I wish, wholeheartedly, that Firefox would branch and preserve the page history on a new tab from another page. There are so many times when I've done an "open link in new tab", started down a path, wanted to go back to something I did earlier (having since closed the first tab), and been incredibly frustrated. Its one of those features that wouldn't hurt anyone at all to implement - people expecting current behavior wouldn't even see a change - but would greatly increase my personal happiness level - and I would imagine that I'm not the only one.
But the real problem is that you didn't get the point of the post that the decisions going into buying a server and buying coke are very different
Oh, I got the point. I was just making a moderately unrelated slightly humorous observation about your example - at least partially because you said "a Pepsi" which, to most people, implies a single unit - ie: 12-20 fluid ounces. Since I buy both Pepsi (well, Coke, if I'm being honest) and high dollar big ass servers, although usually not at the same time, I alreay understood your official point.
Actually, that is a word. It doesn't mean what they think it means, but a simple spell check will pass it on by. Not that I'm suggesting that/. articles are even spell checked, of course, but even if they were, this one would have slipped by.
drgonzo59 said (with the addition of a little bolding):
Spending $50K on a server upgrade is not the same as spending $15 on a Pepsi or a Coke.
Even with government pricing, isn't this a little steep for one soda? Makes that server upgrade seem pretty damn reasonable too, I will agree with that.
Apparently, the pilots "did a good job, despite stickshaker, overspeed and other warnings", and eventually determined that the static system was yielding false readings. They used the radio altimeter (normally used only for landings) to return to Lima at 1,500 ft. Nearer to the airport, they were apparently distracted by a ground-proximity (GPWS) warning. The FO queried the controller, who responded that the aircraft was indicating 9,000 ft. Believing that information, the Captain started a descent. The aircraft skimmed the ocean surface and one engine failed, (investigators presume from water ingestion). The Captain tried to continue flying, but a wingtip apparently hit the water and the aircraft cartwheeled and was lost.
The taped over ports were bad, absolutely. The real issue that led to the crash was with the erroneous information from the Controller, ironically in this thread represented by the helpful OnStar employee on the other end of the radio link.
Kinda worthless, IMO, if you couldn't do something like play a steady game of WoW while riding a bus.
Unless, as the original poster posited, its a broadband alternative where previously there was none. I'd call that pretty un-worthless but, hey, that's just me.
You make a very good point. I have lots of songs that would be "false duplicates" because they are alternative versions of the same song by the same artist (live album vs. studio recording, etc.)
Wouldn't it make sense to have already noted which version of the song each file was in, say, the track name? You know, "... (Live)" or "... (Acoustic)"? Otherwise, how do you select the one you want to hear? Sincerely curious...
The catch is that in order to make a button in Outlook that added this text, it would cost an extra $8,000 for a custom add-in.
Naturally the request came to me (even though I develop web applications). I whipped up a ten line Outlook macro that did it, spending about twenty minutes on it. Easy, right? The catch is that Outlook security is incredibly tight and unless you open massive security holes, the macro wouldn't run unless it was digitally signed by a trusted provider.
I plunked down $400 for a Verisign certificate and spent the next couple weeks working with our SMS guy to create packages for the various Outlook versions, and the desktop guys to deal with people who had custom Outlook macros.
So. Their price: $8,000. Your price: $400 + four man weeks. So, you saved money if and only if your internal cost (after SS taxes, office space, insurance, etc) is less than $95,000/yr. Which equates to approximately a $70,000/yr salary. If y'all make less than that, you saved the company money (at least in the short term). More, and you didn't. Not quite so cut and dry.
(Sound was slightly harder - under Gentoo, I had to use the aoss wrapper due to a bug with Flash and ALSA, though under Mandrake it just worked for some reason. I suspect this is Macromedia's fault.)
And that right there is a fantastic example of the kind of hoops that the vast majority of people will never jump through. Ever. They'll just wonder why their sound doesn't work, and complain about it. And then move on - or back - to a different system. Yes, sure, they could fix it. Just like you could keep constantly tuning up a car that didn't hold its fuel settings properly (random analogy). But you shouldn't have to; after all, you don't care about fuel curves, you just want to drive to Fry's. And neither should they - they just want to laugh at a cartoon.
The fact that you even know that the behavior is different under two alternate distros indicates that you're doing things way more advanced than the typical user would. The fact that choosing your distro is critical to getting your apps working properly (and I'm sure there's another example in this very thread about something working with Gentoo and failing with Mandrake) is just another point in the favor of those insisting that Linux is not quite ready for prime time.
And yes, I use it (and love it) on the server. But Linux desktop? Not for me, thanks.
Part of it might be the fact that when I choose a menu the entire menu displays vs the drop down arrow from word. (Is there a way to turn that "feature" off btw?)
Hmm. Let's see now. I've never done this before, but I'll try the Tools menu. Customize makes more sense than Options because I'm changing the way the client feels, not the actual behavior of the software. Its not a Toolbar, not really Commands (although I did check there), so under Options... Aha! "Personalized Menus and Toolbars." Seems simple enough.
Typing "expanding menu dropdowns" into the help bar brought up a couple of entries that referred to "Help > Toolbars and Commands" as well, which pointed me to the same place; but that was after using a little common sense got me the answer. I can see not knowing about it if (like me) you liked it, or didn't care, but if its a big enough peeve that its worth mentioning it, wouldn't 20 seconds of exploration been a reasonable productivity investment?
May I introduce you to the wonderful world of paid product placement? Its big business these days, and about asa close as you can get to the adsense experience in a movie. But without the disclaimers.
You can buy shredders that will eat CDs and diskettes, but they have to be classified for the security level. Don't use the $29 Office Max shredder on sale for this.
If you're really lucky, you'll get to play with those hard drive shredders. They rock. And they do exactly what it sounds like - remove a HD, toss it in the shredder, cover your ears. More likely you'll be using a service for this kind of activity.
The point is that I can have partially overlapped active windows in KDE and not in MacOSX (and neither in Windows btw.)
Just one comment here - Windows does offer this, its just a registry setting. The easiest way to enable it is through TweakUI - click on "Mouse" and select "Focus Follows Mouse (X-Mouse)". Pretty simple, really. Or tweak the registry by hand if you prefer, but I don't recall which setting it is.
For everyone else who wants a UNIX workhorse that is stable, has full driver support, has "It Just Works" down pat, and wants to get work done, OS X is peerless.
So, no P2P file sharing, eh? The RIAA must just love that...
Ah - so in that case the punative damage isn't really completely punative, some is being awarded really as compensation.
My instinct here is that as long as the formulae for awarding non-punative damages are correct, not awarding any punative to the plantiff is still the Right Thing to do. Having something unpleasant happen to you shouldn't, after all, give you a windfall (beyond what's already allocated for suffering, lost wages, etc). The idea is that it makes up the difference so that you're back where you were before the incident, or as close to it as possible. If that's not happening, the formulae need to be adjusted. Needless to say, legal costs should be included in the judgement in that case.
In any case where the hassle of filing suit would be greater than the potential reward to someone under a "fair" system, I would venture to say that if a suit was brought it should be considered a waste of the court's time anyway.
LOCAL variable names should be short, and to the point. If you have some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called "i". Calling it "loop_counter" is non-productive, if there is no chance of it being mis-understood.
That last clause is an important one that often gets neglected. In fact, you should never, ever, call a variable loop_counter. That's as bad as pure reverse hungarian - it tells you how its used, not what it means.
I suggest that, for all non-trivial cases (and I'd prefer to see people err verbosely than compactly), you should use descriptive names. Not loop_counter, but maybe something like curRow? It doesn't have to be long, but at least then as the loop grows over time someone can understand a piece of code more easily than having to scroll back up to check that you are indeed in the "i" loop. Its even more critical when someone comes along and adds a nested (or containing) loop. Or whatever.
Same with "tmp". If its truly temporary, such as:
int tmp = getFooCount(); doSomething(tmp);
then it should be removed and rewritten as:
doSomething(getFooCount());
If its not that temporary, give it a real name. If you insist that it is temporary then you may have a scoping issue - having variables useful but only in part of your function could indicate that your function is doing too much work. If you insist its truly temporary, scope it down:... someRandomCode(); {
int foo = getFoo();
doSomething(foo);
doSomethingElse(foo); } moreCode();...
At least now you've guaranteed that it is temporary. Better yet, just name it usefully.
Re:This version doesnt fix some new type of popups
on
Firefox 1.0.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
The site uses Javascript to detect the (non)existance of the popup window to unhide a div. So disabling Javascript does indeed get rid of this issue - and an unfortunately large amount of useful functionality. Ah, well.
Not only would potential plaintiffs not be compensated for wrongs, it could lessen the incentive of a defendant to avoid doing the wrongs.
I don't understand your point here. The process would work exactly the same as it does today, with the jury setting the punative damages and the plantiff being responsible for paying them - only the payee on the check changes, which shouldn't alter the pain felt by the payer.
There's one easy fix to that. Keep actual damages the same that they are now, awarded to the plantiff (or "damaged party"). Allow punative damages? Sure, but they go straight to pay of the national debt (or whatever).
Weird? Well, the purpose of punative damages is for the "system" to punish the defendant, so having the system (ie: government) benefit seems reasonable at first glance. Much more reasonable than benefitting the plaintiff, who has already received their damage claim. And it would cut down an awful lot on frivolous lawsuits if people knew that they wouldn't be getting a windfall, just what they (rightly) deserved.
Lawyers might be a little less likely to push some of the more questionable cases also, if they knew that their fees wouldn't include a percentage of the punative amount (usually vastly greater than any actual damages). You could still sue for actual + punative + legal fees, of course.
My personal opinion is that it's better to go with a stock market index fund and invest for the long term than it is to day trade. If long term investment is good enough for Warren Buffett, it's good enough for me. I don't have his savvy; hence an index fund.
I don't either, but luckily its available for free - hence my interest in BRK.A:-) Besides, who can miss out on the shareholder meeting?
Slashdot Mirror
One exception:
I wish, wholeheartedly, that Firefox would branch and preserve the page history on a new tab from another page. There are so many times when I've done an "open link in new tab", started down a path, wanted to go back to something I did earlier (having since closed the first tab), and been incredibly frustrated. Its one of those features that wouldn't hurt anyone at all to implement - people expecting current behavior wouldn't even see a change - but would greatly increase my personal happiness level - and I would imagine that I'm not the only one.
But the real problem is that you didn't get the point of the post that the decisions going into buying a server and buying coke are very different
Oh, I got the point. I was just making a moderately unrelated slightly humorous observation about your example - at least partially because you said "a Pepsi" which, to most people, implies a single unit - ie: 12-20 fluid ounces. Since I buy both Pepsi (well, Coke, if I'm being honest) and high dollar big ass servers, although usually not at the same time, I alreay understood your official point.
Actually, that is a word. It doesn't mean what they think it means, but a simple spell check will pass it on by. Not that I'm suggesting that /. articles are even spell checked, of course, but even if they were, this one would have slipped by.
I'm curious what a "live chicken leftover" looks like
Er, that'd be shit, Jaw. I wouldn't recommend investigating it too closely in volume, but maybe that's just me.
drgonzo59 said (with the addition of a little bolding):
Spending $50K on a server upgrade is not the same as spending $15 on a Pepsi or a Coke.
Even with government pricing, isn't this a little steep for one soda? Makes that server upgrade seem pretty damn reasonable too, I will agree with that.
Almost. From ReallyNiceGuy's link (thanks):
Apparently, the pilots "did a good job, despite stickshaker, overspeed and other warnings", and eventually determined that the static system was yielding false readings. They used the radio altimeter (normally used only for landings) to return to Lima at 1,500 ft. Nearer to the airport, they were apparently distracted by a ground-proximity (GPWS) warning. The FO queried the controller, who responded that the aircraft was indicating 9,000 ft. Believing that information, the Captain started a descent. The aircraft skimmed the ocean surface and one engine failed, (investigators presume from water ingestion). The Captain tried to continue flying, but a wingtip apparently hit the water and the aircraft cartwheeled and was lost.
The taped over ports were bad, absolutely. The real issue that led to the crash was with the erroneous information from the Controller, ironically in this thread represented by the helpful OnStar employee on the other end of the radio link.
Kinda worthless, IMO, if you couldn't do something like play a steady game of WoW while riding a bus.
Unless, as the original poster posited, its a broadband alternative where previously there was none. I'd call that pretty un-worthless but, hey, that's just me.
You make a very good point. I have lots of songs that would be "false duplicates" because they are alternative versions of the same song by the same artist (live album vs. studio recording, etc.)
Wouldn't it make sense to have already noted which version of the song each file was in, say, the track name? You know, "... (Live)" or "... (Acoustic)"? Otherwise, how do you select the one you want to hear? Sincerely curious...
The catch is that in order to make a button in Outlook that added this text, it would cost an extra $8,000 for a custom add-in.
Naturally the request came to me (even though I develop web applications). I whipped up a ten line Outlook macro that did it, spending about twenty minutes on it. Easy, right? The catch is that Outlook security is incredibly tight and unless you open massive security holes, the macro wouldn't run unless it was digitally signed by a trusted provider.
I plunked down $400 for a Verisign certificate and spent the next couple weeks working with our SMS guy to create packages for the various Outlook versions, and the desktop guys to deal with people who had custom Outlook macros.
So. Their price: $8,000. Your price: $400 + four man weeks. So, you saved money if and only if your internal cost (after SS taxes, office space, insurance, etc) is less than $95,000/yr. Which equates to approximately a $70,000/yr salary. If y'all make less than that, you saved the company money (at least in the short term). More, and you didn't. Not quite so cut and dry.
(Sound was slightly harder - under Gentoo, I had to use the aoss wrapper due to a bug with Flash and ALSA, though under Mandrake it just worked for some reason. I suspect this is Macromedia's fault.)
And that right there is a fantastic example of the kind of hoops that the vast majority of people will never jump through. Ever. They'll just wonder why their sound doesn't work, and complain about it. And then move on - or back - to a different system. Yes, sure, they could fix it. Just like you could keep constantly tuning up a car that didn't hold its fuel settings properly (random analogy). But you shouldn't have to; after all, you don't care about fuel curves, you just want to drive to Fry's. And neither should they - they just want to laugh at a cartoon.
The fact that you even know that the behavior is different under two alternate distros indicates that you're doing things way more advanced than the typical user would. The fact that choosing your distro is critical to getting your apps working properly (and I'm sure there's another example in this very thread about something working with Gentoo and failing with Mandrake) is just another point in the favor of those insisting that Linux is not quite ready for prime time.
And yes, I use it (and love it) on the server. But Linux desktop? Not for me, thanks.
That's the checkbox on my copy of 2003 too. In the "Personalized Menus and Toolbars" section, along with a couple of other settings.
sorry to sound trollish, but i would like to think that in 50,000 years, we could travel to pluto just fine. either that, or we will just be dead.
I certainly expect to be. Dead, that is. Even money says you will be to. Heck, I'd even give odds on that.
Part of it might be the fact that when I choose a menu the entire menu displays vs the drop down arrow from word. (Is there a way to turn that "feature" off btw?)
Hmm. Let's see now. I've never done this before, but I'll try the Tools menu. Customize makes more sense than Options because I'm changing the way the client feels, not the actual behavior of the software. Its not a Toolbar, not really Commands (although I did check there), so under Options... Aha! "Personalized Menus and Toolbars." Seems simple enough.
Typing "expanding menu dropdowns" into the help bar brought up a couple of entries that referred to "Help > Toolbars and Commands" as well, which pointed me to the same place; but that was after using a little common sense got me the answer. I can see not knowing about it if (like me) you liked it, or didn't care, but if its a big enough peeve that its worth mentioning it, wouldn't 20 seconds of exploration been a reasonable productivity investment?
May I introduce you to the wonderful world of paid product placement? Its big business these days, and about asa close as you can get to the adsense experience in a movie. But without the disclaimers.
You can buy shredders that will eat CDs and diskettes, but they have to be classified for the security level. Don't use the $29 Office Max shredder on sale for this.
If you're really lucky, you'll get to play with those hard drive shredders. They rock. And they do exactly what it sounds like - remove a HD, toss it in the shredder, cover your ears. More likely you'll be using a service for this kind of activity.
Viewing a DVD is a power-user requirement now? C'mon...
The point is that I can have partially overlapped active windows in KDE and not in MacOSX (and neither in Windows btw.)
Just one comment here - Windows does offer this, its just a registry setting. The easiest way to enable it is through TweakUI - click on "Mouse" and select "Focus Follows Mouse (X-Mouse)". Pretty simple, really. Or tweak the registry by hand if you prefer, but I don't recall which setting it is.
For everyone else who wants a UNIX workhorse that is stable, has full driver support, has "It Just Works" down pat, and wants to get work done, OS X is peerless.
So, no P2P file sharing, eh? The RIAA must just love that...
Heh.
I agree with your points, by the way.
tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp;
Why not simply make an inlined function and call:
swap(*a, *b);
int tmp = getFooCount();
doSomething(tmp);
was preferred, not for stylistic or compiler issues, but for debugging
That makes a lot of sense to me... but then you're dealing with a debug variable named "foo". Why not:
int fooCount = getFooCount();
doSomething(fooCount);
? That way if you have the variable traced, you can see what it is you're looking at.
Ah - so in that case the punative damage isn't really completely punative, some is being awarded really as compensation.
My instinct here is that as long as the formulae for awarding non-punative damages are correct, not awarding any punative to the plantiff is still the Right Thing to do. Having something unpleasant happen to you shouldn't, after all, give you a windfall (beyond what's already allocated for suffering, lost wages, etc). The idea is that it makes up the difference so that you're back where you were before the incident, or as close to it as possible. If that's not happening, the formulae need to be adjusted. Needless to say, legal costs should be included in the judgement in that case.
In any case where the hassle of filing suit would be greater than the potential reward to someone under a "fair" system, I would venture to say that if a suit was brought it should be considered a waste of the court's time anyway.
LOCAL variable names should be short, and to the point. If you have
... ...
some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called "i".
Calling it "loop_counter" is non-productive, if there is no chance of it
being mis-understood.
That last clause is an important one that often gets neglected. In fact, you should never, ever, call a variable loop_counter. That's as bad as pure reverse hungarian - it tells you how its used, not what it means.
I suggest that, for all non-trivial cases (and I'd prefer to see people err verbosely than compactly), you should use descriptive names. Not loop_counter, but maybe something like curRow? It doesn't have to be long, but at least then as the loop grows over time someone can understand a piece of code more easily than having to scroll back up to check that you are indeed in the "i" loop. Its even more critical when someone comes along and adds a nested (or containing) loop. Or whatever.
Same with "tmp". If its truly temporary, such as:
int tmp = getFooCount();
doSomething(tmp);
then it should be removed and rewritten as:
doSomething(getFooCount());
If its not that temporary, give it a real name. If you insist that it is temporary then you may have a scoping issue - having variables useful but only in part of your function could indicate that your function is doing too much work. If you insist its truly temporary, scope it down:
someRandomCode();
{
int foo = getFoo();
doSomething(foo);
doSomethingElse(foo);
}
moreCode();
At least now you've guaranteed that it is temporary. Better yet, just name it usefully.
The site uses Javascript to detect the (non)existance of the popup window to unhide a div. So disabling Javascript does indeed get rid of this issue - and an unfortunately large amount of useful functionality. Ah, well.
Not only would potential plaintiffs not be compensated for wrongs, it could lessen the incentive of a defendant to avoid doing the wrongs.
I don't understand your point here. The process would work exactly the same as it does today, with the jury setting the punative damages and the plantiff being responsible for paying them - only the payee on the check changes, which shouldn't alter the pain felt by the payer.
There's one easy fix to that. Keep actual damages the same that they are now, awarded to the plantiff (or "damaged party"). Allow punative damages? Sure, but they go straight to pay of the national debt (or whatever).
Weird? Well, the purpose of punative damages is for the "system" to punish the defendant, so having the system (ie: government) benefit seems reasonable at first glance. Much more reasonable than benefitting the plaintiff, who has already received their damage claim. And it would cut down an awful lot on frivolous lawsuits if people knew that they wouldn't be getting a windfall, just what they (rightly) deserved.
Lawyers might be a little less likely to push some of the more questionable cases also, if they knew that their fees wouldn't include a percentage of the punative amount (usually vastly greater than any actual damages). You could still sue for actual + punative + legal fees, of course.
My personal opinion is that it's better to go with a stock market index fund and invest for the long term than it is to day trade. If long term investment is good enough for Warren Buffett, it's good enough for me. I don't have his savvy; hence an index fund.
:-) Besides, who can miss out on the shareholder meeting?
I don't either, but luckily its available for free - hence my interest in BRK.A