Maybe a C version could be as fast, but not as compact, per EXE size. Perhaps a compiler may "waste" some space as a trade-off for speed, whereas human-tuned assembler can more easily optimize both space and speed.
If you want to do it semi-scientifically, then test a given methodology for at least 7 years on actual projects for multiple project and organization types.
Why is it methodologies start spreading before being properly field tested? It appears to be hypsters jumping the gun in order to get rich selling hype (books, training, & consulting), but I'm open to other explanations.
That's an interesting perspective I haven't considered. But, a company as large as Microsoft should have plenty of "usability" experts to point that out and actual user testing. They have the experts and resources to know better, more so than a vast majority of orgs.
Incidentally, GIMP made a similar snafu. Are they both copying some other vendor, or copying each other? Who started this fad?
Also, it is possible to re-import most PDF's into Word, Excel, etc.; it's just lossy. But many other existing Save-As's are also lossy, such as CSV which cuts out formatting info. Thus, "re-importable" is a continuum. Only the single native format typically has any guarantee of not being lossy.
If your data needs to be correct, define it and its relationships then use SQL. You will have to pay someone decent money to do this correctly.
PHB's have to learn the hard way. They want it cheap, big, and now. Security & reliability issues are something they try to blame on somebody else using their well-honed spin skills.
Using a standard, familiar window layout would allow me to actually get some work done without having to search for
Microsoft Office added PDF-generating functionality which is good, BUT they put it under File -> Export instead of File -> Save-As, which is where everybody goes to look for it. I've seen this trip several users already.
(If they had put it under both, that would be acceptable. Unnecessary redundancy is usually a smaller UI sin than misplacement.)
WTF were you thinking, Microsoft? I'd really like to hear the "rationale" as a study in human decision mental failures. That is, PHBiology.
Don't they have something similar to a spectrograph to determine chemical signature of selected targets? I thought such was standard equipment on such probes. Perhaps they are not yet close enough to Ceres to get useful data from it.
Who would have guessed that over time our capabilities to leave Earth's gravity well with people aboard would have decreased? Shameful.
Recession, terrorism, wars, political budget fights, change of focus (moon vs. non-moon) have all caused this.
When other things are on people's minds, "space toys" gets the least priority.
It could also be argued that manned space flight is a waste of resources until other technologies catch up, but that's another long and involved debate.
They also thought that the lander would have to carry all the fuel necessary to get back to Earth, instead of the rendezvous plan Apollo eventually used. Earlier, they generally assumed the top third of the launch rocket would carry a smaller rocket/lander combo as a more or less complete unit. It's a reasonable assumption, for rendezvousing was an untested concept, and did indeed require cutting edge technology of the 60's to pull off.
Even if it rolls, its only 1/6th gravity so I don't think its going to do too much damage to the actual structure.
If momentum builds up, then gravity doesn't matter much. A collision with a boulder at 30 mph is going to do almost the same damage on the moon as on Earth.
To be frank, it looks like a 2nd grade science project using cardboard, aluminum foil, and brass-colored duct-tape.
If somebody brought a model of that to school in the 50's as a lunar lander project, it would be laughed at, smashed, and given an "F", not necessarily in that order.
I remember seeing some aerospace contractor sketches of the early 60's. It started out a bit cleaner, but over time became more and more skeletal. No politically-conscious manager would approve a contract with something that ugly, so they dressed it up a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe a C version could be as fast, but not as compact, per EXE size. Perhaps a compiler may "waste" some space as a trade-off for speed, whereas human-tuned assembler can more easily optimize both space and speed.
It's what you call your @#&% when you get old.
Cementinator
Fixed-pitch fonts, I miss those. They made UI development so much easier because the sizing was far more predictable than variable pitched fonts.
True, it's esthetically ugly, but when you want small, quick, and cheap; it's the way to go.
Yoda getting old too?
When you git old, you ain't nothing but a hound-dog.
Please select one or more objects to 3D print:
[_] Airplane
[_] Howitzer
[_] Missile
[_] Nuke
If you want to do it semi-scientifically, then test a given methodology for at least 7 years on actual projects for multiple project and organization types.
Why is it methodologies start spreading before being properly field tested? It appears to be hypsters jumping the gun in order to get rich selling hype (books, training, & consulting), but I'm open to other explanations.
It's the modern "Plan 9 from Outer Space": So bad it's good.
Not necessarily. The lack of "weight" may be the reason the rover was sliding because it doesn't dig in.
That's an interesting perspective I haven't considered. But, a company as large as Microsoft should have plenty of "usability" experts to point that out and actual user testing. They have the experts and resources to know better, more so than a vast majority of orgs.
Incidentally, GIMP made a similar snafu. Are they both copying some other vendor, or copying each other? Who started this fad?
Also, it is possible to re-import most PDF's into Word, Excel, etc.; it's just lossy. But many other existing Save-As's are also lossy, such as CSV which cuts out formatting info. Thus, "re-importable" is a continuum. Only the single native format typically has any guarantee of not being lossy.
PHB's have to learn the hard way. They want it cheap, big, and now. Security & reliability issues are something they try to blame on somebody else using their well-honed spin skills.
Comcast-A-Tron
Microsoft Office added PDF-generating functionality which is good, BUT they put it under File -> Export instead of File -> Save-As, which is where everybody goes to look for it. I've seen this trip several users already.
(If they had put it under both, that would be acceptable. Unnecessary redundancy is usually a smaller UI sin than misplacement.)
WTF were you thinking, Microsoft? I'd really like to hear the "rationale" as a study in human decision mental failures. That is, PHBiology.
So in OOP terms, "Dwarf" is a sub-class (sub-type) of "Planet". Thus, Ceres still "is-a" Planet per base type membership.
Don't they have something similar to a spectrograph to determine chemical signature of selected targets? I thought such was standard equipment on such probes. Perhaps they are not yet close enough to Ceres to get useful data from it.
spectrograph overview: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/p...
Well, according to certain industry spokespersons, there is a shortage of cockroach coders.
Recession, terrorism, wars, political budget fights, change of focus (moon vs. non-moon) have all caused this.
When other things are on people's minds, "space toys" gets the least priority.
It could also be argued that manned space flight is a waste of resources until other technologies catch up, but that's another long and involved debate.
Houston Control: "...and, uh, your luggage went to Mars."
No wonder the fish seem so happy these days. They get Prozac, Oxycontin, etc.
They also thought that the lander would have to carry all the fuel necessary to get back to Earth, instead of the rendezvous plan Apollo eventually used. Earlier, they generally assumed the top third of the launch rocket would carry a smaller rocket/lander combo as a more or less complete unit. It's a reasonable assumption, for rendezvousing was an untested concept, and did indeed require cutting edge technology of the 60's to pull off.
Just put one's parent's basement on such wheels and one never needs to go outside.
If momentum builds up, then gravity doesn't matter much. A collision with a boulder at 30 mph is going to do almost the same damage on the moon as on Earth.
Predictions are like assholes; everybody has one.
It's kind of funny that they once envisioned this:
http://public.media.smithsonia...
But instead we got this:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def...
To be frank, it looks like a 2nd grade science project using cardboard, aluminum foil, and brass-colored duct-tape.
If somebody brought a model of that to school in the 50's as a lunar lander project, it would be laughed at, smashed, and given an "F", not necessarily in that order.
I remember seeing some aerospace contractor sketches of the early 60's. It started out a bit cleaner, but over time became more and more skeletal. No politically-conscious manager would approve a contract with something that ugly, so they dressed it up a bit.
I would note that Von Braun sketched up spindly looking designs in the early 50's: http://www.astronautix.com/cra...
Ahead of his time.