An elderly overload is usually one of three things: 1) A function with the same name as another that differs only in parameters, and that has been around for awhile. 2) Going with grandma to a crowded bingo night, and it goes into triple overtime. 3) When grandpa has eaten a whole bag of Werthers and is bouncing off the walls.
Good grief, I didn't call you a troll, I called the A/C doing the n-word trolling a troll. I called you a Liberal. Read it again.
But thanks for calling me a racist. And totally misunderstanding my simple sentence, and then in the next sentence claiming that it's others that are guilty of not thinking and instead just reacting emotionally.
IMO what drove the cycle to favoring desktop PC's away from dumb clients was being able to have applications with around as much power, only with a vastly richer user experience. I.e. there was a cycle at all because it replicated mainframe's positive and replaced mainframe's negative. I'm not sure what the impetus could be for another full cycle. Security management considerations and the ability to serve up that rich user experience might induce another half cycle. But it would take something that only decentralized computing could provide (at least initially and for a while), that we never knew we needed, to have another complete cycle. And then energy or other constraints (real or psychological) may prevent that -- the prior cycle occured during the prior mindset/assumption in America of limitless everything.
What sucks is when the web sites don't know that they don't allow for example punctuation characters in passwords. So then they let you create an account that you can't log into!
This actually proves my point. The gun, if it stops crime (which I've not seen convincing evidence for*), does so because it's a threat to the bad guy.
You may have just proved another point, that only bad guys consider the mere existence of a gun as being a threat.
If MS marketing worked, Vista would have been viewed positively.
It's more about guilt, and attempted justification. Guilt for jumping on the idiot bandwagon of painting Vista as much worse than it was. And trying to justify one's past position on the supposed awfulness of Vista by painting what is, as you said, essentially just a service pack to Vista, as somehow worlds better.
Only sad part is that in Japan those are evolving for peaceful reasons whereas in USofA for military purposes. Check recent stories about exoskeletons [...]
I've only seen one story about robotic exoskeletons, and it was to help people carry loads beyond their normal abilities. And therefore about as "sad" as power-assisted steering in a car.
I also saw the story of the robot looking like a hot Asian babe. So maybe what's actually sad is not your par-for-Slashdot hippie assumptions, but that here robots are evolving to helping people by becoming extensions of themselves, whereas there they're evolving towards separate entities for sexual gratification and fake companionship.
Has the American car industry actually managed to get a whole 100bhp/litre out of a normally aspirated car yet?
I don't know, but a better answer is "who cares?". There are no autobahns in America where the top-speed-determining (drag-overcoming) horsepower can be fully utilitized. A majority of us are city dwellers, and the only fun we can have (that engine performance bears on) legally is punching it at a stoplight, and that's about twisting force. So the better question is, has anyone other than the American car industry actually managed to produce for very long any affordable model lines with available normally-aspirated generous torque?
Or install suspension that wouldn't feel more at home in a super-soft bed?
The 1970's called, to tell you that it's no longer the 1970's. What hampers American cars' handling IMO is weight. When they re-did the Mustang they made it larger and added a few hundred pounds. The new Camaro is a few hundred more than it was when it was cancelled. The GTO was the same. The Charger and Challenger are 4000+ lb porksters. Ain't no way that's going around a corner confidently. Only the Corvette actually lost weight in its last remake.
...Mustang. A modern performance car with a *solid* rear axle and a lump of volcanic rock for an engine?
With the exception of the super-charged Cobra one year, the V8 Mustangs have had the aluminum block 4.6L for the last 15 years or so. That the V6 model is still an iron block (it's an old pickup truck engine that's supposed to be replaced next year, along with the 4.6L) and both have live axles in the rear is a means of keeping the cheapest model dirt cheap. This makes it suitable for rental fleets, and otherwise keeps sales sufficient to prevent its cancellation like we've seen with its ponycar competitors.
That's a fine opinion, but reality disagrees (and reality wins) -- since restarting weight training coming up on now 5 years ago, I borrowed and used a book on routines and proper form, always eat a high-protein but balanced diet (something I didn't do when I lifted in my 20's), and I concentrate on lower reps of higher weights. I.e. everything to bulk up (naturally), and yet, no bulk. It's genetics. Same for socially -- I could increase my tolerance somewhat for social situations thru acclimation, but still I'm naturally introverted. I will never be a social butterfly or that guy at the bar because it's just not me. Life's not fair and people are different, deal with it.
The truth is, that buff guy at the bar got buff thru the following factors, in order of efficacy: 1) Roids, 2) genetics, and 3) hard work. For example I have giant calves, yet I've never worked them a day in my life. (My dad has giant calves.) And I've worked the crap outta my shoulders for years, with barely noticeable effect to show for it. So then your level of social muscle or extroversion similarly is most determined by whether or not you're currently drunk, then genetics, and only then how much you've immersed yourself in social situations. Sorry but I for one just will never be that buff guy at the bar, physically or socially (barring starting a regimen of chemical modification).
If you can forego keeping any state in a VM, why have more than one? Just redefine "switching to another colored VM" as "reverting this same one to its (most up-to-date) clean snapshot".
If you have to comment your code more than sparingly, you're doing it wrong. Try more descriptive function and variable names. Try simpler and clearer organization. In the real world I don't want to have to read a bunch of comments, I want to read code that does an excellent job of conveying what it does.
It's the predominance of students in this site's readership (or at least postership). CS students get grades to implement data structures and algorithms, so they assume that that's what people get paid for out in the real world. Therefore anyone who's long forgotten the details of this background knowledge is deemed to be a poor programmer. See also the notion that you should comment your code generously.
Makes perfect sense then, if you favor language purity and neatness and having to type more boilerplate constructs all the time, over language power and expressiveness and having to deal with complexity and non- beginner-friendliness. I guess hence why Java people hate C++ and call it too complex. And dislike C#. And C++ people hate Java and call it dumbed-down. And tolerate C#. If Mono is outpacing Java in desktop Linux apps, maybe it is this nature of it that is partly why.
So, basically, powerful features are "messy", and having to for example create extraneous classes to work around a Java limitation is "a nicer way to go"?
Why don't you just go up one level at that link and read a few of the offered comparisons? It looks pretty even-handed to me (on just the languages themselves), and if there's a bias it's towards painting C# as basically the same as Java. Hence the post (in sarcasm) that you responded to.
Slashdot Mirror
An elderly overload is usually one of three things:
1) A function with the same name as another that differs only in parameters, and that has been around for awhile.
2) Going with grandma to a crowded bingo night, and it goes into triple overtime.
3) When grandpa has eaten a whole bag of Werthers and is bouncing off the walls.
I can't tell if you're making fun of Republicans or Liberals.
Good grief, I didn't call you a troll, I called the A/C doing the n-word trolling a troll. I called you a Liberal. Read it again.
But thanks for calling me a racist. And totally misunderstanding my simple sentence, and then in the next sentence claiming that it's others that are guilty of not thinking and instead just reacting emotionally.
Thanks for also proving the point that Liberals want to believe in lies so badly that they'll actually use a Slashdot troll to "validate" them.
IMO what drove the cycle to favoring desktop PC's away from dumb clients was being able to have applications with around as much power, only with a vastly richer user experience. I.e. there was a cycle at all because it replicated mainframe's positive and replaced mainframe's negative. I'm not sure what the impetus could be for another full cycle. Security management considerations and the ability to serve up that rich user experience might induce another half cycle. But it would take something that only decentralized computing could provide (at least initially and for a while), that we never knew we needed, to have another complete cycle. And then energy or other constraints (real or psychological) may prevent that -- the prior cycle occured during the prior mindset/assumption in America of limitless everything.
What sucks is when the web sites don't know that they don't allow for example punctuation characters in passwords. So then they let you create an account that you can't log into!
Usually when someone argues along the lines of "the greater good", you're not supposed to think about it.
You must be one of the hirer paid developers. ;)
This actually proves my point. The gun, if it stops crime (which I've not seen convincing evidence for*), does so because it's a threat to the bad guy.
You may have just proved another point, that only bad guys consider the mere existence of a gun as being a threat.
The only puppets are the people who actually believe that. The puppeteers that try to manipulate us hail from both Wall St. and Washington.
It's a bit easier to warrant for a time something with hundreds of moving parts vs. something with hundreds of thousands of interacting lines of code.
If MS marketing worked, Vista would have been viewed positively.
It's more about guilt, and attempted justification. Guilt for jumping on the idiot bandwagon of painting Vista as much worse than it was. And trying to justify one's past position on the supposed awfulness of Vista by painting what is, as you said, essentially just a service pack to Vista, as somehow worlds better.
Maybe. But if the food runs out, all we'll have left to eat is meat!
Only sad part is that in Japan those are evolving for peaceful reasons whereas in USofA for military purposes. Check recent stories about exoskeletons [...]
I've only seen one story about robotic exoskeletons, and it was to help people carry loads beyond their normal abilities. And therefore about as "sad" as power-assisted steering in a car.
I also saw the story of the robot looking like a hot Asian babe. So maybe what's actually sad is not your par-for-Slashdot hippie assumptions, but that here robots are evolving to helping people by becoming extensions of themselves, whereas there they're evolving towards separate entities for sexual gratification and fake companionship.
I don't know, but a better answer is "who cares?". There are no autobahns in America where the top-speed-determining (drag-overcoming) horsepower can be fully utilitized. A majority of us are city dwellers, and the only fun we can have (that engine performance bears on) legally is punching it at a stoplight, and that's about twisting force. So the better question is, has anyone other than the American car industry actually managed to produce for very long any affordable model lines with available normally-aspirated generous torque?
The 1970's called, to tell you that it's no longer the 1970's. What hampers American cars' handling IMO is weight. When they re-did the Mustang they made it larger and added a few hundred pounds. The new Camaro is a few hundred more than it was when it was cancelled. The GTO was the same. The Charger and Challenger are 4000+ lb porksters. Ain't no way that's going around a corner confidently. Only the Corvette actually lost weight in its last remake.
With the exception of the super-charged Cobra one year, the V8 Mustangs have had the aluminum block 4.6L for the last 15 years or so. That the V6 model is still an iron block (it's an old pickup truck engine that's supposed to be replaced next year, along with the 4.6L) and both have live axles in the rear is a means of keeping the cheapest model dirt cheap. This makes it suitable for rental fleets, and otherwise keeps sales sufficient to prevent its cancellation like we've seen with its ponycar competitors.
Nope. Lower reps with higher weights are for gaining strength, not bulking--...
One can only wonder just how you imagine a muscle can gain the capacity to exert greater and greater force without growing in size.
That's a fine opinion, but reality disagrees (and reality wins) -- since restarting weight training coming up on now 5 years ago, I borrowed and used a book on routines and proper form, always eat a high-protein but balanced diet (something I didn't do when I lifted in my 20's), and I concentrate on lower reps of higher weights. I.e. everything to bulk up (naturally), and yet, no bulk. It's genetics. Same for socially -- I could increase my tolerance somewhat for social situations thru acclimation, but still I'm naturally introverted. I will never be a social butterfly or that guy at the bar because it's just not me. Life's not fair and people are different, deal with it.
The truth is, that buff guy at the bar got buff thru the following factors, in order of efficacy: 1) Roids, 2) genetics, and 3) hard work. For example I have giant calves, yet I've never worked them a day in my life. (My dad has giant calves.) And I've worked the crap outta my shoulders for years, with barely noticeable effect to show for it. So then your level of social muscle or extroversion similarly is most determined by whether or not you're currently drunk, then genetics, and only then how much you've immersed yourself in social situations. Sorry but I for one just will never be that buff guy at the bar, physically or socially (barring starting a regimen of chemical modification).
You've just made me realize that my perfect date is a redhead with a tattoo of a pink Ford Pinto on her left cheek!
If you can forego keeping any state in a VM, why have more than one? Just redefine "switching to another colored VM" as "reverting this same one to its (most up-to-date) clean snapshot".
If you have to comment your code more than sparingly, you're doing it wrong. Try more descriptive function and variable names. Try simpler and clearer organization. In the real world I don't want to have to read a bunch of comments, I want to read code that does an excellent job of conveying what it does.
It's the predominance of students in this site's readership (or at least postership). CS students get grades to implement data structures and algorithms, so they assume that that's what people get paid for out in the real world. Therefore anyone who's long forgotten the details of this background knowledge is deemed to be a poor programmer. See also the notion that you should comment your code generously.
Makes perfect sense then, if you favor language purity and neatness and having to type more boilerplate constructs all the time, over language power and expressiveness and having to deal with complexity and non- beginner-friendliness. I guess hence why Java people hate C++ and call it too complex. And dislike C#. And C++ people hate Java and call it dumbed-down. And tolerate C#. If Mono is outpacing Java in desktop Linux apps, maybe it is this nature of it that is partly why.
So, basically, powerful features are "messy", and having to for example create extraneous classes to work around a Java limitation is "a nicer way to go"?
Why don't you just go up one level at that link and read a few of the offered comparisons? It looks pretty even-handed to me (on just the languages themselves), and if there's a bias it's towards painting C# as basically the same as Java. Hence the post (in sarcasm) that you responded to.