Consider building it yourself, or hiring someone else to do it. It’s not as challenging as a lot of people think it is. If you don’t feel like you can handle the responsibility, consider hiring someone local. You will save hundreds of dollars, probably $200 to $300.
If you end up buying a pre-built, do NOT buy Alienware. It’s trash. It’s marked up to disgusting prices and the hardware selection is God awful. Which moves me into my next point.
When you’re looking at PC’s or hardware, don’t go for the i7. Is an i7 a good processor? Absolutely. Does that mean its best for a gaming PC? No. The most important part of a PC that you will be using primarily for gaming (and of course other mundane stuff like work/school and the internet) is the graphics card. GPU GPU GPU, not CPU. All of these pre-built’s use i7′s because they’re known as “EXTREMELY EXTREME i7 FOR EXTREME GAMING FOR EXTREME GAMERS”, when that’s not true. Does that mean get a shitty processor? Of course not. Save $100 on a processor and get an i5, and spend the $100 on a better graphics card. An i5 will perform almost identically to an i7 (When it comes to video games, VFX and rendering is a different story), and an extra $100 on your graphics card will be a HUGE help when running demanding games.
I’m so tired of these big companies like Dell and ASUS making these PC’s with an i7 and people buying it thinking its the best gaming PC for the price. My friend just got an ASUS ROG G20 for $1200. It’s not worth the money for the performance you’ll be getting.
Archaeologists in Denmark have found evidence of a 3,000 year-old cooking mistake that casts some light into the everyday life of Scandinavian Bronze Age people.
Clear evidence for one of the most common mistakes in the kitchen – burning food – lay in a clay pot that was excavated in central Jutland, Denmark.
The clay vessel was found, upturned and in near mint condition, at the bottom of what was once a waste pit.
“The pot is typical for cooking vessels in this region of Denmark. It was accompanied by several other objects fitting the dating,” archaeologist Kaj F. Rasmussen from Museum Silkeborg, Denmark, told Discovery News. Read more.
Facebook has launched a tool that allows domain name owners to discover TLS/SSL certificates that were issued without their knowledge.
The tool uses data collected from the many Certificate Transparency logs that are publicly accessible. Certificate Transparency (CT) is a new open standard requiring certificate authorities to disclose the certificate that they issue.
Until a few years ago, there was no way of tracking the certificates issued by every certificate authority (CA). At best, researchers could scan the entire web and collect those certificates being used on public servers. This made it very hard to discover cases where CAs issued certificates for domain names without the approval of those domains’ owners.
To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here
via http://www.computerworld.com/article/3149741/security/facebook-helps-companies-detect-rogue-ssl-certificates-for-domains.html#tk.rss_news and www.computechtechnologyservices.com
There’s a lot of people who are against body positivity because they believe this movement promotes unhealthy issues that are associated with being over-weight and obese.
Please tell me though, when has fat shaming EVER brought about positive change? There is no link between fat shaming and a decrease in obesity.
There is however a large link of fat shaming and
Eating disorders
Low self esteem
Depression
Suicide
The love you give today, is an investment in the future, for the future is seeded by what you sow today.
Leon Brown (via deeplifequotes)
The Publish/Subscribe pattern is one of the most used patterns in software, especially in User Interfaces with JavaScript. It is used whenever 2 pieces of a system need to communicate, but cannot or should not communicate directly. For example, a system receives data from a server at regular intervals that a bunch of components can use (which are added while the system runs):
var Publisher = function() { var self = { subscribers: [] }; self.subscribe = function(callback) { self.subscribers.push(callback); }; self.publish = function(data) { self.subscribers.forEach(function(callback) { callback(data); }); }; return self; } var publisher = Publisher(); // Simulate a set of data being returned over time var serverStream = function(callback) { Array.apply(null, { length: 5 }).forEach(function(unused, index) { var ms = index * 500 setTimeout(function() { callback('data-piece: ' + ms + ' ms'); }, ms); }); }; serverStream(publisher.publish); // Simulate components being registered over time. publisher.subscribe(function(data) { console.info('subscribe from part 1', data); }); setTimeout(function() { publisher.subscribe(function(data) { console.info('subscribe from part 2', data); }); }, 1000) // subscribe from part 1 data-piece: 0 ms // subscribe from part 1 data-piece: 500 ms // subscribe from part 1 data-piece: 1000 ms // subscribe from part 1 data-piece: 1500 ms // subscribe from part 2 data-piece: 1500 ms // subscribe from part 1 data-piece: 2000 ms // subscribe from part 2 data-piece: 2000 ms
The problem is that same pattern with almost identical code will be written over and over again in the same project. So instead of creating a publisher and subscriber with multiple message types each time this pattern needs to be used, it is simpler to just use new instances of the publisher object each time:
var messageSet1 = function(callback) { Array.apply(null, { length: 3 }).forEach(function(unused, index) { setTimeout(function() { callback('Hello ' + index); }, index * 500); }); }; var messageSet2 = function(callback) { Array.apply(null, { length: 3 }).forEach(function(unused, index) { setTimeout(function() { callback('World ' + index); }, index * 500); }); }; var MessageBox = function() { var self = { publishers: [] }; self.streams = function(streams) { self.publishers = []; streams.forEach(function(stream, index) { self.publishers.push(Publisher()); stream(self.publishers[index].publish); }); }; self.subscribeTo = function(index, callback) { return self.publishers[index].subscribe(callback); } return self; }; var messageBox = MessageBox(); // Use a trivial example to preserve clarity messageBox.streams([messageSet1, messageSet2]); messageBox.subscribeTo(0, function(data) { console.info('subscribe from part 1B', data); }); messageBox.subscribeTo(1, function(data) { console.info('subscribe from part 2B', data); }); // subscribe from part 1B Hello 0 // subscribe from part 2B World 0 // subscribe from part 1B Hello 1 // subscribe from part 2B World 1 // subscribe from part 1B Hello 2 // subscribe from part 2B World 2
A non-index based naming scheme could be introduced by passing more data into the streams call, but I wanted to keep the example as minimal as possible.
Github Location: https://github.com/Jacob-Friesen/obscurejs/blob/master/2016/publishSubscribeAutomation.js
We usually see “elephants”—or “wolves” or “killer whales” or “chimps” or “ravens” and so on—as interchangeable representatives of their kind. But the instant we focus on individuals, we see an elephant named Echo with exceptional leadership qualities; we see wolf 755 struggling to survive the death of his mate and exile from his family; we see a lost and lonely killer whale named Luna who is humorous and stunningly gentle. We see individuality. It’s a fact of life. And it runs deep. Very deep.
Individuality is the frontier of understanding non-human animals. But for decades, the idea was forbidden territory. Scientists who stepped out of bounds faced withering scorn from colleagues. Jane Goodall experienced just that. After her first studies of chimpanzees, she enrolled as a doctoral student at Cambridge. There, as she later recalled in National Geographic, “It was a bit shocking to be told I’d done everything wrong. Everything. I shouldn’t have given them names. I couldn’t talk about their personalities, their minds or their feelings.” The orthodoxy was: those qualities are unique to humans.
But these decades later we are realizing that Goodall was right; humans are not unique in having personalities, minds and feelings. And if she’d given the chimpanzees numbers instead of names?—their individual personalities would still have shined.
“If ever there was a perfect wolf,” says Yellowstone biologist Rick McIntyre, “It was Twenty-one. He was like a fictional character. But real.” McIntyre has watched free-living wolves for more hours than anyone, ever.
Even from a distance Twenty-one’s big-shouldered profile was recognizable. Utterly fearless in defense of his family, Twenty-one had the size, strength, and agility to win against overwhelming odds. “On two occasions, I saw Twenty-one take on six attacking wolves—and rout them all,” Rick says. “Watching him felt like seeing something that looked supernatural. Like watching a Bruce Lee movie. I’d be thinking, ‘A wolf can’t do what I am watching this wolf do.’” Watching Twenty-one, Rick elaborates, “was like watching Muhammad Ali or Michael Jordan—a one-of-a-kind talent outside of ‘normal.’”
Twenty-one was a superwolf. Uniquely, he never lost a fight and he never killed any defeated opponent. And yet Twenty-one was “remarkably gentle” with the members of his pack. Immediately after making a kill he would often walk away and nap, allowing family members who’d had nothing to do with the hunt eat their fill.
One of Twenty-one’s favorite things was to wrestle little pups. “And what he really loved to do,” Rick adds, “was pretend to lose. He just got a huge kick out of it.” Here was this great big male wolf. And he’d let some little wolf jump on him and bite his fur. “He’d just fall on his back with his paws in the air,” Rick half-mimes. “And the triumphant-looking little one would be standing over him with his tail wagging.
“The ability to pretend,” Rick adds, “shows that you understand how your actions are perceived by others. I’m sure the pups knew what was going on, but it was a way for them to learn how it feels to conquer something much bigger than you. And that kind of confidence is what wolves need every day of their hunting lives.”
In Twenty-one’s life, there was a particular male, a sort of roving Casanova, a continual annoyance. He was strikingly good-looking, had a big personality, and was always doing something interesting. “The best single word is ‘charisma,’” says Rick. “Female wolves were happy to mate with him. People absolutely loved him. Women would take one look at him—they didn’t want you to say anything bad about him. His irresponsibility and infidelity; it didn’t matter.”
One day, Twenty-one discovered this Casanova among his daughters. Twenty-one ran in, caught him, biting and pinning him to the ground. Other pack members piled in, beating Casanova up. “Casanova was also big,” Rick says, “but he was a bad fighter.” Now he was totally overwhelmed; the pack was finally killing him.
“Suddenly Twenty-one steps back. Everything stops. The pack members are looking at Twenty-one as if saying, ‘Why has Dad stopped?’” The Casanova wolf jumped up and—as always—ran away.
After Twenty-one’s death, Casanova briefly became the Druid pack’s alpha male. But, Rick recalled: “He doesn’t know what to do, just not a leader personality.” And although it’s very rare, his year-younger brother deposed him. “His brother had a much more natural alpha personality.” Casanova didn’t mind; it meant he was free to wander and meet other females. Eventually Casanova and several young Druid males met some females and they all formed the Blacktail pack. “With them,” Rick remembers, “he finally became the model of a responsible alpha male and a great father.”
The personality of a wolf ‘matriarch’ also helps shape the whole pack. Wolf Seven was the dominant female in her pack. But you could watch Seven for days and say, ‘I think she’s in charge,’ because she led subtly, by example. Wolf Forty, totally different; she led with an iron fist. Exceptionally aggressive, Forty had done something unheard of: actually deposed her own mother.
For three years, Forty ruled the Druid pack tyrannically. A pack member who stared a moment too long would find herself slammed to the ground, Forty’s bared canines poised above her neck. Yellowstone research director Doug Smith recalls, “Throughout her life she was fiercely committed to always having the upper hand, far more so than any other wolf we’ve observed.” Forty heaped her worst abuse on her same-age sister. Because this sister lived under Forty’s brutal oppression, she earned the name Cinderella.
One year Cinderella split from the main pack and dug a den to give birth. Shortly after she finished the den, her sister arrived and delivered one of her infamous beatings. Cinderella just took it, as always. No one ever saw any pups at that den.
The next year, Cinderella, Forty, and a low-ranking sister all gave birth in dens dug several miles apart. New wolf mothers nurse and guard constantly; they rely on pack members for food. That year, few pack members visited the bad-tempered alpha. Cinderella, though, found herself well assisted at her den by several sisters.
Six weeks after giving birth, Cinderella and several attending pack members headed out, away from her den—and stumbled into the queen herself. Forty immediately attacked Cinderella with was, even for her, exceptional ferocity. She then turned her fury onto another of her sisters who’d been accompanying Cinderella, giving her a beating too. Then as dusk settled in, Forty headed toward Cinderella’s den. Only the wolves saw what happened next, but Doug Smith and Rick McIntyre pieced together what went down.
Unlike the previous year, this time Cinderella wasn’t about to remain passive or let her sister reach her den and her six-week-old pups. Near the den a fight erupted. There were at least four wolves, and Forty had earned no allies among them.
At dawn, Forty was down by the road covered in blood, and her wounds included a neck bite so bad that her spine was visible. Her long-suffering sisters had, in effect, cut her throat. She died. It was the only time researchers have ever known a pack to kill its own alpha. Forty was an extraordinarily abusive individual. The sisters’ decision, outside the box of wolf norms, was: mutiny. Remarkable.
But Cinderella was just getting started. She adopted her dead sister’s entire brood. And she also welcomed her low-ranking sister and her pups. And so that was the summer that the Druid Peak pack raised an unheard-of twenty-one wolf pups together in a single den.
Out from under Forty’s brutal reign, Cinderella developed into the pack’s finest hunter. She later went on to become the benevolent matriarch of the Geode Creek pack. Goes to show: a wolf, as many a human, may have talents and abilities that wither or flower depending on which way their luck breaks.
“Cinderella was the finest kind of alpha female,” Rick McIntyre says. “Cooperative, returning favors by sharing with the other adult females, inviting her sister to bring her pups together with her own while also raising her vanquished sister’s pups—. She set a policy of acceptance and cohesion.” She was, Rick says, “perfect for helping everyone get along really well.”
(This piece is adapted from Carl Safina’s most recent book, Beyond Words; What Animals Think and Feel, which will is newly out in paperback)
Dbl Trouble: Fix Falls Short for Backdoor in China-Made Devices
A hidden, backdoor account affects a line of VoIP gateways made by DblTek, researchers from TrustWave found. (Image courtesy of DblTek.) In-brief: A hidden, backdoor account affects a line of VoIP gateways made by DblTek, researchers from TrustWave found. The manufacturers fix, however, may not solve the problem. (more…)
View On WordPress
I hope you accept imgur galleries :) !
http://imgur.com/a/MYdSP
I’m writing a scene manager for my java game engine, using LWJGL3 with modern OpenGL. This is some methods from the parenting system. And nope. JAVA ISN’T SLOW (well, when you know how to use it properly).
———————————————————————————————–
Love it. More so for the colours. :) xx