I'm writing a jet combat flight simulator and C++ and C# simply are too much effort to make truly cross-platform; eg. Mac, Linux, Window, Android
Care to elaborate on the specifics? Because it sounds a bit... exaggerated. The difference between the platforms is in the UI and I do not think any sensible developer would subject its users to the horrors of AWT or Swing (none of which IIRC is available on Android). If you take the platform-specific UI out of the question, then the rest of the code would be pretty portable - regardless of the programming language. Except of course for the Android where IIRC you need different paradigm for an application, what would be a much bigger - yet programming-language-neutral - hurdle to overcome.
Sorry, but this is just blatant Intel fanboism. And B.S.
People want to slap AMD on the back for what they did, but what happened was a half assed 64 bit implementation with limited kernel support, very little in the way of stable drivers, and no applications to speak of.
GCC and Linux had support for AMD64 *before* the CPUs were even officially released. And they were initially targeted and sold for Linux clusters (iow to people with money and experience in system building).
Competition may be great in some regards, but if it makes you fire off three shots before aiming, its not really a measured success if you happen to accidentally hit something.
But AMD actually hasn't just randomly tried to hit something. It wasn't a shot in the dark. They went straight to customers and system developers and plainly asked what they wish in a new 64-bit architecture (cheap + b/c with i386 were obviously the top two things). (Unlike Intel who basically tried to force everyone to love the much delayed and overly expensive and underperforming Itanic.)
AMD64 or x86-64 or x64 became success not because it was a lucky shot - but because it was based on a vast pool of feedback from people who actually needed an affordable 64-bit CPUs. The high-end servers and clusters have carried the AMD64 into main stream market. Desktop/etc were not the focus in the beginning, but caught up only later when the prices have fallen down.
Most of the people who bought 64 bit cpu's back in the day had no use for the capability whatsoever, and didn't have much benefit until years later.
I had bought IIRC 2nd gen 64-bit dual core CPU from AMD back then for the simple reason that it was only marginally more expensive than comparable 32-bit CPU. It ran 64-bit Linux pretty well - because AMD64 wasn't the first 64-bit architecture Linux ran natively on. It was perfect for the development purposes (as I mainly develop software for 64-bit *NIX systems anyway (including Itanic btw)). So it has paid off for me.
Otherwise, what benefit one could expect from a 64-bit CPUs Very very few desktop applications require more than 4GB of RAM. But then again, 64-bit CPUs for PCs pretty quickly fallen down in price (thanks to Intel's Core series) so there was very little difference even back then. And if there is little difference, why not take 64-bit one?
Was some AMD fanboy trying to make a point or did someone post this pre-coffee?
Debian gave moniker "AMD64" to the Intel/x64 systems to honor the facts that (1) AMD had introduce it and (2) without AMD we would never had the affordable 64-bit systems. (Intel's version of the 64-bit future was the IA-64.)
Similar sentiment btw was shared by Linux kernel folks, but they decided (== Linus decided) in the end to use vendor-neutral 'x86-64' moniker.
That's pretty much sums up how in the end the DRM on internet would work. And why IMO split of the internet into two - normal one and official one - is inevitable. If you would think of P2P as the "normal internet," then the split has already happened (it's just sadly nobody has figured out how to run dynamic web on the P2P yet).
you can't patent ideas, most of the iOS patents are for specific implementations on the current touch screen tech. the fact that we had some kind of pinch to zoom 20 years ago has no bearing on current tech. different screens, different algorithms need to be created.
Patents are for protecting the ideas of inventions, not inventions themselves.
Inventions are covered by copyright, trade secrets, etc.
Protecting implementation of the invention by patent is also useless. Actual implementation might change, while underlying idea remains. And that's what patents are designed to protect.
IOW, any implementation of pinch zoom from 20 years ago must have automatically invalidated any pinch zoom patent filed later. Now, if Apple had patented particular way to implement the pinch zoom, it would have been different story. But they did not. Because there are no algorithms involved, it's a dumb finite state machine. (And yeah, I have read the patent. It's more of a how-to patent than a computer tech patent.)
its like cars. every automaker has patents on their cars and specific engines. yet they all operate the same way and use the same fuel. everyone just has to make their own algorithm or slightly different way of injecting and burning fuel. been like that for decades and has worked
What actually leads to inefficiency (in many areas): obvious and efficient implementation is patented, patent holder demands enormous license fee - other makers had to implement something less obvious and often by far less efficient. (Had witnessed precisely that happening in semiconductor industry at least two times.)
Still want Kindle Keyboard v2. Browsing dictionary via or typing on touchscreen is quite cumbersome. I read mostly foreign language books - a real keyboard is a big deal to me.
3 years, at 52 weeks per year, is 156 weeks. With a version bump every 6 weeks, in 156 weeks, FireFox would reach version: current version + 156/6 = 15 + 26 = FireFox 41.
What I'm trying to say here: one doesn't even have to exaggerate...
Well, that a scientific explanation of what I have observed some time ago: sleeping in after reading/etc on PC is harder compared to sleeping in after reading a book or e-book off e-Ink device.
Was also one of the reasons why I have abandoned long in past the night time TV: it just felt unnatural - and tiring - how it kept me up for no apparent reason.
Probably it is the same reason why I strongly prefer color schemes with dark background for the OS/applications on the PC.
Pros:
- Good screen. Easy on eyes.
- Very light. Weight can be adjusted by picking a different case.
- Battery life is 2-3 weeks. (I read a lot; dictionaries also tax battery more.)
- Keyboard is quite useful browsing dictionaries when reading foreign language books.
- One purpose device. I'm not strayed away/annoyed by the pop-ups/blinkies/etc.
Cons:
- One purpose device. You can't do much anything else with it.
At the time I have paid (with case and whatnot) about $170 for it - and 1.5 years later I think this is the best purchase I ever made.
I also had several hours of iPad and while the device is certainly attractive, it weighs too much, it is relatively large, battery life is miserable and (just like with the e-Ink) you need a well lit environment to read or the back-light would strain one's eyes too fast.
In the end, if one really likes to read, I think this is at the moment no brainer: e-Ink readers are cheap, they are not an investment like the current generation of the tablets.
P.S. Oh, yeah, if you happen to buy a Kindle, do NOT throw away the box. You might need the serial number printed on it later.
Yes. When uTorrent auto-update broke my installation, the most informative posts I could find on the forums were "yeah, there were discussions about the auto-update problem, but they were all deleted by the admins."
I had impression, it is only allowed to discuss PEBKAC or ID10T type of problems. But something what might make uTorrent look bad is highly likely forbidden.
Also, in all my digging I pretty much never seen any response from developers or people in the know. Only the same clueless users like me, with lots of conjectures of why they might experience the problem, without any light in the end of the tunnel.
Actively updated - only on *NIX, because there is a lack of Windows developers. Recently there were even discussions about dropping Windows version because there were nobody who can make a Windows build. They found who can build, but Windows specific issues often remain unresolved due to lack of developers.
Shameless plug from an unaffiliated/. user: Windows developers with Qt experience, please help improve the qBittorent!
Problem with the Chrome: it doesn't have much of UI to speak of.
It seems that they've hit the sweet spot where vast majority of users are actually very happy with precisely the amount of UI it has. Especially those coming from IE, or Firefox with no plugins.
Yes. I call it a "Facebook generation." People start a browser, click on the icon for the one or two sites they visit and, afterwards, close the browser.
They do not use browser per se. They use the "Facebook" instead. Browser is just this tiny frame around.
[ Replace the "Facebook" with a Web app of your choice. ]
Heavy UI plugin users, and the small but vocal Opera crowd, are missing certain useful features, but they aren't important enough for Google to cater to.
It's more like that type of users is used to take care of it themselves. That's why most of the time it is OK to disregard them (me included).
Outside Opera and the clumsy (but highly polished) IE shells, there are no browsers made specifically for power users. And even the exceptions aren't so much for power users as for "heavy users" (but that often suffice to power users too).
1st party browsers they sort'a stuck at level of Windows' Notepad or Wordpad - there is no VIM or Emacs of browsers: scriptable, configurable, made to do things with the web *you* need to do, not just scroll and click. (That apparently not applicable to "Facebook"s so deemed to be "unimportant." That probably just me, of course, to whom browser over time became continuation of the UNIX terminal.)
because they only have to make it work for one Linux distro.
And I'm pretty sure they will and the distro would be called "Ubuntu."
I'm pretty sure that Canonical would do anything (and already does) to ensure that Steam on Linux would be first class citizen on Ubuntu.
Also, Steam would likely keep a private copy of every system library used - like the matryoshka doll, it would be a distro of its own anyway. (Because you want to make sure that system update for security reasons or whatever will not suddenly render every game unusable.) With that in mind, I doubt there would be much problem of Steam portability across the distros.
It is easier for non-Linux people to build gaming machines. YES, DO IT!
Why? Games need not much of H/W - quantitatively. And the support for the H/W is pretty much universally is out of hands of the distros (and Valve): GPUs, audio, input devices.
It's so feature-poor that frankly I do not think anybody can notice anything.
I think the Google's R&D could even take a sabbatical and let a cron job running in the background, bumping major/minor version numbers randomly and pushing them to users. And I'm pretty sure no soul would suspect anything for a very very long time.
If I had the link, I would have posted it already.
Few friends bloggers some time ago have tested it: how easy it is to get blocked from G+. One guy simply "reported" (whatever that meant in the context) another for a made up violation. Within pretty short time second guy's account got completely disabled, barring him from all Google services, not only the G+.
I can't say that I know for certain, but I seriously doubt that accounts are disabled automatically in response to complaints.
Well, that's a pretty good description of the problem - lack of certainty.
What kind of violation are you talking about? Posting kiddie porn? Yeah, you'll get shut down completely. Same with any other serious criminal act. What other sorts of violations are there? Google's ToS don't include a lot of restrictions.
It was demonstrated that it is sufficient for one user to report something as offensive on G+ and the author's account gets disabled. The post or comment doesn't have to contain anything offensive - it just has to be reported by somebody as such - those are bots handling the clicks in the background, disabling accounts pronto.
So where is the protection against that? Where are the guarantees that I will not lose access to every Google service just because some [censored] for fun clicked a button on me, claiming I have posted something criminal??
"When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name standards, access to Gmail or other products that don’t require a Google+ profile are not removed. "
But that explicitly covers *only* the "common name standard" violation!? Or?
What about *other* violations? Because it was already tested in real world that Google disables accounts based on a *single* report of any random violation.
Not just like Google, then, because if Google blocks your Google+ account, only your Google+ account gets blocked, regardless of a bunch of widely-repeated erroneous reporting early on.
A link to confirm that? Preferably to the Google's own FAQ/etc.
Last I read, there was only one Google account which was also the G+ account. If it is blocked, than one loses access to all Google services which require an account (most notably Google Mail).
Math isn't factual or learnable per se - studying math to your brain is what jogging is to your body.
... so I think these blanket answers I'm seeing floated around here by people who probably rely on mathematics daily for their jobs is a little short sighted.
Very very small share of people does the theoretical math. Most people do applied math and most of the time using specialized software.
I have used math last time god knows how many years ago and personally no huge fan of it. Yet, I'm still very grateful and that I had the math. For it taught me the analytical thinking, it taught me how to find the way to dismantle large problems into smaller ones, it taught how to deal with ambiguities and so on.
Math stands apart from the rest of the subjects because it is sole pure abstract one. It is the only subject which was created 100% by humans. Yet, since it relates in no way to the outside world, it is also the most unnatural for our brain to learn.
Instead of all the flames, probably a healthy discussion on how to better teach the math would be more productive?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm writing a jet combat flight simulator and C++ and C# simply are too much effort to make truly cross-platform; eg. Mac, Linux, Window, Android
Care to elaborate on the specifics? Because it sounds a bit ... exaggerated. The difference between the platforms is in the UI and I do not think any sensible developer would subject its users to the horrors of AWT or Swing (none of which IIRC is available on Android). If you take the platform-specific UI out of the question, then the rest of the code would be pretty portable - regardless of the programming language. Except of course for the Android where IIRC you need different paradigm for an application, what would be a much bigger - yet programming-language-neutral - hurdle to overcome.
What's worth a public discourse based on the under table handling?
In USSR, you know, we had a proper and organized public discourse. Replace communism with the capitalism and you'd get the GOP's version of it.
Sorry, but this is just blatant Intel fanboism. And B.S.
People want to slap AMD on the back for what they did, but what happened was a half assed 64 bit implementation with limited kernel support, very little in the way of stable drivers, and no applications to speak of.
GCC and Linux had support for AMD64 *before* the CPUs were even officially released. And they were initially targeted and sold for Linux clusters (iow to people with money and experience in system building).
Competition may be great in some regards, but if it makes you fire off three shots before aiming, its not really a measured success if you happen to accidentally hit something.
But AMD actually hasn't just randomly tried to hit something. It wasn't a shot in the dark. They went straight to customers and system developers and plainly asked what they wish in a new 64-bit architecture (cheap + b/c with i386 were obviously the top two things). (Unlike Intel who basically tried to force everyone to love the much delayed and overly expensive and underperforming Itanic.)
AMD64 or x86-64 or x64 became success not because it was a lucky shot - but because it was based on a vast pool of feedback from people who actually needed an affordable 64-bit CPUs. The high-end servers and clusters have carried the AMD64 into main stream market. Desktop/etc were not the focus in the beginning, but caught up only later when the prices have fallen down.
Most of the people who bought 64 bit cpu's back in the day had no use for the capability whatsoever, and didn't have much benefit until years later.
I had bought IIRC 2nd gen 64-bit dual core CPU from AMD back then for the simple reason that it was only marginally more expensive than comparable 32-bit CPU. It ran 64-bit Linux pretty well - because AMD64 wasn't the first 64-bit architecture Linux ran natively on. It was perfect for the development purposes (as I mainly develop software for 64-bit *NIX systems anyway (including Itanic btw)). So it has paid off for me.
Otherwise, what benefit one could expect from a 64-bit CPUs Very very few desktop applications require more than 4GB of RAM. But then again, 64-bit CPUs for PCs pretty quickly fallen down in price (thanks to Intel's Core series) so there was very little difference even back then. And if there is little difference, why not take 64-bit one?
Was some AMD fanboy trying to make a point or did someone post this pre-coffee?
Debian gave moniker "AMD64" to the Intel/x64 systems to honor the facts that (1) AMD had introduce it and (2) without AMD we would never had the affordable 64-bit systems. (Intel's version of the 64-bit future was the IA-64.)
Similar sentiment btw was shared by Linux kernel folks, but they decided (== Linus decided) in the end to use vendor-neutral 'x86-64' moniker.
[...] you can pay them to be ignored by the bot.
That's pretty much sums up how in the end the DRM on internet would work. And why IMO split of the internet into two - normal one and official one - is inevitable. If you would think of P2P as the "normal internet," then the split has already happened (it's just sadly nobody has figured out how to run dynamic web on the P2P yet).
Nailed 'em!
you can't patent ideas, most of the iOS patents are for specific implementations on the current touch screen tech. the fact that we had some kind of pinch to zoom 20 years ago has no bearing on current tech. different screens, different algorithms need to be created.
Patents are for protecting the ideas of inventions, not inventions themselves.
Inventions are covered by copyright, trade secrets, etc.
Protecting implementation of the invention by patent is also useless. Actual implementation might change, while underlying idea remains. And that's what patents are designed to protect.
IOW, any implementation of pinch zoom from 20 years ago must have automatically invalidated any pinch zoom patent filed later. Now, if Apple had patented particular way to implement the pinch zoom, it would have been different story. But they did not. Because there are no algorithms involved, it's a dumb finite state machine. (And yeah, I have read the patent. It's more of a how-to patent than a computer tech patent.)
its like cars. every automaker has patents on their cars and specific engines. yet they all operate the same way and use the same fuel. everyone just has to make their own algorithm or slightly different way of injecting and burning fuel. been like that for decades and has worked
What actually leads to inefficiency (in many areas): obvious and efficient implementation is patented, patent holder demands enormous license fee - other makers had to implement something less obvious and often by far less efficient. (Had witnessed precisely that happening in semiconductor industry at least two times.)
Still want Kindle Keyboard v2. Browsing dictionary via or typing on touchscreen is quite cumbersome. I read mostly foreign language books - a real keyboard is a big deal to me.
This is an factually incorrect statement.
3 years, at 52 weeks per year, is 156 weeks. With a version bump every 6 weeks, in 156 weeks, FireFox would reach version: current version + 156/6 = 15 + 26 = FireFox 41.
What I'm trying to say here: one doesn't even have to exaggerate...
Well, that a scientific explanation of what I have observed some time ago: sleeping in after reading/etc on PC is harder compared to sleeping in after reading a book or e-book off e-Ink device.
Was also one of the reasons why I have abandoned long in past the night time TV: it just felt unnatural - and tiring - how it kept me up for no apparent reason.
Probably it is the same reason why I strongly prefer color schemes with dark background for the OS/applications on the PC.
I have Kindle Keyboard (with the e-Ink screen).
Pros:
- Good screen. Easy on eyes.
- Very light. Weight can be adjusted by picking a different case.
- Battery life is 2-3 weeks. (I read a lot; dictionaries also tax battery more.)
- Keyboard is quite useful browsing dictionaries when reading foreign language books.
- One purpose device. I'm not strayed away/annoyed by the pop-ups/blinkies/etc.
Cons:
- One purpose device. You can't do much anything else with it.
At the time I have paid (with case and whatnot) about $170 for it - and 1.5 years later I think this is the best purchase I ever made.
I also had several hours of iPad and while the device is certainly attractive, it weighs too much, it is relatively large, battery life is miserable and (just like with the e-Ink) you need a well lit environment to read or the back-light would strain one's eyes too fast.
In the end, if one really likes to read, I think this is at the moment no brainer: e-Ink readers are cheap, they are not an investment like the current generation of the tablets.
P.S. Oh, yeah, if you happen to buy a Kindle, do NOT throw away the box. You might need the serial number printed on it later.
Yes. When uTorrent auto-update broke my installation, the most informative posts I could find on the forums were "yeah, there were discussions about the auto-update problem, but they were all deleted by the admins."
I had impression, it is only allowed to discuss PEBKAC or ID10T type of problems. But something what might make uTorrent look bad is highly likely forbidden.
Also, in all my digging I pretty much never seen any response from developers or people in the know. Only the same clueless users like me, with lots of conjectures of why they might experience the problem, without any light in the end of the tunnel.
[...] actively updated and no bullshit
No B.S - 100% yes.
Actively updated - only on *NIX, because there is a lack of Windows developers. Recently there were even discussions about dropping Windows version because there were nobody who can make a Windows build. They found who can build, but Windows specific issues often remain unresolved due to lack of developers.
Shameless plug from an unaffiliated /. user: Windows developers with Qt experience, please help improve the qBittorent!
Problem with the Chrome: it doesn't have much of UI to speak of.
It seems that they've hit the sweet spot where vast majority of users are actually very happy with precisely the amount of UI it has. Especially those coming from IE, or Firefox with no plugins.
Yes. I call it a "Facebook generation." People start a browser, click on the icon for the one or two sites they visit and, afterwards, close the browser.
They do not use browser per se. They use the "Facebook" instead. Browser is just this tiny frame around.
[ Replace the "Facebook" with a Web app of your choice. ]
Heavy UI plugin users, and the small but vocal Opera crowd, are missing certain useful features, but they aren't important enough for Google to cater to.
It's more like that type of users is used to take care of it themselves. That's why most of the time it is OK to disregard them (me included).
Outside Opera and the clumsy (but highly polished) IE shells, there are no browsers made specifically for power users. And even the exceptions aren't so much for power users as for "heavy users" (but that often suffice to power users too).
1st party browsers they sort'a stuck at level of Windows' Notepad or Wordpad - there is no VIM or Emacs of browsers: scriptable, configurable, made to do things with the web *you* need to do, not just scroll and click. (That apparently not applicable to "Facebook"s so deemed to be "unimportant." That probably just me, of course, to whom browser over time became continuation of the UNIX terminal.)
because they only have to make it work for one Linux distro.
And I'm pretty sure they will and the distro would be called "Ubuntu."
I'm pretty sure that Canonical would do anything (and already does) to ensure that Steam on Linux would be first class citizen on Ubuntu.
Also, Steam would likely keep a private copy of every system library used - like the matryoshka doll, it would be a distro of its own anyway. (Because you want to make sure that system update for security reasons or whatever will not suddenly render every game unusable.) With that in mind, I doubt there would be much problem of Steam portability across the distros.
It is easier for non-Linux people to build gaming machines. YES, DO IT!
Why? Games need not much of H/W - quantitatively. And the support for the H/W is pretty much universally is out of hands of the distros (and Valve): GPUs, audio, input devices.
Why would anyone want their browser's UI to be continuously varying?
Ironically, the whole FireFox debacle started with the continuous UI changes. (Already in 3.x btw.)
I do not want UI constantly changing. Nobody wants. That's the point.
Problem with the Chrome: it doesn't have much of UI to speak of.
Problem with the FireFox: one never knows what they will drop or change in the UI tomorrow.
So much zeal.
The largest user visible change in Chrome I can remember is the change of the shape of the "New Tab" button.
Did you even know Chrome updated?
No I didn't. That's kind of the point.
It's so feature-poor that frankly I do not think anybody can notice anything.
I think the Google's R&D could even take a sabbatical and let a cron job running in the background, bumping major/minor version numbers randomly and pushing them to users. And I'm pretty sure no soul would suspect anything for a very very long time.
Or: after departure of John Romero.
The guys together were a great combo. Separately, they are just mediocre.
It was demonstrated? Where, when?
Cite?
If I had the link, I would have posted it already.
Few friends bloggers some time ago have tested it: how easy it is to get blocked from G+. One guy simply "reported" (whatever that meant in the context) another for a made up violation. Within pretty short time second guy's account got completely disabled, barring him from all Google services, not only the G+.
I can't say that I know for certain, but I seriously doubt that accounts are disabled automatically in response to complaints.
Well, that's a pretty good description of the problem - lack of certainty.
What kind of violation are you talking about? Posting kiddie porn? Yeah, you'll get shut down completely. Same with any other serious criminal act. What other sorts of violations are there? Google's ToS don't include a lot of restrictions.
It was demonstrated that it is sufficient for one user to report something as offensive on G+ and the author's account gets disabled. The post or comment doesn't have to contain anything offensive - it just has to be reported by somebody as such - those are bots handling the clicks in the background, disabling accounts pronto.
So where is the protection against that? Where are the guarantees that I will not lose access to every Google service just because some [censored] for fun clicked a button on me, claiming I have posted something criminal??
"When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name standards, access to Gmail or other products that don’t require a Google+ profile are not removed. "
But that explicitly covers *only* the "common name standard" violation!? Or?
What about *other* violations? Because it was already tested in real world that Google disables accounts based on a *single* report of any random violation.
Not just like Google, then, because if Google blocks your Google+ account, only your Google+ account gets blocked, regardless of a bunch of widely-repeated erroneous reporting early on.
A link to confirm that? Preferably to the Google's own FAQ/etc.
Last I read, there was only one Google account which was also the G+ account. If it is blocked, than one loses access to all Google services which require an account (most notably Google Mail).
Mathematics is a tool, [...]
Math isn't factual or learnable per se - studying math to your brain is what jogging is to your body.
Very very small share of people does the theoretical math. Most people do applied math and most of the time using specialized software.
I have used math last time god knows how many years ago and personally no huge fan of it. Yet, I'm still very grateful and that I had the math. For it taught me the analytical thinking, it taught me how to find the way to dismantle large problems into smaller ones, it taught how to deal with ambiguities and so on.
Math stands apart from the rest of the subjects because it is sole pure abstract one. It is the only subject which was created 100% by humans. Yet, since it relates in no way to the outside world, it is also the most unnatural for our brain to learn.
Instead of all the flames, probably a healthy discussion on how to better teach the math would be more productive?
The ONLY point of version numbering is to IDENTIFY THE BUILD
If you happen to be a software developer, then I pity your customers. Amen.
Or you are one of those types who deliver "guaranteed bug free" (c)(tm) software?