I totally agree with you on this issue. I want a single GUI API to code for that will work in every Linux out there, I want a single installer that will work in every Linux out there and I want standard system libraries that don't break between upgrades and the very common DLL hell. I want to upgrade mi Linux distro without having to wait forever to compile, or without having to reconfigure everything that I had changed manually again or having to install ten thousand dependencies for a 5kb thingie.
What we have instead is ugly./configure scripts.
The argument about 'but we have choice' is at first sight, logical, but when tested at large it is a nightmare. End users don't want choice, they want 'it just works' together with 'it is beautiful', because having to make choices feels like work. For people who love to thinker with their devices that's good, but most people is not like that at all.
Having things been different the 'Linux desktop year' would have been around 2002. Now it is too late to change things. OSX has also made me lose interest in Linux.
Windows XP is different, I like it because to me every piece of hardware and software works, including my favorite programmer editor, cell phone software, video editor, video import card, games, hardware for games like steering wheels, etc. No badmouthing Windows from me.
They are NOT "infinitely large". If they were infinitely large, then you wouldn't have to move the mouse *at all* to click on them. Calling them "infinitely large" just confuses people who know what the words "infinite" and "large" mean.
A semi-plane is as infinitely large as a plane. It follows easily by relating Descartes and Cantor theories.
If my mouse is outside that semi-plane I would have to move the mouse to click on it, and it would still be infinitely large.
That's for illustrating the concept. Screen borders are more like infinite rectangles with three sides, and screen corners are like quadrants on a plane (not so sure on this). Still as infinite as a plane (you can make the Cantor-correspondence just as easily as with a semiplane).
In that sense, all Knuth books are heavily literary. I have to totally disagree with you in this. Knuth books are almost purely mathematical books, not a Harry Potter novel. In fact they are more mathematical than most Calculus books I have read. And I mentioned them because they lay a lot of the fundamental ideas in modern computing.
but we don't need to know what a noun is I think you do need it. It's a basic part of the theory in Object Oriented Programming.
we shouldn't need to know what a derivative is, in order to get started in computer science Totally agree (except for the few times you need to read the big O notation). But mathematics is not calculus. Is a way of logical reason and deduction.
But mathematics is absolute and irrefutable in its results.
In debating you often hear 'but in the other hand' and so on, and even speakers can convince each other of their conflicting points of view.
Then normal or experimental sciences have this think that they have a paper stating stuff, and a couple of months later another paper stating just the opposite.
In maths you can't argue with something than has been proved, if the proof is indeed correct. You can't argue that 2+2=5 in any way, no matter what you feel about it. You can't disprove something once it has been proved. It is also much more strict in defining what really is a proof and what is not.
That's what makes mathematics more (or less) useful and different to philosophy and the other disciplines you mentioned.
Also, mathematics always use previous results as a foundation, and a lot of the time, a mathematical theory turns being useful for something unexpected by their authors.
I don't see why a lots of things that you believe are 'outside traditional math' can't be explored with math.
Mathematics is no more about numbers than is about objects and their arbitrary relationships. In fact, it sometimes defines the objects in terms of their relationships.
What makes mathematics what it is, is the method of theorems, and logical proofs. Anywhere you can state something abstract as a theorem and use it to prove statements, there is mathematics.
In that sense, all Knuth books are heavily mathematical.
However, maths is so often related with just calculus and advanced calculus, but I think it is because that's the part everybody has to suffer because it is useful for traditional engineering. It is time to change what's being taught as mathematics (there's much more to it than it's being used now).
Slashdot Mirror
I have a corded MX-500 Logitech optical mouse and have none of your issues.
It works everywhere except glass. A single white paper sheet is 'the perfect surface' it needs.
It is also the best gaming mouse I have ever used.
I understand you have your issues, but they are not typical at all.
OpenGL is equivalent to DirectX 7 (AFAIK).
DirectX is better because they have added more features at the same time video cards added more powerful hardware.
But this doesn't mean at all that OpenGL can not add the same features in a future revision. And I'm sure the OpenGL people are working on that.
Your post seems to imply that OpenGL is fixed and forever stale.
But I'm cheap.
It shows.
Wake me up when I can write commercial software in Linux and have a decent living from it.
I have argued against having TWO desktop environments in Linux since 2000: http://linuxgazette.net/issue56/giraldo.html
./configure scripts.
I totally agree with you on this issue. I want a single GUI API to code for that will work in every Linux out there, I want a single installer that will work in every Linux out there and I want standard system libraries that don't break between upgrades and the very common DLL hell. I want to upgrade mi Linux distro without having to wait forever to compile, or without having to reconfigure everything that I had changed manually again or having to install ten thousand dependencies for a 5kb thingie.
What we have instead is ugly
The argument about 'but we have choice' is at first sight, logical, but when tested at large it is a nightmare. End users don't want choice, they want 'it just works' together with 'it is beautiful', because having to make choices feels like work. For people who love to thinker with their devices that's good, but most people is not like that at all.
Having things been different the 'Linux desktop year' would have been around 2002. Now it is too late to change things. OSX has also made me lose interest in Linux.
Windows XP is different, I like it because to me every piece of hardware and software works, including my favorite programmer editor, cell phone software, video editor, video import card, games, hardware for games like steering wheels, etc. No badmouthing Windows from me.
I have since abandoned Youtube when I found this:
http://stage6.divx.com/
The image quality is amazingly good, totally opposite to Youtube and flash video in general.
Also, and very important to me (because I multitask), it consumes about the same CPU in both cases. Probably flash video consumes a little more.
There were too many responses without a descriptive subject. Too many plus signs to choose. The first ones I read where about something else entirely.
That's why I used a descriptive subject.
Somehow you remind me of ogame.
At least in the 'seriously-mess-with-your-circadian-rhythms' department.
They are NOT "infinitely large". If they were infinitely large, then you wouldn't have to move the mouse *at all* to click on them. Calling them "infinitely large" just confuses people who know what the words "infinite" and "large" mean.
A semi-plane is as infinitely large as a plane. It follows easily by relating Descartes and Cantor theories.
If my mouse is outside that semi-plane I would have to move the mouse to click on it, and it would still be infinitely large.
That's for illustrating the concept. Screen borders are more like infinite rectangles with three sides, and screen corners are like quadrants on a plane (not so sure on this). Still as infinite as a plane (you can make the Cantor-correspondence just as easily as with a semiplane).
Anyway, Art has very useful traits:
1 -720552.png
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/uploaded_images/Picture-
And they would surely deserve it.
May be you can use easy/hard for the difficulty and fuzzy/exact for the other concept.
That way you can say fuzzy sciences are harder than exact sciences because you don't have the reproducibility of the later.
The problem with tabs is that a bunch of Lisp hackers wrote a document ages ago that openly criticized tabs.
That said, tabs are a really bad idea in Lisp source code, because lisp needs a fine grained indentation scheme.
However, tabs are great in C/C++/Java etc. I love and use tabs extensively (except in Lisp).
Anyone that think tabs are bad has been indoctrinated by this anti-tabs document without really understanding the language for which it was written.
But I want to have that rig with some nice nVidia cards, like in the old good times.
You used one, but you (or someone else) have paid for seven.
I can't think how that hurts Microsoft.
I think your statement about "Your FUD is several years out of date" applies perfectly to
"From it's inception, directX was considered inferiour to openGL by all of the big gaming houses. DirectX's popularity is a product of marketing."
That was true in the times of DX6 and DX7. Now DX9 is superior to OpenGL.
I know my monitor eats 150w of energy.
But I will not change it for a 'move-in-your-seat-and-see-different-colors' LCD ugly display.
They also look good only in one resolution, and as a gamer that plainly sucks.
I understand that for tipical office uses the LCD is superior, but not for my needs.
I'm waiting with great hopes for the OLED and SED technologies to arrive.
How do you compare the Harry Potter and the Discworld books?
I'm genuinely interested in your opinion. (And more book recommendations.)
Bought my last desktop in 1986.
My cell phone has much more performance than the desktop on my desk.
Therefore, desktops suck.
Last time somebody asked me about Linux server distros the options were:
-CentOS
-Debian
No SuSE or Commercial RedHat anywhere.
+5 Insightful or something.
mmm may be toss one Offtopic, but insightful nonetheless.
I did it once.
I used LaTeX.
With a little more practice I could do it for all calculus homeworks.
Linear Algebra... well that's a though one.
So you are the reason the Sony Ericsson P990 has that horrible keyboard tacked on!
I can understand that it is useful for you, but...
I want one with a bigger screen instead of the bberry-like keyboard!
(still using my P900, don't want ugly keyboard)
Anyway, I blame you for that U_U
In that sense, all Knuth books are heavily literary.
6 995&cid=19788315
I have to totally disagree with you in this. Knuth books are almost purely mathematical books, not a Harry Potter novel. In fact they are more mathematical than most Calculus books I have read. And I mentioned them because they lay a lot of the fundamental ideas in modern computing.
but we don't need to know what a noun is
I think you do need it. It's a basic part of the theory in Object Oriented Programming.
we shouldn't need to know what a derivative is, in order to get started in computer science
Totally agree (except for the few times you need to read the big O notation). But mathematics is not calculus. Is a way of logical reason and deduction.
However, I think he said much better than I did:
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=24
But mathematics is absolute and irrefutable in its results.
In debating you often hear 'but in the other hand' and so on, and even speakers can convince each other of their conflicting points of view.
Then normal or experimental sciences have this think that they have a paper stating stuff, and a couple of months later another paper stating just the opposite.
In maths you can't argue with something than has been proved, if the proof is indeed correct. You can't argue that 2+2=5 in any way, no matter what you feel about it. You can't disprove something once it has been proved. It is also much more strict in defining what really is a proof and what is not.
That's what makes mathematics more (or less) useful and different to philosophy and the other disciplines you mentioned.
Also, mathematics always use previous results as a foundation, and a lot of the time, a mathematical theory turns being useful for something unexpected by their authors.
I don't see why a lots of things that you believe are 'outside traditional math' can't be explored with math.
Mathematics is no more about numbers than is about objects and their arbitrary relationships. In fact, it sometimes defines the objects in terms of their relationships.
What makes mathematics what it is, is the method of theorems, and logical proofs. Anywhere you can state something abstract as a theorem and use it to prove statements, there is mathematics.
In that sense, all Knuth books are heavily mathematical.
However, maths is so often related with just calculus and advanced calculus, but I think it is because that's the part everybody has to suffer because it is useful for traditional engineering. It is time to change what's being taught as mathematics (there's much more to it than it's being used now).