one. What if I loved my job? Would I need to long for the weekends like I do now? How much time do you spend wishing you were somewhere else while at work? What if you loved every minute of it? I still feel that I am not my job, but I kind of secretly wish that I was. Because that would mean that I was doing what I loved, and maybe I wouldn't be looking for a "way out". I still think that you have to be something outside of your work to be healthy. But part of me wants to take the classic approach of "do everything to the best of your ability". The elusive pursuit of perfection.
In the end I think it has to be about balance. Balance your work and non-work time, whether you are your job or not. You have to have balance in everything to make the universe happy.
I read it. It looked like a troll. Not a really acrimonious flamebait kind of troll, more like the classic humorous kind of troll that nonetheless people are really kind of tired of seeing
Did you read the rest of the comments to that story? It was just a bunch of people fawning over the movie, lavishing it with praises. I expected that. But look at the post I replied to - that was what forced me to hit Reply. Not only because of what was said, but that it was modded up.
It read like you were playing dumb, basically, saying "gee you already know how it's going to come out, why bother seeing it?"
Is it inconceivable that there are some geeks out there, and I am one, who isn't into the LOTR books? I wasn't playing dumb, I hadn't read them. I watched the movies with fresh eyes, I wasn't tainted by the love of the story. The entire thread was about the MOVIE, not the books. Fans of the books have a hard time separating the two, and aren't interested in the opinions of those who haven't read them (unless of course they smell an opportunity to expound their font of knowledge about the story). It may seem like I was playing dumb, but I went to these movies hoping to really see what all the hype was about. I was somewhat disappointed because all I saw was a good movie, not "the greatest movie ever" as many have claimed. If someone is called a fanboy, instead of lashing out to prove they aren't, maybe they should ask themselves if they really are. (and if they are, is that so bad?)
I dunno, but maybe you got modded down because you insult people who love the movie? Fanboys, to me anyway, isn't the nicest term - it implies someone who's hysterically in love with the movie (and not in a good way).
Maybe, but that is what I felt, based on reading all of the other comments about how absolutely fantastic the movie was. I still think that people can't look at things objectively. I remember right after Episode I, people went on and on about how it was the best one ever. Of course, those people probably camped out on the street for a week. Their pride won't let them admit it wasn't very good. Same with Episode II. I know a guy who went and saw it several times, and raved about it. I didn't see it until it came out on rental, and I couldn't believe ANYONE would rave about that movie.
I was trying to point out the things about the movie ROTK (again, not the book) that people were ignoring completely. The comment that made me reply was this one: Agreed, I was incredibly disappointed to hear Sean Astin didn't get a nod for his performance as Sam. Easily the most moving performance I've seen in a long time, and he pulled it off perfectly.
Sorry, I think that is a little too much blind devotion for me.
And what was with the nutsack comment later on? Insulting people WILL get you modded down, at least, in my experience here.
The key thing is "later on". I said that well after I was modded down. Once you get modded that low, there is no chance of many people reading it. I thought people should read it, it seemed to be the only post that wasn't wedged firmly up Peter Jackson's posterior.
I could have thought it out better, and posted more "evidence" to back up my opinion, but I just wanted to throw the idea out there for people to consider. Obviously, certain opinions aren't welcome around here. After all, moderators don't HAVE to mod down, and in fact I think they are more encouraged to use their mod points to mod things up.
They do teach this in professional driving schools (at least in some.)
I know they teach this in the BMW driving schools. At my first event, I remember seeing one guy adjusting his by having a buddy stand behind his car, and move from right to left. The guy in the driver's seat would adjust his mirrors so that when the guy behind appeared on the left edge of the rearview mirror, he also appeared on the right edge of the left side mirror. (and the opposite for the right side mirror)
When you are on the track, you don't have time to look over your shoulder. Some guys also have long, stair-step like mirrors as a rearview mirror, so they can see to the entire rear and side of the car at a glance.
BTW, performance driving schools are a friggin blast! And don't believe all the ancient "yuppie" talk you hear about BMW drivers, the guys who take them to driving schools, SCCA, and races are hardcore serious about it. And it isn't just crazy fun, they teach you how to properly handle the car, be safe about it. I took my 88 M3 to a driving school with a Porsche club, and there was little instruction and seemed much more dangerous. But there is nothing like passing a $90,000 911.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who assoiciates with Microsoft is a "taint by association" - as in this kind of taint.
The real question is, will it run Linux?
Hmm. Wait a minute - an embedded OS and WM included with the graphics card. Now we're talking!
I refuse to believe this assertion, simply because that would require some kind of thought-out design of Windows. Not only that, but they don't even handle migrations to their own products gracefully!
I recently had to move off of Win98 at work, and was forced to go to XP, as it is the new corporate standard. Now, whenever my network password expires, I cannot change it. It says I do not have rights to do so. However, our server didn't change, just my client. Several other people also have this problem. The solution? You have to call up IT whenever your password expires to have them change it. Or you can just use a test machine (running NT) like I do. And before you laugh that I was running Win98, it was only mraginally worse than XP. Oh sure, it would BSOD more often, but XP isn't much better. But instead of crashing, it gets all funky and slow, and apps won't launch. So I have to reboot anyway. It could be the apps we are running that are causing the problems (Rational apps), but as an end user the app shouldn't affect the OS that much.
D'oh
What, does this guy think some government is going to trust its infrastructure to some home-grown distro that they downloaded off the 'net for free? Please.
We are out of Bort license plates in the gift shop. Repeat. More Bort license plates to the gift shop.
he he.
I didn't say it couldn't get tired, I said it couldn't jump the shark. There is that "turning point" for the show where it is just never the same. I don't think the Simpsons can do that, just because there will always be shining moments, even in the new episodes.
They have their moments of satire, the medical marijuana was pretty good, if not very direct. The whole Armen Tanzarian episode was a risky attempt. But what other show could even try something like that? It says something when the writers poke fun at themselves, and mention some of these questionable attempts in later episodes. Like when they were deciding where they should go on vacation, and they had a map of the US with Xs through states they had been to. At the end of that episode, which was the last of the season, they said "The Simpsons are going to Delaware!" and there was an exchange where Bart says "I want to visit a screen door factory!" Then the next season, they were on their way to Delaware. They did the same exchange. Of course, they never got there, that is the episode where they hopped the rail and rode with the Hobo who told them stories.
They have an amazing cast of secondary and third-tier characters. They can draw on it when some of the jokes get old with the main characters. And they get creative with the flow of the episodes. Like the one episode from three different perspectives (with Linguo the robot). Or they just rip off things, and don't try to hide it. Yeah, it may get tired, but there was never a shark to jump. I think they have great episodes throughout all of their seasons. Some are better from early on, but some of the early ones clearly stink too. I think some of the premises are getting old, like Sideshow Bob, so I hope they lay off of that. Unless he dies this season! Some ancillary character is supposed to die this season. Kelsey Grammer may want to go out in a blaze of glory. That would be kind of cool.
Ahh, but tell me exactly where they jumped the shark. That is the key. They haven't. They CAN'T. The nature of the show makes it impossible. Some would say that they did it when they did the 3D Homer episode - or it could be considered a classic! Maude dies? Risky, but no shark there. The rake scene? Classic.
Here is why the Simpsons amazes me. When I see a show in first run, I think it is OK or good, and sometimes bad. But it seems that when I see it in re-run, it gets better. I think some of the ones in the last few years are really good. In fact, I thought last week's was pretty funny.
Everyone has their favorite. Mine is an oldie - Selma's Choice. That is the one where Aunt Gladys dies, Lionel Hutz is the executor of the will, Homer eats the huge sandwich and gets sick, so Patty and Selma have to take the kids to Duff Gardens, where Lisa trips on the water and Bart tries on Beer Goggles. There is hardly a moment in that episode that I can't laugh at.
I still love their Halloween episodes, and when they go back and enact classic stories. Behind the Laughter was awesome. Their "milestone" episode show was brilliant, with outtake clips.
I swear I saw Homer jumping a shark on skis in the previews for this season. It made me crack up. I am actually surprised they haven't done it on the show yet. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if it became a running gag. I don't know if the Simpsons could ever truly jump the shark, they are all about the shark. :-)
For those who don't know about this phenomenon, "jumping the shark" is a term a guy coined to describe when a TV show (or anything for that matter) has started to go downhill. It comes from Happy Days, when Fonzie jumped a shark on water skis. It was made up to be a scary and serious episode, but was clearly very very lame. After that, the show was never the same. See jumptheshark.com for more info.
OK, this is neat, but WHY?
This same circuit could be adapted to:
Vary the brightness of a small light bulb.
Vary the speed of a small motor.
Drive an old-style swing needle meter.
(Variant of above) Drive a tachometer.
Heck, why not interface to a slot-car and have it go faster the higher your load average is?
I am sure you can take his code and modify it to do just that if you like. (and that answers part of your WHY question). The other part is just "because". This is true hacking.
I do like the idea of an analog gauge to show the CPU load.
Actually, I have found that it has helped me. You know what colleges turn out? Programmers. I got a BS-CS, so I did my share of programming. My job out of college was doing configuration managment, and from that I went on to testing. I did a LOT of shell scripting those first few years. (not quite programming, but is better than nothing) Sure, programmers make more than I do, but I also know several who are out of work. The market got saturated. They don't teach testing in school, at least they didn't when I was there. It was at best a chapter in a software development course. So my advantage is that I do something that they don't teach in school, you need someone who has experience to do it well.
You don't need to tell me I'm in the wrong job, I already know this. It sounds like there are some people out there that really enjoy their jobs in QA, but I don't for the reasons I already pointed out - I'm not detail-oriented, and this is a detail-oriented position.
That sucks that you don't like your field, and I can see where it would be hard to switch. I enjoy it about as much as I can, but it isn't really an enjoyable job. I am a detail-oriented person, so maybe that helps. The one thing about it is that you can only go so far up the ladder without getting into management (shudder). At least in programming, you can get into architecture design and whatnot.
The number of people using hurd just doubled!
You should think about getting certified as a CSTE (Certified Software Test Engineer) or CQA (Certified in Quality Assurance) from the Quality Assurance Institute.
By the way, I'm a software tester, and I hate my job. And don't worry about being too over-prepared for your job. All the testing jobs I've had (4 now) have been pretty simple.
You must be a contractor. I have been in software testing for 11 years now, and it can get very complicated. Of course, every place you work looks at testing differently. If you get in somewhere that values testing, your job can get very complicated - "Here, learn how this entire program works in a week. Oh, and learn how it interfaces with these two other products."
It's the easiest, most mind-numbing job for a computer professional. Not fun if you ask me... If you are detail-oriented, and not problem-solving oriented, it might be a good match for you. But don't expect to do much thinking on the job...
Sorry, but you don't sound like a professional to me. Sure, it can be boring and un-technical, but if you take that attitude then you'll be doing the same job forever. There are tons of opportunities to work directly with developers to debug code, or get into complex system configurations, or performance testing and tuning, or tracking down some elusive customer problem. It all depends on where you are working, and their level of sophistication. Test automation is a whole nuther ball-o-wax too. There are requirements, design, and sometimes code inspections. And if where you are working is into the whole CMM thing, then QA is not testing, but is process oriented.
Believe me, a good quality tester is a valuable asset. They think differently than programmers, which can strike a very good balance. If a workplace doesn't value their QA/testing people, then it probably shows in their products.
Just a note - Software QA (i.e. Quality Assurance) can mean anything from a tester in the trenches to someone who only works on process improvement. Note that in the CMM, Software Quality Assurance has nothing to do with testing. It is a process job. Keep this in mind, depending on where you are working.
Let's not forget one of the worst remakes, La Femme Nikita, with Brigette Fonda instead of the original French version, which is 10x better.
Hey, I understand Lucas may want to release his half-assed versions of the film, but he should still release the originals. You can't expect a movie with such a huge fanbase, which MADE Lucas who he is, to not have emotions about it. Lucas owes his fame to these people. And yet, they aren't asking for anything outrageous, just simply the original movie that they love.
Companies (and home users) should choose to leave Windows because of its licensing, first and foremost. The MS EULA basically says, "we own you" and people should take issue with that. If we all followed every license to the letter of the law, very few people would be using proprietary software -- especially Windows. ... ...What is the hidden cost of being tied down by fascist licensing? It costs you your freedom and subjects you to software audits. Violation of the EULA is US$200,000 and up to five years in jail...
..... Nah. :-)
OK, I feel this way too sometimes. But I have to look at it realistically too. Businesses - yeah, they have to consider TCO and licensing terms. Home users? No consideration whatsoever. I understand that *technically* Microsoft could audit everyone for license compliance, but it is not feasable that they would do so. Licensing of Windows sucks, if you care about it at all. Ask any home user of Windows what their major beef with it is, and I'll bet nobody says anything about Freedom. Hell, most people don't even like computers, let alone have a philosophy regarding them. That is why Microsoft has such a huge marketshare - they cater to the lowest common denominator. Not that the LCD is bad, just that the majority of people aren't tech-heads. People don't get it, nor do they WANT to get it. They don't care. Virus hits, they can't do email for a few days, they get over it. As Homer would shrug and say "Hmm, whadaya gonna do?"
If there is any kind of "Linux Revolution" it won't start in the U.S. All of a sudden, U.S. companies will look around and realize that the rest of the world has embraced this "new" technology and we'll have to play catch-up. Fine by me, maybe then I can get a job doing something I like - but I feel sorry for all the MCSEs.
Well, let me just add that if that was his goal, he failed. Everyone I talked to after the meeting didn't feel better about their job. Example: Outsourcing did come up. The answer was that we don't do that, our people have product knowledge that outsourcing couldn't cover, etc etc. And then at the end added that the company has done some outsourcing overseas, but that it probably wouldn't happen in our group.
Another example: When the issue of raises and compensation came up, he went into the normal "the market is bad, we need to be cautious, we chose to lower raises instead of cutting jobs, the bonus program was cut, etc." (even though I have inside information from a manager that left that they still have the management bonus program in place) Then at the end, he said something that upper management should never say. He said "You are all lucky to have jobs." That should never come out of the mouth of an exec. All of the other stuff could be considered valid reasons, but to say that we should essentially shut up and be thankful for what we do have is an insult. Yes, it is true that I do feel I am lucky to be working right now, but that should never come from up above. Because when the market does get better, then we'll see who is the lucky one when I leave. Bridges can be burned from the other side too. Maybe I am overly optimistic, but they are also lucky that I am working here. They are lucky anyone is working for them. It just so happens that right now, there is not much else out there, but what is going to happen when there is? I know what the answer is for me.
To be quite honest, you don't matter to Disney (unless you are a parent). They market their tripe to the mass-market of parents. Good, wholesome family values. They get parents to buy every friggin thing they put out with this method. Who wants to hear a kid screaming over and over that they want to watch The Lion King 1 1/2? Just buy the DVD so the kid will shut up for a couple of hours. Go into a mall, and look at who is actually buying things in the Disney store. Go to that train-wreck Disney themed indoor amusement thingy. Go to Disney World. Ugh. They aren't concerned with quality, they are concerned with $$$$$. Microsoft is the way to go for them...
Recently went to a mandatory *shudder* all-employee meeting because the VP was in town. Big, big company. Anyway, the morning of the meeting, the head of operations comes around, and he hands me a slip of paper. It has a topic on it. It seems like nobody asks questions at these meetings, so they decided to hold a "focus group" to come up with questions. Then they took those questions, and gave them to people to ask.
I was surprised by the whole thing, so I didn't get a chance to say no. I was actually given a topic, not a question. "The use of the rating and ranking system in the company" They use a ratings and ranking system in the company, commonly known as "rank and yank" where all the managers have to rank their people from 1 to N. Then all the managers get together and put their lists together, aka horse trading. Eventually, there is a top 15%, bottom 15%, and middle 70%. I decided that I wouldn't just ask what it was, I would ask them a hardline question about it. Something along the lines of "Why did we choose to implement a rating and ranking system, even though the only people it really benefits is upper management?"
Well, the meeting ran long, and some of the planted people got to ask their question, but not me. Wow, you could really tell that the questions were planted too, it was embarassing. So after the meeting, I talked to the op director and asked why they didn't just give the questions to the VP instead of making it seem like people were just coming up with them? He said that it was the VP's idea to plant the questions in the audience, and he did know what they were going to be. He just wanted it to look spontaneous.
I still can't quite believe it.
If your penis doesn't enlarge when you rub cream on it, maybe you're buying the wrong product.
Ahh, so many penis jokes...
Guy goes to the doctor and says "Doc, my penis is small, is there anything you can do for me?"
Doc says "Go home, and every night rub butter on your penis. Come back in a month."
So the guy comes back in a month, and is very upset. "Doc! My penis didn't get any bigger, in fact it got smaller!"
"Did you rub butter on it every night?"
"Well, we didn't have butter, so I used Crisco."
"No no no! Crisco is shortening."
Yeah, but if everything was spot-on-topic this place would be a little more boring.
What I was getting at is that if you insult people, they will mod you down later on. Perhaps you used a similar term like nutsack in a previous post that pissed someone off? Just because you were modded down during a ROTK-love-in, doesn't mean it's because you were bashing it.
I think that is exactly what happened. Moderators are supposed to moderate the POST, not the poster. If someone has that good of a memory, then they really need to back away from the keyboard.
Really, I loved the movies, and I did think Sean Astin did a wonderful job (honestly, look at the other nominees - are they that much better? Johnny Depp?!)
/were/ problems - wargs were completely useless, Aragorn's "fall to his death" wasn't necessary (and reminded us of the repetitive nature of the first movie), the Ents were too easily tricked for being some of the oldest and wisest creatures in Middle Earth, etc.etc.
:-)
My brutally honest take? I was sick of his character in the first movie. I thought he was a whiny, weak character. And I saw his transformation from weak to strong, I just didn't care. I am sure there was something in the books that explained why he called Frodo "Mr. Frodo" but it annoyed the crap out of me. I thought his character pouted and cried too much. As for other nominees, I can't comment on too many of them. Of these movies, I only saw Lost in Translation and The Last Samurai. I thought the nominees for both of these movies would deserve it much more.
Johnny Depp - PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL
Ben Kingsley - HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG
Jude Law - COLD MOUNTAIN
Bill Murray - LOST IN TRANSLATION
Sean Penn - MYSTIC RIVER
ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Alec Baldwin - THE COOLER
Benicio Del Toro - 21 GRAMS
Djimon Hounsou - IN AMERICA
Tim Robbins - MYSTIC RIVER
Ken Watanabe - THE LAST SAMURAI
but there
Hmm. Good points I didn't even consider. I did notice that everyone seemed to be piss-poor fighters except for the main characters. One or two of these things are "passable" but they seem to really add up in ROTK, at least for me. Lengthy, cinematic pans can only carry a movie for so long.
But nothing's perfect - I could pick apart Monster or Mystic River, both beautiful movies, by why bother?
That is part of getting to what is REALLY good. I like to pick movies apart (even if I like them) just because I can then really appreciate the good ones. And I like some movies that can be picked to death. Sometimes weak movies are still good for various reasons. But I like them in spite of their bad points, I don't try to ignore them. I remember seeing Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon in the theater, and I knew what Chinese hero movies were like. When they were flying around the screen, there were some people in there laughing, saying "yeah, right". To me, that is a really dumb thing to pick at, because it was intentional! Sometimes the annoying things about the movie are good. Heck, look at 2001: A Space Odyssey. That movie is kind of painful and boring at times, but it is supposed to be. It plays with your emotions. But it isn't painful and boring in a "Moulin Rouge" kind of way.
Ahh, a topic that truly makes me feel like a pendulum....
I go back and forth on this issue all the time. I am not my job. But what if everyone was like that? We wouldn't get very far. I like what I do, but what I do is not me. But what if I did do something that I absolutely loved? Would it lose its magic because it was then my job? At what point does work become no fun anymore? My wife is a teacher. She loves it and hates it at the same time. She obviously isn't doing it for the money. But she gets rewards at her job that I will never ever get at mine. She has touched kids lives, and when it happens I am a little jealous. She has actually made a difference because she truly cares about teaching. Teachers are always teachers.
What if cops weren't their jobs? What about doctors? Hey man, you have to lie there and bleed because I am off today. Not make sense? What if Linus wasn't the embodiment of the Linux kernel? What if he didn't make his love his work? What about Van Gogh, or Mozart? They were their art. Of course, there is no guarantee that if you live your job you will love it, but can you really love it without living it?
People always complain about the crappy service they get from the wait staff at restaurants. How do you expect people to love their job if you make it miserable for them? What about chefs? They work a LOT, they live their jobs. They are always a chef. That is how they get to be that good. Same with professional athletes, they have to always be doing their job, or at least considering it.
Man, I really waver on this one. What if I loved my job? Would I need to long for the weekends like I do now? How much time do you spend wishing you were somewhere else while at work? What if you loved every minute of it? I still feel that I am not my job, but I kind of secretly wish that I was. Because that would mean that I was doing what I loved, and maybe I wouldn't be looking for a "way out". I still think that you have to be something outside of your work to be healthy. But part of me wants to take the classic approach of "do everything to the best of your ability". The elusive pursuit of perfection.
In the end I think it has to be about balance. Balance your work and non-work time, whether you are your job or not. You have to have balance in everything to make the universe happy.
Did you read the rest of the comments to that story? It was just a bunch of people fawning over the movie, lavishing it with praises. I expected that. But look at the post I replied to - that was what forced me to hit Reply. Not only because of what was said, but that it was modded up.
It read like you were playing dumb, basically, saying "gee you already know how it's going to come out, why bother seeing it?"
Is it inconceivable that there are some geeks out there, and I am one, who isn't into the LOTR books? I wasn't playing dumb, I hadn't read them. I watched the movies with fresh eyes, I wasn't tainted by the love of the story. The entire thread was about the MOVIE, not the books. Fans of the books have a hard time separating the two, and aren't interested in the opinions of those who haven't read them (unless of course they smell an opportunity to expound their font of knowledge about the story). It may seem like I was playing dumb, but I went to these movies hoping to really see what all the hype was about. I was somewhat disappointed because all I saw was a good movie, not "the greatest movie ever" as many have claimed. If someone is called a fanboy, instead of lashing out to prove they aren't, maybe they should ask themselves if they really are. (and if they are, is that so bad?)
Maybe, but that is what I felt, based on reading all of the other comments about how absolutely fantastic the movie was. I still think that people can't look at things objectively. I remember right after Episode I, people went on and on about how it was the best one ever. Of course, those people probably camped out on the street for a week. Their pride won't let them admit it wasn't very good. Same with Episode II. I know a guy who went and saw it several times, and raved about it. I didn't see it until it came out on rental, and I couldn't believe ANYONE would rave about that movie.
I was trying to point out the things about the movie ROTK (again, not the book) that people were ignoring completely. The comment that made me reply was this one: Agreed, I was incredibly disappointed to hear Sean Astin didn't get a nod for his performance as Sam. Easily the most moving performance I've seen in a long time, and he pulled it off perfectly.
Sorry, I think that is a little too much blind devotion for me.
And what was with the nutsack comment later on? Insulting people WILL get you modded down, at least, in my experience here.
The key thing is "later on". I said that well after I was modded down. Once you get modded that low, there is no chance of many people reading it. I thought people should read it, it seemed to be the only post that wasn't wedged firmly up Peter Jackson's posterior.
I could have thought it out better, and posted more "evidence" to back up my opinion, but I just wanted to throw the idea out there for people to consider. Obviously, certain opinions aren't welcome around here. After all, moderators don't HAVE to mod down, and in fact I think they are more encouraged to use their mod points to mod things up.
I know they teach this in the BMW driving schools. At my first event, I remember seeing one guy adjusting his by having a buddy stand behind his car, and move from right to left. The guy in the driver's seat would adjust his mirrors so that when the guy behind appeared on the left edge of the rearview mirror, he also appeared on the right edge of the left side mirror. (and the opposite for the right side mirror)
When you are on the track, you don't have time to look over your shoulder. Some guys also have long, stair-step like mirrors as a rearview mirror, so they can see to the entire rear and side of the car at a glance.
BTW, performance driving schools are a friggin blast! And don't believe all the ancient "yuppie" talk you hear about BMW drivers, the guys who take them to driving schools, SCCA, and races are hardcore serious about it. And it isn't just crazy fun, they teach you how to properly handle the car, be safe about it. I took my 88 M3 to a driving school with a Porsche club, and there was little instruction and seemed much more dangerous. But there is nothing like passing a $90,000 911. :-)