Oh yeah, another point about buying computer books - make sure you check the publisher's (or author's) website for errata - corrections to the text. When you've got a typo in a bit of sample code, it can really mess with your head!:)
> I would recommend Steven Prata's book on C (I don't remember it's title, but try amazon).
It's called "C Primer Plus" - don't confuse it with his C++ book "C++ Primer Plus".
C Primer Plus is in it's fourth edition, and covers the latest C standard (C99), so make sure you get the latest/greatest.
I've just recently started this book, and thus far, it seems written very well, so I'd have to agree with this suggestion.
I've also seen books out there on physics for game programmers - this might come in quite handy for things just as simulating the look of gravity's effect on objects, etc., so look into that, too.
> Can you imagine comparing a ppc 604 1.3GH to a new 64bit chip from Intel or AMD running at 3GH, with software optimized for 64Bits?
You're not going to see a 64-bit chip from either Intel or AMD running at 3ghz until late next year, at the soonest, I'll bet. Certainly AMD's hammer chips won't be at anything over 2ghz any time soon. And the PPC970 certainly won't be hitting 2ghz this year (1.5-1.8 at best).
The thing is, if Apple _did_ switch to x86 (or better, x86-64 (forget IA64)), then, yes, software houses would have to redevelop (again) for the new platform. The thing is - the potential market would instantly be 9-10 times larger than before, and there are a _lot_ of people (including myself) that would KILL for a great OS like OS X that ran on hardware I actually want, rather than what Apple puts out.
> So he designed and implemented his own. This is commendable, but I don't see the result as being different enough from the other available OO languages to make any sort of switch or adoption advantageous.
I think the simplified syntax, addition of real string handling, etc., would be more than worth it for programmers in certain situations such as not having any legacy code, not worrying about others having to take over the code, etc. ANY new language is going to have those kind of problems, though, so that's hardly a reason to dismiss the language as having no future.
What I'd like to see is something like simple syntax of D, but with the abilities of Objective-C, and without the backward compatability of Objective-C (I think it holds the language back). Not that that'll happen, but that's what I'd like.:)
Okay, then, we should just never make any other computer languages until someone can come up with one that solves every one of those problems you listed.
If someone finds that D solves problems they have, or if they just plain like the syntax better (and how can you NOT, compared to C and C++ (and Java)??), then there's nothing wrong with someone using D. Hell, I'd use D just for the string-handling alone (one reason why I think C is pretty ridiculous for a general purpose language).
Perhaps if there was a true compiler for stackless python... *sigh*
Re:Throwing the baby out with the bathwater
on
W3C Approves DOM Level 2
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Sorry, I misstated my problems. They're with CSS, not with XHTML. But if you go with strict XHTML, you really shouldn't be doing placement with tables, etc., as is common with HTML-based sites.
I can make an HTML 4 site using tables for placement that works well (pixel-pefect in most cases) with the vast majority of browsers, more quickly, and with less code, than I can with XHTML/CSS, because you have to specify so many different things via CSS, it takes up a lot of code.
Yes, it makes it harder to update, but most sites don't get updated all that much, anyway. And I can make sites that are fairly easy to update with regular HTML, anyway. Making a clearly-commented HTML template that my customers can then edit later on is a LOT easier than the equivalent with XHTML/CSS. This stuff is just way too complicated, now, and defeats one of the great things about HTML, that it was _easy_.
I just got done making an XHTML 1.0/CSS2-based site, which validated perfectly on both XHTML and CSS validators. The site worked perfectly in IE/Win, and when I went to make sure it worked in Mozilla, guess what - no workie! Geez. And here I thought if I had it working in IE, it'd for sure work in Gecko-based browsers.
I'm going back to HTML 4.01 transitional - I can make that shit work immediately, and it works in every browser down to Navigator v2. Yeesh.
The only advanced technology left in OS/2 that isn't already duplicated or surpassed in quality, would be the WPS. The problem with that is - noone that needs it would use it.
What the computing world really needs is OS X on x86. Or even better, OS X on x86-64!
If you think online rentals are going to be replacing DVD rentals anytime in the foreseeable future, you're off your rocker. The bandwidth needed for that isn't available for the vast majority of people int he U.S., much less in most of the world.
It's a nice dream, though. Keep thinking those happy thoughts!
> Center of gravity will matter. Not so much how > high or low it is, but how far back it is.
> Consider that the track is curved.
The track is either flat all the way down, or curved downward.
If the track is completely straight all the way down, it'll make no difference.
If the track is curved on the way down, the downward vector is higher at the top of the track than at the bottom. It depends on the nature of the curve, of course, as to what point a rear-weighted car will be more than the forward vector of the car, but either way, it'll switch over at some point. During the entire trip, though, there will be both downward and forward vectors moving the car.
The thing is, to overcome the resistance of the friction of the wheels to start with, you need a higher forward vector rather than a higher downward vector, otherwise your car will get off to a slower start, thus making it more desireable to have a greater forward vector and less of a downward one.
I'd say the physics here is most likely a net 0 as to which is more important, especially considering the scale of the 'vehicles' involved.
I'd say you flunked your physics 101 problem. We studied that kind of thing in _high school_ physics, btw.:)
Hmm, didn't think much about reducing friction of wheels. Good idea, though I didn't do much to mine to win back in '76. Though the tech has probably changed a bit since then.:)
If it's allowed by the rules - cut the hell out of the wheels till they're nothing more than razor blade sharp on the edges. That might make enough of a difference to win. Maybe not.
About the wheels - make sure they don't wobble. Do whatever you have to, within the rules, that you can to make sure they don't wobble - that's a killer right there.
re: drag
Okay, aerodynamic tip - this thing is going substantially less than the speed of sound, so bulbous shapes are best (not pointy like jets). Think of the wheel fairing on a slow airplane and you'll get the right idea.
Graphite on the axles. I did very little to the thing other than that. No fancy slick low-drag paintjob. Put some weights in the bottom of the car to meet the maximum weight allowed, and graphite on the axles. That's all you'll likely need. But a low-drag paintjob wouldn't hurt. That's really about all you're allowed to do, anyway. And what else is necessary? Low-friction for the axles, low friction paintjob, and enough weight to maximize the 'thrust'.
You don't need to worry about center of gravity - all you're doing is running a car down a straight track. No turning or anything like that - center of gravity has no effect on the type of performance you're looking for whatsoever.
Oh, don't forget the racing stripes - that's critical. Plus it should be red.:)
For a sweet low-friction paintjob, here's my advice:
Carve the thing into a blob shape - remove as little as you can get away with, as you'll just have to replace with weight later on (melt some lead into some holes till you get what you need). Once you have your shape, wet the thing down a bit and sand it smooth. Let it dry. Wet it down again and sand again with a smoother grit sandpaper. Repeat the process until you get a sweet, sweet shine. Using pine, you'll eventually be able to get the wood so smooth you can see reflections in it (no exaggeration). Once you've got it to that point, you're ready for painting. Enamel paint, for sure.
Put the weight in after painting, and get it up to the maximum weight allowed.
Graphite the axles before each run, of course, and whack your opponents on the knee before competition.:)
Weight tips: pretty simple. Make everything symmetrical. Putting more weight on the front, or more weight on the back, will simply screw it up - you want the wheels to have equal weight on them.
Good luck, and don't forget to be a geek and put pix of the whole build process online somewhere for us to Slashdot.:)
If the police were really interested in catching the asshats going 90+ in the 25MPH zones, that's where they'd wait for speeders. Instead, they sit on the highway during rush hour. You tell me where their priorities are.
You know what, the first time some idiot messed with traffic lights and gets a family killed because of it, you'll see the first capital murder case from hacking in the U.S. The only possible 'safe' hacking you could do of traffic lights would be to turn them all red. You better hope you don't accidentally turn them all green, though, or even yellow.
Stick to defacing web sites, kids, especially if you live in Texas. Yeesh.
I didn't say "for generic PC-style computers", I said "OS X on x86", which is different. They can go the Apple-hardware-only route with x86 if they wanted to. They'd have to, since they're a hardware company.
Also, if Apple based their decisions on what people really wanted, we'd have had OS X on x86 a long time ago. *sigh*
I'd _love_ OS X for AMD's Hammer platform, but I'm not gonna hold my breath, even though I look devastating in blue.:)
The timing is unfortunate for Apple - no way in hell could they get their developer base to switch to a new hardware platform when most still haven't switched to OS X!:( Maybe someday...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah, another point about buying computer books - make sure you check the publisher's (or author's) website for errata - corrections to the text. When you've got a typo in a bit of sample code, it can really mess with your head! :)
> I would recommend Steven Prata's book on C (I don't remember it's title, but try amazon).
It's called "C Primer Plus" - don't confuse it with his C++ book "C++ Primer Plus".
C Primer Plus is in it's fourth edition, and covers the latest C standard (C99), so make sure you get the latest/greatest.
I've just recently started this book, and thus far, it seems written very well, so I'd have to agree with this suggestion.
I've also seen books out there on physics for game programmers - this might come in quite handy for things just as simulating the look of gravity's effect on objects, etc., so look into that, too.
> Can you imagine comparing a ppc 604 1.3GH to a new 64bit chip from Intel or AMD running at 3GH, with software optimized for 64Bits?
You're not going to see a 64-bit chip from either Intel or AMD running at 3ghz until late next year, at the soonest, I'll bet. Certainly AMD's hammer chips won't be at anything over 2ghz any time soon. And the PPC970 certainly won't be hitting 2ghz this year (1.5-1.8 at best).
The thing is, if Apple _did_ switch to x86 (or better, x86-64 (forget IA64)), then, yes, software houses would have to redevelop (again) for the new platform. The thing is - the potential market would instantly be 9-10 times larger than before, and there are a _lot_ of people (including myself) that would KILL for a great OS like OS X that ran on hardware I actually want, rather than what Apple puts out.
Nah, more like, "this processor is so fast, it's computations have gone faster than the speed of light, thus sending us all back in time!"
Scary.
> So he designed and implemented his own. This is commendable, but I don't see the result as being different enough from the other available OO languages to make any sort of switch or adoption advantageous.
:)
I think the simplified syntax, addition of real string handling, etc., would be more than worth it for programmers in certain situations such as not having any legacy code, not worrying about others having to take over the code, etc. ANY new language is going to have those kind of problems, though, so that's hardly a reason to dismiss the language as having no future.
What I'd like to see is something like simple syntax of D, but with the abilities of Objective-C, and without the backward compatability of Objective-C (I think it holds the language back). Not that that'll happen, but that's what I'd like.
Okay, then, we should just never make any other computer languages until someone can come up with one that solves every one of those problems you listed.
If someone finds that D solves problems they have, or if they just plain like the syntax better (and how can you NOT, compared to C and C++ (and Java)??), then there's nothing wrong with someone using D. Hell, I'd use D just for the string-handling alone (one reason why I think C is pretty ridiculous for a general purpose language).
Perhaps if there was a true compiler for stackless python... *sigh*
Sorry, I misstated my problems. They're with CSS, not with XHTML. But if you go with strict XHTML, you really shouldn't be doing placement with tables, etc., as is common with HTML-based sites.
I can make an HTML 4 site using tables for placement that works well (pixel-pefect in most cases) with the vast majority of browsers, more quickly, and with less code, than I can with XHTML/CSS, because you have to specify so many different things via CSS, it takes up a lot of code.
Yes, it makes it harder to update, but most sites don't get updated all that much, anyway. And I can make sites that are fairly easy to update with regular HTML, anyway. Making a clearly-commented HTML template that my customers can then edit later on is a LOT easier than the equivalent with XHTML/CSS. This stuff is just way too complicated, now, and defeats one of the great things about HTML, that it was _easy_.
Preach it, brother!
I just got done making an XHTML 1.0/CSS2-based site, which validated perfectly on both XHTML and CSS validators. The site worked perfectly in IE/Win, and when I went to make sure it worked in Mozilla, guess what - no workie! Geez. And here I thought if I had it working in IE, it'd for sure work in Gecko-based browsers.
I'm going back to HTML 4.01 transitional - I can make that shit work immediately, and it works in every browser down to Navigator v2. Yeesh.
Even better, a RAID5 array of cordless mice! A truly new paradigm in HCI. :)
The only advanced technology left in OS/2 that isn't already duplicated or surpassed in quality, would be the WPS. The problem with that is - noone that needs it would use it.
What the computing world really needs is OS X on x86. Or even better, OS X on x86-64!
I just redownloaded only to find out it's 6.0.2. Is this only for Macs? I also see no mention of 6.1 on their site.
If you think online rentals are going to be replacing DVD rentals anytime in the foreseeable future, you're off your rocker. The bandwidth needed for that isn't available for the vast majority of people int he U.S., much less in most of the world.
It's a nice dream, though. Keep thinking those happy thoughts!
Time to change that 'sell' rating for Apple stock to 'buybuybuy!' :)
> Center of gravity will matter. Not so much how
:)
> high or low it is, but how far back it is.
> Consider that the track is curved.
The track is either flat all the way down, or curved downward.
If the track is completely straight all the way down, it'll make no difference.
If the track is curved on the way down, the downward vector is higher at the top of the track than at the bottom. It depends on the nature of the curve, of course, as to what point a rear-weighted car will be more than the forward vector of the car, but either way, it'll switch over at some point. During the entire trip, though, there will be both downward and forward vectors moving the car.
The thing is, to overcome the resistance of the friction of the wheels to start with, you need a higher forward vector rather than a higher downward vector, otherwise your car will get off to a slower start, thus making it more desireable to have a greater forward vector and less of a downward one.
I'd say the physics here is most likely a net 0 as to which is more important, especially considering the scale of the 'vehicles' involved.
I'd say you flunked your physics 101 problem. We studied that kind of thing in _high school_ physics, btw.
Hmm, didn't think much about reducing friction of wheels. Good idea, though I didn't do much to mine to win back in '76. Though the tech has probably changed a bit since then. :)
If it's allowed by the rules - cut the hell out of the wheels till they're nothing more than razor blade sharp on the edges. That might make enough of a difference to win. Maybe not.
About the wheels - make sure they don't wobble. Do whatever you have to, within the rules, that you can to make sure they don't wobble - that's a killer right there.
re: drag
Okay, aerodynamic tip - this thing is going substantially less than the speed of sound, so bulbous shapes are best (not pointy like jets). Think of the wheel fairing on a slow airplane and you'll get the right idea.
Graphite on the axles. I did very little to the thing other than that. No fancy slick low-drag paintjob. Put some weights in the bottom of the car to meet the maximum weight allowed, and graphite on the axles. That's all you'll likely need. But a low-drag paintjob wouldn't hurt. That's really about all you're allowed to do, anyway. And what else is necessary? Low-friction for the axles, low friction paintjob, and enough weight to maximize the 'thrust'.
:)
:)
:)
You don't need to worry about center of gravity - all you're doing is running a car down a straight track. No turning or anything like that - center of gravity has no effect on the type of performance you're looking for whatsoever.
Oh, don't forget the racing stripes - that's critical. Plus it should be red.
For a sweet low-friction paintjob, here's my advice:
Carve the thing into a blob shape - remove as little as you can get away with, as you'll just have to replace with weight later on (melt some lead into some holes till you get what you need). Once you have your shape, wet the thing down a bit and sand it smooth. Let it dry. Wet it down again and sand again with a smoother grit sandpaper. Repeat the process until you get a sweet, sweet shine. Using pine, you'll eventually be able to get the wood so smooth you can see reflections in it (no exaggeration). Once you've got it to that point, you're ready for painting. Enamel paint, for sure.
Put the weight in after painting, and get it up to the maximum weight allowed.
Graphite the axles before each run, of course, and whack your opponents on the knee before competition.
Weight tips: pretty simple. Make everything symmetrical. Putting more weight on the front, or more weight on the back, will simply screw it up - you want the wheels to have equal weight on them.
Good luck, and don't forget to be a geek and put pix of the whole build process online somewhere for us to Slashdot.
+18 Charisma, that's how.
Well sure, man, when they travel in packs, they can talk to each other - of COURSE it's gonna be noisier! Sheesh.
MOST of them? What kind of percentage are we talking about here? It only takes one intersection with lights that aren't like that to cause a fatality.
If the police were really interested in catching the asshats going 90+ in the 25MPH zones, that's where they'd wait for speeders. Instead, they sit on the highway during rush hour. You tell me where their priorities are.
No way, it'll be the C# Shell. (see sharp shell)
As opposed to the previous c:\DOS shell.
Shell, sharp, shell!
Maybe they'll do a Visual C Shell?
You know what, the first time some idiot messed with traffic lights and gets a family killed because of it, you'll see the first capital murder case from hacking in the U.S. The only possible 'safe' hacking you could do of traffic lights would be to turn them all red. You better hope you don't accidentally turn them all green, though, or even yellow.
Stick to defacing web sites, kids, especially if you live in Texas. Yeesh.
I didn't say "for generic PC-style computers", I said "OS X on x86", which is different. They can go the Apple-hardware-only route with x86 if they wanted to. They'd have to, since they're a hardware company.
Also, if Apple based their decisions on what people really wanted, we'd have had OS X on x86 a long time ago. *sigh*
:)
:( Maybe someday...
I'd _love_ OS X for AMD's Hammer platform, but I'm not gonna hold my breath, even though I look devastating in blue.
The timing is unfortunate for Apple - no way in hell could they get their developer base to switch to a new hardware platform when most still haven't switched to OS X!