Just because someone predicts it won't happen doesn't mean it's not going to.
Right, except these fuckers knew damn well that there was evidence that contradicted their prediction, yet they continued on anyway. They didn't do what true, honest scientists do in that situation, namely say "we don't know, sorry, our craft is not yet evolved to the point of making such a prediction". They said "fuck it, we think we know what's going on, go back to your homes and be merry". And as a direct consequence of that, people died. They did not act as scientists, but as medieval priests, and they fucking deserve to burn for it.
If you want to be sure you won't die in a volcano eruption don't build your house in the middle of a fucking volcano. Same goes for other people who complain about natural disasters.
There are no dangerous natural phenomenons where you live? Good for you, I hope the same courtesy you display is extended to you when the time comes.
I strongly object to using the word "developers" to describe people that are clearly fucking hacks. You don't become a doctor just because you use a scalpel to cut people open. Spade, meet shovel.
Half the web hacks out there can't even prevent simple cross site scripting let alone the dozens of other common threats that exist in web hackery. As with adding any other new buzzword feature, it's just giving people who don't know any better more ammunition to shoot themselves in the foot with. There needs to be more focus on replacing hacks with real developers instead of trying to cram every new buzzword tech they can into their piece of shit application.
They were not jailed for failing to predict it, but for giving (provably) false assurances that no earthquake was eminent. Subtle difference, and one the "science community" seems to conveniently forget when bringing this story up.
The seven defendants, who belonged to the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks, were accused of offering an unjustifiably optimistic assessment to the local population a week before the disaster. By then, the area had been hit by some 400 tremors over a period of four months and a local researcher had warned of the risk of a major earthquake, largely on the basis of abnormal radon emissions.
But after an extraordinary meeting of the commission in L'Aquila, one of the experts told a press conference that the situation was "normal" and even "favourable" because potentially destructive energy was being released through the tremors. The prosecution, which brought charges of multiple manslaughter, maintained that lives could have been saved had people not been persuaded by the assurances to remain in the area.
They were in a position of authority on the subject, yet they failed to exercise due diligence with respect to their own research. They ignored evidence that did not fit their own world view, and they presented their own as fact. The correct answer would have been "we don't know, take precautions", when asked. They didn't give that answer, and because of that 307 people died and 1,500 were injured. 80,000 lost their homes, but that would have happened regardless.
What? I'm on my 3rd account, cause I keep forgetting the login - you know, cause Slashdot just isn't that important. Been 12 years since my first, and alot longer since my first visit. How about you get back to work slacker?
To be fair, Afghanistan is really, really close to Pakistan, where the "bad guy" ended up being located. Also, Iraq is really, really close to Saudi Arabia, where the "bad guy" came from. They didn't invade Poland or Kenya - points for effort at least?
This. If you're here for help on this, you're doing it wrong. Get someone on board that can take you through these decisions (because there are going to be more involved than just this), someone who can do the groundwork analysis for you.
We sometimes have upwards of 1,000 people browsing the site at the same time, so my sense is that we shouldn't need massive amounts of power or bandwidth
That is vague at best, and certainly not enough basis to make an informed decision on, or recommendation. Do yourself a huge favor and just hire someone for it, the 90s were the time for nephew art, not so much nowadays.
Agreed, although given a choice I would much rather see these kinds of stories over "Version 900.1 of [whatever] released: will it finally do [something remotely useful]"
I've got no feelings attached to Microsoft, good or bad. I don't care; they make products I can use - so I use them, they make products that suck donkey balls - I don't use them. I am very much a fan of using the right tool for the job though. What i dislike is fanboyism, Google, Apple, Linux, Microsoft or whatever, people blinded so badly by their religion are the worst kind of scum.
OP however has had nothing of value to contribute to Slashdot, as evident by his posting history. That earns him the brand of "shill", whether you like it or not, that is what he is - promoting something he neither understands nor particularly cares about, for a profit.
If you call "that is a known bug" support, then you are right. Basic controls like radio buttons are not working on Windows XP. And they won't fix it.
That sentence beats "system won't run on, period.", there really are no cheap alternatives to "not running", there are plenty of cheap alternatives to a goddamn radio button control though. Where I work, we have a lot of old shit we still need to support, crap that predates Windows XP by quite a few years. Stability is everything, fuck the broken buttons and the wierdo way it generates reports, as long as it still runs we can work with it.
You really do not have a clue how big enterprises operate do you?
Well, we can always hope that they'll drown those big meeting rooms full of 'middle management' enterprise types in the churn of their product cycles.
Nobody in middle management is getting the boot because Google pulled the rug out from under a million dollar venture, but the poor sod of an engineer that works below that guy will absolutely get fucked over, even if it was never his decision. Balls of shit roll downhill, always - if you made it to middle management in an enterprise, you're 1/2 politician already.
Without warning was probably a poor choice of words, true. They give warning that is actionable for individual users, not to an enterprise who have very different stability demands, and very, very different reaction times.
This is the same technology they use in newest airplanes and space shuttles - ie., top notch tech.
What shuttles? And what tech is that, that so easily transcends working parameters to be "top notch" in both space, airplanes and datacenters? Oh, a plastic box labelled "Microsoft", for sale for $8 and filled with junk, soldered to an unrecognisable mess by some overworked 8 year old chineese boy?
If you don't care about running a datacenter, there is also Windows Azure cloud hosting platform.
Yes, because "cloud" magically whisks the network stack away to fariy land, where there are no outages outside of your control, and the five-nines you got promised isn't just 9.9999%.
It directly integrates with your existing MS stack (Visual Studio, IIS server software) and is beauty to work with.
There is nothing beautiful about IIS, and since you're on the subject of astroturfing, why isn't Windows 8 mentioned in the "stack"? At least that would have been somewhat on topic, if not even more laughable.
There is no real reason why Google can't do all of these things
Except closing down projects that don't meet arbitrary internal goals without warning. Nobody is going to trust Google with enterprisey stuff, since they can't seem to hold focus long enough for people to actually build an infrastructure around their offerings. When the next new thing comes along, guess which balloon side project gets canned, for no reason, with no warning, leaving countless gimps clamoring for an alternative that is nowhere to be found.
They might be all about processing information, but they can't seem to actually monetize this beyond shoving ads in their users faces.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is a technical reason that people's gender's can't be changed in individual databases. But I bet there's plenty of databases where the gender field is either 'M' or 'F' - with no other value allowed. In addition I bet there are plenty of front ends to databases that don't allow such fields to be changed, probably to help avoid mistakes in data entry in other fields.
If it's not a technical reason (which we already knew, and I already said), then it must be a design limitation, which is quite frankly a rookie mistake. The concept of gender change or confusion is nothing new, it really does not matter if it is the design of the database schema or the front end GUI that limits the gender choice - it is still the architect that is being an incompetent idiot.
For the purposes of databases, why do we need to know what gender people are? [...] So rather than design a technical solution to this, maybe we should just stop asking?
As long as there are choices in society that are gender specific, the gender information will be relevant. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy only works for things that are truly irrelevant.
The story is about database design to accommodate these "new" ideas. This is moronic; if your database does not have the capability to make changes to single fields, you're doing it wrong (TM). If your design amounts to a boolean for gender, you're doing it wrong (TM). What the real problem probably is, is UI design of whatever CS application is being used, and if the CS rep has trouble correcting one field over another, you're doing it wrong (TM).
Granted I didn't bother reading TFA, since the "problem" should really only be a "problem" for a rookie developer. This is no different from designing a database that has an integer for house numbers, and then being baffled that someone lives in 2A. Or assuming that all names can be neatly categorized as first/middle/last name. The third link in the summary is to a forum where they discuss what kind of data type gender should be, and someone is contemplating using a boolean "for performance" - those people are the real problems in IT.
It's great that awareness is being raised over issues of incompetent designers, but the trans gender angle is a little bit too restrictive. The problem is not about gender and the trouble they go through, it is about designing shit that has a dead end for an expansion path.
Don't be so naive. You can always get an offer you can't refuse. That's just how things work.
Of course you can, that kind of thing happens all the time. People who will not sell, for any amount, do exist though - and those are the ones you need to worry about if your business model is "maintain status quo, throw money at competitors till they fold".
Well, first of all, economics 101: you have to control a majority of the stock in order to control the company. If you do not control a majority of the stock, you are per definition not in control of the company, and as such it is irrelevant what you think about a potential sale. All this is beside the point though, since that would just be yet another instance of a bigger corp swallowing a smaller one.
My point was that sooner or later, a startup will come along, not be publicly traded and the owners will be unwilling to sell to you. If your business model is intimidation and buy outs only, you are fucked - and relegated to play catch up, like IBM did with Microsoft, and Microsoft did with Google, and Google with Facebook, and so on and so forth. You may stack the deck in your favor for a while, by holding patents and performing aggressive takeovers, but you cannot defend against innovation unless you're the one performing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because someone predicts it won't happen doesn't mean it's not going to.
Right, except these fuckers knew damn well that there was evidence that contradicted their prediction, yet they continued on anyway. They didn't do what true, honest scientists do in that situation, namely say "we don't know, sorry, our craft is not yet evolved to the point of making such a prediction". They said "fuck it, we think we know what's going on, go back to your homes and be merry". And as a direct consequence of that, people died. They did not act as scientists, but as medieval priests, and they fucking deserve to burn for it.
If you want to be sure you won't die in a volcano eruption don't build your house in the middle of a fucking volcano.
Same goes for other people who complain about natural disasters.
There are no dangerous natural phenomenons where you live? Good for you, I hope the same courtesy you display is extended to you when the time comes.
I strongly object to using the word "developers" to describe people that are clearly fucking hacks. You don't become a doctor just because you use a scalpel to cut people open. Spade, meet shovel.
Half the web hacks out there can't even prevent simple cross site scripting let alone the dozens of other common threats that exist in web hackery. As with adding any other new buzzword feature, it's just giving people who don't know any better more ammunition to shoot themselves in the foot with. There needs to be more focus on replacing hacks with real developers instead of trying to cram every new buzzword tech they can into their piece of shit application.
They were not jailed for failing to predict it, but for giving (provably) false assurances that no earthquake was eminent. Subtle difference, and one the "science community" seems to conveniently forget when bringing this story up.
The seven defendants, who belonged to the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks, were accused of offering an unjustifiably optimistic assessment to the local population a week before the disaster. By then, the area had been hit by some 400 tremors over a period of four months and a local researcher had warned of the risk of a major earthquake, largely on the basis of abnormal radon emissions.
But after an extraordinary meeting of the commission in L'Aquila, one of the experts told a press conference that the situation was "normal" and even "favourable" because potentially destructive energy was being released through the tremors. The prosecution, which brought charges of multiple manslaughter, maintained that lives could have been saved had people not been persuaded by the assurances to remain in the area.
They were in a position of authority on the subject, yet they failed to exercise due diligence with respect to their own research. They ignored evidence that did not fit their own world view, and they presented their own as fact. The correct answer would have been "we don't know, take precautions", when asked. They didn't give that answer, and because of that 307 people died and 1,500 were injured. 80,000 lost their homes, but that would have happened regardless.
All the world's problems are solved here on Slashdot, didn't you get the memo?
What? I'm on my 3rd account, cause I keep forgetting the login - you know, cause Slashdot just isn't that important. Been 12 years since my first, and alot longer since my first visit. How about you get back to work slacker?
To be fair, Afghanistan is really, really close to Pakistan, where the "bad guy" ended up being located. Also, Iraq is really, really close to Saudi Arabia, where the "bad guy" came from. They didn't invade Poland or Kenya - points for effort at least?
link to bbc article, for good measure
Chrome
This.
If you're here for help on this, you're doing it wrong. Get someone on board that can take you through these decisions (because there are going to be more involved than just this), someone who can do the groundwork analysis for you.
We sometimes have upwards of 1,000 people browsing the site at the same time, so my sense is that we shouldn't need massive amounts of power or bandwidth
That is vague at best, and certainly not enough basis to make an informed decision on, or recommendation. Do yourself a huge favor and just hire someone for it, the 90s were the time for nephew art, not so much nowadays.
Agreed, although given a choice I would much rather see these kinds of stories over "Version 900.1 of [whatever] released: will it finally do [something remotely useful]"
As opposed to seeing it on your phone, where the UI helpfully displays the first line of text, in any message, for anyone to see?
I've got no feelings attached to Microsoft, good or bad. I don't care; they make products I can use - so I use them, they make products that suck donkey balls - I don't use them. I am very much a fan of using the right tool for the job though. What i dislike is fanboyism, Google, Apple, Linux, Microsoft or whatever, people blinded so badly by their religion are the worst kind of scum.
OP however has had nothing of value to contribute to Slashdot, as evident by his posting history. That earns him the brand of "shill", whether you like it or not, that is what he is - promoting something he neither understands nor particularly cares about, for a profit.
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft
Lies, you're shilling.
If you call "that is a known bug" support, then you are right. Basic controls like radio buttons are not working on Windows XP. And they won't fix it.
That sentence beats "system won't run on, period.", there really are no cheap alternatives to "not running", there are plenty of cheap alternatives to a goddamn radio button control though. Where I work, we have a lot of old shit we still need to support, crap that predates Windows XP by quite a few years. Stability is everything, fuck the broken buttons and the wierdo way it generates reports, as long as it still runs we can work with it.
You really do not have a clue how big enterprises operate do you?
Well, we can always hope that they'll drown those big meeting rooms full of 'middle management' enterprise types in the churn of their product cycles.
Nobody in middle management is getting the boot because Google pulled the rug out from under a million dollar venture, but the poor sod of an engineer that works below that guy will absolutely get fucked over, even if it was never his decision. Balls of shit roll downhill, always - if you made it to middle management in an enterprise, you're 1/2 politician already.
Without warning was probably a poor choice of words, true. They give warning that is actionable for individual users, not to an enterprise who have very different stability demands, and very, very different reaction times.
Check UIDs. I'm COLD FJORD(826450). User COID FJORD(2949869) has impersonated me. Don't confuse us if he trolls you.
That sig is counter productive to your intent, donchathink?
This is the same technology they use in newest airplanes and space shuttles - ie., top notch tech.
What shuttles? And what tech is that, that so easily transcends working parameters to be "top notch" in both space, airplanes and datacenters? Oh, a plastic box labelled "Microsoft", for sale for $8 and filled with junk, soldered to an unrecognisable mess by some overworked 8 year old chineese boy?
If you don't care about running a datacenter, there is also Windows Azure cloud hosting platform.
Yes, because "cloud" magically whisks the network stack away to fariy land, where there are no outages outside of your control, and the five-nines you got promised isn't just 9.9999%.
It directly integrates with your existing MS stack (Visual Studio, IIS server software) and is beauty to work with.
There is nothing beautiful about IIS, and since you're on the subject of astroturfing, why isn't Windows 8 mentioned in the "stack"? At least that would have been somewhat on topic, if not even more laughable.
Would you settle for a dupe? Barely 14 days old at that, /. 4 june 2013
There is no real reason why Google can't do all of these things
Except closing down projects that don't meet arbitrary internal goals without warning. Nobody is going to trust Google with enterprisey stuff, since they can't seem to hold focus long enough for people to actually build an infrastructure around their offerings. When the next new thing comes along, guess which balloon side project gets canned, for no reason, with no warning, leaving countless gimps clamoring for an alternative that is nowhere to be found.
They might be all about processing information, but they can't seem to actually monetize this beyond shoving ads in their users faces.
Yeah, this guy is totally wrong because [insert my own personal anecdote here] !!!
Yeah, this guy is totally right because [insert cherry picked data points here] !!!
I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is a technical reason that people's gender's can't be changed in individual databases. But I bet there's plenty of databases where the gender field is either 'M' or 'F' - with no other value allowed. In addition I bet there are plenty of front ends to databases that don't allow such fields to be changed, probably to help avoid mistakes in data entry in other fields.
If it's not a technical reason (which we already knew, and I already said), then it must be a design limitation, which is quite frankly a rookie mistake. The concept of gender change or confusion is nothing new, it really does not matter if it is the design of the database schema or the front end GUI that limits the gender choice - it is still the architect that is being an incompetent idiot.
For the purposes of databases, why do we need to know what gender people are? [...] So rather than design a technical solution to this, maybe we should just stop asking?
As long as there are choices in society that are gender specific, the gender information will be relevant. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy only works for things that are truly irrelevant.
The story is about database design to accommodate these "new" ideas. This is moronic; if your database does not have the capability to make changes to single fields, you're doing it wrong (TM). If your design amounts to a boolean for gender, you're doing it wrong (TM). What the real problem probably is, is UI design of whatever CS application is being used, and if the CS rep has trouble correcting one field over another, you're doing it wrong (TM).
Granted I didn't bother reading TFA, since the "problem" should really only be a "problem" for a rookie developer. This is no different from designing a database that has an integer for house numbers, and then being baffled that someone lives in 2A. Or assuming that all names can be neatly categorized as first/middle/last name. The third link in the summary is to a forum where they discuss what kind of data type gender should be, and someone is contemplating using a boolean "for performance" - those people are the real problems in IT.
It's great that awareness is being raised over issues of incompetent designers, but the trans gender angle is a little bit too restrictive. The problem is not about gender and the trouble they go through, it is about designing shit that has a dead end for an expansion path.
Don't be so naive. You can always get an offer you can't refuse. That's just how things work.
Of course you can, that kind of thing happens all the time. People who will not sell, for any amount, do exist though - and those are the ones you need to worry about if your business model is "maintain status quo, throw money at competitors till they fold".
Well, first of all, economics 101: you have to control a majority of the stock in order to control the company. If you do not control a majority of the stock, you are per definition not in control of the company, and as such it is irrelevant what you think about a potential sale. All this is beside the point though, since that would just be yet another instance of a bigger corp swallowing a smaller one.
My point was that sooner or later, a startup will come along, not be publicly traded and the owners will be unwilling to sell to you. If your business model is intimidation and buy outs only, you are fucked - and relegated to play catch up, like IBM did with Microsoft, and Microsoft did with Google, and Google with Facebook, and so on and so forth. You may stack the deck in your favor for a while, by holding patents and performing aggressive takeovers, but you cannot defend against innovation unless you're the one performing it.