I appreciate both the parent and grandparent's position. The distinction to be made here is that weapons can be used for purposes all across the moral spectrum, and a weapon's creators will never be able to guarantee they will be used for only good. The point of debate is whether or not the government for which you develop those weapons can be trusted to protect them, and emply them in only the most obviously "right" occasions. This trust is not always deserved.
I'm sure we can all agree that has been run on these platforms in any significant number. Why ignore the truth? Microsoft needs the x86 to maintain it's monopoly. Were all x86 machines to suddenly turn into MIPS machines, consumers would likely select a more stable and prettier operating system whose executables were obtained via sourcecode.
All CS majors nowadays are taught that computer scientist is a specialized mathematician. Where were you on that day of class? CS majors should not be working with Exchange or with routers (i.e. tools), they should be researching. You should be a Kurzweil or a Coppersmith, not a Duwayne Peterson. It's akin to seeking an education in Metallurgy, and then becoming a construction worker. It's a waste.
I'd like to see google stay small and private. An IPO opens google up to stockholder pressures, and all sorts of not-good things. Besides, part of the appeal of google, at least for me, is that it is lean and has few ties, obligations, or partnerships with EvilCorportations.
@stake used to be "l0pht heavy industries", a nifty little group of hackers toying around. (www.l0pht.com) Now they're all business. Lame. "What happened l0pht? You used to be cool."
Peope with any sense at all will ignore this article. Of course OOP is not ideal for everything. It seems to me that the author had trouble with OOP, and wants to whine about it. Sure, he a couple got articles to support him, but that is no big feat, considering how many articles there are out there about this topic (pro or against oop).
Perhaps the author is working with some OO code that is really ugly, or back-asswards. It's my personal belief that by far the best part about OOP is it's tendancy to be self-documenting. The NOUN.VERB(OTHER_NOUN) convention is great. Sure, procedural programming can do that, but there is no convention for such things.
Obviously this program has good intentions, but I think that this is not the way to go about it. Here's a concern:
- If a person was indeed troubled and angry at his/her fellow classmates, don't you think that a teacher/counselor/WAVE representative/somebody calling them in somewhere and talking to them about their troubles would be enough to push someone over the edge? Even if the counselor was very gentle and kind, the real world affirmation that the student was an outcast and was a concern would be enough of a jolt to make them "flip out."
If this program does get implemented, here are some practical questions about some specifics of the program:
- Is your program really anonymous? There is a difference between confidential and anonymous. If you are going to not have people give their names, perhaps you could at least give them unique numbers, so they still could avoid giving their names, but you could see that person #4415 just turned in their entire class. It could be used as a crude tool to root out some of the people who would abuse the system.
- From what I've seen in other posts, it sounds like one of the incentives you plan on providing is clothing. What clothing are you going to give them? Unless a person can select from brand name clothing, it will not be an effective insentive. Shirts and whatnot made by you will not be cool; I'd expect that it would be undesireable popularity-wise for students to openly participate in this program. In other words, don't try to give them shirts with your logo plastered on it.
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate both the parent and grandparent's position. The distinction to be made here is that weapons can be used for purposes all across the moral spectrum, and a weapon's creators will never be able to guarantee they will be used for only good. The point of debate is whether or not the government for which you develop those weapons can be trusted to protect them, and emply them in only the most obviously "right" occasions. This trust is not always deserved.
Oops, I meant "...can all agree that WINDOWS has NOT been run on these platforms...".
Note to self - use preview.
I'm sure we can all agree that has been run on these platforms in any significant number. Why ignore the truth? Microsoft needs the x86 to maintain it's monopoly. Were all x86 machines to suddenly turn into MIPS machines, consumers would likely select a more stable and prettier operating system whose executables were obtained via sourcecode.
All CS majors nowadays are taught that computer scientist is a specialized mathematician. Where were you on that day of class? CS majors should not be working with Exchange or with routers (i.e. tools), they should be researching. You should be a Kurzweil or a Coppersmith, not a Duwayne Peterson. It's akin to seeking an education in Metallurgy, and then becoming a construction worker. It's a waste.
I'd like to see google stay small and private. An IPO opens google up to stockholder pressures, and all sorts of not-good things. Besides, part of the appeal of google, at least for me, is that it is lean and has few ties, obligations, or partnerships with EvilCorportations.
@stake used to be "l0pht heavy industries", a nifty little group of hackers toying around. (www.l0pht.com) Now they're all business. Lame. "What happened l0pht? You used to be cool."
Ever play that god awful version of tetris on the long flights that Continental has? *Shudder* Tetris at 1fps is a horrible way to entertain yourself.
They violated the DMCA! Suspending the VW bug is not considered fair use. :)
Peope with any sense at all will ignore this article. Of course OOP is not ideal for everything. It seems to me that the author had trouble with OOP, and wants to whine about it. Sure, he a couple got articles to support him, but that is no big feat, considering how many articles there are out there about this topic (pro or against oop).
Perhaps the author is working with some OO code that is really ugly, or back-asswards. It's my personal belief that by far the best part about OOP is it's tendancy to be self-documenting. The NOUN.VERB(OTHER_NOUN) convention is great. Sure, procedural programming can do that, but there is no convention for such things.
Navyrain steps down
Obviously this program has good intentions, but I think that this is not the way to go about it. Here's a concern:
- If a person was indeed troubled and angry at his/her fellow classmates, don't you think that a teacher/counselor/WAVE representative/somebody calling them in somewhere and talking to them about their troubles would be enough to push someone over the edge? Even if the counselor was very gentle and kind, the real world affirmation that the student was an outcast and was a concern would be enough of a jolt to make them "flip out."
If this program does get implemented, here are some practical questions about some specifics of the program:
- Is your program really anonymous? There is a difference between confidential and anonymous. If you are going to not have people give their names, perhaps you could at least give them unique numbers, so they still could avoid giving their names, but you could see that person #4415 just turned in their entire class. It could be used as a crude tool to root out some of the people who would abuse the system.
- From what I've seen in other posts, it sounds like one of the incentives you plan on providing is clothing. What clothing are you going to give them? Unless a person can select from brand name clothing, it will not be an effective insentive. Shirts and whatnot made by you will not be cool; I'd expect that it would be undesireable popularity-wise for students to openly participate in this program. In other words, don't try to give them shirts with your logo plastered on it.