I am, however, starting law school in a month and want to wait until I'm done with those three years of intensive eye strain before I do anything drastic, as it's likely the strain will change my vision enough to require additional surgery.
According to this book, the amount of strain needed to permanently damage your eyes is far greater than you'll actually manage to endure...
Basically, unless someone force you to strain your eyes (I think the example in the book was "asian sweat-shop"), the pain will keep you from damaging them (of course, it's possible to do some temporary damage - but nothing a good night's sleep can't fix).
When I start on a program, I usually make "place holder" functions where necessary to get the program up. Sure, this will be slow, but at least I can get the program up and running quickly (the place holders usually do what they're supposed to in the most convenient-to-code way I could think of, or emulate their final functionality - for example by returning true all the time).
What this achieves for me, is that I can look at the program as a whole, and _then_ identify where the problem areas are - most likely not where I thought they were... Even if the first version takes 5 minutes to run (as my first attempt at a depth-first tree search did), it works passably, and is often easier to optimize than trying to optimize each function as I write it.
Might not work for everyone, but I like coding this way:)
There could be a problem with MS _not_ bundling several patches together, too, and it's one we see already: When you install any Windows on a new computer today, even XP with bundled SP1, there'll be 20+ patches (which probably fix several vulnerabilities each) to download on Windows Update.
Consider the case if each vulnerability had its own patch - first-install WU: 145 patches available. "Nah, too many, I'll get them later"...next visit: 240 patches available. [repeat&increase].
It's hard enough already to get users to visit WU - too many updates, and takes too much time (with separate patches for vulns, extra overhead would be added to wrap each in its own installer, too)... (Automatic downloading of updates helps a bit, tho)
Average users don't _need_ separate patches - they would be much happier with a bundle of all patches they need, with only "not installing this is bad for your computer" as an explanation - or just having Windows install them silently in the background.
Re:There's spam, then there's the partner in crime
on
Happy Spamiversary!
·
· Score: 1
Overwhelming, spam is arriving through Windows hosts on broadband connections. Ask any mail admin this and they'll tell you the same.
I know; couldn't even read my mail before I set up a DUN RBL - nothing is more satisfying than seeing lots of *.comcast.net-"SMTP servers" being rejected:)
Slashdot Mirror
Mine unlocked in about 5-10 minutes, I think...but I can't try it until I get home from work :(
(Still fun to check it via VPN to my home computer)
I am, however, starting law school in a month and want to wait until I'm done with those three years of intensive eye strain before I do anything drastic, as it's likely the strain will change my vision enough to require additional surgery.
According to this book, the amount of strain needed to permanently damage your eyes is far greater than you'll actually manage to endure...
Basically, unless someone force you to strain your eyes (I think the example in the book was "asian sweat-shop"), the pain will keep you from damaging them (of course, it's possible to do some temporary damage - but nothing a good night's sleep can't fix).
When I start on a program, I usually make "place holder" functions where necessary to get the program up. Sure, this will be slow, but at least I can get the program up and running quickly (the place holders usually do what they're supposed to in the most convenient-to-code way I could think of, or emulate their final functionality - for example by returning true all the time).
:)
What this achieves for me, is that I can look at the program as a whole, and _then_ identify where the problem areas are - most likely not where I thought they were... Even if the first version takes 5 minutes to run (as my first attempt at a depth-first tree search did), it works passably, and is often easier to optimize than trying to optimize each function as I write it.
Might not work for everyone, but I like coding this way
There could be a problem with MS _not_ bundling several patches together, too, and it's one we see already: When you install any Windows on a new computer today, even XP with bundled SP1, there'll be 20+ patches (which probably fix several vulnerabilities each) to download on Windows Update.
...next visit: 240 patches available. [repeat&increase].
Consider the case if each vulnerability had its own patch - first-install WU: 145 patches available. "Nah, too many, I'll get them later"
It's hard enough already to get users to visit WU - too many updates, and takes too much time (with separate patches for vulns, extra overhead would be added to wrap each in its own installer, too)... (Automatic downloading of updates helps a bit, tho)
Average users don't _need_ separate patches - they would be much happier with a bundle of all patches they need, with only "not installing this is bad for your computer" as an explanation - or just having Windows install them silently in the background.