Not every religion believes in creationism, nor in intelligent design. Both are mainly espoused by only 4 religions.
All scientists believe in evolution. The facts are there to present in unbiased form.
You can teach the facts of religion, in unbiased form, perfectly fine. I know this, because I've witnessed it, in a Catholic (!) school in the UK. They covered most major religions and the differences between them, without claiming any of them was right or wrong. No, Catholicism didn't get preferential treatment in that class. Faith and religion are important factors in most societies and covering them (correctly) in school is probably a good thing to ensure well-informed individuals.
How do you snap two windows side by side in XP?
I move them side-by-side. How hard is that?
Shortcut-based or screen-edge-based snapping is several orders of magnitude faster than tweaking window sizes to actually fit two windows to each fill exactly their half of the screen. It gets even more fun when snapping on multi-monitor setups - which you can do on Win7 using the windows-key/arrow-key shortcuts. It matters. I do it hundreds of times a day when developing, debugging, or writing documents.
How do you utilize more than 3GB of your memory in XP?
XP supports up to 4GB of memory
The OS supports 32-bit systems with up to 4Gb of physical memory, but you cannot get more than 3GB of virtual address space for a single process in XP, and that is if you use the 3GB switch and the process was compiled to be large memory aware, otherwise your XP process is limited to 2GB.
The only reason people believe 7 is good is because it's the Service Pack for Vista which was so horrible. Of course 7 looks good when you use that comparison.
Dissenting opinion: I ran Vista Home Basic 64bit for a long time. No eye-candy (it's not in Home Basic), not that many system requirements (because all of the "cool stuff" I didn't want wasn't included anyway). It worked just fine. I never noticed much difference between Vista and 7, just some tweaks of features that were actually in Vista, and some small usability upgrades such as the task bar with pinning (which I like, it has uses). I think Vista just broke the ice in terms of the new driver model to support 64bit, and lots of people were annoyed at 3rd party manufacturers just not being up-to-date with their drivers.
I've got no real beef with XP, but it's not "magically perfect". I happily ran Win2K WAY past its sell-by date back in the XP release days because I disliked the default candyland look and feel and 2K was fine for my purposes. I have also recently installed a Windows 7 32-bit on an ancient machine with an Athlon XP3000+ processor, and it ran incredibly smoothly considering how old and "windows 7 unready" the hardware was. I understand the frustration at the EOL forcing an upgrade when what you have works perfectly fine, but I sincerely doubt there are real technical reasons for XP to be "better" that actually apply to many people beyond emotional responses to change.
I'm all for pushing the envelope. I constantly tell my engineers to work on side projects, even during work hours. If you have an idea, hack on it and perfect it. Push your envelope, but don't use the company's products as your own personal validation vehicle.
I understand your sentiment, but it's not the only way to solve the problem of the state of "pushing the envelope" code. I encourage my engineers to give any solution they've implemented a second look, immediately after finishing the implementation, and if they have any sort of misgivings about the complexity, quality, documentation, completeness or any other feature, do it again. This is supported by instant code reviews by other engineers who will also voice their misgivings about those features.
It usually takes very little time to re-do a fresh implementation, even if it is from scratch, and it means that hours or days after the "first" version we're already on the second or third, and this version is so much better and simpler than the initial one it surprises us a lot of the time. Not coincidentally, the code often also changes from "pushing the envelope" to "oh, there's a solution that doesn't require any trickiness". But the engineer has pushed their envelope on production code with production problems, and all involved will now know the simpler solution the next time something similar comes up.
I think you've created an endless loop there. You need an exit condition for the likely case that the rockstar is unable to think of something that isn't douchey.
No you don't - at some point the other party will stop waiting for your answer and walk away, terminating the process.
Re:The Captain has left the building
on
Ballmer To Retire
·
· Score: 1
When Windows XP on a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 with 3.2GB of ram and a 500GB Western Digital Black Edition drive is much (much) more responsive than Windows 8 x64 running on a Socket 2011 system with an i7-3820 3.6Ghz cpu with 16GB of ram and a 2TB Western Digital Black Edition drive there's something seriously wrong under the hood.
In a pinch I installed Windows 7 32bit on a machine with an Athlon XP3000+ with 1GB of memory, to do multitrack audiorecording on location. It ran just fine. I don't get what people mean with "responsiveness" in these contexts.
Why people have such a problem with the fact that he was in the army, supposedly serving his country, and did something that he was forbidden to do, and so should face the consequences?.
Because "I was just following orders" should never, ever, ever be a legitimate reason for committing crimes against humanity.
It is that it has been served with a demand for information/wire-tapping along with an attached gag order, courtesy of the 'Star Chamber'.
Do the gag also orders also order you to write 2000+ words of false information on why you're shutting down? Because if you're trying to hint that you're not allowed to talk about the reasons, inventing valid but false reasons would seem to be the wrong way to go about it.
Why would they be false reasons? They might be the subset of all the true reasons that PJ is actually allowed to talk about.
Do yourself a favor and do away with the "syntactic sugar" crutch and try to judge a language proposal on it's own merits. Is it better to write 3+5 than 3.add(5) ?
The answer is obviously YES
Except someone overloaded the + operator to return an expression template type so that a longer expression might be collapsed into a simpler statement through compiler optimizations. The expression is evaluated only in specific circumstances when it is assigned back to the root data type. This worked fine for regular code for a while because no-one could ever guess the exact type of the expression template type returned, so you couldn't store the template. You could only write stuff like BaseType result = foo + bar;. However, suddenly everyone writes
BaseType foo = 3;
auto result = foo + GetBar();
And now the type of "result" isn't BaseType, it's actually the expression template type, unevaluated, and referring a temporary return value from GetBar() that "magically" worked before because you couldn't store the result value anywhere previously:)
There is no benefit to knowing how to make a Make file if you're only going to compile a Windows app.
There are many benefits to it, not least the broken way that Visual Studio manages settings for different configurations and platforms - i.e. that the default editing mode is always "just the active configuration and platform", which is nearly always wrong.
If you dare have a project format that VS, Eclipse, or what have you, doesn't understand, and you have to set up the environment to do everything manually./p>
You can use CMake to generate Visual Studio projects (and XCode projects, makefiles, probably Eclipse projects, I haven't a clue). From text files, so they are reproducible, for different versions of Visual Studio, without all that messing around accidentally changing a setting only in Release mode to find out a week later that you broke the Debug build. I worked in VS exclusively for, oh, probably about 15 years. I like the way it works for debugging, text editing, and some sugar like intellisense, plugins to switch between headers and source files, etc., but I wouldn't go back to using it without CMake for the types of projects (cross-platform) that I'm now working on.
Heck, I probably wouldn't do it for windows-only projects, mostly because of the pain in the arse that configuration management can end up being.
Enough! Its already got a spec probably more complicated that the space shuttle , just let us get on with using it instead of throwing in ever more useless features that only ever seem to get used in job interview questions!
But how else would they be able to limit the number of actual C++ experts in the world to three, at all times?
What is missing from the question, and being filled in by expectation by many of the previous posters to this story, is how you define your bugs that you want your developers to fix for free.
If you define a "bug" as an operation that clearly and objectively fails to meet the expectations set out explicitly in your requirements and specs, then you are in the clear. Basically the situation where your specs state: "When presented with A and B the software will do C", and the software does D. Not conforming to the explicit spec is a clear defect that the developer should have caught.
If the "bug" is actually "something the client didn't like in your implementation", then tough. The software performs to spec. It doesn't matter how obvious it seems to you or your client now that you see the software that this isn't desired behavior - the desired behavior was not described in the spec and not included in the quote you got. You made an error of omission in your spec - it's your error to fix, not the developer's. If you think through on this path you will start to realize that writing a totally air-tight spec is outside of your ability. Stop trying. You aren't that good. No, you really aren't. There are going to be areas where you, the client, and the developer have very different opinions on the severity or "correctness" of certain behaviors not specified in your spec.
Finally, realize that you are actually taking a passively antagonistic stance to your developers. A priori you are assuming that they will deliberately add bugs to inflate their income. This is bullshit. Contract developers are smart people. They know "recurring business". These guys may be *smarter than you*. The good ones are not out to get you, they want you to be happy with their services so you come back the next time. So drop the antagonism and work with them on the actual issues. Meeting each other at a reasonable half way point works wonders in any relationship, including professional ones.
That sounds more like a management issue than it does an H1-B problem.
You can't manage your way to good code, and you can't manage all 9 month projects into 1 month by hiring more people.
Any management action to alleviate the former will worsen the latter: you can have stringent checks on the quality of your code, but all management can do is to say "not good enough, do it better", further slipping the schedule.
There is a pretty long list actually of places with serious inflation in recent times. It's not unlikely that there are slashdot posters from those areas, who have indeed experienced a currency collapse or at least runaway inflation in their lifetime.
Slashdot Mirror
How shellfish of them.
You cannot teach religion in school.
Not every religion believes in creationism, nor in intelligent design. Both are mainly espoused by only 4 religions.
All scientists believe in evolution. The facts are there to present in unbiased form.
You can teach the facts of religion, in unbiased form, perfectly fine. I know this, because I've witnessed it, in a Catholic (!) school in the UK. They covered most major religions and the differences between them, without claiming any of them was right or wrong. No, Catholicism didn't get preferential treatment in that class. Faith and religion are important factors in most societies and covering them (correctly) in school is probably a good thing to ensure well-informed individuals.
So, they can read the front page of the newspaper, before it squashes them. Handy!
By the time they've read it they probably *want* to die.
How do you snap two windows side by side in XP? I move them side-by-side. How hard is that?
Shortcut-based or screen-edge-based snapping is several orders of magnitude faster than tweaking window sizes to actually fit two windows to each fill exactly their half of the screen. It gets even more fun when snapping on multi-monitor setups - which you can do on Win7 using the windows-key/arrow-key shortcuts. It matters. I do it hundreds of times a day when developing, debugging, or writing documents.
How do you utilize more than 3GB of your memory in XP? XP supports up to 4GB of memory
The OS supports 32-bit systems with up to 4Gb of physical memory, but you cannot get more than 3GB of virtual address space for a single process in XP, and that is if you use the 3GB switch and the process was compiled to be large memory aware, otherwise your XP process is limited to 2GB.
The only reason people believe 7 is good is because it's the Service Pack for Vista which was so horrible. Of course 7 looks good when you use that comparison.
Dissenting opinion: I ran Vista Home Basic 64bit for a long time. No eye-candy (it's not in Home Basic), not that many system requirements (because all of the "cool stuff" I didn't want wasn't included anyway). It worked just fine. I never noticed much difference between Vista and 7, just some tweaks of features that were actually in Vista, and some small usability upgrades such as the task bar with pinning (which I like, it has uses). I think Vista just broke the ice in terms of the new driver model to support 64bit, and lots of people were annoyed at 3rd party manufacturers just not being up-to-date with their drivers.
I've got no real beef with XP, but it's not "magically perfect". I happily ran Win2K WAY past its sell-by date back in the XP release days because I disliked the default candyland look and feel and 2K was fine for my purposes. I have also recently installed a Windows 7 32-bit on an ancient machine with an Athlon XP3000+ processor, and it ran incredibly smoothly considering how old and "windows 7 unready" the hardware was. I understand the frustration at the EOL forcing an upgrade when what you have works perfectly fine, but I sincerely doubt there are real technical reasons for XP to be "better" that actually apply to many people beyond emotional responses to change.
I'm all for pushing the envelope. I constantly tell my engineers to work on side projects, even during work hours. If you have an idea, hack on it and perfect it. Push your envelope, but don't use the company's products as your own personal validation vehicle.
I understand your sentiment, but it's not the only way to solve the problem of the state of "pushing the envelope" code. I encourage my engineers to give any solution they've implemented a second look, immediately after finishing the implementation, and if they have any sort of misgivings about the complexity, quality, documentation, completeness or any other feature, do it again. This is supported by instant code reviews by other engineers who will also voice their misgivings about those features.
It usually takes very little time to re-do a fresh implementation, even if it is from scratch, and it means that hours or days after the "first" version we're already on the second or third, and this version is so much better and simpler than the initial one it surprises us a lot of the time. Not coincidentally, the code often also changes from "pushing the envelope" to "oh, there's a solution that doesn't require any trickiness". But the engineer has pushed their envelope on production code with production problems, and all involved will now know the simpler solution the next time something similar comes up.
I think you've created an endless loop there. You need an exit condition for the likely case that the rockstar is unable to think of something that isn't douchey.
No you don't - at some point the other party will stop waiting for your answer and walk away, terminating the process.
When Windows XP on a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 with 3.2GB of ram and a 500GB Western Digital Black Edition drive is much (much) more responsive than Windows 8 x64 running on a Socket 2011 system with an i7-3820 3.6Ghz cpu with 16GB of ram and a 2TB Western Digital Black Edition drive there's something seriously wrong under the hood.
In a pinch I installed Windows 7 32bit on a machine with an Athlon XP3000+ with 1GB of memory, to do multitrack audiorecording on location. It ran just fine. I don't get what people mean with "responsiveness" in these contexts.
We tried feeding the cats Bitcoins, but it turned out the coins were already full of crap.
Why people have such a problem with the fact that he was in the army, supposedly serving his country, and did something that he was forbidden to do, and so should face the consequences? .
Because "I was just following orders" should never, ever, ever be a legitimate reason for committing crimes against humanity.
It is that it has been served with a demand for information/wire-tapping along with an attached gag order, courtesy of the 'Star Chamber'.
Do the gag also orders also order you to write 2000+ words of false information on why you're shutting down? Because if you're trying to hint that you're not allowed to talk about the reasons, inventing valid but false reasons would seem to be the wrong way to go about it.
Why would they be false reasons? They might be the subset of all the true reasons that PJ is actually allowed to talk about.
Management is easy to make fun of, but there's a definite difference between good management and bad management.
Ah, but is there a difference between good management and no management?
Do yourself a favor and do away with the "syntactic sugar" crutch and try to judge a language proposal on it's own merits. Is it better to write 3+5 than 3.add(5) ?
The answer is obviously YES
Except someone overloaded the + operator to return an expression template type so that a longer expression might be collapsed into a simpler statement through compiler optimizations. The expression is evaluated only in specific circumstances when it is assigned back to the root data type. This worked fine for regular code for a while because no-one could ever guess the exact type of the expression template type returned, so you couldn't store the template. You could only write stuff like BaseType result = foo + bar;. However, suddenly everyone writes
And now the type of "result" isn't BaseType, it's actually the expression template type, unevaluated, and referring a temporary return value from GetBar() that "magically" worked before because you couldn't store the result value anywhere previously :)
There is no benefit to knowing how to make a Make file if you're only going to compile a Windows app.
There are many benefits to it, not least the broken way that Visual Studio manages settings for different configurations and platforms - i.e. that the default editing mode is always "just the active configuration and platform", which is nearly always wrong.
If you dare have a project format that VS, Eclipse, or what have you, doesn't understand, and you have to set up the environment to do everything manually. /p>
You can use CMake to generate Visual Studio projects (and XCode projects, makefiles, probably Eclipse projects, I haven't a clue). From text files, so they are reproducible, for different versions of Visual Studio, without all that messing around accidentally changing a setting only in Release mode to find out a week later that you broke the Debug build. I worked in VS exclusively for, oh, probably about 15 years. I like the way it works for debugging, text editing, and some sugar like intellisense, plugins to switch between headers and source files, etc., but I wouldn't go back to using it without CMake for the types of projects (cross-platform) that I'm now working on.
Heck, I probably wouldn't do it for windows-only projects, mostly because of the pain in the arse that configuration management can end up being.
Impressive... this must be the most successful targeted social engineering malware yet.
They just can't leave the damn language alone.
Enough! Its already got a spec probably more complicated that the space shuttle , just let us get on with using it instead of throwing in ever more useless features that only ever seem to get used in job interview questions!
But how else would they be able to limit the number of actual C++ experts in the world to three, at all times?
I prefer the shorter, more cynical version of that statement: "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".
These days it seems you're not a full-fledged member of society until you've chosen your particular brand of victimhood.
I feel normal. That makes me anxious that I'm different from everyone else.
What is missing from the question, and being filled in by expectation by many of the previous posters to this story, is how you define your bugs that you want your developers to fix for free.
If you define a "bug" as an operation that clearly and objectively fails to meet the expectations set out explicitly in your requirements and specs, then you are in the clear. Basically the situation where your specs state: "When presented with A and B the software will do C", and the software does D. Not conforming to the explicit spec is a clear defect that the developer should have caught.
If the "bug" is actually "something the client didn't like in your implementation", then tough. The software performs to spec. It doesn't matter how obvious it seems to you or your client now that you see the software that this isn't desired behavior - the desired behavior was not described in the spec and not included in the quote you got. You made an error of omission in your spec - it's your error to fix, not the developer's.
If you think through on this path you will start to realize that writing a totally air-tight spec is outside of your ability. Stop trying. You aren't that good. No, you really aren't. There are going to be areas where you, the client, and the developer have very different opinions on the severity or "correctness" of certain behaviors not specified in your spec.
Finally, realize that you are actually taking a passively antagonistic stance to your developers. A priori you are assuming that they will deliberately add bugs to inflate their income. This is bullshit. Contract developers are smart people. They know "recurring business". These guys may be *smarter than you*. The good ones are not out to get you, they want you to be happy with their services so you come back the next time. So drop the antagonism and work with them on the actual issues. Meeting each other at a reasonable half way point works wonders in any relationship, including professional ones.
I think the only proper response at such a moment from me is..
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.....................
I see you are one of the 40% of healthy adults who struggle with sarcasm. Don't worry, you are in good company.
I see you are one of the 102% of basement dwellers who struggles with Poe's Law.
Woosh ;-)
That sounds more like a management issue than it does an H1-B problem.
You can't manage your way to good code, and you can't manage all 9 month projects into 1 month by hiring more people.
Any management action to alleviate the former will worsen the latter: you can have stringent checks on the quality of your code, but all management can do is to say "not good enough, do it better", further slipping the schedule.
Traditionally, when you're joking you should write something that's funny.
Thank you mods for modding this comment funny.
There is a pretty long list actually of places with serious inflation in recent times. It's not unlikely that there are slashdot posters from those areas, who have indeed experienced a currency collapse or at least runaway inflation in their lifetime.