Yep. My coworker kind of agreed with the IV drug and prostitution ban being permanent versus temporary for prison. That is what got me and why I sent my questions to the Red Cross my thoughts was if prostitution or prison makes you a high risk of having AIDs or something than why would one be a permanent risk and the other not.
My coworkers argument was that there are clear records as to when your prison experience ended where as someone that was a drug user or went to prostitutes might continue to do that behavior and unless they get caught there would be no record of it. That said if they trust you to be honest enough to say you've been with a prostitute in the first place you'd think you'd at least answer honestly when you were last. Might be worries you'd lie because you did it after getting married or something but still. Seems like if you trust someone to answer one question truthfully you can be reasonably expected to trust their answers to closely related questions.
Medical ethics are interesting. Current one I'm dealing with: my work (hospital) is trying to encourage people to get flu shots (so far so good). As part of the incentives though they have created a game with teams and prizes. I'm not so sure we should be encouraging people to make personal healthcare choices based on prizes and the reasonable expectation of peer pressure from the team to do it. Also: health information being shared in order to determine which team has > 80% vaccination. Argh. People don't think too far I guess.
Perhaps because new exploits in existing software are found? Sometimes data has a virus payload etc. Win 8 still has a full blown desktop OS in it that doesn't have a walled garden and has all the registry and other circa 1990 stuff we've all grown to love. MS app compatibility story extends to virus writers:)
It is exactly because it is responsibly written that it takes so much ram. Real time compiling syntactic analysis, intellisense, build in web browser, web server emulation etc are not free. They need RAM. I'd rather spend $200 on a developers machine than $50/hr while they fiddle around every compile getting things over to the right place by hand or waiting till "compile time" to find syntactic bugs etc.
You're confusion is shared. It was explained to me by a representative of the Canadian Red Cross that this these are guidelines that all countries that are part of the UN/World Health Organization must follow. People that have been in jail have a higher risk of having something than people that haven't. Gay men (at least those that aren't virgins), HIV positive (obviously), people from parts of Africa where Aids is prevalent, anyone that has paid or has received drugs or money for sex, etc. Are all permanent exclusions for blood and organ donation (http://www.blood.ca/centreapps/internet/uw_v502_mainengine.nsf/page/Indefinite%20Deferral?OpenDocument). Organ donors also can't have cancer (again pretty obvious exclusion). Don't see anywhere where it specifically says this comes down from WHO but that was what I was told. You are also temporarily excluded if you are currently sick, had contact with someone who was a high risk, had regional diseases (malaria and the like) etc.
At any rate most of this stuff are things that are behaviors which the doctor might not get an honest answer from next of kin, or they might not even know the answer to them ("Was Tom gay?" "Hell no my son wasn't gay." etc). That a lone, at least until they admit that corelation isn't causation and stop excluding people based on behaviors rather than presence or absence of symptoms, to me means the only logical system is an opt in system where the prospective donor has to answer no to all the criteria of exclusions to be a donor.
But if they can just test the things and get a result back in a couple hours or whatever that the organ is viable than why would they have reasons for exclusion in the first place? My guess is some things are not easily detected early on in the disease or take a long time to test for. Still a dude waiting on a heart likely would roll the dice that a random stranger is unlikely to have something worse than a heart that is ready to explode.
At least where I'm from (and I'm pretty sure that I was referred to UN/WHO standards that essentially every country agrees to) along with the opt in box is a disclaimer that you shouldn't donate if you've recently been in prison, a IV drug addict, HIV positive etc. An opt out policy assumes that everyone is a safe doner which is not the case.
I opened up the can of worms once when it made no sense to me that someone that was out of prision for 2 years was "safe" but someone that had done drugs in the past ever, or had sex with or been a prostitute was banned for life. Apparently diseases get purged from your system when your record gets cleared. But doing things that may never have resulted in any criminal punishment makes you unqualified for life. Nice.
Unless there is proof of cohersion involved what damn business is it of the government what two consenting adults do, whether it involves money, or just paying for dinner and pretending to be interested in a 2hr conversation about horseback riding that gets you what you want either way individuals chose what to do and under what terms.
Within reason who cares about 1GB of ram on a dev machine? Dev machines should be high speced so that by the time the product ships the dev machine is the mainstream and most/all customers can run your code. I'd rather spend $200 on RAM and have Intellisense, fast debug info, etc than have a low footprint and have to hit the command line all the time to fire up debugers,web browsers and servers, databases etc as separate steps.
that the argument is more for the developers than the users. There is a bit of overlap with things like iWork on iPad and Mac, and Office on an ARM tablet and PC but for the most part the argument from MS at least has been: learn metro run your code everywhere. So why does the user care? Does a user really want a 20"+ screen that is primarily geared towards touch (sounds like a good idea until work starts feeling like a workout)? Does it make sense to lobotomize a desktop app to make it interaction friendly for someone poking at it with a finger in a moving car (big buttons, few controls etc) on a 4" screen? I don't think so.
A small amount of HTML. That is about it. There was CS classes but I didn't take them. I think those were pretty much glorified business classes: how to do the books with excel etc. That said the internet for civilians was about 2 years old and we only had a single computer that was on the net so people weren't exactly nuts for computers yet.
Because the site doesn't tell you before you connect that it is going to track you. Just because you decide you want to track all your visitors doesn't mean they agree. Let them know before you do something to their system just because it makes you look shady when you go all FB and embed trackers on every bloody site, or inconvenient that a lot of people would say no or avoid visiting your site (like a site that FF throws up this is an attack site notice) doesn't mean you are entitled to do what you want with a visitor's system. If a user comes in that has DNT enabled and your business model requires that you can track them then redirect them and say: sorry only people that we can track are allowed on our site. You don't need to ignore their expressed wishes just so you get what you want just make it a requirement of use if you need to.
How can one seriously suggest that a privacy/security option should be set to "open" by default? This is against everything we've learntt since the first computers were networked together. Just because it hurts your business model doesn't mean it is a bad idea. Just like spam filters are a good idea even if I make my money off it.
True but it can be unbalanced. Having a party that really pushes IP reform for example to the extreme that the pirate party does ignores the fact that patents and copyrights exist for a reason: it is expensive and likely some of the most important things that a person or a company will do during its existence. Without protections for the exceptional everyone ends up being just another grunt in the cogs of an assembly line, or no better off than them even though they can't do your job but you can do theirs, ie market value of skills can't be respected since there is no security for the investor to get their money back..
Mah still don't see a lot of difference. Most christians believe that God/holy spirit comes into them when they become a christian (when that happens varies). Somehow an omnipresent God is more in you than anywhere else I guess after conversion. We are created in God's image but not capable of making a rational judgement about things but should just believe, etc.
Pentacostals: well... christians in the book of Acts were able to do things (supposedly even more than Jesus's miracles) but it mentions that these things will pass way. I guess pentacostals think it hasn't passed away yet where as the majority of christians do.
Once you allow for the irrational anything goes. I can heal you. If you don't get healed it isn't because I can't heal you it's just you must not have believed enough, or perhaps God wants you to suffer for some purpose we don't understand, or... Once you separate cause and effect from reason it doesn't much matter to me whether the miracles happened in the past or the present batshit crazy still applies.
Mormonism any more bat shit crazy than other mainstream flavors of Christianity (or other religions for that matter)? Is it just because they say crazy things happened recently rather than 2000 years ago? I would think parting the red sea, raising the dead, raining frogs etc would be more bat shit crazy than some random dude getting some golden plates and translating them. Religions claim crazy things and require followers to do crazy things with no evidence just "you got to have faith". If you believe that stuff fine, but looking at it from a scientific mindset makes it extremely unlikely/odd behaviour.
Some what I guess but is also a matter of the pain that is merging. If you are working on a few things at a time and you have a few branches, and the guy next to you has a few branches etc. then next day huddle you all say I think it might be done and decide to put it all in the trunk you have a fun day ahead of you.
Only if people commit their changes. I can't count how many times I've seen people (and I'm guilty of it too) spending an entire day hacking away getting a feature into a code base, hundreds of lines of code and don't commit it until it is "done". I get that you don't want to check in non-working code because someone will pull it in then bitch at you for it not working. But at the same time it means that whole features are often checked in as one lump, rolling back to 2 hours ago when part of the code still worked isn't an option. So you can only roll back big chunks of work at a time and realistically the chunk tagged "added god mode to widget maker" usually doesn't fully work and a flood of "fixed bug x in widget maker", "commented code", "built test harness" etc comes out weeks later. So PHB comes around and says roll back to the version that first had x but didn't have y and where to do go? You end up having to go back to the one tagged with that feature and then add in any diffs you see in future checkins that touched that area of code. You end up with a cludge.
Personally I think codebases for a lot of things are small enough that you could probably back up an endless undo chain + tags for "check ins" so that you could literally roll back and forward one character at a time, play back the coders jumping around the codebase to give you an idea of what they were thinking about at the time that they decided to add code etc.
Would this be unrecoverable or just a nuisance? My understanding of git is that it is fully distributed so you can muddle around on your own local copy, test the merge there and push the bad boy back up. The only difference between a desktop and a server IMHO is that the server gives users the illusion of something that will never go down (until it does) where as a desktop people sometimes don't think twice about bringing down (and nuke all the clients connected to them). Either way the guy with root has to be competent and communicate things with the users of the software being hosted whether on a server or a client.
I've run subversion just off of a network share with windows clients hitting it using Tortoise. Since you already need a fileserver likely anyways it isn't an extra server and your usual mechanisms for granting permissions to shares works for giving your clients access to different projects.
As well even if you couldn't docx at least is just zipped xml. Rename the file.xml.zip uncompress and feed it through diff. Not as rich an experience but still doable.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. My coworker kind of agreed with the IV drug and prostitution ban being permanent versus temporary for prison. That is what got me and why I sent my questions to the Red Cross my thoughts was if prostitution or prison makes you a high risk of having AIDs or something than why would one be a permanent risk and the other not.
My coworkers argument was that there are clear records as to when your prison experience ended where as someone that was a drug user or went to prostitutes might continue to do that behavior and unless they get caught there would be no record of it. That said if they trust you to be honest enough to say you've been with a prostitute in the first place you'd think you'd at least answer honestly when you were last. Might be worries you'd lie because you did it after getting married or something but still. Seems like if you trust someone to answer one question truthfully you can be reasonably expected to trust their answers to closely related questions.
Medical ethics are interesting. Current one I'm dealing with: my work (hospital) is trying to encourage people to get flu shots (so far so good). As part of the incentives though they have created a game with teams and prizes. I'm not so sure we should be encouraging people to make personal healthcare choices based on prizes and the reasonable expectation of peer pressure from the team to do it. Also: health information being shared in order to determine which team has > 80% vaccination. Argh. People don't think too far I guess.
my I assure you that all cases of mental illness in physics students are both pre-existing and necessary for admittance.
Perhaps because new exploits in existing software are found? Sometimes data has a virus payload etc. Win 8 still has a full blown desktop OS in it that doesn't have a walled garden and has all the registry and other circa 1990 stuff we've all grown to love. MS app compatibility story extends to virus writers :)
It is exactly because it is responsibly written that it takes so much ram. Real time compiling syntactic analysis, intellisense, build in web browser, web server emulation etc are not free. They need RAM. I'd rather spend $200 on a developers machine than $50/hr while they fiddle around every compile getting things over to the right place by hand or waiting till "compile time" to find syntactic bugs etc.
You're confusion is shared. It was explained to me by a representative of the Canadian Red Cross that this these are guidelines that all countries that are part of the UN/World Health Organization must follow. People that have been in jail have a higher risk of having something than people that haven't. Gay men (at least those that aren't virgins), HIV positive (obviously), people from parts of Africa where Aids is prevalent, anyone that has paid or has received drugs or money for sex, etc. Are all permanent exclusions for blood and organ donation (http://www.blood.ca/centreapps/internet/uw_v502_mainengine.nsf/page/Indefinite%20Deferral?OpenDocument). Organ donors also can't have cancer (again pretty obvious exclusion). Don't see anywhere where it specifically says this comes down from WHO but that was what I was told. You are also temporarily excluded if you are currently sick, had contact with someone who was a high risk, had regional diseases (malaria and the like) etc.
At any rate most of this stuff are things that are behaviors which the doctor might not get an honest answer from next of kin, or they might not even know the answer to them ("Was Tom gay?" "Hell no my son wasn't gay." etc). That a lone, at least until they admit that corelation isn't causation and stop excluding people based on behaviors rather than presence or absence of symptoms, to me means the only logical system is an opt in system where the prospective donor has to answer no to all the criteria of exclusions to be a donor.
But if they can just test the things and get a result back in a couple hours or whatever that the organ is viable than why would they have reasons for exclusion in the first place? My guess is some things are not easily detected early on in the disease or take a long time to test for. Still a dude waiting on a heart likely would roll the dice that a random stranger is unlikely to have something worse than a heart that is ready to explode.
it's just a misdemeanor so close enough. Go nuts.
At least where I'm from (and I'm pretty sure that I was referred to UN/WHO standards that essentially every country agrees to) along with the opt in box is a disclaimer that you shouldn't donate if you've recently been in prison, a IV drug addict, HIV positive etc. An opt out policy assumes that everyone is a safe doner which is not the case.
I opened up the can of worms once when it made no sense to me that someone that was out of prision for 2 years was "safe" but someone that had done drugs in the past ever, or had sex with or been a prostitute was banned for life. Apparently diseases get purged from your system when your record gets cleared. But doing things that may never have resulted in any criminal punishment makes you unqualified for life. Nice.
Didn't some other people keep lists of people with embarassing backgrounds? Oh yeah it was the nazis, yep that sounds about right.
Unless there is proof of cohersion involved what damn business is it of the government what two consenting adults do, whether it involves money, or just paying for dinner and pretending to be interested in a 2hr conversation about horseback riding that gets you what you want either way individuals chose what to do and under what terms.
Within reason who cares about 1GB of ram on a dev machine? Dev machines should be high speced so that by the time the product ships the dev machine is the mainstream and most/all customers can run your code. I'd rather spend $200 on RAM and have Intellisense, fast debug info, etc than have a low footprint and have to hit the command line all the time to fire up debugers,web browsers and servers, databases etc as separate steps.
that the argument is more for the developers than the users. There is a bit of overlap with things like iWork on iPad and Mac, and Office on an ARM tablet and PC but for the most part the argument from MS at least has been: learn metro run your code everywhere. So why does the user care? Does a user really want a 20"+ screen that is primarily geared towards touch (sounds like a good idea until work starts feeling like a workout)? Does it make sense to lobotomize a desktop app to make it interaction friendly for someone poking at it with a finger in a moving car (big buttons, few controls etc) on a 4" screen? I don't think so.
A small amount of HTML. That is about it. There was CS classes but I didn't take them. I think those were pretty much glorified business classes: how to do the books with excel etc. That said the internet for civilians was about 2 years old and we only had a single computer that was on the net so people weren't exactly nuts for computers yet.
Yeah Adult Friend Finder lost my business as soon as they started offering me hot sex in my hometown.
Because the site doesn't tell you before you connect that it is going to track you. Just because you decide you want to track all your visitors doesn't mean they agree. Let them know before you do something to their system just because it makes you look shady when you go all FB and embed trackers on every bloody site, or inconvenient that a lot of people would say no or avoid visiting your site (like a site that FF throws up this is an attack site notice) doesn't mean you are entitled to do what you want with a visitor's system. If a user comes in that has DNT enabled and your business model requires that you can track them then redirect them and say: sorry only people that we can track are allowed on our site. You don't need to ignore their expressed wishes just so you get what you want just make it a requirement of use if you need to.
How can one seriously suggest that a privacy/security option should be set to "open" by default? This is against everything we've learntt since the first computers were networked together. Just because it hurts your business model doesn't mean it is a bad idea. Just like spam filters are a good idea even if I make my money off it.
True but it can be unbalanced. Having a party that really pushes IP reform for example to the extreme that the pirate party does ignores the fact that patents and copyrights exist for a reason: it is expensive and likely some of the most important things that a person or a company will do during its existence. Without protections for the exceptional everyone ends up being just another grunt in the cogs of an assembly line, or no better off than them even though they can't do your job but you can do theirs, ie market value of skills can't be respected since there is no security for the investor to get their money back..
You have a girlfriend that knows xml and can do diffs? Does she have a sister? :)
Mah still don't see a lot of difference. Most christians believe that God/holy spirit comes into them when they become a christian (when that happens varies). Somehow an omnipresent God is more in you than anywhere else I guess after conversion. We are created in God's image but not capable of making a rational judgement about things but should just believe, etc.
Pentacostals: well ... christians in the book of Acts were able to do things (supposedly even more than Jesus's miracles) but it mentions that these things will pass way. I guess pentacostals think it hasn't passed away yet where as the majority of christians do.
Once you allow for the irrational anything goes. I can heal you. If you don't get healed it isn't because I can't heal you it's just you must not have believed enough, or perhaps God wants you to suffer for some purpose we don't understand, or ... Once you separate cause and effect from reason it doesn't much matter to me whether the miracles happened in the past or the present batshit crazy still applies.
Mormonism any more bat shit crazy than other mainstream flavors of Christianity (or other religions for that matter)? Is it just because they say crazy things happened recently rather than 2000 years ago? I would think parting the red sea, raising the dead, raining frogs etc would be more bat shit crazy than some random dude getting some golden plates and translating them. Religions claim crazy things and require followers to do crazy things with no evidence just "you got to have faith". If you believe that stuff fine, but looking at it from a scientific mindset makes it extremely unlikely/odd behaviour.
Some what I guess but is also a matter of the pain that is merging. If you are working on a few things at a time and you have a few branches, and the guy next to you has a few branches etc. then next day huddle you all say I think it might be done and decide to put it all in the trunk you have a fun day ahead of you.
Only if people commit their changes. I can't count how many times I've seen people (and I'm guilty of it too) spending an entire day hacking away getting a feature into a code base, hundreds of lines of code and don't commit it until it is "done". I get that you don't want to check in non-working code because someone will pull it in then bitch at you for it not working. But at the same time it means that whole features are often checked in as one lump, rolling back to 2 hours ago when part of the code still worked isn't an option. So you can only roll back big chunks of work at a time and realistically the chunk tagged "added god mode to widget maker" usually doesn't fully work and a flood of "fixed bug x in widget maker", "commented code", "built test harness" etc comes out weeks later. So PHB comes around and says roll back to the version that first had x but didn't have y and where to do go? You end up having to go back to the one tagged with that feature and then add in any diffs you see in future checkins that touched that area of code. You end up with a cludge.
Personally I think codebases for a lot of things are small enough that you could probably back up an endless undo chain + tags for "check ins" so that you could literally roll back and forward one character at a time, play back the coders jumping around the codebase to give you an idea of what they were thinking about at the time that they decided to add code etc.
Would this be unrecoverable or just a nuisance? My understanding of git is that it is fully distributed so you can muddle around on your own local copy, test the merge there and push the bad boy back up. The only difference between a desktop and a server IMHO is that the server gives users the illusion of something that will never go down (until it does) where as a desktop people sometimes don't think twice about bringing down (and nuke all the clients connected to them). Either way the guy with root has to be competent and communicate things with the users of the software being hosted whether on a server or a client.
I've run subversion just off of a network share with windows clients hitting it using Tortoise. Since you already need a fileserver likely anyways it isn't an extra server and your usual mechanisms for granting permissions to shares works for giving your clients access to different projects.
As well even if you couldn't docx at least is just zipped xml. Rename the file .xml.zip uncompress and feed it through diff. Not as rich an experience but still doable.
Crap I must code too much I terminated my statement with a semi-colon :)