I've been behind a computer since about 1996 as well. Been wearing glasses for about the same amount of time. My vision problems come from two things, first would be that my father's side of family has always had terrible vision. My dad can barely see without his glasses, so it's hereditary. Second, it's because of spending too much time watching the really bad TV sets when I lived in Russia. That thing pretty much ruined my vision.
For the past year or so I've been considering laser eye surgery, but ran into the problem that my corneas are fairly thin, but still acceptable, and also because my prescription is still changing (for the worse unfortunately). Right now I'm waiting till this summer to have another try, and hopefully my vision has stabilized by then.
Have never heard of any special glasses, just know that sitting in complete darkness in front of a monitor is not too good for you (which I do quite often). Have a dual-monitor setup, one LCD, and one CRT, though both are of high quality. The only real suggestion I can give you is to never have a CRT with refresh rate below 100Hz. I can't tell you how many times I've been amazed about people who regularly use something like 60Hz and say they don't notice any difference. For me, even 85Hz is too low and I can immediately spot it, not to mention that working with such monitor gives me a headache really quickly.
With my current setup, I never get any headaches, but my guess is that it's still doing some hard to my vision. Between having good equipment, the right refresh rate for CRTs, and doing eye exercises every 2 hours or so (looking into the distance, moving them around, etc), there really isn't much you can do.
Are you using a SCSI disk by any chance? Ran into the same problem a few days ago with Ubuntu (I think it was...). Change to IDE and that'll solve the booting problem.
It's funny, because I actually spent quite a long time a while back thinking about this issue. In the end, I would say it's really difficult to give a certain 'yes' or 'no' answer.
On one hand, there is the issue that information that humans possess is increasing at exponential rate, if not faster. At one point in history, you could be a painter, a sculptor, a mathematician, a philosopher, a physicist, among other things, and still be useful to the society in all of those areas. Today however, such thing is unrealistic due to the fact of how deep each area goes, and how much must be learned of the works of those who came before you in order for you to get to the level of being able to make personal contributions.
On the other hand, you do have to remember that a century or two ago, physics was thought to be a "finished" science. As in, many physicists around the world believed that the Newtonian model has given them all that is needed, and most viewed physics as a done deal. We understand how it works, nothing more is left to learn, move along. Then came Einstein and turned the whole thing upside down.
While on my commutes to and from university last semester, I downloaded audio lectures on particle physics. One of the very first things the professor said was "today, most particle physicists believe that we have a solid understanding of what the world is made up of, and that, unlike a few decades ago, we really have gotten to the bottom layer of the universe." He ended the lectures (which were extremely interesting btw) by saying that as good as the standard model of physics is, we still have 23 quantum numbers that are unattainable through mathematics, ideas which defy logic, and a bunch of other theories like string which may also be onto something.
Overall, I think that if any conclusion is to be made about the state of physics today, I would say that no, Einstein hasn't left the building. In my opinion, we are still missing something crucial about the way the world operates, but we may not realize this until advances in other technology areas such as space travel. Individuals still can make great breakthroughs, but because of issues such as the amount of foundational knowledge, the number of people working on the same things, and the money needed for some of the research, it may be more likely that future discoveries will need to be left to teams of scientists, rather than individuals.
What is this I see? Open-source community thinking about why they aren't taken more seriously? Me thinks that if tomorrow I should spot a post admitting that Linux developers also don't know a thing about designing a usable GUI, the end of the world is definitely near.
I realize that this will likely be modded down to hell, but I could really care less if it makes even one developer stop and think. The real problem with the entire Linux movement is a total lack of even the basic understanding of human psychology. Just like they still think that a file is the solution to everything.
We're not machines with RAM and hard drives. Our memory is highly associative, meaning that most of the things we remember are associated to other things. The only "hard-wired" things are those which are used on continuous basis, which I suppose explains why the developers don't notice these problems. For everything else, the less links there are, the harder it is to recall something, which is why naming software using names that say absolutely nothing about what the software is for creates such a mess.
Not to disagree with you, but can't the same concept be applied to governments? Why not have a single government responsible for running the world? That would certainly make things more efficient... At least in some sense. Again, not arguing, just thinking.
If the whole thing is windows-based look into RIS. It's a pain to configure properly, but it is more flexible and once you get a hang of it it's quite convenient.
So far Linux community has chosen to be idealistic. I would really like to see it start turning to the useful side, but seeing how many answer 'no' to this question, I don't see that happening any time soon.
Just this summer, right before going back to the university, I decided to wipe my main workstation and give Linux an honest try as my primary OS. I messed around with it for a number of years now, but always either on crappy machines that were way underpowered to create a pleasant user experience, or on virtual workstations.
Oh how I hopped that my hardware would finally work, but no such luck. My mouse only had basic functionality, my keyboard couldn't use any hotkeys, my TV tuner didn't work, and neither did the dual-monitor setup, no matter how many times I tweaked the video settings. With a sigh, back to Windows I went.
This is by no means to sound like a Troll. I like Linux for some things, but drivers and graphical user interfaces are by far your weakest points. Until these issues are fixed (and I do believe that binary drivers would be of great help), I don't see Linux as being useful.
Before you jump on me for saying that, keep in mind that I'm not talking about Slashdot crowd. Hell, if I had the time or patience for it, I could probably get some distribution to work with all of my hardware as well. The problem is how much time and effort I would have to put into having a workstation that I can use for work, as opposed to having to work on my workstation (if you get my point).
In the end, even being a software developer, I don't want to be treated as one when I use my operating system. Drivers should simply exist, and work, if that goes against the open-source ideals, maybe it's time to re-think them and be a little more flexible. If there is an alternative that saves me time, energy, and a lot of frustration, and its only downside is that it goes against the idealistic ideas of the open-source community, sorry guys, but I'm going with that.
A book is either wrong or it's right. If it's wrong, then it's wrong for everybody, and thus the author should be held accountable for the mistake that he or she could've found beforehand.
With software it's different. Just because some code works on a million machines, doesn't guarantee that it will work on one you try to run it on. Because software developer has no (or relatively little) control over the environment the software runs in, the best they can do is account for as many possibilities as possible. Even with that, if you make certain assumptions about the environment today and they are true, doesn't guarantee that the update installed tomorrow will keep it that way.
Just think about the fact that most people running windows probably have the installation in C:\windows. If you hard code that path into your code, you're software will be ok for 99% of the users. Then comes along someone who decided to install it on D for whatever reason. In best case, your software no longer works, in worst case, you seriously screwed up someone else's system. Simplistic example, I know, and it's easy to account for this type of thing, but my point is that there are thousands of examples just like this, and it's unrealistic to expect programmers to account for all of them. Sooner or later, every programmer will make some kind of an assumption about the system that their program will run on.
As a result I'm forced to conclude that lack of control over the system environment in which your software may run should relieve you of any responsibility for what happens when your program misbehaves due to non-standard circumstance.
The wall problem doesn't seem too difficult... First of all it depends if the light source is a single point, or if it has dimensions itself. In the second case, there is no way to be "directly above" the wall, since some part will always be behind or in front of it, meaning that the wall will be lit partially and there would also be a partial shadow.
If the light source is a single point and is directly above the wall, then the best that photons can do is either go away from the light source (never hitting the wall), or exactly parallel to the wall, in which case there would be no shadow, but the wall would be completely dark since no photons are able to bounce of it.
Considering that IE is the only way to run manual Windows Updates, I don't think they'll be doing that any time soon. I personally have no problems with _having_ IE on my computer. Use Firefox most of the time, but IE gives me another browser that I can use when debugging my sites.
Media Player on the other hand, now that was useless...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious, where have you heard that VMWare Server has worse performance than the former GSX? (I'm assuming that is what you're taking about?)
Once is acceptable by society's standards, the other one is not.
I've been behind a computer since about 1996 as well. Been wearing glasses for about the same amount of time. My vision problems come from two things, first would be that my father's side of family has always had terrible vision. My dad can barely see without his glasses, so it's hereditary. Second, it's because of spending too much time watching the really bad TV sets when I lived in Russia. That thing pretty much ruined my vision.
For the past year or so I've been considering laser eye surgery, but ran into the problem that my corneas are fairly thin, but still acceptable, and also because my prescription is still changing (for the worse unfortunately). Right now I'm waiting till this summer to have another try, and hopefully my vision has stabilized by then.
Have never heard of any special glasses, just know that sitting in complete darkness in front of a monitor is not too good for you (which I do quite often). Have a dual-monitor setup, one LCD, and one CRT, though both are of high quality. The only real suggestion I can give you is to never have a CRT with refresh rate below 100Hz. I can't tell you how many times I've been amazed about people who regularly use something like 60Hz and say they don't notice any difference. For me, even 85Hz is too low and I can immediately spot it, not to mention that working with such monitor gives me a headache really quickly.
With my current setup, I never get any headaches, but my guess is that it's still doing some hard to my vision. Between having good equipment, the right refresh rate for CRTs, and doing eye exercises every 2 hours or so (looking into the distance, moving them around, etc), there really isn't much you can do.
Are you using a SCSI disk by any chance? Ran into the same problem a few days ago with Ubuntu (I think it was...). Change to IDE and that'll solve the booting problem.
It's funny, because I actually spent quite a long time a while back thinking about this issue. In the end, I would say it's really difficult to give a certain 'yes' or 'no' answer.
On one hand, there is the issue that information that humans possess is increasing at exponential rate, if not faster. At one point in history, you could be a painter, a sculptor, a mathematician, a philosopher, a physicist, among other things, and still be useful to the society in all of those areas. Today however, such thing is unrealistic due to the fact of how deep each area goes, and how much must be learned of the works of those who came before you in order for you to get to the level of being able to make personal contributions.
On the other hand, you do have to remember that a century or two ago, physics was thought to be a "finished" science. As in, many physicists around the world believed that the Newtonian model has given them all that is needed, and most viewed physics as a done deal. We understand how it works, nothing more is left to learn, move along. Then came Einstein and turned the whole thing upside down.
While on my commutes to and from university last semester, I downloaded audio lectures on particle physics. One of the very first things the professor said was "today, most particle physicists believe that we have a solid understanding of what the world is made up of, and that, unlike a few decades ago, we really have gotten to the bottom layer of the universe." He ended the lectures (which were extremely interesting btw) by saying that as good as the standard model of physics is, we still have 23 quantum numbers that are unattainable through mathematics, ideas which defy logic, and a bunch of other theories like string which may also be onto something.
Overall, I think that if any conclusion is to be made about the state of physics today, I would say that no, Einstein hasn't left the building. In my opinion, we are still missing something crucial about the way the world operates, but we may not realize this until advances in other technology areas such as space travel. Individuals still can make great breakthroughs, but because of issues such as the amount of foundational knowledge, the number of people working on the same things, and the money needed for some of the research, it may be more likely that future discoveries will need to be left to teams of scientists, rather than individuals.
"DRM Inside"
Ba-dum-tsss!
Thank you, I'm here all week!
What is this I see? Open-source community thinking about why they aren't taken more seriously? Me thinks that if tomorrow I should spot a post admitting that Linux developers also don't know a thing about designing a usable GUI, the end of the world is definitely near.
I realize that this will likely be modded down to hell, but I could really care less if it makes even one developer stop and think. The real problem with the entire Linux movement is a total lack of even the basic understanding of human psychology. Just like they still think that a file is the solution to everything.
We're not machines with RAM and hard drives. Our memory is highly associative, meaning that most of the things we remember are associated to other things. The only "hard-wired" things are those which are used on continuous basis, which I suppose explains why the developers don't notice these problems. For everything else, the less links there are, the harder it is to recall something, which is why naming software using names that say absolutely nothing about what the software is for creates such a mess.
E = mc ^ 2
Nothing more beautiful then that!
free as in speech != free as in beer
Not to disagree with you, but can't the same concept be applied to governments? Why not have a single government responsible for running the world? That would certainly make things more efficient... At least in some sense. Again, not arguing, just thinking.
If the whole thing is windows-based look into RIS. It's a pain to configure properly, but it is more flexible and once you get a hang of it it's quite convenient.
So far Linux community has chosen to be idealistic. I would really like to see it start turning to the useful side, but seeing how many answer 'no' to this question, I don't see that happening any time soon.
Just this summer, right before going back to the university, I decided to wipe my main workstation and give Linux an honest try as my primary OS. I messed around with it for a number of years now, but always either on crappy machines that were way underpowered to create a pleasant user experience, or on virtual workstations.
Oh how I hopped that my hardware would finally work, but no such luck. My mouse only had basic functionality, my keyboard couldn't use any hotkeys, my TV tuner didn't work, and neither did the dual-monitor setup, no matter how many times I tweaked the video settings. With a sigh, back to Windows I went.
This is by no means to sound like a Troll. I like Linux for some things, but drivers and graphical user interfaces are by far your weakest points. Until these issues are fixed (and I do believe that binary drivers would be of great help), I don't see Linux as being useful.
Before you jump on me for saying that, keep in mind that I'm not talking about Slashdot crowd. Hell, if I had the time or patience for it, I could probably get some distribution to work with all of my hardware as well. The problem is how much time and effort I would have to put into having a workstation that I can use for work, as opposed to having to work on my workstation (if you get my point).
In the end, even being a software developer, I don't want to be treated as one when I use my operating system. Drivers should simply exist, and work, if that goes against the open-source ideals, maybe it's time to re-think them and be a little more flexible. If there is an alternative that saves me time, energy, and a lot of frustration, and its only downside is that it goes against the idealistic ideas of the open-source community, sorry guys, but I'm going with that.
My experience is that if something has to be done, just do it - don't ask! They will thank you later
- Famous last words?
We did a math exercise and the answer was 300
Really? I thought the answer was 42?
And of course I screwed up the subject, but that's not the point :)
A book is either wrong or it's right. If it's wrong, then it's wrong for everybody, and thus the author should be held accountable for the mistake that he or she could've found beforehand.
With software it's different. Just because some code works on a million machines, doesn't guarantee that it will work on one you try to run it on. Because software developer has no (or relatively little) control over the environment the software runs in, the best they can do is account for as many possibilities as possible. Even with that, if you make certain assumptions about the environment today and they are true, doesn't guarantee that the update installed tomorrow will keep it that way.
Just think about the fact that most people running windows probably have the installation in C:\windows. If you hard code that path into your code, you're software will be ok for 99% of the users. Then comes along someone who decided to install it on D for whatever reason. In best case, your software no longer works, in worst case, you seriously screwed up someone else's system. Simplistic example, I know, and it's easy to account for this type of thing, but my point is that there are thousands of examples just like this, and it's unrealistic to expect programmers to account for all of them. Sooner or later, every programmer will make some kind of an assumption about the system that their program will run on.
As a result I'm forced to conclude that lack of control over the system environment in which your software may run should relieve you of any responsibility for what happens when your program misbehaves due to non-standard circumstance.
Iraq is defenseless and small, with a weak, technologically inferior army
Then shouldn't we have won by now?
See, Iraq thought the same thing... And look what happened to them.
The "being sold" link shows $503... Damn, so long my plans of getting a new LCD. :p
The wall problem doesn't seem too difficult... First of all it depends if the light source is a single point, or if it has dimensions itself. In the second case, there is no way to be "directly above" the wall, since some part will always be behind or in front of it, meaning that the wall will be lit partially and there would also be a partial shadow.
If the light source is a single point and is directly above the wall, then the best that photons can do is either go away from the light source (never hitting the wall), or exactly parallel to the wall, in which case there would be no shadow, but the wall would be completely dark since no photons are able to bounce of it.
Oh yes, Microsoft would be more then happy to provide updates to Firefox. Right after modifying them a little bit...
No that'll just confuse them more. Instead of asking "where's the any key?" they'll be asking "which any key?"
Oh the horror!
Can you imagine how many terabytes of data this guy could store: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/ record.asp?recordid=48558
Now who's laughing! Pretty soon instead of raid arrays in the datacenters you'll see a bunch of freaks with very long finger nails. Sweet...
Won't Somebody PLEASE Think of the Children?!
Considering that IE is the only way to run manual Windows Updates, I don't think they'll be doing that any time soon. I personally have no problems with _having_ IE on my computer. Use Firefox most of the time, but IE gives me another browser that I can use when debugging my sites. Media Player on the other hand, now that was useless...