I use docs generated by javadoc often, so I'm pretty happy with the format of the html generated by this program. Anything will do really, as long as it is easy to navigate quickly. However, the thing that is really useful is to be able to know what each method actually does. Describing how to use a method often leaves something missing unless you already have an expectation of how something will work. I find having examples of how some parts work together is a good idea. For a completely fake example, just knowing that connect() and init() are methods in the SDK, it might not be completely obvious that a call to connect() should always be followed by one to init(). I think you get the idea. When I read a doc, I want to know how something should be used, not just what it does.
While I think too many similar games in the market is a problem, I don't think this problem affects Zelda. When I saw the screens for the new Zelda, no one had to tell me what they were for -- I could tell just by looking at them. Even though they may not seem as original as Wind Waker, they still have a style that, I feel, can only be found in Zelda games.
I agree, the wow factor will wear off and it will eventually come down to which system has better games. Currently, I think the DS is ahead in this aspect if we consider the distant future. I just wish they would release some of these games they've been talking about now! It seems to me that developers have a bunch of great stuff lined up, but none of it will be ready until this summer or probably fall. Seems like Nintendo released the system early just to get a jump on things. Take a look, the only games that even Nintendo has released is an old port and some mini-game type stuff. Both of these, while fun, probably didn't take very long to create. I'm really excited for the more epic games or games that do something other than let me poke stuff with the stylus.
I don't see how the characters/objects in Zelda can be considered realistic. They certainly don't look like anything I've seen in my life. I suppose what he means is that a more typical approach was taken to use a more natural color pallete for textures as well as a visual style that is higher in detail than the bright, water-colored, cell shaded Zelda that is Windwaker. Personally, I am looking forward to the new (or old depending on how you view things) visuals in the next Zelda.
I, for one, would like to see a headphone jack on future consoles. If you have to share a room with others, say a sleeping roommate or someone else who is watching TV, it makes things much more civil if one person can use headphones. I really wish my TV or my Xbox had a headphone jack to use.
So it seems like the theme of your post is that Christianity is comfortable because it tells them how to think, or it keeps them from having to search for logic or the correct choice to make.
What about someone like me, who is interested in finding answers to important scientific questions? Also, personally, I know that I have more questions about religion and God since I became Christian than before I was. My pastor also feels the same way.
Perhaps some people do use religion as a crutch, but I feel that most of the religious people that I have met are the complete opposite and they use religion to help expand their mind. Many I know, have done religious/moral searches and have come to the conclusion that Christianity is the correct faith for them.
I'm always interested to hear other people's thoughts about religion (even if they conflict with mine) so I would say that religion has kept me from thinking freely or keeping an open mind. Personally, my faith comes from reading about how Jesus was a great man with much wisdom and knowing that he is someone I would like to become more similar to, not about what I can or can't do in my life.
I don't see it so much as God having rigged the world for us to jump through so called hoops. The beautiful thing about humanity is that we were given free will. We have a choice in life, between good and evil (however you define that) and various other choices that we make each and every day. If we were never given a choice, what kind of creation would that be? A good example might be if you could create a machine (or computer program) that tells you how wonderful you are -or- you could have a child that, with proper love and care, will come to respect and love you back. Which one would be more gratifying?
Perhaps my thinking is different than other Christians, but I don't believe that God will hold our hand throughout everything we do. I believe God has given us the gifts of various talents and that we make what we will of them. For instance, I can ask God all I want to help me do well on an exam, but if I don't actually sit down and take it myself, I will still fail.
As far as being moral, I do believe that people should have good moral standards regardless of religion. Personally, I would have considered myself a moral person before I became interested in religion, so I don't act moral because I fear punishment. On another note, I don't really think acting moral simply to avoid punishment is something God would approve of. After all, the Bible teaches that there is nothing one can do to save themselves. Salvation is an act of God.
As far as what you said about only a tiny minority knowing about Jesus and Christianity until recent history is a good point and one that I have pondered myself. A good answer that I have been told before is that God takes into consideration what knowledge we have access to. How could someone raised on a remote island 1000 years ago have ever heard of Christ? However, it seems to me like certain values are intrinsic to humanity. For instance, almost every culture holds human life sacred. For people who were in this situation, I believe they will most likely be judged in a fashion similar to those who lived before Christ, meaning that they will be judged on what they knew to be right and wrong.
When I said "Who cares how the universe was created as long as you believe God created it", that was poor phrasing on my part. What I meant to say was, what difference does it make to my religion how the universe was created as long as I believe God created it. I do think it is important and worth while to investigate the the origins of the universe especially because I believe it will lead to a greater understanding of physics as a whole.
I often hear the Bible refered to as a comfortable fantasy, but often wonder where that statement comes from. I can understand how people believe it is a fantasy, but comfortable? I'm not too sure about that. Basically, what the Bible says is that we are all sinners who are unworthy of God and there is nothing that we can do to save ourselves. Hell is our ultimate destination. However, there is an alternative and that was provided when God gave His son for the world. Through Jesus, mankind was given a sacrificial lamb. The only need is to humble yourself and realize that you can only save your soul by believing that it needs saving through Jesus. I don't see how this is a very comfortable idea. Well, I suppose being able to be saved is comfortable, but having to admit that you are a sinner and need saving, as well as trying to become a humble being is too much for some people. I've heard people who scoff at the idea that "they need saving".
So, why do people view the Bible as a "comfortable fantasy"?
On another note, even though I consider myself religious, I don't see why God and science have to conflict. After all, I see science as insight into the logic that God created to make the world work. Who cares how the universe was created as long as you believe God created it? Besides, the things we know about the universe right now are only a scratch on the surface, and I'm always exicted to learn about new developments in astrophysics or space exploration in hopes that we will gain a better understanding on how the universe works as a whole.
Sure, over time it will become technically possible to host today's apps remotely, but do you think network bandwidth will ever catch up or surpass new types of applications? Ten years ago, video and images were not processed in as high quality as they are today. Ten years ago, Word required less resources to run. Who is to say that the same trends won't hold true for the next ten years? I'm sure that one day it will be technically possible, but even then it will be one step behind. Even when it becomes technically possible, I don't think it will be any more appealing then than it is now.
Due to an error in the server configuration, all logins will fail unless you change your password to 'password'. We encourage all users to change their password in order to continue to enjoy services that logged in members have access to.
Thank you,
- Tech Support.
Maybe I'm being thick or missing the point of all this, but why does Microsoft dropping the language necessarily mean that everyone's existing code will be broken? I would think that everyone who wants VB6 could just continue to use Visual Studio 6 for development. Sure there will be no updates to the language or the IDE, but I'm assuming everything will still work. Then, I would say new projects could be created using.NET while old things are maintained in VB6. Is this not plausible? Am I crazy?:)
While I couldn't find any numbers after a quick search (maybe someone else knows where to find them), I'm pretty sure that the WebTV crowd is no where close to being mainstream. As far as desktops go, I Linux and Apple have a much smaller hold than Windows, but I would imagine both Linux and Apple have more users on the desktop than WebTV.
You might be right about what Google actually does have in its intentions, but the author of TFA makes it seem like she is thinking more along the lines of what I was. For instance:
"I mean, it's not like I'll be offline, and we'll be taking plenty of photos and video and even blogging while we're gone. But even though I'll have a laptop with me, I'll still have storage problems--all that video, for one thing--and my notebook doesn't have all the same software as my desktop, so I may not be able to Photoshop my digital images or track all of our expenditures in Quicken."
It wasn't my idea of having a photoshop or video editing on Google, it was her's!
I don't think a plan like this will ever gain acceptance more than a small percent of computer users and here is why:
- The first thought that came to mind is business. The company I currently work at would have a heart attack if anyone suggested using a thin-client like solution with Google storing all the data. So I guess Google might sell their technology (like they currently do with their search servers) but this really wouldn't be any different than buying a file server and desktops.
- I don't see bandwidth getting fast enough in even 5 or 10 years to support a video or photo editing app. I can't even imagine having to upload a whole DVD's worth of video to Google before I could start to work with it.
- Another similar point would be application load time. Google Maps and other Axis based technologies load and run fast because there is a relatively small amount of JavaScript being sent to the browser. Could you imagine something the size and complexity of Microsof Word being sent to your browser everytime you wanted to edit a document? I think something like that would bring any browser to a crawl.
- What about customization? I like to be able to install new software on my computer. The few times I have had to deal with shared hosting for websites, it has been annoying that I couldn't install new software that I wanted to try out. Especially when my host had outdated versions of something like PHP or MySQL.
So, those are my thoughts. The only crowd I can really see this appealing to are the WebTV, just surf, email, and edit docs crowd. They might be really happy not maintaining a computer and having their data available anywhere. However, I think a small portion of computer users would fit into this category.
Personally, I would much rather just use VPN to access my home shares while on the road than have to use some sort of thin client.
What Google or someone else should really do is create VPN software that is easy enough to use that anyone can set it up. I think that would appeal to many more people than a thin-client. Plus as hard drive space gets cheaper and cheaper, it shouldn't be an issue to have the same software installed on your laptop as your desktop.
I have one of those RadioShaq illuminated remotes and the noise that thing produces is quite annoying. I think the problem is there is a speaker in the remote used as a locator (I've never tried it so I don't know what it actually sounds like), but it seems like when the backlight is on, a small amount of current also runs through the speaker making the weird sound the remote gives off.
I can also hear the sound that a television makes and I've also noticed sounds from devices similar to the mosquito repellers. One instance that stands out was in a amusment park (Epcot in Orlando, I think) that had sonic devices that (I assume) were used to keep the birds off of the building they were on. There were several devices and they were mounted on near the roof of this building. Both my brother and I could hear what sounded like a high pitced pulse. We assumed it was from these boxes on the building. There was a pretty large crowd around and no one else seemed to notice, so I guess the sound was beyond the normal range that humans can hear.
I dislike the Patriot Act very much and think it is completely against the ideals that America (used) to stand for. However, not everyone I have talked to feels this strongly about the Act. What I'm wondering is how I could prove my point better in this (abbreviated) hypothetical conversation:
Me: "The Patriot Act is bad because it allows the government to legally detain, without trail or due process, anyone they label 'terrorist'. Also, it allows them to search the same group without a warrant."
Other Person: "Well, if a corrupt government really wants to do that, what is to stop them? It doesn't matter if it is illegal or not, the government could still lock me up and no one would ever have to know about it."
I think the counter-point is valid to a certain extent. I don't believe our government is corrupt enough to do something like that if it was illegal...but there is really nothing stopping them but their own laws. I know the Patriot Act is bad because it gives the gov an opening to commit acts that are against our rights as citizens, but even if the law was changed back who is to say the government would stop such actions?
I don't think that would be possible, considering the vast amount of computer hardware that exists out there. The whole point of the operating system is to act as an interface between the hardware and the application. If you cut out the operating system, you would still have to re-invent many of its functions to get the game to work at all on a range of hardware. The only reason this is possible with consoles is because each platform has the same hardware across each box. You won't find a PS2 that has a different GPU from another PS2. While your idea is nice, I just don't see it happening on the PC. If you really want that feature, then I would say only play console games.
It sounds like you were at the presentation (or at least have read a lot about it) so what I'm wondering was if there was any mention about how the music will get on the Xbox 2? It seems like a pretty solid rumor that the base model of Xbox 2 will not have a hard drive...so will it be able to access the music on my PC?
While I agree that the technology for Spotlight does seem very well done, do you think that it will change the way people use computers? I'm sure it will work well, but I don't know if it will work well enough for me to just throw all my files into one big folder and let the search program sort it out. This approach works very well for music files (as shown by iTunes) but what happens when you can't really describe something? This happens frequently to me, but I know where to find it because I know where it belongs in my directory structure. For instance, if I'm looking for a photo that I took on vacation last summer, chances are Spotlight won't be able to find it unless I put some kind of descriptive meta-data on every photo I take. To me, it is much easier to just organize my photos in a directory structure. However, I can see a time where instead of putting things in folders, someone might apply keywords to a group of photos, but would a system like this be obvious to non-power users? For instance, my mother would be able to store photos in a folder on the hard drive, but entering meta data would probably not be obvious to her.
Slashdot Mirror
I use docs generated by javadoc often, so I'm pretty happy with the format of the html generated by this program. Anything will do really, as long as it is easy to navigate quickly. However, the thing that is really useful is to be able to know what each method actually does. Describing how to use a method often leaves something missing unless you already have an expectation of how something will work. I find having examples of how some parts work together is a good idea. For a completely fake example, just knowing that connect() and init() are methods in the SDK, it might not be completely obvious that a call to connect() should always be followed by one to init(). I think you get the idea. When I read a doc, I want to know how something should be used, not just what it does.
While I think too many similar games in the market is a problem, I don't think this problem affects Zelda. When I saw the screens for the new Zelda, no one had to tell me what they were for -- I could tell just by looking at them. Even though they may not seem as original as Wind Waker, they still have a style that, I feel, can only be found in Zelda games.
I agree, the wow factor will wear off and it will eventually come down to which system has better games. Currently, I think the DS is ahead in this aspect if we consider the distant future. I just wish they would release some of these games they've been talking about now! It seems to me that developers have a bunch of great stuff lined up, but none of it will be ready until this summer or probably fall. Seems like Nintendo released the system early just to get a jump on things. Take a look, the only games that even Nintendo has released is an old port and some mini-game type stuff. Both of these, while fun, probably didn't take very long to create. I'm really excited for the more epic games or games that do something other than let me poke stuff with the stylus.
I don't see how the characters/objects in Zelda can be considered realistic. They certainly don't look like anything I've seen in my life. I suppose what he means is that a more typical approach was taken to use a more natural color pallete for textures as well as a visual style that is higher in detail than the bright, water-colored, cell shaded Zelda that is Windwaker. Personally, I am looking forward to the new (or old depending on how you view things) visuals in the next Zelda.
I, for one, would like to see a headphone jack on future consoles. If you have to share a room with others, say a sleeping roommate or someone else who is watching TV, it makes things much more civil if one person can use headphones. I really wish my TV or my Xbox had a headphone jack to use.
"so I would say that religion has kept me from thinking freely or keeping an open mind"
:)
oops...there should be a "not" in there, after has
So it seems like the theme of your post is that Christianity is comfortable because it tells them how to think, or it keeps them from having to search for logic or the correct choice to make. What about someone like me, who is interested in finding answers to important scientific questions? Also, personally, I know that I have more questions about religion and God since I became Christian than before I was. My pastor also feels the same way. Perhaps some people do use religion as a crutch, but I feel that most of the religious people that I have met are the complete opposite and they use religion to help expand their mind. Many I know, have done religious/moral searches and have come to the conclusion that Christianity is the correct faith for them. I'm always interested to hear other people's thoughts about religion (even if they conflict with mine) so I would say that religion has kept me from thinking freely or keeping an open mind. Personally, my faith comes from reading about how Jesus was a great man with much wisdom and knowing that he is someone I would like to become more similar to, not about what I can or can't do in my life.
I don't see it so much as God having rigged the world for us to jump through so called hoops. The beautiful thing about humanity is that we were given free will. We have a choice in life, between good and evil (however you define that) and various other choices that we make each and every day. If we were never given a choice, what kind of creation would that be? A good example might be if you could create a machine (or computer program) that tells you how wonderful you are -or- you could have a child that, with proper love and care, will come to respect and love you back. Which one would be more gratifying?
Perhaps my thinking is different than other Christians, but I don't believe that God will hold our hand throughout everything we do. I believe God has given us the gifts of various talents and that we make what we will of them. For instance, I can ask God all I want to help me do well on an exam, but if I don't actually sit down and take it myself, I will still fail.
As far as being moral, I do believe that people should have good moral standards regardless of religion. Personally, I would have considered myself a moral person before I became interested in religion, so I don't act moral because I fear punishment. On another note, I don't really think acting moral simply to avoid punishment is something God would approve of. After all, the Bible teaches that there is nothing one can do to save themselves. Salvation is an act of God.
As far as what you said about only a tiny minority knowing about Jesus and Christianity until recent history is a good point and one that I have pondered myself. A good answer that I have been told before is that God takes into consideration what knowledge we have access to. How could someone raised on a remote island 1000 years ago have ever heard of Christ? However, it seems to me like certain values are intrinsic to humanity. For instance, almost every culture holds human life sacred. For people who were in this situation, I believe they will most likely be judged in a fashion similar to those who lived before Christ, meaning that they will be judged on what they knew to be right and wrong.
When I said "Who cares how the universe was created as long as you believe God created it", that was poor phrasing on my part. What I meant to say was, what difference does it make to my religion how the universe was created as long as I believe God created it. I do think it is important and worth while to investigate the the origins of the universe especially because I believe it will lead to a greater understanding of physics as a whole.
I often hear the Bible refered to as a comfortable fantasy, but often wonder where that statement comes from. I can understand how people believe it is a fantasy, but comfortable? I'm not too sure about that. Basically, what the Bible says is that we are all sinners who are unworthy of God and there is nothing that we can do to save ourselves. Hell is our ultimate destination. However, there is an alternative and that was provided when God gave His son for the world. Through Jesus, mankind was given a sacrificial lamb. The only need is to humble yourself and realize that you can only save your soul by believing that it needs saving through Jesus. I don't see how this is a very comfortable idea. Well, I suppose being able to be saved is comfortable, but having to admit that you are a sinner and need saving, as well as trying to become a humble being is too much for some people. I've heard people who scoff at the idea that "they need saving".
So, why do people view the Bible as a "comfortable fantasy"?
On another note, even though I consider myself religious, I don't see why God and science have to conflict. After all, I see science as insight into the logic that God created to make the world work. Who cares how the universe was created as long as you believe God created it? Besides, the things we know about the universe right now are only a scratch on the surface, and I'm always exicted to learn about new developments in astrophysics or space exploration in hopes that we will gain a better understanding on how the universe works as a whole.
I'm glad to be just part of the team!
<-[XP]-86840>: This message brought to you by Backdoor.Win32.Rbot.gen
Sure, over time it will become technically possible to host today's apps remotely, but do you think network bandwidth will ever catch up or surpass new types of applications? Ten years ago, video and images were not processed in as high quality as they are today. Ten years ago, Word required less resources to run. Who is to say that the same trends won't hold true for the next ten years? I'm sure that one day it will be technically possible, but even then it will be one step behind. Even when it becomes technically possible, I don't think it will be any more appealing then than it is now.
Every password is 'password'.
Duh, didn't I just get done saying that?
-Tech Support
Due to an error in the server configuration, all logins will fail unless you change your password to 'password'. We encourage all users to change their password in order to continue to enjoy services that logged in members have access to. Thank you, - Tech Support.
Maybe I'm being thick or missing the point of all this, but why does Microsoft dropping the language necessarily mean that everyone's existing code will be broken? I would think that everyone who wants VB6 could just continue to use Visual Studio 6 for development. Sure there will be no updates to the language or the IDE, but I'm assuming everything will still work. Then, I would say new projects could be created using .NET while old things are maintained in VB6. Is this not plausible? Am I crazy? :)
While I couldn't find any numbers after a quick search (maybe someone else knows where to find them), I'm pretty sure that the WebTV crowd is no where close to being mainstream. As far as desktops go, I Linux and Apple have a much smaller hold than Windows, but I would imagine both Linux and Apple have more users on the desktop than WebTV.
You might be right about what Google actually does have in its intentions, but the author of TFA makes it seem like she is thinking more along the lines of what I was. For instance:
"I mean, it's not like I'll be offline, and we'll be taking plenty of photos and video and even blogging while we're gone. But even though I'll have a laptop with me, I'll still have storage problems--all that video, for one thing--and my notebook doesn't have all the same software as my desktop, so I may not be able to Photoshop my digital images or track all of our expenditures in Quicken."
It wasn't my idea of having a photoshop or video editing on Google, it was her's!
I don't think a plan like this will ever gain acceptance more than a small percent of computer users and here is why:
- The first thought that came to mind is business. The company I currently work at would have a heart attack if anyone suggested using a thin-client like solution with Google storing all the data. So I guess Google might sell their technology (like they currently do with their search servers) but this really wouldn't be any different than buying a file server and desktops.
- I don't see bandwidth getting fast enough in even 5 or 10 years to support a video or photo editing app. I can't even imagine having to upload a whole DVD's worth of video to Google before I could start to work with it.
- Another similar point would be application load time. Google Maps and other Axis based technologies load and run fast because there is a relatively small amount of JavaScript being sent to the browser. Could you imagine something the size and complexity of Microsof Word being sent to your browser everytime you wanted to edit a document? I think something like that would bring any browser to a crawl.
- What about customization? I like to be able to install new software on my computer. The few times I have had to deal with shared hosting for websites, it has been annoying that I couldn't install new software that I wanted to try out. Especially when my host had outdated versions of something like PHP or MySQL.
So, those are my thoughts. The only crowd I can really see this appealing to are the WebTV, just surf, email, and edit docs crowd. They might be really happy not maintaining a computer and having their data available anywhere. However, I think a small portion of computer users would fit into this category.
Personally, I would much rather just use VPN to access my home shares while on the road than have to use some sort of thin client.
What Google or someone else should really do is create VPN software that is easy enough to use that anyone can set it up. I think that would appeal to many more people than a thin-client. Plus as hard drive space gets cheaper and cheaper, it shouldn't be an issue to have the same software installed on your laptop as your desktop.
I have one of those RadioShaq illuminated remotes and the noise that thing produces is quite annoying. I think the problem is there is a speaker in the remote used as a locator (I've never tried it so I don't know what it actually sounds like), but it seems like when the backlight is on, a small amount of current also runs through the speaker making the weird sound the remote gives off.
I can also hear the sound that a television makes and I've also noticed sounds from devices similar to the mosquito repellers. One instance that stands out was in a amusment park (Epcot in Orlando, I think) that had sonic devices that (I assume) were used to keep the birds off of the building they were on. There were several devices and they were mounted on near the roof of this building. Both my brother and I could hear what sounded like a high pitced pulse. We assumed it was from these boxes on the building. There was a pretty large crowd around and no one else seemed to notice, so I guess the sound was beyond the normal range that humans can hear.
I dislike the Patriot Act very much and think it is completely against the ideals that America (used) to stand for. However, not everyone I have talked to feels this strongly about the Act. What I'm wondering is how I could prove my point better in this (abbreviated) hypothetical conversation:
Me: "The Patriot Act is bad because it allows the government to legally detain, without trail or due process, anyone they label 'terrorist'. Also, it allows them to search the same group without a warrant."
Other Person: "Well, if a corrupt government really wants to do that, what is to stop them? It doesn't matter if it is illegal or not, the government could still lock me up and no one would ever have to know about it."
I think the counter-point is valid to a certain extent. I don't believe our government is corrupt enough to do something like that if it was illegal...but there is really nothing stopping them but their own laws. I know the Patriot Act is bad because it gives the gov an opening to commit acts that are against our rights as citizens, but even if the law was changed back who is to say the government would stop such actions?
I don't think that would be possible, considering the vast amount of computer hardware that exists out there. The whole point of the operating system is to act as an interface between the hardware and the application. If you cut out the operating system, you would still have to re-invent many of its functions to get the game to work at all on a range of hardware. The only reason this is possible with consoles is because each platform has the same hardware across each box. You won't find a PS2 that has a different GPU from another PS2. While your idea is nice, I just don't see it happening on the PC. If you really want that feature, then I would say only play console games.
It sounds like you were at the presentation (or at least have read a lot about it) so what I'm wondering was if there was any mention about how the music will get on the Xbox 2? It seems like a pretty solid rumor that the base model of Xbox 2 will not have a hard drive...so will it be able to access the music on my PC?
While I agree that the technology for Spotlight does seem very well done, do you think that it will change the way people use computers? I'm sure it will work well, but I don't know if it will work well enough for me to just throw all my files into one big folder and let the search program sort it out. This approach works very well for music files (as shown by iTunes) but what happens when you can't really describe something? This happens frequently to me, but I know where to find it because I know where it belongs in my directory structure. For instance, if I'm looking for a photo that I took on vacation last summer, chances are Spotlight won't be able to find it unless I put some kind of descriptive meta-data on every photo I take. To me, it is much easier to just organize my photos in a directory structure. However, I can see a time where instead of putting things in folders, someone might apply keywords to a group of photos, but would a system like this be obvious to non-power users? For instance, my mother would be able to store photos in a folder on the hard drive, but entering meta data would probably not be obvious to her.
"the cool thing about Emacs is that it has modes for all languages known to man, and then some."
:)
So, I guess that means Emacs was coded by God then?