I'll grant, my computer is three years old so it's not state-of-the-art, but it's certainly not ancient, and it was a pretty decent machine when I got it. Flash video sucks something fierce on it. I honestly don't care too much about the picture quality. What gets me is that for whatever reason the player is so inefficient that I can't keep the audio even remotely synced up. After playing something for about 30 seconds the video will trail the audio a good three or four seconds. Maybe when the player starts dropping frames to keep up I'll be interested in anything that uses Flash Video, but not before.
If CPU architecture is such a huge deal and is now making OS X massively vulnerable to viruses, why hasn't there been a massive virus for Linux/x86 yet?
I'm not saying that there never will be one, and I certainly take precautions on my computer, but I can't help but wonder if a lot of the "OMFG OS X GONNA GET PWNED" fervor is Windows folks unconsciously trying to console themselves about the mind-boggling amount of problems all Windows users have with viruses, spyware, and rootkits, combined with anti-Apple folks rubbing their hands and waiting to see the platform they love to ridicule get torn a new one.
Oh yeah, and Symantec and McAfee trying to sell me shit.
I'm just not seeing it being so likely. Every Windows virus I've dealt with had somethign to do with a massive design flaw in Windows's security model; either some service (like maybe the web browser) running with way too many privileges, or passwords being stored, readable to all, in a well-known place on the hard drive and nothing else to protect them but XOR "encryption" with a standard key, or everybody and their grandmother running with administrator privileges all the time by default. . . yeah, there are going to be MacOS viruses, but I don't see any reason to believe that the kind of wildstorm virus that infects everything from your company's servers to your VCR is an imminent danger.
Don't forget the age-old "Please, think of the children!" argument that comes from clueless parents who still haven't figured out that most of the video game market is legal adults.
You don't get quite exactly the same sort of "cheering" at a slasher movie as you do an action movie like Predator.
Granted, it could still be some other factor, but I don't think it's just the violence. Maybe the kinds of people who like slasher movies are more vocal than the kinds of people who like action movies, or something like that.
I don't think there's a whole lot of similarity between MUDs and IF, other than that they're both text-based. MUDs resemble IF no more than Everquest resembles Myst.
Yeah, 'cuz that whole unit my sex ed class did on all the different kinds of STDs made me really want to go out and have random sex with people I don't know RIGHT AWAY.
Thanks for posting. I looked into LASIK, but was scared away by the 1% risk of complications. I figured, I see just fine with corrective lenses, and I'm used to corrective lenses, and the chances of the surgery correcting my eyes to the point that I wouldn't need to use them for things like driving was already low enough that I should just stick with the plan that I know gives me good vision rather than taking the one that has a 1 in 100 chance of hosing my vision for the rest of my life.
But then I noticed that I was hearing nothing but glowing things from people and wondering if I should try it anyway. Thanks for snapping me back to my senses.
No, there's something that was going on with Abu Ghraib that hasn't broken yet. There might have been immature grab-assery going on, but the torture was definitely ordered from above.
A great many of those photos - the ones that show people in uncomfortable positions with bags over their heads - are great examples of the two core features of modern American-invented psychological torture: self-inflicted pain and sensory deprivation. Grab-assery can explain why those photos were taken, but if it were just that you wouldn't expect so many to contain just those two core features without the other crap you see in the rest of the photos.
Occam's Razor leads me to believe they were trained to do this, and then it got out of control. Which isn't to say that it was a good thing when it was in control; psychological torture is pretty ugly stuff.
'Businesses have an obligation to truthfully disclose the content of their products - whether in the food we eat or the entertainment we consume,' Delgadillo said.
It is baffling that adults are so self-righteous about artificial violence in video games while in real life they are doing a damned good job of teaching their children that violence is a great wayto solveyour problems.
Hmm. This article showed up on the front page for me, so I guess I'm not sure what the OP was talking about. I thought the complaint was about the link to the article submitter's homepage.
Re:No language that I like better
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 1
Ahh gotcha.
I actually feel quite the opposite because Perl's referencing system and syntax do such a great job of convoluting the process of storing and retrieving data in a deep or multidimensional data structure.
Not that I think C++ is any better. It's a self-obfuscating language, too.
Re:No language that I like better
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 1
I take it your data structures class didn't
a) Involve actually implementing data structures b) Cover multidimensional data structures, linked lists, or trees
Just run a small web server on your workstation and run the bug tracker on that. Same for running version control on it. Back it up yourself.
If it doesn't affect anybody else and it improves your productivity, I don't see any reason why you even have to get your boss's permission. Especially if you're the only developer so you don't need to have anybody else also working with these tools.
For the sake of disclosure, here's the background on my previous post:
I think of code generators as two different things. The first is something that generates a bunch of canned scaffolding to save the programmer from some bitch work. This kind of thing is built into a lot of IDEs. This isn't really what I was thinking of at the time though - of course the output of that is meant to be edited by a developer.
The second is something that's meant to produce either an entire application or a large portion of an application. I haven't actually worked with Rails, but I think this is what Rails is supposed to do. Sorry if I'm wrong. Anyway, for code generators of this type, I think that a well-designed generator shouldn't be designed so that you should have to its output. Customization should either happen in the code generator's input language, or it should be handled through a system of delegates. If it can't do that for you and you'll be mantaining the app you build with the generator for a long time, it's probably better to avoid the generator for the sake of maintainability.
I think the author is thinking of this from an attitude of generating code using RoR and then maintaining the generated code. Which is the wrong way to do it. If there's a bug in the original RoR code, change the original code. If there's a bug in the generated code, you change code generator.
If you're writing the original app using a code generator and making all subsequent modifications to the software by modifying the product of the generator, you've sort of missed the point.
I recall plenty of harsh reviews calling it a cheap Simpsons knock-off (which is funny because by that point the Simpsons themselves had already become that).
Also because about the only thing Family Guy has in common with The Simpsons is that it's animated and the male lead is a doofus.
Which also makes Family Guy a knock-off of Goofy cartoons.
So true. Also, clueful Mac users who might appreciate some crazy idea you got aren't afraid to download stuff they've never heard of before just to try it out, because there just isn't much spyware on a Mac. Same goes for Linux, of course.
Even if Windows shareware/freeware developers succeed in rising above the unholy din of the Windows software scene, they are going to have a lot harder time getting me to try their stuff because I get fsckin' paranoid when I'm sitting in front of a Windows computer.
Agreed. Not only that, but I actually click on Google's ads, whereas most banner ads get killed by my ad blocking so they never even have a chance to get clicked on.
Small logos and such will be annoying, but if the ads are still primarily text I could cope with it. Google puts a lot of ads on each page, though, so if they go to mostly ads that are just one big image, their site will become an absurd eyesore and if my ad-blocker doesn't take care of it I'll start looking for another search engine.
My dream is actually that Google does go to banners, lots of people leave in a huff, and Google's ad revenue drops sharply. Their return to text-only ads would get lots of attention from the media, and lots of other ad-heavy sites would take notice and reduce or eliminate obtrusive advertising from their sites as well.
Apple has at least something to do with it. Most of the listeners that Erik's Dinier lost were iTunes subscribers. The way iTunes handles podcasts makes podjacking rather easy, and the iTunes interface doesn't give a very clear indication that there is a problem with the podcast. I imagine most subscribers just assumed that Erik hadn't released any episodes in a while.
I'm no psychologist, but I can imagine there's a difference between looking in a mirror and saying "that used to be me", no matter how mangled you are now, and looking in a mirror and saying "that is someone else".
Luckily, a lot of your appearance comes not from the soft tissue of the face, but from the underlying bone structure. A person who gets a face transplant wouldn't have the same visage as they used to have, but they wouldn't have the visage of the donor, either.
I would assume that the "looking in the mirror" problem would be no greater for a face transplant recipient than it would be for a person who experiences some other massive change to their face, such as whatever damaged it so much in the first place or reconstructive surgery.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll grant, my computer is three years old so it's not state-of-the-art, but it's certainly not ancient, and it was a pretty decent machine when I got it. Flash video sucks something fierce on it. I honestly don't care too much about the picture quality. What gets me is that for whatever reason the player is so inefficient that I can't keep the audio even remotely synced up. After playing something for about 30 seconds the video will trail the audio a good three or four seconds. Maybe when the player starts dropping frames to keep up I'll be interested in anything that uses Flash Video, but not before.
Now, the thing I'm stuck on wondering is this:
If CPU architecture is such a huge deal and is now making OS X massively vulnerable to viruses, why hasn't there been a massive virus for Linux/x86 yet?
I'm not saying that there never will be one, and I certainly take precautions on my computer, but I can't help but wonder if a lot of the "OMFG OS X GONNA GET PWNED" fervor is Windows folks unconsciously trying to console themselves about the mind-boggling amount of problems all Windows users have with viruses, spyware, and rootkits, combined with anti-Apple folks rubbing their hands and waiting to see the platform they love to ridicule get torn a new one.
Oh yeah, and Symantec and McAfee trying to sell me shit.
I'm just not seeing it being so likely. Every Windows virus I've dealt with had somethign to do with a massive design flaw in Windows's security model; either some service (like maybe the web browser) running with way too many privileges, or passwords being stored, readable to all, in a well-known place on the hard drive and nothing else to protect them but XOR "encryption" with a standard key, or everybody and their grandmother running with administrator privileges all the time by default. . . yeah, there are going to be MacOS viruses, but I don't see any reason to believe that the kind of wildstorm virus that infects everything from your company's servers to your VCR is an imminent danger.
Don't forget the age-old "Please, think of the children!" argument that comes from clueless parents who still haven't figured out that most of the video game market is legal adults.
You don't get quite exactly the same sort of "cheering" at a slasher movie as you do an action movie like Predator.
Granted, it could still be some other factor, but I don't think it's just the violence. Maybe the kinds of people who like slasher movies are more vocal than the kinds of people who like action movies, or something like that.
I don't think there's a whole lot of similarity between MUDs and IF, other than that they're both text-based. MUDs resemble IF no more than Everquest resembles Myst.
Yeah, 'cuz that whole unit my sex ed class did on all the different kinds of STDs made me really want to go out and have random sex with people I don't know RIGHT AWAY.
Thanks for posting. I looked into LASIK, but was scared away by the 1% risk of complications. I figured, I see just fine with corrective lenses, and I'm used to corrective lenses, and the chances of the surgery correcting my eyes to the point that I wouldn't need to use them for things like driving was already low enough that I should just stick with the plan that I know gives me good vision rather than taking the one that has a 1 in 100 chance of hosing my vision for the rest of my life.
But then I noticed that I was hearing nothing but glowing things from people and wondering if I should try it anyway. Thanks for snapping me back to my senses.
No, there's something that was going on with Abu Ghraib that hasn't broken yet. There might have been immature grab-assery going on, but the torture was definitely ordered from above.
A great many of those photos - the ones that show people in uncomfortable positions with bags over their heads - are great examples of the two core features of modern American-invented psychological torture: self-inflicted pain and sensory deprivation. Grab-assery can explain why those photos were taken, but if it were just that you wouldn't expect so many to contain just those two core features without the other crap you see in the rest of the photos.
Occam's Razor leads me to believe they were trained to do this, and then it got out of control. Which isn't to say that it was a good thing when it was in control; psychological torture is pretty ugly stuff.
'Businesses have an obligation to truthfully disclose the content of their products - whether in the food we eat or the entertainment we consume,' Delgadillo said.
*sigh* I wish. Two words: Natural flavors.
The problem is, an argument is almost never about what's right and what's wrong. It's usually about who is right and who is wrong.
It is baffling that adults are so self-righteous about artificial violence in video games while in real life they are doing a damned good job of teaching their children that violence is a great way to solve your problems.
Hmm. This article showed up on the front page for me, so I guess I'm not sure what the OP was talking about. I thought the complaint was about the link to the article submitter's homepage.
This has already been explained by CmdrTaco.
4 0
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/10/14402
Ahh gotcha.
I actually feel quite the opposite because Perl's referencing system and syntax do such a great job of convoluting the process of storing and retrieving data in a deep or multidimensional data structure.
Not that I think C++ is any better. It's a self-obfuscating language, too.
I take it your data structures class didn't
a) Involve actually implementing data structures
b) Cover multidimensional data structures, linked lists, or trees
Along with the standard Big Macs and fries they also have Teriyaki burgers, fried shrimp burgers, and other things for the Japanese pallet.
I didn't know there was anything that made Japanese pallets any different from American ones. Maybe you meant palate?
Just run a small web server on your workstation and run the bug tracker on that. Same for running version control on it. Back it up yourself.
If it doesn't affect anybody else and it improves your productivity, I don't see any reason why you even have to get your boss's permission. Especially if you're the only developer so you don't need to have anybody else also working with these tools.
For the sake of disclosure, here's the background on my previous post:
I think of code generators as two different things. The first is something that generates a bunch of canned scaffolding to save the programmer from some bitch work. This kind of thing is built into a lot of IDEs. This isn't really what I was thinking of at the time though - of course the output of that is meant to be edited by a developer.
The second is something that's meant to produce either an entire application or a large portion of an application. I haven't actually worked with Rails, but I think this is what Rails is supposed to do. Sorry if I'm wrong. Anyway, for code generators of this type, I think that a well-designed generator shouldn't be designed so that you should have to its output. Customization should either happen in the code generator's input language, or it should be handled through a system of delegates. If it can't do that for you and you'll be mantaining the app you build with the generator for a long time, it's probably better to avoid the generator for the sake of maintainability.
I think the author is thinking of this from an attitude of generating code using RoR and then maintaining the generated code. Which is the wrong way to do it. If there's a bug in the original RoR code, change the original code. If there's a bug in the generated code, you change code generator.
If you're writing the original app using a code generator and making all subsequent modifications to the software by modifying the product of the generator, you've sort of missed the point.
I recall plenty of harsh reviews calling it a cheap Simpsons knock-off (which is funny because by that point the Simpsons themselves had already become that).
Also because about the only thing Family Guy has in common with The Simpsons is that it's animated and the male lead is a doofus.
Which also makes Family Guy a knock-off of Goofy cartoons.
So true. Also, clueful Mac users who might appreciate some crazy idea you got aren't afraid to download stuff they've never heard of before just to try it out, because there just isn't much spyware on a Mac. Same goes for Linux, of course.
Even if Windows shareware/freeware developers succeed in rising above the unholy din of the Windows software scene, they are going to have a lot harder time getting me to try their stuff because I get fsckin' paranoid when I'm sitting in front of a Windows computer.
Agreed. Not only that, but I actually click on Google's ads, whereas most banner ads get killed by my ad blocking so they never even have a chance to get clicked on.
Small logos and such will be annoying, but if the ads are still primarily text I could cope with it. Google puts a lot of ads on each page, though, so if they go to mostly ads that are just one big image, their site will become an absurd eyesore and if my ad-blocker doesn't take care of it I'll start looking for another search engine.
My dream is actually that Google does go to banners, lots of people leave in a huff, and Google's ad revenue drops sharply. Their return to text-only ads would get lots of attention from the media, and lots of other ad-heavy sites would take notice and reduce or eliminate obtrusive advertising from their sites as well.
Apple has at least something to do with it. Most of the listeners that Erik's Dinier lost were iTunes subscribers. The way iTunes handles podcasts makes podjacking rather easy, and the iTunes interface doesn't give a very clear indication that there is a problem with the podcast. I imagine most subscribers just assumed that Erik hadn't released any episodes in a while.
Wouldn't we save more cows by eating people who eat meat?
I'm no psychologist, but I can imagine there's a difference between looking in a mirror and saying "that used to be me", no matter how mangled you are now, and looking in a mirror and saying "that is someone else".
Luckily, a lot of your appearance comes not from the soft tissue of the face, but from the underlying bone structure. A person who gets a face transplant wouldn't have the same visage as they used to have, but they wouldn't have the visage of the donor, either.
I would assume that the "looking in the mirror" problem would be no greater for a face transplant recipient than it would be for a person who experiences some other massive change to their face, such as whatever damaged it so much in the first place or reconstructive surgery.