You are not the processor brand in your computer.
You're like a painter stating that a brush using hairs of animal A is better compared to hairs of animal B.
I would say: show me what you've been painting...
Re:More than one way to read that headline
on
'Intel Inside' No More
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Did you check all ICs on the motherboard, and extension cards?
I always had a good laugh when back in the good old days Acorn Archimedes owners told how proud they were that their computer had no Intel inside. They probably overlooked most of the ICs on the motherboard.
The fun got even better when Intel, via, via, got the license to make their own ARM implementation:-D.
Have you ever looked at the HTML source of Google? Oh, wait, you probably don't use Google, because how can those morons ever create something close to a search engine...
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the uninstall problem. On the other hand, several programs I have installed let you chose the location of the entries.
I haven't customized KDE start menu entries, but I remember from quite some time ago that they had to be added manually, and I guess also removed manually. But that's some time ago.
But like I said, I maintain my own Quick lauch:-) More clean.
And indeed, I really don't like it when I install Firefox for example and [a] have to agree again with the license, and [b] have to turn off all the short cut stuff. They are already there, and no thanks, I don't want them on the desktop.
First, you can organize your start menu, but why bother:
A better start menu with Quick Launch
But the main point is, that *nix does suffer from a weird naming scheme. A good example would be KDE and all it's Ktools. I mean, if I am going to write a Uber Network Tool for KDE, how am I going to kall it?
You can compress the data, and create some error correction info on the compressed data so in case something breaks in your data, it can be restored.
Or burn another (set) of CDs, which might be much smaller (in number) compared to uncompressed data.
I never stated that I refused to use a debugger. I even told you that I used the perl debugger this year. But in my own code? I can't think of a situation that I needed a debugger. And certainly not everyday.
I have been working in an environment though, were other programmers did fire up a debugger everytime something went wrong. A second look at the code, or a simple printf (it was C), would probably have saved some time, and for those that had troubles with setting breakpoints, and did single step through every loop it would have been a major time saver.
Like I said, I manage perfectly without a debugger most of the time. But when I think it's the right tool to use, I wouldn't think twice, but just use it (like I said: I did use it once this year;-)).
Your comment, though, and your replies, made it sound that you consider everyone who doesn't use a debugger daily a bad programmer. That's as silly as stating that you never are going to use a debugger, no matter what. The quality of a programmer is measured by what he/she delivers, not on what tools he/she uses, especially if one insists that such a tool has to be used daily, just because, which reminds me of one guy working in that C environment, who just pressed the arrow keys rappidly when he was explaining something to me. When I asked why he was doing that, he explained that it made us look working hard... Maybe you and he could be excellent coworkers:-) (and I chip two of those managers in for free)
Instead of using a debugger, I prefer to use intensive regression testing. Tests I wrote down in the design phase, and often refine during actual implementation.
I hope you understand the difference: with regression testing I can check many, many design specification in an extremely short time. Moreover, I can give my regression tests to other developers. Can you do the same with your debugger gazing sessions?
I rarely have to "think" what a piece of Perl code does, because I either know, or I read the fine manual.
And I certainly don't have to fire up a debugger (daily for crying out loud) to check if my code does what I think (again for crying out loud) does.
I've been a serious Perl programmer for about eight years now
Certainly you're joking my dear Baron?
Even if you could hire me, I doubt I could work with you (ouch)
The only time I used the debugger was to figure out why an update of a CPAN module suddenly misbehaved. I don't understand that people need a debugger at a weekly, or even daily basis. And I really don't understand the need for a book about it.
I one was hired by a company that did a lot of C programming, and if there was something not working right, the rule was you had to fire up the debugger, and single step. I ignored that silly advice, and added a print statement, or reread my code.
If google is going to filter blogs from it's main index, I am sure that some clever mod_rewiting will do the trick. Moreover, if it (Google) uses an RSS feed and some pinging services to determine if a site is a blog, it means one can give a competitor a blog ping of death, i.e. kick him/her out of the main index, if his/her site has a feed. In short, this would mean the death of RSS.
I agree that copies of copies of copies of news should be kicked out of Google. Same of all the lyrics shites, (especially those that pop up "do you want to install this" windows), Usenet archives, Wikipedia clones, etc., etc.
A lot of so called SEO specialists are at the constant look out for free content, and will clone this on their sites, and use it, and make a mess of search engines.
I try to keep my blog (http://johnbokma.com/mexit/) as much as possible free from: I copied this from that blog, and look!
It takes me quite some time to write something, edit the pictures (I have a 6 yo digital camera...), etc. and I really don't want to get punished for my efforts by getting kicked out of the main index, and put in some obscure blog search that probably a lot of my readers are not aware of (unless I blog about it:-) ).
"The "Windows users" hadn't been invented yet, now those were the days."
If I compare the C64 crowd of that time, I see hardly any difference with the current Windows crowd
I think most C64 users moved to Atari (at least in the Netherlands) and then to the PC (DOS) -> PC (Windows), maybe some of them are calling Linux "the best thing that ever happened to computers" and already moving on:-)
Somehow I moved in different directions back in those days: ZX Spectrum -> Acorn Archimedes -> SGI Indigo R3K -> Windows:-) The last one, because that's what most of my customers use.
Thanks.
Maybe a nice fact: the pics are made with an extremely outdated Philips ESP 60, a zero point three megapixel camera. I am often amazed at what I am able to get out of it, OTOH I hope to replace it Very Soon Now (TM).
AOL to that, OTOH I will do everything to get my blog (http://johnbokma.com/mexit/) as far from this blog search engine as possible if it means that once you're in it, you're out of the main index. (I already renamed it to mexit ages ago when I noticed that Google indexed it slower, might have been a glitch though).
My super simple bot written in Perl which fooled a lot of people. (Dxx = me, mxx is a friend who knew about the bot but...)
Dxx: later Mary MaryJane: sure mxx: fubar mxx: heheheh MaryJane: not funny mxx: no, why not? mxx: wanna cyber? mxx: lol MaryJane: was that really funny? Guess not mxx: mary jane you're a bit of a bitch mxx: hehe mxx::kiss MaryJane (whispers to mxx): like you!!! mxx (private): yes exactly mxx (private): who are you? MaryJane (whispers to misty): no PM please
Anyway, it was a lot of fun, especially when I told people it was a bot, most didn't believe it (until I gave them a trigger).
And you can guess what happened next, each and every "omg lol lol!!!" chatter was kindly asked to STFU (bot!)
Funny how so many people think they can say something about Perl but don't know it's written Perl (for the language *) and not PERL (since it's not an acronym).
* and perl for the program
Slashdot Mirror
You are not the processor brand in your computer. You're like a painter stating that a brush using hairs of animal A is better compared to hairs of animal B. I would say: show me what you've been painting...
Did you check all ICs on the motherboard, and extension cards? I always had a good laugh when back in the good old days Acorn Archimedes owners told how proud they were that their computer had no Intel inside. They probably overlooked most of the ICs on the motherboard. The fun got even better when Intel, via, via, got the license to make their own ARM implementation :-D.
Make subfolders to create a hierarchy, see: http://johnbokma.com/windows/quick-launch.html And only put applications you use at least once a week in the high levels :-) Works for me ;-)
Have you ever looked at the HTML source of Google? Oh, wait, you probably don't use Google, because how can those morons ever create something close to a search engine...
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the uninstall problem. On the other hand, several programs I have installed let you chose the location of the entries. I haven't customized KDE start menu entries, but I remember from quite some time ago that they had to be added manually, and I guess also removed manually. But that's some time ago. But like I said, I maintain my own Quick lauch :-) More clean.
And indeed, I really don't like it when I install Firefox for example and [a] have to agree again with the license, and [b] have to turn off all the short cut stuff. They are already there, and no thanks, I don't want them on the desktop.
First, you can organize your start menu, but why bother: A better start menu with Quick Launch But the main point is, that *nix does suffer from a weird naming scheme. A good example would be KDE and all it's Ktools. I mean, if I am going to write a Uber Network Tool for KDE, how am I going to kall it?
What happened after that? Who raises you doesn't matter as much as how you're raised.
You can compress the data, and create some error correction info on the compressed data so in case something breaks in your data, it can be restored. Or burn another (set) of CDs, which might be much smaller (in number) compared to uncompressed data.
Mexico: seems to be mainly MSN (my impression), Netherlands: might be the same.
I never stated that I refused to use a debugger. I even told you that I used the perl debugger this year. But in my own code? I can't think of a situation that I needed a debugger. And certainly not everyday.
I have been working in an environment though, were other programmers did fire up a debugger everytime something went wrong. A second look at the code, or a simple printf (it was C), would probably have saved some time, and for those that had troubles with setting breakpoints, and did single step through every loop it would have been a major time saver.
Like I said, I manage perfectly without a debugger most of the time. But when I think it's the right tool to use, I wouldn't think twice, but just use it (like I said: I did use it once this year ;-)).
Your comment, though, and your replies, made it sound that you consider everyone who doesn't use a debugger daily a bad programmer. That's as silly as stating that you never are going to use a debugger, no matter what. The quality of a programmer is measured by what he/she delivers, not on what tools he/she uses, especially if one insists that such a tool has to be used daily, just because, which reminds me of one guy working in that C environment, who just pressed the arrow keys rappidly when he was explaining something to me. When I asked why he was doing that, he explained that it made us look working hard... Maybe you and he could be excellent coworkers :-) (and I chip two of those managers in for free)
Maybe you t(w)o(o) should (both) read up on regression testing.
Instead of using a debugger, I prefer to use intensive regression testing. Tests I wrote down in the design phase, and often refine during actual implementation.
I hope you understand the difference: with regression testing I can check many, many design specification in an extremely short time. Moreover, I can give my regression tests to other developers. Can you do the same with your debugger gazing sessions?
I rarely have to "think" what a piece of Perl code does, because I either know, or I read the fine manual.
And I certainly don't have to fire up a debugger (daily for crying out loud) to check if my code does what I think (again for crying out loud) does.
Certainly you're joking my dear Baron?
Even if you could hire me, I doubt I could work with you (ouch)
The only time I used the debugger was to figure out why an update of a CPAN module suddenly misbehaved. I don't understand that people need a debugger at a weekly, or even daily basis. And I really don't understand the need for a book about it.
I one was hired by a company that did a lot of C programming, and if there was something not working right, the rule was you had to fire up the debugger, and single step. I ignored that silly advice, and added a print statement, or reread my code.
... because they want to catch the Giant Squid (on film)
If google is going to filter blogs from it's main index, I am sure that some clever mod_rewiting will do the trick. Moreover, if it (Google) uses an RSS feed and some pinging services to determine if a site is a blog, it means one can give a competitor a blog ping of death, i.e. kick him/her out of the main index, if his/her site has a feed. In short, this would mean the death of RSS. I agree that copies of copies of copies of news should be kicked out of Google. Same of all the lyrics shites, (especially those that pop up "do you want to install this" windows), Usenet archives, Wikipedia clones, etc., etc. A lot of so called SEO specialists are at the constant look out for free content, and will clone this on their sites, and use it, and make a mess of search engines. I try to keep my blog (http://johnbokma.com/mexit/) as much as possible free from: I copied this from that blog, and look! It takes me quite some time to write something, edit the pictures (I have a 6 yo digital camera...), etc. and I really don't want to get punished for my efforts by getting kicked out of the main index, and put in some obscure blog search that probably a lot of my readers are not aware of (unless I blog about it :-) ).
try me: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/
"The "Windows users" hadn't been invented yet, now those were the days." If I compare the C64 crowd of that time, I see hardly any difference with the current Windows crowd I think most C64 users moved to Atari (at least in the Netherlands) and then to the PC (DOS) -> PC (Windows), maybe some of them are calling Linux "the best thing that ever happened to computers" and already moving on :-)
Somehow I moved in different directions back in those days: ZX Spectrum -> Acorn Archimedes -> SGI Indigo R3K -> Windows :-) The last one, because that's what most of my customers use.
instead of -w -> use warnings;
Thanks. Maybe a nice fact: the pics are made with an extremely outdated Philips ESP 60, a zero point three megapixel camera. I am often amazed at what I am able to get out of it, OTOH I hope to replace it Very Soon Now (TM).
My feed is in the main index: http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl%3Aindex.rss%2 0site%3Ajohnbokma.com
However, I don't show up with Google's Blog Search (for example: http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=La guna+de+Alchichica)
Maybe I am doing something wrong, but if it means I am removed from the main index if I do it right, I keep doing it wrong. I don't want my blog, http://johnbokma.com/mexit/ to end up with LiveJournal, MySpace etc., thank you. The same sites that leech my pictures :-(
AOL to that, OTOH I will do everything to get my blog (http://johnbokma.com/mexit/) as far from this blog search engine as possible if it means that once you're in it, you're out of the main index. (I already renamed it to mexit ages ago when I noticed that Google indexed it slower, might have been a glitch though).
A decade? Make that two (GNU) and a bit
read: $$$$
Funny how so many people think they can say something about Perl but don't know it's written Perl (for the language *) and not PERL (since it's not an acronym). * and perl for the program