If you want to start with a higher level language like PHP or Ruby, that's fine, but at some point you should go back and learn C/C++ (IMO you can just do C++, but you should do non-OOP C++ first, e.g. no classes). Understanding things like memory management and pointers are key to understanding how your programs work. Truly understanding a high-level language involves knowing partially how that language works under the hood, and the interpreters/run-time environments are almost always written in C.
The other area which is key is data structures and algorithms - which data structure and which algorithm to use when. These days you almost never have to actually implement the algorithms themselves because they are included in the language libraries, but you should understand how they work and the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Contrary to what some people have posted, I don't think learning assembly these days is worth your time.
I don't think he is expecting to get back $1, just using it as an example of how point systems can mean that the people in charge of the point values choose (and can change) how much a point is worth.
I propose an anti-ground-to-air-sattelite-destroyer satellite. This satellite will be capable of detecting ground-to-air satellite destroyer attacks and destroy them before they are capable of hitting their target.
Don't have an enemy? Just prepare to fight what you just invented...
I mostly agree with your argument, but I will try to dissuade you a bit. Realize I own a Powerbook and have a MacBook order coming, etc etc, and I have no intent of running OS X on a non-Apple PC, ever. My argument can be summed up in two words: fair use.
Nearly everyone agrees that the majority of EULAs are dumb. If I want to buy OS X at the Apple Store, bring it home, and make it run on my x86 software that is my business. It is equally my business if I follow someone else's directions to do so.
This is what most people would consider "fair use" of something you buy. License agreements (EULAs) try to say you're not buying anything but a license to use the software in a certain way. This is like the music industry saying you don't own a copy of the music on the CD, only a license/rights to listen to it. For instance, the RIAA would like to control the re-sale of CDs through this mechanism but I think they mostly fail at it or gave up.
Anyway, I support these people because I support the argument that they should be allowed to do what they want with software they own, as long as they are within limits of standard copyright and license of that software. ("Standard license" refers to de-facto standard of one paid copy per machine running the software.)
I might even go further and wonder exactly how serious Apple is about fighting this. Obviously it is important that they make it hard for people to do this, because those people must understand they are not going to get one iota of support from Apple. Their machines will probably crash, have unsupported hardware issues, etc, that they'd never have with a Mac. I don't see how detrimental this is to Apple, as its a 0.1% problem anyway.
I agree. I think that the Constitution defends the de facto mode of transportation between two points. When the Constitution was written, this would be horseback or horse-drawn carriage. If a state tried to pass a law requiring you to submit to a search upon entering the state when on horseback, there would've been a riot. Just because we have advanced to the point that there are now many modes of transportation, Mr. Gillmore should not be forced to travel by horseback. 99.9% of people would travel from S.F. to D.C. by airplane, and preventing people from doing so should be unconstitutional.
I think the biggest issue here is that any law, regulation, or order, can be enacted regardless of its purpose, as long as it not deemed unconstitutional. The court's opinion is fully correct given the laws in the US Code, and indeed, as-is (barring my argument above), none of Gilmore's constitutional rights were withheld. Similarly, it would seem, if the TSA enacted an order saying I had to touch my finger to my nose before boarding a plane, the courts couldn't touch it either - sure, it has no purpose, it is ridiculous, etc, but there's not really anything they can do. Gilmore alleges that the law is meaningless, and I would agree, but it is not the court's place to judge the effectiveness or purpose of particular regulation.
So then, how does one fix this? Well, the rules were made by the people, and the people can tear them down. (To be specific: Congress granted the authority to the Secretary of Transportation and its subsidiaries (like the TSA) to regulate various forms of transportation. See page 1146 of the opinion (page 10 of the PDF).) It seems like the only way to get rid of this is now is through Congress.
I very much hope that Mr. Gilmore will appeal this ruling.
But unfortunately, this is "from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of appeals" (from the blurb). There is little wiggle room left - the only higher authority is the Supreme Court.
Yes that's true, and I certainly agree that doing graphical work in OS X is probably a lot nicer than doing it in Windows. But, that goes for everything else, too - OS X is simply awesome. Convincing corporate America that a Mac isn't "just for graphics" is the part that Apple needs to work on.
Disclaimer: I converted to using a Powerbook at work and home 2.5 years ago, and never looked back.
...with a few Apple macintosh systems scattered around for graphic design.
This is the second comment with a clause like this and I have to comment, albeit offtopic. Yes, I know, it's a stigma that's been attached to the Mac for years and years, but let's face it - for one, Wintel has been just as good for graphics design for years from a speed perspective, and two, with Apple's move to Intel chips, there is simply no way to argue any performance gain to be had by using a Mac.
I have, hence, come to the conclusion that what this really means is that the graphics people are the only ones smart enough to demand a Mac, and the higher-ups let them have one because of the aforementioned stigma.
If there is something that Apple needs to work on in the corporate environment, it's fixing these stereotypes once and for all.
Most people still buy, as well as own large collection of, these things called "compact discs." These discs hold music, typically a single album by a particular artist, and can be placed into a computer and "ripped" - the process of reading the digital data on the disc and storing it as a file on the computer.
Kidding aside, I don't buy music online, because I consider a rip-off. CDs have better quality, do not have DRM*, comes with liner notes, and is itself a physical backup. I know many people who feel the same way. IMO, online music needs to be much cheaper to make up for these shortcomings; the only benefit it has is immediate delivery.
*I have yet to run across any CD with DRM, and I would definitely return any CD I got that had DRM on it (or not buy it in the first place).
Huh? What is a 'meter'? While your "square feet" reference sounds familiar, could you please provide a useful measurement of comparison, like percentage of a football field (no, not a soccer field), the number of the number of Big Macs that could fit on it, or the number of 54" widescreen TVs would be needed to make this giant TV. Also, how many Libraries of Congress does it... something?
Looking at it briefly, it looks like this would only apply to IT dealing with financial data, and only of public firms. I am still not sure what "this" is exactly, but that's why IANAL.;)
First, If you actually read through the blurb (not even the article) you'd see that they're not talking about web servers - they're talking about Apache, the organization behind the web server.
Second, I would recommend the up-and-coming lighttpd, which I have used for both static and dynamic content. I have never used thttpd so I am not sure how it compares on the static end.
We were at 260ppm, and we're now at to 375ppm. This isn't like adding a new substance to the atmosphere. We haven't had an increase of 50,000%. I simply find this figure *surprising* given how much industrialization has occurred on this planet. I am not saying that it will or will not affect the environment. You don't know. I don't know. Nobody knows.
My opinion is skepticism - we do not know enough about our own climate to understand the impact we're having on it, and where that impact is coming from. Yes, I am skeptical, and I am just saying my original parent should be skeptical too.
I know that 375ppm is also well above any known CO2 records for the past 400,000 years from ice core samples. The graph I linked to shows that. But I am still surprised - in a very cursory sense - that we are "only" 35-50% above where we were before the industrial revolution. I mean, we've pumped out a lot of CO2 have we not? Surprise is not an opinion, just an observation.
There are reasons for a smaller-than-expected growth - oceans absorb CO2 (about half of what we produce), plant life has been able to thrive on the extra CO2 (not sure how much of a factor this gives, but I think it's pretty small), etc etc.
I'll admit where I got my skepticism from - I recently finished The State of Fear. Before I read it, I blindly thought global warming was real, and was caused by CO2. Crichton's novel didn't convince me that global warming wasn't happening (as some of the graphs in the book might seem to indicate), but it has made much more skeptical of both the science and, especially, media representation of that science. I strongly recommend you read it.
Since the industrial revolution the burning of fossil fuels has increased the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide to about 1.5 times the level it was in the early 1800s. By 2100 we are expected to be at double the 1800s level, resulting in a temperature increase of about 2 to 5 degrees celsius. So yes, we can affect the global temperature.
So, CO2 levels were at, lets say 260ppm. Now they're at 375ppm. That, is indeed, a rise of 44%. First, I'm surprised. If we've been pumping out so much CO2, why have we only raised the concentration by 44%? Wouldn't you figure it'd be a lot more?
Next, we're still talking 375ppm - that's 0.0375%. How can we be certain that such a small portion of our atmosphere is causing such a huge change? The answer is we can't. We only have guesses about what the climate is going to be like in 5, 10, 20 years. Computer models are so far off - if they're within 400% they're doing well - that it can be considered no more than a guess. In fact, this article is much more on target - it is likely water vapor that would cause a large increase in global temperature. But water vapor in our atmosphere varies a lot based on weather patterns.
Put simply: there is simply no way that you can say that a 100% increase in carbon dioxideconcentration is going to do or not do anything. We simply do not know. I am certain some scientist somewhere "predicted" that this could happen. And sure, it could. But we could also trigger the next ice age. It's nothing more than a guess.
I am not saying we shouldn't cut back. We should. Anything we do on the planet will affect it in some way, and certainly the less we affect the better. But, I am much more worried about the pollution problems in China, and that 60% of petroleum is consumed for transportation, than the CO2 output of the industrialized world.
This is a big "easier said than done." I have some experience with this, as I have worked on a (much smaller) game that had a forum with a moderately active community. I am also a WoW player since Day 1.
Feedback and suggestions, even if well-written and well-intended, are not typically replied to by the people who make or implement the decisions - this is typically because they do not want to promise anything that they cannot deliver. Blizzard seems to have this as a matter of policy - only CMs (community managers) reply to the community, and the CMs are definitely not decision makers - for the most part, they are moderators. At most, they are responsible for reporting interesting items to the higher-ups.
Dealing with feedback is difficult, because there is normally a downside to every upside. Even if the change or addition sounds like a great idea to everyone on the forum, any change will upset your player base, and has to be carefully crafted in such a way that it will not cause a barrage of complaints, or worse, account cancellations.
Another thing I will quickly mention is that probably only 5% of accounts or less are active on the forums. This is something you must consider when listening to feedback and suggestions - a very small, and very one-sided, amount of the people who play the game are actually on the forums. For example, I play the game quite a bit, but I only go on the forums if my realm is down for some reason. I think I have 1 post total.
Overall, I am impressed by Blizzard's development path. Their interactions with the community may not be the best - we'd all love to hear more from the developers, but I can understand why we do not. It is clear, though, that they do listen to us. We have had several talent tree reforms, with a lot of community feedback in the process. We have seen a lot of improvement to the performance and stability of the realms - it took a while, but my realm - Archimonde - has improved a lot. I think they have done a really good job of carefully making changes without upsetting particular classes and maintaining balance, and we've seen a fair amount of new content. I greatly respect the fact that making games is hard work and Blizzard continues to deliver.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, you're still 7 times more likely to lose a drive.
If you want to start with a higher level language like PHP or Ruby, that's fine, but at some point you should go back and learn C/C++ (IMO you can just do C++, but you should do non-OOP C++ first, e.g. no classes). Understanding things like memory management and pointers are key to understanding how your programs work. Truly understanding a high-level language involves knowing partially how that language works under the hood, and the interpreters/run-time environments are almost always written in C.
The other area which is key is data structures and algorithms - which data structure and which algorithm to use when. These days you almost never have to actually implement the algorithms themselves because they are included in the language libraries, but you should understand how they work and the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Contrary to what some people have posted, I don't think learning assembly these days is worth your time.
I don't think he is expecting to get back $1, just using it as an example of how point systems can mean that the people in charge of the point values choose (and can change) how much a point is worth.
I've heard from my sources on the inside that a Ninja Golf remake is a launch title. Blows that Tennis game right out of the water...
I propose an anti-ground-to-air-sattelite-destroyer satellite. This satellite will be capable of detecting ground-to-air satellite destroyer attacks and destroy them before they are capable of hitting their target.
Don't have an enemy? Just prepare to fight what you just invented...
Don't go through the Apple Store - just do it direct with Apple and have them do it through the "mail" (DHL these days).
...
Don't, it was horrible.
I mostly agree with your argument, but I will try to dissuade you a bit. Realize I own a Powerbook and have a MacBook order coming, etc etc, and I have no intent of running OS X on a non-Apple PC, ever. My argument can be summed up in two words: fair use.
Nearly everyone agrees that the majority of EULAs are dumb. If I want to buy OS X at the Apple Store, bring it home, and make it run on my x86 software that is my business. It is equally my business if I follow someone else's directions to do so.
This is what most people would consider "fair use" of something you buy. License agreements (EULAs) try to say you're not buying anything but a license to use the software in a certain way. This is like the music industry saying you don't own a copy of the music on the CD, only a license/rights to listen to it. For instance, the RIAA would like to control the re-sale of CDs through this mechanism but I think they mostly fail at it or gave up.
Anyway, I support these people because I support the argument that they should be allowed to do what they want with software they own, as long as they are within limits of standard copyright and license of that software. ("Standard license" refers to de-facto standard of one paid copy per machine running the software.)
I might even go further and wonder exactly how serious Apple is about fighting this. Obviously it is important that they make it hard for people to do this, because those people must understand they are not going to get one iota of support from Apple. Their machines will probably crash, have unsupported hardware issues, etc, that they'd never have with a Mac. I don't see how detrimental this is to Apple, as its a 0.1% problem anyway.
I agree. I think that the Constitution defends the de facto mode of transportation between two points. When the Constitution was written, this would be horseback or horse-drawn carriage. If a state tried to pass a law requiring you to submit to a search upon entering the state when on horseback, there would've been a riot. Just because we have advanced to the point that there are now many modes of transportation, Mr. Gillmore should not be forced to travel by horseback. 99.9% of people would travel from S.F. to D.C. by airplane, and preventing people from doing so should be unconstitutional.
o n.pdf
That is my opinion. But I actually read the court's opinion, which I highly recommend everyone read:
http://papersplease.org/gilmore/_dl/GilmoreDecisi
I think the biggest issue here is that any law, regulation, or order, can be enacted regardless of its purpose, as long as it not deemed unconstitutional. The court's opinion is fully correct given the laws in the US Code, and indeed, as-is (barring my argument above), none of Gilmore's constitutional rights were withheld. Similarly, it would seem, if the TSA enacted an order saying I had to touch my finger to my nose before boarding a plane, the courts couldn't touch it either - sure, it has no purpose, it is ridiculous, etc, but there's not really anything they can do. Gilmore alleges that the law is meaningless, and I would agree, but it is not the court's place to judge the effectiveness or purpose of particular regulation.
So then, how does one fix this? Well, the rules were made by the people, and the people can tear them down. (To be specific: Congress granted the authority to the Secretary of Transportation and its subsidiaries (like the TSA) to regulate various forms of transportation. See page 1146 of the opinion (page 10 of the PDF).) It seems like the only way to get rid of this is now is through Congress.
I very much hope that Mr. Gilmore will appeal this ruling.
But unfortunately, this is "from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of appeals" (from the blurb). There is little wiggle room left - the only higher authority is the Supreme Court.
Join Today! (also in Beta)
(Not my site and its kind of slow, so be gentle, and mind the typos.)
Yes that's true, and I certainly agree that doing graphical work in OS X is probably a lot nicer than doing it in Windows. But, that goes for everything else, too - OS X is simply awesome. Convincing corporate America that a Mac isn't "just for graphics" is the part that Apple needs to work on.
Disclaimer: I converted to using a Powerbook at work and home 2.5 years ago, and never looked back.
...with a few Apple macintosh systems scattered around for graphic design.
This is the second comment with a clause like this and I have to comment, albeit offtopic. Yes, I know, it's a stigma that's been attached to the Mac for years and years, but let's face it - for one, Wintel has been just as good for graphics design for years from a speed perspective, and two, with Apple's move to Intel chips, there is simply no way to argue any performance gain to be had by using a Mac.
I have, hence, come to the conclusion that what this really means is that the graphics people are the only ones smart enough to demand a Mac, and the higher-ups let them have one because of the aforementioned stigma.
If there is something that Apple needs to work on in the corporate environment, it's fixing these stereotypes once and for all.
Most people still buy, as well as own large collection of, these things called "compact discs." These discs hold music, typically a single album by a particular artist, and can be placed into a computer and "ripped" - the process of reading the digital data on the disc and storing it as a file on the computer.
Kidding aside, I don't buy music online, because I consider a rip-off. CDs have better quality, do not have DRM*, comes with liner notes, and is itself a physical backup. I know many people who feel the same way. IMO, online music needs to be much cheaper to make up for these shortcomings; the only benefit it has is immediate delivery.
*I have yet to run across any CD with DRM, and I would definitely return any CD I got that had DRM on it (or not buy it in the first place).
(that's 54 square meters!)
... something?
Huh? What is a 'meter'? While your "square feet" reference sounds familiar, could you please provide a useful measurement of comparison, like percentage of a football field (no, not a soccer field), the number of the number of Big Macs that could fit on it, or the number of 54" widescreen TVs would be needed to make this giant TV. Also, how many Libraries of Congress does it
Thanks!
I begin to worry when the "Precautions" section is longer than the actual instructions. "Might" indeed.
Maybe the laws in the UK are engraved in stone. Hard to repeal that way, though.
Intrigued, interested, or confused slashdotters may wish to read the Wikipedia entry on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, particularly section 3.
;)
Looking at it briefly, it looks like this would only apply to IT dealing with financial data, and only of public firms. I am still not sure what "this" is exactly, but that's why IANAL.
First, If you actually read through the blurb (not even the article) you'd see that they're not talking about web servers - they're talking about Apache, the organization behind the web server.
Second, I would recommend the up-and-coming lighttpd, which I have used for both static and dynamic content. I have never used thttpd so I am not sure how it compares on the static end.
We were at 260ppm, and we're now at to 375ppm. This isn't like adding a new substance to the atmosphere. We haven't had an increase of 50,000%. I simply find this figure *surprising* given how much industrialization has occurred on this planet. I am not saying that it will or will not affect the environment. You don't know. I don't know. Nobody knows.
:P
You people are like vultures.
My opinion is skepticism - we do not know enough about our own climate to understand the impact we're having on it, and where that impact is coming from. Yes, I am skeptical, and I am just saying my original parent should be skeptical too.
I know that 375ppm is also well above any known CO2 records for the past 400,000 years from ice core samples. The graph I linked to shows that. But I am still surprised - in a very cursory sense - that we are "only" 35-50% above where we were before the industrial revolution. I mean, we've pumped out a lot of CO2 have we not? Surprise is not an opinion, just an observation.
There are reasons for a smaller-than-expected growth - oceans absorb CO2 (about half of what we produce), plant life has been able to thrive on the extra CO2 (not sure how much of a factor this gives, but I think it's pretty small), etc etc.
I'll admit where I got my skepticism from - I recently finished The State of Fear. Before I read it, I blindly thought global warming was real, and was caused by CO2. Crichton's novel didn't convince me that global warming wasn't happening (as some of the graphs in the book might seem to indicate), but it has made much more skeptical of both the science and, especially, media representation of that science. I strongly recommend you read it.
Since the industrial revolution the burning of fossil fuels has increased the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide to about 1.5 times the level it was in the early 1800s. By 2100 we are expected to be at double the 1800s level, resulting in a temperature increase of about 2 to 5 degrees celsius. So yes, we can affect the global temperature.
_ 400kyr.png
Whoa whoa, those are big numbers we're throwing around. First, carbon dioxide was at what level in 1800? I hunted down some sources images for long term CO2 concentrations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide
So, CO2 levels were at, lets say 260ppm. Now they're at 375ppm. That, is indeed, a rise of 44%. First, I'm surprised. If we've been pumping out so much CO2, why have we only raised the concentration by 44%? Wouldn't you figure it'd be a lot more?
Next, we're still talking 375ppm - that's 0.0375%. How can we be certain that such a small portion of our atmosphere is causing such a huge change? The answer is we can't. We only have guesses about what the climate is going to be like in 5, 10, 20 years. Computer models are so far off - if they're within 400% they're doing well - that it can be considered no more than a guess. In fact, this article is much more on target - it is likely water vapor that would cause a large increase in global temperature. But water vapor in our atmosphere varies a lot based on weather patterns.
Put simply: there is simply no way that you can say that a 100% increase in carbon dioxideconcentration is going to do or not do anything. We simply do not know. I am certain some scientist somewhere "predicted" that this could happen. And sure, it could. But we could also trigger the next ice age. It's nothing more than a guess.
I am not saying we shouldn't cut back. We should. Anything we do on the planet will affect it in some way, and certainly the less we affect the better. But, I am much more worried about the pollution problems in China, and that 60% of petroleum is consumed for transportation, than the CO2 output of the industrialized world.
This is a big "easier said than done." I have some experience with this, as I have worked on a (much smaller) game that had a forum with a moderately active community. I am also a WoW player since Day 1.
Feedback and suggestions, even if well-written and well-intended, are not typically replied to by the people who make or implement the decisions - this is typically because they do not want to promise anything that they cannot deliver. Blizzard seems to have this as a matter of policy - only CMs (community managers) reply to the community, and the CMs are definitely not decision makers - for the most part, they are moderators. At most, they are responsible for reporting interesting items to the higher-ups.
Dealing with feedback is difficult, because there is normally a downside to every upside. Even if the change or addition sounds like a great idea to everyone on the forum, any change will upset your player base, and has to be carefully crafted in such a way that it will not cause a barrage of complaints, or worse, account cancellations.
Another thing I will quickly mention is that probably only 5% of accounts or less are active on the forums. This is something you must consider when listening to feedback and suggestions - a very small, and very one-sided, amount of the people who play the game are actually on the forums. For example, I play the game quite a bit, but I only go on the forums if my realm is down for some reason. I think I have 1 post total.
Overall, I am impressed by Blizzard's development path. Their interactions with the community may not be the best - we'd all love to hear more from the developers, but I can understand why we do not. It is clear, though, that they do listen to us. We have had several talent tree reforms, with a lot of community feedback in the process. We have seen a lot of improvement to the performance and stability of the realms - it took a while, but my realm - Archimonde - has improved a lot. I think they have done a really good job of carefully making changes without upsetting particular classes and maintaining balance, and we've seen a fair amount of new content. I greatly respect the fact that making games is hard work and Blizzard continues to deliver.
Yes.
(If you decide to RTFA, be prepared to set aside an hour.)
Where the moderation controls are for the article? I think -1, Flamebait is applicable. :(