Of course not. (Almost) no technology will ever solve the built-in greed and scandal problem. (Aside from Zero-Point Energy, but that is a discussion for another day...)
However, technology can make it easier to track the "paper-trail" (utilizing BitCoin then could make it easier to hold those accountable who mismanage their responsiblity / fraud others). The key issue though is as long as the governed holds those in power responsible for their actions then any technology is largely irrelevant -- technology has the advantage that those wiling to make excuses "We don't know where the money is/went." harder to lie about. Sadly, the general populace doesn't really care about accountability even WITH with the current tech; I don't see this changing anytime in the foreseeable future.
One of the positive things about BitCoin I see is that people are starting to ask "Why isn't the money trail more traceable? Why do you we continue to let the Army go extremely over-budget?" etc.
"cost growth and execution problems were based on the fact that no GMR radios were ever even tested by potential users until 2010. After 13 years in the pipeline, what those users saw was a radio that weighed as much as a drill sergeant, took too long to set up, failed frequently, and didnâ(TM)t have enough range."
If the Pentagon holds off repairing, refurbishing or making new tanks for three years until new technologies are developed, the Army says it can save taxpayers as much as $3 billion.
But guess which group of civilians isn't inclined to agree with the generals on this point?
Congress.
To be exact, 173 House members - Democrats and Republicans - sent a letter April 20 to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, urging him to continue supporting their decision to produce more tanks.
That's right. Lawmakers who frequently and loudly proclaim that presidents should listen to generals when it comes to battlefield decisions are refusing to take its own advice.
If BitCoin were to ever become popular guess who will be the first to "discredit" it ?
> Kind of amazing that they can't seem to develop a hit phone when they spend 5X what Apple does on R&D. Makes you wonder what the heck they are doing.
Actually we recently had this discussion.:-) Two anonymous cowards posted these beautiful summaries which points out the main difference between Apple and other companies that I believe is the key reason:
"> What he's saying is that Apple has an actual functional internal milestone systems Exactly. Look, Apple designers have to come up with just as many bad ideas ad the Philips designers, but at Apple, they get killed of early. At Philips, they spend resources pulling those bad ideas along until they're almost ready to ship, and then decide which will die. It means most of the development cycle is a farce, and if the engineers/designers know there's a 90% chance that the thing they're working on will never be manufactured, it means you're not going to get their best, most serious effort.
The big difference in how Apple did it, and still does it, is that Apple identifies a product people would want to use and doesn't currently exist or at least doesn't broadly exist in an easily usable form. Then Apple goes out and buys, develops or partners with a company to develop technologies that make that product work or work better. The company then evaluates the product before shipping it, deciding if the product is really something people would use. Rarely does the company have a change of heart about the basic product, but sometimes products get killed because the result doesn't really work in a way the customer would like it. For example, if a product doesn't work smoothly, it may be delayed until faster processors come along. The G5 MacBook Pro was fully developed and then killed because (among some other issues) the battery life was so short no one would find it useful.
And that's why Apple products usually ship, because they were designed to ship from day 0. Philips products started out being made simply because they could be, and so many of them died on the vine when it was realized no one wanted them or even if they just can't convince any product division they would like to ship that product.
> 2. Media coverage, because if you shoot up a school and get a high enough kill count, you're going to be on the front page of CNN etc. for weeks.
The media has no one to blame but themselves because they continue to ignore the wisdom of Charlie Brooker's brilliant commentary and psychiatrists such as Dr Park Dietz; they would rather profit from sensationalism instead of acting with integrity.
Pro-Tip: Your ranting, raving, and fallacies make you look like an fool. If you want to be taken seriously you might want to try some meditation (or medication) to calm your mind and present a logical argument. Repeatedly ad hominem only makes you look like a tool. Shooting the messenger doesn't change that fact. Just saying.
First, you seem to be under the delusion of where exactly government gets its power from in the FIRST place. EVERY _state_ citizen _grants_ their OWN power to a _created_ legal fiction. Do you even understand what the 10th amendment says?? You whine about "Stupid Straw Men" because you completely missed the point. Congratulations! _Rights_ are only recognized when enough people say they should be. You might actually want to study "implied social contract" with the emphasis on "Contract Law" since you apparently know nothing about it. I know one person who legally is not obligated to pay ANY income tax. Why? Because he understands very well the jurisdiction of his "implied social contract", the terms, and how to rescind and revoke a contract he never agreed to in the first place. The fact that he chose to make different trade-offs in no way invalidates his choice on how he wishes to interact with society. Your ranting about "my way is the only [right] way" makes you look childish. We have enough cults in the world. We don't need another one.
Second, you might want to study your history buddy since you seem ignorant of a key foundation about the US: No Taxation without Representation. It is unfortunate your mind is unable to grok that taxation is _legalized_ theft. There are BOTH pros and cons to that. I am not denying that there certainly are benefits to society from taxation. However, you continue to live in a dualistic paradigm. You will forever remain a fool until you are able to see BOTH perspectives on EVERYTHING.
Third, do you even know what the word "Pioneer" means? In the last century many immigrants came here without a penny to their name. Through their hard-work and dedication they made something of their lives. My grand-parents were one of them. Calling people "worthless fucks" demonstrates you don't understand that some people spent their entirely lives merely seeking out an existence so that their kids could have a better future. The fact that they had nothing much to con-tribute (that is being conned into tributing) to the systems shows you really haven't paid attention to how governments confiscate land (Go ask the Native Indians how their "Treaties" worked out for them) and money (stealing money from your family via estate taxes). Your off-topic whining about how you are unable to follow basic logic in the previous post demonstrates you might want to calm down and THINK about the issues being discussed.
Forth, you keep using this word "thief" but it doesn't mean what you think it means. Thieves are those people that continue to MOOCH off the SYSTEM's Safety Net that the Nanny state encourages. Before the 1930's there was no "safety net". People were encouraged to PROPERLY manage their money and assets. That's a little hard to do when the government keeps stealing and more every year. Why the fuck should I support a bum too lazy to work so he can do nothing all day?? THOSE people are the THIEVES not the ones pointing out the inadequacies of a fundamentally broken theft system. HOW MUCH of MY INCOME is _acceptable_ for the government to steal? 10%? 20%? 30%? 40%? 50%? Why are my rights to survive less important then everyone else's rights to profit off my hard work?? Last year my taxes were 5-digits, almost as much as the median household income, so shut the fuck up already about calling other people thieves and "not living up to their responsibilities" when you know _nothing_ about them. It is getting old and adding nothing of value to the conversation.
Fifth, instead of whining about others and them not "have the brain capacity to learn anything", you might want to try edu
"The video series with an island theme provided filing season training for 1,900 employees in our Taxpayer Assistance Centers in 400 locations," the IRS said. "This example of video training alone saved the IRS about $1.5 million each year compared to the costs of training the employees in person."
The IRS said the "Gilligan's Island" video trained 1,900 employees at the agency's 400 Taxpayer Assistance Centers, which saved about $1.5 million as compared to the price it would take to train the employees in person.
Ah, right, how could I forgot that from around 250,000 years ago to 5,000 years ago that we needed permission from the government to breath clean air, drink water, to kill their food, protection from fires, protection from crime.
Oh wait, they DIDN'T ! Because there was NO government !!
Dropping the f-bomb AND ad hominem? Stay classy!!
Maybe one of these days you'll realize that YOUR TIME and knowledge is yours to spend as you see fit. Everyone agrees that PARENTS sacrifice and exchange THEIR time/money FOR YOU while you were still unable to support yourself. And when you are old enough to support yourself you decide to PAY for the goods & services YOU use. NOW, there needs to be a balance between:
1. forced stealing from people and pooling resources for the greater good of everyone AND
2. respecting other people's ownership of their property/time / money and not taking THEIR things without their permission.
Taxation is compromise between these 2 extremes but you seem delusional about ownership.
This dilemma was made famous in Star Trek by beautifully succinctly stating: Do the needs of the many/one outweigh the needs of the one/many? The answers is: YES _and_ NO! BOTH are correct.
Pro-Tip: You might want to look up: False Dichotomy because living in a black-white world will cause a rude shock when you realize there is a whole big gray area in between the two polar opposites ideologies!
But we're not talking about crappy 24-bit (with 8-bits per primary channel: Red, Green, Blue) which is NOT sufficient. There are horrible mach banding artifacts primarily in the primary colors. Dithering the non-primaries colors hides them but doesn't solve the initial problem.
The analogy is more like is 10-bit/channel sufficient or do we need 12-bits/channel? Hint: There is a reason rendering uses 48-bit (16-bits/channel) as it provides enough headroom to completely remove compositing quantization errors.
Another analogy: Why do we need 30 fps, 60 fps, or 120 fps when movies are displayed at 24 fps? Because almost everyone call tell the difference between the 30 and 60 once they know what to look for. However a few of us can tell the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz. Is 120 Hz "good enough" or can anyone even tell the difference between a higher framerate?
If you don't understand the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz this video will help demonstrate it:
I have found even non-moving electronic parts collect dust such as keyboards. Once a month cleaning seems about right.
Computers are like dust magnets. CPU fans are the worst for dust getting caked on.
Anything that helps keep your machine from working harder then it should be, should be done.
To use a car analogy: Would you run a car without oil and grease? Or do you want your engine and wheels (ball bearings) to keep functioning smoothly just by doing a quick maintenance?
Seriously, do we _really_ an question/article on preventive maintenance? You brush your teeth everyday, right? Likewise electronic components should be looked after and taken care of as well. A dust cover wouldn't hurt either.
> The reality is that some people are going to pirate it, even if you only charge $0.05 for a copy. They're going to do it because they can. Correct. To add to that: No matter what kind of copy protection / DRM you use, people WILL crack it.
I used to crack games in the '80s because it was fun -- plus one got to learn assembly language as a bonus. It was NEVER about "Sticking it to The Man", but about learning. i.e. The best way to motivate a geek is to tell him he can't do something.
Instead of wasting your time adding copy protection and other things to "slow down" a pirate (which will slow him down from a few minutes, to maybe an hour or too IF you're lucky) is to focus on streamlining your UI, functionality and customer service. Tons of people pirate Photoshop which actually counter-intuitively helped make it a "de facto standard".
> and start thinking of ways to fuck with pirates instead. Why cater to a fraction of the user base though? Wouldn't the time be better spent polishing the program in the first place to attract new potential customers?
> Blocking ads is like throwing a soda can out a car window in that if one person does it, it's not a problem and it appears to benefit them modestly It is STILL littering no matter how many justifications you try to use.
ads = visual littering (and now audio littering.)
> I can understand why you'd do it if the ad was a massive flash blob but many ads by Google or just images aren't resource intensive. 1. Ah, the old "bandwidth usage is imaginary" argument. Do you understand network _latency_ ? Blocking ads does the website a favor -- I can VIEW their content without waiting for their darn webpage to load because of N-network calls waiting to get image/tracking/analytic data back.
2. Guess what -- my internet usage bill isn't zero. Why does the website's corporation's "right to profit-from-ads" outweigh _my_ right to minimize _my_ expenses WHEN I'm one the paying for the ability to even ACCESS your site in the first place?
> I've clicked on ads and purchased something twice in my life from ads on a site. And I never have and never intend to. No one gives a crap about anecdotal evidence.
> Removing that rare occurrence completely ruins the revenue model. Somebody call the wahbulance. ON NOES! The internet won't work with ads. OH WAIT, the internet functioned _before_ they were _any_ ads. Maybe YOU forget all the years of UUCP, FSP, FTP, Gopher, Lynx, Mosaic, IRC, etc. but those of us who were BUILDING the internet so businesses could exploit and profit from it sure don't.
> That's not a downcast. If you wish to be pedantic, yeah, technically it is an automatic-demotion. C/C++ will also silently do automatic-promotion to doubles. i.e. printf().
> Implicit signed to unsigned casts can be much worse Agreed.
Is there a better way compilers could catch the mistake you gave? IIRC some languages (usually functional ones) have design-by-contract that (force?) allow the user to specify the valid ranges and do range-checking at compile time.
Most C/C++ compilers will warn about signed/unsigned comparisons these days, usually that is enough to catch the mistakes above.
> Sony's plans for 8GBs of RAM get a lot uglier on a 32-bit architecture.
Ain't that the truth! Glad you got modded up already.
Sony screwed the up PS3 as well. They run a 64-bit OS when the darn thing only has 512 Megs total (256 RAM + 256 VRAM) !?! One game developer calculated there was about a 3% performance loss due to the compiler being forced to zero-sign-extend 32-bit pointers simple because the OS didn't map the 64-bit pointers back into a 32-bit address space.
I really don't understand WTF Sony is thinking by forcing 8 GB when 4 GB is pretty fine. The OS should not be hogging that much RAM to begin with.
Here is the usage case where we want BOTH (a) and (b):
typedef int Foo;// same as "#define Foo int" (an alt. syntax could be: 'alias Foo = int') newtype int Bar;// We want a NEW type, one that is NOT aliases, that differs by NAME only, NOT functionality. // There is no current way to do this C++ unless you abuse templates.
void AllowFoo( Foo foo );// c++filt -n _Z8AllowFooi void AllowFoo( int i );// Oh look, this semantically equivalent as above; it is redundant/harmless in C++, since there is only 1 mangled function due to aliases not being new types
// We want the compiler to make a SEMANTIC difference between the following two functions -- they should be mangled _differently_: void ReqBar( int i ) {... }// We want this overloaded function so we can catch accidental calls to it OR not even provide it at all !! void ReqBar( Bar bar ) {... }// ILLEGAL in C++ due to lack of proper non-alias support -- it is mangled the same as: void ReqBar(int)
int i = 1;
Foo f = 2;
Bar b = Bar(3);
AllowFoo( i );// OK typeof( i ) = typeof( int ) == int
AllowFoo( f );// OK typeof( f ) = typeof( Foo ) == int
AllowFoo( b );// Should be an error, but can't tell C++ this is a different type, the C/C++ typedef gives us "nothing"
ReqBar( i );// C++ can't block this func at compile-time
ReqBar( f );// C++ can't block this func at compile-time: typeof( f ) = typeof( Foo ) = int != typeof( Bar ) = Bar
ReqBar( b );// typeof( b );// typeof Bar != int
Does this make sense?
At least C++ treats SomeVoidFunc() and SomeVoidFunc(void) as being mangled the same now.
Don't even get me started on how C++ ignores the return type for the mangling! There are times when it would be _extremely_ handy to call a different function based on the return type. Sadly C++ lacks this.
>> c) STANDARDIZE the pragmas >You've missed the point of pragmas.
And you've missed the pain and agony of having to support multiple compilers because the idiotic compiler writers were too SHORT SIGHTED to understand customers do NOT want proprietary vender lock-in having to support yet-another-compiler.
Do you understand the purpose of having a _common_ way to specify structure alignment and packing??
e.g. How you disable the compiler warning about "unused variables" in Microsoft Visual Studio, GCC/G++, Intel C/C++ Compiler, etc?
We standardized the width of train tracks for a REASON.
We standardized the traffic lights even though everyone drives different vehicles from 2 wheels, 3, wheels, 18+ wheels, etc.
As programmers we are forced to solve the same dam problem over and over in everyone's "pet syntax". When is this insanity going to stop??
>> d) STANDARDIZE the error messages > Compilers differ. This might not be possible.
You are 100% correct Boost is bloated and over-engineered.
Take a look at the CRC mess in Boost. Over a 1,000 lines of crap. Oooh, you can generate it for any CRC polynomial. Big Freakin Deal ! I want code that is fast, easy to read, easy to write.
Meanwhile us C/C++ guys follow the KISS principle.
const unsigned int CRC32_REVERSE = 0xEDB88320;// reverse = shift right
Ever Since 32-bit CPUs have become commonplace there is a tendency for programmers and designers to include everything AND the kitchen sink. This is the biggest tragedy in programming.
High-Level languages suck because they are a) verbose, b) Jack of all trades Master of none.
The root problem is that C++ is over engineered. I love a _pragmatic_ approach -- the balance between C's minimalism (and lack of type safety) and C++ bloated design.
Having worked on a popular professional C++ compiler it was interesting because I didn't have to deal with the clusterfuck of the C++ grammar.
There are many problems with C++ that the designers and committee continue to ignore. There is that old C++ joke.
There are two problems with C++:
* Its design, and
* Its implementation
The biggest problem C++ has is that the preprocessor doesn't understand types and templates are STILL have baked. Every year C++ moves closer to LISP while missing the _simplicity_ of LISP and adding the verbosity of Cobol.
Why do you think LLVM was started? Because the hundred-lines-long C++ error message spew is of the "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit" mentality.
a) Add a PROPER 'alias' and a PROPER 'type-def' b) a darn STANDARD _Binary_ API so I don't have to worry about which _compiler_ AND _platform_ was used, c) STANDARDIZE the pragmas d) STANDARDIZE the error messages e) Fix the macro language so it is type safe f) Fix the fricken grammar so that function prototypes (forward declarations) with the end semi-colon can be just be copied / pasted as function definitions. g) Deprecate and REMOVE that stupid 'short', 'long', 'double' crap from the language h) Provide PROPER 16-bit, 24-bit, and 32-bit characters i) Fix the darn grammar so that compilers accept UNICODE source j) Fix the darn grammar so that compilers RECOGNIZE identifiers WITH Unicode characters k) Add a proper exponent operator l) Add a proper wedge operator, along with inner and outer product operators m) Add proper multiple return types n) Fix all the times the spec says "undefined" or "implementation dependent". The point of a spec is to SPECIFY what the operations do, NOT to be ambiguous because in some idiotic universe 'char' is not exactly 8-bits. o) Stop doing automatic up-casts. Give me a _standardize
> the very people who condemn EA for lying to them will still buy the next shiny AAA game from them anyway. Sadly, The "Call of Duty" boycott proves that you are right.
Slashdot Mirror
Please mod parent +1 informative.
Thanks for the links!
Of course not. (Almost) no technology will ever solve the built-in greed and scandal problem. (Aside from Zero-Point Energy, but that is a discussion for another day...)
However, technology can make it easier to track the "paper-trail" (utilizing BitCoin then could make it easier to hold those accountable who mismanage their responsiblity / fraud others). The key issue though is as long as the governed holds those in power responsible for their actions then any technology is largely irrelevant -- technology has the advantage that those wiling to make excuses "We don't know where the money is/went." harder to lie about. Sadly, the general populace doesn't really care about accountability even WITH with the current tech; I don't see this changing anytime in the foreseeable future.
One of the positive things about BitCoin I see is that people are starting to ask "Why isn't the money trail more traceable? Why do you we continue to let the Army go extremely over-budget?" etc.
i.e.
* http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/06/how-to-blow-6-billion-on-a-tech-project/
and
* http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/?hpt=hp_c1
If BitCoin were to ever become popular guess who will be the first to "discredit" it ?
> Kind of amazing that they can't seem to develop a hit phone when they spend 5X what Apple does on R&D. Makes you wonder what the heck they are doing.
Actually we recently had this discussion. :-) Two anonymous cowards posted these beautiful summaries which points out the main difference between Apple and other companies that I believe is the key reason:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3390319&cid=42624947
and
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3390319&cid=42623243
From "iPod Engineer Tony Fadell On the Unique Nature of Apple's Design Process"
* http://apple.slashdot.org/story/13/01/17/2328245/ipod-engineer-tony-fadell-on-the-unique-nature-of-apples-design-process
> 2. Media coverage, because if you shoot up a school and get a high enough kill count, you're going to be on the front page of CNN etc. for weeks.
The media has no one to blame but themselves because they continue to ignore the wisdom of Charlie Brooker's brilliant commentary and psychiatrists such as Dr Park Dietz; they would rather profit from sensationalism instead of acting with integrity.
Charlie Brooker's Newswipe 25/03/09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
How _many_ times does a person need to listen to the same set of instructions over and over again when they fly every few weeks / months?
If they weren't focused on Security Theater they would ban books and other distractions from the training briefing as well.
> Mac copied NeXTSTEP in fact all Apple did was use a rip the UI
Uh, you do realize Apple _bought_ NeXT and NeXTSTEP, right?
Apple: co-founded by Steve Jobs
NeXT, Inc.: founded by Steve Jobs in 1985
Apple buys NeXT in 1996
Mac System 7 was introduced on May 13, 1991
Mac OS 8 was released on July 26, 1997
Aside, interestingly enough Be OS was created by Be Inc who started by Jean-Louis Gassee, who worked at Apple from from 1981 to 1990.
References:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_7
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_8
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Gass%C3%A9e
> First, you have to achieve legitimacy. In the USA, the power of currency, essentially, belongs to the federal government.
You have heard of Local Currency, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_exchange_trading_system
You don't federal permission to use your own currency. If a community agrees upon a common standard that is THEIR RIGHT.
This bullshit injustice against the Liberty Dollar is just that -- injustice and contempt for the rights of private citizens to agree upon a DIFFERENT standard of value.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/us/liberty-dollar-creator-awaits-his-fate-behind-bars.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar
> but the ENTIRE TRANSACTION HISTORY OF EVERY BITCOIN is known to all. This is completely unacceptable.
You can't have authority without accountability.
Maybe if Congress / Government was accountable we wouldn't have over $1.1 TRILLION _missing_!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/missing_money/
Or bank scandals:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/hsbc-money-laundering-argentina_n_2902430.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/brokerage/story/2011-12-08/mf-global-corzine/51732752/1
Kind of sad when you have websites like this:
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt
Pro-Tip: Your ranting, raving, and fallacies make you look like an fool. If you want to be taken seriously you might want to try some meditation (or medication) to calm your mind and present a logical argument. Repeatedly ad hominem only makes you look like a tool. Shooting the messenger doesn't change that fact. Just saying.
First, you seem to be under the delusion of where exactly government gets its power from in the FIRST place. EVERY _state_ citizen _grants_ their OWN power to a _created_ legal fiction. Do you even understand what the 10th amendment says?? You whine about "Stupid Straw Men" because you completely missed the point. Congratulations! _Rights_ are only recognized when enough people say they should be. You might actually want to study "implied social contract" with the emphasis on "Contract Law" since you apparently know nothing about it. I know one person who legally is not obligated to pay ANY income tax. Why? Because he understands very well the jurisdiction of his "implied social contract", the terms, and how to rescind and revoke a contract he never agreed to in the first place. The fact that he chose to make different trade-offs in no way invalidates his choice on how he wishes to interact with society. Your ranting about "my way is the only [right] way" makes you look childish. We have enough cults in the world. We don't need another one.
Second, you might want to study your history buddy since you seem ignorant of a key foundation about the US: No Taxation without Representation. It is unfortunate your mind is unable to grok that taxation is _legalized_ theft. There are BOTH pros and cons to that. I am not denying that there certainly are benefits to society from taxation. However, you continue to live in a dualistic paradigm. You will forever remain a fool until you are able to see BOTH perspectives on EVERYTHING.
Third, do you even know what the word "Pioneer" means? In the last century many immigrants came here without a penny to their name. Through their hard-work and dedication they made something of their lives. My grand-parents were one of them. Calling people "worthless fucks" demonstrates you don't understand that some people spent their entirely lives merely seeking out an existence so that their kids could have a better future. The fact that they had nothing much to con-tribute (that is being conned into tributing) to the systems shows you really haven't paid attention to how governments confiscate land (Go ask the Native Indians how their "Treaties" worked out for them) and money (stealing money from your family via estate taxes). Your off-topic whining about how you are unable to follow basic logic in the previous post demonstrates you might want to calm down and THINK about the issues being discussed.
Forth, you keep using this word "thief" but it doesn't mean what you think it means. Thieves are those people that continue to MOOCH off the SYSTEM's Safety Net that the Nanny state encourages. Before the 1930's there was no "safety net". People were encouraged to PROPERLY manage their money and assets. That's a little hard to do when the government keeps stealing and more every year. Why the fuck should I support a bum too lazy to work so he can do nothing all day?? THOSE people are the THIEVES not the ones pointing out the inadequacies of a fundamentally broken theft system. HOW MUCH of MY INCOME is _acceptable_ for the government to steal? 10%? 20%? 30%? 40%? 50%? Why are my rights to survive less important then everyone else's rights to profit off my hard work?? Last year my taxes were 5-digits, almost as much as the median household income, so shut the fuck up already about calling other people thieves and "not living up to their responsibilities" when you know _nothing_ about them. It is getting old and adding nothing of value to the conversation.
Fifth, instead of whining about others and them not "have the brain capacity to learn anything", you might want to try edu
Read The Fine Article:
"The video series with an island theme provided filing season training for 1,900 employees in our Taxpayer Assistance Centers in 400 locations," the IRS said. "This example of video training alone saved the IRS about $1.5 million each year compared to the costs of training the employees in person."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/290023-irs-star-trek-gilligan-training-videos-a-mistake-
Reading. It works.
Ah, right, how could I forgot that from around 250,000 years ago to 5,000 years ago that we needed permission from the government to breath clean air, drink water, to kill their food, protection from fires, protection from crime.
Oh wait, they DIDN'T ! Because there was NO government !!
Dropping the f-bomb AND ad hominem? Stay classy!!
Maybe one of these days you'll realize that YOUR TIME and knowledge is yours to spend as you see fit. Everyone agrees that PARENTS sacrifice and exchange THEIR time/money FOR YOU while you were still unable to support yourself. And when you are old enough to support yourself you decide to PAY for the goods & services YOU use. NOW, there needs to be a balance between :
1. forced stealing from people and pooling resources for the greater good of everyone AND /time / money and not taking THEIR things without their permission.
2. respecting other people's ownership of their property
Taxation is compromise between these 2 extremes but you seem delusional about ownership.
This dilemma was made famous in Star Trek by beautifully succinctly stating: Do the needs of the many/one outweigh the needs of the one/many? The answers is: YES _and_ NO! BOTH are correct.
Pro-Tip: You might want to look up: False Dichotomy because living in a black-white world will cause a rude shock when you realize there is a whole big gray area in between the two polar opposites ideologies!
But we're not talking about crappy 24-bit (with 8-bits per primary channel: Red, Green, Blue) which is NOT sufficient. There are horrible mach banding artifacts primarily in the primary colors. Dithering the non-primaries colors hides them but doesn't solve the initial problem.
The analogy is more like is 10-bit/channel sufficient or do we need 12-bits/channel? Hint: There is a reason rendering uses 48-bit (16-bits/channel) as it provides enough headroom to completely remove compositing quantization errors.
Another analogy: Why do we need 30 fps, 60 fps, or 120 fps when movies are displayed at 24 fps? Because almost everyone call tell the difference between the 30 and 60 once they know what to look for. However a few of us can tell the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz. Is 120 Hz "good enough" or can anyone even tell the difference between a higher framerate?
If you don't understand the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz this video will help demonstrate it:
Asus VG278H High Speed LightBoost Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD5gjAs1A2s
I have found even non-moving electronic parts collect dust such as keyboards. Once a month cleaning seems about right.
Computers are like dust magnets. CPU fans are the worst for dust getting caked on.
Anything that helps keep your machine from working harder then it should be, should be done.
To use a car analogy: Would you run a car without oil and grease? Or do you want your engine and wheels (ball bearings) to keep functioning smoothly just by doing a quick maintenance?
Seriously, do we _really_ an question/article on preventive maintenance? You brush your teeth everyday, right? Likewise electronic components should be looked after and taken care of as well. A dust cover wouldn't hurt either.
> The reality is that some people are going to pirate it, even if you only charge $0.05 for a copy. They're going to do it because they can.
Correct. To add to that: No matter what kind of copy protection / DRM you use, people WILL crack it.
I used to crack games in the '80s because it was fun -- plus one got to learn assembly language as a bonus. It was NEVER about "Sticking it to The Man", but about learning. i.e. The best way to motivate a geek is to tell him he can't do something.
Instead of wasting your time adding copy protection and other things to "slow down" a pirate (which will slow him down from a few minutes, to maybe an hour or too IF you're lucky) is to focus on streamlining your UI, functionality and customer service. Tons of people pirate Photoshop which actually counter-intuitively helped make it a "de facto standard".
> and start thinking of ways to fuck with pirates instead.
Why cater to a fraction of the user base though? Wouldn't the time be better spent polishing the program in the first place to attract new potential customers?
> Blocking ads is like throwing a soda can out a car window in that if one person does it, it's not a problem and it appears to benefit them modestly
It is STILL littering no matter how many justifications you try to use.
ads = visual littering (and now audio littering.)
> I can understand why you'd do it if the ad was a massive flash blob but many ads by Google or just images aren't resource intensive.
1. Ah, the old "bandwidth usage is imaginary" argument. Do you understand network _latency_ ? Blocking ads does the website a favor -- I can VIEW their content without waiting for their darn webpage to load because of N-network calls waiting to get image/tracking/analytic data back.
2. Guess what -- my internet usage bill isn't zero. Why does the website's corporation's "right to profit-from-ads" outweigh _my_ right to minimize _my_ expenses WHEN I'm one the paying for the ability to even ACCESS your site in the first place?
> I've clicked on ads and purchased something twice in my life from ads on a site.
And I never have and never intend to. No one gives a crap about anecdotal evidence.
> Removing that rare occurrence completely ruins the revenue model.
Somebody call the wahbulance. ON NOES! The internet won't work with ads. OH WAIT, the internet functioned _before_ they were _any_ ads. Maybe YOU forget all the years of UUCP, FSP, FTP, Gopher, Lynx, Mosaic, IRC, etc. but those of us who were BUILDING the internet so businesses could exploit and profit from it sure don't.
> That's not a downcast.
If you wish to be pedantic, yeah, technically it is an automatic-demotion. C/C++ will also silently do automatic-promotion to doubles. i.e. printf().
> Implicit signed to unsigned casts can be much worse
Agreed.
Is there a better way compilers could catch the mistake you gave? IIRC some languages (usually functional ones) have design-by-contract that (force?) allow the user to specify the valid ranges and do range-checking at compile time.
Most C/C++ compilers will warn about signed/unsigned comparisons these days, usually that is enough to catch the mistakes above.
/Oblg. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apple
OK, so it's not the exactly the same concept, but close enough. :-)
From those specs specifically mention "APU" it looks like to be an AMD CPU.
> Sony's plans for 8GBs of RAM get a lot uglier on a 32-bit architecture.
Ain't that the truth! Glad you got modded up already.
Sony screwed the up PS3 as well. They run a 64-bit OS when the darn thing only has 512 Megs total (256 RAM + 256 VRAM) !?! One game developer calculated there was about a 3% performance loss due to the compiler being forced to zero-sign-extend 32-bit pointers simple because the OS didn't map the 64-bit pointers back into a 32-bit address space.
I really don't understand WTF Sony is thinking by forcing 8 GB when 4 GB is pretty fine. The OS should not be hogging that much RAM to begin with.
>> b) a darn STANDARD _Binary_ API so I don't have to worry about which _compiler_ AND _platform_ was used,
> I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
This .pdf explains why this important:
http://www.agner.org/optimize/calling_conventions.pdf
Particularly: 3 Data representation
Yeah, I didn't catch that until I hit submit. :-/
Sorry for the inconsistent func names. :-(
>> a) Add a PROPER 'alias' and a PROPER 'type-def'
>Define "PROPER"
First, there are times:
a) When you _need_ strict type safety
b) When you _don't_ need strict type safety
Second, read up on C++ mangling/demangling because if you don't understand that you won't understand my point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_mangling
Agner is a guru of assembly language and has written a great document; specifically the section "The need for standardization"
http://www.agner.org/optimize/calling_conventions.pdf
Here is the usage case where we want BOTH (a) and (b):
Does this make sense?
At least C++ treats SomeVoidFunc() and SomeVoidFunc(void) as being mangled the same now.
Don't even get me started on how C++ ignores the return type for the mangling! There are times when it would be _extremely_ handy to call a different function based on the return type. Sadly C++ lacks this.
>> c) STANDARDIZE the pragmas
>You've missed the point of pragmas.
And you've missed the pain and agony of having to support multiple compilers because the idiotic compiler writers were too SHORT SIGHTED to understand customers do NOT want proprietary vender lock-in having to support yet-another-compiler.
Do you understand the purpose of having a _common_ way to specify structure alignment and packing??
e.g. How you disable the compiler warning about "unused variables" in Microsoft Visual Studio, GCC/G++, Intel C/C++ Compiler, etc?
We standardized the width of train tracks for a REASON.
We standardized the traffic lights even though everyone drives different vehicles from 2 wheels, 3, wheels, 18+ wheels, etc.
As programmers we are forced to solve the same dam problem over and over in everyone's "pet syntax". When is this insanity going to stop??
>> d) STANDARDIZE the error messages
> Compilers differ. This might not be possible.
I'm not interested in political excuses. I
You are 100% correct Boost is bloated and over-engineered.
Take a look at the CRC mess in Boost. Over a 1,000 lines of crap. Oooh, you can generate it for any CRC polynomial. Big Freakin Deal ! I want code that is fast, easy to read, easy to write.
Meanwhile us C/C++ guys follow the KISS principle.
Ever Since 32-bit CPUs have become commonplace there is a tendency for programmers and designers to include everything AND the kitchen sink. This is the biggest tragedy in programming.
High-Level languages suck because they are a) verbose, b) Jack of all trades Master of none.
The root problem is that C++ is over engineered. I love a _pragmatic_ approach -- the balance between C's minimalism (and lack of type safety) and C++ bloated design.
Having worked on a popular professional C++ compiler it was interesting because I didn't have to deal with the clusterfuck of the C++ grammar.
There are many problems with C++ that the designers and committee continue to ignore. There is that old C++ joke.
There are two problems with C++:
* Its design, and
* Its implementation
The biggest problem C++ has is that the preprocessor doesn't understand types and templates are STILL have baked. Every year C++ moves closer to LISP while missing the _simplicity_ of LISP and adding the verbosity of Cobol.
Why do you think LLVM was started? Because the hundred-lines-long C++ error message spew is of the "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit" mentality.
a) Add a PROPER 'alias' and a PROPER 'type-def'
b) a darn STANDARD _Binary_ API so I don't have to worry about which _compiler_ AND _platform_ was used,
c) STANDARDIZE the pragmas
d) STANDARDIZE the error messages
e) Fix the macro language so it is type safe
f) Fix the fricken grammar so that function prototypes (forward declarations) with the end semi-colon can be just be copied / pasted as function definitions.
g) Deprecate and REMOVE that stupid 'short', 'long', 'double' crap from the language
h) Provide PROPER 16-bit, 24-bit, and 32-bit characters
i) Fix the darn grammar so that compilers accept UNICODE source
j) Fix the darn grammar so that compilers RECOGNIZE identifiers WITH Unicode characters
k) Add a proper exponent operator
l) Add a proper wedge operator, along with inner and outer product operators
m) Add proper multiple return types
n) Fix all the times the spec says "undefined" or "implementation dependent". The point of a spec is to SPECIFY what the operations do, NOT to be ambiguous because in some idiotic universe 'char' is not exactly 8-bits.
o) Stop doing automatic up-casts. Give me a _standardize
There is an pseudo-app for photo's: Nudifier
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nudifier/id554023264?mt=8
Someone just needs to take it to the next step. :-)
> the very people who condemn EA for lying to them will still buy the next shiny AAA game from them anyway.
Sadly, The "Call of Duty" boycott proves that you are right.
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h299/rangerxml/boycotting.jpg
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2011/11/6e49368e85bd37eee55b92c4a1e63640.jpg
> The last game that I bought was released at 2006, been what.. 7 years?
Tossing the baby out with the bath water is not a very pragmatic philosophy.
There have been many great indie titles recently released:
Limbo, Trine, World of Goo, Faster Then Light.
At least Team Fortress 2 is free if you need your multiplayer / co-op fix.