Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I'll own up to it...I throw them away (Score 1) 473

by DMFNR (#39531233) Attached to: Canada To Stop Making Pennies
I'm sure you have a bank account, so why don't you take your change there instead of dropping it in the Coinstar machine and letting them rape you? I know it's "only" 8.5% (at least in my area), but with a decent amount of change that can really add up, and most banks will count change free for account holders in my experience.

Comment: Re:Maybe... (Score 4, Funny) 249

by DMFNR (#39143831) Attached to: MIT Lecturer Defends His Standing As Email Inventor
You are wrong. One's Slashdot UID is the sole determiner of technical proficiency, age, penis size, and validity of opinion, .

For example, I have mastered HTML and gaining proficiency in Visual Basic 6. I am 12 years old and my penis is large enough not to be considered a micropenis by only a few millimeters. Of course, at my level of Slashdot inexperience, my words should be taken with a grain of salt.

A person like Xtifr however, he received a blowjob for Ada Lovelace and can speak machine code in to a processor and hear the results coming out of the other end. He is older than most trees, and has the Unix beard to prove it. If he ever manages to get his elderly penis erect, we have solved our space elevator problem. Every word he speaks is handed down to Moses on stone tablets and entered in to Slashdot with care.

Comment: Re:Snorting alcohol (Score 1) 172

by DMFNR (#39132555) Attached to: FDA To Review Inhalable Caffeine
Far better than stuffing it in your vagina and/or asshole.

Note: Probably not true, but I could see more than a few people trying it after the media hype.

Some people even tried Jenkem for real after it hit the airwaves.

Comment: Re:Great (Score 1) 172

by DMFNR (#39132515) Attached to: FDA To Review Inhalable Caffeine
Well said. By the time someone starts getting up to between 500mg and a gram they will feel so shitty they won't want to consume any more. It's not like cocaine or speed where there's actually euphoria driving the urge to dose forwards. Sure someone with heart problems will be in trouble with a high dose, just as a diabetic would be if he spent a whole day binging on Little Debbies. Maybe pure sugar should only be available to licensed labs.

The person above who said snorting a line of caffeine the size of an average line of cocaine would kill you obviously needs to either get himself a better coke dealer, or stop commenting on things they know nothing about other than what they've seen in movies. A non tolerant healthy person with some good coke would get good and high off a 50mg line, about half the 100 mg of caffeine that is found in a cup of coffee. I can't imagine the bioavailability of caffeine snorted would be so much higher than taking it orally that it would feel any different. If that same person snorted the entire gram in one go he could very likely end up in the hospital or worse, whereas a gram of caffeine would probably have him on the couch feeling like shit with an elevated heart rate, wishing he never did that shit, but would otherwise be just fine.

Comment: Re:Adobe complaining about bloat? (Score 1) 477

by DMFNR (#39107233) Attached to: A Rant Against Splash Screens
You're right, and this is an area that I wish developers would pay a lot more attention too. It seems a lot of projects figure that the user will reboot or close the program eventually, so no point in chasing down memory leaks unless they are particularly egregious. I understand that memory management is hard and all of the usual excuses, but it doesn't fly in server software, and it shouldn't on the desktop either. Fortunately, none of the programs I commonly run leak a ton of memory, and it sucks for people who have to depend on software that does, because that shouldn't be the case and it really is a solved problem these days.

Comment: Lazarus (Score 4, Interesting) 278

by DMFNR (#39107013) Attached to: Best Language For Experimental GUI Demo Projects?
My suggestion for you would be to check out Lazarus and Free Pascal. Lazarus is a cross platform and open source clone of Borland's (or whoever the hell own the company now) Delphi. Free Pascal is the compiler it uses, and it is pretty damn close to source compatible with Delphi, and also provides compatibility modes for other Pascal dialects as well, including it's own Object Pascal mode which fixes some of the stupid design decisions in the Delphi version of Object Pascal. The compiler itself has very speedy compilation times compared to C++ compilers, and generates decently quick code as well. The compiler itself is very mature and well maintained, and it gaining new features all the time. Lazarus is the IDE, which provides you with a RAD environment to quickly piece together the UI, and it is packed with all kinds of awesome features. The LCL, it's supporting library, wraps all of these functions up in a way that makes it very easy to deploy cross platform applications. It covers OSX, Linux (GTK+ and Qt), and Windows. The Free Pascal compiler can compile code for many more platforms, and has in fact supported some even before GCC. If you stick with the LCL, just about everything is covered between platforms and it uses the native components of the platform it is compiled for. It has a very healthy community, with plenty of bindings for all different kinds of libraries. It also provides a good method for creating custom components and reusing them, allowing you to install them in to the IDE and drag and drop them in the form designer just like you would with a standard button or text box. I've never done any stuff with 3-d graphics, but there's all kinds of OpenGL stuff available, and anything you can do in the native widgetsets you can do with Lazarus. The issue with Lazarus is that the IDE is still beta, and there still are a few bugs here and there, but they are fixed pretty quick, and there aren't any major show stoppers. The big issue is that it uses GDB for debugging (there is a native Object Pascal debugger in the works, but it won't be finished anytime soon), which is really aimed towards C based languages, so debugging isn't always smooth. Most of the basic tasks, like setting breakpoints and stepping through a program/function work fine, but there are a few issues with the differences between Pascal datatypes and C datatypes that can make things confusing.

The reason I recommend this tool is because even though it doesn't have a massive ecosystem like C++, it is coherent and works very well between platforms. The Object Pascal language is very easy to learn, it's powerful, and well designed. While not as fast as C or C++, is you look at the alioth debian language shootout page, it is pretty quick compared to other languages. It provides access to all of the familiar C library functions, and includes all kinds of stuff in the language for compatibility with the C language. It's not the old Pascal from the Turbo Pascal days that people like to bash, almost all of the complaints I hear about the language itself were taken care of a decade ago. The only issue I can really think of is that the language can be a bit verbose compared to C, but compared to Java it's pretty succinct.

Comment: Re:Adobe complaining about bloat? (Score 3, Interesting) 477

by DMFNR (#39106739) Attached to: A Rant Against Splash Screens
Part of the solution to this problem would be for operating systems to be smarter about caching entire programs in memory. The Linux way of doing things is very efficient, but it works because of the Free Software ecosystem where there is usually a standard library for a given task. This makes it very easy to cache things in memory and make for very small binaries for the actual programs. Even on GNOME, after you load one KDE program, the next one you open will probably boot very vast because all of the libraries are already there in memory. On Windows, everyone has their own proprietary libraries, and even if two programs are using the same shared library, the chances of them both using the same version are slim. The average computer has more RAM than most users will ever need, and modern operating systems already do a ton of caching, but the need to be smart about it and applications need to be able to influence and interact with it. Back in day, if you had an IDE running and a browser open with documentation and all of a sudden your boss came over and said he needed some report on his desk by the end of the day, you'd need to close a few programs before opening Word because otherwise you'd start hitting the swap and everything would run slow as hell. So users got in to the habit of closing programs when they were done with them, which isn't really necessary these days. Some people have figured this out, and leave their frequently used programs open, and they never have to deal with loading times and splash screens. For those who haven't the operating system should do this for them. Say Windows determines Photoshop is a frequently used program, after it's loaded for the first time, if the user closes it, the entire program should stay resident in memory unless that space is needed by something else. So if Photoshop is loaded again, it should be able to know if it's already in memory, and skip all of the splash screen garbage and just get down to business. It should be able to communicate with Windows, and let it know if there are images that are edited frequently so it can store those in memory too. This is similar to the way things are done today with speed loaders and programs running in the system tray, but it could be a lot smarter and more efficient in the way things are done.

My biggest pet peeve in this area is programs that show splash screen for absolutely no reason, they just set a timer and you get an irritating reminder of what the software is called every time you load it. Everyone knows what the program they are running is called, and they probably know what company made it too. Some of them show developer credits or something like that, an nobody gives a damn, they probably never get read even though the user is forced to stare at them every time the program starts. I can just see a PHB suggesting it, "all of the other big programs have one, it will make our software look much more professional".

Comment: Re:Easy enough to port to a faster language then (Score 1) 101

by DMFNR (#39096655) Attached to: Security Tool <em>HijackThis</em> Goes Open Source
Chances are if the open source community choose to rewrite this they probably wouldn't choose another locked in proprietary language to do it. One way to ensure failure for a FOSS project is to use a language that people would have to pay to use. Kind of silly to have to pay hundreds of dollars to be able to develop free software for no pay. Also, far more developers are skilled with a language like C++ than Delphi these days. I have nothing against Delphi or the Object Pascal language, hell there's even a pretty decent open source implementation in FPC / Lazarus, but it is almost never the right tool if you want to grow an open source project.

Comment: Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome (Score 1) 202

by DMFNR (#39081515) Attached to: Google Accused of Bypassing Safari's Privacy Controls
Sure you don't see images, Flash, and most scripts don't work (although I find most web forms are still functional). If most of your Internet use is based around the consumption of text something like Lynx is a good way to remove all of the other distractions. I like using a modern browser and enjoy a rich multimedia experience online but for someone who just wants raw information on a subject and couldn't care less about the other stuff Lynx is a great tool. I even use a console based browser from time to time when I'm working in text mode and I need to reasearch something I need info on. I'm willing to be Lynx works far better on the modern Internet than something like IE 4 would simply because it doesn't even try to render all the multimedia crap, it just ignores it.

Comment: Re:No? (Score 1) 428

by DMFNR (#38786199) Attached to: Megaupload Shutdown: Should RapidShare and Dropbox Worry?
He never said he was "marketing" it, he just said making it available for download. Now I guess just making a link and possibly a thumbnail could be considered a form of advertising, but virtue of the fact that the link shows the availibility of the product, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. IANAL, and I don't claim to be extremely knowledgable in intellectual property law, but I was under the impression a trademark protected words, phrases, or symbols that represented a company. That would protect a company like Pepsi from me putting a cola product on the market with the same or similar name and making a profit off their image or reputation. So if I made a movie and used Mickey Mouse or the name Walt Disney on the package without permission, I would be infringing on Walt Disney's trademarks. Now if a Walt Disney film, say "Steamboat Willie", fell in to the public domain and was someone released it online, I don't think that would be a violatation of Walt Disney's trademarks. It's still Walt Disney's product, regardless of whether or not they still hold they copyright, I am not misrepresenting something using their trademarks.

As far as the rights of a company to stop someone from using something the hold the trademark to, I have no idea. If I write a movie review on Walt Disney's "Steamboat Willie" and I have an image of Mickey Mouse, do they have the legal standing to compel me to remove the words and images they hold the trademarks too? Why do most commercials in the US refer to their competitor as "the other leading brand" and use look-a-like packaging instead of just stating the brandname? Their not misrepresenting their trademarks, real Bounty towels are real Bounty towels, even if Viva is 50% more absorbant. What are the rules as far as using a companies trademark to simply refer to the product? I'm don't know much more about the legalities other than what I stated above, hopefully someone with more knowledge on the subject can chime in.

Comment: Re:it is harder to get high on (Score 1) 385

by DMFNR (#38417804) Attached to: The Painkiller That Saves Money But Costs Lives
I've been dealing with this bullshit at the moment due to not having insurance. The generic version of Subutex would cost me like $40, where I just picked up my brand name Suboxone prescription for $260 plus a $150 fee for the doctors appointment and drug screen. The bullshit part about it is the naloxone in Suboxone is completely pointless, even if the drug is injected. Buprenorphine's binding affinity is higher than naloxone so no matter what you do with a suboxone pill that naloxone isn't going to touch a receptor. Even if it did, naloxone has so much shorter a duration than buprenorphine it would be ineffective anyway, even in heroin overdoses naloxone often has to be re-administered to prevent the patient from slipping back in to OD. Buprenorphine is the drug that blocks the other opiates, buprenorphine is the drug that will rip another full agonist off the receptor and cause precipitated withdrawal. In fact &#65279;Reckitt Benckiser tried to hold up the approval of the Roxane generic saying that it contained talc fillers which would make the drug far more dangerous to insufflate or inject than their suboxone or subutex which contains cornstarch fillers.[1]

The problem here is that the administration of drugs should be between a doctor and a pharmacist, not a doctor and a drug company. Many doctors are unbelievably ignorant about the effects of drugs, and who can blame them with as many as there are these days and the complexity of the human body, and a drug company is not exactly a patients best advocate. Doctors should work out a diagnosis and then if medication is indicated they should work this out with a pharmacist. Instead it is usually worked out by paging through colorful brochures and choosing between vacation destinations with the drug reps. The suboxone situation is actually analogous to vendor lock-in in the software world, and patents have the same effects on medicine as they do on software. Reckitt Benckiser did a very good job of making sure their brand would be the ONLY one used, and their pamphlets on suboxone are actually kind of fun to pick apart and look for half truths and straight up fiction.


Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once. Space is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen to you.