The difference between people like Cringly and Dvorak and people like myself is that, while we all know we're not knowlegable enough to write a column, people like Cringly and Dvorak don't let that stand in their way. I simply won't apply for a job I don't think I can do properly. I guess I'm too nice to take money from fools. I couldn't do P.T. Barnum's job, either.
No shit. First Cringly, now Dvorak. Why is Slashdot becomming the front man for all the loser know-nothings with a column? If there isn't anything better to post than "Cringly said this" and "Dvorak said that", then don't post. This is supposed to be news for nerds, not blathering for nerds.
I'm hoping they get to commodity pricing quickly, so that I can afford an LCD (or OLED or whatever) television. I'm sick and tired of the overscanning on CRT television. Just as I was going to get a Heathkit TV so I could adjust the overscanning myself, they stopped making TVs (oops, I'm dating myself). And yes, I did try asking my local TV repair shop if they could adjust mine; modern TVs aren't adjustable that way (I guess they save money by leaving off the potentiometers).
In fact, modern electronics aren't repairable at all; once somethings out of warranty it's more cost effective to throw it away and buy a new one. On the other hand, as long as it's working there's little better on the market, so there's no reason to "upgrade."
So, on another topic, any MTBF figures on CRT monitors? Are they built with planned obsolesence in mind, or is it "the last monitor you'll ever own"?
If it's the first time the idea is expressed in a story, it's not redundant, and I meta-moderate accordingly. [BTW, I don't consider "the way the hard-drive based Sonic players connected to your PC without the need for special drivers" (or any other part of the post) to be a "widely held notion," so even if I agreed with your position on 'redundant' this post doesn't qualify.]
Prime example: "First Post" posts are, by your terms, redundant, but that's poor moderation; "First Post" posts are offtopic, not redundant, even though the effect is the same (-1).
They're not trolls or flamebait, either. A troll is a post that is fishing (trolling) for replies, and has nothing to do with creatures who live under bridges. Flamebait is a subset of troll: it's posting a deliberately extreme statement, baiting hotheads to respond with flames. A "First Post" is neither, but I metamoderat such moderation as "fair" even though it's inaccurate.
Try coding the software after writing the documentation. Writing the documentation first, describing what the software does and how to use it, can uncover many problems/opportunities just as easilly as writing code does. For example, thinking of better ways to organize the user interface; or realizing that if we're asking them for X, Y, and Z then if we also ask them for W (instead of hard-coding W) the code will solve a larger class of problems.
First get the documentation to the point where you (or the friends you get to proofread it) think, "Wow, this software's really cool, I can't wait to try it," then start coding.
As your own customer, you're in a unique position to do this. In the "real world" we usually have trouble getting a Requirements Document out of the customer; I'd love a project where the customer said, "This is the user's manual for the software we want." Given a good user's manual the code would practically write itself. (bonus: then they couldn't complain about the user interface:-)
Sorry, but there's prior art. IBM was doing this 40 years ago. They'd put noops in their code to slow it down. Then, over the next few years, they'd release new computers that were faster than their older models -- simply because they'd remove some of the noops. By the time they'd run out of noops to remove the hardware guys actually had made a faster computer, and they'd release that with an OS full of noops and start the game over. This only worked because you had to run their OS on their hardware (and yes, it was their OS and their hardware, you only leased it from them). (Oh, did I mention that they'd charge more for essentially taking out noops?)
That is the first post to mention "union" -- how the hell do you think this is "redundant"? PLEASE, if you get that one in Meta-moderation, rate it accordingly.
Did Afghanistan visit violence upon you? No, it was the Saudis.
Oh, so if I move to Mexico and set up a goonsquad training camp, train some ex-pat Canadians how to fight, then send those Canadians over to your house to kick your sorry butt, you'll blame Canada?
Not bitter, just pragmatic. If you're running Linux or *BSD you probably have a legal right to run Windows too, even if you never did, unless you threw away the license and CD or bought a 'white box.'
This is probably the wrong place to ask, but many many years ago I heard about a SiFi story (maybe just a short story in an anthology) and I don't know the title and I haven't found anyone who's heard of it. If I'm chasing a phantom, then someone please write it because I'd love to read it:
The title is something like "The Third Level" or similar. It's about a guy who works for an insurance company. He's building a computer model of the world such that the company can run simulations of natural disasters to figure out how much to charge for their insurance. To use it, you somehow connect into the simulation such that you're a part of it (ala The Matrix, but predating it) and you observe what's going on in the simulation as the disaster/whatever is happening.
Soon, strange things start to happen to this guy. One day he's driving down the road and he turns to look at his wife, asleep in the passenger seat. When he looks back out the windshield it's all black -- there's nothing outside the car. He turns to wake his wife but then everything's there again. Later, one of the people jacked into the simulation suddenly stands up, rips off the headset/whatever, shouts "I'm half-way there!" and drops over dead. As the story unfolds you come to understand that the main character is really just a simulated person in a massive computer simulation of the real world, which is so accurate that it includes people like him, running simulations of the simulated world.
So, anyone heard of it? I was told about it by a camp counsellor in the 1960s.
You may be on to something here. This book database (or any similar database) could add much value if the ratings could be sorted by source. Not to identify individual reviewers, but to group them into categories: age, nationality, education, sex, etc. Then you could search for ratings by people like yourself, so you could ignore any American bias if you choose.
As I said, IANAL, but: 1) The Supremes said the protesters comitted coercion, not extortion. 2) The Supremes said the protesters won their case and were free to go (they overturned the lower court which found them guilty). 3) Therefore, the message I get from the Supremes is that coercion is Okey-Dokey with them.
Geeze, did you read the link? It has everything to do with legalizing coercion:
In
Schiedler, the Court, in an opinion written by the Chief, says no: this sort of reasoning obliterates the distinction between coercion and extortion. "The crime of coercion, which more accurately describes the nature of petitioners' actions, involves the use of force or threat of force to restrict another's freedom of action," he explains. Pro-life protesters do not acquire property from their protests, and this lack of tangible benefit distinguishes coercion from extortion.
Since RICO and the Hobbs Act outlaw extortion, not coercion, the Court concluded that the protesters committed no crime. IANAL, but as I read it the Supreme Court just said that coercion is legal.
if more articles weren't slashdotted, I might be more likely to check the front page more frequently to catch stories as they are posted, instead of waiting 12 or 24 hours until the slashdotting subsides.
But eventually you do read the story, so eventually Slashdot gets the hit and you see the ad. And this tells me that you are not that interested in participating in the discussion, just in reading it after the fact. Would eliminating the Slashdot Effect change you from a lurker into a more active participant?
Slashdot Mirror
The difference between people like Cringly and Dvorak and people like myself is that, while we all know we're not knowlegable enough to write a column, people like Cringly and Dvorak don't let that stand in their way. I simply won't apply for a job I don't think I can do properly. I guess I'm too nice to take money from fools. I couldn't do P.T. Barnum's job, either.
Why, thank you. Nobody here's ever called me an expert before.
No shit. First Cringly, now Dvorak. Why is Slashdot becomming the front man for all the loser know-nothings with a column? If there isn't anything better to post than "Cringly said this" and "Dvorak said that", then don't post. This is supposed to be news for nerds, not blathering for nerds.
I agree with everything you say. Which, I suppose, makes this post redundant.
In fact, modern electronics aren't repairable at all; once somethings out of warranty it's more cost effective to throw it away and buy a new one. On the other hand, as long as it's working there's little better on the market, so there's no reason to "upgrade."
So, on another topic, any MTBF figures on CRT monitors? Are they built with planned obsolesence in mind, or is it "the last monitor you'll ever own"?
Prime example: "First Post" posts are, by your terms, redundant, but that's poor moderation; "First Post" posts are offtopic, not redundant, even though the effect is the same (-1).
They're not trolls or flamebait, either. A troll is a post that is fishing (trolling) for replies, and has nothing to do with creatures who live under bridges. Flamebait is a subset of troll: it's posting a deliberately extreme statement, baiting hotheads to respond with flames. A "First Post" is neither, but I metamoderat such moderation as "fair" even though it's inaccurate.
I think the ability to read another language may be more helpful here than the ability to speak another language.
Yeah, they did. Turns out we're all six degrees from Kevin Bacon.
I would use three bits: One for Green, one for Red, and one for Blue. Then I'd pulse the bits to vary the intensity of each color.
First get the documentation to the point where you (or the friends you get to proofread it) think, "Wow, this software's really cool, I can't wait to try it," then start coding.
As your own customer, you're in a unique position to do this. In the "real world" we usually have trouble getting a Requirements Document out of the customer; I'd love a project where the customer said, "This is the user's manual for the software we want." Given a good user's manual the code would practically write itself. (bonus: then they couldn't complain about the user interface :-)
Well, they've broken one of my laws. It requires .NET, so I'm not participating.
Sorry, but there's prior art. IBM was doing this 40 years ago. They'd put noops in their code to slow it down. Then, over the next few years, they'd release new computers that were faster than their older models -- simply because they'd remove some of the noops. By the time they'd run out of noops to remove the hardware guys actually had made a faster computer, and they'd release that with an OS full of noops and start the game over. This only worked because you had to run their OS on their hardware (and yes, it was their OS and their hardware, you only leased it from them). (Oh, did I mention that they'd charge more for essentially taking out noops?)
That is the first post to mention "union" -- how the hell do you think this is "redundant"? PLEASE, if you get that one in Meta-moderation, rate it accordingly.
That's Keister , you insensitive clod.
Not bitter, just pragmatic. If you're running Linux or *BSD you probably have a legal right to run Windows too, even if you never did, unless you threw away the license and CD or bought a 'white box.'
The title is something like "The Third Level" or similar. It's about a guy who works for an insurance company. He's building a computer model of the world such that the company can run simulations of natural disasters to figure out how much to charge for their insurance. To use it, you somehow connect into the simulation such that you're a part of it (ala The Matrix, but predating it) and you observe what's going on in the simulation as the disaster/whatever is happening.
Soon, strange things start to happen to this guy. One day he's driving down the road and he turns to look at his wife, asleep in the passenger seat. When he looks back out the windshield it's all black -- there's nothing outside the car. He turns to wake his wife but then everything's there again. Later, one of the people jacked into the simulation suddenly stands up, rips off the headset/whatever, shouts "I'm half-way there!" and drops over dead. As the story unfolds you come to understand that the main character is really just a simulated person in a massive computer simulation of the real world, which is so accurate that it includes people like him, running simulations of the simulated world.
So, anyone heard of it? I was told about it by a camp counsellor in the 1960s.
You may be on to something here. This book database (or any similar database) could add much value if the ratings could be sorted by source. Not to identify individual reviewers, but to group them into categories: age, nationality, education, sex, etc. Then you could search for ratings by people like yourself, so you could ignore any American bias if you choose.
As I said, IANAL, but:
1) The Supremes said the protesters comitted coercion, not extortion.
2) The Supremes said the protesters won their case and were free to go (they overturned the lower court which found them guilty).
3) Therefore, the message I get from the Supremes is that coercion is Okey-Dokey with them.
If you'd read it, you'd see it's a call to introduce a bill against George the 2nd similar to the bill Mr. Gonzalez introduced against George the 1st.
I'll bet the folks at 1-800-FLOWERS would argue that phone number is their property.
And BTW, I'm pro-choice.