Normal human sexuality != "acting like a whore." It's normal to engage in risque and flirtatious behavior with a lover, things that can be intensely embarrassing if revealed to the public. It's not just photos. Lovemaking is an incredibly personal and intimate act, so whatever you do, you'll likely be vulnerable to someone who wants to use that against you.
I'd say, if anything, perhaps it's better to simply choose higher quality lovers. People who, after the pair goes your separate ways, won't become vindictive assholes. But it's pretty hard to know that in advanced. Lots of very nice people have chosen very poor partners, unfortunately.
So, let's throw the book at and punish perps who do this, and perhaps we can work towards creating a more understanding society in which this "revenge porn" isn't seen in quite so salacious a light, hopefully lessening its impact on the victim.
Apple should support both MacOS and high-end Macs because of the force-multiplier they represent for Apple's ecosystem (after all, it's where iOS developers work). It's not a huge money-maker for them of course, but I think it benefits them strategically.
In our case, we're developing a native Mac game client, and so needed high-end Mac build servers as part of our build farm. The only viable option was impractical Pro trash cans. The impracticality of the rack mounting was more a detriment than the price.
I'd surmise that for many professional Mac users, price isn't so much an issue. It's more an issue that you can't buy a really modern, high-end machine at ANY price (which was why people were disappointed with the new Mac Pro laptops). That was the case for us at least.
I'm glad they have the "courage" to admit they screwed up that last design. I'd guess what people want is a return of the practical cheese-grater design of previous to last gen. Simple, upgradeable. Oh, and make something rack-mountable, while you're at it. You wouldn't believe how impractical it is to try to rack mount a cylindrical computer. I feel dirty just saying that.
"Will take more time than this year"? Seriously, half a decade to come up with a new desktop computer? If you're not going to design something that's user-upgradeable, then you need to take more responsibility for refreshing the hardware at decent intervals.
When your "data" contains interpreted scripting bytecode, there's not much of a distinction there. A Python interpreter is just "reading" a Python script, right? No execution permissions required, but it can still be dangerous. Ever since document formats like Word, PDF, or even HTML put embedded scripting inside, any document you open could be just as dangerous as an executable file.
People who know and like C will continue to use it. Giant legacy projects written in C (like the Linux kernel) will continue to use C, of course. C++ 11, IMO, is not going to convince C programmers to switch. Rather, it's a love letter to existing C++ programmers due to the radical way it transformed the language.
It's still ugly as hell, and has sharp corners that will slice your fingers and toes off if you're not careful (we ARE talking C++ here). Even so, for the first time, using just the core language and libraries (Boost doesn't count), I can completely avoid manual memory management in 99% of the cases, almost like using a garbage collector, but with the advantages of destructors for non-memory resources. Raw pointers are almost a thing of the past, except for some very rare exceptions, and move semantics means your APIs can look like you always wanted them to while still remaining efficient. It's hard to describe how different the language feels pre and post 11.
In my opinion, C++ 11 simply makes C++ far better at creating large, high-performance libraries and applications (in my case, videogames) because of the confidence that robust ref-counted resource management gives you.
It's typically not about being *easier* in C++. It's more often about being *safer* while not giving up natively compiled performance. Anyone looking for "easy" and is using C++ is missing the boat.
Even with git, you still need a centralized repository for management and integration. The "distributed" part simply means you don't have to connect to a central server to get your own work done, since everyone has a full copy of the repository locally, and can *work* on it locally. If Github shut down tomorrow and stayed down for a time, it wouldn't impact my ability to work on any GitHub-based code already on my machine - only management of it (pull requests, bug reports, etc).
Platform popularity is important, not for the self-esteem of the user, but for attracting developers and their products to said platform.
Part of what makes Android, iOS, and Windows on desktop so successful is their robust software ecosystems, which is a frustrating "chicken and egg problem" for anyone looking to break into that market. The Windows store, and *especially* the store for Windows phone, has never been able to replicate that success. They probably would have done so had they not first soured users' expectations with Windows CE, then Windows RT, and then been fourth to market with a finally decent mobile OS. Too little, too late. The world had already picked the mobile winners by then.
Hmm, not sure I agree. Walmart is a retail store, and won't really care whether they're advertising on YouTube or not. There are plenty of other advertisement avenues for them.
However, Google's billions are made almost *entirely* from online advertising. I'm not saying they'll necessarily take a significant hit from this, but you can bet that this is *much* more concerning to them, as it's affecting the reputation of their most important service, financially speaking. I'd bet we'll see some sort of proactive response from them concerning this fairly shortly. There's no way they're going to risk their primary revenue source.
Perhaps also an effort to encourage Google to come back and offer these advertisers some discounted rates? It's unlikely that these advertisers will stay away for long. But why not pull out of a deal temporarily and see if things look more favorable for the next contract?
I don't think there's a lot of love for the dominant position Google has in internet advertising, so of course other companies will take any opportunity they can get to stick it too them just a bit. This just seems like an excuse to do that.
Yeah, I've never talked about it in those terms, but we all know bullshit marketing-speak when we see it. On the other hand, I've often said "thank God for Stack Overflow" after finding a quick and informative answer to a technical question I had.
It's an incredibly valuable resource. I often find it useful when I'm first digging into a new language or technology. Nearly every basic or even advanced question I tend to ask has been asked and answered already, and I can just reap the benefits.
But the *real* payoff, in my opinion, is when you find answers to incredibly obscure issues for which you might have to work days or even *weeks* to figure out, and some kind soul who has already gone through that pain shares knowledge for the good of everyone else, even though doing so is even more work for them.
Using a modern game engine doesn't absolve responsibility for writing good, efficient code, and even moreso like me if you ARE the one working on the engine. Plenty of studios still write and use their own custom engines.
Optimization is still critically important. I'd argue its one of several pillars of our technical requirements. That being said, I never claimed it was the "end all be all". But yes, we actually do worry about the cost of operations like allocations, locks, or operations which enter kernel space, because of the cost of the context switch. Those things add up if they occur when iterating over the typically massive, complex data structures we tend to work with.
But at a broader scope, "optimization" these days more typically means being smart about how you code in a real-time and occasionally memory-constrained environment rather than micro-optimization, which isn't practical for the hundreds of thousands of lines of code in modern, large-scale projects. For instance, being smart about caching both objects and data to avoid unnecessary allocations (or writing your own allocators to help with that), optimizing for multi-threaded execution, writing CPU-cache friendly code and data structures where necessary (more important than micro-code optimizations in many cases), and so on.
BTW, this is a common misconception, but far more happens outside of the graphics sub-system that needs programmer attention. People tend to forget that most animation happens on the CPU, not to mention physics, audio, AI, scripting, resource management, and general gameplay logic.
and I have all of my roof covered that gets direct sunlight, and they still aren't powerful enough to produce enough power even in the summer to overcome the self-discharge of my SLA batteries. Here in Seattle in the winter, I might as well not even have the panels. 26% efficient would be strong enough to keep me from having to plug a charger into the wall to charge my batteries for maybe six months a year. Hopefully this will reach consumers soon.
The state of WA is almost entirely powered by hydro-electric. We already have reasonably cheap, green power right off the grid here. And you weren't satisfied with buying solar panels just once, but are interested in purchasing a second set because the first ones were so worthless.
Videogame programmers care *very much* about all these sorts of performance issues. Not coincidentally, many videogame programmers use custom containers, and nearly ALL of them use custom allocators for exactly this reason.
That being said, not everyone programs real-time pseudo-simulations like we do. But you should very much care about ensuring the most basic building blocks of code everyone uses are highly optimized at the very least. The more often code is called, the more attention should be paid to ensuring its as optimal as it should be.
I'd be curious to hear MS's response to these issues. It could be that there were some deliberate reasons for the choices made, or possibly some unintended consequences to the solutions offered, but it's hard to say without a fairly deep knowledge of the STL internals MS uses (based on Dinkumware, I think?)
It was a terrible movie that had a few cool action scenes. For the record, I'm not a movie snob (some mindless action can be fun) and I'm not much of a fan of Heinlein as an author (early stuff is decent, but his later works are horrid). I watched the movie before I read the book, so I had NO initial biases. And when I eventually read the book, I remember thinking "shit, why didn't they make *this* into a movie?"
From what I can remember, one of my beefs was the casting, which seemed to place more emphasis on finding impossibly good-looking 20-somethings than creating interesting characters, and getting said female members of the cast naked as often as possible. Nothing wrong with that, but it didn't fit the tone of the movie. The movie-version military apparently felt it was appropriate to use WWI-style mass infantry charges against their enemies. Do they not have armor in the future (in the book they sure do)? WTF? But worse than anything, the dialog and plot just seemed to fall flat to me.
I'm aware of the differences between film and books. For instance, I loved the Lord of the Rings re-interpretation as a movie, even if quite a few things differed from canon, so you certainly couldn't call me a "purist". I think that's because I felt the LOTR movie was an appropriate homage to the original story and universe, even if some things differed. I just don't see that you could say that about Starship Troopers.
"Routinely?" Robots have been working in factories for decades now, and these sorts of deaths are rare enough to make headlines.
How many people were killed in automobile accidents yesterday in the US? Dozens, probably. Dozens more will probably die today. Some perspective is needed here.
This will hopefully lead to some new, better safety precautions, like ensuring ANY robots within potential reaching distance must be shut down. This either wasn't mandated or wasn't done as required.
It depends on the version. VS 2010 was solid, but MS royally screwed something up in VS 2012 when they rewrote the IDE, as it was highly unstable (especially with large projects), with VS 2013 just a bit better. VS 2015 has been quite stable, fortunately, and hopefully VS 2017 will continue the trend.
VS2017 has a new installer that's supposed to be better at managing components, languages, etc. I haven't tried it myself though, so I can't give a recommendation either way.
Agreed. Submitter should think about it this way. How much per-year does a typical programmer earn? Does $500 or even $6K for a perpetual license software for a tool said developer will probably use every day for several years sound expensive? It's stupidly inexpensive, relatively speaking, to the total cost of that programmer's general overhead.
It's a decent chunk of money for an individual developer, but then again, they can simply use the Community Edition for free.
I think it would be obvious why Google would want to provide a free web browser to its products (some might mistakenly call them "users"). They want to ensure their products have safe, secure, and functional access to their services, and controlling the browser means they get to control that experience to a larger degree.
But I highly doubt Chrome spies on its products. Why? Because there's no need for the browser itself to snoop when 3rd party cookies do the job just as well "legitimately". A huge percentage of the world's websites use Google services in some fashion (like ads, analytics, etc), meaning they all report to Google when a product visits said website. Google then builds an advertising profile from the products collective web browsing habits, and sells targeted advertising based on that profile. Best of all, from Google's perspective, it works equally well with any browser.
Even better yes please to an entire ecosystem of languages. Its one of the fundamental flaws of software engineering.
At work, I write game and engine code in C++, some platform-specific Mac stuff in Objective-C, tools in C#, all managed by a build system written in Java, customized with Python, and Bash and Powershell scripts, with a web interface in Javascript. And that's just the languages I've interacted with myself.
Domain-specific or specialty languages work great in other industries, so don't blame it on "software engineering". This is problem for web developers.
Oh, I absolutely agree. Given experience with glitchy hardware, unexpectedly bad games, and so forth, my policy has been for quite a while to avoid preorders, and instead to wait a while for most new games and consoles to let the reviews all trickle out, not just from reviewers, but impressions by normal gamers as well.
Had this (and other) reviews even been *slightly* less positive, I probably would have not bothered with the Switch. This may change my mind, as Zelda is a long-time favorite of mine. I'll probably wait a while and see if there are at least a few other great games to pick up before I commit.
I only ended up buying a couple of decent games on the Wii, and didn't feel like the WiiU was worth the upgrade. I *loathed* the motion control gimmick stuck to nearly every games on the Wii, and was worried about the gimmicky nature of this console as well (so far the console itself isn't reviewing all that well).
I don't really care if people want to believe this worst-case scenario, but I start caring very much when they start recommending policies driven by nothing but pure speculation at best. After all, we all know how easy it is to accurately predict the future, right?
The undertext of these articles is promoting taxes on robots (or "robots paying taxes"). Imagine where the internet would be if politicians decided to tax the crap out of it in its early days, for every anticipated postal worker laid off because of e-mail, or librarian because of the Web. Do we really want to go there with a new technology that's still in its infancy?
Slashdot Mirror
Normal human sexuality != "acting like a whore." It's normal to engage in risque and flirtatious behavior with a lover, things that can be intensely embarrassing if revealed to the public. It's not just photos. Lovemaking is an incredibly personal and intimate act, so whatever you do, you'll likely be vulnerable to someone who wants to use that against you.
I'd say, if anything, perhaps it's better to simply choose higher quality lovers. People who, after the pair goes your separate ways, won't become vindictive assholes. But it's pretty hard to know that in advanced. Lots of very nice people have chosen very poor partners, unfortunately.
So, let's throw the book at and punish perps who do this, and perhaps we can work towards creating a more understanding society in which this "revenge porn" isn't seen in quite so salacious a light, hopefully lessening its impact on the victim.
Apple should support both MacOS and high-end Macs because of the force-multiplier they represent for Apple's ecosystem (after all, it's where iOS developers work). It's not a huge money-maker for them of course, but I think it benefits them strategically.
In our case, we're developing a native Mac game client, and so needed high-end Mac build servers as part of our build farm. The only viable option was impractical Pro trash cans. The impracticality of the rack mounting was more a detriment than the price.
I'd surmise that for many professional Mac users, price isn't so much an issue. It's more an issue that you can't buy a really modern, high-end machine at ANY price (which was why people were disappointed with the new Mac Pro laptops). That was the case for us at least.
I'm glad they have the "courage" to admit they screwed up that last design. I'd guess what people want is a return of the practical cheese-grater design of previous to last gen. Simple, upgradeable. Oh, and make something rack-mountable, while you're at it. You wouldn't believe how impractical it is to try to rack mount a cylindrical computer. I feel dirty just saying that.
"Will take more time than this year"? Seriously, half a decade to come up with a new desktop computer? If you're not going to design something that's user-upgradeable, then you need to take more responsibility for refreshing the hardware at decent intervals.
When your "data" contains interpreted scripting bytecode, there's not much of a distinction there. A Python interpreter is just "reading" a Python script, right? No execution permissions required, but it can still be dangerous. Ever since document formats like Word, PDF, or even HTML put embedded scripting inside, any document you open could be just as dangerous as an executable file.
People who know and like C will continue to use it. Giant legacy projects written in C (like the Linux kernel) will continue to use C, of course. C++ 11, IMO, is not going to convince C programmers to switch. Rather, it's a love letter to existing C++ programmers due to the radical way it transformed the language.
It's still ugly as hell, and has sharp corners that will slice your fingers and toes off if you're not careful (we ARE talking C++ here). Even so, for the first time, using just the core language and libraries (Boost doesn't count), I can completely avoid manual memory management in 99% of the cases, almost like using a garbage collector, but with the advantages of destructors for non-memory resources. Raw pointers are almost a thing of the past, except for some very rare exceptions, and move semantics means your APIs can look like you always wanted them to while still remaining efficient. It's hard to describe how different the language feels pre and post 11.
In my opinion, C++ 11 simply makes C++ far better at creating large, high-performance libraries and applications (in my case, videogames) because of the confidence that robust ref-counted resource management gives you.
It's typically not about being *easier* in C++. It's more often about being *safer* while not giving up natively compiled performance. Anyone looking for "easy" and is using C++ is missing the boat.
Even with git, you still need a centralized repository for management and integration. The "distributed" part simply means you don't have to connect to a central server to get your own work done, since everyone has a full copy of the repository locally, and can *work* on it locally. If Github shut down tomorrow and stayed down for a time, it wouldn't impact my ability to work on any GitHub-based code already on my machine - only management of it (pull requests, bug reports, etc).
Platform popularity is important, not for the self-esteem of the user, but for attracting developers and their products to said platform.
Part of what makes Android, iOS, and Windows on desktop so successful is their robust software ecosystems, which is a frustrating "chicken and egg problem" for anyone looking to break into that market. The Windows store, and *especially* the store for Windows phone, has never been able to replicate that success. They probably would have done so had they not first soured users' expectations with Windows CE, then Windows RT, and then been fourth to market with a finally decent mobile OS. Too little, too late. The world had already picked the mobile winners by then.
I used to be a pioneer like you. Then I took an arrow in the knee.
Hmm, not sure I agree. Walmart is a retail store, and won't really care whether they're advertising on YouTube or not. There are plenty of other advertisement avenues for them.
However, Google's billions are made almost *entirely* from online advertising. I'm not saying they'll necessarily take a significant hit from this, but you can bet that this is *much* more concerning to them, as it's affecting the reputation of their most important service, financially speaking. I'd bet we'll see some sort of proactive response from them concerning this fairly shortly. There's no way they're going to risk their primary revenue source.
Perhaps also an effort to encourage Google to come back and offer these advertisers some discounted rates? It's unlikely that these advertisers will stay away for long. But why not pull out of a deal temporarily and see if things look more favorable for the next contract?
I don't think there's a lot of love for the dominant position Google has in internet advertising, so of course other companies will take any opportunity they can get to stick it too them just a bit. This just seems like an excuse to do that.
Yeah, I've never talked about it in those terms, but we all know bullshit marketing-speak when we see it. On the other hand, I've often said "thank God for Stack Overflow" after finding a quick and informative answer to a technical question I had.
It's an incredibly valuable resource. I often find it useful when I'm first digging into a new language or technology. Nearly every basic or even advanced question I tend to ask has been asked and answered already, and I can just reap the benefits.
But the *real* payoff, in my opinion, is when you find answers to incredibly obscure issues for which you might have to work days or even *weeks* to figure out, and some kind soul who has already gone through that pain shares knowledge for the good of everyone else, even though doing so is even more work for them.
Using a modern game engine doesn't absolve responsibility for writing good, efficient code, and even moreso like me if you ARE the one working on the engine. Plenty of studios still write and use their own custom engines.
Optimization is still critically important. I'd argue its one of several pillars of our technical requirements. That being said, I never claimed it was the "end all be all". But yes, we actually do worry about the cost of operations like allocations, locks, or operations which enter kernel space, because of the cost of the context switch. Those things add up if they occur when iterating over the typically massive, complex data structures we tend to work with.
But at a broader scope, "optimization" these days more typically means being smart about how you code in a real-time and occasionally memory-constrained environment rather than micro-optimization, which isn't practical for the hundreds of thousands of lines of code in modern, large-scale projects. For instance, being smart about caching both objects and data to avoid unnecessary allocations (or writing your own allocators to help with that), optimizing for multi-threaded execution, writing CPU-cache friendly code and data structures where necessary (more important than micro-code optimizations in many cases), and so on.
BTW, this is a common misconception, but far more happens outside of the graphics sub-system that needs programmer attention. People tend to forget that most animation happens on the CPU, not to mention physics, audio, AI, scripting, resource management, and general gameplay logic.
and I have all of my roof covered that gets direct sunlight, and they still aren't powerful enough to produce enough power even in the summer to overcome the self-discharge of my SLA batteries. Here in Seattle in the winter, I might as well not even have the panels. 26% efficient would be strong enough to keep me from having to plug a charger into the wall to charge my batteries for maybe six months a year. Hopefully this will reach consumers soon.
The state of WA is almost entirely powered by hydro-electric. We already have reasonably cheap, green power right off the grid here. And you weren't satisfied with buying solar panels just once, but are interested in purchasing a second set because the first ones were so worthless.
I'm apparently missing something.
Videogame programmers care *very much* about all these sorts of performance issues. Not coincidentally, many videogame programmers use custom containers, and nearly ALL of them use custom allocators for exactly this reason.
That being said, not everyone programs real-time pseudo-simulations like we do. But you should very much care about ensuring the most basic building blocks of code everyone uses are highly optimized at the very least. The more often code is called, the more attention should be paid to ensuring its as optimal as it should be.
I'd be curious to hear MS's response to these issues. It could be that there were some deliberate reasons for the choices made, or possibly some unintended consequences to the solutions offered, but it's hard to say without a fairly deep knowledge of the STL internals MS uses (based on Dinkumware, I think?)
Starship troopers is a fantastic movie.
It was a terrible movie that had a few cool action scenes. For the record, I'm not a movie snob (some mindless action can be fun) and I'm not much of a fan of Heinlein as an author (early stuff is decent, but his later works are horrid). I watched the movie before I read the book, so I had NO initial biases. And when I eventually read the book, I remember thinking "shit, why didn't they make *this* into a movie?"
From what I can remember, one of my beefs was the casting, which seemed to place more emphasis on finding impossibly good-looking 20-somethings than creating interesting characters, and getting said female members of the cast naked as often as possible. Nothing wrong with that, but it didn't fit the tone of the movie. The movie-version military apparently felt it was appropriate to use WWI-style mass infantry charges against their enemies. Do they not have armor in the future (in the book they sure do)? WTF? But worse than anything, the dialog and plot just seemed to fall flat to me.
I'm aware of the differences between film and books. For instance, I loved the Lord of the Rings re-interpretation as a movie, even if quite a few things differed from canon, so you certainly couldn't call me a "purist". I think that's because I felt the LOTR movie was an appropriate homage to the original story and universe, even if some things differed. I just don't see that you could say that about Starship Troopers.
"Routinely?" Robots have been working in factories for decades now, and these sorts of deaths are rare enough to make headlines.
How many people were killed in automobile accidents yesterday in the US? Dozens, probably. Dozens more will probably die today. Some perspective is needed here.
This will hopefully lead to some new, better safety precautions, like ensuring ANY robots within potential reaching distance must be shut down. This either wasn't mandated or wasn't done as required.
It depends on the version. VS 2010 was solid, but MS royally screwed something up in VS 2012 when they rewrote the IDE, as it was highly unstable (especially with large projects), with VS 2013 just a bit better. VS 2015 has been quite stable, fortunately, and hopefully VS 2017 will continue the trend.
VS2017 has a new installer that's supposed to be better at managing components, languages, etc. I haven't tried it myself though, so I can't give a recommendation either way.
Agreed. Submitter should think about it this way. How much per-year does a typical programmer earn? Does $500 or even $6K for a perpetual license software for a tool said developer will probably use every day for several years sound expensive? It's stupidly inexpensive, relatively speaking, to the total cost of that programmer's general overhead.
It's a decent chunk of money for an individual developer, but then again, they can simply use the Community Edition for free.
I think it would be obvious why Google would want to provide a free web browser to its products (some might mistakenly call them "users"). They want to ensure their products have safe, secure, and functional access to their services, and controlling the browser means they get to control that experience to a larger degree.
But I highly doubt Chrome spies on its products. Why? Because there's no need for the browser itself to snoop when 3rd party cookies do the job just as well "legitimately". A huge percentage of the world's websites use Google services in some fashion (like ads, analytics, etc), meaning they all report to Google when a product visits said website. Google then builds an advertising profile from the products collective web browsing habits, and sells targeted advertising based on that profile. Best of all, from Google's perspective, it works equally well with any browser.
Even better yes please to an entire ecosystem of languages. Its one of the fundamental flaws of software engineering.
At work, I write game and engine code in C++, some platform-specific Mac stuff in Objective-C, tools in C#, all managed by a build system written in Java, customized with Python, and Bash and Powershell scripts, with a web interface in Javascript. And that's just the languages I've interacted with myself.
Domain-specific or specialty languages work great in other industries, so don't blame it on "software engineering". This is problem for web developers.
Oh, I absolutely agree. Given experience with glitchy hardware, unexpectedly bad games, and so forth, my policy has been for quite a while to avoid preorders, and instead to wait a while for most new games and consoles to let the reviews all trickle out, not just from reviewers, but impressions by normal gamers as well.
Had this (and other) reviews even been *slightly* less positive, I probably would have not bothered with the Switch. This may change my mind, as Zelda is a long-time favorite of mine. I'll probably wait a while and see if there are at least a few other great games to pick up before I commit.
I only ended up buying a couple of decent games on the Wii, and didn't feel like the WiiU was worth the upgrade. I *loathed* the motion control gimmick stuck to nearly every games on the Wii, and was worried about the gimmicky nature of this console as well (so far the console itself isn't reviewing all that well).
Well, we'll see. I guess I remain on the fence.
I don't really care if people want to believe this worst-case scenario, but I start caring very much when they start recommending policies driven by nothing but pure speculation at best. After all, we all know how easy it is to accurately predict the future, right?
The undertext of these articles is promoting taxes on robots (or "robots paying taxes"). Imagine where the internet would be if politicians decided to tax the crap out of it in its early days, for every anticipated postal worker laid off because of e-mail, or librarian because of the Web. Do we really want to go there with a new technology that's still in its infancy?