Yeap... though even as a Seinfeld fan, I found the ad a bit too random and empty. There was nothing memorable in this one, but it is obvious they are setting the stage for a series of ads that will (hopefully) have half of us in stitches and repeating silly catchphrases around the office, while the other half watch their Nascar and WWF.
You're not really better than those you mock.
I might be a part of that other half, but my time is spent well.
I'd say Larry David is cranky enough to be a BSD kind of guy, but he live in Hollywood, so non-mainstream computing is out. OS X is probably a good compromise for him.
No, it just means that it's taken resources away from the half dozen other things I'm doing in the background, making my whole system slower.
What resources? A few megabytes of RAM is not a big deal in this age of multi-gigabyte systems, with virtual memory management and caching at all levels. There shouldn't be a huge difference in processor time -- the same algorithms are being run, just at a different schedule. The operating system scheduler is pretty smart.
It can seem fast, but using resources has an impact. Even if using the resources makes that application faster, it's definitely going to have an impact on how much other stuff the user can run without having trouble.
Seem fast? "Using resources has an impact?" This is a troll, right? Of course using resources has an impact. Stuff gets done, potentially faster if things are working correctly, and you have fewer resources. But unless this "lack of resources" actually causes a bottleneck, it won't degrade performance for other applications.
It sounds like he already has the hardware, why would he buy a whole new computer just for a web server? You sound like an apply fan with the 'just buy a new one' upgrade/install path.
Because he might need a new one anyway? Because he's using Windows for "unix-ish" development (blah, putty)? Because used Mac Mini's are overpowered for this application, and very cheap? Because somebody else who needs a new computer and development environment might be reading?
Why bother saying anything at all? You sound like one of those "talkers" with your "talking".
Yes you can, but you can't refute the point that this site has become trash, and where reasons and examples are provided, by simply calling someone a name.
Actually, yes. You can. The whole rant was a misguided troll. It is not worthy of my, or your, attention.
Here's the simple fact: Slashdot was never good.
The "I RTFM, You Should Too" attitude doesn't even apply in this case. The submitter is asking for book recommendations, so that he can read them.
I agree, by the way, I am learning Perl, which should I do first? Learn how to use WWW::Mechanize or LWP? DBIx::Class or plain DBI? Should I start with a framework like Catalyst or give a go at CGI and hope for the best?
Catalyst paired with DBIx::Class is a very good approach. WWW::Mechanize versus LWP is a trivial issue -- their interfaces are tiny. Regarding DBI, you will pick some up when you configure DBIx::Class.
See, you can answer a simple question without being a pompous ass. Well, I can. Or, more generally, "one can".
I have a copy of an out of date Java 6 book right next to me, because it tied itself to the wrong framework flavor of the month. That money sure was well spent.
I wish science would stick to black and white, "we know this" and "we don't know this". Stop this "we think this and that, have no real clue, but are going to pat ourselves on the back for pretending to know something we don't".
There's very little that science can actually prove. For example, it is impossible to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow without extra-logical or metaphysical assumptions. Sure, we can appeal to Newtonian physics, but that doesn't avoid the problem, since Newtonian physics were developed through observation and abstraction. That is, Newtonian physics is a theory, and demonstrably not fact.
If I get to set my own rules, I can break records, too.
Maybe. That doesn't mean their record isn't legitimate, especially if the "rule" they disregarded was irrelevant, and especially since they have flown further than anybody else.
GP also doesn't understand the difference between guilt and shame-based cultures, characterizing 'guilt' as something that arises from pleasurable acts. (That's called 'pleasure', not guilt.) Indeed, GP appears to be entrenched in a guilt-based culture's mindset.
There's no need for domains. The firewall just has to forward any non-approved IPs to their "non-approved hosts" page. Easy as pie, and (while non-trivial) not worth our time.
I beg to differ. I think that how perl handles OO is one of the most elegant ways I've seen any language to it.
I don't disagree exactly, but Perl's OO isn't exactly straightforward. And the baroque syntax makes for a lot of seemingly pointless boilerplate (until you get "special cases" like references -- stuff that has been abstracted out of other OO languages.
On the plus side, while Perl OO is missing some relatively nice features out of the box (simple accessor syntax, for example), it is relatively easy to add it (e.g. MethodMaker, Class::Class, etc).
All in all, the SmallTalk/Ruby/Objective-C approach is better, and I would definitely rather work in any of those. But Perl is fine and pays my bills.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeap... though even as a Seinfeld fan, I found the ad a bit too random and empty. There was nothing memorable in this one, but it is obvious they are setting the stage for a series of ads that will (hopefully) have half of us in stitches and repeating silly catchphrases around the office, while the other half watch their Nascar and WWF.
You're not really better than those you mock.
I might be a part of that other half, but my time is spent well.
I'd say Larry David is cranky enough to be a BSD kind of guy, but he live in Hollywood, so non-mainstream computing is out. OS X is probably a good compromise for him.
I don't watch TV.
No, it just means that it's taken resources away from the half dozen other things I'm doing in the background, making my whole system slower.
What resources? A few megabytes of RAM is not a big deal in this age of multi-gigabyte systems, with virtual memory management and caching at all levels. There shouldn't be a huge difference in processor time -- the same algorithms are being run, just at a different schedule. The operating system scheduler is pretty smart.
It can seem fast, but using resources has an impact. Even if using the resources makes that application faster, it's definitely going to have an impact on how much other stuff the user can run without having trouble.
Seem fast? "Using resources has an impact?" This is a troll, right? Of course using resources has an impact. Stuff gets done, potentially faster if things are working correctly, and you have fewer resources. But unless this "lack of resources" actually causes a bottleneck, it won't degrade performance for other applications.
It sounds like he already has the hardware, why would he buy a whole new computer just for a web server? You sound like an apply fan with the 'just buy a new one' upgrade/install path.
Because he might need a new one anyway? Because he's using Windows for "unix-ish" development (blah, putty)? Because used Mac Mini's are overpowered for this application, and very cheap? Because somebody else who needs a new computer and development environment might be reading?
Why bother saying anything at all? You sound like one of those "talkers" with your "talking".
Yes you can, but you can't refute the point that this site has become trash, and where reasons and examples are provided, by simply calling someone a name.
Actually, yes. You can. The whole rant was a misguided troll. It is not worthy of my, or your, attention.
Here's the simple fact: Slashdot was never good.
The "I RTFM, You Should Too" attitude doesn't even apply in this case. The submitter is asking for book recommendations, so that he can read them.
You're glad you sprang for the 24 inch. ;-)
I agree, by the way, I am learning Perl, which should I do first? Learn how to use WWW::Mechanize or LWP? DBIx::Class or plain DBI? Should I start with a framework like Catalyst or give a go at CGI and hope for the best?
Catalyst paired with DBIx::Class is a very good approach. WWW::Mechanize versus LWP is a trivial issue -- their interfaces are tiny. Regarding DBI, you will pick some up when you configure DBIx::Class.
See, you can answer a simple question without being a pompous ass. Well, I can. Or, more generally, "one can".
Beginners can't make informed decisions.
I have a copy of an out of date Java 6 book right next to me, because it tied itself to the wrong framework flavor of the month. That money sure was well spent.
If it wasn't for pornography, I'd invert my colors all the time.
Frist p0sts are way better than warm beer.
Normal to the hole? Since when are holes surfaces? I don't think you realize how difficult topologically characterizing a hole is.
Very insightful. Also a little alarming -- if our planet is a stellar spot, global warming means it is disappearing.
I wish science would stick to black and white, "we know this" and "we don't know this". Stop this "we think this and that, have no real clue, but are going to pat ourselves on the back for pretending to know something we don't".
There's very little that science can actually prove. For example, it is impossible to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow without extra-logical or metaphysical assumptions. Sure, we can appeal to Newtonian physics, but that doesn't avoid the problem, since Newtonian physics were developed through observation and abstraction. That is, Newtonian physics is a theory, and demonstrably not fact.
If I get to set my own rules, I can break records, too.
Maybe. That doesn't mean their record isn't legitimate, especially if the "rule" they disregarded was irrelevant, and especially since they have flown further than anybody else.
GP also doesn't understand the difference between guilt and shame-based cultures, characterizing 'guilt' as something that arises from pleasurable acts. (That's called 'pleasure', not guilt.) Indeed, GP appears to be entrenched in a guilt-based culture's mindset.
The video bus bandwidth is 7m/s
Okay, and how long is the bus?
COME ON HEART ATTACK
poppa needs a new pair of shoes.
Okay, you get the corpse, and I get the attractive woman.
It doesn't matter. Everything whithers. It is law.
And FreeBSD. And OS X. Whoops.
Have you considered that his purposes might in fact be intensive?
But definitely non-essential, especially if caching can be implemented behind the blocking solution.
There's no need for domains. The firewall just has to forward any non-approved IPs to their "non-approved hosts" page. Easy as pie, and (while non-trivial) not worth our time.
I beg to differ. I think that how perl handles OO is one of the most elegant ways I've seen any language to it.
I don't disagree exactly, but Perl's OO isn't exactly straightforward. And the baroque syntax makes for a lot of seemingly pointless boilerplate (until you get "special cases" like references -- stuff that has been abstracted out of other OO languages.
On the plus side, while Perl OO is missing some relatively nice features out of the box (simple accessor syntax, for example), it is relatively easy to add it (e.g. MethodMaker, Class::Class, etc).
All in all, the SmallTalk/Ruby/Objective-C approach is better, and I would definitely rather work in any of those. But Perl is fine and pays my bills.