Depends which numbers you focus on. EPS might be important for share-holders, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
Consider net income for 2012:
Oracle: $10 Billion net income from 118,000 employees (~$85,000 per employee)
IBM: $16 Billion net income from 434,000 employees (~$37,000 per employee)
Works out that Oracle currently rakes in roughly $85,000 per employee, while IBM 'only' manages around $37,000.
If you were Larry, would you want to match IBM's earnings based on those figures?
No one wanted "User Operation Prohibited", but that sadly found its way onto most DVDs.
Isn't market testing supposed to weed out dumb ideas like this?
Market-testing sessions may not last long enough to distinguish novelty-factor from long-term benefits.
The television is too casual a medium to complicate with shutter glasses.
For soaps, sitcoms, news, games-shows and other attention-deficit programming I agree. For one-hour-per-episode big-budget series and movies - I think a lot of people will be happy to don the glasses with an "and now I shall concentrate on what I'm watching" mentality...
Re:Hooray fileinfo is standard!
on
PHP 5.3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Assuming your argument-order frustration lies with the classic needle/haystack inconsistency throughout the string and array functions, the whole issue goes away if the PHP guys would simply evolve the string and array natives to be treated like objects:
in_array($needle, $haystack) -> $array->contains($needle) strpos($haystack, $needle) -> $string->pos($needle) etc.
Do that, and people will naturally migrate from the old inconsistent methods and move towards the more natural and consistent new methods without breaking anything.
If you really think it's worth breaking backwards compatibility, you could implement a friends suggestion - adding the PHP version number to the <?php wrapper: i.e. change to <?php6... ?>. Job done.
... we shouldn't call it MVC but something else like "P-BL-DA" for "Presentation / Business Logic / Data Access". (Or maybe DA-P-BL, in honor of the original screwing up of the order of the layers in the name.)
You only enter your userid into random-website - never your password.
The ID gives the site enough information to redirect you to your OpenID provider's website - and that's where you enter your password. You should see the same thing every time. If you're paranoid about security, use an OpenID provider with customizable login pages (e.g. Yahoo - allows you to choose a picture to display on your OpenID login page.)
After your OpenID provider authenticates you, you get redirected back to random-website which can then access the information you've explicitly allowed them to (maybe a nick-name, maybe an email address, maybe nothing...)
Random-website never has access to your password. Ever.
Two basic problems trying to scan store codes and convert to UPC
1) the store's internal numbers may not be unique (may clash with another store, of they may re-use a number again and again as stock comes in and out.)
2) The barcode will need different decoding software. Taking Borders as an example again, their barcodes contain far more stripes than a standard UPC barcode. More stripes require greater phone resolution and clarity to accurately scan. And different decoding algorithms (the barcode could be alpha-numeric instead of all-numeric.)
BTW: UPC is dead. Every US store is supposed to support EAN now (13-digits world-wide standard vs 12-digit US-centric scheme)
(disclaimer: I work on a price-comparison / info / review site called ewelike)
I've looked up reviews and done price-comparisons on the spot for years now. I've even been the ass at PC World asking them to match online-prices by showing them a website on my phone (it works.) - and (more disappointingly) I've been the uber-ass at HMV trying to get them to sell CDs at the same price they sell them on their own website.
Looking up product-reviews on the spot is great. I'm a big horror-film fan, and used to end up with more crap than good. Nowadays, I usually bung the barcode into the website (I'm old-school: I type the barcode in.) Even if there aren't any reviews for the film I'm holding, it's usually only a few steps to find out if the director's any good, or the actors, of the film studio. Basically, anything to give you a little extra confidence in your purchase.
As for price-comparison... that's also great. I hate paying £16 for a DVD. Sadly, for new releases that's the best price you're going to find online or off. Knowing I'm not being conned gives me the confidence I need to buy something there and then.
Of course, if I see I can get the same thing for £9.89 from Play, I'll leave the film on the shelf without a second thought. (I may even add it to a wish-list first, and order it online from home....)
All I'm trying to say is: reviews give you the confidence you're buying good stuff, and price-comparison let's you know you're not being conned.
Microsoft have a wonderful white-paper on deblurring images by calculating the "blur kernel" Basically, this works out how your hand tremored while taking a picture, then undoes the blurring caused by it. Great for making barcodes readable with shitty optics on a camera.
Sadly, IIRC the process took about 6 minutes on a desktop PC... Not the sort of process you want to run for a 'real time' barcode scanner.
A database holding 1D barcodes only needs to have space for 10^13 entries (to handle 14-digit barcodes - aka GTIN numbers - as printed on boxes of wine.)
A database holding 2D barcodes needs an absurd amount of space as the data can include a unique serial / product / tracking number as well as the core URL.
e.g. http://www.sony-privacy-invasion.com/some-arbitrary-cd?trackingid=12341211
Stores already fuck it up by putting their own stickers over the barcode (see Borders), or using display cases without barcodes on 'em at all (e.g. console games.)
In those cases, you need to fall back to standard type and search. CDs often have the barcode number printed on the spine too - and sometimes it's the same as the catalogue number. Books have ISBNs and/or you can search by banging in the book and author name.
Want to use barcodes for price-comparison now? Try summat like http://ewelike.com/ and add the barcode to the URL (e.g. http://ewelike.com/5030930059064 for Mercenaries 2 on Xbox 360 (UK))
Stores can probably stop you barcode scanning already using their "no photography allowed" rules. But using your mobile phones web-browser...? They can't stop that - can they?
I'm not sure that flippant remark's as obvious as you think.
Increased viscosity may be bad at the ends of the pool (diving in and pushing off after turns), but may help with strokes.
Or do you think reducing the viscosity would make swimmers faster?
It's a trade-off between the ability to propel yourself, and the resistance to movement. I doubt (by pure chance) that water's the fastest fluid to swim in.
Re:Phoronix will pay to fix X
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm guessing the parent poster doesn't code, as they're implying all coding is equally enjoyable.
It isn't. There's a world of difference between coding new features, and fixing other people's bugs.
For comparison, take an artist who loves to paint landscapes and modern art:
Would they do their own interior decorating? Maybe.
Would they paint *your* house? Unlikely.
As to bribery: there's nothing wrong with offering artists money to paint your house - just don't be surprised when they turn you down without a flicker or interest...
Totally agree that that's stupid behaviour, so I've had a look at slashcode to see how to fix it. When all's said and done, it looks like a one-line change in a function called getCommentReply which currently fails to fetch a comments parent-id from the db. This should fix it:
--- Slash/DB/MySQL/MySQL.pm 2007-05-03 07:47:59.000000000 +0100 +++ Slash/DB/MySQL/MySQLfix.pm 2007-05-25 15:15:22.312500000 +0100 @@ -5898,7 +5898,7 @@
"date, date AS time, subject,
comments.points AS points, comments.tweak AS tweak, pointsorig, tweak_orig,
comment_text.comment AS comment, realname, nickname, - fakeemail, homepage, comments.cid AS cid, sid, + fakeemail, homepage, comments.cid AS cid, sid, comments.pid AS pid, comments.pid AS original_pid,
users.uid AS uid, reason, karma_bonus";
if ($constants->{plugin}{Subscribe} && $constants->{subscribe}) {
$select.= ", subscriber_bonus";
No, Computer Science isn't dead. It's simply grown too big to be covered by a single 'Computer Science' label. Just as biology branched out into 'Life Sciences' it's about time Computer Science was broken into separate areas.
It used to be fine to have a single Computer Science course with one module in Law, another in Algorithms; one in AI, one in Databases etc.
These subjects are too big now; covering the full subject area in a single degree produces graduates who are classic 'jack of all trades, master of none.'
The question is asked from the developer's point of view: what should we let users do?
Hopefully, the developers know who the target audience is for the webiste. So, thinking like one of the user's... what would you expect to be able to do?
This is different from what you want to do. You may want to access the personal details of every user... but do you really expect to be able to do that (would you want everyone to access *your* personal details?)
The question's a little too generic. It depends entirely on who the target audience is, and what function the site is performing (is it informational, particapatory or purely commercial/sales driven?)
The "Web 2.0" label means something different to every developer, and it really means nothing to the user. Think of "Web 2.0" as modern-day-mature. What would user's expect to be able to do on a modern website today? Now try and exceed those expectations.
That's a solved problem, to get IE to use it's cache without checking the server, the webserver needs to be configured to set pre-check and post-check extensions to the Cache-Control header.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends which numbers you focus on. EPS might be important for share-holders, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Consider net income for 2012: Oracle: $10 Billion net income from 118,000 employees (~$85,000 per employee) IBM: $16 Billion net income from 434,000 employees (~$37,000 per employee) Works out that Oracle currently rakes in roughly $85,000 per employee, while IBM 'only' manages around $37,000. If you were Larry, would you want to match IBM's earnings based on those figures?
With respect to ".style2 extends .style1", that's pretty basic:
.style1, .style2 { ... common properties ... }
.style2 { ... override properties ... }
No one wants 3D TV, so why is it being developed?
No one wanted "User Operation Prohibited", but that sadly found its way onto most DVDs.
Isn't market testing supposed to weed out dumb ideas like this?
Market-testing sessions may not last long enough to distinguish novelty-factor from long-term benefits.
The television is too casual a medium to complicate with shutter glasses.
For soaps, sitcoms, news, games-shows and other attention-deficit programming I agree. For one-hour-per-episode big-budget series and movies - I think a lot of people will be happy to don the glasses with an "and now I shall concentrate on what I'm watching" mentality...
What we REALLY need are braille street signs.
And braille porn - with really big bumps
Theres a list of functions deprecated in PHP 5.3. I can't find an official list for PHP 6 though.
Assuming your argument-order frustration lies with the classic needle/haystack inconsistency throughout the string and array functions, the whole issue goes away if the PHP guys would simply evolve the string and array natives to be treated like objects:
in_array($needle, $haystack) -> $array->contains($needle)
strpos($haystack, $needle) -> $string->pos($needle)
etc.
Do that, and people will naturally migrate from the old inconsistent methods and move towards the more natural and consistent new methods without breaking anything.
If you really think it's worth breaking backwards compatibility, you could implement a friends suggestion - adding the PHP version number to the <?php wrapper: i.e. change to <?php6 ... ?>. Job done.
I'd say two-finger clicking and two-finger scrolling are much more intuitive than double-clicking - but that's not saying much.
For the benefit of people wondering why banging two-fingers on their macbook trackpad doesn't seem to be doing anything:
System Preferences -> Keyboard & Mouse -> Trackpad
[x] Use two fingers to scroll
[x] Tap trackpad using two fingers for secondary click
Or see apple's support pages
By their argument, `cd /; rm -rf .' still ought to work.
No they shouldn't - try it yourself:
bash$ mkdir sub; cd sub; rm .
rm: "." and ".." may not be removed
PebBLe DAsh has a nice ring to it!
ewww...
I'm guessing you're after :%s/\<\(site\)code\>/\1Identifier/gi
(the 'i' flag makes the search-replace case-insensitive)
You only enter your userid into random-website - never your password.
The ID gives the site enough information to redirect you to your OpenID provider's website - and that's where you enter your password. You should see the same thing every time. If you're paranoid about security, use an OpenID provider with customizable login pages (e.g. Yahoo - allows you to choose a picture to display on your OpenID login page.)
After your OpenID provider authenticates you, you get redirected back to random-website which can then access the information you've explicitly allowed them to (maybe a nick-name, maybe an email address, maybe nothing...)
Random-website never has access to your password. Ever.
Two basic problems trying to scan store codes and convert to UPC
1) the store's internal numbers may not be unique (may clash with another store, of they may re-use a number again and again as stock comes in and out.)
2) The barcode will need different decoding software. Taking Borders as an example again, their barcodes contain far more stripes than a standard UPC barcode. More stripes require greater phone resolution and clarity to accurately scan. And different decoding algorithms (the barcode could be alpha-numeric instead of all-numeric.)
BTW: UPC is dead. Every US store is supposed to support EAN now (13-digits world-wide standard vs 12-digit US-centric scheme)
Local (GPS-based) price-comparison also needs to take stock availability into account.
What if your local store already sold-out of something?
What if the product sells-out by the time you've hiked across town?
How much work is it going to be to hook into every stores stock-control system and implement "Reserve this item"?
(disclaimer: I work on a price-comparison / info / review site called ewelike)
I've looked up reviews and done price-comparisons on the spot for years now. I've even been the ass at PC World asking them to match online-prices by showing them a website on my phone (it works.) - and (more disappointingly) I've been the uber-ass at HMV trying to get them to sell CDs at the same price they sell them on their own website.
Looking up product-reviews on the spot is great. I'm a big horror-film fan, and used to end up with more crap than good. Nowadays, I usually bung the barcode into the website (I'm old-school: I type the barcode in.) Even if there aren't any reviews for the film I'm holding, it's usually only a few steps to find out if the director's any good, or the actors, of the film studio. Basically, anything to give you a little extra confidence in your purchase.
As for price-comparison... that's also great. I hate paying £16 for a DVD. Sadly, for new releases that's the best price you're going to find online or off. Knowing I'm not being conned gives me the confidence I need to buy something there and then.
Of course, if I see I can get the same thing for £9.89 from Play, I'll leave the film on the shelf without a second thought. (I may even add it to a wish-list first, and order it online from home....)
All I'm trying to say is: reviews give you the confidence you're buying good stuff, and price-comparison let's you know you're not being conned.
Microsoft have a wonderful white-paper on deblurring images by calculating the "blur kernel" Basically, this works out how your hand tremored while taking a picture, then undoes the blurring caused by it. Great for making barcodes readable with shitty optics on a camera.
Sadly, IIRC the process took about 6 minutes on a desktop PC... Not the sort of process you want to run for a 'real time' barcode scanner.
A database holding 1D barcodes only needs to have space for 10^13 entries (to handle 14-digit barcodes - aka GTIN numbers - as printed on boxes of wine.)
A database holding 2D barcodes needs an absurd amount of space as the data can include a unique serial / product / tracking number as well as the core URL.
e.g. http://www.sony-privacy-invasion.com/some-arbitrary-cd?trackingid=12341211
Stores already fuck it up by putting their own stickers over the barcode (see Borders), or using display cases without barcodes on 'em at all (e.g. console games.)
In those cases, you need to fall back to standard type and search. CDs often have the barcode number printed on the spine too - and sometimes it's the same as the catalogue number. Books have ISBNs and/or you can search by banging in the book and author name.
Want to use barcodes for price-comparison now? Try summat like http://ewelike.com/ and add the barcode to the URL (e.g. http://ewelike.com/5030930059064 for Mercenaries 2 on Xbox 360 (UK))
Stores can probably stop you barcode scanning already using their "no photography allowed" rules. But using your mobile phones web-browser...? They can't stop that - can they?
I'm not sure that flippant remark's as obvious as you think.
Increased viscosity may be bad at the ends of the pool (diving in and pushing off after turns), but may help with strokes.
Or do you think reducing the viscosity would make swimmers faster?
It's a trade-off between the ability to propel yourself, and the resistance to movement. I doubt (by pure chance) that water's the fastest fluid to swim in.
The manufacturer might want repeat business...
They're not selling suicide bombs.
I'm guessing the parent poster doesn't code, as they're implying all coding is equally enjoyable.
It isn't. There's a world of difference between coding new features, and fixing other people's bugs.
For comparison, take an artist who loves to paint landscapes and modern art:
Would they do their own interior decorating? Maybe.
Would they paint *your* house? Unlikely.
As to bribery: there's nothing wrong with offering artists money to paint your house - just don't be surprised when they turn you down without a flicker or interest...
You know it's Brendan right? Not Brandon as you wrote three times.
No, Computer Science isn't dead. It's simply grown too big to be covered by a single 'Computer Science' label.
Just as biology branched out into 'Life Sciences' it's about time Computer Science was broken into separate areas.
It used to be fine to have a single Computer Science course with one module in Law, another in Algorithms; one in AI, one in Databases etc.
These subjects are too big now; covering the full subject area in a single degree produces graduates who are classic 'jack of all trades, master of none.'
The question is asked from the developer's point of view: what should we let users do?
Hopefully, the developers know who the target audience is for the webiste. So, thinking like one of the user's... what would you expect to be able to do?
This is different from what you want to do. You may want to access the personal details of every user... but do you really expect to be able to do that (would you want everyone to access *your* personal details?)
The question's a little too generic. It depends entirely on who the target audience is, and what function the site is performing (is it informational, particapatory or purely commercial/sales driven?)
The "Web 2.0" label means something different to every developer, and it really means nothing to the user. Think of "Web 2.0" as modern-day-mature. What would user's expect to be able to do on a modern website today? Now try and exceed those expectations.
That's a solved problem, to get IE to use it's cache without checking the server, the webserver needs to be configured to set pre-check and post-check extensions to the Cache-Control header.