One feller's views on the state of everyday computer science & its application (and now, OTHER STUFF) who isn't rich enough to shell out for www.myfreakinfirst-andlast-name.com
Using 89% of the same design the blog had in 2001.
FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY!!!
Back-up your data and, when you bike,
always wear white.
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Affiliate links in green.
The 2DS is cheaper because it lacks that hinge and includes the ability to build the two "screens" on the 2DS with one LCD panel and a plastic bezel. The cost of manufacturing the 2DS with a single LCD panel and a single enclosure is certainly less than the cost of building a device with two LCDs (one with glasses-free 3D) and two enclosures connected by a hinge.
Kinda embarrassed I didn't immediately figure that out myself. Clever girl.
Edit: I'm also surprised with all the press saying this is a highly targeted design for young kids to stick in their backpacks rather than their pockets, and won't have more universal appeal. As if the iPad suffers for not having a "clamshell" design. (The original iBook; that had a clamshell. Anyhow...) My DS usually sits on my desk. What do I really care if it's essentially a tablet?
This, my friends, is a great example of a minimally viable product. No 3D, no folding, no stereo speakers, just mono. Who cares? If I didn't already have access to a 3DS, A Link Between Worlds would probably have me shelling out for a 2DS this holiday season.
And forget the products โ so far Yahoo has been unable to attract top quality talent to the company. Not one 20-something I have talked to in the past six months has wistfully talked about working for Yahoo. And even those who have joined Yahoo from Google are joining the company thanks to mega-million dollar contracts, not because they want to work there. When Yahoo becomes the desired job-spot for a fresh, new tech tinkerer โ that will be the time I will lighten up on Yahoo.
I think the folks at my current company would benefit from having similar goals as Malik's for Yahoo. Having not just lots of folks, but the right types of folks wanting to work with you is the best sort of flattery.
More posts based on links shared by Gruber. Glad I went off the "articles only" feed to the busier one.
Apple is trying to make a lot of money on the device. Amazon is trying to make it all on the back-end. So is Google. Rather than say the model is FOO or BAR, the model is to deliver these incredible, high value experiences that will span hardware innovation, operating system, consumer experiences and enterprise experiences...
For all the dislike I have for Ballmer's contribution to M$'s Profit Maximization Machine, there's a part of me that knows, on some technical level if nothing else, he really gets it.
To search for content from a field in your website and display the results in your website, you must create a search field that passes a fully-qualified URL content request to the iTunes Store, parse the JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format returned from the search, and display the results in your website.
The fully-qualified URL must have the following format:
https://itunes.apple.com/search?parameterkeyvalue
Wow. Really? It's that easy to turn music searches into 5% back? Why isn't everyone doing this, and why in the world is Banshee Amazon mp3 only?
This is INSANELY easy. I know I sound like an infomercial dude here, but wow. I'm surprised I don't see iTunes store search widgets everywhere.
Thank you, Skitch, for making me opt-out of your running in the background, taking over Control-Shift-B system-wide, and making me think I'd somehow screwed up my settings to Build in Visual Studio.
Constructors are not inherited in C#, you have to chain them manually.
You'd think I'd've run into this issue this many years into using C#, but I hadn't. Object inheritance simply isn't as straightforward a process (as opposed a concept, as, conceptually, it's exactly the same) [for me] in C# as it is in Java. I don't know if that's because I learned Java first or if C# really is more convoluted. I'd like to pretend I'm 90% sure it's the latter, but will hold off being disappointed until I consider it a bit longer. As I used to think (and mentioned wrt an Eric Lippert SO post a little while back) that VB.NET was just a convenience layer on top of C#, I also used to think C# was Microsoft's version of their legacy code spun into a great Java clone.
That belief is simply not the case, and I wonder why the differences that do exist do. What's the advantage of "manually chaining" constructors?
Responding to the controversy, the tech lead for Chrome's browser security team said that they had found that "boundaries within the OS user account [to protect passwords even when a user is logged in] just aren't reliable, and are mostly just theater."
This mostly suggests that the tech lead for Chrome hasn't read Joel Spolsky's Let Me Go Back! strategy letter nor ever heard the saying, "A lock keeps an honest man honest."
"But wait! Joel's not talking about security, you fool! He's talking about how Excel ate Lotus 123's lunch!" you say.
That's right, but he's also talking about barriers to entry.
Think of these barriers as an obstacle course that people have to run before you can count them as your customers. If you start out with a field of 1000 runners, about half of them will trip on the tires; half of the survivors won't be strong enough to jump the wall; half of those survivors will fall off the rope ladder into the mud, and so on, until only 1 or 2 people actually overcome all the hurdles. With 8 or 9 barriers, everybody will have one non-negotiable deal killer.
This calculus means that eliminating barriers to switching is the most important thing you have to do if you want to take over an existing market, because eliminating just one barrier will likely double your sales.
On this reread, "calculus" seems a bit strong, doesn't it?
But this works with folks trying to read your passwords too. How many little sisters (or slightly seedy buddies) might have access to your browser? Um, lots. Better yet, how many high-end art thieves contribute to Dollar General's shrinkige issue? That'd be essentially none. Completely different "markets" for different sorts of exploits.
More clearly: Folks that install apps on your computer to phone home to some nefarious server in Elbownia do not read your passwords from your settings page. They do whatever they want. Folks that visit your house might.
Reportedly again from the Chrome tech lead:
Consider the case of someone malicious getting access to your account. Said bad guy can dump all your session cookies, grab your history, install malicious extension to intercept all your browsing activity, or install OS user account level monitoring software.
... the conclusion we always come to is that we don't want to provide users with a false sense of security, and encourage risky behavior.
Right, because most passwords stolen from the settings page is from "someone malicious getting access to your account." Your little sister is going to "dump your session" and "install malicious extension [sic] to intercept all your browsing activity" or, get this, "install OS user account level monitoring software." How many times have you seen someone doing this, ever? How many people do you know who could do this? The "market" described above is not the one that needs a master password.
Get out of the ivory tower and back into your living room, Chrome, because that's where your users live.
I'll posit that adding a barrier to entry probably does cut the number of passwords stolen in half. I'd like to see Google's study, not their tech lead's off-the-cuff impressions, suggesting otherwise.
click: function() {
var dialog = this;
if ($('#deleteProcessReason').val() == '') {
alert('่ฏท่พๅ ฅๅๅ !');
...
I enjoy seeing unlocalized errors in languages other than English. I'm not saying it's right, but turnabout's fair play. Too often I "protect" a condition that "should never happen" with a quick English blurb -- I'm good about not doing that at work, as we have a pretty robust localization workflow, but the stuff I do "for myself" has a number of throw new Exception("Here's some Anglais pour vous"); examples -- and it's fun to see what that really means when it's put into context with something like this code.
posted by ruffin
at 8/07/2013 11:19:00 AM
Remember, the design criteria of different languages are different, and therefore the decisions made are different. On the C# design team, we highly value a language definition which makes illegal patterns that look suspicious; since there's no meaning to passing an instance as the receiver to a static method (unless computing the receiver expression causes a side effect) then why allow the user to type meaningless code?
On the VB design team, they value the code working the way you meant it to work the the first time you typed it; if something looks a bit dodgy, maybe give a warning, but allow it and move on.
Just horrendously interesting. Though I still feel a little like VB.NET is just a compatibility layer draped over C# in practice, at least in theory I'm starting to believe the difference is more nuanced.
The postings on this site are [usually] my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any employer, past or present, or other entity. About Our Author
