As someone who has been programming for 10+ years...
"Version control (revision control? WTF is that?)" You don't know what version control is? Or are you trying to start a worthless pedantic debate on terminology?
"How do you make a mess of version control other than just not checking stuff in?" That depends on the source control system, but they all have certain conventions/workflows you have to follow else you screw things up.
"Code reviews are pretty fucking stupid, IMO." There's not much of any other way to ensure code quality. If they wrote their own tests, the test could not feel out corner cases, security, reasonable efficiency, etc. Things QA would probably not catch. That action method on a controller that doesn't have a permission check and exposes sensitive data. You can point fingers and say QA's job to test for that, but even if you were right, you still wrote it wrong in the first place and someone has to touch it again. Code reviews give people an incentive to do it right the first time, and if it's not right, at least they will be fixing it while it's fresh on their mind and they can learn from their mistakes. Lots of shit coders write shit code and it works 9 times out of 10. Overtime you rack up a long list of bugs and instead of coddling it along with band aids and duct tape, you finally tear it all out and redo it. So in the end it's not worth paying people to write shit code. It's very much like the contractor who has to tear out a shit job and make someone redo it right. No point in paying someone to write code that someone else will have to tear out and rewrite later.
On the other hand, I like having my code reviewed. Rarely there is a slip up, maybe I didn't handle a transaction perfectly or think about a certain corner case. Sure it tested fine, but there would have been a race condition at some point down the line that would have slowly accumulated bad data each time it happened. Much better that someone else catch it now before it goes to production and causes some difficult to track down bug that is difficult to reproduce and causes people to have to spend a time fixing bad data.
It's the difference between persuasion and coercion. If you are gullible enough to believe everything a sales person tells you, and CHOOSE to give your money despite that, then that's your choice. You weren't powerless.
I think that will probably be the biggest challenge to selecting those who they actually invest in training. Even with the fact that they will have a backup crew, I think the chances of one of them backing out at the last minute is probably the biggest risk.
"99% of the small web sites which are built around MySQL don't need it."
Likely they are running on a virtual share, and as such as using the cheapest thing available that also supports the web apps they want to use.
If the web app happened to support SQLite, it would still be a better choice to use the hosting provider's MySQL server since it is already configured for backups and likely runs on a separate piece of hardware from the virtual web server. Additionally they are probably using multiple tools, CMS+blog+wiki+forum or some such, and better to just offload all that to the database server.
Even if all these apps supported sqlite, the hosting provider still has to hire a programmer to write code that somehow iterates through all the virtual hosts, finds all the apps running SQLite, and perform backups through the backup API. With MySQL, having all the databases in a central location and a nice community of tools that already handles this sort of thing with a bit of configuration is cheaper.
On the other hand it would be easier on the setup side of the web apps to use SQLite, because no longer will you need to deal with creating the database+permissions+connection strings. Probably the easiest solution is some sort of easily discoverable network service that provides a central backup service, that the host would have for all the SQLite applications to discover and perform backups to.
Just my opinion, but I wouldn't suggest SQLite as the DB of choice for small websites.
We are here looking at a collection of interesting images, that are not inflammatory in the least, and you bring some political bullshit into the mix. What more is there to get?
I pointed out how baseless and nonsensical your ramblings are. I think it is clear that you are trying to hard. All the attributes of a good conspiracy theory. Even the fact you are here completely out of context and offtopic, like the crazy guy screaming on the corner. You even brag about your ignorance of how off topic you are. It's one thing to comment based on the summary without reading the article, it's a whole other thing to comment on presumed content that is neither in the summary nor the content of the article, simply because you want an excuse to cry to everyone about your bullshit. If how you came to the conclusion that your ramblings were appropriate here, then it's a good indication of how you formed your opinions.
I don't blow off everything as conspiracy theory. I don't mind someone with a different opinion, if it is formed on some level of rational thought, rather than on assumptions and ignorance.
Because of negative people like you, we can't have nice things. "Hey guys, they don't like the NASA articles, so next week just do some more articles on Ashton Kutcher and forget that science bullshit."
I thought it was an interesting despite it being mostly anecdotes. Maybe not news by any pedantic standard, but far better than most 90% of what most people consider news. I think the fact that there's a hurricane that's been around for 300 years is alot more fascinating than who some random person I have never met has been having an affair with.
I thought it was great collection of pictures and anecdotes, and has nothing to do with any of your nonsensical ramblings. It was not political at all, yet I knew as soon as I came to the comments, there'd be some asshat trying to twist it into some cynical bullshit. Get a life.
" letting Texas A&M Transportation Institute do a study"
What do you mean "letting"?
Are you implying that our government should be in the business of banning universities from conducting experiments and studies?
What does the FCC post have to do with a transportation study?
That post is usually hand picked to be someone that will represent the elected president's agenda. For example, Bush picked Colin Powel's son as his FCC chairman, because of course they wanted hands off regulation, which is a bit ironic because that's what FCC does. Pretty much the Ron Swanson of FCC.
Stop trying so hard. If you squint your eyes hard enough you will see a conspiracy in anything.
I thought that was what the giant computer Earth was for. There's a Metalicca song that goes "I don't know the answer. I don't even know the question." I doubt they were g2tg fans though.
I suppose you are implying GPL prevents this. You are naive to think that it does anything of the sort. Many of the larger GPL'd projects thrive by this very thing. Not alot of people would spend big $ for enterprise licenses from these projects, if they weren't going to turn around and make alot of money themselves. It's how the world goes round, and plenty of GPL'd projects actively and knowingly participate in it.
"this generation doesn't care to preserve the freedom of others in using their computers, the way Stallman wanted"
It's an ideal, and no one should diminish someone else's hard work just because they don't subscribe to the same ideal you do. They might even believe in the ideal, but we all find a different means to an end. They wrote the code, who the fuck are you to say they "don't care"? They care about contributing to the rest of us, and that is bigger than the rest of it. GPL vs. permissive is droplets in the ocean. They are giving to the rest of us unconditionally, and that IMO is the most gracious form of giving.
"What exactly would be the outcome of a "GPL-only" world?" It becomes its own world and can't interact with the rest of the world. It's your choice, but it's not the only choice. If I take the time to submit fixes for something that is permissively licensed, I don't think "OMG someone might make money off this, I'm not preserving idealogy X", I think "Great, someone else in my situation who has a job writing closed source software will benefit from this. We can all help each other out." Yeh someone else is making money off my work, but that happens anyways. Even in the GPL world if someone pays for enterprise support, they are somewhere making a profit beyond what they are paying you. You give them a tool, they take it and make a bunch more money with it than they gave you. If you have a business model that allows you to make a living providing software as a service using you GPL'd code, someone else is just as capable of coming along, taking all your code, keeping it under GPL, and providing the same service. Since you did all the heavy lifting they don't have the same startup costs. Maybe they aren't as snide and condescending as you are, and get more customers than you, and soon put you out of business. No you are all butthurt cause someone took your code and made a bunch of money off of it, and you thought by making it GPL you would stop that from happening.
Many of us can't force employer to become open source, nor would their business model work if it were open source. If the elitism here is any indication of what it'd be like to work in a GPL only world, then I wouldn't want to anyways.
Yeh, somewhere there's probably film/pictures of someone leaving the bomb. You could probably correlate it with other pictures/videos from earlier that would help you backtrack the person's tracks.
I agree, most top games are primarily DirectX. Even if a game supports both, usually it will opt for DirectX if available.
DirectX was kind of an after thought addition to Windows anyhow, when they shut out the low level access that was being used previously for game graphics. I suppose that is where the name "Direct" came from, to emphasize it was the replacement that gave them similar direct access.
Hopefully this will shift things towards OpenGL and we can see more+better frameworks in more languages available for OpenGL.
On the other hand, you hit on potentially another reason for the decline of DirectX, and possibly OpenGL: the "demise of the PC". I do NOT believe the PC will die off anytime soon, but I can't deny that there are alot of casual users that no longer have any desire to put themselves through dealing with a PC, especially if they sit in front of one all day at work. A declining user base will mean commercial efforts shifted elsewhere, which won't be a good thing for the rest of us PC users.
More an aside than a joining in. "They hurt!!" They do indeed sometimes, but hurts little enough that they still keep on whacking at each other, and it looks pretty silly from the outside.
"Oh, the scientific illiteracy found on mock technical sites like Slashdot."
Slashdot doesn't publish articles. They aggregate/filter news and provide summaries. The summaries are often inaccurate or sensationalized. It has nothing to do with the article itself. Slashdot doesn't right the article, just the summary and provides a link. Trying to discredit slashdot's summary says nothing about the article itself.
"There is a lightning strike so electrically violent, the movement of electrons forces gamma rays into existence. And yet, if this bolt hit me, my body wouldn't notice the fact."
The electricity from the lightning doesn't strike you directly. It couldn't, given that you are inside the shell of the aircraft. If you'd RTFA with an ounce of reading comprehension, you'd see it is about being in the vicinity of the strike such that you are exposed to the gamma radiation.
You are trying so hard to twist the words to fit your conspiracy theories.
"Clearly Dwyer doesn't understand the difference between electrons and photons, or electricity and the electro-magnetic spectrum. But I promise you, Dwyer supports Obama's holocaust in Syria, and Obama's policies and beliefs connected with 'global warming'."
Between those two sentences, you made the logical leap of associating ham with a hamster. Dwyer isn't an alarmist: article states that dark lightning might be such a rare occurrence that it's difficult to say if anyone has been exposed to it. We were talking about lightning, and you are talking a war in Syria.
Yeh, just a bunch of idiots arguing about who the idiot really is, using falsehoods and half-truths. It's like barbarians trying to fight to the death with nerf swords.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone who has been programming for 10+ years...
"Version control (revision control? WTF is that?)" You don't know what version control is? Or are you trying to start a worthless pedantic debate on terminology?
"How do you make a mess of version control other than just not checking stuff in?" That depends on the source control system, but they all have certain conventions/workflows you have to follow else you screw things up.
"Code reviews are pretty fucking stupid, IMO." There's not much of any other way to ensure code quality. If they wrote their own tests, the test could not feel out corner cases, security, reasonable efficiency, etc. Things QA would probably not catch. That action method on a controller that doesn't have a permission check and exposes sensitive data. You can point fingers and say QA's job to test for that, but even if you were right, you still wrote it wrong in the first place and someone has to touch it again. Code reviews give people an incentive to do it right the first time, and if it's not right, at least they will be fixing it while it's fresh on their mind and they can learn from their mistakes. Lots of shit coders write shit code and it works 9 times out of 10. Overtime you rack up a long list of bugs and instead of coddling it along with band aids and duct tape, you finally tear it all out and redo it. So in the end it's not worth paying people to write shit code. It's very much like the contractor who has to tear out a shit job and make someone redo it right. No point in paying someone to write code that someone else will have to tear out and rewrite later.
On the other hand, I like having my code reviewed. Rarely there is a slip up, maybe I didn't handle a transaction perfectly or think about a certain corner case. Sure it tested fine, but there would have been a race condition at some point down the line that would have slowly accumulated bad data each time it happened. Much better that someone else catch it now before it goes to production and causes some difficult to track down bug that is difficult to reproduce and causes people to have to spend a time fixing bad data.
It's the difference between persuasion and coercion. If you are gullible enough to believe everything a sales person tells you, and CHOOSE to give your money despite that, then that's your choice. You weren't powerless.
So mars is self moderated...
Better yet, spend some time driving around in the buggy until you've written out in the sand "First Post!" large enough to be visible from satellite.
I think that will probably be the biggest challenge to selecting those who they actually invest in training. Even with the fact that they will have a backup crew, I think the chances of one of them backing out at the last minute is probably the biggest risk.
"99% of the small web sites which are built around MySQL don't need it."
Likely they are running on a virtual share, and as such as using the cheapest thing available that also supports the web apps they want to use.
If the web app happened to support SQLite, it would still be a better choice to use the hosting provider's MySQL server since it is already configured for backups and likely runs on a separate piece of hardware from the virtual web server. Additionally they are probably using multiple tools, CMS+blog+wiki+forum or some such, and better to just offload all that to the database server.
Even if all these apps supported sqlite, the hosting provider still has to hire a programmer to write code that somehow iterates through all the virtual hosts, finds all the apps running SQLite, and perform backups through the backup API. With MySQL, having all the databases in a central location and a nice community of tools that already handles this sort of thing with a bit of configuration is cheaper.
On the other hand it would be easier on the setup side of the web apps to use SQLite, because no longer will you need to deal with creating the database+permissions+connection strings. Probably the easiest solution is some sort of easily discoverable network service that provides a central backup service, that the host would have for all the SQLite applications to discover and perform backups to.
Just my opinion, but I wouldn't suggest SQLite as the DB of choice for small websites.
We are here looking at a collection of interesting images, that are not inflammatory in the least, and you bring some political bullshit into the mix. What more is there to get?
I pointed out how baseless and nonsensical your ramblings are. I think it is clear that you are trying to hard. All the attributes of a good conspiracy theory. Even the fact you are here completely out of context and offtopic, like the crazy guy screaming on the corner. You even brag about your ignorance of how off topic you are. It's one thing to comment based on the summary without reading the article, it's a whole other thing to comment on presumed content that is neither in the summary nor the content of the article, simply because you want an excuse to cry to everyone about your bullshit. If how you came to the conclusion that your ramblings were appropriate here, then it's a good indication of how you formed your opinions.
I don't blow off everything as conspiracy theory. I don't mind someone with a different opinion, if it is formed on some level of rational thought, rather than on assumptions and ignorance.
Because of negative people like you, we can't have nice things. "Hey guys, they don't like the NASA articles, so next week just do some more articles on Ashton Kutcher and forget that science bullshit."
I thought it was an interesting despite it being mostly anecdotes. Maybe not news by any pedantic standard, but far better than most 90% of what most people consider news. I think the fact that there's a hurricane that's been around for 300 years is alot more fascinating than who some random person I have never met has been having an affair with.
I thought it was great collection of pictures and anecdotes, and has nothing to do with any of your nonsensical ramblings. It was not political at all, yet I knew as soon as I came to the comments, there'd be some asshat trying to twist it into some cynical bullshit. Get a life.
" letting Texas A&M Transportation Institute do a study"
What do you mean "letting"?
Are you implying that our government should be in the business of banning universities from conducting experiments and studies?
What does the FCC post have to do with a transportation study?
That post is usually hand picked to be someone that will represent the elected president's agenda. For example, Bush picked Colin Powel's son as his FCC chairman, because of course they wanted hands off regulation, which is a bit ironic because that's what FCC does. Pretty much the Ron Swanson of FCC.
Stop trying so hard. If you squint your eyes hard enough you will see a conspiracy in anything.
I thought that was what the giant computer Earth was for. There's a Metalicca song that goes "I don't know the answer. I don't even know the question." I doubt they were g2tg fans though.
Highly recommend Master of Orion 2 from GOG if you liked that game.
Please do and leave it that way, because no one with a productive/meaningful life cares anything about your trivial host file ramblings.
I suppose you are implying GPL prevents this. You are naive to think that it does anything of the sort. Many of the larger GPL'd projects thrive by this very thing. Not alot of people would spend big $ for enterprise licenses from these projects, if they weren't going to turn around and make alot of money themselves. It's how the world goes round, and plenty of GPL'd projects actively and knowingly participate in it.
"this generation doesn't care to preserve the freedom of others in using their computers, the way Stallman wanted"
It's an ideal, and no one should diminish someone else's hard work just because they don't subscribe to the same ideal you do. They might even believe in the ideal, but we all find a different means to an end. They wrote the code, who the fuck are you to say they "don't care"? They care about contributing to the rest of us, and that is bigger than the rest of it. GPL vs. permissive is droplets in the ocean. They are giving to the rest of us unconditionally, and that IMO is the most gracious form of giving.
"What exactly would be the outcome of a "GPL-only" world?"
It becomes its own world and can't interact with the rest of the world. It's your choice, but it's not the only choice. If I take the time to submit fixes for something that is permissively licensed, I don't think "OMG someone might make money off this, I'm not preserving idealogy X", I think "Great, someone else in my situation who has a job writing closed source software will benefit from this. We can all help each other out." Yeh someone else is making money off my work, but that happens anyways. Even in the GPL world if someone pays for enterprise support, they are somewhere making a profit beyond what they are paying you. You give them a tool, they take it and make a bunch more money with it than they gave you. If you have a business model that allows you to make a living providing software as a service using you GPL'd code, someone else is just as capable of coming along, taking all your code, keeping it under GPL, and providing the same service. Since you did all the heavy lifting they don't have the same startup costs. Maybe they aren't as snide and condescending as you are, and get more customers than you, and soon put you out of business. No you are all butthurt cause someone took your code and made a bunch of money off of it, and you thought by making it GPL you would stop that from happening.
Many of us can't force employer to become open source, nor would their business model work if it were open source. If the elitism here is any indication of what it'd be like to work in a GPL only world, then I wouldn't want to anyways.
I'm sorry, I recant, I misread and missed the "unless" part.
You made a lot of assumptions about the scenarios under which someone might want to use a open source project in another closed source project.
Yeh, somewhere there's probably film/pictures of someone leaving the bomb. You could probably correlate it with other pictures/videos from earlier that would help you backtrack the person's tracks.
I agree, most top games are primarily DirectX. Even if a game supports both, usually it will opt for DirectX if available.
DirectX was kind of an after thought addition to Windows anyhow, when they shut out the low level access that was being used previously for game graphics. I suppose that is where the name "Direct" came from, to emphasize it was the replacement that gave them similar direct access.
Hopefully this will shift things towards OpenGL and we can see more+better frameworks in more languages available for OpenGL.
On the other hand, you hit on potentially another reason for the decline of DirectX, and possibly OpenGL: the "demise of the PC". I do NOT believe the PC will die off anytime soon, but I can't deny that there are alot of casual users that no longer have any desire to put themselves through dealing with a PC, especially if they sit in front of one all day at work. A declining user base will mean commercial efforts shifted elsewhere, which won't be a good thing for the rest of us PC users.
It's one more prettier.
More an aside than a joining in. "They hurt!!" They do indeed sometimes, but hurts little enough that they still keep on whacking at each other, and it looks pretty silly from the outside.
"Oh, the scientific illiteracy found on mock technical sites like Slashdot."
Slashdot doesn't publish articles. They aggregate/filter news and provide summaries. The summaries are often inaccurate or sensationalized. It has nothing to do with the article itself. Slashdot doesn't right the article, just the summary and provides a link. Trying to discredit slashdot's summary says nothing about the article itself.
"There is a lightning strike so electrically violent, the movement of electrons forces gamma rays into existence. And yet, if this bolt hit me, my body wouldn't notice the fact."
The electricity from the lightning doesn't strike you directly. It couldn't, given that you are inside the shell of the aircraft. If you'd RTFA with an ounce of reading comprehension, you'd see it is about being in the vicinity of the strike such that you are exposed to the gamma radiation.
You are trying so hard to twist the words to fit your conspiracy theories.
"Clearly Dwyer doesn't understand the difference between electrons and photons, or electricity and the electro-magnetic spectrum. But I promise you, Dwyer supports Obama's holocaust in Syria, and Obama's policies and beliefs connected with 'global warming'."
Between those two sentences, you made the logical leap of associating ham with a hamster. Dwyer isn't an alarmist: article states that dark lightning might be such a rare occurrence that it's difficult to say if anyone has been exposed to it. We were talking about lightning, and you are talking a war in Syria.
Read the article. They speculate the occurrence of dark lightning is much rarer than regular lightning.
Yeh, just a bunch of idiots arguing about who the idiot really is, using falsehoods and half-truths. It's like barbarians trying to fight to the death with nerf swords.