I started my programming around 2 years ago. It was easy for me because I was very interested in developing games (and I am still interested) and I was introduced to building Flash games.
I spent a lot of time building games with it. I think it was hard for me to understand concept of Object Orientation because AS3 is scripting language and object oriented language
firstly, I lived in an area where there wasn't a lot of programming work and secondly I thought way too highly of my skill set, so I was aiming higher than I was capable of.
I am going to start uploading some youtube tutorials on topic related to network programming, do you think people will be interested in it? I am going to talk about low level networking API (TCP/UDP sockets and legit way of using them), building a protocols with it (HTTP, RTSP).
they do teach you about them but they are really abstractive. They show you some diagrams on how packets move around and test you if you can remember how packet looks like
@Robusto I mean, this is an instrument for dummies, button-placement-wise. I know all the theory behind it, and I know exactly which button I must push, and that is exactly the one I aim for, and I know exactly where it is, but I always hit its neighbor.
You don't have to search the dominant or the subdominant. It's right there. But the buttons are not in a straight line, so when you're not used to it your chance of hitting the right one is exactly 50%.
@MattЭллен Yeah really, now that would be helpful. If every other button was rough or something. So you'd know exactly whether in the neighboring row you are about to go 45 degrees to the left (same roughness) or to the right (different roughness).
because you can simply build a website using CMS in few days
But the problem is most of these CMS always have problems like when your website goes viral, it becomes 10 times harder to scale (clustering or load balancing your webserver for these CMS websites)
Imagine you're playing the piano. You want to play a G. You know exactly that you need a G, you know exactly why you need a G, you know exactly where it is on the keyboard, and you aim at that exact place, and out comes a D.
Now, I guess that's not the worst thing that could happen. I'd rather have it be D than F#, for obvious reasons. But still.
@RegDwighт My collection is in an extra-deep billy and it fills 60% right now and there are maybe another 10% worth of space to fill but I'm out of boxes and want to keep some shelves for display. So I'm wondering how you managed to get it filled so efficiently if you have 10x the parts I do.
Now, I also have a big box in the cellar, with all the huge-ass parts, plus of course the actual models on display. If I put them all in boxes, I'd probably run out of both Billys, but the boxes would still be 3/4 full.
Now the 1x1 plate is tiny, of course, but since I consider even regular 2x4 bricks to be kind of huge-ass already, not many of my parts are too much larger, actually.
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I never shared it. I posted something from IKEA I guess.
I guess it doesn't matter. your boxes sound similar to mine.
multi-compartment.
my pieces are not stacked in the box except where they wouldn't fit otherwise. My philosophy is that if it takes too long to put stuff away I will never bother building because the cleanup will be too hard.
lol. I planned to have one of those but ran out of boxes in the end. And the box budget is all dried up for now. So maybe in a few months I'll get more.
And then, for each color, I now have a dedicated box where I throw those presorted parts in, again willy-nilly, but at least they are then tucked away under that color.
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 the boxes that I have now are perfect. Each compartment is exactly six studs wide and four bricks high, and 42 studs long. And you can break it down into shorter ones, of course. It's as if it was designed with LEGO in mind.
@RegDwighт my smaller boxes are very good too. they are exactly as tall as a 1x6 piece on its side and the compartments are exactly 4 studs wide at their smallest.
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 speaking of Technic, I'd have one full box of black pins by now (not exaggerating). But I use space efficiently with those, too. So what I do is I take the beams, that are stored in batches of five as outlined above, and connect them to one another using just one pin. I do the same for other parts, and also for 3-long pins and 2-long axles. That saves a ton of space. The black pins that are left only need 1/7 of a box now rather than one.
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 you can put them into Technic bricks rather than beams, of course, of which you are certain to have quite a few. I do that as well. This not only saves space, but actually simplifies building, too. Every time I need a beam, I just go grab it and get a free pin with it. Every time I need some other Technic part, I also get a free 3-long blue pin, or a 2-long, 4-long, or 5-long axle. This drastically speeds up the hunting for parts you need for a model.
@RegDwighт I dunno. my 3-long pins are relatively rare. same with my axles. I put all the technic parts (except beams) in one box, so when I need them they'll all be right there at once.
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I see. Well, that's how I started. I remember having a dedicated Technic box that was 99% empty. In every compartment was like one part, or three pins or axles. And it stood that way for easily a full year, even though I was purchasing like mad.
It took me some time to get around to actively seeking out Technic sets, too.
I still barely can build with Technic myself, but I appreciate the official models.
@RegDwighт well, my technic box is maybe 50% full and if it reaches 75% I'll have to overflow into a second box. And one big compartment is the "everything else" compartment. But I think I'll wait and see how the building goes over the next year or so, because I suspect I'm going to want to move stuff around, so that I have to keep fewer boxes open.
You need a whole nother mindset to build with Technic. I'm getting there, but it will take another decade I think. With System bricks, I am slowly at the point where I know all ins and outs by heart.
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 yes, I was surprised how much my sorting system changed over the years, even though it was designed to last forever. You never know where the next couple sets will take you.
yeah I'm not really into technic. I need to focus on something or else I'll just try to focus on everything and not accomplish anything. For the next year I want to try to build with what I have, now that I really know what I have.
I don't want to get hung up on trying to get more and more parts for hypothetical models that never get made. It's a fucking addiction, I tell ya.
@Reg, yeah, I still don't get what your problem is. Are you saying that the instrument's interface is too featureless, that it's hard to map your idea of chords and scales to a bunch of buttons that are too much the same and too closely packed together in a mapless pattern?
yes, I have noticed an increase in technic. And I don't mind when it's used for engineering purposes. But I don't really seek it out as an end in itself.
@Robusto no, all I'm saying is that my fingers constantly land four millimeters away from where they are supposed to go. I haven't figured out the angle yet. I go at 90 degrees where it should be 60. And since I don't frigging see a thing, it's purely muscle training.
And that is the frustrating part because yes, the instrument is featureless and simple by definition, and I simply know way too much about theory to not be upset by failing at practice.
________________________________________________ Q: What's the definition of perfect pitch? A: When you toss a banjo in the garbage and it hits an accordion.
It's one thing when it's just a big pile of buttons, and you have never heard the words "dominant" or "minor", and you just dive in. But it's a different thing entirely when you know exaclty what you must be doing, but you are doing something else because muscle training.
@Robusto I think bad violonists have caused the world more trouble, and there are more of them, too. Nobody wants to be carrying around an instrument of torture that weighs 20 kilos, when they could be carrying a pochette.
@Robusto that one is actually worse. Hitting 3/7 a tone away from where you must be is not as nice as hitting a full quint.
You can easily play around it and pretend you always wanted to play the quint in the first place, especially with the kind of music typically written for the accordion.
The violin is the opposite of the harp. You can bang on a harp randomly and it just sounds like heavenly music. A violin requires perfection before it's even acceptable.
@Robusto yes, the harp is ingenious because you can tune every single string to be part of the chord. My beef with the harp is, why the f can't they build it at the correct angle right away? Every player has to tilt that entire house of an instrument a couple degrees.
@Robusto I've known my wife for too long to consider that. I might have considered that at some point in the past.
I notice that if I have the piano bench skewed at a slight angle I will suddenly start making mistakes. But I will not notice that the bench is skewed until I make a certain pattern of mistakes.
My wife had the glorious idea to buy us two new chairs, one for her sewing machine, and one for my piano. She didn't realize that the chairs were half an inch higher than what we previously had. So every time I play the piano, I switch the chair back to the original one.
Otherwise my wrists are insta-ruined. After just one minute I scream in pain.
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…