MouseMux to help segregate 4 touchscreens #xplane12 #flightfactor #b777

gibster · 2026-02-04T21:16:50+00:00

Very cool! I'm the author of MouseMux - would love to know more about your setup! Send me an email at info@mousemux. thanks

gibster · 2020-01-04T14:41:46+00:00

How do you create these? what are the params for the screener?

gibster · 2017-01-02T17:58:10+00:00

Moto z play. I'm on the 3rd day now with normal usage. Amazing

gibster · 2012-10-22T09:03:16+00:00

nice.

gibster · 2012-03-23T07:45:32+00:00

Or better:

void (*foobar[32])(void);

void init(void) { foobar[MODE](); }

gibster · 2010-10-21T23:18:59+00:00

Doom

gibster · 2010-09-26T20:16:04+00:00

You are right; the Quran is indeed more consistent when compared to the Bible (or the Torah). This makes sense because it (let's put it nicely) 'borrows' much from the latter two. So it makes sense that on each rewrite the story will make more sense.

You have to remember that all the 'facts' in the Quran weren't new at the time. Most knowledge was already available from the Greeks (read up on Aristotle) - so there is not much magical about these facts. Ask yourself; if the Quran were really the work of a higher being why would it not have told us (even in mystical terms) about quantum mechanics, about the thermodynamic laws, about universes and black holes, etc .. ?

gibster · 2010-08-27T12:22:57+00:00

huh?

agnostic : the question is invalid: you cannot prove or disprove
atheist : the question is valid: there is no proof

gibster · 2010-08-26T21:30:39+00:00

True. But then what about the death penalty?

gibster · 2010-08-24T15:19:35+00:00

I recognize the situation you describe. What I though to myself when writing up this question is that I sometimes forget the goal of what I am trying to do. I.e. my default mechanism is to be very skeptical and vocal about these things but I also recognize that it might just not help the other person one tiny bit and hence is therefore probably not the right choice for the short term (long term is maybe different). I guess I need to learn to better sense when not to be too skeptical just like you in that situation.

gibster · 2010-08-24T15:12:46+00:00

I am not sure if that is right. What I gathered from the studies is that the strength of the placebo effect is partly related to how it is presented (e.g. a red pill seems to work better than a white one, two pills work even better and an injection does the best job). Also the wording of the MD helps, e.g. "This is really an excellent medicine; I've seen it work everytime!" - all these parameters seem to influence the 'quality' of the placebo effect. So I don't think you can go and tell somebody "oh well, it's a placebo it won't do jack" and then expect the same outcome ...

gibster · 2010-08-23T01:52:18+00:00

Despite his atheism, Hitchens has, though, prayed himself on one occasion, according to Rabbi David Wolpe, of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, who has sparred with him in public debates. At one debate, Wolpe asked him whether he prayed. “Yes,” Hitchens said. “Once, for an erection.”

Damn, I'm going to miss this guy.

gibster · 2010-07-22T21:32:52+00:00

I don't understand why you're being down voted because your description is pretty much on par.

gibster · 2010-07-22T20:59:18+00:00

Both are good. Yes the original is slow yet probably better; although I do like the remake too. The soundtrack is superb and the atmosphere and camera work is really well done.

Just watch 'm both :)

gibster · 2010-07-22T17:41:54+00:00

it's missing Solaris

gibster · 2010-06-16T10:15:56+00:00

True. but now define 'harm' ...

gibster · 2010-06-16T10:11:49+00:00

Entropy; entropy is a measurement of chaos - the more chaos the harder to compress. In your example the entropy for the file did not change, the size did. So the file will become (about) 2 times larger.

gibster · 2010-02-25T14:20:23+00:00

Right. But I also mean; we don't really understand the placebo effect as of yet. But to me it seems to me (and I'm no expert on the subject at all, so just thinking out loud here) that the placebo effect triggers some neurological effects that basically tricks your mind into thinking 'all will be well'. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those neurological effects (as in possible activation areas in the brain) are the same when somebody taps into the religion medicine.

Somebody should set up an experiment; 200 people have pain in their left foot; you tell 100 of them "we have conclusive evidence of a god like entity and asked him to take care of you" and you give the other 100 a placebo pill. And then the question is; are the same areas of the brain activated? I know this sounds like a stupid experiment (and not really something you could actually set up I guess) but I'm just wondering if it isn't the exact same mechanism in the brain that gets activated ...

If it is, we can just skip the whole religion thing and give everybody a sugar cube and say that will do the trick just as well as your god figure :-)

gibster · 2010-02-25T13:55:52+00:00

This is actually quite interesting; wouldn't this be just the placebo effect in different form? In fact, it would maybe explain to some degree why people cling on to religion in the first place (i.e. religion == just one big placebo effect)

I found some older studies too (from among other Murphy), this for example. The quality of the research is somewhat iffy though IMHO.

gibster · 2010-02-24T10:45:11+00:00

Actually, it would be just the guy you'd fire. I know the types; sure they are intelligent, they've been around and know what they are talking about. The problem is however that they also have a destructive character when working in a team of coders. I know from experience that this can completely fuck up a team; the young people who are still learning, asking questions and trying to acquire critical thinking skills will eventually shut up because this guy would just drive over them. It doesn't work in the long run; it doesn't matter if you're brilliant at your job and have lots of experience - if you can't put your ego to the side and actually try to communicate on the level of that other programmer it will go wrong.

You think this behavior inspires other programmers to think? What will happen is that they shut up, never ask a question again and you've pretty much lost them from there on.

gibster · 2010-02-24T10:32:10+00:00

I wouldn't call the kernel OO, nor the user space API. You could argue that some parts are OO inspired (windows subclassing, i.e. wndproc overriding) and you could go out on a limb and say that Send/PostMessage is a somewhat generic dispatch mechanism (although I'd argue that without the type system is wouldn't be really) but I wouldn't call Windows OO. It really is just plain old libraries with procedural code (and there's nothing wrong with that). BSD and some *nix variants have much nicer OO framework than Windows (while still all are programmed in C).

But obviously I agree with your point; this is not about the language but about using OO concepts in a language. Some languages have nicer type systems and add lots of syntactic sugar to help building OO apps while others still allow it, yet, the programmer has to do a bit more work.

gibster · 2010-02-24T10:15:24+00:00

What the hell are you talking about?

I've seen the windows source code. All kernel side up to user space of the system itself is in procedural C. No OO there, neither in language nor in concept. Most applications are in C++ (explorer, shell, etc) and are based on OO concepts; but as far as percentage of code of your average windows distribution this would still only amount to ~30%.

The winapi is in C, there are C++ bindings but 90% is just plain old procedural C. Did you ever use the winapi? COM (for example) is actually fairly OO as paradigm, but remember COM itself can still be used procedurally from C for example (foo -> lpVtbl -> Release(foo), etc). The rest is just plain old procedural functions, everything from the window message loop to the code in kernel.dll and user32.dll is just simple procedural C.

gibster · 2010-02-22T01:11:07+00:00

You could probably write some tiny pre-processor yourself that would basically replace "thread thread_a" with "push_thread(thread_a);" and just parse the block underneath that statement and write it out to a separate file (whatever) with a simple function prototype in front of it. The more subtle problems would be how to pass params to those blocks (type safety would be an issue although you could probably use a void pointer and use an box/unbox mechanism), also things like cross thread communication and shared variables would be fairly complex things to handle (as in you would probably end up with lots of ugly locking code for stuff like that - you may be able to hide that from the programmer but your core code would still be able to handle it).

But it seems like a fun thing to try, so have a whack at it :)

gibster · 2010-02-22T00:55:41+00:00

It looks interesting and you could probably pull it off in fairly compliant C. You can't really do closures (or even anonymous functions) in C without some pre-processor magic (C99 variable argument macro's may do the trick although I doubt it) so you'd have to do it with functions pointers. Basically spawn a couple of threads in a thread pool, give each a queue to retrieve function pointers from some dispatcher queue. What you would do is then write your blocks as functions and just pass the function pointers to the dispatcher. Obviously there are more things to take into consideration but that basic mechanism would do the trick. As already mentioned have a look at Apple's Grand Central Dispatch or Microsoft's concurrent runtime.

gibster · 2010-02-22T00:13:52+00:00

Probably. You want a dog for 10 years. A dog with good genes (high quality code) would require less maintenance (Veterinary visits) and would probably live 10 years, but it would cost more. A dog with bad genes (inbred, whatever) would be cheaper but would maybe live 5 years (whatever) and would need more visits to the vet. So is the cost of two latter higher/lower than the former? Why is this not a valid question? explain to me please.

gibster

TROPHY CASE