I'm a long time Linux user, more then 10 years, and I'm still very much in the camp of configure it until it works and until it fits your need. I have no reservation about using pre-built, preconfigured software and I don't mind if I can't fiddle with the inner workings but when I can, I like to make my software experience fit like a glove.
For instance back in grade 12 ( 9 years ago ), I wrote a sweet FVWM2 configuration and when I use FVWM2 I still use it! When I run Gnome, I have the deal, I use a series of configuration file to alter everything until I get it how I like it.
Linux is great because it can really support all the camps of software users. The first camp is leave it alone and it's fine, these are typically Windows users. The second camp should never have to upgrade the system, the server admin's. The third is rock solid interface and your computer is pretty locked down, the Mac guys and the last camp is the touch everything until you love it. To say a Linux user fits into a single sterotype isn't fair, Linux users are as varied as all the other computer users.
Everything today will increase your risk of getting cancer, if you tried to live life on a diet that had the least risk of cancer causing agents you would have to starve yourself. Sure maybe this study is right and taking vitamins could increase your risk of cancer but honestly if it wasn't vitamins it could be anything else. Just keep living the life you're living and don't worry about something as stupid as if you took your vitamin A today or not.
If you're sick and the doctor hasn't told you to take any medicine then don't take anything! First of all no one should ever take Aspirin or Tylenol, it's a horrible drug, it's destroys your body, second of all, just don't take medicine when you're sick, let your body fight the sickness itself, unless you're told by a medical professional.
Even a simple thermostat would run the loop code I posted, I would have to figured that billion upon billion of devices, chips, asic's and etc... run that code, maybe not always in C but in some language.
Well the theory is that in a control system main is the only entry to the entire system, so you never have to go anywhere else and hence never return form the entry, so main can be void.
Maybe but most control systems wouldn't make main return int. Best practice in embedded programming is to make main return void, because you use a custom linker.
Allow the police the right to search the phone, but don't make it a law that the accused has to unlock or unencrypt the data on the phone. I have no problem wiht the police looking through my phone, but if you want to get inside any of my data then be prepared to crack it.
Creationism is not a theory, it's a complete fabrication of ideas that have been formed to explain what we don't know / understand, which means it's not science, it's pure hogwash. I have no problem teaching the concept of creationism in a religion class and offering up "holy" books as an example of early human's attempt to understand the world before proper science, but that is about it.
I honestly feel that religious contexts and teachings should be left out of the home and school for kids under the age of 14 or when you start high school. Giving a young child the amazing, magical, wonderful and beautiful story of a loving God, prophets, a loving church and eternal life is very damaging and very misguided. We should be helping young children to learn the skills required to reason and objectivity question everything, including those things we tell them that have proof.
Religion is the exact opposite of logic and reason, it laughs ( metaphorically ) in the face of using evidence to support claims and it shows children that if you blindly believe whatever is written down that you become a moral and ethical human, even when what is written down ( in the case of the bible ), is rape, slavery, death, sadomasochism and more. Now what loving parent would do that to a child?
A loving parent would promote critical thinking and reasoning. A loving parent would guide their child in the thought process that would be required to form objective questions and then help them seek evidence to support those questions. A loving parent would first teach the ACCEPTED theories that science supports, such as evolution, and allow the child to form alternative viewpoints. By having religion in schools and in fact in the science class you destroy all concepts of education, you teach children that a completive theory need only say no and offer no evidence and you basically start to erode the moral, ethical and logical fabric of society.
Personally I don’t want to live in a society where we teach kids that questioning without evidence is okay, where lying is personally acceptable as long as you have anything randomly written down and where you can disregard scientific principals because your random, immoral, unethical book says you can.
Religion is for religion class and should only be taught to children who have become old enough and smart enough to properly weight and compare the information provided to them. Until then you are only harming the child to teach them pure fiction. It would be no different than teaching harry potter as an acceptable alternative to evolution and the best part is that no school would do that, yet bring the bible into the classroom, which is no different and you bet it’s not only acceptable but the truth.
If the police, TSA, government or even my mother want to see what is on data storage I have encrypted then they can sit down and crack it, I have no reason to ever decrypt that drive, if you want inside of it then get inside of it but I'm not going to help, after all I didn't encrypt the drive so you could just freely go in and look around.
Compared to Windows development, Linux is like going on vacation, Windows is like standing in a crowded airport for hours with no direction, help or reason.
I'm going to assume you're right as I'm not an aviation engineer, so I have no reason or skill to deny that, I think think it's a very silly design to allow a plane to fly even when parts are past there life.
Actually I'm an engineer, I have two engineering degrees, one in Embedded System Engineering and one in Computer System Engineering. The funny thing is, is that I design hardware systems that are intelligent and lock out when design lifetimes have been met, not only that but they know how to reset themselves upon replacement, hence forgoing a mechanic forgetting to reset the oil counter.
My company produces several different products, but all of them have locking out hardware and software, to date with over a million different units in the hands of end users, across several different product lines, we have almost zero actual hardware or software design failures which are caused from anything but user stupidity. The reason parts have designed and engineered lifetimes is so you don't run into issues from modules breaking down, which isn't to say it can't accidentally happen but in my case it's EXTREMELY rare.
If you can design it on the small scale, you can design it on the large scale. Personally I'm not about to attempt to design aviation hardware or software, but the overall methodology doesn't change, have the aviation hardware and software aware of it's lifetimes and lock the plane out, don't even let the plane in the air if during that flight something will fail, due only to lifetime design metrics. After all, all flights are known well in advance, so there is no reason the plane can't be made aware of what it's next "mission" is.
Just in case you are also wondering, we do hold employees, including myself, responsible and liable for failures. We haven't been forced to court yet, or even been forced to payout unexpected amounts of money but he have fired many smart ass hardware and software developers who think they are "all that". What I'm talking about can be done, because I do it on a daily basis, anyone who wants to argue me can concede they have no idea what they're talking about.
Yep, it's not like all of sudden you hit 100000 km and had no clue, lazy car owners will always blame everything else rfirst instead of the root problem.
I'll give you that, I was assuming that I'd scoped the issues to the car, clearly if I hit ice and the breaks slide it's not the break engineers problem.
Well those are the risks you have to assume when you want to make something like a self driving car, either you have to step up and take ownership or the company you work for will have to, but in no way would I ever step foot in a self driving car that wasn't 100% covered under every possible liability aspect. Maybe Google won't pay you 350k/yr but that doesn't mean at the end of the day you aren't the one who wrote the broken break code that caused me to lose my leg, if Google won't give me the money in compensation then you better bet I'm going after you personally in court and not stopping until I get everything I'm entitled to.
So I, Little Timmy and Betty Sue drive out into the desert for a quick photo op . . . only to find out as we arrive, the car as deemed itself "unfit for further use, due to a maintenance issue", stranding us to die in the desert.
So instead of listening to the car when it said for the last month, "You're close to having me lock up, listen to me", you ignored it, and now it's the cars fault? The car would of locked up because something needed to be replaced, reset, checked or inspected and instead of doing the right thing and having it looked after before the drop dead moment, you left it. So now don't blame the car, blame the fact you didn't carry out the right and expected steps to deem the car safe and up to par.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no way a rock can be older then 6000 years, it's impossible, of course so is logical and creationism.
I'm a long time Linux user, more then 10 years, and I'm still very much in the camp of configure it until it works and until it fits your need. I have no reservation about using pre-built, preconfigured software and I don't mind if I can't fiddle with the inner workings but when I can, I like to make my software experience fit like a glove.
For instance back in grade 12 ( 9 years ago ), I wrote a sweet FVWM2 configuration and when I use FVWM2 I still use it! When I run Gnome, I have the deal, I use a series of configuration file to alter everything until I get it how I like it.
Linux is great because it can really support all the camps of software users. The first camp is leave it alone and it's fine, these are typically Windows users. The second camp should never have to upgrade the system, the server admin's. The third is rock solid interface and your computer is pretty locked down, the Mac guys and the last camp is the touch everything until you love it. To say a Linux user fits into a single sterotype isn't fair, Linux users are as varied as all the other computer users.
Everything today will increase your risk of getting cancer, if you tried to live life on a diet that had the least risk of cancer causing agents you would have to starve yourself. Sure maybe this study is right and taking vitamins could increase your risk of cancer but honestly if it wasn't vitamins it could be anything else. Just keep living the life you're living and don't worry about something as stupid as if you took your vitamin A today or not.
If you're sick and the doctor hasn't told you to take any medicine then don't take anything! First of all no one should ever take Aspirin or Tylenol, it's a horrible drug, it's destroys your body, second of all, just don't take medicine when you're sick, let your body fight the sickness itself, unless you're told by a medical professional.
The best questions are the ones where you have to write code on a whiteboard but where the person asking the question doesn't know the answer.
Even a simple thermostat would run the loop code I posted, I would have to figured that billion upon billion of devices, chips, asic's and etc... run that code, maybe not always in C but in some language.
Fair enough, I just assumed this post meant higher then ASM. However you'd also have to find the three most used lines.
Well the theory is that in a control system main is the only entry to the entire system, so you never have to go anywhere else and hence never return form the entry, so main can be void.
Maybe but most control systems wouldn't make main return int. Best practice in embedded programming is to make main return void, because you use a custom linker.
Not really, if you do:
for(;;)
{
}
you get 3. I'm sure that has to be the most executed sequence.
for(;;){
}
OR
while(1){
}
Starts all main control loops and all kernels.
Allow the police the right to search the phone, but don't make it a law that the accused has to unlock or unencrypt the data on the phone. I have no problem wiht the police looking through my phone, but if you want to get inside any of my data then be prepared to crack it.
Creationism is not a theory, it's a complete fabrication of ideas that have been formed to explain what we don't know / understand, which means it's not science, it's pure hogwash. I have no problem teaching the concept of creationism in a religion class and offering up "holy" books as an example of early human's attempt to understand the world before proper science, but that is about it.
I honestly feel that religious contexts and teachings should be left out of the home and school for kids under the age of 14 or when you start high school. Giving a young child the amazing, magical, wonderful and beautiful story of a loving God, prophets, a loving church and eternal life is very damaging and very misguided. We should be helping young children to learn the skills required to reason and objectivity question everything, including those things we tell them that have proof.
Religion is the exact opposite of logic and reason, it laughs ( metaphorically ) in the face of using evidence to support claims and it shows children that if you blindly believe whatever is written down that you become a moral and ethical human, even when what is written down ( in the case of the bible ), is rape, slavery, death, sadomasochism and more. Now what loving parent would do that to a child?
A loving parent would promote critical thinking and reasoning. A loving parent would guide their child in the thought process that would be required to form objective questions and then help them seek evidence to support those questions. A loving parent would first teach the ACCEPTED theories that science supports, such as evolution, and allow the child to form alternative viewpoints. By having religion in schools and in fact in the science class you destroy all concepts of education, you teach children that a completive theory need only say no and offer no evidence and you basically start to erode the moral, ethical and logical fabric of society.
Personally I don’t want to live in a society where we teach kids that questioning without evidence is okay, where lying is personally acceptable as long as you have anything randomly written down and where you can disregard scientific principals because your random, immoral, unethical book says you can.
Religion is for religion class and should only be taught to children who have become old enough and smart enough to properly weight and compare the information provided to them. Until then you are only harming the child to teach them pure fiction. It would be no different than teaching harry potter as an acceptable alternative to evolution and the best part is that no school would do that, yet bring the bible into the classroom, which is no different and you bet it’s not only acceptable but the truth.
If the police, TSA, government or even my mother want to see what is on data storage I have encrypted then they can sit down and crack it, I have no reason to ever decrypt that drive, if you want inside of it then get inside of it but I'm not going to help, after all I didn't encrypt the drive so you could just freely go in and look around.
Compared to Windows development, Linux is like going on vacation, Windows is like standing in a crowded airport for hours with no direction, help or reason.
Good point!
After 20+ years, Microsoft still hasn't produced a system as nice, beautiful or elegant as Linux.
I'm going to assume you're right as I'm not an aviation engineer, so I have no reason or skill to deny that, I think think it's a very silly design to allow a plane to fly even when parts are past there life.
Actually I'm an engineer, I have two engineering degrees, one in Embedded System Engineering and one in Computer System Engineering. The funny thing is, is that I design hardware systems that are intelligent and lock out when design lifetimes have been met, not only that but they know how to reset themselves upon replacement, hence forgoing a mechanic forgetting to reset the oil counter.
My company produces several different products, but all of them have locking out hardware and software, to date with over a million different units in the hands of end users, across several different product lines, we have almost zero actual hardware or software design failures which are caused from anything but user stupidity. The reason parts have designed and engineered lifetimes is so you don't run into issues from modules breaking down, which isn't to say it can't accidentally happen but in my case it's EXTREMELY rare.
If you can design it on the small scale, you can design it on the large scale. Personally I'm not about to attempt to design aviation hardware or software, but the overall methodology doesn't change, have the aviation hardware and software aware of it's lifetimes and lock the plane out, don't even let the plane in the air if during that flight something will fail, due only to lifetime design metrics. After all, all flights are known well in advance, so there is no reason the plane can't be made aware of what it's next "mission" is.
Just in case you are also wondering, we do hold employees, including myself, responsible and liable for failures. We haven't been forced to court yet, or even been forced to payout unexpected amounts of money but he have fired many smart ass hardware and software developers who think they are "all that". What I'm talking about can be done, because I do it on a daily basis, anyone who wants to argue me can concede they have no idea what they're talking about.
That is really stupid, if a part is nearing it's engineered life then it should be replaced.
Which is insanely corrupt, you wrote the software, you should stand up for it.
Yep, it's not like all of sudden you hit 100000 km and had no clue, lazy car owners will always blame everything else rfirst instead of the root problem.
I'll give you that, I was assuming that I'd scoped the issues to the car, clearly if I hit ice and the breaks slide it's not the break engineers problem.
Well those are the risks you have to assume when you want to make something like a self driving car, either you have to step up and take ownership or the company you work for will have to, but in no way would I ever step foot in a self driving car that wasn't 100% covered under every possible liability aspect. Maybe Google won't pay you 350k/yr but that doesn't mean at the end of the day you aren't the one who wrote the broken break code that caused me to lose my leg, if Google won't give me the money in compensation then you better bet I'm going after you personally in court and not stopping until I get everything I'm entitled to.
So I, Little Timmy and Betty Sue drive out into the desert for a quick photo op . . . only to find out as we arrive, the car as deemed itself "unfit for further use, due to a maintenance issue", stranding us to die in the desert.
So instead of listening to the car when it said for the last month, "You're close to having me lock up, listen to me", you ignored it, and now it's the cars fault? The car would of locked up because something needed to be replaced, reset, checked or inspected and instead of doing the right thing and having it looked after before the drop dead moment, you left it. So now don't blame the car, blame the fact you didn't carry out the right and expected steps to deem the car safe and up to par.