Learn how to interact with people in a way that is pleasurable to them, and they will enjoy your company. It does not really matter what your IQ is. For example:
don't talk down to them
don't talk over their head
don't tell them things they do not want to know
do talk/ask about things they want to talk about
avoid being negative
be yourself, and be comfortable with yourself
On the back of a movie case, you get a complete description of what potentially offensive scenes are in it. In a game, you do not know anything about what scenes will open up as the game progress.
Love games, hate censorship, but after listening to a hearing on C-SPAN they got me convinced. This was long after I had already played GTA3, and interesting enough, I remember having many good laughs at the violence in it with my friends - I think it is funny. For kids, I do not think it is funny.
Complete ratings in movies are not considered censorship, why suggest that it does video games? Video gaming is turning into a bigger money maker than movies, and without the same level of piracy concerns. In this growing market, we need to curb the corporate desire to push the limits of accepted violence. I think (as pointed out in the hearing C-SPAN) that the game companies are making a bad business decision fighting for violence; if they could come up some with non-violent but GREAT games, the parent-purchase market is open for the taking.
I'd rather have to wade through user reviews on the Internet to find the rare high-quality stuff, than have no means of real-time research as it was back in the early 1990s - even if the average quality was higher back then. High-quality stuff still exists, you just have to find it and at least you now have the means to do so.
Autorotaion is *much* hairier than gliding a plane, because you have to time things much more precisely, killing your descent at the right moment. But it is *much* better than the alternative (plummetting).
I'd say gliding is more hairy, cause you still need a smooth strip to land on. Auto-rotation is safe and easy as long as you have some combination of altitude and airspeed to work with. Keep in mind that if you anywhere near or below the lower limit of altitude and airspeed required for auto-rotation, you are doing something that a fixed-wing aircraft can't even think about.
When it comes to being in an aircraft when the engine is out - I'd rather it be a chopper!
From what I remember, Itanium represents a fundamental change in the way a processor works, and that is why there is no native backward compatibility. Which is good (I think).
The backwards compatibility requirement restricts performence increases. And for those that are running operations systems that are available on many platforms, such as the best OS in the world, what use is x86 compatibility, other than the ability to buy cheap hardware?
Currently, most CPUs fall in to one of two categories: CISC (complex instruction set computer), or RISC (reduced instruction set computer).
Both CISC and RISC processors execute binary code that can be viewed as assembly code (which is really just machine/binary code, but represented in a more human-friendly format).
On a CISC machine, that machine code is furthur decomposed (automatically by the processor) from machine code into microcode operations, which the processor hardware executes. On a RISC system, this microcode layer does not exist; the processor layer just executes the requested operations.
On a CISC system, the instuction set is larger, and some of the instructions may be specialized functions that perform very complicated operations. MMX from Intel (and all the other things like it) is a good example.
Usually, the barrier of granularity that would demark the microcode realm for the assembly/binary/machine code is drawn based on timing issues. Microcode programming requires the code be produced with an eye for allowed timing limits; this means that it is possible to have microcode sequences which will fail to execute because they were traversed in a way that violated timing requirements for the processor. For example, say microcode instruction XYZ uses some circuitry on the processor for 3 internal clock ticks; XYZ is executed at internal-clock-tick=0, and again at internal-clock-tick=2. The both executions will be corrupt, and the reason is timing. (NOTE: I think I even remember seeing a linux driver that allowed you to read your processors microcode)
Well Itanium moves the microcode layer of abstraction into the compiler. In the old days, the human user programmed assembly and could not be trusted to adhere to all the timing restrictions. Since most programming is now done in higher-level languages, the machine-level code is generated by the compiler - and a compiler can be made to adhere to timing requirements.
Itanium is an advancement in processor design, and one worth given up the ability to boot into DOS for.
I has the privledge of trying Final Scractch a few months ago. A friend is working for Richie Hawton and John Aquviva (spelling?) who are the main forces behind the product. ( have not tried the
When I tried it, it felt the same as norrmal wax to me. I am not much of a scratcher, but my friend who is a (hip hop) scratching/turntablist also tried it and agreed with me; it is just as responsive as normal records.
I have played a number of CD based devices, but none of them seem to really be even close to the feel of regular records. A couple of DJs have said that they are getting quite good, but no matter how good it is, I can imagine that the feeling of a CD can ever compare to to wax.
For the DJs out there, I really agree with Hawtin, in that the future of electronic music, in a live setting, will be for those that can work with music technology beyond that of turntables. I dream of the day where there is an open framework for music software, and Final Scratch (and other music software) will integrate with things like (Stienburg) Reason and whatnot. Mac OS X is showing a good start toward this goal. Anyways, I feel that Final Scratch really changes DJing, in that you can bring all thee musicy ou want to a club, and not have to carry a million records. This allows you to work the crowd more effectivily. Also, a DJ would never have to buy records just to have the current hit tracks; but instead only shop for rare tracks that no one else has.
1) keep everything on one server 2) make use of GNU screen package to access over terminals 3) make use of VNC by AT&T -
http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/
With all of the open-source developers that have done REAL work that has much more patent merit than 99% of these bogus claims, it is too bad that there is no organization that could obtain patents based on the work of open-source developers and then hold them in escrow to keep these technologies from being commercially exploited.
I understand the argument of "patents are bad, so they should never be supported". But right now they are a fact of life, and being used to rape technology. Could this be a way to fight back?
Imagine if the EFF held patents for spamming? My mailbox would be a lot lighter.
Do you know if the VGA box the only output that is supported in Linux?
Or in otherwords, can I run an X-Windows session through my TV?
Thanks.
new in 1.4: public Exception(Throwable cause)
on
Java2 SDK v. 1.4 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
My favorite thing about using 1.4 is code like this:
public void methodA throws MyException {
try { Driver d = Class.forName(driverClass).newInstance(); }
catch (Exception ex) { throw new RuntimeException("problem loading driver"); }
}
can now be this:
public void methodA throws MyException {
try { Driver d = Class.forName(driverClass).newInstance(); }
catch (Exception ex) { throw new RuntimeException("problem loading driver", ex); }
}
Notice the RuntimeException constructor now has the original exception passed to it. It can be retreived higher up the stack, and I believe is printed during a ex.printStackTrace(...). It lets you pass the root cause exception up the stack trace, while preserving the entire state, without having to declare it everywhere.
Good points! Especially your idea of a degree teaching you what you don't know. Understanding from the high-level aspects of programming down to the physical electron flow provides a feeling of at least semi-awareness of the complete scope. [Although I did not learn physics in CS (as my original post would suggest), but in ground school for a college aviation program I was in after CS.]
What are you working on now, if you do not mind me asking?
I see that there are a lot of responses listing various benefits going to school for a real CS degree.
For me, I work with many who have degrees, and many who do not.
I find that the most relevent differences in ability to perform is that a CS grad. will usually be able to look deeper into a problem. For example, knowledge of physics, processor design, assembly, compilers, networking, and higher-level design issues arms a techie with tools that help them make better decisions as they work.
These tools make a BIG difference when it comes to designing systems, but also help when programming/debugging.
IMHO, designing complicated systems requires a lot of skills, and finding those skills in someone who has not made it through a CS degree is quite rare.
Is anyone in Toronto interested in protesting?
on
Sklyarov Indicted
·
· Score: 1
I am thinking of adding a listing for Toronto, but I will not have much time to donate to preparations.
xbox.com jams by browser (Netscape) - go figure
on
$1200 Cheap!
·
· Score: 1
But it works fine in IE. On purpose or not, they never cease to amaze me.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are not interested in what they have to say, and only interested in what you have to say, then why try and interact with them at all?
Learn how to interact with people in a way that is pleasurable to them, and they will enjoy your company. It does not really matter what your IQ is. For example:
don't talk down to them
don't talk over their head
don't tell them things they do not want to know
do talk/ask about things they want to talk about
avoid being negative
be yourself, and be comfortable with yourself
On the back of a movie case, you get a complete description of what potentially offensive scenes are in it. In a game, you do not know anything about what scenes will open up as the game progress.
Love games, hate censorship, but after listening to a hearing on C-SPAN they got me convinced. This was long after I had already played GTA3, and interesting enough, I remember having many good laughs at the violence in it with my friends - I think it is funny. For kids, I do not think it is funny.
Complete ratings in movies are not considered censorship, why suggest that it does video games? Video gaming is turning into a bigger money maker than movies, and without the same level of piracy concerns. In this growing market, we need to curb the corporate desire to push the limits of accepted violence. I think (as pointed out in the hearing C-SPAN) that the game companies are making a bad business decision fighting for violence; if they could come up some with non-violent but GREAT games, the parent-purchase market is open for the taking.
I'd rather have to wade through user reviews on the Internet to find the rare high-quality stuff, than have no means of real-time research as it was back in the early 1990s - even if the average quality was higher back then. High-quality stuff still exists, you just have to find it and at least you now have the means to do so.
Autorotaion is *much* hairier than gliding a plane, because you have to time things much more precisely, killing your descent at the right moment. But it is *much* better than the alternative (plummetting).
I'd say gliding is more hairy, cause you still need a smooth strip to land on. Auto-rotation is safe and easy as long as you have some combination of altitude and airspeed to work with. Keep in mind that if you anywhere near or below the lower limit of altitude and airspeed required for auto-rotation, you are doing something that a fixed-wing aircraft can't even think about.
When it comes to being in an aircraft when the engine is out - I'd rather it be a chopper!
From what I remember, Itanium represents a fundamental change in the way a processor works, and that is why there is no native backward compatibility. Which is good (I think).
The backwards compatibility requirement restricts performence increases. And for those that are running operations systems that are available on many platforms, such as the best OS in the world, what use is x86 compatibility, other than the ability to buy cheap hardware?
Currently, most CPUs fall in to one of two categories: CISC (complex instruction set computer), or RISC (reduced instruction set computer).
Both CISC and RISC processors execute binary code that can be viewed as assembly code (which is really just machine/binary code, but represented in a more human-friendly format).
On a CISC machine, that machine code is furthur decomposed (automatically by the processor) from machine code into microcode operations, which the processor hardware executes. On a RISC system, this microcode layer does not exist; the processor layer just executes the requested operations.
On a CISC system, the instuction set is larger, and some of the instructions may be specialized functions that perform very complicated operations. MMX from Intel (and all the other things like it) is a good example.
Usually, the barrier of granularity that would demark the microcode realm for the assembly/binary/machine code is drawn based on timing issues. Microcode programming requires the code be produced with an eye for allowed timing limits; this means that it is possible to have microcode sequences which will fail to execute because they were traversed in a way that violated timing requirements for the processor. For example, say microcode instruction XYZ uses some circuitry on the processor for 3 internal clock ticks; XYZ is executed at internal-clock-tick=0, and again at internal-clock-tick=2. The both executions will be corrupt, and the reason is timing. (NOTE: I think I even remember seeing a linux driver that allowed you to read your processors microcode)
Well Itanium moves the microcode layer of abstraction into the compiler. In the old days, the human user programmed assembly and could not be trusted to adhere to all the timing restrictions. Since most programming is now done in higher-level languages, the machine-level code is generated by the compiler - and a compiler can be made to adhere to timing requirements.
Itanium is an advancement in processor design, and one worth given up the ability to boot into DOS for.
I has the privledge of trying Final Scractch a few months ago. A friend is working for Richie Hawton and John Aquviva (spelling?) who are the main forces behind the product. ( have not tried the
When I tried it, it felt the same as norrmal wax to me. I am not much of a scratcher, but my friend who is a (hip hop) scratching/turntablist also tried it and agreed with me; it is just as responsive as normal records.
I have played a number of CD based devices, but none of them seem to really be even close to the feel of regular records. A couple of DJs have said that they are getting quite good, but no matter how good it is, I can imagine that the feeling of a CD can ever compare to to wax.
For the DJs out there, I really agree with Hawtin, in that the future of electronic music, in a live setting, will be for those that can work with music technology beyond that of turntables. I dream of the day where there is an open framework for music software, and Final Scratch (and other music software) will integrate with things like (Stienburg) Reason and whatnot. Mac OS X is showing a good start toward this goal. Anyways, I feel that Final Scratch really changes DJing, in that you can bring all thee musicy ou want to a club, and not have to carry a million records. This allows you to work the crowd more effectivily. Also, a DJ would never have to buy records just to have the current hit tracks; but instead only shop for rare tracks that no one else has.
1) keep everything on one server
2) make use of GNU screen package to access over terminals
3) make use of VNC by AT&T -
http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/
With all of the open-source developers that have done REAL work that has much more patent merit than 99% of these bogus claims, it is too bad that there is no organization that could obtain patents based on the work of open-source developers and then hold them in escrow to keep these technologies from being commercially exploited.
I understand the argument of "patents are bad, so they should never be supported". But right now they are a fact of life, and being used to rape technology. Could this be a way to fight back?
Imagine if the EFF held patents for spamming? My mailbox would be a lot lighter.
Hi there,
Do you know if the VGA box the only output that is supported in Linux?
Or in otherwords, can I run an X-Windows session through my TV?
Thanks.
My favorite thing about using 1.4 is code like this:
public void methodA throws MyException {
try { Driver d = Class.forName(driverClass).newInstance(); }
catch (Exception ex) { throw new RuntimeException("problem loading driver"); }
}
can now be this:
public void methodA throws MyException {
try { Driver d = Class.forName(driverClass).newInstance(); }
catch (Exception ex) { throw new RuntimeException("problem loading driver", ex); }
}
Notice the RuntimeException constructor now has the original exception passed to it. It can be retreived higher up the stack, and I believe is printed during a ex.printStackTrace(...). It lets you pass the root cause exception up the stack trace, while preserving the entire state, without having to declare it everywhere.
Good points! Especially your idea of a degree teaching you what you don't know. Understanding from the high-level aspects of programming down to the physical electron flow provides a feeling of at least semi-awareness of the complete scope. [Although I did not learn physics in CS (as my original post would suggest), but in ground school for a college aviation program I was in after CS.]
What are you working on now, if you do not mind me asking?
I see that there are a lot of responses listing various benefits going to school for a real CS degree.
For me, I work with many who have degrees, and many who do not.
I find that the most relevent differences in ability to perform is that a CS grad. will usually be able to look deeper into a problem. For example, knowledge of physics, processor design, assembly, compilers, networking, and higher-level design issues arms a techie with tools that help them make better decisions as they work.
These tools make a BIG difference when it comes to designing systems, but also help when programming/debugging.
IMHO, designing complicated systems requires a lot of skills, and finding those skills in someone who has not made it through a CS degree is quite rare.
I am thinking of adding a listing for Toronto, but I will not have much time to donate to preparations.
But it works fine in IE. On purpose or not, they never cease to amaze me.