Exactly what I mean by abuse. I don't recall an asterisk after the First Amendment leading to:
* Unless some random judge says you don't have the right to free speech.
WTF are you talking about? To suggest that a gag order uniformly constitues "abuse" reveals that you have an anti-understanding of due process and the USA legal system. You are speaking nonsense.
As for your "egregious" cite, let me assure you that my work with more than one ACTUAL judge at the federal and state levels shows that they are so far above influence by the press, to suggest otherwise will get even the press laughing at you. In the case you mention, the girl clearly violated a Court Order and also well-established law. The judge showed the girl mercy by not charging her with contempt, likely because he didn't want to make her life any more miserable than it already was.
We are talking about a rape victim being ordered not to speak about her violators, a use of law to prevent a rape victim to confront her abusers. You are free to go legalist all the way, but that won't change the fact that a rape victim's right to confront her attackers morally trumps laws and rulings that prevent such right from being executed.
The ruling was wrong and the law in that case is wrong. Yes, there can be immoral laws and rulings (or immoral applications of otherwise sensible laws), and in those cases, victims have a greater right to break them (just ask Rosa Park.)
We spend entirely too much money on our military. We are so far ahead of the next country in terms of dollars spent it's not even close. We keep bases all around the world, protecting everybody, so that they don't have to spend their own money on a military and instead can spend it domestically. It needs to end. It's no longer 1955.
No, it doesn't. We need to be more efficient at building superior military might. But the end is the same, to build military superiority (obviously along the lines of other types of superiority, economic, educational and social.) Even with the wastefullness, the military spending is a blip among the total government spending. If you think military spending is what's driving us down, think again (or better yet, research again.)
Not getting nuked during Cold War was a fairly nice achievement, if you ask me.
I'd bet most/. nowadays weren't even around when the Berlin Wall fell, let alone know any important events that preceded it. For them, the start of recorded history began with the rise of the Kardashians or something like that. It's similar to the idiots who say "war has never solved anything", but can't remember how Hitler was defeated. Illiterate pukes who aim to explain everything complex with simple slogans.
That this post was modded 5 is a sad testament to slashdot.
Sound idea, sure. But not a substitute for good engineering.
That argument only makes sense if it were the case that Netflix is using it in lieue of good engineering. But, it isn't, so...
Also, this is a false dichotomy. Chaos Monkey is in great part a form of fault injection, which itself is part of good engineering.
You see this issue come up again and again with these cloud services.
Like amazon EC2?
The pressure from sales and marketing to move quickly and monetize the idea (and support lots of subscribers quickly) is not conducive to building a solid infrastructure. Netflix's approach is actually the exact opposite of Amazon's.
You know this from a fact, or is it pure speculation?
Amazon's system is highly engineered and designed to resist failures that take down Amazon.com for it's customers. That is their number one goal. Amazon.com has not been down for a long time. AWS is an offshoot of that effort to resell their extra cycles but it's not nearly as engineered at the Amazon.com application built on top, which redirects around the globe and does lots of other things. It seems that AWS always has some new service coming out, but think about this: all those services were probably made by Amazon 3 years ago and they are just now releasing them to you..
Great non sequitur.
Netflix, on the other hand, seems to be just hacking together a site, if this is really what they primarily used to QA their application.
Seems? Seems? First you state in very certain terms that Netflix is doing the exact opposite to Amazon. And then you say that Netflix modus operandi seems hackey? You built an entire argument against Netflix from what it seems to you?
What you're doing with this random failure thing is just statistically creating errors and finding bugs in failure handling code statistically.
And this is bad because? Ever heard of failt injection? I don't know man, but fault injection has always been part of good engineering workbooks.
This means there's _up to_ an infinite number of bugs that will *not* be found with this method because they are unlikely or the tester is unlucky.
1. This method (and fault injection in general) is not meant to discover all the bugs, nor is it being billed by Netflix for that purpose. The argument makes for a good strawman, though.
2. Fault injection or not, for any large piece of software built, there will always be bugs that will remain undiscovered. Always. This is independent of whether fault injection is used or not as part of development/QA processes.
When you use a fault injection method independent of a developer's POV, the objective is to create scenarios where bugs will manifest themselves during the development process. This is distinct from a QA/Tester that verifies software according to established test scenarios. It is equally distinct from stress/load testing.
How different this is from manually injecting a fault in a system to see if it can cope with it? Say, kill -9 your test database while your app writes to it to see how it handles the error and brings an appropriate error page to the user (as opposed to an ugly http server 500 page)? Bring it back to see if your app can reconnect to it for future transactions? Kill your LDAP server while users are logging into your app to verify that already logged users are not affected by login failures (it shouldn't but most systems fail miserably at this.) Force your thread/connection pool to be size 1 and flood it with requests, injecting out-of-capacity failure, to see how your system manages it? Does it drop death? Can it recover?
What this Netflix tool is doing is simply automating the process of fault injection. What develope
Then he suggested that the word "Mexico" to be dropped as a brand for tourism. And finally, Grupo Posas is in serious financial problems.
I say don't take anything from this guy as an example of good business practice.
Be that as it may
1. There is no claim that says what Grupo Posadas is doing in this particular case (or in any case in general) is a good business practice.
2. The discussion is about a foreign firm moving most of its IT operations to a US-based cloud provider, and the implications therein on US services and/or data privacy.
I know this is/. (where argument consistency/coherence means squat) but c'mon.
More on topic, when companies "move" their "IT operations" to US-based cloud providers, it simply means they are giving up hosting their own infrastructure. Their local IT staff *might* get downsized, maybe not. But nothing of this implies that jobs are coming back (or moving) to US soil. Sysadmins will remain in Mexican. Local business ops will remain in Mexican soil. Pretty much every existing job will re-main as-is.
I mean, let's think about it. US companies nowadays move most of their infrastructure to some cloud provider hosted on, say, Heroku, Amazon or RackSpace (either just a raw virtual space or a virtual app stack.) That gets followed by massive IT Ops/sysadmins/dba admin layoffs, keeping just a core group (at most) supervising a much larger group of support staff in some other cheaper part of the globe.
Likewise a Mexican corporation would not outsource its operations to the US after moving its IT infrastructure to a US-based cloud/platform provider. It is not cost effective. Furthermore, it would not outsource it, say, to India or the Philippines because of language barriers. Outsourcing services around the globe use English as the business language. In Latin America, unlike in Europe or most of Asia, businesses are solely conducted in Spanish or Portuguese - we are horrendously monolingual, more so than Americans. American companies (and European/Japanese companies to a lesser degree) can freely move their operations around the world because English proficiency of some sort is used as a business language.
Not so with Mexican companies (or Latin American companies in general). So any reporter who thinks this could mean a back-to-the-land job migration of sorts is seriously mistaken, uninformed and ignorant.
Did you actually look at the fucking results from what you googled? Or were you just in such a hurry to be an arrogant twat that you couldn't bother?
Yes, and the results right on top contains, among other things... tada... web services. Shit, let's forget about google. About wikipedia, that oh so not new and wonderful site that lists almost all type of shit, including... tada... an entry for WS-*.
So what's your grip anyways, that people think WS-* is a good thing (in which case, you are building a strawman because no one is making that claim here, certainly not me), or that the google results didn't spoon feed you the precise answer of your liking?
Oh please, you arrogant twats.
This web services sector is such a huge over-engineered mess of enterprisey consultant circle-jerking,
Talking about going off the fucking tangent. Who the hell says I or anyone else is proud of the WS-* shit? Do you have to love a stupid acronym to know how to google it? It's not about whether WS-* is good or bad. It's about posters of a site whose motto is 'News for Nerds' who need 3rd parties to google acronyms for them.
I'm actually *proud* I'm not having any relationship with it.
In practice, it's one of the dumbest things out there.
Preaching to the crowd buddy. You ain't the first one who found out the flaws of it. Though don't let that get in the way of making you feel intelligent by repeating what most people know already (that WS-* is crap.)
Because it's mostly protocols based on XML over HTTP over TCP over IP, when a direct binary markup TCP protocol would have done it, and usually already existed decades before.
Add Java "frameworks" in the spirit of EJB to web services, and you got a consultant's wet dream. (Hint: It will contain lots money.)
And you figured that out all by yourself? Here, have a cookie for building an excellent strawman.
It doesn't have to be perfect - only "good enough".
Look at all the technologies we're currently using: The X Server, HTTP, and so on. None of it is perfect, but "good enough".
So instead of moaning, do something, to improve it!
Improvement can only take places when things can be salvaged at a reasonable cost. When the architecture of things is bad enough to cross a certain point, it is best to start over. The software industry has plenty of live examples of this, accumulated for the last 30-40 years.
Linux has already won. It has won the server and the mobile market.
I agree with you in a way. But a full blown win will be when you can ask any guy on the street what Linux is and get an answer..
No. A full-blown win would be when Linux-based systems take an overwhelming share of the computing device market (mobile and otherwise) without significant fragmentation, and with a uniform user experience (uniform not necessarily being the best), and with people transparently using them without giving a shit what OS/software stack runs on them.
The important thing is not whether it is Linux or whatever that takes over, but the consumer's experience.
Indeed. When TFS says "I am trying to convince a number of people to give Linux a chance", the question is "why?"
Help them if they want to transition, but don't be a door-knocking Jehova's Witness or Mormon missionary. No matter how good your intent is - nay, especially if your intent is good, refrain from proselytizing.
Don't hide how happy you are with your choice, but don't try to cajole them into decisions.
Maybe because the OP is still stuck in late-1990's-billwatch.net-Linux-FTW mentality?
Has anyone created a 'super computer' out of raspberry pi's yet?
With what supplies? There are not enough of them for single-unit buyers, let alone to buy the bulk necessary to build a super-computer. Yes, people could use the schematics and build tens (if not hundreds) of thousands to build a super-computer, cluster whatever. But the economics would simply not scale (compared to buying already stuff by the truckload.)
Now, a better question would be "has anyone created a Beowulf cluster" with a bunch of rasberry pi's? That is a more reasonable enterprise, me thinks.
"It is your responsibility, not your career's to keep you physically active."
Isn't choosing a career that aligns with her/his goals a way of taking responsibility?
Of course it is. But you also have to be aware of the nature of the career being selected. This is not a career that will keep you physically active. Looking for CS career opportunities that will keep you physically active (and not locked on a desk forever as the OP put it), that's ridiculous. Yes, looking to align a career with one's goals is responsible. Choosing the wrong career, or ignoring the well-known characteristics of it, that's silliness (these two states are not mutually exclusive.)
You spend more time working than ANYTHING ELSE EVER. If it's not basically pleasant, and you have an option to change that, then do it.
Which is what I said. A CS career will not give what he/she wants. Ergo, change careers (or have realistic expectations with regards of a CS career that will keep him/her physically active.)
It is guaranteed that there will be remarks, double entendres and innuendos with huge potential of getting worse.
It is guaranteed only as a function of the quality of the crowd in question. 1950's locker room has no place in the workplace. Never has (even if it was once permitted), never will be.
Now, if you truly believe that the behavior in question will be inevitable where you work, then you have big problems. If you are the manager, then it is your fault. You should have had a set of rules on professional behavior from the get-go regardless of whether it is/was an all-men crew.
Idiots in/. will tell you to grow a pair and to not be overly sensitive. They'll say whatever comes to their mind to defend their little psycho, socially ackward Howard Wolowitz+Sheldon Cooper values. They are not the ones that will have to deal with the fallout (possibly in state or federal court.) You will.
A simple rule of thumb to follow is this one: talk to your peers like if their mothers are present. Demand it now, enforce it now. There are services out there that helps businesses get up to speed with state and federal regulations regarding permissible and punishable workplace behavior. There are videos out there that can help train your peers in HR-related matters, like this one:
This is not a discussion on whether it is right or wrong, if people are over sensitive or whatever. That's subjective bullshit of no consequence. The only things that matter are 1) get the job done, 2) in a manner that does not get you, your company or your subordinates in state/federal hot water. Don't hit on her, don't tell her anything about her appearance, don't talk about her relations or your relations, or politics or religion for that matter. You want to talk crap, go with your buddy or buddies outside of the office, away from here, and spill your locker room chat to your heart's content. It is not rocket science.
Anything else (in particular the "else" type that will tell you not to give a rat's ass), that's just highschoolish subjective bull crap done by people from the comfort of their keyboards, that only care about the twisted me-me-me values they so sociopathically (sp?) cherish and that will never be there for you when shit hits the fan (except to say the government is over stepping, women are over-sensitive or something equally stupid.)
There are psychos who crave for power (you know the type in distorted pointy-hairy management), and there are psychos who push the envelope of sexual behavior, male-chauvinistic at best, and misogynistic at worst. You know who they are by the type of advise they'll give you in this subject.
If you have an ounce of common sense, you know who you'll listen.
How about a ban on stupid trailer-park dumbass kids who ruin it for the rest of us?
Yeah, because toddlers should know better.</stupid>
I could buy the argument that it is the parents' fault (and it is, for who the hell buys buckyball magnets with toddlers in the family.)
But to call kids "dumbass" while throwing a thinly veiled racial stereotype (trailer-park, really?) because they are taking away your toys, c'mon, grow the hell up.
Even worse, it is so pathetic that the post was modded as "insightful". What a bunch of emotionally stunted manboys.
You haven't thought this through. It is your responsibility, not your career's, to keep you physically active.
I love computer science (IT not so much) but I despise the thought of being stuck behind a desk for the rest of my life.
Why would you have to be stuck behind a desk for the rest of your life? Can't you, like, I dunno, put a timer that makes you get up off your desk every 30 minutes, to stretch your hips or take a walk? Go to the gym during lunch (specially if there is one on or near your work premises)?
Life choices man, life choices. You are making this too complicated, a badly thought of solution looking for a non-existing problem.
Are there any career paths that would suit a computer scientist who likes to be physically active and on his feet a lot?"
Physical labor. You can be a computer scientist by education who chooses a physical labor career path instead.
If your concern is about physical activities while working as a computer scientist, all you have to do is plan your work day, and your work week so that it integrates physical activity of some kind (possibly in addition to an after-hours physically active lifestyle). This is not rocket science.
Now, if your concern is that being a computer scientist will deprive you from enjoying the outside world, dude, you are on the wrong career path. At the end of the day, being in career like computer science requires dedication to tackle problems that, many times, require undivided attention. When you do work, when you get paid to do work, that's what you do, and if that means that sometimes you'll be sitting on a desk, solving problems that you are getting paid to solve, then, that's what you do.
You inter-mix (sp?) physical activity during your work day, and after hours, but you do not expect your CS career to keep you physically active. You should expect yourself to do that, not your CS career. If you want your career to keep you physically active then you need to look at a different career.
I rather take his work for free than piss poor job from a bad teacher or college professor. People that decry Khan is a bad teacher should shut the fuck up, or do what he's doing better and (like Khan) for free. Society pays a ton for education, and in general we get shit in return (unless you live in a well-to-do zip code with excellent school ratings.) So screw them, screw them with a cactus. Either that, or they should put their money where their mouths are and show Khan how to do it.
I've noticed that in general it's cheaper to buy a new bookcase than to buy the wood to build your own of the same quality
Having done some carpentry and built some bookcases both walmart and "real" you cannot even buy veneer particle board of a quality level as low as walmart flat packs. Literally unavailable to retail consumers. So I cry bogus on that claim.
The real problem is people who can't appreciate quality. I can and have built bookcases out of solid oak and hand rubbed finish, which end up costing quite a bit and look beautiful. However the average joe just wants the $19 saggy walmart bookcase. Sort of like McDonalds "food" vs real restaurant.
Maybe I'm reading your post wrong (I still have problems with the language here and there), but doesn't your post kind-of vacuously affirm/prove the point made by garyebickford? That it is cheaper to buy a new bookcase than to build one of the same quality (because the necessary low-quality cheepie cheesie particle board is not available to retail consumers)? You will have to buy it wholesale just to build it (a far more expensive proposition than simply buying the equivalently shitty piece of furniture.)
Universities are investing millions in software for 'massive online open courses' or MOOCs, but unless they can figure out how to make their material fun as well as instructive, Khan may have an insurmountable lead.
What a load of crap. I love Khan's materials, but not because they are fun, but because they are valuable. Plus, I had plenty of college professors that made their lectures fun. And I had classes that were some of the most imporant in my education, and I know the subject and delivery weren't fun. Fun is not an intrinsic property of good education.
Edutainment != education. Such is the state of our sorry ZOMG-Kardashian society.
Also there is pretention in the quoted text that colleges are having a hard time producing instructive online material. Seriously, have they never seen a Stanford/MIT online lecture? There are many universities out there providing grad-level education online with success.
Another thing that people misconstrue (and not a criticism of Khan's videos, but of the fanboys who do) is that Khan's videos are nice to watch because... gasp, they are, in general, relatively shorter than a full-blown lecture. A 90-minute long video lecture will bore you down no matter how "fun" the instructor is. Specially if the material is dense. Or try a 3 hour video lecture. You'll be crawling off the walls even if it is performed by your favorite professor (I know because I've had to take those lectures @ WPI.)
1. If Google were to decide to put its might behind Udacity (which is really fine material btw), wouldn't anyone think that it would pass over Khan Academy? Ergo, the title of this story is an oxymoron like no other.
2. Universities will adapt, prices will go down. They won't get replaced by them, in particular when it comes to research. What I see here is that these private enterprises will accelerate adoption of online media by brick-n-mortar schools (which has been occuring since before Khan came into the picture.)
This is not to take anything away from Khan's marvelous work. But for Christ' sake, don't treat it like the second coming holding the holy grail while riding a silver bullet.
It's really easy to avoid that "problem" by simply not having junk food around to begin with.
^^^ This. As a parent, I know that this is true. I have no problems getting my 3-year old daughter to eat her apples, carrots, brocolli, grape tomatoes, rice, tuna... even onions. No candies, no chocolate bars, no sodas, none of that crap. The most she ever gets once in a while is some frozen as a treat, and her regular sweets are her omega-3 gummy bears.
It always amazes me when people complain that they cannot get their kids to eat their greens... all the while having a lot of uber-fried or sugar-coated shit all around the house. Kids act they way they get raised. You put them around shit, and they'll grow up liking shit and nothing else. It's not rocket science.
Nick is not great for kids. Nick is great for lazy parents.
Indeed. If one ever wants (or needs because sometimes it is needed) to let/put a kid watch a TV show, let it be something of PBS, or at least the Disney Channel. But Nick. Some of those cartoons are just one letter away from saying the F word.
I'm not disconnected with the realities but the reality of the situation is that we have A LOT of teachers making a living who can't teach. We have more teachers who don't give a crap and the small rare chunk who deserve a job,. If a child comes home after a day or being taught by a teacher who doesn't care then I say it is up to the parent to sit down and help. They might work two jobs and they might be uneducated but the second you bring someone into this world you have a duty. One of the duties you have and must follow is to bring them up properly and that means educating them.
Ideally the solution is to just get rid of all bad teachers but honestly that might leave a teaching force of about 30% it's current size, so it's no really doable. I recognize that there exists a poverty bracket and I recognize that life is hard for most people but if we don't start making the difference now then it never gets better.
If you treat a teacher like an engineer then I think we would have a much better education system. If an engineer screws up or makes mistakes or doesn't understand what he's doing he / she gets fired and BANDED from the engineering society. This is what we need for teachers, prove you can teach, make a good record for yourself and you will have job security. If you wanted a free ride then game over.
I don't want to underplay your post, I'm just trying to mention here that we have a system built of 1/2 ass teachers and then we have more parents who aren't putting the rest of the effort in. it's a never ending cycle, we need to break it.
Yes, we need to break it, but the essense of what you posted before (quoted below) is not going to help us achieve that.
I'm sorry but if you can't help your kid in elementary school then you should be doing the homework with them. There is nothing hard or advanced in elementary school, that by the time your an adult you shouldn't know. If a parent can't assist there child in the courses there being taught then they should be going back to school.
I agree with you that they should be going to school. BUT saying what *should* happen without any concerns of context, that is not a solution, at least not one that is realistic and humane enough to warrant consideration in a supposedly evolved, developed society. It fits well in a dog-eat-dog 3rd world shantytown (fortunately, we are not in one.) One thing I remember when I got my US citizenship was a particular line in the opening statements of the constitution, one referring to the general welfare.
That's how developed societies are supposed to function. Anything less, and we should abandon all pretenses of development and claim ourselves a new banana republic. That would be one great irony, leaving a dirt-poor banana republic to come here, clawing myself out of poverty and hamburger flipping jobs, and then finding myself to be an upper-middle class person in another banana republic (albeit a richer one).
Somehow the nation has moved from the concept of a "fair chance" into "if you are down, I'll deride you (while I'm up) because your misery does not affect me and you probably deserve it". And any talk about the ancient concept of social contracts gets inevitably trolled with Objectivist-inspired overexagerations involving food stamps and welfare mommas and socialism.
We are systematically and systemically suplanting the social concepts of merit and fair chance to egotistical, almost-cannibalistic concepts of predestination of misfortunes (if you are down, you must have done something to deserve it). Talking about casts!!!! It is no longer "we" as a nation, but "I" or "us", but only in fortune; in misfortune, up yours very much. That's classism as its finest, a most poisonous, uncivilized concept. It worries me enough to consider what kind of nation my children will grow up in, what kind of civic example (or lack thereof) they will inherit.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly what I mean by abuse. I don't recall an asterisk after the First Amendment leading to:
* Unless some random judge says you don't have the right to free speech.
WTF are you talking about? To suggest that a gag order uniformly constitues "abuse" reveals that you have an anti-understanding of due process and the USA legal system. You are speaking nonsense.
As for your "egregious" cite, let me assure you that my work with more than one ACTUAL judge at the federal and state levels shows that they are so far above influence by the press, to suggest otherwise will get even the press laughing at you. In the case you mention, the girl clearly violated a Court Order and also well-established law. The judge showed the girl mercy by not charging her with contempt, likely because he didn't want to make her life any more miserable than it already was.
We are talking about a rape victim being ordered not to speak about her violators, a use of law to prevent a rape victim to confront her abusers. You are free to go legalist all the way, but that won't change the fact that a rape victim's right to confront her attackers morally trumps laws and rulings that prevent such right from being executed.
The ruling was wrong and the law in that case is wrong. Yes, there can be immoral laws and rulings (or immoral applications of otherwise sensible laws), and in those cases, victims have a greater right to break them (just ask Rosa Park.)
We spend entirely too much money on our military. We are so far ahead of the next country in terms of dollars spent it's not even close. We keep bases all around the world, protecting everybody, so that they don't have to spend their own money on a military and instead can spend it domestically. It needs to end. It's no longer 1955.
No, it doesn't. We need to be more efficient at building superior military might. But the end is the same, to build military superiority (obviously along the lines of other types of superiority, economic, educational and social.) Even with the wastefullness, the military spending is a blip among the total government spending. If you think military spending is what's driving us down, think again (or better yet, research again.)
Really? What has diplomacy EVER solved?
Not getting nuked during Cold War was a fairly nice achievement, if you ask me.
I'd bet most /. nowadays weren't even around when the Berlin Wall fell, let alone know any important events that preceded it. For them, the start of recorded history began with the rise of the Kardashians or something like that. It's similar to the idiots who say "war has never solved anything", but can't remember how Hitler was defeated. Illiterate pukes who aim to explain everything complex with simple slogans.
That's a lot of guesswork... I don't see many links backing your positions up.
His positions are superficial and emotional, that's all.
Sound idea, sure. But not a substitute for good engineering.
That argument only makes sense if it were the case that Netflix is using it in lieue of good engineering. But, it isn't, so...
Also, this is a false dichotomy. Chaos Monkey is in great part a form of fault injection, which itself is part of good engineering.
You see this issue come up again and again with these cloud services.
Like amazon EC2?
The pressure from sales and marketing to move quickly and monetize the idea (and support lots of subscribers quickly) is not conducive to building a solid infrastructure. Netflix's approach is actually the exact opposite of Amazon's.
You know this from a fact, or is it pure speculation?
Amazon's system is highly engineered and designed to resist failures that take down Amazon.com for it's customers. That is their number one goal. Amazon.com has not been down for a long time. AWS is an offshoot of that effort to resell their extra cycles but it's not nearly as engineered at the Amazon.com application built on top, which redirects around the globe and does lots of other things. It seems that AWS always has some new service coming out, but think about this: all those services were probably made by Amazon 3 years ago and they are just now releasing them to you..
Great non sequitur.
Netflix, on the other hand, seems to be just hacking together a site, if this is really what they primarily used to QA their application.
Seems? Seems? First you state in very certain terms that Netflix is doing the exact opposite to Amazon. And then you say that Netflix modus operandi seems hackey? You built an entire argument against Netflix from what it seems to you?
What you're doing with this random failure thing is just statistically creating errors and finding bugs in failure handling code statistically.
And this is bad because? Ever heard of failt injection? I don't know man, but fault injection has always been part of good engineering workbooks.
This means there's _up to_ an infinite number of bugs that will *not* be found with this method because they are unlikely or the tester is unlucky.
1. This method (and fault injection in general) is not meant to discover all the bugs, nor is it being billed by Netflix for that purpose. The argument makes for a good strawman, though.
2. Fault injection or not, for any large piece of software built, there will always be bugs that will remain undiscovered. Always. This is independent of whether fault injection is used or not as part of development/QA processes.
When you use a fault injection method independent of a developer's POV, the objective is to create scenarios where bugs will manifest themselves during the development process. This is distinct from a QA/Tester that verifies software according to established test scenarios. It is equally distinct from stress/load testing.
How different this is from manually injecting a fault in a system to see if it can cope with it? Say, kill -9 your test database while your app writes to it to see how it handles the error and brings an appropriate error page to the user (as opposed to an ugly http server 500 page)? Bring it back to see if your app can reconnect to it for future transactions? Kill your LDAP server while users are logging into your app to verify that already logged users are not affected by login failures (it shouldn't but most systems fail miserably at this.) Force your thread/connection pool to be size 1 and flood it with requests, injecting out-of-capacity failure, to see how your system manages it? Does it drop death? Can it recover?
What this Netflix tool is doing is simply automating the process of fault injection. What develope
First, He led Mexicana (one of the national airlines) to bankrupcy:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/04/business/la-fi-mexicana-bankruptcy-20100804
Then he suggested that the word "Mexico" to be dropped as a brand for tourism. And finally, Grupo Posas is in serious financial problems.
I say don't take anything from this guy as an example of good business practice.
Be that as it may
1. There is no claim that says what Grupo Posadas is doing in this particular case (or in any case in general) is a good business practice.
2. The discussion is about a foreign firm moving most of its IT operations to a US-based cloud provider, and the implications therein on US services and/or data privacy.
I know this is /. (where argument consistency/coherence means squat) but c'mon.
More on topic, when companies "move" their "IT operations" to US-based cloud providers, it simply means they are giving up hosting their own infrastructure. Their local IT staff *might* get downsized, maybe not. But nothing of this implies that jobs are coming back (or moving) to US soil. Sysadmins will remain in Mexican. Local business ops will remain in Mexican soil. Pretty much every existing job will re-main as-is.
I mean, let's think about it. US companies nowadays move most of their infrastructure to some cloud provider hosted on, say, Heroku, Amazon or RackSpace (either just a raw virtual space or a virtual app stack.) That gets followed by massive IT Ops/sysadmins/dba admin layoffs, keeping just a core group (at most) supervising a much larger group of support staff in some other cheaper part of the globe.
Likewise a Mexican corporation would not outsource its operations to the US after moving its IT infrastructure to a US-based cloud/platform provider. It is not cost effective. Furthermore, it would not outsource it, say, to India or the Philippines because of language barriers. Outsourcing services around the globe use English as the business language. In Latin America, unlike in Europe or most of Asia, businesses are solely conducted in Spanish or Portuguese - we are horrendously monolingual, more so than Americans. American companies (and European/Japanese companies to a lesser degree) can freely move their operations around the world because English proficiency of some sort is used as a business language.
Not so with Mexican companies (or Latin American companies in general). So any reporter who thinks this could mean a back-to-the-land job migration of sorts is seriously mistaken, uninformed and ignorant.
Did you actually look at the fucking results from what you googled? Or were you just in such a hurry to be an arrogant twat that you couldn't bother?
Yes, and the results right on top contains, among other things... tada... web services. Shit, let's forget about google. About wikipedia, that oh so not new and wonderful site that lists almost all type of shit, including... tada... an entry for WS-*.
So what's your grip anyways, that people think WS-* is a good thing (in which case, you are building a strawman because no one is making that claim here, certainly not me), or that the google results didn't spoon feed you the precise answer of your liking?
Oh please, you arrogant twats. This web services sector is such a huge over-engineered mess of enterprisey consultant circle-jerking,
Talking about going off the fucking tangent. Who the hell says I or anyone else is proud of the WS-* shit? Do you have to love a stupid acronym to know how to google it? It's not about whether WS-* is good or bad. It's about posters of a site whose motto is 'News for Nerds' who need 3rd parties to google acronyms for them.
I'm actually *proud* I'm not having any relationship with it.
In practice, it's one of the dumbest things out there.
Preaching to the crowd buddy. You ain't the first one who found out the flaws of it. Though don't let that get in the way of making you feel intelligent by repeating what most people know already (that WS-* is crap.)
Because it's mostly protocols based on XML over HTTP over TCP over IP, when a direct binary markup TCP protocol would have done it, and usually already existed decades before.
Add Java "frameworks" in the spirit of EJB to web services, and you got a consultant's wet dream. (Hint: It will contain lots money.)
And you figured that out all by yourself? Here, have a cookie for building an excellent strawman.
It doesn't have to be perfect - only "good enough". Look at all the technologies we're currently using: The X Server, HTTP, and so on. None of it is perfect, but "good enough".
So instead of moaning, do something, to improve it!
Improvement can only take places when things can be salvaged at a reasonable cost. When the architecture of things is bad enough to cross a certain point, it is best to start over. The software industry has plenty of live examples of this, accumulated for the last 30-40 years.
I have never seen "ws-*" before... reference please?
Ask and ye shall receive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-*
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ws-*
Courtesy of wikipedia and google.
What's WS-* supposed to mean... WordStar? I almost thought, some geek reference to a VMS error message... (%WS-X-XYZZY) but surely not?
You are kidding, right?
Linux has already won. It has won the server and the mobile market.
I agree with you in a way. But a full blown win will be when you can ask any guy on the street what Linux is and get an answer..
No. A full-blown win would be when Linux-based systems take an overwhelming share of the computing device market (mobile and otherwise) without significant fragmentation, and with a uniform user experience (uniform not necessarily being the best), and with people transparently using them without giving a shit what OS/software stack runs on them.
The important thing is not whether it is Linux or whatever that takes over, but the consumer's experience.
Indeed. When TFS says "I am trying to convince a number of people to give Linux a chance", the question is "why?"
Help them if they want to transition, but don't be a door-knocking Jehova's Witness or Mormon missionary. No matter how good your intent is - nay, especially if your intent is good, refrain from proselytizing. Don't hide how happy you are with your choice, but don't try to cajole them into decisions.
Maybe because the OP is still stuck in late-1990's-billwatch.net-Linux-FTW mentality?
Has anyone created a 'super computer' out of raspberry pi's yet?
With what supplies? There are not enough of them for single-unit buyers, let alone to buy the bulk necessary to build a super-computer. Yes, people could use the schematics and build tens (if not hundreds) of thousands to build a super-computer, cluster whatever. But the economics would simply not scale (compared to buying already stuff by the truckload.)
Now, a better question would be "has anyone created a Beowulf cluster" with a bunch of rasberry pi's? That is a more reasonable enterprise, me thinks.
"It is your responsibility, not your career's to keep you physically active."
Isn't choosing a career that aligns with her/his goals a way of taking responsibility?
Of course it is. But you also have to be aware of the nature of the career being selected. This is not a career that will keep you physically active. Looking for CS career opportunities that will keep you physically active (and not locked on a desk forever as the OP put it), that's ridiculous. Yes, looking to align a career with one's goals is responsible. Choosing the wrong career, or ignoring the well-known characteristics of it, that's silliness (these two states are not mutually exclusive.)
You spend more time working than ANYTHING ELSE EVER. If it's not basically pleasant, and you have an option to change that, then do it.
Which is what I said. A CS career will not give what he/she wants. Ergo, change careers (or have realistic expectations with regards of a CS career that will keep him/her physically active.)
It is guaranteed that there will be remarks, double entendres and innuendos with huge potential of getting worse.
It is guaranteed only as a function of the quality of the crowd in question. 1950's locker room has no place in the workplace. Never has (even if it was once permitted), never will be.
Now, if you truly believe that the behavior in question will be inevitable where you work, then you have big problems. If you are the manager, then it is your fault. You should have had a set of rules on professional behavior from the get-go regardless of whether it is/was an all-men crew.
Idiots in /. will tell you to grow a pair and to not be overly sensitive. They'll say whatever comes to their mind to defend their little psycho, socially ackward Howard Wolowitz+Sheldon Cooper values. They are not the ones that will have to deal with the fallout (possibly in state or federal court.) You will.
A simple rule of thumb to follow is this one: talk to your peers like if their mothers are present. Demand it now, enforce it now. There are services out there that helps businesses get up to speed with state and federal regulations regarding permissible and punishable workplace behavior. There are videos out there that can help train your peers in HR-related matters, like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUNXPFI6dYU
This is not a discussion on whether it is right or wrong, if people are over sensitive or whatever. That's subjective bullshit of no consequence. The only things that matter are 1) get the job done, 2) in a manner that does not get you, your company or your subordinates in state/federal hot water. Don't hit on her, don't tell her anything about her appearance, don't talk about her relations or your relations, or politics or religion for that matter. You want to talk crap, go with your buddy or buddies outside of the office, away from here, and spill your locker room chat to your heart's content. It is not rocket science.
Anything else (in particular the "else" type that will tell you not to give a rat's ass), that's just highschoolish subjective bull crap done by people from the comfort of their keyboards, that only care about the twisted me-me-me values they so sociopathically (sp?) cherish and that will never be there for you when shit hits the fan (except to say the government is over stepping, women are over-sensitive or something equally stupid.)
There are psychos who crave for power (you know the type in distorted pointy-hairy management), and there are psychos who push the envelope of sexual behavior, male-chauvinistic at best, and misogynistic at worst. You know who they are by the type of advise they'll give you in this subject.
If you have an ounce of common sense, you know who you'll listen.
How about a ban on stupid trailer-park dumbass kids who ruin it for the rest of us?
Yeah, because toddlers should know better.</stupid>
I could buy the argument that it is the parents' fault (and it is, for who the hell buys buckyball magnets with toddlers in the family.)
But to call kids "dumbass" while throwing a thinly veiled racial stereotype (trailer-park, really?) because they are taking away your toys, c'mon, grow the hell up.
Even worse, it is so pathetic that the post was modded as "insightful". What a bunch of emotionally stunted manboys.
I love computer science (IT not so much) but I despise the thought of being stuck behind a desk for the rest of my life.
Why would you have to be stuck behind a desk for the rest of your life? Can't you, like, I dunno, put a timer that makes you get up off your desk every 30 minutes, to stretch your hips or take a walk? Go to the gym during lunch (specially if there is one on or near your work premises)?
At my desk I keep a tennis ball, rubber bands and two CoC grippers #1 and #2 for grip training, and several resistance bands, including for a variety of exercises, which I do throughout my work day. I had a co-worker who kept a pair of dumbbells under his desk for lunges, standing up presses and stuff like that. Myself, every other day I drive to the gym in the middle of lunch, and when I don't have time to go to the gym, I simply walk up and down the stairs (6 floors in total), or take a 15 minute walk. There is nothing in a professional career (not just CS) that requires you to be stuck on a chair.
Life choices man, life choices. You are making this too complicated, a badly thought of solution looking for a non-existing problem.
Are there any career paths that would suit a computer scientist who likes to be physically active and on his feet a lot?"
Physical labor. You can be a computer scientist by education who chooses a physical labor career path instead.
If your concern is about physical activities while working as a computer scientist, all you have to do is plan your work day, and your work week so that it integrates physical activity of some kind (possibly in addition to an after-hours physically active lifestyle). This is not rocket science.
Now, if your concern is that being a computer scientist will deprive you from enjoying the outside world, dude, you are on the wrong career path. At the end of the day, being in career like computer science requires dedication to tackle problems that, many times, require undivided attention. When you do work, when you get paid to do work, that's what you do, and if that means that sometimes you'll be sitting on a desk, solving problems that you are getting paid to solve, then, that's what you do.
You inter-mix (sp?) physical activity during your work day, and after hours, but you do not expect your CS career to keep you physically active. You should expect yourself to do that, not your CS career. If you want your career to keep you physically active then you need to look at a different career.
I rather take his work for free than piss poor job from a bad teacher or college professor. People that decry Khan is a bad teacher should shut the fuck up, or do what he's doing better and (like Khan) for free. Society pays a ton for education, and in general we get shit in return (unless you live in a well-to-do zip code with excellent school ratings.) So screw them, screw them with a cactus. Either that, or they should put their money where their mouths are and show Khan how to do it.
I've noticed that in general it's cheaper to buy a new bookcase than to buy the wood to build your own of the same quality
Having done some carpentry and built some bookcases both walmart and "real" you cannot even buy veneer particle board of a quality level as low as walmart flat packs. Literally unavailable to retail consumers. So I cry bogus on that claim.
The real problem is people who can't appreciate quality. I can and have built bookcases out of solid oak and hand rubbed finish, which end up costing quite a bit and look beautiful. However the average joe just wants the $19 saggy walmart bookcase. Sort of like McDonalds "food" vs real restaurant.
Maybe I'm reading your post wrong (I still have problems with the language here and there), but doesn't your post kind-of vacuously affirm/prove the point made by garyebickford? That it is cheaper to buy a new bookcase than to build one of the same quality (because the necessary low-quality cheepie cheesie particle board is not available to retail consumers)? You will have to buy it wholesale just to build it (a far more expensive proposition than simply buying the equivalently shitty piece of furniture.)
Can Anyone Catch Khan Academy?
Anyone? No. Someone? Probability would say "yes".
Universities are investing millions in software for 'massive online open courses' or MOOCs, but unless they can figure out how to make their material fun as well as instructive, Khan may have an insurmountable lead.
What a load of crap. I love Khan's materials, but not because they are fun, but because they are valuable. Plus, I had plenty of college professors that made their lectures fun. And I had classes that were some of the most imporant in my education, and I know the subject and delivery weren't fun. Fun is not an intrinsic property of good education.
Edutainment != education. Such is the state of our sorry ZOMG-Kardashian society.
Also there is pretention in the quoted text that colleges are having a hard time producing instructive online material. Seriously, have they never seen a Stanford/MIT online lecture? There are many universities out there providing grad-level education online with success.
Another thing that people misconstrue (and not a criticism of Khan's videos, but of the fanboys who do) is that Khan's videos are nice to watch because... gasp, they are, in general, relatively shorter than a full-blown lecture. A 90-minute long video lecture will bore you down no matter how "fun" the instructor is. Specially if the material is dense. Or try a 3 hour video lecture. You'll be crawling off the walls even if it is performed by your favorite professor (I know because I've had to take those lectures @ WPI.)
1. If Google were to decide to put its might behind Udacity (which is really fine material btw), wouldn't anyone think that it would pass over Khan Academy? Ergo, the title of this story is an oxymoron like no other.
2. Universities will adapt, prices will go down. They won't get replaced by them, in particular when it comes to research. What I see here is that these private enterprises will accelerate adoption of online media by brick-n-mortar schools (which has been occuring since before Khan came into the picture.)
This is not to take anything away from Khan's marvelous work. But for Christ' sake, don't treat it like the second coming holding the holy grail while riding a silver bullet.
It's really easy to avoid that "problem" by simply not having junk food around to begin with.
^^^ This. As a parent, I know that this is true. I have no problems getting my 3-year old daughter to eat her apples, carrots, brocolli, grape tomatoes, rice, tuna... even onions. No candies, no chocolate bars, no sodas, none of that crap. The most she ever gets once in a while is some frozen as a treat, and her regular sweets are her omega-3 gummy bears.
It always amazes me when people complain that they cannot get their kids to eat their greens... all the while having a lot of uber-fried or sugar-coated shit all around the house. Kids act they way they get raised. You put them around shit, and they'll grow up liking shit and nothing else. It's not rocket science.
Nick is not great for kids. Nick is great for lazy parents.
Indeed. If one ever wants (or needs because sometimes it is needed) to let/put a kid watch a TV show, let it be something of PBS, or at least the Disney Channel. But Nick. Some of those cartoons are just one letter away from saying the F word.
Better the Anglicans than the Grammar Scientologists.
Well played, sir, well played.
I'm not disconnected with the realities but the reality of the situation is that we have A LOT of teachers making a living who can't teach. We have more teachers who don't give a crap and the small rare chunk who deserve a job,. If a child comes home after a day or being taught by a teacher who doesn't care then I say it is up to the parent to sit down and help. They might work two jobs and they might be uneducated but the second you bring someone into this world you have a duty. One of the duties you have and must follow is to bring them up properly and that means educating them. Ideally the solution is to just get rid of all bad teachers but honestly that might leave a teaching force of about 30% it's current size, so it's no really doable. I recognize that there exists a poverty bracket and I recognize that life is hard for most people but if we don't start making the difference now then it never gets better. If you treat a teacher like an engineer then I think we would have a much better education system. If an engineer screws up or makes mistakes or doesn't understand what he's doing he / she gets fired and BANDED from the engineering society. This is what we need for teachers, prove you can teach, make a good record for yourself and you will have job security. If you wanted a free ride then game over. I don't want to underplay your post, I'm just trying to mention here that we have a system built of 1/2 ass teachers and then we have more parents who aren't putting the rest of the effort in. it's a never ending cycle, we need to break it.
Yes, we need to break it, but the essense of what you posted before (quoted below) is not going to help us achieve that.
I'm sorry but if you can't help your kid in elementary school then you should be doing the homework with them. There is nothing hard or advanced in elementary school, that by the time your an adult you shouldn't know. If a parent can't assist there child in the courses there being taught then they should be going back to school.
I agree with you that they should be going to school. BUT saying what *should* happen without any concerns of context, that is not a solution, at least not one that is realistic and humane enough to warrant consideration in a supposedly evolved, developed society. It fits well in a dog-eat-dog 3rd world shantytown (fortunately, we are not in one.) One thing I remember when I got my US citizenship was a particular line in the opening statements of the constitution, one referring to the general welfare.
That's how developed societies are supposed to function. Anything less, and we should abandon all pretenses of development and claim ourselves a new banana republic. That would be one great irony, leaving a dirt-poor banana republic to come here, clawing myself out of poverty and hamburger flipping jobs, and then finding myself to be an upper-middle class person in another banana republic (albeit a richer one).
Somehow the nation has moved from the concept of a "fair chance" into "if you are down, I'll deride you (while I'm up) because your misery does not affect me and you probably deserve it". And any talk about the ancient concept of social contracts gets inevitably trolled with Objectivist-inspired overexagerations involving food stamps and welfare mommas and socialism.
We are systematically and systemically suplanting the social concepts of merit and fair chance to egotistical, almost-cannibalistic concepts of predestination of misfortunes (if you are down, you must have done something to deserve it). Talking about casts!!!! It is no longer "we" as a nation, but "I" or "us", but only in fortune; in misfortune, up yours very much. That's classism as its finest, a most poisonous, uncivilized concept. It worries me enough to consider what kind of nation my children will grow up in, what kind of civic example (or lack thereof) they will inherit.
Don't