One of the strategies that's been core military doctrine since the US-Soviet conflict in Afghanistan (and Vietnam before that) has been to try to make your enemy outspend you by a large margin.
Core military doctrine among the victors (i.e., not the US), you mean, right?
Incidentally, I watched an interesting lecture on Youtube the other day comparing the tank manufacturing strategies of the US, Germany and Russia during WWII. It turns out that all three were different: the US used efficient assembly lines and precise tooling to mass-produce standardized tanks of mid-range cost/complexity, the Russians zerg-rushed low-quality tanks using massive amounts of cheap labor and simple tooling, and the Germans used skilled craftsmen to build high-quality tanks and constantly improved the design (so that each tank was pretty close to unique). Guess which strategy was least successful...
However, at the very least, this could have been easily solved by using a bulleted list instead of writing it out in a sentence. Non-standard syntax is not necessary in this particular case.
Second, law-making bodies (and the general public, as they ought to be able to access the law conveniently too) need better software tools for dealing with legislation. For example, they need better version-control -- I'm involved with local government, and getting a diff-like representation of the proposed changes to a law is way more of a pain in the ass than it should be. Another issue is that laws are structured like computer code, with external references, but there needs to be a better way to "inline" the other clauses being referenced so that it's easier to see the whole law without having to jump around and reference multiple sources. Finally, lawmakers need to be introduced to the concepts of "refactoring," "technical debt" and "removing unused code."
I thought one's project to become a professional had to be done with hobbyist tools in order to afford professional tools for the next project. The only ways I can see around this are A. to earn money for the required tools in a day job in a different industry, or B. to release hobby projects to establish one's reputation and then crowdfund the tools needed for a simultaneous 5-platform release of one's first professional project. Which one is more practical?
C. Become a professional and save up money by working at an established company before striking out on your own, D. get venture capital and/or a small business loan, E. go ahead and release on one platform first to get money for proper testing on the others, although that's not ideal), etc.
I thought it was copyright infringement to run macOS in "VirtualBox (or whatever other emulator/virtualization system is applicable)" on anything but a Mac.
You run Linux and Mac VMs using a Mac OS host. Obviously.
Do you consider it a desirable state of affairs to give Apple a monopoly over computers used by developers?
No, which is why I'd just release on Windows/Linux/Android and fuck Apple. You're the one who predicated this sequence of strawman arguments on wanting to release on Mac and iOS.
Regardless of all this, the fact remains that writing native code (even if it takes multiple times and testing everywhere) is infinitely better than balancing your game on the gigantic Jenga-tower of excessive abstractions and security holes that is Javascript/WebGL!
Furthermore, WTF is wrong with you? I've read your posts on Slashdot for many years now, and you're not usually this trollish and stupidly argumentative. Are you ill, or did somebody else take over your account or something?
First, an individual developer graduating from hobby projects to a first revenue-generating project is unlikely to have the financial resources right off the bat to purchase five different devices for which to build and test: a Mac, a Windows 10 PC, a GNU/Linux PC, an iPhone or iPad, and an Android device.
LOLWUT?
There are only two possibilities: either the programmer in question is a hobbyist, or a pro. If the former, then Virtualbox (or whatever other emulator/virtualization system is applicable) would be fine. If the latter, then two phones and a Mac Mini is affordable.
A router company would have to print a random code per product sold if it wanted out of the box security.
Users would never find the unique code on the paperwork deep in the box and return the product a faulty.
The unique code should be printed on a sticker affixed to the base of the device. This shouldn't be hard, since it's already done for the MAC address and serial number.
What we have here is where Nintendo (and the dumbasses who signed this idiocy into law) are claiming that Nintendo's temporary monopoly on its idea is somehow so important that it usurps the owner of the computer's right to modify his own property. I dunno about how Canadians feel about it, but for those of us south of the 49th parallel, our justification of government was based in part on John Locke's principle of "life, liberty and property" (which got changed to "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, but it still counts!). The right to own property is inalienable, but this copyright run amok turns that principle on its head in some kind of bizarro-world feudal dystopia. That tyranny must not stand!
Then we must be looking at totally different methods for calculating the figures. The official combined mileage figures (I'm in the UK, for reference) for many family compacts are way higher than the 35 you're quoting. I'm looking at things like mid-range models from the likes of Ford, Vauxhall, Peugeot or Toyota here, and in a few models I looked up before, I didn't see a single one with a combined mileage figure as low as that.
European-spec compact cars are different than US-spec ones. For one thing, they tend to have smaller engines. For another, they're much more likely to have manual transmissions (the US-spec Smart Fortwo only comes with the horrible computerized-clutch transmission, for example).
Also, UK gallons are larger than US gallons, so the "miles per gallon" number is always larger in the UK. This shouldn't affect my comparsion, which was official EPA numbers vs. official EPA numbers, all from fueleconomy.gov, which are completely comparable.
Smart is a bit of a special case that has so many quirks it's not particularly useful for comparison.
I can agree with that. Nevertheless, according to the EPA, every other 2017-model conventional-engine car in the US is even worse.
I'm in favour of any reasonable safety aid...
"Reasonable" is a very relative term. I, for one, am in favor of not being forced to pay nearly twice as much (take the average new car in 1987 and adjust it's price for inflation, then compare to the average new car in 2017 to see what I mean) for a product that treats me like a fucking moron, can be hacked by any random script kiddie with a transmitter, and reports everything I do and everywhere I drive back to at least the manufacturer, if not directly to the NSA. I'm more than happy to drive my $3000, 90s-era cars instead -- they have all the modern features I care about, and none of the bullshit I don't.
Why the everlasting fuck does a CPU require a driver in order to "support" an operating system anyway?! It's not as if it's not x86, after all. The damn thing should run DOS if I try hard enough!
A typical modern compact family car ought to achieve real figures significantly better than those if driven sensibly. (And of course that's being very generous with "comparable", since a typical modern compact family car would be superior to the models you mentioned in almost every conceivable way.)
LOL no. According to the EPA list, excluding hybrids (which aren't "comparable") the best 2017 models get 35 combined MPG. In comparison, even under the new EPA rating calculation the 1990 Geo Metro XFI got 47 combined MPG and the 1990 Honda CRX HF got 43 combined MPG. Modern cars are fucking pigs -- even the tiny ones. (I can't link to the exact pages with the new EPA ratings for the old cars, but go here and fill out the drop-down lists.)
Incidentally, I would argue that a 1990 CRX is an objectively better car than a 2017 Smart Fortwo. It's not only more efficient, but it's also better-looking, has better handling / is more fun to drive, has more cargo capacity and is cheaper to maintain (Honda parts prices vs. Mercedes parts prices, and also because there's less fancy shit to break). Sure it won't be as safe in a crash, but that's the only downside -- and because of the better handling, it's somewhat less likely to crash in the first place.
You really couldn't. Not even close.
First of all, old Mercs and Volvos had most of the fancy safety systems you seem to think are necessary.
Second, NO. Traction control is absolutely not a safety feature -- all it does is help you start from a stop in slippery conditions, which is the opposite of safety. Anti-lock brakes are a safety feature, but Mercs have had that since 1978 (according to Wikipedia), and most cars have had it since the '90s. Electronic stability control claims to be a safety feature, but all it really is is a crutch for people too stupid to know not to drive too fast for conditions. Ditto with cameras, TPMS and other electronic bullshit -- it's all just crutches for people who are INCOMPETENT TO DRIVE in the first place!
I could get an old car that's even more efficient than a comparable new car (e.g. a Geo Metro XFi or Honda CRX HF), or I could get an old car that's probably just as safe as new ones, other than maybe electronic nannies like ESP (e.g. an old Volvo or Mercedes). It would just be hard to find both features at the same time.
By the way, stuff like tire pressure warning systems is just bullshit that adds cost and complexity. Any moron can check his tire pressure once in a while!
On the other hand, anything older than a few years is horrendously inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and dangerous in an emergency compared to modern vehicles.
Replace the "and" with an "or" and maybe you'd have a point.
Step 1: put receiver antenna on top of hill. Step 2: put second directional antenna on same tower, pointed down the hill towards your house. Step 3: put directional antenna on your house, pointed towards antenna on hill.
It is only valid to hire an H1B when a qualified citizen does not exist. If you're laying off citizens to replace them with H1Bs, the use of H1Bs was clearly not valid.
there is >10DB loss on every run due to the moron demanding that the fiber be ran next to the other wiring in the same trays
Maybe I'm just a "dumbass engineer," but WTF does that have to do with anything? Having the runs bend too tightly I understand, but optical fiber isn't subject to RFI. Or are you saying it's causing interference in non-fiber equipment?
In Atlanta, my wife (fiance at the time) and I bought a $100k house, qualifying for the loan based only on her ~$30K income as an artist (I had just graduated and was not yet working). Although it took longer than anticipated to get there due to the recession, our house price:income ratio is now more like 1:1.
The house in question, by the way, is a normal 3 bedroom/2 bath detached house in a decent urban neighborhood. Granted, it's increased in value a lot since we bought it (because we bought during the recession), but still.
Slashdot Mirror
Core military doctrine among the victors (i.e., not the US), you mean, right?
Incidentally, I watched an interesting lecture on Youtube the other day comparing the tank manufacturing strategies of the US, Germany and Russia during WWII. It turns out that all three were different: the US used efficient assembly lines and precise tooling to mass-produce standardized tanks of mid-range cost/complexity, the Russians zerg-rushed low-quality tanks using massive amounts of cheap labor and simple tooling, and the Germans used skilled craftsmen to build high-quality tanks and constantly improved the design (so that each tank was pretty close to unique). Guess which strategy was least successful...
First of all, I'll agree with you.
However, at the very least, this could have been easily solved by using a bulleted list instead of writing it out in a sentence. Non-standard syntax is not necessary in this particular case.
Second, law-making bodies (and the general public, as they ought to be able to access the law conveniently too) need better software tools for dealing with legislation. For example, they need better version-control -- I'm involved with local government, and getting a diff-like representation of the proposed changes to a law is way more of a pain in the ass than it should be. Another issue is that laws are structured like computer code, with external references, but there needs to be a better way to "inline" the other clauses being referenced so that it's easier to see the whole law without having to jump around and reference multiple sources. Finally, lawmakers need to be introduced to the concepts of "refactoring," "technical debt" and "removing unused code."
"Linux and Windows VMs using a Mac OS host," I meant.
C. Become a professional and save up money by working at an established company before striking out on your own, D. get venture capital and/or a small business loan, E. go ahead and release on one platform first to get money for proper testing on the others, although that's not ideal), etc.
You run Linux and Mac VMs using a Mac OS host. Obviously.
No, which is why I'd just release on Windows/Linux/Android and fuck Apple. You're the one who predicated this sequence of strawman arguments on wanting to release on Mac and iOS.
Regardless of all this, the fact remains that writing native code (even if it takes multiple times and testing everywhere) is infinitely better than balancing your game on the gigantic Jenga-tower of excessive abstractions and security holes that is Javascript/WebGL!
Furthermore, WTF is wrong with you? I've read your posts on Slashdot for many years now, and you're not usually this trollish and stupidly argumentative. Are you ill, or did somebody else take over your account or something?
LOLWUT?
There are only two possibilities: either the programmer in question is a hobbyist, or a pro. If the former, then Virtualbox (or whatever other emulator/virtualization system is applicable) would be fine. If the latter, then two phones and a Mac Mini is affordable.
Besides, even writing platform-specific code from scratch is less complicated and time-consuming than you'd think.
Um... all of them, as you normally do? I'm confused because you ask that as if it's some kind of problem...
Better hint: have them talk only to a local server / controller / DVR with decent security, and access that from the Internet.
The unique code should be printed on a sticker affixed to the base of the device. This shouldn't be hard, since it's already done for the MAC address and serial number.
I'd develop it in SDL + OpenGL.
Do you have a similar post about the baseband processors in smartphones?
Or encrypt it before uploading it.
In that case, what they should do is re-upload anything that the on-demand transcription service has in fact transcribed.
What we have here is where Nintendo (and the dumbasses who signed this idiocy into law) are claiming that Nintendo's temporary monopoly on its idea is somehow so important that it usurps the owner of the computer's right to modify his own property. I dunno about how Canadians feel about it, but for those of us south of the 49th parallel, our justification of government was based in part on John Locke's principle of "life, liberty and property" (which got changed to "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, but it still counts!). The right to own property is inalienable, but this copyright run amok turns that principle on its head in some kind of bizarro-world feudal dystopia. That tyranny must not stand!
European-spec compact cars are different than US-spec ones. For one thing, they tend to have smaller engines. For another, they're much more likely to have manual transmissions (the US-spec Smart Fortwo only comes with the horrible computerized-clutch transmission, for example).
Also, UK gallons are larger than US gallons, so the "miles per gallon" number is always larger in the UK. This shouldn't affect my comparsion, which was official EPA numbers vs. official EPA numbers, all from fueleconomy.gov, which are completely comparable.
I can agree with that. Nevertheless, according to the EPA, every other 2017-model conventional-engine car in the US is even worse.
"Reasonable" is a very relative term. I, for one, am in favor of not being forced to pay nearly twice as much (take the average new car in 1987 and adjust it's price for inflation, then compare to the average new car in 2017 to see what I mean) for a product that treats me like a fucking moron, can be hacked by any random script kiddie with a transmitter, and reports everything I do and everywhere I drive back to at least the manufacturer, if not directly to the NSA. I'm more than happy to drive my $3000, 90s-era cars instead -- they have all the modern features I care about, and none of the bullshit I don't.
The code name for server Zen is "Naples" and it's supposed to be out in the first half of 2017.
Why the everlasting fuck does a CPU require a driver in order to "support" an operating system anyway?! It's not as if it's not x86, after all. The damn thing should run DOS if I try hard enough!
LOL no. According to the EPA list, excluding hybrids (which aren't "comparable") the best 2017 models get 35 combined MPG. In comparison, even under the new EPA rating calculation the 1990 Geo Metro XFI got 47 combined MPG and the 1990 Honda CRX HF got 43 combined MPG. Modern cars are fucking pigs -- even the tiny ones. (I can't link to the exact pages with the new EPA ratings for the old cars, but go here and fill out the drop-down lists.)
Incidentally, I would argue that a 1990 CRX is an objectively better car than a 2017 Smart Fortwo. It's not only more efficient, but it's also better-looking, has better handling / is more fun to drive, has more cargo capacity and is cheaper to maintain (Honda parts prices vs. Mercedes parts prices, and also because there's less fancy shit to break). Sure it won't be as safe in a crash, but that's the only downside -- and because of the better handling, it's somewhat less likely to crash in the first place.
First of all, old Mercs and Volvos had most of the fancy safety systems you seem to think are necessary.
Second, NO. Traction control is absolutely not a safety feature -- all it does is help you start from a stop in slippery conditions, which is the opposite of safety. Anti-lock brakes are a safety feature, but Mercs have had that since 1978 (according to Wikipedia), and most cars have had it since the '90s. Electronic stability control claims to be a safety feature, but all it really is is a crutch for people too stupid to know not to drive too fast for conditions. Ditto with cameras, TPMS and other electronic bullshit -- it's all just crutches for people who are INCOMPETENT TO DRIVE in the first place!
I could get an old car that's even more efficient than a comparable new car (e.g. a Geo Metro XFi or Honda CRX HF), or I could get an old car that's probably just as safe as new ones, other than maybe electronic nannies like ESP (e.g. an old Volvo or Mercedes). It would just be hard to find both features at the same time.
By the way, stuff like tire pressure warning systems is just bullshit that adds cost and complexity. Any moron can check his tire pressure once in a while!
Replace the "and" with an "or" and maybe you'd have a point.
Step 1: put receiver antenna on top of hill. Step 2: put second directional antenna on same tower, pointed down the hill towards your house. Step 3: put directional antenna on your house, pointed towards antenna on hill.
So leak it to the media or file form WH-4 with the Department of Labor.
It is only valid to hire an H1B when a qualified citizen does not exist. If you're laying off citizens to replace them with H1Bs, the use of H1Bs was clearly not valid.
Okay, fine -- we'll agree maxing out your 401k and IRA is not optional.
But in that case, it's not optional for normal-income people either, which means their take-home pay is literally $750/month, before housing.
Maybe I'm just a "dumbass engineer," but WTF does that have to do with anything? Having the runs bend too tightly I understand, but optical fiber isn't subject to RFI. Or are you saying it's causing interference in non-fiber equipment?
In Atlanta, my wife (fiance at the time) and I bought a $100k house, qualifying for the loan based only on her ~$30K income as an artist (I had just graduated and was not yet working). Although it took longer than anticipated to get there due to the recession, our house price:income ratio is now more like 1:1.
The house in question, by the way, is a normal 3 bedroom/2 bath detached house in a decent urban neighborhood. Granted, it's increased in value a lot since we bought it (because we bought during the recession), but still.