You aren't helping, nor are you even trying to contribute. You might want to revisit your assumptions, because they are most certainly leading you into false conclusions. The correct answer is, "I doubt it, let's see if there's any history to corroborate."
> Comey pretty much confirmed that Trump is a lying, self-serving douche who would joyfully obstruct justice if he thought he could get away with it
That's not what I took away. I was pleasantly surprised that Trump (very early on) has acted in a manner that was more considerate, sophisticated and calculating than I would have expected. I found I was aggravated by the irony of a Senate member telling Comey that Trump "shouldn't have" run meetings (in his own office with his own office heads), a certain way. Comey confirms that he let's Trump know that's not appropriate, and it never happens again. Shocking, almost like we're dealing with humans that have never been in these situations before, handling them in a practical manner. These witch hunts seem cursory for every administration and I have no doubt Clinton would be on the receiving end of a similar "scandal", had she won. McCain's attempt to roll all investigations "Hillary" related into the Russian-Election influence was funny.
> No matter one's opinions on the propriety of the charges against her, we should all agree Winner should be released on bail pending trial
This statement is also indefensible. "No matter anyone's opinion...we SHOULD all agree". While I agree the process is bad, she definitely should be held without bail. She is VERY likely to say something else stupidly criminal.
> The problem (for me) is that those are completely arbitrary judgement calls that don't actually result in more correct output or development.
Is XML over-structured? Is JSON under-structured? Is there somewhere in the middle? I'm not sure these questions have value. People (including programmers) are lazy and looking through a standard to try to decide how to "properly" address a problem within a standard (XML). Is my implementation right? What if I missed something? That cursory overhead (of XML standard consumption) is acted (or not acted) on as a practical barrier. That's the reality.
This results in super custom solutions, as you point out...
> The only benefit to JSON that I see, is that it lets people whip together a "data structure" without having to think the problem through first
You make an apt comparison to NoSQL. In fact, this would probably be true of any new format. Having arbitrary structuring is a quality that preceded XML. XML was a valuable tool, when in a vacuum of standard-less communication formats. Why is the pendulum swinging back? Access to information, comes to mind. For almost any API an unstructured API design results in a (unique) formal structure that can be referenced in a fraction of the time it takes to fully comprehend the XML standard. In this way, I think XML is over-specified. Now there's http://schemas.liquid-technolo... so you can just pick from any of the arbitrary XML variations. Are we any better off?
> complex JSON structure that quickly digs into quote, comma, and bracket hell
That is certainly a sad consequence of using JSON. \\\"some \\\'\\\\" string\\\\"\\\' etc. is nightmare.
Having to work around the ignorant (and soon to be remedied) design decision to prohibit comments in the JSON spec, have led to a complexity/readability breakdown in many applications. I mean, it's only been decades for someone to make obvious improvements to JS...at least we have websockets? SMH.
There is a lack of awareness regarding the (optional 3rd party) JSON Schema tooling.
JS/JSON libraries don't deal with large payloads very well/at all. Being so simple a format, the parsers aren't robust. Most run their environment out of memory rather than treating it like a stream, as an option. There are entertaining discussion threads about how to efficiently use C to parse JSON, to the Nth degree.
> I'm still waiting for someone to explain what this new feed format does above and beyond the XML one
It provides superior readability (debugging), simpler format (more compact in terms of raw bytes), less specification in a format leads to more specific implementation (which is what most people end up doing with XML anyway), and better 3rd party support (XML parsing behavior is dependent on many many choices, where JSON has far fewer). This is one of those, less common, cases where less specificity in a standard leads to cleaner implementation.
> The whole complaint about dealing with malformed XML isn't going to be fixed with this new format
That's particularly naive. Malformed XML isn't even meaningful, given almost every implementation deals with a different standard of correctness. Compare the amount of code in a Lua JSON decoder to any specific Lua XML reader.
> Or are you going to suggest they pilfer dollars that have already been taxed?
The reductive language isn't constructive. Taxation is not a simple calculation because of the different ways to leverage capital. Even asset valuation is somewhat tricky, given the number of financial tools (abstractions) can increase without limit.
e.g. Buy A, appreciate to B, loan D against B, purchase E, inflate to F, refinance D with F, after a year sell A for B with no capital gains and you've been getting tax deductions on D payments the whole way. Anything taxed in the process, you just loan against another valuation of anything in the chain and restart the capital engine.
> Or are you going to suggest they pilfer dollars that have already been taxed? Because that would be a big load of horse shit.
I think you're trying to reference a rent-tax on asset appreciation, in some sort of adolescent vernacular. The issue that most solutions are trying to work around, is appreciation (inflation of value) of a sitting financial asset. Right now the US taxes transactions, almost exclusively (when assets change hands). Stocks are financial assets with no specific value, except as a speculative. They are the haven of US investors from the last decade, while you can still find similar solace in less regulated/mature foreign markets today.
> Short of finding new, UNAMERICAN and UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The terms "unamerican" and "unconstitutional" have no bearing on the discussion, except to you. Maybe you have some internal mechanism (let's call it a "feeling"), but I don't think it's compelling reasons to be an economic luddite. You could just say that you think that there should always be a specific few economic winners and the vast majority of Americans will remain (statistically) perpetual economic losers. That's a valid viewpoint and how it interacts with an existing democratic culture is interesting, in another vein.
Good luck with whatever. I think it's clear you are the typical ignorant American, with a surprisingly obscure taste in forums, that you use to vent wildly, on a regular basis.
Brushing your teeth and injecting it (or equivalent like adding it to dialysis to augment a kidney's natural excretion) is wildly different usage. Think about it a bit more.
> "demand for PHP, WordPress, and LAMP skills are seeing a steady decline, while newer frameworks and languages like React, Angular, and Scala are on the rise."... is one of the more sensible remarks on the list.
React and Angular are not replacements for PHP, Wordpress, or LAMP. Scala is so rarely used it's almost laughable. The question is still "will there be a culling between PHP or Python". While Python is rising in popularity, that is due to a unified ecosystem and AWS AMIs having python support out of the box. Looks a lot like how Ruby gained popularity, with similar problems (performance, stiff language design - e.g. lambdas, no do-white/foreach/whatever) and Ruby is...not a good choice for anyone. For many cases, we prototype in Python, but ultimately either rewrite in PHP or C for performance reasons when we try to run any load. It's just fine for straightforward intermittent procedural processing and PHP is slightly more robust (for better or worse) as glue code. YMMV
This makes sense. I still don't understand what "The Russians" or just Putin, would want to go to all this trouble for. They have plenty of economic power and specific leverage with certain countries (like China) that are suitable for trade to any end. If Russia tries a Georgian style takeover of Ukraine, things will get dicey, but it's not like these narratives or Trump would help if Putin ran tanks into Estonia (an actual NATO member).
> People support Net Neutrality because of imagined abuses by ISPs,
Without quibbling over the word "abuse", I'll just put forth the term "traffic shaping" as an analogue.
Cable companies have been shown to abuse each other (now they collaborate and abuse other industries, like Netflix) when there is financial gain. Basically, always. There's no imagining necessary for that.
Much like DNS registration (when there was only Network Solutions), people who could measure and remember the actual abuses by both NS and Cable companies prior to 2003, are still alive. Many of them were visiting this site back then. *cough*
Either you're ignorant, or just trolling for fun. Either way, it's hard to believe anyone who pushes this notion that cable companies act in anti-capitalistic fashion to hurt themselves.
Somehow you managed to respond to the wrong post or are mentally deficient. Either way, your post made no sense in regard to the discussion you replied to.
In a medical emergency (of the type where consequence is subservient to need) the common question is if anyone has any medical training, but reality sometimes doesn't offer individuals the opportunity to relieve themselves of imagined idealistic scenarios.
I know lots of places where a developer can and has worn a hoodie to work. This includes my current office. A good rule of thumb is, the stricter the dress code - the less competent the management is. The hiring process is probably worse.
Nobody else would be confused by the point, but ironically I guess I have to explain it to you like you're back in school.
The idea communicated is that a globe is not used as the primary instructional tool. Outside of some brief experiences in elementary levels, NOBODY on earth does that, unless you don't have a flat map (your anecdote is actual bullshit). So, if you had a classroom where you're teaching geography, the first thing you would do to create teaching materials would be to make a map from the globe. This leads to distortions either way.
As usual, you just like to argue to push weird ideas aggressively whenever I see your nick on/.
This would be the correct course of action I would believe. However, that might put NASA bureaucratically under the military, which looks bad (space militarization step 1).
Slashdot Mirror
> Your friend is a liar or you are.
You aren't helping, nor are you even trying to contribute. You might want to revisit your assumptions, because they are most certainly leading you into false conclusions. The correct answer is, "I doubt it, let's see if there's any history to corroborate."
A cursory search result might lead you to http://www.schveiguy.com/blog/...
And this troll got modded up as well. SMH
> Rs pretty much own State legislatures.
Not true of California.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say you replied to the wrong post. mindbuilder is a decent fellow.
> Comey pretty much confirmed that Trump is a lying, self-serving douche who would joyfully obstruct justice if he thought he could get away with it
That's not what I took away. I was pleasantly surprised that Trump (very early on) has acted in a manner that was more considerate, sophisticated and calculating than I would have expected. I found I was aggravated by the irony of a Senate member telling Comey that Trump "shouldn't have" run meetings (in his own office with his own office heads), a certain way. Comey confirms that he let's Trump know that's not appropriate, and it never happens again. Shocking, almost like we're dealing with humans that have never been in these situations before, handling them in a practical manner. These witch hunts seem cursory for every administration and I have no doubt Clinton would be on the receiving end of a similar "scandal", had she won. McCain's attempt to roll all investigations "Hillary" related into the Russian-Election influence was funny.
> No matter one's opinions on the propriety of the charges against her, we should all agree Winner should be released on bail pending trial
This statement is also indefensible. "No matter anyone's opinion...we SHOULD all agree". While I agree the process is bad, she definitely should be held without bail. She is VERY likely to say something else stupidly criminal.
> The problem (for me) is that those are completely arbitrary judgement calls that don't actually result in more correct output or development.
Is XML over-structured? Is JSON under-structured? Is there somewhere in the middle? I'm not sure these questions have value.
People (including programmers) are lazy and looking through a standard to try to decide how to "properly" address a problem within a standard (XML). Is my implementation right? What if I missed something? That cursory overhead (of XML standard consumption) is acted (or not acted) on as a practical barrier. That's the reality.
This results in super custom solutions, as you point out...
> The only benefit to JSON that I see, is that it lets people whip together a "data structure" without having to think the problem through first
You make an apt comparison to NoSQL. In fact, this would probably be true of any new format. Having arbitrary structuring is a quality that preceded XML. XML was a valuable tool, when in a vacuum of standard-less communication formats. Why is the pendulum swinging back? Access to information, comes to mind. For almost any API an unstructured API design results in a (unique) formal structure that can be referenced in a fraction of the time it takes to fully comprehend the XML standard. In this way, I think XML is over-specified. Now there's http://schemas.liquid-technolo... so you can just pick from any of the arbitrary XML variations. Are we any better off?
> complex JSON structure that quickly digs into quote, comma, and bracket hell
That is certainly a sad consequence of using JSON. \\\"some \\\'\\\\" string\\\\"\\\' etc. is nightmare.
Having to work around the ignorant (and soon to be remedied) design decision to prohibit comments in the JSON spec, have led to a complexity/readability breakdown in many applications. I mean, it's only been decades for someone to make obvious improvements to JS...at least we have websockets? SMH.
There is a lack of awareness regarding the (optional 3rd party) JSON Schema tooling.
JS/JSON libraries don't deal with large payloads very well/at all. Being so simple a format, the parsers aren't robust. Most run their environment out of memory rather than treating it like a stream, as an option. There are entertaining discussion threads about how to efficiently use C to parse JSON, to the Nth degree.
> I'm still waiting for someone to explain what this new feed format does above and beyond the XML one
It provides superior readability (debugging), simpler format (more compact in terms of raw bytes), less specification in a format leads to more specific implementation (which is what most people end up doing with XML anyway), and better 3rd party support (XML parsing behavior is dependent on many many choices, where JSON has far fewer). This is one of those, less common, cases where less specificity in a standard leads to cleaner implementation.
> The whole complaint about dealing with malformed XML isn't going to be fixed with this new format
That's particularly naive. Malformed XML isn't even meaningful, given almost every implementation deals with a different standard of correctness. Compare the amount of code in a Lua JSON decoder to any specific Lua XML reader.
> Or are you going to suggest they pilfer dollars that have already been taxed?
The reductive language isn't constructive. Taxation is not a simple calculation because of the different ways to leverage capital. Even asset valuation is somewhat tricky, given the number of financial tools (abstractions) can increase without limit.
e.g. Buy A, appreciate to B, loan D against B, purchase E, inflate to F, refinance D with F, after a year sell A for B with no capital gains and you've been getting tax deductions on D payments the whole way. Anything taxed in the process, you just loan against another valuation of anything in the chain and restart the capital engine.
> Or are you going to suggest they pilfer dollars that have already been taxed? Because that would be a big load of horse shit.
I think you're trying to reference a rent-tax on asset appreciation, in some sort of adolescent vernacular. The issue that most solutions are trying to work around, is appreciation (inflation of value) of a sitting financial asset. Right now the US taxes transactions, almost exclusively (when assets change hands). Stocks are financial assets with no specific value, except as a speculative. They are the haven of US investors from the last decade, while you can still find similar solace in less regulated/mature foreign markets today.
> Short of finding new, UNAMERICAN and UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The terms "unamerican" and "unconstitutional" have no bearing on the discussion, except to you. Maybe you have some internal mechanism (let's call it a "feeling"), but I don't think it's compelling reasons to be an economic luddite. You could just say that you think that there should always be a specific few economic winners and the vast majority of Americans will remain (statistically) perpetual economic losers. That's a valid viewpoint and how it interacts with an existing democratic culture is interesting, in another vein.
Good luck with whatever. I think it's clear you are the typical ignorant American, with a surprisingly obscure taste in forums, that you use to vent wildly, on a regular basis.
> You're already talking less than 1% of people
And 48%-80% of the capital, depending on how you slice the starting population, in the calculations.
This is essential to the context.
If Devuan was offered as a default AWS AMI, I would prefer to use it over Debian.
Brushing your teeth and injecting it (or equivalent like adding it to dialysis to augment a kidney's natural excretion) is wildly different usage. Think about it a bit more.
> "demand for PHP, WordPress, and LAMP skills are seeing a steady decline, while newer frameworks and languages like React, Angular, and Scala are on the rise." ... is one of the more sensible remarks on the list.
React and Angular are not replacements for PHP, Wordpress, or LAMP. Scala is so rarely used it's almost laughable. The question is still "will there be a culling between PHP or Python". While Python is rising in popularity, that is due to a unified ecosystem and AWS AMIs having python support out of the box. Looks a lot like how Ruby gained popularity, with similar problems (performance, stiff language design - e.g. lambdas, no do-white/foreach/whatever) and Ruby is...not a good choice for anyone. For many cases, we prototype in Python, but ultimately either rewrite in PHP or C for performance reasons when we try to run any load. It's just fine for straightforward intermittent procedural processing and PHP is slightly more robust (for better or worse) as glue code. YMMV
This makes sense. I still don't understand what "The Russians" or just Putin, would want to go to all this trouble for. They have plenty of economic power and specific leverage with certain countries (like China) that are suitable for trade to any end. If Russia tries a Georgian style takeover of Ukraine, things will get dicey, but it's not like these narratives or Trump would help if Putin ran tanks into Estonia (an actual NATO member).
> People support Net Neutrality because of imagined abuses by ISPs,
Without quibbling over the word "abuse", I'll just put forth the term "traffic shaping" as an analogue.
Cable companies have been shown to abuse each other (now they collaborate and abuse other industries, like Netflix) when there is financial gain. Basically, always. There's no imagining necessary for that.
Much like DNS registration (when there was only Network Solutions), people who could measure and remember the actual abuses by both NS and Cable companies prior to 2003, are still alive. Many of them were visiting this site back then. *cough*
Either you're ignorant, or just trolling for fun. Either way, it's hard to believe anyone who pushes this notion that cable companies act in anti-capitalistic fashion to hurt themselves.
Marketing spin is not news. Stop parroting Reuters.
A couple important links on that page are broken. Not very reassuring.
Somehow you managed to respond to the wrong post or are mentally deficient. Either way, your post made no sense in regard to the discussion you replied to.
In a medical emergency (of the type where consequence is subservient to need) the common question is if anyone has any medical training, but reality sometimes doesn't offer individuals the opportunity to relieve themselves of imagined idealistic scenarios.
Amazon seems to manage it, just fine.
I know lots of places where a developer can and has worn a hoodie to work. This includes my current office. A good rule of thumb is, the stricter the dress code - the less competent the management is. The hiring process is probably worse.
SMH
> You never saw a globe in school.
That's not what was said, or even implied.
Nobody else would be confused by the point, but ironically I guess I have to explain it to you like you're back in school.
The idea communicated is that a globe is not used as the primary instructional tool. Outside of some brief experiences in elementary levels, NOBODY on earth does that, unless you don't have a flat map (your anecdote is actual bullshit). So, if you had a classroom where you're teaching geography, the first thing you would do to create teaching materials would be to make a map from the globe. This leads to distortions either way.
As usual, you just like to argue to push weird ideas aggressively whenever I see your nick on /.
I was a big fan of naming that waste dump in Austin - The Fred Durst Society for the Humanities and The Arts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
This would be the correct course of action I would believe.
However, that might put NASA bureaucratically under the military, which looks bad (space militarization step 1).
> No, the ideal scenario is that the only things that are crimes are those that harm others
Since that's impossible (while continuing to have a society) since harm is relative, this sentiment serves no purpose.