It's a fucking gaming network. People are focused on playing the game, not on your emergency announcement. Unless you have a way to literally stop the game (pissing anyone off that isn't affected by the alert) you're wasting your time sending the message.
I'm sick and tired of these idiotic experiments by business people who don't understand the technology and therefore can't work out how asinine what they're suggesting really is. Then between 6 months and 2 years later, when they do have a few people hooked and relying on their ill advised service, they decide the experiment failed and pulled the plug. Fucking tossers.
You violate the terms of your lease and you are fined. What's your point here?
I'm guessing his point is most people knowingly or unknowingly break numerous laws and rules every day. So long as there are no major violations, this doesn't phase anyone. Start monitoring every little violation and all of a sudden you have a wonderful tool of oppression.
Oh and the people who scream loudest about violating no rules often are the ones that get caught smoking pot while cheating on their wife with a hooker.
If you don't like it (or if you're just too set in your ways), you can tweak it do be Firefox 2-ish by changing some preferences--just Google it. Also, there is the oldbar extension.
The oldbar extension plus hideunvisited, or just old location bar on its own only exist because you CAN'T just change some options and haven't been able to since the official non-beta release of Firefox 3.0. If you could there would be many less complaints but its disgusting that they instead tried to force user behaviour and it took extension developers to work around it. So please stop spreading untruthes.
Jar Jar wasn't hated due to an unrealistic look. He was hated because he talked like a moron and was superfluous to the plot. They thought having one alien (Yoda) that spoke bad English succeed meant they should do it more. The result was that embarasment of a character. Please don't compare him to Jamaicans. They don't compare you to poorly implemented virtual sock puppets with a speech impediment.
Ogg is a container, not a codec. You can put Flac in an Ogg container, just like you can put PCM/AC3, etc in an MPEG2 container. Vorbis is a codec.
In the case of mp3 the extension of the file matches the codec, so people call them mp3s. In the case of ogg/vorbis, the extension is (quite rightly since it is the container) ogg. So people refer to ogg (and not vorbis). In other words mp3 muddled the container with the codec and since mp3 is the most widely used format the convention has stuck.
128bps is certainly not enjoyable for certain classical pieces. By the time you've hit 192, it's fine. At 320kbps I can't tell the difference. If that means I have "tin ears" I'm thankful for them. They save me thousands of dollars in high end equipment and they save me using obscure poorly supported lossless formats and then having to convert to mp3 half the time anyway.
Apart from a new survey of an old topic is there anything new here?
No NASA should respond with "Yes it's real and we need $1 trillion in funding to determine how to stop it" and then spend that on real research.
Yes, because doomsday losers with no comprehension of what real science or reality is tend to be rolling in money.
I'm with GP. Just tell them it's a fucking movie and not to be so naive and get on with your day. If you're worried they don't believe you and are concerned about the potential for a child being murdered due to the dillusion call child services or the police. Then get on with your real work.
The problem is that we don't train people in the fine art of bullshit detection
Yes we do. Ignorant and naive people get taken advantage of on a regular basis. Those with a couple of brain cells to run together learn after a few incidents.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Well even for slow learners Futurama has the answer.
From: http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek When Zoidberg asks Amy to take the rubber bands off his claws (in a somewhat sexy manner), Amy's retort is "Fool me 7 times, shame on you. Fool me 8 or more times, shame on me." This line is a reference to a line in TOS: "Friday's Child".
Taking code and cutting its size by half, fixing up all the screwed-up inconsistent formatting, while adding functionality and reducing bug counts, is a pleasure.
Clearly you've worked only on code that needs a bit of tidy up. Try reading code that hasn't been documented well if at all, and looks like it's been run through a code obfuscator (ie not just poor formatting), then realising that not only is the task the code is suppose to accomplish not documented, but the people who wrote the original code left while you were still in primary school. Oh by the way it's part of a poorly integrated but critical system and if any part doesn't work exactly the way the old part did, you're in trouble because the whole system falls apart.
The trouble is even a gifted coder is likely to miss something, and those that review will have a shallower not deeper understanding so while they MIGHT pick up something important don't hold your breath. Realistically your only hope in many cases is to start fresh with a new analysis and design and replace your critical system big bang style (while trying not to go grey worrying over that approaching day).
It's all in the mindset. It's only boring if you limit yourself to the boring parts.
Most of the time, I'd kill for boring. I don't come to work for excitement.
Yeah its funny but the more someone doesn't agree with my point usually the worse their own code is.
Are you listening to yourself? "If you disagree with me I'm going to assume you're a lousy coder". How am I suppose to argue with that exactly? Submit code to you for a code review? Clearly this is a comment from someone who'd prefer character assassination of someone they'd never met to actually refuting or counter-arguing.
I guess yours must be pretty bad, not that you would ever see it yourself.
Your argument style is the height of irrationality, and it's pretty clear you have zero inter-personal skills. With such a poor command of logic as you've demonstrated with that, I'm not convinced I'd want to use anything you wrote either, but at least I'd have the common courtesy of LOOKING at and evaluating your damn code before making such a rude obnoxious comment.
FYI I have had some fantastic feedback on my code, and I make a pretty decent living at it. So what do you think I'm going to care about? The ramblings of a stranger who's never seen my code here on slashdot or my performance review and pay cheque.
It would have been much more concise if you'd just said I had cooties.
So here's an example of a comment that does an excellent (I assume) job of explaining why the code is doing what it's doing, yet the whole thing is so complicated that Ritchie even needed to acknowledge that the comment probably wasn't going to be of much help either with an amusing, and now somewhat famous, statement.
Sorry but that is just a piss poor comment and there is no excuse for glorifying it. If it's that complex, he needs to refer back to a particular section of a particular version of a design document. If there is no design document one needs to be written. There are times when what you're doing is so complex that the only sane option is to refer to more extensive documentation rather than try to explain it inline. That is not an excuse for a supposedly witty cryptic comment.
From 30 years of developing software, I've found time and time again that it actually does seem that people who don't know or care about the difference between "their" and "they're" are also too sloppy, unintelligent or just not anal enough to write clean, supportable and robust code.
Oh what horse shit. There are plenty of good coders that know to focus their efforts on conveying the meaning in their comments without worrying about. People get anal about the wrong things. For example I've seen SVN and Checkstyle filters that prevent checkin of code if any comment has a first line that does not end in a full stop. That is fucking ridiculous and a misdirection of effort and abuse of the tools as far as I'm concerned.
I only have 15 or so years in software, but I feel it's enough to make this comment.
And while you're spending your time figuring out why something that isn't broken works, he is coding something that you aren't coding at all. Sure, coding until it passes isn't the ideal, but it's a whole lot better than not coding at all (you).
The problem is that if you don't know why something works, you don't know that it does work for all cases. There are always consequences to the code failing - anything from an irritation to the user, to large financial loses or loss of life. It all depends on whether you want quality and a product that works, or something cobbled together out of spit and duct tape.
I wish it were a fad. Agile means rewrite
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 1
I hate fads but this new agile nonsense isn't your regular fad. It's much much worse. I've seen "agile" used as an excuse to deliver a substantially changed final spec well into the final stages of development, then wonder why the product, which started off as one thing has been so completely MANGLED to become that other thing, performs poorly and is buggy. It's like starting off with a spec for a bridge then in the months where the bridge is almost complete despite incomplete documentation asking for that bridge to now become an ocean liner.
Furthermore all of the tools that do work - unit testing, continuous integration, thorough peer review, can all be used with other methodologies without being mangled by the mentality that is agile.
Having a defect in a device I've bought has been extremely rare, buying anything from toasters to TV sets to video cards that just don't work is unheard of. Don't talk to me about the "complexity" of writing software, you think you car is simple?
People don't seem to have any clue that it might be possible to legislate that we must compensate an artist for using their work WITHOUT legislating that we are not permitted to copy or modify it. Compensation is a completely separate issue from control. It's just that people are so use to the two being tied together that they lack an imagination of a world where an artist is indeed paid but loses control over the work. At it's simplest, instead of suing over copyright, the artists should simply be allowed to sue to be compensated. That's a hell of a lot more natural than the current law.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a fucking gaming network. People are focused on playing the game, not on your emergency announcement. Unless you have a way to literally stop the game (pissing anyone off that isn't affected by the alert) you're wasting your time sending the message.
I'm sick and tired of these idiotic experiments by business people who don't understand the technology and therefore can't work out how asinine what they're suggesting really is. Then between 6 months and 2 years later, when they do have a few people hooked and relying on their ill advised service, they decide the experiment failed and pulled the plug. Fucking tossers.
The phrase 'core dump' springs to mind.
In my uni days we use to say "Excuse me, gotta dump core" when we wanted to go to the bathroom.
Maybe you want to start a private social network, geared to one specific group of people.
There's always Ning or Flux... but maybe you want something really custom.
I've got it! We can call it "Flux You Ning Twit Face Tube Book". I'm going to be rich I tells ya!
Imagine if instead of one world wide web we had such fragmentation.
You violate the terms of your lease and you are fined. What's your point here?
I'm guessing his point is most people knowingly or unknowingly break numerous laws and rules every day. So long as there are no major violations, this doesn't phase anyone. Start monitoring every little violation and all of a sudden you have a wonderful tool of oppression.
Oh and the people who scream loudest about violating no rules often are the ones that get caught smoking pot while cheating on their wife with a hooker.
The "who cares about windows users" keeps getting stronger.
What else do the evil voices tell you to do?
If you don't like it (or if you're just too set in your ways), you can tweak it do be Firefox 2-ish by changing some preferences--just Google it. Also, there is the oldbar extension.
The oldbar extension plus hideunvisited, or just old location bar on its own only exist because you CAN'T just change some options and haven't been able to since the official non-beta release of Firefox 3.0. If you could there would be many less complaints but its disgusting that they instead tried to force user behaviour and it took extension developers to work around it. So please stop spreading untruthes.
There's no need for something like awesomebar to be core, is there?
It makes it easier to shove the change down the user's throat.
Jar Jar wasn't hated due to an unrealistic look. He was hated because he talked like a moron and was superfluous to the plot. They thought having one alien (Yoda) that spoke bad English succeed meant they should do it more. The result was that embarasment of a character. Please don't compare him to Jamaicans. They don't compare you to poorly implemented virtual sock puppets with a speech impediment.
You didn't cry during Wall-E? I mean, didn't either, it was just I hadn't dusted the room in a while and it was irritating my eyes.
I cried. I wanted my money back.
Ogg is a container, not a codec. You can put Flac in an Ogg container, just like you can put PCM/AC3, etc in an MPEG2 container. Vorbis is a codec.
In the case of mp3 the extension of the file matches the codec, so people call them mp3s. In the case of ogg/vorbis, the extension is (quite rightly since it is the container) ogg. So people refer to ogg (and not vorbis). In other words mp3 muddled the container with the codec and since mp3 is the most widely used format the convention has stuck.
128bps is certainly not enjoyable for certain classical pieces. By the time you've hit 192, it's fine. At 320kbps I can't tell the difference. If that means I have "tin ears" I'm thankful for them. They save me thousands of dollars in high end equipment and they save me using obscure poorly supported lossless formats and then having to convert to mp3 half the time anyway.
Apart from a new survey of an old topic is there anything new here?
Ok, I see the obligatory "sharks" tag, but what about the "pewpewpew" tag?
Why? Because the story stinks? Peeewwwwwwww!
No NASA should respond with "Yes it's real and we need $1 trillion in funding to determine how to stop it" and then spend that on real research.
Yes, because doomsday losers with no comprehension of what real science or reality is tend to be rolling in money.
I'm with GP. Just tell them it's a fucking movie and not to be so naive and get on with your day. If you're worried they don't believe you and are concerned about the potential for a child being murdered due to the dillusion call child services or the police. Then get on with your real work.
The problem is that we don't train people in the fine art of bullshit detection
Yes we do. Ignorant and naive people get taken advantage of on a regular basis. Those with a couple of brain cells to run together learn after a few incidents.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Well even for slow learners Futurama has the answer.
From:
http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek
When Zoidberg asks Amy to take the rubber bands off his claws (in a somewhat sexy manner), Amy's retort is "Fool me 7 times, shame on you. Fool me 8 or more times, shame on me." This line is a reference to a line in TOS: "Friday's Child".
Taking code and cutting its size by half, fixing up all the screwed-up inconsistent formatting, while adding functionality and reducing bug counts, is a pleasure.
Clearly you've worked only on code that needs a bit of tidy up. Try reading code that hasn't been documented well if at all, and looks like it's been run through a code obfuscator (ie not just poor formatting), then realising that not only is the task the code is suppose to accomplish not documented, but the people who wrote the original code left while you were still in primary school. Oh by the way it's part of a poorly integrated but critical system and if any part doesn't work exactly the way the old part did, you're in trouble because the whole system falls apart.
The trouble is even a gifted coder is likely to miss something, and those that review will have a shallower not deeper understanding so while they MIGHT pick up something important don't hold your breath. Realistically your only hope in many cases is to start fresh with a new analysis and design and replace your critical system big bang style (while trying not to go grey worrying over that approaching day).
It's all in the mindset. It's only boring if you limit yourself to the boring parts.
Most of the time, I'd kill for boring. I don't come to work for excitement.
Talk in bold. Reality in plain.
I am a big believer in technology
American IT workers laid off, jobs outsourced.
and I'm a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information.
DMCA
I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes
Renegs on promise to release Gitmo pictures
because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable.
Continue to occupy Iraq
They can begin to think for themselves.
Decimate the education system
Yeah its funny but the more someone doesn't agree with my point usually the worse their own code is.
Are you listening to yourself? "If you disagree with me I'm going to assume you're a lousy coder". How am I suppose to argue with that exactly? Submit code to you for a code review? Clearly this is a comment from someone who'd prefer character assassination of someone they'd never met to actually refuting or counter-arguing.
I guess yours must be pretty bad, not that you would ever see it yourself.
Your argument style is the height of irrationality, and it's pretty clear you have zero inter-personal skills. With such a poor command of logic as you've demonstrated with that, I'm not convinced I'd want to use anything you wrote either, but at least I'd have the common courtesy of LOOKING at and evaluating your damn code before making such a rude obnoxious comment.
FYI I have had some fantastic feedback on my code, and I make a pretty decent living at it. So what do you think I'm going to care about? The ramblings of a stranger who's never seen my code here on slashdot or my performance review and pay cheque.
It would have been much more concise if you'd just said I had cooties.
I hope I never work with or have to deal with code from whoever thought that was flamebait.
I take it THIS is a machine that might run Vista well. Too late SP3 aka Windows 7 is out.
So here's an example of a comment that does an excellent (I assume) job of explaining why the code is doing what it's doing, yet the whole thing is so complicated that Ritchie even needed to acknowledge that the comment probably wasn't going to be of much help either with an amusing, and now somewhat famous, statement.
Sorry but that is just a piss poor comment and there is no excuse for glorifying it. If it's that complex, he needs to refer back to a particular section of a particular version of a design document. If there is no design document one needs to be written. There are times when what you're doing is so complex that the only sane option is to refer to more extensive documentation rather than try to explain it inline. That is not an excuse for a supposedly witty cryptic comment.
From 30 years of developing software, I've found time and time again that it actually does seem that people who don't know or care about the difference between "their" and "they're" are also too sloppy, unintelligent or just not anal enough to write clean, supportable and robust code.
Oh what horse shit. There are plenty of good coders that know to focus their efforts on conveying the meaning in their comments without worrying about. People get anal about the wrong things. For example I've seen SVN and Checkstyle filters that prevent checkin of code if any comment has a first line that does not end in a full stop. That is fucking ridiculous and a misdirection of effort and abuse of the tools as far as I'm concerned.
I only have 15 or so years in software, but I feel it's enough to make this comment.
And while you're spending your time figuring out why something that isn't broken works, he is coding something that you aren't coding at all. Sure, coding until it passes isn't the ideal, but it's a whole lot better than not coding at all (you).
The problem is that if you don't know why something works, you don't know that it does work for all cases. There are always consequences to the code failing - anything from an irritation to the user, to large financial loses or loss of life. It all depends on whether you want quality and a product that works, or something cobbled together out of spit and duct tape.
I hate fads but this new agile nonsense isn't your regular fad. It's much much worse. I've seen "agile" used as an excuse to deliver a substantially changed final spec well into the final stages of development, then wonder why the product, which started off as one thing has been so completely MANGLED to become that other thing, performs poorly and is buggy. It's like starting off with a spec for a bridge then in the months where the bridge is almost complete despite incomplete documentation asking for that bridge to now become an ocean liner.
Furthermore all of the tools that do work - unit testing, continuous integration, thorough peer review, can all be used with other methodologies without being mangled by the mentality that is agile.
Having a defect in a device I've bought has been extremely rare, buying anything from toasters to TV sets to video cards that just don't work is unheard of. Don't talk to me about the "complexity" of writing software, you think you car is simple?
I guess you've never heard of factory recalls?
Video cards
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&q=video+card+factory+recalls&meta=&aq=&oq=&fp=401997eedf2eee64
Toasters
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&q=toaster+factory+recalls&meta=&aq=f&oq=&fp=401997eedf2eee64
Televisions
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&q=television+factory+recalls&meta=&aq=&oq=&fp=401997eedf2eee64
Cars
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&q=car+factory+recalls&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=1&oq=car+factory+re&fp=401997eedf2eee64
Like a lot of comments made here, yours may sound fair and good, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
People don't seem to have any clue that it might be possible to legislate that we must compensate an artist for using their work WITHOUT legislating that we are not permitted to copy or modify it. Compensation is a completely separate issue from control. It's just that people are so use to the two being tied together that they lack an imagination of a world where an artist is indeed paid but loses control over the work. At it's simplest, instead of suing over copyright, the artists should simply be allowed to sue to be compensated. That's a hell of a lot more natural than the current law.