Right on, brother! They haven't been about athletics since 1972, and it's far past time we put this idiotic tradition (such as it is) to rest.
Kill the Olympics, in as quick, messy, painful, and generally gruesome way as can be accomplished with the tools at hand. (All in mind of keeping other potential replacements at bay. Make 'em fear for their lives, sez I!)
Bury it with a stake through its heart, garlic tied around its neck, and whatever else it is one does to get rid of vampires.
Oh yeah, by the way:
OLYPMIC OLYMPIC OLYMPIC SUMMER SUMMER SUMMER 2012 2012 2012 GOLD GOLD GOLD and any other goddamn words you want to copyright, three times daily until your eyes bleed from reading them, ya bastards.
"If you happen to be one of them, the TNN 300 is a pretty unique product that will appeal to you."
Either a thing is unique or it isn't. There aren't comparative levels of unique. How much more unlike anything else can one thing which is unlike any other thing be than some other thing which is also unlike any other thing?
The only type of adjectives that apply to the word unique are those indicating either confirmation ("...truly unique...") or negation ("...not unique..."); there is no such thing as fairly unique,very unique, or even most unique.
You're right. Like the rest of us don't work extra hard either. BFD, junior, welcome to the real world. How'd you get to be so special?
Firefox ain't done yet, pure and simple. There are a lot of things it just flat gets wrong, and if you haven't visited their bug list lately, you're missing a trip.
Opera is okay, but it's always going to be a marginal player.
Safari? Nogoodi. It's a Mac browser, and my religion forbids me to use Macs.
And as far as the Linux browsers go--well, if you're okay with some 12-year-old in Malaysia writing parts of your operating system, I suppose you'd be okay with the kid's 6-year-old cousin writing parts of your web browser.
I, on the other hand, am not.
Meanwhile, I just checked again and I still don't care how hard your job is. Get another job, ya stinkin' crybaby latte-suckin' black-wearing nose-pierced loser.
(Did I get those adjectives in the right order?)
Oh, one more thing--the W3C group isn't a law-enforcement agency. Compliance is interesting, but not required. Not only that, CSS is actually flawed in a fundamental way, so why would I trust the committee any further than I already have, eh?
Thus far I've managed to become a rich, fat bastard without being popular.
The need to be popularity is some kind of disability, and there ought to be a 12-step program for it. Preferably the 12 steps lead someplace other than in my direction, and are minimally followed by at least 2,500 more steps.
Ultracheese: When Senators Fart (or whatever that was) --
It wasn't funny whether or not a remote was used.
If you took Pauly Shore and put him in a movie directed by Adam Sandler and written by Tom Green (produced by Johnny Knoxville), the resulting product would still be more funny than that pastiche of a mishmash of an amalgam masquerading as "funny" at UltraCheese.
The world's most powerful electron microscope couldn't find the funny in that.
If you took the alleged humor in that movie, multiplied it by the number of atoms in the universe, then raised the resulting product to the power of the speed of light, squared, it still wouldn't be funny.
"Godzilla vs. Bambi" is funny.
The Three Stooges, bless 'em, were funny.
Even Gallagher managed to stumble across the funny every once in awhile.
But that stinking pile of digital regurgitation, friends and collegues, is not funny. It couldn't find funny in an empty operating room even with a flashlight, a pickax, and a forest ranger for help. It wouldn't know funny if funny crawled up its ass and laid an egg. It's so not-funny that funny itself is now less funny than it was fifteen minutes ago.
Given that you can't spell "hypocritical" or "existence," I'm forced to disregard your opinion. If you can't spell correctly, what else can't you do correctly?
Wow. You had a nice go at it, but you missed on several points.
I'm very self-aware. I'm so self-aware that I realize that the vast amount of communications between individuals is frankly useless. People who say "How are you?" as you pass them in the hall don't really want to know. It's just a longer way of saying "Hello," which is equally pointless but at least serves the purpose in two syllables. Nevertheless, I'd prefer to speak to people with whom I have business, and leave aside those I don't. When I do have to talk to them, no, I don't want to see pictures of the kids, no, I don't give a flying crap about your trip to the beach last weekend, get to the point and move on. I have things to do, and all of them are more interesting than YOU. I don't tell them about my weekend either. I suspect they don't care, and in any event, what business is it of theirs?
I'm very self-aware. I'm so self-aware that I realize that I don't really care what other people think, because I can't control it. I certainly can't control their emotions--that's their own lookout. When exactly did it become my problem? I must have missed the memo.
I'm very self-aware. I'm so self-aware that I realize that I don't respect the rest of the herd. I can't. They watch "Survivor," and "Oprah," and that fat git Rosie O'Donnell. They buy those stupid spinning wheel rims. They allow the Supreme Court to diminish their property rights without comment. They smoke, they drink far too much, and they don't take proper care of their children. The vast majority of them can't compose a coherent written sentence or read at even the fifth grade level. They pay far too much attention to the political opinions of actors, musicians, and sports stars. Remind me again of what I'm supposed to respect?
I am very self-aware. I'm so self-aware that I realize that my behavior is not a short-coming--in fact, I've worked diligently to become this way. I've earned my arrogance by being a valuable member of society whose contributions far exceed those of any member of the mooing mass of humanity milling about wondering when the next DVD sale at Best Buy will start. What I do, very few do, and even fewer do well, and damned few as well as me. I am adequately compensated for my efforts--cash is a lovely thing--and my ego does not demand that they show deference in my presence, because that would be ridiculous and unseemly. But it doesn't mean that I have to like them. I must have missed the memo about liking them, too.
I am very self-aware. I'm so self-aware that I realize that where so-called "business," is concerned, the relationship is simple: either the lackey does as I ask, or he or she finds a lackey who will. If neither happens, I'll take my business elsewhere. I don't need to "feel my way around"--a frankly distressing metaphor--because they're either going to provide the goods or services, or they're not. It's not necessary to know that the salesperson's dog had puppies last weekend in order to buy a new refrigerator. If that ever comes up, I ask for another salesperson whose dog has NOT had pupples over the weekend to help me, so that I can buy the refrigerator (which is already annoying enough) and get out.
You see, you're not talking about self-awareness at all. You're really suggesting that I'm not aware enough of other people's inner states--how could I be unaware of my own? If you were thinking that "self-awareness" includes knowing how other people react to me, believe me, I know. Believe me equally when I say that you couldn't find how much I care about it even if you used an electron microscope. Are you suggesting that under "self-aware" comes the idea of knowing one's place in the grand scheme of things? Believe me, I do. And I like it.
And, no, I'm not a sociopath. I understand that society has set up rules and regulations for the smooth functioning of civilization, and I obey those rules and regulations. I obey them more than most, because you won't see me driving
I'm still trying to find out how anything Stallman ever did really made my life better. I'll concede that gcc c++ isn't complete crap, but there are other choices.
Meanwhile, that bit about "affecting society" is just socialist drivel. Screw society. What has it ever done for me?
...consider the source.
Forrester Research is a bunch of do-nothing hacks where I'm concerned. One of our customers sent a report they'd gotten from Forrester on an aspect of our business, and it was filled with more half-baked assumptions, unresearched assertions, and self-generated opinions than you could shake a stick at. I sent a pointed rejoinder to Forrester to ask the authors of the report where they'd gotten their facts, and wondering where the backing research was for their assumptions, and so far I've heard nothing back. That was a year ago.
Forrester Research can kiss my pale white overweight geek buttcheeks, early and often.
(Point of order: I'm holding back. Don't get me started for real.)
The statement that "trusting your data to proprietary formats is irresponsible and/or stupid" lacks a certain perspective.
1) For 90+ percent of the computing public, it's inevitable. They're neither irresponsible nor stupid. They're software users. They can't even tell the difference. To them, all formats are proprietary.
2) While open standards are lovely (maybe--we all seem to accepting that without proof), the moment someone decides that an extension is necessary, the lag while it's argued over by the world community seriously impacts time-to-market. Then there's the implementation time, followed by the adoption time by all the other software competing for the same market space. If you add Nifty New Feature(tm) to your Open Source-based product, the odds are that you'll have to serialize the data associated with the feature. Suddenly, you're forced to wait until The World Agrees(sm) to deploy the new version of the product. Market advantage is lost. (Don't start with me. Developers and enterpreneurs need to eat, too, and their kids need braces just like everyone else's kids. Whether you [or I] like it or not, software is a business now.)
3) Inability to innovate privately is incompatible with a free-market economy. I like a free-market economy. It's made me a buttload of money and it's going to continue to do so. Whether or not Linus Torvalds ends up in a public argument with somebody is so below my radar....
In chemistry, one bond may be construed as "more energetic" than another is simply because the energy aspect is measured as potential, not kinetic (or other) energy. PE has no real invariant mass equivalent.
Potential energy isn't equivalent to mass. Potential energy is a way of parsing the total system--it's a byproduct of the viewpoint we take in order to have an orderly system. If I take as a system the Earth and a bowling ball, and move the bowling ball from its initial position 10000m further from the center of the Earth, the gain in PE is offset by the work done in moving the ball within the gravitational field. The mass of the system does not vary due to a change in the PE of the system. Work must be done to increase PE--there's no other way. (Otherwise, you could increase the mass of the system to infinity by separating the components to infinite distance. Ipso facto.)
I think it's critical to remind everyone that the mass defect in the nuclear scenario occurs because the force carriers themselves have mass; in molecular binding the force carriers don't--they're photons.
Photons have no invariant mass. Their mass equivalence is purely relativistic, which can't be converted to invariant mass in the same way that angular momentum can't be converted to linear (despite your ability to write equations that say you can). It's critical to note that in most aspects of Einstein's work that he construed E=mc^2 to be valid only within the context of the rest frame of a particle.
Where is the experimental evidence (for example), that heating a mass of iron increases the measured mass of the object? Where is the experimental evidence that electron promotion via photon absorption increases the mass of the atom involved? (Yes, Einstein's box, blah blah, but that's a thought experiment, not empircal evidence. I can write an equation directly linking angular momentum and linear momentum, but you can't convert directly without energy loss; just because you can do something with the math doesn't mean you can do it for real. I can redesign the Einstein's box experiment slightly to show that if one end of the box radiates energy and the other end of the box absorbs energy, that a box on a pivot assembly would eventually tip over in a gravitational field from a certain initial configuration because of mass transfer. I have a six-pack of adult beverage that says it'll never happen.
Don't start with me about French's derivation of the problem because the argument that mass must have transferred location is bogus: relativistic [virtual] mass is not the same as invariant [real] mass. An object cannot be forced to turn into a black hole by accelerating it arbitrarily close to the speed of light; only the invariant mass applies in that calculation, because it's real in a way that relativistic mass isn't. The equations say that given a certain velocity, a mass increase equal to [equation result] will be observed by an external viewer with measurement capabilities. It doesn't assert that the mass increase will be real--only that the external observer will see it because of the peculiar way space-time works. (After all, in the frame of the object itself--equally privileged with that of the external observe--the mass doesn't change.) Substitution of relativistic for invariant mass in a lot of these equation systems leads to incorrect conclusions.)
Respect doesn't cause That Nice Lady to come over to my house and clean it every Friday.
No, my good fellows and fellowettes, all those good things take money. Cash. Moolah. The long green. Bucks. Gravy. The means. Dough. Simoleans. Bread--can you dig it?
And, as it turns out, I don't need respect. I have money.
Money is not the root of all evil. Wondering about whether or not you're being respected is the root of all evil.
"...or to the full satisfaction of the business executive."
And this is a problem because...?
As a developer, most of the time I couldn't give two craps in a tin can about what Darth Veep thinks. He is, after all, a rep from the Dark Side.
On the other hand, meeting the design goals, generating maintainable code, facilitating the QA process--those are important.
Writing software on a delivery schedule promulgated on the premise that "we need this revenue in Q2!" is short-sighted bordering on the moronic, and a great way to guarantee failure across the board.
Yeah, my upload speed is at least 512. But that's hardly "paltry" when I don't do much uploading of content. Why the fascination with uploading speed? I don't (and won't) do BitTorrent (or ByteTorrent, or UnsignedLongLongTorrent, should it ever be invented). I don't spam people to get them to buy Rolex knockoffs or erectile dysfunction medications. Seems like I just don't need a lot of outbound bandwidth.
I've had both DSL and cable broadband, and where I live, cable is better. That's mostly due to tech reasons, not provider reasons, and I'm not suggesting that the two should be competing per se; my point is that competition is good, because it generally produces more product at lower prices for consumers.
...(and I do), it would be that those of us who want to use the Internet for legitimate uses (research, MMORPGs, e-mail, getting news and sports, booking vacations, and other exercises) are going to sacrifice bandwidth to the rest of you asshats (and that was far milder than what I was going to call you) uploading and downloading movies and music that you ought to be paying for.
Blurring the differences between consumers and providers of data streams may not be the optimum model. Being new isn't the same as being better; just because you can doesn't mean that you should. Has anyone thought about that yet, hmm?
Seems to me that if we spent as much time in the programming community trying to defeat spammers and malware authors (by which I mean tracking them down, tying them to cement blocks and chucking them into the bay) as we do inventing new ways to distribute porn/movies/music in violation of copyright, that we'd be making some real goddamn progress. But hey, what's a few viruses and security exploits here and there compared to fast downloading free porn, right?
More power to those ISPs blocking BT, sez I. I got yer paradigm shift right here, buddy. Shift this.
I disagree. If the clock is constantly reset by an external process, this would skew the skew--the clock might appear sometimes to tick at 2 second intervals, and sometimes in 0 second intervals. Assuming that the clock reset occurred at random intervals (based on a long-period pseudo-RNG), I'd think this would make the process much more difficult.
How would you isolate one among many randomized skews?
Slashdot Mirror
Kill the Olympics, in as quick, messy, painful, and generally gruesome way as can be accomplished with the tools at hand. (All in mind of keeping other potential replacements at bay. Make 'em fear for their lives, sez I!)
Bury it with a stake through its heart, garlic tied around its neck, and whatever else it is one does to get rid of vampires.
Oh yeah, by the way:
OLYPMIC OLYMPIC OLYMPIC SUMMER SUMMER SUMMER 2012 2012 2012 GOLD GOLD GOLD and any other goddamn words you want to copyright, three times daily until your eyes bleed from reading them, ya bastards.
Either a thing is unique or it isn't. There aren't comparative levels of unique. How much more unlike anything else can one thing which is unlike any other thing be than some other thing which is also unlike any other thing?
The only type of adjectives that apply to the word unique are those indicating either confirmation ("...truly unique...") or negation ("...not unique..."); there is no such thing as fairly unique, very unique, or even most unique.
Copy editing is a lost art in the 21st century.
Firefox ain't done yet, pure and simple. There are a lot of things it just flat gets wrong, and if you haven't visited their bug list lately, you're missing a trip.
Opera is okay, but it's always going to be a marginal player.
Safari? Nogoodi. It's a Mac browser, and my religion forbids me to use Macs.
And as far as the Linux browsers go--well, if you're okay with some 12-year-old in Malaysia writing parts of your operating system, I suppose you'd be okay with the kid's 6-year-old cousin writing parts of your web browser.
I, on the other hand, am not.
Meanwhile, I just checked again and I still don't care how hard your job is. Get another job, ya stinkin' crybaby latte-suckin' black-wearing nose-pierced loser.
(Did I get those adjectives in the right order?)
Oh, one more thing--the W3C group isn't a law-enforcement agency. Compliance is interesting, but not required. Not only that, CSS is actually flawed in a fundamental way, so why would I trust the committee any further than I already have, eh?
The need to be popularity is some kind of disability, and there ought to be a 12-step program for it. Preferably the 12 steps lead someplace other than in my direction, and are minimally followed by at least 2,500 more steps.
In my head, I always wanted to be Mr. Spock.
In my heart, I always wanted to be Scotty.
Since NT is now obsolete, why would that question even be asked?
It wasn't funny whether or not a remote was used.
If you took Pauly Shore and put him in a movie directed by Adam Sandler and written by Tom Green (produced by Johnny Knoxville), the resulting product would still be more funny than that pastiche of a mishmash of an amalgam masquerading as "funny" at UltraCheese.
The world's most powerful electron microscope couldn't find the funny in that.
If you took the alleged humor in that movie, multiplied it by the number of atoms in the universe, then raised the resulting product to the power of the speed of light, squared, it still wouldn't be funny.
"Godzilla vs. Bambi" is funny.
The Three Stooges, bless 'em, were funny.
Even Gallagher managed to stumble across the funny every once in awhile.
But that stinking pile of digital regurgitation, friends and collegues, is not funny. It couldn't find funny in an empty operating room even with a flashlight, a pickax, and a forest ranger for help. It wouldn't know funny if funny crawled up its ass and laid an egg. It's so not-funny that funny itself is now less funny than it was fifteen minutes ago.
No, in fact, I didn't think it was funny.
Think?
I'm very self-aware. I'm so self-aware that I realize that the vast amount of communications between individuals is frankly useless. People who say "How are you?" as you pass them in the hall don't really want to know. It's just a longer way of saying "Hello," which is equally pointless but at least serves the purpose in two syllables. Nevertheless, I'd prefer to speak to people with whom I have business, and leave aside those I don't. When I do have to talk to them, no, I don't want to see pictures of the kids, no, I don't give a flying crap about your trip to the beach last weekend, get to the point and move on. I have things to do, and all of them are more interesting than YOU. I don't tell them about my weekend either. I suspect they don't care, and in any event, what business is it of theirs?
I'm very self-aware. I'm so self-aware that I realize that I don't really care what other people think, because I can't control it. I certainly can't control their emotions--that's their own lookout. When exactly did it become my problem? I must have missed the memo.
I'm very self-aware. I'm so self-aware that I realize that I don't respect the rest of the herd. I can't. They watch "Survivor," and "Oprah," and that fat git Rosie O'Donnell. They buy those stupid spinning wheel rims. They allow the Supreme Court to diminish their property rights without comment. They smoke, they drink far too much, and they don't take proper care of their children. The vast majority of them can't compose a coherent written sentence or read at even the fifth grade level. They pay far too much attention to the political opinions of actors, musicians, and sports stars. Remind me again of what I'm supposed to respect?
I am very self-aware. I'm so self-aware that I realize that my behavior is not a short-coming--in fact, I've worked diligently to become this way. I've earned my arrogance by being a valuable member of society whose contributions far exceed those of any member of the mooing mass of humanity milling about wondering when the next DVD sale at Best Buy will start. What I do, very few do, and even fewer do well, and damned few as well as me. I am adequately compensated for my efforts--cash is a lovely thing--and my ego does not demand that they show deference in my presence, because that would be ridiculous and unseemly. But it doesn't mean that I have to like them. I must have missed the memo about liking them, too.
I am very self-aware. I'm so self-aware that I realize that where so-called "business," is concerned, the relationship is simple: either the lackey does as I ask, or he or she finds a lackey who will. If neither happens, I'll take my business elsewhere. I don't need to "feel my way around"--a frankly distressing metaphor--because they're either going to provide the goods or services, or they're not. It's not necessary to know that the salesperson's dog had puppies last weekend in order to buy a new refrigerator. If that ever comes up, I ask for another salesperson whose dog has NOT had pupples over the weekend to help me, so that I can buy the refrigerator (which is already annoying enough) and get out.
You see, you're not talking about self-awareness at all. You're really suggesting that I'm not aware enough of other people's inner states--how could I be unaware of my own? If you were thinking that "self-awareness" includes knowing how other people react to me, believe me, I know. Believe me equally when I say that you couldn't find how much I care about it even if you used an electron microscope. Are you suggesting that under "self-aware" comes the idea of knowing one's place in the grand scheme of things? Believe me, I do. And I like it.
And, no, I'm not a sociopath. I understand that society has set up rules and regulations for the smooth functioning of civilization, and I obey those rules and regulations. I obey them more than most, because you won't see me driving
I'm still trying to find out how anything Stallman ever did really made my life better. I'll concede that gcc c++ isn't complete crap, but there are other choices.
Meanwhile, that bit about "affecting society" is just socialist drivel. Screw society. What has it ever done for me?
Well, whatever you do, don't do aspected-oriented programming (that was Considered Harmful two weeks ago) on a Hyperthreaded CPU.
I'm pretty sure that will Destroy the Entire Universe (sm), or at least sour the milk a full week early.
Hey, I have nothing useful to contribute intellectually, but sniping is my hobby, so....Hole sacrosanct?
HOLE?
And it's...midichlorians.
While you're not taking your children to see Episodes 1 & 2, maybe you could spend some time...
...wait for it...
PROOFREADING?
Well, yes, that rather is the definition of "hole," isn't it? Having nothing in them is what distinguishes them from the rest of the surroundings.
...consider the source. Forrester Research is a bunch of do-nothing hacks where I'm concerned. One of our customers sent a report they'd gotten from Forrester on an aspect of our business, and it was filled with more half-baked assumptions, unresearched assertions, and self-generated opinions than you could shake a stick at. I sent a pointed rejoinder to Forrester to ask the authors of the report where they'd gotten their facts, and wondering where the backing research was for their assumptions, and so far I've heard nothing back. That was a year ago. Forrester Research can kiss my pale white overweight geek buttcheeks, early and often. (Point of order: I'm holding back. Don't get me started for real.)
1) For 90+ percent of the computing public, it's inevitable. They're neither irresponsible nor stupid. They're software users. They can't even tell the difference. To them, all formats are proprietary.
2) While open standards are lovely (maybe--we all seem to accepting that without proof), the moment someone decides that an extension is necessary, the lag while it's argued over by the world community seriously impacts time-to-market. Then there's the implementation time, followed by the adoption time by all the other software competing for the same market space. If you add Nifty New Feature(tm) to your Open Source-based product, the odds are that you'll have to serialize the data associated with the feature. Suddenly, you're forced to wait until The World Agrees(sm) to deploy the new version of the product. Market advantage is lost. (Don't start with me. Developers and enterpreneurs need to eat, too, and their kids need braces just like everyone else's kids. Whether you [or I] like it or not, software is a business now.)
3) Inability to innovate privately is incompatible with a free-market economy. I like a free-market economy. It's made me a buttload of money and it's going to continue to do so. Whether or not Linus Torvalds ends up in a public argument with somebody is so below my radar....
Meanwhile, back at the ranch: remember 'way back when, when we had to actually have a working model of something in order to get a patent?
Potential energy isn't equivalent to mass. Potential energy is a way of parsing the total system--it's a byproduct of the viewpoint we take in order to have an orderly system. If I take as a system the Earth and a bowling ball, and move the bowling ball from its initial position 10000m further from the center of the Earth, the gain in PE is offset by the work done in moving the ball within the gravitational field. The mass of the system does not vary due to a change in the PE of the system. Work must be done to increase PE--there's no other way. (Otherwise, you could increase the mass of the system to infinity by separating the components to infinite distance. Ipso facto.)
I think it's critical to remind everyone that the mass defect in the nuclear scenario occurs because the force carriers themselves have mass; in molecular binding the force carriers don't--they're photons.
Photons have no invariant mass. Their mass equivalence is purely relativistic, which can't be converted to invariant mass in the same way that angular momentum can't be converted to linear (despite your ability to write equations that say you can). It's critical to note that in most aspects of Einstein's work that he construed E=mc^2 to be valid only within the context of the rest frame of a particle.
Where is the experimental evidence (for example), that heating a mass of iron increases the measured mass of the object? Where is the experimental evidence that electron promotion via photon absorption increases the mass of the atom involved? (Yes, Einstein's box, blah blah, but that's a thought experiment, not empircal evidence. I can write an equation directly linking angular momentum and linear momentum, but you can't convert directly without energy loss; just because you can do something with the math doesn't mean you can do it for real. I can redesign the Einstein's box experiment slightly to show that if one end of the box radiates energy and the other end of the box absorbs energy, that a box on a pivot assembly would eventually tip over in a gravitational field from a certain initial configuration because of mass transfer. I have a six-pack of adult beverage that says it'll never happen.
Don't start with me about French's derivation of the problem because the argument that mass must have transferred location is bogus: relativistic [virtual] mass is not the same as invariant [real] mass. An object cannot be forced to turn into a black hole by accelerating it arbitrarily close to the speed of light; only the invariant mass applies in that calculation, because it's real in a way that relativistic mass isn't. The equations say that given a certain velocity, a mass increase equal to [equation result] will be observed by an external viewer with measurement capabilities. It doesn't assert that the mass increase will be real--only that the external observer will see it because of the peculiar way space-time works. (After all, in the frame of the object itself--equally privileged with that of the external observe--the mass doesn't change.) Substitution of relativistic for invariant mass in a lot of these equation systems leads to incorrect conclusions.)
...but I almost did a spit take anyway. Could be the best 0401 all day.
Respect doesn't put food on the table.
Respect doesn't get me a fancy new car.
Respect doesn't cause That Nice Lady to come over to my house and clean it every Friday.
No, my good fellows and fellowettes, all those good things take money. Cash. Moolah. The long green. Bucks. Gravy. The means. Dough. Simoleans. Bread--can you dig it?
And, as it turns out, I don't need respect. I have money.
Money is not the root of all evil. Wondering about whether or not you're being respected is the root of all evil.
And this is a problem because...?
As a developer, most of the time I couldn't give two craps in a tin can about what Darth Veep thinks. He is, after all, a rep from the Dark Side.
On the other hand, meeting the design goals, generating maintainable code, facilitating the QA process--those are important.
Writing software on a delivery schedule promulgated on the premise that "we need this revenue in Q2!" is short-sighted bordering on the moronic, and a great way to guarantee failure across the board.
I've had both DSL and cable broadband, and where I live, cable is better. That's mostly due to tech reasons, not provider reasons, and I'm not suggesting that the two should be competing per se; my point is that competition is good, because it generally produces more product at lower prices for consumers.
Your upload speed may vary.
The price is still a little hairy, though. If this opens up price competition, I'm liking it.
It means "monkey," not mononucleosis, ya nimrod. That being said, what monkeys and girls have in common is quite beyond me.
Blurring the differences between consumers and providers of data streams may not be the optimum model. Being new isn't the same as being better; just because you can doesn't mean that you should. Has anyone thought about that yet, hmm?
Seems to me that if we spent as much time in the programming community trying to defeat spammers and malware authors (by which I mean tracking them down, tying them to cement blocks and chucking them into the bay) as we do inventing new ways to distribute porn/movies/music in violation of copyright, that we'd be making some real goddamn progress. But hey, what's a few viruses and security exploits here and there compared to fast downloading free porn, right?
More power to those ISPs blocking BT, sez I. I got yer paradigm shift right here, buddy. Shift this.
No, I'm always this way.
I disagree. If the clock is constantly reset by an external process, this would skew the skew--the clock might appear sometimes to tick at 2 second intervals, and sometimes in 0 second intervals. Assuming that the clock reset occurred at random intervals (based on a long-period pseudo-RNG), I'd think this would make the process much more difficult.
How would you isolate one among many randomized skews?