Two monitors doesn't work for 1st/3rd person gaming because the bezel is In The Way.
That's the same reason why I never went with two monitors for any purpose. These days I'm happy with widescreen for doing stuff with multiple application windows or gaming, plus it saves a lot of desktop space.
Most of it was hyperbole and whinging from people scared of change, scared of doing what is required for improved security and other clueless fucks who just jumped on the bandwagon.
So after years of running XP, I recently was confronted with Vista while updating my parent's laptop. Holy shit, I couldn't believe the stupidity of the security nags. It's like clicking twice for everything. First the update software asks if you want to do something, then the nag-layer kicks in and asks you again. Clickity-clickity, yes I really want to do that. Yes and yes. And that's with Microsoft's update software.
Now throw on top of that bloat and driver problems, and it's beta-quality software, and it's obvious they learned some lessons that went into Windows 7.
So you're counting on the fact that you can buy Windows and run Windows software on a Mac, but you can't (legally) do the reverse because Apple is authoritarian about where you can install their software.
Well yes, with those qualifications, you could say the Mac runs more software. Alternatively, I could just buy a commodity PC and illegally run OS X on it (oh noes!), along with any other OS that runs on a PC. Even better, I could just say "fuck off" to Apple because there isn't some Apple-only software I need to run.
But when comparing XP to Vista, Vista got a pretty fucking bad wrap.
Well-deserved, because by all accounts it was a bad user experience, from the hardware and driver problems, to the crazy security nagging. The fact that these issues were smoothed over by the time Windows 7 rolled around doesn't magically turn Vista into a good release. Vista was beta-quality software.
Me and Vista were the SAME problem...that being Microsoft's inability to perform a platform upgrade for windows in less than ~7 years. Sadly the cash flow wants 5 years, so they have to stump some piece of crap out that will bring in the cash.
That doesn't make any sense. Windows 98 was the upgrade from 95. ME was just a rushed upgrade to 98, only 2 years between releases.
while managing not to commit any of the classical faux pas which are typical of most other engineers (such as calling the customer an idiot when they are bein an idiot).
Or more likely, telling the customer the unadulterated truth about the product.
So this part of the survey seems to be okay, strange as it may seem.
You just highlighted the problem. I get back 10.6 million hits for the search term +"C programming". You looked at 620 results and assume by that you can tell what the other 10.6 million results contain. Your 620 is a rounding error on an what is a very lopsided distribution that is skewed to better results at the very beginning.
The C standard requires the compiler initialize all stack-allocated memory to zero.
So how many years have you been programming C with this absolutely wrong piece of info? I love how the C guys tout that their programmers are the best because the language requires it, where the reality is that the inevitable mistakes end up much more costly.
Mod parent up. "The popular search engines Google, Bing, Yahoo!, Wikipedia, Amazon, YouTube and Baidu are used to calculate the ratings." That's rather lame. Exactly how do they search for "C", anyway? Do Sesame Street episodes brought to you by the letter C count?
TIOBE is good for generating bullshit headlines and boastful articles about misleading statistics.
The definition is pretty simple. They search for: +"<language> programming", then they try to look for false positives to get a "confidence" factor, and then use that to scale the resulting number of hits. They also include some search term qualifiers for certain languages, but I didn't see any listed for C.
This is really, really poor for a language with many false positives like C, because there are so many false positive results returned, but they are only looking at the first 100 results. The first results will have the fewest number of false positives, while the later results will almost all be false positives. What they are doing is assuming a linear relationship where instead it is most likely an exponential dropoff.
The fact that C is now on top is almost for sure due to the rise of false postives due to Objective-C gaining popularity.
People shouldn't do business with companies that take advantage of the system unfairly.
Most people just don't give a shit about patent lawsuits and let the courts worry about it. If they want a shiny iWidget then they'll buy it, just like how Amazon was never really harmed in the one-click patent outrage.
I just installed FF 3.6 on a VM because I am working on a site that is business oriented and corporations have not moved off it yet. WHAT A DIFFERENCE. It was slow and hogged the hard drive and just moving the up and down arrows did slow redraws. It was painful.
That sounds more like a configuration issue with your VM than a Firefox 3.6 problem. Try running the latest Firefox in the same VM and report back.
I don't recall 3.6 being as slow as you describe. Generally, I've been happy with Firefox performance, but I do run with NoScript turned on by default so I haven't been bit by the worst Flash and JavaScript problems.
Indeed you are correct. The Mozilla Foundation is a corporation. Specifically, it's a 501(c)(3) public benefit corporation.
However, the Mozilla Corporation is a private, for-profit corporation. While it is wholly owned by the Mozilla Foundation, as far as I can tell the for-profit corporation doesn't have to say where the money goes. For example, if you were making $1 million a year in salary, I wouldn't know it.
This is not an urgent scoop that can't wait for the official announcement in two days. The submitter was a dick for leaking it, and timothy was unprofessional for approving it.
Bullshit. You do realize how "news" operates? It doesn't wait around for official announcements when there's a leak beforehand. And the nice thing about this leak is we get to see the internal memo, which is already plenty sanitized, before the even further sanitized announcement.
Then please explain stupid shit like battles over Jerusalem. Ideology defines the battle lines, the participants, and provides motivation. To dismiss it is so easily is reckless.
True, many of the belligerents in these wars can be identified with specific ideologies, but the goal of the war has usually been to gain access to resources (land, minerals, governmental control, influence, etc.).
Sure, if you just relabel everything as "resources", and discount the ideology that drives it, especially stuff like "government control" and "influence", then you can say it is only over resources, but that isn't giving a true picture.
Maybe if we eliminated Kings, emperors, priests, dictators and all other types of power-seeking politicians
Oh sure, just "eliminate" your undesirable class of people, and the resulting leaders will result in happy-fun-times. Or maybe not. See Pol Pot, Lenin/Stalin, Mao, etc. To advocate eliminating these people, you yourself are a "power-seeking politician".
Wars pretty much happen because of scarcity of resources and imbalance of information.
It's not just resources. Lots of wars are about fighting over ideas. I'd say that most conflicts of the past century have been more over ideas than resources (examples: communism vs. capitalism, dictatorship vs. democracy, religion vs secular).
Which took me all of 30 seconds to find via a search (couldn't recall of the top fo my head)
Or maybe that's too much effort for you ?
First off, I did a search and found lots of McKinnon links, you stupid dick. Maybe if the original poster had "put the effort in" and actually listed the name, there wouldn't have been any ambiguity.
Second, a UK judge said what O'Dwyer did was illegal in the UK. From Wikipedia: "During O'Dwyer's extradition hearing, it was held by the judge that the offences alleged were also illegal under UK law. Whereas TV-Links was able to successfully argue it was a "mere conduit" under the EU Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002, aggregating content "they did not select or modify", O'Dwyer had exerted considerable control over the content hosted on TV-Shack, and therefore the allegations, if true, constituted a crime in the UK. [14]"
And from the cited reference: "However, Judge Purdy rejected the argument from Mr O'Dwyer's barrister, Ben Cooper of Doughty Street Chambers, because of the control the student had over what links were posted on TVShack.net and TVShack.cc.
[..]
"Firstly both TVShack websites were entirely in the hands of Richard O'Dwyer and his co conspirators requiring third parties to sign up to TVShack and be vetted before going further," Judge Purdy said.
The judge agreed with John Jones, barrister for the United States government, that "because he was intimately involved in deciding who was allowed to post links on the TVShack websites, which links would be posted", Mr O'Dwyer's alleged conduct was a criminal offence under British copyright law."
The real issue here is that copyright holders (those big evil RIAA members) never realized how easy stripping music from youtube videos actually was. That's the only reason they let all their music go up on the site (albeit slathered with advertising and overlays.)
I doubt it. The music execs started putting up official videos very late in the game, after years of trying to keep music locked down with DRM. They just accept the risk as worth the revenue potential.
Slashdot Mirror
Two monitors doesn't work for 1st/3rd person gaming because the bezel is In The Way.
That's the same reason why I never went with two monitors for any purpose. These days I'm happy with widescreen for doing stuff with multiple application windows or gaming, plus it saves a lot of desktop space.
Most of it was hyperbole and whinging from people scared of change, scared of doing what is required for improved security and other clueless fucks who just jumped on the bandwagon.
So after years of running XP, I recently was confronted with Vista while updating my parent's laptop. Holy shit, I couldn't believe the stupidity of the security nags. It's like clicking twice for everything. First the update software asks if you want to do something, then the nag-layer kicks in and asks you again. Clickity-clickity, yes I really want to do that. Yes and yes. And that's with Microsoft's update software.
Now throw on top of that bloat and driver problems, and it's beta-quality software, and it's obvious they learned some lessons that went into Windows 7.
The "religion of peace" also spawned the Arab Spring.
It wasn't the religion that spawned it. It was downtrodden people throwing off dictators.
So you're counting on the fact that you can buy Windows and run Windows software on a Mac, but you can't (legally) do the reverse because Apple is authoritarian about where you can install their software.
Well yes, with those qualifications, you could say the Mac runs more software. Alternatively, I could just buy a commodity PC and illegally run OS X on it (oh noes!), along with any other OS that runs on a PC. Even better, I could just say "fuck off" to Apple because there isn't some Apple-only software I need to run.
I've seen a lot of Mac's in offices lately just because they can run more software than any other platform out there.
Umm, what? There's more softare for Windows than OS X. I know all you fanboys are iCrazy, but Windows still dominates on the desktop.
But when comparing XP to Vista, Vista got a pretty fucking bad wrap.
Well-deserved, because by all accounts it was a bad user experience, from the hardware and driver problems, to the crazy security nagging. The fact that these issues were smoothed over by the time Windows 7 rolled around doesn't magically turn Vista into a good release. Vista was beta-quality software.
Too dismissive of just how driven people are by ideology.
Me and Vista were the SAME problem...that being Microsoft's inability to perform a platform upgrade for windows in less than ~7 years. Sadly the cash flow wants 5 years, so they have to stump some piece of crap out that will bring in the cash.
That doesn't make any sense. Windows 98 was the upgrade from 95. ME was just a rushed upgrade to 98, only 2 years between releases.
while managing not to commit any of the classical faux pas which are typical of most other engineers (such as calling the customer an idiot when they are bein an idiot).
Or more likely, telling the customer the unadulterated truth about the product.
So this part of the survey seems to be okay, strange as it may seem.
You just highlighted the problem. I get back 10.6 million hits for the search term +"C programming". You looked at 620 results and assume by that you can tell what the other 10.6 million results contain. Your 620 is a rounding error on an what is a very lopsided distribution that is skewed to better results at the very beginning.
The C standard requires the compiler initialize all stack-allocated memory to zero.
So how many years have you been programming C with this absolutely wrong piece of info? I love how the C guys tout that their programmers are the best because the language requires it, where the reality is that the inevitable mistakes end up much more costly.
Mod parent up. "The popular search engines Google, Bing, Yahoo!, Wikipedia, Amazon, YouTube and Baidu are used to calculate the ratings." That's rather lame. Exactly how do they search for "C", anyway? Do Sesame Street episodes brought to you by the letter C count?
TIOBE is good for generating bullshit headlines and boastful articles about misleading statistics.
The definition is pretty simple. They search for: +"<language> programming", then they try to look for false positives to get a "confidence" factor, and then use that to scale the resulting number of hits. They also include some search term qualifiers for certain languages, but I didn't see any listed for C.
This is really, really poor for a language with many false positives like C, because there are so many false positive results returned, but they are only looking at the first 100 results. The first results will have the fewest number of false positives, while the later results will almost all be false positives. What they are doing is assuming a linear relationship where instead it is most likely an exponential dropoff.
The fact that C is now on top is almost for sure due to the rise of false postives due to Objective-C gaining popularity.
Other brands of laptops last a couple years at most.
I bought a cheap netbook a couple of years ago and it shows no sign of dying.
People shouldn't do business with companies that take advantage of the system unfairly.
Most people just don't give a shit about patent lawsuits and let the courts worry about it. If they want a shiny iWidget then they'll buy it, just like how Amazon was never really harmed in the one-click patent outrage.
I just installed FF 3.6 on a VM because I am working on a site that is business oriented and corporations have not moved off it yet. WHAT A DIFFERENCE. It was slow and hogged the hard drive and just moving the up and down arrows did slow redraws. It was painful.
That sounds more like a configuration issue with your VM than a Firefox 3.6 problem. Try running the latest Firefox in the same VM and report back.
I don't recall 3.6 being as slow as you describe. Generally, I've been happy with Firefox performance, but I do run with NoScript turned on by default so I haven't been bit by the worst Flash and JavaScript problems.
Indeed you are correct. The Mozilla Foundation is a corporation. Specifically, it's a 501(c)(3) public benefit corporation.
However, the Mozilla Corporation is a private, for-profit corporation. While it is wholly owned by the Mozilla Foundation, as far as I can tell the for-profit corporation doesn't have to say where the money goes. For example, if you were making $1 million a year in salary, I wouldn't know it.
This is not an urgent scoop that can't wait for the official announcement in two days. The submitter was a dick for leaking it, and timothy was unprofessional for approving it.
Bullshit. You do realize how "news" operates? It doesn't wait around for official announcements when there's a leak beforehand. And the nice thing about this leak is we get to see the internal memo, which is already plenty sanitized, before the even further sanitized announcement.
Classic.
Then please explain stupid shit like battles over Jerusalem. Ideology defines the battle lines, the participants, and provides motivation. To dismiss it is so easily is reckless.
True, many of the belligerents in these wars can be identified with specific ideologies, but the goal of the war has usually been to gain access to resources (land, minerals, governmental control, influence, etc.).
Sure, if you just relabel everything as "resources", and discount the ideology that drives it, especially stuff like "government control" and "influence", then you can say it is only over resources, but that isn't giving a true picture.
Don't believe it for a second. Name a conflict and I (or someone) will follow the money and resources that someone wanted.
Mao. Lenin. Castro. Pol Pot. Osama bin Laden. The Korean War. The Taliban. The Iranian Revolution. Those are from the top of my head.
Maybe if we eliminated Kings, emperors, priests, dictators and all other types of power-seeking politicians
Oh sure, just "eliminate" your undesirable class of people, and the resulting leaders will result in happy-fun-times. Or maybe not. See Pol Pot, Lenin/Stalin, Mao, etc. To advocate eliminating these people, you yourself are a "power-seeking politician".
Wars pretty much happen because of scarcity of resources and imbalance of information.
It's not just resources. Lots of wars are about fighting over ideas. I'd say that most conflicts of the past century have been more over ideas than resources (examples: communism vs. capitalism, dictatorship vs. democracy, religion vs secular).
Which took me all of 30 seconds to find via a search (couldn't recall of the top fo my head)
Or maybe that's too much effort for you ?
First off, I did a search and found lots of McKinnon links, you stupid dick. Maybe if the original poster had "put the effort in" and actually listed the name, there wouldn't have been any ambiguity.
Second, a UK judge said what O'Dwyer did was illegal in the UK. From Wikipedia: "During O'Dwyer's extradition hearing, it was held by the judge that the offences alleged were also illegal under UK law. Whereas TV-Links was able to successfully argue it was a "mere conduit" under the EU Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002, aggregating content "they did not select or modify", O'Dwyer had exerted considerable control over the content hosted on TV-Shack, and therefore the allegations, if true, constituted a crime in the UK. [14]"
And from the cited reference: "However, Judge Purdy rejected the argument from Mr O'Dwyer's barrister, Ben Cooper of Doughty Street Chambers, because of the control the student had over what links were posted on TVShack.net and TVShack.cc.
[..]
"Firstly both TVShack websites were entirely in the hands of Richard O'Dwyer and his co conspirators requiring third parties to sign up to TVShack and be vetted before going further," Judge Purdy said.
The judge agreed with John Jones, barrister for the United States government, that "because he was intimately involved in deciding who was allowed to post links on the TVShack websites, which links would be posted", Mr O'Dwyer's alleged conduct was a criminal offence under British copyright law."
The real issue here is that copyright holders (those big evil RIAA members) never realized how easy stripping music from youtube videos actually was. That's the only reason they let all their music go up on the site (albeit slathered with advertising and overlays.)
I doubt it. The music execs started putting up official videos very late in the game, after years of trying to keep music locked down with DRM. They just accept the risk as worth the revenue potential.