Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: But Only Two (Score 0, Troll) 368

by Marc_Hawke (#48189513) Attached to: NASA's HI-SEAS Project Results Suggests a Women-Only Mars Crew

If they do send only women, they'd better make sure it's only a 2-person crew. It's widely known that 3 women can not get along for any period of time. Two of them will team up against the 3rd. (They'll switch groupings many times over, but it will always be 2 versus 1.)

I actually don't have any data on what happens in groups of 4+. But 3 is definitely a bad idea.

Comment: Re:Valve Time (Score 3, Insightful) 93

by Marc_Hawke (#48084567) Attached to: Fixing Steam's User Rating Charts

Nobody liked Steam when it came out either. There were a lot of things that kept most people away from it:

1. Always on. This was a problem both in internet connections (which were much more flaky back then) but also PC memory usage. Background processes were a gamer's worst nightmare before RAM sizes gained a few extra digits.

2. "Vaulted Access." People still wanted physical copies. They didn't trust Steam to be around in 5 years and figured they wouldn't have access to their games anymore.

3. Other things.

So, Steam was ignored by a lot of people, except for the games that 'forced' them to use it (Valve games:...CounterStrike and HL2 mostly.) However, (and this is the magic Microsoft needs to find) Valve made steam not suck. People learned to trust it. "Yes" it will be available. "Yes" it will be convenient. "No" it won't hose your experience. And most of all..."Yes" it will be economical.

Steam was considered draconian, until it proved not to be. And...importantly...it was 'optional' during that testing phase.

Comment: Re:Science vs Faith (Score 2) 795

by Marc_Hawke (#47965203) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

You keep answering 'why' questions with 'how' answers. "Why are we here?" is a completely different question from 'How did we come to be here?"

Now, from the context of your post you do give an answer the 'why' question. "There is no reason other than random happenstance." I'm not sure that disagrees with the parents statement that 'why' is a philosophical question.

Comment: Re:Client or Server side? (Score 1) 161

by Marc_Hawke (#47810355) Attached to: New HTML Picture Element To Make Future Web Faster

Yes, (replying to GrandParent, but agreeing with Parent.)

Can you explain why it would be better on the server side? I naturally assumed client side. "Get SmallScreen version of Picture." It would then be scaled by the Browser to fit the size determined by the layout.

I don't think that you'd change the layout based on which images were selected. Everything would look exactly the same, just the byte-size/quality of the image file would be different.

Comment: Try Sublime in 'vintage' mode. (Score 1) 402

by Marc_Hawke (#47585665) Attached to: Comparison: Linux Text Editors

That's why I use Sublime Text. It has a 'vi' mode that works very well. (Well, it does the most common functions, but if you're a grand-master vi wizard you'll easily find things it doesn't do.)

That was the primary reason I allowed myself to try it. 'come for the 'vi' stay for everything else.' The good news is that it's a top-notch editor even without vi. The 'overview' slider on the right side is brilliant. There's a vibrant 'plugin community', and it's very customizable. Also it's multi-platform so I'm using exactly the same Editor on my Windows box at work as well as my Gnome sessions at home.

(I still use vi in my terminals.)

Comment: ERP is overpriced database (Score 1) 209

We purchased a large ERP to 'centralize' and 'homogenize' our data. Instead if disparate systems trying to interface, we wanted all our divisions to use the same system. We had IT research the different options with occasional feedback, and they picked one, and we started implement it.

It turns out that we had disparate systems for a reason, and the new ERP system didn't fit into any of them. We adjusted models to fit the best practices of the ERP as best we could, but that only got us so far. At the end of the day the ERP was nothing but a database (SQL Server) and all the day to day operations were done with custom built applications interface through API's and ODBC. Occasionally, (but rarely) there will be a business need that happens to be implemented natively by the ERP, but it's not something we count on.

One of the original suggestions was that we just 'roll our own' solution. In the end, we did, but we first saddled ourselves with a large pricetag and mostly useless support contract.

Comment: Re:Slippery Slope (Score 3, Insightful) 186

""Meanwhile, someone who isn't Google and doesn't have offices in the EU will surely make up a page of links to this information. If the page generates traffic, someone will pay for add space there.""

This is my biggest question about this whole thing. Why is it Google's job? If they want to be 'forgotten' or 'taken off the internet' then they have to be taken off the internet, not the search engines. The most Google would be affected is by making sure they don't show up as 'cached' results. However, if the original article still exists, that's hardly Google's fault.

It the EU wants to make an unenforceable decision about a stupid request, I think they should at least be forced to deal with the consequences, and not just harangue search engines (i.e easy targets.)

Comment: Re:So (Score 1) 59

by Marc_Hawke (#47486301) Attached to: Tesla Model S Hacking Prize Claimed

Do Tesla's have keys? I think it would be pretty awesome to back up the security with a physical item. So, when you lock your car after too many failures, the smart-phone remote access is just completely disabled until you use the physical key to unlock the door.

I suppose you could do the same thing with the key-fob and it wouldn't be any less secure than the key-fob already is.

That would be quite strong defense against brute forcing the PIN, and I don't think it would be that annoying since....how often do you remote-access your car anyway?

Comment: The premise is flawed. (Score 1) 189

by Marc_Hawke (#47026119) Attached to: Understanding an AI's Timescale

A 'cycle' doesn't constitute a thought. I would be willing to bet that a human brain can actually process speech faster than a computer can. (not sure how you'd prove that.)

Computers aren't sentient NOW because they aren't fast enough yet. At least, that's a staple of science fiction. It's only when the computer gets 'big' enough...gets 'fast' enough that they can start to be sentient. So saying when a computer becomes sentient it will suddenly "think/talk" magnitudes faster than us is a non-sequitur.

Now, what they will have is photographic memories. They'll have a huge advantage in the 'random access memory recall' area. I assume it's possible they'll be better at 'hand-eye' coordination. (Not that she had any hands in 'her'.)

Comment: Re:80%? A lofty goal indeed. (Score 1) 391

by Marc_Hawke (#46610107) Attached to: Toward Better Programming

Instead of hinting, why don't you tell us what "100% from both" actually means? You've said twice that it's a perfectly fine thing to say but you haven't attempted to explain or define it.

Also, here's a hint, when you say 100%, it's math. (explanation: Say something like 'completely' or some other 'non-math' term if you wish to express something that can't be expressed by math.)

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Working...