I think you'll find the point was that it's better than GCC at optimising for Intel - that much has nothing to do with whether or not output for non Intel chips is purposely disabled.
No - every over priced, early adoptor "Ultimate", "eXtreme" top of the line card in the last few years has had a fan, but the mid-range to budget versions are quite often fanless, and will play pretty much every game available at the time of its release at perfectly acceptable resolutions, and usually with most features turned on.
Quite a lot of people don't see the tradeoff in price and noise as being worth a few minor graphical improvements.
> I'm sure this has been said better, somewhere else, but I just haven't read it yet: one of the great memes of the age is getting rich quickly. Hence the subject, "rock star". Maybe there are people out there who create the zen way, "create to create", but I guess that a large majority has more dollar signs than stars in their eyes when they fire up that amp / movie camera / what-have-you.
Those people don't last more than a month. The vast majority of musicians and authors out there are doing it because that's what they want to be doing. Sure, they might dream of making it big - but that's not why they're doing it. If you want to get rich quick, put an extra dollar a week in the bank, or invest in real-estate, it'll give you better results than trying to become a star of any sort.
hmmm...java - self installing executable. Firefox, and netscape before it - self installing executable. Flash - self installing executable. MyEclipseIDE (a commercial J2EE feature / plugin for Eclipse) - self installing executable. Even Oracle is a simple clicky wizard away on Linux these days.
The challenges to installing 3rd party software on Linux or any Unix are no different to the ones in Windows. - In fact, with the complete lack of package management in Windows, most Unix like systems are actually easier to create installs for. It's not the fault of the operating system if the application vendor can't be bothered spending the extra time to make the installation process easy.
I tried it in Netscape 4.7, and yes, it correctly renders the simple semantic HTML as just that, and is completely functional. But it doesn't look even remotely like the normal rendering in a modern web browser.
That's not a problem, no one uses NS4.x any more, and even if they do, the site is still completely useable, but I think your statement that it "does work" needed clarifying.
>if you look at transparent persistence systems like JDO and Hibernate, almost all of the data retrieval and processing can be done with no query language at all.
Only for extremely simplistic cases, eventually you _will_ need to write queries. However, you don't use the database's native query language, you use one provided by the ORM tool. This appears to be the same sort of thing....
The one in my Holden Commodore does, and so do earlier models of the Commodore that I've seen. But that might be just because it doesn't have a CD player.
But in anycase, it sucks. They couldn't have made it noisier if they tried. It's not just my car either, other Commodores I've seen have the same problem. I just use a tape adapter instead.
I'm not 100% familiar with the US constitution, but I find it hard to believe that "The Right To Bear Arms" is the same as "The Right to have someone sell me a gun".
No one is compelled to sell anyone a weapon. If someone want's to excercise their right to carry one, they can make it themselves.
So, after those R&D costs are regained, why don't the prices drop?
And when exactly is that? They don't just go on holiday for six months when a new chip is released.
R&D is ongoing, so R&D costs are ongoing, it doesn't make sense to try to tie the cost of developing a chip directly to its retail price - instead there'll be an overall R&D budget, and the cost of that is spread across their entire product line. The rest of the difference is simply what the market will bear.
Gnome developers know better than users. It's easy to use if you're one of our model users - if you're not, fuck you, we don't want you using our desktop environment.
I'm waiting for the day when I can change my colour scheme without changing the theme...
I guess users get confused by too many choices of colour or something?
Re:Let's don't get ahead of ourselves
on
TrollTech to IPO?
·
· Score: 1
> Far worse than that; for example, you forgot to allocate the memory for the string. And you may not know how much is going to be required, so you can't safely use a fixed buffer...
no I didn't - mine was a best case C example (to be consistent with a best case C++ or Java example). I assumed that the _to_string function allocated it for me - It'd be silly trying to allocate it from the outside, as like you say there's no way of knowing how big it would need to be. Of course, I didn't do error checking on the return of get_string, and assumed that _add was infallible, and often C APIs do leave all temporary buffer allocation to the user, as inside out as that may seem. So code like your example is necesary all too frequently.
actually, Australia and New Zealand are often labeled as Asia too.
We never know where the hell we are...
Re:Let's don't get ahead of ourselves
on
TrollTech to IPO?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That bloat example is just plain idiotic.
The 'NORMAL' example is simplistic, and the 'BLOATED' example is contrived. You can demonstrate exactly the same level of bloat and simplicity for that exact operation in any language, object oriented or not.
assuming the 'normal' example is BASIC, which it most looks like, then A and B are numbers - primitives, then the java example is actually
System.out.println(a + b);
Or a C++ example is cout << (a + b);
Now, lets say that a and b are _not_ primitives, what if they're a complex type of some description.
In C++ the example would remain: cout << (a + b);
In java, it would most likely be: System.out.println(a.add(b));
Object oriented programming adds a _little_ bloat to simplistic cases, but greatly simplifies complex cases. If you believe that it inherently causes bloat, then you're never planning to move beyond "Hello, World".
Are there really so many people that don't know what a prototype is?
A prototype isn't "Well, it's got a couple of bugs, but otherwise it's ready".
A prototype is "if we cobble together these bits and pieces, you can get a general idea of what it might possibly look like once we've actually developed it"
And the ZX81 came with a manual bigger than the machine itself - a complete introduction and reference for BASIC on the machine including example programs, and even schematic drawings of the PCB!
You're lucky if you get 20 pages with a new machine, and 18 of them are translations anyway.
But it takes time and effort - a LOT of time and effort to produce good music, and the only person who has a right to give away someone's time and effort is the person who put in that time and effort in the first place - not some dickhead with a computer (or a tape recorder for that matter).
Music will always be copied and the musician will only rarely be compensated, every sane musician knows and accepts that - and to some extent it can be a good thing. At least copied recordings aren't as bad as someone playing your music and claiming it as their own, and it can help get exposure when done right. But what really pisses us off is that some people somehow think it's their _right_ for us to make music for them for nothing, and then hide behind "It's not 'Theft'" arguments as if that somehow makes it right. To those people, I say Fuck You.
But if we're going to play word games, I propose an alternative - don't call it "Theft", don't call it "Piracy", and especially don't call it "Copyright Infringement" - instead every time you share a file, I want you to say with pride that you are committing an act of "Freeloading off someone else's hard work without giving them a fucking cent"
"FOSEHWWGTFC", doesn't it just roll off the tongue?
You can say that, but I don't care, because I'll never use them.
BTW, as an exercise, try looking up viri, cacti, octopi, viruses, cactuses and octopuses in a modern spell checker. (Spell checker, because Dictionaries often carry a wider range of words, even those no longer in active use - a spell checker tends to stick to the core language used today)
Of the '-i' words, only cacti is recognised by the ones I tried, all the '-es' words were recognised. Also, Octopi may be a correct English word, but it's based on an even more fallacious assumption than 'virii', as it really should have been 'Octopodes' if we're going to do things like that.
But it seems to me that people forget that just because a word came from another language, doesn't mean that we can't use English rules on it once it has become part of our language.
People complain that English is complicated, and then do idiotic things like selectively imposing rules from other languages on it.
Words like 'octopi' and 'virii' or 'viri' (and the whole history of importing Latin words in the first place just because it was some how more elite) strike me as nothing more than affectations and bother me almost as much as using accents on English words just because the original word in a language that actually has accents used them (If I'm writing English, I should never have to stray out of ASCII).
how is that any different to an update with a bug in msvcrt.dll?
Or for that matter, a bug in glibc, or gtk, or qt, or libX11.so?.NET is just a collection of libraries, it's no more of a risk than any other system library.
The thing that always bugs me about the virii thing, is that it's completely irrelevant how it's pluralized in Latin.
Regardless of it being a Latin loan word, it's an English word now, and therefore "viruses" is absolutely the correct way to pluralize it, just as cactuses, and octopuses are correct English words.
someone else that doesn't understand that the world is not black and white.
Some "errors" change meaning, some do not. The English language is generally very flexible, and can deal with - and in fact (or infact if I feel like it) encourages creative use of words, or even the creation of new words (wording maybe? Or is that may be?) by combining existing words, or using common patterns of modification such as prefixes and suffixes to words that have not had them previously applied. All of those things are perfectly acceptable in colloquial speech as they do not obfuscate or change the meaning, in fact they can enhance understandability in some cases. Formal writing is different, but there's no one set of rules for that, and as such you have to be familiar with the approved style for the circumstances. Unless you have already agreed on a certain style in advance with someone, it is worthwhile (worth your while? worth the time it would take you?) calling them out on something simply because they are not conforming to your preferred style.
Using the wrong existing word however, is much more likely to be a definite error in all cases and can have a serious affect on meaning. It is a fallacy to compare loose vs lose with "never mind" vs "nevermind"
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'll find the point was that it's better than GCC at optimising for Intel - that much has nothing to do with whether or not output for non Intel chips is purposely disabled.
No - every over priced, early adoptor "Ultimate", "eXtreme" top of the line card in the last few years has had a fan, but the mid-range to budget versions are quite often fanless, and will play pretty much every game available at the time of its release at perfectly acceptable resolutions, and usually with most features turned on.
Quite a lot of people don't see the tradeoff in price and noise as being worth a few minor graphical improvements.
> I'm sure this has been said better, somewhere else, but I just haven't read it yet: one of the great memes of the age is getting rich quickly. Hence the subject, "rock star". Maybe there are people out there who create the zen way, "create to create", but I guess that a large majority has more dollar signs than stars in their eyes when they fire up that amp / movie camera / what-have-you.
Those people don't last more than a month.
The vast majority of musicians and authors out there are doing it because that's what they want to be doing. Sure, they might dream of making it big - but that's not why they're doing it.
If you want to get rich quick, put an extra dollar a week in the bank, or invest in real-estate, it'll give you better results than trying to become a star of any sort.
hmmm...java - self installing executable.
Firefox, and netscape before it - self installing executable.
Flash - self installing executable.
MyEclipseIDE (a commercial J2EE feature / plugin for Eclipse) - self installing executable.
Even Oracle is a simple clicky wizard away on Linux these days.
The challenges to installing 3rd party software on Linux or any Unix are no different to the ones in Windows. - In fact, with the complete lack of package management in Windows, most Unix like systems are actually easier to create installs for.
It's not the fault of the operating system if the application vendor can't be bothered spending the extra time to make the installation process easy.
hmmm...depends on what you mean by "work".
I tried it in Netscape 4.7, and yes, it correctly renders the simple semantic HTML as just that, and is completely functional. But it doesn't look even remotely like the normal rendering in a modern web browser.
That's not a problem, no one uses NS4.x any more, and even if they do, the site is still completely useable, but I think your statement that it "does work" needed clarifying.
yes, it is.
But what has that got to do with anything?
>if you look at transparent persistence systems like JDO and Hibernate, almost all of the data retrieval and processing can be done with no query language at all.
Only for extremely simplistic cases, eventually you _will_ need to write queries. However, you don't use the database's native query language, you use one provided by the ORM tool. This appears to be the same sort of thing....
The one in my Holden Commodore does, and so do earlier models of the Commodore that I've seen. But that might be just because it doesn't have a CD player.
But in anycase, it sucks. They couldn't have made it noisier if they tried. It's not just my car either, other Commodores I've seen have the same problem.
I just use a tape adapter instead.
I'm not 100% familiar with the US constitution, but I find it hard to believe that "The Right To Bear Arms" is the same as "The Right to have someone sell me a gun".
No one is compelled to sell anyone a weapon. If someone want's to excercise their right to carry one, they can make it themselves.
So, after those R&D costs are regained, why don't the prices drop?
And when exactly is that? They don't just go on holiday for six months when a new chip is released.
R&D is ongoing, so R&D costs are ongoing, it doesn't make sense to try to tie the cost of developing a chip directly to its retail price - instead there'll be an overall R&D budget, and the cost of that is spread across their entire product line.
The rest of the difference is simply what the market will bear.
don't you mean 'siting'? ;)
Translation -
Gnome developers know better than users.
It's easy to use if you're one of our model users - if you're not, fuck you, we don't want you using our desktop environment.
See sig.
I'm waiting for the day when I can change my colour scheme without changing the theme...
I guess users get confused by too many choices of colour or something?
> Far worse than that; for example, you forgot to allocate the memory for the string. And you may not know how much is going to be required, so you can't safely use a fixed buffer...
no I didn't - mine was a best case C example (to be consistent with a best case C++ or Java example). I assumed that the _to_string function allocated it for me - It'd be silly trying to allocate it from the outside, as like you say there's no way of knowing how big it would need to be.
Of course, I didn't do error checking on the return of get_string, and assumed that _add was infallible, and often C APIs do leave all temporary buffer allocation to the user, as inside out as that may seem.
So code like your example is necesary all too frequently.
actually, Australia and New Zealand are often labeled as Asia too.
We never know where the hell we are...
That bloat example is just plain idiotic.
The 'NORMAL' example is simplistic, and the 'BLOATED' example is contrived. You can demonstrate exactly the same level of bloat and simplicity for that exact operation in any language, object oriented or not.
assuming the 'normal' example is BASIC, which it most looks like, then A and B are numbers - primitives, then the java example is actually
System.out.println(a + b);
Or a C++ example is
cout << (a + b);
Now, lets say that a and b are _not_ primitives, what if they're a complex type of some description.
In C++ the example would remain:
cout << (a + b);
In java, it would most likely be:
System.out.println(a.add(b));
What would it be in BASIC, or C?
most likely it'd be something like -
complex_type_add(a, b);
a_string = complex_type_to_string(a);
printf("%s\n", a_string);
free(a_string);
Object oriented programming adds a _little_ bloat to simplistic cases, but greatly simplifies complex cases.
If you believe that it inherently causes bloat, then you're never planning to move beyond "Hello, World".
and yes, IHBT.
Are there really so many people that don't know what a prototype is?
A prototype isn't "Well, it's got a couple of bugs, but otherwise it's ready".
A prototype is "if we cobble together these bits and pieces, you can get a general idea of what it might possibly look like once we've actually developed it"
And the ZX81 came with a manual bigger than the machine itself - a complete introduction and reference for BASIC on the machine including example programs, and even schematic drawings of the PCB!
You're lucky if you get 20 pages with a new machine, and 18 of them are translations anyway.
I don't care what you call it.
But it takes time and effort - a LOT of time and effort to produce good music, and the only person who has a right to give away someone's time and effort is the person who put in that time and effort in the first place - not some dickhead with a computer (or a tape recorder for that matter).
Music will always be copied and the musician will only rarely be compensated, every sane musician knows and accepts that - and to some extent it can be a good thing. At least copied recordings aren't as bad as someone playing your music and claiming it as their own, and it can help get exposure when done right.
But what really pisses us off is that some people somehow think it's their _right_ for us to make music for them for nothing, and then hide behind "It's not 'Theft'" arguments as if that somehow makes it right. To those people, I say Fuck You.
But if we're going to play word games, I propose an alternative - don't call it "Theft", don't call it "Piracy", and especially don't call it "Copyright Infringement" - instead every time you share a file, I want you to say with pride that you are committing an act of "Freeloading off someone else's hard work without giving them a fucking cent"
"FOSEHWWGTFC", doesn't it just roll off the tongue?
You can say that, but I don't care, because I'll never use them.
BTW, as an exercise, try looking up viri, cacti, octopi, viruses, cactuses and octopuses in a modern spell checker. (Spell checker, because Dictionaries often carry a wider range of words, even those no longer in active use - a spell checker tends to stick to the core language used today)
Of the '-i' words, only cacti is recognised by the ones I tried, all the '-es' words were recognised.
Also, Octopi may be a correct English word, but it's based on an even more fallacious assumption than 'virii', as it really should have been 'Octopodes' if we're going to do things like that.
But it seems to me that people forget that just because a word came from another language, doesn't mean that we can't use English rules on it once it has become part of our language.
People complain that English is complicated, and then do idiotic things like selectively imposing rules from other languages on it.
Words like 'octopi' and 'virii' or 'viri' (and the whole history of importing Latin words in the first place just because it was some how more elite) strike me as nothing more than affectations and bother me almost as much as using accents on English words just because the original word in a language that actually has accents used them (If I'm writing English, I should never have to stray out of ASCII).
how is that any different to an update with a bug in msvcrt.dll?
.NET is just a collection of libraries, it's no more of a risk than any other system library.
Or for that matter, a bug in glibc, or gtk, or qt, or libX11.so?
The thing that always bugs me about the virii thing, is that it's completely irrelevant how it's pluralized in Latin.
Regardless of it being a Latin loan word, it's an English word now, and therefore "viruses" is absolutely the correct way to pluralize it, just as cactuses, and octopuses are correct English words.
who cares?
The point of it from Microsoft's point of view, is that it's better than NTFS with Windows Indexing Service.
gah. And I just proved that it's always "worthwhile" to do a full proof read _before_ submitting.
I meant "it is _not_ worthwhile" in the second to last paragraph.
someone else that doesn't understand that the world is not black and white.
Some "errors" change meaning, some do not.
The English language is generally very flexible, and can deal with - and in fact (or infact if I feel like it) encourages creative use of words, or even the creation of new words (wording maybe? Or is that may be?) by combining existing words, or using common patterns of modification such as prefixes and suffixes to words that have not had them previously applied.
All of those things are perfectly acceptable in colloquial speech as they do not obfuscate or change the meaning, in fact they can enhance understandability in some cases.
Formal writing is different, but there's no one set of rules for that, and as such you have to be familiar with the approved style for the circumstances. Unless you have already agreed on a certain style in advance with someone, it is worthwhile (worth your while? worth the time it would take you?) calling them out on something simply because they are not conforming to your preferred style.
Using the wrong existing word however, is much more likely to be a definite error in all cases and can have a serious affect on meaning. It is a fallacy to compare loose vs lose with "never mind" vs "nevermind"