LMDE is a bad example; it's the bleeding-edge version of Mint. I can't even remember the last time apt-get upgrade (update is actually the command that fetches the package list) screwed me on mainstream Ubuntu or Mint.
In other news, Windows users don't like Gentoo either (although that's a hyperbolic comparison).
actively uses Raspbian, Puppy Linux, Linux Mint DE, and Ubuntu.
You get the same apt-get screwage in Ubuntu and normal Mint? Did you accidentally put a curse on your computer or something?
Unless if this is all a lie and you're just shilling, which I kind of have to consider because of your ACness and the improbability of all your statements being simultaneously true. (computer expert) ^ (knows Unix tools) ^ (apt-get doesn't work anywhere)
Yep. My first thought after reading the "just type 'apt-get upgrade'" post was "...and then spend several hours trying to figure out WTF got screwed up in xorg.conf"
(I have no idea what I'm talking about, since I haven't actually tried doing it in a couple of years...)
Keep in mind that if Apple had continued their previous versioning scheme, we'd be on OS 19 (or OS XIX) by now. The 'X' actually stands for 10, not 'Xtreme' or something.
If you are a Polynesian, perhaps it is a trivial detail. If you live in the area itself, a country bordering one of the principles (eg: Most of Eastern Europe), or a country pledged to militarily protect [wikipedia.org] one of those countries (essentially all of Europe, Canada, and the USA),
Your clauses and antecedents* were jammed together a bit squintingly, and I keep hearing lately that Ukraine is supposedly part of NATO, so I went with that interpretation. I took "a country pledged to militarily protect one of those countries" to mean "protect Ukraine" and asked where exactly that pledge was made.
You seem to think that I'm arguing that there's nothing to worry about with this whole situation. That is most assuredly not what I'm saying.
* I assume: "the area itself" = Ukraine "one of the principles" = former Russian territories?
Lastly, the point I was making was that "a country pledged to militarily protect [wikipedia.org] one of those countries" DOES NOT mean NATO as you seem to be saying, but rather only Russia, the US, and the UK (China and France gave weaker assurances).
But the solution to that treaty violation is not to leave the Crimeans in a country they no longer want to be part of.
Assuming the results of that referendum with 123% voter turnout is legit. I'm just gonna let you think about that sentence for a minute. (Putin seems to be adept at this maneuver...remember when his popular support totals jumped by 20% overnight, to over 100% total polling the last time he was elected?)
And you're complaining about "forever binding the Ukrainians to Ukraine"? How is NOT violating their border considered a transgression? This is/was a UKRAINIAN province.; why the hell should RUSSIA get to decide where it goes?
And technically, they gave Crimea to Ukraine back in 1954; the Budapest thing was a reaffirmation that the Soviet Oblast borders were to be followed.
the warm and close alliance between The US and Russia up until the 20th century
In other news, up until WWI broke out, Germany was still hoping for an Anglo-German alliance, and up until WWI France and Britain were at each others' throats in almost every war.
Times change. Talking about the tsars, the Soviet Union, and post-Soviet Russia as the same thing is foolishness.
Oops...those quotes were from the actual NATO article. That list of member countries doesn't even have the string "Ukraine" anywhere on the entire page, though.
Why do people keep saying this? According to that very article, Ukraine is not a member of NATO:
[In 2009] Ukraine and Georgia were also told that they could eventually become members.
After the 2010 election in Ukraine, pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych declared his administration would not be pursuing NATO membership.
Those are the only 2 times Ukraine is mentioned in the entire article. Or is this "pledge to defend" a secret or something? Ukraine is neither a member of NATO nor the EU currently.
I would differentiate software engineer and developer from programmer, yes. A computer programmer is one who programs computers, whereas the others have been specifically trained to interact with related people and in more theoretical computing considerations. A programmer asks himself, "How can I get the computer to do this?" A SE/dev asks himself, "What's the best way to tell the computer to do this?"
I'm sure there's no consensus on my random rule of thumb, though.
Honest answer? Because it offends people's sensibilities that what are being hailed as the lucrative jobs and the future of the economy aren't being pursued by a large chunk of the population.
Now I'm wondering why I've never heard this pulled out in an argument before....hmmm.
A programmer is one who programs. Write a program: You're a programmer now. Period. Being a *bad* programmer doesn't mean you're not a programmer.
But these bizarre blanket statements seem to be pretty similar to that "we need more girls in STEM" article recently. Why? Why do we need more girls in STEM, or everybody to be programmers? Give them the chance but if they don't want to, fine.
Good lord, there's 4 different Wikipedia articles for Tautology, and they all look like they're talking about almost exactly the same thing.
Tautology (rhetoric), a self-reinforcing pretense of significant truth Tautology (grammar), the use of redundant words Tautology (logic), a universal truth in formal logic Tautology (rule of inference), a rule of replacement for logical expressions
Craig was a lot better back before they gave him a new studio, a gay (naturally...this is Ferguson we're talking about here) robot skeleton sidekick, a pantomime horse, and a backing band.
I mean Jesus Christ...he's been joking about it for years, but he actually wanted a band?!
If you teach someone to program, by definition they'll be a programmer. It's a tautology.
What language it is (I bet a lot of people could handle TI-BASIC*), how well they learn it, and how useful the end result is are further considerations.
This topic seems rife with terminology problems and ridiculous blanket statements by all sides.
*Although compared to real programming languages, it's a rather terrible place to start. The 83+ version has GOTOs and the only way you can get functions is by some horrible language abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
*(computer expert) ^ (knows Unix tools) ^ (doesn't even get apt-get terminology right) ^ (apt-get doesn't work anywhere)
Hmm...maybe those last 2 are somehow related.
LMDE is a bad example; it's the bleeding-edge version of Mint. I can't even remember the last time apt-get upgrade (update is actually the command that fetches the package list) screwed me on mainstream Ubuntu or Mint.
In other news, Windows users don't like Gentoo either (although that's a hyperbolic comparison).
actively uses Raspbian, Puppy Linux, Linux Mint DE, and Ubuntu.
You get the same apt-get screwage in Ubuntu and normal Mint? Did you accidentally put a curse on your computer or something?
Unless if this is all a lie and you're just shilling, which I kind of have to consider because of your ACness and the improbability of all your statements being simultaneously true.
(computer expert) ^ (knows Unix tools) ^ (apt-get doesn't work anywhere)
--quiet --quiet --quiet --quiet
So you can have no idea what happened when it explodes partway through?
Yep. My first thought after reading the "just type 'apt-get upgrade'" post was "...and then spend several hours trying to figure out WTF got screwed up in xorg.conf"
(I have no idea what I'm talking about, since I haven't actually tried doing it in a couple of years...)
FTFY
fixing a broken update can, however, be close to rocket science
I once learned the hard way why you should never ever ever ever abort a running apt-get process. Fun times.
Or vagina.
FTFY.
Come on guys...we haven't forgotten that already, have we? :)
Keep in mind that if Apple had continued their previous versioning scheme, we'd be on OS 19 (or OS XIX) by now. The 'X' actually stands for 10, not 'Xtreme' or something.
If you are a Polynesian, perhaps it is a trivial detail. If you live in the area itself, a country bordering one of the principles (eg: Most of Eastern Europe), or a country pledged to militarily protect [wikipedia.org] one of those countries (essentially all of Europe, Canada, and the USA),
Your clauses and antecedents* were jammed together a bit squintingly, and I keep hearing lately that Ukraine is supposedly part of NATO, so I went with that interpretation. I took "a country pledged to militarily protect one of those countries" to mean "protect Ukraine" and asked where exactly that pledge was made.
You seem to think that I'm arguing that there's nothing to worry about with this whole situation. That is most assuredly not what I'm saying.
* I assume:
"the area itself" = Ukraine
"one of the principles" = former Russian territories?
Lastly, the point I was making was that "a country pledged to militarily protect [wikipedia.org] one of those countries" DOES NOT mean NATO as you seem to be saying, but rather only Russia, the US, and the UK (China and France gave weaker assurances).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
But the solution to that treaty violation is not to leave the Crimeans in a country they no longer want to be part of.
Assuming the results of that referendum with 123% voter turnout is legit. I'm just gonna let you think about that sentence for a minute. (Putin seems to be adept at this maneuver...remember when his popular support totals jumped by 20% overnight, to over 100% total polling the last time he was elected?)
And you're complaining about "forever binding the Ukrainians to Ukraine"? How is NOT violating their border considered a transgression? This is/was a UKRAINIAN province.; why the hell should RUSSIA get to decide where it goes?
And technically, they gave Crimea to Ukraine back in 1954; the Budapest thing was a reaffirmation that the Soviet Oblast borders were to be followed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...
the warm and close alliance between The US and Russia up until the 20th century
In other news, up until WWI broke out, Germany was still hoping for an Anglo-German alliance, and up until WWI France and Britain were at each others' throats in almost every war.
Times change. Talking about the tsars, the Soviet Union, and post-Soviet Russia as the same thing is foolishness.
At times of apocalyptic events Russians and Americans stood together.
You mean the events that never would have happened if they weren't on opposite sides? I assume you're referring to the Cold War.
"Most loyal"? Dear lord...have you been *watching* Putin the last few years?
Yeah, I just found that. Apparently the "assurances" don't exactly include mandatory military intervention per se though.
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
I see no reason that people should be trapped in a country they don't want to be a part of.
You mean except for the part where Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine that they explicitly wouldn't fuck with their borders.
Ohhhh...we had our fingers crossed. Gotcha!
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
Oops...those quotes were from the actual NATO article. That list of member countries doesn't even have the string "Ukraine" anywhere on the entire page, though.
or a country pledged to militarily protect one of those countries (essentially all of Europe, Canada, and the USA),
Why do people keep saying this? According to that very article, Ukraine is not a member of NATO:
[In 2009] Ukraine and Georgia were also told that they could eventually become members.
After the 2010 election in Ukraine, pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych declared his administration would not be pursuing NATO membership.
Those are the only 2 times Ukraine is mentioned in the entire article. Or is this "pledge to defend" a secret or something? Ukraine is neither a member of NATO nor the EU currently.
The more I read about Islam, the more I find that Mohammed nicked all the dogma from other religions of the time and acted like they were his idea.
I would differentiate software engineer and developer from programmer, yes. A computer programmer is one who programs computers, whereas the others have been specifically trained to interact with related people and in more theoretical computing considerations. A programmer asks himself, "How can I get the computer to do this?" A SE/dev asks himself, "What's the best way to tell the computer to do this?"
I'm sure there's no consensus on my random rule of thumb, though.
Honest answer? Because it offends people's sensibilities that what are being hailed as the lucrative jobs and the future of the economy aren't being pursued by a large chunk of the population.
Now I'm wondering why I've never heard this pulled out in an argument before....hmmm.
A programmer is one who programs. Write a program: You're a programmer now. Period. Being a *bad* programmer doesn't mean you're not a programmer.
But these bizarre blanket statements seem to be pretty similar to that "we need more girls in STEM" article recently. Why? Why do we need more girls in STEM, or everybody to be programmers? Give them the chance but if they don't want to, fine.
Good lord, there's 4 different Wikipedia articles for Tautology, and they all look like they're talking about almost exactly the same thing.
Tautology (rhetoric), a self-reinforcing pretense of significant truth
Tautology (grammar), the use of redundant words
Tautology (logic), a universal truth in formal logic
Tautology (rule of inference), a rule of replacement for logical expressions
(sig)
Maybe people occasionally want some reliability in their lives instead of being constantly on their toes.
Nah, that's just crazy talk.
Craig was a lot better back before they gave him a new studio, a gay (naturally...this is Ferguson we're talking about here) robot skeleton sidekick, a pantomime horse, and a backing band.
I mean Jesus Christ...he's been joking about it for years, but he actually wanted a band?!
If you teach someone to program, by definition they'll be a programmer. It's a tautology.
What language it is (I bet a lot of people could handle TI-BASIC*), how well they learn it, and how useful the end result is are further considerations.
This topic seems rife with terminology problems and ridiculous blanket statements by all sides.
*Although compared to real programming languages, it's a rather terrible place to start. The 83+ version has GOTOs and the only way you can get functions is by some horrible language abuse.
Zuckerberg says you can teach anyone to code.
Mayor of NYC says you can't.
News at 11.
I think we really need to get Morgan Freeman's take on this issue.