And I won't limit this to just users: programmers often fall into this trap as well when talking about other people's software. If you haven't worked on the code base in question yourself, you are not qualified to judge the work required to implement and support an additional option. That's really all there is to it. hehe, well, you talk to the converted. I am the technical director and one of the main programmer of a gaming company, we have to do skus for many platforms at the same time, for different providers, and so on. So I do understand what it implicates.
I am also very aware of the "Apple way", where you only put a subset of what you could possibly want, making most people wishing for a little bit more, but then everything else is pristine. Adding more options is not always the best choice.
Then, what you are telling me is basically (using inclusive "your", not attacking you, simply referring to the same hypothetical example you just gave) your code has become unmanageable, and adding a trivial function would mean potentially breaking many other things all around it.
As far as testing goes, effectively, it requires more testing. Then what the clients are asking in our case is to REVERT to what you had before, hence that old part of the code is mostly tested, and, incredibly, it's the NEW code that requires more testing, as could be seen in the multiple screenshots, multiple caveats, multiple rants on that feature. If having both, or reverting to the old behavior is causing problems, then, there is a very good chance that whole section of code needs a good old refactoring.
If you cannot look at your code and tell it needs refactoring, maybe you got what people refer to as a "God Syndrome".
Strange, I did a "hitler" and "nazi" search, both returned nothing.
For people who are wondering if the "checkbox" option was discussed, message #17 out of 185 says that:
> I could find I am sorry, but saying something like "I don't use it like that, so I don't care if > you're having problems" is exactly the kind of attitude which makes users of your software take > to their heels. > > It is such a small change to add the ability to resize this box; it doesn't hurt anyone, and > obviously many people would like to have it. > > I understand if you're feeling pissed off if you just implemented a new feature and nobody seems to > like it, but such is life.
Old deserts like Namibia are evil, very evil. At that point, it's not sand, it's dust. If you ever tried to take a picture with a camera there, you probably know the evilness of these places. A small jolt of sand in these, and you can kiss your precious camera goodbye. Same for laptops, times 10.
Personally, I would go with semi ruggerized / fully ruggerized, like some old ToughBook. Look them up in EBay, you can get them for maybe $500. They look so bulky no one will want to steal that. The other possibility is to keep any laptop in some airtight compartment, and only open that compartment behind closed doors, which is not a bad idea anyways.
Simply put, a laptop bag, two garbage bags and some loose tape works wonders, and will allow you to keep your precious laptop safe. For high altitude, look up for a fully ruggerized ToughBook, or switch your hard drive.
1- Yes, I am definitely proud of my code. I have my style, and I'm proud of it. Personally, I tend to code in a "vertical" way, where I will dig a precise topic until no question is unresolved, and where my solution will be the best for many problems that might arisen. My code seldom need rework to do different tasks, and it's quite stable, to the expense of a horrendous amount of time taking to ponder and code. My good friend programmer who works with me is a "horizontal" programmer, he will take all facets of a software in its entirety and will do what is required to make the software work, however, he seldom thinks of all the implications, and his code will frequently need rework, but he can achieve a whole projects in matter of minutes. I know of two other types, one is the bull-programmer, you aim him to some goal, and he will do a straight-run to the goal; do not ever ever think of changing his aim from that point, it's your problem if your aim was not good. Finally, there is the back-bencher, the one who will do what he's comfortable working with, at a precise pace with a precise result, but only working with something he already knows.
Note: these are made-up names, used in my company
As you might understand, each coding style has its own advantage and disadvantage, and there is no real answer on what and how to do something. My kind of programming does not bode well with coding competitions, as I overthink stuff, and frankly, I don't mind, as it's not required for my job anyways. I constantly look at ways to better my code, to understand better algorithms, to add to my personal toolbox. I read a lot on coding, I explore open source projects, I look at what I like and what I hate. I use coding standards.
2- Cowboy practices from companies are not compulsory, but sometimes, they exist. You want to achieve goals at precise times, then, work from there. You might wander around at every version but try not to change in between versions. Even if every week and version, you do a 180 degrees, at least, you have a product that is more and more refined. More changes means more brittle code, that's the drawback, but that's the way it works. Eventually you need to ask for a few days to clean up everything. That's life.
3- Clients are the king. You can convince them their changes are not for the best, but it's all through dialogue. If they are paying and if they want changes, you got no choice but to abide, or look for another contract or another job if you're tired of that.
I have a Wii, I played it some, there are _SOME_ good games, but the production has only started ramping up on the Wii, as most major studios got caught red-handed with a 10-million-console market and no products to offer. So I think it will become more and more interesting, as the months will go back. DS, well, it's there to stay. PSP, we'll see.
Correcting you, a full-featured 360 costs MORE than the PS3 (Like $200 more), for all the same features.
As far as the way I see it, both consoles have to better themselves. - 360 is more expensive than PS3 with HD and Wireless. When there will be a all-in-one, I will consider - 360 is very fragile. At least half the 360 I know got sent to repairs, which is a total shame. - 360 had a headstart, but it doesn't mean it will stay that way. HD-DVD might get to the dump bin too. - PS3 doesn't have games for it. Actually, there are 2 games I find interesting, when it will become 3-4, I will consider - PS3 uses Blu-Ray and no one is certain about that format either.
Finally, I don't have a HD screen (well, my laptop has), so buying these consoles is a total exercise in futility for me.
If it became such a problem, I am sure a Xbox 360 patch would be along the way to play this game over the HD DVD. Granted, it would not be for ALL 360s, but it would still work. Also, they could make it a DVD-game with a HD-DVD "movie" extra, optional, for 720p and up native movie contents. That would allow all people to get it, while making sure the freaks with giant HD sets and Elite 360s would get their eye candy.
Finally, they could simply make a better use of the compression, and extend it to make sure everything works perfectly well. I still stand on my ground.
(Note: all this IMHO, I am not an expert) I have a gaming company, I'm at my second successful startup. Frankly, one cannot do anything against patents. It's more or less like russian roulette, you get the bullet one chance in six (true specs for a 6-shot pistol, not in reality;) ) to bite the bullet.
That said, most tools, I get from open source. I carefully read the licenses and respect them precisely. GPL is good for tools, as long as it's not on the end-user computer. LGPL has the same limitation. ZLib license is great, as well as most MITs. All in all, read your licenses. And yes, you have to purchase fonts;)
On what you are trying to innovate upon, I suggest you take a good hour to look up google, and patents databases, and try to see if you can do it or not. If you can get a legal guy to do it and give him/her a grand, that's your choice and it's a valid one. However, even Microsoft and Apple are permeable to patent lawsuits, so it shows it's really ludicrous to think you can be 100% safe. Thing to do is be "good-enough" safe.
I took a good week total in past 3 years to look up patents, licenses, read legalese. Not that bad and I feel safe. I paid twice for very precise things too.
Seriously, these articles, as most in Math category, are totally undecipherable to most normal users. TG there is a Wikipedia somewhere, sometimes they are closer to layman.
It depends if it's worth it or not. It also depends on your equipment.
Look at the specifications of your cartridge, if it's 20Hz-50KHz for example, double that to be conservative. Remember analog is discrete, 50KHz means you can get a pure 49.999KHz sound. Digital is quantized, 50KHz would mean you can get a pure 50KHz, then a pure 25KHz, pure 16.67KHz, and so on. To get a proper recording, and get proper quantization, 2x or 4x the maximum is adequate, I would go to 96KHz. Or if you have the equipment, try 192KHz.
End result would be 16 bits probably, so if you record everything at -6db and have equipment that do true 24 bits (like Motu Traveler, again, look at specs and graphs to know if your equipment is true to what it advertises in your recording software), once you will normalize or limit the volume to full range, it will give 20-22 bits of true bits, hence reducing at 16 bits will only give you quality, not approximations. But that's later.
Then, post-process. Add your filters (again: less is better, no filters if not required, or else it sounds electronic and that's the worst thing you want to do). And finally, convert in the end-result (44KHz/16bits for CD, 48KHz/24bits for computer-based, 96KHz/24bits for DVD, 192KHz/24bits for DVD-audio if you got it), using the best dithering (not the strongest, the best) and even slight noise shaping, algorithm that's almost done for vinyls.
As far as records go, 80's and early 90's digital is the worse. Some 50KHz (no not 44 or 48, I mean the original 50KHz equipment) were decent, but most had no dithering, and very bad end-result quality, a lot of high frequency ringing and harshness. I would take less quality to these. 44KHz would be enough for these, no matter. Analogic records, I'd go to 96KHz for personal use, and for true archiving I'd go at 192KHz 32bits float, but that's for pro job and for that, there'd be a tape instead of record. Pre-50's, I'd revert to 96KHz. 78RPMs, I'd revert to 44KHz.
Some of my friends haven't understood that. I go to their homes, listen to a mixed tracks CD and the volume is all out of the place. Also what I hate about normalization is a single event near clipping (like a badly ripped CD - see my previous rant in parent) will make ONE track sound very thin and everything else horribly loud.
Anyways, like I said, one can have fun with volume AFTER they have safely secured their original version on a DVD.
I will go with the flow and say Flac is the most used open source format for lossless. However I will digress from the flow and say most MP3 players don't support Flac. Since the widely used iPod is really here to stay, I have to say Apple Lossless is a good solution. No the compression is not as good, but it's more convenient, like it or not. And the compression not being as good doesn't mean there's a difference in output quality, it's lossless or it's not?:) So the super file format for losslessness should be on what is convenient to you, not what takes more or less room. If your players support lossless in Flac, then go ahead. Just pick what you want.
After having ripped most of my collection in Lossless, I however can safely say one grow tired of it. Some materials, you want in lossless, but I do not think it's practical to have everything in lossless. I got a lot of ripped CDs and a lot of ripped vinyls. I start by doing them in lossless, I archive them 10-15 CDs in one DVD in lossless (no not in the best Flac compression, something that compresses quickly please, as long as it's smaller than raw), then I switch the heck out to some other format (Mp4 vbr 128+) for me, Ogg if you want to go other ways, again what suits your particular players)
To rip CDs, please no normalization. Please. No volume change whatsoever, no "post-processing" of any sorts. Once you convert from lossless to your other format, you can then decide to apply some or not, at your leisure. But I see little point in using lossless format to change the volume of your tracks. And please use some software that correctly checks your rip. Exact Audio Copy for Windows is a good choice, and say you are not afraid of waiting. If there were errors, clean up your CD then try again. If your CD doesn't support basic functionality to properly rip with your software, consider buying a new CD player that supports everything. The worst thing I couldn't hate more are clicks and ticks (or worse, garbage fits).
For Vinyls, I clean up the vinyl as best as I can with demineralized water and cotton cloth, then I record it at its proper speed (or else you will not get the same frequency response) at -6db peak volume, make it go through a de-popper (very lightly, more you remove, worst it sounds), make it go through a de-noise algorithm (using the ending groove for my 500ms sample of noise, as it's usually quite clean, again very lightly, like a -3db reduction, or else it makes everything sounds electronic), I remove the DC (there's one with your equipment unless it's gigantically pro), remove 50Hz frequencies at -6db (depending on the frequency response of your cartridge and equipment, my Grado limits at 50Hz) and maximize the volume with a different volume for every side of the vinyl (as every side is engraved differently at usually different volumes), just enough to get some limiting on maximum a peak per 2 minutes.
I guess that basically covers my processes and what I would do (and don't do) for a collection.
Alas there are no real good way to keep things secure in source code. But there are a few good ways to keep things afloat anyways:
Q. Your coders are not to be trusted A. Put a file containing a security token (using the generic term token here, depending on what you use - certificate, or others). Open the file, read the token, send it to your server A2. Use SSL tunneling, using aforementioned certificate, add another file for server details A3. Create a "mirror database" with all important information replaced with random equivalents, send a new security token file for your coders using that mock-up database.
Q. Your clients are not to be trusted A. Have fun with the password. A good Xor is usually enough for it not to be recognized by the user if he opens the executable. A2. If your code can be hacked, you got more problems than that. Add up a anti-hacking protection to your software. Then make nontrivial encryption with your password, beware that your cleverness in your code might not show up as clever in assembly and might be very easy to understand inside the assembly code, especially with modern optimizing compilers and linkers. A3. If you use 3rd party external tools to access your database (dynamically linked libraries, like DLL in Windoze), game over. Don't. This can be sniffed. If your database is in another computer and your SSL code is outside your code, don't. Again, game over. Everything must be embedded inside your own executable, and you must protect your executable.
As you can see, the "good" answer is nontrivial in both case, and it must be noted that no matter what you will do, someone with nothing else to do and big to gain (if only for the challenge) _WILL_ get access to your database. That's not the way to go if you want my opinion. Trust is the way to go, and if they can open up the database, well good for them. If you are DoD or some whiznut organization that needs to keep its eggs secure to no avail, if you don't trust your operatives, if you don't trust anyone, well, create a portal application that makes allowance and disallowance possible, then create a protocol to access that portal application that is heaviliy encrypted, then give out (at least) a 2-way encoding system using a hardware key (potentially obfuscated) and a nontrivial password, hashed with a inner application key that contains the version of the software, and the specific build in it, and create a encrypted tunnel using these values. Even then, someone with enough means will be able the get through.
Remember, once you get all the pieces of the puzzle, you get all the pieces of the puzzle. End of transmission.
To end up as a rant, RTFM, Applied Cryptography is there as your friend. Especially the first few chapters explaining what can be done and not done.
Hmm, I don't want to sound any less stupid than I really am, but other than people using some signature on their Usenet mails, anyone can really make themselves appear to be anyone else on Usenet don't they? I've known these kinds in *cough* less respectable places, where they would get annoyed by the group, then suddenly prove they got no life and spam the heck out of the place with semi-plausible stuff, named against the member that pissed them off or simply ripping out the place.
Not making an apology, just saying it's a possibility. Then I haven't followed the drama there, so can't tell. I find his articles well written, with an obvious agenda, and repeatingly hitting the nail until we're tired of hearing about that point of view in long rants on nearly the same topic. Interesting point of view. I just wonder what that guy does because he surely got a lot of spare time since... well... forever;)
I'm guessing the reason it's off by default is performance reasons at the time Windows XP first came out. I have yet to find the first person that do NOT like ClearType once it's been turned on for a day, except for perhaps a few people with really crappy CRTs.
ClearType is ONLY for LCDs, not for CRTs. It actually assumes pixels in the order of "r,g,b,r,g,b,..." on the screen, and will light up the "b" a little bit, or close up the "r" a little bit to make as if the pixels are there. CRTs put the colored pixels at the same place, so it's not the same thing. That said, it will work a little bit under CRTs because it will tend to anti-alias the fonts, but that's a side-effect, and it will not be as beautiful, far from it. That's why you got the "Standard" anti-aliasing feature inside that particular menu too, for CRTs.
The configuration thing you're talking about isn't "configuration", it's minor tweaking. It works great with default settings in most of the cases. As for the convenience of tweaking it, googling for "cleartype" yields the ActiveX ClearType tuner on first hit. If they hadn't offered it as a seperate download, your argument would have been that it's ActiveX-only.
It's configuration enough that when I activated ClearType on my computer, the first thing I wanted to do was to disable it. The text became very heavy and characters started overlapping themselves. Instead of putting it to the "normal" setting, I put it to nearly the last one, the one just before deactivating the feature. Otherwise, I had trouble reading the text inside the Start menu. Now it's okay. It's also configuration enough that some (albeit very rare, and even MS acknowledges it) use a non-standard BGR screen configuration (mounted the screen upside down? ^_^) and would totally ruin the sub-pixel effect they are trying to achieve.
I also googled it and on first trial, I had NOT that page (My Google is French by default so it shows French pages first... and it's NOT the cleartype configuration thingie). Besides, it should've been put on the system by default. If I look at the Mac version, you got the "CRT/main screen" setting by default, and you got ClearType light to heavy directly in the box. You drag and drop and you can choose. Easy, efficient, why bother with putting things on an obscure web page?
If your GTK apps can't handle it, perhaps you should blame GTK.
I do:) But if it's THAT mainstream, I guess they would've picked that up beforehand no? Since no one knows about that feature unless you know where to activate it and it's far inside that display control panel in "advanced" and everything, well what do you expect from Joe Schmuck? To know all about it and activate it firsthand? oooh. I'm the only bastard that knows about it anywhere in my friends and family, until I showed them love.
God, and you wonder why people don't take "you guys" seriously? People like this, that's why!
Oooh, under the belt! Good one!:) Just stating an opinion, that's it, if you want to make it personal and not answer to the text, I'll say this: "oooh here we have a M$ fanboi trying to make people believe it's the best thing since coffee and cream. Astroturfing?". Lol please dont take this under the belt and keep up with grounded opinions.
Yeah... I guess I'm not an evangelist for Microsoft then;)
ClearType. It's so good MOST PEOPLE have it closed. It's closed by default, and it causes a %/$"%(load of problems with most software (Gaim and other GTKs for example has problems with that, I can't even see the "i" when I type a sentence). That said, I opened it, and found the way to get it configured (oh great, you actually need to go to a M$ website, and either download a powertoy or a IE ActiveX, talk about conviviality), and now am a happy user of it. But I had to lose a great hour trying to find the way to get things done. So I guess it helps EVERYONE.
Geez, if that's the best example he could harvest, Microsoft is in deep trouble!
I try all the good softwares... multiple times... until they either find nothing, or enter in a totally endless loop... or (like I wrote a few replys before) I abandon after a few hours.
Mostly, it depends on the usage.
In a company, with properly cared computers and correctly controlled environment... not a horrible control, only a minimal one, like telling people illegal things means losing their jobs, and non-job-related stuff are to be kept to a relative minimum (and no real enforcing of these), with a good anti-virus in a few steps, and a good spyware, firewall that protects, and proper security enforced domains... and please no direct computer sharing and full-access C$.;)... well on these environments, taking the time to reinstall would be longer, so you can take more time, and determine what's wrong with the computer, looking for spyware sites, google search "remove thevirusname", and so on. Usually, you will get proper information to properly clean the computers.
Also, if you have that opportunity, get all the software onto a unclosed CD, and move things from another computer to that new one using that CD, with the blue wire unplugged. Tremendously helps to kill new spawns. Unclosed because you will have to add up tools to remove specific nasty strands.
That's my trick.
But with 2 teenagers, at least 2 sharing software (and not the relatively safe torrents), "cursors", toolbars, "Chat add-ons" and weird software you don't know are coming from where... and strange network drivers... well... I'd say to reformat, reinstall what they should've had, and a proper explaination on what they did wrong is the best bet you have.
My uncle's computer had a meager 128 megabytes of RAM, running XP, with two teenagers using it.
It was a mess a real mess.
5 minutes starting XP, 2 minutes seeing the window of Internet Explorer appear. 10-15 minutes to be able to download Spybot and AVG. 3 hours running spybot (you read me right).
The hard drive stayed constantly ON during all that time. Then I said Screw That, and I reinstalled.
My conclusions after 3 hours:
- The first and biggest threat all the newbie users have on their computer are OUTDATED norton utilities giveaways they got with their machine. They THINK they are protected, but they closed the "renew" window so often they forgot it's there. Either the software is FREE AND CONTINUOUS, or it's not there, capiche? Avg is excellent, there are many other free ones too... just find one and be happy. Not something that's NOT free. - The second biggest threat are Norton Security centers, again outdated, again with useless popups. Again with people finding it nagging and deactivating it, making certain not only the Windows Firewall is properly deactivated by Norton's presence, but that their system is totally uselessly unprotected. Very great, coming from a security company. Again, there are many FREE (beer) softwares that do spyware detection and stuff, and Windows Firewall, in all its eloquence, is still better than a kick in the butt, at least compared to the useless deactivated softwares I found.
Not that I hate norton, that is... just that they are the culprits for at least 2 computers I cleaned so far.
Then, even if you got years of pro experience in computers, people trust only one person, and if it's not you, you're d00med. I have been explaining to them their meager 128 megs of memory was not enough.... to no avail, they wanted to change computers, almost bought a new one, then another member of my family told them the exact same thing I did, now they have 512 megs and it's screaming. "told you so" was the only answer I could say. Oh well.
Well, not only making money, but they are a public entity, and as such, they have the OBLIGATION for their shareholders to make money and grow. They have the opportunity, they will knock at all doors to make money. Even if they lose some in the process, the shareholders prefer a company that tries many things than one that will simply fade into oblivion because they couldn't diversify.
Examples, Sco, that got good share prices long after the trial started... and Word Perfect, that never diversified, and acted like the bully Microsoft now is, only reading its own file format, only working for their own sytstem, without ability to share anything with anyone else. When they woke up, it was too late.
M$ is trying not to have that happening. Even if Windows were to anihilate and Vista sell 5 copies worldwide, they could still focus on other things to do.
Including the discovery of the "oh so new" page for Environment. Strange that I used to visit that page back then... and a very quick inquiry revealed the result:
Flamebait are very quick to happen in Slashdot, ppl should relax a little.
- I agree for Creative products. They are getting trumped all the time, and basically M-Audio is much better bang at the same buck. Although I cannot say if Creative's products are *cough* misleading anymore, they used to sell 96KHz 24bits products that barely was able to recognize 14-15 bits of stuff with deceiving frequencies. - The message was not about microphones. If he's doing radio, he only needs to invest in decent cables with a variety of connectors. A console will be his friend anyways. - I am a "loser" that tells that you need to have a Mac:) Although I've had good luck with PC products in pro audio, I've had it usually with dedicated machines, where only the proper software was installed. Otherwise, inevitably, I got problems with latency, underruns, and so on. The main advantage of Mac is it's much less prone to acting weird on you. Main problem with Macs is NOT the price (very competitive since Mac OS X machines era IMHO) but you do not have low-end products. It's mostly either pro or it's non-existent. - Headphones... word... I got 2 pairs, one open and one closed (both Sennheisers, mid-end) and one is very useful to listen at home instead of having good speakers... and the other one is very useful in studios. - Motu is good in general, like written elsewhere. I got a Motu Traveler for my main recording and it's a hell of a machine. Very good sound quality (the most neutral one in many tests), does not require external power, offers plenty of ins and outs to record at least your sub outs, very versatile everywhere. The only grudge I got is (like again written elsewhere) when I plug it on my PC, every software wants to change its playback frequency... The other side of the medal is if you are not making it change the playback frequency, the software will output at the speed it wants, and Windows will box-interpolate its way to make it at the required frequency, achieving a very good kill of any remnants of sound quality. Again saying PCs are good when you dedicate your tasks in them. - OSS and OSS/OSes... well... there aren't many choices, alas. Anyone found good gear, drivers and pro software that works in Bsd/Linux ? I am genuinely curious here, as it might be a very good alternative computer.
Okay, I might be a compression freak, but then, we got nearly 2 DVD (SL) full of animations and graphics, uncompressed... and I have to fit that onto a 10-megabytes downloadable, along with the software, music and so on. (Oh yes, and you don't even need to install the software, and there are no "loading" screens either).
It can be done... and graphics are optimized for 1600x1200 too (approximately HD contents, but for PCs) so too bad for the lazyness of the software engineers and their lousy gaming engines that are not meant for "reality".
Sorry, that does a wee bit more than 100 gigabytes in RGBA.:) Besides, for better hardware acceleration, you'd be best off at 2048 or 4096. Let say 3000 is overbudget, so 2048x2048x2048x4 would mean 32 gigabytes for that SUPERB kitchen sink;) Now we're rolling and nearly in budget, let's pretend we are 16 bits (for space purposes), or RGBA5651 and then we are getting 16 gigabytes, which pretty much fits the horrible constraints of the oh-so-limited blu-ray.
hehe... loved the analogy though, let's hope you are not right!
Even then, the first variations are from another take, another mic configuration, and it shows... and it pisses me off;) So imagine having a full orchestra.
on my blog. Basically, I think people's habits are valid assumptions of relatively adequate privacy while using wired networks... but that gets thrown off the hook when using wireless networks. I make the assumption that a protocol change would give back that relative privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
I am also very aware of the "Apple way", where you only put a subset of what you could possibly want, making most people wishing for a little bit more, but then everything else is pristine. Adding more options is not always the best choice.
Then, what you are telling me is basically (using inclusive "your", not attacking you, simply referring to the same hypothetical example you just gave) your code has become unmanageable, and adding a trivial function would mean potentially breaking many other things all around it.
As far as testing goes, effectively, it requires more testing. Then what the clients are asking in our case is to REVERT to what you had before, hence that old part of the code is mostly tested, and, incredibly, it's the NEW code that requires more testing, as could be seen in the multiple screenshots, multiple caveats, multiple rants on that feature. If having both, or reverting to the old behavior is causing problems, then, there is a very good chance that whole section of code needs a good old refactoring.
If you cannot look at your code and tell it needs refactoring, maybe you got what people refer to as a "God Syndrome".
Strange, I did a "hitler" and "nazi" search, both returned nothing.
For people who are wondering if the "checkbox" option was discussed, message #17 out of 185 says that:
> I could find I am sorry, but saying something like "I don't use it like that, so I don't care if
> you're having problems" is exactly the kind of attitude which makes users of your software take
> to their heels.
>
> It is such a small change to add the ability to resize this box; it doesn't hurt anyone, and
> obviously many people would like to have it.
>
> I understand if you're feeling pissed off if you just implemented a new feature and nobody seems to
> like it, but such is life.
Old deserts like Namibia are evil, very evil. At that point, it's not sand, it's dust. If you ever tried to take a picture with a camera there, you probably know the evilness of these places. A small jolt of sand in these, and you can kiss your precious camera goodbye. Same for laptops, times 10.
Personally, I would go with semi ruggerized / fully ruggerized, like some old ToughBook. Look them up in EBay, you can get them for maybe $500. They look so bulky no one will want to steal that. The other possibility is to keep any laptop in some airtight compartment, and only open that compartment behind closed doors, which is not a bad idea anyways.
Simply put, a laptop bag, two garbage bags and some loose tape works wonders, and will allow you to keep your precious laptop safe. For high altitude, look up for a fully ruggerized ToughBook, or switch your hard drive.
1- Yes, I am definitely proud of my code. I have my style, and I'm proud of it. Personally, I tend to code in a "vertical" way, where I will dig a precise topic until no question is unresolved, and where my solution will be the best for many problems that might arisen. My code seldom need rework to do different tasks, and it's quite stable, to the expense of a horrendous amount of time taking to ponder and code. My good friend programmer who works with me is a "horizontal" programmer, he will take all facets of a software in its entirety and will do what is required to make the software work, however, he seldom thinks of all the implications, and his code will frequently need rework, but he can achieve a whole projects in matter of minutes. I know of two other types, one is the bull-programmer, you aim him to some goal, and he will do a straight-run to the goal; do not ever ever think of changing his aim from that point, it's your problem if your aim was not good. Finally, there is the back-bencher, the one who will do what he's comfortable working with, at a precise pace with a precise result, but only working with something he already knows.
Note: these are made-up names, used in my company
As you might understand, each coding style has its own advantage and disadvantage, and there is no real answer on what and how to do something. My kind of programming does not bode well with coding competitions, as I overthink stuff, and frankly, I don't mind, as it's not required for my job anyways. I constantly look at ways to better my code, to understand better algorithms, to add to my personal toolbox. I read a lot on coding, I explore open source projects, I look at what I like and what I hate. I use coding standards.
2- Cowboy practices from companies are not compulsory, but sometimes, they exist. You want to achieve goals at precise times, then, work from there. You might wander around at every version but try not to change in between versions. Even if every week and version, you do a 180 degrees, at least, you have a product that is more and more refined. More changes means more brittle code, that's the drawback, but that's the way it works. Eventually you need to ask for a few days to clean up everything. That's life.
3- Clients are the king. You can convince them their changes are not for the best, but it's all through dialogue. If they are paying and if they want changes, you got no choice but to abide, or look for another contract or another job if you're tired of that.
I have a Wii, I played it some, there are _SOME_ good games, but the production has only started ramping up on the Wii, as most major studios got caught red-handed with a 10-million-console market and no products to offer. So I think it will become more and more interesting, as the months will go back. DS, well, it's there to stay. PSP, we'll see.
Correcting you, a full-featured 360 costs MORE than the PS3 (Like $200 more), for all the same features.
As far as the way I see it, both consoles have to better themselves.
- 360 is more expensive than PS3 with HD and Wireless. When there will be a all-in-one, I will consider
- 360 is very fragile. At least half the 360 I know got sent to repairs, which is a total shame.
- 360 had a headstart, but it doesn't mean it will stay that way. HD-DVD might get to the dump bin too.
- PS3 doesn't have games for it. Actually, there are 2 games I find interesting, when it will become 3-4, I will consider
- PS3 uses Blu-Ray and no one is certain about that format either.
Finally, I don't have a HD screen (well, my laptop has), so buying these consoles is a total exercise in futility for me.
If it became such a problem, I am sure a Xbox 360 patch would be along the way to play this game over the HD DVD. Granted, it would not be for ALL 360s, but it would still work. Also, they could make it a DVD-game with a HD-DVD "movie" extra, optional, for 720p and up native movie contents. That would allow all people to get it, while making sure the freaks with giant HD sets and Elite 360s would get their eye candy.
Finally, they could simply make a better use of the compression, and extend it to make sure everything works perfectly well. I still stand on my ground.
HD-DVD also has more room. The DVD versus Blu-ray argument simply is not standing ground.
Besides, you can make something fit in most format, granted you take the time to do so.
(Note: all this IMHO, I am not an expert) I have a gaming company, I'm at my second successful startup. Frankly, one cannot do anything against patents. It's more or less like russian roulette, you get the bullet one chance in six (true specs for a 6-shot pistol, not in reality ;) ) to bite the bullet.
;)
That said, most tools, I get from open source. I carefully read the licenses and respect them precisely. GPL is good for tools, as long as it's not on the end-user computer. LGPL has the same limitation. ZLib license is great, as well as most MITs. All in all, read your licenses. And yes, you have to purchase fonts
On what you are trying to innovate upon, I suggest you take a good hour to look up google, and patents databases, and try to see if you can do it or not. If you can get a legal guy to do it and give him/her a grand, that's your choice and it's a valid one. However, even Microsoft and Apple are permeable to patent lawsuits, so it shows it's really ludicrous to think you can be 100% safe. Thing to do is be "good-enough" safe.
I took a good week total in past 3 years to look up patents, licenses, read legalese. Not that bad and I feel safe. I paid twice for very precise things too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)
Seriously, these articles, as most in Math category, are totally undecipherable to most normal users. TG there is a Wikipedia somewhere, sometimes they are closer to layman.
It depends if it's worth it or not. It also depends on your equipment.
Look at the specifications of your cartridge, if it's 20Hz-50KHz for example, double that to be conservative. Remember analog is discrete, 50KHz means you can get a pure 49.999KHz sound. Digital is quantized, 50KHz would mean you can get a pure 50KHz, then a pure 25KHz, pure 16.67KHz, and so on. To get a proper recording, and get proper quantization, 2x or 4x the maximum is adequate, I would go to 96KHz. Or if you have the equipment, try 192KHz.
End result would be 16 bits probably, so if you record everything at -6db and have equipment that do true 24 bits (like Motu Traveler, again, look at specs and graphs to know if your equipment is true to what it advertises in your recording software), once you will normalize or limit the volume to full range, it will give 20-22 bits of true bits, hence reducing at 16 bits will only give you quality, not approximations. But that's later.
Then, post-process. Add your filters (again: less is better, no filters if not required, or else it sounds electronic and that's the worst thing you want to do). And finally, convert in the end-result (44KHz/16bits for CD, 48KHz/24bits for computer-based, 96KHz/24bits for DVD, 192KHz/24bits for DVD-audio if you got it), using the best dithering (not the strongest, the best) and even slight noise shaping, algorithm that's almost done for vinyls.
As far as records go, 80's and early 90's digital is the worse. Some 50KHz (no not 44 or 48, I mean the original 50KHz equipment) were decent, but most had no dithering, and very bad end-result quality, a lot of high frequency ringing and harshness. I would take less quality to these. 44KHz would be enough for these, no matter. Analogic records, I'd go to 96KHz for personal use, and for true archiving I'd go at 192KHz 32bits float, but that's for pro job and for that, there'd be a tape instead of record. Pre-50's, I'd revert to 96KHz. 78RPMs, I'd revert to 44KHz.
Amen :)
Some of my friends haven't understood that. I go to their homes, listen to a mixed tracks CD and the volume is all out of the place. Also what I hate about normalization is a single event near clipping (like a badly ripped CD - see my previous rant in parent) will make ONE track sound very thin and everything else horribly loud.
Anyways, like I said, one can have fun with volume AFTER they have safely secured their original version on a DVD.
I will go with the flow and say Flac is the most used open source format for lossless. However I will digress from the flow and say most MP3 players don't support Flac. Since the widely used iPod is really here to stay, I have to say Apple Lossless is a good solution. No the compression is not as good, but it's more convenient, like it or not. And the compression not being as good doesn't mean there's a difference in output quality, it's lossless or it's not? :) So the super file format for losslessness should be on what is convenient to you, not what takes more or less room. If your players support lossless in Flac, then go ahead. Just pick what you want.
After having ripped most of my collection in Lossless, I however can safely say one grow tired of it. Some materials, you want in lossless, but I do not think it's practical to have everything in lossless. I got a lot of ripped CDs and a lot of ripped vinyls. I start by doing them in lossless, I archive them 10-15 CDs in one DVD in lossless (no not in the best Flac compression, something that compresses quickly please, as long as it's smaller than raw), then I switch the heck out to some other format (Mp4 vbr 128+) for me, Ogg if you want to go other ways, again what suits your particular players)
To rip CDs, please no normalization. Please. No volume change whatsoever, no "post-processing" of any sorts. Once you convert from lossless to your other format, you can then decide to apply some or not, at your leisure. But I see little point in using lossless format to change the volume of your tracks. And please use some software that correctly checks your rip. Exact Audio Copy for Windows is a good choice, and say you are not afraid of waiting. If there were errors, clean up your CD then try again. If your CD doesn't support basic functionality to properly rip with your software, consider buying a new CD player that supports everything. The worst thing I couldn't hate more are clicks and ticks (or worse, garbage fits).
For Vinyls, I clean up the vinyl as best as I can with demineralized water and cotton cloth, then I record it at its proper speed (or else you will not get the same frequency response) at -6db peak volume, make it go through a de-popper (very lightly, more you remove, worst it sounds), make it go through a de-noise algorithm (using the ending groove for my 500ms sample of noise, as it's usually quite clean, again very lightly, like a -3db reduction, or else it makes everything sounds electronic), I remove the DC (there's one with your equipment unless it's gigantically pro), remove 50Hz frequencies at -6db (depending on the frequency response of your cartridge and equipment, my Grado limits at 50Hz) and maximize the volume with a different volume for every side of the vinyl (as every side is engraved differently at usually different volumes), just enough to get some limiting on maximum a peak per 2 minutes.
I guess that basically covers my processes and what I would do (and don't do) for a collection.
Alas there are no real good way to keep things secure in source code. But there are a few good ways to keep things afloat anyways:
Q. Your coders are not to be trusted
A. Put a file containing a security token (using the generic term token here, depending on what you use - certificate, or others). Open the file, read the token, send it to your server
A2. Use SSL tunneling, using aforementioned certificate, add another file for server details
A3. Create a "mirror database" with all important information replaced with random equivalents, send a new security token file for your coders using that mock-up database.
Q. Your clients are not to be trusted
A. Have fun with the password. A good Xor is usually enough for it not to be recognized by the user if he opens the executable.
A2. If your code can be hacked, you got more problems than that. Add up a anti-hacking protection to your software. Then make nontrivial encryption with your password, beware that your cleverness in your code might not show up as clever in assembly and might be very easy to understand inside the assembly code, especially with modern optimizing compilers and linkers.
A3. If you use 3rd party external tools to access your database (dynamically linked libraries, like DLL in Windoze), game over. Don't. This can be sniffed. If your database is in another computer and your SSL code is outside your code, don't. Again, game over. Everything must be embedded inside your own executable, and you must protect your executable.
As you can see, the "good" answer is nontrivial in both case, and it must be noted that no matter what you will do, someone with nothing else to do and big to gain (if only for the challenge) _WILL_ get access to your database. That's not the way to go if you want my opinion. Trust is the way to go, and if they can open up the database, well good for them. If you are DoD or some whiznut organization that needs to keep its eggs secure to no avail, if you don't trust your operatives, if you don't trust anyone, well, create a portal application that makes allowance and disallowance possible, then create a protocol to access that portal application that is heaviliy encrypted, then give out (at least) a 2-way encoding system using a hardware key (potentially obfuscated) and a nontrivial password, hashed with a inner application key that contains the version of the software, and the specific build in it, and create a encrypted tunnel using these values. Even then, someone with enough means will be able the get through.
Remember, once you get all the pieces of the puzzle, you get all the pieces of the puzzle. End of transmission.
To end up as a rant, RTFM, Applied Cryptography is there as your friend. Especially the first few chapters explaining what can be done and not done.
Hmm, I don't want to sound any less stupid than I really am, but other than people using some signature on their Usenet mails, anyone can really make themselves appear to be anyone else on Usenet don't they? I've known these kinds in *cough* less respectable places, where they would get annoyed by the group, then suddenly prove they got no life and spam the heck out of the place with semi-plausible stuff, named against the member that pissed them off or simply ripping out the place.
... well ... forever ;)
Not making an apology, just saying it's a possibility. Then I haven't followed the drama there, so can't tell. I find his articles well written, with an obvious agenda, and repeatingly hitting the nail until we're tired of hearing about that point of view in long rants on nearly the same topic. Interesting point of view. I just wonder what that guy does because he surely got a lot of spare time since
ClearType is ONLY for LCDs, not for CRTs. It actually assumes pixels in the order of "r,g,b,r,g,b,..." on the screen, and will light up the "b" a little bit, or close up the "r" a little bit to make as if the pixels are there. CRTs put the colored pixels at the same place, so it's not the same thing. That said, it will work a little bit under CRTs because it will tend to anti-alias the fonts, but that's a side-effect, and it will not be as beautiful, far from it. That's why you got the "Standard" anti-aliasing feature inside that particular menu too, for CRTs.
It's configuration enough that when I activated ClearType on my computer, the first thing I wanted to do was to disable it. The text became very heavy and characters started overlapping themselves. Instead of putting it to the "normal" setting, I put it to nearly the last one, the one just before deactivating the feature. Otherwise, I had trouble reading the text inside the Start menu. Now it's okay. It's also configuration enough that some (albeit very rare, and even MS acknowledges it) use a non-standard BGR screen configuration (mounted the screen upside down? ^_^) and would totally ruin the sub-pixel effect they are trying to achieve.I also googled it and on first trial, I had NOT that page (My Google is French by default so it shows French pages first... and it's NOT the cleartype configuration thingie). Besides, it should've been put on the system by default. If I look at the Mac version, you got the "CRT/main screen" setting by default, and you got ClearType light to heavy directly in the box. You drag and drop and you can choose. Easy, efficient, why bother with putting things on an obscure web page?
I do :) But if it's THAT mainstream, I guess they would've picked that up beforehand no? Since no one knows about that feature unless you know where to activate it and it's far inside that display control panel in "advanced" and everything, well what do you expect from Joe Schmuck? To know all about it and activate it firsthand? oooh. I'm the only bastard that knows about it anywhere in my friends and family, until I showed them love.
Oooh, under the belt! Good one! :) Just stating an opinion, that's it, if you want to make it personal and not answer to the text, I'll say this: "oooh here we have a M$ fanboi trying to make people believe it's the best thing since coffee and cream. Astroturfing?". Lol please dont take this under the belt and keep up with grounded opinions.
Yeah... I guess I'm not an evangelist for Microsoft then ;)
ClearType. It's so good MOST PEOPLE have it closed. It's closed by default, and it causes a %/$"%(load of problems with most software (Gaim and other GTKs for example has problems with that, I can't even see the "i" when I type a sentence). That said, I opened it, and found the way to get it configured (oh great, you actually need to go to a M$ website, and either download a powertoy or a IE ActiveX, talk about conviviality), and now am a happy user of it. But I had to lose a great hour trying to find the way to get things done. So I guess it helps EVERYONE.
Geez, if that's the best example he could harvest, Microsoft is in deep trouble!
I do like you do.
... until they either find nothing, or enter in a totally endless loop ... or (like I wrote a few replys before) I abandon after a few hours.
;) ... well on these environments, taking the time to reinstall would be longer, so you can take more time, and determine what's wrong with the computer, looking for spyware sites, google search "remove thevirusname", and so on. Usually, you will get proper information to properly clean the computers.
... and strange network drivers ... well ... I'd say to reformat, reinstall what they should've had, and a proper explaination on what they did wrong is the best bet you have.
I try all the good softwares... multiple times
Mostly, it depends on the usage.
In a company, with properly cared computers and correctly controlled environment... not a horrible control, only a minimal one, like telling people illegal things means losing their jobs, and non-job-related stuff are to be kept to a relative minimum (and no real enforcing of these), with a good anti-virus in a few steps, and a good spyware, firewall that protects, and proper security enforced domains... and please no direct computer sharing and full-access C$.
Also, if you have that opportunity, get all the software onto a unclosed CD, and move things from another computer to that new one using that CD, with the blue wire unplugged. Tremendously helps to kill new spawns. Unclosed because you will have to add up tools to remove specific nasty strands.
That's my trick.
But with 2 teenagers, at least 2 sharing software (and not the relatively safe torrents), "cursors", toolbars, "Chat add-ons" and weird software you don't know are coming from where
My uncle's computer had a meager 128 megabytes of RAM, running XP, with two teenagers using it.
... just that they are the culprits for at least 2 computers I cleaned so far.
It was a mess a real mess.
5 minutes starting XP, 2 minutes seeing the window of Internet Explorer appear. 10-15 minutes to be able to download Spybot and AVG. 3 hours running spybot (you read me right).
The hard drive stayed constantly ON during all that time. Then I said Screw That, and I reinstalled.
My conclusions after 3 hours:
- The first and biggest threat all the newbie users have on their computer are OUTDATED norton utilities giveaways they got with their machine. They THINK they are protected, but they closed the "renew" window so often they forgot it's there. Either the software is FREE AND CONTINUOUS, or it's not there, capiche? Avg is excellent, there are many other free ones too... just find one and be happy. Not something that's NOT free.
- The second biggest threat are Norton Security centers, again outdated, again with useless popups. Again with people finding it nagging and deactivating it, making certain not only the Windows Firewall is properly deactivated by Norton's presence, but that their system is totally uselessly unprotected. Very great, coming from a security company. Again, there are many FREE (beer) softwares that do spyware detection and stuff, and Windows Firewall, in all its eloquence, is still better than a kick in the butt, at least compared to the useless deactivated softwares I found.
Not that I hate norton, that is
Then, even if you got years of pro experience in computers, people trust only one person, and if it's not you, you're d00med. I have been explaining to them their meager 128 megs of memory was not enough.... to no avail, they wanted to change computers, almost bought a new one, then another member of my family told them the exact same thing I did, now they have 512 megs and it's screaming. "told you so" was the only answer I could say. Oh well.
Reply to http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=20578 1&cid=16788517
Well, not only making money, but they are a public entity, and as such, they have the OBLIGATION for their shareholders to make money and grow. They have the opportunity, they will knock at all doors to make money. Even if they lose some in the process, the shareholders prefer a company that tries many things than one that will simply fade into oblivion because they couldn't diversify.
Examples, Sco, that got good share prices long after the trial started... and Word Perfect, that never diversified, and acted like the bully Microsoft now is, only reading its own file format, only working for their own sytstem, without ability to share anything with anyone else. When they woke up, it was too late.
M$ is trying not to have that happening. Even if Windows were to anihilate and Vista sell 5 copies worldwide, they could still focus on other things to do.
Great article ... with many problems ...
... and a very quick inquiry revealed the result:
/ environment/
Including the discovery of the "oh so new" page for Environment. Strange that I used to visit that page back then
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.apple.com
2004 huh? Yep, I'd say it's overnight.
Flamebait are very quick to happen in Slashdot, ppl should relax a little.
:) Although I've had good luck with PC products in pro audio, I've had it usually with dedicated machines, where only the proper software was installed. Otherwise, inevitably, I got problems with latency, underruns, and so on. The main advantage of Mac is it's much less prone to acting weird on you. Main problem with Macs is NOT the price (very competitive since Mac OS X machines era IMHO) but you do not have low-end products. It's mostly either pro or it's non-existent. ... there aren't many choices, alas. Anyone found good gear, drivers and pro software that works in Bsd/Linux ? I am genuinely curious here, as it might be a very good alternative computer.
- I agree for Creative products. They are getting trumped all the time, and basically M-Audio is much better bang at the same buck. Although I cannot say if Creative's products are *cough* misleading anymore, they used to sell 96KHz 24bits products that barely was able to recognize 14-15 bits of stuff with deceiving frequencies.
- The message was not about microphones. If he's doing radio, he only needs to invest in decent cables with a variety of connectors. A console will be his friend anyways.
- I am a "loser" that tells that you need to have a Mac
- Headphones... word... I got 2 pairs, one open and one closed (both Sennheisers, mid-end) and one is very useful to listen at home instead of having good speakers... and the other one is very useful in studios.
- Motu is good in general, like written elsewhere. I got a Motu Traveler for my main recording and it's a hell of a machine. Very good sound quality (the most neutral one in many tests), does not require external power, offers plenty of ins and outs to record at least your sub outs, very versatile everywhere. The only grudge I got is (like again written elsewhere) when I plug it on my PC, every software wants to change its playback frequency... The other side of the medal is if you are not making it change the playback frequency, the software will output at the speed it wants, and Windows will box-interpolate its way to make it at the required frequency, achieving a very good kill of any remnants of sound quality. Again saying PCs are good when you dedicate your tasks in them.
- OSS and OSS/OSes... well
Okay, I might be a compression freak, but then, we got nearly 2 DVD (SL) full of animations and graphics, uncompressed... and I have to fit that onto a 10-megabytes downloadable, along with the software, music and so on. (Oh yes, and you don't even need to install the software, and there are no "loading" screens either).
... and graphics are optimized for 1600x1200 too (approximately HD contents, but for PCs) so too bad for the lazyness of the software engineers and their lousy gaming engines that are not meant for "reality".
It can be done
Sorry, that does a wee bit more than 100 gigabytes in RGBA. :) Besides, for better hardware acceleration, you'd be best off at 2048 or 4096. Let say 3000 is overbudget, so 2048x2048x2048x4 would mean 32 gigabytes for that SUPERB kitchen sink ;) Now we're rolling and nearly in budget, let's pretend we are 16 bits (for space purposes), or RGBA5651 and then we are getting 16 gigabytes, which pretty much fits the horrible constraints of the oh-so-limited blu-ray.
... loved the analogy though, let's hope you are not right!
hehe
Agreed ... And many people listening to classical music are audiophiles or enjoy good quality in general.
. cfm?disc_id=8 (Diabelli Variation by Piotr Anderszewski). It is very well recorded, took days and days of gruesome work, and so on. Only for a "stupid" piano.
;) So imagine having a full orchestra.
Besides, there is nothing worst than a harsh-sounding violin, or a shifty instrument.
A very good example is this DVD: http://www.anderszewski.net/discography/view_disc
Even then, the first variations are from another take, another mic configuration, and it shows... and it pisses me off
on my blog. Basically, I think people's habits are valid assumptions of relatively adequate privacy while using wired networks... but that gets thrown off the hook when using wireless networks. I make the assumption that a protocol change would give back that relative privacy.
http://www.micheldonais.com/archives/44
I guess I wasn't the only one that got interested in that. That's not counting books on the topic, or anything.