I mean, I do, but only because I thought to myself, "hey, it should be possible to have no blind spots" and then tried to achieve it, and then stuck with it when my intuition was shouting, "WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!"
It's very disorienting at first, because when the side mirrors are adjusted like they normally are, they're useful as a way to look behind your car on the sides, and you'll start using them that way whether you mean to (or realize you do) or not. Whereas in the no blind spot position, if you try to use them that way, you get a crazy sideways-moving view that's really not useful for anything except seeing cars in your blind spot. Your old habits of orienting off them take a while to go away, and until they do, it's... uncomfortable.
It's a very predictable system. It pulses the brakes when it loses traction. Don't lose traction and you'll never have to deal with it. If you do lose traction, it'll help you get it back faster, and retain more of it than you would have otherwise.
If you're a superhero driver who can drift reliably, knows when he's about to lose traction, and has a cool enough head to back off the brakes to just the right amount for maximum stopping power and maneuverability, well, you can also probably figure out a way to disable the ABS system, and make enough in stunt driving jobs to pay for the lawsuit when you cream someone.
That's because there is no difference! I think you meant:
char* const foo;
for the second one. const modifies the item to the left, unless it occurs at the beginning of the line, in which case it modifies the item to the right.
They make a great, solid, and reliable product, but their release schedule seems specifically manipulated to require (or at least strongly pressure) a new purchase every year. 3g? 4g? Bigger disk, faster processor, non-splodey battery, smaller form factor, gorilla glass, Siri? Geez... how about an update to my existing product, or at least preventing me from seeing new ads for a full 2 (two) months after purchasing your gear?
Require? If that's what they're trying for, they aren't doing a good job. I love my iPhone. A lot. A whole lot. We're talking near-romantic levels of love that I have for this device. It's the first iPhone I ever purchased, and it's the only one I've ever purchased, a 3GS. I waited until I stopped hearing ridiculous things about them like the whole headphone jack fiasco, and then I bought one, two months after release. I'll follow the same pattern with probably the next iPhone--the 4S didn't have anything compelling (a new display is nice, but I already love my phone), but my battery is barely making it 24 hours now, and the volume of individually-meh upgrades has brought me to the point where I'd like all the new features. If I hear bad things about the phone at the time though, like I did with the 4, I'll just get a battery replacement and keep waiting.
What's wrong with seeing ads for new versions? Did them coming out with improvements suddenly invalidate your old purchase? It was worth it at the time, you made the decision with the best information you had available, why care? If avarice is a problem for you, address that, don't ask to hold back progress just because you can't stand to see someone with a feature you don't have. That's insanity.
Uh, what? I've worked at a number of jobs, and in 16 years have never once been paid late. That's like, big red letters "GET THE FUCK OUT" warning sign right there. Your employees will immediately start looking for other work.
Pay your building lease late. Pay your electric bill late. You won't get kicked out, and the lights won't get shut off, for not having the money for two weeks. Chances are, your employees will never know, and if they do, they'll accept pretty much any BS excuse you can throw out there, including, "heh, I forgot to pay the electric bill."
But they'll never, ever, ever, ever forget, or forgive, when somebody doesn't pay them. If you're any different, you should be aware that you've got a pretty bad case of battered-housewife syndrome.
No need for that, in an artificial atmosphere, chances are you can just take oxygen out of the mix. Breathing pure nitrogen will... well, read all about it.
The plus side being that, since you have a way to vent carbon dioxide, you won't feel like you're suffocating, which you would if you breathe out and then can't breathe in.
Work smarter, not harder. You could spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, writing cover letters and poring over the same job ads, in a search you already know is fruitless, that only gets less likely to succeed as your tech skills and training continue to stagnate.
Or, you could spend 2 hours a day doing that, and 6 hours a day working on your portfolio, some small demo programs that completely separate you from the 90% of applicants who have absolutely nothing to show that they can write a program at all. And then once you have a demo program or three, devote that 6 hours a day to learning something new, which will increase your chances of getting an interview in the first place.
Your argument that committing to an open-source project will somehow reduce your chances of finding a job is ridiculous. Have you ever worked on an open-source project? If it's burdensome, you can just stop! Hell, if you tell your fellow contributors that you're stopping because you've got a job interview, chances are they'll wish you good luck and be surprised somebody actually said something instead of just disappearing. And really, nobody is going to give even the slightest shit unless you disappear for a week or more. I don't know what kind of interviews you go to, but the extent of my preparation is to make sure I have my outfit picked out and get to bed early the night before. Doesn't exactly eat into free time. And if they do give more than the slightest shit, it's because you're an extremely valuable member of the team, in which case trust me, you will have no problem finding employment, and you're still not obligated to continue working on it even if it's just because you'd rather play videogames, let alone because it's impacting your ability to feed yourself.
I really don't understand this attitude of "what I'm doing isn't working, so everything should change to make what I'm doing work" instead of just changing what you're doing. And these crazy justifications you make up, do you actually think nobody is going to recognize just how far you're stretching?
I don't text at a red light unless I can see when it's about to turn green, and I look up to see the yellow at least once every 3 seconds (shorter than any yellow, and yes, I count) and more frequently the longer I sit. As I said above, I don't like being the guy holding up traffic. I can honestly say I've sat for a grand total of about 1 extra second at a green light in my entire life due to texting. I've spent much more time at a green light due to looking for my sunglasses. Maybe we should outlaw putting on sunglasses at red lights, or looking at paper maps, or talking to a passenger, or any of the other numerous things that have either caused me to sit at a green or that I've witnessed in the car ahead of me.
Texting at a red light antisocial and sociopathinc? Please. Take a look at what you're writing. You're so worked up that you're making a semi-coherent post about right-hand turns and leap from an extra second of reaction time to sitting through entire green lights. I understand hyperbole for the sake of making a point, but I'm familiar with your posting style, and I can tell you're genuinely upset. While there's good reason reason to get angry at people that are endangering your life, and a justification for calling them antisocial and sociopathic, somebody making you wait an extra instant is not a good reason to freak out. The best advice I can give you is to objectively evaluate the situation. I think you'll find that, like almost any other road-rage trigger:
1.) Your perception of how much time you're losing is so greatly inflated against the reality that it borders on being entirely fabricated.
2.) There nothing you can do about it that's worth the cost anyway.
Given those two facts, isn't it better to just let go? Wouldn't your life be more enjoyable if you didn't did have to get so stressed about driving? The thing is, you don't have to. You can just add an extra 3 minutes to your travel estimates, and relax.
As for "brat" and "kids", I'm 32 years old. Rude? You mean like calling strangers a brat, asshole, and sociopath, and making all sorts of assumptions about how much of a traffic obstacle somebody is? You mean like assuming that the mere act of surviving to an advanced age is somehow worthy of respect, and then failing to show any for those younger than you, as if respect wasn't a two-way street? Inventing a hypothetical situation and using it to scourge said brat because you saw red when some entirely separate stranger made you wait a little while? Get off your high horse, man, you ain't perfect. I bet if you were really honest with yourself, you'd wish you could say texting at stoplights was your biggest sin.
Being stopped at a red light is no excuse for texting either, because a) you're not going to be done when the lights turn green and b) it increases your chance of misjudging the situation (oh, green, go, crash, oops, wrong light).
I agree wholeheartedly about texting while moving slowly, but the above is an incredibly stupid argument. People make false starts constantly. I see it every day. You know what happens? They lurch a few feet forward, stop abruptly, and blush. Having touched a phone in the last 5 seconds doesn't negate your ability to realize you're going at the wrong time, and if you don't have that ability to begin with, nothing's going to change that. I challenge you to cite a single case where somebody caused an accident by running a red light from a full stop at the wrong time because they were texting when a different light went green.
A trick, by the way, for anyone who does text at reds but doesn't like being the asshole that makes everybody sit for a whole second--only do it when you can see the opposing yellow. That way, you know when it's time to pay attention and get ready to go, and that way you don't... I guess, plow through an intersection due to anxiety over making people sit for oh god an entire second.
Sending a txt while going 5mph in a traffic jam is not going to kill anyone. Likewise while stopped at a red light. Ditto for holding up a map on a phone, depending on speed and congestion.
This is my biggest issue with regulation--I text while driving. Well, when stopped at a red light. And not the (incredibly annoying) slow roll people do at lights--full 0mph only. I don't want to have any accident at all, and fender-benders are accidents too. I don't have the dents and scratches you see on so many cars for a reason.
But if I got into an accident two, or probably even ten minutes later, my fault or not, you can bet I'd be charged with texting while driving. Even though I won't so much as read a text while rolling, all the attempts by people who do text and drive to get out of trouble by muddying every fact as much as possible means that the precision of timekeeping is in so much question that there's no way to really defend myself. For that reason alone, I'm considering not even doing that. The only thing that keeps me doing it is sheer stubbornness--I'm not doing anything wrong!--but the numbers in the equation of risk vs. reward just aren't adding up. It's not worth risking jail time for reassuring someone for the 5th time, "yes, I'm on the way", no matter how insane it is as a possible consequence.
Well, it's all about risk vs. reward, isn't it? To stay rich, first off, you have to make more money than you spend, or at least an equal amount. So, we'll assume, that on average your ventures accomplish that--otherwise it doesn't matter how much you spread stuff out, you won't stay rich.
Now it just becomes a question of what percentage of your endeavors are successful. Let's say it's 5%, that's probably reasonable. Since you're rich, you can afford a higher risk, so dedicate 50% of your money to risking it on making more money. Now, once you're worth $20 million, if you're funding yourself off of $500k projects, you can absorb all of that risk yourself, and reap all the rewards--on average, it doesn't matter if you do 20 projects at a time by yourself or 200 projects at a time with others, given an average rate of picking successful projects.
Once we're at this point, it's a matter of whether you're better than the average person than picking a project. If you are, it's in your interest to self-fund. If you're worse, it's in your interest to group-fund.
But, here's the rub--very few people have such a diverse set of knowledge that they'll be able to pick so many winners. If you only stick to your specialized knowledge, you're probably going to end up trying to fund projects that compete with each other. That's not always bad, but it's not a great default behavior. So what you do is, you group your knowledge with others. You'll contribute picks in your areas of expertise and allow others to share the risk with you, and they'll do the same. In the end, you have more total knowledge, and in an optimal system that means increasing your overall winner pick rate.
I came in here to post that we can expect to see programming explosively progress relative to previous craft professions, because unlike other professions that disdain introspection, our field practically requires it, and teaches very early and very harshly that absolute intellectual honesty is the only way to move forward.
And then... this. +5, Insightful. A post that is the equivalent of the middle-management meme that made the rounds a few years ago, "It is what it is." Absolutely meaningless, utterly unhelpful, not only devoid of thought but actively blocking it, a trite tautology is apparently the pinnacle of what the Slashdot community (which, according to a recent poll, is something like 40% developers) has to offer.
Well, at least it won't be too hard to leave you guys in the dust.
Yeah, if you don't like or respect anyone who calls it Itanic, you're an idiot, at the very least for basing a lack of respect on something as trivial as calling something a silly name.
But more than that, the name is apt. As a product, it's been nothing but trouble, and for what benefit? Forcing development of special compilers to support an architecture that does things a fraction better in an industry where computing power doubles on a semi-yearly basis while energy consumption remains flat or decreases, that's what. And for extra fun, it gets companies involved in lawsuits like this one, which benefits nobody but the lawyers. I won't try to argue that Itanium is a shit architecture or anything, I'm sure it's great when you don't have to deal with 20+ years of industry inertia, but I will say it's not even close to worth the trouble. Both HP and Oracle are going to lose money on this.
I understand that you can't admit even a possibility that the other side may be right in a court case, but I hope the HP board member doesn't actually live by that quote, because if that's the case, HP is a company run by people who refuse to learn from experience. It may be necessary to resort to hindsight to see that Itanium is a stupid idea, but tossing out that experience just because you think it makes you look stupid to not have been prescient back when there wasn't a great way to make the decision is just a recipe for sticking most strongly to your poorest guesses. This expectation of infallibility is one of the most poisonous parts of the business environment.
Well, it's not like the author is given a main character and plot and then forced to somehow bring the two together. He invents the main character, and the plot. If he didn't want book burning to be the focus, maybe he shouldn't have made that the main character's job and then named the book after it.
Woah, slow your roll there, you're missing one vitally important difference: While the softer shadows might not be important to you (or even objectively important), they are an actual, measurable difference, that somebody can rationally decide is worth the money.
$200 digital cables do absolutely, positively nothing, and $200 analog cables either measurably don't do what's claimed, or the claims are unmeasurable nonsense--"It's a brighter soundstage, with a hint of orange peel tang."
I don't accept the challenge, and I really don't like it when people put words into my mouth.
You are trying to imply that I support their actions. I don't. And while you may be skilled at empathizing with cat corpses, you're apparently terrible at empathizing with living people. They pissed on their corpses for the express purpose of disrespecting the people. They were making the statement that it's a good thing that they're dead, and celebrating their "victory" (which involved killing them) in a reprehensible way. Intention not only matters in this case, it's the only thing that matters.
If it makes you happy though, the fact that they murdered people (and were happy about it) is far more upsetting to me than anything they could do to their corpses.
And how do you think having someone do that to your body after you're dead would affect other people?
My friends who knew me well would laugh their asses off that I got one last joke in, and probably take turns crashing me into things until I was too beat up to fly. 10,000 bonus points if they think to have my mouth gaping wide open so they can make me dive-bomb things and end up with an unnaturally wide broken-toothed grin after flying into a couple brick walls in downtown traffic. Extra bonus points for mounting my head on a bearing so it can spin slowly.
Random idiots would get all offended that somebody did something to my corpse that I would absolutely love. If they found out that I would have loved it, they'd posthumously hate me for not hating that turning my corpse into a helicopter and doing hilarious things with it made my friends laugh with me one last time.
It's not just illogical, it's downright weird and disturbing to be offended by this.
It's a corpse. It's not just a corpse, it's a house cat's corpse. And it's not just a house cat's corpse, it's the tanned hide of a house cat's corpse.
And you're empathizing with it. Who's the weird one again?
No, because believing in an all-powerful being, when all evidence points overwhelmingly to its non-existence is the stupid thing. Whether you believe that all-powerful being created humans as they are from scratch or set the Rube Goldberg machine of evolution into motion, you're still believing in an all-powerful being.
Of course, if you're like most people, you don't really believe, any more than you believed that you got shot or had an invisible shield when you played cops & robbers or whatever as a kid. You're just playing pretend, but very committed to the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody does this.
I mean, I do, but only because I thought to myself, "hey, it should be possible to have no blind spots" and then tried to achieve it, and then stuck with it when my intuition was shouting, "WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!"
It's very disorienting at first, because when the side mirrors are adjusted like they normally are, they're useful as a way to look behind your car on the sides, and you'll start using them that way whether you mean to (or realize you do) or not. Whereas in the no blind spot position, if you try to use them that way, you get a crazy sideways-moving view that's really not useful for anything except seeing cars in your blind spot. Your old habits of orienting off them take a while to go away, and until they do, it's ... uncomfortable.
It's a very predictable system. It pulses the brakes when it loses traction. Don't lose traction and you'll never have to deal with it. If you do lose traction, it'll help you get it back faster, and retain more of it than you would have otherwise.
If you're a superhero driver who can drift reliably, knows when he's about to lose traction, and has a cool enough head to back off the brakes to just the right amount for maximum stopping power and maneuverability, well, you can also probably figure out a way to disable the ABS system, and make enough in stunt driving jobs to pay for the lawsuit when you cream someone.
That's because there is no difference! I think you meant:
char* const foo;
for the second one. const modifies the item to the left, unless it occurs at the beginning of the line, in which case it modifies the item to the right.
They make a great, solid, and reliable product, but their release schedule seems specifically manipulated to require (or at least strongly pressure) a new purchase every year. 3g? 4g? Bigger disk, faster processor, non-splodey battery, smaller form factor, gorilla glass, Siri? Geez... how about an update to my existing product, or at least preventing me from seeing new ads for a full 2 (two) months after purchasing your gear?
Require? If that's what they're trying for, they aren't doing a good job. I love my iPhone. A lot. A whole lot. We're talking near-romantic levels of love that I have for this device. It's the first iPhone I ever purchased, and it's the only one I've ever purchased, a 3GS. I waited until I stopped hearing ridiculous things about them like the whole headphone jack fiasco, and then I bought one, two months after release. I'll follow the same pattern with probably the next iPhone--the 4S didn't have anything compelling (a new display is nice, but I already love my phone), but my battery is barely making it 24 hours now, and the volume of individually-meh upgrades has brought me to the point where I'd like all the new features. If I hear bad things about the phone at the time though, like I did with the 4, I'll just get a battery replacement and keep waiting.
What's wrong with seeing ads for new versions? Did them coming out with improvements suddenly invalidate your old purchase? It was worth it at the time, you made the decision with the best information you had available, why care? If avarice is a problem for you, address that, don't ask to hold back progress just because you can't stand to see someone with a feature you don't have. That's insanity.
Uh, what? I've worked at a number of jobs, and in 16 years have never once been paid late. That's like, big red letters "GET THE FUCK OUT" warning sign right there. Your employees will immediately start looking for other work.
Pay your building lease late. Pay your electric bill late. You won't get kicked out, and the lights won't get shut off, for not having the money for two weeks. Chances are, your employees will never know, and if they do, they'll accept pretty much any BS excuse you can throw out there, including, "heh, I forgot to pay the electric bill."
But they'll never, ever, ever, ever forget, or forgive, when somebody doesn't pay them. If you're any different, you should be aware that you've got a pretty bad case of battered-housewife syndrome.
No need for that, in an artificial atmosphere, chances are you can just take oxygen out of the mix. Breathing pure nitrogen will ... well, read all about it.
The plus side being that, since you have a way to vent carbon dioxide, you won't feel like you're suffocating, which you would if you breathe out and then can't breathe in.
Uh, because there would be no point? What does the CEO's location have to do with stock performance?
Say, you're right! Let's stop paying them 500x what we pay rank-and-file employees while we're at it.
Is there a placebo effect in dogs?
Absolutely! Google around for placebo-by-proxy.
The placebo effect from homeopathy is pretty neat, but on the downside you have to be a fucking idiot for it to work.
Job hunting IS a full-time job.
Work smarter, not harder. You could spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, writing cover letters and poring over the same job ads, in a search you already know is fruitless, that only gets less likely to succeed as your tech skills and training continue to stagnate.
Or, you could spend 2 hours a day doing that, and 6 hours a day working on your portfolio, some small demo programs that completely separate you from the 90% of applicants who have absolutely nothing to show that they can write a program at all. And then once you have a demo program or three, devote that 6 hours a day to learning something new, which will increase your chances of getting an interview in the first place.
Your argument that committing to an open-source project will somehow reduce your chances of finding a job is ridiculous. Have you ever worked on an open-source project? If it's burdensome, you can just stop! Hell, if you tell your fellow contributors that you're stopping because you've got a job interview, chances are they'll wish you good luck and be surprised somebody actually said something instead of just disappearing. And really, nobody is going to give even the slightest shit unless you disappear for a week or more. I don't know what kind of interviews you go to, but the extent of my preparation is to make sure I have my outfit picked out and get to bed early the night before. Doesn't exactly eat into free time. And if they do give more than the slightest shit, it's because you're an extremely valuable member of the team, in which case trust me, you will have no problem finding employment, and you're still not obligated to continue working on it even if it's just because you'd rather play videogames, let alone because it's impacting your ability to feed yourself.
I really don't understand this attitude of "what I'm doing isn't working, so everything should change to make what I'm doing work" instead of just changing what you're doing. And these crazy justifications you make up, do you actually think nobody is going to recognize just how far you're stretching?
In the future, Natalie Portman will pour hot grits down your pants.
Your road rage is clouding your judgement.
I don't text at a red light unless I can see when it's about to turn green, and I look up to see the yellow at least once every 3 seconds (shorter than any yellow, and yes, I count) and more frequently the longer I sit. As I said above, I don't like being the guy holding up traffic. I can honestly say I've sat for a grand total of about 1 extra second at a green light in my entire life due to texting. I've spent much more time at a green light due to looking for my sunglasses. Maybe we should outlaw putting on sunglasses at red lights, or looking at paper maps, or talking to a passenger, or any of the other numerous things that have either caused me to sit at a green or that I've witnessed in the car ahead of me.
Texting at a red light antisocial and sociopathinc? Please. Take a look at what you're writing. You're so worked up that you're making a semi-coherent post about right-hand turns and leap from an extra second of reaction time to sitting through entire green lights. I understand hyperbole for the sake of making a point, but I'm familiar with your posting style, and I can tell you're genuinely upset. While there's good reason reason to get angry at people that are endangering your life, and a justification for calling them antisocial and sociopathic, somebody making you wait an extra instant is not a good reason to freak out. The best advice I can give you is to objectively evaluate the situation. I think you'll find that, like almost any other road-rage trigger:
1.) Your perception of how much time you're losing is so greatly inflated against the reality that it borders on being entirely fabricated.
2.) There nothing you can do about it that's worth the cost anyway.
Given those two facts, isn't it better to just let go? Wouldn't your life be more enjoyable if you didn't did have to get so stressed about driving? The thing is, you don't have to. You can just add an extra 3 minutes to your travel estimates, and relax.
As for "brat" and "kids", I'm 32 years old. Rude? You mean like calling strangers a brat, asshole, and sociopath, and making all sorts of assumptions about how much of a traffic obstacle somebody is? You mean like assuming that the mere act of surviving to an advanced age is somehow worthy of respect, and then failing to show any for those younger than you, as if respect wasn't a two-way street? Inventing a hypothetical situation and using it to scourge said brat because you saw red when some entirely separate stranger made you wait a little while? Get off your high horse, man, you ain't perfect. I bet if you were really honest with yourself, you'd wish you could say texting at stoplights was your biggest sin.
Being stopped at a red light is no excuse for texting either, because a) you're not going to be done when the lights turn green and b) it increases your chance of misjudging the situation (oh, green, go, crash, oops, wrong light).
I agree wholeheartedly about texting while moving slowly, but the above is an incredibly stupid argument. People make false starts constantly. I see it every day. You know what happens? They lurch a few feet forward, stop abruptly, and blush. Having touched a phone in the last 5 seconds doesn't negate your ability to realize you're going at the wrong time, and if you don't have that ability to begin with, nothing's going to change that. I challenge you to cite a single case where somebody caused an accident by running a red light from a full stop at the wrong time because they were texting when a different light went green.
A trick, by the way, for anyone who does text at reds but doesn't like being the asshole that makes everybody sit for a whole second--only do it when you can see the opposing yellow. That way, you know when it's time to pay attention and get ready to go, and that way you don't ... I guess, plow through an intersection due to anxiety over making people sit for oh god an entire second.
Sending a txt while going 5mph in a traffic jam is not going to kill anyone. Likewise while stopped at a red light. Ditto for holding up a map on a phone, depending on speed and congestion.
This is my biggest issue with regulation--I text while driving. Well, when stopped at a red light. And not the (incredibly annoying) slow roll people do at lights--full 0mph only. I don't want to have any accident at all, and fender-benders are accidents too. I don't have the dents and scratches you see on so many cars for a reason.
But if I got into an accident two, or probably even ten minutes later, my fault or not, you can bet I'd be charged with texting while driving. Even though I won't so much as read a text while rolling, all the attempts by people who do text and drive to get out of trouble by muddying every fact as much as possible means that the precision of timekeeping is in so much question that there's no way to really defend myself. For that reason alone, I'm considering not even doing that. The only thing that keeps me doing it is sheer stubbornness--I'm not doing anything wrong!--but the numbers in the equation of risk vs. reward just aren't adding up. It's not worth risking jail time for reassuring someone for the 5th time, "yes, I'm on the way", no matter how insane it is as a possible consequence.
Well, it's all about risk vs. reward, isn't it? To stay rich, first off, you have to make more money than you spend, or at least an equal amount. So, we'll assume, that on average your ventures accomplish that--otherwise it doesn't matter how much you spread stuff out, you won't stay rich.
Now it just becomes a question of what percentage of your endeavors are successful. Let's say it's 5%, that's probably reasonable. Since you're rich, you can afford a higher risk, so dedicate 50% of your money to risking it on making more money. Now, once you're worth $20 million, if you're funding yourself off of $500k projects, you can absorb all of that risk yourself, and reap all the rewards--on average, it doesn't matter if you do 20 projects at a time by yourself or 200 projects at a time with others, given an average rate of picking successful projects.
Once we're at this point, it's a matter of whether you're better than the average person than picking a project. If you are, it's in your interest to self-fund. If you're worse, it's in your interest to group-fund.
But, here's the rub--very few people have such a diverse set of knowledge that they'll be able to pick so many winners. If you only stick to your specialized knowledge, you're probably going to end up trying to fund projects that compete with each other. That's not always bad, but it's not a great default behavior. So what you do is, you group your knowledge with others. You'll contribute picks in your areas of expertise and allow others to share the risk with you, and they'll do the same. In the end, you have more total knowledge, and in an optimal system that means increasing your overall winner pick rate.
YHBT
HTH
HAND
Oh man.
I came in here to post that we can expect to see programming explosively progress relative to previous craft professions, because unlike other professions that disdain introspection, our field practically requires it, and teaches very early and very harshly that absolute intellectual honesty is the only way to move forward.
And then ... this. +5, Insightful. A post that is the equivalent of the middle-management meme that made the rounds a few years ago, "It is what it is." Absolutely meaningless, utterly unhelpful, not only devoid of thought but actively blocking it, a trite tautology is apparently the pinnacle of what the Slashdot community (which, according to a recent poll, is something like 40% developers) has to offer.
Well, at least it won't be too hard to leave you guys in the dust.
Yeah, if you don't like or respect anyone who calls it Itanic, you're an idiot, at the very least for basing a lack of respect on something as trivial as calling something a silly name.
But more than that, the name is apt. As a product, it's been nothing but trouble, and for what benefit? Forcing development of special compilers to support an architecture that does things a fraction better in an industry where computing power doubles on a semi-yearly basis while energy consumption remains flat or decreases, that's what. And for extra fun, it gets companies involved in lawsuits like this one, which benefits nobody but the lawyers. I won't try to argue that Itanium is a shit architecture or anything, I'm sure it's great when you don't have to deal with 20+ years of industry inertia, but I will say it's not even close to worth the trouble. Both HP and Oracle are going to lose money on this.
I understand that you can't admit even a possibility that the other side may be right in a court case, but I hope the HP board member doesn't actually live by that quote, because if that's the case, HP is a company run by people who refuse to learn from experience. It may be necessary to resort to hindsight to see that Itanium is a stupid idea, but tossing out that experience just because you think it makes you look stupid to not have been prescient back when there wasn't a great way to make the decision is just a recipe for sticking most strongly to your poorest guesses. This expectation of infallibility is one of the most poisonous parts of the business environment.
Well, it's not like the author is given a main character and plot and then forced to somehow bring the two together. He invents the main character, and the plot. If he didn't want book burning to be the focus, maybe he shouldn't have made that the main character's job and then named the book after it.
Woah, slow your roll there, you're missing one vitally important difference: While the softer shadows might not be important to you (or even objectively important), they are an actual, measurable difference, that somebody can rationally decide is worth the money.
$200 digital cables do absolutely, positively nothing, and $200 analog cables either measurably don't do what's claimed, or the claims are unmeasurable nonsense--"It's a brighter soundstage, with a hint of orange peel tang."
Unless you're talking about the most illiterate users, most are using it as a form of ironic emphasis.
Of course, due to Poe's Law, you never really know. Make your best guess, but at some point you just gotta let go, man.
I don't accept the challenge, and I really don't like it when people put words into my mouth.
You are trying to imply that I support their actions. I don't. And while you may be skilled at empathizing with cat corpses, you're apparently terrible at empathizing with living people. They pissed on their corpses for the express purpose of disrespecting the people. They were making the statement that it's a good thing that they're dead, and celebrating their "victory" (which involved killing them) in a reprehensible way. Intention not only matters in this case, it's the only thing that matters.
If it makes you happy though, the fact that they murdered people (and were happy about it) is far more upsetting to me than anything they could do to their corpses.
And how do you think having someone do that to your body after you're dead would affect other people?
My friends who knew me well would laugh their asses off that I got one last joke in, and probably take turns crashing me into things until I was too beat up to fly. 10,000 bonus points if they think to have my mouth gaping wide open so they can make me dive-bomb things and end up with an unnaturally wide broken-toothed grin after flying into a couple brick walls in downtown traffic. Extra bonus points for mounting my head on a bearing so it can spin slowly.
Random idiots would get all offended that somebody did something to my corpse that I would absolutely love. If they found out that I would have loved it, they'd posthumously hate me for not hating that turning my corpse into a helicopter and doing hilarious things with it made my friends laugh with me one last time.
I see absolutely no downside here.
It's not just illogical, it's downright weird and disturbing to be offended by this.
It's a corpse. It's not just a corpse, it's a house cat's corpse. And it's not just a house cat's corpse, it's the tanned hide of a house cat's corpse.
And you're empathizing with it. Who's the weird one again?
No, because believing in an all-powerful being, when all evidence points overwhelmingly to its non-existence is the stupid thing. Whether you believe that all-powerful being created humans as they are from scratch or set the Rube Goldberg machine of evolution into motion, you're still believing in an all-powerful being.
Of course, if you're like most people, you don't really believe, any more than you believed that you got shot or had an invisible shield when you played cops & robbers or whatever as a kid. You're just playing pretend, but very committed to the game.