Don't bother, if you quit buying the media, it would just support their position that you are stealing it anyhow.
To them you are guilty of theft. Regardless of what you do.
Barjam
Direct memory manipulation is unsafe.
on
Bill Joy's Takes on C#
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Languages that use direct memory manipulation do have drawbacks in the safe/secure area.
I don't care how good a C/C++ programmer you are, you WILL create buffer overrun situations in your code. Period. End of story.
All it takes is one program running as a priveleged user to have a buffer overrun and bam, compromised system.
Thats not to say Java doesn't have the same problem. All it takes is one buffer overrun situation in the VM and boom, compromised system. It is probably safer though, you only have one large c/c++ program that many folks are looking at.
Actually Futaba heli radios do have an options to reverse controlls for inverted hover. I don't know of anyone that uses this, but it would be as easy as a flick of a switch. Well, nearly.
Roll would be full aileron and compensate with your collective.
Loop is pull back on the elevator....
Once you learn to hover the helicopter, the other (non inverted) stuff is easy.
Well... I think at one point something like 50% of the people that owned a tivo had a directivo (SA units junk compared to the directivo).
From the response on the tivofaq forums right when 2.5 was launching (the dual tuner update) I say many, many, many folks were anticipating this. The directivo box even lists this as a feature.
So I would guess that probably 25-40% of the folks with tivo use dual tuners.
That was sort of my point, I have had X (gnome or KDE) crash about as much as Windows 2000/XP. RARELY.
I help admin our boxes but my main job is a java developer. I really don't care for my choices of IDEs under linux, and when you add a slower gui (linux) on top of a slower gui (java based ide) it just makes it that much worse.
Perhaps the X folks are at a disadvantage because all the hardware now is optimized for windows... don't know... but something makes it slower than a windows desktop.
It doesn't matter how many excuses you guys give... but Linux is NOT as good as windows on the Desktop.
I love linux, I admin linux for a living. I have linux boxes at home. When I want to get any sort of work done I would rather be in Windows. Despite what you guys would like to believe... windows 2000/XP is just as stable on the desktop as any Linux Distro.
The average user has NO clue the difference between X crashing and the box crashing. To most people the GUI IS the OS. So basically Linux is just as stable (think perception here) as Windows. (Yes, x/various window managers do crash... often).
Has anyone used the VGA-HDTV (component video) converter? That seems like the way to go if you are wanting to use your TV as a monitor. (You all have HDTV don't you?)
As I mentioned before I do NOT develop windows programs professionally but I DO develop programs with GUI/UIs. How good would my GUI/UI be if I put my head in the sand and only looked to linux as my inspiration. Quite franky it would suck... the linux desktop has hardly any notion of usability.
Where do you think the GNOME/KDE folks got quite a few of their ideas? Where do you think the Windows team got their ideas? Where do you think that ANYONE that develops GUI/UI programs get their ideas? They didn't just make this stuff up... sure the all did their own inovations but for the most part everything was copied then enhanced from something that was already there. (Sounds kind of like how open source is developed, only at a higher non implementation level doesn't it?)
At any rate, it sounds like the kind of software you write is a) without any sort of GUI/UI or b) you are a GUI/UI GOD that needs no outside influence.
He didn't say he was a Windows developer.... I don't develop windows software yet I do develop using Windows as my OS. This is my personal preference, as I find the linux desktop(s) to be horrible.
And I think he is absolutely right. If you are so narrow minded that you don't look at what other segments of your field (keep in mind that 90% of the desktops do use some form of windows) are doing than you are doomed to become one of the dinosaurs in the field.
Do you not work on anything UI at all? There is a lot of usability to be learned from the various desktops out there. Please keep an open mind about things. Jeesh.
It is X appologists like you that are keeping Linux away from the mainstream desktop.
X sucks. Period.
If you think otherwise perhaps you have just grown "accustomed" to it.
I have used X with just about every combo of X server/window manager/graphics card and it just doesn't cut it for a modern desktop. I hate to use it and I know it very well. Say what you will about Mac/BeOS/Windows etc but when it comes down to it... each of those desktops (not OS but desktop) kick the crap out of anything on Linux.
I would love to see something like what apple did with OSX ported to linux... get rid of X. (There are probably a few of these projects floating around.)
This has been bugging me for a while... I am sure it will be marked as flaimbait and no one will ever read it:) Oh well;p
It won't happen... Linux zealots love X and will not give it up for whatever reason.
I use linux/solaris at work for my servers but refuse to run it on my desktop.... believe me I have tried.
The X-Windows system (any window manager, doesn't matter) is why I refuse to run linux on my desktop.
Compared to just about any os (including Be) it feels like I am on someone's CS assignement gone wrong. It is not crisp at all. Window redrawing is horrible... everything is generally slow. Perhaps if we had some real non tech user input to the desktops we could move on... perhaps if we had a non X based gui that didn't suck Linux could have a chance to give windows some competition in the desktop arena... but seems that as a community we are too proud to realize there are problems.
As a side note, I am a java programmer.. I hate client side java apps for the same reason I hate X. Running anything under X feels like you are running a java (client) application....
I used to have a normal Tivo hooked to digital cable. This is not even in the same ballbark in value as a DirectTivo (and I assume the UltimateTv).
For one thing at least in the two areas I have had digital cable (Austin Tx, Kansas City) the quality isn't even comparable. DirectTv is probably 5 times clearer. The quality of local channels is even higher... go figure.
Just because you have a cable modem doesn't mean you are tied to cable service.
We have a small group at work (5 developers) working on a distributed java/ejb application. No one comments the code because it simple doesn't need it. Anyone with even minor programming experience could come maintain this stuff.... and we are even doing some fairly complicated image manipulation.... If the code itself isn't self documenting you are doing it wrong.
Some languages lend themselves to readability... perl is not one of those languages.
1. Slower than direct queries (Oracle/jdbc). (Time it yourself if you don't believe me.... jdbc call to a stored procedure vs jdbc call to same type of query on oracle).
2. Force your database folks to become application programmers. PSQL is a really, really poor choice of a language to program application logic in.
3. Vendor lock in.
4. Did I mention vendor lock in?
In all the applications I have been a part of, we keep the ERD pretty much the same as the OOD. This keeps your data dictionary clean... Keeps everyone on the same page.
It has been my experience that stored procedures are a great way for your DBA to hide the fact that he can't coherently design the datamodel. Lets face it, most dba's don't really know much about data modeling or programming, they mostly know about engine administration and that type of thing.
You mention EJBs (gack?) in a negative light... please note that decent appservers can cache these Ejbs in memory so that many queries don't even hit the database.
I say keep the buis logic where it supposed to go... not in the database.
Either one factors to the same thing. A single entry point into the program.
Java does the object thing by default because there is no idea of a "global" function. But it is still just a "main" function in a class that starts the thing. I find this feature of the language VERY useful because I can put a main function in a class I am testing and run it independant of the system I am creating. Without having to make a dummy executable file to do the same thing.
So basically you have to bootstrap the program somehow (into a function). Its all the same.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a geforce 3 ti200 and there are many games that will push this card well below 15fps.
Everquest
RealFlight
Wolfenstein (everything turned to max)
Microsoft Flight Simulator
James
Please mod the parent of this as flamebait.
You sir, are a moron.
Don't bother, if you quit buying the media, it would just support their position that you are stealing it anyhow.
To them you are guilty of theft. Regardless of what you do.
Barjam
Languages that use direct memory manipulation do have drawbacks in the safe/secure area.
I don't care how good a C/C++ programmer you are, you WILL create buffer overrun situations in your code. Period. End of story.
All it takes is one program running as a priveleged user to have a buffer overrun and bam, compromised system.
Thats not to say Java doesn't have the same problem. All it takes is one buffer overrun situation in the VM and boom, compromised system. It is probably safer though, you only have one large c/c++ program that many folks are looking at.
Anyhow, my opinion.
Barjam
Actually Futaba heli radios do have an options to reverse controlls for inverted hover. I don't know of anyone that uses this, but it would be as easy as a flick of a switch. Well, nearly.
Roll would be full aileron and compensate with your collective.
Loop is pull back on the elevator....
Once you learn to hover the helicopter, the other (non inverted) stuff is easy.
I fly a Raptor 30.
Barjam
Well... I think at one point something like 50% of the people that owned a tivo had a directivo (SA units junk compared to the directivo).
From the response on the tivofaq forums right when 2.5 was launching (the dual tuner update) I say many, many, many folks were anticipating this. The directivo box even lists this as a feature.
So I would guess that probably 25-40% of the folks with tivo use dual tuners.
If you want a big screen then go HDTV. The non HDTV big screens look hideous in comparision.
Even normal directv looks amazing on my 53, DVDs (progressive 480p) looks as good as a theater to me.
If you only have cable and don't watch movies (dvd) don't bother (even digital cable).
That was sort of my point, I have had X (gnome or KDE) crash about as much as Windows 2000/XP. RARELY.
I help admin our boxes but my main job is a java developer. I really don't care for my choices of IDEs under linux, and when you add a slower gui (linux) on top of a slower gui (java based ide) it just makes it that much worse.
Perhaps the X folks are at a disadvantage because all the hardware now is optimized for windows... don't know... but something makes it slower than a windows desktop.
Barjam
Thats a really good point Doomdark.
I agree I overgeneralized that.
I still say that windows is a better GUI for the masses than anything I have seen on Linux.
It doesn't matter how many excuses you guys give... but Linux is NOT as good as windows on the Desktop.
I love linux, I admin linux for a living. I have linux boxes at home. When I want to get any sort of work done I would rather be in Windows. Despite what you guys would like to believe... windows 2000/XP is just as stable on the desktop as any Linux Distro.
The average user has NO clue the difference between X crashing and the box crashing. To most people the GUI IS the OS. So basically Linux is just as stable (think perception here) as Windows. (Yes, x/various window managers do crash... often).
24 is, but they use the other channels for effects... like alpha blending etc. Not sure what new effects 64 bit get you though.
Has anyone used the VGA-HDTV (component video) converter? That seems like the way to go if you are wanting to use your TV as a monitor. (You all have HDTV don't you?)
Barjam
You still fail to see the point.
As I mentioned before I do NOT develop windows programs professionally but I DO develop programs with GUI/UIs. How good would my GUI/UI be if I put my head in the sand and only looked to linux as my inspiration. Quite franky it would suck... the linux desktop has hardly any notion of usability.
Where do you think the GNOME/KDE folks got quite a few of their ideas? Where do you think the Windows team got their ideas? Where do you think that ANYONE that develops GUI/UI programs get their ideas? They didn't just make this stuff up... sure the all did their own inovations but for the most part everything was copied then enhanced from something that was already there. (Sounds kind of like how open source is developed, only at a higher non implementation level doesn't it?)
At any rate, it sounds like the kind of software you write is a) without any sort of GUI/UI or b) you are a GUI/UI GOD that needs no outside influence.
If b is the case, I feel for your users.
He didn't say he was a Windows developer.... I don't develop windows software yet I do develop using Windows as my OS. This is my personal preference, as I find the linux desktop(s) to be horrible.
And I think he is absolutely right. If you are so narrow minded that you don't look at what other segments of your field (keep in mind that 90% of the desktops do use some form of windows) are doing than you are doomed to become one of the dinosaurs in the field.
Do you not work on anything UI at all? There is a lot of usability to be learned from the various desktops out there. Please keep an open mind about things. Jeesh.
It is X appologists like you that are keeping Linux away from the mainstream desktop.
X sucks. Period.
If you think otherwise perhaps you have just grown "accustomed" to it.
I have used X with just about every combo of X server/window manager/graphics card and it just doesn't cut it for a modern desktop. I hate to use it and I know it very well. Say what you will about Mac/BeOS/Windows etc but when it comes down to it... each of those desktops (not OS but desktop) kick the crap out of anything on Linux.
Linux yes.
X no.
I would love to see something like what apple did with OSX ported to linux... get rid of X. (There are probably a few of these projects floating around.)
This has been bugging me for a while... I am sure it will be marked as flaimbait and no one will ever read it :) Oh well ;p
It won't happen... Linux zealots love X and will not give it up for whatever reason.
I use linux/solaris at work for my servers but refuse to run it on my desktop.... believe me I have tried.
The X-Windows system (any window manager, doesn't matter) is why I refuse to run linux on my desktop.
Compared to just about any os (including Be) it feels like I am on someone's CS assignement gone wrong. It is not crisp at all. Window redrawing is horrible... everything is generally slow. Perhaps if we had some real non tech user input to the desktops we could move on... perhaps if we had a non X based gui that didn't suck Linux could have a chance to give windows some competition in the desktop arena... but seems that as a community we are too proud to realize there are problems.
As a side note, I am a java programmer.. I hate client side java apps for the same reason I hate X. Running anything under X feels like you are running a java (client) application....
I used to have a normal Tivo hooked to digital cable. This is not even in the same ballbark in value as a DirectTivo (and I assume the UltimateTv).
For one thing at least in the two areas I have had digital cable (Austin Tx, Kansas City) the quality isn't even comparable. DirectTv is probably 5 times clearer. The quality of local channels is even higher... go figure.
Just because you have a cable modem doesn't mean you are tied to cable service.
I am not sure, but I don't think that addended is a word.
Yea, kind of like the horrible war on drugs? Seems that we didn't learn anything from prohibition.
I don't know about you, but i prefer writing 10 lines of PERL than a 100 lines of Java that does exactly the same thing.
do you have an example?
Well...
Thats true to a point.
We have a small group at work (5 developers) working on a distributed java/ejb application. No one comments the code because it simple doesn't need it. Anyone with even minor programming experience could come maintain this stuff.... and we are even doing some fairly complicated image manipulation.... If the code itself isn't self documenting you are doing it wrong.
Some languages lend themselves to readability... perl is not one of those languages.
Here are some advantages to Stored Procedures:
1. Slower than direct queries (Oracle/jdbc). (Time it yourself if you don't believe me.... jdbc call to a stored procedure vs jdbc call to same type of query on oracle).
2. Force your database folks to become application programmers. PSQL is a really, really poor choice of a language to program application logic in.
3. Vendor lock in.
4. Did I mention vendor lock in?
In all the applications I have been a part of, we keep the ERD pretty much the same as the OOD. This keeps your data dictionary clean... Keeps everyone on the same page.
It has been my experience that stored procedures are a great way for your DBA to hide the fact that he can't coherently design the datamodel. Lets face it, most dba's don't really know much about data modeling or programming, they mostly know about engine administration and that type of thing.
You mention EJBs (gack?) in a negative light... please note that decent appservers can cache these Ejbs in memory so that many queries don't even hit the database.
I say keep the buis logic where it supposed to go... not in the database.
You can use the little Character mapper application (that comes with windows) when this happens as well :)
Either one factors to the same thing. A single entry point into the program. Java does the object thing by default because there is no idea of a "global" function. But it is still just a "main" function in a class that starts the thing. I find this feature of the language VERY useful because I can put a main function in a class I am testing and run it independant of the system I am creating. Without having to make a dummy executable file to do the same thing. So basically you have to bootstrap the program somehow (into a function). Its all the same.