I'll bet every person who was infected by a Sony rootkit or anyone who wants to mod or run a second OS on their Playstation will say it was just deserts.
...that he even participated in the attacks? Afaik, there is no law against releasing statements with permission from an organization.
That depends on the nature of the statements. If they can be construed as encouraging / assisting (inciting) serious crime, then yes absolutely he can be prosecuted under the serious crimes act. As indeed he has. It will be up to a jury to decide if he's guilty of the offence of course and I suppose his best hope would be in the police have trouble identifying him rather than some other "topiary" as the source of particular statements. If he was stupid enough to draft things on his PC and leave traces behind then he is fucked.
His mum will come running out proclaiming he's so precious he shouldn't be prosecuted, how he has aspergers. Blah blah blah. I wonder if the lulz are worth it when these dickheads get caught and prosecuted.
New users to KDE. Being dumped in a sea of buttons, menus, dialogs, tabs, secondary dialogs is intimidating. It's a usability nightmare. And it's not about "training wheels" either. The purpose of desktops is to facilitate doing stuff and to do so in the most intuitive, minimal, forgiving, task centric way possible. If that means stripping esoteric settings, moving other stuff off into advanced dialogs or even into a separate a power tools app then so be it.
Users of all levels can easily be accommodated by the same GUI. OS X and Windows manage it. GNOME manages it. KDE doesn't. And that probably explains why it has become the also-ran desktop compared to GNOME.
Re:This site works best with...
on
OK Go Goes HTML5
·
· Score: 1
NPAPI flash and ActiveX flash are virtually the same thing. The control / plugin DLL are just thin wrappers around the core Flash DLLs. Both wrappers would usually be installed at the same time.
Chrome appears to be doing something different by bundling a version of Flash in the browser package itself. I doubt there is any performance benefit to this but it should make it easier to patch & replace Flash through Google's background update process.
KDE has traditionally cared more for eye candy over usability and it shows in the amount of clutter in the UI. Advanced settings mixed with basic settings on so on. It produces a desktop which is intimidating and inaccessible to new users because there is no direction compared to responding behaviour in GNOME, or OS X, or even Windows. Even power users don't need all that crap in their face, and even if they did it would be better to shift it off into a power tool for their benefit.
While GNOME cuts too deep sometimes (and GNOME 3.x has some glaring shortcomings that need a point release to fix), it is no mystery to me why it has pulled ahead in popularity over KDE. Recent versions of KDE have made some effort to rein in clutter (e.g. rekonq is far less of a mess than traditional konq) but it's still not a patch on where it should be.
I wasn't in charge of administering it just using it. But I was aware that the company maintained a Clearcase repository on each of their sites - 3 in the US, 1 in Ireland and one 1 India. If we wanted to work on a project we'd have to go grovelling to the CC admin asking for a local branch and wait the half a day or whatever for it to be pulled. Each site had a team of admins who spent much of their time screwing around writing scripts keeping these things in sync. The amount of administration and expense to the company must have been obscene.
Trying to fetch a view from a remote server was so 1/100th the speed of a local operation. Since I worked remotely most of the time this was my daily burden and I tended to try and fetch my snapshots when I was on site.
The only respite was near the end of my employment when IBM Rational finally produced a remote client (CCRC) which made the experience barely tolerable. Clearly gave up trying to fix the fundamental issue and preferred to mask it with a proxy instead. Even then the client was quirky, bloated and slow.
The product is IMO a time sink, a money pit, and a drain on programmer's time & morale. It had such a debilitating effect on my development even in normal LAN conditions that I pity anyone who still has to use it. Though having said that my current place of employment uses CVS (horrors) so I'm pretty keen to move them to git.
I had to work with it for 5 years and thought it was the most bloated, expensive, sluggish, over-engineered, counter-intuitive source control system I've ever had the misfortune to use. It's performance was so network bound that it was practically unusable outside of the same LAN as the server. Got teams running on two sites who need access to ClearCase? Tough you'll have to build two ClearCase servers, and hire two sets of admins to sync sites and sort out all the merge issues / build failures you're going to get keeping them in sync. Got workers who work remotely through a VPN? Tough they can't, except through a shitty thick client called ClearCase Remote Client.
I really pity anyone who has to use it. The funny part is a long time ago IBM had something called CMVC which was actually a pretty radical VCS with the concept of changesets, built-in bug reporting amongst other things. ClearCase to me stands a warning of what a source control system should not do.
Re:It's not perfect, but it ain't bad either...
on
The Rise of Git
·
· Score: 1
I'm not afraid of a command line but I would take a simple GUI over the command line every single day of the week. The command line would still be there if absolutely required, e.g. for that one time in a blue moon when you need to do some mad merge. The rest of the time a GUI should service what developers do on a daily basis. Furthermore, when it is integrated into a tool such as Eclipse (as EGit is), it means it works perfectly well with other functionality such as code refactoring, blame annotation, code comparison and so on.
Re:PostgreSQL CVS-git conversion
on
The Rise of Git
·
· Score: 1
There are very minor advantages to using CVS such as per-file labelling, and cherry picking what files / folders to checkout. But you have to sacrifice a whole lot for those minor features.
At the very least CVS codebases should migrate to Subversion but preferably a DVCS should be considered. The biggest issue is it's all very well saying these things but in a production environment it is trying to find the gap where you can transition is not so easy. It's not just a case of running cvs2git / cvs2svn and everything happens by magic. You have to set up new servers, you have to change all the release engineering scripts, you have to retrain staff, you have convince management to give you the time, you probably even want to refactor everything in a sane way first. The end goal is obviously desirable & IMO completely justifiable but it's a lot of effort so it's no surprise that some places are still stuck on CVS.
Re:Eclipse has adopted Git [for] for Eclipse proje
on
The Rise of Git
·
· Score: 2
Git on Windows has gotten a lot better. You need to install msysgit and then TortoiseGit on top. With those two things you're more or less free to do everything visually. I think TortoiseGit is still rough around the edges compared to TortoiseSVN though.
In Eclipse you now also have top tier support for Git through the EGit plugin. This is sitting over a pure Java implementation of git called JGit (i.e. no need for msysgit). It works pretty well and in the manner you would expect if you've ever used a VCS with Eclipse before. JGit and also powers Gerrit which is a git server and web app that slots a code review & approval system into the workflow.
TortoiseSVN is a direct port of TortoiseCVS so what is your point? Each Tortoise* package is similar at the top level and shares a heritage and some tools but they have to deal with radically different version control systems underneath.
In the case of creating a repo, the meaning is fundamentally different in Subversion than it is from Git. In Subversion when you create a repo you are creating a master repository folder that checkins, tags & branches get stored in when you commit from a snapshot. But your snapshot is checked out somewhere else. In Git when you create a project, the project is the repository and it is also the snapshot of the active branch. It's a superficially similar menu item that has a different underlying meaning.
I am not making the argument that either Mercurial or Git is better; I am making the argument that tools which are easier to use will lead to less fuck-ups in an organization.
I expect with EGit appearing in Eclipse and TortoiseGit putting a reasonable (though still not very refined) UI on top of Windows that the potential for fuckups or knowledge of arcane expressions is largely an issue for advanced users. I expect most devs can get by with what the gui provides.
Re:Data, Images, Binary builds etc.
on
The Rise of Git
·
· Score: 1
I assume you mean VCS. CVS is so fucking useless if can't version control binaries at all. So if you had branch X and branch Y changing the same foo.zip file and you expected each to see its own copy you're in for a nasty surprise.
Re:Data, Images, Binary builds etc.
on
The Rise of Git
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure how you consider SVN to be any better. Assuming you needed to pull everything you would have a 50GB on your disk plus ANOTHER 50GB for the pristine copy that SVN maintains. And if you work on multiple snapshots, you can add an additional 100GB footprint for each of those.
But most likely you wouldn't be pulling 50GB at a time. If you had a bunch of images / binary junk you should hopefully try to separate them into separate logical modules so you only need to pull the stuff you're working on rather than the entire lump in one go. I don't think this is unreasonable to do regardless of what source control system you use. But yeah because git pulls at the project level you would have to think about this ahead of time to use git with large amounts of data. Also if the data changed very significantly between checkins then git puts a footprint burden onto every clone, not just a central repository.
Perhaps some MS engineer can chime in but it seems highly improbable to me that their code is structured with one root and 50GB of crap underneath it. More likely it is broken into modules and submodules and most engineers wouldn't even bother pulling or building bits of the source that don't directly touch their area of responsibility. Most likely they just link to some debug / release binaries for the other stuff which is stuck somewhere on their network.
While git has the somewhat fortunate / unfortunate property of pulling a project in its entirety (i.e. you can't cherry pick folders like in CVS / Subversion), I would assume that anyone using it on a large codebase would choose to structure their projects alone sensible boundaries so there is no need to do this. Indeed if you look at Android (which uses git), that's exactly what it does with lots of git projects and a tool called repo which takes care of much of the drudgery of pulling & branching projects with one command. One could probably argue that git has some issues coping in large environments for repo to be needed at all, but the fact that android does use git demonstrates it can be used on large codebases.
The thing is Android never claimed to be Java, doesn't use Sun code (even the GPLv2'd standard edition which appeared before Android) and is therefore not stealing anything. Indeed from the very outset it has explicitly been labelled as not Java. The only thing Java about it is the language you write apps in. The code is compiled and then munged into Dalvik byte code which runs on a Dalvik VM and has no commonality with J2ME or the JVM at all. It doesn't even use the Sun system libraries, preferring to use Apache Harmony equivalents.
It's kind of hard to believe that Sun's CEO didn't know this. He must surely have known that something was up if only from the complete non-involvement of Sun in the Open Handset Alliance. Perhaps he made assumptions that J2ME was so entrenched it couldn't possibly go ahead without Java. Perhaps he saw two J2ME VM providers on the list of members and thought Java was a shoe-in. That's all reaching of course. Even commenters on his own blog seem confused, asking why Sun isn't involved and speculating that Google are going to do a run around. And certainly within a week when the SDK came out it was clear that is exactly what they had done.
No you have a right to speak, not the right for anybody to listen. And in the case of the United States in particular, way, way much too heed is made of what fundamentalists have to say about any matter especially when it is said from a position of ignorance and runs contrary to vast and overwhelming evidence.
Science is valid. Other methods are valid, too. Your immediate sense data without any scientific method applied, informing you that what's self-evidently there in front of you is indeed there in front of you, is another example, if you don't like religion as the alternative breaking the original fallacious argument. That argument, note, being the basis of my response.
Go look up what a hallucination is. Explain how manifestation of one is self-evidently there just because someone sensed it. I realise of course that delusional thinking underpins a lot of religious belief so I am not surprised that you would hold this view. Alternatively go look up optical illusions, or how 3D TVs work, or any other means by which the senses can be fooled.
Frankly you're having ass kicked all over the place in this thread.
So, it sounds like you will give up your faith if this (and, may we assume, any claim in the Bible) is shown to be inaccurate. Is that true?
Have you learned nothing? Creationists merely shift the goalposts. They make unreasonable demands for proof as the means to deny all evidence that already exists. Same as other deniers really. If by chance their proof is supplied, they'll hop to some other unreasonable demand. Ad nauseum.
Andy Coulson was David Cameron's communications director. It's perfectly understandable that if you're the PM you want someone who has worked in the industry to represent you to the press in the best light. At the same time when it turns out that that person was instrumental in one of the largest newspaper scandals in decades you can bet people wonder aloud what is going on behind the scenes.
All governments in recent times have courted the favours of the press but it's clear how that can lead to corruption. News International was / is big enough to break a government and has even claimed to have delivered power to governments before now. What sorts of things would a government do for such to keep them happy and onside? They virtually rubber stamped the BSkyB merger so I think it's fortuitous the scandal resurfaced when it did. Perhaps it will mark a watershed in the relationship of press & government and lead to some clear ethical and legal guidelines on how they may interact with each other. It might also herald legislation on how much influence one particular corporation should be entitled to exert in order to ensure a free and fair press since clearly the current arrangement is broken.
No, macro- and micro- evolution are absolutely quantitatively distinct due to the probabilities involved regarding the number of mutually-reinforcing mutations that must occur for the necessary outcome, while maintaining survivability.
It's perfectly simple to understand. An individual who possesses a beneficial mutation will have an improved chance at reproducing. Their offspring carry a copy of the benefit and over time the mutation becomes dominant amongst the population. Over time multiple such beneficial mutations occur and at some point the organism is distinct from those occurring many generations earlier, and from other isolated populations with the common ancestor. It's called speciation and it has been observed happening as well as countless examples in the fossil record.
It really isn't hard to comprehend the concept or the evidence that supports it. Declaring "probabilities" as if it were some game of tossing a hundred coins into the air and hoping they come up heads just shows you are playing the same game as creationists.
"Macro" evolution is just the accumulation of traits through "micro" evolution. The only reason these terms are so prominent is because some creationists have chosen to ringfence the most immediate and demonstrable forms of evolution as a means to somehow deny the remainder. To me it's as absurd as someone conceding people can walk one step at a time but refusing to believe that they use a succession of steps to travel large distances.
It's not that serious. If you have an issue with cancelling your credit card, informing a few companies of the change, and filling out a short form to recover your money you have bigger issues than this man. People need to relax.
All of which is a huge inconvenience and stress to the individual and adds to the bottom line costs of the banks and card processors. Times 675,000. Ten years (really 5 or 6 with good behaviour) really is too short for such serious fraud, and likely organised criminal activity.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bet every person who was infected by a Sony rootkit or anyone who wants to mod or run a second OS on their Playstation will say it was just deserts.
So you mean all 3 of them?
...that he even participated in the attacks? Afaik, there is no law against releasing statements with permission from an organization.
That depends on the nature of the statements. If they can be construed as encouraging / assisting (inciting) serious crime, then yes absolutely he can be prosecuted under the serious crimes act. As indeed he has. It will be up to a jury to decide if he's guilty of the offence of course and I suppose his best hope would be in the police have trouble identifying him rather than some other "topiary" as the source of particular statements. If he was stupid enough to draft things on his PC and leave traces behind then he is fucked.
His mum will come running out proclaiming he's so precious he shouldn't be prosecuted, how he has aspergers. Blah blah blah. I wonder if the lulz are worth it when these dickheads get caught and prosecuted.
I wonder who was doubting it. It might be a novel application but its specs aren't far removed from what you'd find in various low end set top boxes.
Users of all levels can easily be accommodated by the same GUI. OS X and Windows manage it. GNOME manages it. KDE doesn't. And that probably explains why it has become the also-ran desktop compared to GNOME.
Chrome appears to be doing something different by bundling a version of Flash in the browser package itself. I doubt there is any performance benefit to this but it should make it easier to patch & replace Flash through Google's background update process.
KDE has traditionally cared more for eye candy over usability and it shows in the amount of clutter in the UI. Advanced settings mixed with basic settings on so on. It produces a desktop which is intimidating and inaccessible to new users because there is no direction compared to responding behaviour in GNOME, or OS X, or even Windows. Even power users don't need all that crap in their face, and even if they did it would be better to shift it off into a power tool for their benefit.
While GNOME cuts too deep sometimes (and GNOME 3.x has some glaring shortcomings that need a point release to fix), it is no mystery to me why it has pulled ahead in popularity over KDE. Recent versions of KDE have made some effort to rein in clutter (e.g. rekonq is far less of a mess than traditional konq) but it's still not a patch on where it should be.
Trying to fetch a view from a remote server was so 1/100th the speed of a local operation. Since I worked remotely most of the time this was my daily burden and I tended to try and fetch my snapshots when I was on site.
The only respite was near the end of my employment when IBM Rational finally produced a remote client (CCRC) which made the experience barely tolerable. Clearly gave up trying to fix the fundamental issue and preferred to mask it with a proxy instead. Even then the client was quirky, bloated and slow.
The product is IMO a time sink, a money pit, and a drain on programmer's time & morale. It had such a debilitating effect on my development even in normal LAN conditions that I pity anyone who still has to use it. Though having said that my current place of employment uses CVS (horrors) so I'm pretty keen to move them to git.
I had to work with it for 5 years and thought it was the most bloated, expensive, sluggish, over-engineered, counter-intuitive source control system I've ever had the misfortune to use. It's performance was so network bound that it was practically unusable outside of the same LAN as the server. Got teams running on two sites who need access to ClearCase? Tough you'll have to build two ClearCase servers, and hire two sets of admins to sync sites and sort out all the merge issues / build failures you're going to get keeping them in sync. Got workers who work remotely through a VPN? Tough they can't, except through a shitty thick client called ClearCase Remote Client.
I really pity anyone who has to use it. The funny part is a long time ago IBM had something called CMVC which was actually a pretty radical VCS with the concept of changesets, built-in bug reporting amongst other things. ClearCase to me stands a warning of what a source control system should not do.
I'm not afraid of a command line but I would take a simple GUI over the command line every single day of the week. The command line would still be there if absolutely required, e.g. for that one time in a blue moon when you need to do some mad merge. The rest of the time a GUI should service what developers do on a daily basis. Furthermore, when it is integrated into a tool such as Eclipse (as EGit is), it means it works perfectly well with other functionality such as code refactoring, blame annotation, code comparison and so on.
At the very least CVS codebases should migrate to Subversion but preferably a DVCS should be considered. The biggest issue is it's all very well saying these things but in a production environment it is trying to find the gap where you can transition is not so easy. It's not just a case of running cvs2git / cvs2svn and everything happens by magic. You have to set up new servers, you have to change all the release engineering scripts, you have to retrain staff, you have convince management to give you the time, you probably even want to refactor everything in a sane way first. The end goal is obviously desirable & IMO completely justifiable but it's a lot of effort so it's no surprise that some places are still stuck on CVS.
In Eclipse you now also have top tier support for Git through the EGit plugin. This is sitting over a pure Java implementation of git called JGit (i.e. no need for msysgit). It works pretty well and in the manner you would expect if you've ever used a VCS with Eclipse before. JGit and also powers Gerrit which is a git server and web app that slots a code review & approval system into the workflow.
In the case of creating a repo, the meaning is fundamentally different in Subversion than it is from Git. In Subversion when you create a repo you are creating a master repository folder that checkins, tags & branches get stored in when you commit from a snapshot. But your snapshot is checked out somewhere else. In Git when you create a project, the project is the repository and it is also the snapshot of the active branch. It's a superficially similar menu item that has a different underlying meaning.
I am not making the argument that either Mercurial or Git is better; I am making the argument that tools which are easier to use will lead to less fuck-ups in an organization.
I expect with EGit appearing in Eclipse and TortoiseGit putting a reasonable (though still not very refined) UI on top of Windows that the potential for fuckups or knowledge of arcane expressions is largely an issue for advanced users. I expect most devs can get by with what the gui provides.
I assume you mean VCS. CVS is so fucking useless if can't version control binaries at all. So if you had branch X and branch Y changing the same foo.zip file and you expected each to see its own copy you're in for a nasty surprise.
But most likely you wouldn't be pulling 50GB at a time. If you had a bunch of images / binary junk you should hopefully try to separate them into separate logical modules so you only need to pull the stuff you're working on rather than the entire lump in one go. I don't think this is unreasonable to do regardless of what source control system you use. But yeah because git pulls at the project level you would have to think about this ahead of time to use git with large amounts of data. Also if the data changed very significantly between checkins then git puts a footprint burden onto every clone, not just a central repository.
While git has the somewhat fortunate / unfortunate property of pulling a project in its entirety (i.e. you can't cherry pick folders like in CVS / Subversion), I would assume that anyone using it on a large codebase would choose to structure their projects alone sensible boundaries so there is no need to do this. Indeed if you look at Android (which uses git), that's exactly what it does with lots of git projects and a tool called repo which takes care of much of the drudgery of pulling & branching projects with one command. One could probably argue that git has some issues coping in large environments for repo to be needed at all, but the fact that android does use git demonstrates it can be used on large codebases.
It's kind of hard to believe that Sun's CEO didn't know this. He must surely have known that something was up if only from the complete non-involvement of Sun in the Open Handset Alliance. Perhaps he made assumptions that J2ME was so entrenched it couldn't possibly go ahead without Java. Perhaps he saw two J2ME VM providers on the list of members and thought Java was a shoe-in. That's all reaching of course. Even commenters on his own blog seem confused, asking why Sun isn't involved and speculating that Google are going to do a run around. And certainly within a week when the SDK came out it was clear that is exactly what they had done.
No you have a right to speak, not the right for anybody to listen. And in the case of the United States in particular, way, way much too heed is made of what fundamentalists have to say about any matter especially when it is said from a position of ignorance and runs contrary to vast and overwhelming evidence.
Science is valid. Other methods are valid, too. Your immediate sense data without any scientific method applied, informing you that what's self-evidently there in front of you is indeed there in front of you, is another example, if you don't like religion as the alternative breaking the original fallacious argument. That argument, note, being the basis of my response.
Go look up what a hallucination is. Explain how manifestation of one is self-evidently there just because someone sensed it. I realise of course that delusional thinking underpins a lot of religious belief so I am not surprised that you would hold this view. Alternatively go look up optical illusions, or how 3D TVs work, or any other means by which the senses can be fooled.
Frankly you're having ass kicked all over the place in this thread.
So, it sounds like you will give up your faith if this (and, may we assume, any claim in the Bible) is shown to be inaccurate. Is that true?
Have you learned nothing? Creationists merely shift the goalposts. They make unreasonable demands for proof as the means to deny all evidence that already exists. Same as other deniers really. If by chance their proof is supplied, they'll hop to some other unreasonable demand. Ad nauseum.
All governments in recent times have courted the favours of the press but it's clear how that can lead to corruption. News International was / is big enough to break a government and has even claimed to have delivered power to governments before now. What sorts of things would a government do for such to keep them happy and onside? They virtually rubber stamped the BSkyB merger so I think it's fortuitous the scandal resurfaced when it did. Perhaps it will mark a watershed in the relationship of press & government and lead to some clear ethical and legal guidelines on how they may interact with each other. It might also herald legislation on how much influence one particular corporation should be entitled to exert in order to ensure a free and fair press since clearly the current arrangement is broken.
No, macro- and micro- evolution are absolutely quantitatively distinct due to the probabilities involved regarding the number of mutually-reinforcing mutations that must occur for the necessary outcome, while maintaining survivability.
It's perfectly simple to understand. An individual who possesses a beneficial mutation will have an improved chance at reproducing. Their offspring carry a copy of the benefit and over time the mutation becomes dominant amongst the population. Over time multiple such beneficial mutations occur and at some point the organism is distinct from those occurring many generations earlier, and from other isolated populations with the common ancestor. It's called speciation and it has been observed happening as well as countless examples in the fossil record.
It really isn't hard to comprehend the concept or the evidence that supports it. Declaring "probabilities" as if it were some game of tossing a hundred coins into the air and hoping they come up heads just shows you are playing the same game as creationists.
"Macro" evolution is just the accumulation of traits through "micro" evolution. The only reason these terms are so prominent is because some creationists have chosen to ringfence the most immediate and demonstrable forms of evolution as a means to somehow deny the remainder. To me it's as absurd as someone conceding people can walk one step at a time but refusing to believe that they use a succession of steps to travel large distances.
It's not that serious. If you have an issue with cancelling your credit card, informing a few companies of the change, and filling out a short form to recover your money you have bigger issues than this man. People need to relax.
All of which is a huge inconvenience and stress to the individual and adds to the bottom line costs of the banks and card processors. Times 675,000. Ten years (really 5 or 6 with good behaviour) really is too short for such serious fraud, and likely organised criminal activity.