Another (highly upstream) impediment to combat effectiveness
is a change of attitude away from combat-based resolution.
O, to have hackers so skilled, from any nation,
that yang may cede to yin, at least for a few years, in our lifetimes...
This is not a discovery; making a model is part of the process, true
(forming a hypothesis), but there is no validation. Anyone can poke
a few formulas into a spreadsheet and call themselves scientists,
otherwise.
Furthermore, doesn't the subject matter have something to do with
the maleability (or commitedness) of the individuals? How is that
addressed in the study?
Kind of opposite of "anonymous coward" is the "authenticated coward",
which is what this "culture of restraint" will encourage. You are
someone only if you don't say anything. Anyone who says something
(not officially condoned) is a persona non grata.
It used to be only super burglers needed to don the (invariably black)
gloves and/or wipe their fingerprints from every surface. Now, it's
become a common concern.
I can see it now, nestled eye-level with the toothbrushes and mouthwash,
in a spring green box with a smart creme-colored swoosh on the side:
SWASN'T ME! (tm) retractable screen wipes (attractive wrist band included!)
A joint venture between Swifter and Swatch, of course...
A lot of the discussion is justification for ownership
on the grounds of utility, style, and so forth.
Fine.
But i still wonder: Does ownership of this product
(or any other, really) help one develop empathy for
those for whom such justifications are not fitting?
Much twistings heard tell to escape the uncomfortabe "elite"
monicker; what of the equally important "selfish" portion?
That is, it is a force (of marketing, primarily) that pulls one toward a
conclusion, as gravity pulls the lesser mass towards the greater (though, to
be more precise, both exhibit displacement, proportionally). Given a
situation such as the budding programmer approaching the world of programming
from space, with its massive history, refined thought (theoretic and
practical), and culture, "fast and easy" might result in a crash landing on
(in)hospitable shores, a permanent orbit, or a tangential flyby of brief
duration.
Much depends on the wit and will of this budding programmer in the presence
of this force. I tend to think the inexperienced overrate their capacity in
this regard, unfortunately, and that's why "fast and easy", though it be
potentially valid and fulfilling, does not sit well with me generally.
(Perhaps that's why I remain stuck on Earth, still...):-/
I am a programmer around long enough to literally hear bulldozers and
chain-link fences clinking around big holes in the ground at the sight of the
word "developer". (Insert more hallucinogenic curmudgeonly grumbling here.)
More on topic, I have no qualms admitting that "fast and easy" programming
"solutions" might indeed be so, but still can't help but wonder what else is
missing. What are the consequences of "fast and easy" programming?
Those words bring to mind news articles of car and train wrecks, where
speed is always an aggravating factor, and attaining that speed never seems
too difficult or too ambitious at the onset, prior to the accident.
A wreck is definitely not desirable if one aspires to Quality (in the ZAMM
--Pirsig sense), for a wreck completely removes the moment of perception from
the scene, by removing the perceiver (or more precisely, the motivating force
(perhaps in the gravest cases, the life) of the perceiver).
I think, rather than pushing "fast and easy", a better pair of adjectives
would be "strong and flexible" (like a rope, or a towel, say). The programming
languages, environments and mindsets based on these fundamental metaphors admit
guidance from a mentor (on the "other end" of the experience divide, pulling)
quite readily.
The consequences may in the end result in "fast and easy" development of
the program, of the programmer, of the mindset, anyway. It depends not only
on the budding programmer, but also on the relationship between the teacher
and the student (both of whom may be the same programmer, why not?).
Given this is some PR piece, it is still telling what nuggets are exposed (in
the summary, which is more than enough for this reader). Let's see here:
police escort
WTF?! Yeah, who doesn't know that "special
feeling" you get with a police car on your tail for the last 20 minutes
of a post-midnight excursion. Last time that happened to me (in Cupertino of
all places, go figure), I didn't really think "yeah, this is just like
Microsoft", but maybe next time that's what will be on my mind!
MBA intern
WTF?!**2 [0]
Can't feature a tech type, since Google is more attractive to those.
Can't feature a visionary, since those tend to require freedom
(to have visions and, you know, innovate). Besides, those would
also find a better siren song from Google.
What's left? Larval parasitic bureaucrat-functionary types
(i.e., the MBA crowd), that's what. Possibily to ameliorate this
obvious weakness, there's a nice non-WASP name thrown in the mix.
Slashdot Mirror
As in Hieronymus, with the "shouldered on the pocketbooks" clause (rolls eyes).
There must be some seriously fine wine flowing somewhere, today.
First of all, congrats on focusing on life outside of computers. Good on you.
Next, to answer your question. How about liquidwar?
Another (highly upstream) impediment to combat effectiveness is a change of attitude away from combat-based resolution. O, to have hackers so skilled, from any nation, that yang may cede to yin, at least for a few years, in our lifetimes...
(end lament)
that's a little over 909 kilos.
remember your audience!
oop ack, snort!
First they "As-A-Service"ed the search and I did not speak out,
for I was not a search specialist.
Then they AASed the aggregation and I did not speak out,
for I was not an aggregation specialist.
Then they AASed the compiler, ...
Then they AASed the debugger, ...
Then they AASed the programmer, ...
They they AASed the algorithmist, ...
Then they AASed the thinker, ...
Then they AASed the lover, ...
Then they programmed us remaining robots to never speak out again.
This is not a discovery; making a model is part of the process, true (forming a hypothesis), but there is no validation. Anyone can poke a few formulas into a spreadsheet and call themselves scientists, otherwise.
Furthermore, doesn't the subject matter have something to do with the maleability (or commitedness) of the individuals? How is that addressed in the study?
Kind of opposite of "anonymous coward" is the "authenticated coward", which is what this "culture of restraint" will encourage. You are someone only if you don't say anything. Anyone who says something (not officially condoned) is a persona non grata.
Yuck! Someone tag this Do Not Want, please.
Exsqueeze me, but Emacs is not on that list.
USGOV: No need, we have a seal team for that.
Diplomacy requires lots of hand-shaking, true.
But this?
that is all.
The dude was caught in the act. I think "suspect" is more of the same newspeak we hear more and more. V.annoying.
WTF, 1.5 months after the U.S. change of guard and we're already recycling Enron?
"The brain is nothing like a man-made computer."
That's because for most people, the brain is woman-grown.
Thanks, Mom!
(-1, tearjerker :-P)
Well, the
cat POST | tr [A-Z] [a-z] | fold -w1
portion can be handled by sed, though less succinctly:
sed -e 'y/ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ/abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz/' \
-e 's/./&\n/g' POST
It used to be only super burglers needed to don the (invariably black) gloves and/or wipe their fingerprints from every surface. Now, it's become a common concern.
I can see it now, nestled eye-level with the toothbrushes and mouthwash, in a spring green box with a smart creme-colored swoosh on the side:
A joint venture between Swifter and Swatch, of course...
A lot of the discussion is justification for ownership on the grounds of utility, style, and so forth.
Fine.
But i still wonder: Does ownership of this product (or any other, really) help one develop empathy for those for whom such justifications are not fitting?
Much twistings heard tell to escape the uncomfortabe "elite" monicker; what of the equally important "selfish" portion?
Face it: The Buddha was elite, too.
Ahhh, can't resist...
Real hackers don't dread unpleasant tasks. They write code that (perhaps write code that) does the unpleasant task for them.
Nobody can prevent war, famine and suffering.
Nobody can save the economy.
Nobody can brush your teeth for you.
Vote for Nobody!
Unfortunately, it's also true that "nobody has access to your fingerprints". :-O
... is such a lonely word.
everyone is so untrue.
Zarf sez:
In the sense that gravity is a trap, yes.
That is, it is a force (of marketing, primarily) that pulls one toward a conclusion, as gravity pulls the lesser mass towards the greater (though, to be more precise, both exhibit displacement, proportionally). Given a situation such as the budding programmer approaching the world of programming from space, with its massive history, refined thought (theoretic and practical), and culture, "fast and easy" might result in a crash landing on (in)hospitable shores, a permanent orbit, or a tangential flyby of brief duration.
Much depends on the wit and will of this budding programmer in the presence of this force. I tend to think the inexperienced overrate their capacity in this regard, unfortunately, and that's why "fast and easy", though it be potentially valid and fulfilling, does not sit well with me generally.
(Perhaps that's why I remain stuck on Earth, still...) :-/
I am a programmer around long enough to literally hear bulldozers and chain-link fences clinking around big holes in the ground at the sight of the word "developer". (Insert more hallucinogenic curmudgeonly grumbling here.)
More on topic, I have no qualms admitting that "fast and easy" programming "solutions" might indeed be so, but still can't help but wonder what else is missing. What are the consequences of "fast and easy" programming?
Those words bring to mind news articles of car and train wrecks, where speed is always an aggravating factor, and attaining that speed never seems too difficult or too ambitious at the onset, prior to the accident.
A wreck is definitely not desirable if one aspires to Quality (in the ZAMM --Pirsig sense), for a wreck completely removes the moment of perception from the scene, by removing the perceiver (or more precisely, the motivating force (perhaps in the gravest cases, the life) of the perceiver).
I think, rather than pushing "fast and easy", a better pair of adjectives would be "strong and flexible" (like a rope, or a towel, say). The programming languages, environments and mindsets based on these fundamental metaphors admit guidance from a mentor (on the "other end" of the experience divide, pulling) quite readily.
The consequences may in the end result in "fast and easy" development of the program, of the programmer, of the mindset, anyway. It depends not only on the budding programmer, but also on the relationship between the teacher and the student (both of whom may be the same programmer, why not?).
Nothin' proper about ya propaganda
Fools follow rules when the set commands ya
I think you make sense.
What you are saying, essentially, is that HURD has Linux FUSE baked-in.
Given this is some PR piece, it is still telling what nuggets are exposed (in the summary, which is more than enough for this reader). Let's see here:
WTF?! Yeah, who doesn't know that "special feeling" you get with a police car on your tail for the last 20 minutes of a post-midnight excursion. Last time that happened to me (in Cupertino of all places, go figure), I didn't really think "yeah, this is just like Microsoft", but maybe next time that's what will be on my mind!
WTF?!**2 [0] Can't feature a tech type, since Google is more attractive to those. Can't feature a visionary, since those tend to require freedom (to have visions and, you know, innovate). Besides, those would also find a better siren song from Google. What's left? Larval parasitic bureaucrat-functionary types (i.e., the MBA crowd), that's what. Possibily to ameliorate this obvious weakness, there's a nice non-WASP name thrown in the mix.
Feh. Must you consort with minors?
Thanks, Microsoft. Now, I need to go wash my keyboard...
-
[0] (props to Backus -- he did have the balls to dis von Neumann, after all)