I am stil finding equipment with those sorts of failures today..
Except those caps are Nippon Chemi-con. High end high quality capacitors made in Japan. And not the kind involved in the bad caps.
Bad cap syndrome happens to the cheap caps - stuff like CapXon (aka CrapXon) and such.
In fact, a lot of bad caps you're finding are the cheap crap ones by the crap manufacturers. You can easily buy them and they will fail.
That's why you'll find people inspecting caps - and seeing if it's Nippon Chemi-con, Rubycon, Panasonic/Matsushita or other Japanese brand. (You can almost generalize it to those whose brands contain "con" in their name are higher quality - from when they used to be called condensers. The cheap brands all tend to have "cap" in their name).
So no, I don't see the caps being the weak point because Intel went and spec'd top-quality caps.
That the Boeing phone will give the NSA and Law enforcement the keys to the kingdom. There is no way they made a secure phone, the US government will not allow it.
...unless they only sell the phone to NSA approved government employees.
Given Boeing doesn't make phones normally, the only reason it exists is because we're talking about Boeing the defense contractor, and not Boeing the plane manufacturer.
The phone will most likely only be sold to government for government use only. In which case, well, it doesn't matter if the NSA has all the keys because well, it's all government. It'll be issued to government employees (and the military), and basically owned by the US government.
Civilians most likely won't be able to get their hands on it, so those who complain about privacy being compromised well, they're going to be used by people who agreed to it anyways.
A lot of Monday morning quarterbacks on this one. Yes, they might have been able to cut lots of corners and gotten Atlantis up, at a significant risk to the Atlantis crew. What then? Do we have the Columbia crew spacewalk over to Atlantis with instructions for the last astronaut to turn off the lights? Aim Columbia at the ocean and hope for the best?
If they had had such a plan in place and executed it, and some other loss of life had happened because of the increased risk, everyone likely would have been up in arms about how NASA had cavalierly risked additional crew when they could have just reentered Columbia.
Um, that was in TFA. And yes, the goal was to get them to link up somehow, and do several spacewalks to transfer the crew. It even went so far to consider that bringing the spacesuits back to Columbia would require them to be fully powered up and operational but with no one inside it. And figure out who leaves when, and the difficulty in that one of them travels alone so has to don and doff the suit alone.
The article basically summarizes the results of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report appendix that featured such a "what-if" scenario. And it's why post disaster they actually had another shuttle on standby for this very scenario.
Hmmm, let's see. Several tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of floating kit, carrying possibly just as much value in cargo, int he middle of nowhere, with no-one in sight, just a video camera. Hmmm.
Will the pirates at least wave and say thank you to the crew when they take manual control of the ship? How about just looting a few cargo containers as it's travelling along?
And yet, the outcome is still better than it is now, where they hijack the ship and hold the crew ransom. Here, they hijack the ship, and.. that's it. There's no crew to hold for ransom, no one to talk to for instant quick payment, etc. You save human lives.
The only way to make money is for the pirates to go and sell the contents of the containers, which requires a lot more time, effort and money and takes a lot of time. Holding a crew hostage could easily get $10M+ in a week. Making money selling what's in the containers takes far longer.
MOST women don't like to code, stop fucking trying to turn them into programming machines. Some do, good for them, let them be great programmers, but for fucks sake stop trying to force women to do shit most of them have no interest in doing. Its not going to get you a girlfriend, you'll still be an asshole.
I think the problem isn't attracting women to the field, it's that the field is so full of men who are at best crude with their social skills. To be honest, seeing interactions between developers is quite eye-opening at times. You'd think by their language that they were stereotypical construction workers full to sexist jokes and innuendo, catcalling, and the like.
It's going beyond programmers having poor social skills, it's poor social skills AND being some of the most sexist people on the planet. Heck, in any other workplace, a lot of their behavior would count as sexual harassment.
And perhaps that's the reason why women aren't entering the field - they're entering workplaces that haven't really evolved beyond suffrage, while the rest of the world evolved and modernized. Like programming is the last refuge for manliness.
and it's not like the game was silent - I had everything except the vocals.
Did you not turn on subtitles?
That's the thing with modern games I like - they all have subtitling options which I promptly set to "always on"
That said, there are still evil games out there that have dialog and no option to have subtitles at all. Naturally there's always a point where a poorly mixed piece of audio overwhelms the dialog and you miss some key story plot or something.
Consumer Reports has been reviewing cars forever, and I relied on them for my first two car purchases. Then I zeroed in on a Jeep (needed to get into the back country) and CR went out of its way to expressly say "DO NOT BUY THIS VEHICLE". I bought it anyway, and it was the best I've ever owned. Repair record was not perfect but still better than all those previously highly recommended vehicles, and the ergonomics were superior to anything I've have before or since. If that same model were still made today I'd buy another.
If you are looking to buy a new vehicle, ignore CR.
Except you pretty much invalidated the reason why CR does what it does - you needed it for the back country. CR covers "normal" use - what the average user uses their vehicle for. Like most SUVs and 4x4s never touch anything more "off road" than the odd dirt road caused by road repaving. Who otherwise spend their entire driving lives running on paved roads.
For these kinds of people, any vehicle meets their needs. CR just uses a set of objective tests to pick "best" of the lot. For specialized needs, the objective weightings will be off.
For example, if you're moving cross country, a Tesla Model S makes a poor moving vehicle - you'd probably want a cube van or a semi, depending on how much stuff and all that. But you're also not likely to see CR recommend a Peterbilt 390 because most people don't have a need for it.
Same goes for everything else. If you need a computer, CR will recommend a bunch of computers. But if you're a techie, your needs and what most people need probably won't align at all (e.g., CR puts emphasis on tech support, which most techies won't need over say, Google). Ditto anything else. Want a washing machine? Well, CR probably will pick generally good overall machines, but if your job is to do the linen at a hotel, you probably won't go for it. Or home theatre systems - if you're an audiophile or a cinema junkie who has their own theatre room, well, CR doesn't cater to you. They'll cater to people who just want better sound while watching movies on their 42" HDTV in the living room.
The only thing you need to know is when your needs are "average" or when you have special requirements.
I do believe CR makes their raw data available to members so if you do have special requirements, you can simply emphasize those differently from the default CR weightings. Like perhaps your jeep is just awful when you run it on standard paved roads, use it as a commuter car In stop-and-go traffic and in gas consumption.
The question is... what can be done to stop and revert this horrible trend? Developers need to further promote current and future web browser standards so we can have all the fancy functionality of the apps in a web page. It doesn't always work, but it should be the long term goal.
But then it runs into trends that conflict with goals of other people.
See the DRM debacle the W3C was considering. The general solution was to not have DRM in the spec, but to force developers to "make an app" instead.
And when developers do that, people complain they could've done it on a web page.
Ironically, developers wanted apps - Apple was more than happy with web apps but developers weren't, which is why iPhone OS (back then) 2.0 introduced native apps. (Apple pushed for stuff like location services, sensors and even camera to be accessible in HTML5).
So no, there's really no good solution. Don't want mobile apps? Then you'll need to have stuff like DRM added. Want those DRM seekers to just make an app? They will, then others see it as a way to protect their content as well, and it spirals both ways.
It's the same basic problem with any website that tries to force it's "neat new features" on users. Youtube and googleplus is a similar thing. When google plus inevitably fails(and it will), they're going to have to go through an elaborate shutdown process that impinges on all the other google services people use.
Google's not going to shut down Google+. In fact, Google+ is central to their business. Google has admitted the main reason for G+ is to collect more user information. Given the unified privacy policy, the fact that Google can now track you through your use of its various products adds a ton of valuable information. And even if you don't "use" a G+ account, your use through YouTube etc, and those G+ buttons is monitored.
So no, G+ is NOT going to go away, because it's central to Google's business. Google even admits that while some people find it creepy, as long as they remain "good", they can get away with a ton of things.
How do international vendors deal with this issue now? The value of currencies fluctuate against each other (except where pegged by fiat) every day. If you are saying it is the degree of instability that is the problem, that's true enough. Aside from illegal applications, how are BTC being used today? It seems a lot of people are finding some use for it outside of speculating on exchange rates.
There are many ways. One, you simply price yourself to cover potential fluctuations. E.g., if you expect the currency to vary 10% over the year, you price it 10% higher. This is the most common method, and it leads to problems if the spread between currencies narrows, or if the spread widens faster than predicted. Hopefully the currency is stable enough so when this happens, you either choose to eat the difference for a few months, or reduce price etc.
The second way, done for large vendors, is hedges. Basically they hold enough investments around that they avoid immediate currency conversion and instead hold onto it for better times. E.g., US$ to BTC. If BTC is low, you charge more, and you hang onto the BTC, drawing down the US$ reserves you have. When BTC rises, you convert it. Which can mean buyers may pay going rate, but when you actually cash out, you gain money just by waiting. (Hedging is related to hedge funds and other such instruments).
With a currency as volatile as BTC, either you have a payment processor guarantee you a fixed exchange amount, or you simply charge more BTC than a straight exchange would be.
The entire concept is stupid. Screenshots. Or use your camera to photograph the screen if you must. Or run it in am emulator and do a screenshot of that.
If you send something to someone, you should assume that they can keep a copy of it. Dont like that? Dont send it.
Exactly. Though, SnapChat does try to detect attempts to take screen shots which it then notifies the sender that you've done so. Of course, this can easily fail (it does under iOS7 because of changes deep in the OS).
If you have a child yourself, you could save them - and yourself - a lot of trial and tribulation if you buy them a piggy bank at the very first opportunity. That would be when the could be trusted to handle a penny - yes a one cent piece, or your own national currency equivalent - without sticking it in their mouth and asphyxiating.
It's called an allowance and it's considered by many financial experts to be among the best ways to teach money management to children.
It's an excellent tool to teach savings, splitting income, spending, instant vs. delayed gratification, etc. in a really safe environment (because "bankruptcy" Is a harsh, but temporary lesson. Sadly, you learned the hard way what it was like to not grow up with those skills.
In general I think your kids should expect that if they ask you for money/things the answer will be "no - that's what your allowance is for"
Except that is not what their allowance is for. If they used their allowance for overpriced ice cream, they would certainly be allowed to, but they'd probably regret it; that small instantaneous bit of ice cream is not worth waiting weeks for and they'd likely decide against it.
They've learned that they can buy an occasional candy bar without it impacting their long term goals significantly, but $5 for one Popsicle from the ice cream man, they've learned that even if they have enough money, that they cannot really 'afford' it.
That's the point of an allowance. An allowance is a life-training tool to manage money. The kid learns that he COULD spend the hard earned savings on an ice cream, or he COULD leave it save up for that toy he really wants.
The point is to learn these lessons in a relatively safe environment (if they blow their wad on ice cream, they don't have to worry about food, shelter, etc). And to learn the value of splitting your "income" in various bundles - a dollar to long term savings (to get the toy you want), a dollar to spend, a dollar to save for times you need more than you have or emergencies, a dollar for charity, etc. And if one forgoes spending, that can make the long term savings for the thing you really want go so much faster.
And instant gratification versus delayed gratification is an important lesson. Ice cream now vs. now having to wait another month for the toy.
Finally, one thing children learn way too quickly is how to be a tightwad. Sure it helps to save money, but to pinch every penny may not be the best way (price does not equal value) - spending more might be a better option. Anyone's whose dealt with a parent who insists on keeping their 10 year old junker PC going instead of buying a new one knows this. Plus, instill in them the need to actually go out and socialize with friends - sometimes the goal of saving gets in the way of life and it can lead to health and mental issues - there's absolutely nothing wrong with having fun with friends and getting together, but absolutely wrong (especially for mental health) if you're avoiding friends just to save up for something. It's why you have a "spend/fun" jar.
I know that was one of my mistakes - putting every penny in a savings jar without putting anything in towards having fun now (you want to die alone as a rich, but miserable person?).
The LEAF requires much less service (no gas, no oil changes) while presenting a steep technology learning curve, and making the issue worse, by treating the LEAF as an outcast, dealers sell fewer and have even less reason to be enthusiastic.
And there's the problem.
Dealers thrive on service - selling cars is basically a very low margin deal. They make it up in service. The Leaf, the Model S, and other EVs basically have you visiting the dealer maybe once every year, or less. While a traditional ICE will have you going back twice or more a year.
And if you look carefully, the maintenance schedule never says "Oil change", but add on a bunch of other stuff as well. So if you deal with a quick change lube place, well, they still get you on the "other stuff".
Sure, some people have trusted mechanics, but most don't, so service calls are one of the major profit centers. Enough so that they're willing to throw in several service calls knowing they'll probably hook you and you'll keep going back.
Even Tesla only recommends people come in once a year for a tune-up., Which probably is mostly an inspection to make sure stuff looks good.
Of course, I find the following things good about the Model S over the Leaf. First, it looks like a normal car. The Leaf looks like some small econobox. Looks are primo in the car world. Second - range. 50 miles is a lot, but not so much if you commute 20 miles each way. And I fill my tanks when they get to half. I like to handle the following plausible circumstances - first, power outage or other problem means I miss a charge, and second, the power plugs at work are full.
When you have a 200 mile battery, a 20 mile commute looks downright sedate. And 200 miles is probably as much gas as a small econobox holds.
Who ever said using an IDE is bad? IDEs are powerful tools that improve developer productivity. The problem with the older generation of IDEs (especially older versions of Visual Studio) was that they focused too much on graphical UI builders that produced brittle, often subtly buggy UIs and unreadable code and encouraged the writing of spaghetti code. Remove the useless UI builders, and you are left with syntax highlighting, code completion, code folding, incremental compilation, and lots of other useful tools that increase productivity.
You missed the most important aspect of an IDE - debugging!
I dare someone to say that using gdb, xgdb, or even ddd is far better for debugging than doing it within eclipse or visual studio.
Yes, they work, but life is just that much easier using an IDE where it kindly shows you the stack, locals, globals, code windows, etc., all in one view, rather than having to take a peek and scroll up and down in a single text box.
Plus memory and variable displays that show you what changed, traces, and rapid switching between assembly and source and intermixing the two.
Not really, what matters most is cost, and at that ARM wins hands down. Most ARM chips cost less than $5, with some selling for pennies. Intel enjoys 60%+ margins on everything it sells and they will experience a lot of pain giving them up.
The only way Intel can compete is if they sell their mobile chips at or below cost. Oh wait, they already are.
And not to terribly fast either - given how the Apple A7 is running rings around Intel's chips.
Granted, different architectures and different OSes, but the benchmarks that run on both Android and iOS generally show the A7 being faster (and not by a little bit - by a lot).
And when 64-bit ARMs come out on Android, expect the Intel offerings to fall further behind. The A7 is fast because of the optimizations that the ARMv8 and 64-bit architecture allow.
They probably because they don't want to pay Google.
Or just don't agree with Google.
Nokia owns Navteq, and has their own mapping service. Even if Nokia was willing to pay Google, they would be forced to ensure that Ovi Maps is not the default maps app.
And any other app that Nokia has - if you sign the agreement with Google, Google's apps must be #1, available within 1 tap of the home screen, and default.
- Accepts large (TerraByte) external storage media via USB and understands FATxx, NTFS, ext3fs and HFS+
- Understands and plays m4v files to at least the level supported on current iPads (i.e. H.264 video, AAC surround, captions and chapters)
- Can translate AAC 5.1 to LPCM 5.1 when using HDMI output and/or and has 5.1 analog outputs and converts AAC 5.1 to them
I am pre-ordering NOW. I mean really NOW. Amazon, please take my money... please....
First, tell me how this benefits Amazon in any way. Amazon makes no money selling hardware. They only sell hardware to sell content. (Apple sells content to sell hardware, so they're far more likely to make your box than Amazon).
Amazon will tie it into their services - you buy music, movies and TV shows exclusively from Amazon and whoever partners with Amazon to provide content to their boxes. And if your search for something comes up blank, they'll provide a nice "Buy it now" option to purchase the DVD or Blu-Ray or whatever.
Amazon is going to lose money on this deal. No one wants **another** box....especially one that doesn't do anything that Netflix can't do.
Amazon doesn't care for hardware. They sell their kindles and such at practically cost.
You see, Amazon's business model is use hardware to sell content. The hardware's sold cheap, because people will use Amazon's content store to buy content for it, making up the money and encouraging more Amazon-only sales. Amazon doesn't care that they sold the box for a loss, as long as it leads you to buy content only from Amazon.
Contrast this with Apple, who uses content to sell hardware. The iTunes store content sales make some money, but the hardware sales make a whole lot more. Thing is, once you buy an Apple, the content's there as a convenience to you the user. Apple doesn't care if you buy an iPhone and only buy music from Amazon or Google. Or pirate it.
Still done that way in Japan. Then again, maybe the country with the world's highest teen suicide rate isn't the best example.
Except that it's unlikely the posting of scores is the cause. It's the Asian education system - basically you get through school, then at the end of high school, you take the Big Test(tm). This one test basically determines your future. Get a good score, you go to university and success awaits. Get a bad score, you're basically kicked to the curb, forced to spend your days as an underpaid labourer on a construction site or some other undesirable menial job.. Get somewhere in the middle, you can take some sort of trade school and hopefully be able to do something with your life.
Of course, parents, family, etc., want every child of theirs to get into university. Getting just "trade" is seen as "shame". Especially if the family is well off because both parents are from the "university" class.
Oh, and yes, this is the main cause - a kid who just misses, or has an off day, or whatever, well, their life is just as much over. The path is fixed and they're stuck, killing yourself is now seen as the only way to resolve shaming the family, and to avoid the fate that awaits.
Compare to western education systems where your entire future is NOT determined by some test, but by many other factors. Didn't get into university? Well, there's still plenty of options out there, you can go to trade school and be a well paid tradesperson, or you can be an entrepreneur and get success that way.
Plus, well, failure isn't generally seen as a huge issue in the west. Failed the test? Deal with it, and move on and make sure the next one you don't fail. The goal being that failure is just a temporary setback, and what's more important is how you recover from said failure than the failure itself.
That looks to be the result of a bad patch - anyone who uses git probably can see what happens if you don't rebase patches properly - you end up with patches that apply in very strange and very wierd ways. Especially if the patch in question contains a lot of repeated statements such that the context diff doesn't contain enough context.
Either that, or it was a patch that was being applied manually (because it wasn't rebased properly) and someone forgot to delete an extra line
(It's great fun when code gets so similar that the patch really can apply almost anywhere - it's resulted in some very strange device trees after patching the Linux kernel).
?! Any decent compiler would throw up a warning for unreachable code. I know that the whole "many eyes" thing is a miss and an audit of any open source code will usually pick up trivial problems, but that one doesn't even make any sense unless Apple coding practices are so poor that no sensible person would touch their products.
The problem is it's really easy to miss warnings when a build is in progress - the compiler may produce a ton of warnings, but it's all intermixed and interspersed during the build (especially during multicore builds) that it's hard to see or even find.
Especially in builds for a large system - people are likely to just kick off the main build and miss warnings on the bit that they fixed.
Heck, I do that when fixing code in Android - I'd fix a bug, kick off the build and it'll scroll by way too fast. Even finding an error can be a chore because of all the output - it can be hundreds of lines behind the prompt.
Hopefully it'll screw up our pine beetles out west, too.
Not here in BC - the weather's been warm this winter. Springlike at a minimum.
Sure there was a week or two where it actually went to -10 or so, but that's nothing for the pine beetles - they need like a sustained -20C for a couple of weeks to die off.
In fact, the entire west coast of continental North America has been fairly warm and pleasant (and dry - this may not be too good for water reservoirs which are fed by snowmelt), while out in the east everyone's been dealing with metres of snowfall and chilly chilly chilly.
Technically, what's happening is peering agreements.
Verizon and Cogent agree to carry each other's traffic. If the flows are roughly equal, then they usually come to a "free" agreement - Verizon carriest traffic from Cogent and Cogent carries Verizon's traffic for free.
It's when flows are unequal that's when the fights happen - basically the one getting more traffic from the other starts demanding money because they're sharing more of the burden of the traffic.
So what happened here is Cogent is passing more traffic to Verizon than Verizon is passing to Cogent. This usually results in the formerly free peering arrangement to become a paid one, and Verizon starts demanding money for the unequal flow.
It turns out the one demanding party has a new tool in the shed - stop upgrading the ports so now Cogent's traffic is maxing out the port and getting dropped packets.
Sometimes the one having more traffic does nasty tricks as well - including rerouting their traffic through a more expensive link to force port upgrades (i.e., Cogent sees Verizon pays more if traffic goes through another port, so they route all traffic through that port). Or they move traffic between ports forcing port upgrades on all ports.
Instead, they poorly copied Microsoft's actions with Windows 8 and Metro, which was itself a poorly done copy of iOS's interface, with the added insult of requiring gestures even on a mouse-based machine! Apple themselves then made a shit-poor decision to change the UI for iOS 7. Unity fell somewhere in the middle of this mess, believing that "change is good because Apple and Microsoft were doing it." So they violated the OCP, and pissed off as many users as they could. That's even a bigger mistake for them, because Unity users are far less locked into the choice of Canonical than a Microsoft or Apple user.
Actually, Apple is the latecomer to this - iOS 7 came out in 2013. Metro and Unity showed up in 2012.
Apple changed because a growing number of people were complaining that the iOS UI started looked "dated" and "static" because it hasn't changed as wildly as Android or as "fresh" as Metro on Windows Phone. Ditto OS X - people were complaining it looks very similar to the way it looked over a decade earlier.
Of course, I hate the new "flatness" that seems to be the trendy thing 0 I like my faux 3D with shading and depth and texture. I admit, iOS perhaps went a bit too overboard with stitched leather and green felt, but I liked the icons and all that.
But I guess that's the breaks. Be like Apple and try to keep things practically the same and after a little while you get accused of ossifying the UI and it looks old, dated, not trendy and ugly. Be like Microsoft and offer fresh and shiny every couple of years and you look cool. Except well, it seems to have come at the cost of functionality.
And then there's Linux where everyone wants to do everything and you end up with hideousness that is Unity.
Don't change the UI and you get accused of ossifying. Change the UI and everyone hates it.
iOS: No, your fingerprint scanner does not make your phone more secure. Get over it.
Apple doesn't say its safer. In fact, Apple considers LESS safe than the PIN, because you can always enter the PIN. Or if the reader fails to get a valid fingerprint, you need the PIN to unlock. Or if you reboot. PIN trumps reader every time
The only way it's "safer" is that it encourages you to use a PIN where you might not have used one before because it's less annoying to unlock.
So if the option was PIN or slide to unlock, most people picked slide to unlock. However, PIN+Fingerprint makes it just as easy to unlock as slide to unlock, you may just use a PIN and secure your phone just that bit better.
It's why Android's pattern unlock is probably the most popular lock system - it's just only an itty-bit more complex than slide to unlock.
Slashdot Mirror
Except those caps are Nippon Chemi-con. High end high quality capacitors made in Japan. And not the kind involved in the bad caps.
Bad cap syndrome happens to the cheap caps - stuff like CapXon (aka CrapXon) and such.
In fact, a lot of bad caps you're finding are the cheap crap ones by the crap manufacturers. You can easily buy them and they will fail.
That's why you'll find people inspecting caps - and seeing if it's Nippon Chemi-con, Rubycon, Panasonic/Matsushita or other Japanese brand. (You can almost generalize it to those whose brands contain "con" in their name are higher quality - from when they used to be called condensers. The cheap brands all tend to have "cap" in their name).
So no, I don't see the caps being the weak point because Intel went and spec'd top-quality caps.
Given Boeing doesn't make phones normally, the only reason it exists is because we're talking about Boeing the defense contractor, and not Boeing the plane manufacturer.
The phone will most likely only be sold to government for government use only. In which case, well, it doesn't matter if the NSA has all the keys because well, it's all government. It'll be issued to government employees (and the military), and basically owned by the US government.
Civilians most likely won't be able to get their hands on it, so those who complain about privacy being compromised well, they're going to be used by people who agreed to it anyways.
Um, that was in TFA. And yes, the goal was to get them to link up somehow, and do several spacewalks to transfer the crew. It even went so far to consider that bringing the spacesuits back to Columbia would require them to be fully powered up and operational but with no one inside it. And figure out who leaves when, and the difficulty in that one of them travels alone so has to don and doff the suit alone.
The article basically summarizes the results of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report appendix that featured such a "what-if" scenario. And it's why post disaster they actually had another shuttle on standby for this very scenario.
And yet, the outcome is still better than it is now, where they hijack the ship and hold the crew ransom. Here, they hijack the ship, and.. that's it. There's no crew to hold for ransom, no one to talk to for instant quick payment, etc. You save human lives.
The only way to make money is for the pirates to go and sell the contents of the containers, which requires a lot more time, effort and money and takes a lot of time. Holding a crew hostage could easily get $10M+ in a week. Making money selling what's in the containers takes far longer.
I think the problem isn't attracting women to the field, it's that the field is so full of men who are at best crude with their social skills. To be honest, seeing interactions between developers is quite eye-opening at times. You'd think by their language that they were stereotypical construction workers full to sexist jokes and innuendo, catcalling, and the like.
It's going beyond programmers having poor social skills, it's poor social skills AND being some of the most sexist people on the planet. Heck, in any other workplace, a lot of their behavior would count as sexual harassment.
And perhaps that's the reason why women aren't entering the field - they're entering workplaces that haven't really evolved beyond suffrage, while the rest of the world evolved and modernized. Like programming is the last refuge for manliness.
Did you not turn on subtitles?
That's the thing with modern games I like - they all have subtitling options which I promptly set to "always on"
That said, there are still evil games out there that have dialog and no option to have subtitles at all. Naturally there's always a point where a poorly mixed piece of audio overwhelms the dialog and you miss some key story plot or something.
I don't think the cake is very ... appealing after listening to the ingredients in it.
It may have a cake, but it sure doesn't look edible.
Except you pretty much invalidated the reason why CR does what it does - you needed it for the back country. CR covers "normal" use - what the average user uses their vehicle for. Like most SUVs and 4x4s never touch anything more "off road" than the odd dirt road caused by road repaving. Who otherwise spend their entire driving lives running on paved roads.
For these kinds of people, any vehicle meets their needs. CR just uses a set of objective tests to pick "best" of the lot. For specialized needs, the objective weightings will be off.
For example, if you're moving cross country, a Tesla Model S makes a poor moving vehicle - you'd probably want a cube van or a semi, depending on how much stuff and all that. But you're also not likely to see CR recommend a Peterbilt 390 because most people don't have a need for it.
Same goes for everything else. If you need a computer, CR will recommend a bunch of computers. But if you're a techie, your needs and what most people need probably won't align at all (e.g., CR puts emphasis on tech support, which most techies won't need over say, Google). Ditto anything else. Want a washing machine? Well, CR probably will pick generally good overall machines, but if your job is to do the linen at a hotel, you probably won't go for it. Or home theatre systems - if you're an audiophile or a cinema junkie who has their own theatre room, well, CR doesn't cater to you. They'll cater to people who just want better sound while watching movies on their 42" HDTV in the living room.
The only thing you need to know is when your needs are "average" or when you have special requirements.
I do believe CR makes their raw data available to members so if you do have special requirements, you can simply emphasize those differently from the default CR weightings. Like perhaps your jeep is just awful when you run it on standard paved roads, use it as a commuter car In stop-and-go traffic and in gas consumption.
But then it runs into trends that conflict with goals of other people.
See the DRM debacle the W3C was considering. The general solution was to not have DRM in the spec, but to force developers to "make an app" instead.
And when developers do that, people complain they could've done it on a web page.
Ironically, developers wanted apps - Apple was more than happy with web apps but developers weren't, which is why iPhone OS (back then) 2.0 introduced native apps. (Apple pushed for stuff like location services, sensors and even camera to be accessible in HTML5).
So no, there's really no good solution. Don't want mobile apps? Then you'll need to have stuff like DRM added. Want those DRM seekers to just make an app? They will, then others see it as a way to protect their content as well, and it spirals both ways.
Google's not going to shut down Google+. In fact, Google+ is central to their business. Google has admitted the main reason for G+ is to collect more user information. Given the unified privacy policy, the fact that Google can now track you through your use of its various products adds a ton of valuable information. And even if you don't "use" a G+ account, your use through YouTube etc, and those G+ buttons is monitored.
So no, G+ is NOT going to go away, because it's central to Google's business. Google even admits that while some people find it creepy, as long as they remain "good", they can get away with a ton of things.
There are many ways. One, you simply price yourself to cover potential fluctuations. E.g., if you expect the currency to vary 10% over the year, you price it 10% higher. This is the most common method, and it leads to problems if the spread between currencies narrows, or if the spread widens faster than predicted. Hopefully the currency is stable enough so when this happens, you either choose to eat the difference for a few months, or reduce price etc.
The second way, done for large vendors, is hedges. Basically they hold enough investments around that they avoid immediate currency conversion and instead hold onto it for better times. E.g., US$ to BTC. If BTC is low, you charge more, and you hang onto the BTC, drawing down the US$ reserves you have. When BTC rises, you convert it. Which can mean buyers may pay going rate, but when you actually cash out, you gain money just by waiting. (Hedging is related to hedge funds and other such instruments).
With a currency as volatile as BTC, either you have a payment processor guarantee you a fixed exchange amount, or you simply charge more BTC than a straight exchange would be.
Exactly. Though, SnapChat does try to detect attempts to take screen shots which it then notifies the sender that you've done so. Of course, this can easily fail (it does under iOS7 because of changes deep in the OS).
It's called an allowance and it's considered by many financial experts to be among the best ways to teach money management to children.
It's an excellent tool to teach savings, splitting income, spending, instant vs. delayed gratification, etc. in a really safe environment (because "bankruptcy" Is a harsh, but temporary lesson. Sadly, you learned the hard way what it was like to not grow up with those skills.
That's the point of an allowance. An allowance is a life-training tool to manage money. The kid learns that he COULD spend the hard earned savings on an ice cream, or he COULD leave it save up for that toy he really wants.
The point is to learn these lessons in a relatively safe environment (if they blow their wad on ice cream, they don't have to worry about food, shelter, etc). And to learn the value of splitting your "income" in various bundles - a dollar to long term savings (to get the toy you want), a dollar to spend, a dollar to save for times you need more than you have or emergencies, a dollar for charity, etc. And if one forgoes spending, that can make the long term savings for the thing you really want go so much faster.
And instant gratification versus delayed gratification is an important lesson. Ice cream now vs. now having to wait another month for the toy.
Finally, one thing children learn way too quickly is how to be a tightwad. Sure it helps to save money, but to pinch every penny may not be the best way (price does not equal value) - spending more might be a better option. Anyone's whose dealt with a parent who insists on keeping their 10 year old junker PC going instead of buying a new one knows this. Plus, instill in them the need to actually go out and socialize with friends - sometimes the goal of saving gets in the way of life and it can lead to health and mental issues - there's absolutely nothing wrong with having fun with friends and getting together, but absolutely wrong (especially for mental health) if you're avoiding friends just to save up for something. It's why you have a "spend/fun" jar.
I know that was one of my mistakes - putting every penny in a savings jar without putting anything in towards having fun now (you want to die alone as a rich, but miserable person?).
And there's the problem.
Dealers thrive on service - selling cars is basically a very low margin deal. They make it up in service. The Leaf, the Model S, and other EVs basically have you visiting the dealer maybe once every year, or less. While a traditional ICE will have you going back twice or more a year.
And if you look carefully, the maintenance schedule never says "Oil change", but add on a bunch of other stuff as well. So if you deal with a quick change lube place, well, they still get you on the "other stuff".
Sure, some people have trusted mechanics, but most don't, so service calls are one of the major profit centers. Enough so that they're willing to throw in several service calls knowing they'll probably hook you and you'll keep going back.
Even Tesla only recommends people come in once a year for a tune-up., Which probably is mostly an inspection to make sure stuff looks good.
Of course, I find the following things good about the Model S over the Leaf. First, it looks like a normal car. The Leaf looks like some small econobox. Looks are primo in the car world. Second - range. 50 miles is a lot, but not so much if you commute 20 miles each way. And I fill my tanks when they get to half. I like to handle the following plausible circumstances - first, power outage or other problem means I miss a charge, and second, the power plugs at work are full.
When you have a 200 mile battery, a 20 mile commute looks downright sedate. And 200 miles is probably as much gas as a small econobox holds.
You missed the most important aspect of an IDE - debugging!
I dare someone to say that using gdb, xgdb, or even ddd is far better for debugging than doing it within eclipse or visual studio.
Yes, they work, but life is just that much easier using an IDE where it kindly shows you the stack, locals, globals, code windows, etc., all in one view, rather than having to take a peek and scroll up and down in a single text box.
Plus memory and variable displays that show you what changed, traces, and rapid switching between assembly and source and intermixing the two.
And not to terribly fast either - given how the Apple A7 is running rings around Intel's chips.
Granted, different architectures and different OSes, but the benchmarks that run on both Android and iOS generally show the A7 being faster (and not by a little bit - by a lot).
And when 64-bit ARMs come out on Android, expect the Intel offerings to fall further behind. The A7 is fast because of the optimizations that the ARMv8 and 64-bit architecture allow.
Or just don't agree with Google.
Nokia owns Navteq, and has their own mapping service. Even if Nokia was willing to pay Google, they would be forced to ensure that Ovi Maps is not the default maps app.
And any other app that Nokia has - if you sign the agreement with Google, Google's apps must be #1, available within 1 tap of the home screen, and default.
First, tell me how this benefits Amazon in any way. Amazon makes no money selling hardware. They only sell hardware to sell content. (Apple sells content to sell hardware, so they're far more likely to make your box than Amazon).
Amazon will tie it into their services - you buy music, movies and TV shows exclusively from Amazon and whoever partners with Amazon to provide content to their boxes. And if your search for something comes up blank, they'll provide a nice "Buy it now" option to purchase the DVD or Blu-Ray or whatever.
Amazon doesn't care for hardware. They sell their kindles and such at practically cost.
You see, Amazon's business model is use hardware to sell content. The hardware's sold cheap, because people will use Amazon's content store to buy content for it, making up the money and encouraging more Amazon-only sales. Amazon doesn't care that they sold the box for a loss, as long as it leads you to buy content only from Amazon.
Contrast this with Apple, who uses content to sell hardware. The iTunes store content sales make some money, but the hardware sales make a whole lot more. Thing is, once you buy an Apple, the content's there as a convenience to you the user. Apple doesn't care if you buy an iPhone and only buy music from Amazon or Google. Or pirate it.
Except that it's unlikely the posting of scores is the cause. It's the Asian education system - basically you get through school, then at the end of high school, you take the Big Test(tm). This one test basically determines your future. Get a good score, you go to university and success awaits. Get a bad score, you're basically kicked to the curb, forced to spend your days as an underpaid labourer on a construction site or some other undesirable menial job.. Get somewhere in the middle, you can take some sort of trade school and hopefully be able to do something with your life.
Of course, parents, family, etc., want every child of theirs to get into university. Getting just "trade" is seen as "shame". Especially if the family is well off because both parents are from the "university" class.
Oh, and yes, this is the main cause - a kid who just misses, or has an off day, or whatever, well, their life is just as much over. The path is fixed and they're stuck, killing yourself is now seen as the only way to resolve shaming the family, and to avoid the fate that awaits.
Compare to western education systems where your entire future is NOT determined by some test, but by many other factors. Didn't get into university? Well, there's still plenty of options out there, you can go to trade school and be a well paid tradesperson, or you can be an entrepreneur and get success that way.
Plus, well, failure isn't generally seen as a huge issue in the west. Failed the test? Deal with it, and move on and make sure the next one you don't fail. The goal being that failure is just a temporary setback, and what's more important is how you recover from said failure than the failure itself.
That looks to be the result of a bad patch - anyone who uses git probably can see what happens if you don't rebase patches properly - you end up with patches that apply in very strange and very wierd ways. Especially if the patch in question contains a lot of repeated statements such that the context diff doesn't contain enough context.
Either that, or it was a patch that was being applied manually (because it wasn't rebased properly) and someone forgot to delete an extra line
(It's great fun when code gets so similar that the patch really can apply almost anywhere - it's resulted in some very strange device trees after patching the Linux kernel).
The problem is it's really easy to miss warnings when a build is in progress - the compiler may produce a ton of warnings, but it's all intermixed and interspersed during the build (especially during multicore builds) that it's hard to see or even find.
Especially in builds for a large system - people are likely to just kick off the main build and miss warnings on the bit that they fixed.
Heck, I do that when fixing code in Android - I'd fix a bug, kick off the build and it'll scroll by way too fast. Even finding an error can be a chore because of all the output - it can be hundreds of lines behind the prompt.
Not here in BC - the weather's been warm this winter. Springlike at a minimum.
Sure there was a week or two where it actually went to -10 or so, but that's nothing for the pine beetles - they need like a sustained -20C for a couple of weeks to die off.
In fact, the entire west coast of continental North America has been fairly warm and pleasant (and dry - this may not be too good for water reservoirs which are fed by snowmelt), while out in the east everyone's been dealing with metres of snowfall and chilly chilly chilly.
Technically, what's happening is peering agreements.
Verizon and Cogent agree to carry each other's traffic. If the flows are roughly equal, then they usually come to a "free" agreement - Verizon carriest traffic from Cogent and Cogent carries Verizon's traffic for free.
It's when flows are unequal that's when the fights happen - basically the one getting more traffic from the other starts demanding money because they're sharing more of the burden of the traffic.
So what happened here is Cogent is passing more traffic to Verizon than Verizon is passing to Cogent. This usually results in the formerly free peering arrangement to become a paid one, and Verizon starts demanding money for the unequal flow.
It turns out the one demanding party has a new tool in the shed - stop upgrading the ports so now Cogent's traffic is maxing out the port and getting dropped packets.
Sometimes the one having more traffic does nasty tricks as well - including rerouting their traffic through a more expensive link to force port upgrades (i.e., Cogent sees Verizon pays more if traffic goes through another port, so they route all traffic through that port). Or they move traffic between ports forcing port upgrades on all ports.
Actually, Apple is the latecomer to this - iOS 7 came out in 2013. Metro and Unity showed up in 2012.
Apple changed because a growing number of people were complaining that the iOS UI started looked "dated" and "static" because it hasn't changed as wildly as Android or as "fresh" as Metro on Windows Phone. Ditto OS X - people were complaining it looks very similar to the way it looked over a decade earlier.
Of course, I hate the new "flatness" that seems to be the trendy thing 0 I like my faux 3D with shading and depth and texture. I admit, iOS perhaps went a bit too overboard with stitched leather and green felt, but I liked the icons and all that.
But I guess that's the breaks. Be like Apple and try to keep things practically the same and after a little while you get accused of ossifying the UI and it looks old, dated, not trendy and ugly. Be like Microsoft and offer fresh and shiny every couple of years and you look cool. Except well, it seems to have come at the cost of functionality.
And then there's Linux where everyone wants to do everything and you end up with hideousness that is Unity.
Don't change the UI and you get accused of ossifying. Change the UI and everyone hates it.
Apple doesn't say its safer. In fact, Apple considers LESS safe than the PIN, because you can always enter the PIN. Or if the reader fails to get a valid fingerprint, you need the PIN to unlock. Or if you reboot. PIN trumps reader every time
The only way it's "safer" is that it encourages you to use a PIN where you might not have used one before because it's less annoying to unlock.
So if the option was PIN or slide to unlock, most people picked slide to unlock. However, PIN+Fingerprint makes it just as easy to unlock as slide to unlock, you may just use a PIN and secure your phone just that bit better.
It's why Android's pattern unlock is probably the most popular lock system - it's just only an itty-bit more complex than slide to unlock.