I would fire somebody telling me that is their reason not to accept some piece of code.
What, that they used the wrong documentation standards? I've fired (well, not renewed the contracts of) employees who fail to follow the arbitrary but well-documented code-style guide. Not "has a problem understanding", where it's an ignorance, but active antipathy to hungarian notation. Feel however you want about it personally, but it was like that when I got here, it'll be like that when I leave, and all the codebase will look the same damnit.
A project with as many contributers as Wine should have room for more than one programming styles than one
The more contributors, the more important having only one programming style is. Of course, it's more important that the programming style be described in a document, and rejections should point out areas of the document violated. In some cases, it may also require modifying the document.
But code should look the same within a project (ideally between projects as well).
The main difference is that C is, and always will be, optimized at compile time. Virtual machine languages can dynamically optimize themselves at runtime. Some of the later iteration of the Java and.NET runtimes can notice patterns at runtime (which is an initial performance hit, obviously), and then make assumptions about further calls, and just making sure that they're not messing up
Actually, C and C++ can also notice patterns at runtime. An analyzer is set up to observe the program at runtime, and it can be optimized and relinked. Granted, this only happens a few times at the dev site, but the cost for it only occurs there as well.
Hence my second sentence, where I expressed scepticism.
I was making an limited reply to a minor issue, not making a grandiose claim. Just like an occasional patent sounds retarded when taken out of context.
Emulating the look and feel of Windows isn't going to change the fact that their needs aren't satisfied by Linux.
I don't switch primarily because of look and feel issues. I know how to do everything on a Windows system, anything that works differently feels "broken", even if it's a valid alternative choice.
As one example, to install software, I can go on the web, find the primary site for it, make sure it passes malware tests, and install it. On Linux, there's a repository (as I understand, never figured that part out). That may be a technologically superior option, but that means I have to trust the repository buildier. And it's not as though Linux is somehow immmune to malware that lets me skip that step. Anytime I install software it can do something I didn't except, on any OS.
Just a different flow means that little things I take for granted are missing, which makes it feel bad, which means I switch back to the land of "Start" buttons.
I doubt that some of the more disgusting, boring or socially stigmatized jobs necessary to make society function would be filled if everyone in the population were well off enough to be "better than that."
My intention wasn't to make everyone "better than that." I just feel there is enough money floating around that, if all you want to do is lie in a small apartment with goods necessary to survive, you can do it. It seems that we could save money by not needing welfare/social security/medicaid/etc. and unifying all those aspects of the government, and no longer have to worry about qualifying people and the cost involved there. It would lower wages paid (since the government would pick up more costs), like how WalMart gets the government to subsidize their employees but for everyone. These lower wages would curtail illegal immigration. It wouldn't force people to stay on Welfare, because it pays more than working.
But I think that those jobs would still be filled... after all, what college graduate would rather lie around doing nothing and having nothing, rather than working a shit job, and getting a car, the money to buy booze, etc? Most fast food companies hire predomenately teenagers who fit that exact model. They want money for things their parents won't cover, not basic necessities.
Also, if no one was truely forced into working as a janitor, etc I think that it would remove some social stigma associated with it. Being a janitor was not something you were forced into... it's something you choose to do and everyone would know it.
The state of the economic coercion does not change whether prostitution is legal or not.
I tend to agree... except that a) there can be no governmental coercion and b) the government supplies a countervaling coercion, reducing the total need to become a prostitute.
I don't see a reason why there could not be special provisions regarding sex work as a recognized labor category, including a prohibition on requiring that it be considered in determining unemployment or welfare eligibility.
If I'm offended by having to work as a pig farmer (some religions forbid it) do I have to take a job as a pig farmer? Do I have to take jobs that have a risk of injury (coal mining) Is there some upper limit on it?
Decriminalization means that those who wish to engage in such activities are free to do so and have legal recourse to pursue abusers without fear of persecution themselves, which may actually be the best way to avoid exchanging one exploitative system for another.
I'm not sure why decriminalization needs to be so "crime by crime" basis. Why not simply make a rule that "reporting of a crime that occured while committing a different crime, shall not be used against the reporter." Obviously, it seems to require a bit of tuning, but it would solve: illegal immigrants working conditions, prostitution, and hell even serve a roundabout way to put quality control on street drugs.
Maybe we can even decriminalize one side of those transactions as a rule though. Buying might be decriminalized, but selling still not. Turning tricks might be decriminalized, but hiring a hooker not. Working as an illegal immegrant... well, you get the idea.
You're making the bold assumption that electing a "democrat" is in the view of nadar voters a better outcome than electing a "republican". Perhaps those Nader voters felt differently?
No, I'm making the bold assumption that electing Al Gore is a different (and better) outcome than electing W. I think history has proven that we would have been better off if the President had been choosen entirely at random (or was a random "yes/no machine").
Anyone who frames an election in terms of a "democrat" vs. a "republican", and yet somehow denegrates the two-party system as limiting choices or thought among the voters, is ridiculously inconsistent.
That said, I do think that Nader voters thought "Heh, there's no difference between a generic democrat and a generic republican, so I shouldn't look at the individual people running." Those people are morons.
Nader voters who refused to vote for Al Gore hated the player, not the game.
There is an organization called Coyote that argues that "prostitution businesses such as brothels, massage parlors and escort services, should be operated like any other business in the community, [and] such businesses should be subject only to the same business and civil regulations which are imposed on other businesses in the area."
Gov't B'crat: I'm sorry, you seem to not be willing to take the job of "hooker" that was offered to you. I now have to discontinue your unemployment benefits.
Same as, if you make selling kidneys/lungs/parts of livers legal, bankrupcies just got a lot less comfortable.
As long as we refuse to accept that dire economic need is a form of coersion, there's going to be a bunch of people uncomfortable with people being forced to make money in some ways. Now, if there was enough welfare that people worked for benefits and not survival (worked for TVs/cars/entertainment, not food/shelter/basic clothes/medicine) then a lot of other regulation could go away.
is the state of an object in classical mechanics. The position of an object is 3-dimensional. The state, however, is 6-dimensional: your position (3D) and momentum (3D).
You left our its orientation (3D) and it's angular monmentum (3D) (assuming non-point objects). Hence 12-D at least.
o I cannot understand why anyone should be able to patent this.
He patented it in a very specific case. There were eight restrictions that all had to be met for his patent to be applicable. One was that it had to be a competition where 4+ robots were competing. Another was that it was that the teams were students.
In other words, the patent seems to be on "running the scoring system of FRIST" instead of "ranking based on opponents strength, as a principle."
The 'theory' have given us the latest, and most reviled, generation to enter the workplace: The 'millenials,' widely know for both a sense of entitlement and shirking individual responsibility for results.
Get off my lawn!
That's just old codger talk. "Blah, the newest generation is the worst."
The 60's clearly produced the worst generation. They spread veneral disease like, well, a plague. They shirked more responsibility in Viet Nam than the millenials ever did. They decided that getting high was a good idea and fubared things but good.
Worst generation ever.
Or, as Tom Brokow might say, "reversion to the mean"
It was characterized in the 'nobody go for the blond' scene in "A Beautiful Mind".
That scene destoryed 1000 minds, precisly because that's not a Nash equilibrium. One should try to get the blonde, and the others should go for the brunettes.
Second, the ranking system is not an example of game theory. Game theory explains how to win inside the system; it doesn't define the system itself.
determining "what combination of speed states across time will execute this sequence of instructions with the lowest energy cost, subject to the desireability of having the results sooner rather than later?" is a solvable problem.
That assumes we want the results sooner rather than later. For most phone apps, this isn't the case. So you can get extra power savings if you know when you want the results. Which they guess by how annoyed the user is.
then the manager should have stepped-in and corrected the situation, but in this case it sounds like the manager did nothing.
Update to his blog, published before your post, indicates that the manager already explained that he doesn't know who claimed the guy was banned, but he is not.
The manager isn't omnipotent. Publicizing forces the company to be defensive.
If nothing happened, then publicizing make sense, but you have to give it time to percolate up to the manager by bringing it to her attention and/or corporates'. But give the entity a chance to fix it first.
And yes, it could be publicized about the cops. But you can wait a few weeks. Why not give the department a chance to censure the cop first.
You presented no rational for publicizing it to the world before making a formal complaint.
slashdot running this story on the front page is important becuase it should send an explicit message to every company who hires private security. Dealing with the public means you don't threaten to TACKLE someone.
Only two employees think that. No douybt there was a training course explaining they couldn't. How responsible can a company be for sifting through all it's employees?
Let's say there was a machine that determined how "good" an employee would be, by scanning their brain. Wouldn't everyone object to it being used as an invasion of privacy? I would. Freedom is sometimes chaotic.
I'll watch for their response, though. If REI can adequately explain why they didn't ask the Loomis guards to leave after they were harassing a customer, or why they banned their own customer for being harassed by the Loomis guards, then I might.
We already know why.
The REI guards thought the Loomis guards had a legal right to do what they were doing... probably with less information than we have now. The REI corporation never heard about it until this blitzkrieg, so the comments are filling up with "OMG, REI iz teh evil0r" while REI "no comments" until they figure out what the hell is going on.
In a month, they'll have sent an apology and to the guy, and have lifted the ban.
Slashdot won't run that story on the front page, so 99.99% of the people pissed off at REI will never hear about it... if the original blogger even bothers to inform anyone of it.
To say nothing of putting up this story wihtout giving REI or Loomis a chance to apologize. In general, you should give companies a chance to make amends before you publicize bad behavior on a couple of employee's part and damage their reputation.
It's not uncommon to have a few idiots on payroll. Wait until you know how they'll react so you can include it in your blog.
The War on Terror(TM) has become the War on Photographers.
A month or three ago, someone high up in a locality (NYC? DC? ???), someone with the power to do so, declared the draconian anti-photography laws over in his juristiction. Anyone remember where? Or am I crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
What, that they used the wrong documentation standards? I've fired (well, not renewed the contracts of) employees who fail to follow the arbitrary but well-documented code-style guide. Not "has a problem understanding", where it's an ignorance, but active antipathy to hungarian notation. Feel however you want about it personally, but it was like that when I got here, it'll be like that when I leave, and all the codebase will look the same damnit.
The more contributors, the more important having only one programming style is. Of course, it's more important that the programming style be described in a document, and rejections should point out areas of the document violated. In some cases, it may also require modifying the document.
But code should look the same within a project (ideally between projects as well).
Actually, C and C++ can also notice patterns at runtime. An analyzer is set up to observe the program at runtime, and it can be optimized and relinked. Granted, this only happens a few times at the dev site, but the cost for it only occurs there as well.
At what level is your challenge? Can a single function suffice? A whole program? I'm assuming your C code cannot devolve into calling ASM directly?
Isn't "a trailer-park dweller and his great-grandson", redundnant?
Hence my second sentence, where I expressed scepticism.
I was making an limited reply to a minor issue, not making a grandiose claim. Just like an occasional patent sounds retarded when taken out of context.
According to the RIAA they only are planning on searching the data for an unreleased album.
Believe it or not but if it was limited to this case, there is no worry about legitimate songs.
I don't switch primarily because of look and feel issues. I know how to do everything on a Windows system, anything that works differently feels "broken", even if it's a valid alternative choice.
As one example, to install software, I can go on the web, find the primary site for it, make sure it passes malware tests, and install it. On Linux, there's a repository (as I understand, never figured that part out). That may be a technologically superior option, but that means I have to trust the repository buildier. And it's not as though Linux is somehow immmune to malware that lets me skip that step. Anytime I install software it can do something I didn't except, on any OS.
Just a different flow means that little things I take for granted are missing, which makes it feel bad, which means I switch back to the land of "Start" buttons.
In the space we see all around us, it's 3D. Roll/Pitch/Yaw. Rotation around any of the axes.
My intention wasn't to make everyone "better than that." I just feel there is enough money floating around that, if all you want to do is lie in a small apartment with goods necessary to survive, you can do it. It seems that we could save money by not needing welfare/social security/medicaid/etc. and unifying all those aspects of the government, and no longer have to worry about qualifying people and the cost involved there. It would lower wages paid (since the government would pick up more costs), like how WalMart gets the government to subsidize their employees but for everyone. These lower wages would curtail illegal immigration. It wouldn't force people to stay on Welfare, because it pays more than working.
But I think that those jobs would still be filled... after all, what college graduate would rather lie around doing nothing and having nothing, rather than working a shit job, and getting a car, the money to buy booze, etc? Most fast food companies hire predomenately teenagers who fit that exact model. They want money for things their parents won't cover, not basic necessities.
Also, if no one was truely forced into working as a janitor, etc I think that it would remove some social stigma associated with it. Being a janitor was not something you were forced into... it's something you choose to do and everyone would know it.
I tend to agree... except that a) there can be no governmental coercion and b) the government supplies a countervaling coercion, reducing the total need to become a prostitute.
If I'm offended by having to work as a pig farmer (some religions forbid it) do I have to take a job as a pig farmer? Do I have to take jobs that have a risk of injury (coal mining) Is there some upper limit on it?
I'm not sure why decriminalization needs to be so "crime by crime" basis. Why not simply make a rule that "reporting of a crime that occured while committing a different crime, shall not be used against the reporter." Obviously, it seems to require a bit of tuning, but it would solve: illegal immigrants working conditions, prostitution, and hell even serve a roundabout way to put quality control on street drugs.
Maybe we can even decriminalize one side of those transactions as a rule though. Buying might be decriminalized, but selling still not. Turning tricks might be decriminalized, but hiring a hooker not. Working as an illegal immegrant... well, you get the idea.
No, I'm making the bold assumption that electing Al Gore is a different (and better) outcome than electing W. I think history has proven that we would have been better off if the President had been choosen entirely at random (or was a random "yes/no machine").
Anyone who frames an election in terms of a "democrat" vs. a "republican", and yet somehow denegrates the two-party system as limiting choices or thought among the voters, is ridiculously inconsistent.
That said, I do think that Nader voters thought "Heh, there's no difference between a generic democrat and a generic republican, so I shouldn't look at the individual people running." Those people are morons.
Nader voters who refused to vote for Al Gore hated the player, not the game.
Gov't B'crat: I'm sorry, you seem to not be willing to take the job of "hooker" that was offered to you. I now have to discontinue your unemployment benefits.
Same as, if you make selling kidneys/lungs/parts of livers legal, bankrupcies just got a lot less comfortable.
As long as we refuse to accept that dire economic need is a form of coersion, there's going to be a bunch of people uncomfortable with people being forced to make money in some ways. Now, if there was enough welfare that people worked for benefits and not survival (worked for TVs/cars/entertainment, not food/shelter/basic clothes/medicine) then a lot of other regulation could go away.
You left our its orientation (3D) and it's angular monmentum (3D) (assuming non-point objects). Hence 12-D at least.
He patented it in a very specific case. There were eight restrictions that all had to be met for his patent to be applicable. One was that it had to be a competition where 4+ robots were competing. Another was that it was that the teams were students.
In other words, the patent seems to be on "running the scoring system of FRIST" instead of "ranking based on opponents strength, as a principle."
Get off my lawn!
That's just old codger talk. "Blah, the newest generation is the worst."
The 60's clearly produced the worst generation. They spread veneral disease like, well, a plague. They shirked more responsibility in Viet Nam than the millenials ever did. They decided that getting high was a good idea and fubared things but good.
Worst generation ever.
Or, as Tom Brokow might say, "reversion to the mean"
That scene destoryed 1000 minds, precisly because that's not a Nash equilibrium. One should try to get the blonde, and the others should go for the brunettes.
Second, the ranking system is not an example of game theory. Game theory explains how to win inside the system; it doesn't define the system itself.
Not at all. The patent is extremely specific to a four+ robot competition.
That assumes we want the results sooner rather than later. For most phone apps, this isn't the case. So you can get extra power savings if you know when you want the results. Which they guess by how annoyed the user is.
Update to his blog, published before your post, indicates that the manager already explained that he doesn't know who claimed the guy was banned, but he is not.
The manager isn't omnipotent. Publicizing forces the company to be defensive.
If nothing happened, then publicizing make sense, but you have to give it time to percolate up to the manager by bringing it to her attention and/or corporates'. But give the entity a chance to fix it first.
And yes, it could be publicized about the cops. But you can wait a few weeks. Why not give the department a chance to censure the cop first.
You presented no rational for publicizing it to the world before making a formal complaint.
Only two employees think that. No douybt there was a training course explaining they couldn't. How responsible can a company be for sifting through all it's employees?
Let's say there was a machine that determined how "good" an employee would be, by scanning their brain. Wouldn't everyone object to it being used as an invasion of privacy? I would. Freedom is sometimes chaotic.
We already know why.
The REI guards thought the Loomis guards had a legal right to do what they were doing... probably with less information than we have now. The REI corporation never heard about it until this blitzkrieg, so the comments are filling up with "OMG, REI iz teh evil0r" while REI "no comments" until they figure out what the hell is going on.
In a month, they'll have sent an apology and to the guy, and have lifted the ban.
Slashdot won't run that story on the front page, so 99.99% of the people pissed off at REI will never hear about it... if the original blogger even bothers to inform anyone of it.
It's pretty unfair to REI.
Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right.
Just because some people overstepped their authority, and were wrong, doesn't mean that the blogger isn't also wrong.
To say nothing of putting up this story wihtout giving REI or Loomis a chance to apologize. In general, you should give companies a chance to make amends before you publicize bad behavior on a couple of employee's part and damage their reputation.
It's not uncommon to have a few idiots on payroll. Wait until you know how they'll react so you can include it in your blog.
A month or three ago, someone high up in a locality (NYC? DC? ???), someone with the power to do so, declared the draconian anti-photography laws over in his juristiction. Anyone remember where? Or am I crazy.
This guy was in Washington (State). In my state, no suspicion is required. But my state sucks something horrible.