Apparently the great minds of the Masters of the Universe aren't familiar with the speed of light. No matter for them though - the head of any major financial institution could rob the president at gunpoint on live TV, and still not be prosecuted for it.
The idea being that we have to inculcate in developers the idea that your code is not necessarily a reflection of your personal worth, and that it deserves to be poked at and prodded, and that you should not take personal offense by it.
Wusses and namby-pambies. I take the opposite approach. Three or more bugs found in your code results in summary execution, with your corpse hung from the flagpole as a reminder to others.
As we've seen recently, bad decisions can be made from errors in spreadsheets.
For that problem, let's just get rid of spreadsheets (at least as they're implemented in most programs). Copy-and-paste is the standard way to do the same computation in several places. How much further could you get from good practice? Reviewing the "code" requires peering at every cell. Etc., etc,. etc. Lastly, the people who use them are often idiots who have no idea what they're doing. At least if you made them use a programming language, they'd never get it to run. That way they couldn't pretend that they made meaningful calculations.
Yes Mozilla. BUTT OUT!!! Your coders are not scientists.... Scientists have enough to deal with
Scientists have enough to deal with... like buggy code? RTFA. It causes real problems, and I have no use for the "we're specialists, you couldn't possibly help us" attitude (often it's espoused to hide problems).
Would you trust a chemist who didn't know the proper practices for working in a chem lab? If not, why should you trust someone doing computational chemistry problems who doesn't know how to code? It's too easy to fall for the "how hard could this be" syndrome. For example, the time Richard Feynman spent a sabbatical working in a biology lab and trashed an important experiment due to his ignorance of the proper methods (a mistake, which unlike many other people, he freely admitted to).
In all fairness that's an easy mistake to make, because ^ means exponentiation in other languages. It's an historical stupidity, like the fact that log() is the natural log, not log10().
If it looks like bad PHP from 10 years ago but contains no bugs, then that is completely okay. If it looks like old COBOL strung together with GO TO's and it works, it's okay. If it looks like perfect C++ code but contains bugs, the bugs needs to be exposed, especially so if the research results are based on the output of the code.
None of the above. It's scientific code. It looks like bad Fortran (or even worse, FORTRAN) from 20 years ago, which is ok, since Fortran 90 is fine for number crunching.
In all seriousness, my experience is that "Ph.D. types" (for want of a better term) write some of the most amateurish code I've ever seen. I've worked with people whose knowledge and ability I can only envy, and who are anything but ivory tower types, but write code like it was BASIC from a kindergartener (ok, today's kindergarteners probably write better code than in my day). Silly things like magic numbers instead of properly defined constants (and used in multiple places no less!), cut-and-paste instead of creating functions, hideous control structures for even simple things. Ironically, this is despite the fact that number crunching code generally has a simple code structure and simple data structures. I think bad code is part of the culture or something. The downside is that it makes it more likely to have bugs, and very difficult to modify.
Realistically, this is because they're judged on their results and not their code. To many people here, the code is the end product, but to others it's a means to an end. Better scrutiny of it though would lead to more reliable results. It should be mandatory to release the entire program within, say, 1 year of publication. As for it being obfuscated, intentionally or otherwise, I don't think there's much you can do about that.
There's a monolithic "we"? Sounds like an episode called "The Borg take Econ 101".
Ah, okay, then it's probably strawman.
It would be a strawman to say that being opposed to one policy precludes being opposed to the other, but that's clearly not what I said (is creating a strawman argument about a supposed strawman argument a strawman squared?). My point was about relative emphasis. You can say you're opposed to two different policies, but if you barely acknowledge one problem, and then only when specifically asked about it, but scream from the rooftops if the second policy is so much as mentioned in a passing quip, it's clear that you have no sense of perspective.
To illustrate your fallacy, I refer you to the cliched joke
Why not cite what Stalin actually said, which says far more than a mediocre joke. "One death is a tragedy, and a million is a statistic." Which, much as I'm not a big fan of Ol' Joe, illustrates my point about relative emphasis.
Sorry, but such a complex historical event can not be simplified to a single 'cause'.
Indeed. No less of a free trade advocate than Milton Friedman said that Smoot-Hawley had only a minor effect on the Great Depression.
Then again, your entire argument reeks of simplification. A good tax strategy requires careful balancing of multiple types since they ALL have consequences.
Uh, oh. Sounds like you took Econ 102. Don't you know that you're supposed to stop at Econ 101 and learn to parrot "free trade good", regardless of circumstances, other concerns, or economic issues that are more important at a given time.
You helped prove my point. The whole issue of unnecessary rent seeking middle men like car dealerships, and how they get their cozy little businesses locked in by law, passes you by without comment. Meanwhile, a nickel tariff on socks merits a treatise on the wonders of "free trade". Hint 1: a nickel on a pair of socks ain't Smoot-Hawley. Hint 2: the political lock-in of car dealerships costs you a lot more than a nickel on a pair of imported socks would. That was kinda my point.
Ain't free enterprise great in America? You can do anything, as long as you cut the vested interests in for a piece of the action. Thankfully though we're not a bunch of economically ignorant Neanderthals that would do something stupid like put a nickel tariff on a pair of socks. That would be interfering in commerce!
This follows a 365% increase in tickets issued for distracted driving this summer, compared to last summer.
Was this campaign so politicos could claim to be "doing something", or to generate more ticket revenue? If the latter, what's the net after buying those shiny new SUV's and paying for more police hours? I think texting while driving is the height of idiocy, and should be banned, but is this campaign actually based on the severity of the problem? It'd be nice if which traffic offenses they choose to enforce most vigorously were based on some study of which caused the greatest danger. I know, I'm dreaming, reason, logic, facts and all that other silly stuff is always trumped by politics.
Who pays to change all the signs that say "Andrew J. Schnook, Governor" every time a new governor is elected. They're not only in NY, but most states I can think of. It's helpful to have a sign telling you when you're entering a state, but "who is the current governor" is not of great importance to most travelers.
Please distinguish between stupid laws in NYC and stupid laws in NYS. The former have been fostered by someone who bought himself a public office, and the latter by someone who inherited it.
That's idle speculation at best. I could also argue that people who are out of the mainstream, but not visibly, usually do anything and everything to avoid drawing attention to it. Back when homosexuals had to stay in the closet, they usually did anything and everything to avoid being outed. In some cases that went as far as marrying a woman to "prove" their heterosexuality.
No offense, but it's always been obvious that's a major purpose. As long as there's been snooping, it's been a major purpose. J. Edgar Hoover specialized in it.
And I don't mean the "elected" officials, I mean the lobbyists who really run things.
I hate lobbyists as much as the next person, but who is going to lobby for this? This is politicians and appointed officials out to smear anyone who airs the government's dirty laundry.
From the list, diplomats overseas, Bill Clinton, and many Republicans aren't whistleblowers. And Chelsea Manning wasn't accused of "sexual impropriety", she came out as transgender. So girlintraining's list in fact consists of one whistleblower example, Assange.
You're being obtuse. The point is that allegations of sexual impropriety, or at least not universally accepted proclivities, are used to cast doubt about, or outright smear, people for political reasons. Whistleblowers are but one category of people who have political enemies. You don't think the president has political enemies?
Hey, someone has a topless picture of a female who is a "child" of 17 years, 364 days, and if the prosecutor wants to get them they'll be prosecuted for "child pron". The sort of extreme situation you mention should be prosecuted severely, but often, and especially in a case like this where the prosecution has an agenda to pursue, people will be charged with "child pron" for the mildest and most borderline offenses. Even if the law only allows for a lesser penalty, the victim (oops, I mean perpetrator) will be publicly smeared with the "child pronographer" label, and probably required to register as a sex offender. Even worse, many of these laws are of the strict liability variety. That means that intent, or even due diligence, are no defense. Download that topless picture labelled "hot 18 y.o.", and if she's 17 years, 364 days, you're guilty.
Like the vast majority of people, I'm all for zealously prosecuting real child pron, but we have an out of control legal system where a 16 y.o. girl is charged w/ distributing child pron for sexting her boyfriend a topless pic of herself. Pull off her shirt in front of him and it's fine. In some states it's even legal for her to do it in public. Send a pic though and she's a criminal.
Not only does this lead to political, or just plain silly, prosecutions, it also detracts from prosecuting real child pron.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently the great minds of the Masters of the Universe aren't familiar with the speed of light. No matter for them though - the head of any major financial institution could rob the president at gunpoint on live TV, and still not be prosecuted for it.
Profit for the companies who supply the equipment and run the prisons. Loss for the taxpayers.
Isn't this a direct violation of HIPAA?
The idea being that we have to inculcate in developers the idea that your code is not necessarily a reflection of your personal worth, and that it deserves to be poked at and prodded, and that you should not take personal offense by it.
Wusses and namby-pambies. I take the opposite approach. Three or more bugs found in your code results in summary execution, with your corpse hung from the flagpole as a reminder to others.
As we've seen recently, bad decisions can be made from errors in spreadsheets.
For that problem, let's just get rid of spreadsheets (at least as they're implemented in most programs). Copy-and-paste is the standard way to do the same computation in several places. How much further could you get from good practice? Reviewing the "code" requires peering at every cell. Etc., etc,. etc. Lastly, the people who use them are often idiots who have no idea what they're doing. At least if you made them use a programming language, they'd never get it to run. That way they couldn't pretend that they made meaningful calculations.
they fracking suck at writing clean bug free code, and suck just as much at reviewing it
Then how come the browser I'm using right now works pretty well?
Yes Mozilla. BUTT OUT!!! Your coders are not scientists. ... Scientists have enough to deal with
Scientists have enough to deal with ... like buggy code? RTFA. It causes real problems, and I have no use for the "we're specialists, you couldn't possibly help us" attitude (often it's espoused to hide problems).
Would you trust a chemist who didn't know the proper practices for working in a chem lab? If not, why should you trust someone doing computational chemistry problems who doesn't know how to code? It's too easy to fall for the "how hard could this be" syndrome. For example, the time Richard Feynman spent a sabbatical working in a biology lab and trashed an important experiment due to his ignorance of the proper methods (a mistake, which unlike many other people, he freely admitted to).
In all fairness that's an easy mistake to make, because ^ means exponentiation in other languages. It's an historical stupidity, like the fact that log() is the natural log, not log10().
If it looks like bad PHP from 10 years ago but contains no bugs, then that is completely okay.
If it looks like old COBOL strung together with GO TO's and it works, it's okay.
If it looks like perfect C++ code but contains bugs, the bugs needs to be exposed, especially so if the research results are based on the output of the code.
None of the above. It's scientific code. It looks like bad Fortran (or even worse, FORTRAN) from 20 years ago, which is ok, since Fortran 90 is fine for number crunching.
In all seriousness, my experience is that "Ph.D. types" (for want of a better term) write some of the most amateurish code I've ever seen. I've worked with people whose knowledge and ability I can only envy, and who are anything but ivory tower types, but write code like it was BASIC from a kindergartener (ok, today's kindergarteners probably write better code than in my day). Silly things like magic numbers instead of properly defined constants (and used in multiple places no less!), cut-and-paste instead of creating functions, hideous control structures for even simple things. Ironically, this is despite the fact that number crunching code generally has a simple code structure and simple data structures. I think bad code is part of the culture or something. The downside is that it makes it more likely to have bugs, and very difficult to modify.
Realistically, this is because they're judged on their results and not their code. To many people here, the code is the end product, but to others it's a means to an end. Better scrutiny of it though would lead to more reliable results. It should be mandatory to release the entire program within, say, 1 year of publication. As for it being obfuscated, intentionally or otherwise, I don't think there's much you can do about that.
I think you will find that we
There's a monolithic "we"? Sounds like an episode called "The Borg take Econ 101".
Ah, okay, then it's probably strawman.
It would be a strawman to say that being opposed to one policy precludes being opposed to the other, but that's clearly not what I said (is creating a strawman argument about a supposed strawman argument a strawman squared?). My point was about relative emphasis. You can say you're opposed to two different policies, but if you barely acknowledge one problem, and then only when specifically asked about it, but scream from the rooftops if the second policy is so much as mentioned in a passing quip, it's clear that you have no sense of perspective.
To illustrate your fallacy, I refer you to the cliched joke
Why not cite what Stalin actually said, which says far more than a mediocre joke. "One death is a tragedy, and a million is a statistic." Which, much as I'm not a big fan of Ol' Joe, illustrates my point about relative emphasis.
Sorry, but such a complex historical event can not be simplified to a single 'cause'.
Indeed. No less of a free trade advocate than Milton Friedman said that Smoot-Hawley had only a minor effect on the Great Depression.
Then again, your entire argument reeks of simplification. A good tax strategy requires careful balancing of multiple types since they ALL have consequences.
Uh, oh. Sounds like you took Econ 102. Don't you know that you're supposed to stop at Econ 101 and learn to parrot "free trade good", regardless of circumstances, other concerns, or economic issues that are more important at a given time.
You helped prove my point. The whole issue of unnecessary rent seeking middle men like car dealerships, and how they get their cozy little businesses locked in by law, passes you by without comment. Meanwhile, a nickel tariff on socks merits a treatise on the wonders of "free trade". Hint 1: a nickel on a pair of socks ain't Smoot-Hawley. Hint 2: the political lock-in of car dealerships costs you a lot more than a nickel on a pair of imported socks would. That was kinda my point.
Children getting a lot of sleep is an evolutionary adaptation, since parents driven beyond the brink make poor caregivers.
Ain't free enterprise great in America? You can do anything, as long as you cut the vested interests in for a piece of the action. Thankfully though we're not a bunch of economically ignorant Neanderthals that would do something stupid like put a nickel tariff on a pair of socks. That would be interfering in commerce!
This follows a 365% increase in tickets issued for distracted driving this summer, compared to last summer.
Was this campaign so politicos could claim to be "doing something", or to generate more ticket revenue? If the latter, what's the net after buying those shiny new SUV's and paying for more police hours? I think texting while driving is the height of idiocy, and should be banned, but is this campaign actually based on the severity of the problem? It'd be nice if which traffic offenses they choose to enforce most vigorously were based on some study of which caused the greatest danger. I know, I'm dreaming, reason, logic, facts and all that other silly stuff is always trumped by politics.
And who is paying for the signage and upkeep?
Who pays to change all the signs that say "Andrew J. Schnook, Governor" every time a new governor is elected. They're not only in NY, but most states I can think of. It's helpful to have a sign telling you when you're entering a state, but "who is the current governor" is not of great importance to most travelers.
Please distinguish between stupid laws in NYC and stupid laws in NYS. The former have been fostered by someone who bought himself a public office, and the latter by someone who inherited it.
P.S. Jersey ain't exactly perfect either. Here's a convenient reference: http://www.stupidlaws.com/laws/united-states/new_jersey/ It also lists other states and countries.
That's idle speculation at best. I could also argue that people who are out of the mainstream, but not visibly, usually do anything and everything to avoid drawing attention to it. Back when homosexuals had to stay in the closet, they usually did anything and everything to avoid being outed. In some cases that went as far as marrying a woman to "prove" their heterosexuality.
No offense, but it's always been obvious that's a major purpose. As long as there's been snooping, it's been a major purpose. J. Edgar Hoover specialized in it.
And I don't mean the "elected" officials, I mean the lobbyists who really run things.
I hate lobbyists as much as the next person, but who is going to lobby for this? This is politicians and appointed officials out to smear anyone who airs the government's dirty laundry.
While it may seem en vogue to support any whistle blower that comes along, they are often doing what they do to cover for something else.
Leak documents in order to cover up your involvement in kiddie pron? That doesn't seem like a good strategy.
the FBI is by an large a good group of folks
Nothing in the suspicion that he's being smeared says otherwise. Most of the FBI is not involved in this case.
Their leadership may suck at times
That's the point. Nobody thinks this is a grass roots campaign from the FBI rank and file.
From the list, diplomats overseas, Bill Clinton, and many Republicans aren't whistleblowers. And Chelsea Manning wasn't accused of "sexual impropriety", she came out as transgender. So girlintraining's list in fact consists of one whistleblower example, Assange.
You're being obtuse. The point is that allegations of sexual impropriety, or at least not universally accepted proclivities, are used to cast doubt about, or outright smear, people for political reasons. Whistleblowers are but one category of people who have political enemies. You don't think the president has political enemies?
What a fortunate coincidence for the prosecutors that someone leaking information just happened to be into child pron.
Hey, someone has a topless picture of a female who is a "child" of 17 years, 364 days, and if the prosecutor wants to get them they'll be prosecuted for "child pron". The sort of extreme situation you mention should be prosecuted severely, but often, and especially in a case like this where the prosecution has an agenda to pursue, people will be charged with "child pron" for the mildest and most borderline offenses. Even if the law only allows for a lesser penalty, the victim (oops, I mean perpetrator) will be publicly smeared with the "child pronographer" label, and probably required to register as a sex offender. Even worse, many of these laws are of the strict liability variety. That means that intent, or even due diligence, are no defense. Download that topless picture labelled "hot 18 y.o.", and if she's 17 years, 364 days, you're guilty.
Like the vast majority of people, I'm all for zealously prosecuting real child pron, but we have an out of control legal system where a 16 y.o. girl is charged w/ distributing child pron for sexting her boyfriend a topless pic of herself. Pull off her shirt in front of him and it's fine. In some states it's even legal for her to do it in public. Send a pic though and she's a criminal.
Not only does this lead to political, or just plain silly, prosecutions, it also detracts from prosecuting real child pron.
Good point. I should stay more up to date. Also, it's easier to use a tablet or smartphone while riding a pony.