This is one of many comments promoting SolidWorks or Pro/E for design. One reply:
Try designing a building in SolidWorks. It's ridiculous.
There are great pieces of software (like Revit) out there for this purpose. Just because SolidWorks and Pro/E rock for mechanical part design doesn't mean they are the best tools for architects, contractors, or structural/civil engineers.
It's because Boardwalk and PP can just crush someone. None of the other properties, except maybe the greens and the yellows, can deliver the death blow so clearly.
On the other hand, people rarely land on them. Is there a statistical analysis of the most valuable properties in monopoly? Cost of investment (purchase, houses, hotels) correlated with position-based payoff?
I agree. I keep going back and forth between them, and I just can't help but feel that the runner up design will wear better. The two-tone green works really well.
The first design feels like it was designed by a geek - modernist and flat. The second feels like it was done by someone who really knows design...
Oh well - dictatorship smicktatorship - either one is an improvement. They should still have a poll, if only so this whole thread doesn't become a set of votes for one or the other.
You know, it's a shame that the/. editors strip out the stuff that really makes this "News for Nerds," instead settling on a dumbed-down version of the submission that results in a generally lame discussion. I know Taco explained recently that they only like one or two links, but it just seems sad that "Nerds" wouldn't be interested in the details that make a technology work, especially when they're so obviously relevant.
Offtopic, I know. Sorry. Anyway, thanks for restoring your submission; I, for one, found the links interesting...
Since when was it "zen" to be self-righteous? You are deluded if you think that imposing your views on others will help them relax. Zen (and courtesy) would be allowing others to do what they want to do, whether you disagree with it or not, as long as they are not hurting you.
I don't understand people like you. When I am driving, I don't *want* to be holding other people up. Why can't you drive the speed you want to drive and let other people drive the speed they want to drive?
I hope you realize that it's *you* who cause a hazardous condition on the highway, by backing up traffic and by forcing people to pass on the right. Passing on the right is dangerous because it means faster traffic must intermingle with the slower traffic in the right lanes.
And since when did you become so lazy that you won't "merge" lanes for proper driving? It's not even a "merge" - it's a lane change. Any car's rightful place is in the right-most lane that it's reasonable to drive. One should only move to the left in order to pass, and then settle back into the proper driving lanes on the right. If you go to Germany, you would see that the traffic moves more quickly and more safely because people stay to the right. More traffic can move on a given stretch of highway because it isn't dangerously blocked up by people going inappropriate speeds in the wrong lane.
Your self-righteousness about what you deem to be the proper speed to drive is just strange to me. Even when I am driving over the limit, if someone comes up behind me, I make sure to get out of the way for them. Why would I want them on my tail? Why would I want to prevent them from going the speed they want? It doesn't make sense, and it creates a condition where the majority of traffic just sits in the left-hand lane (despite all the space to the right), because they are too lazy to execute a simple lane change.
That page is sweet - if you "reject jesus" in the faux checkboxes you get to the really fun stuff. If I had realPlayer I'd be interested to hear the "millions in hell" clip...
Re:Stopped reading it when it got so political...
on
The Onion in 2056
·
· Score: 0, Troll
They also produced "Cops," which is the closest media has come to glorifying a police state since Triumph of the Will.
What you have hit on is exactly the opiate of the masses. The idea of entertainment, disentangled from any thought or life experience, is exactly the sort of pleasurable escape offered by any drug use.
It's this whole thing that "entertainment" is so sanctified, that it is above any reproach. Really, it's fine; I really am not judging, but I guess that it seems worth it to have a life that's not so bad that one needs escape from it. Once can be engaged in games, books, or movies, and experience them as a useful part of getting to know others, the world around us, or ourselves. Or one can only take those same things as frivolity, tune out the mind, escape. If that's the aim, it's the same as crack or opium. In fact, I have to say that the experiences I got when I tried crack were overall more interesting (if not necessarily positive) than I ever got from playing a video game or zoning out on the television.
When something is looked at as only "entertainment," it's basically like saying, "I just want to sit and let the thing push the positive brain chemical buttons in my brain." It's a denial of any true depth of experience and it seems a waste. I dunno... I'm not trying to get all agro, it just seems like your opinion comes up over and over again here, that when someone engages a subject another person has to rejoin them with, "relax, it's only *entertainment*". It's as if that's some god-given reason why critical thinking should just be discarded.
Real life can offer relaxation too... it just seems a waste of the small time we have to disregard it. Even the experience of reading a book or playing a game with someone interesting can be a cool addition to life rather than a dulling of it. Advertisers and media agents just love the entertainment angle though; it allows them to make crap that is disconnected from anything that might inspire tumult or conflict. I'm not saying that I don't disengage sometimes, it's just worth realizing that when we do that we're doing no different than smoking the crack pipe, hitting the opium... sometimes hard to resist, but ultimately incredibly dull.
Yep - and how long before spammers start using the proxy programs to endlessly click their own links?
I'm tempted to trust Google for the moment, because every article I've read on search technology says that it will get better with more information. I'm sick of dealing with the crap spam links when I search, so I'm happy to help downrank them. Of course, if I catch wind of the data being sold to "market research" companies, then I'll bail.
But I wonder how useful the information will be to Google when it can ultimately also be manipulated by spammers. Maybe they have an algorithm to weed out spammers using their proxy (too many clicks, too often), but I also don't doubt that the spammers will do everything they can to appear to offer "useful" information to google in order to up their rankings.
Beyond that, the point is that a president does *have the power* to instate a draft, and it seems worth having a president who understands the full implications of that power.
In any case, I find it strange that you call Bush and Kerry children during Vietnam, but yet our all-volunteer military is mostly composed of persons the same age. If today's 18 year-olds are adult enough to make such a binding decision, wasn't Bush old enough not to make a "childish" decision during Vietnam?
Re:Does /. want endorsements from the NY Times?
on
Buggy Voting Machines
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think the issue of Bush being a draft-dodger comes to the forefront when he sends *other* people's children to war.
To force others to fight for your country when you were not willing to is hypocrisy, and it's relevant to know that about one's president.
By preventing fraud (and cheaper imports), the pharmaceutical companies will protect their investment, which will naturally lead to LOWER COSTS! It's a win/win situation!!!
You, the consumer, should embrace this, just as you should embrace DRM, because when companies don't have to enforce their IP, they pass those savings on to YOU!
Well you're right - after indentifying as Opera, it now functions similiar (similarly?) to Firefox, in that it displays the sidebar and the subject lines, but not the message contents... I just realized that it could be just that alternate browsers are more aware of the security issues and so aren't auto-displaying message contents. Feature, not bug?
Interesting. As per my last post, I downloaded Firefox and tried it out on the BofA and Washington Mutual sites. Both rendered well, although there was an offset in the header. I also checked the latest version of Opera, which I just installed on my new machine (still getting the most out of my $40 from two years ago) and it rendered almost precisely the same. I'd show my screenshot, but I have no good host.
Curious, I tried the exchange server from my work (yes, my IT director is a moron - he loves sharepoint). Firefox did not have all three frames in the webmail as IE did. Score:-1 for Firefox... but it did work. I could send and read email without issue, just inconvenience (I didn't get to the calendering etc.). However, in Opera the Outlook Exchange page was completely, utterly unusable. Score: -infinity for Opera.
I am impressed that both have a handle on the bank pages - perhaps it means that corporate designers have finally decided to pay attention to alternate browsers. That's honestly probably due to the success of Firefox or else the use of Safari on Macs. As for Exchange, I expect no less from MS. Having tried to deal with a small amount of their sh!t before, their sabotage of competitors is without parallel. I'll give Firefox a lot of credit for at least being able to decipher some of the FUD (Opera probably got snobby and didn't even try).
You've given me a month. I'm going to use both for a month, mostly because I'm curious. May the best browser win.
Thank you - I didn't know (and this shows that I must have become more zealout-like than I want to) that firefox did a better job with average/crappy mainstream sites like that.
You've given me an excuse to install firefox, and who knows, I'll probably become a convert and be preaching differently on the next Opera thread.
I'll be curious to see what firefox can handle, in terms of bad, IE oriented, HTML.
BTW, thanks again, for not just ragging on me or giving me shit - that's why I'm listening.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of many comments promoting SolidWorks or Pro/E for design. One reply:
Try designing a building in SolidWorks. It's ridiculous.
There are great pieces of software (like Revit) out there for this purpose. Just because SolidWorks and Pro/E rock for mechanical part design doesn't mean they are the best tools for architects, contractors, or structural/civil engineers.
I believe he got tripped up on the fact that polar bears don't live in the Antarctic.
Nice original post.
Nice post, asshole.
(actually that's one of the best online explanations of sarcasm I've seen)
Or you can just use Opera :)
It's because Boardwalk and PP can just crush someone. None of the other properties, except maybe the greens and the yellows, can deliver the death blow so clearly.
On the other hand, people rarely land on them. Is there a statistical analysis of the most valuable properties in monopoly? Cost of investment (purchase, houses, hotels) correlated with position-based payoff?
Really it *should* be put to a vote. We're the ones who have to live with it.
;)
It's not like the editors ever read the site anyway...
I agree. I keep going back and forth between them, and I just can't help but feel that the runner up design will wear better. The two-tone green works really well.
The first design feels like it was designed by a geek - modernist and flat. The second feels like it was done by someone who really knows design...
Oh well - dictatorship smicktatorship - either one is an improvement. They should still have a poll, if only so this whole thread doesn't become a set of votes for one or the other.
You can download it in quicktime on the site. Or just go here
You know, it's a shame that the /. editors strip out the stuff that really makes this "News for Nerds," instead settling on a dumbed-down version of the submission that results in a generally lame discussion. I know Taco explained recently that they only like one or two links, but it just seems sad that "Nerds" wouldn't be interested in the details that make a technology work, especially when they're so obviously relevant.
Offtopic, I know. Sorry. Anyway, thanks for restoring your submission; I, for one, found the links interesting...
Since when was it "zen" to be self-righteous? You are deluded if you think that imposing your views on others will help them relax. Zen (and courtesy) would be allowing others to do what they want to do, whether you disagree with it or not, as long as they are not hurting you.
I don't understand people like you. When I am driving, I don't *want* to be holding other people up. Why can't you drive the speed you want to drive and let other people drive the speed they want to drive?
I hope you realize that it's *you* who cause a hazardous condition on the highway, by backing up traffic and by forcing people to pass on the right. Passing on the right is dangerous because it means faster traffic must intermingle with the slower traffic in the right lanes.
And since when did you become so lazy that you won't "merge" lanes for proper driving? It's not even a "merge" - it's a lane change. Any car's rightful place is in the right-most lane that it's reasonable to drive. One should only move to the left in order to pass, and then settle back into the proper driving lanes on the right. If you go to Germany, you would see that the traffic moves more quickly and more safely because people stay to the right. More traffic can move on a given stretch of highway because it isn't dangerously blocked up by people going inappropriate speeds in the wrong lane.
Your self-righteousness about what you deem to be the proper speed to drive is just strange to me. Even when I am driving over the limit, if someone comes up behind me, I make sure to get out of the way for them. Why would I want them on my tail? Why would I want to prevent them from going the speed they want? It doesn't make sense, and it creates a condition where the majority of traffic just sits in the left-hand lane (despite all the space to the right), because they are too lazy to execute a simple lane change.
That page is sweet - if you "reject jesus" in the faux checkboxes you get to the really fun stuff. If I had realPlayer I'd be interested to hear the "millions in hell" clip...
They also produced "Cops," which is the closest media has come to glorifying a police state since Triumph of the Will.
What you have hit on is exactly the opiate of the masses. The idea of entertainment, disentangled from any thought or life experience, is exactly the sort of pleasurable escape offered by any drug use.
It's this whole thing that "entertainment" is so sanctified, that it is above any reproach. Really, it's fine; I really am not judging, but I guess that it seems worth it to have a life that's not so bad that one needs escape from it. Once can be engaged in games, books, or movies, and experience them as a useful part of getting to know others, the world around us, or ourselves. Or one can only take those same things as frivolity, tune out the mind, escape. If that's the aim, it's the same as crack or opium. In fact, I have to say that the experiences I got when I tried crack were overall more interesting (if not necessarily positive) than I ever got from playing a video game or zoning out on the television.
When something is looked at as only "entertainment," it's basically like saying, "I just want to sit and let the thing push the positive brain chemical buttons in my brain." It's a denial of any true depth of experience and it seems a waste. I dunno... I'm not trying to get all agro, it just seems like your opinion comes up over and over again here, that when someone engages a subject another person has to rejoin them with, "relax, it's only *entertainment*". It's as if that's some god-given reason why critical thinking should just be discarded.
Real life can offer relaxation too... it just seems a waste of the small time we have to disregard it. Even the experience of reading a book or playing a game with someone interesting can be a cool addition to life rather than a dulling of it. Advertisers and media agents just love the entertainment angle though; it allows them to make crap that is disconnected from anything that might inspire tumult or conflict. I'm not saying that I don't disengage sometimes, it's just worth realizing that when we do that we're doing no different than smoking the crack pipe, hitting the opium... sometimes hard to resist, but ultimately incredibly dull.
Yeah but how much of Google's sales are profit vs. Time Warner's?
That's fucking sad. Get a divorce (unless she's cool with a mistress, and even then...)
Yep - and how long before spammers start using the proxy programs to endlessly click their own links?
I'm tempted to trust Google for the moment, because every article I've read on search technology says that it will get better with more information. I'm sick of dealing with the crap spam links when I search, so I'm happy to help downrank them. Of course, if I catch wind of the data being sold to "market research" companies, then I'll bail.
But I wonder how useful the information will be to Google when it can ultimately also be manipulated by spammers. Maybe they have an algorithm to weed out spammers using their proxy (too many clicks, too often), but I also don't doubt that the spammers will do everything they can to appear to offer "useful" information to google in order to up their rankings.
Really, it just escalates the information war...
With all the publicity though, it won't be long...
It just will probably just take another round of PageRank before Apple moves up the list.
If right-click is a kludge, what the hell is command click or apple click, or whatever it is? At least the right click can be done with one hand.
Besides, people are expected to use more than one finger on the keyboard - why is it kludgy for them to do the same on a mouse?
What do you call this?
Or this?
Or this?
Beyond that, the point is that a president does *have the power* to instate a draft, and it seems worth having a president who understands the full implications of that power.
In any case, I find it strange that you call Bush and Kerry children during Vietnam, but yet our all-volunteer military is mostly composed of persons the same age. If today's 18 year-olds are adult enough to make such a binding decision, wasn't Bush old enough not to make a "childish" decision during Vietnam?
I think the issue of Bush being a draft-dodger comes to the forefront when he sends *other* people's children to war.
To force others to fight for your country when you were not willing to is hypocrisy, and it's relevant to know that about one's president.
This will SAVE consumers money, of course!
By preventing fraud (and cheaper imports), the pharmaceutical companies will protect their investment, which will naturally lead to LOWER COSTS! It's a win/win situation!!!
You, the consumer, should embrace this, just as you should embrace DRM, because when companies don't have to enforce their IP, they pass those savings on to YOU!
Hey, that sh!t's worked before...
Well you're right - after indentifying as Opera, it now functions similiar (similarly?) to Firefox, in that it displays the sidebar and the subject lines, but not the message contents... I just realized that it could be just that alternate browsers are more aware of the security issues and so aren't auto-displaying message contents. Feature, not bug?
Interesting. As per my last post, I downloaded Firefox and tried it out on the BofA and Washington Mutual sites. Both rendered well, although there was an offset in the header. I also checked the latest version of Opera, which I just installed on my new machine (still getting the most out of my $40 from two years ago) and it rendered almost precisely the same. I'd show my screenshot, but I have no good host.
Curious, I tried the exchange server from my work (yes, my IT director is a moron - he loves sharepoint). Firefox did not have all three frames in the webmail as IE did. Score:-1 for Firefox... but it did work. I could send and read email without issue, just inconvenience (I didn't get to the calendering etc.). However, in Opera the Outlook Exchange page was completely, utterly unusable. Score: -infinity for Opera.
I am impressed that both have a handle on the bank pages - perhaps it means that corporate designers have finally decided to pay attention to alternate browsers. That's honestly probably due to the success of Firefox or else the use of Safari on Macs. As for Exchange, I expect no less from MS. Having tried to deal with a small amount of their sh!t before, their sabotage of competitors is without parallel. I'll give Firefox a lot of credit for at least being able to decipher some of the FUD (Opera probably got snobby and didn't even try).
You've given me a month. I'm going to use both for a month, mostly because I'm curious. May the best browser win.
Cheers,
-i
Thank you - I didn't know (and this shows that I must have become more zealout-like than I want to) that firefox did a better job with average/crappy mainstream sites like that.
You've given me an excuse to install firefox, and who knows, I'll probably become a convert and be preaching differently on the next Opera thread.
I'll be curious to see what firefox can handle, in terms of bad, IE oriented, HTML.
BTW, thanks again, for not just ragging on me or giving me shit - that's why I'm listening.