That's ironic, because in the 1.x days, the full Seamonkey suite felt less bloated than even Firefox 3.x and hogged far less memory and crashed less.
Firefox 3.x was the apogee of runaway heap allocations. With my usage pattern and plug-ins I was losing 600 MB per day on average. I would have six FF Windows open on half a dozen different desktops, each with 20 to 50 active tabs. When I decided to restart FF because it could no longer keep up with my typing in a textarea box, my session saver would restore all of my FF windows to a pile on a single screen of a single desktop, and then there would be a tab reload storm something fierce. It was a ten minute interruption to get all my windows back to the desktop where they belonged, and FF itself sufficiently quiescent again to promptly enact GUI interactions.
My current FF leaks somewhere on the order of 100 MB/day and when I restart FF, it at least puts all my windows back on the same screen, if not the same desktop, and the tab reload storm is forestalled by lazy loading.
By that point I certainly wasn't sticking with FF because it was sleek or svelte. On the contrary, I was invested deeply enough in my suite of FF add-ons that I decided to tough it out (though rather loudly on the FF bug tracker).
I don't understand why so many outspoken voices on this thread purport to be sanguine about Firefox slipping back to the second or third tier in the absence of Google funding. Has no-one here ever read the red-hating Agatha Christie? Oligopoly, triopoly, duopoly, monopoly.
Each little Indian cut off at the knees substantially alters the political culture and calculus on Internet Island. Firefox is Piggy with the coke bottle glasses. Soon after Piggy's demise, civics aren't much discussed.
That was a surprisingly good summary of what I've concluded from my own readings. I guess there are two types of nerds: speedy nerds and slow nerds. Generally what passes for intelligence here is News for Speedy Nerds.
For really short people, you basically have to be obese to be "normal" and for really tall people, you basically have to be emaciated.
I'm in the second group. I'd have to check myself into the Ally McBeal foie gras buffet emporium if I ever got down to the bottom end of my "healthy" BMI bracket using the dumb old formula. I used to weight about that much during my growth spurt, despite devouring large meals between larger meals. Strangers standing beside me in elevators used to worry whether my body could withstand the acceleration, and suggest to me that I eat more. On one work term there was a one-plate lunch buffet restaurant I used to frequent where I discovered the technique of using the sturdy vegetables and lettuce to cantilever the plate's diameter. I was a serious eater, and still I had no shadow.
Here is an equally simplistic BMI that works better at the extremes: Ponderal index. It works for me because I eventually filled out into a "scaled up" normal person with no (recent) African genes for shedding heat.
After taking a closer look I concluded that some individuals are such a bad fit for the regular BMI, the use of BMI in the medical setting with these individuals amounts to borderline malpractice. How many people are taking a cholesterol drug because their BMI factored into their GP's uncritical perception?
Anyone else remember the old expression: garbage in, garbage out? Coefficient 2.0 of the BMI formula needs a serious make-over.
Contrary to the story summary, the recipe is not quite that easy. There needs to be at least some effort to disguise the act of speaking our of your ass.
There are seven layers of straw men between this outrageously overblown mathematical quibble and the true nature of human cognition.
He strikes me as being more like David Helfgott and less like Rachmaninoff.
To a large degree in mathematics, infinity is used to invoke the limiting configuration of an unbounded process (where there is always a next step). This isn't precisely the same thing as believing in infinity itself, or any of its many discrete fragments.
I suspect the majority of the people feel the same way.
Not even close, unless you also think that the majority of people who suffer in silence all fret over the same life issue.
Apathy has at least a dozen different root causes at the level of kingdom and phyla. Some people dislike how their computer turns into a vat of sticky molasses right after the anti-virus software gets installed. They didn't know you need twice as much bare metal to eke out a tolerable user experience once the protective condom—prosthetic cylinder—is superglued onto the pink skin under the hood. When you find a male user whose entire panoply of defences are on the floor (or around his ankles), one suspects the anti-virus software was interfering with a cherished late-night hobby.
The entire anti-virus program was misconceived to begin with. It's not ultimately impossible to write secure code, but it will remain impossible until we've exhausted every other dodge.
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. — Winston Churchill
Note that by "secure" I don't mean "flawless". A better proxy is that once a flaw is discovered, it takes far longer to work up a successful exploit than it does to fix the problem and test the patch, assuming both lines of development hear the same gun.
I've been reading security threads for at least two decades. There's always someone who pipes up with the view that because the travelling salesman problem is NP-complete, you might as well plan your route by flipping coins. This is the strange and not-so-wonderful archaea kingdom of the apathy tree. Brain the size of a planet, and all these people can manage is to cop a snivel. These people have their edge enhancement (aka paranoia) dialed up so far, the entire universe looks like a chessboard in the movie Tron. I'm guessing that the evolution of intelligent life is also NP-complete, yet somehow it happened. Hard to notice this if your giant brain perceives itself as living on planet Tron.
At the end of the day secure code has no hope of survival in a winner-take-all market with a short little span of attention (winner take all, until it's all siphoned away by a Chinese triad). It probably boils down to prisoner's dilemma—until there's a sea change, and secure code gets the girl.
The answer lies in a systems theory analysis of human mating-instinct time horizons. This is a different difficulty class than NP-complete, founded on the technique of proof by partial induction: well, we're still here.
It took a long time (ten years?) to get just a basic 32-bit protected mode operating system out to people at large after the hardware (80386) was out.
Double facepalm!! That's one version of the story. In other news, the day after the first Prius was available for sale, there was a global recall on internal combustion engines—the kind of recall where they don't give back.
The hump where protected mode starts to drive real productivity benefit is somewhere above a 486SX/25 with 8 MB of RAM and a 120 MB disk drive. I had a Gateway 2000 laptop exactly like that (monochrome). It even had NetBSD for a few days. Simply not worth it. It had relatively fast video, but not VLB. I didn't even try X Windows.
Later I converted a 486DX/100 with 16 MB of RAM and a 200 MB disk drive into a BSD crash box. That system ran not bad, if you were patient enough. It really could usefully multitask.
Then I upgraded my main system to a P6/200 with 32 MB of RAM (not cheap) and a 640 MB SCSI hard drive (about a dollar per MB) and pair of 19" monitors (about $1000 each) running an early version of NT. This was exactly the point where I said to myself "I'll never go back".
This was not a software issue. The delay in widespread adoption of protected memory operating systems was in large measure caused by a DRAM price cartel.
DRAM price fixing. The American company Micron was the ring-leader as I recall it.
In December 2003, the Department charged Alfred P. Censullo, a Regional Sales Manager for Micron Technology Inc., with obstruction of justice. Censullo pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted to having withheld and altered documents responsive to a grand jury subpoena served on Micron in June 2002.
On October 20, 2004, Infineon also pled guilty. The company was fined $160M for its involvement, then the third largest antitrust fine in US history. Hynix Semiconductor soon took the third position in April 2005 with a $185M criminal penalty after they also admitted guilt. In October 2005, Samsung entered their guilty plea in connection with the cartel.
I remember this extremely well because memory flat-lined at CDN $40/MB for about three years in the mid 1990s.
Of course this is not corruption. It's the invisible hand hard at work.
Then he wants to 'compress' the lasing cavity to *ahem* reach black-hole level of energy densities.
It seems pretty clear to me—I took that same first course—that a neutrino is just a white hole (moving at the speed of light) made up of photons which such a strong self-interaction they can't escape from themselves and thus refuse to interact with much of anything else.
This all seemed to fit with the gravitational contribution of the EM Stress Energy Tensor until I saw a post from Lubos on Stackexchange about the non-zero photon pressure and their Tii spatial components in GR, so I'm now back to looking for a different way to pretend I have a clue.
essentially blaming them after she behaved rudely to her family and friends
Apparently one person's "rude" is another person's common sense. (Invocation of "blame" is another red flag that common sense has left the building.) 100% of the rudeness here derives from unbalanced technology, because Facebook wants it that way.
Entire countries filter the internet. Yet as an individual, it's not practical for me to contract a public identity management agency which allows me to enact controls over what personal information I'm willing to see splattered into the public space on malign service hosts.
Nothing should go onto your social media pages that doesn't first go through your own appointed screening filter, if you choose to have one.
Had such an option been available, her personally appointed screening filter would have simply bouncing back a message to her uncle to the effect that "Janet doesn't wish to see her reproductive status conveyed on cloud services".
Unfortunately, this entire line of argument sets a precedent for non-productive lines of argument. It usually turns out that the person advancing such an argument is rarely concerned with precedent after all.
Everyone knows 40% of C++. Unfortunately, it's never the same 40%.
What's the problem with that? It's been plenty good enough for religion for thousands of years.
Everyone knows 40% of the will of god. Unfortunately, it's never the same 40%, so far as we can tell.
I freely admit that the coefficient of groupthink in C++ is on the low end as modern programming languages go. That's what has always appealed to me about C++: that it was a larger church.
The value of having a larger church fluctuates in interesting ways, roughly akin to the Titanic. To the passengers on the upper decks, the rafts provided seemed more than adequate. A programming language takes a heavy toll in uncluttered vistas when it elects to support even the guy shovelling coal far, far below the fancy paint.
Comparing software engineering to regular engineering is an unfair comparison when regular engineering is built upon hundreds, if not thousands, of years of experience.
Yes, and wherever that experience is lacking because the progress and rate of change are related by a differential equation, what type of engineer manufactures the expanding putty? The Roman engineer or the von Neumann engineer?
The reason an older programmer is slower than a younger one is because of the number of answers he has to the question "what could possibly go wrong?".
Young engineers heap success. Old engineers bleed failure.
After I buggered with the classic restorer and other bits, it's not killing me.
The underlying problem seems to be that the UX people pretend to represent a consensus, but we seem to constantly get a consensus of platforms, rather than a consensus of users.
The only way out of this mess is to create a marketplace of pull. When we have the capacity to advertise for what we really want in how our UX behaves, only then it will be fully revealed that there's no master ring to bind them all.
Claudia Caswell: Why do they always look like unhappy rabbits? Addison DeWitt: Because that's what they are
So then, why do all desktop UX updates since the adhesive iPad resemble psoriatic haemorrhoids?
Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered? Anyone...
your Pebble watch will be ridiculously obsolete in less than 5 years
You doing it wrong. My Pebble watch is a substrate to run my custom watch face, which I need because my body runs a bespoke circadian rhythm. The equity here lies in the software, not in the physical object shackled to my wrist. Like every technology we've barely figured out how to build at all, it will shed some baby teeth before the permanent molars grow in.
If only the timer on my kitchen stove allowed me to reprogram it to mesh with my cooking practice. Once it goes off, it figures it needs to shriek at me once a minute until kingdom come, or thirty minutes, whichever comes first. I set it when I'm preheating the oven, then a call comes in and I'm tied to my desk, and it's off in the kitchen having a minute by minute hissy fit. Other times I have it set so that it's not more than two minutes ahead of the smoke detector. But the dumb thing doesn't know the difference, because in fine minimalist design tradition, one size fits all.
I suppose could use the timer on my wrist, but then anyone else who wanders into the kitchen is operating blind. A public timer works better in a shared kitchen. The real problem here is that the embedded stove timer is the wrong implementation of the right solution.
If the damn thing would shriek at first activation, then once every five minutes, and on the minutes != 0 mod 5 it would gently warble, we'd have the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, it's a fixed-function non-reprogrammable device, which will probably outlive my tenancy in this abode.
The air pressure sets a limit on the height of both suction pumps and siphons.
For such a pedantic dialogue as this thread, I was hoping to see someone write "the air pressure and internal fluid tension set a limit..." before I reached my pettifogger deFUDer saturation point, but it was not to be.
Yea, this inverter isn't very bright and violates the first rule of splitting with an axe (after wearing steal toed boots), don't let go of the axe handle during your swing.
No, the first rule of using an axe is to either use an axe with a long handle, or a hatchet, but never anything in between.
I'm not much worried about my toes wielding a long-handled axe, but I am worried about more distal objects (and people) in the plane of the swinging motion. Medium-handled axes are for crazy people who never much liked walking around in the first place, or who get an unbearable itch to perform a District 9 pedicure.
You'll kick yourself later if you hit a bug that was revealed by a warning which was ignored.
Yes, it's called highsight bias, and there's an entire subfield of psychology devoted to its study, and a related subfield of behavioural economics which applies cost/benefit analysis to the human self-kick behavioural reflex arc.
There are educated self-kicks and there are also blind mice self-kicks.
In 1994, allegations of sexual abuse on 47 young seminarians surfaced in Argentina.
In 1995, Cardinal Hans Hermann Gro(Slashdot alpha sucks)r resigned from his post as Archbishop of Vienna, Austria over allegations of sexual abuse, although he remained a Cardinal. Since 1995, over one hundred priests from various parts of Australia were convicted of sexual abuse.
From 2001-2010 the Holy See, the central governing body of the Catholic Church, has "considered sex abuse allegations concerning about 3,000 priests dating back up to 50 years" according to the Vatican's Promoter of Justice.
Pederastic institutions tend not to poll well. The only surprise is that it took this long.
If you're an EE who has never taken a course in measure theory, a unit impulse is not what you think it is (Dirac delta function); "Formally, the Lebesgue integral provides the necessary analytic device.")
Is the Dirac delta function nearly a function? I guess it must be, because it certainly isn't a function by any formal definition that doesn't look like Spock chess compared to naive algebra (subsuming, for starters, all that came before circa 1850), yet it takes you to where you want to go, regardless, so long as the first step on unfolding your algebraic briar patch is an implicit integration.
Sometimes "nearly" is employed to mean "without first having to enter into abstruse thickets that probably wouldn't change a damn thing anyway, but I don't wish to speak as carelessly as calling the Dirac delta function an actual function because those daft EEs might just start to believe in the fiction".
This is a naive estimate—typical of wide-eyed wanderlust—looking at one tiny piece of the problem.
I'd say a population of about a million is necessary to maintain working contact with human technological culture, and pass this working contact on to the next generation. There's a bit of a gap between a Wikipedia article on metallurgy and a guy who has practised the profession for several decades.
In anthropology, often when a smaller population contracts major technologies are lost, not because they are forgotten, but because there isn't enough bread of expertise to sustain the technological cycle.
Now a days you don't have to worry about [small sky falling], but you do have to worry about [large sky falling].
Once upon a time, real engineers solved the solvable problems in whatever order solid solutions presented themselves, so that presently unsolvable problems evolved into greater relief.
I thought it was a good system. Good engineering, RIP.
A huge amount of it is in the presentation, and how the player conceptualizes the puzzle, and how much of the problem can be handled automatically by visual processes.
It's not just that. The puzzle solvers essentially adopt their own rules for what consistutes a valid solution step.
Once I started completing most five stars puzzles in twelve minutes or less, I started to mainly work the "insane" category. My preferred method is to logically eliminate a single digit placement: this digit can't go here in this box. In the insane puzzles, one often gets to a place where are few digit placements one can reasonably crack with an inference chain without going more than three levels deep.
At that point, it's pretty easy to get completely stuck for ten minutes looking in all the wrong places. That same situation can often be "solved" in under a minute with a four colour pen and the willingness to posit and backtrack. Normally this is against my personal code.
Once upon a time I compiled Knuth's dancing links and threw some "hardest ever" puzzles at it that came up in a quick Google search. One of the first such puzzles I tried solved without a single backtrack step: at each point where the algorithm made a guess, it happened to guess right. There were only three or four or five such junctures of valence 2 or 3. I think I had slightly modified how it sorts the list based on my own intuition about the potency of guesswork, but still, it made a completely mockery of the whole "difficulty" notion. Purportedly one of the hardest of all puzzles (by a certain metric) and Dancing Links goes Rain Man without so much as scuffing its eraser.
When I challenged myself to solve five star puzzles in under ten minutes, there was a complex dance inside my mind to keep track of where I'd shaken the tree already, and what part of the tree needed to be revisited based on recently completed digits. At the slightly faster pace, my mistake production would skyrocket: somehow my double-checking circuit and my "what next" circuit became competitive.
Also, the critical junctures became too thin on the ground, and the punishment for my errors too great, so I lost interest in pushing it any further. It was always for me an excercise in observing my own solution strategies and mental capacities/incapacities.
I think the only way a puzzle-setter can get consistent solution times for a hardness category is by patiently training the puzzle solvers to appoach the task in a certain way, rather than just doing their own thing. I certainly knew with each puzzle setter that I could exploit my familiarity with previous puzzles set at that level of difficulty if I followed the main sequence.
From time to time I would spot an advanced inference early, and then the puzzle would melt away posing no further difficulty whatsoever.
They didn't realize that corporations want value for their investment.
That's like saying a woman doesn't realize her date wants "value" for picking up the dinner check. No, what they didn't realize was that Pepsi was going to waltz in and set the prostitution dial to 100% from the very first "hello".
You seem to think no show has ever turned a profit that depicts an interesting subculture without the insta-pimpover move.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 3.x was the apogee of runaway heap allocations. With my usage pattern and plug-ins I was losing 600 MB per day on average. I would have six FF Windows open on half a dozen different desktops, each with 20 to 50 active tabs. When I decided to restart FF because it could no longer keep up with my typing in a textarea box, my session saver would restore all of my FF windows to a pile on a single screen of a single desktop, and then there would be a tab reload storm something fierce. It was a ten minute interruption to get all my windows back to the desktop where they belonged, and FF itself sufficiently quiescent again to promptly enact GUI interactions.
My current FF leaks somewhere on the order of 100 MB/day and when I restart FF, it at least puts all my windows back on the same screen, if not the same desktop, and the tab reload storm is forestalled by lazy loading.
By that point I certainly wasn't sticking with FF because it was sleek or svelte. On the contrary, I was invested deeply enough in my suite of FF add-ons that I decided to tough it out (though rather loudly on the FF bug tracker).
I don't understand why so many outspoken voices on this thread purport to be sanguine about Firefox slipping back to the second or third tier in the absence of Google funding. Has no-one here ever read the red-hating Agatha Christie? Oligopoly, triopoly, duopoly, monopoly.
Each little Indian cut off at the knees substantially alters the political culture and calculus on Internet Island. Firefox is Piggy with the coke bottle glasses. Soon after Piggy's demise, civics aren't much discussed.
Think of Piggy as The First Samurai.
That was a surprisingly good summary of what I've concluded from my own readings. I guess there are two types of nerds: speedy nerds and slow nerds. Generally what passes for intelligence here is News for Speedy Nerds.
I'm in the second group. I'd have to check myself into the Ally McBeal foie gras buffet emporium if I ever got down to the bottom end of my "healthy" BMI bracket using the dumb old formula. I used to weight about that much during my growth spurt, despite devouring large meals between larger meals. Strangers standing beside me in elevators used to worry whether my body could withstand the acceleration, and suggest to me that I eat more. On one work term there was a one-plate lunch buffet restaurant I used to frequent where I discovered the technique of using the sturdy vegetables and lettuce to cantilever the plate's diameter. I was a serious eater, and still I had no shadow.
Here is an equally simplistic BMI that works better at the extremes: Ponderal index. It works for me because I eventually filled out into a "scaled up" normal person with no (recent) African genes for shedding heat.
After taking a closer look I concluded that some individuals are such a bad fit for the regular BMI, the use of BMI in the medical setting with these individuals amounts to borderline malpractice. How many people are taking a cholesterol drug because their BMI factored into their GP's uncritical perception?
Anyone else remember the old expression: garbage in, garbage out? Coefficient 2.0 of the BMI formula needs a serious make-over.
Contrary to the story summary, the recipe is not quite that easy. There needs to be at least some effort to disguise the act of speaking our of your ass.
There are seven layers of straw men between this outrageously overblown mathematical quibble and the true nature of human cognition.
He strikes me as being more like David Helfgott and less like Rachmaninoff.
To a large degree in mathematics, infinity is used to invoke the limiting configuration of an unbounded process (where there is always a next step). This isn't precisely the same thing as believing in infinity itself, or any of its many discrete fragments.
Meaning in Classical Mathematics: Is it at Odds with Intuitionism
Not even close, unless you also think that the majority of people who suffer in silence all fret over the same life issue.
Apathy has at least a dozen different root causes at the level of kingdom and phyla. Some people dislike how their computer turns into a vat of sticky molasses right after the anti-virus software gets installed. They didn't know you need twice as much bare metal to eke out a tolerable user experience once the protective condom—prosthetic cylinder—is superglued onto the pink skin under the hood. When you find a male user whose entire panoply of defences are on the floor (or around his ankles), one suspects the anti-virus software was interfering with a cherished late-night hobby.
The entire anti-virus program was misconceived to begin with. It's not ultimately impossible to write secure code, but it will remain impossible until we've exhausted every other dodge.
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. — Winston Churchill
Note that by "secure" I don't mean "flawless". A better proxy is that once a flaw is discovered, it takes far longer to work up a successful exploit than it does to fix the problem and test the patch, assuming both lines of development hear the same gun.
I've been reading security threads for at least two decades. There's always someone who pipes up with the view that because the travelling salesman problem is NP-complete, you might as well plan your route by flipping coins. This is the strange and not-so-wonderful archaea kingdom of the apathy tree. Brain the size of a planet, and all these people can manage is to cop a snivel. These people have their edge enhancement (aka paranoia) dialed up so far, the entire universe looks like a chessboard in the movie Tron. I'm guessing that the evolution of intelligent life is also NP-complete, yet somehow it happened. Hard to notice this if your giant brain perceives itself as living on planet Tron.
At the end of the day secure code has no hope of survival in a winner-take-all market with a short little span of attention (winner take all, until it's all siphoned away by a Chinese triad). It probably boils down to prisoner's dilemma—until there's a sea change, and secure code gets the girl.
The answer lies in a systems theory analysis of human mating-instinct time horizons. This is a different difficulty class than NP-complete, founded on the technique of proof by partial induction: well, we're still here.
Double facepalm!! That's one version of the story. In other news, the day after the first Prius was available for sale, there was a global recall on internal combustion engines—the kind of recall where they don't give back.
The hump where protected mode starts to drive real productivity benefit is somewhere above a 486SX/25 with 8 MB of RAM and a 120 MB disk drive. I had a Gateway 2000 laptop exactly like that (monochrome). It even had NetBSD for a few days. Simply not worth it. It had relatively fast video, but not VLB. I didn't even try X Windows.
Later I converted a 486DX/100 with 16 MB of RAM and a 200 MB disk drive into a BSD crash box. That system ran not bad, if you were patient enough. It really could usefully multitask.
Then I upgraded my main system to a P6/200 with 32 MB of RAM (not cheap) and a 640 MB SCSI hard drive (about a dollar per MB) and pair of 19" monitors (about $1000 each) running an early version of NT. This was exactly the point where I said to myself "I'll never go back".
This was not a software issue. The delay in widespread adoption of protected memory operating systems was in large measure caused by a DRAM price cartel.
DRAM price fixing. The American company Micron was the ring-leader as I recall it.
I remember this extremely well because memory flat-lined at CDN $40/MB for about three years in the mid 1990s.
Of course this is not corruption. It's the invisible hand hard at work.
I am so ready for all new vehicles with fob starters to come with three fob sets, by default.
It seems pretty clear to me—I took that same first course—that a neutrino is just a white hole (moving at the speed of light) made up of photons which such a strong self-interaction they can't escape from themselves and thus refuse to interact with much of anything else.
This all seemed to fit with the gravitational contribution of the EM Stress Energy Tensor until I saw a post from Lubos on Stackexchange about the non-zero photon pressure and their Tii spatial components in GR, so I'm now back to looking for a different way to pretend I have a clue.
Apparently one person's "rude" is another person's common sense. (Invocation of "blame" is another red flag that common sense has left the building.) 100% of the rudeness here derives from unbalanced technology, because Facebook wants it that way.
Entire countries filter the internet. Yet as an individual, it's not practical for me to contract a public identity management agency which allows me to enact controls over what personal information I'm willing to see splattered into the public space on malign service hosts.
Nothing should go onto your social media pages that doesn't first go through your own appointed screening filter, if you choose to have one.
Had such an option been available, her personally appointed screening filter would have simply bouncing back a message to her uncle to the effect that "Janet doesn't wish to see her reproductive status conveyed on cloud services".
It's not rude. It's common sense.
Unfortunately, this entire line of argument sets a precedent for non-productive lines of argument. It usually turns out that the person advancing such an argument is rarely concerned with precedent after all.
News update from planet math. You can template a class over an integer pair which provides a dense set over the Reals known as the Rationals.
If one couldn't do this, the argument at the standardization round table would have been a lot different.
What's the problem with that? It's been plenty good enough for religion for thousands of years.
I freely admit that the coefficient of groupthink in C++ is on the low end as modern programming languages go. That's what has always appealed to me about C++: that it was a larger church.
The value of having a larger church fluctuates in interesting ways, roughly akin to the Titanic. To the passengers on the upper decks, the rafts provided seemed more than adequate. A programming language takes a heavy toll in uncluttered vistas when it elects to support even the guy shovelling coal far, far below the fancy paint.
Yes, and wherever that experience is lacking because the progress and rate of change are related by a differential equation, what type of engineer manufactures the expanding putty? The Roman engineer or the von Neumann engineer?
Young engineers heap success. Old engineers bleed failure.
After I buggered with the classic restorer and other bits, it's not killing me.
The underlying problem seems to be that the UX people pretend to represent a consensus, but we seem to constantly get a consensus of platforms, rather than a consensus of users.
This is far from a great interview, but the basic idea deserves some thought: Searls on the Intention Economy
The only way out of this mess is to create a marketplace of pull. When we have the capacity to advertise for what we really want in how our UX behaves, only then it will be fully revealed that there's no master ring to bind them all.
Claudia Caswell: Why do they always look like unhappy rabbits?
Addison DeWitt: Because that's what they are
So then, why do all desktop UX updates since the adhesive iPad resemble psoriatic haemorrhoids?
Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered? Anyone ...
You doing it wrong. My Pebble watch is a substrate to run my custom watch face, which I need because my body runs a bespoke circadian rhythm. The equity here lies in the software, not in the physical object shackled to my wrist. Like every technology we've barely figured out how to build at all, it will shed some baby teeth before the permanent molars grow in.
If only the timer on my kitchen stove allowed me to reprogram it to mesh with my cooking practice. Once it goes off, it figures it needs to shriek at me once a minute until kingdom come, or thirty minutes, whichever comes first. I set it when I'm preheating the oven, then a call comes in and I'm tied to my desk, and it's off in the kitchen having a minute by minute hissy fit. Other times I have it set so that it's not more than two minutes ahead of the smoke detector. But the dumb thing doesn't know the difference, because in fine minimalist design tradition, one size fits all.
I suppose could use the timer on my wrist, but then anyone else who wanders into the kitchen is operating blind. A public timer works better in a shared kitchen. The real problem here is that the embedded stove timer is the wrong implementation of the right solution.
If the damn thing would shriek at first activation, then once every five minutes, and on the minutes != 0 mod 5 it would gently warble, we'd have the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, it's a fixed-function non-reprogrammable device, which will probably outlive my tenancy in this abode.
Physical permanence is overrated.
If you just s/Android/Google+/g the tone of that whole piece goes from being a hagiography to a funeral dirge.
For such a pedantic dialogue as this thread, I was hoping to see someone write "the air pressure and internal fluid tension set a limit ..." before I reached my pettifogger deFUDer saturation point, but it was not to be.
No, the first rule of using an axe is to either use an axe with a long handle, or a hatchet, but never anything in between.
I'm not much worried about my toes wielding a long-handled axe, but I am worried about more distal objects (and people) in the plane of the swinging motion. Medium-handled axes are for crazy people who never much liked walking around in the first place, or who get an unbearable itch to perform a District 9 pedicure.
Yes, it's called highsight bias, and there's an entire subfield of psychology devoted to its study, and a related subfield of behavioural economics which applies cost/benefit analysis to the human self-kick behavioural reflex arc.
There are educated self-kicks and there are also blind mice self-kicks.
If we're randomly sticking pins into phrenological mutuality, how about this one? (my personal favourite):
Catholic sex abuse cases:
Pederastic institutions tend not to poll well. The only surprise is that it took this long.
Coincidence? I think not.
OMG, I can't believe this tripe snipe got voted up to 5. This kind of thinking would set mathematics back by nearly 200 years.
Infinite doesn't mean what you think it means (continuum hypothesis undecidable in ZFC).
Continuous doesn't mean what you think it means (just for appetizers, the Weierstrass function, Cantor function).
If you're an EE who has never taken a course in measure theory, a unit impulse is not what you think it is (Dirac delta function); "Formally, the Lebesgue integral provides the necessary analytic device.")
Is the Dirac delta function nearly a function? I guess it must be, because it certainly isn't a function by any formal definition that doesn't look like Spock chess compared to naive algebra (subsuming, for starters, all that came before circa 1850), yet it takes you to where you want to go, regardless, so long as the first step on unfolding your algebraic briar patch is an implicit integration.
Sometimes "nearly" is employed to mean "without first having to enter into abstruse thickets that probably wouldn't change a damn thing anyway, but I don't wish to speak as carelessly as calling the Dirac delta function an actual function because those daft EEs might just start to believe in the fiction".
This is a naive estimate—typical of wide-eyed wanderlust—looking at one tiny piece of the problem.
I'd say a population of about a million is necessary to maintain working contact with human technological culture, and pass this working contact on to the next generation. There's a bit of a gap between a Wikipedia article on metallurgy and a guy who has practised the profession for several decades.
In anthropology, often when a smaller population contracts major technologies are lost, not because they are forgotten, but because there isn't enough bread of expertise to sustain the technological cycle.
Once upon a time, real engineers solved the solvable problems in whatever order solid solutions presented themselves, so that presently unsolvable problems evolved into greater relief.
I thought it was a good system. Good engineering, RIP.
It's not just that. The puzzle solvers essentially adopt their own rules for what consistutes a valid solution step.
Once I started completing most five stars puzzles in twelve minutes or less, I started to mainly work the "insane" category. My preferred method is to logically eliminate a single digit placement: this digit can't go here in this box. In the insane puzzles, one often gets to a place where are few digit placements one can reasonably crack with an inference chain without going more than three levels deep.
At that point, it's pretty easy to get completely stuck for ten minutes looking in all the wrong places. That same situation can often be "solved" in under a minute with a four colour pen and the willingness to posit and backtrack. Normally this is against my personal code.
Once upon a time I compiled Knuth's dancing links and threw some "hardest ever" puzzles at it that came up in a quick Google search. One of the first such puzzles I tried solved without a single backtrack step: at each point where the algorithm made a guess, it happened to guess right. There were only three or four or five such junctures of valence 2 or 3. I think I had slightly modified how it sorts the list based on my own intuition about the potency of guesswork, but still, it made a completely mockery of the whole "difficulty" notion. Purportedly one of the hardest of all puzzles (by a certain metric) and Dancing Links goes Rain Man without so much as scuffing its eraser.
When I challenged myself to solve five star puzzles in under ten minutes, there was a complex dance inside my mind to keep track of where I'd shaken the tree already, and what part of the tree needed to be revisited based on recently completed digits. At the slightly faster pace, my mistake production would skyrocket: somehow my double-checking circuit and my "what next" circuit became competitive.
Also, the critical junctures became too thin on the ground, and the punishment for my errors too great, so I lost interest in pushing it any further. It was always for me an excercise in observing my own solution strategies and mental capacities/incapacities.
I think the only way a puzzle-setter can get consistent solution times for a hardness category is by patiently training the puzzle solvers to appoach the task in a certain way, rather than just doing their own thing. I certainly knew with each puzzle setter that I could exploit my familiarity with previous puzzles set at that level of difficulty if I followed the main sequence.
From time to time I would spot an advanced inference early, and then the puzzle would melt away posing no further difficulty whatsoever.
That's like saying a woman doesn't realize her date wants "value" for picking up the dinner check. No, what they didn't realize was that Pepsi was going to waltz in and set the prostitution dial to 100% from the very first "hello".
You seem to think no show has ever turned a profit that depicts an interesting subculture without the insta-pimpover move.