I don't mind the no-editing-after-posting Slashdot peculiarity; even think that it is good for someone like me (usually performing lots of editions after submitting any online text). Unfortunately, now I am quite tired and couldn't avoid some errors. Sorry and lesson learned (last late post in Slashdot).
There are quite a few worthy fusion/fission-related comments to this article, but it seems that certain idea is not completely clear to everyone: we haven’t ever built a working fusion reactor. Currently there is a (theoretically) serious attempt which is supported by various countries (and by lots of money) call ITER; although it is still a mere theoretical prototype. In fact this project has been systematically delayed during the last years.
A quick overview of how this reactor is expected to work: 1. Reaching an extremely temperature (i.e., the one in the sun), which will instantaneously melt any known material. 2. Containing the aforementioned hot plasma (i.e., self-sustained fusion chain reactions) with magnetic fields and with a very efficient refrigeration system. 3. Getting just a tiny fraction (i.e., what is required to boil water) of all this heat to generate electricity.
Thus, the main problem is that the required heat (the energy used to provoke the first fusion reaction) is so high that provokes quite a few other problems, like confining the hot plasma and extracting only what is required or even having a device able to generate so high temperatures
All these problems are logically much less relevant at much smaller scales (at the microscopic level), where the only successful fusion reactions have precisely occurred; and even at that tiny level, it is very difficult to create a self-sustained reactions generating more power than what is being put in (to not mention all the aforementioned issues associated with so high temperatures).
I have proposed an example in one my comments above which I will repeat here: looking forward to getting any reliable reference to a single successful experiment creating a macroscopic-relevant fusion reaction, like heating a cup of coffee during 5 minutes. I think that such a thing hasn’t ever occurred, but I would love to be proven wrong. Please, provide relevant references to support all your claims on the can-be-done front.
We have fusion reactors? Where? How? As per my knowledge, the first fusion reactor (of the history) is currently being built and is called ITER (https://www.iter.org/), and this project is systematically behind schedule. A couple of weeks ago, I read that they are so late in so many fronts at the moment that the deliverables will completely redefined in a meeting at the end of this year (September/October I think)
As per my knowledge, the only fusion reactions (other than the natural ones, in the sun for example) have occurred in laboratories and at microscopic level; and honestly I have even my doubts about the exact reliability of such a statement (perhaps just rumours).
Please, provide relevant references to prove your point and dismiss mines.
I think that I got a bit lost in what you were trying to say; but are you insinuating that nuclear fusion is possible today? Could you please provide some reference proving that there is any way (regardless of the required resources) to get a macroscopic relevant fusion reaction? To make any simple task, for example: heating a cup of coffee during 5 minutes?
If creating (, containing and terminating at will) a fusion reaction (requiring whatever amount of heat and as crazily big resources as needed; but being actually possible by just putting money on the table) capable to perform an as simple action as the aforementioned one is possible (= has already been done, at least once), I would certainly change my mind on this front, because my knowledge regarding what is/is not possible would have been proven wrong. Please, provide a reference to a reliable source proving that a result on these lines has already been achieved, such that I can move my opinion about fusion from "fantastic nonsense" to "lots of work ahead, but might be worth trying".
What basically means that we don't have too much as far as the two missing bits are the most important and difficult to be solved issues. It has to be contained, because nobody wants something as hot as the sun to run free (to not mention that being contained is a basic requirement to generate usable energy, what precisely represents its only goal); and in case of not making it economically viable, why even considering fusion? Bear in mind that huge amounts of resources are already required to perform this kind of researches and for what? For creating a more expensive, unknown & difficult-to-be-controlled source of energy? On the other hand, how can you contain what (with our current technology) cannot be contained? Or how to replicate at a relevant scale what we can eventually just do at a really tiny one? Does building a scale model of a skyscraper mean having almost built a real one?
I don’t think that your corrections added too much to the original statement, because nothing means more or less the same than having something except these two issues.
I have written a comment right now (by answering the comment right above this one) saying basically the same than you. Additionally, I got exactly the same impression than you when I read the Slashdot title for the first time (very unlikely!).
Your sarcastic remark is very accurate: "code bug" refers to a wide variety of issues which are very difficult to be adequately summarised and thus automated.
On a serious note, bear in mind that this paper seems (stated in its real title) to be exclusively focused on converting the old image processing format into a new high-performing one (Halide). Thus, it takes care of just very specific issues (of Photoshop), like image filters.
Unfortunately, it seems that you are right. Hopefully, the decision-makers will remember the wise "jack of all trades, master of none" and that people come here to get a very specific something.
The paper is not about automatic code optimisation in general. This program only fixes image-related algorithms (which most likely involve simple & repetitive modifications). In fact, there are quite a few references to Adobe in the associated links and the paper is signed by two Adobe guys. Thus, I guess that it is mostly focused on Adobe products, like Photoshop; and might not even be able to deal with any image-processing algorithm.
PS: is it because of the summer-period lack of news or Slashdot is planning to make the move to pure sensationalism? Because a big proportion of the titles lately are quite unclear (to say it softly).
See... I don't want to start a miles-long discussion here. The whole point of my comment was quite clear: ideas like "programming is easy" are not true. You have to like it (and learn a lot, work a lot, etc.), what is not the case with those persons: they don't like the programmer's life style.
In summary, if you want to become a programmer, do it. If you prefer to live in the "idea-man" way, better don't fool yourself: you will never become a good enough programmer and will always have to hire people to make your ideas come true.
Ooops! I forgot about how important is highlighting here when you are using SARCASM.
To me, "idea person" defines the kind of people with no technical knowledge who likes getting involved in technical-related issues (they consider themselves over-technical; much more relevant than technical people). They usually rely on expressions like "seeing the big picture" or "from the marketing point of view...". My comment was precisely addressed to this kind of persons, also called "smoke sellers" (it is a direct translation from a Spanish expression). In some cases, they might even have got a computer engineering degree, but not programming knowledge (most of them don't like programming or even computers).
On the other hand, I understand that this article refers to a slightly different sub-type of "idea person" (i.e., a "smoke seller" with money, where selling the idea is not required), but their general attitude seem similar to me and that's why my original request of "please, don't let them think that can code!" is equally applicable to them.
I hope that you have been convinced by these arguments and, consequently, I might still be allowed to share my humble opinion on this matter, My Sir/Lady.
Bill Gates might have been a brilliant guy, making the right decisions in the right moment. But he was also a rich kid, born and raised in a moderately-rich family (although he certainly made his family much richer). He could even afford to not pay attention to what Harvard had to teach him (an opportunity that just a few people have).
Same stories with most of these famous IT entrepreneurs: they had the attitude (and some of them even the knowledge) but, on top of everything, they had the opportunity. And this opportunity was usually handed to them by their rich families on a silver platter. Most of these people certainly put their money (influence, contacts, not-having-the-need-to-work reality, etc.) where their mouths were.
"Idea persons" should focus on "ideas", on "big pictures", on "marketing perspectives" or on whatever they do; and let programming and taking care of making-things-work side of things to engineering-minded people.
Although having some programming knowledge does seem a good complement for anyone's education (like maths or history), transmitting ideas like "anyone can code, because it is very easy" is not good to anyone (equivalently to what happens with most of lies). Logically anyone can become a programmer, but having certain attitude and knowledge is required.
Thanks for your interest, but it is not the kind of self-promotion which I want to post everywhere. I am pretty bad at talking to camera (I get distracted very easily) and haven't done a single video yet which I seriously like.
On the other hand, I am sure that anyone being even partially interested in finding these videos, will certainly find them. And this is basically what I want: interested potential clients, not everyone. Note that I don't get any kind of benefit with more or less watchers. For me, this is just an excuse to have my code (and my attitude) on tape; like uploading a code to GitHub.
PS: I am using C# Winforms and the videos are addressed to knowledgeable programmers.
After having read some comments in other parts of this post, I just want to clarify that I have a VERY DEMANDING JOB, where I create different type of implementations on a regular basis. I am an experienced programmer who can face virtually any problem and, even though, I do think that perfectly knowing all the required commands does not represent a relevant knowledge. On the other hand, knowing the set of commands which delivers the best answer to a specific problem is certainly important.
For example: you want your application to do actions A, B & C, what can be done in quite a few different ways by relying on the programming language you are currently using. From your experience, you know that using the set of commands C1+C2+C3 is the ideal approach. But you are not 100% sure about the exact syntax of C2 (i.e., was it cc01+cc02 or cc1+cc2?); and there is where a research/googling might come into picture (and should even be seen as a better alternative than memorisation).
In summary: the only way to write a proper program is by having a proper programming knowledge (i.e., proper theoretical learning + lots of practice; the more variable and under more demanding conditions, the better), what only an experienced & knowledgeable programmer can have. In order to actually implement that knowledge (i.e., writing the code), the given programmer has to account for many small bits of information, whose exact syntax is not too important and can be stored in a computer (and retrieved via quick internet search) or in a book (and retrieved via quick reading) or anywhere else, not necessarily in the programmer's memory. Or in other words: you need lots of knowledge to become a good (book) writer, but you don't need to know each single word in the given language (for this, you have dictionaries).
Sure. As said, I am not complaining at all. In fact, this "limitation" might even be seen as something positive; and the typical all-the-editions-you-want as an implicit promotion of somehow bad behaviours (like mine of submitting before proofreading the text properly).
I am just highlighting my impressions. Slashdot might be old, but I have started using its commenting features just some weeks ago.
You can speak English since you were very young (I presume). In fact, you started speaking English without studying anything (I presume again). By following your reasoning, English is very easy and nobody should be proud of how much English they know
In my normal programming work (as said in other comment, while streaming, I am just doing easy-to-me developments; mainly because I am new to live coding and don't like too much talking to camera), I do use Google (or StackOverflow or Dot Net Perls or MSDN or equivalent sites) a lot; and I recommend to any programmer to rely on such a proceeding as much as required, rather than memorising anything. Why not using a computer for storing information (exact commands in the given language) and a programmer for creating programs (where the mere writing of commands is the less important part)?
In any case and although most of my searches are really quick (I don’t make the effort of memorising, but after having repeated the same things quite a few times. ..), I have quickly learned to not do it while streaming. There are always some watchers who do not seem to have a relevant programming experience (even none at all; perhaps students or HR-related people), but who criticise in a more or less arbitrary way. I call them “programmers” (= low knowledge + arbitrarily criticising others).
In summary, I don't see the problem with googling "how to get current mouse position". In fact, I think that this might be the ideal proceeding in quite a few contexts.
I wasn't complaining (and surely not blaming anyone else than myself), just highlighting something certainly curious. As per my knowledge, this is the only social-based site having such a "peculiar feature".
Well... it was also a kind of justification for all my errors (quite uncommon in my posts on other sites, where I usually perform various "correcting rounds").
Side Comment: why slashdot.org is the only site not allowing to edit your posts? I am so used to quickly click on "submit" and to perform all the corrections later via editions that I haven't still written a single post in slashdot.org without spelling/grammar errors!!
From my short experience, the fact that I am really bad at talking to camera and by letting very clear that I am not a watcher (and that I might even be using the system almost against its true intention), I can say that nobody "code" as you describe it. Nobody starts to analyse a complex problems and thinks during hours about the best approach. I don't think that there are even people streaming "serious" work.
In my case, for example, I am taking advantage from a code rewriting a had to do and I am doing it very calmly. You don't need to say anything if you don't want, but it comes out naturally (talking about what you are currently doing or even about not-directly related issues, like telling an anecdote about why using certain approach). In fact, right now I am trying to reduce the talking and write more code, because I am wasting too much time and getting too distracted.
Honestly, no idea. Young(er) people seem to like this thing of watching instead of doing a lot.
I am actually testing it as a way to have some of my coding work on tape (together with my comments, attitude, etc.). That is: basically a coding self-promotion. Also a nice practice to improve my talk-to-camera skills
I am currently starting and thus cannot say too much about the results, but so far it is delivering exactly what I want. Well... there might be some bothering watchers, but after a couple of hard-enough words they usually go away and I can focus on writing code as I want.
I was being sarcastic (and well... implicitly critising religion), equivalently to what I understand that the aforementioned anonymous cowards was doing.
Apologies to any sensible and properly-understanding person for having written the current clarification, but I am unfortunately surrounded (better: pursued) by people with serious understanding problems. I usually avoid writing too sarcastic remarks, in order to also avoid having to write these sad clarifications. But this time the original text of the anonymous coward was so good that I wasn't able to refrain myself from writing that a bit more elegant continuation (although has quickly been proved to be too confusing for my "fans"...).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mind the no-editing-after-posting Slashdot peculiarity; even think that it is good for someone like me (usually performing lots of editions after submitting any online text). Unfortunately, now I am quite tired and couldn't avoid some errors. Sorry and lesson learned (last late post in Slashdot).
There are quite a few worthy fusion/fission-related comments to this article, but it seems that certain idea is not completely clear to everyone: we haven’t ever built a working fusion reactor. Currently there is a (theoretically) serious attempt which is supported by various countries (and by lots of money) call ITER; although it is still a mere theoretical prototype. In fact this project has been systematically delayed during the last years.
A quick overview of how this reactor is expected to work:
1. Reaching an extremely temperature (i.e., the one in the sun), which will instantaneously melt any known material.
2. Containing the aforementioned hot plasma (i.e., self-sustained fusion chain reactions) with magnetic fields and with a very efficient refrigeration system.
3. Getting just a tiny fraction (i.e., what is required to boil water) of all this heat to generate electricity.
Thus, the main problem is that the required heat (the energy used to provoke the first fusion reaction) is so high that provokes quite a few other problems, like confining the hot plasma and extracting only what is required or even having a device able to generate so high temperatures
All these problems are logically much less relevant at much smaller scales (at the microscopic level), where the only successful fusion reactions have precisely occurred; and even at that tiny level, it is very difficult to create a self-sustained reactions generating more power than what is being put in (to not mention all the aforementioned issues associated with so high temperatures).
I have proposed an example in one my comments above which I will repeat here: looking forward to getting any reliable reference to a single successful experiment creating a macroscopic-relevant fusion reaction, like heating a cup of coffee during 5 minutes. I think that such a thing hasn’t ever occurred, but I would love to be proven wrong. Please, provide relevant references to support all your claims on the can-be-done front.
We have fusion reactors? Where? How? As per my knowledge, the first fusion reactor (of the history) is currently being built and is called ITER (https://www.iter.org/), and this project is systematically behind schedule. A couple of weeks ago, I read that they are so late in so many fronts at the moment that the deliverables will completely redefined in a meeting at the end of this year (September/October I think)
As per my knowledge, the only fusion reactions (other than the natural ones, in the sun for example) have occurred in laboratories and at microscopic level; and honestly I have even my doubts about the exact reliability of such a statement (perhaps just rumours).
Please, provide relevant references to prove your point and dismiss mines.
I also see a very relevant and not-idiotic-at-all output: lots of worthy comments.
I think that I got a bit lost in what you were trying to say; but are you insinuating that nuclear fusion is possible today? Could you please provide some reference proving that there is any way (regardless of the required resources) to get a macroscopic relevant fusion reaction? To make any simple task, for example: heating a cup of coffee during 5 minutes?
If creating (, containing and terminating at will) a fusion reaction (requiring whatever amount of heat and as crazily big resources as needed; but being actually possible by just putting money on the table) capable to perform an as simple action as the aforementioned one is possible (= has already been done, at least once), I would certainly change my mind on this front, because my knowledge regarding what is/is not possible would have been proven wrong. Please, provide a reference to a reliable source proving that a result on these lines has already been achieved, such that I can move my opinion about fusion from "fantastic nonsense" to "lots of work ahead, but might be worth trying".
What basically means that we don't have too much as far as the two missing bits are the most important and difficult to be solved issues. It has to be contained, because nobody wants something as hot as the sun to run free (to not mention that being contained is a basic requirement to generate usable energy, what precisely represents its only goal); and in case of not making it economically viable, why even considering fusion? Bear in mind that huge amounts of resources are already required to perform this kind of researches and for what? For creating a more expensive, unknown & difficult-to-be-controlled source of energy? On the other hand, how can you contain what (with our current technology) cannot be contained? Or how to replicate at a relevant scale what we can eventually just do at a really tiny one? Does building a scale model of a skyscraper mean having almost built a real one?
I don’t think that your corrections added too much to the original statement, because nothing means more or less the same than having something except these two issues.
I have written a comment right now (by answering the comment right above this one) saying basically the same than you. Additionally, I got exactly the same impression than you when I read the Slashdot title for the first time (very unlikely!).
Your sarcastic remark is very accurate: "code bug" refers to a wide variety of issues which are very difficult to be adequately summarised and thus automated.
On a serious note, bear in mind that this paper seems (stated in its real title) to be exclusively focused on converting the old image processing format into a new high-performing one (Halide). Thus, it takes care of just very specific issues (of Photoshop), like image filters.
Unfortunately, it seems that you are right. Hopefully, the decision-makers will remember the wise "jack of all trades, master of none" and that people come here to get a very specific something.
The paper is not about automatic code optimisation in general. This program only fixes image-related algorithms (which most likely involve simple & repetitive modifications).
In fact, there are quite a few references to Adobe in the associated links and the paper is signed by two Adobe guys. Thus, I guess that it is mostly focused on Adobe products, like Photoshop; and might not even be able to deal with any image-processing algorithm.
PS: is it because of the summer-period lack of news or Slashdot is planning to make the move to pure sensationalism? Because a big proportion of the titles lately are quite unclear (to say it softly).
See... I don't want to start a miles-long discussion here. The whole point of my comment was quite clear: ideas like "programming is easy" are not true. You have to like it (and learn a lot, work a lot, etc.), what is not the case with those persons: they don't like the programmer's life style.
In summary, if you want to become a programmer, do it. If you prefer to live in the "idea-man" way, better don't fool yourself: you will never become a good enough programmer and will always have to hire people to make your ideas come true.
Ooops! I forgot about how important is highlighting here when you are using SARCASM.
To me, "idea person" defines the kind of people with no technical knowledge who likes getting involved in technical-related issues (they consider themselves over-technical; much more relevant than technical people). They usually rely on expressions like "seeing the big picture" or "from the marketing point of view...". My comment was precisely addressed to this kind of persons, also called "smoke sellers" (it is a direct translation from a Spanish expression). In some cases, they might even have got a computer engineering degree, but not programming knowledge (most of them don't like programming or even computers).
On the other hand, I understand that this article refers to a slightly different sub-type of "idea person" (i.e., a "smoke seller" with money, where selling the idea is not required), but their general attitude seem similar to me and that's why my original request of "please, don't let them think that can code!" is equally applicable to them.
I hope that you have been convinced by these arguments and, consequently, I might still be allowed to share my humble opinion on this matter, My Sir/Lady.
PS: the last sentence is also sarcasm.
Bill Gates might have been a brilliant guy, making the right decisions in the right moment. But he was also a rich kid, born and raised in a moderately-rich family (although he certainly made his family much richer). He could even afford to not pay attention to what Harvard had to teach him (an opportunity that just a few people have).
Same stories with most of these famous IT entrepreneurs: they had the attitude (and some of them even the knowledge) but, on top of everything, they had the opportunity. And this opportunity was usually handed to them by their rich families on a silver platter. Most of these people certainly put their money (influence, contacts, not-having-the-need-to-work reality, etc.) where their mouths were.
"Idea persons" should focus on "ideas", on "big pictures", on "marketing perspectives" or on whatever they do; and let programming and taking care of making-things-work side of things to engineering-minded people.
Although having some programming knowledge does seem a good complement for anyone's education (like maths or history), transmitting ideas like "anyone can code, because it is very easy" is not good to anyone (equivalently to what happens with most of lies). Logically anyone can become a programmer, but having certain attitude and knowledge is required.
Thanks for your interest, but it is not the kind of self-promotion which I want to post everywhere. I am pretty bad at talking to camera (I get distracted very easily) and haven't done a single video yet which I seriously like.
On the other hand, I am sure that anyone being even partially interested in finding these videos, will certainly find them. And this is basically what I want: interested potential clients, not everyone. Note that I don't get any kind of benefit with more or less watchers. For me, this is just an excuse to have my code (and my attitude) on tape; like uploading a code to GitHub.
PS: I am using C# Winforms and the videos are addressed to knowledgeable programmers.
After having read some comments in other parts of this post, I just want to clarify that I have a VERY DEMANDING JOB, where I create different type of implementations on a regular basis. I am an experienced programmer who can face virtually any problem and, even though, I do think that perfectly knowing all the required commands does not represent a relevant knowledge. On the other hand, knowing the set of commands which delivers the best answer to a specific problem is certainly important.
For example: you want your application to do actions A, B & C, what can be done in quite a few different ways by relying on the programming language you are currently using. From your experience, you know that using the set of commands C1+C2+C3 is the ideal approach. But you are not 100% sure about the exact syntax of C2 (i.e., was it cc01+cc02 or cc1+cc2?); and there is where a research/googling might come into picture (and should even be seen as a better alternative than memorisation).
In summary: the only way to write a proper program is by having a proper programming knowledge (i.e., proper theoretical learning + lots of practice; the more variable and under more demanding conditions, the better), what only an experienced & knowledgeable programmer can have. In order to actually implement that knowledge (i.e., writing the code), the given programmer has to account for many small bits of information, whose exact syntax is not too important and can be stored in a computer (and retrieved via quick internet search) or in a book (and retrieved via quick reading) or anywhere else, not necessarily in the programmer's memory. Or in other words: you need lots of knowledge to become a good (book) writer, but you don't need to know each single word in the given language (for this, you have dictionaries).
Sure. As said, I am not complaining at all. In fact, this "limitation" might even be seen as something positive; and the typical all-the-editions-you-want as an implicit promotion of somehow bad behaviours (like mine of submitting before proofreading the text properly).
I am just highlighting my impressions. Slashdot might be old, but I have started using its commenting features just some weeks ago.
You can speak English since you were very young (I presume). In fact, you started speaking English without studying anything (I presume again). By following your reasoning, English is very easy and nobody should be proud of how much English they know
Yeah, that makes lots of sense.
In my normal programming work (as said in other comment, while streaming, I am just doing easy-to-me developments; mainly because I am new to live coding and don't like too much talking to camera), I do use Google (or StackOverflow or Dot Net Perls or MSDN or equivalent sites) a lot; and I recommend to any programmer to rely on such a proceeding as much as required, rather than memorising anything. Why not using a computer for storing information (exact commands in the given language) and a programmer for creating programs (where the mere writing of commands is the less important part)?
.), I have quickly learned to not do it while streaming. There are always some watchers who do not seem to have a relevant programming experience (even none at all; perhaps students or HR-related people), but who criticise in a more or less arbitrary way. I call them “programmers” (= low knowledge + arbitrarily criticising others).
In any case and although most of my searches are really quick (I don’t make the effort of memorising, but after having repeated the same things quite a few times. .
In summary, I don't see the problem with googling "how to get current mouse position". In fact, I think that this might be the ideal proceeding in quite a few contexts.
I wasn't complaining (and surely not blaming anyone else than myself), just highlighting something certainly curious. As per my knowledge, this is the only social-based site having such a "peculiar feature".
Well... it was also a kind of justification for all my errors (quite uncommon in my posts on other sites, where I usually perform various "correcting rounds").
Side Comment: why slashdot.org is the only site not allowing to edit your posts? I am so used to quickly click on "submit" and to perform all the corrections later via editions that I haven't still written a single post in slashdot.org without spelling/grammar errors!!
From my short experience, the fact that I am really bad at talking to camera and by letting very clear that I am not a watcher (and that I might even be using the system almost against its true intention), I can say that nobody "code" as you describe it. Nobody starts to analyse a complex problems and thinks during hours about the best approach. I don't think that there are even people streaming "serious" work.
In my case, for example, I am taking advantage from a code rewriting a had to do and I am doing it very calmly. You don't need to say anything if you don't want, but it comes out naturally (talking about what you are currently doing or even about not-directly related issues, like telling an anecdote about why using certain approach). In fact, right now I am trying to reduce the talking and write more code, because I am wasting too much time and getting too distracted.
Honestly, no idea. Young(er) people seem to like this thing of watching instead of doing a lot.
I am actually testing it as a way to have some of my coding work on tape (together with my comments, attitude, etc.). That is: basically a coding self-promotion. Also a nice practice to improve my talk-to-camera skills
I am currently starting and thus cannot say too much about the results, but so far it is delivering exactly what I want. Well... there might be some bothering watchers, but after a couple of hard-enough words they usually go away and I can focus on writing code as I want.
Thanks for the advice. I will do that the next time.
I was being sarcastic (and well... implicitly critising religion), equivalently to what I understand that the aforementioned anonymous cowards was doing.
Apologies to any sensible and properly-understanding person for having written the current clarification, but I am unfortunately surrounded (better: pursued) by people with serious understanding problems. I usually avoid writing too sarcastic remarks, in order to also avoid having to write these sad clarifications. But this time the original text of the anonymous coward was so good that I wasn't able to refrain myself from writing that a bit more elegant continuation (although has quickly been proved to be too confusing for my "fans"...).