You are conflating what passes for the mass pseudo-religion (spiritual kindergarten) and True Religion (Spiritual Maturity) -- the latter which is living the lifestyle necessary to prove your beliefs. Almost all religions at their core teach the golden rule -- "Treat others how you want to be treated. Love others as you love yourself, etc." This is a very good _practical_ philosophy -- IF you allow it.
Religion is the process of where one's mind is developed to be able to both live and understand the higher patterns and realities. The garbage that passes for "religion" is the (religious) Dogma that was created when somebody says there is only one way (aka, cult.) to understand "God" and usually wants to sell you Heaven Insurance. As George Carlin famously said: "God always needs money!" Of this I would agree with.
However, you are tossing the baby out with the bath water: What you fail to understand is two-fold:
- BOTH the Theists and Atheists will always dwell in ignorance -- while one has belief, one has lack of belief, respectively, BOTH are blind to the higher realities along with not understanding the strengths AND weaknesses of their own system AND polar opposite system. They are like two blind man arguing. The first says "I believe that I can see", whilst the latter says "I don't believe you can."
- ONLY the Mystic has _knowledge_ -- that is EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE. You can tell and show someone how to be a world class drummer but unless they actually DO the work of developing their hand-foot-eye coordination, timing, etc. it they will never develop the skill to be great.
If you want to learn about a topic X you don't go to somebody who only has a belief about X; you go to someone who has experience and knowledge about X.
You also fail to understand the purpose of True Religion because you don't yet understand the importance of the 0th lesson:
> Trying to force your preferred coding style on to developers who operate differently will never end well. Unless you are uncommonly versatile, adapting yourself to a standard you hate will also not go well.
The better programmers leave their ego at the door. As Neil Peart brilliantly said recently:
If programmers have that much ego, it is probably better that they leave since they have shown that they aren't interested in learning a different perspective. (This can apply to both the young-whipper-snapper or old-crotchy ones equally.)
Every time I was forced to use a new coding style I initially disliked it. But I always was able to put my ego and biases aside and ask myself:
* What are the advantages of this way?
* What are the disadvantages?
Only by understanding BOTH answers can one really grok what works and what doesn't work. The rationale is more important then the rules.
The same thing applies to naming conventions.
Likewise, I've worked on code where there NO getter-setters allowed at all, where you MUST write getter-setters (even trivial ones), and ones where there no trivial getter-setters. The 3 different styles made me appreciate the different trade-offs.
> 1) Hastily-written code makes the trade show date > 2) Writing very clean code, and then keeping it clean
Yes, completely agree there are 2 extremes:
* Ship it * Over-Engineer it
> Successful businesses will find a happy medium between these two extremes,
Again I concur 100%. A pragmatic programmer knows when to just "let it go" and when to "rip everything out" -- the code is good enough, and when to re-architect, re-engineer, re-factor, etc. because the original code no longer solves (or handles) a different set of requirements.
It is a tough balancing act but there is one general guiding principle.
If you can achieve the same solution with less code then that is preferred. Less code has less bugs, and less edge conditions.
Smaller code is usually more beautiful then Large code.:-)
That's a fallacy. You don't understand death because you don't understand life, namely "Know Thyself". You are _significanly_ much, much more then just a human body. i.e. You are spiritual being in a physical body having a human experience.
You'll have all the proof you could ever want after you are dead when you realize that consciousness never dies, just changes state, but sadly by then it will be too late. Thankfully, for the most part, this knowledge (or lack of it) while human doesn't interfere with you being authentic and being a "good" person.:-)
> I take it you believe in an afterlife then? Believe? No. Has knowledge? Yes.
Death is nothing more then transition from one state to another.
Life & Death are like 2 sides of the coin. They both have their advantages and disadvantages.
> From the atheist viewpoint, death solves all problems for the person who commits suicide. From the limited atheists POV that would appear to be true but sadly that is an allusion.
> Sure does leave a big mess for friends and family of the departed though. Agreed. IF you have living family members then suicide is one of the most selfish things a person can do.
> And when it's the fundamentals are repulsive it's time to shut the whole thing down. That goes for any religion.
Toss the baby out with the bath water.
Right.
Likewise we should dismiss Newton simply because he spent the _majority_ of his researching and writing about Alchemy.
Religion, like any practical philosophy can be used to do good, or abused to do evil. Only children think the world is black-n-white wanting to toss the good out along with the bad.
Code bloat, hard to debug, memory fragmentation, and no way to serialize/deserialize in a fast way.
I highly recommend ALL C++ programmers to read this doc on why EA designed and implemented their own STL version. It provides insight into the type of problems console game developers have face that the PC game developers just routinely ignore or are ignorant of.
> There is nothing rational nor sane about taking one's own life.
Fallacy.
Why prolong pain and suffering when you can give a world a message that they might actually pay attention for a brief second instead of watching all the unreality and whatever passes for mindless entertainment these days.
If I have the right to life then that ALSO implies I have the right to death.
NOTE: It is _perfectly_ legal to perform suicide in most countries.
* You can smoke yourself to death. * You can drink yourself to death. * Etc.
But the instant somebody decides the time frame is far too long and should be minutes instead of years all of a sudden everybody throws a hissy-fit. Why is the _duration_ the focus instead of RESPECTING a person's right to life AND death?
> To call it 'rational' or 'sane' in any case reveals that you do not know anything about suicide. Statements like this just proves you _know_ _nothing_ about what happens after death or before life.
However, with all that said, I would put this big disclaimer out there: Death does NOT solve any problems -- it just merely DELAYS them. You can't run away from yourself -- sooner or later you WILL be forced to confront yourself.The ONLY fallacy in suicide is the incorrect thinking that somehow you avoided a problem.
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. You DO realize one can swear and not use any vulgar words, right?
Your word for the day is: Euphemism
etc. fuck -> smeg, fart, frig, freak, fook, etc. shit -> poo, crap, etc. hell -> heck, darn, double-hockey-sticks, etc.
Swearing is to useful to get the _energy_ (usually frustration) behind the words out. ANY word will do. Keeping it bottled up just says your not man enough to express yourself.
> a lot of people rag on anyone who says that hockey is dangerous for hits
Reminds me of that old joke: I went to the fights and a hockey game broke out.
We've had touch hockey, touch football, etc, for years. It helps keeps the focus on _gameplay_, not the gratuitous and idiotic hitting. It is barbaric that men are so stupid that they have to revert to violence for entertainment./sarcasm Who cares if someone gets permanent damage for the rest of the life if the fans are entertained, right!
The media is partially to blame for random gun shootings... because they continue to ignore the wisdom of Charlie Brooker's brilliant commentary and psychiatrists such as Dr Park Dietz.
Sadly, no. The definition of the kilogram is garbage due to it _imprecision_.
"It is also the only SI unit that is still directly defined by an artifact rather than a fundamental physical property that can be reproduced in different laboratories. Four of the seven base units in the SI system are defined relative to the kilogram so its stability is important." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram
"In a note to the CIPM in October 2009, Ian Mills, the President of the CIPM Consultative Committee - Units (CCU) cataloged the uncertainties of the fundamental constants of physics according to the current definitions and their values under the proposed new definition. He urged the CIPM to accept the proposed changes in the definition of the kilogram, ampere, kelvin and mole so that they are referenced to the values of the fundamental constants, namely Planck's constant (h), the electron charge (e), Boltzmann's constant (k), and Avogadro's constant (NA)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit
The problem of Avogadro's constant is that it is not precise. It has a wide margin of error.
> The most recent GIMP release lacks important high-end photography features that even ancient CS2 has:
I concur 100%! I have a.PSD file I created back in ~2006 and sadly GIMP 2.8 _still_ can't open it properly. Every year it gets a little closer though!
GIMP 2.8 is still incomplete / broken WRT:
* nested layer groups is partially broken - doesn't show Layer Effects as sub-groups * no native Layer Styles (FX Blend Modes) - they still don't properly work when loading a.PSD file that uses them
see: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshop/cs/using/WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-789ba.html * no native option to set the default hotkeys to Photoshop * stupid English name
Note: While GIMP has a layer blend modes that PS lacks, namely: Subtraction, Grain Merge, Grain Extract, Value) that is not the same as the Layer Styles.
The fact that you GIMP doesn't work out-of-the-box the same way PS does and you need half a dozen plugins to get the equivalent functionality already built into PS CS2 tells me that GIMP is still immature.
Hoping one day GIMP will become a viable PS replacement.
> That'll be round about the same time we get cold fusion and true AI, yes? Not a coincidence, I'm sure.
No, I never made such claims.
Artificial Ignorance won't be replaced with Actual Intelligence until years later when Scientists replace their faulty assumption of consciousness with the correct one.
It remains to be seen when we will be allowed to tap into the Zero Point Energy this century; it might be as late as the next one.
China IS changing. Their corruption and censorship can't last forever no matter how hard they try. Don't confuse lack of external progress with lack of internal struggle.
Slashdot Mirror
You are conflating what passes for the mass pseudo-religion (spiritual kindergarten) and True Religion (Spiritual Maturity) -- the latter which is living the lifestyle necessary to prove your beliefs. Almost all religions at their core teach the golden rule -- "Treat others how you want to be treated. Love others as you love yourself, etc." This is a very good _practical_ philosophy -- IF you allow it.
Religion is the process of where one's mind is developed to be able to both live and understand the higher patterns and realities. The garbage that passes for "religion" is the (religious) Dogma that was created when somebody says there is only one way (aka, cult.) to understand "God" and usually wants to sell you Heaven Insurance. As George Carlin famously said: "God always needs money!" Of this I would agree with.
However, you are tossing the baby out with the bath water: What you fail to understand is two-fold:
- BOTH the Theists and Atheists will always dwell in ignorance -- while one has belief, one has lack of belief, respectively, BOTH are blind to the higher realities along with not understanding the strengths AND weaknesses of their own system AND polar opposite system. They are like two blind man arguing. The first says "I believe that I can see", whilst the latter says "I don't believe you can."
- ONLY the Mystic has _knowledge_ -- that is EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE. You can tell and show someone how to be a world class drummer but unless they actually DO the work of developing their hand-foot-eye coordination, timing, etc. it they will never develop the skill to be great.
If you want to learn about a topic X you don't go to somebody who only has a belief about X; you go to someone who has experience and knowledge about X.
You also fail to understand the purpose of True Religion because you don't yet understand the importance of the 0th lesson:
"Know Thyself."
--
Mind not Space, is the Final Frontier.
> Trying to force your preferred coding style on to developers who operate differently will never end well. Unless you are uncommonly versatile, adapting yourself to a standard you hate will also not go well.
The better programmers leave their ego at the door. As Neil Peart brilliantly said recently:
Q. I think that a lot of people are surprised to learn that you still take drum lessons. You're seen as this drum master by most everybody.
A. What is a master but a master student?
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/q-a-neil-peart-on-rushs-new-lp-and-being-a-bleeding-heart-libertarian-20120612
If programmers have that much ego, it is probably better that they leave since they have shown that they aren't interested in learning a different perspective. (This can apply to both the young-whipper-snapper or old-crotchy ones equally.)
Every time I was forced to use a new coding style I initially disliked it. But I always was able to put my ego and biases aside and ask myself:
* What are the advantages of this way?
* What are the disadvantages?
Only by understanding BOTH answers can one really grok what works and what doesn't work. The rationale is more important then the rules.
The same thing applies to naming conventions.
Likewise, I've worked on code where there NO getter-setters allowed at all, where you MUST write getter-setters (even trivial ones), and ones where there no trivial getter-setters. The 3 different styles made me appreciate the different trade-offs.
> 1) Hastily-written code makes the trade show date
> 2) Writing very clean code, and then keeping it clean
Yes, completely agree there are 2 extremes:
* Ship it
* Over-Engineer it
> Successful businesses will find a happy medium between these two extremes,
Again I concur 100%. A pragmatic programmer knows when to just "let it go" and when to "rip everything out" -- the code is good enough, and when to re-architect, re-engineer, re-factor, etc. because the original code no longer solves (or handles) a different set of requirements.
It is a tough balancing act but there is one general guiding principle.
If you can achieve the same solution with less code then that is preferred. Less code has less bugs, and less edge conditions.
Smaller code is usually more beautiful then Large code. :-)
That's a fallacy. You don't understand death because you don't understand life, namely "Know Thyself". You are _significanly_ much, much more then just a human body. i.e. You are spiritual being in a physical body having a human experience.
You'll have all the proof you could ever want after you are dead when you realize that consciousness never dies, just changes state, but sadly by then it will be too late. Thankfully, for the most part, this knowledge (or lack of it) while human doesn't interfere with you being authentic and being a "good" person. :-)
> I take it you believe in an afterlife then?
Believe? No.
Has knowledge? Yes.
Death is nothing more then transition from one state to another.
Life & Death are like 2 sides of the coin. They both have their advantages and disadvantages.
> From the atheist viewpoint, death solves all problems for the person who commits suicide.
From the limited atheists POV that would appear to be true but sadly that is an allusion.
> Sure does leave a big mess for friends and family of the departed though.
Agreed. IF you have living family members then suicide is one of the most selfish things a person can do.
> And when it's the fundamentals are repulsive it's time to shut the whole thing down. That goes for any religion.
Toss the baby out with the bath water.
Right.
Likewise we should dismiss Newton simply because he spent the _majority_ of his researching and writing about Alchemy.
Religion, like any practical philosophy can be used to do good, or abused to do evil. Only children think the world is black-n-white wanting to toss the good out along with the bad.
Pity there wasn't a follow up to when Ernie Ball switched to Linux back in 2003.
http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
Minimal templates = OK .map file to tell what is being inlined and what isn't.
Excessive templates = potential code bloat -- check the linker
> I don't see the point of not using STL.
Code bloat, hard to debug, memory fragmentation, and no way to serialize/deserialize in a fast way.
I highly recommend ALL C++ programmers to read this doc on why EA designed and implemented their own STL version. It provides insight into the type of problems console game developers have face that the PC game developers just routinely ignore or are ignorant of.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2271.html
> There is nothing rational nor sane about taking one's own life.
Fallacy.
Why prolong pain and suffering when you can give a world a message that they might actually pay attention for a brief second instead of watching all the unreality and whatever passes for mindless entertainment these days.
If I have the right to life then that ALSO implies I have the right to death.
NOTE: It is _perfectly_ legal to perform suicide in most countries.
* You can smoke yourself to death.
* You can drink yourself to death.
* Etc.
But the instant somebody decides the time frame is far too long and should be minutes instead of years all of a sudden everybody throws a hissy-fit. Why is the _duration_ the focus instead of RESPECTING a person's right to life AND death?
> To call it 'rational' or 'sane' in any case reveals that you do not know anything about suicide.
Statements like this just proves you _know_ _nothing_ about what happens after death or before life.
However, with all that said, I would put this big disclaimer out there: Death does NOT solve any problems -- it just merely DELAYS them. You can't run away from yourself -- sooner or later you WILL be forced to confront yourself. The ONLY fallacy in suicide is the incorrect thinking that somehow you avoided a problem.
> I'd rather have the old slashdot with its trolls than the current bleh.
I would rather NOT go back to Ogg, Natalie Portman with hot gritz, and goatse Thank-You-Very-Much.
IF the /. community jumped the shark years ago we have no one but ourselves to blame.
A community is what you put into it. Not only what you get out of it.
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. You DO realize one can swear and not use any vulgar words, right?
Your word for the day is: Euphemism
etc.
fuck -> smeg, fart, frig, freak, fook, etc.
shit -> poo, crap, etc.
hell -> heck, darn, double-hockey-sticks, etc.
Swearing is to useful to get the _energy_ (usually frustration) behind the words out. ANY word will do. Keeping it bottled up just says your not man enough to express yourself.
Here are some good links:
* http://www.sfx.co.uk/2011/05/23/blog-how-to-swear-like-a-geek/
* https://www.google.com/search?q=swear+word+replacement+list
> a lot of people rag on anyone who says that hockey is dangerous for hits
Reminds me of that old joke: I went to the fights and a hockey game broke out.
We've had touch hockey, touch football, etc, for years. It helps keeps the focus on _gameplay_, not the gratuitous and idiotic hitting. It is barbaric that men are so stupid that they have to revert to violence for entertainment. /sarcasm Who cares if someone gets permanent damage for the rest of the life if the fans are entertained, right!
Obviously you've never played touch hockey.
Just because some idiots like to damage and beat their body up doesn't mean the rest of us do.
> I'm currently pissed at the NRA for pointing the finger at violent media,
Yeah, let's continue to ignore the wisdom of Charlie Brooker's brilliant commentary and psychiatrists such as Dr Park Dietz! That'll show'em !
Charlie Brooker's Newswipe 25/03/09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
The media IS part of the problem.
Ah, let's conveniently ignore India, China, and Egypt so we can make our lie look believable.
Exactly!
The media is partially to blame for random gun shootings ... because they continue to ignore the wisdom of Charlie Brooker's brilliant commentary and psychiatrists such as Dr Park Dietz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
Right, blaming a physical object for a _mental_ problem is the "problem".
You're an idiot.
Humans have been killing one another for thousands of years. The problem isn't the tech -- it is the spiritual retards who exert to violence.
Sadly, no. The definition of the kilogram is garbage due to it _imprecision_.
"It is also the only SI unit that is still directly defined by an artifact rather than a fundamental physical property that can be reproduced in different laboratories. Four of the seven base units in the SI system are defined relative to the kilogram so its stability is important."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram
"In a note to the CIPM in October 2009, Ian Mills, the President of the CIPM Consultative Committee - Units (CCU) cataloged the uncertainties of the fundamental constants of physics according to the current definitions and their values under the proposed new definition. He urged the CIPM to accept the proposed changes in the definition of the kilogram, ampere, kelvin and mole so that they are referenced to the values of the fundamental constants, namely Planck's constant (h), the electron charge (e), Boltzmann's constant (k), and Avogadro's constant (NA)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit
The problem of Avogadro's constant is that it is not precise. It has a wide margin of error.
NTLM stands for Windows NT Lan Manager. Is was used in earlier Windows from NT 3.1 (yes THAT old) up til Win 2K3 IIRC.
Users would authenticate their login credentials to the system. NTLM is the sub-system that does that authentication.
For more details see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTLM
While the UI has its share of problems it isn't the full issue -- lack of features -- namely Layer Effects and broken Layer Groups is.
See my previous post for details http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3367373&cid=42524263
> The most recent GIMP release lacks important high-end photography features that even ancient CS2 has:
I concur 100%! I have a .PSD file I created back in ~2006 and sadly GIMP 2.8 _still_ can't open it properly. Every year it gets a little closer though!
GIMP 2.8 is still incomplete / broken WRT:
* nested layer groups is partially broken - doesn't show Layer Effects as sub-groups .PSD file that uses them
* no native Layer Styles (FX Blend Modes) - they still don't properly work when loading a
see: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshop/cs/using/WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-789ba.html
* no native option to set the default hotkeys to Photoshop
* stupid English name
Note: While GIMP has a layer blend modes that PS lacks, namely: Subtraction, Grain Merge, Grain Extract, Value) that is not the same as the Layer Styles.
Basically this page lists all the ways that GIMP functionality is lacking compared to PS.
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/04/03/8-handy-tweaks-to-make-gimp-replace-photoshop/
The fact that you GIMP doesn't work out-of-the-box the same way PS does and you need half a dozen plugins to get the equivalent functionality already built into PS CS2 tells me that GIMP is still immature.
Hoping one day GIMP will become a viable PS replacement.
References:
Blending Modes supported in PS and GIMP
* http://emptyeasel.com/2008/10/31/explaining-blending-modes-in-photoshop-and-gimp-multiply-divide-overlay-screen/
> The PC is not the current target of any AAA title with the sole exception of MMOs and the occasional Blizzard title
You don't know WTF you are talking about.
dice.se/wp-content/uploads/GDC11_DX11inBF3_Public.pdf
> That'll be round about the same time we get cold fusion and true AI, yes? Not a coincidence, I'm sure.
No, I never made such claims.
Artificial Ignorance won't be replaced with Actual Intelligence until years later when Scientists replace their faulty assumption of consciousness with the correct one.
It remains to be seen when we will be allowed to tap into the Zero Point Energy this century; it might be as late as the next one.
When are you going to stop living in fear?
Hint: We are not alone -- we'll have proof of contact within 20 years.
> It's China. You're not going to change their mind. You will disappear forever before you win something against the government.
Maybe. But I think History proves you wrong. With enough people you WILL be remembered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
China IS changing. Their corruption and censorship can't last forever no matter how hard they try. Don't confuse lack of external progress with lack of internal struggle.