Why is this bad advice? Having 10 "this is a backup" commit in the log to every 1 real commit confuses the teams and makes it much more difficult to get an overview up revision change history. Continuous builds means you should never commit unless the code can build cleanly and pass the regression tests. If someone is doing this then it should be in their own private branch and never on the mainline.
You want both. Don't check into the repo until the code is ready to be checked in, and code that is checked in should build cleanly and run without crashing. Use the backup for in-progress files not yet suitable for committing. If you want personal revision history prior to checking into an official repository then get a secondary tool for that. Ie, I know people who use git or mercurial for their own use so that they can commit often and then later commit the code to the company's repository, which reduces that amount of noise when reviewing revision history on a file.
And never treat revision control as backup. Yet so many people do this. Ie Friday night they check their code in whether it works or not, and to the mainline branch. Had one coworker who checked in changes every few minutes, no matter the state of the code (I suspect he set up his editor to automatically commit after every save). I've had coworkers vigorously defend this practice essentially saying that they need to backup the files and arguing against having continuous builds because they were always the ones to be blamed when the build broke every few hours.
So, use revision control, and get a backup system that works and is convenient. Time Machine for OSX is awesome, just ask the boss to reimburse for the cost of an external hard drive (and encrypt it). Too bad there's nothing so painfree as that on Windows. If you can't do that, then at least get a script to copy your code to a server at the end of the day.
Generally we credit the accomplishments of presidents to be things tha they get done while in office. Getting into office in the first place is overlooked, otherwise we should be celebrating how Millard Fillmore managed to be elected in such difficult times.
He hasn't had that many successes, and those he points to were likely to happen with any Republican as president. The biggest one he points to is getting a center-right supreme court judge approved, likely the same guy Jeb Bush would have nominated. And Trump only nominated him, it was Congress that approved the nominee. The people that Trump points to as getting jobs likely would have also gotten the same jobs regardless of who was made president - these economic matters move too slowly for some rallies and speeches to have made a difference this soon. But Trump is an undeniable egotist, so of course he takes personal credit for everything.
As for the statues, they are often NOT historical. Most were added a generation or two after the civil war as a means to affirmatively declare that the South was back, baby, and goodbye to the reconstructionist yankees. After that remember, these southern states started adding the Confederate battle flag to their state flags, and not because it was their heritage but because they were re-affirming their beliefs that they were in the right all along despite losing the war. These symbols were the equivalent of flipping their middle finger at the north or shaking a fist at the descendants of freed slaves in their midst. These were not memorials to the fallen soldiers on the confederate side. The swastika is a historical symbols as well, but we don't raise statues to it, and Germany doesn't raise statues to it either as symbol of their heritage, and if we put it into historical context we do so in a museum instead of high on a pedestal in the middle of a public park.
I found it very telling that Bannon revealed that he wanted everyone to be embroiled in these race issues and talking about them in order to keep them misdirected from administration plans with regards to economic issues.
The nazis in Germany were an extreme rightist group. The neo nazis of today in America and Europe are an extremist right group. The rally they were invited to and shared common ideology with was called "Unite the Right". There is nothing socialist about it. You either are using fake news or revisisionist history sites to get your false information from, or else you're actively engaging in spreading these lies.
I can understand the logic though. Nazis are evil, liberals are evil, you are good, your friends on the extreme right are good, therefore Nazis must be liberals. It's a comfortable view to take if you are leaning towards extreme right positions. But it's still incorrect.
The KKK is still around though, and they still have the cross burning. The neo nazis showed up in Charlottesville and plenty of swastikas were in plain view. They are certainly part of the intended participants in the "Unite the Right" rally. So is alt-right not the correct term for them?
And neo-nazis are not literal Nazis either. They use that term though. And the neo-nazis are inspired by Bannon and his past leadership of fake news outlet Breitbart. So while Bannon is not literally a germn Nazi from the thirties and forties, he has a lot of common ideals with neo nazis.
Oh yes, that's true. The centrist and moderates positions are being despised. We're in such a divisive state now that people are only seeing best friends and worst enemies with no one else. Never mind that everyone seems to treat politics as binary, "us" and "them", "left" or "right", "liberal" or "conservative. Nothing is that simple minded. But because it's being treated as one of two choices only, people think that if they know your stance on one issue that they now know your stance on all issues. It also seems to treated as a flaw if someone changes an opinion over time, when it should be a virtue to be able to change views if given newer information.
This causes litmus tests for political parties become the norm. I've seen groups for women's rights reject conservative women from engaging, because they assume that anyone for women's rights should automatically fit a certain mold even in something so unrelated as tax policy or gun control. Other countries which have more than two viable parties are capable of shifting alliances around with different issues and finding common ground between parties.
A natural right is a philosophical construct. It's an ideal to strive for. But pragmatically speaking, a right doesn't matter if it's not protected. If the people want their rights then they have to demand that the government protect those rights. Instead I see the people becoming willing to give up those rights when it's convenient or they're afraid.
This is true. I'm all in support of free speech. I don't think some of these neo-nazis should have been silenced. That said however, I cannot deny the feeling of schadenfreude that show up when inconveniences happen to bad people.
There is too much politics on Facebook. But it's on the left and the right. I haven't been on long, but I can't imagine that it's always been this bad or it would never have become popular.
Hah, I got there once by accident. Looking up a movie review for Shrek even. The review was all about whether or not to let your kids watch Shrek, and the reviewer said something like your kids are going to want to see it and that's ok, but be sure to explain to them after the movie that it's no ok for an ogre and a human to get married, or a donkey and a dragon to fall in love. And I was thinking "what the hell, this is the most bizarre thing I ever read". I didn't look at anything else there, but when I mentioned it to my brother later he was saying "dude, that's the hardcore nazi site, you better go an scrub your browser history!"
"Sex symbol" is not always the leading man. Look at any Woody Allen film where he's the lead:-) Look at comedies, movies with Kevin James for instance.
Overall that's a Hollywood thing, they're out of touch with reality. They make someone be the unpopular girl in school by giving her glasses (who magically becomes the star of the prom by removing said glasses and changing the hair a little). The actors playing the middle age dads are always above average in build. They may go from playing a super hero in one movie, and the next movie they're a single dad who finds it difficult to find someone to date. To hollywood, they think these bodies are average.
Never mind that the general public is out of touch too. Someone will call Kate Winslet "chubby" in Titanic, the clothing stores only keep size 6 and lower up front in the windows, and all the gossip magazines in the grocery store checkout lines are talking about the weight of celebrities.
The differences causing fewer women to want to enter the typical computing workplace are sociological, not biological. Women used to be very common in computing, and computer operators would have more women than men, but over the decades this has declined. Public attitudes are probably the biggest factor at work here. In my view the biggest change that can be made is to change these attitudes, treat the technological workplace as appropriate for women, tell daughters that they can grow up to like computers, tell boys to stop pushing out the girls, figure out what is discouraging women from taking these technical majors in college in fewer numbers than in the past.
Even if the brains are different on average, that means nothing because we shouldn't care about the average but about the individual. Who cares if the average fora certain trait is different between mean and women when the variances are so huge? Some women are better at engineering than the average male and some women are worse, so anyone who uses these averages as a rationale to discriminate is being a fool.
So many people claim that technology jobs are a meritocracy which is patently false just be looking around at all the dumb people who get hired. So using meritocracy as a reason why women aren't in technology is also a foolish response.
Who cares if there are differences? We WANT differences in the workplace. We do not want a million clones of Bob from IT. We want a variety of skills, and a variety of ways to look at problems and solutions.
There's a difference. Black Lives Matter does not advocate violence. Their goal is to reduce violence. BLM is not a black supremecist movement and does not advocate the removal of all other ethnicities from America.
Slashdot Mirror
First person to hit the moon wins!
But it's a smart toilet, it syncs up to his smart phone.
Why is this bad advice? Having 10 "this is a backup" commit in the log to every 1 real commit confuses the teams and makes it much more difficult to get an overview up revision change history. Continuous builds means you should never commit unless the code can build cleanly and pass the regression tests. If someone is doing this then it should be in their own private branch and never on the mainline.
Two words that Microsoft promotes often: User Experience. So I believe this VS user managed to get the full experience.
You want both. Don't check into the repo until the code is ready to be checked in, and code that is checked in should build cleanly and run without crashing. Use the backup for in-progress files not yet suitable for committing. If you want personal revision history prior to checking into an official repository then get a secondary tool for that. Ie, I know people who use git or mercurial for their own use so that they can commit often and then later commit the code to the company's repository, which reduces that amount of noise when reviewing revision history on a file.
And never treat revision control as backup. Yet so many people do this. Ie Friday night they check their code in whether it works or not, and to the mainline branch. Had one coworker who checked in changes every few minutes, no matter the state of the code (I suspect he set up his editor to automatically commit after every save). I've had coworkers vigorously defend this practice essentially saying that they need to backup the files and arguing against having continuous builds because they were always the ones to be blamed when the build broke every few hours.
So, use revision control, and get a backup system that works and is convenient. Time Machine for OSX is awesome, just ask the boss to reimburse for the cost of an external hard drive (and encrypt it). Too bad there's nothing so painfree as that on Windows. If you can't do that, then at least get a script to copy your code to a server at the end of the day.
Generally we credit the accomplishments of presidents to be things tha they get done while in office. Getting into office in the first place is overlooked, otherwise we should be celebrating how Millard Fillmore managed to be elected in such difficult times.
He hasn't had that many successes, and those he points to were likely to happen with any Republican as president. The biggest one he points to is getting a center-right supreme court judge approved, likely the same guy Jeb Bush would have nominated. And Trump only nominated him, it was Congress that approved the nominee. The people that Trump points to as getting jobs likely would have also gotten the same jobs regardless of who was made president - these economic matters move too slowly for some rallies and speeches to have made a difference this soon. But Trump is an undeniable egotist, so of course he takes personal credit for everything.
As for the statues, they are often NOT historical. Most were added a generation or two after the civil war as a means to affirmatively declare that the South was back, baby, and goodbye to the reconstructionist yankees. After that remember, these southern states started adding the Confederate battle flag to their state flags, and not because it was their heritage but because they were re-affirming their beliefs that they were in the right all along despite losing the war. These symbols were the equivalent of flipping their middle finger at the north or shaking a fist at the descendants of freed slaves in their midst. These were not memorials to the fallen soldiers on the confederate side. The swastika is a historical symbols as well, but we don't raise statues to it, and Germany doesn't raise statues to it either as symbol of their heritage, and if we put it into historical context we do so in a museum instead of high on a pedestal in the middle of a public park.
I found it very telling that Bannon revealed that he wanted everyone to be embroiled in these race issues and talking about them in order to keep them misdirected from administration plans with regards to economic issues.
The nazis in Germany were an extreme rightist group. The neo nazis of today in America and Europe are an extremist right group. The rally they were invited to and shared common ideology with was called "Unite the Right". There is nothing socialist about it. You either are using fake news or revisisionist history sites to get your false information from, or else you're actively engaging in spreading these lies.
I can understand the logic though. Nazis are evil, liberals are evil, you are good, your friends on the extreme right are good, therefore Nazis must be liberals. It's a comfortable view to take if you are leaning towards extreme right positions. But it's still incorrect.
The KKK is still around though, and they still have the cross burning. The neo nazis showed up in Charlottesville and plenty of swastikas were in plain view. They are certainly part of the intended participants in the "Unite the Right" rally. So is alt-right not the correct term for them?
And neo-nazis are not literal Nazis either. They use that term though. And the neo-nazis are inspired by Bannon and his past leadership of fake news outlet Breitbart. So while Bannon is not literally a germn Nazi from the thirties and forties, he has a lot of common ideals with neo nazis.
That just leaves Kellogg as the major player in the fiber industry.
Now I can see why the case was dismissed with prejudice if that's the typical AT&T argument.
I'm not a morning person. I roll in at 10 and am still tired. I move in slow motion when I wake up.
Oh yes, that's true. The centrist and moderates positions are being despised. We're in such a divisive state now that people are only seeing best friends and worst enemies with no one else. Never mind that everyone seems to treat politics as binary, "us" and "them", "left" or "right", "liberal" or "conservative. Nothing is that simple minded. But because it's being treated as one of two choices only, people think that if they know your stance on one issue that they now know your stance on all issues. It also seems to treated as a flaw if someone changes an opinion over time, when it should be a virtue to be able to change views if given newer information.
This causes litmus tests for political parties become the norm. I've seen groups for women's rights reject conservative women from engaging, because they assume that anyone for women's rights should automatically fit a certain mold even in something so unrelated as tax policy or gun control. Other countries which have more than two viable parties are capable of shifting alliances around with different issues and finding common ground between parties.
A natural right is a philosophical construct. It's an ideal to strive for. But pragmatically speaking, a right doesn't matter if it's not protected. If the people want their rights then they have to demand that the government protect those rights. Instead I see the people becoming willing to give up those rights when it's convenient or they're afraid.
This is true. I'm all in support of free speech. I don't think some of these neo-nazis should have been silenced. That said however, I cannot deny the feeling of schadenfreude that show up when inconveniences happen to bad people.
There is too much politics on Facebook. But it's on the left and the right. I haven't been on long, but I can't imagine that it's always been this bad or it would never have become popular.
Hah, I got there once by accident. Looking up a movie review for Shrek even. The review was all about whether or not to let your kids watch Shrek, and the reviewer said something like your kids are going to want to see it and that's ok, but be sure to explain to them after the movie that it's no ok for an ogre and a human to get married, or a donkey and a dragon to fall in love. And I was thinking "what the hell, this is the most bizarre thing I ever read". I didn't look at anything else there, but when I mentioned it to my brother later he was saying "dude, that's the hardcore nazi site, you better go an scrub your browser history!"
"Sex symbol" is not always the leading man. Look at any Woody Allen film where he's the lead :-) Look at comedies, movies with Kevin James for instance.
Overall that's a Hollywood thing, they're out of touch with reality. They make someone be the unpopular girl in school by giving her glasses (who magically becomes the star of the prom by removing said glasses and changing the hair a little). The actors playing the middle age dads are always above average in build. They may go from playing a super hero in one movie, and the next movie they're a single dad who finds it difficult to find someone to date. To hollywood, they think these bodies are average.
Never mind that the general public is out of touch too. Someone will call Kate Winslet "chubby" in Titanic, the clothing stores only keep size 6 and lower up front in the windows, and all the gossip magazines in the grocery store checkout lines are talking about the weight of celebrities.
The differences causing fewer women to want to enter the typical computing workplace are sociological, not biological. Women used to be very common in computing, and computer operators would have more women than men, but over the decades this has declined. Public attitudes are probably the biggest factor at work here. In my view the biggest change that can be made is to change these attitudes, treat the technological workplace as appropriate for women, tell daughters that they can grow up to like computers, tell boys to stop pushing out the girls, figure out what is discouraging women from taking these technical majors in college in fewer numbers than in the past.
Even if the brains are different on average, that means nothing because we shouldn't care about the average but about the individual. Who cares if the average fora certain trait is different between mean and women when the variances are so huge? Some women are better at engineering than the average male and some women are worse, so anyone who uses these averages as a rationale to discriminate is being a fool.
So many people claim that technology jobs are a meritocracy which is patently false just be looking around at all the dumb people who get hired. So using meritocracy as a reason why women aren't in technology is also a foolish response.
Who cares if there are differences? We WANT differences in the workplace. We do not want a million clones of Bob from IT. We want a variety of skills, and a variety of ways to look at problems and solutions.
There's a difference. Black Lives Matter does not advocate violence. Their goal is to reduce violence. BLM is not a black supremecist movement and does not advocate the removal of all other ethnicities from America.
Everyone is struggling to be the best so that they can be first pick for a mediocre clerical job.