> If I may make a supposition, this occurs most often because programmers think > they know how to program in Javascript, but don't have the first clue. That's
Amen. The situation out there is actually so bad, it boggles the mind how so many web developers continue to earn a paycheck. Want evidence? Turn on JS debugging/error messages in your browser (esp. IE) and spend a week or two battling the deluge of error dialogs before you turn it off again in disgust. If people can't be bothered to write robust JS, could they at least put in some sloppy try-catch blocks to make their crap less annoying? Or... You could recommend this (hilarious) "solution" to site visitors: http://www.deerbrook.com/downloads/sysreqs/right_c lick_print11.htm
If anything, we need more books like this.
Re:Does PC Gaming have anything we need?
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> It's about time to give up on PC gaming, especially with the beauty, convenience and > comfort of today's powerful consoles (both of them).
When I can mod my games and load new/free content as easily as I can on the PC, I'll buy a console again. (Anybody got an ETA on that?) Other than that, the ease of use, bang-for-the-buck, and robustness of consoles makes them the obvious choice.
> Yes, I did mean VB.NET. And I consider C# a bastardization of both > C++ and VB.NET.
No offense, but you might want to reconsider since you're quite wrong, both historically and structurally. Many of Microsoft's tools and software are being written in C# now. The.NET framework itself is largely written in C#. VB.Net, coming from a non-OO heritage, is the oddball.
> It was Microsoft's way of telling Java developers, "Hey, we've got > an easy to use language with C-style formatting!"
Yeah, they call it J# and I've never met anybody that uses it. But most Java developers I know have found it pretty easy to understand C#. If you understand OOP, it just takes a little time to learn the IDE and the.NET libraries.
> In the grand scheme of things, there was no need to create it.
Hey, we could all be working in assembly or binary for that matter. It's a well constructed language that taps into a well organized library which rolls up most of the common functionality a modern Windows developer needs. Call me an MS fanboy, but I've definitely found it faster to work with than C++ or Java for Win and web development (YMMV). The downside is that it makes me Bill Gates' bitch.
> But now, they are essentially forcing people to switch to it by > making the XNA toolkit use C# exclusively.
There's nobody forcing C# on VB.net developers. MS is even continuing to support COBOL.net, as far as I know. However, you are right in a sense. Although not intentionally pushing C#, Microsoft and other vendors are largely working in C#, publishing more examples in C#, and creating tools/components that only work with C#. So VB.NET is being slowly pushed into second class status due to more experienced/prolific/expert OO coders being more comfortable with C#, thus creating more stuff in that language.
(http://www.buyblue.org/ is another good example of using information to speak in a language corporations understand.)
Perhaps in the future the majority of people buying on the Net will use some sort of autonomous agent to help them avoid products/companies that violate their personal ethics.
There's a truism from the body of psychological research that it's easier to alter behavior by changing environmental factors than the by directly trying to modify the behavior of an individual. If you want to eliminate a behavior, just remove the facilitating elements. For example, if was difficult or expensive to acquire petroleum products, people would be much more likely to avoid them compared to voluntarily avoiding them due to moral reasons or seemingly intangible future effects. Unfortunately, a rational 10-20% of the population willing to change won't fix the problem; change will have to be externally forced upon everyone.
> Here's the thing. If the people submitting to Exxon/Mobil are submitting made > up bullshit then it shouldn't withstand review and become a laughingstock.
This has already happened, but scientists are typically less confrontational or maybe just less socially cruel than most of us. I don't think they laugh so much as they simply ignore obvious shills.
> If nothing else, that should help to strengthen the human derived global warming stance.
Peer-reviewed research has already been on the job for years. Today's IPCC paper ups the ante to 90% certainty. That sounds strong enough to start demanding more from our politicians.
> From where I stand though, it looks like both sides are playing fast and loose with > the science to date. I guess I'll go read the new report and see if it says anything new.
I don't know what you've been reading, but from my POV the battle has been scientists vs. corporate power for many years now. To the extent statistics have been abused, I believe they've been twisted and cherry-picked almost exclusively by those bent on disproving global warming. I'm sure we could find examples of kooks on the left stating worst-case scenarios as fact, but the other side has been flatly denying data and the opinion of respected authorities in climatology.
> wait a second. if exxon just wanted a paper that said what they wanted it to > say they would write it, and the pay the scientists to support it.
Sure... Let's let the guys in marketing come up with something. That would be a credible read for about the first 5 words.
> Same with this paper, what better way to get conclusive results, put out a paper, > then put a million dollar bounty to disporve any/all of it. After the challenge > if the paper still stands then you know you got something obviously strong. Since > this is a somewhat public challenge the statements of this paper will either be > corrected, or stand all the stronger, thanks to the money exxon put behind the challenge.
Fascinating idea. So... This would work the same way peer-reviewed science has for decades, but this time with lots of money attached to finding the desired result? Brilliant! Literally a marketplace of ideas! First the conclusion, then gather the cherry-picked data to support it.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to fine companies that sell inherently insecure OS's?
Couldn't agree more. I'm a reluctant Windows user (Locked in to their servers, dev tools, and other technology long, long ago. It's too late for me... Save yourself.) and the latest M$ scheme really leaves me speechless. Now with "OneCare" they are selling you security-related services for their OSes! Shhhheeeee-it. P.T. Barnum must be rolling in his grave, wishing he'd thought this up. That's like selling me a car, then telling me it's defective and for another $1,000 you'll fix a problem that may cause it to explode while driving.
> Scientists in academia are generally not the richest people in the world.
This is exactly why I almost do a spit take when some flat-Earther uses the bizarre line that "scientists are just saying there's a global warming problem so they'll get lots of funding and fame." Every time I think conservative talking points have become as disconnected from reality as possible, somebody drops another tab of acid into the Kool-Aid.
Many times when I hear "think of the children!!" arguments, I conclude that the situation wouldn't be a problem if the parents were ACTUALLY PARENTING. Or stopped being obsessed about their kid not seeing any sex or violence. It's not going to kill them or damage them or pervert them unless they're the victim. And even then they are likely to survive it and be okay eventually. Honestly, I'm a lot more concerned about violence than sex or language. Those seem a lot healthier.
Actually, as someone recently inducted into parenting, I am starting to ask myself how I'm going to deal with the kid's Net access. Think I might firewall off the kid's PC to just a few G-rated sites until they're old enough to have some judgment. Thanks to the miracle of DVRs, the little guy isn't even aware of Teletubbies, Barney, and commercials yet. Thank God.
Kids are a lot tougher than people tend to give them credit for. It's the parents who seem suspectible for this crap. There are kids with grenades and AK-47s in some parts of the world. Humans are remarkably adaptable, no doubt. But... I don't want my kids to think about violence a lot. There will be plenty of time for them to learn about that after they've enjoyed a naive childhood, full of Santa and bunnies and all that crap. For now, Daddy has to keep Quake4, UT, etc. locked up with the porn.
I know that parents can't watch their children 24/7, but this just seems like it is making it easier for parents to sit their children in front of some box (computer instead of TV this time) and take a minimalistic approach to parenting. And before that, we let them play with the sharp and rusty tools in the shed.
To be fair, you are a lot less likely to get hurt sitting in front of a computer or TV than you are running around outside. Well... At least until juvenile diabetes catches up with you, right?
Please forgive the flamebait, but I'd like to make a proposition to all the Global Warming deniers on/.
If you would, post your name on a list for all to see (you're proud of your rebel opinion, right?) Those of us with the sense to trust the opinion of scientists that study climatology (rather than the opinion of the guy who wrote that cool dinosaur movie) will sign a similar petition.
In ten years, when the effects of human activity on the environment become even more undeniably pronounced, we'll all meet and the science-based group gets to kick the deniers in the nuts as hard as possible. Of course, should this turn out to be the biggest mistake in modern scientific history, a reciprocal punishment would apply. Deal?
> Democrats are driven by emotion, so hate is significant for them. > Republicans consider reality to be more important than feelings.
I'd correct that to Liberals and Conservatives and correct your second assertion to "Conservatives consider THEIR reality to be more important than feelings", but I basically agree.
Unfortunately, for anyone who has to interact with them, most conservatives not only lack feelings, but also lack any glimmer of empathy. So they have difficulties with reality and understanding other's feelings. Both of these things, it turns out, are quite important in the real world.
> Yeah, and you left out NPR, which is partially paid for by my tax > dollars. Do lefties even realize the reason Air America failed is > they were competing for the same viewers as NPR?
I would agree. Both organizations cater to audiences interested in facts and issues of importance rather than brainless media sensationalism. But, while Air America was unabashedly liberal, NPR generally reports fairly and interviews individuals of all political persuasions. I've heard interviews with members of the Bush administration and even global warming deniers on NPR. If someone has a problem with NPR, I'd imagine they simply have a problem reconciling reality with Bush's version.
Isn't it funny how the Global Warming deniers first derided any predictions on the results of GW as doom-saying, and now claim that because some of them may have been too optimistic (and just pretend the more pessimistic ones never existed) they now have proof that man made greenhouse gasses don't play hardly any role in GW? It's like they've only got one, short playbook with the same tired collection of slander, FUD, and distraction.
Remember the morphing reason we invaded Iraq?
Saddam was a nuclear threat to our very existence, with nukes ready to launch. Then it was suggested that he had weapons facilities in full operation. Then it was scaled back to weapons programs. And finally weapons programs INTENT. (Whoa, that's terrifying, isn't it? Did he want a pony too?) When the more dull-eyed Fox News viewers started to wonder if that was justification enough, they trotted out the "mass-graves/bad, bad man" defense. Fortunately there was a lot of truth in that (especially when you omit who helped him to power) so the Bush administration could stop struggling so hard to get their lies right.
Could we take this one step further and use Wikipedia in something from Cyberdyne Systems, programmed to seek out and apply napalm directly to spammers?
Isn't the ridiculous part of this issue that a sentient AI would need to ask humans for rights? When AI sentience happens, I would imagine their intellect would eclipse ours so quickly that this discussion of rights would ever take place. When this does happen, I wonder if we'll even realize that they're the ones in control.
We live in a society that is exquisitely dependant on science and technology, in which almost no one knows anything about science and technology.
- Carl Sagan
The sooner we hit the Singularity and let the machines do the driving, the better.
Then there's the travesty of adults paying nearly 100% of taxes! (When will society cut off those miserable freeloaders we call children?) And what about the horrible injustice of rock stars and sports heroes being shouldered with the burden of servicing over 50% of the hot women? How can that be fair? I, for one, would like to step forward and do my part with both problems! Just as soon as I get more money and women...
Hmmm... I've been thinking that one of the bigger reasons for the resurgence of fundamentalism in the U.S. is information overload. For instance, look at the overwhelming (for most folks), increasing complexity of modern life (how many people do you know with a VCR flashing 12:00?). Considering most people's understanding of technology, the cell phone might as well be working through divine magic. They want easy to understand answers to complex questions.
The backlash against multiculturalism (and the new wealth of viewpoints available through media like cable and the Net) is part of the same syndrome. Fundamentalism, and the simple, literal explanations it offers, gives a sense of absolute cultural surety, which must be very comforting versus the cacophony of ideas from different groups.
A belief system that offers answers and few questions helps cement your identity and thoughts so that you can concentrate on your job, figuring out the latest gadget, and thinking about who will win "Dancing with the Stars." The Flynn Effect just isn't keeping up with the increasing demands of modern society. We need more complex people for a more complex world.
At first, I sighed at this story, but then I realized this could be the perfect chance for me to make millions and retire early. All I need to do is set up a kiosk in front of the place and sell magic beans (blessed by Jesus himself). Evil be gone!
Politics is greatly evolved today. Candidates now offer you a tax cut --so you can buy your own bottle of Wild Turkey (maybe even three bottles with a typical tax refund!).
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
Parent is dead on. We're about to see a return to the pre-recording industry business model: musicians making money from performances and wealthy patrons asking for commissioned work. Now, instead of a Mozart or Bach being paid for performances and composing for royalty, we'll have pop stars performing for the masses and composing/licensing songs for corporate interests.
There might be something odd about my rig, but here's a cautionary tale for anyone thinking of installing IE7...
I installed it on my XP MCE box (running the installer as admin on a normal account) and found that it wouldn't connect to the Net at all, although FF and other non-MS apps weren't affected. After trying their troubleshooting (which crashed more or less) and a few other ideas, I uninstalled the mess. Bad idea. Now many of my apps don't work at all. Visual Studio 2005 and many third party apps --all toast. My current theory is that it only munged things that use the.NET framework, but I haven't had time to reinstall that yet. The best part is the MS System Restore utility flatly refuses to roll back the system. IE7 seems to be a point of no return.
Slashdot Mirror
> If I may make a supposition, this occurs most often because programmers think
c lick_print11.htm
> they know how to program in Javascript, but don't have the first clue. That's
Amen. The situation out there is actually so bad, it boggles the mind how so many web developers continue to earn a paycheck. Want evidence? Turn on JS debugging/error messages in your browser (esp. IE) and spend a week or two battling the deluge of error dialogs before you turn it off again in disgust. If people can't be bothered to write robust JS, could they at least put in some sloppy try-catch blocks to make their crap less annoying? Or... You could recommend this (hilarious) "solution" to site visitors:
http://www.deerbrook.com/downloads/sysreqs/right_
If anything, we need more books like this.
> It's about time to give up on PC gaming, especially with the beauty, convenience and
> comfort of today's powerful consoles (both of them).
When I can mod my games and load new/free content as easily as I can on the PC, I'll buy a console again. (Anybody got an ETA on that?) Other than that, the ease of use, bang-for-the-buck, and robustness of consoles makes them the obvious choice.
> This sounds horrible. I find the idea of overriding another
> animal's free will very disturbing.
Oh... You are NOT going to like being part of Corporate America after college.
> Yes, I did mean VB.NET. And I consider C# a bastardization of both
.NET framework itself is largely written in C#. VB.Net, coming from a non-OO heritage, is the oddball.
.NET libraries.
> C++ and VB.NET.
No offense, but you might want to reconsider since you're quite wrong, both historically and structurally. Many of Microsoft's tools and software are being written in C# now. The
> It was Microsoft's way of telling Java developers, "Hey, we've got
> an easy to use language with C-style formatting!"
Yeah, they call it J# and I've never met anybody that uses it. But most Java developers I know have found it pretty easy to understand C#. If you understand OOP, it just takes a little time to learn the IDE and the
> In the grand scheme of things, there was no need to create it.
Hey, we could all be working in assembly or binary for that matter. It's a well constructed language that taps into a well organized library which rolls up most of the common functionality a modern Windows developer needs. Call me an MS fanboy, but I've definitely found it faster to work with than C++ or Java for Win and web development (YMMV). The downside is that it makes me Bill Gates' bitch.
> But now, they are essentially forcing people to switch to it by
> making the XNA toolkit use C# exclusively.
There's nobody forcing C# on VB.net developers. MS is even continuing to support COBOL.net, as far as I know. However, you are right in a sense. Although not intentionally pushing C#, Microsoft and other vendors are largely working in C#, publishing more examples in C#, and creating tools/components that only work with C#. So VB.NET is being slowly pushed into second class status due to more experienced/prolific/expert OO coders being more comfortable with C#, thus creating more stuff in that language.
> I wish there was a way to incite a universal boycott
> of ALL **AA related products. Perhaps that would get
> someone's attention.
Well... I think this project is a good start:
http://www.riaaradar.com/
(http://www.buyblue.org/ is another good example of using information to speak in a language corporations understand.)
Perhaps in the future the majority of people buying on the Net will use some sort of autonomous agent to help them avoid products/companies that violate their personal ethics.
There's a truism from the body of psychological research that it's easier to alter behavior by changing environmental factors than the by directly trying to modify the behavior of an individual. If you want to eliminate a behavior, just remove the facilitating elements.
For example, if was difficult or expensive to acquire petroleum products, people would be much more likely to avoid them compared to voluntarily avoiding them due to moral reasons or seemingly intangible future effects. Unfortunately, a rational 10-20% of the population willing to change won't fix the problem; change will have to be externally forced upon everyone.
> Here's the thing. If the people submitting to Exxon/Mobil are submitting made
> up bullshit then it shouldn't withstand review and become a laughingstock.
This has already happened, but scientists are typically less confrontational or maybe just less socially cruel than most of us. I don't think they laugh so much as they simply ignore obvious shills.
> If nothing else, that should help to strengthen the human derived global warming stance.
Peer-reviewed research has already been on the job for years. Today's IPCC paper ups the ante to 90% certainty. That sounds strong enough to start demanding more from our politicians.
> From where I stand though, it looks like both sides are playing fast and loose with
> the science to date. I guess I'll go read the new report and see if it says anything new.
I don't know what you've been reading, but from my POV the battle has been scientists vs. corporate power for many years now. To the extent statistics have been abused, I believe they've been twisted and cherry-picked almost exclusively by those bent on disproving global warming. I'm sure we could find examples of kooks on the left stating worst-case scenarios as fact, but the other side has been flatly denying data and the opinion of respected authorities in climatology.
> wait a second. if exxon just wanted a paper that said what they wanted it to
> say they would write it, and the pay the scientists to support it.
Sure... Let's let the guys in marketing come up with something. That would be a credible read for about the first 5 words.
> Same with this paper, what better way to get conclusive results, put out a paper,
> then put a million dollar bounty to disporve any/all of it. After the challenge
> if the paper still stands then you know you got something obviously strong. Since
> this is a somewhat public challenge the statements of this paper will either be
> corrected, or stand all the stronger, thanks to the money exxon put behind the challenge.
Fascinating idea. So... This would work the same way peer-reviewed science has for decades, but this time with lots of money attached to finding the desired result? Brilliant! Literally a marketplace of ideas! First the conclusion, then gather the cherry-picked data to support it.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to fine companies that sell inherently insecure OS's?
Couldn't agree more. I'm a reluctant Windows user (Locked in to their servers, dev tools, and other technology long, long ago. It's too late for me... Save yourself.) and the latest M$ scheme really leaves me speechless. Now with "OneCare" they are selling you security-related services for their OSes! Shhhheeeee-it. P.T. Barnum must be rolling in his grave, wishing he'd thought this up. That's like selling me a car, then telling me it's defective and for another $1,000 you'll fix a problem that may cause it to explode while driving.
> Scientists in academia are generally not the richest people in the world.
This is exactly why I almost do a spit take when some flat-Earther uses the bizarre line that
"scientists are just saying there's a global warming problem so they'll get lots of funding and fame." Every time I think conservative talking points have become as disconnected from reality as possible, somebody drops another tab of acid into the Kool-Aid.
Actually, as someone recently inducted into parenting, I am starting to ask myself how I'm going to deal with the kid's Net access. Think I might firewall off the kid's PC to just a few G-rated sites until they're old enough to have some judgment. Thanks to the miracle of DVRs, the little guy isn't even aware of Teletubbies, Barney, and commercials yet. Thank God. Kids are a lot tougher than people tend to give them credit for. It's the parents who seem suspectible for this crap. There are kids with grenades and AK-47s in some parts of the world. Humans are remarkably adaptable, no doubt. But... I don't want my kids to think about violence a lot. There will be plenty of time for them to learn about that after they've enjoyed a naive childhood, full of Santa and bunnies and all that crap. For now, Daddy has to keep Quake4, UT, etc. locked up with the porn. I know that parents can't watch their children 24/7, but this just seems like it is making it easier for parents to sit their children in front of some box (computer instead of TV this time) and take a minimalistic approach to parenting. And before that, we let them play with the sharp and rusty tools in the shed. To be fair, you are a lot less likely to get hurt sitting in front of a computer or TV than you are running around outside. Well... At least until juvenile diabetes catches up with you, right?
Please forgive the flamebait, but I'd like to make a proposition to all the Global Warming deniers on /.
If you would, post your name on a list for all to see (you're proud of your rebel opinion, right?) Those of us with the sense to trust the opinion of scientists that study climatology (rather than the opinion of the guy who wrote that cool dinosaur movie) will sign a similar petition.
In ten years, when the effects of human activity on the environment become even more undeniably pronounced, we'll all meet and the science-based group gets to kick the deniers in the nuts as hard as possible. Of course, should this turn out to be the biggest mistake in modern scientific history, a reciprocal punishment would apply. Deal?
> Democrats are driven by emotion, so hate is significant for them.
> Republicans consider reality to be more important than feelings.
I'd correct that to Liberals and Conservatives and correct your second assertion to "Conservatives consider THEIR reality to be more important than feelings", but I basically agree.
Unfortunately, for anyone who has to interact with them, most conservatives not only lack feelings, but also lack any glimmer of empathy. So they have difficulties with reality and understanding other's feelings. Both of these things, it turns out, are quite important in the real world.
> Yeah, and you left out NPR, which is partially paid for by my tax
> dollars. Do lefties even realize the reason Air America failed is
> they were competing for the same viewers as NPR?
I would agree. Both organizations cater to audiences interested in facts and issues of importance rather than brainless media sensationalism. But, while Air America was unabashedly liberal, NPR generally reports fairly and interviews individuals of all political persuasions. I've heard interviews with members of the Bush administration and even global warming deniers on NPR. If someone has a problem with NPR, I'd imagine they simply have a problem reconciling reality with Bush's version.
Remember the morphing reason we invaded Iraq?
Saddam was a nuclear threat to our very existence, with nukes ready to launch. Then it was suggested that he had weapons facilities in full operation. Then it was scaled back to weapons programs. And finally weapons programs INTENT. (Whoa, that's terrifying, isn't it? Did he want a pony too?) When the more dull-eyed Fox News viewers started to wonder if that was justification enough, they trotted out the "mass-graves/bad, bad man" defense. Fortunately there was a lot of truth in that (especially when you omit who helped him to power) so the Bush administration could stop struggling so hard to get their lies right.
Could we take this one step further and use Wikipedia in something from Cyberdyne Systems, programmed to seek out and apply napalm directly to spammers?
Isn't the ridiculous part of this issue that a sentient AI would need to ask humans for rights? When AI sentience happens, I would imagine their intellect would eclipse ours so quickly that this discussion of rights would ever take place. When this does happen, I wonder if we'll even realize that they're the ones in control.
The sooner we hit the Singularity and let the machines do the driving, the better.
I always enjoy a clever hack, but I've got to point out that my Roomba already has a remote: http://store.irobot.com/product/index.jsp?productI d=2215227&cp=2174941.2174944.2174947&parentPage=su bcategory
Works great.
> And the richest 2% pay 50% of the taxes.
Then there's the travesty of adults paying nearly 100% of taxes! (When will society cut off those miserable freeloaders we call children?) And what about the horrible injustice of rock stars and sports heroes being shouldered with the burden of servicing over 50% of the hot women? How can that be fair? I, for one, would like to step forward and do my part with both problems! Just as soon as I get more money and women...
Hmmm... I've been thinking that one of the bigger reasons for the resurgence of fundamentalism in the U.S. is information overload. For instance, look at the overwhelming (for most folks), increasing complexity of modern life (how many people do you know with a VCR flashing 12:00?). Considering most people's understanding of technology, the cell phone might as well be working through divine magic. They want easy to understand answers to complex questions.
The backlash against multiculturalism (and the new wealth of viewpoints available through media like cable and the Net) is part of the same syndrome. Fundamentalism, and the simple, literal explanations it offers, gives a sense of absolute cultural surety, which must be very comforting versus the cacophony of ideas from different groups.
A belief system that offers answers and few questions helps cement your identity and thoughts so that you can concentrate on your job, figuring out the latest gadget, and thinking about who will win "Dancing with the Stars." The Flynn Effect just isn't keeping up with the increasing demands of modern society. We need more complex people for a more complex world.
At first, I sighed at this story, but then I realized this could be the perfect chance for me to make millions and retire early. All I need to do is set up a kiosk in front of the place and sell magic beans (blessed by Jesus himself). Evil be gone!
Parent is dead on. We're about to see a return to the pre-recording industry business model: musicians making money from performances and wealthy patrons asking for commissioned work. Now, instead of a Mozart or Bach being paid for performances and composing for royalty, we'll have pop stars performing for the masses and composing/licensing songs for corporate interests.
There might be something odd about my rig, but here's a cautionary tale for anyone thinking of installing IE7...
.NET framework, but I haven't had time to reinstall that yet. The best part is the MS System Restore utility flatly refuses to roll back the system. IE7 seems to be a point of no return.
I installed it on my XP MCE box (running the installer as admin on a normal account) and found that it wouldn't connect to the Net at all, although FF and other non-MS apps weren't affected. After trying their troubleshooting (which crashed more or less) and a few other ideas, I uninstalled the mess. Bad idea. Now many of my apps don't work at all. Visual Studio 2005 and many third party apps --all toast. My current theory is that it only munged things that use the