All I can say is ...
... the Internet is full of totally useless crap.
When "selfie" made it into the Oxford English Dictionary, and was then anointed word of the year, it was clear that selfies themselves were kind of a big deal in 2013. As a forward-looking organisation, The Reg is always looking for the next trivial big thing and is willing to tip that 2014 will see the rise, rise, and crass …
... the Internet is full of totally useless crap.
And jake once again can't resist pointing out how it was So Much Better Back Then.
In other news: water is wet.
Where, exactly, did I "point out" how it was "Back Then" here?
Most of the totally useless crap is people who can't read for content commenting on articles/comments when they don't actually have a grasp of the underlying concept.
Thank you for clarifying my point.
In other news, tabloids attract the uneducated Great Unwashed.
I'm almost with jake on this one.
I don't mind frivolity for the sake of frivolity but this is just crap, it's not even useless crap, something so crap it's not worthy of any adjective.
"Most of the totally useless crap is people who can't read for content commenting on articles/comments when they don't actually have a grasp of the underlying concept"
Pot, kettle etc.
Much of the crap is people feeling they must share their opinions about everything they disagree with.
Implicit in every post you make. That you've already done something years ago now touted as 'new'. That the tools and devices you've been using since time immemorial are simply the best, and anything from today doesn't stack up against them. That your methods of doing something are infallible, and people are farking idjits for even trying a different way.
"... the Internet is full of totally useless crap."
Nonsense, it is nowhere near full. I know, coat, going...
The perfect give for someone well up themselves.
Although I'd still like to put in a word for our old colleague Jake's "conslutant."
That's "jake", not "Jake". '01010100' is not '01010110'.
jake, shouldn't that be 011010102 or am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing something.
7-bit ASCII doesn't need the initial '0' ... The modern 8 (16/32/64)-bit systems use of ASCII should be obvious to the cognizant.
ASCII is still ASCII, regardless.
Don't care about an initial 0. I was questioning the arrangement of the two nibbles.
And I'm still wondering about the meaning of EOF in this context.
Big-endian/little-endian is a whole 'nother kettle of worms.
Bloody hell Jake, it sounds like you've picked up an old beginners guide to computing and you are randomly saying out-of-context phrases from it.
jake, last time I checked, and it's been quite a while since, the little-/big-endian thing mainly mattered for putting data into memory. At that time online forums where not very wide-spread (they did exist though) and it is absolutely possible that simply no one thought about how data could be put into the high levels of a commentards' section.
Although, from the maths I did before IT I believe that when writing down a binary number the msb would still go far left.
Was about the order of complete bytes (highest vs lowest byte first if a multi-byte word). You've reversed the order of the bits. "J" = 0x4A hex, or 0b1001010. "j" = 0x6A hex, or 0b1101010
"That's "jake", not "Jake". '01010100' is not '01010110'."
But I was always taught that proper names should start with a capital letter and I was being polite.
My apologies for any offense caused and I still have high hopes for "conslutant."
Holy hot hedgehogs.
I've just upvoted Steve Todd.
That's never happened before.
@VinceH, don't worry, I'm sure it's unlikely to become a habit :-)
Phew. I had myself worried there. ;)
None of this made any sense.... So I stuck my head in a record sleeve instead. Felt more relevant to the article.
"Yes, you are missing something.
7-bit ASCII doesn't need the initial '0' ... The modern 8 (16/32/64)-bit systems use of ASCII should be obvious to the cognizant."
Haha, he was quoting you with the initial '0', so I guess your insult is directed at yourself?
The fact that this whole argument began with someone asserting the pointlessness of something *else* is ironic almost to the point of physical discomfort.
"And I'm still wondering about the meaning of EOF in this context."
I think its "jake-speak" for "fuck off dickhead"....
A bit like his "HAND" epithet, which, rather than meaning "have a nice day" is his way of saying "fuck off and die".
About time you all realised that, in all things, jake is the ultimate authority and we are all unmitigated fucktards.
Was about the order of complete bytes (highest vs lowest byte first if a multi-byte word). You've reversed the order of the bits.
Endianness can apply to bits too, for example when talking about a serial protocol, or in text representations. A number of IBM technical documents number bits in a byte from 0 as the MSB to 7 as the LSB. While this is obviously the Wrong Thing,1 it is enshrined by years of practice in these particular corners of IBM, and is clearly an endian issue.2
The 3270 Data Stream Programmer's Guide is one example, and I think SNA Formats also does this in some places, though I can't be bothered to dig it out to confirm that.
In any event, though, people who think endianness applies only to byte ordering have too narrow a view.
1The only justification for using zero-based numbering when talking about the bits in a byte is so that the ordinal represents the exponent; so the only sensible numbering is LSB at 0 and MSB at 7.
2That is, a disagreement about which end to start from, by analogy with the eponymous dispute in Gulliver's Travels, and via Cohen's "On Holy Wars and a Plea for Peace".
I thought it rather amusing.
And if you don't actually know the person, it's just art. You'd never recognize them on the street.
Now... Which album cover to use?
It's got to be Blind Failth - that should ruffle a few feathers.
And that's why this doesn't translate to the US.... we called 'em "album covers." But does anyone other than hipsters and grannies actually have 33 1/3 LPs any more?
I am neither a hipster or a granny. I have a lot of vinyl... some new, some stuff I bought years ago.
So I guess the answer is "yes"
My vote is Emerson, Lake, and Palmer's Brain Salad Surgery.
... on a website far away there was a presenter called Joanne. She had a piece of work called lpportraits which depicted (quite well, I thought) this exact same thing.
The year was 2011, the website was rocketboom and the link is here
The exact same thing thing that Sleeveface was doing in 2008...
Personally, I could quite imagine citizens of ancient Rome standing round so that they matched up with nearby statues or other representational art in some amusing way, let alone the reasonable likelihood boxes of old Edwardian b&w photos doing a similar thing with paintings or whatever; or someone or other doing this - with actual album sleeves - in the 70's.
No doubt someone might have some sort of priority claim over this kind of amusement, but I not only strongly suspect they have been dead a while, but they might even have been dead for millenia.
".... someone or other doing this - with actual album sleeves - in the 70's."
Yep, been there, done that in the late 70s, with the cover of In The Court Of The Crimson King". What goes around, comes around.
"or someone or other doing this - with actual album sleeves - in the 70's."
Yeah, but good luck trying it with some "coverflow" mp3 interface, buddy. And here we thought there was no reason for smartphones to get even bigger.
Oh goody, Another opportunity for the creatively challenged to be creative by proxy.
Why not just create your own album covers with ironically posed selfies...(preferably as a folk band or duo). At least then this could be expanded into the realms of a 'music video'.
My brother and I used to pose for 'mulligan & O'hare' style album covers as we were both fans of Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimers folk duo. Hours of fun at various old monuments and castles round Scotland during late 90's early 2000's.
"Another opportunity for the creatively challenged to be creative by proxy...... My brother and I used to pose for 'mulligan & O'hare' style album covers as we were both fans of Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimers folk duo"
I spy an irony deficiency ...
Oh, bother — no bonus from the CIA for me, then.
I like it I want try it. Oh, morning nurse <gulp> thanks
Yes I have had some photos I took on an LP
Isn't "the next big thing" trademarked by Apple or Samsung?
Probably about $40 per pageview licensing fee....
... hit the rest of the world about 5 years ago.
I thought this had already passed. Anyway, it involves a creative element, therefore: MUCH BETTER than the avalanche of self-obsessed duck-faces, unpleasant, badly lit dishes, my-ugly-naked-trotters-in-front-of-whatever-random-vacation-locality, or – my personal pet peeve – the dreaded "jumping with joy" shot.
Would a 'collapsing in despondency' shot suit you better?