There is a myth out there that object oriented code produces better quality code then procedural programming.
I say myth because scientifically it has never been proven that code quality improves with compiler discipline.
All claims about less bugs per lines of code, easier to maintain, etc are purely anecdotal and speculative. When I studied this back in the early 1990s the primary impedance to any objective analysis comparing like for like were cost prohibitive. Any effort that involved a change in language also incorporated a change in design. People who wrote the original implementation were replaced, etc. etc.
One could look at this as a teaching moment.
Someone needs to step up and prove that compiler or language discipline increases code quality holding the developer constant.
The claim is that a programmer using a different compiler or language produces better quality code. It has been shown scientifically that a C compiler will mostly produce better performing code than code written in assembly. It has never been proven that compiler discipline can make a better programmer. If it has been proven than someone should be easily able to point that proof the to GCC crowd for them to use as an arbitrator for where to draw the C++ line.
The only argument that makes sense with respect to object oriented languages is that they afford a toolkit for upfront design. The large project architect has tools to layout the design for the implementers to essentially fill in the blank. Stroustrup predicates his entire C++ book on this point.
However, it doesn't appear the design features of C++ are the objective here. The objective here is code quality via better syntax, and is this is a claim that has never proven. Its a modern myth.
This is really not a discussion about C++ vs. C, but rather the modern myth that any given developer produces better quality code by compiler discipline.
Re:Asynchronous and self modifying code.
on
Programming Clojure
·
· Score: 1
There is no requirement that a functional language allow self modifying code, only that it is expressed as the composition of functions, is stateless and avoids mutable data.
FP without lambda functions, eh?
Re:Asynchronous and self modifying code.
on
Programming Clojure
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
2: functional programming and self modifying code have nothing to do with one another.
This is the equivalent of saying lamda functions have nothing to do with functional programming.
1: if you understand what you are doing, asynchronous programming is easy. All you have to do is prevent screwing up the shared state between threads. Since functional languages have no state to share, you can avoid 99% of the pitfalls of dealing with threading.
Therein lies the rub and I'm glad you put it out there.
Take any class of computer science students you wish and test them on asynchronous programming and synchronous programming. Guess which one will have the lower scores?
Not for all people though, and presumably you are one of those for which asynchronous programming comes natural and easy too. Therein lies the rub.
This concept also applies to functional programming vs imperative and came up in a code review I had recently for some Perl code. The reviewer asked my why I used "for loops" as opposed to "map". I never use map.
I said because it has been proven time-and-time again that people do not understand "map" as well as they do "for loops", especially the side effects in Perl (not truly functional). There is no performance difference either way, but there is a human difference. I argue my code is more maintainable at the expense of a few lines of ASCII text. You have no idea if the person following you finds what you find to be understandable equally understandable and in the case of "map" using a for loop is trivial; the cost to me is nothing and the opportunity for maintainability greater.
Concepts
A number of concepts and paradigms are specific to functional programming, and generally foreign to imperative programming (including object oriented programming). However, programming languages are often hybrids of several programming paradigms so programmers using "mostly imperative" languages may have utilized some of these concepts.[24]
Comparison of functional and imperative programming.
Functional programming is very different from imperative programming. The most significant differences stem from the fact that functional programming avoids side effects, which are used in imperative programming to implement state and I/O. Pure functional programming disallows side effects completely. Disallowing side effects provides for referential transparency, which makes it easier to verify, optimize, and parallelize programs, and easier to write automated tools to perform those tasks.
Higher order functions are rarely used in older imperative programming. Where a traditional imperative program might use a loop to traverse a list, a functional style would often use a higher-order function, map, that takes as arguments a function and a list, applies the function to each element of the list, and returns a list of the results.
Re:Asynchronous and self modifying code.
on
Programming Clojure
·
· Score: 1
Some high level languages/ interpreters such as SNOBOL4, the Lisp programming language...
If one is really going to claim that Lisp is no more "self-modifying" than OO, I'd invite you to defend this on Wikipedia.
A good FP design dynamically creates and composes anonymous lamba functions on the fly, myself and professors at Berkeley would argue the very essence of FP. Never have I seen this spelled out as a requirement for OO.
If you really want to be honest about this, visit CPAN and do a catalog of all the FP in the thousands of modules there. Every developer has FP at their finger tips: how many do it? Perl's eval function does allow one to create lamba functions, but is this a common design pattern? Most Perl eval code is for exception handling, not for processing strings of code.
Asynchronous and self modifying code.
on
Programming Clojure
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
In all seriousness there are two concepts are are especially onerous and difficult to do well in computer science:
Both concepts are difficult for typical developers to get right. What the world needs is a revolutionary approach to these two topics such that average developers have the necessary tools to produce quality code for multi-core machines.
Someone needs to take design patterns to the concrete level and create design pattern libraries that model asynchronous and self-modifying code in robust ways that the common API programmer can use.
In my opinion trying to bring robustness to asynchronous code by using self-modifying code is going the wrong direction: compounding one onerous concept with one just as equally onerous.
LISP? My claim has always been that people who think in functional programming come from out space and are secretly trying to take over the world by twisting computer languages to be something completely alien.
I mean, LISP is to programming languages like Babylon 5 is to SciFi. Cdr and car?/rant off
OO, the politically correct version of "G[O]T[O]".
So much OO code, so much spaghetti.
Compound classic OO programming with Javascript's bizarre notion of "objects" and we've come full circle.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s when the efficacy of OO was still being debated as to all claims of improved productivity, the only thing that got proved by studies was that in fact, rewriting something from scratch improves code. You can take an OO design and rewrite it in procedural code and come up with less lines, and less bugs. You can take a procedural design and rewrite it in OO code and come up with less lines and less bugs.
OO is not provably superior in productivity to procedural code except in people's dreams. As my advisor pointed out in grad school, computer languages and methodologies are akin to religion. Once people glom onto them you can't shake them loose.
A good programmer will be good in procedural or OO, and likewise a bad programmer will still be bad. It is only the hubris of academics that methodology fads, like Design Patterns, can make code more robust or pick your metric. They never prove it.
I'm involved in an OO redesign now where they are using a concept fad called a "blackboard". LOL. Which is nothing more than a finite state machine design where all long running state is passed around on the "blackboard". After years and years of "encapsulation", they have, in fact come to realize that having a bezillion object copies of what is in fact is GLOBAL data, (No, not global data, YES global data!), they are going to now have data un-encapsulated so they can serialize state of long running transactions. Every object copies everything off the blackboard and the updates it when they are done and updates the blackboard. Copies, copies everywhere. But because objects are not, in fact, using the data on the blackboard, serialization is problematic because processes with object copies of GLOBAL data are in unknown states of running at any given time. Blindly using encapsulation is an Achilles heel of many an OO design.
Your comment about over "object" achievement reminded me of this. Encapsulation is not always the right design if in fact the application doesn't merit it. But people get taught blindly, as with religion, that encapsulation is always good for all things big and small and you can never get enough of it.
Functional programming is the "nails on chalkboard", freshman weed 'um out language.
You think you want to earn big money programming computers, then think again sucker! You are going to get so lost in sets of parenthesis you'll forget who your Mamma is. LOL.
Some hoittie toittie schools, where professors have very high opinions of themselves, very low opinion of students, who shall remain nameless, like UC Berkeley and MIT, require LISP as a first-year language so as to kill all pleasure one might think one derives from programming and switch to something more pleasurable, like theoretical physics.
Lost is sets of parenthesis is the single best way to kill off all motivation to learn computer science. You can also make people scream. Which actually is kinda cool.
At least the UK is earnest enough not to torture their students with LISP./rant off
You know, even if one buys into the premise, one does have to wonder about the efficacy of saying things like "If you want pornography, buy a Google phone" or some such. Seriously. How does saying FU to the flash community, forget Adobe, in anyway going to endear people to your position? This is beyond, the Field of Dreams "build it and they will come" failed approach so many try. This is religious dogma. As Matt Damon spouts in the movie Dogma, "Do this or I'll spank you." Yeah, right. For a company that focuses on the customer usability where others don't, it is just totally bizarre to use scorched earth marketing. "Use our product and you'll experience Heaven, don't and we will send you to Hell."
Sorry Jobs. Your attitude smacks of Microsoft and IBM and you are being classified accordingly.
I use Firefox because it has a plug in "Flashblock". This plug in blocks all Flash from running except if I push an "allow" button or add the site to enable flash always. Having all Flash blocked has not detracted from my web browsing experience one iota. For those few sites written in Flash, I just allow the flash or don't go there.
Maybe you can find the same thing for Safari? Further, if Flash is causing such a problem
Remember the Enron debacle? Aurther Anderson didn't make the "too big too fail" cut, but the banks did.
If a financial institution gets found guilty of even on felony then they can no longer do business with the feds.
Citibank, a few years ago, paid a 600 million dollar fine for breaking the law and "admitted no wrong doing" because
if they had admitted any wrong doing and been convicted of a felony, goodbye Citibank.
No institution should be so big it can break the law with impunity. The "company" paying a fine is not the same as the officers being thrown in jail for malfeasance.
They should change the way the law currently stands and strip all personhood from corporations. That's the only way you are going to truly solve this problem. If you can't sue the company, then you have to sue the individuals responsible, which is the way it should be. Why should the thousands of employees of a failed company like Aurther Anderson pay for the crimes of the few?
Strip corporations of the same legal rights as a US citizen. Corporations should not have personhood.
I'm guessing I know which camp you are in when it comes to being either for or against fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic uses a set of if/then rules to provide hardware and software designs that are cheaper and more reliable than systems trying to approximate Nyquist equations, for example. You can also create a feedback loop to fine tune the rules.
Fuzzy logic control systems have been shown to be interchangable with classic control systems which use all the math you are referring too.
I applaud your passion but even Einstein recognized that mathematics when it comes to physics should always be recognized as a model and an approximation.
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -Albert Einstein
Your post smacks of a religious fervor that mathematics is certain when it refers to reality. Your attitude is all too common in Western academia and hence Japan has had much better success in adopting and applying fuzzy logic than we have.
I think a better argument is to state that mathematical models are just that, models, and while you can blindly apply formulas (much as a computer), you'll miss out on the gaps, e.g assumptions, made along the way to make the model work.
The gap between Newtonian physics and quantam mechanics being the classic example.
Feynman had a similar attitude as yours with respect to the fact that Newtonian physics do not reflect reality at the quantam level, but quantam mechanics works for both the macro and quantam level and hence tried to teach quantam as an introductary physics.
Your argument is similar. Has the US adopted Feynman's philosophy of skipping Newtonian physics and starting with quantam?
I have a lot of Blu Ray and for sure can tell you that at least half of all "1080p" content is nothing more than the movie studioes upscaling standard DVD, SD, printing it to Blu Ray and selling it for $30 as HD. A total rip off.
Especially with Blu Ray TV box sets. The HD broadcast is way better than the quality on disk.
So there is no surprise they are doing the same thing with 3D.
My Sony PS3 upscales better than the scammed Blu Ray disks. A lot of Blu Ray is pixelated and blurry.
You'd think that if Hollywood were going to scam consumers they would use a better upscale converter than they are. Heck, use a PS3. Blu Ray is a joke except when the content really is 1080p.
Nice, I'm with the Alliance as well but would've gone to the dark side if the Horde where named "The Independence" and the character name "Malcolm Reynolds" where allowed. But, such is not the case so I'm working for the Blue Sun corp.
The religious people deserve to be 100% ignored in games, they deserve it.
Why?
Well most video games are either:
1.) 1st person shooter 2.) Role playing AD&D
I've been playing AD&D since 1977 when Chainmail was upgraded to Dungeons and Dragons.
Well, things were going just fine until the early 1980s when some wackos took their role playing too far in Wisconsin and someone died. The religious community immediately stigmatized the ENTIRE gaming community as devil-worshiping loonies based on this ONE anecdote. As a consequence, a couple of years later the Dieties and Demigods manual was revised to "Monster Manual" and all vestiges of religion were wiped from the game.
Let this be a warning to any are thinking of putting "religion" into video games.
Do so at your own peril because these same Yahoos! clamoring for this will turn against you and besmirch your game exactly the way they did AD&D.
" lots of years getting good at creating technical products and I don't want the same label as the intern who fixes windoze."
Why? Seriously, why?
Are we living in the 18th century with Kings and Dukes and such?
Every Doctor I have I call them by their first name, not Doctor.
Sometimes people want a license. As with Doctor or Dentist. Only people who have the license can professionally claim the title. Otherwise titles are just pandering. I know many a people who'd rather have pay than a title, the title was bestowed on them without pay as a form of placation.
Are you really that insecure?
Funny how my email inbox doesn't seem suffer from anyone understanding my role. I do not get windoze emails even though we share similar titles. In fact, in large corporations titles are really about pay grade. If your pay is the same as the windoze guy, then you have bigger issues than title. If your pay is commensurate with your work, who fricking cares what they call you?
Unfortunately is appears to be something fluffy on the order of Sanctuary. Only instead of the mutants being caged by humans, the humans are caged by the aliens. Ugh. They should let Sanctuary be the "feel good" show and turn this show into death, mayhem and destruction. I'm with you on that.
I watched the premerie and the flashbacks with a "airplane full" of people game me the Lost feeling. Each week they can draw in a new character that has yet to be introduced.
When I use advertising I want to see nothing but ads. That is what Sales Circular http://salescircular.com/ does. It is nothing but ads and competitor's prices are shown side-by-side.
Personally I think everyone buys things on sale, wants to buy things on sale. However, for someone like myself I consume ads using a different model.
My desired advertising consumption is analogous to the classified ads section of newspapers, or Craig's List.
Online marketing needs to cover their customer consumption bases when it comes to consumer advertising. People like myself who perhaps use AdBlock Plus still want things on sale, we just would prefer to browse ads all-at-once when we are looking for sales, as opposed to seeing ads intermixed with content.
At the end of the day, though, I'm still looking for things on sale and I still buy advertised product.
I don't see AdBlock Plus as a threat, just an expression how different types of consumers like myself use different tactics to find what is on sale. This is no different in the past where Catalogs, Classifieds, Yellow Pages, Magazines, etc all had different audiences they were reaching.
Networks are self-similar. People who *rely* on ads are not going to block them. I never click on ads so AdBlock Plus makes sense for me.
Targeted ads are the norm on the Internet and hence targeted ads can also be described as "search results", ergo Google is number one in online advertising by marrying ads with results as the most effective means.
Given then that networks are self-similar, I just see AdBlock Plus as something those who would never click on ads anyway would logically use and are saving people who pay for impressions money by not showing ads to people like myself who scorn them all. Advertising works because people appreciate them, not through some subliminal chicanery. I suspect that targeting of ads will be so specific and appreciated in the future that the ad targeting will surpass relevance over Google's generalized search results. After all, ads are paid for per word and other other demographic data, Google's search results not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a myth out there that object oriented code produces better quality code then procedural programming.
I say myth because scientifically it has never been proven that code quality improves with compiler discipline.
All claims about less bugs per lines of code, easier to maintain, etc are purely anecdotal and speculative. When I studied this back in the early 1990s the primary impedance to any objective analysis comparing like for like were cost prohibitive. Any effort that involved a change in language also incorporated a change in design. People who wrote the original implementation were replaced, etc. etc.
One could look at this as a teaching moment.
Someone needs to step up and prove that compiler or language discipline increases code quality holding the developer constant.
The claim is that a programmer using a different compiler or language produces better quality code. It has been shown scientifically that a C compiler will mostly produce better performing code than code written in assembly. It has never been proven that compiler discipline can make a better programmer. If it has been proven than someone should be easily able to point that proof the to GCC crowd for them to use as an arbitrator for where to draw the C++ line.
The only argument that makes sense with respect to object oriented languages is that they afford a toolkit for upfront design. The large project architect has tools to layout the design for the implementers to essentially fill in the blank. Stroustrup predicates his entire C++ book on this point.
However, it doesn't appear the design features of C++ are the objective here. The objective here is code quality via better syntax, and is this is a claim that has never proven. Its a modern myth.
This is really not a discussion about C++ vs. C, but rather the modern myth that any given developer produces better quality code by compiler discipline.
FP without lambda functions, eh?
This is the equivalent of saying lamda functions have nothing to do with functional programming.
Therein lies the rub and I'm glad you put it out there. Take any class of computer science students you wish and test them on asynchronous programming and synchronous programming. Guess which one will have the lower scores? Not for all people though, and presumably you are one of those for which asynchronous programming comes natural and easy too. Therein lies the rub. This concept also applies to functional programming vs imperative and came up in a code review I had recently for some Perl code. The reviewer asked my why I used "for loops" as opposed to "map". I never use map. I said because it has been proven time-and-time again that people do not understand "map" as well as they do "for loops", especially the side effects in Perl (not truly functional). There is no performance difference either way, but there is a human difference. I argue my code is more maintainable at the expense of a few lines of ASCII text. You have no idea if the person following you finds what you find to be understandable equally understandable and in the case of "map" using a for loop is trivial; the cost to me is nothing and the opportunity for maintainability greater.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_modifying_code#High_level_languages
Some high level languages/ interpreters such as SNOBOL4, the Lisp programming language...
If one is really going to claim that Lisp is no more "self-modifying" than OO, I'd invite you to defend this on Wikipedia.
A good FP design dynamically creates and composes anonymous lamba functions on the fly, myself and professors at Berkeley would argue the very essence of FP. Never have I seen this spelled out as a requirement for OO.
If you really want to be honest about this, visit CPAN and do a catalog of all the FP in the thousands of modules there. Every developer has FP at their finger tips: how many do it? Perl's eval function does allow one to create lamba functions, but is this a common design pattern? Most Perl eval code is for exception handling, not for processing strings of code.
In all seriousness there are two concepts are are especially onerous and difficult to do well in computer science:
1.) Asynchronous code (threads).
2.) Self modifying code (functional programming).
Both concepts are difficult for typical developers to get right. What the world needs is a revolutionary approach to these two topics such that average developers have the necessary tools to produce quality code for multi-core machines.
Someone needs to take design patterns to the concrete level and create design pattern libraries that model asynchronous and self-modifying code in robust ways that the common API programmer can use.
In my opinion trying to bring robustness to asynchronous code by using self-modifying code is going the wrong direction: compounding one onerous concept with one just as equally onerous.
/rant on
LISP? My claim has always been that people who think in functional programming come from out space and are secretly trying to take over the world by twisting computer languages to be something completely alien.
I mean, LISP is to programming languages like Babylon 5 is to SciFi. Cdr and car? /rant off
LOL.
OO, the politically correct version of "G[O]T[O]".
So much OO code, so much spaghetti.
Compound classic OO programming with Javascript's bizarre notion of "objects" and we've come full circle.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s when the efficacy of OO was still being debated as to all claims of improved productivity, the only thing that got proved by studies was that in fact, rewriting something from scratch improves code. You can take an OO design and rewrite it in procedural code and come up with less lines, and less bugs. You can take a procedural design and rewrite it in OO code and come up with less lines and less bugs.
OO is not provably superior in productivity to procedural code except in people's dreams. As my advisor pointed out in grad school, computer languages and methodologies are akin to religion. Once people glom onto them you can't shake them loose.
A good programmer will be good in procedural or OO, and likewise a bad programmer will still be bad. It is only the hubris of academics that methodology fads, like Design Patterns, can make code more robust or pick your metric. They never prove it.
I'm involved in an OO redesign now where they are using a concept fad called a "blackboard". LOL. Which is nothing more than a finite state machine design where all long running state is passed around on the "blackboard". After years and years of "encapsulation", they have, in fact come to realize that having a bezillion object copies of what is in fact is GLOBAL data, (No, not global data, YES global data!), they are going to now have data un-encapsulated so they can serialize state of long running transactions. Every object copies everything off the blackboard and the updates it when they are done and updates the blackboard. Copies, copies everywhere. But because objects are not, in fact, using the data on the blackboard, serialization is problematic because processes with object copies of GLOBAL data are in unknown states of running at any given time. Blindly using encapsulation is an Achilles heel of many an OO design.
Your comment about over "object" achievement reminded me of this. Encapsulation is not always the right design if in fact the application doesn't merit it. But people get taught blindly, as with religion, that encapsulation is always good for all things big and small and you can never get enough of it.
First! to post the requisite LISP rant! /rant on
Functional programming is the "nails on chalkboard", freshman weed 'um out language.
You think you want to earn big money programming computers, then think again sucker! You are going to get so lost in sets of parenthesis you'll forget who your Mamma is. LOL.
Some hoittie toittie schools, where professors have very high opinions of themselves, very low opinion of students, who shall remain nameless, like UC Berkeley and MIT, require LISP as a first-year language so as to kill all pleasure one might think one derives from programming and switch to something more pleasurable, like theoretical physics.
Lost is sets of parenthesis is the single best way to kill off all motivation to learn computer science. You can also make people scream. Which actually is kinda cool.
At least the UK is earnest enough not to torture their students with LISP. /rant off
You know, even if one buys into the premise, one does have to wonder about the efficacy of saying things like "If you want pornography, buy a Google phone" or some such. Seriously. How does saying FU to the flash community, forget Adobe, in anyway going to endear people to your position? This is beyond, the Field of Dreams "build it and they will come" failed approach so many try. This is religious dogma. As Matt Damon spouts in the movie Dogma, "Do this or I'll spank you." Yeah, right. For a company that focuses on the customer usability where others don't, it is just totally bizarre to use scorched earth marketing. "Use our product and you'll experience Heaven, don't and we will send you to Hell."
Sorry Jobs. Your attitude smacks of Microsoft and IBM and you are being classified accordingly.
I use Firefox because it has a plug in "Flashblock". This plug in blocks all Flash from running except if I push an "allow" button or add the site to enable flash always. Having all Flash blocked has not detracted from my web browsing experience one iota. For those few sites written in Flash, I just allow the flash or don't go there.
Maybe you can find the same thing for Safari? Further, if Flash is causing such a problem
Looks like there exists a similar thing for Safari:
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/09/14/clicktoflash-for-safari-avoids-flash-browser-bloat/
I just Googled "Safari Flash" and the above link was at the top?
Remember the Enron debacle? Aurther Anderson didn't make the "too big too fail" cut, but the banks did.
If a financial institution gets found guilty of even on felony then they can no longer do business with the feds.
Citibank, a few years ago, paid a 600 million dollar fine for breaking the law and "admitted no wrong doing" because
if they had admitted any wrong doing and been convicted of a felony, goodbye Citibank.
No institution should be so big it can break the law with impunity. The "company" paying a fine is not the same as the officers being thrown in jail for malfeasance.
They should change the way the law currently stands and strip all personhood from corporations. That's the only way you are going to truly solve this problem. If you can't sue the company, then you have to sue the individuals responsible, which is the way it should be. Why should the thousands of employees of a failed company like Aurther Anderson pay for the crimes of the few?
Strip corporations of the same legal rights as a US citizen. Corporations should not have personhood.
I'm guessing I know which camp you are in when it comes to being either for or against fuzzy logic.
Fuzzy logic uses a set of if/then rules to provide hardware and software designs that are cheaper and more reliable than systems trying to approximate Nyquist equations, for example. You can also create a feedback loop to fine tune the rules.
Fuzzy logic control systems have been shown to be interchangable with classic control systems which use all the math you are referring too.
I applaud your passion but even Einstein recognized that mathematics when it comes to physics should always be recognized as a model and an approximation.
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -Albert Einstein
Your post smacks of a religious fervor that mathematics is certain when it refers to reality.
Your attitude is all too common in Western academia and hence Japan has had much better success in adopting and applying fuzzy logic than we have.
I think a better argument is to state that mathematical models are just that, models, and while you can blindly apply formulas (much as a computer), you'll miss out on the gaps, e.g assumptions, made along the way to make the model work.
The gap between Newtonian physics and quantam mechanics being the classic example.
Feynman had a similar attitude as yours with respect to the fact that Newtonian physics do not reflect reality at the quantam level, but quantam mechanics works for both the macro and quantam level and hence tried to teach quantam as an introductary physics.
Your argument is similar. Has the US adopted Feynman's philosophy of skipping Newtonian physics and starting with quantam?
I have a lot of Blu Ray and for sure can tell you that at least half of all "1080p" content is nothing more than the movie studioes upscaling standard DVD, SD, printing it to Blu Ray and selling it for $30 as HD. A total rip off.
Especially with Blu Ray TV box sets. The HD broadcast is way better than the quality on disk.
So there is no surprise they are doing the same thing with 3D.
My Sony PS3 upscales better than the scammed Blu Ray disks. A lot of Blu Ray is pixelated and blurry.
You'd think that if Hollywood were going to scam consumers they would use a better upscale converter than they are.
Heck, use a PS3. Blu Ray is a joke except when the content really is 1080p.
Nice, I'm with the Alliance as well but would've gone to the dark side if the Horde where named "The Independence" and the character name "Malcolm Reynolds" where allowed. But, such is not the case so I'm working for the Blue Sun corp.
LOL
Well met. By sunlight. By moonlight. Or any light.
Religion is to stupidity what 30,000 armor is to a warrior in Wow.
LOL
The religious people deserve to be 100% ignored in games, they deserve it.
Why?
Well most video games are either:
1.) 1st person shooter
2.) Role playing AD&D
I've been playing AD&D since 1977 when Chainmail was upgraded to Dungeons and Dragons.
Well, things were going just fine until the early 1980s when some wackos took their role playing too far in Wisconsin and someone died. The religious community immediately stigmatized the ENTIRE gaming community as devil-worshiping loonies based on this ONE anecdote. As a consequence, a couple of years later the Dieties and Demigods manual was revised to "Monster Manual" and all vestiges of religion were wiped from the game.
Let this be a warning to any are thinking of putting "religion" into video games.
Do so at your own peril because these same Yahoos! clamoring for this will turn against you and besmirch your game exactly the way they did AD&D.
So don't do it.
It's called Karma. Let them reap what they sowed.
Amen. LOL.
Religion? RELIGION? I don't need to show you any stinking religion!
One of the best delivered lines to this day in a movie.
On that note, one clarion call for the 1970s is the adage, "Reality is for people who can't handle drugs."
I propose we brush off this adage and upgrade it to the 2.0 version, "Reality is for people who can't handle video games."
Who needs religion? I got WoW!
" lots of years getting good at creating technical products and I don't want the same label as the intern who fixes windoze."
Why? Seriously, why?
Are we living in the 18th century with Kings and Dukes and such?
Every Doctor I have I call them by their first name, not Doctor.
Sometimes people want a license. As with Doctor or Dentist. Only people who have the license can professionally claim the title. Otherwise titles are just pandering. I know many a people who'd rather have pay than a title, the title was bestowed on them without pay as a form of placation.
Are you really that insecure?
Funny how my email inbox doesn't seem suffer from anyone understanding my role. I do not get windoze emails even though we share similar titles. In fact, in large corporations titles are really about pay grade. If your pay is the same as the windoze guy, then you have bigger issues than title. If your pay is commensurate with your work, who fricking cares what they call you?
Let's be bad guys!
Unfortunately is appears to be something fluffy on the order of Sanctuary. Only instead of the mutants being caged by humans, the humans are caged by the aliens. Ugh. They should let Sanctuary be the "feel good" show and turn this show into death, mayhem and destruction. I'm with you on that.
I watched the premerie and the flashbacks with a "airplane full" of people game me the Lost feeling. Each week they can draw in a new character that has yet to be introduced.
Anyone know if she and Joss retain any professional connection?
I guess I just kinda assumed that Joss was helping her out on this.
http://salescircular.com/
Different people, different models.
When I use advertising I want to see nothing but ads. That is what Sales Circular http://salescircular.com/ does. It is nothing but ads and competitor's prices are shown side-by-side.
Personally I think everyone buys things on sale, wants to buy things on sale. However, for someone like myself I consume ads using a different model.
My desired advertising consumption is analogous to the classified ads section of newspapers, or Craig's List.
Online marketing needs to cover their customer consumption bases when it comes to consumer advertising. People like myself who perhaps use AdBlock Plus still want things on sale, we just would prefer to browse ads all-at-once when we are looking for sales, as opposed to seeing ads intermixed with content.
At the end of the day, though, I'm still looking for things on sale and I still buy advertised product.
I don't see AdBlock Plus as a threat, just an expression how different types of consumers like myself use different tactics to find what is on sale. This is no different in the past where Catalogs, Classifieds, Yellow Pages, Magazines, etc all had different audiences they were reaching.
Networks are self-similar. People who *rely* on ads are not going to block them. I never click on ads so AdBlock Plus makes sense for me.
Targeted ads are the norm on the Internet and hence targeted ads can also be described as "search results", ergo Google is number one in online advertising by marrying ads with results as the most effective means.
Given then that networks are self-similar, I just see AdBlock Plus as something those who would never click on ads anyway would logically use and are saving people who pay for impressions money by not showing ads to people like myself who scorn them all. Advertising works because people appreciate them, not through some subliminal chicanery. I suspect that targeting of ads will be so specific and appreciated in the future that the ad targeting will surpass relevance over Google's generalized search results. After all, ads are paid for per word and other other demographic data, Google's search results not so much.
Self-similar.