I also know some old-school UNIX admins and mainframe guys who cringe at the notion that a reboot can be a viable way of troubleshooting/making the problem go away. Because they don't reboot unless God himself has filled out all of the right paperwork, and only then if he's got a really good reason and there are no alternatives.
I've seen issues where rebooting a Linux machine actually causes more problems than it solves.
As long as the kernel is still running nearly every other software issue on a Unix/Linux system can be fixed. And a few firmware/hardware issues, too.
In the US we're already a socialist country with a managed economy. We just seem to disagree on how socialist we should be and who should enjoy the benefits.
My guess is that it will be all about hitting bases, and ignoring spacecrafts.
Don't be so sure.
As soon as someone is thinking about destroying your immobile base with mobile craft, you're going to worry about stopping their craft from reaching it.
Combat ships, if they exist, would probably be spherical. If there is anything resembling a cannon, there will probably be a single one and aiming will involve rotating the craft (or some sort of gimbal) around the center of the craft, for faster positioning.
Macross this will not be. More like 2001 with guns and silent, ship-shattering kabooms.
When a lion ate a lamb, what happened to it if death didn't exist?
The image I have in my head is horrible, just horrible, if things continued to live after being eaten. Or experienced bone-shattering falls, or drownings.
Are you sure this is a merciful god we're talking about?
This isn't a contradiction. It is possible to learn new behaviors and suppress old ones. Just because a behavior is biologically based doesn't mean that it is right, and doesn't mean that we cannot overcome it and behave better.
The trouble is, you still wind up with HTML and CSS, except that it won't render well on but half the screens and browsers, you will have no idea how screwed it is on any screen you haven't tried it on.
Have you ever even used Dreamweaver? In comments people keep beating this drum that all HTML IDEs like Dreamweaver produce bloated, incompatible code. You all act like it's Frontpage or something.
Dreamweaver can produce crap in the hands of people that don't know what they're doing. Any tool can, no matter how complex or simple.
I'm a programmer that occasionally uses Dreamweaver. I use it to write my HTML and CSS by hand, quickly check the results, and take advantage of code highlighting, tag completion, and syntax checking all in one stop. The web designers that I work with use it similarly - they're using it to produce the best code in the fastest possible way. They interested in making cross-compatible pages and make their due-diligence inside and outside of Dreamweaver to achieve that. Now, if you have used DW or a similar quality IDE and found that your code was buggy and incompatible, then maybe it was your design skills that are lacking, not the IDE.
This thread is for the big boys to discuss alternatives to Dreamweaver - something I'm interested in since I don't know of any good ones myself. If you can, please leave your preconceptions behind and try to add constructively to the conversation, not bat down anything that doesn't agree with your dogma.
I've seen too many previously "good" companies abuse their power once their product is entrenched on everyone's computer
What's your sample size of "good" companies that are present on "everyone's" (read: sizable majority) computers? Only one comes to my mind, Microsoft, and while I agree that it did turn ugly(-ish) a single company does not constitute a reasonable sample.
I believe that a NAT pretty much implies a firewall. The one-to-many relationship inherent in a NAT is effectively a basic firewall to intrusions from the outside world.
You're probably thinking of the benefits of a configurable firewall, including blocking requests to certain ports, etc. All that's helpful, but NAT satisfies the definition of a basic firewall (and provides effective security).
However IME to most developers "self-documenting code" means something more like "you should be smart enough to know how this works from reading my semi-descriptive variable names".
If it was hard to write, it should be hard to read.
In my experience, self-documenting code generally isn't.
Proper documentation never explains what you're doing - that's what the code is for. Documentation explains why you did the things you did, which is difficult to express in self-documenting code.
What you're saying is all well and good, but what can anyone DO about it? It seems that protesting doesn't do much good (see OWS movement), writing your congressman doesn't do much good, voting the rascals out of office doesn't do much good. What ARE we supposed to do about it?
How was this modded "insightful"? There's no insight here, It's so bad it isn't even wrong.
...but I'm pretty sure the groups of people who are extremely artistically deficient and who program are not correlated in any strong way.
I hope you're kidding. Most artists that I know are not particularly technical. Most of the programmers I know are not particularly artistic. Creative, yes, they're both creative activities. The theory of multiple intelligences holds, but the two paths rarely seem to cross.
Linux is difficult to use because of the command line problem
What command line problem? My pre-teen children use Linux, and they don't touch a command line. Ever. I use Linux and I use the command line frequently, but I don't see it as a "problem" but as a path to efficiency, both in creating interfaces (I can create a command-line app much faster than a GIU-based app) and getting my work done (I can restart Apache from a command line in half the time that I can restart IIS by navigating through the GIU). Show me the problem.
Linux is a hodge podge of software that need not work well together.
And a windows system with any third-party database or web server, or a set of third-party domain administration tools is... what, exactly? A hodge-podge. I would wager that a system running IIS or MSSQL is equally a hodgepodge under the hood, but the branding is more consistent.
user space stuff isn't tested with rigor to work 100% of the time like kernel mode stuff
Citation desperately needed. I think that several million long-term Apache installations on various Linux, Unix, and Windows servers would beg to differ.
But overall, as a programmer, I do take offense to not knowing how to design a UI.
Why? I have my areas of expertise. I'm not offended that someone understands a discipline better than I do and I take their inputs with gratitude.
I know perfectly well how to.
I have worked with people like you. You don't know nearly as well as you think you do. Sure, you may be able to design an interface perfect for you, but creating something that works well for everybody is an art that few people master. I think your "theory" about design is a bit too pat and self-serving.
I said teach you how to think, not teach you what to think. Most of my professors were keen on the former, not the latter.
I see an education as teaching you how to use a tool expertly and effectively, not that different from playing a musical instrument. You might play classical or you may play jazz but a master can play both both and more. A violin can be used to play Led Zeppelin and make it rock but only by someone who knows how to play a violin well.
In tech there seems to still be enough of a shortage of skilled people that people without degrees do get hired regularly, though not as easily as people with degrees. Silicon Valley startups seem to already consider "some cool projects on GitHub" to be the moral equivalent of a bachelor's degree...
It sounds like you don't think much of people that don't have degrees, as if they're hired only to fill a chair until a properly-educated person comes along. Please explain why college degree should confer higher value than real, visible work. As an employer I prefer to see what someone can really do, regardless of their papers. As an employee, I would rather show off the things I'm capable of (and interested in) now, not how much I can borrow/spend on having someone else spoon-feed concepts to me.
Don't get me wrong, I went to college and I think an education is important. I find that intelligent people that don't attend college often lack the critical thinking skills that come with a well-rounded scholarly experience, which is a waste of their potential. They miss the real point of an education, which is to teach you how to think. I just believe that there is frequently too much emphasis on papers, not enough on actual capability. Maybe some of the "startups" think that too.
Profit beyond that which is necessary to cover risk (unfortunate troubles) is theft
In a capitalist system, that's not theft. If the price is agreed to by all involved parties then it's fair.
A company may boost it's profits for any number of reasons, not all of which are driven by pure greed - bankrolling some money for future growth being the obvious one. Or would you prefer that companies grow by borrowing, which involves usury (which, by your too-much-profit principle, may be a more pernicious form of theft)?
Who is going to get them shown in theaters or otherwise promote them in the United States other than the big six MPAA studios?
Umm... Youtube? Netflix? Facebook? Talking?
Almost 3 million people have watched "Jesus Christ in Richmond Park", a random video about a dog chasing some deer, with NO promotion except word of mouth and social linking (i.e. no paid promotion).
Netflix has shown me suggestions for some pretty good movies that I had never heard of prior to the suggestion - movies that were not promoted in any meaningful way (or if they were promoted, the money went into a black hole).
Oh, and word-of-mouth still works between me and my friends for music, movies, and what-have-you. You should try it sometime.
Have you ever watched Thunderbirds, TOS? It's all marionettes, and you can even see the friggin wires. But that doesn't matter, it's the story that's important and keeps you coming back for more. I never sat there watching it and said, this show sucks because I can tell it's a bunch of papier-mâché.
Great special effects often hide a mediocre story. Have you ever rejected a book because the special effects aren't there? How about a book with a bad story but lots of nice pictures?
Slashdot Mirror
I also know some old-school UNIX admins and mainframe guys who cringe at the notion that a reboot can be a viable way of troubleshooting/making the problem go away. Because they don't reboot unless God himself has filled out all of the right paperwork, and only then if he's got a really good reason and there are no alternatives.
I've seen issues where rebooting a Linux machine actually causes more problems than it solves.
As long as the kernel is still running nearly every other software issue on a Unix/Linux system can be fixed. And a few firmware/hardware issues, too.
Lets move away from an hour based work schedule to a task and accomplishment based work/pay system
I believe the term you're looking for is "piecework". It has a bad reputation and is frequently linked to sweat shops.
In the US we're already a socialist country with a managed economy. We just seem to disagree on how socialist we should be and who should enjoy the benefits.
My guess is that it will be all about hitting bases, and ignoring spacecrafts.
Don't be so sure.
As soon as someone is thinking about destroying your immobile base with mobile craft, you're going to worry about stopping their craft from reaching it.
Combat ships, if they exist, would probably be spherical. If there is anything resembling a cannon, there will probably be a single one and aiming will involve rotating the craft (or some sort of gimbal) around the center of the craft, for faster positioning.
Macross this will not be. More like 2001 with guns and silent, ship-shattering kabooms.
When a lion ate a lamb, what happened to it if death didn't exist?
The image I have in my head is horrible, just horrible, if things continued to live after being eaten. Or experienced bone-shattering falls, or drownings.
Are you sure this is a merciful god we're talking about?
All people seem to just be born as scared-to-death xenophobes, and most just don't learn any better as they age.
This is wrong. Xenophobia is almost certainly a biologically based trait.
This isn't a contradiction. It is possible to learn new behaviors and suppress old ones. Just because a behavior is biologically based doesn't mean that it is right, and doesn't mean that we cannot overcome it and behave better.
It's like anything else in politics: perception is all that matters, not substance.
I think Dodd knows the score - he'll understand that he has to be reprimanded, but under the covers it will be business-as-usual.
The trouble is, you still wind up with HTML and CSS, except that it won't render well on but half the screens and browsers, you will have no idea how screwed it is on any screen you haven't tried it on.
Have you ever even used Dreamweaver? In comments people keep beating this drum that all HTML IDEs like Dreamweaver produce bloated, incompatible code. You all act like it's Frontpage or something.
Dreamweaver can produce crap in the hands of people that don't know what they're doing. Any tool can, no matter how complex or simple.
I'm a programmer that occasionally uses Dreamweaver. I use it to write my HTML and CSS by hand, quickly check the results, and take advantage of code highlighting, tag completion, and syntax checking all in one stop. The web designers that I work with use it similarly - they're using it to produce the best code in the fastest possible way. They interested in making cross-compatible pages and make their due-diligence inside and outside of Dreamweaver to achieve that. Now, if you have used DW or a similar quality IDE and found that your code was buggy and incompatible, then maybe it was your design skills that are lacking, not the IDE.
This thread is for the big boys to discuss alternatives to Dreamweaver - something I'm interested in since I don't know of any good ones myself. If you can, please leave your preconceptions behind and try to add constructively to the conversation, not bat down anything that doesn't agree with your dogma.
I've seen too many previously "good" companies abuse their power once their product is entrenched on everyone's computer
What's your sample size of "good" companies that are present on "everyone's" (read: sizable majority) computers? Only one comes to my mind, Microsoft, and while I agree that it did turn ugly(-ish) a single company does not constitute a reasonable sample.
I believe that a NAT pretty much implies a firewall. The one-to-many relationship inherent in a NAT is effectively a basic firewall to intrusions from the outside world.
You're probably thinking of the benefits of a configurable firewall, including blocking requests to certain ports, etc. All that's helpful, but NAT satisfies the definition of a basic firewall (and provides effective security).
However IME to most developers "self-documenting code" means something more like "you should be smart enough to know how this works from reading my semi-descriptive variable names".
If it was hard to write, it should be hard to read.
In my experience, self-documenting code generally isn't.
Proper documentation never explains what you're doing - that's what the code is for. Documentation explains why you did the things you did, which is difficult to express in self-documenting code.
Why must one need something in order to want it?
What you're saying is all well and good, but what can anyone DO about it? It seems that protesting doesn't do much good (see OWS movement), writing your congressman doesn't do much good, voting the rascals out of office doesn't do much good. What ARE we supposed to do about it?
How was this modded "insightful"? There's no insight here, It's so bad it isn't even wrong.
...but I'm pretty sure the groups of people who are extremely artistically deficient and who program are not correlated in any strong way.
I hope you're kidding. Most artists that I know are not particularly technical. Most of the programmers I know are not particularly artistic. Creative, yes, they're both creative activities. The theory of multiple intelligences holds, but the two paths rarely seem to cross.
Linux is difficult to use because of the command line problem
What command line problem? My pre-teen children use Linux, and they don't touch a command line. Ever. I use Linux and I use the command line frequently, but I don't see it as a "problem" but as a path to efficiency, both in creating interfaces (I can create a command-line app much faster than a GIU-based app) and getting my work done (I can restart Apache from a command line in half the time that I can restart IIS by navigating through the GIU). Show me the problem.
Linux is a hodge podge of software that need not work well together.
And a windows system with any third-party database or web server, or a set of third-party domain administration tools is... what, exactly? A hodge-podge. I would wager that a system running IIS or MSSQL is equally a hodgepodge under the hood, but the branding is more consistent.
user space stuff isn't tested with rigor to work 100% of the time like kernel mode stuff
Citation desperately needed. I think that several million long-term Apache installations on various Linux, Unix, and Windows servers would beg to differ.
But overall, as a programmer, I do take offense to not knowing how to design a UI.
Why? I have my areas of expertise. I'm not offended that someone understands a discipline better than I do and I take their inputs with gratitude.
I know perfectly well how to.
I have worked with people like you. You don't know nearly as well as you think you do. Sure, you may be able to design an interface perfect for you, but creating something that works well for everybody is an art that few people master. I think your "theory" about design is a bit too pat and self-serving.
I said teach you how to think, not teach you what to think. Most of my professors were keen on the former, not the latter.
I see an education as teaching you how to use a tool expertly and effectively, not that different from playing a musical instrument. You might play classical or you may play jazz but a master can play both both and more. A violin can be used to play Led Zeppelin and make it rock but only by someone who knows how to play a violin well.
In tech there seems to still be enough of a shortage of skilled people that people without degrees do get hired regularly, though not as easily as people with degrees. Silicon Valley startups seem to already consider "some cool projects on GitHub" to be the moral equivalent of a bachelor's degree...
It sounds like you don't think much of people that don't have degrees, as if they're hired only to fill a chair until a properly-educated person comes along. Please explain why college degree should confer higher value than real, visible work. As an employer I prefer to see what someone can really do, regardless of their papers. As an employee, I would rather show off the things I'm capable of (and interested in) now, not how much I can borrow/spend on having someone else spoon-feed concepts to me.
Don't get me wrong, I went to college and I think an education is important. I find that intelligent people that don't attend college often lack the critical thinking skills that come with a well-rounded scholarly experience, which is a waste of their potential. They miss the real point of an education, which is to teach you how to think. I just believe that there is frequently too much emphasis on papers, not enough on actual capability. Maybe some of the "startups" think that too.
Right, because no-one likes to hire unlucky people.
In a capitalist system, that's not theft. If the price is agreed to by all involved parties then it's fair.
A company may boost it's profits for any number of reasons, not all of which are driven by pure greed - bankrolling some money for future growth being the obvious one. Or would you prefer that companies grow by borrowing, which involves usury (which, by your too-much-profit principle, may be a more pernicious form of theft)?
Umm... Youtube? Netflix? Facebook? Talking?
Oh, and word-of-mouth still works between me and my friends for music, movies, and what-have-you. You should try it sometime.
I just read it for the articles, I swear!
Have you ever watched Thunderbirds, TOS? It's all marionettes, and you can even see the friggin wires. But that doesn't matter, it's the story that's important and keeps you coming back for more. I never sat there watching it and said, this show sucks because I can tell it's a bunch of papier-mâché.
Great special effects often hide a mediocre story. Have you ever rejected a book because the special effects aren't there? How about a book with a bad story but lots of nice pictures?
Is that the sound of Google Wave as it passes you, never to be seen again?