Programmers are responsible for the GIMP GUI. Fuck programmer-designed user interfaces.
Programmers designed the pre-Office 2007 GUI. Result? Microsoft fielded a hojilliion support calls with people making feature requests for features that were _already implemented_. But nobody could figure out where they were or how to work them!
Functionality that people can't use and can't discover is absolutely useless. Let's hope for more designers and less developers.
Yes, because the fact that the current generation of law-makers all smoked dope at university has been instrumental in ending the war on drugs, hasn't it.
Not in the least bit. C89's restriction (gone in C99) encourages you to leave uninitialized variables lying all over the place (since you can't always initialize everything correctly at the top of the function), which invites bugs, and, worse, encourages developers to reuse a single variable for multiple purposes, due to the inconvenience of having to go back to the top of the function and the fact that some things like loop indices are necessarily scoped inappropriately. This re-use hurts code clarity a great deal.
Mixed declarations and code are the only thing that make sense.
Java may have a single-rooted hierarchy, but its OO model (static typed, v-table lookups) is _not_ the same as Smalltalk's (dynamic typed, message name lookups (though I think with optional use of selectors? Certainly in Obj-C, so I assume also in Smalltalk). Java's style of OO is the same as C++ and Simula.
There's more than one way to skin the OOP cat. Message-passing, like Smalltalk, is not the only way.
Simula, the first OO language, that predates Smalltalk, and predates the term OO, uses a model that's very similar the one used in Java/C++/.NET. To say that C++ is not "object-oriented" is absurd.
Nonsense. C++ has different syntax, semantics, idioms, and libraries to C. I'm a long-time C++ programmer who's recently had to undertake a project that unfortunately requires me to write C89, and it has been quite a struggle to adjust to the new (to me) language. No more mixed declarations and code, barely any type-checking, no more constructors and destructors (let alone methods or inheritance), no more collections classes, no more exceptions, no more lambdas--it requires a totally different approach to software development that is completely unfamiliar to me, and completely inappropriate to C++.
As such an IRC expert, you would know that only IRCops can k-line people, and further, as an undoubted master of IRC, you would know that I am not an IRCop on the Ars Technica server, and never have been. So how precisely would you suggest I k-line anyone?
But companies running large campaigns don't advertise just to get some clickthroughs, which is why they don't reward clickthroughs. They advertise to raise brand awareness.
I am not avoiding any questions. I answered them all.
Who is talking about dalnet? Why are you banging on about that? You claim that you were talking about the Ars Technica IRC server. What does dalnet have to do with that?
1) Again you are talking about what people are "supposed" to do. According to what?
2) Gays can, and do, sleep with people of the opposite sex to produce offspring. Gay doesn't mean sterile.
3) I have never self-identified as such; you are projecting.
2) Homosexuals breed all the time. Homosexual doesn't mean sterile.
3) I wouldn't have said so, no.
4) Yes, of course.
re: IRC
Since I'm friends with the owners of the server, and since the Ars Technica IRC chanserv recognizes me and ops me on those channels that I moderate, and since this has been true since the early days of the IRC server, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. Do you have any links that might provide elucidation?
1) Humans aren't _supposed_ to do anything. The only purpose in life is that which we choose for ourselves. You say men are not supposed to do this or that; why not? Says who?
2) See #1.
3) I'm not sure that her name is any of your damn business. I think she'd be surprised to learn that she's a man.
4) Again, claims of homosexuality would be a great surprise to my girlfriend. And even if I were gay, I doubt my parents would care. Why would they?
Yeah, of course you're not. You just show the same writing style, insults, and preoccupation with homosexuality and what my parents think as he does. But you're not the same person, nuh uh.
APK, what the hell are you talking about? Some/. submission (that never got posted to the front page) about someone's false positive from McAfee? Who cares?
Most or all big ad campaigns are based on impressions rather than clicks, because big advertisers know that there is value even when people do not click, due to increased brand awareness and so on. It's unbranded and low-end advertising (e.g. Google's text ads) that are click-based.
The BBC is scaling back its funding of web content amidst complaints that it spends too much. It should still have a strong web presence (especially news.bbc.co.uk), but state funding is no panacea.
Except that plainly isn't true. He claims, for example, that it's only clicks on ads that matter. Not fucking true. Clicks matter for bargain basement Google ads. They're not what count for high profile advertising. Wladimir doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
It's pretty fucking obvious why it's wrong, and it's even addressed in the fucking article:
TV/radio advertising is based on _predicted audience_.
Web advertising is based on _actual audience_.
Web advertisers only pay for people who see the ads. There's no need to model some proportion of people blocking ads; they're never counted as ad views in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck off, you stupid gator prick.
Programmers are responsible for the GIMP GUI. Fuck programmer-designed user interfaces.
Programmers designed the pre-Office 2007 GUI. Result? Microsoft fielded a hojilliion support calls with people making feature requests for features that were _already implemented_. But nobody could figure out where they were or how to work them!
Functionality that people can't use and can't discover is absolutely useless. Let's hope for more designers and less developers.
On the one hand, the fact you've posted this a bunch of times to the thread is a surefire sign that you're APK.
On the other hand, the grammar and punctuation are at least vaguely sane. So I have to wonder; APK, have you been medicated?
Yes, because the fact that the current generation of law-makers all smoked dope at university has been instrumental in ending the war on drugs, hasn't it.
If your load average is >1, you have CPU over-subscription....
I might not be a multi-billionaire.
But I also didn't buy Danger for $500M, run it into the ground, and then post a $240M write-off last quarter for KIN.
So I must be doing something right, I guess.
Microsoft may be successful. Microsoft's phone efforts are not.
Not in the least bit. C89's restriction (gone in C99) encourages you to leave uninitialized variables lying all over the place (since you can't always initialize everything correctly at the top of the function), which invites bugs, and, worse, encourages developers to reuse a single variable for multiple purposes, due to the inconvenience of having to go back to the top of the function and the fact that some things like loop indices are necessarily scoped inappropriately. This re-use hurts code clarity a great deal.
Mixed declarations and code are the only thing that make sense.
Java may have a single-rooted hierarchy, but its OO model (static typed, v-table lookups) is _not_ the same as Smalltalk's (dynamic typed, message name lookups (though I think with optional use of selectors? Certainly in Obj-C, so I assume also in Smalltalk). Java's style of OO is the same as C++ and Simula.
They're a confirmed feature in C++0x. g++ and VC2010 both support 'em. Take a look at section 5.1.2 in the current draft spec:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3092.pdf
There's more than one way to skin the OOP cat. Message-passing, like Smalltalk, is not the only way.
Simula, the first OO language, that predates Smalltalk, and predates the term OO, uses a model that's very similar the one used in Java/C++/.NET. To say that C++ is not "object-oriented" is absurd.
Nonsense. C++ has different syntax, semantics, idioms, and libraries to C. I'm a long-time C++ programmer who's recently had to undertake a project that unfortunately requires me to write C89, and it has been quite a struggle to adjust to the new (to me) language. No more mixed declarations and code, barely any type-checking, no more constructors and destructors (let alone methods or inheritance), no more collections classes, no more exceptions, no more lambdas--it requires a totally different approach to software development that is completely unfamiliar to me, and completely inappropriate to C++.
As such an IRC expert, you would know that only IRCops can k-line people, and further, as an undoubted master of IRC, you would know that I am not an IRCop on the Ars Technica server, and never have been. So how precisely would you suggest I k-line anyone?
Like I say, you'd have to ask my girlfriend about it.
But companies running large campaigns don't advertise just to get some clickthroughs, which is why they don't reward clickthroughs. They advertise to raise brand awareness.
I am not avoiding any questions. I answered them all.
Who is talking about dalnet? Why are you banging on about that? You claim that you were talking about the Ars Technica IRC server. What does dalnet have to do with that?
1) Again you are talking about what people are "supposed" to do. According to what?
2) Gays can, and do, sleep with people of the opposite sex to produce offspring. Gay doesn't mean sterile.
3) I have never self-identified as such; you are projecting.
4) Define "normal".
1) If they want.
2) Homosexuals breed all the time. Homosexual doesn't mean sterile.
3) I wouldn't have said so, no.
4) Yes, of course.
re: IRC
Since I'm friends with the owners of the server, and since the Ars Technica IRC chanserv recognizes me and ops me on those channels that I moderate, and since this has been true since the early days of the IRC server, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. Do you have any links that might provide elucidation?
I remember this incident: http://www.compatdb.org/support/topics/81050_good_old_apk.html#Post81050
But it does not contain the details that you claim. It's a bit hard to tell, of course, since all your posts seem to have been deleted (funny that).
1) Humans aren't _supposed_ to do anything. The only purpose in life is that which we choose for ourselves. You say men are not supposed to do this or that; why not? Says who?
2) See #1.
3) I'm not sure that her name is any of your damn business. I think she'd be surprised to learn that she's a man.
4) Again, claims of homosexuality would be a great surprise to my girlfriend. And even if I were gay, I doubt my parents would care. Why would they?
Yeah, of course you're not. You just show the same writing style, insults, and preoccupation with homosexuality and what my parents think as he does. But you're not the same person, nuh uh.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010304194832/http://www.inkvine.fluff.org/~peter/download/apk.txt
http://web.archive.org/web/20010304195402/www.inkvine.fluff.org/~peter/download/apk2.txt
http://web.archive.org/web/20010304195402/www.inkvine.fluff.org/~peter/download/apk3.txt
http://web.archive.org/web/20010304195402/www.inkvine.fluff.org/~peter/download/apk4.txt
Any of the language there looking familiar to you?
I'm sure it's all an honest coincidence, no doubt.
I also have no fucking clue what you're trying to say about IRC. Perhaps you could elaborate?
1) We have no intrinsic purpose, so the question makes no sense.
2) See #1.
3) Ask my girlfriend.
4) Er, yes.
APK, what the hell are you talking about? Some /. submission (that never got posted to the front page) about someone's false positive from McAfee? Who cares?
Most or all big ad campaigns are based on impressions rather than clicks, because big advertisers know that there is value even when people do not click, due to increased brand awareness and so on. It's unbranded and low-end advertising (e.g. Google's text ads) that are click-based.
The BBC is scaling back its funding of web content amidst complaints that it spends too much. It should still have a strong web presence (especially news.bbc.co.uk), but state funding is no panacea.
Except that plainly isn't true. He claims, for example, that it's only clicks on ads that matter. Not fucking true. Clicks matter for bargain basement Google ads. They're not what count for high profile advertising. Wladimir doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Because advertisers aren't retarded and understand that brand awareness is itself valuable, and not click-dependent.
It's pretty fucking obvious why it's wrong, and it's even addressed in the fucking article: TV/radio advertising is based on _predicted audience_. Web advertising is based on _actual audience_. Web advertisers only pay for people who see the ads. There's no need to model some proportion of people blocking ads; they're never counted as ad views in the first place.