I've been using Discussion2 for about 2 weeks now, and I, for one, offer my congradulations. As noted above, it has a few kinks, but overall, it is a vast improvement over the previous layout. I find myself reading much deeper into comments, and the "HUD" makes it easy to see how much time I waste here on/.;)
Few annoyances I must note, however:
There is a discrepancy in the UI. To expand a post, you click the title. However, clicking the title doesn't hide the contents, it collapses the entire thread
When a post is <blockquote>'ed, you see the blockquote portion of the post in the preview. Since most blockquotes are of the previous post, I don't see any new information. This likewise goes for posters who italicise their quotes
A personal nitpick (likely CSS related): you can't use bold or italics inside of a blockquote
Overall, though, it's a vast improvement over the past system. Keep up the good work!
However, as the humans who code compilers, we may decide on a set of heuristics that determine how "useful" a loop is. We may then instruct the compiler to apply a transformation to the code when a heuristic pops positive. Compilers may remove loops, "unroll" loops (to utilize SIMD/vector operations and superscalar architectures), and even move instructions from within a loop to without. Several compilers even (effectively) change while() loops into do...while() loops, to better utilize the processor! Even better: after sliding the code around, your compiler may determine that the loop is unnecessary, and remove it automatically.
Related info. Note the bullet near the bottom of the page that says "loop removal".
apparently nothing, they compile fine with supposedly the best compilers in.net and C++.
It is not a question of whether or not the code compiles. As long as it is syntactically correct, such behavior is guaranteed. However, the optimizer inside of the compiler commonly removes empty loops, as they create an unnecessary amount of work.
If it took out everything it deemed useless, you'd be missing a lot of code and your app wouldn't work.
That situation only occurs when you define your heuristics poorly, or the compiler contains a bug. Even so, optimization does cause some strange side effects from time to time. I believe I had a problem with gcc optimizing out some spinlock code I wrote once. Once I identified the problem, though, I turned off the optimization and all was well.
And I'm not going to a whoopideedoo special hyped up private college with some bullshit rating because it's a waste of money and my family's far from rich.
That sounds like one hell of an assumption to make. In addition, scholarships commonly help people who are as "hot shit" as you make yourself out to be. If you are thinking of continuing your education, I hope you look in to them.
--A nigh-graduate of a "whoopideedoo special hyped up private collee with some bullshit rating"
Intel chips were slow, until Apple started using them and then they were fast.
Up until Intel created the SSE 3 instruction set (and released Core Solo/Duo), the Intel chips were slower than PPC for the common use case of these machines. One must remember that Altivec was vastly superior to SSE for quite some time. Many of the most commonly used applications use those instructions. (Photoshop, Photobooth, iPhoto, video editing, etc).
Re:Macs suck, but the commercials are midly amusin
on
New "Get a Mac" TV ads
·
· Score: 1
I don't believe that changing the shell is a "basic task", by any stretch of the imagination.
Most users are unconcerned with changing their shell, if the know what it is.
Building customization into the shell makes it more complicated and harder to debug & support. It is likely cheaper to create a "best fit" based on usability testing. (Apple does lots of usability tests).
Most users that know about shells tend to stick with a single shell, so it doesn't have to be easy to change.
That said: I know that it's possible to install X.org and your choice of WM on the Mac, but havn't done so myself. I suppose you could install a customizable WM via Fink or Darwin Ports. The default WM is not very customizable. Even so, I have found that it doesn't require much. (I resisted it at first, but it's so simple to use that I didn't mind after the first week).
The inconsistent terminal does drive me batshit, though.
7) Any software that changes file associations by itself - give me the option and I will tell you what I'm going to let you open automatically.
7) Anything that does not give you a single entry in the Add Remove Programs List.
Uhh... you know... I hate to be "that guy". But. Umm... You misspelled "8".
Re:Macs suck, but the commercials are midly amusin
on
New "Get a Mac" TV ads
·
· Score: 1
But basic system changes, which OSX lacks, I can perform in Windows easily enough
Could you please give an example for what, in your opinion, constitutes a "Basic system change"?
I'm surprised Apple hasn't tried suing their customers [emphasis added] claiming that it was their idea for people to use computers to do stuff...wait -
Apple likely realizes that the best way to lose customers is to sue them.
you can't really do anything with a Mac...I spoke too quickly.
My MacBook experience contradicts this assertion. Macs enable their users to be creative right out of the box. iMovie HD for home movies, iPhoto for managing your pictures, and Garage Band for music & podcasts. Many of these apps are integrated with the rest of the desktop: FrontRow displays movies from iMovie, Podcasts from iTunes, photos from iPhoto, and DVD playback.
Add in Safari for internet & iCal for time management, and most things that home or casual users want to do just works.
What about business apps? Microsoft Office is available for the Mac. Apple sells an office suite (iWork) with Keynote, the best presentation software I have used to date.
In my experience, I am almost twice as productive on a Mac, when writing documents, presentations, or the like. I feel more creative, as well. I've made a few movies with the built-in camera & iMovie HD, and am considering podcasting.
Albeit many of these doors are available on a PC, they tend to be locked--and I don't want to bother finding the keys. And I determined long ago that using windows isn't in my best interests.
If the US can just trample UN resolutions without any sanctions, do you think the dictators have any reason to belive the UN can have any power over THEM?
In a certain light, this statement is true. However, I feel that you left something out. The UN suffers from the same problems that the original Confederacy of the US did. (The one before we became a pluralist republic). In short: the UN not only doesn't have teeth, it never did. The power of the UN derives itself solely from the power of the most influential sovereign state(s) that comprise it. (Traditionally, the US and, before 1992, the USSR. China appears to be a contender, but I digress). Since the most powerful member of the UN (the US) assumed a unilateral agenda, the UN lost the power to put her back in line--and even this reasoning assumes that the UN wasn't a mere pawn of US diplomats to begin with.
Compare this to the US' federal government: it has the means necessary to coerce states to abide by federal law. Because of this, those states have been kept in line, so to speak.
Would a centralized, powerful UN be a good thing? That's arguable. However, it would have averted the dilemma we find ourselves in today.
Reiser 4 hasn't been in the main Linux kernel for political reasons
The reasons are part political, but mostly technical. Linus believes that the functionality that Hans Reiser is building into Reiser4 should be provided at the Virtual FS layer. Hans wants it to be only in ReiserFS (the "real" FS level).
Slashdot Mirror
I've been using Discussion2 for about 2 weeks now, and I, for one, offer my congradulations. As noted above, it has a few kinks, but overall, it is a vast improvement over the previous layout. I find myself reading much deeper into comments, and the "HUD" makes it easy to see how much time I waste here on /. ;)
Few annoyances I must note, however:
Overall, though, it's a vast improvement over the past system. Keep up the good work!
That hasn't stopped government agents and/or operatives (e.g. the staff at GitMo) from using torture to "extract information".
In my experience, people who toke up seldom get rowdy, let alone smash things. Do you know something I don't?
However, as the humans who code compilers, we may decide on a set of heuristics that determine how "useful" a loop is. We may then instruct the compiler to apply a transformation to the code when a heuristic pops positive. Compilers may remove loops, "unroll" loops (to utilize SIMD/vector operations and superscalar architectures), and even move instructions from within a loop to without. Several compilers even (effectively) change while() loops into do...while() loops, to better utilize the processor! Even better: after sliding the code around, your compiler may determine that the loop is unnecessary, and remove it automatically.
Related info. Note the bullet near the bottom of the page that says "loop removal".
It is not a question of whether or not the code compiles. As long as it is syntactically correct, such behavior is guaranteed. However, the optimizer inside of the compiler commonly removes empty loops, as they create an unnecessary amount of work.
That situation only occurs when you define your heuristics poorly, or the compiler contains a bug. Even so, optimization does cause some strange side effects from time to time. I believe I had a problem with gcc optimizing out some spinlock code I wrote once. Once I identified the problem, though, I turned off the optimization and all was well.
And I'm not going to a whoopideedoo special hyped up private college with some bullshit rating because it's a waste of money and my family's far from rich.
That sounds like one hell of an assumption to make. In addition, scholarships commonly help people who are as "hot shit" as you make yourself out to be. If you are thinking of continuing your education, I hope you look in to them.--A nigh-graduate of a "whoopideedoo special hyped up private collee with some bullshit rating"
This is a direct result of business, rather than the people, controlling the government. (not the op)
I don't believe that changing the shell is a "basic task", by any stretch of the imagination.
That said: I know that it's possible to install X.org and your choice of WM on the Mac, but havn't done so myself. I suppose you could install a customizable WM via Fink or Darwin Ports. The default WM is not very customizable. Even so, I have found that it doesn't require much. (I resisted it at first, but it's so simple to use that I didn't mind after the first week).
The inconsistent terminal does drive me batshit, though.
"But I know I do. I can feel it in my gut."
And so they dig it up and find their Platinum and Gold.
You know, there is this thing called sarcasm. Take it or leave it, but it may be less "joke" and more "veiled social criticism" so to speak...
*ducks*
Yes, but communism was just a red herring. The terrorist herrings--bastards that they are--blend in much better with their flesh-tone pallete.
Everything he does, he does for you.
*ducks*
How would you say this philosophy meshes with Google Personalized Search?
In a certain light, this statement is true. However, I feel that you left something out. The UN suffers from the same problems that the original Confederacy of the US did. (The one before we became a pluralist republic). In short: the UN not only doesn't have teeth, it never did. The power of the UN derives itself solely from the power of the most influential sovereign state(s) that comprise it. (Traditionally, the US and, before 1992, the USSR. China appears to be a contender, but I digress). Since the most powerful member of the UN (the US) assumed a unilateral agenda, the UN lost the power to put her back in line--and even this reasoning assumes that the UN wasn't a mere pawn of US diplomats to begin with.
Compare this to the US' federal government: it has the means necessary to coerce states to abide by federal law. Because of this, those states have been kept in line, so to speak.
Would a centralized, powerful UN be a good thing? That's arguable. However, it would have averted the dilemma we find ourselves in today.
Full disclosure: I am a citizen of the US.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=-25.50 9897,112.945354&spn=0.003437,0.005032
Unless that's you too. Then you're screwed.