My laptop now is my mobile phone. It’s enough to watch movies with headphones in the bed, on the toilet or outside. And if I want more, I always have my full home cinema, server and workstation at home.
And then it ends up like Stargate Universe. With stupid social topics, day-long crying, redneck philosophies, and no sci-fi or tech whatsoever. (Seriously. Avoid SU like the plague. After the first episodes I feel like watching the Star Wars Christmas Special again, just to get excited.)
One is that it's just a bit too nerdy. I mean, one of the major structural points of the book is the life of the early Romantic poet John Keats, and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse.
How is that nerdy? That’s not nerdy. That’s half of the good films out there! I don’t know what people you mean, but the society around me is practically void of the retards that are constantly shown as the major opinion on TV and in industry presentations. In fact I call bullshit on it, and say that in reality, the industry has gotten so incompetent that they can not come up with a single idea that can drag you in. So they fall back to big booms, because they still seem to excite people. And then bigger booms, and bigger booms. But give us something truly great, and people will love it, even if it contains no explosions at all. (And ignore that one loud retard trying to be louder than the nine of us who are not dumb enough to be that annoying.)
Also, the subplot of the cruciform or the Jewish man drawn to sacrifice his daughter might offend religious sensibilities.
Sorry, but caving to such bullshit rules from delusional is just perverse. To those who say: “Oooh, this offends me!”, I say: Get over yourself and quit whining. You are not entitled to anything, it does not hurt you. Instead YOU are oppressing US with your bullshit, forcing us into your fucked-up rules. No thanks. I do not need any votes, and I don’t need you. if you don’t like it, how about you LOOK AWAY!?!
LOL, Dude, you nearly have the exact same subject that I used.
But I do not like watching old grainy stuff. In fact I nearly never watch, read or listen to something twice. I have my memories to remember that stuff. Where it is much more beautiful than it originally was. (E.g. the old BSG is just plain horrible to watch nowadays.)
I only want good new stuff. What I do not get, is why dou see a good story and good FX as if they were mutually exclusive. Look at Matrix 1. Great story (one that literally made me jump in my seat out of excitation, because I cared so much, and that changed how I looked at the world), and great FX. Books are only story, and therefore only need story. For movies I expect both (And for radio plays and pictures too). And for games, I also expect good gameplay mechanics on top of that.
Is anyone else tired of everything the old media presents us with is either a remake, a sequel, a prequel or parallel to something already existing in some other way?
How about final closure on Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Galactica, etc? And how about something new?
The only thing I can remember, that was original, was District 9. And even that was more two old things together, to make something new. And before that, Matrix. THAT was something really new (to me) and great.
Yes, but my inspiration comes from an old comic where Scrooge McDuck flies out to the end of the universe, to scoop up some “nothing”. Then he kept it in a safe, and sold it no everyone, so they could evade taxes. But the Beagle Boys cracked the safe and stole all of the nothing. The cops told Scrooge that he could not put them into jail, because they stole nothing. So he had to end his business. I loved that story.:D
tl;dr: Of course I prefer the company fixing the bug, but in case they fail at that, I at least want to know of it and be on the same level as the crackers.
You got something wrong: The position of the crackers is that it’s the companies who act irresponsibly, e.g. by doing nothing when they should close the bugs, or by suing those who found some hole. Which I agree with. I’d go so far as to offer a prize to anyone who can demonstrate an exploit for my software. With that prize always being worth enough to stop interest in pursuing other ways to take advantage of them. If someone is really good, he might even get a permanent post.
The only reason I can imagine, why someone would do something else, is because he still is a “3 year old” who can not handle any critique and has to become aggressive or repressive against anything that suggests he is not god. In other words: Typical upper-level PHB behavior.
And under those circumstances, the responsible thing to do, is to at least protect the clients, by telling them about the risks of doing business with that company and of using that software.
That’s why my walls and my clothes are made out of nothing.
But I plan to sell nothing, so others have nothing too, and so have to pay taxes for nothing. I only hope nobody steals nothing for me, because how will I sue him then?
After spending several years with that nightmare called Trident, there is no way in hell Mozilla can ever produce something worse than that. I will stop talking to anyone who refuses to stop using that thing, and develop all websites to shut MS browsers out, until that thing is completely trashed, and rewritten from scratch.
And don’t dare modding me down for that, if you haven’t tried to develop a web application with a complex layout in it, or at least spent 3 years, building IE-compatible websites.
Well, the weirdest thing happened to me: My Firefox always behaved well. No memory problem, no bloat, no slowness. Until some weeks ago. I don’t exactly know what changed. I know I added some extensions (e.g. “Stylish”). I know there was a minor version update. I know Flash got updated (the thing I still have a feeling is the real responsible one in this). (64 bit Linux here, with 64 bit Flash too)
Now I find that the browser, after having used it a bit, and closed all tabs afterwards (yes, I know about the still loaded old tabs, and I like and need that feature), it eats more and more ram. Just yesterday I found it slowing the whole system down by eating 1.2 GB of virtual memory. With over 750 MB resident.
I think I will try safe mode for a week, before I blame anything. Let’s see if the problem still persists. As I have yet to see one single complaint, mentioning that it happens in safe mode too.
Should be easy to solve in software or firmware. Right now they just first loop trough all the pixels and flip them to white. Then loop trough the new image and flip black pixels. I assume that the reason is, that there is some very fast way to blank everything, which saves refresh time.
But they could also use a single loop which flips a bit, if it is different from the one in the new image. I just guess that this would actually take longer because it would not be as fast.
So they chose the faster one, assuming that nobody would be annoyed. I liked it, so it works for me. But if there are actually many people annoyed by it, I would build in a option to choose the second mode.
Have you ever heard of the concept of backups? Hell my mobile phone has a backup cron job that is configured to back up everything at night right now. And that function is even built-in! I think all recent Symbian phones have it. I then have the phone software on the PC, that also has a built-in function to sync and backup the data in the background, whenever I connect the phone.
I could throw the phone away right now, and lose nothing.
I only consider having something like a data safe, so nobody does shit with the private stuff stored in there. (Like harass my friends, create fake porn with the photos, get into my mail account, etc.) That is the real risk here. But hey, there already is software for that on the market. I saw several security suites for Symbian phones. With firewall, IDS, anti-virus, and a data safe.
So you are saying it is another word for “order”, as in “the opposite of chaos/entropy”? Then why not say that instead? Low entropy. That’s something one can use. So the unit would be what then? “Temperature” would be the unit that measures the rate of change of that unit. (Like acceleration is for speed.) Does a unit for that exist already?
Sorry, can’t take you serious that way. (But will consider, if you extend upon the above assumption of it being low entropy.)
That is a real argument, yes. But it’s still wrong. Because evolution does not require replication. It only requires directed changes.
Replication is a property of reproduction. Which is one way to grow its own mass, e.g. when consuming resources. Which itself is a property of life.
But there can be evolution without life (E.g. evolution-simulating software). Just as there can be life without evolution. (E.g. a life form that stopped evolving because there was no competition anymore.)
You made statements. You lack a common basis. You insult. Oh boy, it’s not even funny how much you just failed. Sorry. (And again: I also think that rocks do not really evolve. But think I know why, and can explain it. So I do not need to act like a jerk.)
Let’s try this: First, let’s define what it means that something evolves: I think we can agree on what was previously stated: It means 1. It changes. And 2. it has a fitness function that makes the change directed. (That’s one base assumption, the paradigm.) Now we define a rock: A rock is is “a naturally occurring solid aggregate of minerals and/or mineraloids”. (According to Wikipedia.) I add that a rock changes by random effects of surrounding nature. (That’s the second base assumption / paradigm.) Then, if you agree on those two assumptions, one can follow, that: Since the changes that happen to a rock, are random, and therefore lack a direction / fitness function, a rock does not evolve. (And this was a real argument.) One may add, that in the case of there being a fitness function in the changes of a rock, one could say it evolves. But since this is very unlikely to happen for a long time, it would still not evolve in the long run. Nonetheless, if it would actually happen, even a rock would evolve.
However, it still would not be alive. Which, as we must note here, is not a precondition for being able to evolve. Rather, being alive would, according to popular views, require evolution, and the processing of resources.
See, that’s how it’s done.:) (And now even if you disagree on one point, and do it in the same form, we can come to a common result in the end.)
Have you never seen a magazine or colored paper in your life??
And frankly, “KISS” gets throw around here a lot. Maybe those who use it, kept themselves a bit too simple and stupid. Cause it’s fuckin” idiotic. I’ll explain why: “KISS” has a basic failure in the logic it is founded upon. Which is, that it equals simplicity with better usability. Which is a simplification that can’t be made. They are not the the same. The real ideal is efficiency. “KISS” is exactly what brings you Clippy, MS Bob, Notepad, and interfaces that are so “simple” that you have to dumb yourself down to be able to use them. (Happens to me a lot with Apple UIs. No offense. I just find myself having to stop thinking so intelligently, to find the function I need. Which is a deal breaker for me. And MS interfaces too, obviously. MS is just harder because it is so badly designed.;) Efficiency does not equal simplicity. It means an interface that is adapted to your needs. That fits you like a glove. Which can mean a simpler interface. BUT only half the time! And that is the point. Sometimes you want a feature-rich complex interface, because the work you are doing is complex! Because you are experienced and good at it. In one sentence: You do not want the interface limiting you. But frankly, dumb people get support left and right, because they do not feel ashamed of yelling loudly like they are entitled to get it pre-chewed. And we get to live whatever stupid interface fits them. Which is completely useless for us. And why the either-or anyway? I expect from a good interface designer, to create something that adapts to the user, grows and shrinks with his needs, and can fit any user. From a genius to someone who got a mental disease. “KISS“ is just an excuse in favor of the dumb. Sorry, UI designers. Get your act together, and notch it up a dimension. Compromises are a makeshift solution. Not the real deal.
Well, the original idea of the TPM was exactly that: Sandbox everything, manage every trust relationship in your system, hardware, software, whatever, and make it possible for the average user. Of course we know what that was turned into.
But a good example is SElinux, which is not much different, except that is entirely software. Here on Gentoo, there are SElinux policy packages for every important software. Which are kept proper for me. (Yes, it is far from prefect, but it is a start, that if extended to every app in the repository, with different usage profiles, is what I mean.)
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
One of those words is not like the others. The word “information” does not fit in there. I can’t put it into words, but I can show you what I mean:
Bad:
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of thetans in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings. In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of hope in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings. In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of imagination in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
Good:
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of gluons in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings. In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of $particleToBeFoundByLHC in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings. In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of neutrinos in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
(Not saying that’s right. Just saying this would be an argument that one could build something around. As opposed to the bad examples.)
Slashdot Mirror
12 hours then means 3 hours. Yay.
My laptop now is my mobile phone. It’s enough to watch movies with headphones in the bed, on the toilet or outside. And if I want more, I always have my full home cinema, server and workstation at home.
And then it ends up like Stargate Universe. With stupid social topics, day-long crying, redneck philosophies, and no sci-fi or tech whatsoever.
(Seriously. Avoid SU like the plague. After the first episodes I feel like watching the Star Wars Christmas Special again, just to get excited.)
One is that it's just a bit too nerdy. I mean, one of the major structural points of the book is the life of the early Romantic poet John Keats, and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse.
How is that nerdy? That’s not nerdy. That’s half of the good films out there! I don’t know what people you mean, but the society around me is practically void of the retards that are constantly shown as the major opinion on TV and in industry presentations. In fact I call bullshit on it, and say that in reality, the industry has gotten so incompetent that they can not come up with a single idea that can drag you in. So they fall back to big booms, because they still seem to excite people. And then bigger booms, and bigger booms.
But give us something truly great, and people will love it, even if it contains no explosions at all. (And ignore that one loud retard trying to be louder than the nine of us who are not dumb enough to be that annoying.)
Also, the subplot of the cruciform or the Jewish man drawn to sacrifice his daughter might offend religious sensibilities.
Sorry, but caving to such bullshit rules from delusional is just perverse.
To those who say: “Oooh, this offends me!”, I say: Get over yourself and quit whining. You are not entitled to anything, it does not hurt you. Instead YOU are oppressing US with your bullshit, forcing us into your fucked-up rules. No thanks. I do not need any votes, and I don’t need you. if you don’t like it, how about you LOOK AWAY!?!
LOL, Dude, you nearly have the exact same subject that I used.
But I do not like watching old grainy stuff. In fact I nearly never watch, read or listen to something twice.
I have my memories to remember that stuff. Where it is much more beautiful than it originally was. (E.g. the old BSG is just plain horrible to watch nowadays.)
I only want good new stuff.
What I do not get, is why dou see a good story and good FX as if they were mutually exclusive. Look at Matrix 1. Great story (one that literally made me jump in my seat out of excitation, because I cared so much, and that changed how I looked at the world), and great FX.
Books are only story, and therefore only need story.
For movies I expect both (And for radio plays and pictures too).
And for games, I also expect good gameplay mechanics on top of that.
Is anyone else tired of everything the old media presents us with is either a remake, a sequel, a prequel or parallel to something already existing in some other way?
How about final closure on Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Galactica, etc?
And how about something new?
The only thing I can remember, that was original, was District 9. And even that was more two old things together, to make something new.
And before that, Matrix. THAT was something really new (to me) and great.
How about more of that (totally new stuff)?
Yes, but my inspiration comes from an old comic where Scrooge McDuck flies out to the end of the universe, to scoop up some “nothing”. Then he kept it in a safe, and sold it no everyone, so they could evade taxes. :D
But the Beagle Boys cracked the safe and stole all of the nothing. The cops told Scrooge that he could not put them into jail, because they stole nothing. So he had to end his business.
I loved that story.
tl;dr: Of course I prefer the company fixing the bug, but in case they fail at that, I at least want to know of it and be on the same level as the crackers.
You got something wrong: The position of the crackers is that it’s the companies who act irresponsibly, e.g. by doing nothing when they should close the bugs, or by suing those who found some hole. Which I agree with. I’d go so far as to offer a prize to anyone who can demonstrate an exploit for my software. With that prize always being worth enough to stop interest in pursuing other ways to take advantage of them. If someone is really good, he might even get a permanent post.
The only reason I can imagine, why someone would do something else, is because he still is a “3 year old” who can not handle any critique and has to become aggressive or repressive against anything that suggests he is not god.
In other words: Typical upper-level PHB behavior.
And under those circumstances, the responsible thing to do, is to at least protect the clients, by telling them about the risks of doing business with that company and of using that software.
Do you mean like AVI vs MKV?
Or XviD vs x264?
Cause the latter ones are clearly winning. ^^
Sometimes I feel like I’m on a different planet than those media companies... And theirs is just about to go down in flames. ;)
Exactly. Nothing is unbreakable!
That’s why my walls and my clothes are made out of nothing.
But I plan to sell nothing, so others have nothing too, and so have to pay taxes for nothing.
I only hope nobody steals nothing for me, because how will I sue him then?
'Well, this contradicts basic observational evidence, like We. Are. Here,' says astronomer Moredecai-Mark Mac Low.
Well, this didn’t stop dark matter supporters, did it? ;)
Absolutely right.
After spending several years with that nightmare called Trident, there is no way in hell Mozilla can ever produce something worse than that. I will stop talking to anyone who refuses to stop using that thing, and develop all websites to shut MS browsers out, until that thing is completely trashed, and rewritten from scratch.
And don’t dare modding me down for that, if you haven’t tried to develop a web application with a complex layout in it, or at least spent 3 years, building IE-compatible websites.
No. Doctor Who. Watch this year’s Christmas special. It’s pretty great.
I iz a lolcat, u insentieef klotz!
Well, the weirdest thing happened to me:
My Firefox always behaved well. No memory problem, no bloat, no slowness.
Until some weeks ago. I don’t exactly know what changed. I know I added some extensions (e.g. “Stylish”). I know there was a minor version update. I know Flash got updated (the thing I still have a feeling is the real responsible one in this). (64 bit Linux here, with 64 bit Flash too)
Now I find that the browser, after having used it a bit, and closed all tabs afterwards (yes, I know about the still loaded old tabs, and I like and need that feature), it eats more and more ram. Just yesterday I found it slowing the whole system down by eating 1.2 GB of virtual memory. With over 750 MB resident.
I think I will try safe mode for a week, before I blame anything.
Let’s see if the problem still persists.
As I have yet to see one single complaint, mentioning that it happens in safe mode too.
As I said: Temperature is to it, like acceleration is to speed. :)
Should be easy to solve in software or firmware.
Right now they just first loop trough all the pixels and flip them to white. Then loop trough the new image and flip black pixels.
I assume that the reason is, that there is some very fast way to blank everything, which saves refresh time.
But they could also use a single loop which flips a bit, if it is different from the one in the new image.
I just guess that this would actually take longer because it would not be as fast.
So they chose the faster one, assuming that nobody would be annoyed. I liked it, so it works for me.
But if there are actually many people annoyed by it, I would build in a option to choose the second mode.
Yes I do. And: No it isn’t.
(Note how I use just as many arguments as you did: Zero. ^^)
Have you ever heard of the concept of backups? Hell my mobile phone has a backup cron job that is configured to back up everything at night right now. And that function is even built-in! I think all recent Symbian phones have it.
I then have the phone software on the PC, that also has a built-in function to sync and backup the data in the background, whenever I connect the phone.
I could throw the phone away right now, and lose nothing.
I only consider having something like a data safe, so nobody does shit with the private stuff stored in there. (Like harass my friends, create fake porn with the photos, get into my mail account, etc.) That is the real risk here. But hey, there already is software for that on the market. I saw several security suites for Symbian phones. With firewall, IDS, anti-virus, and a data safe.
So you are saying it is another word for “order”, as in “the opposite of chaos/entropy”?
Then why not say that instead? Low entropy. That’s something one can use.
So the unit would be what then? “Temperature” would be the unit that measures the rate of change of that unit. (Like acceleration is for speed.) Does a unit for that exist already?
Sorry, can’t take you serious that way. (But will consider, if you extend upon the above assumption of it being low entropy.)
That is a real argument, yes. But it’s still wrong.
Because evolution does not require replication. It only requires directed changes.
Replication is a property of reproduction. Which is one way to grow its own mass, e.g. when consuming resources.
Which itself is a property of life.
But there can be evolution without life (E.g. evolution-simulating software). Just as there can be life without evolution. (E.g. a life form that stopped evolving because there was no competition anymore.)
You made statements. You lack a common basis. You insult.
Oh boy, it’s not even funny how much you just failed.
Sorry.
(And again: I also think that rocks do not really evolve. But think I know why, and can explain it. So I do not need to act like a jerk.)
Let’s try this:
First, let’s define what it means that something evolves:
I think we can agree on what was previously stated: It means 1. It changes. And 2. it has a fitness function that makes the change directed. (That’s one base assumption, the paradigm.)
Now we define a rock:
A rock is is “a naturally occurring solid aggregate of minerals and/or mineraloids”. (According to Wikipedia.) I add that a rock changes by random effects of surrounding nature. (That’s the second base assumption / paradigm.)
Then, if you agree on those two assumptions, one can follow, that:
Since the changes that happen to a rock, are random, and therefore lack a direction / fitness function, a rock does not evolve. (And this was a real argument.)
One may add, that in the case of there being a fitness function in the changes of a rock, one could say it evolves. But since this is very unlikely to happen for a long time, it would still not evolve in the long run. Nonetheless, if it would actually happen, even a rock would evolve.
However, it still would not be alive. Which, as we must note here, is not a precondition for being able to evolve. Rather, being alive would, according to popular views, require evolution, and the processing of resources.
See, that’s how it’s done. :)
(And now even if you disagree on one point, and do it in the same form, we can come to a common result in the end.)
Have you never seen a magazine or colored paper in your life??
And frankly, “KISS” gets throw around here a lot. Maybe those who use it, kept themselves a bit too simple and stupid. Cause it’s fuckin” idiotic. I’ll explain why: ;)
“KISS” has a basic failure in the logic it is founded upon. Which is, that it equals simplicity with better usability. Which is a simplification that can’t be made. They are not the the same.
The real ideal is efficiency.
“KISS” is exactly what brings you Clippy, MS Bob, Notepad, and interfaces that are so “simple” that you have to dumb yourself down to be able to use them. (Happens to me a lot with Apple UIs. No offense. I just find myself having to stop thinking so intelligently, to find the function I need. Which is a deal breaker for me. And MS interfaces too, obviously. MS is just harder because it is so badly designed.
Efficiency does not equal simplicity. It means an interface that is adapted to your needs. That fits you like a glove. Which can mean a simpler interface. BUT only half the time! And that is the point. Sometimes you want a feature-rich complex interface, because the work you are doing is complex! Because you are experienced and good at it.
In one sentence: You do not want the interface limiting you.
But frankly, dumb people get support left and right, because they do not feel ashamed of yelling loudly like they are entitled to get it pre-chewed. And we get to live whatever stupid interface fits them. Which is completely useless for us.
And why the either-or anyway? I expect from a good interface designer, to create something that adapts to the user, grows and shrinks with his needs, and can fit any user. From a genius to someone who got a mental disease.
“KISS“ is just an excuse in favor of the dumb. Sorry, UI designers. Get your act together, and notch it up a dimension. Compromises are a makeshift solution. Not the real deal.
No it definitely doesn’t. I think he just meant that there are animated screen savers.
Well, the original idea of the TPM was exactly that: Sandbox everything, manage every trust relationship in your system, hardware, software, whatever, and make it possible for the average user.
Of course we know what that was turned into.
But a good example is SElinux, which is not much different, except that is entirely software. Here on Gentoo, there are SElinux policy packages for every important software. Which are kept proper for me. (Yes, it is far from prefect, but it is a start, that if extended to every app in the repository, with different usage profiles, is what I mean.)
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
One of those words is not like the others. The word “information” does not fit in there. I can’t put it into words, but I can show you what I mean:
Bad:
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of thetans in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of hope in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of imagination in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
Good:
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of gluons in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of $particleToBeFoundByLHC in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of neutrinos in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
(Not saying that’s right. Just saying this would be an argument that one could build something around. As opposed to the bad examples.)