I'm sure I'm asking on the wrong forum for this... but, I'll try: why does anyone ever still program in C? C++ is C with some very useful language extensions and an improved standard library. It has no downsides.
Now, somebody will reply and tell me how C++ is less efficient or start some out-of-date 1985 tirade about how virtuals are slow or some such nonsense. But seriously -- I want to ask serious C coders who have actually used and know C++: why would you ever go back to C?
Is there nothing in between? SqlLite is not very powerful, nor very efficient. It stores everything as plain strings, is weakly typed, and isn't ACID. But PostgreSql/MySql run as services. What choices does an application developer have for an efficient ACID database that isn't a service running on the machine?
Perhaps the only problem with PostgreSql is that it has so many mirroring options, depending on your needs. For your purposes, Slony is probably what you want. Either that, or just use pg_dump or a file copy to copy the entire database in one big chunk.
Postgres 8.4 will have Postgres-R built-in, which is really just the existing "Mammoth" replication tool, but integrated in.
That's not multicasting. Multicasting is where the packet is only sent once, and multiple receivers get it. Caching won't do that because if 2 people request data from the cache, it must be sent twice.
Except that the only thing that says I can't use the software is the agreement... which I didn't agree to...
I have written a program that does this. It allows you to save EULAs (and I have quite a collecton now) and change them. It also enables the "Next" button even if "I disagree" is changed. It's trivial and works on 99% of applications.
Any time any of the manufacturers wants to knock on my door and tell me I can't use their program, they are welcome to try. But none of them no it, because the "I Agree" button does nothing, they don't know it happened, and the install worked fine. Which is further proof that software follows the doctrine of first sale.
The loophole in this bill is that it is allows states to slap printers onto the election machines and claim that they have paper trails. Unfortunately that doesn't really solve the core problem.
I discussed this over email with some people at TrueVoteMD and their opinion was that, at least for Maryland, that didn't matter since our voting machines don't even have ports for printers. It still kinda scared me though.
I don't think you understand what I mean by multiple top-level windows.
Good use of multiple windows: I open 3 documents, and I get 3 windows. Each window has a series of toolbars. I hit alt-tab once to switch to the next open document window.
Bad use of multiple windows: I open 3 documents, and I get 13 windows. 9 toolbar windows, 1 app window, and 3 document windows. I hit alt-tab 12 times to switch to the next document window.
I think this is why this subject is so hard to discuss. You just have to see what GIMP does to understand why it is so strange. It's just not at all what normal apps do. Single-window, or multiple-window.
This point comes-up a lot, perhaps because people throw-out the term MDI and don't know what it is. MDI is a feature where multiple documents (AKA top-level windows) can be open inside a single parent window. It was used primarily in Windows 3.1 when there was no task bar. I do not know of any application since Windows 3.1 that uses this. (Perhaps it is still buried inside MS Office or OpenOffice somewhere?)
What you described is not MDI. GIMP does not do MDI, and Windows users no longer expect it. GIMP does something like "reverse MDI":) It makes CHILD windows act like TOP-LEVEL windows while MDI made TOP-LEVEL windows act like CHILD windows. Both are weird. and distort the expected behavior of ALT-Tab.
Weird. This definitely shows a difference in mind set.:) What you just described is exactly the bug. But you seemed to think it is a feature.
So, let me explain why many people consider this a bug. Suppose you open GIMP and have 10 tool windows open. To alt-tab back to some other application you must now hit alt-tab 10 times. So GIMP has changed the expected behavior of alt-tab on a system-wide level. Most applicatiosn create a single top-level window and place their tool windows s children of that. So alt-tab switches "applications" or "open documents" not "all open tool windows/dialogs/child windows." Generally ctrl-tab, or ctrl-left/right (on Macs it is ctrl-brackets or alt-apostrophe, depending).
This is why I find most people who use GIMP also use virtual-desktops. I'm curious - do you?
The problem with GIMP is that the interface is so far gone, so weird, so bizarre, so non-standard - that it is really tough for anybody to sanely explain what's wrong with it. It's just so darn self evident.
Having not used it in 2 years, I'll try: 1) The multiple windows thing I think this is the most often cited issue so I will list it first. GIMP opens multiple top-level windows which means that normal shortcuts and window navigation doesn't work. (Alt-tab on Windows -- apple-tab on Macs, etc.) The only way to use GIMP is to have multiple virtual desktops, which not everyone likes. The barrage of windows clutters the interface, and windows move around a lot because when you select new tools they resize or change. You can see through to the desktop which is distracting. I know at least on the Windows version, the keys that hide windows so you can get to your image don't really work right. Maybe my experience is skewed though because of the Windows and Mac ports. But IIRC, this same stuff happened on Linux.
This problem has garnered enough hate that there are several open-source projects that are either modifications to Photoshop, or programs that re-parent the window so that it behaves more normally. Unfortauntely, all of them are hacks and don't work super-well.
2) Unusual use of menus - The menus are just... oddd. To a new user, the app is useless because once you open something, you get a window with no menus. After much frustration, the user monkey-clicks the mouse and realizes the menus are on the right-click instead of at the top of the window. That might not actually be a bad idea, but it is definitely counter-intuitive. Especially for "file" operations where people are used to seeing File-New/Open/Save/Save As/Close and those just aren't there.
This is not an issue for an advanced user, but it is strikingly odd to someone new, and it might force a lot of people to give-up right away.
3) Things that are NOT problems - I'm browsing the comments and I see comments about Photoshop having an odd user-interface. I see comments that one particular tool or another doesn't work the way someone expects. I think these people are missing the point. The problems with GIMP aren't that some particular tool is not as easy to use as a Photoshop tool, or vice-versa. The problem is that nobody can even find the tool in GIMP because the overarching user-interface is so strange. Once people can get to the tool in the first place, then think about how the tool behaves.
4) Other If you really want to know, this comes-up on Slashdot every 6 months or so. Probably some searching will come-up with obvious things I've completely forgotten over time.
For what it's worth, a static IP doesn't mean that the registered IP user is the one that uses it Granted.
any more than you are responsible for what tenants do if you rent a house to them, Yes, but the RIAA isn't holding the school responsible. They are merely requiring the school to divulge who they assigned that IP address to, at the time. A better analogy would be requiring the landlord to reveal the name of the tenants. Doing that is perfectly reasonable. After that, it is up to the prosecution to show that tenant was the one who was actually present at the time of the crime. Likewise with the IP addresses. Asking the school to divulge who was assigned the IP address is reasonable, assuming they have proper evidence to submit the subpoena in the first place. (Yeah, big IF!)
NOTE: I assumed "IP holder" meant "IP address holder" not "Intellectual Property holder"
IANAL. There are 2 problems with this entire line of thinking:
1) This is not a double-standard.
In the first scenario, MediaSentry is submitting a dynamic IP address that cannot be linked to an individual. In this scenario, they are presenting what is probably a static IP address tied to MediaSentry's offices. That is much stronger evidence. Also, it sounds like the second scenario is being used as pre-trial evidence that MediaSentry violated the restraining order -- not as evidence to be admitted in a trial.
2) IP addresses should always be admissible evidence.
The value of an IP addresses varies. Sometimes it is a dynamic IP. Other times it is static, but not assigned to an individual port or desk. Other times it is tied to a specific computer that only a few people have access to. IP addresses should always be admissible - but the judge and jury must understand the difference. Making a blanket rule like "IP addresses are never admissible in court" is too limiting.
It would be like saying that scratch marks are never admissible as evidence because you cannot specifically tie that to an individual. The scratch marks still indicate that a struggle happened, and where it happened, and who might have been in that location when they were made. etc.
Interest rates are not an incentive to save. They are a means to save. The incentive is "look at grandpa starving during his retirement and mooching off of mom and dad" instead of "ask grandpa to buy me a new car when he comes back from his vacation in Florida" like it was a generation ago.
people don't know how to save LONG-TERM. Savings accounts aren't a good way to DO IT. CD's are better, but not by much. Long-term savings involves stocks, bonds, and mutual funds - which most people think are for the rich. I bought my first mutual funds in college, when I made 20k per year.
So... with all the Slashdot musical taste elitism going on, I'm kinda worried.
What happens if I hear something generated by this program and I like it? Does it mean I have no musical taste? Does it mean I am just a machine, being entertained by a machine? Am I no longer creative? Does it mean I am a (Goth|Emo|Yoboy) and I can't post any longer?
What if it turns out that my brain, and thus my tastes, are actually just a neural network? What if someone has determined how to make that network respond with through automated music generation? Should I refuse to listen to music after that? Does it make me less human? What if I actually wrote a program years ago in BASIC that made music I liked? Do I need the outside world any longer?
If you could detect and modify the background noise, then you could simply eliminate it. But I don't think that is possible, since what makes something "background noise" is the fact that it can't really be removed without damaging the foreground signal. If it could, you would have a perfect signal-to-noise ratio. Such a technology could be used to improve the bandwidth, compression ratios, etc. - which is something far more useful than fearmongering.
Unfortunately, I don't real have anything to go on other than a Google translated abstract, a Slashdot headline, and armchair knowledge of electronics. Anyone care to correct me?
No, it has that for the same reason all the other contemporary multiuser platforms have the same concept - security. I'm not aware of any other system that does this. Everything I've used has administrators, and non-administrators. But not administrators who are only administrators after a secured process has displayed a particular dialog box. In Vista, if I have UAC on and open a command prompt and run WHOAMI it reports that I am "mobydisk." If I then run the command prompt "as administrator and do a whois -- I'm still "mobydisk". Compare that to Linux: suppose I do something in the control panel and it prompts me for the admin password. Before that I am "mobydisk" and after the prompt I am "root." Vista is the only thing I know of where before and after the user is still "mobydisk"
Maybe OS X does this? Does any other *nix do this?
bollocks me, I bollocks you back.:) There is only one place I've ever worked or attended where I was not local administrator. That was UMBC, and they were even doing that back in Windows 95 using some 3rd-party security tools. Every other place runs users as administrator. As for that miniscule list, try Quicken, Quickbooks, and every video game ever made. I've tried to get my family members to use non-admin users for years, and even my attempts in 2007 were thwarted by foolish apps. It is my understanding that Vista has specific workarounds for these apps. Kinda like a list of "Oh, if QB.EXE is running, let it write files with.qdb extensions to C:\Program Files" and stuff like that. Yes, you don't run Quicken or video games in a corporation, but from my home-use experience, it is really the majority of applications that don't work as limited users.
In short, I wouldn't hesistate for a second in claiming the majority of managed PCs do not allow unsupervised Administrator privileges to local users. In short, there are only 2 computers I've ever used that were setup this way: One is the computers at my university, and 2 is my own local desktop. I even get funny looks from people when they find my Windows XP is not running as admin.
For every problem, there is an optimal solution (okay... there are many optimal solutions, depending on what you are trying to optimize for). If you want to do better than that algorithm, you must break the model. That means that you must either modify the inputs or modify the assumptions of the model. For example, the fastest way to sort arbitrary data that can only be compared using takes O(n*log(n)) time. To do any better, you must break the model by making assumptions about the range and precision of the data. Then you can do it in O(n).
So for the data in netflix, there is an optimal algorithm. To do better, you must include additional data. This particular problem is interesting because it is nearly impossible to determine what the "optimal" algorithm is since it is based on psychological factors. However, the fact that they are seeking out smart people to figure this out indicates that we are probably pretty close to optimal, so maybe we need to start including more information and changing the model.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure I'm asking on the wrong forum for this... but, I'll try: why does anyone ever still program in C? C++ is C with some very useful language extensions and an improved standard library. It has no downsides.
Now, somebody will reply and tell me how C++ is less efficient or start some out-of-date 1985 tirade about how virtuals are slow or some such nonsense. But seriously -- I want to ask serious C coders who have actually used and know C++: why would you ever go back to C?
It was announced at the East coast conference about a month ago. I'm not on the developer mailing lists so I don't know anything more than that.
No need. The muggers would need to register the device 10 days before they can steal it. So just keep your business trips limited to 9 days.
Coming from an organization that promotes the eating of meat.
Is there nothing in between? SqlLite is not very powerful, nor very efficient. It stores everything as plain strings, is weakly typed, and isn't ACID. But PostgreSql/MySql run as services. What choices does an application developer have for an efficient ACID database that isn't a service running on the machine?
Perhaps the only problem with PostgreSql is that it has so many mirroring options, depending on your needs. For your purposes, Slony is probably what you want. Either that, or just use pg_dump or a file copy to copy the entire database in one big chunk.
Postgres 8.4 will have Postgres-R built-in, which is really just the existing "Mammoth" replication tool, but integrated in.
That's not multicasting. Multicasting is where the packet is only sent once, and multiple receivers get it. Caching won't do that because if 2 people request data from the cache, it must be sent twice.
The wikipedia article has a good summary: Multicast is the delivery of information to a group of destinations simultaneously
Agreed. I was exagerating with 13. I stand corrected. You must hit alt-tab 4-5 times to get to the next document in GIMP.
Except that the only thing that says I can't use the software is the agreement... which I didn't agree to...
I have written a program that does this. It allows you to save EULAs (and I have quite a collecton now) and change them. It also enables the "Next" button even if "I disagree" is changed. It's trivial and works on 99% of applications.
Any time any of the manufacturers wants to knock on my door and tell me I can't use their program, they are welcome to try. But none of them no it, because the "I Agree" button does nothing, they don't know it happened, and the install worked fine. Which is further proof that software follows the doctrine of first sale.
Basically, it is all hogwash.
The loophole in this bill is that it is allows states to slap printers onto the election machines and claim that they have paper trails. Unfortunately that doesn't really solve the core problem.
I discussed this over email with some people at TrueVoteMD and their opinion was that, at least for Maryland, that didn't matter since our voting machines don't even have ports for printers. It still kinda scared me though.
True, but they aren't allowed to enforce it without a signature.
I don't think you understand what I mean by multiple top-level windows.
Good use of multiple windows:
I open 3 documents, and I get 3 windows. Each window has a series of toolbars. I hit alt-tab once to switch to the next open document window.
Bad use of multiple windows:
I open 3 documents, and I get 13 windows. 9 toolbar windows, 1 app window, and 3 document windows. I hit alt-tab 12 times to switch to the next document window.
I think this is why this subject is so hard to discuss. You just have to see what GIMP does to understand why it is so strange. It's just not at all what normal apps do. Single-window, or multiple-window.
This point comes-up a lot, perhaps because people throw-out the term MDI and don't know what it is. MDI is a feature where multiple documents (AKA top-level windows) can be open inside a single parent window. It was used primarily in Windows 3.1 when there was no task bar. I do not know of any application since Windows 3.1 that uses this. (Perhaps it is still buried inside MS Office or OpenOffice somewhere?)
:) It makes CHILD windows act like TOP-LEVEL windows while MDI made TOP-LEVEL windows act like CHILD windows. Both are weird. and distort the expected behavior of ALT-Tab.
What you described is not MDI. GIMP does not do MDI, and Windows users no longer expect it. GIMP does something like "reverse MDI"
Weird. This definitely shows a difference in mind set. :) What you just described is exactly the bug. But you seemed to think it is a feature.
So, let me explain why many people consider this a bug. Suppose you open GIMP and have 10 tool windows open. To alt-tab back to some other application you must now hit alt-tab 10 times. So GIMP has changed the expected behavior of alt-tab on a system-wide level. Most applicatiosn create a single top-level window and place their tool windows s children of that. So alt-tab switches "applications" or "open documents" not "all open tool windows/dialogs/child windows." Generally ctrl-tab, or ctrl-left/right (on Macs it is ctrl-brackets or alt-apostrophe, depending).
This is why I find most people who use GIMP also use virtual-desktops. I'm curious - do you?
The problem with GIMP is that the interface is so far gone, so weird, so bizarre, so non-standard - that it is really tough for anybody to sanely explain what's wrong with it. It's just so darn self evident.
Having not used it in 2 years, I'll try:
1) The multiple windows thing
I think this is the most often cited issue so I will list it first. GIMP opens multiple top-level windows which means that normal shortcuts and window navigation doesn't work. (Alt-tab on Windows -- apple-tab on Macs, etc.) The only way to use GIMP is to have multiple virtual desktops, which not everyone likes. The barrage of windows clutters the interface, and windows move around a lot because when you select new tools they resize or change. You can see through to the desktop which is distracting. I know at least on the Windows version, the keys that hide windows so you can get to your image don't really work right. Maybe my experience is skewed though because of the Windows and Mac ports. But IIRC, this same stuff happened on Linux.
This problem has garnered enough hate that there are several open-source projects that are either modifications to Photoshop, or programs that re-parent the window so that it behaves more normally. Unfortauntely, all of them are hacks and don't work super-well.
2) Unusual use of menus
- The menus are just... oddd. To a new user, the app is useless because once you open something, you get a window with no menus. After much frustration, the user monkey-clicks the mouse and realizes the menus are on the right-click instead of at the top of the window. That might not actually be a bad idea, but it is definitely counter-intuitive. Especially for "file" operations where people are used to seeing File-New/Open/Save/Save As/Close and those just aren't there.
This is not an issue for an advanced user, but it is strikingly odd to someone new, and it might force a lot of people to give-up right away.
3) Things that are NOT problems
- I'm browsing the comments and I see comments about Photoshop having an odd user-interface. I see comments that one particular tool or another doesn't work the way someone expects. I think these people are missing the point. The problems with GIMP aren't that some particular tool is not as easy to use as a Photoshop tool, or vice-versa. The problem is that nobody can even find the tool in GIMP because the overarching user-interface is so strange. Once people can get to the tool in the first place, then think about how the tool behaves.
4) Other
If you really want to know, this comes-up on Slashdot every 6 months or so. Probably some searching will come-up with obvious things I've completely forgotten over time.
(Yeah, big IF!)
NOTE: I assumed "IP holder" meant "IP address holder" not "Intellectual Property holder"
There's actually legal precedent specifically to address this type of scam. It was more popular in the 80's during the days of mail-order catalogs.
IANAL.
There are 2 problems with this entire line of thinking:
1) This is not a double-standard.
In the first scenario, MediaSentry is submitting a dynamic IP address that cannot be linked to an individual. In this scenario, they are presenting what is probably a static IP address tied to MediaSentry's offices. That is much stronger evidence. Also, it sounds like the second scenario is being used as pre-trial evidence that MediaSentry violated the restraining order -- not as evidence to be admitted in a trial.
2) IP addresses should always be admissible evidence.
The value of an IP addresses varies. Sometimes it is a dynamic IP. Other times it is static, but not assigned to an individual port or desk. Other times it is tied to a specific computer that only a few people have access to. IP addresses should always be admissible - but the judge and jury must understand the difference. Making a blanket rule like "IP addresses are never admissible in court" is too limiting.
It would be like saying that scratch marks are never admissible as evidence because you cannot specifically tie that to an individual. The scratch marks still indicate that a struggle happened, and where it happened, and who might have been in that location when they were made. etc.
In tribute to Rube Goldberg, the web site is done in Flash instead of HTML, and all the text is really bitmaps.
Interest rates are not an incentive to save. They are a means to save. The incentive is "look at grandpa starving during his retirement and mooching off of mom and dad" instead of "ask grandpa to buy me a new car when he comes back from his vacation in Florida" like it was a generation ago.
people don't know how to save LONG-TERM. Savings accounts aren't a good way to DO IT. CD's are better, but not by much. Long-term savings involves stocks, bonds, and mutual funds - which most people think are for the rich. I bought my first mutual funds in college, when I made 20k per year.
What school? Any details?
If they are looking for tech-savvy volunteers maybe I'll see if I can volunteer.
So... with all the Slashdot musical taste elitism going on, I'm kinda worried.
What happens if I hear something generated by this program and I like it? Does it mean I have no musical taste? Does it mean I am just a machine, being entertained by a machine? Am I no longer creative? Does it mean I am a (Goth|Emo|Yoboy) and I can't post any longer?
What if it turns out that my brain, and thus my tastes, are actually just a neural network? What if someone has determined how to make that network respond with through automated music generation? Should I refuse to listen to music after that? Does it make me less human? What if I actually wrote a program years ago in BASIC that made music I liked? Do I need the outside world any longer?
If you could detect and modify the background noise, then you could simply eliminate it. But I don't think that is possible, since what makes something "background noise" is the fact that it can't really be removed without damaging the foreground signal. If it could, you would have a perfect signal-to-noise ratio. Such a technology could be used to improve the bandwidth, compression ratios, etc. - which is something far more useful than fearmongering.
Unfortunately, I don't real have anything to go on other than a Google translated abstract, a Slashdot headline, and armchair knowledge of electronics. Anyone care to correct me?
Maybe OS X does this? Does any other *nix do this?
bollocks me, I bollocks you back.
For every problem, there is an optimal solution (okay... there are many optimal solutions, depending on what you are trying to optimize for). If you want to do better than that algorithm, you must break the model. That means that you must either modify the inputs or modify the assumptions of the model. For example, the fastest way to sort arbitrary data that can only be compared using takes O(n*log(n)) time. To do any better, you must break the model by making assumptions about the range and precision of the data. Then you can do it in O(n).
So for the data in netflix, there is an optimal algorithm. To do better, you must include additional data. This particular problem is interesting because it is nearly impossible to determine what the "optimal" algorithm is since it is based on psychological factors. However, the fact that they are seeking out smart people to figure this out indicates that we are probably pretty close to optimal, so maybe we need to start including more information and changing the model.