Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - while1

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 60
General Discussion / Re: What's wrong with x86?
« on: June 06, 2015, 09:01:54 PM »
Your mom.

General Discussion / Re: omg hi
« on: June 06, 2015, 09:00:19 PM »

General Programming / Re: Lambdas and 'auto' types in C++11
« on: February 05, 2014, 10:45:26 PM »
IMO the STL for_each() w/ lambdas is more readable than the traditional for loop for a trivial for loop where one iterates through summing the entirety of the data structure from beginning to end.  However, I consider the STL for_each() less readable than the new foreach loop syntax (yay for C++11!)  IMO, the STL for_each() and the new foreach loop both provide solutions to a shared problem- wasting time writing and reading trivial for loops.  The new foreach loop is the better solution though IMO and makes the STL for_each irrelevant (although there may be scenarios where it excels?)

I'd be more interested in the performance difference.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the STL for_each() is going to be slowest of the three.

As to the readability the "auto" feature, or implicit typing of local variables (inferred by the compiler), I would say I also have mixed feelings about it.  C# has had this feature for years except it's "var" instead of "auto".  At first I wasn't too keen on using it at all, but I've found myself using it generally when the convenience in writeability outweighs the detriment to readability.  In other words, usually only when I one can infer the type by simply looking to the right of the assignment operator.  I agree though, it's a lot more complicated for C++ because of pointers and constness.  Although, I think that readability can be significantly mitigated by use of a modern IDE.

General Discussion / Re: Online advertising
« on: January 10, 2014, 05:24:09 PM »
Anyways, the shit that annoys me the most (recently) about Google is the obnoxiousness of their real name policy.
For what it's worth, there isn't really a "real name policy" anymore. This is the message, word-for-word, from the guy that heads that team (and shared with pemission): "We do require that you have a name on your account, but this isn't required to be your name. You can also use initials for your first or last name if you want. It's better if you pick a name that your friends know you by, so that they can find you, but that's entirely up to you."

That's good to hear, but I can't help but feel it's too little, too late.  The damage from their previous enforcement of a real name policy has been already done.  I do remember reading that Vint Cerf had spoken out against the real name policy, so I'm inclined to believe what you say is true.

It's amusing to hear that internally there are complaints about the "Yes" and "Ask me later" YouTube thing.  I'm glad to see that Google employees feel free enough to openly voice their criticisms of absurd decisions like this.  However, the fact that they haven't gotten rid of this yet, makes me wary that Google still is pushing a real name policy to some degree.

General Discussion / Re: Online advertising
« on: January 04, 2014, 05:03:07 PM »
The thing about Google is, you have pretty good control over what they collect and how they use it. will list all your data / account / linkages, you can find out what google has 'learned' about you based on where you visit, and you can modify / remove / tell it not to collect it at all.

LIES!  That link results in a 404 error!

Anyways, the shit that annoys me the most (recently) about Google is the obnoxiousness of their real name policy.  I've stopped going to YouTube because every goddamn time it asks me whether I want to associated my real name or not with my YouTube account.  It does not respect my decision or privacy because I of course select NO, but it asks me to associated my real name every fucking login session (or something like that).  Ask me ONE TIME, and then don't ask me again unless I dig around into a profile settings/ option.  There have been a couple times where I have almost accidentally hit YES because it pops up when I'm not expecting it to... Very sleazy and sketch practice.

General Discussion / Re: What are you doing now?
« on: January 01, 2014, 05:35:28 PM »
I also own a Corgi now.

Corgis are the best.  I have a 1.5 y/o corgi.  My only pet peeve is the shedding.

General Discussion / Re: Colorado's Supermax Prison
« on: November 05, 2013, 11:33:25 PM »
There will be plenty of people like myself, who have never used illegal drugs, and probably wouldn't use them even if they're legalized.  Although, I can imagine that if marijuana becomes legalized nationally and becomes taxed and regulated like alcohol, it will just become just like alcohol in terms of use, and therefore would see an overall increase in use.

General Discussion / Re: Colorado's Supermax Prison
« on: October 24, 2013, 07:04:17 PM »
I think rehabilitation when it comes to drug related offenses (specifically using, and not dealing) is the most effective treatment.  However, I think that it's rehabilitation and adapting to life once out of prison that is the most important part.  The way the US criminal justice system works, unless your Michael Vick (dogfighting NFL player- sick fuck), serving time pretty much means once you're out, you're screwed... and the chances you'll be back in prison is high.

General Discussion / Re: Colorado's Supermax Prison
« on: October 24, 2013, 12:39:30 AM »
Unfortunately, I don't think a some people with all the best counseling in the world can be fixed, in particular sociopaths and psychopaths.

General Discussion / Re: unofficial survey re lawyer fees
« on: October 15, 2013, 10:19:12 PM »
Aye, sites like LegalZoom and RocketLawyer are nice because they offer such straight forward services for flat fees.

But I imagine outside of filing legal paperwork and stuff all divorces would require, a divorce is not nearly as straight forward.  Having not enough knowledge on the subject, for me, the issue is in defining basic vs. complex divorces.  I guess estimating the amount of time you think the average basic divorce would take and determining a flat fee could work, but I can see the client getting angry or confused when their divorce turns out to be complex and then feeling mislead when they start incurring additional costs.  Most people are suspicious of lawyers already, and for someone to feel like the lawyer that they hired and is supposed to be helping them is ambiguously defining "complexity" in the fine print of a contract... Would only make the client distrustful and more suspicious.

I think for divorces, hourly rates would be better than a flat fee + additional expenses, less confusing and more straightforward.  Because I'd bet that more often than not, an increase in divorce complexity is going to mean more required time/ work (if you think this is a bad assumption, then do please tell why).

General Discussion / Re: unofficial survey re lawyer fees
« on: October 15, 2013, 09:50:25 PM »
From what you're saying, "fee arrangements" sound like a disingenuous billing method because if hypothetically speaking, my basic divorce takes 20 hours and I choose option #1, I would pay you $6k ($300/hr), but if I choose option #2 with my same divorce you drag it out (aka be purposely less productive) and bill me for 30 hours and I'd still pay $6k no matter what.  Maybe I'm not understand what you're saying or how these "fee arrangements" work.

Is there a direct relationship between "divorce complexity" and time required?  In other words, as divorce complexity increases, so does the number of hours required?  If this is the case, wouldn't a tiered billing structure work (i.e.  First 20 hours billed at $200/hr and every hour after that is billed at $300- just an example, but you get the idea).

General Discussion / Re: uh...hdmi card [update re android mini pcp]
« on: September 25, 2013, 07:33:51 AM »

bought this:
+ a mini wireless keyboard

I can't believe you bought that piece of crap.  Just from the pictures, it looks like crap.

General Discussion / Re: Oh shiiiittt..........
« on: September 13, 2013, 07:17:55 AM »
Bill Gates likely wouldn't be where he is today without his wealthy upbringing.  He may have went on to be successful (relatively) in life, but his rare early exposure to computers wasn't something he would have had if his parents weren't rich.

With Steve Jobs, had his parents not moved to Silicon Valley, the Steve Jobs we knew might have never existed.

Both had a lot of passion, self-motivation, drive, and smarts.  They have personalities which inherently would have led them to probably be successful in life, but it was the opportunities presented to them that they acted upon which truly brought them from successful to extraordinarily successful.

General Discussion / Re: Community Involvement
« on: September 09, 2013, 04:57:39 AM »
Zero.  That's for old people.

General Discussion / Re: Community Involvement
« on: September 08, 2013, 10:29:51 PM »
Honestly, it's not my cup of tea, but the most effective way is through church.  Find the biggest, most prominent/ active protestant church in the town and start regularly going to service.  If you attend by yourself, you're sure to be noticed since it's a small town, and thus meet people who will know people who will know people.  Protestant faiths are more known for their emphasis on "social networking"/ social/ community based practicing of their faith, than let's say Catholics.  For example, youth groups in average protestant church tend to be much more active than the average Catholic churches.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 60