* Make certain that source code is where it should be.
My fellow seniors and I have a little rule where I work - if it's not in CVS, it doesn't exist. Nothing gets deployed to a server that isn't in source control. Hard drives die, things are deleted by accident, and developer PCs are not backed up. The CVS server is (or should be - if it isn't, at least we are blameless if the shit hits the fan).
* Clearly document anything "strange" in the source code you deliver.
That's just common courtesy if nothing else. If you think something is odd while you're writing it, imagine how it's going to look to someone else coming to it cold. I've lost count of the time I've seen wasted (and have wasted myself) investigating weirdness in code, or even removing things that look completely wrong only to have something break subtley in an apparently unrelated area.
* Make certain you have a "buddy" developer who knows what you are doing.
This one I'm much less bothered about. However, that may be because I tend to actively discourage any concept of code ownership. It's not *my* code, it's the $feature code. If someone else needs to get in there in the course of their work, all the better - they may catch a mistake I've made, or a bad assumption. Even if it's perfect, it's one more person who knows the code. I think that ideally everyone on a team of developers should get stuck in to pretty much every module. It's rare (in my experience at least) that any part of an application is so specialised as to only be within the ability of a single team member.
No it doesn't. No-one goes to their death bed thinking "I wish I'd spent more time in the office..."; that's especially true when they go 30 or 40 years before their time.
If I have only a couple of months to live, then I'm sorry, I'd spend as much time as possible with family and friends. Project deadline? Devil take your client requirements, I have more important things to do and precious little time to do them in.
Work steals enough of our time as it is; don't let it take your final moments too.
You are taking the piss, right? You're basing your entire criticism of Vista on a screenshot?
Yeah, we were shocked too, but you have to believe the screenshot below.
Yes, because there are only a handful of people in the world with m4d enough Ph0t0sh0p sk1llz to have faked it. Because a PF usage number for a system "at idle" without the associated list of running processes has meaning.
Hey, my Linux install is currently using 1.2GB at idle, and I can supply a screenshot to prove it.
And yes, that really is 3X XP's current requirements, the thought of which certainly is warming Intel's little heart.
The article claims that the Vista install requires 7GB of hard drive, which Intel won't care about, not being in the hard drive market. It offers no proof of that figure. Besides which, I challenge you to find a single modern PC for sale that doesn't have many times that amount of space; my two year old work PC has a 120GB hard drive which I've barely even begun to fill.
The number shown depends on the size of the window and the number of lines of summary displayed (controllable by a little slider above).
the scroller doesn't give any kind of context as to where you are within the results
True, but that's hard to get around when you could be dealing with millions of results. There is a "x to y of z" line at the top which provides the context.
Its slow. That may be due to this computer being slow
I suspect that that is indeed the case, as on this machine it's perfectly acceptable (3GHz Pentium, 2GB of RAM, 100Mbps link - I never said this was an average machine...)
XP should run ok in that much RAM, as long as the graphics system isn't stealing too much of it and you don't have a virus scanner, anit-spyware software, etc running.
WMP 10 is currently using 8.8MB of RAM on my system (15.7MB VM size), so it really shouldn't be a problem for you.
If you prefer WinAmp though (and I certainly used to myself), just grab the old version and enjoy:)
Buncefield, not to mention the dozens of tankers that have grounded, gone down or otherwise shed their oil all over a large patch of ocean over the years.
Shit happens in all industries; we just need to work to make sure it happens as rarely as possible.
I was wondering how that compared to the average sentence for rape or murder, so I did a little googling, and came up with this page from the parliament website. Going by those figures, you're looking at an average of 7 years for rape, 3 for robbery, and so on.
How the fuck do they justify 10 years for hacking?
Oh, and the slashdot summary is a little misleading. While it's true that tougher laws against hacking are gaining support, this particular bill has been widely criticised. It's right there in the linked-to article...
Lots of hosting companies offer ssh access, not to mention that if an account exists on the machine with ssh access, it may be only a matter of time before someone manages to gain access to it.
Oh piss off will you? The Queen has had exactly zero impact on my life, beyond the 60p or so it costs me (as a tax payer) each year to keep her in tiaras.
I may not have the right to bear arms, but in every other respect I'm just as free as you guys - and with Blair in power, I mean that in all respects, good and bad.
Just about everything is a remake of something that's already been made.
As opposed to being a remake of something that hasn't been made before?
Re:Bandwidth-based pricing would stop this, and ot
on
Neighborhood WiFi Security
·
· Score: 2, Informative
A lot of ISPs here in the UK do indeed offer plans with a monthly bandwidth usage cap. If you exceed the cap, you pay for the extra you use, generally in 1GB chunks. I beleive that some ISPs offer the user the choice to have their access cut off if they exceed the cap, rather than be charged for more.
Those plans tend to be a little cheaper than the uncapped ones, but not by as much as you might expect. For example, I have an uncapped plan, which is only a couple of pounds more per month than my parents' capped plan (same connection speeds, same ISP).
Usually not knowing it's a crime is no get outta jail card.
Usually not knowing that what you are doing is not a crime is no defence, true. Generally though, not knowing that you're not doing something is, unless the prosecution can prove negligence.
Until and unless there's a crime of failing to take reasonable steps to secure a PC or similar, people are going to "get away" with it.
Note that if you claim that it wasn't you, it was someone else using your connection without your knowledge, but the prosecution can demonstrate that actually it most likely was you and that you left your connection unsecured in order to provide yourself with that excuse, you'll likely not be believed.
What concerns me here is that kids are trained to shoot people shortly after they learn to walk. Yay, let's naturalize war for them early on. I mean, WTF? GIGO.
I'm 31. When I was five years old, there were no home computers or consoles, or at the very least, none that could manage anything more advanced than Pong.
One of my lasting memories of that age is of playing war in the school playground. A big group of us (all boys, now I come to think of it), running around "shooting" each other with our fingers, stabbing each other with knives of air, etc. I, like most of my peers, also had a fair collection of plastic soldiers, and little toy tanks and the like.
We may not have been being "trained to shoot people" shortly after learning to walk, but we sure as hell play-acted it. All computers have done is make it that little bit more realistic-looking.
This is totally off-topic, but in response to your analogy, surely the levees being overtopped would have resulted in a lot less water and therefore much-reduced flooding? I'm no fan of Bush, but it seems logical to me to worry less about over-flowing than an outright breach (but then, I'm also not a hydro-engineer).
Slashdot Mirror
* Make certain that source code is where it should be.
My fellow seniors and I have a little rule where I work - if it's not in CVS, it doesn't exist. Nothing gets deployed to a server that isn't in source control. Hard drives die, things are deleted by accident, and developer PCs are not backed up. The CVS server is (or should be - if it isn't, at least we are blameless if the shit hits the fan).
* Clearly document anything "strange" in the source code you deliver.
That's just common courtesy if nothing else. If you think something is odd while you're writing it, imagine how it's going to look to someone else coming to it cold. I've lost count of the time I've seen wasted (and have wasted myself) investigating weirdness in code, or even removing things that look completely wrong only to have something break subtley in an apparently unrelated area.
* Make certain you have a "buddy" developer who knows what you are doing.
This one I'm much less bothered about. However, that may be because I tend to actively discourage any concept of code ownership. It's not *my* code, it's the $feature code. If someone else needs to get in there in the course of their work, all the better - they may catch a mistake I've made, or a bad assumption. Even if it's perfect, it's one more person who knows the code. I think that ideally everyone on a team of developers should get stuck in to pretty much every module. It's rare (in my experience at least) that any part of an application is so specialised as to only be within the ability of a single team member.
Sure it sounds WRONG
No it doesn't. No-one goes to their death bed thinking "I wish I'd spent more time in the office..."; that's especially true when they go 30 or 40 years before their time.
If I have only a couple of months to live, then I'm sorry, I'd spend as much time as possible with family and friends. Project deadline? Devil take your client requirements, I have more important things to do and precious little time to do them in.
Work steals enough of our time as it is; don't let it take your final moments too.
You are taking the piss, right? You're basing your entire criticism of Vista on a screenshot?
Yeah, we were shocked too, but you have to believe the screenshot below.
Yes, because there are only a handful of people in the world with m4d enough Ph0t0sh0p sk1llz to have faked it. Because a PF usage number for a system "at idle" without the associated list of running processes has meaning.
Hey, my Linux install is currently using 1.2GB at idle, and I can supply a screenshot to prove it.
And yes, that really is 3X XP's current requirements, the thought of which certainly is warming Intel's little heart.
The article claims that the Vista install requires 7GB of hard drive, which Intel won't care about, not being in the hard drive market. It offers no proof of that figure. Besides which, I challenge you to find a single modern PC for sale that doesn't have many times that amount of space; my two year old work PC has a 120GB hard drive which I've barely even begun to fill.
As I understand it, even in Managed C++ you have to enclose blocks that you wish the garbage collector to be aware of in "__gc { ..... }" or somesuch.
It doesn't show enough results
The number shown depends on the size of the window and the number of lines of summary displayed (controllable by a little slider above).
the scroller doesn't give any kind of context as to where you are within the results
True, but that's hard to get around when you could be dealing with millions of results. There is a "x to y of z" line at the top which provides the context.
Its slow. That may be due to this computer being slow
I suspect that that is indeed the case, as on this machine it's perfectly acceptable (3GHz Pentium, 2GB of RAM, 100Mbps link - I never said this was an average machine...)
So, I'm expected to hack about with a product I've paid for in order to get it to work?
No thanks; that's part of the reason I paid the money, so I didn't have to hack about with it.
XP should run ok in that much RAM, as long as the graphics system isn't stealing too much of it and you don't have a virus scanner, anit-spyware software, etc running.
:)
WMP 10 is currently using 8.8MB of RAM on my system (15.7MB VM size), so it really shouldn't be a problem for you.
If you prefer WinAmp though (and I certainly used to myself), just grab the old version and enjoy
Buncefield, not to mention the dozens of tankers that have grounded, gone down or otherwise shed their oil all over a large patch of ocean over the years.
Shit happens in all industries; we just need to work to make sure it happens as rarely as possible.
Also, people don't realize how common Radon is.
Indeed. You get radon gas wherever there are large granite deposits - for example, in most of Cornwall.
You've already lost that fight.
I was wondering how that compared to the average sentence for rape or murder, so I did a little googling, and came up with this page from the parliament website. Going by those figures, you're looking at an average of 7 years for rape, 3 for robbery, and so on.
How the fuck do they justify 10 years for hacking?
Oh, and the slashdot summary is a little misleading. While it's true that tougher laws against hacking are gaining support, this particular bill has been widely criticised. It's right there in the linked-to article...
f course you would have all of the overhead that VMWare needs to introduce. This includes the host OS
Actually, VMWare Server ESX can be installed directly on the machine, no host OS required.
(That doesn't make it any less inappropriate, of course)
In fact it's a bigger target as it's untouched territory with a bonus of headline making news.
And headlines are the last thing that the criminal groups creating botnets want.
Lots of hosting companies offer ssh access, not to mention that if an account exists on the machine with ssh access, it may be only a matter of time before someone manages to gain access to it.
Because it should take 10+ seconds to open a basic program on an out of box pc.
Most of that will be down to the disks, which is nothing to do with Intel or AMD.
They put out more heat per watt than my heater, FFS!
Got any proof of that?
Oh piss off will you? The Queen has had exactly zero impact on my life, beyond the 60p or so it costs me (as a tax payer) each year to keep her in tiaras.
I may not have the right to bear arms, but in every other respect I'm just as free as you guys - and with Blair in power, I mean that in all respects, good and bad.
Just plain stupid.
Just about everything is a remake of something that's already been made.
As opposed to being a remake of something that hasn't been made before?
A lot of ISPs here in the UK do indeed offer plans with a monthly bandwidth usage cap. If you exceed the cap, you pay for the extra you use, generally in 1GB chunks. I beleive that some ISPs offer the user the choice to have their access cut off if they exceed the cap, rather than be charged for more.
Those plans tend to be a little cheaper than the uncapped ones, but not by as much as you might expect. For example, I have an uncapped plan, which is only a couple of pounds more per month than my parents' capped plan (same connection speeds, same ISP).
Usually not knowing it's a crime is no get outta jail card.
Usually not knowing that what you are doing is not a crime is no defence, true. Generally though, not knowing that you're not doing something is, unless the prosecution can prove negligence.
Until and unless there's a crime of failing to take reasonable steps to secure a PC or similar, people are going to "get away" with it.
Note that if you claim that it wasn't you, it was someone else using your connection without your knowledge, but the prosecution can demonstrate that actually it most likely was you and that you left your connection unsecured in order to provide yourself with that excuse, you'll likely not be believed.
What concerns me here is that kids are trained to shoot people shortly after they learn to walk. Yay, let's naturalize war for them early on. I mean, WTF? GIGO.
I'm 31. When I was five years old, there were no home computers or consoles, or at the very least, none that could manage anything more advanced than Pong.
One of my lasting memories of that age is of playing war in the school playground. A big group of us (all boys, now I come to think of it), running around "shooting" each other with our fingers, stabbing each other with knives of air, etc. I, like most of my peers, also had a fair collection of plastic soldiers, and little toy tanks and the like.
We may not have been being "trained to shoot people" shortly after learning to walk, but we sure as hell play-acted it. All computers have done is make it that little bit more realistic-looking.
Sounds like a pretty good work out for your heart, yet without any of that pesky, smelly, time consuming exercise stuff...
This is totally off-topic, but in response to your analogy, surely the levees being overtopped would have resulted in a lot less water and therefore much-reduced flooding? I'm no fan of Bush, but it seems logical to me to worry less about over-flowing than an outright breach (but then, I'm also not a hydro-engineer).
I'd quite like to see sources for all his numbers, actually. Without them, how am I to know they're right?