How would you feel, if somebody followed you around all the time, reciting mistaken comments you had made months or even years ago, and had long since publicly admitted were in error? And if you complained about it, would that make YOU look bad, you think? If that person kept harassing you and did not go away after repeated warnings, would you look into what options you have other than simply telling them to go away (which so far hasn't worked?
Just asking.
You are not familiar enough with the situation to be telling me to shut up.
"The rest of your post, though, reeks of drama. You're free to post whatever you like on this site; khayman80 is free to do the same; and everyone else is free to mod both of you up or down as they see fit. When you speak of stalking and harassment (especially to describe a huge, well-written and informative post about physics), and make veiled threats about "other options", you look very, very bad. Just be a good slashdotter, write good posts, and ignore the posters that upset you."
YOU don't have somebody following you around and harassing you with months-old, off-topic comments all over Slashdot.
If this had been the only example, I wouldn't mind. But he has done it many times. Frankly, he acts like a stalker and I don't know what his obsession with me is, but I don't appreciate it in the least, and if somebody had been doing it to you, you wouldn't either.
This bears repeating, Mr. "Khayman80": You appear to have some kind of unhealthy obsession with me and it has gone far beyond the point of simply rubbing me the wrong way.
If you do not cease and desist voluntarily, I will be compelled to start looking into what other options may be available.
Regardless, you somehow you missed the thread in which neutrino oscillation was actually adequately explained to me and I admitted that I was wrong. Gee, how could you have missed that part? It exists. Go look.
BUT all that aside, I have to ask you one more time: what part of STOP STALKING MY CONVERSATIONS, GO THE FUCK AWAY, AND LEAVE ME ALONE do you not understand???
THIS is a prime example of arrogance, and it is demonstrably no joke. You need to go take a l-o-n-g look in the mirror. And then go the fuck away.
I am serious. This is getting to the point of stalking and harassment. Do you really want to go there?
It is about mining, too. It takes time to develop mines.
A huge, truly massive deposit of a large variety of rare earths was found here in the United States a year or two ago. Prices are already at the point that it is very likely this will be put to use. But it's a large enough quantity to call into question the long-held idea that China "has 30%" of the rare earths.
If he wasn't trying to conceal his actions, there would have been absolutely NO POINT in programming the Klingons to be afraid. He might as well just have done what the other one did.
"There was cleverness in Kirk making Earth's most feared enemies crap their pants at the mention of his name; there was no cleverness in turning said enemies into sitting ducks."
Whoosh!
Despite his ego, the earlier Kirk tried to hide his hacking and got caught. This one didn't bother. I suppose it's a matter of opinion which one is more "clever".
"But those add-ons and settings do have equivalents on Chrome"
Not entirely, they don't.
But that's still beside the point. As Moglen said: if you want privacy, don't get your browser from a company that makes money by advertising and selling your personal information.
"The first stage of the project involves studying the thousands of pages of handwritten notes that Babbage left behind, to determine what exactly needs to be built."
I know "starting from the beginning" has its merits, but in this case, that's kind of a weird place to start. Instead, why don't you ask for the notes from the Universities who have already done that, and have already built working portions of his machines?
That should save you -- ahem -- "a little bit" of time.
About the questions, I would tend to agree. (I do not particularly agree about.Net being "new technology", but that's a side issue.)
Aside from using newer technologies, which I generally approve, I think there is an invalid assumption here.
TDD does nothing to guarantee good code. It just means the code works. It says nothing about any other quality. All code needs to work. But there is good code that works, and there is bad code that works, and TDD does not distinguish between the two.
That having been said, a shop that uses TDD is likely to use other good practices as well. There's just no guarantee.
I studied up on the Washington situation. It was a classic example of political parties exerting their power to maintain the status quo.
The WA primary system is weird, and it was forced down everybody's throat by the Big 2 parties. The People very clearly wanted -- and voted for -- something very different. Unfortunately the courts decided (rightly or wrongly) that the system the people actually wanted wasn't legal.
So they ended up with the "top 2" system by default. It wasn't anything The People wanted. Make no mistake about that.
"Now, I like FPP because it encourages elections with 2 distinct moderate choices."
If you think there is anything "moderate" about modern Republicans and Democrats, you are deluding youself.
"All voting systems, in which more than two choices are present, suffer from spoilers and strategic voting."
You have mis-stated Arrow's Theorem. It only holds for rank-order (i.e., A > B, B > C) voting systems, where there are 3 or more choices.
It does not hold for non-rank-order voting systems. Contrary to what you say above, "approval voting" is a non-rank-order system, so it is not subject to Arrow's impossibility theorem.
There are other score-rating voting systems that are similarly immune.
Regardless, the big question should actually be: "Should we be eliminating 'spoilers', if they represent peoples' genuine preferences?"
"So, one is a clever hacker with a huge ego and the balls to back it up; the other just entered a cheat code."
Nonsense. I mean, sure, in that story Kirk had a huge ego... but where do you get off saying the new guy doesn't? Because he blatantly cheated right in front of others, and made no pretense about it.
I'd say his balls were just as big, if not necessarily his ego.
"I just think it was a Lame attempt to seem cool compared to Google Chrome."
Why would anybody need to "seem" cool compared to Chrome? If you think a browser that was designed to help gather information about you and advertise to you is cool, that's your opinion I guess.
"The bigger question to me is why aren't we naturally that well tuned, why do we have to take a drug to make ourselves more focused, better working, harder working?"
Because evolution is S -- L -- O -- W.
Humans are already among the hardest working of mammals (bet you didn't know that). A human being can do more work ("work" as defined in physics) over a long period of time, per kilogram of body mass, than almost any other animal known.
We already probably have among the longest, if not the longest, attention spans.
I mean really... what do you want? It would take thousand of years, perhaps more, before those things improved significantly, left up to Mother Nature.
Slashdot Mirror
"... and private business has done the worst job of all because they disclose everything, just not intentionally.
There. FTFY.
I have seen them do it in many clips on the internet by now: they assault an innocent victim, all the while chanting "Stop resisting!"
Apparently the idea is to make it look like the person is resisting arrest, justifying their use of force.
It's complete bullshit of course. Which is precisely why we need those cameras.
To explain in a bit more detail:
How would you feel, if somebody followed you around all the time, reciting mistaken comments you had made months or even years ago, and had long since publicly admitted were in error? And if you complained about it, would that make YOU look bad, you think? If that person kept harassing you and did not go away after repeated warnings, would you look into what options you have other than simply telling them to go away (which so far hasn't worked?
Just asking.
You are not familiar enough with the situation to be telling me to shut up.
"The rest of your post, though, reeks of drama. You're free to post whatever you like on this site; khayman80 is free to do the same; and everyone else is free to mod both of you up or down as they see fit. When you speak of stalking and harassment (especially to describe a huge, well-written and informative post about physics), and make veiled threats about "other options", you look very, very bad. Just be a good slashdotter, write good posts, and ignore the posters that upset you."
YOU don't have somebody following you around and harassing you with months-old, off-topic comments all over Slashdot.
If this had been the only example, I wouldn't mind. But he has done it many times. Frankly, he acts like a stalker and I don't know what his obsession with me is, but I don't appreciate it in the least, and if somebody had been doing it to you, you wouldn't either.
This bears repeating, Mr. "Khayman80": You appear to have some kind of unhealthy obsession with me and it has gone far beyond the point of simply rubbing me the wrong way.
If you do not cease and desist voluntarily, I will be compelled to start looking into what other options may be available.
It was a JOKE.
Regardless, you somehow you missed the thread in which neutrino oscillation was actually adequately explained to me and I admitted that I was wrong. Gee, how could you have missed that part? It exists. Go look.
BUT all that aside, I have to ask you one more time: what part of STOP STALKING MY CONVERSATIONS, GO THE FUCK AWAY, AND LEAVE ME ALONE do you not understand???
THIS is a prime example of arrogance, and it is demonstrably no joke. You need to go take a l-o-n-g look in the mirror. And then go the fuck away.
I am serious. This is getting to the point of stalking and harassment. Do you really want to go there?
"ts how you deliver the information. Patience and tolerance for ignorance go a long way towards people having respect for your knowledgebase."
Technically, you are correct. Sadly, you failed to understand that I was joking.
Is it "arrogance" to tell you that?
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
It is about mining, too. It takes time to develop mines.
A huge, truly massive deposit of a large variety of rare earths was found here in the United States a year or two ago. Prices are already at the point that it is very likely this will be put to use. But it's a large enough quantity to call into question the long-held idea that China "has 30%" of the rare earths.
If you are correct, it's knowledge. If you're wrong, it's arrogance.
Sadly, many employers do not understand this little bit of wisdom.
Funny.
If he wasn't trying to conceal his actions, there would have been absolutely NO POINT in programming the Klingons to be afraid. He might as well just have done what the other one did.
"There was cleverness in Kirk making Earth's most feared enemies crap their pants at the mention of his name; there was no cleverness in turning said enemies into sitting ducks."
Whoosh!
Despite his ego, the earlier Kirk tried to hide his hacking and got caught. This one didn't bother. I suppose it's a matter of opinion which one is more "clever".
"But those add-ons and settings do have equivalents on Chrome"
Not entirely, they don't.
But that's still beside the point. As Moglen said: if you want privacy, don't get your browser from a company that makes money by advertising and selling your personal information.
Pretty much a no-brainer there.
"The first stage of the project involves studying the thousands of pages of handwritten notes that Babbage left behind, to determine what exactly needs to be built."
I know "starting from the beginning" has its merits, but in this case, that's kind of a weird place to start. Instead, why don't you ask for the notes from the Universities who have already done that, and have already built working portions of his machines?
That should save you -- ahem -- "a little bit" of time.
About the questions, I would tend to agree. (I do not particularly agree about .Net being "new technology", but that's a side issue.)
Aside from using newer technologies, which I generally approve, I think there is an invalid assumption here.
TDD does nothing to guarantee good code. It just means the code works. It says nothing about any other quality. All code needs to work. But there is good code that works, and there is bad code that works, and TDD does not distinguish between the two.
That having been said, a shop that uses TDD is likely to use other good practices as well. There's just no guarantee.
The WA primary system is weird, and it was forced down everybody's throat by the Big 2 parties. The People very clearly wanted -- and voted for -- something very different. Unfortunately the courts decided (rightly or wrongly) that the system the people actually wanted wasn't legal.
So they ended up with the "top 2" system by default. It wasn't anything The People wanted. Make no mistake about that.
"Now, I like FPP because it encourages elections with 2 distinct moderate choices."
If you think there is anything "moderate" about modern Republicans and Democrats, you are deluding youself.
"Does proportional mean I am effectively voting for a party rather than an individual? That seems like a pretty significant downside."
Where did you get that idea?
You are still voting for individuals. With proportional voting political parties actually have less control over who you vote for.
"All voting systems, in which more than two choices are present, suffer from spoilers and strategic voting."
You have mis-stated Arrow's Theorem. It only holds for rank-order (i.e., A > B, B > C) voting systems, where there are 3 or more choices.
It does not hold for non-rank-order voting systems. Contrary to what you say above, "approval voting" is a non-rank-order system, so it is not subject to Arrow's impossibility theorem.
There are other score-rating voting systems that are similarly immune.
Regardless, the big question should actually be: "Should we be eliminating 'spoilers', if they represent peoples' genuine preferences?"
"Marblar sounds like a great marblar."
It's a dumb name. Sure, "marbler.com" was already taken. But they could have come up with something better than just a bad mis-spelling.
"So, one is a clever hacker with a huge ego and the balls to back it up; the other just entered a cheat code."
Nonsense. I mean, sure, in that story Kirk had a huge ego... but where do you get off saying the new guy doesn't? Because he blatantly cheated right in front of others, and made no pretense about it.
I'd say his balls were just as big, if not necessarily his ego.
"I just think it was a Lame attempt to seem cool compared to Google Chrome."
Why would anybody need to "seem" cool compared to Chrome? If you think a browser that was designed to help gather information about you and advertise to you is cool, that's your opinion I guess.
As Eben Moglen said recently in two videos on Slashdot, if you are interested in personal freedom and privacy, use Firefox. Period.
(1) Use Firefox.
(2) Install the Scrapbook+ plugin.
(3) Visit the page on Project Gutenberg.
(4) Tell Scrapbook+ to stop at one level of recursion, and save the page.
You now have the original, complete with images (images saved in a local folder and the links adjusted to point to them).
Click on index.html, and there it is. No messing with epub.
Having just compared the two, I concur.
If this is the quality we can expect from the Google book scans, they may as well not bother.
The Project Gutenberg version is vastly superior.
"The bigger question to me is why aren't we naturally that well tuned, why do we have to take a drug to make ourselves more focused, better working, harder working?"
Because evolution is S -- L -- O -- W.
Humans are already among the hardest working of mammals (bet you didn't know that). A human being can do more work ("work" as defined in physics) over a long period of time, per kilogram of body mass, than almost any other animal known.
We already probably have among the longest, if not the longest, attention spans.
I mean really... what do you want? It would take thousand of years, perhaps more, before those things improved significantly, left up to Mother Nature.
"Ethics is about reducing suffering, not fairness or propriety."
Say wut?
Ethics isn't just one or the other of those things, it is all of them. And a few other things besides.