First, that 13 year old girl was bullied on My Space, not Facebook. Prosecutors tried to go after her, but ultimately she was acquitted of the main felony charge anyway. So maybe nobody is going after the "bullies" in this case because they know better. If they can't even get a 3-year sentence to stick on an "uneducated, immature soccer mom", what chance do they have against high ranking officials that will be even harder to pin down anyway? Seems like a good call to me.
You're full of shit. Modern engine management systems take care of it all.
I can't tell if you're joking or not.
The computer can adjust for the change in stoichiometric ratio (mixture), obviously. And to some extent I'm sure they have fiddled with the ignition timing and maybe the open loop mixture tables as well. But you're stuck with whatever compromise in compression ratio they decided on when they designed the hard parts. And who knows if valve timing might be better tweaked as well. Cars that don't have adjustable valve timing will have a compromise there too.
I'm fairly certain the OP's point is valid that somewhere in the system some number of compromises are made to allow for the multi-purpose operation.
Oh, just some anonymous coward who thinks it's OK to go all vigilante on everyone around them without thinking through the all unintended consequences.
Most code will not fall into the "elegant" category. The reason is that real-life software has to deal with exceptions, language crocks, patches/modifications and bug-fixes.
And those damn users. I can write what I (and seemingly others) consider "elegant" code. But that's usually only possible down in the bowels of a microprocessor where you have known constraints and no meat bags randomly typing shit at you that you have to parse and decipher and then present a myriad of exception messages back to, etc., etc.
Re: tired of the lack of progress on GIMP
on
Krita 2.8 Released
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
GIMP is way over-promoted by FOSS zealots who usually can't accomplish much more than cropping a picture and applying a few filters to the entire image.
This. I really, REALLY want to use GIMP; I do. And I've tried; several times. But I just can't. It's just too clunky and slow and not well thought out in any reasonable manner. Windows pop up in wrong places with wrong Z order, making them impossible to find sometimes. *Common* features (like adjustment layers) are simply missing or work in horrible, horrible ways (like drawing a @#$!@%$ line with an arrow point end).
No, GIMP is not what some people make it out to be. I'd rather use an old Paintshop Pro 6 release than anything GIMP related. And I would except Corel does a better job at screwing up their own products than any other company I've seen in ages. I've actually bought and paid for several versions of Paintshop Pro in the past decade only to have my license mysteriously stop working. "Too many installations" they say. But this message comes up randomly when I haven't done any new installation in months. And then, suddenly, my workflow is halted in its tracks and I'm back to trying GIMP one more time.
My requirements are not steep. I'm not a pro graphics artist by any means. But there doesn't seem to be any good open source graphics editors out there and Krita doesn't seem to fit the bill either. Bah.
The linked "bug" is here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19350097/pre-calculating-in-gcc-4-8-c11 - which says, "Hey, this certain optimization isn't on by default anymore?" And to which the answer is, "Yeah, due to changes in C++11, you're supposed to explicitly flag that you want that optimization in your code."
That linked "bug" appears to be an actual "bug" since a fix for it was posted to 4.8.2. See here.
When it comes to cars, I wont be happy until human-driven cars are outlawed on public roads. Just so we are clear on where i stand on risk vs safety.
Interesting. You're still accepting risk, though. You've just defined your limit to be so small that I dare say it's bordering on insane; IMO anyway.
Ah...if only we could all just wake up and have an automated machine put our clothes on for us, transport us where we want to go and put us to bed at night. That'd be great. Then all we'd have to do is sit around and think while we stare blindly ahead.
Again, no thanks.
Life isn't worth living without experiences. Seriously, it's not. And experiences have risks. They just do. I risk tripping and stabbing myself with a scissor every time I walk across the floor with one in my hand. That's a risk I've learned to accept. I could put the scissors in a box and gently nudge it across the floor with my shuffling feet I suppose. But that's not an acceptable "safety vs. risk" trade off I'm willing to make. We all make these trade offs every day.
All we're talking about here is how far to take it. I can see now that you're willing to take this particular one far, far further than I would have ever imagined any sane person to consider. If enough others think similarly, then I may need to modify my definition of sane I suppose.
I assure you it was people like you being parodied.
By people like you that aren't actually thinking through the implications of a totally safe environment.
Wait, what? You never said you wanted a totally safe environment? Ok, then I guess even you find some amount of risk acceptable. No?
So we both accept some risk. All we're babbling about here is how much. I think we're there. I think we've been there since anti-lock brakes were introduced. Everyone else seems to want to keep tacking on more and more laws to getting that 0.001% more warm and fuzzy feeling out of it.
Are you f'ing kidding me again? Not a place for taking risk? ANY risk? What's your acceptable limit of risk? ZERO? Don't drive. That's the only way to get zero risk of getting injured while driving due to someone else's mistake. If you're not willing to stop driving, then accept some risk. And ask yourself if we really need MORE laws on the books to keep us every MORE safe. My answer...a resounding HELL NO.
You are free to run as hot and loose as you want on private property.
Oh, I do. As often and as hot and loose as I can get. Which is exactly why I don't want every car on the road dumbed down to keep bubble boy safe up there.
Trading safety enforced by law for the freedom of choosing not to be safe? Are you fucking serious? Do you also not wear a seatbelt because that would go against your freedom not to wear one?
Hyperbole alert! Hyperbole alert! See, Kielistic, I'm not the only one.
You people are funny. You're not actually READING what I said. I never @#$!%$! said I want NO SAFETY so I can do whatever I want. I said I'd be willing to trade a LITTLE safety for a LITTLE more choice. Holy crap. Everyone wants that. Everyone does that. Why can't you people see that?
Didn't you get the real meaning of my own hyperbole? It was to point out how stupid it is to keep putting safety first over everything else. How many laws are you willing to tolerate to be a little more safe? At what point do you draw the line? That's all we're talking about here. Where's the line? Is it zero safety features? No. Is it every safety feature? No. It's a little safety in exchange for a little choice. At some point, there's a diminishing return to take into account.
I just get sick and tired of reading people's comments like the one I originally replied to calling for everyone to do everything they can to keep everyone else uber safe. It's retarded. Consider that you HAVE to STOP restricting choice in exchange for safety at some freaking point. We're beyond that point. STOP!
But now that I read it, I can tell you with 100% certainty that I did not "perfectly match" his parody. In fact, it wasn't even close. I specifically limited my willingness to give up a "little" safety in exchange for a "little" choice. Either you can't read or you're not bothering to do so or you just looking for someone to poke at. If it's either of the first two, bugger off. If it's the later, bring something meaningful to the discussion or move along.
There are plenty of safety features in a drive-train that are mandated by law. This is discussion of whether or not this should be one of them.
If that were truly the discussion, then his use of the word "unnecessarily" is out of place. If the necessity of these features hasn't been determined yet, then he can't call it unnecessary.
No, I'm afraid you're giving him too much credit. He's already decided that these missing safety features produced an "unnecessarily increased risk" to him and everyone else that would like to enjoy the safety of their little bubble.
why should the other people on the roads have to put up with the unnecessarily increased risk that you'll crash into them?
Are you really suggesting that every safety feature available on the market should be pushed on every driver on the road for the sake of keeping everyone else safer? If so, then enjoy that big bubble you wrap yourself up in every day.
Personally, I'll gladly trade a little of my own safety (and, yes, that of my family as well) to keep us all a little freer in the choices we have available to us. How god damn brain dead do you have to be to want to force everyone else to walk to work because it's safer for you? "But, but, it's SAFER!"
What exactly is living if not taking and enjoying a few risks? Holy crap this kind of talk pisses me off.
If it's limited to only those cases where someone can prove "intent to cause serious emotional distress", then it's not going to be very effective. I see loopholes o'plenty.
If someone has a client that can't render a standard page, then that's their problem and we should have left them to it - eventually they would have complained to the relevant person and their browser would become closer to the standard.
Are you new here? You may not remember the days when this mess all started. IE was king and you *had* to work around it. You couldn't just let it be "their problem" and "left them to it". That's so "counter-productive, I can't even begin to explain it". These customers (sheep running IE) would come to *you* in droves asking why they couldn't view your website. And your response was going to be "because IE doesn't display my standards-compliant page"? Wow...no...that doesn't work.
Nowadays, things are clearly different. Which is great. But to suggest developers should have never used the user-agent tag to distinguish browser differences is ludicrous.
it doesn't really do conceptual clarity much good to combine complex environmental manipulations that don't show evidence of being cognitively acquired from those that do...
It took some cognitively acquired, complex environmental manipulations to parse that sentence. But in fact, it's actually a well-worded statement and a generally good point. Which leads me to believe that you accidentally posted your response on the wrong site. You do realize this is Slashdot, right?
And if you wouldn't have wasted your time on that public speaking course and instead used that opportunity cost to take a class in a Lisp language like Scheme you'd understand why your failure to close that left parenthesis is driving me bat shit insane right now.
Oh, good...I wasn't the only one reading that line multiple times over trying to figure out what I'd missed.
Slashdot Mirror
First, that 13 year old girl was bullied on My Space, not Facebook. Prosecutors tried to go after her, but ultimately she was acquitted of the main felony charge anyway. So maybe nobody is going after the "bullies" in this case because they know better. If they can't even get a 3-year sentence to stick on an "uneducated, immature soccer mom", what chance do they have against high ranking officials that will be even harder to pin down anyway? Seems like a good call to me.
You're full of shit. Modern engine management systems take care of it all.
I can't tell if you're joking or not.
The computer can adjust for the change in stoichiometric ratio (mixture), obviously. And to some extent I'm sure they have fiddled with the ignition timing and maybe the open loop mixture tables as well. But you're stuck with whatever compromise in compression ratio they decided on when they designed the hard parts. And who knows if valve timing might be better tweaked as well. Cars that don't have adjustable valve timing will have a compromise there too.
I'm fairly certain the OP's point is valid that somewhere in the system some number of compromises are made to allow for the multi-purpose operation.
This retech user has provided advice in his signature as to how to best respond to his posts.
Who is the asshole now?
Oh, just some anonymous coward who thinks it's OK to go all vigilante on everyone around them without thinking through the all unintended consequences.
I hate this hacker crap.
But I'm loving this 3D Linux file system manager!
Most code will not fall into the "elegant" category. The reason is that real-life software has to deal with exceptions, language crocks, patches/modifications and bug-fixes.
And those damn users. I can write what I (and seemingly others) consider "elegant" code. But that's usually only possible down in the bowels of a microprocessor where you have known constraints and no meat bags randomly typing shit at you that you have to parse and decipher and then present a myriad of exception messages back to, etc., etc.
GIMP is way over-promoted by FOSS zealots who usually can't accomplish much more than cropping a picture and applying a few filters to the entire image.
This. I really, REALLY want to use GIMP; I do. And I've tried; several times. But I just can't. It's just too clunky and slow and not well thought out in any reasonable manner. Windows pop up in wrong places with wrong Z order, making them impossible to find sometimes. *Common* features (like adjustment layers) are simply missing or work in horrible, horrible ways (like drawing a @#$!@%$ line with an arrow point end).
No, GIMP is not what some people make it out to be. I'd rather use an old Paintshop Pro 6 release than anything GIMP related. And I would except Corel does a better job at screwing up their own products than any other company I've seen in ages. I've actually bought and paid for several versions of Paintshop Pro in the past decade only to have my license mysteriously stop working. "Too many installations" they say. But this message comes up randomly when I haven't done any new installation in months. And then, suddenly, my workflow is halted in its tracks and I'm back to trying GIMP one more time.
My requirements are not steep. I'm not a pro graphics artist by any means. But there doesn't seem to be any good open source graphics editors out there and Krita doesn't seem to fit the bill either. Bah.
Uhhh...or a heart attack at work.
https://news.ycombinator.com/i...
The linked "bug" is here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19350097/pre-calculating-in-gcc-4-8-c11 - which says, "Hey, this certain optimization isn't on by default anymore?" And to which the answer is, "Yeah, due to changes in C++11, you're supposed to explicitly flag that you want that optimization in your code."
That linked "bug" appears to be an actual "bug" since a fix for it was posted to 4.8.2. See here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57511
Verbs are not things; nouns are things.
A gerand is a verbal noun. Does that make it a thing?
When it comes to cars, I wont be happy until human-driven cars are outlawed on public roads. Just so we are clear on where i stand on risk vs safety.
Interesting. You're still accepting risk, though. You've just defined your limit to be so small that I dare say it's bordering on insane; IMO anyway.
Ah...if only we could all just wake up and have an automated machine put our clothes on for us, transport us where we want to go and put us to bed at night. That'd be great. Then all we'd have to do is sit around and think while we stare blindly ahead.
Again, no thanks.
Life isn't worth living without experiences. Seriously, it's not. And experiences have risks. They just do. I risk tripping and stabbing myself with a scissor every time I walk across the floor with one in my hand. That's a risk I've learned to accept. I could put the scissors in a box and gently nudge it across the floor with my shuffling feet I suppose. But that's not an acceptable "safety vs. risk" trade off I'm willing to make. We all make these trade offs every day.
All we're talking about here is how far to take it. I can see now that you're willing to take this particular one far, far further than I would have ever imagined any sane person to consider. If enough others think similarly, then I may need to modify my definition of sane I suppose.
I assure you it was people like you being parodied.
By people like you that aren't actually thinking through the implications of a totally safe environment.
Wait, what? You never said you wanted a totally safe environment? Ok, then I guess even you find some amount of risk acceptable. No?
So we both accept some risk. All we're babbling about here is how much. I think we're there. I think we've been there since anti-lock brakes were introduced. Everyone else seems to want to keep tacking on more and more laws to getting that 0.001% more warm and fuzzy feeling out of it.
No thanks.
Public roads are not a place for taking risk.
Are you f'ing kidding me again? Not a place for taking risk? ANY risk? What's your acceptable limit of risk? ZERO? Don't drive. That's the only way to get zero risk of getting injured while driving due to someone else's mistake. If you're not willing to stop driving, then accept some risk. And ask yourself if we really need MORE laws on the books to keep us every MORE safe. My answer...a resounding HELL NO.
You are free to run as hot and loose as you want on private property.
Oh, I do. As often and as hot and loose as I can get. Which is exactly why I don't want every car on the road dumbed down to keep bubble boy safe up there.
Trading safety enforced by law for the freedom of choosing not to be safe? Are you fucking serious? Do you also not wear a seatbelt because that would go against your freedom not to wear one?
Hyperbole alert! Hyperbole alert! See, Kielistic, I'm not the only one.
You people are funny. You're not actually READING what I said. I never @#$!%$! said I want NO SAFETY so I can do whatever I want. I said I'd be willing to trade a LITTLE safety for a LITTLE more choice. Holy crap. Everyone wants that. Everyone does that. Why can't you people see that?
Didn't you get the real meaning of my own hyperbole? It was to point out how stupid it is to keep putting safety first over everything else. How many laws are you willing to tolerate to be a little more safe? At what point do you draw the line? That's all we're talking about here. Where's the line? Is it zero safety features? No. Is it every safety feature? No. It's a little safety in exchange for a little choice. At some point, there's a diminishing return to take into account.
I just get sick and tired of reading people's comments like the one I originally replied to calling for everyone to do everything they can to keep everyone else uber safe. It's retarded. Consider that you HAVE to STOP restricting choice in exchange for safety at some freaking point. We're beyond that point. STOP!
It's funny that you perfectly match adolf's parody above but are totally serious about it.
It took me a bit to figure out WTF you were referring to without a link to the parody in question. Thanks for that, BTW.
But now that I read it, I can tell you with 100% certainty that I did not "perfectly match" his parody. In fact, it wasn't even close. I specifically limited my willingness to give up a "little" safety in exchange for a "little" choice. Either you can't read or you're not bothering to do so or you just looking for someone to poke at. If it's either of the first two, bugger off. If it's the later, bring something meaningful to the discussion or move along.
There are plenty of safety features in a drive-train that are mandated by law. This is discussion of whether or not this should be one of them.
If that were truly the discussion, then his use of the word "unnecessarily" is out of place. If the necessity of these features hasn't been determined yet, then he can't call it unnecessary.
No, I'm afraid you're giving him too much credit. He's already decided that these missing safety features produced an "unnecessarily increased risk" to him and everyone else that would like to enjoy the safety of their little bubble.
Yes, I love hyperbole. We go way back.
why should the other people on the roads have to put up with the unnecessarily increased risk that you'll crash into them?
Are you really suggesting that every safety feature available on the market should be pushed on every driver on the road for the sake of keeping everyone else safer? If so, then enjoy that big bubble you wrap yourself up in every day.
Personally, I'll gladly trade a little of my own safety (and, yes, that of my family as well) to keep us all a little freer in the choices we have available to us. How god damn brain dead do you have to be to want to force everyone else to walk to work because it's safer for you? "But, but, it's SAFER!"
What exactly is living if not taking and enjoying a few risks? Holy crap this kind of talk pisses me off.
As I can't make sense of this sentence even as corrected, I however can't preclude that there is still a typo.
Yeah. What he said. No version of that original sentence makes any sense to me anyway.
If it's limited to only those cases where someone can prove "intent to cause serious emotional distress", then it's not going to be very effective. I see loopholes o'plenty.
Unless you come from Motorolla 6809, then 68k and try to learn x86. Then you're like WTF? Who designed this crap?
Tru dat
If someone has a client that can't render a standard page, then that's their problem and we should have left them to it - eventually they would have complained to the relevant person and their browser would become closer to the standard.
Are you new here? You may not remember the days when this mess all started. IE was king and you *had* to work around it. You couldn't just let it be "their problem" and "left them to it". That's so "counter-productive, I can't even begin to explain it". These customers (sheep running IE) would come to *you* in droves asking why they couldn't view your website. And your response was going to be "because IE doesn't display my standards-compliant page"? Wow...no...that doesn't work.
Nowadays, things are clearly different. Which is great. But to suggest developers should have never used the user-agent tag to distinguish browser differences is ludicrous.
Since nobody else has posted it....
Best 32-Bit Windows System In 2012? - No
it doesn't really do conceptual clarity much good to combine complex environmental manipulations that don't show evidence of being cognitively acquired from those that do...
It took some cognitively acquired, complex environmental manipulations to parse that sentence. But in fact, it's actually a well-worded statement and a generally good point. Which leads me to believe that you accidentally posted your response on the wrong site. You do realize this is Slashdot, right?
Wow. That whole "to the king" section was at least as interesting to me as the rest of the book...
And if you wouldn't have wasted your time on that public speaking course and instead used that opportunity cost to take a class in a Lisp language like Scheme you'd understand why your failure to close that left parenthesis is driving me bat shit insane right now.
Oh, good...I wasn't the only one reading that line multiple times over trying to figure out what I'd missed.