I tried Foobar 2k, but I'm not impressed. I especially don't like the Libraries Tree View, which requires a lot of clicking & scrolling. I find the iTunes "three-panel" view much faster to use.
>> It gets the job of searching, navigating, and organizing my large library done well enough.
> There are much better alternatives, trust me.
This got you an 'insightful' mod?
Please mention a few of those 'better alternatives' (not that I particularily like iTunes, but I've yet to see a decent programm to manage a large music collection).
It won't kill a healthy person, but 1 additional hour times a hundred gazillion bazillion flyers == some more real of deaths from blood clots is a statistical certainity. Besides, they won't stop at 'one hour before landing', it'll turn into 'one hour before landing and after take off' next and 'the whole flight, please pee in the bag' not too long afterwards. Better put a stop to it now!
After this rule more people will die from blood clots.
Sane airlines actually encourage people to get up from their seats at regular intervals.
E.g. Edelweiss Air used to show a video explaining the issue (I haven't flown with them in a while so I don't know about the current situation), Emirates has some pictures on how to keep circulation intact etc.
> Then your boss's boss tells your boss... then you're labelled as the complainer and he remembers that on your next review.
Well, yes. You have to live with that. But he'll also know you're not to be messed with. If he stupidly gives you a lousy review in retaliation and you can prove it, he's screwed.
> I've always been told that going over the head of your boss was the only way to do it, but when your actions lead to the invitation of your boss into the room so you can tell him exactly what kind of moronic thing you think he's doing because his boss doesn't want to deal with it... then you end up being the target.
I wouldn't recommend to go over your bosses head straight away. Go to him first. But if he doesn't see (or doesn't want to see) reason, you often have other options besides quitting.
Don't try to make your boss to like you for 'being easy to manage', make him respect you for 'doing great work'.
> When WWII came around and Hitler and Mussolini invaded almost every country in Europe, he left little Switzerland alone because of this.
A couple of guns don't protect your country from being invaded.
I live in Switzerland, and noone sane around here believes this. Hitler most probably left Switzerland alone because he needed the transalpine passages intact (the Swiss would have destroyed the vital bridges & tunnels before surrendering them).
The Swiss compromise offer to Germany and Italy was, that Switzerland would allow transports between Germany and Italy in sealed box cars without checking the contents - in exchange for the supply of vital raw materials and goods.
In fact, every other year a couple of women & kids get killed with those guns (mostly in domestic disputes), and probably a lot more live in perpetual fear that their husbands will shoot them some day. That's why there's a political movement (with growing support) that wants to get rid of those guns and store them in army depots instead.
> The approval process only comes into play if you want to sell it.
Small correction: If you're in the habit of giving away stuff (some of us write GPL'd software), you still need Apple's approval that the other party can install it
Now you could argue that they could get themselves a developer account ($99) and the whole development kit themselves, but that is simply beyond the ability of most users (and most of them don't have an Intel Mac either).
If it's "mentioned in the EULA" it might as well be "on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'". About the same amount of people will be able to read & understand it.
Free parking encourages people to come by car, instead of using public transportation (which creates all kinds of problems, like increased traffic in nearby areas, pollution, etc.). I agree that giving the shopping center its own train station though is a great idea!
Btw. many shops in large malls with high parking fees, but good access to public transportation further encourage use of the latter by providing low cost home delivery options for larger purchases.
>> If you don't want your ideas to be extended, you probably should keep them to yourself. > Should we apply that same logic to everyone? How about scientists?
Scientist know the value of the work of others especially well. Just look at the number of citations in every research paper. Few are trying to pass off the research of others as their own (if you do, you'll ruin your reputation pretty quickly). And everyone on them knows: "If I've seen farther then others, it was because I was standing on the shoulders of giants" (famously used by Sir Isaac Newton, but attributed originally to Bernard of Chartres).
> It's quite another thing to take actual copies of something and pass them off as one's own
I don't know where you read into my sentences that I ever suggested that should be possible. It's downright ridiculous.
The original author should always be compensated. And of course if the derivative work is making money, the original author should be compensated, but not excessively.
A famous (and ridiculous) example of copyright gone wrong: The Verve's song: "Bitter Sweet Symphony". It's a twisted world where a company that currently holds the rights to some old material (remember, they're not even the creators of that stuff) can claim someone elses *entire profits* because they used a sample (which they even cleared before use, but there was something wrong with the fine print) in their song.
Also, I'm opposed to the *control* the original authors (or more accurately, the copyright holding companies these days) want to exert over their work. Making derivatives impossible in the first place.
If you don't want your ideas to be extended, you probably should keep them to yourself.
You have no inherent right to it once it's out in the open. You have no right to forbid people to sing your song (very badly and out of tune and very loud) in their car or in the shower. You have no right to forbid other musicians to play your songs in their garage.
If someone else thinks your music is good enough to be re-interpreted, you should be *proud*. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Also, it will serve to *increase* the popularity of the original material.
The idea behind copyright is that you can make enough money from it to support yourself, your family and whatever your favorite pasttime is (e.g. save the rain forests or maybe cocaine and hookers). That's a good thing. But lately, it's been more and more twisted and corrupted by greedy people. It's about exercising a ridiculous amount of control over the material. That has to end.
> Apple's preoccupation with security meant that the high-quality audio "stems" he created never left Abbey Road. > If the separated parts leaked out, every amateur D.J. would start lacing mixes with unauthorized Beatles samples. > Instead, Martin created low-fidelity copies imprinted with static for the Harmonix team to take back to the States -- in their carry-on luggage.
And why would that be such a terribly bad thing? It's exactly this kind of gone-out-of-control control-thinking that makes me respect the idea of copyright less and less. I believe that trying to 'make a quick buck' from the work of others is unethical. But creatively extending someone else's work is art.
On a unrelated note: Has someone already managed to rip the individual tracks off the Guitar Hero / Rock Band games? I assume they're not just simply there as.wav files on the CD:-)
I've been to the ACM programming contests a couple of times. While we (two physics students and myself a math student, we easily eliminated the CS students in the local university qualifying round) were doing somewhat ok, we suffered from lack of preparation (which basically consisted of bringing along a copy of Sedgewick's "Algorithms in C"). The other teams (most notably the St. Petersburg and other eastern european teams) had coaches, months of preparation behind them and brought tons and tons of binders with print-outs of pre-written programs that needed only a little tweaking to be applied to the current problem set.
The ACM (and probably IOI as well) problem sets repeat the same (or very similiar) problems over time. Typical examples: graph problems involving a simple breadth first search, or perhaps a minimal cut, or the typical geometric problems where you have to do a robust point-left/on/right-line test, or do some space partitioning, or you need to do some optimization using dynamic programming, etc. All that stuff can be trained, written down and brought along (the ACM rules used to allow bringing along unlimited amounts of stuff in dead-tree format), or just memorized.
I just want to clarify one thing, so I'm not misunderstood:
When some general or politician decides to kill a lot of people, it doesn't make any of his fellow countrymen a murderer as well. The majority may have voted the guy into office, but he probably didn't say "and if you vote for me I'll nuke as many Japanese civilians as I can" beforehand.
The rest I'll let stand for itself, because your claims are really just that. Your claims. Nothing more.
I didn't need to give an argument, because the comment was phrased as a question, introducing the topic into the discussion.
It may have been phrased a tiny little inflammatory, but that was the stimulation to spark a discussion of the matter.
I'm entirely open to the possibility that there was some justification but I still believe that that number of civilian casualties has far too high (and we're talking peaceful people here, especially children, who couldn't care less about the war). It could probably have been kept much lower (e.g. nuking the snow cap off Mount Fujy would have probably a devastating psychological effect as well).
> Because I didn't need to re-make the same points.
Then your entire post was just an attempt at insulting me? That's not nice.
>> What exactly did *your* posting contribute to the discussion?
> What does this one of yours?
It educates you on the rules of rational debating. Some of them are
1) Stay polite 2) Have an open mind 3) Back up your claims with arguments
Your posting proves that nothing is so bad it can't be used as a deterring example for others.
> You don't understand the history then.
That's an unfounded accusation. And very impolite.
> Wrong on both counts. Please read and understand the history (as some people have informed you in the replies).
You don't give an argument to support your 'wrong' statement. Instead you refer to the other replies. Yes, I read them. And some of them make excellent points (one way or another), thank you. Your reply does not.
What exactly did *your* posting contribute to the discussion?
Re:Shard of glass in my delicious pie! *gruff*
on
Mario AI Competition
·
· Score: 1
While I think Eclipse is great, I believe NetBeans is even better these days, at least for someone just picking up Java. The advanced features don't get in your way as much as with Eclipse.
I don't think they needed to use *two* nukes for that. Wasn't the second one just outright mass murder? (you could also argue the first one didn't need to be deployed against civial targets).
Slashdot Mirror
If you really screwed up moderating, just post a reply in the same thread, that will undo all your moderations.
I tried Foobar 2k, but I'm not impressed. I especially don't like the Libraries Tree View, which requires a lot of clicking & scrolling. I find the iTunes "three-panel" view much faster to use.
>> It gets the job of searching, navigating, and organizing my large library done well enough.
> There are much better alternatives, trust me.
This got you an 'insightful' mod?
Please mention a few of those 'better alternatives' (not that I particularily like iTunes, but I've yet to see a decent programm to manage a large music collection).
+1 funny mods don't give karma points to the author. To work around this, the moderators decide to
- mod moderately funny jokes as funny
- mod great jokes as informative or insightful
The practice is widespread and metamods generally agree with it (I think, at least I still get mod points...).
It won't kill a healthy person, but 1 additional hour times a hundred gazillion bazillion flyers == some more real of deaths from blood clots is a statistical certainity. Besides, they won't stop at 'one hour before landing', it'll turn into 'one hour before landing and after take off' next and 'the whole flight, please pee in the bag' not too long afterwards. Better put a stop to it now!
After this rule more people will die from blood clots.
Sane airlines actually encourage people to get up from their seats at regular intervals.
E.g. Edelweiss Air used to show a video explaining the issue (I haven't flown with them in a while so I don't know about the current situation), Emirates has some pictures on how to keep circulation intact etc.
> Then your boss's boss tells your boss... then you're labelled as the complainer and he remembers that on your next review.
Well, yes. You have to live with that. But he'll also know you're not to be messed with. If he stupidly gives you a lousy review in retaliation and you can prove it, he's screwed.
> I've always been told that going over the head of your boss was the only way to do it, but when your actions lead to the invitation of your boss into the room so you can tell him exactly what kind of moronic thing you think he's doing because his boss doesn't want to deal with it... then you end up being the target.
I wouldn't recommend to go over your bosses head straight away. Go to him first. But if he doesn't see (or doesn't want to see) reason, you often have other options besides quitting.
Don't try to make your boss to like you for 'being easy to manage', make him respect you for 'doing great work'.
If you're unhappy with your boss, you can always go to his boss and complain.
And if your boss is the company's owner, then you'll have to go to his wife to complain.
> When WWII came around and Hitler and Mussolini invaded almost every country in Europe, he left little Switzerland alone because of this.
A couple of guns don't protect your country from being invaded.
I live in Switzerland, and noone sane around here believes this. Hitler most probably left Switzerland alone because he needed the transalpine passages intact (the Swiss would have destroyed the vital bridges & tunnels before surrendering them).
The Swiss compromise offer to Germany and Italy was, that Switzerland would allow transports between Germany and Italy in sealed box cars without checking the contents - in exchange for the supply of vital raw materials and goods.
In fact, every other year a couple of women & kids get killed with those guns (mostly in domestic disputes), and probably a lot more live in perpetual fear that their husbands will shoot them some day. That's why there's a political movement (with growing support) that wants to get rid of those guns and store them in army depots instead.
I'm so going to whore karma with this obligatory Penny-Arcade reference.
Mod redundant at will.
> The approval process only comes into play if you want to sell it.
Small correction: If you're in the habit of giving away stuff (some of us write GPL'd software), you still need Apple's approval that the other party can install it
Now you could argue that they could get themselves a developer account ($99) and the whole development kit themselves, but that is simply beyond the ability of most users (and most of them don't have an Intel Mac either).
If it's "mentioned in the EULA" it might as well be "on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'". About the same amount of people will be able to read & understand it.
I'm torn between modding the parent and emphasizing this is exactly what subversion was designed for.
If you make any changes that take longer then 1-2 hours to complete, start a branch.
I assume you macro'd @@ to be your svn root
Make your branch:
svn copy @@/trunk @@/branches/feature_xyz_branch
svn copy @@/trunk @@/tags/starting_feature_xyz
Switch your working copy to the branch (if you don't want to check out a new one, useful for large repositories).
svn switch @@/branches/feature_xyz_branch
Develop your features in peace. Commit into your branch whenever you made a meaningful change.
And when you're done, it's time to merge your change into the trunk:
svn switch @@/trunk
svn merge @@/tags/starting_feature_xyz @@/branches/feature_xyz_branch
Resolve the conflicts, test and finally commit into the trunk.
Congrats! You've successfully developed feature_xyz without every missing the benefits of a version control system.
Free parking encourages people to come by car, instead of using public transportation (which creates all kinds of problems, like increased traffic in nearby areas, pollution, etc.). I agree that giving the shopping center its own train station though is a great idea!
Btw. many shops in large malls with high parking fees, but good access to public transportation further encourage use of the latter by providing low cost home delivery options for larger purchases.
>> If you don't want your ideas to be extended, you probably should keep them to yourself.
> Should we apply that same logic to everyone? How about scientists?
Scientist know the value of the work of others especially well. Just look at the number of citations in every research paper. Few are trying to pass off the research of others as their own (if you do, you'll ruin your reputation pretty quickly). And everyone on them knows: "If I've seen farther then others, it was because I was standing on the shoulders of giants" (famously used by Sir Isaac Newton, but attributed originally to Bernard of Chartres).
> The original author should always be compensated.
Sorry, I didn't use the preview button. That should read 'credited', not 'compensated'.
Compensation is not in all cases required (especially if e.g. the remix doesn't make any sizable profit or is given away for free).
> It's quite another thing to take actual copies of something and pass them off as one's own
I don't know where you read into my sentences that I ever suggested that should be possible. It's downright ridiculous.
The original author should always be compensated. And of course if the derivative work is making money, the original author should be compensated, but not excessively.
A famous (and ridiculous) example of copyright gone wrong: The Verve's song: "Bitter Sweet Symphony". It's a twisted world where a company that currently holds the rights to some old material (remember, they're not even the creators of that stuff) can claim someone elses *entire profits* because they used a sample (which they even cleared before use, but there was something wrong with the fine print) in their song.
Also, I'm opposed to the *control* the original authors (or more accurately, the copyright holding companies these days) want to exert over their work. Making derivatives impossible in the first place.
If you don't want your ideas to be extended, you probably should keep them to yourself.
You have no inherent right to it once it's out in the open. You have no right to forbid people to sing your song (very badly and out of tune and very loud) in their car or in the shower. You have no right to forbid other musicians to play your songs in their garage.
If someone else thinks your music is good enough to be re-interpreted, you should be *proud*. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Also, it will serve to *increase* the popularity of the original material.
The idea behind copyright is that you can make enough money from it to support yourself, your family and whatever your favorite pasttime is (e.g. save the rain forests or maybe cocaine and hookers). That's a good thing. But lately, it's been more and more twisted and corrupted by greedy people. It's about exercising a ridiculous amount of control over the material. That has to end.
From the article:
> Apple's preoccupation with security meant that the high-quality audio "stems" he created never left Abbey Road.
> If the separated parts leaked out, every amateur D.J. would start lacing mixes with unauthorized Beatles samples.
> Instead, Martin created low-fidelity copies imprinted with static for the Harmonix team to take back to the States -- in their carry-on luggage.
And why would that be such a terribly bad thing? It's exactly this kind of gone-out-of-control control-thinking that makes me respect the idea of copyright less and less. I believe that trying to 'make a quick buck' from the work of others is unethical. But creatively extending someone else's work is art.
On a unrelated note: Has someone already managed to rip the individual tracks off the Guitar Hero / Rock Band games? I assume they're not just simply there as .wav files on the CD :-)
Preparation is everything.
I've been to the ACM programming contests a couple of times. While we (two physics students and myself a math student, we easily eliminated the CS students in the local university qualifying round) were doing somewhat ok, we suffered from lack of preparation (which basically consisted of bringing along a copy of Sedgewick's "Algorithms in C"). The other teams (most notably the St. Petersburg and other eastern european teams) had coaches, months of preparation behind them and brought tons and tons of binders with print-outs of pre-written programs that needed only a little tweaking to be applied to the current problem set.
The ACM (and probably IOI as well) problem sets repeat the same (or very similiar) problems over time. Typical examples: graph problems involving a simple breadth first search, or perhaps a minimal cut, or the typical geometric problems where you have to do a robust point-left/on/right-line test, or do some space partitioning, or you need to do some optimization using dynamic programming, etc. All that stuff can be trained, written down and brought along (the ACM rules used to allow bringing along unlimited amounts of stuff in dead-tree format), or just memorized.
I just want to clarify one thing, so I'm not misunderstood:
When some general or politician decides to kill a lot of people, it doesn't make any of his fellow countrymen a murderer as well. The majority may have voted the guy into office, but he probably didn't say "and if you vote for me I'll nuke as many Japanese civilians as I can" beforehand.
The rest I'll let stand for itself, because your claims are really just that. Your claims. Nothing more.
I didn't need to give an argument, because the comment was phrased as a question, introducing the topic into the discussion.
It may have been phrased a tiny little inflammatory, but that was the stimulation to spark a discussion of the matter.
I'm entirely open to the possibility that there was some justification but I still believe that that number of civilian casualties has far too high (and we're talking peaceful people here, especially children, who couldn't care less about the war). It could probably have been kept much lower (e.g. nuking the snow cap off Mount Fujy would have probably a devastating psychological effect as well).
> Because I didn't need to re-make the same points.
Then your entire post was just an attempt at insulting me? That's not nice.
>> What exactly did *your* posting contribute to the discussion?
> What does this one of yours?
It educates you on the rules of rational debating. Some of them are
1) Stay polite
2) Have an open mind
3) Back up your claims with arguments
There's more but those are the most important.
Your posting proves that nothing is so bad it can't be used as a deterring example for others.
> You don't understand the history then.
That's an unfounded accusation. And very impolite.
> Wrong on both counts. Please read and understand the history (as some people have informed you in the replies).
You don't give an argument to support your 'wrong' statement. Instead you refer to the other replies. Yes, I read them. And some of them make excellent points (one way or another), thank you. Your reply does not.
What exactly did *your* posting contribute to the discussion?
While I think Eclipse is great, I believe NetBeans is even better these days, at least for someone just picking up Java. The advanced features don't get in your way as much as with Eclipse.
I don't think they needed to use *two* nukes for that. Wasn't the second one just outright mass murder? (you could also argue the first one didn't need to be deployed against civial targets).