My ex randomly contacts me form time to time for no better reason than to piss me off. If it happens to me on a bad day... I'll gladly offer my image collection as the first content for nudes.google.com
I don't have any AAC files, nor was I aware iTunes could batch convert them (although I assumed there was a way).
In any case. The Gmini display is quite large and very readable (see the images on the site). The controls were my only complaint, although they are VERY VERY USABLE. The battery hasn't died on me yet, lasting over 8 hours at work with near continuous play (stopping for lunch or bathroom break while at work). The button that acts as the iPod's wheel does is very easy to use with any finger and isn't overly sensitive. It is just a little bit slower to get to somewhere in the middle of the list. That's really my only complaint and it's minor as I usually just pick a band or a playlist and play and forget about it for an hour or so.
I own an Archos Gmini 200 and love it. The 20GB model was cheaper and physically smaller than the 20GB model iPod, and it works nearly as well. The only reasons I'd ever really want an iPod is 1) if I suddenly developed a fear of being considered un-trendy and 2) for that touch wheel! The Gmini has a nice music library and everything, but it is sometimes a pain to scroll through it (you have to hold the little nub down and wait for it to accelerate).
Lacking the easy scrolling is not a tragedy, but not having access to my large collection of wma files is.
Yea, I know.. slaughter me for using wma over mp3 or ogg, but all of my legally owned music is ripped into variable bit rate wma files which sound great and are smaller than Mp3s.
I can't really see the addition of Syrius to the iPod really giving me or anyone else a reason to switch if they can deal with my two points mentioned above. People with large HD mp3 players have lots of their own music. Maybe if you could press a button and download a song off the satellite (and then actually manage to get them off of your iPod)....
They weren't specifically demonstraiting the mapping functionality. They were showing off Avalon and Indigo. Avalon was used to render the map in pure vectors. They showed the user looking over the map with a magnifying class with no quality loss and a crisp, clean look and feel. Further, it was explained that Indigo was used to interact with the web service that provided the mapping data.
"I don't want to have to guess which tree it might be under."
You wouldn't be gussing if you put it where you would look for it.
"WHen I hit reply I'll clsoe the tab and be right back where I was all without the window moving."
Which is exactly what I do with seperate windows. How are tabs different in this respect?
"Remember please the point of the taskbar is to get to windows quickly, not to organize them. Otherwise why can't I reorder where active icons are on the bar?"
And I would be able to get to my windows more quickly if they were better organized. I have very often wished I was able to drag around and reorder my taskbar items.
When I working in VS.net, I love to have all my code files on tabs because I have so many of them, and I am usually not working on more than one at a time (and if I am using two at once, I split the document pane)
With my web browser, I have never found the need to use tabs. In fact, tabs have often confused me because I wind up having two or three firefox windows each with a variety of tabs, and they aren't organized well. In VS.net, every window is a solution and the tabs are documents in that solution, but in a browser, there is no analogous divider, so I would like the ability to move tabs between windows.
Some poster above wanted tabs in all MS Office apps, this just proves that the concept of tabs could be universally applied to all applications... kind of like the taskbar! Think about it, tabs aren't any different than a taskbar, except they are nested one level deeper.
I propose a hierarchical, organizable taskbar. Rather than a hard and fast rule like "if the taskbar gets full, group like applications" I would like to be able to create groups and move windows into and out of groups. Applications should have API control over their own windows organization (user overridable of course), so VS.net could, for example, group applications by solution.
This solution eliminates the need to add tabs support to every single application and creates a common and more robust tab solution.
I have spent quite some time maintaining/upgrading code that was written in Visual Basic 3. Believe me... "Visual Basic" as the world knows it (Versions 5, 6, and.net) is not evil... in fact they are gifts from gods compared to VB3...
"There is one catch, however: customers must first file a report on the unscrupulous reseller."
How is this a "catch"? A catch implies the offer/opportunity is in some how rigged to negatively affect the offeree. Microsoft is going out of their way to do something nice for customers who go out of their way to do something nice for Microsoft. This is a mutually beneficial situation and while it might conflict with the/. "any means to an end of ruining Microsoft" philosophy, Microsoft should be commended for this.
I love Google as much as the next guy, but random comments like the comment about Google Maps simply do not belong in the article summary. Save personal comments for the comments secions.
If an application didn't originally handle the WM_DROPONTASKBAR message, it won't do so automatically. A later version of the application would need to add support for that.
Of course this was a design flaw. All I said was that this is easily fixed, but applications could not possibly be forwards compatable...
"So in Longhorn, can I drag documents onto a button on the task bar to open it, rather than holding the mouse down waiting for the app to appear?"
There is a (sorta) good reason why this doesn't work currently.
Drag and drop facilities are per-control. Currently, when you drag drop on to the task bar, Windows shows reports an error and then simply eats the Win API message.
Windows could pass the message on to the application, but what does that mean exactly? Some applications could have multiple drop targets with different meanings. Even if Windows could determine which target to use, what co-ordinates are passed with that new drop Win API message?
Now this doesn't mean that a new Win API message couldn't be created something like WM_DROPONTASKBAR, but that wouldn't enable you to drop onto the task bar button of applications that do not specifically support that.
NOTE: I say "code" referring to function bodies. I strongly believe that every function should be clearly labeled and its behavior clearly defined. Javadocs, doxygen, C#'s XML comments, etc are EXTREMELY VALUABLE, no matter how obvious some descriptions may be sometimes.
Self-documenting code is THE BEST WAY TO GO, but far harder than commenting.
If the code is written properly, anyone should be able to glance at it and read it. Not a single comment should be needed at all, but unfortunately that's idealistic and unrealistic.
Comments exist for clarifying code that is inherently not self documenting. I believe comments should be the minority. If there is a comment, that means the code is confusing and requires clarification. Sometimes confusing code is a must for performance, to completing an implementation on time, or just because it wouldn't work any other way, but it should be avoided as much as possible.
You should try to build your code in such a way that you can't possibly think of what to write in an inline comment. This means lots of modularity: well documented functions even when they are only ever going to be called from one place.
You should look at your code and every line should read to you: coutxendl;// Outputs x to the console
It seems that everyone has forgotten that WinAmp had "search-as-you-type" functionality that was aware of ID3 tags and other meta data long before iTunes was ever conceived.
Slashdot Mirror
My ex randomly contacts me form time to time for no better reason than to piss me off. If it happens to me on a bad day... I'll gladly offer my image collection as the first content for nudes.google.com
I don't have any AAC files, nor was I aware iTunes could batch convert them (although I assumed there was a way).
In any case. The Gmini display is quite large and very readable (see the images on the site). The controls were my only complaint, although they are VERY VERY USABLE. The battery hasn't died on me yet, lasting over 8 hours at work with near continuous play (stopping for lunch or bathroom break while at work). The button that acts as the iPod's wheel does is very easy to use with any finger and isn't overly sensitive. It is just a little bit slower to get to somewhere in the middle of the list. That's really my only complaint and it's minor as I usually just pick a band or a playlist and play and forget about it for an hour or so.
I own an Archos Gmini 200 and love it. The 20GB model was cheaper and physically smaller than the 20GB model iPod, and it works nearly as well. The only reasons I'd ever really want an iPod is 1) if I suddenly developed a fear of being considered un-trendy and 2) for that touch wheel! The Gmini has a nice music library and everything, but it is sometimes a pain to scroll through it (you have to hold the little nub down and wait for it to accelerate).
Lacking the easy scrolling is not a tragedy, but not having access to my large collection of wma files is. Yea, I know.. slaughter me for using wma over mp3 or ogg, but all of my legally owned music is ripped into variable bit rate wma files which sound great and are smaller than Mp3s.
I can't really see the addition of Syrius to the iPod really giving me or anyone else a reason to switch if they can deal with my two points mentioned above. People with large HD mp3 players have lots of their own music. Maybe if you could press a button and download a song off the satellite (and then actually manage to get them off of your iPod)....
I just love beating this dead horse!
& res=l
Great comic strip:
http://penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-12-13
Nope, it has to be leprachauns... have you ever tried to lift an xbox??
Shit, the instruction manual makes it very clear that HEAVY OBJECTS MAY HURT PEOPLE OR BREAK THINGS WHEN THEY FALL.
Damn you leprachauns!! Damn yoooouuuuuuu!!!!!!
They weren't specifically demonstraiting the mapping functionality. They were showing off Avalon and Indigo. Avalon was used to render the map in pure vectors. They showed the user looking over the map with a magnifying class with no quality loss and a crisp, clean look and feel. Further, it was explained that Indigo was used to interact with the web service that provided the mapping data.
"I don't want to have to guess which tree it might be under."
You wouldn't be gussing if you put it where you would look for it.
"WHen I hit reply I'll clsoe the tab and be right back where I was all without the window moving."
Which is exactly what I do with seperate windows. How are tabs different in this respect?
"Remember please the point of the taskbar is to get to windows quickly, not to organize them. Otherwise why can't I reorder where active icons are on the bar?"
And I would be able to get to my windows more quickly if they were better organized. I have very often wished I was able to drag around and reorder my taskbar items.
The PS2 SDK snafu is infamous in the game industry.
I don't have a link to a source, but I seem to remember an interview with a Sony guy making it very clear that Sony will not make that mistake again.
The PS3's development team is clearly composed of very smart people; smart people learn from their mistakes (or are at least supposed to).
No kidding?
I am deathly afraid of being pissed at a game, throwing the controller, only to have it turn around and put out my eye...
When I working in VS.net, I love to have all my code files on tabs because I have so many of them, and I am usually not working on more than one at a time (and if I am using two at once, I split the document pane)
With my web browser, I have never found the need to use tabs. In fact, tabs have often confused me because I wind up having two or three firefox windows each with a variety of tabs, and they aren't organized well. In VS.net, every window is a solution and the tabs are documents in that solution, but in a browser, there is no analogous divider, so I would like the ability to move tabs between windows.
Some poster above wanted tabs in all MS Office apps, this just proves that the concept of tabs could be universally applied to all applications... kind of like the taskbar! Think about it, tabs aren't any different than a taskbar, except they are nested one level deeper.
I propose a hierarchical, organizable taskbar. Rather than a hard and fast rule like "if the taskbar gets full, group like applications" I would like to be able to create groups and move windows into and out of groups. Applications should have API control over their own windows organization (user overridable of course), so VS.net could, for example, group applications by solution.
This solution eliminates the need to add tabs support to every single application and creates a common and more robust tab solution.
What does everyone think?
"Just where do you get off, huh?"
At 100 million... that extra digit just really tickels my fancy
Wow, I wish I had a mod point for you... lol
"where do you draw the line?"
I'm not sure where you draw the line, but I can tell you that if you would take a bullet for a server... you've crossed it, wherever it is...
I have spent quite some time maintaining/upgrading code that was written in Visual Basic 3. Believe me... "Visual Basic" as the world knows it (Versions 5, 6, and .net) is not evil... in fact they are gifts from gods compared to VB3...
"There is one catch, however: customers must first file a report on the unscrupulous reseller."
/. "any means to an end of ruining Microsoft" philosophy, Microsoft should be commended for this.
How is this a "catch"? A catch implies the offer/opportunity is in some how rigged to negatively affect the offeree. Microsoft is going out of their way to do something nice for customers who go out of their way to do something nice for Microsoft. This is a mutually beneficial situation and while it might conflict with the
I love Google as much as the next guy, but random comments like the comment about Google Maps simply do not belong in the article summary. Save personal comments for the comments secions.
If an application didn't originally handle the WM_DROPONTASKBAR message, it won't do so automatically. A later version of the application would need to add support for that.
Of course this was a design flaw. All I said was that this is easily fixed, but applications could not possibly be forwards compatable...
"So in Longhorn, can I drag documents onto a button on the task bar to open it, rather than holding the mouse down waiting for the app to appear?"
There is a (sorta) good reason why this doesn't work currently.
Drag and drop facilities are per-control. Currently, when you drag drop on to the task bar, Windows shows reports an error and then simply eats the Win API message.
Windows could pass the message on to the application, but what does that mean exactly? Some applications could have multiple drop targets with different meanings. Even if Windows could determine which target to use, what co-ordinates are passed with that new drop Win API message?
Now this doesn't mean that a new Win API message couldn't be created something like WM_DROPONTASKBAR, but that wouldn't enable you to drop onto the task bar button of applications that do not specifically support that.
naturally that should be cout<<x<<endl; ;-)
the Google toolbar spell checker has crippled my use of preview
Also, I forgot to mention: comments and self documenting code are both completely useless if the documentation becomes out of sync with the source...
NOTE: I say "code" referring to function bodies. I strongly believe that every function should be clearly labeled and its behavior clearly defined. Javadocs, doxygen, C#'s XML comments, etc are EXTREMELY VALUABLE, no matter how obvious some descriptions may be sometimes.
// Outputs x to the console
Self-documenting code is THE BEST WAY TO GO, but far harder than commenting.
If the code is written properly, anyone should be able to glance at it and read it. Not a single comment should be needed at all, but unfortunately that's idealistic and unrealistic.
Comments exist for clarifying code that is inherently not self documenting. I believe comments should be the minority. If there is a comment, that means the code is confusing and requires clarification. Sometimes confusing code is a must for performance, to completing an implementation on time, or just because it wouldn't work any other way, but it should be avoided as much as possible.
You should try to build your code in such a way that you can't possibly think of what to write in an inline comment. This means lots of modularity: well documented functions even when they are only ever going to be called from one place.
You should look at your code and every line should read to you:
coutxendl;
No need! I've reverse engineered it for you:
// clippy.cpp
int main()
{
while (1)
annoyUser();
}
You can allocate as much memory as you like using the right java command line flags:
e fe rence/Java14VMOptions/VM_Options/chapter_1_section _4.html
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Java/R
I believe Windows Media Player had "Auto-playlists" before iTunes was released, but I could be mistaken.
It seems that everyone has forgotten that WinAmp had "search-as-you-type" functionality that was aware of ID3 tags and other meta data long before iTunes was ever conceived.
Tom Clancy's jingoistic pro-military, pro-police-state propaganda and lackluster dialogue aside
The game was not actually written by Clancy himself. It was written by J. T. Petty
Additionally, I found Chaos Theory to contain superior dialog than the previous two games and a bit more humor.