My older siblings took calculus. Each of them had their own book. I took it in college, and the book changed during the year, so I have two. I tutor calculus these days, and I was horrified to see that a rather awful presentation of the subject was run off on tissue paper, weighed twice what my own tomes weigh, and cost $165 ea. Used books were frequently underlined and highlighted by the less-than-4.0 students, so those were more of distractions than assistance. A science-oriented freshman in the local college where I live can expect to pay nearly $1000 in books a year. I still don't see ebooks as having the ability to finger flip to relevant portions of a book as quickly as those in print; sadly, the technology in an ebook becomes an impediment to efficient teaching. Even homework is assigned and answered online, so there's little room for "showing your work." Don't get me wrong. I like ebooks...for novels, the occasional read, but not for serious study. They lack color, and the ability to provide tactile indexing to the subject, e.g. I feel / open the book 3/4 of the way through it, and I kinda know where I am in it. A bit harder with an ebook.
So, if we demand our student lug these voluminous compendia around a campus, can't we at least give them better quality, more precise content, and a cheaper cost? At least something to offset the price of the truss they're gonna need!
If the professors wish to change out books mid topic, fine, just give the students a massive discount for those affected by the change. Bolting on resource courses, and using opt-outs, etc, makes going to college feel more like buying insurance, what with all subtle disclaimers and fine print when you register for a simple course. Eventually, even basket weaving will require a waiver, because, "Caution: This Class Introduces Students to Potentially Harmful Reed. Contents May Be Sharp."
At least give the students something back for their "taxes," before an ebook tea party is started.
I think it's awesome. What would be better is if they can capture s-p (1, 2, and 3) hybridization, and use that to study reaction mechanisms. I would like to see a double-bond, even if it's a picture of the Flash, rather than just a conceptual probability cloud.
When people who tell me, "Programming is hard. I could never program," I respond with, "If you can make out a shopping list, buy the groceries and cook dinner, serve it on the table, and enjoy a good meal; then, you can design, write, implement, and deploy a program. Only the language is different."
Basically, I'm a c programmer. I tell people, "If I can do it, anyone can do it."
I leave out the part where I tell them I've been doing it for almost 30 years.:-) Most programmers I know, who happen to be really good at programming, lack that superficial ego. They have fun doing it, and love to share.
My biggest worry for ham radio is when people say they no longer need Morse Code. What's next? Giving up our bandwidth, since we don't practice CW as much as we should? I'm sorry, but I might not be able to hear speech, but I can make out CW a substantially less than 559, and even with a QRI of 1, -.-. --.- is still CQ. Think of the low sunspot activity as a chance to brush up on QRP, and try getting back to CW. Let's not lose any more bandwidth, because as long as we can work CW, we're useful for emergency communications, continued radio experimentation, and our bandwidth.
Having just read the review, 4.0 sounds like it smacks of officious, erudite pedantry, and abject sophistry regarding game mechanics. It appears as if it addresses some endemic lack of player imagination, and goes on to describe things using corporate phrases. I half expect to see "Mission Statement", "Goals and Objectives", and "Roles and Responsibilities" appear somewhere in the manuals.
And talent trees? Maybe I should whip out my old WHFRP character generator I wrote in LISP years and years ago?
Tieflings? Lilith babies and Lebens...sorry...Dargonsborn? It feels almost Second Life-ish.
"Defenders, Skirmishers, Controllers, and Leaders" ?! New buzzwords? Marketing? How about, "Druid, use your +2 Blackberry, while I use my Sprint Boots to traverse the Dell and gather some Intel!" What happened to role-playing, and going with the flow?
The rules are not legal rules. They are guidelines. They're there to ensure - mostly - that given the same kind of events, a player may have reasonable expection of the range of results for a chosen course of action. That's all. It's to prevent brats from saying, "But I, Pez the Flatulent, hit the dragon with my butter knife. I should cause the same amount of damage as Findik the Regular, with his Chainsaw of Mad Cutting!"
Instead of debating how the system will lock you into a particular style of play - it's still not an Online-Only game, where you can move only where the cursor goes - why not just use the parts you like, and run your own, fun, happy campaigns?
Fundamentalists in any religion are a hazard. Neither assume that all Muslims are fundamentalists, nor that all Christians are the same. Muslim scholars preserved and advanced knowledge greatly. Look at optics and algebra.
I should charge you time and a half for having to wade through your poorly formatted reply. Sane? Yes. Coherent? Yes. Rude and impolite? Very. And yes, I've worked the Fi's, Pharm's, Cosmetics, you name it, and if a compiler criticizes someone's code and that person is offended, then I don't want them on my team.
I value people who can get the job done, without babysitting, hand holding, or other such niceties; however, I need them to be able to communicate to me efficiently, concisely, and effectively, their status and projections so that I can view the variance, and re-level set my customers' expectations accordingly, while keeping a keen eye on the cost.
I must apologize, though. I didn't realize you work for a UK firm; however, I used to work with UK Financial companies, and they did seem to value the same things I did. In no place in my original reply to you did I discount basic skill and abilities as a programmer.
As for "customer contact," I would say that to eschew any, who might conjure a modicum of interpersonal skills, is antithetical to the fundamental goals you might be trying to achieve. Regardless, if they have "people person," or its ilk, on a resume/CV, then they better well be able to charm a client into thinking that their coding bugs are the latest and greatest feature.
Perhaps you should start with finding applicants who have a decent command of the English language, and the proven ability to interact with customers, management, and a team of programmers? Ensure they not only have the ability to communicate coherent thoughts in person, on the phone, in conference, or on a whiteboard. Additionally, test them for their ability to adapt to the dynamic environment that is Corporate America.
I could walk outside right now, and find myself umpteen code monkeys to write EXACTLY what I wish them to write, as opposed to the creative dialogues I seek from my team members. I want people to be enthusiastic about coding, their product, and their team.
-v.
P.S. I'm not sure, but describing yourself as a "pimp" gives me pause as to your ability. Not necessarily true, but that is my [business] perception.
In many cases children are merely vanity accessories for their parents' fashionable self-esteem. A good, smart child is better for showing off than a dented, rusty child, with bad brakes, and a...oh, sorry. Was I talking about children or cars?
Commodities. Many parents have reduced their children to off-the-shelf extensions of their own egos. And what do many do if they raise a lemon? They complain to the manufacturer! No, seriously, it's the teacher's fault, society's fault, anyone's fault but theirs.
Is overpraising a child detrimental? Only when the praise serves as a vain reminder to the parent or teacher that they should get the gold star for the child's accomplishments. The best parents/teachers are those that acknowledge that a child receives personal accolades upon merit, and are willing to accept an altruistic repose with regard to success ownership.
Can parents over/underpraise their children? Yes, but you must know the root cause of why they do it in the first place. After all, the children are merely pawns in the vainglorious pursuit of parents salving their own psychological issues when they were children.
- "Perhaps it's a psychogenic disorder."
- "Of what specific nature?"
I had one place ask me to sign an NDA and a NC, which had the "up to six months" proviso, which was not only bad enough, but stupid as well.
However, here's the zinger:
They stipulated that if I were to leave for any reason (quit or fired) that I would be required to notify any and all potential employers during the interview process that I worked for them, to give the interviewers the company's contact info, and inform them that my ability to accept any offer would be based on the company having first informed them of my abilities and true reason for leaving.
I had the contract rewritten. They balked. I told them to shove it, and found a better job elsewhere.
One guy who quit this place I considered left the country to find a better job, because this company (a hedge fund) hired a P.I. to ensure that this guy (who was a key designer of their trading system) would be properly motivated to ensure that the company approved of where he would work next.
Gamer. Drug addict. Whatever. Same thing. You even claim that "Microsoft is King," because you need it for gaming. (* insert strains of "Pusherman" from "Superfly" here *)
If you were able to get your fix from a linux system, would you still use Windows?
Even in the small world of English speakers, English has devolved to an almost incomprehensible point, thusly:
The Go Phenomenon : substituting forms of "to go" for verbs of communication, e.g.
"So he goes, 'What do you mean?'"
The Like Syndrome : c.f. The Go Phenomenon using "like", e.g.
"So I'm like hi, and he's like hi."
Dearth of Punctuation : obfuscation of meaning in written communication by lack
of clear punctuation, e.g.
"What do you smell?" vs. "What, do you smell?"
Tense Aphasia : using the wrong verb form in compound tenses, e.g.
"Should have GONE there, " instead of "Should have WENT there."
Subjunctive Interruptus : using and losing the mood, e.g.
"If she were there, we would have gone." (unreal condition) being replaced by
"If she was there, we would have gone."
The Ubiquitous Atrocities : To/Two/Too, Where/Were, They're/There/Their, Than/Then
Combinations of these mistakes abound.
Pejorative Indifference : using "whatever" to mean "Frac off, I have no regard for what
you just said."
Number Bewilderment : confusing singular and plural use of words, e.g.
"We was," vs. "We were."
Abject Sloth : being so lazy as to think that it's easier to type "njoy" for "enjoy,"
and using more abbreviations than necessary
A nasty example of the preceding errata compounded together in a single utterance:
"so hes like she goes to bad he dogs her if she was there he coulda went
there but im like whatever we was were she was more then there bfs"
And the excuse I hear frequently is, "It's just online, so grammar and spelling don't matter, " or "She understands what I mean! I don't have to talk good online. This isn't school." (even when she doesn't)
As for what I do, my rule is that you are responsible for conveying your intended meaning clearly, and that if I have to parse and reparse your sentences more than once, then I will quietly discard them, and assume you said nothing. For me, it is simply an annoyance. For you, it means you might be ignored during a critical situation. <smug>After all, if you are so lazy and bratty that you can't take the time to be understood by people whose help you might need, then your situation -- and you -- can't be all that important.</smug>
"When communication fails to be important, then communication fails." - me
"Honestly, I might be in the classification of people who don't understand, but I resent the implication of "incompetent". I really hate the idea that you have to be an all-knowledgeable ubergeek, or else stay completely away from computers."
With respect to technology, one is incompetent if that individual is unable to bring appropriate knowledge or skill to bear regarding a specific task. As for the prerequisite of being an omnipotent transnerd, I find your logic sadly off base. That would be akin to whining, "I can't have beef so I MUST have fish!" What about chicken? Stop the black and white thinking.
"If you can't, please refrain from name-calling because they want to do something that you can't figure out how to accomplish."
I almost was rendered incontinent while reading this statement, esspecially after the obvious hurt and angry statement, "all-knowledgeable ubergeek," above.
"More to the point, if you're such a fricken genius, why not figure out a way to get people the functionality they want in a form they'll understand? I still don't understand why secure authentication is a silly thing to want."
More anger? I think that you want a toaster. You know, press the button, and poof! Toast. Linux is NOT Windows or any other typical one-stop-shopping system. In its early days, you needed to understand DOS, and how to manage your system in Windows, but over time it's been streamlined to appeal to the kiosk-seeking, text-messaging, instant-gratification-needing, pseudo-efficiency-requiring brat. (Substitute "boss," "manager," or "teenager" here.)
If you wish to help with the effort of easing people's use of essentially free systems, then roll up your sleeves, learn the inner workings, and participate in development. If not, at least take the time to learn how to manage your system in a safe and effective manner. After all, do you simply drive your car until it overheats, seizes, or runs out of gas? Or do you take the time to ensure it has enough antifreeze, oil, and gas?
Pardon the brusqueness of my post, but I am rather hurt by the perjorative comments of the self-entitled, whose lack of patience in taking time to even attempt to understand the barest mininum regarding their own system, demonstrates clear incompetence.
Reminds me of the career trees from WH:RPG from many years ago. Nothing new. Might interest some prolog programmers again...you know...goal-seek to the node you want.
Most people are UTTERLY ineffective at conveying emotion via typing. In fact, most of the "chats" I've seen online are supremely disjointed collections of random thoughts, strung together by the most outrageous grammar, and executed with more spelling errors than stars in the heavens. *LOL*
Seriously, as nice as it is to try to game online, the experience is still too slow to permit enough real-time reaction to situations. No laughter at a dropped pair of dice, no pauses to pay the pizza guy. No human interaction aside from that which is The Game. There's no time to decompress from potentially gritty and gory combat sequences.
On one hand, it serves to desensitize the players. On the other hand, it serves to desensitize the players.
This might be construed as a Good Thing, simply because we're essentially breeding a line of workers (Betas/Gammas) who will have Fun at their Jobs. And these online versions of the games provide excellent training for an eventual life of sequestered performance in a career, punctuated by achievement of milestone life goals in a frenetic salmon-spawning manner.
There's still something good about hanging out with a couple of friends on a rainy day, around a table, and just laughing and playing.
I remember when the game came out, and it was more like a role-playing edge added to table-top miniature combat. A few tables, and a lot of imagination.
When the 1st Edition AD&D came out, it was nice, because it codified the system into a number of books. Why was this important? Simple. Fair and Balanced Play. It's hard to remember how you applied the "made-up" rules from one instant to another, so you could use the books as guidelines to keep you within the vicinity of what you want. Mind you, they are just that, guidelines, not holy rules. In the end, it's up to the DM, not the players, to determine how to apply them, and the players should simply roll with the story.
Heck, most of the time I would roll the dice randomly to break the players from flinching. I'd page through a book, and say, "Oh, yeah, roll...16? Good you made it," when I was looking at some random page having nothing to do with the situation at hand.
The books are to assist the DM storytellers, and normalize the players. Yes, if a player figures out something his character shouldn't know, I'll tweak the backstory. Why should the DM club the players over the head with plot changes? I always found that strange. If their character should know things they don't know, then I'll give them a roll. (and they'll usually pass it)
The 2nd ed. came out as a method of streamlining the rules, since even with all the tables provided for "realism" in the 1st ed., apparently they also required a DM with a little more on the ball in the way of handling groups.
The 3rd ed. looks like a redesign of the whole thing, but is very playable with people of a new generation, accustomed to certain systems.
3.5 looks like a shake out of the remaining tables hiding the 2.0 vestiges of the 3.0 ed.
What is 4.0? It's a return to streamlining for people who no longer role-play. It's geared towards making it easier for people who prefer to interact over a computer screen, even when they're both in the same room. (I have seen kids on a date doing that -- I almost left the planet at that moment)
Look, in the end, it's about having fun socializing in a group on a rainy day.
When thinking about goto, first consider if you're performing a local jump or a non-local jump.
If you're using it for non-local return from inside nested loops and function across compilation units (read: files), why not use setjmp() and longjmp(), especially if you want to unwind the stack?
Mind you, you should keep careful track of memory allocation/deallocation functions when using this kind of chaotic/advanced program flow control, since you might malloc() before the setjmp(), but free() after it, but before the longjmp().
Wanna see nifty goto use? Look at the scanner code generated by lex.
Please don't confused observable process with the extant process of organized religion. Many a religion says, "XYZ is WRONG!!! The book of Saint Flazzbottom Doodlebug says in Chapter 5, Verse 12, 'If the ape be not grape, then orange must be unto him, for man is the vine. Link thou! the fruits of the holy tree.' It's obvious!!!"
This is usually because religions adopted a doctrine of exclusivity in order to protect the scarce resources of its adherents. Remember, if you have a people bound by a common code, then you can ensure the survival of your little patch of humanity. Eventually, you will have scientific, military, and bureaucratic endeavors forming to address the various situational niches of these emergent societies. In order to protect them, codes of belief "evolved" to ensure that a participant in society was a "predictable"...say, "Normal"...individual, and thus could be a) trusted, b) entitled to share in the resources of the community.
But religions are like computers with the keyboard and mouse unplugged. You have to run THEIR code. This was originally done to prevent people from "tampering" with the system, but has also led to the inflexibility and mutual distrust found in many religions today.
These modes of exclusivity were important in their day. They preserved one tribe from being absorbed or eradicated by another. However, in a global society, we would do better without these components. We are all one people: Sentients of Earth. Believe as you wish, but toss out the tribal preservation stuff. After all, you don't run your computer with just program ABC on OS XYZ, right?
Anyhow, if you remove those global incompatibilities from religions, then people would be able to grow and accept new ideas WHILE retaining their faith.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL!
My older siblings took calculus. Each of them had their own book. I took it in college, and the book changed during the year, so I have two. I tutor calculus these days, and I was horrified to see that a rather awful presentation of the subject was run off on tissue paper, weighed twice what my own tomes weigh, and cost $165 ea. Used books were frequently underlined and highlighted by the less-than-4.0 students, so those were more of distractions than assistance. A science-oriented freshman in the local college where I live can expect to pay nearly $1000 in books a year. I still don't see ebooks as having the ability to finger flip to relevant portions of a book as quickly as those in print; sadly, the technology in an ebook becomes an impediment to efficient teaching. Even homework is assigned and answered online, so there's little room for "showing your work." Don't get me wrong. I like ebooks...for novels, the occasional read, but not for serious study. They lack color, and the ability to provide tactile indexing to the subject, e.g. I feel / open the book 3/4 of the way through it, and I kinda know where I am in it. A bit harder with an ebook.
So, if we demand our student lug these voluminous compendia around a campus, can't we at least give them better quality, more precise content, and a cheaper cost? At least something to offset the price of the truss they're gonna need!
If the professors wish to change out books mid topic, fine, just give the students a massive discount for those affected by the change. Bolting on resource courses, and using opt-outs, etc, makes going to college feel more like buying insurance, what with all subtle disclaimers and fine print when you register for a simple course. Eventually, even basket weaving will require a waiver, because, "Caution: This Class Introduces Students to Potentially Harmful Reed. Contents May Be Sharp."
At least give the students something back for their "taxes," before an ebook tea party is started.
I think it's awesome. What would be better is if they can capture s-p (1, 2, and 3) hybridization, and use that to study reaction mechanisms. I would like to see a double-bond, even if it's a picture of the Flash, rather than just a conceptual probability cloud.
When people who tell me, "Programming is hard. I could never program," I respond with, "If you can make out a shopping list, buy the groceries and cook dinner, serve it on the table, and enjoy a good meal; then, you can design, write, implement, and deploy a program. Only the language is different."
Basically, I'm a c programmer. I tell people, "If I can do it, anyone can do it."
I leave out the part where I tell them I've been doing it for almost 30 years. :-) Most programmers I know, who happen to be really good at programming, lack that superficial ego. They have fun doing it, and love to share.
But that's just my experience.
...their eyes red, their faces wet. Shaka, when the walls fell. Shatner and Nimoy, at passover.
My biggest worry for ham radio is when people say they no longer need Morse Code. What's next? Giving up our bandwidth, since we don't practice CW as much as we should? I'm sorry, but I might not be able to hear speech, but I can make out CW a substantially less than 559, and even with a QRI of 1, -.-. --.- is still CQ. Think of the low sunspot activity as a chance to brush up on QRP, and try getting back to CW. Let's not lose any more bandwidth, because as long as we can work CW, we're useful for emergency communications, continued radio experimentation, and our bandwidth.
73s,
-v.
It's "Rochambeau". At first I thought you were speaking Hebrew or Japanese.
Having just read the review, 4.0 sounds like it smacks of officious, erudite pedantry, and abject sophistry regarding game mechanics. It appears as if it addresses some endemic lack of player imagination, and goes on to describe things using corporate phrases. I half expect to see "Mission Statement", "Goals and Objectives", and "Roles and Responsibilities" appear somewhere in the manuals.
And talent trees? Maybe I should whip out my old WHFRP character generator I wrote in LISP years and years ago?
Tieflings? Lilith babies and Lebens...sorry...Dargonsborn? It feels almost Second Life-ish.
"Defenders, Skirmishers, Controllers, and Leaders" ?! New buzzwords? Marketing? How about, "Druid, use your +2 Blackberry, while I use my Sprint Boots to traverse the Dell and gather some Intel!" What happened to role-playing, and going with the flow?
The rules are not legal rules. They are guidelines. They're there to ensure - mostly - that given the same kind of events, a player may have reasonable expection of the range of results for a chosen course of action. That's all. It's to prevent brats from saying, "But I, Pez the Flatulent, hit the dragon with my butter knife. I should cause the same amount of damage as Findik the Regular, with his Chainsaw of Mad Cutting!"
Instead of debating how the system will lock you into a particular style of play - it's still not an Online-Only game, where you can move only where the cursor goes - why not just use the parts you like, and run your own, fun, happy campaigns?
-v.
"Hobbit. Hafling is racist."
Fundamentalists in any religion are a hazard. Neither assume that all Muslims are fundamentalists, nor that all Christians are the same. Muslim scholars preserved and advanced knowledge greatly. Look at optics and algebra.
I should charge you time and a half for having to wade through your poorly formatted reply. Sane? Yes. Coherent? Yes. Rude and impolite? Very. And yes, I've worked the Fi's, Pharm's, Cosmetics, you name it, and if a compiler criticizes someone's code and that person is offended, then I don't want them on my team.
I value people who can get the job done, without babysitting, hand holding, or other such niceties; however, I need them to be able to communicate to me efficiently, concisely, and effectively, their status and projections so that I can view the variance, and re-level set my customers' expectations accordingly, while keeping a keen eye on the cost.
I must apologize, though. I didn't realize you work for a UK firm; however, I used to work with UK Financial companies, and they did seem to value the same things I did. In no place in my original reply to you did I discount basic skill and abilities as a programmer.
As for "customer contact," I would say that to eschew any, who might conjure a modicum of interpersonal skills, is antithetical to the fundamental goals you might be trying to achieve. Regardless, if they have "people person," or its ilk, on a resume/CV, then they better well be able to charm a client into thinking that their coding bugs are the latest and greatest feature.
-v.
Perhaps you should start with finding applicants who have a decent command of the English language, and the proven ability to interact with customers, management, and a team of programmers? Ensure they not only have the ability to communicate coherent thoughts in person, on the phone, in conference, or on a whiteboard. Additionally, test them for their ability to adapt to the dynamic environment that is Corporate America.
I could walk outside right now, and find myself umpteen code monkeys to write EXACTLY what I wish them to write, as opposed to the creative dialogues I seek from my team members. I want people to be enthusiastic about coding, their product, and their team.
-v.
P.S. I'm not sure, but describing yourself as a "pimp" gives me pause as to your ability. Not necessarily true, but that is my [business] perception.
In many cases children are merely vanity accessories for their parents' fashionable self-esteem. A good, smart child is better for showing off than a dented, rusty child, with bad brakes, and a...oh, sorry. Was I talking about children or cars?
Commodities. Many parents have reduced their children to off-the-shelf extensions of their own egos. And what do many do if they raise a lemon? They complain to the manufacturer! No, seriously, it's the teacher's fault, society's fault, anyone's fault but theirs.
Is overpraising a child detrimental? Only when the praise serves as a vain reminder to the parent or teacher that they should get the gold star for the child's accomplishments. The best parents/teachers are those that acknowledge that a child receives personal accolades upon merit, and are willing to accept an altruistic repose with regard to success ownership.
Can parents over/underpraise their children? Yes, but you must know the root cause of why they do it in the first place. After all, the children are merely pawns in the vainglorious pursuit of parents salving their own psychological issues when they were children.
- "Perhaps it's a psychogenic disorder."
-v.- "Of what specific nature?"
I had one place ask me to sign an NDA and a NC, which had the "up to six months" proviso, which was not only bad enough, but stupid as well.
However, here's the zinger: They stipulated that if I were to leave for any reason (quit or fired) that I would be required to notify any and all potential employers during the interview process that I worked for them, to give the interviewers the company's contact info, and inform them that my ability to accept any offer would be based on the company having first informed them of my abilities and true reason for leaving.I had the contract rewritten. They balked. I told them to shove it, and found a better job elsewhere.
One guy who quit this place I considered left the country to find a better job, because this company (a hedge fund) hired a P.I. to ensure that this guy (who was a key designer of their trading system) would be properly motivated to ensure that the company approved of where he would work next.
All I can say is, WTF?!
My hero!
Read it again. I did not dismiss it for gaming. I asked if it linux supplied it, would you use it over Windows for gaming.
Gamer. Drug addict. Whatever. Same thing. You even claim that "Microsoft is King," because you need it for gaming. (* insert strains of "Pusherman" from "Superfly" here *)
If you were able to get your fix from a linux system, would you still use Windows?
Even in the small world of English speakers, English has devolved to an almost incomprehensible point, thusly:
The Go Phenomenon : substituting forms of "to go" for verbs of communication, e.g.
"So he goes, 'What do you mean?'"
The Like Syndrome : c.f. The Go Phenomenon using "like", e.g.
"So I'm like hi, and he's like hi."
Dearth of Punctuation : obfuscation of meaning in written communication by lack
of clear punctuation, e.g.
"What do you smell?" vs. "What, do you smell?"
Tense Aphasia : using the wrong verb form in compound tenses, e.g.
"Should have GONE there, " instead of "Should have WENT there."
Subjunctive Interruptus : using and losing the mood, e.g.
"If she were there, we would have gone." (unreal condition) being replaced by
"If she was there, we would have gone."
The Ubiquitous Atrocities : To/Two/Too, Where/Were, They're/There/Their, Than/Then
Combinations of these mistakes abound.
Pejorative Indifference : using "whatever" to mean "Frac off, I have no regard for what
you just said."
Number Bewilderment : confusing singular and plural use of words, e.g.
"We was," vs. "We were."
Abject Sloth : being so lazy as to think that it's easier to type "njoy" for "enjoy,"
and using more abbreviations than necessary
A nasty example of the preceding errata compounded together in a single utterance:
"so hes like she goes to bad he dogs her if she was there he coulda went
there but im like whatever we was were she was more then there bfs"
And the excuse I hear frequently is, "It's just online, so grammar and spelling don't matter, " or "She understands what I mean! I don't have to talk good online. This isn't school." (even when she doesn't)
As for what I do, my rule is that you are responsible for conveying your intended meaning clearly, and that if I have to parse and reparse your sentences more than once, then I will quietly discard them, and assume you said nothing. For me, it is simply an annoyance. For you, it means you might be ignored during a critical situation. <smug>After all, if you are so lazy and bratty that you can't take the time to be understood by people whose help you might need, then your situation -- and you -- can't be all that important.</smug>
"When communication fails to be important, then communication fails." - me
"Honestly, I might be in the classification of people who don't understand, but I resent the implication of "incompetent". I really hate the idea that you have to be an all-knowledgeable ubergeek, or else stay completely away from computers."
With respect to technology, one is incompetent if that individual is unable to bring appropriate knowledge or skill to bear regarding a specific task. As for the prerequisite of being an omnipotent transnerd, I find your logic sadly off base. That would be akin to whining, "I can't have beef so I MUST have fish!" What about chicken? Stop the black and white thinking.
"If you can't, please refrain from name-calling because they want to do something that you can't figure out how to accomplish."
I almost was rendered incontinent while reading this statement, esspecially after the obvious hurt and angry statement, "all-knowledgeable ubergeek," above.
"More to the point, if you're such a fricken genius, why not figure out a way to get people the functionality they want in a form they'll understand? I still don't understand why secure authentication is a silly thing to want."
More anger? I think that you want a toaster. You know, press the button, and poof! Toast. Linux is NOT Windows or any other typical one-stop-shopping system. In its early days, you needed to understand DOS, and how to manage your system in Windows, but over time it's been streamlined to appeal to the kiosk-seeking, text-messaging, instant-gratification-needing, pseudo-efficiency-requiring brat. (Substitute "boss," "manager," or "teenager" here.)
If you wish to help with the effort of easing people's use of essentially free systems, then roll up your sleeves, learn the inner workings, and participate in development. If not, at least take the time to learn how to manage your system in a safe and effective manner. After all, do you simply drive your car until it overheats, seizes, or runs out of gas? Or do you take the time to ensure it has enough antifreeze, oil, and gas?
Pardon the brusqueness of my post, but I am rather hurt by the perjorative comments of the self-entitled, whose lack of patience in taking time to even attempt to understand the barest mininum regarding their own system, demonstrates clear incompetence.
Riposte!
-v
Reminds me of the career trees from WH:RPG from many years ago. Nothing new. Might interest some prolog programmers again...you know...goal-seek to the node you want.
*yawn*
-v.
But where's the socialization?
Most people are UTTERLY ineffective at conveying emotion via typing. In fact, most of the "chats" I've seen online are supremely disjointed collections of random thoughts, strung together by the most outrageous grammar, and executed with more spelling errors than stars in the heavens. *LOL*
Seriously, as nice as it is to try to game online, the experience is still too slow to permit enough real-time reaction to situations. No laughter at a dropped pair of dice, no pauses to pay the pizza guy. No human interaction aside from that which is The Game. There's no time to decompress from potentially gritty and gory combat sequences.
On one hand, it serves to desensitize the players. On the other hand, it serves to desensitize the players.
This might be construed as a Good Thing, simply because we're essentially breeding a line of workers (Betas/Gammas) who will have Fun at their Jobs. And these online versions of the games provide excellent training for an eventual life of sequestered performance in a career, punctuated by achievement of milestone life goals in a frenetic salmon-spawning manner.
There's still something good about hanging out with a couple of friends on a rainy day, around a table, and just laughing and playing.
Thoughts?
-v
"Say, Hobbit. Halfling is racist." -v
Perhaps, but let's keep it in context.
I remember when the game came out, and it was more like a role-playing edge added to table-top miniature combat. A few tables, and a lot of imagination.
When the 1st Edition AD&D came out, it was nice, because it codified the system into a number of books. Why was this important? Simple. Fair and Balanced Play. It's hard to remember how you applied the "made-up" rules from one instant to another, so you could use the books as guidelines to keep you within the vicinity of what you want. Mind you, they are just that, guidelines, not holy rules. In the end, it's up to the DM, not the players, to determine how to apply them, and the players should simply roll with the story.
Heck, most of the time I would roll the dice randomly to break the players from flinching. I'd page through a book, and say, "Oh, yeah, roll...16? Good you made it," when I was looking at some random page having nothing to do with the situation at hand.
The books are to assist the DM storytellers, and normalize the players. Yes, if a player figures out something his character shouldn't know, I'll tweak the backstory. Why should the DM club the players over the head with plot changes? I always found that strange. If their character should know things they don't know, then I'll give them a roll. (and they'll usually pass it)
The 2nd ed. came out as a method of streamlining the rules, since even with all the tables provided for "realism" in the 1st ed., apparently they also required a DM with a little more on the ball in the way of handling groups.
The 3rd ed. looks like a redesign of the whole thing, but is very playable with people of a new generation, accustomed to certain systems.
3.5 looks like a shake out of the remaining tables hiding the 2.0 vestiges of the 3.0 ed.
What is 4.0? It's a return to streamlining for people who no longer role-play. It's geared towards making it easier for people who prefer to interact over a computer screen, even when they're both in the same room. (I have seen kids on a date doing that -- I almost left the planet at that moment)
Look, in the end, it's about having fun socializing in a group on a rainy day.
Right?
-v
When thinking about goto, first consider if you're performing a local jump or a non-local jump.
If you're using it for non-local return from inside nested loops and function across compilation units (read: files), why not use setjmp() and longjmp(), especially if you want to unwind the stack?
Mind you, you should keep careful track of memory allocation/deallocation functions when using this kind of chaotic/advanced program flow control, since you might malloc() before the setjmp(), but free() after it, but before the longjmp().
Wanna see nifty goto use? Look at the scanner code generated by lex.
Please don't confused observable process with the extant process of organized religion. Many a religion says, "XYZ is WRONG!!! The book of Saint Flazzbottom Doodlebug says in Chapter 5, Verse 12, 'If the ape be not grape, then orange must be unto him, for man is the vine. Link thou! the fruits of the holy tree.' It's obvious!!!"
This is usually because religions adopted a doctrine of exclusivity in order to protect the scarce resources of its adherents. Remember, if you have a people bound by a common code, then you can ensure the survival of your little patch of humanity. Eventually, you will have scientific, military, and bureaucratic endeavors forming to address the various situational niches of these emergent societies. In order to protect them, codes of belief "evolved" to ensure that a participant in society was a "predictable"...say, "Normal"...individual, and thus could be a) trusted, b) entitled to share in the resources of the community.
But religions are like computers with the keyboard and mouse unplugged. You have to run THEIR code. This was originally done to prevent people from "tampering" with the system, but has also led to the inflexibility and mutual distrust found in many religions today.
These modes of exclusivity were important in their day. They preserved one tribe from being absorbed or eradicated by another. However, in a global society, we would do better without these components. We are all one people: Sentients of Earth. Believe as you wish, but toss out the tribal preservation stuff. After all, you don't run your computer with just program ABC on OS XYZ, right?
Anyhow, if you remove those global incompatibilities from religions, then people would be able to grow and accept new ideas WHILE retaining their faith.
*falls off soapbox*