most people exchanged fancy birth stone jewellry as engagement tokens.
Nothing wrong with these stones either, but I sure as heck wouldn't buy my girlfriend a lab created one. All of the many peices of jewlery I bought her were natural.
What is the deal with people talking about engagement "tokens" as if that was the only time to buy expensive jewlery? I buy my girlfriend jewlery when ever I feel like it. Some guys buy a new PS2 or XBOX, but I buy my girlfriend a new ring or necklace. I don't need toys to be happy when I have a loving companion, so what should I be spending my money on? She doesn't ask for gifts, but I know she feels special because I make it so clear how much I care for her.
I'm happy when I see her smile. I'm entertained when I play video games. I would rather be happy than merely entertained.
If you need to buy her a ring in the first place, chances are that she is very shallow as it is.
That is the whole point... Who said anything about needing to buy her a ring? Any woman who dates me gets to know that she will be well taken care of, and giving jewlery is a way to show that. I would never give jewlery to a woman who asked me for it.
If you hate DeBeers so much, jewlery doesn't have to have diamonds.
You know that not all diamonds come from Africa don't you? I bought my girlfriend a diamond solitare from a mine in Canada. I didn't check into the working conditions there, but I would guess that Canada doesn't go in for child labor.
As for the salesman comment... Maybe you have never tried to give a woman a gift that has no utility (particularly if it isn't even a special occasion), but I can tell you that it is a very easy way to brighten her day.
I see what you are getting at, but it depends on the woman. 1000 DVDs isn't necessarily useful either. What is a movie after all? Some thing you watch for entertainment right? Well maybe some women get more entertainment out of looking at a shiny diamond on their finger than a movie on a tv.
While we are on the subject, I agree that any self-sacrificing gift is worth while, but the point is that it should be a sacrifice. Buying jewlery that costs next to nothing because it is synthetic isn't much of a sacrifice, which is what I was trying to get at.
As for the $10K rock comment: It is just like anything else, who wouldn't want to have the best? Does a geek go out and buy the latest most expensive computer because it has the highest value, or because it grants the highest braging rights? I would guess that it is the latter. The more expensive the diamond, the more a woman can lord it over their friends (in the same good natured way that geeks lord their computer specs over their friends).
Sure, I'd blow a few grand on a trinket for my SO.
The point is that it isn't just a trinket to everyone. Why does it have to have utility to be a desireable possession?
But what does it say about her if she'd actually want me to do so?
It isn't about buying her what she wants. It is about giving a gift she doesn't expect. There should be no strings attached. Women shouldn't beg for jewlery or it doesn't mean anything anyway (it isn't very much of a gift if you have to be told to give it).
You just don't get it... What good is a diamond (in jewlery) other than its price? Sure its sparkly and all that, but that isn't why women wear them. It is a way to show others that some guy loves them. It is a symbol, and it wouldn't mean anything if it was cheap. The whole point is that it costs a lot. It shows that you made a sacrifice for her. You could have spent that money on yourself, but you didn't.
I would never ever buy a piece of synthetic diamond jewlery unless it cost as much as a natural one. The last thing you should ever do is cheapen love by trying to buy a symbol of it at a discount.
If you can't afford a natural diamond, then don't buy one at all (a fake symbol is worse than no symbol at all). If she is so shallow that she won't love you with out gifts, then you shouldn't be wasting your time with her anyway.
That said, synthetic diamonds are awesome because of the industrial applications that they have.
How could this get posted? It is just as bad as the stupid BSD are dying trolls.
Why would Sun just close shop? Wouldn't any company want to try to go out with a fight? What benefit do they (the company) get out of quiting? Even if things don't turn around for them, they could always hope to get bought out.
Not the same. For it to be the same, that context menu would have to come up only if the mouse button was down for a specified duration of time. If Macs do that, then you get your prior art, and I back down.
Back down, because that is how they get around the one mouse button problem. Click once and activate icon, or click and hold, and after a preset time, a context menu will pop up with more options (with a two button mouse this is equivalent to the right mouse click).
If you really aren't creating that many objects, why even bother freeing memory? Just because you were always told to? If you aren't going to use much memory, just use new at will. Shoot if you can get away with it just use the stack for all of your memory.
I would guess that in actuality you probably do need quite a few objects, or reference counting wouldn't even be necessary.
By the way reference counting becomes a pain when you have circular references.
I don't know if you would want to use a GUI but LyX is a great editor that exports to LaTeX, and supports alot of features. In this way you can quickly see lots of the functions that are available to you, and then export to LaTeX to see how to do them.
I find it particularlly useful for the math formulas.
I haven't played Super Mario Advance 2, but I do have the Mario Kart port, and it is worth buying in its own right. It has all new tracks as well as the old ones. I would guess that Nintendo has added things to all of the ports to make them better than the originals (like the 4 player legend of zelda port).
Even in the case where they might be the same, the ports will probably allways run faster than the emulated versions, and have been designed to deal with the fact that the GBA doesn't have the extra two buttons the SNES had.
Designing an intuitive, efficient UI is no easy task.
Agreed, but it isn't really an issue of time. Apple does good design, because they have people who are experienced at doing it. You could spend 2 weeks, or 2 years on a bad UI design, and it would still be bad.
I think they were talking about how it was amazing to just put out such a product in 6 months, and I just don't see what is so amazing about it. How long should it take? 9 months? A year? It is just a music player.
I wasn't aware they were taking a loss on the system, but I still don't think that this would cause them to LOSE money. It would encourage GBA purchases, and once some one has a GBA they are a lot more likely to buy GBA games than when they didn't have a GBA.
I originally bought my GBA to play games that were ported from the SNES, but I really like some of the games that were developed for the GBA directly. They are pretty cool, and I wouldn't have even tried them if it weren't for the SNES games that drew me to the GBA in the first place.
Yeah... Umm why would that matter? The math on the SATs doesn't even come close to requiring any sort of calculus. At least not when I took it that last time in '99.
What is so special about this? It is a really nice MP3 player and all, but it isn't like it was revolutionary or anything. Slap a hard drive in a little box and put in an earphone jack. The design is really nice, but I don't see why it wouldn't have been their quickest major project.
I have the gameboy advance player for Gamecube, and I wonder if this would work on that? It has more than enough buttons, and it shouldn't need overclocking.
But in this case it is their hardware (just not the original platform), and if you can prove you own the original cartridge I don't see what the problem could be.
It seems like you are assuming that the only reason some one would use a WYSIWYG editor is because they don't know HTML. This is completely off base. Any decent webdesigner needs to at least have a working knowledge of HTML regardless of the tool they use to create/generate it, simply from the standpoint that they have to know what is possible with HTML.
Reading all of these posts really cracks me up. I have seen so many self-righteous posters talking about "hand coding" HTML as if it was some kind of difficult task. Here's a bit of information for you all: HTML is easy, and knowing how to "code" it hardly makes you the hard core individual you see yourself as.
The real challenge in Webdesign is the design aspect of it. What someone uses to implement that design shouldn't even be an issue. Does it hurt your feelings that perhaps they can work faster than you using a WYSIWYG?
On a side note, I'm not really attacking the parent post here, but I had to reply to one of them.
Also note that I don't use WYSIWYGs myself, but that is just because when I do webdesign (a rare event these days) I usually am working on dynamic websites (usually in PHP). If I was writing a static page I sure wouldn't waste my time to "hand code" HTML just so I could feel cool. That is like writing all my documents in postscript just to be hard core. There is no benefit, just more work.
Some times you don't have access to server side solutions (home pages on a public server you don' t control for instance). Other times you could do a server side solution, but the processing overhead is unwanted. If you are statically sharing the same bit of HTML on multiple pages why use SSI or PHP?
They make the server do the work every single time a user views a page, instead of one time before the page is uploaded to the server.
For the programmers out there, this is analogous to doing something at run-time that could have been done at complie-time.
If you need dynamic behavior, by all means use PHP, but if your pages are static, it is a terrible waste of time. Of course, if your server does not have to deal with much of a load then it doesn't matter (better hope/. doesn't link to it).
If we do find life on Mars (or elsewhere), that is potentially the most important discovery, um, ever.
I guess it is all a matter of priorities. I see life as a pretty insignficant thing in comparison to the universe itself, but I suppose there probably wouldn't be many people that agree with me. It seems that as living creatures, we tend to think that life is pretty special (which I would agree with to some extent). But consider that life couldn't exist at all without the fundamental laws of the universe. Understanding these laws leads to advancements and understanding in all other areas, because they help shape everything else that happens (which is why they are fundamental), including life.
I guess you are right. I personally think understanding "the fundamentals of the universe" is the single most important thing that could possibly be researched, but I could see how other people would have different priorities. Other avenues of research lead more directly to things that have more direct applications, and I can understand why that might have more appeal.
By the way, I for one think that research on seedless watermellons probably would do more for humanity than cures for cancer or AIDS. We have too many people as it is, why not do something to make the short lives we have more tolerable (like seedless watermellons for instance), than prolonging the dreary lives of millions? People have been dying since the begining of human history, and we will probably never be able to change that (I hope), but seedless watermellons are entirely new. This is something that only modern technology could bring us, and it is something that our ansestors never had. Now that is progress.
Slashdot Mirror
most people exchanged fancy birth stone jewellry as engagement tokens.
Nothing wrong with these stones either, but I sure as heck wouldn't buy my girlfriend a lab created one. All of the many peices of jewlery I bought her were natural.
What is the deal with people talking about engagement "tokens" as if that was the only time to buy expensive jewlery? I buy my girlfriend jewlery when ever I feel like it. Some guys buy a new PS2 or XBOX, but I buy my girlfriend a new ring or necklace. I don't need toys to be happy when I have a loving companion, so what should I be spending my money on? She doesn't ask for gifts, but I know she feels special because I make it so clear how much I care for her.
I'm happy when I see her smile. I'm entertained when I play video games. I would rather be happy than merely entertained.
If you need to buy her a ring in the first place, chances are that she is very shallow as it is.
That is the whole point... Who said anything about needing to buy her a ring? Any woman who dates me gets to know that she will be well taken care of, and giving jewlery is a way to show that. I would never give jewlery to a woman who asked me for it.
If you hate DeBeers so much, jewlery doesn't have to have diamonds.
You know that not all diamonds come from Africa don't you? I bought my girlfriend a diamond solitare from a mine in Canada. I didn't check into the working conditions there, but I would guess that Canada doesn't go in for child labor.
As for the salesman comment... Maybe you have never tried to give a woman a gift that has no utility (particularly if it isn't even a special occasion), but I can tell you that it is a very easy way to brighten her day.
I see what you are getting at, but it depends on the woman. 1000 DVDs isn't necessarily useful either. What is a movie after all? Some thing you watch for entertainment right? Well maybe some women get more entertainment out of looking at a shiny diamond on their finger than a movie on a tv.
While we are on the subject, I agree that any self-sacrificing gift is worth while, but the point is that it should be a sacrifice. Buying jewlery that costs next to nothing because it is synthetic isn't much of a sacrifice, which is what I was trying to get at.
As for the $10K rock comment: It is just like anything else, who wouldn't want to have the best? Does a geek go out and buy the latest most expensive computer because it has the highest value, or because it grants the highest braging rights? I would guess that it is the latter. The more expensive the diamond, the more a woman can lord it over their friends (in the same good natured way that geeks lord their computer specs over their friends).
Sure, I'd blow a few grand on a trinket for my SO.
The point is that it isn't just a trinket to everyone. Why does it have to have utility to be a desireable possession?
But what does it say about her if she'd actually want me to do so?
It isn't about buying her what she wants. It is about giving a gift she doesn't expect. There should be no strings attached. Women shouldn't beg for jewlery or it doesn't mean anything anyway (it isn't very much of a gift if you have to be told to give it).
You just don't get it... What good is a diamond (in jewlery) other than its price? Sure its sparkly and all that, but that isn't why women wear them. It is a way to show others that some guy loves them. It is a symbol, and it wouldn't mean anything if it was cheap. The whole point is that it costs a lot. It shows that you made a sacrifice for her. You could have spent that money on yourself, but you didn't.
I would never ever buy a piece of synthetic diamond jewlery unless it cost as much as a natural one. The last thing you should ever do is cheapen love by trying to buy a symbol of it at a discount.
If you can't afford a natural diamond, then don't buy one at all (a fake symbol is worse than no symbol at all). If she is so shallow that she won't love you with out gifts, then you shouldn't be wasting your time with her anyway.
That said, synthetic diamonds are awesome because of the industrial applications that they have.
How could this get posted? It is just as bad as the stupid BSD are dying trolls.
Why would Sun just close shop? Wouldn't any company want to try to go out with a fight? What benefit do they (the company) get out of quiting? Even if things don't turn around for them, they could always hope to get bought out.
Not the same. For it to be the same, that context menu would have to come up only if the mouse button was down for a specified duration of time. If Macs do that, then you get your prior art, and I back down.
Back down, because that is how they get around the one mouse button problem. Click once and activate icon, or click and hold, and after a preset time, a context menu will pop up with more options (with a two button mouse this is equivalent to the right mouse click).
If you really aren't creating that many objects, why even bother freeing memory? Just because you were always told to? If you aren't going to use much memory, just use new at will. Shoot if you can get away with it just use the stack for all of your memory.
I would guess that in actuality you probably do need quite a few objects, or reference counting wouldn't even be necessary.
By the way reference counting becomes a pain when you have circular references.
Who ever modded me "Troll" really needs to lighten up.
Looks like you were too slow you loser. Someone else pointed this out while you were typing your post. Better luck next time dumbass.
I don't know if you would want to use a GUI but LyX is a great editor that exports to LaTeX, and supports alot of features. In this way you can quickly see lots of the functions that are available to you, and then export to LaTeX to see how to do them.
I find it particularlly useful for the math formulas.
I haven't played Super Mario Advance 2, but I do have the Mario Kart port, and it is worth buying in its own right. It has all new tracks as well as the old ones. I would guess that Nintendo has added things to all of the ports to make them better than the originals (like the 4 player legend of zelda port).
Even in the case where they might be the same, the ports will probably allways run faster than the emulated versions, and have been designed to deal with the fact that the GBA doesn't have the extra two buttons the SNES had.
Designing an intuitive, efficient UI is no easy task.
Agreed, but it isn't really an issue of time. Apple does good design, because they have people who are experienced at doing it. You could spend 2 weeks, or 2 years on a bad UI design, and it would still be bad.
I think they were talking about how it was amazing to just put out such a product in 6 months, and I just don't see what is so amazing about it. How long should it take? 9 months? A year? It is just a music player.
hey don't make squat on the GBA
I wasn't aware they were taking a loss on the system, but I still don't think that this would cause them to LOSE money. It would encourage GBA purchases, and once some one has a GBA they are a lot more likely to buy GBA games than when they didn't have a GBA.
I originally bought my GBA to play games that were ported from the SNES, but I really like some of the games that were developed for the GBA directly. They are pretty cool, and I wouldn't have even tried them if it weren't for the SNES games that drew me to the GBA in the first place.
Yeah... Umm why would that matter? The math on the SATs doesn't even come close to requiring any sort of calculus. At least not when I took it that last time in '99.
What is so special about this? It is a really nice MP3 player and all, but it isn't like it was revolutionary or anything. Slap a hard drive in a little box and put in an earphone jack. The design is really nice, but I don't see why it wouldn't have been their quickest major project.
I have the gameboy advance player for Gamecube, and I wonder if this would work on that? It has more than enough buttons, and it shouldn't need overclocking.
But in this case it is their hardware (just not the original platform), and if you can prove you own the original cartridge I don't see what the problem could be.
It seems like it could encourage GBA purchases.
C'mon, you have to be adventurous to please all the ladies!
Hey, now that sounds like my kind of adventure.
"Hey baby, how 'bout I show you a thing or two on the PS2?"
I would imagine that would be rather uncomfortable. How about trying something like a bed?
Ha.
It seems like you are assuming that the only reason some one would use a WYSIWYG editor is because they don't know HTML. This is completely off base. Any decent webdesigner needs to at least have a working knowledge of HTML regardless of the tool they use to create/generate it, simply from the standpoint that they have to know what is possible with HTML.
Reading all of these posts really cracks me up. I have seen so many self-righteous posters talking about "hand coding" HTML as if it was some kind of difficult task. Here's a bit of information for you all: HTML is easy, and knowing how to "code" it hardly makes you the hard core individual you see yourself as.
The real challenge in Webdesign is the design aspect of it. What someone uses to implement that design shouldn't even be an issue. Does it hurt your feelings that perhaps they can work faster than you using a WYSIWYG?
On a side note, I'm not really attacking the parent post here, but I had to reply to one of them.
Also note that I don't use WYSIWYGs myself, but that is just because when I do webdesign (a rare event these days) I usually am working on dynamic websites (usually in PHP). If I was writing a static page I sure wouldn't waste my time to "hand code" HTML just so I could feel cool. That is like writing all my documents in postscript just to be hard core. There is no benefit, just more work.
Some times you don't have access to server side solutions (home pages on a public server you don' t control for instance). Other times you could do a server side solution, but the processing overhead is unwanted. If you are statically sharing the same bit of HTML on multiple pages why use SSI or PHP?
/. doesn't link to it).
They make the server do the work every single time a user views a page, instead of one time before the page is uploaded to the server.
For the programmers out there, this is analogous to doing something at run-time that could have been done at complie-time.
If you need dynamic behavior, by all means use PHP, but if your pages are static, it is a terrible waste of time. Of course, if your server does not have to deal with much of a load then it doesn't matter (better hope
You're just jelous because the star I bought is bigger than yours.
If we do find life on Mars (or elsewhere), that is potentially the most important discovery, um, ever.
I guess it is all a matter of priorities. I see life as a pretty insignficant thing in comparison to the universe itself, but I suppose there probably wouldn't be many people that agree with me. It seems that as living creatures, we tend to think that life is pretty special (which I would agree with to some extent). But consider that life couldn't exist at all without the fundamental laws of the universe. Understanding these laws leads to advancements and understanding in all other areas, because they help shape everything else that happens (which is why they are fundamental), including life.
I guess you are right. I personally think understanding "the fundamentals of the universe" is the single most important thing that could possibly be researched, but I could see how other people would have different priorities. Other avenues of research lead more directly to things that have more direct applications, and I can understand why that might have more appeal.
By the way, I for one think that research on seedless watermellons probably would do more for humanity than cures for cancer or AIDS. We have too many people as it is, why not do something to make the short lives we have more tolerable (like seedless watermellons for instance), than prolonging the dreary lives of millions? People have been dying since the begining of human history, and we will probably never be able to change that (I hope), but seedless watermellons are entirely new. This is something that only modern technology could bring us, and it is something that our ansestors never had. Now that is progress.