A colleague runs a hedge fund in New York, and he's paying his secretary $200k yearly. He's stupid if he doesn't have a professional prostitue, preferably with a Ph.D., working for him:)
Yup. I don't even think that all injection molding companies could produce to LEGO's tolerances and quality requirements. As in: you've got professionals who don't know enough to pull it off, yet they otherwise do OK in their business. I live in an area with overabundance of automotive suppliers, many of them doing plastic injection molding and what they can do is mostly nowhere near what you'd need for LEGO bricks.
Yeah, I understand there are idiots like that, even entire idiot departments. To me, it doesn't matter what department develops a website. The IT people should train them in the use of the tools. If they don't like it, there's surely many brighter applicants with drive for the job who'll learn the ropes. With tortoisegit the whole "process" is just a couple of clicks.
I think it's a weird workflow if something would be considered "buried" in a repository. The tools are there to make it manageable and visible. If things get "buried" in the repository, you're not using it effectively, I'd think.
The whole point is: it does not take a lot of time -- that's what the tools are for. If you're not supposed to look at old code, then, well, it should be deleted and you shouldn't look at it:)
Huh? Maybe I'm overly disciplined, but for every commit of diff-able material, I always review the diffs before the commit. Even on throwaway single file projects. It has saved my from my human shortcomings, more than once.
What kind of version control do they use so that getting rid of it saves time? Do they tar it to half inch tape upon "commit" and write the commit message in a paper logbook? The fuck?
Once it's not in the file anymore it's out of your attention span.
I'd be careful with such proclamations. They make you less hireable, at least in my opinion. Someone paid for the code, coaxed the coders to use the version control, etc. Just because it's not in a file on a filesystem in your working copy means it's out of your attention span? What are you, a drooling teenager?
What kind of a nutjob is not at least familiar-in-the-passing with the project's history? I mean, fuck, suppose I'm an employer, I paid people to use version control, not NOT to use it. Using it doesn't mean merely committing things. First people are all "learn your history hurr durr", then they go to work and promptly forget it. What's wrong with people? Sigh:(
Yes, one can and should dig through old versions of the source. Your employer paid for it, you might as well use it. Like, um, duh!
Similarly, there are those great things called GUI interfaces to version control. Heck, some even have with fancy graphs that show what files were modified and how -- including, incredibly enough, the aggregate counts of inserted, modified and removed source lines. Who'd have thought of that! Never mind the branch/merge graphs, etc.
And, of course, viewing the diffs of larger commits is just so damn hard, right?
The parent post is some bumbling idiocy, it seems.
I use SVN and Mercurial, but I'm much similar in my heavy dependence on version control. That's what it's for. I often have branches that live for a couple of hours just to try things out. If I ever need to come back to it, it's all in the repository -- no need for me to keep code elsewhere, possibly to be lost -- the code isn't cheap, even if it's a "throwaway" experiment. I tend to do many small commits, each of a self contained single-purpose action done to the code -- exactly as if it were a save feature. I had one 24h session where I made ~60 commits. I also use version control for electronic/industrial automation designs, and there, with small documentation revisions, I sometimes commit every 10 minutes. I can't understand why anyone would think it's too much work. It takes a couple of seconds, and documents your progress as long as you are serious about commit messages (like you well should be!).
I don't particularly mind having separate working copies for things. Yeah, the git way may be more convenient, but these days checking out a 100 megs of stuff takes a few seconds anyway. Even on a virtual machine.
The hard drives don't belong at that altitude, then. The correlators can well be completely diskless machines, even without a solid state drive. They can boot over the network from the lower-altitude server station.
Modern cars have air mass sensors -- they sense exactly how much air is coming into the engine, no matter what the pressure of the air is. This control is instantaneous, there's no adjustment period. The amount of fuel injected into the air is based only one the air mass and some slowly adapted tuning constants. The "lesser volume of air, same amount of fuel" assertion is completely untrue!
So, you may ask, what if the relative partial pressure of oxygen in the air dropped with altitude -- that would be a problem, as the car only senses the air mass, not oxygen mass. It has to adapt the fuel amount relative to amount of air only based on the readings from the exaust oxygen sensor. This is not instantaneous -- the oxygen sensor readings are in effect low-pass filtered and affect the air-fuel mix very slowly, with time constants, I'd guess, on the order of an hour. Here's the good news: the relative partial pressure of oxygen stays pretty much constant at altitudes where there are roads. So it's not a problem.
Your car has a problem of some sort, what you describe is not normal behavior.
I was driving in a turbocharged car in the Alps and there were no performance problems related to altitude changes -- the absolute boost pressure was maintained by the ECU per throttle commands and load factor, as desired, delivering apparently same mass of air to the engine, at given load, as at sea level. This worked even on some of the highest paved roads out there. Even if there was no compressor in the intake, the engine would simply lose performance with altitude, but recover it without any undue effects when driving down.
Sorry. Seriously. I had no fucking clue that people get addicted to sleeping pills. I usually deal with stress by "sleeping it off", and it comes naturally, so it was just beyond me to imagine someone might enjoy feeling doozy -- what's the point? I did some reading now and man, the world of chemical addictions is a weird one. It's not the first time I was set straight by a fellow slashdotter, so thank you. Sometimes you need someone to scream at you to learn a new trick:)
Must be something wrong with me, then. I mean, come on, both benzodiazepines and opiate-receptor-binding painkillers have rather nasty side effects, as does overconsumption of alcohol. I just don't see any fun in feeling bad after "popping pills" or drinking so much you don't recall anything the next day. Same goes for smoking. I feel somewhat unpleasant after taking full label dose of dextromethorphan cough syrup for more than 36h in a row, so I don't see any fun in that either. Many people must be closet masochists or something. I was enjoying nicotine from secondhand smoke in a rather foggy cafe in my late teens for about a year (a couple times every week). Somehow the particulates there didn't make immediately sick. Yet in the years that followed I did have a bunch of chronic respiratory symptoms following colds and such -- things I never experienced before, so that's no fun either. These days, I drink a big cup of coffee in the morning, and that's it as far as my chemical dependencies go.
I think you are looking at the problem the wrong way. It is not a problem for a person to lack the discipline needed to drink in moderation; the problem is when a person who lacks that discipline decides to start drinking.
Well, duh, the cure would include changing whatever is needed to restore the discipline. Whether it's possible or not I have no idea, of course, but that's what a cure would mean to me. If you talk only about remission of clinical symptoms, that's a fairly narrow definition. Quality of life is a bit more than remission of clinical symptoms. Now I don't say that you can't live a good life without ever having a drink, but I don't see why someone who would have a drink and then couldn't stop should be considered cured. It's like saying "yeah, you're cured from pneumonia, but you have to wear a respirator for the rest of your life"...
I think that the major problem here is that there's an infinite number of fantastic things one can believe in. I don't see any reason to put belief in lack of higher-power on a pedestal. To me, it's simply a definition of a sane, rational person. Just as one doesn't believe in Santa Claus, tooth fairy, pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and any number of popular fantasies.
Slashdot Mirror
It's "horrible" only because you're not used to it. That's all, IMHO.
Paint.net and GIMP dead? HUH?
You must be great at your job, then, because there have been a couple of vendors that I worked with that were nowhere as good...
A colleague runs a hedge fund in New York, and he's paying his secretary $200k yearly. He's stupid if he doesn't have a professional prostitue, preferably with a Ph.D., working for him :)
Yup. I don't even think that all injection molding companies could produce to LEGO's tolerances and quality requirements. As in: you've got professionals who don't know enough to pull it off, yet they otherwise do OK in their business. I live in an area with overabundance of automotive suppliers, many of them doing plastic injection molding and what they can do is mostly nowhere near what you'd need for LEGO bricks.
$350 is actually a pretty good price, IMHO.
Try molding those bricks like they do and see how inexpensive that is :)
Not that there's much need for generic userspace. It'd probably be something custom anyway, on such a small system. It's not a general purpose setup.
Yeah, I understand there are idiots like that, even entire idiot departments. To me, it doesn't matter what department develops a website. The IT people should train them in the use of the tools. If they don't like it, there's surely many brighter applicants with drive for the job who'll learn the ropes. With tortoisegit the whole "process" is just a couple of clicks.
I think it's a weird workflow if something would be considered "buried" in a repository. The tools are there to make it manageable and visible. If things get "buried" in the repository, you're not using it effectively, I'd think.
The whole point is: it does not take a lot of time -- that's what the tools are for. If you're not supposed to look at old code, then, well, it should be deleted and you shouldn't look at it :)
Bigger projects do use diffs
Huh? Maybe I'm overly disciplined, but for every commit of diff-able material, I always review the diffs before the commit. Even on throwaway single file projects. It has saved my from my human shortcomings, more than once.
What kind of version control do they use so that getting rid of it saves time? Do they tar it to half inch tape upon "commit" and write the commit message in a paper logbook? The fuck?
Once it's not in the file anymore it's out of your attention span.
I'd be careful with such proclamations. They make you less hireable, at least in my opinion. Someone paid for the code, coaxed the coders to use the version control, etc. Just because it's not in a file on a filesystem in your working copy means it's out of your attention span? What are you, a drooling teenager?
What kind of a nutjob is not at least familiar-in-the-passing with the project's history? I mean, fuck, suppose I'm an employer, I paid people to use version control, not NOT to use it. Using it doesn't mean merely committing things. First people are all "learn your history hurr durr", then they go to work and promptly forget it. What's wrong with people? Sigh :(
Yes, one can and should dig through old versions of the source. Your employer paid for it, you might as well use it. Like, um, duh!
Similarly, there are those great things called GUI interfaces to version control. Heck, some even have with fancy graphs that show what files were modified and how -- including, incredibly enough, the aggregate counts of inserted, modified and removed source lines. Who'd have thought of that! Never mind the branch/merge graphs, etc.
And, of course, viewing the diffs of larger commits is just so damn hard, right?
The parent post is some bumbling idiocy, it seems.
I use SVN and Mercurial, but I'm much similar in my heavy dependence on version control. That's what it's for. I often have branches that live for a couple of hours just to try things out. If I ever need to come back to it, it's all in the repository -- no need for me to keep code elsewhere, possibly to be lost -- the code isn't cheap, even if it's a "throwaway" experiment. I tend to do many small commits, each of a self contained single-purpose action done to the code -- exactly as if it were a save feature. I had one 24h session where I made ~60 commits. I also use version control for electronic/industrial automation designs, and there, with small documentation revisions, I sometimes commit every 10 minutes. I can't understand why anyone would think it's too much work. It takes a couple of seconds, and documents your progress as long as you are serious about commit messages (like you well should be!).
I don't particularly mind having separate working copies for things. Yeah, the git way may be more convenient, but these days checking out a 100 megs of stuff takes a few seconds anyway. Even on a virtual machine.
The hard drives don't belong at that altitude, then. The correlators can well be completely diskless machines, even without a solid state drive. They can boot over the network from the lower-altitude server station.
Agreed. That's the key: you have to find a slow, steady pace. Going too fast makes for a very crappy day.
I think you misunderstand how it really works.
Modern cars have air mass sensors -- they sense exactly how much air is coming into the engine, no matter what the pressure of the air is. This control is instantaneous, there's no adjustment period. The amount of fuel injected into the air is based only one the air mass and some slowly adapted tuning constants. The "lesser volume of air, same amount of fuel" assertion is completely untrue!
So, you may ask, what if the relative partial pressure of oxygen in the air dropped with altitude -- that would be a problem, as the car only senses the air mass, not oxygen mass. It has to adapt the fuel amount relative to amount of air only based on the readings from the exaust oxygen sensor. This is not instantaneous -- the oxygen sensor readings are in effect low-pass filtered and affect the air-fuel mix very slowly, with time constants, I'd guess, on the order of an hour. Here's the good news: the relative partial pressure of oxygen stays pretty much constant at altitudes where there are roads. So it's not a problem.
Your car has a problem of some sort, what you describe is not normal behavior.
I was driving in a turbocharged car in the Alps and there were no performance problems related to altitude changes -- the absolute boost pressure was maintained by the ECU per throttle commands and load factor, as desired, delivering apparently same mass of air to the engine, at given load, as at sea level. This worked even on some of the highest paved roads out there. Even if there was no compressor in the intake, the engine would simply lose performance with altitude, but recover it without any undue effects when driving down.
Sorry. Seriously. I had no fucking clue that people get addicted to sleeping pills. I usually deal with stress by "sleeping it off", and it comes naturally, so it was just beyond me to imagine someone might enjoy feeling doozy -- what's the point? I did some reading now and man, the world of chemical addictions is a weird one. It's not the first time I was set straight by a fellow slashdotter, so thank you. Sometimes you need someone to scream at you to learn a new trick :)
Must be something wrong with me, then. I mean, come on, both benzodiazepines and opiate-receptor-binding painkillers have rather nasty side effects, as does overconsumption of alcohol. I just don't see any fun in feeling bad after "popping pills" or drinking so much you don't recall anything the next day. Same goes for smoking. I feel somewhat unpleasant after taking full label dose of dextromethorphan cough syrup for more than 36h in a row, so I don't see any fun in that either. Many people must be closet masochists or something. I was enjoying nicotine from secondhand smoke in a rather foggy cafe in my late teens for about a year (a couple times every week). Somehow the particulates there didn't make immediately sick. Yet in the years that followed I did have a bunch of chronic respiratory symptoms following colds and such -- things I never experienced before, so that's no fun either. These days, I drink a big cup of coffee in the morning, and that's it as far as my chemical dependencies go.
Not quite. My 8 year old recently told me she hit her scapula while prancing around. She reads anatomy atlases in bed. I plead no contest to that ;)
I think you are looking at the problem the wrong way. It is not a problem for a person to lack the discipline needed to drink in moderation; the problem is when a person who lacks that discipline decides to start drinking.
Well, duh, the cure would include changing whatever is needed to restore the discipline. Whether it's possible or not I have no idea, of course, but that's what a cure would mean to me. If you talk only about remission of clinical symptoms, that's a fairly narrow definition. Quality of life is a bit more than remission of clinical symptoms. Now I don't say that you can't live a good life without ever having a drink, but I don't see why someone who would have a drink and then couldn't stop should be considered cured. It's like saying "yeah, you're cured from pneumonia, but you have to wear a respirator for the rest of your life"...
I think that the major problem here is that there's an infinite number of fantastic things one can believe in. I don't see any reason to put belief in lack of higher-power on a pedestal. To me, it's simply a definition of a sane, rational person. Just as one doesn't believe in Santa Claus, tooth fairy, pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and any number of popular fantasies.