C# has optional parameters now. Long story short, they resisted adding them because they have the potential to introduce breaking changes across library versions as they are bound at he callsite.
If you looked at job listings C# is by far the majority. I reallize that doesn't prove anything, but I think it's a strong indicator that C# is the more prevalent of the.NET languages.
There is nothing overkill about MVC. It is far simpler than webforms. Webforms is the one that is overkill. The massive view state object that is serialized with every request, the fact that it tries to emulate windows forms controls with heavy objects and non-HTML tags. You want HTML, use MVC. You want the overkill of webforms controls? MVC is far faster even for simple cases.
I did webforms for even applications ranging from simple to complex for 3 years, and I've been using MVC for almost 3 years now, and I can tell you MVC is far simpler for both cases. Webforms was designed to be familiar to people coming from a Windows Forms background, and that layer that created on top of the simple html/http request/response model of the web is overkill. The viewstate for example is designed to give the programmer the sense that state is continuous through the user's interaction, as if it were a webforms app, to hide the request/response web model from the programmer. But this is overkill and actually makes things more difficult to debug and work around. Having to tweak what goes into viewstate and what doesn't. For those who do it alot it is probably second nature, but it is an unnatural layer of abstraction over how the web works.
Try to do something as simple as a small survey that has a dynamic list of questions. On postback, even though you have no intention of showing the user the form again, in order to capture the user's response you must recreate the entire form, and make sure you do it in just the right event handler in the pipeline. In MVC, all you need is a POCO in the Action method parameter.
Surprised to see someone mention one of my favorites. One of the few games where even losing was fun. Took a hit to the oil line? Now you've gotta get back to friendly borders before you crash.
I found the copter controls/weapons management to be a nice balance between complex and arcade. I also loved getting to pick my loadout for each mission. Was a fun game for a computer that had only 512Kb ram.
Granted VS can be pretty annoying, it shouldn't be hanging crashing that much. Extensions, even the really cool looking ones, have stability issues. I used to have more issues until I ditched almost all the extensions I had installed.
Do you have it setup to get-latest from TFS on solution open? I only get latest before I checkin to verify that there are no conflicts. This minimizes changes and dependency rebuilds. Sure YOU didn't change anything, but if you have it configured to get latest when you open solution, you are bound to get other peoples changes in dependencies.
Why Cancel at #6? That's only going to put you back at #1. You're making an annoying problem into an impossible never ending problem. Was your plan to cancel the build, and then have a stern talking to with the compiler and ask it not to compile dependencies? Only way you are going to control that is to reference DLL's instead of projects, which obviously isn't a solution, but point being if it decides for whatever reason it wants to compile a dependency, you aren't going to make things better cancelling the build.
38% of voters considered it an improvement if they opted for that method over the other(that's not to assume their outcome experience was better). Probably in Netflix's beginning their subscriber base was only people who already watched movies, and simply found it more convenient. They may not have initially turned non-movie watchers into movie watchers. Obviously that wasn't Netflix's goal metric, but the point being that the preference 38% people showed could be an indicator that it could me marketable to non-voters to turn them into voters.
Sometimes your goal metric isn't realized during trials, but you can gauge user satisfaction/preference as an indication of its potential. I would say getting 38% during a trial is pretty huge. Usually when you are trying to get people on board with something new it can be much more challenging. With marketing they might increase voter turnout. Obviously you have to look at the feasibility of it, and the cost is certainly a valid decision point. I just think it's a little silly to focus on one metric and call it failure based on such a narrow slice. If the cost-benefit doesn't meet your threshold and you want to bring to an end, fine, but that doesn't mean it is a failure!
Plenty of advancements faltered on their first outing before their time because there weren't enough driving factors in place to tip the cost-benefit ratio. Some of the first hybrid trials were followed by automakers saying that it was a failure and that they'd never make one, and some of those same automakers are making them today. Never speak in terms of absolutes or history+future will make you look like an idiot. Darn, that statement was an absolute.
These are all valid points. I was not implying that mathematics is anything like voting, nor was I presenting an opinion for or against online voting, nor was I trying to imply that online voting is the same caliber of breakthrough as the electronic calculator.
I was merely poking fun at the logic/reasoning presented in the summary of why they considered it a failure. You can list 1000 valid reasons why online voting is a bad idea, that doesn't change the humor of the particular logic presented in the summary:)
What logic is this? We found that although nearly a third of mathematicians used electronic calculators when they were invented, the electronic calculators did not encourage previously non-mathematicians to be mathematicians, so we threw them all away.
Even as a democrat I would have voted you down for bringing Repo/Demo conflict into a conversation that is anything but. The vast majority of people don't understand CC licensing. It is something only SOME artists and SOME programmers and maybe a handful of other types of content authors are familiar with, which is a minority of a minority. Even those familiar with the concept are unclear in the nuances of the licensing. So you can bet lots of people from both parties are unfamiliar with the licensing model, and thus you can expect those leveraging such content to make mistakes in documenting the licensing and attributing works. Therefore one must conclude that regardless of the party affiliation of your workforce, you must address this issue.
You sound pretty arrogant, maybe you should join the Republicans.
You're talking about history integrity, he's talking about gated checkins. He isn't worried about someone messing with the history, he's simply preventing images be added to the repo without certain metadata also being included with the image. It's not a matter of someone trying to subvert the history, but a standard addition of a image file with some insurance that it include the metadata that documents its licensing.
Did someone mention a no-GIT source control? -> If yes, mention GIT regardless of how irrelevant it is to the current conversation.
It is true that once that version of a photo is released under the license, then they can't revoke it, but you must document this as you can't guarantee the owner removes the statement that it is licensed.
This is what the OP is asking about, as you need to document that they released the image under that license at some point in time.
You are both idiots for not knowing how to argue. Zeromous, perhaps your point is "Someone can be hosting a cloud locally to support a business/agency. So it can be available over 1gbit LAN with indiscernible latency, or be in a geographically close data center with an interconnect of equivilant bandwidth."
But you didn't provide any supporting facts so your equally ridiculous.
Zeomous of poor reading comprehension says: "I'm still trying to figure out what you exact beef here is." when Russ had just said "lags and stutters".
Anyhow, usually what people host locally is not a cloud infrastructure, since if you're not doing hosting for third parties, and only your own organization, your virtuallization needs are met by a simpler cluster architecture. Some call it a cloud infrastructure, but usually is just a virtuallized cluster. Virtuallization != cloud. Cloud involves virtualization. Not all virtualization is a cloud. Very much the not-all-black-birds-are-crows kind of thing.
Hallelujah! Trying to select text and it grabs the whole word, or worse, some programs grab the whole word plus a space. Why do I want trailing spaces with everything I paste?
As a developer thinking about how I can "help" the user, I always favor the perspective that the user knows what they want.
Some developers make the "they can disable this feature" excuse. The frustrating thing is every time you get a new desktop/phone/upgrade/update you find yourself disabling the same options again and again. Only a small handful of products remember these kinds of settings across devices/installs.
Wasn't it nice when at least space programs still worked together and were kind of outside the scope of international quarrels. Astronauts working together, at least to me, were a symbol of how we were still all civilized people who had a lot of common interests and could work together peacefully.
Point being, since you probably are too stupid to pick up on it, that cooking steak longer at higher temperature does not necessarily mean it will be like leather. If it does, then you're doing it wrong.
There is no such thing as "effectively infinite". What you are alluding to is the fact the the number of vulnerabilities is not known until they are all found, and thus you can never be sure how many more there are. Even in a situation where a product is evolving and new bugs are being introduced, at any given point in time there are a finite number of vulnerabilities. There certainly are not trillions of vulnerabilities undiscovered in in Apache. Nothing that would ever approach infinity such that you can say fixing a vulnerability doesn't decrease the number of remaining vulnerabilities.
As each vulnerability is discovered and patched, the effort to find the next one should increase slightly, given that methods which either analyze the code, or make brute force attempts to compromise the system(by brute force I mean, "oh let's try passing ";delete userstables" in this field to see if there is SQL injection, no, how about this field?) will have to search longer before finding a vulnerability, since there are now fewer. Each fixed vulnerability reduces the set of vulnerabilities, regardless if they are known, and thus increases the cost to find the next one. Additionally, it is more likely that researchers will find the more easy to find vulnerabilities, while some may be more elusive. This compounds the increase in cost-to-find.
What you should be more concerned about, is when you have found and fixed all of the easier to find vulnerabilities, what of the small number of finite remaining vulnerabilities? If researchers search and do not find them within a practical time frame that makes the $1,000 prize worth it, then they will not be found. But the blackmarket or other agency might find such a vulnerability to be very valuable, and throw more resources at finding one. Now such a fact doesn't mean the prize program was useless, as it certainly reduced the surface area of vulnerability.
From the perspective of the rest of the network, the architecture of the router is pretty irrelevant, but I understand why they might want ARM but they didn't identify those reasons. I have a feeling their desire for ARM is not a direct requirement, but an indirect requirement from a desire for some of the attributes of ARM. They might find that an Intel Atom box meets the same needs. Low profile, low heat, cheap, passive heat sinks(eliminates risk of fan failure).
I went with PFSense + Intel Atom box and am happy. The web interface is pretty straightforward. Getting setup initially is a bit of a pain, attaching SSD/Card to one box and flashing, etc. Some of the documentation is terrible.
Agreed that certain scenarios are indeed poorly documented and/or pain to setup. Not that pfsense supports those scenarios poorly, but you just have to dig into command line/config editing and really have to know what you are doing.
SSDs are built off silicon chip manufacturing processes, and thus the pricing reflects that. If you look at chips such as RAM with similar feature size (e.g. 28nm) and how many chips go into an SSD, I speculate that you'd see the pricing is not that far off if comparing chips of similar feature density and size as they'd reflect the same manufacturing costs. Maybe higher for SSD, as it is a newer technology than RAM which has been around for a very long time and perhaps benefits from some efficiency of scale or other manufacturing optimizations that have developed over time.
Indeed, and even then for many usage patterns, latency will be much worse for the HDD RAID array, because certain operations will be the greatest latency of all the drives(i.e. if you read something striped across all the drives, and one of the drives has a longer latency in seeking to that data). So in many cases the average latency is skewed for the worst.
That doesn't even go into power/cooling savings. SSD's use 10th of the power, which is great for a laptop.
Risk of damage from bumping/moving the drive/laptop during operation is non-existant with SSD as well.
Slashdot Mirror
C# has optional parameters now. Long story short, they resisted adding them because they have the potential to introduce breaking changes across library versions as they are bound at he callsite.
If you looked at job listings C# is by far the majority. I reallize that doesn't prove anything, but I think it's a strong indicator that C# is the more prevalent of the .NET languages.
There is nothing overkill about MVC. It is far simpler than webforms. Webforms is the one that is overkill. The massive view state object that is serialized with every request, the fact that it tries to emulate windows forms controls with heavy objects and non-HTML tags. You want HTML, use MVC. You want the overkill of webforms controls? MVC is far faster even for simple cases.
I did webforms for even applications ranging from simple to complex for 3 years, and I've been using MVC for almost 3 years now, and I can tell you MVC is far simpler for both cases. Webforms was designed to be familiar to people coming from a Windows Forms background, and that layer that created on top of the simple html/http request/response model of the web is overkill. The viewstate for example is designed to give the programmer the sense that state is continuous through the user's interaction, as if it were a webforms app, to hide the request/response web model from the programmer. But this is overkill and actually makes things more difficult to debug and work around. Having to tweak what goes into viewstate and what doesn't. For those who do it alot it is probably second nature, but it is an unnatural layer of abstraction over how the web works.
Try to do something as simple as a small survey that has a dynamic list of questions. On postback, even though you have no intention of showing the user the form again, in order to capture the user's response you must recreate the entire form, and make sure you do it in just the right event handler in the pipeline. In MVC, all you need is a POCO in the Action method parameter.
Surprised to see someone mention one of my favorites. One of the few games where even losing was fun. Took a hit to the oil line? Now you've gotta get back to friendly borders before you crash.
I found the copter controls/weapons management to be a nice balance between complex and arcade. I also loved getting to pick my loadout for each mission. Was a fun game for a computer that had only 512Kb ram.
Granted VS can be pretty annoying, it shouldn't be hanging crashing that much. Extensions, even the really cool looking ones, have stability issues. I used to have more issues until I ditched almost all the extensions I had installed.
Do you have it setup to get-latest from TFS on solution open? I only get latest before I checkin to verify that there are no conflicts. This minimizes changes and dependency rebuilds. Sure YOU didn't change anything, but if you have it configured to get latest when you open solution, you are bound to get other peoples changes in dependencies.
Why Cancel at #6? That's only going to put you back at #1. You're making an annoying problem into an impossible never ending problem. Was your plan to cancel the build, and then have a stern talking to with the compiler and ask it not to compile dependencies? Only way you are going to control that is to reference DLL's instead of projects, which obviously isn't a solution, but point being if it decides for whatever reason it wants to compile a dependency, you aren't going to make things better cancelling the build.
38% of voters considered it an improvement if they opted for that method over the other(that's not to assume their outcome experience was better). Probably in Netflix's beginning their subscriber base was only people who already watched movies, and simply found it more convenient. They may not have initially turned non-movie watchers into movie watchers. Obviously that wasn't Netflix's goal metric, but the point being that the preference 38% people showed could be an indicator that it could me marketable to non-voters to turn them into voters.
Sometimes your goal metric isn't realized during trials, but you can gauge user satisfaction/preference as an indication of its potential. I would say getting 38% during a trial is pretty huge. Usually when you are trying to get people on board with something new it can be much more challenging. With marketing they might increase voter turnout. Obviously you have to look at the feasibility of it, and the cost is certainly a valid decision point. I just think it's a little silly to focus on one metric and call it failure based on such a narrow slice. If the cost-benefit doesn't meet your threshold and you want to bring to an end, fine, but that doesn't mean it is a failure!
Plenty of advancements faltered on their first outing before their time because there weren't enough driving factors in place to tip the cost-benefit ratio. Some of the first hybrid trials were followed by automakers saying that it was a failure and that they'd never make one, and some of those same automakers are making them today. Never speak in terms of absolutes or history+future will make you look like an idiot. Darn, that statement was an absolute.
These are all valid points. I was not implying that mathematics is anything like voting, nor was I presenting an opinion for or against online voting, nor was I trying to imply that online voting is the same caliber of breakthrough as the electronic calculator.
I was merely poking fun at the logic/reasoning presented in the summary of why they considered it a failure. You can list 1000 valid reasons why online voting is a bad idea, that doesn't change the humor of the particular logic presented in the summary :)
What logic is this? We found that although nearly a third of mathematicians used electronic calculators when they were invented, the electronic calculators did not encourage previously non-mathematicians to be mathematicians, so we threw them all away.
Even as a democrat I would have voted you down for bringing Repo/Demo conflict into a conversation that is anything but. The vast majority of people don't understand CC licensing. It is something only SOME artists and SOME programmers and maybe a handful of other types of content authors are familiar with, which is a minority of a minority. Even those familiar with the concept are unclear in the nuances of the licensing. So you can bet lots of people from both parties are unfamiliar with the licensing model, and thus you can expect those leveraging such content to make mistakes in documenting the licensing and attributing works. Therefore one must conclude that regardless of the party affiliation of your workforce, you must address this issue.
You sound pretty arrogant, maybe you should join the Republicans.
You're talking about history integrity, he's talking about gated checkins. He isn't worried about someone messing with the history, he's simply preventing images be added to the repo without certain metadata also being included with the image. It's not a matter of someone trying to subvert the history, but a standard addition of a image file with some insurance that it include the metadata that documents its licensing.
Did someone mention a no-GIT source control? -> If yes, mention GIT regardless of how irrelevant it is to the current conversation.
It is true that once that version of a photo is released under the license, then they can't revoke it, but you must document this as you can't guarantee the owner removes the statement that it is licensed.
This is what the OP is asking about, as you need to document that they released the image under that license at some point in time.
You are both idiots for not knowing how to argue. Zeromous, perhaps your point is "Someone can be hosting a cloud locally to support a business/agency. So it can be available over 1gbit LAN with indiscernible latency, or be in a geographically close data center with an interconnect of equivilant bandwidth."
But you didn't provide any supporting facts so your equally ridiculous.
Zeomous of poor reading comprehension says: "I'm still trying to figure out what you exact beef here is." when Russ had just said "lags and stutters".
Anyhow, usually what people host locally is not a cloud infrastructure, since if you're not doing hosting for third parties, and only your own organization, your virtuallization needs are met by a simpler cluster architecture. Some call it a cloud infrastructure, but usually is just a virtuallized cluster. Virtuallization != cloud. Cloud involves virtualization. Not all virtualization is a cloud. Very much the not-all-black-birds-are-crows kind of thing.
Excellent advice.
Hallelujah! Trying to select text and it grabs the whole word, or worse, some programs grab the whole word plus a space. Why do I want trailing spaces with everything I paste?
As a developer thinking about how I can "help" the user, I always favor the perspective that the user knows what they want.
Some developers make the "they can disable this feature" excuse. The frustrating thing is every time you get a new desktop/phone/upgrade/update you find yourself disabling the same options again and again. Only a small handful of products remember these kinds of settings across devices/installs.
Wasn't it nice when at least space programs still worked together and were kind of outside the scope of international quarrels. Astronauts working together, at least to me, were a symbol of how we were still all civilized people who had a lot of common interests and could work together peacefully.
What part of "similar meat from the same part of the cow" do you not understand?
Point being, since you probably are too stupid to pick up on it, that cooking steak longer at higher temperature does not necessarily mean it will be like leather. If it does, then you're doing it wrong.
He preemptively prooved your an idiot: "similar meat from the same part of the cow cooked to a much higher temperature longer as a pot roast"
Have you ever had pot roast? If you've had good pot roast it is the opposite of leather. Either your stupid, illiterate, or both.
What about the people who live nearby as well?
And I always had a hell of a time getting that little kink out...
There is no such thing as "effectively infinite". What you are alluding to is the fact the the number of vulnerabilities is not known until they are all found, and thus you can never be sure how many more there are. Even in a situation where a product is evolving and new bugs are being introduced, at any given point in time there are a finite number of vulnerabilities. There certainly are not trillions of vulnerabilities undiscovered in in Apache. Nothing that would ever approach infinity such that you can say fixing a vulnerability doesn't decrease the number of remaining vulnerabilities.
As each vulnerability is discovered and patched, the effort to find the next one should increase slightly, given that methods which either analyze the code, or make brute force attempts to compromise the system(by brute force I mean, "oh let's try passing ";delete userstables" in this field to see if there is SQL injection, no, how about this field?) will have to search longer before finding a vulnerability, since there are now fewer. Each fixed vulnerability reduces the set of vulnerabilities, regardless if they are known, and thus increases the cost to find the next one. Additionally, it is more likely that researchers will find the more easy to find vulnerabilities, while some may be more elusive. This compounds the increase in cost-to-find.
What you should be more concerned about, is when you have found and fixed all of the easier to find vulnerabilities, what of the small number of finite remaining vulnerabilities? If researchers search and do not find them within a practical time frame that makes the $1,000 prize worth it, then they will not be found. But the blackmarket or other agency might find such a vulnerability to be very valuable, and throw more resources at finding one. Now such a fact doesn't mean the prize program was useless, as it certainly reduced the surface area of vulnerability.
Agreed. Lots of random reads when launching apps for example, or booting up. Just compare boot times. The difference is huge.
Right, certainly if it is CPU bound like rendering is, and not read/write intensive then it doesn't matter very much what kind of drive you have.
I was thinking in terms of sequential reads vs random reads where seek latency has more of an impact.
From the perspective of the rest of the network, the architecture of the router is pretty irrelevant, but I understand why they might want ARM but they didn't identify those reasons. I have a feeling their desire for ARM is not a direct requirement, but an indirect requirement from a desire for some of the attributes of ARM. They might find that an Intel Atom box meets the same needs. Low profile, low heat, cheap, passive heat sinks(eliminates risk of fan failure).
I went with PFSense + Intel Atom box and am happy. The web interface is pretty straightforward. Getting setup initially is a bit of a pain, attaching SSD/Card to one box and flashing, etc. Some of the documentation is terrible.
Agreed that certain scenarios are indeed poorly documented and/or pain to setup. Not that pfsense supports those scenarios poorly, but you just have to dig into command line/config editing and really have to know what you are doing.
SSDs are built off silicon chip manufacturing processes, and thus the pricing reflects that. If you look at chips such as RAM with similar feature size (e.g. 28nm) and how many chips go into an SSD, I speculate that you'd see the pricing is not that far off if comparing chips of similar feature density and size as they'd reflect the same manufacturing costs. Maybe higher for SSD, as it is a newer technology than RAM which has been around for a very long time and perhaps benefits from some efficiency of scale or other manufacturing optimizations that have developed over time.
Indeed, and even then for many usage patterns, latency will be much worse for the HDD RAID array, because certain operations will be the greatest latency of all the drives(i.e. if you read something striped across all the drives, and one of the drives has a longer latency in seeking to that data). So in many cases the average latency is skewed for the worst.
That doesn't even go into power/cooling savings. SSD's use 10th of the power, which is great for a laptop.
Risk of damage from bumping/moving the drive/laptop during operation is non-existant with SSD as well.