If these are all internal, I would recommend their own server with a directory of git repositories, one for each project.
Simple, effective, no need to rely on a third party. Also probably far cheaper, since with a lot of projects Github can be expensive. And the server can just be be some old machine with Linux on it.
That's what I do for my own projects. It should scale just fine. In fact Github is evidence that it does.
"Any President who used a drone on innocent civilians without an overwhelming need to protect thousands more, would be impeached, and likely thrown in prison."
Hahaha. Then why hasn't Obama been impeached? This is irrefutable: the way the Obama administration has used drones to kill individuals is [A] against U.S. law (no due process), [B] a violation of treaty (Geneva Convention is just one of them), [C] a violation of international law (drone strikes on individuals do not qualify as "acts of war").
As for the rest, I just have to say, looks like a big "WHOOSH!" to me... you don't seem to be getting the point. OUR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN USING DRONES ILLEGALLY. Regardless of whether YOU think it's justified, it has been done in violation of law. So tell me again: why should citizens expect the government to suddenly start using them legally?
"I must have missed that memo. I looked through my mail for anything with a subject called "The Presidents Personal Kill List", but I'm guessing I'm just not on that distribution."
It's sure been in the news a lot. But really, that isn't very relevant to the point I was making: the drones have been used in ways that are very clearly in violation of treaty, U.S. law, and international law.
Even if you leave the President completely out of it (which I am far from convinced you could validly do), the fact remains: our government has a history of using drones in a grossly illegal manner.
"When you cram ascii into UTF-16, you bet to byter per character, the second byte of the pair is always null."
I didn't know it was always null, but figured it usually was. That's what I meant when I said the message could be pieced together from one byte of each pair.
"That might sound like a huge problem, but keep in mind our court system is already overloaded."
It is not government's place to make its own job easier at the expense of citizens. If the government can't handle the job, that's just too damned bad. It is NOT justification for twisting "justice".
In 1994 a blind study with controls (published in American Programmer) concluded that LOC as a metric was so bad that using it amounted to "professional malpractice". And it sure as hell hasn't gotten any better since. The simple fact is that there are other economic costs to programming that make LOC next to useless in the vast majority of cases.
"as long as your files aren't unencrypted ASCII characters stored in UTF-16..."
Doesn't matter. They're still stored as bytes. You'd just be traveling with the first byte of each character. Or second, as the case may be.
That's really more obfuscation than anything, though. I have little doubt that given the least-significant bytes, they could piece together the message eventually.
"People like you crack me up. You do realize that a drone is just a weapons platform right? If you can conceive of a reason why the US government might reasonable kill an American citizen with a pistol, a shotgun, an assault rifle, or a tank, why would the use of a drone somehow be any different?"
The problem here is that so far drones haven't been used "reasonably". They've been used to kill people on the President's personal kill list, in violation of treaty, international law, and U.S. law. That's not "war", it's legally murder.
Since ALL the evidence we have (the use of drones so far) points to illegal use of drones, why should anybody expect that they would suddenly be used in a reasonable and lawful manner, once used withing the U.S.?
If you are the sort of person who values real evidence, you should see that there are very good, rational reasons to be opposed to domestic use of drones.
"IMHO the poorly managed companies should have been made insolvent and forced into bankruptcy for their lousy policies. I'm not in charge though."
That's Libertarian (and economically, "Austrian") thinking. Watch out. There are people around here who think that's crazy talk. I'm not one of them, though.
So, while I agree that "zero" volume is indicative of something, I don't necessarily agree that frequency of commits is a very good measure. It's just the old, proven-invalid, "How many lines of code?" in disguise.
"My experience is that people work with a certain rhythm. If they do commits every 30 minutes when at the office, and every 2 hours at home, that is an indication that something is wrong. There is probably some distraction."
If you have something to compare with, that may be valid. But on the other hand, maybe not.
For example: when I worked in an office that used Agile methods, I was often pressured to commit with a certain frequency. But I was not always comfortable with that frequency. Maybe my tests for that code section were not quite up to par yet, etc.
At home, that pressure would usually be lessened, and I would likely commit somewhat less frequently... but I would still be getting the same things done. Perhaps done even better, because I would not be shoved into the "mold" of a particular schedule of commits.
I would write that "frequency of commits is not necessarily an indicator of productivity", but many, many people have written about that already.
"The things is though, we all know he intended to violate copyright by distributing what he had downloaded to other people who did not have access to it. that was the point of what he was doing."
So what? (1) Keep in mind that an intent is not a commission. Unless you want to get into the area of thought crime. And (2) copyright violation of the sort he may have intended is still not a felony.
As far as THIS prosecution was concerned, what he intended by violating the TOS still doesn't make it a crime.
"Plea bargaining is normally actually a pretty good tool, allowing both sides to make things a bit better for themselves, but like any tool it can be abuse"
I agree that it CAN be a good tool, but it seems to me that in recent years it has far too often been abused. I think we need to find some way to prevent that abuse. My personal feeling is that no plea bargains at all would be better than the kind of abuse we have seen in recent years.
" Right now they're not allowing marriage between people of the same gender."
In many states now, yes they are.
"Are you not in favor of them having that power?"
That's irrelevant to what I was saying. I am not taking sides on whether they "should" have that power or not. I am simply saying that trying to make it a matter of Federal law is a Bad Idea.
By "Where is the 'straight marriage' law?" I mean this: if equal protection is a given, then why is a "gay" law necessary? It would seem that this is already covered.
To repeat what I stated earlier: I don't care who wants to marry whom. That's their business. But I am convinced that
(A) The Federal government has no authority to get involved (as I believe the Supreme Court will rule when DoMa comes up for review this year), and
(B) it would be a bad idea to get them involved, even if that were otherwise Constitutional.
"Perhaps I'm wrong but to me that says people have equal access to the privileges of being an American citizen and it seems that entering into a marriage, along with the legal rights it entails is a privilege."
I think by now it is understood that equal protection is a given. However, how does a "gay marriage" law represent equal protection? Where is the "straight marriage" law?
The sections you cite do not give the Federal government any power beyond those already enumerated in the Constitution. And nowhere in the Constitution is there even the tiniest mention of the institution of marriage. Each state has its own laws. It is true that other states generally recognize those laws. But they still vary from state to state. A Federal law (like the "Defense of Marriage Act") is almost certainly unconstitutional, and I believe the Supreme Court will so rule when it comes up this year.
"Which seems to imply that a marriage that is legal in one State is legal in all and Congress can enforce it."
I think you are reading a bit too much into this.
For example, a driver's license in one state is not necessarily valid in another, Federal laws or not. The only reason they are is because of inter-state agreements. (If you doubt this, look up the history of the Real ID Act, and state nullification thereof. 26 of the 50 states have "nullified" the Real ID Act.)
Both the "Necessary and Proper clause", and the "General Welfare clause" refer only to Federal actions that are "in pursuance" of the specific enumerated Federal powers listed in the Constitution. There are truckloads of historical documents proving this, and that the Federal government was never intended, by anything in the Constitution, to have unlimited powers. Hell, that would not even make any sense. If Federal powers were unlimited, a Constitution would be completely superfluous. Its very existence contradicts that idea.
"You're an idiot is what you are. As if being a Libertarian wasn't enough evidence you are a libertarian, all the political crap you spout on slashdot is absolutely libertarian. Who are you lying to, yourself? Because no one else is buying it. You are a libertarian."
You are just proving once again that you don't know what you're talking about. Spout away. It becomes more that much more amusing, the more apoplectic and insulting you get.
Now, if only I could find good instructions on how to use Jitsi to call PSTN numbers via Google Voice.
It's supposed to be possible to call out with Jitsi, with only a Google Voice telephone number. But I haven't figured out how. Apparently I did make one call, but I did not hear any ringing or the voicemail message.
"The federal government is already involved in who can and cannot marry (see DOMA) so your thesis begins from an incorrect assumption."
Not really. That is, yes I was wrong about there being no Federal law (as I admitted elsewhere in this thread), BUT that does not mean there is actual Constitutional authority for that law.
So it still comes back to the same thing: the Federal government simply doesn't have Constitutional authority over marriage. I am convinced the Supreme Court will say the same thing when it comes time to decide DoMa, which I guess is coming up this year.
And I also maintain that it is a mistake to try to GIVE them that authority, Constitutional or not.
You have a point, but on the other hand I have to wonder: "What would be this person's motivation for saying that if it were not true?"
I can think of a few, but they don't seem very likely to me.
I have myself been pretty much taken aback by the real-world attitudes of some authors whose work I enjoy. A few of them -- by no means all, but a significant few -- turned out to be real, arrogant assholes.
"So what exactly is the point that all your posts are trying to make? That in the ideal world where cops and prosecutors do their jobs as they are supposed to be done it's ok to talk to cops?
But then you say that you know full well that often the above scenario is unrealistic? Yet you seem to get all upset when people do NOT talk to cops? Get off your high hose. Talking to cop will rarley if ever help you and will often be counterproductive."
When and where did I "get upset" because people did not talk to cops? Are you maybe mistaking someone else's comments for mine?
Slashdot Mirror
If these are all internal, I would recommend their own server with a directory of git repositories, one for each project.
Simple, effective, no need to rely on a third party. Also probably far cheaper, since with a lot of projects Github can be expensive. And the server can just be be some old machine with Linux on it.
That's what I do for my own projects. It should scale just fine. In fact Github is evidence that it does.
"Any President who used a drone on innocent civilians without an overwhelming need to protect thousands more, would be impeached, and likely thrown in prison."
Hahaha. Then why hasn't Obama been impeached? This is irrefutable: the way the Obama administration has used drones to kill individuals is [A] against U.S. law (no due process), [B] a violation of treaty (Geneva Convention is just one of them), [C] a violation of international law (drone strikes on individuals do not qualify as "acts of war").
As for the rest, I just have to say, looks like a big "WHOOSH!" to me... you don't seem to be getting the point. OUR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN USING DRONES ILLEGALLY. Regardless of whether YOU think it's justified, it has been done in violation of law. So tell me again: why should citizens expect the government to suddenly start using them legally?
"I must have missed that memo. I looked through my mail for anything with a subject called "The Presidents Personal Kill List", but I'm guessing I'm just not on that distribution."
It's sure been in the news a lot. But really, that isn't very relevant to the point I was making: the drones have been used in ways that are very clearly in violation of treaty, U.S. law, and international law.
Even if you leave the President completely out of it (which I am far from convinced you could validly do), the fact remains: our government has a history of using drones in a grossly illegal manner.
"When you cram ascii into UTF-16, you bet to byter per character, the second byte of the pair is always null."
I didn't know it was always null, but figured it usually was. That's what I meant when I said the message could be pieced together from one byte of each pair.
"That might sound like a huge problem, but keep in mind our court system is already overloaded."
It is not government's place to make its own job easier at the expense of citizens. If the government can't handle the job, that's just too damned bad. It is NOT justification for twisting "justice".
"No one has ever "proven" LOC as invalid."
Huh? Where have you been?
In 1994 a blind study with controls (published in American Programmer) concluded that LOC as a metric was so bad that using it amounted to "professional malpractice". And it sure as hell hasn't gotten any better since. The simple fact is that there are other economic costs to programming that make LOC next to useless in the vast majority of cases.
That was kind of my point.
"as long as your files aren't unencrypted ASCII characters stored in UTF-16..."
Doesn't matter. They're still stored as bytes. You'd just be traveling with the first byte of each character. Or second, as the case may be.
That's really more obfuscation than anything, though. I have little doubt that given the least-significant bytes, they could piece together the message eventually.
"People like you crack me up. You do realize that a drone is just a weapons platform right? If you can conceive of a reason why the US government might reasonable kill an American citizen with a pistol, a shotgun, an assault rifle, or a tank, why would the use of a drone somehow be any different?"
The problem here is that so far drones haven't been used "reasonably". They've been used to kill people on the President's personal kill list, in violation of treaty, international law, and U.S. law. That's not "war", it's legally murder.
Since ALL the evidence we have (the use of drones so far) points to illegal use of drones, why should anybody expect that they would suddenly be used in a reasonable and lawful manner, once used withing the U.S.?
If you are the sort of person who values real evidence, you should see that there are very good, rational reasons to be opposed to domestic use of drones.
"IMHO the poorly managed companies should have been made insolvent and forced into bankruptcy for their lousy policies. I'm not in charge though."
That's Libertarian (and economically, "Austrian") thinking. Watch out. There are people around here who think that's crazy talk. I'm not one of them, though.
"Around here I can get $600 off my taxes for installing high-efficiency heating systems and heat pumps."
A $600 write-off, or $600 off your taxes? They are not the same things.
...
So, while I agree that "zero" volume is indicative of something, I don't necessarily agree that frequency of commits is a very good measure. It's just the old, proven-invalid, "How many lines of code?" in disguise.
"My experience is that people work with a certain rhythm. If they do commits every 30 minutes when at the office, and every 2 hours at home, that is an indication that something is wrong. There is probably some distraction."
If you have something to compare with, that may be valid. But on the other hand, maybe not.
For example: when I worked in an office that used Agile methods, I was often pressured to commit with a certain frequency. But I was not always comfortable with that frequency. Maybe my tests for that code section were not quite up to par yet, etc.
At home, that pressure would usually be lessened, and I would likely commit somewhat less frequently... but I would still be getting the same things done. Perhaps done even better, because I would not be shoved into the "mold" of a particular schedule of commits.
I would write that "frequency of commits is not necessarily an indicator of productivity", but many, many people have written about that already.
"The things is though, we all know he intended to violate copyright by distributing what he had downloaded to other people who did not have access to it. that was the point of what he was doing."
So what? (1) Keep in mind that an intent is not a commission. Unless you want to get into the area of thought crime. And (2) copyright violation of the sort he may have intended is still not a felony.
As far as THIS prosecution was concerned, what he intended by violating the TOS still doesn't make it a crime.
"Plea bargaining is normally actually a pretty good tool, allowing both sides to make things a bit better for themselves, but like any tool it can be abuse"
I agree that it CAN be a good tool, but it seems to me that in recent years it has far too often been abused. I think we need to find some way to prevent that abuse. My personal feeling is that no plea bargains at all would be better than the kind of abuse we have seen in recent years.
" Right now they're not allowing marriage between people of the same gender."
In many states now, yes they are.
"Are you not in favor of them having that power?"
That's irrelevant to what I was saying. I am not taking sides on whether they "should" have that power or not. I am simply saying that trying to make it a matter of Federal law is a Bad Idea.
By "Where is the 'straight marriage' law?" I mean this: if equal protection is a given, then why is a "gay" law necessary? It would seem that this is already covered.
To repeat what I stated earlier: I don't care who wants to marry whom. That's their business. But I am convinced that
(A) The Federal government has no authority to get involved (as I believe the Supreme Court will rule when DoMa comes up for review this year), and
(B) it would be a bad idea to get them involved, even if that were otherwise Constitutional.
"Perhaps I'm wrong but to me that says people have equal access to the privileges of being an American citizen and it seems that entering into a marriage, along with the legal rights it entails is a privilege."
I think by now it is understood that equal protection is a given. However, how does a "gay marriage" law represent equal protection? Where is the "straight marriage" law?
The sections you cite do not give the Federal government any power beyond those already enumerated in the Constitution. And nowhere in the Constitution is there even the tiniest mention of the institution of marriage. Each state has its own laws. It is true that other states generally recognize those laws. But they still vary from state to state. A Federal law (like the "Defense of Marriage Act") is almost certainly unconstitutional, and I believe the Supreme Court will so rule when it comes up this year.
"Which seems to imply that a marriage that is legal in one State is legal in all and Congress can enforce it."
I think you are reading a bit too much into this.
For example, a driver's license in one state is not necessarily valid in another, Federal laws or not. The only reason they are is because of inter-state agreements. (If you doubt this, look up the history of the Real ID Act, and state nullification thereof. 26 of the 50 states have "nullified" the Real ID Act.)
Both the "Necessary and Proper clause", and the "General Welfare clause" refer only to Federal actions that are "in pursuance" of the specific enumerated Federal powers listed in the Constitution. There are truckloads of historical documents proving this, and that the Federal government was never intended, by anything in the Constitution, to have unlimited powers. Hell, that would not even make any sense. If Federal powers were unlimited, a Constitution would be completely superfluous. Its very existence contradicts that idea.
"You're an idiot is what you are. As if being a Libertarian wasn't enough evidence you are a libertarian, all the political crap you spout on slashdot is absolutely libertarian. Who are you lying to, yourself? Because no one else is buying it. You are a libertarian."
You are just proving once again that you don't know what you're talking about. Spout away. It becomes more that much more amusing, the more apoplectic and insulting you get.
"... it can be measured how much data is being sent to and recieved from the telecomuters."
Volume of data is not an indicator of productivity.
"Facetime only workie on mac."
Yes, that's true. Good point.
Now, if only I could find good instructions on how to use Jitsi to call PSTN numbers via Google Voice.
It's supposed to be possible to call out with Jitsi, with only a Google Voice telephone number. But I haven't figured out how. Apparently I did make one call, but I did not hear any ringing or the voicemail message.
"The federal government is already involved in who can and cannot marry (see DOMA) so your thesis begins from an incorrect assumption."
Not really. That is, yes I was wrong about there being no Federal law (as I admitted elsewhere in this thread), BUT that does not mean there is actual Constitutional authority for that law.
So it still comes back to the same thing: the Federal government simply doesn't have Constitutional authority over marriage. I am convinced the Supreme Court will say the same thing when it comes time to decide DoMa, which I guess is coming up this year.
And I also maintain that it is a mistake to try to GIVE them that authority, Constitutional or not.
"pics or it didn't happen"
You have a point, but on the other hand I have to wonder: "What would be this person's motivation for saying that if it were not true?"
I can think of a few, but they don't seem very likely to me.
I have myself been pretty much taken aback by the real-world attitudes of some authors whose work I enjoy. A few of them -- by no means all, but a significant few -- turned out to be real, arrogant assholes.
"So what exactly is the point that all your posts are trying to make? That in the ideal world where cops and prosecutors do their jobs as they are supposed to be done it's ok to talk to cops? But then you say that you know full well that often the above scenario is unrealistic? Yet you seem to get all upset when people do NOT talk to cops? Get off your high hose. Talking to cop will rarley if ever help you and will often be counterproductive."
When and where did I "get upset" because people did not talk to cops? Are you maybe mistaking someone else's comments for mine?