I'm curious as to how your experiences have been with 3d in other virtualization software. As of yesterday, I couldn't even get Counter-strike:Source to open in VMWare (which is hardly resource-intensive by today's standards), let alone play; my experiences in Parallels, while less recent, have been pretty much the same. I've of course tried several other games with similar results. Maybe their 3d goals are more CAD/workstation-oriented, but that's frankly irrelevant to me.
As Firefox 3 includes a Smart Bookmarks feature (by that exact name, stuck automatically in your bookmarks bar), I'm honestly unsure whether you're trolling or just ignorant.
I love the awesome bar, but that comes largely in part because all of the URLs on my company's website and intranet haven't been nicely converted to pretty permalinks and I'm not a big fan of trying to remember KB article IDs and stupid crap like that. I just type the first few letters of the article name and it's in the list.
Belief is a funny thing, especially when there is a kernel of truth in there. I believe Obama _was_ a Muslim the same way my Dad _was_ Lutheran - he was born into the religion by nature of having at least 1 parent as a member. He converted to Catholicism about 20 years after marrying my Mom, and Dad never really practiced his religion either (still doesn't, really), but he's not going to deny it and say "No, I was never a Lutheran". The rhetorical contortions the Obama camp are going through to avoid the "M" word just feed the perception that he has something to hide
Well, you were good through the first sentence anyways. I have a non-practicing-effectively-atheist Jewish father and a doesn't-practice-anymore Christian (maybe?) mother. I've always been an atheist. Yes, I was born into a half-Jewish-half-Christian family and while I managed to snag presents for both religions never believed in or practiced either. If your father practiced Lutheranism (?) and no longer does that's one thing, but I get the impression that he's never been religious and has just inherited a false title.
It's like the pennies in the tray at the cash register...
In the sense that they're worth more melted down as raw materials than as presently available? Most of the recent movies would have been a whole lot better off if the projector, the film, and the underpaid geek hadn't gotten together alone in a dark room.
Well, that, IMHO, is not the defining characteristic of Microsoft. The defining characteristic of Microsoft is the ruthless, underhanded quasi-legal business tactics and their rampant abuse of monopoly power. Your attempt to minimize this by implying that Microsoft is a perfectly normal monstrously profitable behemoth is revealing.
Yes and no. From most people's viewpoints, Microsoft might as well have made their computer (or Apple) since that's what they interact with day-in, day-out. Most people don't care about Microsoft's questionable business practices; again, likewise for Apple (paid software updates for the iPod touch, the whole buying-vs-licensing the OS Psystar thing, the general "if you don't agree with Steve Jobs, fuck off" approach to pretty much everything, which certainly isn't the norm for a publicly held company if it's even legal).
I'm not saying that Microsoft plays nice, nor am I saying that Apple does the same. Neither do. But that tends to be a characteristic of all behemoths, whether or not they're in the tech industry. As it so happens, there tend to be a lot more legal loopholes for them to abuse as members of the tech sector, but that's the government's fault. Technically speaking, it's their legal obligation as a publicly held company to abuse said loopholes - yes, our corporate laws are pretty damn screwed up.
Everyone knows that DRM is dead - it was a doomed experiment from the start. It's not their choice, and never has been. The vendor lock-in thing may be accurate enough, but it's not the reason it's present, nor has it ever been. Apple likes to win market share on their own merit rather than by abusing a monopoly, and Microsoft is (slowly) shifting away from that strategy too.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not defending either company in any sense, nor am I knocking one any harder than the other. I bought a Mac Pro yesterday and am seriously considering buying AAPL but at the same time I've been using Windows (at some level) since Win3.11 and recognize it has points where it beats OS X hands-down. I try to disassociate a product from it's manufacturer, as I don't really care for either company's business practices on the whole though am slightly partial to Apple's if I had to make a choice.
Apple is just as ruthless as Microsoft, if not more so. They're just a hell of a lot better at sugar-coating it, so MS ends up taking all of the shit.
That's a very interesting viewpoint, but how much actually came out of the Hannaford debacle? A whole lot of bad press for a week or so, and then nothing at all. I, for one, have not changed my shopping habits, nor have any of my family - and they tend to shop at Hannaford more often than I do. Of course this anecdotal evidence can only go so far (which is to say, not far at all), but all things considered I'd suggest that losing some ungodly amount of financial information was actually the cheaper option. That's obviously not a GOOD thing, but if we're going to talk about numbers alone then let's get crunching.
As determined by who? The criteria: "how many people have gone to see it," - is not at all a bad one... Heck, I think, it is the best one.
Perhaps. However, I'd suggest that "how many people that have seen it would recommend it" would be far better. There's financial success and making a good product, and these two metrics address the two types of success respectively.
I'm sure Jobs can be replaced, but what happens if the wrong person takes over his job and wants to turn the company into another Microsoft?
From what I've read, Jobs has a pretty decent plan in place to arrange the right successor when that time comes. As I'm sure most of us know or can determine, Apple uses their software (practically as a loss leader) to sell hardware, whereas Microsoft primarily leverages other people's hardware sales to sell its own software. Regardless of your thoughts about either approach, you need to remember that they're completely different and almost completely incompatible with each other. Microsoft's goal, as (primarily) a software company is to make it as easy as possible to get it on each and every piece of hardware in existence, and all things considered they do a pretty good job with it. As Apple makes nearly all of their money on hardware, their competitive advantage is Mac OS X, so it's obviously in their best interest to keep it limited to their own hardware.
Point being that the two business models are so fundamentally different that there would have to be a screw-up of monumental proportions in order for Jobs' successor to try using Microsoft's business model with Apple. Ballmer would obviously be a terrible choice, but that has just as much to do with Apple employees sitting on bouncy balls and rainbows instead of chairs as Ballmer's complete inability to strategically run a company.
Of course, if by "turn the company into another Microsoft" you mean creating a monstrously profitable giant - well, isn't that the goal of every corporation out there?
Who cares if they're communists? If they don't subscribe to free market economics, that's their business. It's the completely unrelated fact that China's government are a bunch of overbearing, censorship-obsessed crazies that you want to watch out for.
I agree, but you have to remember that their overbearing protection schemes are also the reason that their products are popular. Say what you want about it from a Freedom perspective, but when one person/group/company controls the entire ecosystem, they're able to weed out the junk that plagues the other ecosystems out there. A year and a half on I still can't get decent drivers for Vista for my very-current-at-the-time system, but I've absolutely never had issues of hardware or driver compatibility on my MBP.
Other than the lack of communication at present between the PSU and the rest of the system (on a hardware and software level), what you're describing really seems to be the computer equivalent of throwing your hands in front of your nuts as you spot the incoming baseball. It helps the immediate problem of data (or testicle) loss, but it's really just a small amount of damage control.
This is why a proper UPS that can trigger a full system shutdown once you hit a certain power remaining threshold is far preferable. Granted I'd rather have a controlled crash than the risky nonsense that would come from the power cord being yanked, but (right now) computers can only go so far to help themselves in a couple-second window.
Every console will be required to have the functionality to lock-out content at the consumer's cost.
How many people use the V-chip in their TV? It stemmed from similar concerns and was legislated in much the same way.
This will probably affect no more than four people, in all practicality.
And you couldn't rig up an immediately enforceable ban unless there was forced authentication on a central server, and no system could function in any sense without talking to said server. Basically, when our consoles effectively become streaming thin clients, then it's a possibility. If for no other reason than internet connection speeds, what you describe is completely implausible.
Don't get me wrong - I still disagree with the legislation. This just seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill.
Sounds more like a really gimped SQLite (which despite being flat-file based, actually supports lots of useful SQL features like views and transactions (I'm not sure about stored procs).
As a PHP programmer, I completely agree. I find it very flexible to do what I need, but I also know what to avoid and what I have to undo (like magic_quotes_gpc). But at the end of the day, if you make it easy for newbies to fire off SQL statements, it's inevitable that plenty of them don't know a damn thing about sanitizing user input. Various languages have done various things to attempt to deal with that, obviously with magic quotes being on the wrong end of the "monumental fuckups" scale.
It's also the reason I simply don't trust anyone else's code. There are so many newbies doing stupid things that I've no idea where it ended up or whether it could be present in code snippets other people have produced. More work for me, but I'd rather write my own forum knowing that there are no SQL injection holes, login security flaws, and all that junk than use someone else's.
I use it all the time and love it for what it is. But there's a reason I've always got a half-dozen tabs open on php.net when developing. Is it implode($glue, $pieces) or implode($pieces, $glue)? Oh, wait, either works... but "For consistency with explode(), however, it may be less confusing to use the documented order of arguments". Yes, I agree - that's absolutely retarded. Just like how half the functions are called as function_name() and the other half are functionname(), and on odd occasion, '2' is used instead of 'to' (nl2br, etc).
Do I wish that PHP6 would simply kill all existing naming and syntax inconsistencies (as well as other stupidities like magic quotes) and stick with one thing? Yes. Will they? For a couple things, but by and large, no.
However, you really can't beat its documentation and the number of guiding examples. Combine that with the number of prebuilt apps out there make it very easy to pick up. But of course, that also makes it very easy to pick up on bad practices - so I, too, would never recommend it as a first language.
However, you should also look into some sort of source control. I once got a panicked call from a friend with the very unpleasant news that he'd accidentally run 'rm -f *.c' instead of 'rm -f *.o' for a clean make. I suppose that's as clean of a make as one can perform... but that really sucked.
That said, nearly ten years on (holy shit, it's been a while), I still suck at source control. I only set up a svn repo last week and still have no idea how to use it *roll eyes*.
I've got to agree there, as a long-time PHP programmer. It's easy as hell to learn, and as such it's also easy as hell to pick up on the bad practices that so many PHP programmers follow (mysql_query("SELECT * FROM {$_GET['tablename']}"); you say? Oh why not, it couldn't hurt...), not to mention the typical insane and inconsistent function names and parameters. I love it as a language for its ease of use and flexibility when creating web apps, but the sheer number of inconsistencies make it a terrible first language.
I first started with HTML (around age 11 or 12?) and within a year was doing all sorts of custom work for my C-based MUD. I do almost all of my work in OO PHP/MySQL/HTML/CSS/JS these days (despite working for a.NET company, so I at least have some vague VB/C# familiarity). Of course HTML when I was learning it was a much simpler, much uglier thing, and probably gave me as many bad practices as customizing phpBB installs, but now we have these magical validators to make sure you're not screwing things up too badly on the web front. For a starter, it's not too bad of a set to get working with, though ignoring PHP and JS at first might be best to start. And of course once you're past that, there's the whole procedural/OO thing in PHP (there are enough JS libraries available these days that it barely matters).
That's not "writing them off", that's being realistic.
It damn well is not. I was doing plenty of fairly low-level C code around age 14. Of course I'm probably the exception to the rule, but age is FAR less important than simply being interested enough to try.
They are almost always decreed by managers who don't do the coding.
This kind of thing never ceases to confuse me. While I've never coded underneath anyone else (though I have some quite sizable solo and 2-3 person projects), I don't think I could possibly understand why managers would be touching the code in any way whatsoever. Tell me what you need done, what it needs to do, and what you're planning going forward so that I can plan accordingly, and let me get on with it. If they've got the time to be concerned over line placement of braces, hopefully they'll soon be found redundant by their managers.
What websites do you still visit that have Firefox compatibility? I don't think that's been a major concern for me in the last half-decade (since pre-1.0), and the only sites I've stumbled across recently where it had been a problem were so woefully out-of-date that it didn't matter anyways.
Quite frankly, I barely test in IE6 anymore, and often don't bother with conditional stylesheets (partly because my page layouts are pretty safe to start, partly because FUCK YOU IE6 YOUR MOM IS A DIRTY WHORE!!). I realize that could cause visual quirks for a fairly hefty percentage of browsers on many sites, but I'd rather spend my time on creating new features and functionality than fixing a bunch of stupid 3px blips in the layout.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious as to how your experiences have been with 3d in other virtualization software. As of yesterday, I couldn't even get Counter-strike:Source to open in VMWare (which is hardly resource-intensive by today's standards), let alone play; my experiences in Parallels, while less recent, have been pretty much the same. I've of course tried several other games with similar results. Maybe their 3d goals are more CAD/workstation-oriented, but that's frankly irrelevant to me.
Anyone else with some insight?
As Firefox 3 includes a Smart Bookmarks feature (by that exact name, stuck automatically in your bookmarks bar), I'm honestly unsure whether you're trolling or just ignorant.
I love the awesome bar, but that comes largely in part because all of the URLs on my company's website and intranet haven't been nicely converted to pretty permalinks and I'm not a big fan of trying to remember KB article IDs and stupid crap like that. I just type the first few letters of the article name and it's in the list.
<span class="humor satire"> ?
Well, you were good through the first sentence anyways. I have a non-practicing-effectively-atheist Jewish father and a doesn't-practice-anymore Christian (maybe?) mother. I've always been an atheist. Yes, I was born into a half-Jewish-half-Christian family and while I managed to snag presents for both religions never believed in or practiced either. If your father practiced Lutheranism (?) and no longer does that's one thing, but I get the impression that he's never been religious and has just inherited a false title.
Thirded on the creationists being idiots, though.
In the sense that they're worth more melted down as raw materials than as presently available? Most of the recent movies would have been a whole lot better off if the projector, the film, and the underpaid geek hadn't gotten together alone in a dark room.
Yes and no. From most people's viewpoints, Microsoft might as well have made their computer (or Apple) since that's what they interact with day-in, day-out. Most people don't care about Microsoft's questionable business practices; again, likewise for Apple (paid software updates for the iPod touch, the whole buying-vs-licensing the OS Psystar thing, the general "if you don't agree with Steve Jobs, fuck off" approach to pretty much everything, which certainly isn't the norm for a publicly held company if it's even legal).
I'm not saying that Microsoft plays nice, nor am I saying that Apple does the same. Neither do. But that tends to be a characteristic of all behemoths, whether or not they're in the tech industry. As it so happens, there tend to be a lot more legal loopholes for them to abuse as members of the tech sector, but that's the government's fault. Technically speaking, it's their legal obligation as a publicly held company to abuse said loopholes - yes, our corporate laws are pretty damn screwed up.
Everyone knows that DRM is dead - it was a doomed experiment from the start. It's not their choice, and never has been. The vendor lock-in thing may be accurate enough, but it's not the reason it's present, nor has it ever been. Apple likes to win market share on their own merit rather than by abusing a monopoly, and Microsoft is (slowly) shifting away from that strategy too.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not defending either company in any sense, nor am I knocking one any harder than the other. I bought a Mac Pro yesterday and am seriously considering buying AAPL but at the same time I've been using Windows (at some level) since Win3.11 and recognize it has points where it beats OS X hands-down. I try to disassociate a product from it's manufacturer, as I don't really care for either company's business practices on the whole though am slightly partial to Apple's if I had to make a choice.
Apple is just as ruthless as Microsoft, if not more so. They're just a hell of a lot better at sugar-coating it, so MS ends up taking all of the shit.
That's a very interesting viewpoint, but how much actually came out of the Hannaford debacle? A whole lot of bad press for a week or so, and then nothing at all. I, for one, have not changed my shopping habits, nor have any of my family - and they tend to shop at Hannaford more often than I do. Of course this anecdotal evidence can only go so far (which is to say, not far at all), but all things considered I'd suggest that losing some ungodly amount of financial information was actually the cheaper option. That's obviously not a GOOD thing, but if we're going to talk about numbers alone then let's get crunching.
Perhaps. However, I'd suggest that "how many people that have seen it would recommend it" would be far better. There's financial success and making a good product, and these two metrics address the two types of success respectively.
Only if you really, really want to, of course. No pressure.
From what I've read, Jobs has a pretty decent plan in place to arrange the right successor when that time comes. As I'm sure most of us know or can determine, Apple uses their software (practically as a loss leader) to sell hardware, whereas Microsoft primarily leverages other people's hardware sales to sell its own software. Regardless of your thoughts about either approach, you need to remember that they're completely different and almost completely incompatible with each other. Microsoft's goal, as (primarily) a software company is to make it as easy as possible to get it on each and every piece of hardware in existence, and all things considered they do a pretty good job with it. As Apple makes nearly all of their money on hardware, their competitive advantage is Mac OS X, so it's obviously in their best interest to keep it limited to their own hardware.
Point being that the two business models are so fundamentally different that there would have to be a screw-up of monumental proportions in order for Jobs' successor to try using Microsoft's business model with Apple. Ballmer would obviously be a terrible choice, but that has just as much to do with Apple employees sitting on bouncy balls and rainbows instead of chairs as Ballmer's complete inability to strategically run a company.
Of course, if by "turn the company into another Microsoft" you mean creating a monstrously profitable giant - well, isn't that the goal of every corporation out there?
Who cares if they're communists? If they don't subscribe to free market economics, that's their business. It's the completely unrelated fact that China's government are a bunch of overbearing, censorship-obsessed crazies that you want to watch out for.
Trolls aren't giving critique, they're flinging douchebaggery. Someone with harsh feedback is just too abrasive, but is still helpful.
I agree, but you have to remember that their overbearing protection schemes are also the reason that their products are popular. Say what you want about it from a Freedom perspective, but when one person/group/company controls the entire ecosystem, they're able to weed out the junk that plagues the other ecosystems out there. A year and a half on I still can't get decent drivers for Vista for my very-current-at-the-time system, but I've absolutely never had issues of hardware or driver compatibility on my MBP.
Why ask?
<!--[if IE]> <style type="text/css"> * { display: none; } </style> <![endif]-->
Well serves me right for not using the Google. Color me very surprised that the numbers are that high.
Other than the lack of communication at present between the PSU and the rest of the system (on a hardware and software level), what you're describing really seems to be the computer equivalent of throwing your hands in front of your nuts as you spot the incoming baseball. It helps the immediate problem of data (or testicle) loss, but it's really just a small amount of damage control.
This is why a proper UPS that can trigger a full system shutdown once you hit a certain power remaining threshold is far preferable. Granted I'd rather have a controlled crash than the risky nonsense that would come from the power cord being yanked, but (right now) computers can only go so far to help themselves in a couple-second window.
How many people use the V-chip in their TV? It stemmed from similar concerns and was legislated in much the same way.
This will probably affect no more than four people, in all practicality.
And you couldn't rig up an immediately enforceable ban unless there was forced authentication on a central server, and no system could function in any sense without talking to said server. Basically, when our consoles effectively become streaming thin clients, then it's a possibility. If for no other reason than internet connection speeds, what you describe is completely implausible.
Don't get me wrong - I still disagree with the legislation. This just seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill.
Sounds more like a really gimped SQLite (which despite being flat-file based, actually supports lots of useful SQL features like views and transactions (I'm not sure about stored procs).
As a PHP programmer, I completely agree. I find it very flexible to do what I need, but I also know what to avoid and what I have to undo (like magic_quotes_gpc). But at the end of the day, if you make it easy for newbies to fire off SQL statements, it's inevitable that plenty of them don't know a damn thing about sanitizing user input. Various languages have done various things to attempt to deal with that, obviously with magic quotes being on the wrong end of the "monumental fuckups" scale.
It's also the reason I simply don't trust anyone else's code. There are so many newbies doing stupid things that I've no idea where it ended up or whether it could be present in code snippets other people have produced. More work for me, but I'd rather write my own forum knowing that there are no SQL injection holes, login security flaws, and all that junk than use someone else's.
I use it all the time and love it for what it is. But there's a reason I've always got a half-dozen tabs open on php.net when developing. Is it implode($glue, $pieces) or implode($pieces, $glue)? Oh, wait, either works... but "For consistency with explode(), however, it may be less confusing to use the documented order of arguments". Yes, I agree - that's absolutely retarded. Just like how half the functions are called as function_name() and the other half are functionname(), and on odd occasion, '2' is used instead of 'to' (nl2br, etc).
Do I wish that PHP6 would simply kill all existing naming and syntax inconsistencies (as well as other stupidities like magic quotes) and stick with one thing? Yes. Will they? For a couple things, but by and large, no.
However, you really can't beat its documentation and the number of guiding examples. Combine that with the number of prebuilt apps out there make it very easy to pick up. But of course, that also makes it very easy to pick up on bad practices - so I, too, would never recommend it as a first language.
That's where I started as well.
However, you should also look into some sort of source control. I once got a panicked call from a friend with the very unpleasant news that he'd accidentally run 'rm -f *.c' instead of 'rm -f *.o' for a clean make. I suppose that's as clean of a make as one can perform... but that really sucked.
That said, nearly ten years on (holy shit, it's been a while), I still suck at source control. I only set up a svn repo last week and still have no idea how to use it *roll eyes*.
I've got to agree there, as a long-time PHP programmer. It's easy as hell to learn, and as such it's also easy as hell to pick up on the bad practices that so many PHP programmers follow (mysql_query("SELECT * FROM {$_GET['tablename']}"); you say? Oh why not, it couldn't hurt...), not to mention the typical insane and inconsistent function names and parameters. I love it as a language for its ease of use and flexibility when creating web apps, but the sheer number of inconsistencies make it a terrible first language.
I first started with HTML (around age 11 or 12?) and within a year was doing all sorts of custom work for my C-based MUD. I do almost all of my work in OO PHP/MySQL/HTML/CSS/JS these days (despite working for a .NET company, so I at least have some vague VB/C# familiarity). Of course HTML when I was learning it was a much simpler, much uglier thing, and probably gave me as many bad practices as customizing phpBB installs, but now we have these magical validators to make sure you're not screwing things up too badly on the web front. For a starter, it's not too bad of a set to get working with, though ignoring PHP and JS at first might be best to start. And of course once you're past that, there's the whole procedural/OO thing in PHP (there are enough JS libraries available these days that it barely matters).
It damn well is not. I was doing plenty of fairly low-level C code around age 14. Of course I'm probably the exception to the rule, but age is FAR less important than simply being interested enough to try.
Something tells me that you either replied to the wrong post or completely misinterpreted mine...
This kind of thing never ceases to confuse me. While I've never coded underneath anyone else (though I have some quite sizable solo and 2-3 person projects), I don't think I could possibly understand why managers would be touching the code in any way whatsoever. Tell me what you need done, what it needs to do, and what you're planning going forward so that I can plan accordingly, and let me get on with it. If they've got the time to be concerned over line placement of braces, hopefully they'll soon be found redundant by their managers.
What websites do you still visit that have Firefox compatibility? I don't think that's been a major concern for me in the last half-decade (since pre-1.0), and the only sites I've stumbled across recently where it had been a problem were so woefully out-of-date that it didn't matter anyways.
Quite frankly, I barely test in IE6 anymore, and often don't bother with conditional stylesheets (partly because my page layouts are pretty safe to start, partly because FUCK YOU IE6 YOUR MOM IS A DIRTY WHORE!!). I realize that could cause visual quirks for a fairly hefty percentage of browsers on many sites, but I'd rather spend my time on creating new features and functionality than fixing a bunch of stupid 3px blips in the layout.