Mine cost about $200 (with a cheesy amp built in).
My cd player in my car which cost $450 with a nice amp in the trunk plays MP3s but even 320 kbps MP3s don't sound good enough, there is no gapless or crossfade option, the "random" play feature is not random. I can predict each "random" song.
I downloaded something like 1.8 Gigs of "high quality" MP3s from usenet one night, and they are just not worth my time.
Yes, I realize that I'm picky, but MP3s are worse sonically than analog cassette tapes. DTS is the best lossy codec out there, but there is little content for it.
Right now, CDs are the best price/performance thing out there. They only cost $8 to $10 a piece used.
And the grandparent mentioned Beta, and I will add minidisc and DAT.
Lets take a look at the history here:
Beta -> killed, basically because of Sony minidisc -> killed, basically because of Sony SACD -> killed, basically because of Sony
DAT -> killed, basically because of the recording industry and SCMS
DCC -> not sure why that was killed. AFAIK, it did not have SCMS. I believe it was not that good of a format. Less than CD quality if I remember correctly
DVD-Audio -> don't know what the problem here is. I would love to get DVD-A in my car. CD+ quality with hours of content? I would love that.
Laserdisc -> killed because the discs were too big and scary looking, but good quality for the time.
Quadrophonic probably never took off because electronics were already expensive back then, so it was probably hard to overcome that hurdle.
I mean, HDTV is what a late 90s thing? And we still don't have hidef content. They only hidef that I can get is from cable, satellite, or OTA TV. CDs are late 70s technology (maybe early 80s). The oldest digital recording I own is from 1978.
Why can't these people flood us with content at a reasonable price that we simply do not have the time or need to pirate the stuff?
My HD DVR has firewire output that I can copy the stuff to my computer. Supposedly some of the channels are encrypted, and it takes realtime to make a copy. But I never have made a copy, but I always have 80 gigs of fresh content on my DVR that I can watch anytime. I love it. Oh, and someone is getting the $70 a month or so that I pay for content, right? I mean, sometimes I even watch or listen to the commercials because I'm busy doing something else and don't feel like fiddling with the remote control.
What I don't understand is that the content "providers" dabble in all aspects of the modern era, but they insist on putting stuff on plastic disks and sell them at a brick and mortar store. I mean, Sony makes electronics, but they are talking about making the PS3 so that it does not play Sony movies. Huh??? Time/Warner owns a cable TV outfit and internet, but won't let you download their movies or with little streaming capabilities.
The movie industry lets TV channels broadcast their stuff. The music industry lets radio broadcast their stuff. When are they just going to get with the times and deliver modern day technology?
Oh, the funny thing is that I would assume most people would prefer the lower quality DVDs via DRM. Look how popular iTunes and AACs and MP3s are. Can't figure that one out.
I work on an air force base, and not only is IE the standard, but Firefox is on the list of unapproved apps. so if you're caught using it via the monthly scans, you're forced to uninstall it.
Cute. The government appears to be pretty stupid about security. Lets subpoena Google and let them spy on the people for us, yet the DOE and other government agencies typically get Ds or Fs when it comes to security. Proof that they are confused:
OS X 10.3.6 is listed EAL 3, but Win 2000, 2003, and XP are EAL 4? No mainstream UNIX systems are listed.
I don't know much about security accreditation nowadays (FIPS, EAL, and others). All I know is that I know my systems and my own privacy are much more secure by staying away from Microsoft software. I've never had a compromise, virus, spyware, malware, or anything on any of my Linux, Solaris, or OS X since 1994. I did get a virus from a floppy that a roommate brought from a computer lab on Windows 3.11 back in the day (Monkey boot sector virus).
Also, being that it is now 2006, maybe we should stop using usernames and passwords for authentication or at least exclusively using them.
The best I have seen passwords work is at Bank of America's online banking.
I don't know the details, but I'm guessing it stores a cookie on your machine if you tell them its your normal computer. If that cookie is not found, then the site will show you a picture and a user defined caption for the picture to prove that the bank is my bank. It then asks me one of 3 or so questions I set up to verify before going to the password screen.
I just went to the brick and mortar bank today, and showed them my bank card as my ID. No password required. Hmm...
I'm fairly new to OS X, and don't know much of the internals and I have no clue on developing via Xcode or a lick about Objective-C.
The otool command is new to me. Its handy because I too was getting "No such file or directory" with trying to use ldd. One thing this article does not mention is weather OS X calls mmap() on an executable and/or libraries? It probably does. I believe all modern OSes do this now, but I could be wrong.
Unless I'm missing something, I would prefer all of these things to be available as standalone apps so I could interact with the rest of my applications. I don't see where the Widget MDI adds anything.
Is it easier to program a widget vs a standalone app? Would any of the widgets be less desirable as a standalone app?
For all its eye-candy, OS X does almost no translucency, except on the dock.
Translucency is built into OS X and hardware accelerated. Expose, the dock, SVG icons, terminal window, etc. use them. There are themes that you can get 3rd part to add more translucency if you want.
The day that Apple decides to by default make window titles and borders semi-translucent with a nice blurring feature and hides the title of background windows and all that jazz, I'll go back to a Linux desktop.
For the number of you people bashing Microsoft, a hell of a lot of you are looking at those screenshots, so if you don't like Vista, please get off the damn site.
Well, like it or not, Microsoft is a fairly dominant player in the computing world, and for computer professionals like myself that do not use Microsoft products, its still worthwhile to know what the rest of the world sees and does with computers.
I can't tell if I'm just biased, but to me it seems like there are more criticisms and chronic delays and fewer real usable features that are coming with Microsoft's latest and greatest. Personally, I believe Microsoft should be ashamed for not even attempting the WinFS thing. As computers can do more things like multimedia and the amount of data that people have on their machines today is astounding, yet MS has not properly addressed content management. SourceSafe or whatever it was called is a perfect example. On the other hand, Project is one of their organizing apps that is reportedly decent and has no competition.
In the third [screen]shot down, the windows stacked at a 3-D angle looks horrible. It might amuse little kids for a while though (clippy all over again)
What about the slightly oversized, semi-transparent window titlebars and borders?
What are these guys thinking? What about the Tiger widgets ripoff, now called gadgets? (BTW, I think both are useless).
I don't understand Microsoft.
Why don't they focus on what is important besides inventing more confusing and unintuitive UI features?
Microsoft will be able to sell there OS software for years, even if they don't update their OS. Most of their consumer/business OS sales come from OEM agreements, and server licensing is a totally different ball of wax. But why in the world are they focusing on this gimmiky and ugly interface when they could be working on security, reliability, availability, and basic usability? These are the areas where Windows has lacked for over a decade now, and these are the things that their customers want and need. Clippy or Microsoft Bob are cute for children, but the rest of us want to interact with our applications and hardware without being inconvenienced. Hopefully, this will be one of their last releases for an OS.
Since when are the PowerPC G4 and G5 x86 systems? Or are you saying you don't run those anymore and you just included them for completeness?
I noticed that after I hit submit.
For some reason, it didn't dawn on me to include my PowerBook G4 and my iMac G5. I got their pagesize, and threw the results in at the lat minute. I was surprised that the G5 only used a 4k pagesize.
And how many times a day to you type and retype pwd to see where you are or hostname to figure out what machine you are on or id to figure out who you are?
Personally, I have the eyecandy of a prompt that looks like: $HOSTNAME:$PWD and I have a terminal title of $USER@$HOSTNAME:$PWD and for certain commands, I show the commandline in the window (vi Makefile, for example).
This extra eyecandy allows me to select which window I want when I have tons open. I can cut and paste the $HOSTNAME:$PWD into another shell and scp files to and from there.
I'm very nervous when I see people with dumb shells that don't even do tab completion or when they refuse to put the PWD somewhere in their environment. Feedback is a good thing.
Oh, but the power users that don't put any useful information in their prompts or terminal titles do go out of their way to display a running count of the number of times they pressed the enter key. That has always baffled me, and is a sign of weakness in my opinion.
But why does windows has such a problem with it's eye candy compared to os x?
That is a feature of targeting your OS to a particular hardware platform.
Keep in mind that the eyecandy in OS X has gotten more optimized over the years with Altivec on G4 and G5 machines and now with SSE2 and/or SSE3 with the introduction of the Intel CPUs.
Windows and Linux have to have drivers, hooks and code for every lowest common denominator CPU and video chipset in the world, so there simply is not much time to code efficient eyecandy for all of these different combinations.
BTW, I really like OS X eyecandy, but I don't even consider it that. OS X is not intrusive or annoying like Windows and Linux is. No program is going to come flying up and steal your keyboard focus on you and yell at you until you dismiss the dialog box. OS X isn't going to tell you you have too many icons on your desktop. OS X isn't going to install every drive-by-install tray application and then have them yell at you. When there is a system update, its not going to blink at you until you install it. There isn't balloon help for every widget on the display.
Its strange, but one of the best eyecandy features of OS X is the dropshadows on windows, menu's, and dialog boxes. I actually have a dropshadow customization thing to emphasize it a little more, because it gives me a sense of depth and orientation when having overlapped windows. It creeps me out to see a website with a screenshot of an app and if it includes the dropshadow, it takes me a second to figure out that its on the webpage and not on my machine:)
Personally, I thought the eyecandy was lacking in previous Macs OSes. They didn't have much in the way of 3d to windows until 8, and a little more in 9. Back then I thought Macs were more primitive than some Linux GUI environments and even Windows. But now, I have to say that all other GUIs look so 90s to me now.
That in the very previous/. story about a Sun product vulnerability, the hackers get ripped, but when it's Microsoft, the software company gets ripped.
The difference is that if Sun were DDosed every couple of weeks on millions of PCs for almost 10 years because of putting something as stupid as "Active Scripting" or ActiveX into a product that is coupled tightly with the operating system (no, it appears as the decoupled version even helped this one), then we would be blaming the software company as well.
So, has MS learned yet that ActiveX (I'm assuming Active Scripting is similar or the same thing) is "A Bad Thing" yet?
Wow, $1/CPU/hr. Same price as an MP3 off of iTunes, so it must be worthwhile, right?
OK, we are only about 3.5 months into the year of 2006, and lets look at some real data:
I run a few small to medium sized HPC clusters, and on one of them, here are the CPU hours used during 2006 -- 163,000+ this is on less than $500k of hardware that is years old. That would cost $163k just in computing time, not to include time to port applications, debug, etc.
Sun needs to be run by engineers and visionaries again, not by marketers. $1/CPU/hr is not going to do much better on those falling stock prices than selling $200 Linux PCs in Wal-Mart.
No, we are talking about AutoRun. And it is a design flaw. Every and any program that automatically runs arbitrary code or programs without user involvement is flawed. The past decade+ of exploits should be enough evidence for even a novice programmer by now.
Do you think that anyone back during the conception of that feature thought that a decade down the road companies were going to distribute executables on music cds that install rootkits a la DRM?
Nah, but lets implement the feature just in case.
I worked with a "senior" programmer who was so smart that he reinvented the CGI gateway specification using his own delimitators and syntax and other clever stuff. I was amazed at his insight and lack of knowledge of web applications (this was about 1999). I was even more impressed when he did pseudocode like:
/mypath/url/data1=foo^data2=baz
where ^ was the newly invented symbol to replace the standard &
OK, here is where it gets better:
select * from $data1 where something = '$data2'
with _no_ check on $data1 or $data2
Now, if some moron like me that has never had a CS class, and was an entry level programmer (my first and second to last development job) could figure this out, why couldn't this "senior" programmer or a software company like, say, Microsoft?
Most of us, who recorded, listed to the class while driving home and had two sets of notes, what we took in the class and the rewrite that we made when out of class with our original notes and the tapes.
Ha! When I was in school, I took it one more level:)
I reread a condensed version of the notes into a tape recorder and played that in my car.
I also used high tech 3x5 cards which I used a variably random reorganization technique (I shuffled them), and I would use an advanced data reduction and focus technique as I learned the material better (I put the cards that I knew cold in a different pile).
When I got my first Linux PC in college, that is when my grades plummeted.
Slashdot Mirror
Mine cost about $200 (with a cheesy amp built in).
My cd player in my car which cost $450 with a nice amp in the trunk plays MP3s but even 320 kbps MP3s don't sound good enough, there is no gapless or crossfade option, the "random" play feature is not random. I can predict each "random" song.
I downloaded something like 1.8 Gigs of "high quality" MP3s from usenet one night, and they are just not worth my time.
Yes, I realize that I'm picky, but MP3s are worse sonically than analog cassette tapes. DTS is the best lossy codec out there, but there is little content for it.
Right now, CDs are the best price/performance thing out there. They only cost $8 to $10 a piece used.
So, soon we will learn which is more powerful. US government, S. Korean government, or the almighty buck.
The US conviction and lack of punishment or change by Microsoft showed that the buck is more powerful in the US.
We will see what S. Korea does...
Stereo LP -> Quadrophonic LP
VHS -> Laserdisc
Cassette -> DCC
CD -> SACD / DVD-Audio
And the grandparent mentioned Beta, and I will add minidisc and DAT.
Lets take a look at the history here:
Beta -> killed, basically because of Sony
minidisc -> killed, basically because of Sony
SACD -> killed, basically because of Sony
DAT -> killed, basically because of the recording industry and SCMS
DCC -> not sure why that was killed. AFAIK, it did not have SCMS. I believe it was not that good of a format. Less than CD quality if I remember correctly
DVD-Audio -> don't know what the problem here is. I would love to get DVD-A in my car. CD+ quality with hours of content? I would love that.
Laserdisc -> killed because the discs were too big and scary looking, but good quality for the time.
Quadrophonic probably never took off because electronics were already expensive back then, so it was probably hard to overcome that hurdle.
Because they suck at what they do.
I mean, HDTV is what a late 90s thing? And we still don't have hidef content. They only hidef that I can get is from cable, satellite, or OTA TV. CDs are late 70s technology (maybe early 80s). The oldest digital recording I own is from 1978.
Why can't these people flood us with content at a reasonable price that we simply do not have the time or need to pirate the stuff?
My HD DVR has firewire output that I can copy the stuff to my computer. Supposedly some of the channels are encrypted, and it takes realtime to make a copy. But I never have made a copy, but I always have 80 gigs of fresh content on my DVR that I can watch anytime. I love it. Oh, and someone is getting the $70 a month or so that I pay for content, right? I mean, sometimes I even watch or listen to the commercials because I'm busy doing something else and don't feel like fiddling with the remote control.
What I don't understand is that the content "providers" dabble in all aspects of the modern era, but they insist on putting stuff on plastic disks and sell them at a brick and mortar store. I mean, Sony makes electronics, but they are talking about making the PS3 so that it does not play Sony movies. Huh??? Time/Warner owns a cable TV outfit and internet, but won't let you download their movies or with little streaming capabilities.
The movie industry lets TV channels broadcast their stuff. The music industry lets radio broadcast their stuff. When are they just going to get with the times and deliver modern day technology?
Oh, the funny thing is that I would assume most people would prefer the lower quality DVDs via DRM. Look how popular iTunes and AACs and MP3s are. Can't figure that one out.
I work on an air force base, and not only is IE the standard, but Firefox is on the list of unapproved apps. so if you're caught using it via the monthly scans, you're forced to uninstall it.
o peratingsystem
Cute. The government appears to be pretty stupid about security. Lets subpoena Google and let them spy on the people for us, yet the DOE and other government agencies typically get Ds or Fs when it comes to security. Proof that they are confused:
http://niap.nist.gov/cc-scheme/vpl/vpl_type.html#
OS X 10.3.6 is listed EAL 3, but Win 2000, 2003, and XP are EAL 4? No mainstream UNIX systems are listed.
I don't know much about security accreditation nowadays (FIPS, EAL, and others). All I know is that I know my systems and my own privacy are much more secure by staying away from Microsoft software. I've never had a compromise, virus, spyware, malware, or anything on any of my Linux, Solaris, or OS X since 1994. I did get a virus from a floppy that a roommate brought from a computer lab on Windows 3.11 back in the day (Monkey boot sector virus).
Also, being that it is now 2006, maybe we should stop using usernames and passwords for authentication or at least exclusively using them.
The best I have seen passwords work is at Bank of America's online banking.
I don't know the details, but I'm guessing it stores a cookie on your machine if you tell them its your normal computer. If that cookie is not found, then the site will show you a picture and a user defined caption for the picture to prove that the bank is my bank. It then asks me one of 3 or so questions I set up to verify before going to the password screen.
I just went to the brick and mortar bank today, and showed them my bank card as my ID. No password required. Hmm...
I'm fairly new to OS X, and don't know much of the internals and I have no clue on developing via Xcode or a lick about Objective-C.
The otool command is new to me. Its handy because I too was getting "No such file or directory" with trying to use ldd. One thing this article does not mention is weather OS X calls mmap() on an executable and/or libraries? It probably does. I believe all modern OSes do this now, but I could be wrong.
But these things are just applications.
Unless I'm missing something, I would prefer all of these things to be available as standalone apps so I could interact with the rest of my applications. I don't see where the Widget MDI adds anything.
Is it easier to program a widget vs a standalone app? Would any of the widgets be less desirable as a standalone app?
For all its eye-candy, OS X does almost no translucency, except on the dock.
m =16&pos=0, are not very flattering, and there are only a couple of windows open at a time.
Translucency is built into OS X and hardware accelerated. Expose, the dock, SVG icons, terminal window, etc. use them. There are themes that you can get 3rd part to add more translucency if you want.
The day that Apple decides to by default make window titles and borders semi-translucent with a nice blurring feature and hides the title of background windows and all that jazz, I'll go back to a Linux desktop.
The screenshots (mostly slashdotted) here, http://www.msblog.org/album/displayimage.php?albu
For the number of you people bashing Microsoft, a hell of a lot of you are looking at those screenshots, so if you don't like Vista, please get off the damn site.
Well, like it or not, Microsoft is a fairly dominant player in the computing world, and for computer professionals like myself that do not use Microsoft products, its still worthwhile to know what the rest of the world sees and does with computers.
I can't tell if I'm just biased, but to me it seems like there are more criticisms and chronic delays and fewer real usable features that are coming with Microsoft's latest and greatest. Personally, I believe Microsoft should be ashamed for not even attempting the WinFS thing. As computers can do more things like multimedia and the amount of data that people have on their machines today is astounding, yet MS has not properly addressed content management. SourceSafe or whatever it was called is a perfect example. On the other hand, Project is one of their organizing apps that is reportedly decent and has no competition.
In the third [screen]shot down, the windows stacked at a 3-D angle looks horrible. It might amuse little kids for a while though (clippy all over again)
What about the slightly oversized, semi-transparent window titlebars and borders?
What are these guys thinking? What about the Tiger widgets ripoff, now called gadgets? (BTW, I think both are useless).
I don't understand Microsoft.
Why don't they focus on what is important besides inventing more confusing and unintuitive UI features?
Microsoft will be able to sell there OS software for years, even if they don't update their OS. Most of their consumer/business OS sales come from OEM agreements, and server licensing is a totally different ball of wax. But why in the world are they focusing on this gimmiky and ugly interface when they could be working on security, reliability, availability, and basic usability? These are the areas where Windows has lacked for over a decade now, and these are the things that their customers want and need. Clippy or Microsoft Bob are cute for children, but the rest of us want to interact with our applications and hardware without being inconvenienced. Hopefully, this will be one of their last releases for an OS.
Why hasn't "3D" technology advanced in the last 15 years?
8 /44746.990304&ELEMENT_SET=DECL
First, you had red/blue glasses.
Then there was passive linear polarized glasses.
Then active shutter glasses with linear polarized glasses.
Now, there are passive achromatic circularly polarized glasses.
Its brand new. Some info here: http://www.wipo.int/cgi-pct/guest/getbykey5?KEY=9
Holograms exist, but they suck in color reproduction and you can't move your head too much.
Since when are the PowerPC G4 and G5 x86 systems? Or are you saying you don't run those anymore and you just included them for completeness?
I noticed that after I hit submit.
For some reason, it didn't dawn on me to include my PowerBook G4 and my iMac G5. I got their pagesize, and threw the results in at the lat minute. I was surprised that the G5 only used a 4k pagesize.
4Kbyte is the size of a page of memory on all modern architectures.
Huh? Which modern architectures?
The only systems I run that still have 4k page sizes are x86 systems.
x86-32 = 4k
x86-64 = 4k
G4,G5 = 4k
alpha (64bit) = 8k
sparc (64bit) = 8k
ia64 = 16k
and at least on the ia64 platform the page size is configurable at compile time.
And how many times a day to you type and retype pwd to see where you are or hostname to figure out what machine you are on or id to figure out who you are?
Personally, I have the eyecandy of a prompt that looks like: $HOSTNAME:$PWD and I have a terminal title of $USER@$HOSTNAME:$PWD and for certain commands, I show the commandline in the window (vi Makefile, for example).
This extra eyecandy allows me to select which window I want when I have tons open. I can cut and paste the $HOSTNAME:$PWD into another shell and scp files to and from there.
I'm very nervous when I see people with dumb shells that don't even do tab completion or when they refuse to put the PWD somewhere in their environment. Feedback is a good thing.
Oh, but the power users that don't put any useful information in their prompts or terminal titles do go out of their way to display a running count of the number of times they pressed the enter key. That has always baffled me, and is a sign of weakness in my opinion.
But why does windows has such a problem with it's eye candy compared to os x?
:)
That is a feature of targeting your OS to a particular hardware platform.
Keep in mind that the eyecandy in OS X has gotten more optimized over the years with Altivec on G4 and G5 machines and now with SSE2 and/or SSE3 with the introduction of the Intel CPUs.
Windows and Linux have to have drivers, hooks and code for every lowest common denominator CPU and video chipset in the world, so there simply is not much time to code efficient eyecandy for all of these different combinations.
BTW, I really like OS X eyecandy, but I don't even consider it that. OS X is not intrusive or annoying like Windows and Linux is. No program is going to come flying up and steal your keyboard focus on you and yell at you until you dismiss the dialog box. OS X isn't going to tell you you have too many icons on your desktop. OS X isn't going to install every drive-by-install tray application and then have them yell at you. When there is a system update, its not going to blink at you until you install it. There isn't balloon help for every widget on the display.
Its strange, but one of the best eyecandy features of OS X is the dropshadows on windows, menu's, and dialog boxes. I actually have a dropshadow customization thing to emphasize it a little more, because it gives me a sense of depth and orientation when having overlapped windows. It creeps me out to see a website with a screenshot of an app and if it includes the dropshadow, it takes me a second to figure out that its on the webpage and not on my machine
Personally, I thought the eyecandy was lacking in previous Macs OSes. They didn't have much in the way of 3d to windows until 8, and a little more in 9. Back then I thought Macs were more primitive than some Linux GUI environments and even Windows. But now, I have to say that all other GUIs look so 90s to me now.
the cure to a problem is not hiding it.
Some people believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The exception is for companies that profit off of 32ounce cures.
That in the very previous /. story about a Sun product vulnerability, the hackers get ripped, but when it's Microsoft, the software company gets ripped.
The difference is that if Sun were DDosed every couple of weeks on millions of PCs for almost 10 years because of putting something as stupid as "Active Scripting" or ActiveX into a product that is coupled tightly with the operating system (no, it appears as the decoupled version even helped this one), then we would be blaming the software company as well.
So, has MS learned yet that ActiveX (I'm assuming Active Scripting is similar or the same thing) is "A Bad Thing" yet?
Jeopardy actually has recruitment tours where they let people come to local hotels, and if they fair well, they go on the real show.
So now I can scream the answers at my computer instead of the TV! Gotta love technology...
Please rephrase that in the form of a question.
POV has been parallelized for years. Believe it or not there is even a sourceforge project for it.
Wow, $1/CPU/hr. Same price as an MP3 off of iTunes, so it must be worthwhile, right?
OK, we are only about 3.5 months into the year of 2006, and lets look at some real data:
I run a few small to medium sized HPC clusters, and on one of them, here are the CPU hours used during 2006 -- 163,000+ this is on less than $500k of hardware that is years old. That would cost $163k just in computing time, not to include time to port applications, debug, etc.
Sun needs to be run by engineers and visionaries again, not by marketers. $1/CPU/hr is not going to do much better on those falling stock prices than selling $200 Linux PCs in Wal-Mart.
You're referring to Autoplay as a flaw?
/mypath/url/data1=foo^data2=baz
No, we are talking about AutoRun. And it is a design flaw. Every and any program that automatically runs arbitrary code or programs without user involvement is flawed. The past decade+ of exploits should be enough evidence for even a novice programmer by now.
Do you think that anyone back during the conception of that feature thought that a decade down the road companies were going to distribute executables on music cds that install rootkits a la DRM?
Nah, but lets implement the feature just in case.
I worked with a "senior" programmer who was so smart that he reinvented the CGI gateway specification using his own delimitators and syntax and other clever stuff. I was amazed at his insight and lack of knowledge of web applications (this was about 1999). I was even more impressed when he did pseudocode like:
where ^ was the newly invented symbol to replace the standard &
OK, here is where it gets better:
select * from $data1
where something = '$data2'
with _no_ check on $data1 or $data2
Now, if some moron like me that has never had a CS class, and was an entry level programmer (my first and second to last development job) could figure this out, why couldn't this "senior" programmer or a software company like, say, Microsoft?
It was so much nicer here in hell before it froze over.
Most of us, who recorded, listed to the class while driving home and had two sets of notes, what we took in the class and the rewrite that we made when out of class with our original notes and the tapes.
:)
Ha! When I was in school, I took it one more level
I reread a condensed version of the notes into a tape recorder and played that in my car.
I also used high tech 3x5 cards which I used a variably random reorganization technique (I shuffled them), and I would use an advanced data reduction and focus technique as I learned the material better (I put the cards that I knew cold in a different pile).
When I got my first Linux PC in college, that is when my grades plummeted.