Yeah, that's at least a strong possibility. Both of my software jobs featured a highly celebrated "hero" coder whose primary skill was quickly smashing out a thousand lines of unreadable code per day. If management asked for "X", he (both of them) would just bulldoze the codebase and everyone else's work to the ground to deliver that day, and was much beloved for it.
Suggest showing them (on Windows) Right-click > Show windows side by side (formerly "stack vertically"). I showed that one thing to my girlfriend and she's thanked me again and again and again for the improvement to her workflow.
Wow, that's a super stupid thing to say. It's both historically inaccurate, plus the argument "We know X doesn't happen because in theory Y could instead" is logically invalid.
"The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows:/- - -/ one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." (Excerpt from the will of Alfred Nobel)
There's an Economics prize that was started in Nobel's name later on, maybe that's what you're thinking of.
I think perhaps a clearer line to draw would be: Good crypto-systems are based on an algorithm which is known publicly (and can be assessed for strength), plus a secret key which is easily alterable (in case of a leak, new or removed partner, etc.) Thinking that you can keep secret part of the fixed, unchangeable infrastructure is the mistake that "security through obscurity" is meant to warn against. Murkiness about which part is which is bad.
"Bush Jr was a slightly weaker than average president. If you want to see an imperial presidency, look at Roosevelt, Lincoln or Kennedy. Congress didn't authorize the civil war, Lincoln sent the army to destroy the south by his own executive order. Kennedy too sent the armed forces into the south to enforce desegregation, on his own initiative. Bush sought (and received) congressional approval for what his predecessors would have called "routine military exercises"."
That's insanely ludicrous. Bush started at least two major wars with no declaration of war. One against an entirely unrelated country on totally fallacious charges. Were you paying attention for like 10 years when the armed forces were complaining about how thin they were stretched and couldn't meet recruiting goals? Soldiers being called back after retirement for 3, 4, 5, 6 tours of duty? Bush ripping up the nuclear SALT treaty unilaterally? There's whole books written about how Cheney alone was the most powerful vice-president in history.
Full Pardon. Presidential Medal of Freedom. Full stop.
(a) It's time to highlight the oft-neglected Presidential power of pardon and what it's meant to be used for. (b) The Obama White House contact webpage still claims that "President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history." It's time put up or shut up on that BS.
"Undoubtedly some of the motivation behind a structure with states having power was due to the realities of a sparsely populated country and frontier, and recent bad experiences with a monarchy."
Great book: David Robertson, "The Original Compromise: What the Constitution's Framers Were Really Thinking". Basically it's a boiling-down of the Federalist Papers (notes from debates at the original Constitutional Convention). The point being, there was no overarching principle or methodology, our constitution is the end result of a 55-man scramble, argument, and horse-trading over whose interests would get the most power behind them. The prime mover, Madison, absolutely came in with a plan and coalition to basically make the states negligible and have one strong federal government; but the people who didn't agree with what his group would likely do with those powers resisted and ultimately fractured the coalition, with every state looking to defend its own competing interests (e.g., ship-building versus trading versus slaves, etc.). Southern states were all pro-strong federal government (anti-states) for a few weeks until it appeared that the feds would get the power to stop slavery, then they pivoted and started demanding defenses for state governments. No single principle was agreed on in general; it's a mixed business negotiation basically. Including intentionally ambiguous language in places to avoid prolonged argumentation that summer.
I think that it's at least as likely that this signals a decline of Google instead. When I searched "trends" recently for things like "algebra" and "math help" it seemed liked the searches for even those fairly eternal subjects were trailing off in recent years. Comparing Google to Facebook, it seems that Google's the one that's flailing around more recently, with farts like G+, canceled projects, draconian merging of accounts, etc.
Different editions vary a lot. The original edition was the best IMO -- one single box, three small booklets with everything needed to play (monsters, infinite levels, dungeon/wilderness/air/water environments, castle-building, etc. etc.; 1974 white box set). I only got my hands on it myself in 2007. It was truly eye-opening, and it's all I've played since.
Like many things, the business thereafter was increasingly built on unwanted features and unnecessary bloat.
Just reading the summary, but this guy sounds off-base. There are different "densities" of writing, ranging from children's books and newspapers on one end, to stuff like academic journals, math, and poetry on the other end. Those latter types expect a much slower rate of progress, and more questioning-probing-ruminating on the text as you go. As usual, computer code is a lot like math. The author need not go so far afield for a good analogy.
I agree. I feel that something that's sorely lacking is a "legal self-defense course" where you practice responding to an aggressive interrogator with standard police tactics.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the professional wrestling/Andy Kaufman strategy.
Yeah, that's at least a strong possibility. Both of my software jobs featured a highly celebrated "hero" coder whose primary skill was quickly smashing out a thousand lines of unreadable code per day. If management asked for "X", he (both of them) would just bulldoze the codebase and everyone else's work to the ground to deliver that day, and was much beloved for it.
"they need the project to work"
Do they, Jane?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgAvehEDHYY
Well... the customer isn't always right. But usually. And right about this.
Suggest showing them (on Windows) Right-click > Show windows side by side (formerly "stack vertically"). I showed that one thing to my girlfriend and she's thanked me again and again and again for the improvement to her workflow.
No, for $57M, you can buy a worthless tower.
Or: For $57M you can buy a giant pile of burned $350M bills.
What a bargain!
Wow, that's a super stupid thing to say. It's both historically inaccurate, plus the argument "We know X doesn't happen because in theory Y could instead" is logically invalid.
"Your problem is, you're going by the actual definition of the word "liberal," as opposed to the weaponized version cooked up by talking heads."
Derivation is not definition. Check a dictionary.
Excellent comment.
It's true for all "Great Men", isn't it?
"Snowden destroyed what little faith the world had in the US to get shit done. To make mission."
Are you a Terminator? You kind of talk like one.
That's totally fallacious.
"The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- - -/ one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." (Excerpt from the will of Alfred Nobel)
There's an Economics prize that was started in Nobel's name later on, maybe that's what you're thinking of.
We should put that post in the OED as the perfect, textbook example of "FUD".
Because awesome.
I think perhaps a clearer line to draw would be: Good crypto-systems are based on an algorithm which is known publicly (and can be assessed for strength), plus a secret key which is easily alterable (in case of a leak, new or removed partner, etc.) Thinking that you can keep secret part of the fixed, unchangeable infrastructure is the mistake that "security through obscurity" is meant to warn against. Murkiness about which part is which is bad.
"Congress authorized military action in both Afghanistan and Iraq."
Is that constitutional, without an actual declaration of war? I don't think it is.
"Bush Jr was a slightly weaker than average president. If you want to see an imperial presidency, look at Roosevelt, Lincoln or Kennedy. Congress didn't authorize the civil war, Lincoln sent the army to destroy the south by his own executive order. Kennedy too sent the armed forces into the south to enforce desegregation, on his own initiative. Bush sought (and received) congressional approval for what his predecessors would have called "routine military exercises"."
That's insanely ludicrous. Bush started at least two major wars with no declaration of war. One against an entirely unrelated country on totally fallacious charges. Were you paying attention for like 10 years when the armed forces were complaining about how thin they were stretched and couldn't meet recruiting goals? Soldiers being called back after retirement for 3, 4, 5, 6 tours of duty? Bush ripping up the nuclear SALT treaty unilaterally? There's whole books written about how Cheney alone was the most powerful vice-president in history.
Full Pardon. Presidential Medal of Freedom. Full stop.
(a) It's time to highlight the oft-neglected Presidential power of pardon and what it's meant to be used for. (b) The Obama White House contact webpage still claims that "President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history." It's time put up or shut up on that BS.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
"Undoubtedly some of the motivation behind a structure with states having power was due to the realities of a sparsely populated country and frontier, and recent bad experiences with a monarchy."
Great book: David Robertson, "The Original Compromise: What the Constitution's Framers Were Really Thinking". Basically it's a boiling-down of the Federalist Papers (notes from debates at the original Constitutional Convention). The point being, there was no overarching principle or methodology, our constitution is the end result of a 55-man scramble, argument, and horse-trading over whose interests would get the most power behind them. The prime mover, Madison, absolutely came in with a plan and coalition to basically make the states negligible and have one strong federal government; but the people who didn't agree with what his group would likely do with those powers resisted and ultimately fractured the coalition, with every state looking to defend its own competing interests (e.g., ship-building versus trading versus slaves, etc.). Southern states were all pro-strong federal government (anti-states) for a few weeks until it appeared that the feds would get the power to stop slavery, then they pivoted and started demanding defenses for state governments. No single principle was agreed on in general; it's a mixed business negotiation basically. Including intentionally ambiguous language in places to avoid prolonged argumentation that summer.
I think that it's at least as likely that this signals a decline of Google instead. When I searched "trends" recently for things like "algebra" and "math help" it seemed liked the searches for even those fairly eternal subjects were trailing off in recent years. Comparing Google to Facebook, it seems that Google's the one that's flailing around more recently, with farts like G+, canceled projects, draconian merging of accounts, etc.
False. The "Alternative Combat System" (d20-based hit and save tables) is in the white box, Volume 1, Men & Magic, p. 19-20. (Not in Sup-I, Greyhawk.)
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com
Different editions vary a lot. The original edition was the best IMO -- one single box, three small booklets with everything needed to play (monsters, infinite levels, dungeon/wilderness/air/water environments, castle-building, etc. etc.; 1974 white box set). I only got my hands on it myself in 2007. It was truly eye-opening, and it's all I've played since.
Like many things, the business thereafter was increasingly built on unwanted features and unnecessary bloat.
Just reading the summary, but this guy sounds off-base. There are different "densities" of writing, ranging from children's books and newspapers on one end, to stuff like academic journals, math, and poetry on the other end. Those latter types expect a much slower rate of progress, and more questioning-probing-ruminating on the text as you go. As usual, computer code is a lot like math. The author need not go so far afield for a good analogy.
I agree. I feel that something that's sorely lacking is a "legal self-defense course" where you practice responding to an aggressive interrogator with standard police tactics.