Has dealt with Java-only programmers, and their sloppy and REALLY SLOW practises. (Very long development time.)
I'm pretty sure any competent programmer can write good code in any language, and do it fast, including Java, but Java-only programmers seem to be almost as far from that as VisualBasic6-only programmers.
And using Java in your project seems to attract a lot of such programmers.
Besides that: what's the point of having a HelloWorld class and a speak method?
Your code seems unnecessarily engineered, just what a Java-only programmer would have done.
Well, if you are a mathematician you understand this: Any single software system that doesn't have any bug proves that your assertion "all software systems have bugs" is false.
Just because lots of companies write sloppy code doesn't mean that ALL code ever written is sloppy and buggy.
To me you don't know how computers work. You act like all the software has to work like Windows or Unix, and be programmed in C or C++.
Ohh that's all that they sell in retail now. Sorry, I know why you have your preconceptions.
A bug free computer system is possible, just think about banking systems that have been running for years. Or some of the stuff written by the military that controls planes or other realtime systems. Or the TeX system developed by Knuth.
We can prove the correctness of software just the same as any mathematician proves a theorem. And we can reuse the stuff easier than a mathematician can.
The problem is, bug free software is about 10 to 100 times more expensive to write. And no one will pay USD$25000 for a copy of Windows.
Now, we can take an order of magnitude more time to write this system and make it bug free than the time we can spend writing its equivalent "ship fast because we have to sell" commercial system.
It will take a huge amount of time. But I'm sure it can be done. After all, we the humanity have written bug free mathematical proofs, and lots of those proofs are harder than the system programming you are irrationally afraid of.
I think that regarded to finitists then computers and their programmers are the only entities that can have effective mathematics, because we can only have in computers things that are computable in finite numbers of steps.
In this context, sets are easy, you have a (limited and finite) group of similar objects and that's all.
I think that I can imagine an algorithmic definition of aleph-0 infinity.
You simply have to implement a generator (with closures or classes). For example, for the integers: you can always, having an integer n, compute n+1. So you have a generator called next_integer() that gives you the next integer in the sequence.
That way, you can have also a next_prime(), next_square(), whatever.
There, you can easily see that all this generators have the same 'cardinality', that is, you can always have the next element. You can call any generator as many times you want, and the number of times you called it is your current 'cardinality'. If you choose to call next_integer() more times than next_prime() that is just an arbitrary decision made by you.
2 * infinite = infinite, because if you called next_sequence1() twice as often than you called next_sequence2(), you can still call next_sequence1() two more times and next_sequence2() one more time.
Neither of them will run out of elements.
As long as you can keep calling a sequence generator, you have aleph-0 infinity. Take into account that you don't need to store all previous values returned by the generator.
and it's generally the highest resolution that monitor will support mapping 1 pixel on the screen to 1 pixel on the hardware itself
It's actually the ONLY resolution that supports that.
This was less a problem on old CRTs
This is absolutely NO problem at all in old CRTs. I have one of them right now. 21", great for games at all resolutions from 640x480 to 1600x1200. I also have a 21" WS LCD at work. LCDs are better for showing text and coding. But move your head and the colour changes.
Probably the only display technology that will really satisfy me is OLED, or something else that nobody will start to mass manufacture in five years.
In IE.avi video files look better than any FLV and you can see the video with your computer using a lot less CPU. WMP always uses hardware acceleration when available. FLV? never.
Right now it really depends only on webmasters.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
I don't care about which browser is the best.
But I do care a lot about a browser than can make IE6 (and IE7) marketshare to dissapear and make our lives as Web developers easier.
And this means targeting Joe Sixpack browser.
So, what do you think a browser needs to be able to do that?
I think Chrome actually has a chance to be this saviour browser.
My fault. Paperback was already mentioned and I missed it.
However, let's keep the discussion. I think that because Linux ABI incompatibilities from time to time, and because of projects like Wine, the only universal binaries that will exist in the future are precisely Win32 exe files, provided that they don't use any hidden API.
In fact, if I wanted to write commercial software that runs in Linux, I would simply use Wine and Win32 and stop worrying about distro dependencies.
If binaries can be used 25 years from now (and Wine will become even more important if Win32 dissapears), source code will surely be used.
About 2D barcodes... shouldn't they be called dotcodes instead?
Slashdot Mirror
For a better theory of conciousness I recommend the book:
I of the Vortex: From Neurons to Self
by Rodolfo Llinás.
It unexpectedly has something to do with my own signature.
I'm pretty sure any competent programmer can write good code in any language, and do it fast, including Java, but Java-only programmers seem to be almost as far from that as VisualBasic6-only programmers.
And using Java in your project seems to attract a lot of such programmers.
Besides that: what's the point of having a HelloWorld class and a speak method?
Your code seems unnecessarily engineered, just what a Java-only programmer would have done.
It doesn't matter.
Any given comment will be read by thousands of people and not all of them will agree with your own interpretation.
In fact, it's the readers who define what a text means, not the author.
Do you want to convey another meaning? Write it better.
My question is, are paths and selections antialiased in the Gimp ?
Can I choose between aliased/anti-aliased ?
And why should they care about the reason some people need CMYK, as long as there exists a group with that legitimaly need?
If I think I need CMYK, and I don't, I don't see how that's THEIR F!@#$ng problem.
Well, if you are a mathematician you understand this: Any single software system that doesn't have any bug proves that your assertion "all software systems have bugs" is false.
Just because lots of companies write sloppy code doesn't mean that ALL code ever written is sloppy and buggy.
To me you don't know how computers work. You act like all the software has to work like Windows or Unix, and be programmed in C or C++.
Ohh that's all that they sell in retail now. Sorry, I know why you have your preconceptions.
A bug free computer system is possible, just think about banking systems that have been running for years. Or some of the stuff written by the military that controls planes or other realtime systems. Or the TeX system developed by Knuth.
We can prove the correctness of software just the same as any mathematician proves a theorem. And we can reuse the stuff easier than a mathematician can.
The problem is, bug free software is about 10 to 100 times more expensive to write. And no one will pay USD$25000 for a copy of Windows.
Now, we can take an order of magnitude more time to write this system and make it bug free than the time we can spend writing its equivalent "ship fast because we have to sell" commercial system.
It will take a huge amount of time. But I'm sure it can be done. After all, we the humanity have written bug free mathematical proofs, and lots of those proofs are harder than the system programming you are irrationally afraid of.
I think that regarded to finitists then computers and their programmers are the only entities that can have effective mathematics, because we can only have in computers things that are computable in finite numbers of steps.
In this context, sets are easy, you have a (limited and finite) group of similar objects and that's all.
I think that I can imagine an algorithmic definition of aleph-0 infinity.
You simply have to implement a generator (with closures or classes).
For example, for the integers: you can always, having an integer n, compute n+1. So you have a generator called next_integer() that gives you the next integer in the sequence.
That way, you can have also a next_prime(), next_square(), whatever.
There, you can easily see that all this generators have the same 'cardinality', that is, you can always have the next element. You can call any generator as many times you want, and the number of times you called it is your current 'cardinality'. If you choose to call next_integer() more times than next_prime() that is just an arbitrary decision made by you.
2 * infinite = infinite, because if you called next_sequence1() twice as often than you called next_sequence2(), you can still call next_sequence1() two more times and next_sequence2() one more time.
Neither of them will run out of elements.
As long as you can keep calling a sequence generator, you have aleph-0 infinity. Take into account that you don't need to store all previous values returned by the generator.
I use a whiteboarding plugin with skype, it appears in addons and is free.
Can you tell me what's a non-calibrated touchpad?
I don't think I have ever used one.
and it's generally the highest resolution that monitor will support mapping 1 pixel on the screen to 1 pixel on the hardware itself
It's actually the ONLY resolution that supports that.
This was less a problem on old CRTs
This is absolutely NO problem at all in old CRTs. I have one of them right now. 21", great for games at all resolutions from 640x480 to 1600x1200.
I also have a 21" WS LCD at work. LCDs are better for showing text and coding. But move your head and the colour changes.
Probably the only display technology that will really satisfy me is OLED, or something else that nobody will start to mass manufacture in five years.
Some laws are immoral and SHOULD be ignored by as many people as possible. That's civil disobedience.
For example, the DMCA.
My point is, just because something is a law, doesn't make it moral, and right, and perfectly justifiable.
Easy, block by HTTP_USER_AGENT.
IE gets a whitelist of job related domains, a secure browser like Firefox or Opera gets to browse the entire net.
And the problem is?
Hahaha!!
I would recommend him as presidential candidate adviser based on creativity alone.
But I'm not in politics, so I would not hire him.
Come on, he used Java!
I have learned to expect nothing less from Java-only programmers.
My little test is: "In your job, what have you used regexps for?"
Expect crazy faces on this one.
We Opera users care about it, not for the IE team, but for the browser' users.
In fact, the fact that IE team has ignored Opera means that we HAVE TO tell people about it. Otherwise nobody will do it. You will not do it.
Credit where it's due. And Opera deserves the credit.
Well, as an Opera zealot myself, I tested Chrome and found its javascript engine to be extremely fast.
So, merit where it's due.
You are totally right. That's the most common meaning of the word "Natural".
I do however think that Molochi is right, and the common meaning is just too simplistic, naive or stupid.
We are animals like any other mammal, there's no magic line separating us from the rest of nature.
In IE .avi video files look better than any FLV and you can see the video with your computer using a lot less CPU. WMP always uses hardware acceleration when available. FLV? never.
Right now it really depends only on webmasters.
I don't care about which browser is the best.
But I do care a lot about a browser than can make IE6 (and IE7) marketshare to dissapear and make our lives as Web developers easier.
And this means targeting Joe Sixpack browser.
So, what do you think a browser needs to be able to do that?
I think Chrome actually has a chance to be this saviour browser.
I have always preferred Opera's smooth scrolling.
I can control it with the mouse to pixel accuracy.
However, YMMV and all that.
My fault. Paperback was already mentioned and I missed it.
However, let's keep the discussion. I think that because Linux ABI incompatibilities from time to time, and because of projects like Wine, the only universal binaries that will exist in the future are precisely Win32 exe files, provided that they don't use any hidden API.
In fact, if I wanted to write commercial software that runs in Linux, I would simply use Wine and Win32 and stop worrying about distro dependencies.
If binaries can be used 25 years from now (and Wine will become even more important if Win32 dissapears), source code will surely be used.
About 2D barcodes... shouldn't they be called dotcodes instead?
I think this is a much better solution than barcodes. More data per page.
And opensource, so you can print the source code of the software too.
I think rFactor has the more realistic drifting modelling of all racing simulations.
The force feedback is not that good, you need to install a ff plugin to make it feel reasonably well.
YMMV.
That's not the problem. The problem is that it is not a new concept at all.