even if microsoft sucks, it doesn't mean you can't link to it. It's like saying "I don't like Goodyear. So, I won't get on a bus that has Goodyear tires."
Oh, and, just in case you missed it - a lot of microsoft hardware is actually quite decent. I do use their mouse for example.
did it occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, they were trying to say that "Our tablet is better than this stuff". Or how about "We'll interoperate even with an old Mac, though, once you have our tablet, you won't need to keep one around".
To show that you can put your competitors to shame you sometimes need to show them and what they do.
... And then there are BIOS'es that try to be extra-user-friendly and just make your box 'boot' straight into BIOS if your computer got powered-down before completing previous POST (and for other reasons). While it's all cool, allows you to run @ 66MHz bus instead of 100 or so, and very-very helpful (NOT), it's twice as fun to get that one when it happens to a server at a colocation facility far away.
If you had the pocket change, would you give this man your business?"
Of course not! The guy isn't dumb though. If you were willing to pay for your gene map, chances are all your 2000 clones (or however many he created) will be willing, and have the money to do the same!
you can observe your co-workers after, say 12 hours and judge for yourself whether they are effective or not. They might not be objective, but it's much easier for YOU to be objective when judging THEIR performance.
On a different note, ability to work overtime and be effective is like a constantly self-replenishing resource. However, the replenishing rate is way slower than the burn rate. In my opinion, I can even pull a couple of all-nighters. The productivity loss is significant, but not enough to actuall warrant going home and taking a nap. After a couple of those, my productivity drops so low that, say, 8 hours of coding would be better spent if I sleep for 5 hours and then code for 3. And I am talking mostly about just quantity, not quality of code.
If, as you imply, you 'need balls to the wall' for 15 hours, and do that week after week, then you might want to check out some neighboring psychiatric hospitals in advance - after a little while you'll definitely need to pay one a visit:( In addition to losing your sanity you'll probably loose your vision, strain your back and wrists, and end up with a hella lot of headaches.
And, yes, I do know that there are also coding droids who run on pure caffeine and can give 'data' from startrek a run for his money. I am not one of them.
While giving you a break for your wrists, also breaks your eyes. At least mine start hurting after less than a minute of looking at the running text. Can't get something for nothing; You choose what you are willing to sacrifice.
People who have the certification and went to school plus...
is to be taken with a grain of salt since 90% of certifications are either useless (obsolete/low level/unrelated to anything practical) or just plain bogus. It's kinda like taking school coursework but with less knowledge retained. Ok, not all certificates, but at least software ones (MSCE, A+ - you pick it). As an added "benefit" they usually feel they are worth more since they have a certificate which they view as some sort of a tangible asset. Few people are more mistaken. That's what I observed while working as a TA at a university. Most of the students I had to work with were 'continuing education' were certified in everything you can think of and had extraordinary self-worth perception. That seemed to accurately resemble what they were actually able to do... NOT. In fact, quite the opposite was true.
I don't have anything against certifications. If you feel like getting one - go right ahead. But don't hold on to it for dear life. It's not a replacement for your brains, or experience. It's just a piece of paper. In fact, it's even worth MUCH less than a school diploma.:(
using this logic we should just bend over and wait for RIAA to do you yourself know what. While ultimately the result will probably be the same, this is not the option that appeals to me the most.
On the other hand, I don't know enough to even decide whether I mostly agree or disagree with what you had to say. But thanks for bringing up the interesting idea anyway.
On the other hand, the internet is going to be restricted no matter what - 100% free flow of traffic is a pipe dream, and it's only going to become more and more restricted each day.
By making a restriction like that we sacrifice some of the notion that 'information wants to be free'. Richard Stallman et al would have killed me for this, but sacrificing something you'll lose tomorrow anyway for the sake of setting up a precedent is a pretty good trade-off, IMHO.
I can also name a couple more benefits, like (1) I am just curious to see if you can get sued off the face of the planet for this and (2) RIAA will see that they can't take access for granted - they assume they can cut people off, but can not receive the same treatment themselves.
I can even go as far as to say that this does not really make internet more restricted. It's like a filter, akin to blocking SPAM, thus making internet a more valuable resource. Doing this will simply increase the signal-to-noise ration of the internet for this ISP's customers, thus making it more valuable. (after all, you did pay for that SPAM filter and ad blocking software, didn't you? And do you feel that you just voluntarily made yourself less free? I don't think so either)
Oh, yes, talking about mach speeds... Quoting from the article: "We do believe we achieved supersonic flight for the first time," Mr Paull said Huh? So, how fast does, for example, Concorde fly?
Not like it's all that important, but reading "Unfortunately, the security inherent in VoIP solutions is equivalent to that of the early Internet: Non-existent." made me ponder: How can you be equivalent to something that's non-existent? Isn't it kinda akin to dividing by zero?
nah, I didn't care for pure C, as I said. I guess, it took me too long to dig to find remove_if. I wonder how to actually release the memory after I am done traversing through the hash. The phrase The iterators in the range [new_last, last) are all still dereferenceable, but the elements that they point to are unspecified. makes me think there is junk left after I delete things in such a way. Oh, well, I got it solved in a prettier (albeit, way more painful ) way.
Quote from the bug: I'm glad to see that this bug hasn't been left to the wayside. If there is any chance that this will not be finished for 1.0 I'm willing to sponsor it, if that helps. I don't have much money but could probably sponsor the bug for about $500 USD, if that is what it takes to get it finished for 1.0
And several more developers claiming that they have been (privately, in email) offered money to fix that bug.
Is this a new way to make money in the open source realm or what?
second, though I do not have a 'pet bug', I have one that annoyed the heck out of me and caused me to re-implement a hash algorithm in C. The bug is in STL. If you are walking through a hash, and want to delete an element (like the one you are currently at), this will kill the walking and you'll have to restart all over again. Otherwise it segfaults. Very annoying if you need to delete a lot of entries in a short period of time. Ok, there are benefits to that too, like the one that now I have pure C code, no C++ crud, but it was annoying nevertheless, since I was just doing a quick-and-dirty proof-of-concept...:(
so true. This kind of stuff makes up like 10% of bogus bug reports on bugs.php.net - very stupid and annoying. Ok, maybe not quite 10%, but way more than most people are willing to tolerate.:(
Well, why is the share that holds software you install writable by either of you? Why should you be able to alter that share at all?
Good question. It shouldn't be writable. I have only myself to blame. However, it's irrelevant why the share is writable. Maybe I have another share that has a project hosted both of us are working on, who cares. The point is - the author's logic ("don't use outlook, don't open garbage, and you'll be all good") is flawed. If anyone on my LAN doen't use the best email practices, I can be very vulnerable. I need to make sure our LAN is administred correctly, etc, etc, etc.
or die sooner. you talk on your phone, say, 1/2 hour a day. That's 1/2 hour of transmitting to, say, a transmitter far away.
Now you serve as a relay, and relay, say 10 hours a day to a cell phone near you. Granted, you use less power, but transmitting is wa-a-ay more expensive in terms of power than being idle.
I say, use the battery meter to determine whether a particular phone is connected to an external power source, and, if so, make it the more likely candidate to act as a relay than my poor phone with 5 minutes of talk time left for emergencies that I try not to use (say, I'm climbing some glacier, and don't have a power outlet around to recharge).
True, but common sense does not always help. Check out this statement: And that's really it. If you don't run Windows, you're safe. If you have basic email skills, you're safe. If you don't run Outlook, you're safe. That's the story of modern viruses, and fortunately or un-, it's a pretty boring one.
I do not run outlook, I run mozilla's client. I do not open garbage attachments. I do run windows though.
The guy next to me at work runs outlook and likes opening attachments "MY WIFE NUDE.JPG.exe" everyday.
Both of us have a share on one of the fileservers mounted; this share has a bunch of executable files (like winzip, acrobat reader install, etc. for times when you do a bi-monthly windows reinstall).
Now, if a virus can propagate both through email and conventional means (infecting executables), which probably exists now, or at least is very trivial to make, then I am toast despite of all my good email practices and not using outlook.
Slashdot Mirror
even if microsoft sucks, it doesn't mean you can't link to it. It's like saying "I don't like Goodyear. So, I won't get on a bus that has Goodyear tires."
Oh, and, just in case you missed it - a lot of microsoft hardware is actually quite decent. I do use their mouse for example.
did it occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, they were trying to say that "Our tablet is better than this stuff". Or how about "We'll interoperate even with an old Mac, though, once you have our tablet, you won't need to keep one around".
To show that you can put your competitors to shame you sometimes need to show them and what they do.
Darn, here I couldn't ask the mandatory question, but now I can!
hey, that's my way of getting an empty recordset from any SQL-like database I know of:
SELECT * FROM blah WHERE 1 = 2
However lame this loons, it works like a charm in any database we develop for. Truly cross-platform.
... And then there are BIOS'es that try to be extra-user-friendly and just make your box 'boot' straight into BIOS if your computer got powered-down before completing previous POST (and for other reasons). While it's all cool, allows you to run @ 66MHz bus instead of 100 or so, and very-very helpful (NOT), it's twice as fun to get that one when it happens to a server at a colocation facility far away.
It's especially funny if you are running a server at a colocation facility not-so-near you :)
... and, no, I am not intending to patent it, honest ...
... you mean, you still think they haven't been patented yet? I guess naive people leave longer. Can I have a sample of your DNA please?
If you had the pocket change, would you give this man your business?"
Of course not! The guy isn't dumb though. If you were willing to pay for your gene map, chances are all your 2000 clones (or however many he created) will be willing, and have the money to do the same!
you can observe your co-workers after, say 12 hours and judge for yourself whether they are effective or not. They might not be objective, but it's much easier for YOU to be objective when judging THEIR performance.
On a different note, ability to work overtime and be effective is like a constantly self-replenishing resource. However, the replenishing rate is way slower than the burn rate. In my opinion, I can even pull a couple of all-nighters. The productivity loss is significant, but not enough to actuall warrant going home and taking a nap. After a couple of those, my productivity drops so low that, say, 8 hours of coding would be better spent if I sleep for 5 hours and then code for 3. And I am talking mostly about just quantity, not quality of code.
If, as you imply, you 'need balls to the wall' for 15 hours, and do that week after week, then you might want to check out some neighboring psychiatric hospitals in advance - after a little while you'll definitely need to pay one a visit:( In addition to losing your sanity you'll probably loose your vision, strain your back and wrists, and end up with a hella lot of headaches.
And, yes, I do know that there are also coding droids who run on pure caffeine and can give 'data' from startrek a run for his money. I am not one of them.
While giving you a break for your wrists, also breaks your eyes. At least mine start hurting after less than a minute of looking at the running text. Can't get something for nothing; You choose what you are willing to sacrifice.
People who have the certification and went to school plus ...
:(
is to be taken with a grain of salt since 90% of certifications are either useless (obsolete/low level/unrelated to anything practical) or just plain bogus. It's kinda like taking school coursework but with less knowledge retained. Ok, not all certificates, but at least software ones (MSCE, A+ - you pick it). As an added "benefit" they usually feel they are worth more since they have a certificate which they view as some sort of a tangible asset. Few people are more mistaken. That's what I observed while working as a TA at a university. Most of the students I had to work with were 'continuing education' were certified in everything you can think of and had extraordinary self-worth perception. That seemed to accurately resemble what they were actually able to do... NOT. In fact, quite the opposite was true.
I don't have anything against certifications. If you feel like getting one - go right ahead. But don't hold on to it for dear life. It's not a replacement for your brains, or experience. It's just a piece of paper. In fact, it's even worth MUCH less than a school diploma.
using this logic we should just bend over and wait for RIAA to do you yourself know what. While ultimately the result will probably be the same, this is not the option that appeals to me the most.
On the other hand, I don't know enough to even decide whether I mostly agree or disagree with what you had to say. But thanks for bringing up the interesting idea anyway.
On the other hand, the internet is going to be restricted no matter what - 100% free flow of traffic is a pipe dream, and it's only going to become more and more restricted each day.
By making a restriction like that we sacrifice some of the notion that 'information wants to be free'. Richard Stallman et al would have killed me for this, but sacrificing something you'll lose tomorrow anyway for the sake of setting up a precedent is a pretty good trade-off, IMHO.
I can also name a couple more benefits, like (1) I am just curious to see if you can get sued off the face of the planet for this and (2) RIAA will see that they can't take access for granted - they assume they can cut people off, but can not receive the same treatment themselves.
I can even go as far as to say that this does not really make internet more restricted. It's like a filter, akin to blocking SPAM, thus making internet a more valuable resource. Doing this will simply increase the signal-to-noise ration of the internet for this ISP's customers, thus making it more valuable. (after all, you did pay for that SPAM filter and ad blocking software, didn't you? And do you feel that you just voluntarily made yourself less free? I don't think so either)
These guys must've been using that magic 8-ball :) Thumbs up for userfriendly!
Oh, yes, talking about mach speeds... Quoting from the article:
"We do believe we achieved supersonic flight for the first time," Mr Paull said Huh? So, how fast does, for example, Concorde fly?
Not like it's all that important, but reading "Unfortunately, the security inherent in VoIP solutions is equivalent to that of the early Internet: Non-existent." made me ponder: How can you be equivalent to something that's non-existent? Isn't it kinda akin to dividing by zero?
Look at all the money the .gif royalties made Compuserve...
.gif's :)
I bet they are paying royalties to compuserve too. Their own website has a bunch of images, - and all of them
Ironic, isn't it?
nah, I didn't care for pure C, as I said. I guess, it took me too long to dig to find remove_if. I wonder how to actually release the memory after I am done traversing through the hash. The phrase The iterators in the range [new_last, last) are all still dereferenceable, but the elements that they point to are unspecified. makes me think there is junk left after I delete things in such a way. Oh, well, I got it solved in a prettier (albeit, way more painful ) way.
Thanks a lot for the suggestion anyway.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35011
Quote from the bug:
I'm glad to see that this bug hasn't been left to the wayside. If there is any
chance that this will not be finished for 1.0 I'm willing to sponsor it, if that
helps. I don't have much money but could probably sponsor the bug for about $500
USD, if that is what it takes to get it finished for 1.0
And several more developers claiming that they have been (privately, in email) offered money to fix that bug.
Is this a new way to make money in the open source realm or what?
first, someone needs to mod this up.
:(
second, though I do not have a 'pet bug', I have one that annoyed the heck out of me and caused me to re-implement a hash algorithm in C. The bug is in STL. If you are walking through a hash, and want to delete an element (like the one you are currently at), this will kill the walking and you'll have to restart all over again. Otherwise it segfaults. Very annoying if you need to delete a lot of entries in a short period of time. Ok, there are benefits to that too, like the one that now I have pure C code, no C++ crud, but it was annoying nevertheless, since I was just doing a quick-and-dirty proof-of-concept...
so true. This kind of stuff makes up like 10% of bogus bug reports on bugs.php.net - very stupid and annoying. Ok, maybe not quite 10%, but way more than most people are willing to tolerate. :(
Well, why is the share that holds software you install writable by either of you? Why should you be able to alter that share at all?
Good question. It shouldn't be writable. I have only myself to blame. However, it's irrelevant why the share is writable. Maybe I have another share that has a project hosted both of us are working on, who cares. The point is - the author's logic ("don't use outlook, don't open garbage, and you'll be all good") is flawed. If anyone on my LAN doen't use the best email practices, I can be very vulnerable. I need to make sure our LAN is administred correctly, etc, etc, etc.
or die sooner. you talk on your phone, say, 1/2 hour a day. That's 1/2 hour of transmitting to, say, a transmitter far away.
Now you serve as a relay, and relay, say 10 hours a day to a cell phone near you. Granted, you use less power, but transmitting is wa-a-ay more expensive in terms of power than being idle.
I say, use the battery meter to determine whether a particular phone is connected to an external power source, and, if so, make it the more likely candidate to act as a relay than my poor phone with 5 minutes of talk time left for emergencies that I try not to use (say, I'm climbing some glacier, and don't have a power outlet around to recharge).
And that's really it. If you don't run Windows, you're safe. If you have basic email skills, you're safe. If you don't run Outlook, you're safe. That's the story of modern viruses, and fortunately or un-, it's a pretty boring one.
I do not run outlook, I run mozilla's client. I do not open garbage attachments. I do run windows though.
The guy next to me at work runs outlook and likes opening attachments "MY WIFE NUDE.JPG.exe" everyday.
Both of us have a share on one of the fileservers mounted; this share has a bunch of executable files (like winzip, acrobat reader install, etc. for times when you do a bi-monthly windows reinstall).
Now, if a virus can propagate both through email and conventional means (infecting executables), which probably exists now, or at least is very trivial to make, then I am toast despite of all my good email practices and not using outlook.
Doh:(