Can you recommend a decent latex package and/or documentclass for resumes? Last time I updated my resume I did it in latex, but didn't quite get the results I wanted and don't really have the fu to build my own at this point.
Of course, just to add a wrench to things, the cost of exploiting those reserve deposits has just gone up due to the rising fuel costs, which means that the cost of the commodities has to go even higher to make those lower-grade deposits profitable. So consumer prices of products requiring the use of these elements are getting pushed up from multiple directions.
The market will sort out the relative value of these things. I just worry about what it sorts out the relative value of human lives to be in the process.
The price of commodities will have to go up to make new mines economical. The deposits that are profitable at current prices are already being exploited. As prices rise, the deposits that the mining companies are holding in reserve will go into production.
Also, despite what Fox News may tell you, complying with environmental regulations isn't usually a deal-breaker for opening a mine. Mitigation & remediation are relatively inexpensive when you plan for them ahead of time, but the impacts of not doing so can be terrible. Have you ever seen the impact of a major mine dump from a mine that was developed before the current regs were put in place? Take a trip up past Leadville, CO some time. You've got a huge valley full of cyanide-soaked mud and rock to deal with, right up in the top of the watershed. The thing with screwing up the environment is that we're screwing up *our* environment.
I'm all for mining (used to be a geologist) but as a society it doesn't make sense to allow mining companies to externalize their cleanup costs onto the rest of us. If they're going to create problems that the rest of us ae going to have to deal with, they need to pay to make sure that those problems are solved.
Most of the major gold deposits now being mined are low-grade, broadly disseminated Carlin-type deposits, where the gold is found in iron sulfides as ions or sub-micron particles.
Vein-type deposits may be high-grade, but the typical total recoverable amount of gold is relatively tiny, not to mention the fact that the majority of the readily accessible veins have already been exploited, meaning that you have to use expensive underground mining tech instead of a cheap pit.
So, circuit boards are actually a really good source of gold. Hell, you could probably throw them in a cyanide heap leach and get a pile of copper out as well.
I'm not afraid of fragmented Java, because the momentum behind Sun's JDK is tremendous. GCC is open and free, but do you see it fragmenting?
On the other hand, the open JDK & JVM will be a tremendous boon for JVM platform languages like Scala, JRuby, Jython, and Groovy, not to mention tools like Terracotta. I think that development in those languages will very likely push some nice improvements back to the mainline codebase, too (not that this hasn't been happening for several years already.)
If you find Java's static typing inflexible and restrictive, you're doing it wrong. The great advantage I find with the level of restriction that Java puts on your types is that it enables brilliant development tools. Refactoring support is paramount.
Having recently completed a major refactoring of a Ruby project with tens of thousands of lines of code, I can say from experience that refactoring of an app written in a dynamic language can be a colossal pain in the ass. Just finding everywhere that a particular class is being used can take hours or days. With a decent refactoring IDE and a Java 5/6 (with everything generified) such an operation takes a couple of seconds at most.
Interesting. I really dislike the "developer" term because I associate it most closely with real-estate developers, who are mostly financiers and middlemen. Engineers are the ones who get the real work done.
I agree that there is a distinct art to producing software; in my mind engineering of all sorts has always been a distinctively creative and artful endeavor, so I don't think that it's particularly restrictive in terms of describing the scope of what we do.
You mean, we're going to continue being faced with the "lesser of two evils" until we reform our voting system. Using plurality voting, as we do here in the U.S., guarantees that no viable third party can exist.
I think that Obama's Chistianity is probably mostly a matter of convenience - his father, at least, was an atheist and he didn't have a religious upbringing. His so-called "conversion" came about around the same time that he started getting involved in politics. It's impossible to get elected to dogcatcher in the U.S. if you don't at least give lip service to religion, so I can see him justifying the "conversion" as being necessary to get him into a position where he could actually do some good.
So I'm voting for Obama, since he'd perhaps be the closest thing to an atheist we've ever had in the white house.
One of the issues I've always had with closed source IDEs is that of project format. Since most IDEs don't conform to open standards for project structure, projects created with those IDEs are not portable. Sure, the code will be fine, but project setup takes a lot of time for an application of any complexity.
That's a HUGE barrier to entry to me. I don't want to try a "30 day free trial" of a closed-source system if it's the case that I can't just take my project over to another IDE (or no IDE at all) if I decide that I don't like it. If closed-source IDEs would support some sort of open project structure (maven or buildr or something else that fills that niche... ant if they really must, but no proprietary extensions!) then I'd be a lot more interested in trying them out.
Well, Ruby doesn't have Lisp-ish macros, so you can't actually add keywords or basic control structures unless you implement them as methods on objects. Since Ruby has open classes, though, you can make such methods look more or less like parts of the language so long as you've got the right implicit receiver for your calls. I'm not convinced that having infinitely flexible syntax is really that helpful anyway - it can make things really suck for maintainers if your clever domain-specific syntax has a hard-to-track bug due to the overhead of sorting the code that creates that extra syntax from the actual functionality.
I don't think I've actually ever used Ruby's 'for' syntax in the tens of thousands of lines of code I've written. It's probably there to make people coming from other imperative languages comfortable.:)
Incorrect. Proc objects (which is what blocks implicitly create, and which lambda explicitly creates) are indeed first class objects. They also close over the lexical scope in which they are defined.
Its syntax isn't like C? Cry me a river. Sure, the syntax could have been made more c-like (braces instead of do/end - and you can use braces if you like anyway) but the syntax isn't where you get the benefit of ruby.
The most important thing that Ruby has done, in my mind, is to make blocks, closures, and runtime metaprogramming mainstream. So while the syntax may not add much, the language features add a hell of a lot. After writing code in C and Java for a number of years, switching over to Ruby took me all of a week.
That being said, the supposed productivity gains are mostly hype, because you end up spending the time you gained in writing the code to begin with having to write a lot more integration tests to ensure correctness for things that the compiler deals with in a typesafe language.
Rails has been pretty important insofar as it's given a kick in the ass to a bunch of other languages. I agree though that the implementation is a bit of a nightmare, and the lack of built-in dependency injection is a hassle.
Agreed; that's why I ordered my copy today. My daughter's just a year old right now, but by the time she's old enough to appreciate a book like this I expect it'll be next to impossible to find, sadly.
Hunting firearms may not have so much to do with personal defense, but rifles and shotguns are standard military weapons. Just because the form factor of hunting weapons is a bit different doesn't make them useless.
Yea, I have a friend who hunts regularly. 3 out of the last 5 deer he took down had trash in their stomachs. They may be "free range" but what they're eating, typically here in SC, is: crops sprayed with dangerous chemicals, trash from roadsides or garbage cans, flowers in gardens treated with chemicals. I live & hunt in the Rockies, and the areas that I usually frequent are a significant distance from any populated or farmed areas - certainly a larger distance than the home range of most deer. We do, of course, have CWD to worry about, but as I get my meat tested annually I feel a bit better about eating it than about domestic cattle, where the testing is done by random sampling.
Besides, it's not just your licence and gas, but how much did the gun cost, the bullets you blow through at the range, the gun cleaning kits, tools, REM-oil sprays, gun case and safetly locks (required by law in almost every state), your 4 wheeler you drive through the woods, extra large freezer, electricity for freezer, etc. With the exception of electricity for the freezer (which I'd be paying for anyway in order to take advantage of bulk discounts on meat) all of those costs are, for me, long ago paid... well, except for the 4-wheeler, which I don't have and have no plans on getting - I'm successful enough on my feet.
All that doesn't even include the dozens of hours you waste in the woods that you could be using for increased income. Sure, you save several hundred dolars vs buying meat in bulk at Sam's club, but if you could just work 20 hours per year extra at your job, or at a hobby that produces income, you'd break even, and not need that gun. I'd hardly consider time in the woods wasted. I work enough as it is - the last thing I want to do is spend what little free time I have trying to eke out a few more bucks from a hobby (since I'm salaried, extra hours don't pay.) Even when I'm not hunting, I spend my vacations hiking in the mountains - so why not carry a gun and feed my family in the process?
As a bonus, you'd get to eat safe meat without worry of disease or infection. Right, because as we all know, factory farmed meat (like you get in bulk at the club stores) is never tainted or diseased. They never push cattle around with forklifts to get them on their feet so that they can be slaughtered. I think I'll take my chances with the wild stuff.
Well, killing things, mostly. The majority of my protein intake is game meat. Antibiotic-free, hormone-free, free-range, and all for the marginal cost of a couple hundred bucks a year - basically the cost of licenses and gas.
In the successful projects I've been involved in (of course this evidence is anecdotal) they've become self-sustaining when there are 5 or 6 regular contributors, or one organization that depended upon the app.
Sorry that things haven't worked out for your project. Given how pleasant your response was, maybe it was your attitude?
What people should realize is the "many eyes" theory and related open source theories are all urban legend except for the huge successes they originate from (Linux, Apache, Wikipedia, etc.). Nonsense. All that it takes to have a successful community is two things: (1) your project just has to be useful to people, and (2) they have to have a good 'way in' to contribute improvements. Having been involved in both successful and unsuccessful projects, looking back, I have to say that the biggest fault of the unsuccessful ones is that they were not either not sufficiently useful to enough people, or in some cases I wasn't responsive enough in terms of application of patches, improving documentation, etc.
Like they say, content is king. If what you're doing is interesting enough and good enough, you'll get the community eventually.
So, when a politician leaves office, hold an election. The outcome of that election determines whether said politician either is "honorably discharged" and happily gets his pension, or is sent to federal prison for a period equal to the time he served in office.
In Colorado, emergency search & rescue services are funded by surcharges on hunting and fishing licenses. If you hold a current license, any and all search and rescue fees that you incur are covered; if you don't have a license, then you have to pay the costs.
I'm not sure whether there's an alternative license that can be purchased for those who don't hunt or fish to give them coverage, but it's ultimately a pretty decent system, since even if you don't plan to use it the licenses are fairly cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought we were the Popular Front?
Can you recommend a decent latex package and/or documentclass for resumes? Last time I updated my resume I did it in latex, but didn't quite get the results I wanted and don't really have the fu to build my own at this point.
Of course, just to add a wrench to things, the cost of exploiting those reserve deposits has just gone up due to the rising fuel costs, which means that the cost of the commodities has to go even higher to make those lower-grade deposits profitable. So consumer prices of products requiring the use of these elements are getting pushed up from multiple directions.
The market will sort out the relative value of these things. I just worry about what it sorts out the relative value of human lives to be in the process.
The price of commodities will have to go up to make new mines economical. The deposits that are profitable at current prices are already being exploited. As prices rise, the deposits that the mining companies are holding in reserve will go into production.
Also, despite what Fox News may tell you, complying with environmental regulations isn't usually a deal-breaker for opening a mine. Mitigation & remediation are relatively inexpensive when you plan for them ahead of time, but the impacts of not doing so can be terrible. Have you ever seen the impact of a major mine dump from a mine that was developed before the current regs were put in place? Take a trip up past Leadville, CO some time. You've got a huge valley full of cyanide-soaked mud and rock to deal with, right up in the top of the watershed. The thing with screwing up the environment is that we're screwing up *our* environment.
I'm all for mining (used to be a geologist) but as a society it doesn't make sense to allow mining companies to externalize their cleanup costs onto the rest of us. If they're going to create problems that the rest of us ae going to have to deal with, they need to pay to make sure that those problems are solved.
Most of the major gold deposits now being mined are low-grade, broadly disseminated Carlin-type deposits, where the gold is found in iron sulfides as ions or sub-micron particles.
Vein-type deposits may be high-grade, but the typical total recoverable amount of gold is relatively tiny, not to mention the fact that the majority of the readily accessible veins have already been exploited, meaning that you have to use expensive underground mining tech instead of a cheap pit.
So, circuit boards are actually a really good source of gold. Hell, you could probably throw them in a cyanide heap leach and get a pile of copper out as well.
I'm not afraid of fragmented Java, because the momentum behind Sun's JDK is tremendous. GCC is open and free, but do you see it fragmenting?
On the other hand, the open JDK & JVM will be a tremendous boon for JVM platform languages like Scala, JRuby, Jython, and Groovy, not to mention tools like Terracotta. I think that development in those languages will very likely push some nice improvements back to the mainline codebase, too (not that this hasn't been happening for several years already.)
If you find Java's static typing inflexible and restrictive, you're doing it wrong. The great advantage I find with the level of restriction that Java puts on your types is that it enables brilliant development tools. Refactoring support is paramount.
Having recently completed a major refactoring of a Ruby project with tens of thousands of lines of code, I can say from experience that refactoring of an app written in a dynamic language can be a colossal pain in the ass. Just finding everywhere that a particular class is being used can take hours or days. With a decent refactoring IDE and a Java 5/6 (with everything generified) such an operation takes a couple of seconds at most.
Interesting. I really dislike the "developer" term because I associate it most closely with real-estate developers, who are mostly financiers and middlemen. Engineers are the ones who get the real work done.
I agree that there is a distinct art to producing software; in my mind engineering of all sorts has always been a distinctively creative and artful endeavor, so I don't think that it's particularly restrictive in terms of describing the scope of what we do.
You mean, we're going to continue being faced with the "lesser of two evils" until we reform our voting system. Using plurality voting, as we do here in the U.S., guarantees that no viable third party can exist.
I think that Obama's Chistianity is probably mostly a matter of convenience - his father, at least, was an atheist and he didn't have a religious upbringing. His so-called "conversion" came about around the same time that he started getting involved in politics. It's impossible to get elected to dogcatcher in the U.S. if you don't at least give lip service to religion, so I can see him justifying the "conversion" as being necessary to get him into a position where he could actually do some good.
So I'm voting for Obama, since he'd perhaps be the closest thing to an atheist we've ever had in the white house.
One of the issues I've always had with closed source IDEs is that of project format. Since most IDEs don't conform to open standards for project structure, projects created with those IDEs are not portable. Sure, the code will be fine, but project setup takes a lot of time for an application of any complexity.
That's a HUGE barrier to entry to me. I don't want to try a "30 day free trial" of a closed-source system if it's the case that I can't just take my project over to another IDE (or no IDE at all) if I decide that I don't like it. If closed-source IDEs would support some sort of open project structure (maven or buildr or something else that fills that niche... ant if they really must, but no proprietary extensions!) then I'd be a lot more interested in trying them out.
Well, Ruby doesn't have Lisp-ish macros, so you can't actually add keywords or basic control structures unless you implement them as methods on objects. Since Ruby has open classes, though, you can make such methods look more or less like parts of the language so long as you've got the right implicit receiver for your calls. I'm not convinced that having infinitely flexible syntax is really that helpful anyway - it can make things really suck for maintainers if your clever domain-specific syntax has a hard-to-track bug due to the overhead of sorting the code that creates that extra syntax from the actual functionality.
:)
I don't think I've actually ever used Ruby's 'for' syntax in the tens of thousands of lines of code I've written. It's probably there to make people coming from other imperative languages comfortable.
Incorrect. Proc objects (which is what blocks implicitly create, and which lambda explicitly creates) are indeed first class objects. They also close over the lexical scope in which they are defined.
Its syntax isn't like C? Cry me a river. Sure, the syntax could have been made more c-like (braces instead of do/end - and you can use braces if you like anyway) but the syntax isn't where you get the benefit of ruby.
The most important thing that Ruby has done, in my mind, is to make blocks, closures, and runtime metaprogramming mainstream. So while the syntax may not add much, the language features add a hell of a lot. After writing code in C and Java for a number of years, switching over to Ruby took me all of a week.
That being said, the supposed productivity gains are mostly hype, because you end up spending the time you gained in writing the code to begin with having to write a lot more integration tests to ensure correctness for things that the compiler deals with in a typesafe language.
Rails has been pretty important insofar as it's given a kick in the ass to a bunch of other languages. I agree though that the implementation is a bit of a nightmare, and the lack of built-in dependency injection is a hassle.
Agreed; that's why I ordered my copy today. My daughter's just a year old right now, but by the time she's old enough to appreciate a book like this I expect it'll be next to impossible to find, sadly.
Hunting firearms may not have so much to do with personal defense, but rifles and shotguns are standard military weapons. Just because the form factor of hunting weapons is a bit different doesn't make them useless.
Well, killing things, mostly. The majority of my protein intake is game meat. Antibiotic-free, hormone-free, free-range, and all for the marginal cost of a couple hundred bucks a year - basically the cost of licenses and gas.
In the successful projects I've been involved in (of course this evidence is anecdotal) they've become self-sustaining when there are 5 or 6 regular contributors, or one organization that depended upon the app.
Sorry that things haven't worked out for your project. Given how pleasant your response was, maybe it was your attitude?
Like they say, content is king. If what you're doing is interesting enough and good enough, you'll get the community eventually.
So, when a politician leaves office, hold an election. The outcome of that election determines whether said politician either is "honorably discharged" and happily gets his pension, or is sent to federal prison for a period equal to the time he served in office.
Nah. They just want to make sure that there are good structures in place for creating new reefs once New Orleans is submerged.
In Colorado, emergency search & rescue services are funded by surcharges on hunting and fishing licenses. If you hold a current license, any and all search and rescue fees that you incur are covered; if you don't have a license, then you have to pay the costs.
I'm not sure whether there's an alternative license that can be purchased for those who don't hunt or fish to give them coverage, but it's ultimately a pretty decent system, since even if you don't plan to use it the licenses are fairly cheap.
Maybe Canonical recognized that since RedHat has the server space, they wouldn't make a play for that.
The Linux desktop space, however, is wide open, and businesses generally run a hell of a lot more desktops than they do servers...
You used a pipe wrench on copper tubing? That seems a bit excessive.