You might get modded funny, but I have to agree. The Domino's pizza tracker is excellent in its iterface, and does a GREAT job informing you of progress. Sure, it could be some AJAX app or whatnot, but... this works too. I have no complaints.
That is precisely the reason why no airliner will ever again be usable as a weapon, so long as the passengers are able to get to and lay hands on the attackers. Every one of us will assume that the plane is on its way to be destroyed, and will fight hard to make sure it doesn't get used as a weapon. Bring a metal pen with you on your flights, or a mechanical pencil or two.
I'd rather explain the workings of sex, why people prance about with vegetables and lingerie, or what porn is ANY day than to have to explain why people hurt one another, or have to explain why people starve to death, or why we live under a constant (minor) threat of nuclear apocalypse. I mean, at some point, my kid will find out that my wife and I have sex, or will want to know where his new sister (or brother) will be coming from (eventually).
I think it would be useful to have a large-screen display which is easily manipulable -- "war room" style. (They can always have another projection of it for those who need read-only access.) It's a bit easier to collaborate when you can see in meatspace where others are pointing, or going to point, rather than having dueling light pens / mice.
The problem the OP has is not with bugs in their own code, but in bugs in the code that they depend on. Their team is not (ostensibly) responsible for fixing the bugs, they just need to know when/if they are. Now, Open Source makes that more of a stretch, but it's entirely conceivable that one's software could depend on non-free code (or be built in a framework) which they have no modification ability for. At that point, it's important to be able to know the status of that that file I/O bug, or inability to display certain types of graphical annotations, which has held back YOUR deliverables.
Ideally, your vendor would fix all the bugs as they get to them. However, you are likely not their only customer, and may be at the tail end of the triage. Your "critical problem" (since it prevents you from implementing Feature X) isn't as critical to them if you're the only one needing it fixed, for example.
While I agree that it's important that the concepts of death and harm not be sanitized too much, you have to temper it to the maturity of the viewer. At some point, we all had to learn that people die, and that death is permanent. There's a reason Bambi makes kids cry. Once your child understands that that is what is happening, story-wise, they will understand what's going on better. Whether it's an old Errol Flynn movie where the bad guy gets skewered, or a western where people tend to just keep over, you can still convey the message, without needing the blood sprays.
You joke, but I think an updated Oregon Trail would be interesting. Scout your path in first person, do minigames for river crossings, hunt things in first person, perhaps. Include an option to play it "desert bus" style, for the truly masochistic.;)
The point is not to understand how something works, but to portray it in a reasonable way, such that the audience doesn't say, "oh there's no way that would work". For scifi, that often means decribing the tech frameowrk well enough. For historical stuff, it means being accurate-enough. Shakespeare's "they fight" in Romeo and Juliet is an example where it's enough. If he went and described fighting wrong that would be different. Sortof like when I read about archers using a particular eye to aim, and the reason is exactly opposite of normal practice. E.g.: The Apothecary Rose, where the main character is an archer who lost an eye. Excellent story, but that one little thing always annoyed me. (Still an excellent detective story, though!)
Using a virtual desktop manager (like VirtuaWin, which I adore) has made my computing life much more enjoyable. At work I have dual monitors, but effectively have ~6. It lets me context-switch without needing to re-hunt through all the closed stuff.
Old hat to any Linux user, of course, but... if you've never used one, I highly recommend it. {Win}+Number key combos are the bees' knees.
This is something that needs to be brought up with the publisher of the online resource. Tell them that if their "printable view" doesn't show the charts from an article whose main substance is charts, then you are uninterested in visiting their site.
You might get a "Thanks, that's nice" response -- if you're bypassing ad revenue in the first place, you're not really their ideal customer.
Its now only a small step to being done for having photos of your own kids nude. Hell, ive event sent pics of my kids nude to my mum, so guessing i could also be done for distributing child porn.
Exactly. My wife and I will not take photographs or video of my son playing in the bathtub (at 12 months, it's pretty funny to watch him splash and play in the water), for fear that it might be used in some witch hunt later.
I remember going to my friend's house, and seeing baby pictures of him (and his siblings) in the bathtub, hanging on the bathroom wall. It never disturbed (or excited) me, and it never occurred to me that there would be anything wrong with it. (Maybe embarassing for your kids, hehe, to display them prominently like that, but that's it.) It's absolutely a tragedy that my wife and I can't make such keepsakes for preserving the memories of a precious time in our son's life, without fear of significant ruination of our lives at a later date.
My reflexive control-X control-S (when I'm/not/ in Emacs) would beg to differ. It's gotten so ingrained that I'll use those shortcuts in other things as well; similarly, shift-delete will delete a whole line in my Other Editor, which annoys the heck out of me, as i'm expecting to cut what I have highlighted.;) So, I'm pretty sure muscle memory works quite well with keystrokes... whereas when mousing, I am always looking at where it's going. Perhaps with a tablet it'd be easier.... but even then I had trouble and needed to look.
There is a 100% probability you are going to die of something. so claiming 60% of people will die of heart disease (because heart failure and cancer are what take out most of our population) is like pronouncing you have discovered people grow old and die
The difference is, our goal is not merely to study WHY we die, but to find ways to PREVENT (or deter, or delay) death. Now that medical science has progressed enough that genetic disorders, failing organs, or other things that kill you in "old age" are what kill us (rather than diseases, infections, accidents, etc), we have even better targets. If we can work on treatments for heart disease (or other things that kill us when we're old), that will (we hope) allow us to live a little bit longer.
Sure, in a sense it's pushing back the inevitable. But, small advances are how we get most of our progress. A couple hundred years ago, people often died in their thirties or forties. Now, we live twice that, long enough that it's considered prudent to plan for financial support to be long-lasting. As we narrow down the list of Things That Can Kill Us, and mitigate their effect on the populace, it enables us to live longer.... now if only we had a way to prevent dementia.:( That scares me more, I think, than the prospect of a failing body.
Thank you for beating me to it, with a more-insightful message to boot.
If this were available on a DVD, I'd order it. If it were on a torrent, I'd download it (assuming I knew about it). I doubt I will be able to watch this live, so being able to timeshift it would be very nice.
If you know you are not intoxicated, and are worried that a false-positive will screw you, GET A BLOOD TEST. It's pretty ironclad, and I'll take a few hours of inconvenience over a wrongful conviction based on faulty evidence (or user error -- didn't I read that the breathalyzers are fudgeable?). A blood test is highly unlikely to report you as drunk if you've not been drinking.
If you ARE intoxicated, then you're a hazard and I hope (and trust) that either method will recognize you as the fool that you are. Drunk drivers deserve the convictions.
The most interesting thing from the reporter's follow-up was that he highlighted that it was free, and that change is scary, yet at the end, expressed some interested in pursuing it further. Awesome! He might become a Linux zealot, but at least he's not saying "you people are crazy!". He may or may not try it, but now that he's been introduced to the idea, it's taking hold on him. I bet the next time he goes to buy some expensive software, he may think, "Wait, wasn't there a free alternative?". Sure, he may not use that alternative, but now he's making a more-informed choice, rather than a Default choice.
If he never published his findings, what posible contributory value do they have to the progress of science?
That's a bit of an extreme expression, since Copernicus only published posthumously (and I forget if it was with his permission;))... but still. Why should he get respect for discovering awesome stuff, and then not sharing the knowledge? In the world of science, isn't that equivalent to being useless?
His point is that the congrescritters, if they had to listen to every bill be read, would: - find it a waste of time - not get a lot of things passed, unless they were small bills.
Some consider a slow-moving congress to be a good thing. Those who wanted something to ACTUALLY get done (or at least get a vote done) would be encouraged to have shorter bills. In theory, they can't claim that they didn't read it (though they might be absent the day it was read...) before voting on it. This way, there are 100+ chances for someone to listen to it and say, "wait, what??" when some screwy quirk might otherwise get overlooked in an 80 page stack of paper.
On the other hand, listeners would likely just tune it out -- and it would effectively be "surf my blackberry" time, or something similar.
Some consider a slow-moving congress to be a good thing. I'm not sure that it is or is not, but this would at least make it easier for smaller bills to stand out, and would make it easy for the populace to understand what the hell our people are voting on. Moreover, "riders" would stick out more blatantly.
Lot offers up his daughters to be raped (pretty sleazy, IMO):
[God] sends angels to the city of Sodom where they meet Lot at the city gates. Lot seems greatly concerned that the angels should spend the night in his house but the angels insist they wish to spend the night in the city street. Lot puts a great deal of pressure on them and eventually convinces them. However all the people of Sodom surround Lots house with intent to meet (in some translations, rape) the angels (19:5). Lot offers the men his daughters instead, whom he says are virgins (19:8)
Lot's daughters, thinking they are the only humans left, get their dad drunk so that they can conceive:
In Gen. 19:30-38, Lot's daughters incorrectly believed they were the only people to have survived the devastation They assumed it was their responsibility to bear children and enable the continuation of the human race.... On two subsequent nights, according to the plan of the older daughter, they got their father drunk enough to have sexual intercourse with them. By him each became pregnant.
29) And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt. 30) And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31) And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32) Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33) And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
So, I'd say that the sleeping-with-his-daughters thing isn't quite his fault. It either the "omg we're the last humans alive" scenario, as far as they knew, or perhaps just "we don't want our bloodline to die". Weird either way, and not something I'd want to do, but I don't think it's worth tarring Lot for it.:)
you can just resurrect him. Death is no more permanent in D&D than in any video game.
In a video game, I can usually choose to re-try an encounter that went badly, and "prevent" the death in what is effectively an alternate timeline.
In D&D, few EARLY characters have the resources (or the value to the campaign world) to spend on resurrection. Sure, if you're in a high level party, your team will probably (if prudent;)) have ways to ensure resurrection is possible, perhaps even socking away resources dedicated for that purpose. Early on though, characters just don't really have the resources. Additionally, resurrection isn't without penalty (unless I misremember -- which is likely;)). Isn't there a loss-of-XP factor as well, or am I mistakenly mixing up my D&D with EQ?
Based on the "load an old save" feature, I'd say that death is a much lighter penalty in video games. I'd be interested in playing a game based on Richard K. Morgan's world from the Takeshi Kovacs novels (Altered Carbon, etc). There, most people have their mind stored-at-death in a "cortical stack", which basically allows the consciousness to be downloaded into a new body ("sleeve"). Real Death (or loss of the stack) is still possible, of course, as is an eternity of virtual (or real) torture... but generally it's a "given" that snuffing out a body doesn't permanently kill them -- assuming they have the money for a new body. I think that could make for some interesting roleplaying.
So was Rainbow Six (and its next few sequels, which I realize Ghost Recon was). Losing a team member was so problematic, though, that I found myself compelled to: - Make a team of only the "expendable extras" that you had infinite of or - Play with only a single character (or perhaps a teammate), and don't accept the mission failure results if he died.
NEITHER was really how the game was "intended" to be played... but losing teammates (as inevitably teammate AI would get themselves killed without excessive babysitting) was frequent and devastating. I signed up for shooting terrorists, not for babysitting teammates who didn't clear a door before entering, or didn't watch behind them.
It was still very fun, mind you. I just had an expanded list of Failure conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
You might get modded funny, but I have to agree. The Domino's pizza tracker is excellent in its iterface, and does a GREAT job informing you of progress. Sure, it could be some AJAX app or whatnot, but ... this works too. I have no complaints.
That is precisely the reason why no airliner will ever again be usable as a weapon, so long as the passengers are able to get to and lay hands on the attackers. Every one of us will assume that the plane is on its way to be destroyed, and will fight hard to make sure it doesn't get used as a weapon. Bring a metal pen with you on your flights, or a mechanical pencil or two.
I completely agree.
I'd rather explain the workings of sex, why people prance about with vegetables and lingerie, or what porn is ANY day than to have to explain why people hurt one another, or have to explain why people starve to death, or why we live under a constant (minor) threat of nuclear apocalypse. I mean, at some point, my kid will find out that my wife and I have sex, or will want to know where his new sister (or brother) will be coming from (eventually).
It might send a message to other nations that you don't screw with them when they've already worked to comply with your laws, though.
Not that this is the best idea, but yeah. Suspending service for even a few days would get the message across, I expect.
I think it would be useful to have a large-screen display which is easily manipulable -- "war room" style. (They can always have another projection of it for those who need read-only access.) It's a bit easier to collaborate when you can see in meatspace where others are pointing, or going to point, rather than having dueling light pens / mice.
The problem the OP has is not with bugs in their own code, but in bugs in the code that they depend on. Their team is not (ostensibly) responsible for fixing the bugs, they just need to know when/if they are. Now, Open Source makes that more of a stretch, but it's entirely conceivable that one's software could depend on non-free code (or be built in a framework) which they have no modification ability for. At that point, it's important to be able to know the status of that that file I/O bug, or inability to display certain types of graphical annotations, which has held back YOUR deliverables.
Ideally, your vendor would fix all the bugs as they get to them. However, you are likely not their only customer, and may be at the tail end of the triage. Your "critical problem" (since it prevents you from implementing Feature X) isn't as critical to them if you're the only one needing it fixed, for example.
While I agree that it's important that the concepts of death and harm not be sanitized too much, you have to temper it to the maturity of the viewer. At some point, we all had to learn that people die, and that death is permanent. There's a reason Bambi makes kids cry. Once your child understands that that is what is happening, story-wise, they will understand what's going on better. Whether it's an old Errol Flynn movie where the bad guy gets skewered, or a western where people tend to just keep over, you can still convey the message, without needing the blood sprays.
You joke, but I think an updated Oregon Trail would be interesting. Scout your path in first person, do minigames for river crossings, hunt things in first person, perhaps. Include an option to play it "desert bus" style, for the truly masochistic. ;)
The point is not to understand how something works, but to portray it in a reasonable way, such that the audience doesn't say, "oh there's no way that would work". For scifi, that often means decribing the tech frameowrk well enough. For historical stuff, it means being accurate-enough. Shakespeare's "they fight" in Romeo and Juliet is an example where it's enough. If he went and described fighting wrong that would be different. Sortof like when I read about archers using a particular eye to aim, and the reason is exactly opposite of normal practice. E.g.: The Apothecary Rose, where the main character is an archer who lost an eye. Excellent story, but that one little thing always annoyed me. (Still an excellent detective story, though!)
Using a virtual desktop manager (like VirtuaWin, which I adore) has made my computing life much more enjoyable. At work I have dual monitors, but effectively have ~6. It lets me context-switch without needing to re-hunt through all the closed stuff.
Old hat to any Linux user, of course, but ... if you've never used one, I highly recommend it. {Win}+Number key combos are the bees' knees.
This is something that needs to be brought up with the publisher of the online resource. Tell them that if their "printable view" doesn't show the charts from an article whose main substance is charts, then you are uninterested in visiting their site.
You might get a "Thanks, that's nice" response -- if you're bypassing ad revenue in the first place, you're not really their ideal customer.
Technically, it is still deleting something -- just more than I would prefer. :D
Exactly. My wife and I will not take photographs or video of my son playing in the bathtub (at 12 months, it's pretty funny to watch him splash and play in the water), for fear that it might be used in some witch hunt later.
I remember going to my friend's house, and seeing baby pictures of him (and his siblings) in the bathtub, hanging on the bathroom wall. It never disturbed (or excited) me, and it never occurred to me that there would be anything wrong with it. (Maybe embarassing for your kids, hehe, to display them prominently like that, but that's it.) It's absolutely a tragedy that my wife and I can't make such keepsakes for preserving the memories of a precious time in our son's life, without fear of significant ruination of our lives at a later date.
Use streamripper to save files as separate MP3s; then, just delete all the ones that are less than ~30 seconds long.
That doesn't work well for live streaming, of course, so it's not quite what you want.
My reflexive control-X control-S (when I'm /not/ in Emacs) would beg to differ. It's gotten so ingrained that I'll use those shortcuts in other things as well; similarly, shift-delete will delete a whole line in my Other Editor, which annoys the heck out of me, as i'm expecting to cut what I have highlighted. ;) So, I'm pretty sure muscle memory works quite well with keystrokes ... whereas when mousing, I am always looking at where it's going. Perhaps with a tablet it'd be easier.... but even then I had trouble and needed to look.
There is a 100% probability you are going to die of something. so claiming 60% of people will die of heart disease (because heart failure and cancer are what take out most of our population) is like pronouncing you have discovered people grow old and die
The difference is, our goal is not merely to study WHY we die, but to find ways to PREVENT (or deter, or delay) death. Now that medical science has progressed enough that genetic disorders, failing organs, or other things that kill you in "old age" are what kill us (rather than diseases, infections, accidents, etc), we have even better targets. If we can work on treatments for heart disease (or other things that kill us when we're old), that will (we hope) allow us to live a little bit longer.
Sure, in a sense it's pushing back the inevitable. But, small advances are how we get most of our progress. A couple hundred years ago, people often died in their thirties or forties. Now, we live twice that, long enough that it's considered prudent to plan for financial support to be long-lasting. As we narrow down the list of Things That Can Kill Us, and mitigate their effect on the populace, it enables us to live longer. ... now if only we had a way to prevent dementia. :( That scares me more, I think, than the prospect of a failing body.
Thank you for beating me to it, with a more-insightful message to boot.
If this were available on a DVD, I'd order it. If it were on a torrent, I'd download it (assuming I knew about it). I doubt I will be able to watch this live, so being able to timeshift it would be very nice.
Exactly.
If you know you are not intoxicated, and are worried that a false-positive will screw you, GET A BLOOD TEST. It's pretty ironclad, and I'll take a few hours of inconvenience over a wrongful conviction based on faulty evidence (or user error -- didn't I read that the breathalyzers are fudgeable?). A blood test is highly unlikely to report you as drunk if you've not been drinking.
If you ARE intoxicated, then you're a hazard and I hope (and trust) that either method will recognize you as the fool that you are. Drunk drivers deserve the convictions.
The most interesting thing from the reporter's follow-up was that he highlighted that it was free, and that change is scary, yet at the end, expressed some interested in pursuing it further. Awesome! He might become a Linux zealot, but at least he's not saying "you people are crazy!". He may or may not try it, but now that he's been introduced to the idea, it's taking hold on him. I bet the next time he goes to buy some expensive software, he may think, "Wait, wasn't there a free alternative?". Sure, he may not use that alternative, but now he's making a more-informed choice, rather than a Default choice.
If he never published his findings, what posible contributory value do they have to the progress of science?
That's a bit of an extreme expression, since Copernicus only published posthumously (and I forget if it was with his permission ;))... but still. Why should he get respect for discovering awesome stuff, and then not sharing the knowledge? In the world of science, isn't that equivalent to being useless?
His point is that the congrescritters, if they had to listen to every bill be read, would:
- find it a waste of time
- not get a lot of things passed, unless they were small bills.
Some consider a slow-moving congress to be a good thing. Those who wanted something to ACTUALLY get done (or at least get a vote done) would be encouraged to have shorter bills. In theory, they can't claim that they didn't read it (though they might be absent the day it was read ...) before voting on it. This way, there are 100+ chances for someone to listen to it and say, "wait, what??" when some screwy quirk might otherwise get overlooked in an 80 page stack of paper.
On the other hand, listeners would likely just tune it out -- and it would effectively be "surf my blackberry" time, or something similar.
Some consider a slow-moving congress to be a good thing. I'm not sure that it is or is not, but this would at least make it easier for smaller bills to stand out, and would make it easy for the populace to understand what the hell our people are voting on. Moreover, "riders" would stick out more blatantly.
Forgive my lack of knowledge, but why does your company say no to LGPL? What restrictions does it place on you that you're not willing to work with?
I had to look it up, as I had forgotten the story of Lot, also.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_(Bible)
Lot offers up his daughters to be raped (pretty sleazy, IMO):
Lot's daughters, thinking they are the only humans left, get their dad drunk so that they can conceive:
Wikipedia has some [citation needed] tags; I will offer verses 29-33 from the first google hit for "genesis 19":
So, I'd say that the sleeping-with-his-daughters thing isn't quite his fault. It either the "omg we're the last humans alive" scenario, as far as they knew, or perhaps just "we don't want our bloodline to die". Weird either way, and not something I'd want to do, but I don't think it's worth tarring Lot for it. :)
In a video game, I can usually choose to re-try an encounter that went badly, and "prevent" the death in what is effectively an alternate timeline.
In D&D, few EARLY characters have the resources (or the value to the campaign world) to spend on resurrection. Sure, if you're in a high level party, your team will probably (if prudent ;)) have ways to ensure resurrection is possible, perhaps even socking away resources dedicated for that purpose. Early on though, characters just don't really have the resources. Additionally, resurrection isn't without penalty (unless I misremember -- which is likely ;)). Isn't there a loss-of-XP factor as well, or am I mistakenly mixing up my D&D with EQ?
Based on the "load an old save" feature, I'd say that death is a much lighter penalty in video games. I'd be interested in playing a game based on Richard K. Morgan's world from the Takeshi Kovacs novels (Altered Carbon, etc). There, most people have their mind stored-at-death in a "cortical stack", which basically allows the consciousness to be downloaded into a new body ("sleeve"). Real Death (or loss of the stack) is still possible, of course, as is an eternity of virtual (or real) torture ... but generally it's a "given" that snuffing out a body doesn't permanently kill them -- assuming they have the money for a new body. I think that could make for some interesting roleplaying.
So was Rainbow Six (and its next few sequels, which I realize Ghost Recon was). Losing a team member was so problematic, though, that I found myself compelled to:
- Make a team of only the "expendable extras" that you had infinite of
or
- Play with only a single character (or perhaps a teammate), and don't accept the mission failure results if he died.
NEITHER was really how the game was "intended" to be played... but losing teammates (as inevitably teammate AI would get themselves killed without excessive babysitting) was frequent and devastating. I signed up for shooting terrorists, not for babysitting teammates who didn't clear a door before entering, or didn't watch behind them.
It was still very fun, mind you. I just had an expanded list of Failure conditions.