The issue that the GP missed is that with or without a complete ZFS feature set, running a filesystem under FUSE is hinders the performance far too much to be used as a primary drive in a production environment.
Is that a good use of an upmod? That is the/intended/ use of an upmod, certainly. My issue isn't with the tool, it's with the material. That joke wasn't even remotely funny. It wasn't even a joke. Why publicize it?
I am not usually the one to yell "Mods on crack!" but I don't really think a 'joke' this obvious should be marked funny. Nothing personal.... unless somebody doesn't actually know that troll and trawl do mean exactly the same thing in this case?
I understand what you are trying to say, but you are just wrong.
ALL human 3D vision is 'stereo'; we only have two eyes! Stereo doesn't mean that you can't alter the view position.
Even if you can't change the position of the viewport, that doesn't mean that the scene isn't 3D. That was the point of the Hawking example. Look, you want me to take the example a step further? A guy had his head stapled to the floor, so he can't look around. He then has a shoe-box diorama glued to his face, so even if he could look around, he'd still see exactly the same scene. The result of all this? He can still see 3D perfectly.
Yes, I agree that having to wear glasses to use this technology is shitty, and THAT is what we should be protesting against. As proper geeks, even more as intellectuals, we should work to expunge all untruths from our thinking, and that includes your 3D denialism, however disappointing the 3D implementation is.
I read the post well, and I have heard these arguments before. Your misunderstanding is based around your idea 'A "real" 3D experience'. A real 3D experience has nothing at all to do with immersion, it has to do with DEPTH. That's the definition.
If you think this system isn't immersive, then argue that. If you think that people overestimate how important 3D vision is for entertainment, argue that instead. I stand by my original argument: to claim that this system isn't 3D is idiotic.
You totally missed the point of the first example I gave: A person who is unable to alter the position of his viewpoint still unarguably enjoys 3D vision. If that is true for him, it is true for any other static viewport.
You totally ignored my second example: If the inability to alter the viewpoint in a two-dimensional scene does not alter the dimensionality, why would the same inability affect a 3D scene?
Replying to one's own post, bad form and all that, but I just can't get over how idiotic your comments are.
Think of poor Stephen Hawking, confined to a wheelchair and unable to move his head. The unsung tragedy: somehow, he also lost the ability to unambiguously determine the relative distance to objects in his field of vision.
Your argument is as stupid as saying that a drawing isn't 2D, because you can't see what's beyond the edge of the paper.
That is idiotic. The depth of objects in the scene displayed on one of these monitors is interpreted identically to the depths of objects in the world around you. What difference does it make if you need to move your viewport on the scene by using your mouse-hand muscles instead of your neck muscles?
I don't fully understand how the indentation issue applies here. The indentation speaks to the rigidity of the language: if the code looks like it's in a block, it's in a block. There is no reason to not indent the code, so why not enforce the indentation of the code?
I agree wholeheartedly on the naming issue. It is one of my own weaknesses. I have also seen some terrible atrocities performed by others here: code that used for variable names the same words in different (natural) languages within the same scope. *shudder*
Spaghetti code I don't see as a readability issue. If anything, it's robustness issue. It may be due to where I lie on the whole "goto considered harmful [considered harmful [considered harmful [... ]]]" issue, but I believe that in most cases, the obvious way to express a function is the most understandable way. That is why Python doesn't focus on preventing this: it instead cuts to the root of the problem. Python attempts to keep the understandability and reduce the risk, by using features such as the 'with' statement.
There is also no easy solution to bad comments, but Python/does/ try to improve the situation, with docstrings and by attempting to foster 'self-commenting code'.
And as for global variables, I believe these to also be unfairly maligned: used judiciously, they can reduce complex problems into simple problems. If there is a price to be paid, it is possible in bugs rather than readability.
There are indeed access level modifiers, even though it is possible for the persistent programmer to gain access to all of the interface.
In my opinion, that is one of the strengths of Python: it gives programmer the benefit of the doubt. In standard OOP dogma, data obfuscation is a requirement; Python recognises that sometimes this conservatism can lead to hideous hacks, and thus trusts the programmer to make up their own mind: use the documented interface, or mess around with the internals to allow yourself even greater programming achievements?
To my mind, this should not affect the legibility of a program. If you see a cowboy who does overstep this boundary, you can easily see his intent.
Observe, too, the response that falsely assumes prejudice, and so reveals its own.
I never stated that Python is a better than Javascript, or any flavor of ECMA script. My claim, once again, is that in the hands of poor programmers, Python code is more readable than Javascript. No more, no less. I find it staggering that you misinterpret such a short message so poorly.
Observe too how quickly this poster hides behind his a veil of agnosticism./Of course/ I provide not objective measure, we both know none exists./Of course/ I provide no magical archive of all the shitty scripts ever written, with annotations, as none exists. I assumed that a vaguely competent reader would understand that I have no source but my own experience.
Except, once again, you missed the point entirely: Regardless of what you believe on the readability issue, my post was a rebuttal to an utterly idiotic and barely literate claim that 'There is practically no rule with Python.'
There is indeed rule with Python, and it much so good to in age of language to be part of design successes, like such as 'sacred texts'.
To restate that yet again, and in yet another way, Python was designed from early on to be the opposite of what the GGP posted, and I have a link to an ancient 'sacred text' to prove it. If you trust that document, or have seen evidence for or contrary to its application in daily Python life (and such establishing or denying that trust, again, I left as an exercise for the competent reader) then it follows logically that the GGP statement 'It's one of the most easily abused, badly written language because it is so flexible' is false.
The python language (circa 2.4) wasn't *flexable*, it was rigid while still being easy to use. As a result, python code written by your average script monkey is more readable.
I had to check your account history to see if you are a troll, but strangely, it seems you aren't.
So, the explanation for the slow: You have = 2 eyes. In order to see 3D, each eye needs to see a different angle of the same object. The brain reassembles these two images in your mind to give you the perception of depth.
The term for this is indeed 'steroscopic vision', so your assertion that this is somehow not 3D is pretty stupid.
If you were to complain about anything, complain that this isn't a 3D *TV*. Yes, a TV is used in the process, and yes, it does rely on transmitted images, but the thing that makes this technology work is still the glasses. This is yet another 3D glasses technology.
"The 80s called. They want their non-parallel sprite sub-processors back." "The 80s called. They want their battery-backed high score storage back." "The 80's called. They want their idiotic misused apostrophe back."
Slashdot Mirror
Got some links or references for any of these Linux ports?
http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/138452
The issue that the GP missed is that with or without a complete ZFS feature set, running a filesystem under FUSE is hinders the performance far too much to be used as a primary drive in a production environment.
Speaking as an owner of the case, the main reason to stop using this case is because of the drive bays. Most SATA cables are too short to reach.
Exactly right. More than this, hasn't the GP poster ever wondered what the meaning behind the 'Gates of Borg' picture is for?
It seems you are not aware that trawling does not necessarily use a net. It can also be a string of hooks, just as one would use to troll.
Is that a good use of an upmod? That is the /intended/ use of an upmod, certainly. My issue isn't with the tool, it's with the material. That joke wasn't even remotely funny. It wasn't even a joke. Why publicize it?
I am not usually the one to yell "Mods on crack!" but I don't really think a 'joke' this obvious should be marked funny. Nothing personal. ... unless somebody doesn't actually know that troll and trawl do mean exactly the same thing in this case?
Where are my mod points? MOD UP FUNNY!
I understand what you are trying to say, but you are just wrong.
ALL human 3D vision is 'stereo'; we only have two eyes! Stereo doesn't mean that you can't alter the view position.
Even if you can't change the position of the viewport, that doesn't mean that the scene isn't 3D. That was the point of the Hawking example. Look, you want me to take the example a step further? A guy had his head stapled to the floor, so he can't look around. He then has a shoe-box diorama glued to his face, so even if he could look around, he'd still see exactly the same scene. The result of all this? He can still see 3D perfectly.
Yes, I agree that having to wear glasses to use this technology is shitty, and THAT is what we should be protesting against. As proper geeks, even more as intellectuals, we should work to expunge all untruths from our thinking, and that includes your 3D denialism, however disappointing the 3D implementation is.
I read the post well, and I have heard these arguments before. Your misunderstanding is based around your idea 'A "real" 3D experience'. A real 3D experience has nothing at all to do with immersion, it has to do with DEPTH. That's the definition.
If you think this system isn't immersive, then argue that. If you think that people overestimate how important 3D vision is for entertainment, argue that instead. I stand by my original argument: to claim that this system isn't 3D is idiotic.
You totally missed the point of the first example I gave: A person who is unable to alter the position of his viewpoint still unarguably enjoys 3D vision. If that is true for him, it is true for any other static viewport.
You totally ignored my second example: If the inability to alter the viewpoint in a two-dimensional scene does not alter the dimensionality, why would the same inability affect a 3D scene?
Replying to one's own post, bad form and all that, but I just can't get over how idiotic your comments are.
Think of poor Stephen Hawking, confined to a wheelchair and unable to move his head. The unsung tragedy: somehow, he also lost the ability to unambiguously determine the relative distance to objects in his field of vision.
Your argument is as stupid as saying that a drawing isn't 2D, because you can't see what's beyond the edge of the paper.
That is idiotic. The depth of objects in the scene displayed on one of these monitors is interpreted identically to the depths of objects in the world around you. What difference does it make if you need to move your viewport on the scene by using your mouse-hand muscles instead of your neck muscles?
Post: ...
by religious freak (1005821)
I want a real name without a number attached to it.
I suspect you've come to the wrong place...
Rereading this post, it is unnecessarily confrontational and derisive. I apologise.
I don't fully understand how the indentation issue applies here. The indentation speaks to the rigidity of the language: if the code looks like it's in a block, it's in a block. There is no reason to not indent the code, so why not enforce the indentation of the code?
I agree wholeheartedly on the naming issue. It is one of my own weaknesses. I have also seen some terrible atrocities performed by others here: code that used for variable names the same words in different (natural) languages within the same scope. *shudder*
Spaghetti code I don't see as a readability issue. If anything, it's robustness issue. It may be due to where I lie on the whole
"goto considered harmful [considered harmful [considered harmful [... ]]]" issue, but I believe that in most cases, the obvious way to express a function is the most understandable way. That is why Python doesn't focus on preventing this: it instead cuts to the root of the problem. Python attempts to keep the understandability and reduce the risk, by using features such as the 'with' statement.
There is also no easy solution to bad comments, but Python /does/ try to improve the situation, with docstrings and by attempting to foster 'self-commenting code'.
And as for global variables, I believe these to also be unfairly maligned: used judiciously, they can reduce complex problems into simple problems. If there is a price to be paid, it is possible in bugs rather than readability.
There are indeed access level modifiers, even though it is possible for the persistent programmer to gain access to all of the interface.
In my opinion, that is one of the strengths of Python: it gives programmer the benefit of the doubt. In standard OOP dogma, data obfuscation is a requirement; Python recognises that sometimes this conservatism can lead to hideous hacks, and thus trusts the programmer to make up their own mind: use the documented interface, or mess around with the internals to allow yourself even greater programming achievements?
To my mind, this should not affect the legibility of a program. If you see a cowboy who does overstep this boundary, you can easily see his intent.
Observe, too, the response that falsely assumes prejudice, and so reveals its own.
I never stated that Python is a better than Javascript, or any flavor of ECMA script. My claim, once again, is that in the hands of poor programmers, Python code is more readable than Javascript. No more, no less. I find it staggering that you misinterpret such a short message so poorly.
Observe too how quickly this poster hides behind his a veil of agnosticism. /Of course/ I provide not objective measure, we both know none exists. /Of course/ I provide no magical archive of all the shitty scripts ever written, with annotations, as none exists. I assumed that a vaguely competent reader would understand that I have no source but my own experience.
Except, once again, you missed the point entirely: Regardless of what you believe on the readability issue, my post was a rebuttal to an utterly idiotic and barely literate claim that 'There is practically no rule with Python.'
There is indeed rule with Python, and it much so good to in age of language to be part of design successes, like such as 'sacred texts'.
To restate that yet again, and in yet another way, Python was designed from early on to be the opposite of what the GGP posted, and I have a link to an ancient 'sacred text' to prove it. If you trust that document, or have seen evidence for or contrary to its application in daily Python life (and such establishing or denying that trust, again, I left as an exercise for the competent reader) then it follows logically that the GGP statement 'It's one of the most easily abused, badly written language because it is so flexible' is false.
One of the founding principles of Python is 'There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.'
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/
The python language (circa 2.4) wasn't *flexable*, it was rigid while still being easy to use. As a result, python code written by your average script monkey is more readable.
Generalise that: unless the observer can observe parallax by moving its viewing position, it's not 3D.
In this case, the observer is the camera, not the schmuck in the expensive glasses.
Reread the post. He was being ironic.
Of course, there is a manner in which scientists do work in concert, and that's in 'consensus'. On this issue, the consensus is pretty clear.
I had to check your account history to see if you are a troll, but strangely, it seems you aren't.
So, the explanation for the slow: You have = 2 eyes. In order to see 3D, each eye needs to see a different angle of the same object. The brain reassembles these two images in your mind to give you the perception of depth.
The term for this is indeed 'steroscopic vision', so your assertion that this is somehow not 3D is pretty stupid.
If you were to complain about anything, complain that this isn't a 3D *TV*. Yes, a TV is used in the process, and yes, it does rely on transmitted images, but the thing that makes this technology work is still the glasses. This is yet another 3D glasses technology.
The "electromagnetic spectrum" is not a finite resource.
Yes it is.
What's wrong with living next door to a lolcat?
Actually, most of the more professional theorists espouse that we did go to the moon, just not at Apollo 11.
Electricity is not my thing, but can you please go explain one step to me: how do you get '220KW' from 30KW and 5.4 hours?
"The 80s called. They want their non-parallel sprite sub-processors back."
"The 80s called. They want their battery-backed high score storage back."
"The 80's called. They want their idiotic misused apostrophe back."