You can serialize with YAML, but you can't do markup. It's a good way to database documentation, but not so hot for creating representations of documentation.
Feel free to shoot this with far less discrimination than using a lethal weapon. Got a small demonstration that you think might get out of hand? Shoot everyone now just in case. Oh, people can still die from this? Well, it's safer than firing lethal weapons at them. If a surly mother or overly-concerned consumer buys the farm once in awhile on a picket line, well, maybe they should have stayed at home instead of being out agitating.
Cringley needs to take his prozac and quit writing the morning after eating too much sugar. Linux is forever, free, pervasive, and can sell for free longer than Microsoft can afford to give away dust.
Yes, but many heroin addicts want to keep doing heroin. I don't think whether they "want" to do something is a good measure of determining whether it's good or bad for them. The reason patterns of behavior become patterns is due to the subject actuating the behavior repeatedly. You could argue they've wanted to be that way all along, and people get themselves into some pretty sick situations by repeating behaviors. Incest, serial murder...all committed by people who "want" to do these things and do so frequently and are likely compelled to continue. "Want" isn't a good measurement, because even if they're compelled to do it through conditioning, or can't comprehend their options, they still "want" to do it because it's become a comfortable behavior.
So, I don't think "want" and "compulsion" are separable. I "wanted" to smoke right up until the day I decided to quit. Truth is, though, I felt it had control over me far longer than I wanted it to and I "wanted" to stop smoking many, many years earlier than I did. But the addiction made me "want" to continue. If someone asked me why I still smoked, I would say "because I want to." But that's a lie; my addiction made me "want" to, and until I gained control over it, I kept "wanting" to. When I got control and quit, I looked back and realized I was trapped and I hadn't truly "wanted" to smoke since probably Jr. High when I first got addicted.
Sitting in the house all the time is a pattern of behavior that people perpetuate and claim to "want" to do because they can't connect with a lifestyle humans were truly evolved to live. Modern society, packed cities with nothing but concrete, unrealistic image standards, and so on all conspire to keep people indoors imaging they are something they are not. They're afraid to just go out and enjoy the world because they won't adventure as well as Indiana Jones, or look as pretty as Anne Hathaway. So they sit inside and play games with avatars that are suitably attractive for current standards and slay dragons safely tucked away, growing fatter, sicker...and missing out on most of the REAL adventures life has to offer.
I don't deny them their right to do this, but I don't accept that it's healthy in any way. Staying indoors too much is a symptom of a sickness; a repeating cycle that some people can't break out of to return to a "normal" human mode of living. Some people will bite their nails until they bleed, some will grind their teeth down to the pulp...just because it happens doesn't make the behavior healthy or "normal." It's a sick pattern of behavior that is triggered by something and the person can't see their way out of it and back to a normal life.
The manual is built-into your head. There is a time in everyone's life when they're driven to socialize and explore...but at a later age, modern life sucks them indoors and holds them there. For some people, it's drugs, for others it's computers and T.V.
Wrong. You aren't suppose to search for something your whole life, you're supposed to gather experiences. Do different things. Just experience them. Not go looking for something in particular, indifferent to the experiences as you go until you've found "it." There is no "it." If you think of it as "searching" you still don't get it. You, I think, never will.
One thing is true though. It's your life. Sit on your fat ass and experience yourself constantly if you want. The less asshole outside, the nicer it is out there. Stay indoors. I pity you, but you're free to just sit indoors all you want.
Life is not "out there". Life is a journey. You decide how you wish to travel it. All you have to keep in mind is that you're on this journey right now. Don't waste it chasing the unattainable.
You contradict yourself. Life is a journey, but don't chase anything unattainable? Life is not about attaining things, it's the JOURNEY itself. The act of TRYING to attain something is the most important part. Being out, doing things, doing as much as you can and just DOING is what life is about. Sitting inside a house and pretending to live life through games, T.V., etc., is not living life.
Monks are at least doing something; they're driven towards something better. They may spend much of their time indoors meditating, but they're actually DOING something with purpose and in earnest. Sitting in your house playing games, downloading porn and watching "The Man Show" is not even remotely equivalent.
The ability to pack yourself indoors for days at a time masturbating and playing EverQuest is something civilization has only recently afforded the average person. Previously, you had to be extremely wealthy to do so: royalty, a large land-owner and so on.
Previously, virtually every single human being had no choice but to be outdoors, hunting their food, building houses, tending to their farms, fucking girls, drinking beer and singing songs in the pubs at night and so on.
Note I said FUCKING, not masturbating and wondering what that's like. Being indoors all the time reading about other people's lives or pretending to live a life you do not through video games is NOT a life at all. You're simply living in a petri dish; an experiment that is being conducted by this recent incarnation of civilization. You are going to fiddle around inside pretending to do things, watching other people do things on T.V. and then you're going to die. You will probably be cremated because it feigns to be a form of memorial, except no one has to think about your loser-ass everytime their eyes pass over a tombstone.
The one-liner got modded up because it was true and succinct. You are a loser and if you go back and look at that one-liner really hard, you might get it.
This is, after all, what capitalism claims to be good at: driving innovation. Use the rule of law to guide that innovation to more civic purposes. Be glad the innovation is there at all.
This was the best Slashdot article I've read to date. It's got a pretty young Russian girl riding around on a Ninja motorcycle through uninhabitable nuclear disaster areas taking pictures of everything, including herself. That pretty much does it for me.
I knew how to combine all my games and my computer software into an area approximately the size of my computer case, but brain damage made me forget and I bought another game console.
Switch it to email/IM notification and tell your employers they should get you a pager or cell phone so those notifications can also reach you when you're away from your desk.
Assuming you're right (but I see no references liked, so you could very well be wrong), I would say that they were more popular because EQ was still new. Nevertheless, McQuaid was the primary person responsible for the VAST majority of what people DIDN'T like about the game.
From reading that interview, he really feels that EQ took a wrong turn after he left and he wants Vanguard to be more like the original EQ.
All I can say is: sign up and see for yourself. If that's your idea of fun, you go right ahead. I was SO happy when McQuaid left, and the game has been SO MUCH MORE FUN since he left. If you agree with McQuaid and think EQ's troubles started AFTER he left and weren't the result of his presence in the first place, go sign up for Vanguard when it's released. I'm sure you'll find out soon enough who's right and who's wrong. Me, I was there...I saw the change first-hand...I don't need to subject myself to that torture just to prove a point.
It will be tedious, anal and completely asinine. Just like Everquest was until McQuaid left and they started to actually put some FUN into the game.
Oh yeah McQuaid, Vanguard will be fun for that core gaming community that you originally built Everquest for. The ones who spent months getting level 12 and then losing it to a cyclops in east karanas while taking a quick piss.
You claimed that there exceptions to the clause in the standard that I quoted. If the clause doesn't exist, then where do these exceptions that you're claiming come from?
You honestly don't know you can call delete on a pointer of type base which points to a derived object safely, when neither the base nor derived has destructors? You need the specification to tell you "oh, by the way, you only need to declare your destructors as virtual IF YOU HAVE DESTRUCTORS."
Okay then, I'll let you run around telling people that, then.
Better to ask both types of questions. Reading and understanding other's people's code is just as important a skill as creating original code. This is what the example being debated tests - it simply asks which function gets called.
Just remember, you get what you ask for. Interviewing programmers is like asking an evil genie for a wish. You really shouldn't care about their C/C++ skills except that they have *some*. What you REALLY should care about is how smart they are and how creative they are. A good programmer should be able to start coding in any language in a day, and be damn good at it within a couple months.
Slashdot Mirror
You can serialize with YAML, but you can't do markup. It's a good way to database documentation, but not so hot for creating representations of documentation.
Feel free to shoot this with far less discrimination than using a lethal weapon. Got a small demonstration that you think might get out of hand? Shoot everyone now just in case. Oh, people can still die from this? Well, it's safer than firing lethal weapons at them. If a surly mother or overly-concerned consumer buys the farm once in awhile on a picket line, well, maybe they should have stayed at home instead of being out agitating.
Cringley needs to take his prozac and quit writing the morning after eating too much sugar. Linux is forever, free, pervasive, and can sell for free longer than Microsoft can afford to give away dust.
Clue = for you, Cringley.
Yes, but many heroin addicts want to keep doing heroin. I don't think whether they "want" to do something is a good measure of determining whether it's good or bad for them. The reason patterns of behavior become patterns is due to the subject actuating the behavior repeatedly. You could argue they've wanted to be that way all along, and people get themselves into some pretty sick situations by repeating behaviors. Incest, serial murder...all committed by people who "want" to do these things and do so frequently and are likely compelled to continue. "Want" isn't a good measurement, because even if they're compelled to do it through conditioning, or can't comprehend their options, they still "want" to do it because it's become a comfortable behavior.
So, I don't think "want" and "compulsion" are separable. I "wanted" to smoke right up until the day I decided to quit. Truth is, though, I felt it had control over me far longer than I wanted it to and I "wanted" to stop smoking many, many years earlier than I did. But the addiction made me "want" to continue. If someone asked me why I still smoked, I would say "because I want to." But that's a lie; my addiction made me "want" to, and until I gained control over it, I kept "wanting" to. When I got control and quit, I looked back and realized I was trapped and I hadn't truly "wanted" to smoke since probably Jr. High when I first got addicted.
Sitting in the house all the time is a pattern of behavior that people perpetuate and claim to "want" to do because they can't connect with a lifestyle humans were truly evolved to live. Modern society, packed cities with nothing but concrete, unrealistic image standards, and so on all conspire to keep people indoors imaging they are something they are not. They're afraid to just go out and enjoy the world because they won't adventure as well as Indiana Jones, or look as pretty as Anne Hathaway. So they sit inside and play games with avatars that are suitably attractive for current standards and slay dragons safely tucked away, growing fatter, sicker...and missing out on most of the REAL adventures life has to offer.
It's just sick behavior.
I don't deny them their right to do this, but I don't accept that it's healthy in any way. Staying indoors too much is a symptom of a sickness; a repeating cycle that some people can't break out of to return to a "normal" human mode of living. Some people will bite their nails until they bleed, some will grind their teeth down to the pulp...just because it happens doesn't make the behavior healthy or "normal." It's a sick pattern of behavior that is triggered by something and the person can't see their way out of it and back to a normal life.
The manual is built-into your head. There is a time in everyone's life when they're driven to socialize and explore...but at a later age, modern life sucks them indoors and holds them there. For some people, it's drugs, for others it's computers and T.V.
Wrong. You aren't suppose to search for something your whole life, you're supposed to gather experiences. Do different things. Just experience them. Not go looking for something in particular, indifferent to the experiences as you go until you've found "it." There is no "it." If you think of it as "searching" you still don't get it. You, I think, never will.
One thing is true though. It's your life. Sit on your fat ass and experience yourself constantly if you want. The less asshole outside, the nicer it is out there. Stay indoors. I pity you, but you're free to just sit indoors all you want.
Life is not "out there". Life is a journey. You decide how you wish to travel it. All you have to keep in mind is that you're on this journey right now. Don't waste it chasing the unattainable.
You contradict yourself. Life is a journey, but don't chase anything unattainable? Life is not about attaining things, it's the JOURNEY itself. The act of TRYING to attain something is the most important part. Being out, doing things, doing as much as you can and just DOING is what life is about. Sitting inside a house and pretending to live life through games, T.V., etc., is not living life.
Monks are at least doing something; they're driven towards something better. They may spend much of their time indoors meditating, but they're actually DOING something with purpose and in earnest. Sitting in your house playing games, downloading porn and watching "The Man Show" is not even remotely equivalent.
You are messed up.
The ability to pack yourself indoors for days at a time masturbating and playing EverQuest is something civilization has only recently afforded the average person. Previously, you had to be extremely wealthy to do so: royalty, a large land-owner and so on.
Previously, virtually every single human being had no choice but to be outdoors, hunting their food, building houses, tending to their farms, fucking girls, drinking beer and singing songs in the pubs at night and so on.
Note I said FUCKING, not masturbating and wondering what that's like. Being indoors all the time reading about other people's lives or pretending to live a life you do not through video games is NOT a life at all. You're simply living in a petri dish; an experiment that is being conducted by this recent incarnation of civilization. You are going to fiddle around inside pretending to do things, watching other people do things on T.V. and then you're going to die. You will probably be cremated because it feigns to be a form of memorial, except no one has to think about your loser-ass everytime their eyes pass over a tombstone.
The one-liner got modded up because it was true and succinct. You are a loser and if you go back and look at that one-liner really hard, you might get it.
Life is out there.
Had me for 5 whole seconds! Biatch!
Try some subtlety, people might have fallen for this.
This is, after all, what capitalism claims to be good at: driving innovation. Use the rule of law to guide that innovation to more civic purposes. Be glad the innovation is there at all.
Hehehehehe. Watch the aging tycoon grow slowly more demented.
No, that would be one of YOUR requirements, another of which is your purple buttplug.
This was the best Slashdot article I've read to date. It's got a pretty young Russian girl riding around on a Ninja motorcycle through uninhabitable nuclear disaster areas taking pictures of everything, including herself. That pretty much does it for me.
It's nice to see XP taken to task like this. Nice slap back at all the sophomoric zealots I've had to argue with about it.
I knew how to combine all my games and my computer software into an area approximately the size of my computer case, but brain damage made me forget and I bought another game console.
+1 taking pot shots anonymously because you're afraid of being made to look like a fool. Bukaw!
Switch it to email/IM notification and tell your employers they should get you a pager or cell phone so those notifications can also reach you when you're away from your desk.
Assuming you're right (but I see no references liked, so you could very well be wrong), I would say that they were more popular because EQ was still new. Nevertheless, McQuaid was the primary person responsible for the VAST majority of what people DIDN'T like about the game.
From reading that interview, he really feels that EQ took a wrong turn after he left and he wants Vanguard to be more like the original EQ.
All I can say is: sign up and see for yourself. If that's your idea of fun, you go right ahead. I was SO happy when McQuaid left, and the game has been SO MUCH MORE FUN since he left. If you agree with McQuaid and think EQ's troubles started AFTER he left and weren't the result of his presence in the first place, go sign up for Vanguard when it's released. I'm sure you'll find out soon enough who's right and who's wrong. Me, I was there...I saw the change first-hand...I don't need to subject myself to that torture just to prove a point.
Just out of curiousity, what other 3DOF FPS game titles were available before Descent's release in May of 1995?
It will be tedious, anal and completely asinine. Just like Everquest was until McQuaid left and they started to actually put some FUN into the game.
Oh yeah McQuaid, Vanguard will be fun for that core gaming community that you originally built Everquest for. The ones who spent months getting level 12 and then losing it to a cyclops in east karanas while taking a quick piss.
All 18 of them.
Good luck with that.
That's funny. I don't know C++.
You claimed that there exceptions to the clause in the standard that I quoted. If the clause doesn't exist, then where do these exceptions that you're claiming come from?
You honestly don't know you can call delete on a pointer of type base which points to a derived object safely, when neither the base nor derived has destructors? You need the specification to tell you "oh, by the way, you only need to declare your destructors as virtual IF YOU HAVE DESTRUCTORS."
Okay then, I'll let you run around telling people that, then.
Better to ask both types of questions. Reading and understanding other's people's code is just as important a skill as creating original code. This is what the example being debated tests - it simply asks which function gets called.
Just remember, you get what you ask for. Interviewing programmers is like asking an evil genie for a wish. You really shouldn't care about their C/C++ skills except that they have *some*. What you REALLY should care about is how smart they are and how creative they are. A good programmer should be able to start coding in any language in a day, and be damn good at it within a couple months.