Definitions of technical terms never stopped marketing from mangling them. Nobody in that office gives a shit what 4G means, as long as they can sell it. 4G LTE just might sound better in a commercial than 4G. More three letter acronyms just communicates "we're smart; we know our shit; trust us".
The armed forces only have room for so many cooks before the rest are trained as grunts and shipped to some desert to die. Getting veterans benefits only works out if you survive. Of course OP might get a cool American flag for his trouble of raising one unit of cannon fodder.
Education isn't going to live your life for you. You have to do actual work in order to improve your situation. If the work you provide to an employer is of such a high quality that it can generate "heavy profit", then there should have been plenty of room to negotiate an increase in salary, 401k or a health plan. Your situtation now has very little to do with your education; for the most part your education is only relevant for your first job interview.
You obviously missed the point so I'll spoon feed it to you just this once.
Sending 17 guys on "intensive training" is not a solution if this sort of thing has happened before. If it was a solution the "intensive training" would have helped the last time and this time would not exist. Doing this sort of thing publicly is called a FUCKING COVER UP. Someone is covering their ASS and THROWING 17 guys UNDER THE BUS for it.
For the point to work it doesn't fucking matter what "intensive training" is, or if it is even a physical thing. It could be a very abstract conecpt. All that matters is that it is being used (again) as a tool to try and calm YOU down, not fix THEIR problem.
Yeah, a drive that depends on any kind of OS besides the bare metal firmware on the board to which it is attached makes me uneasy. There are just so many more answers to the "what could possibly go wrong" question.
As opposed to just straight up monitoring if someone is pilfering with your shit? C'mon now, are you suggesting this as a fix for the flawed philosophy that a user account can have any sort of privileges against a database that stores user information? There are certain methods within certain processes that might need those kinds of privileges, but the problem only arises when you equate a user and a process, and assign permissions to them from the same set.
Looking at a finer grain than [yes|no] assignment on a user/process level would make for a much better use of your time, than trying to patch yet another hole in the whole concept of "security" in IT right now.
Doesn't this concern anyone? I mean, failing an inspection once, sure. But repeatedly failing seems to suggest that "intensive training" might not be the solution someone sold it to be. Because it sure smells like someone sold someone else a truckload of bullshit and 17 guys took the fall for it.
Undercutting competition is pretty much the definition of the hallowed free market. He who can sustain the loss the longest wins, that shouldn't surprise anyone.
Bieber is just manipulating the teenage girl flock mentality for profit, for the moment he's pretty harmless. Sign up someone we'd really be better of without. Kim-Jong-Un, now that'd be a show worth watching.
I'm willing to bet that the combined ineptitude of the/. editor's have a better chance of setting foot on Mars using nothing but toilet rolls and bent spoons, than this mission has. It's a scam, the sign-up fee would be your clue.
The article mentions 20% volume market share, that's pretty much the chineese share of the world's population. Congrats, you've retaken your own market, good for you guys.
The article also mentions that Apple has a 48% revenue share. What the fuck guys. Pick a measure and stick to it. All that tells us is that Apple phones are probably more expensive per processor than their competitors. Big surprise.
(like Bas saying he doesn't want any engineers...WTF??)
They probably don't want anyone smart enough to see through the scam that it boils down to being. Kind of like the cold fusion guys some months back that didn't want an audience for their test run. What happened to those people anyways?
I know there are at least a 100,000 more qualified people that will volunteer and do a better job then I on the mission
Being qualified for this "mission" only entails being expendable on Earth. This mission is most likely going absolutely nowhere, the real unknowns are what the showstopper is going to be. Will it be their tenuous grasp on basic science? Or perhaps the fact that they havn't got the faintest idea about how they're going to get to Mars in the first place? Maybe it'll be something completely different... We just don't know. Exciting times.
I'm perfectly capable of negotiating my own salary, that's not the point with this. It really doesn't matter what tools you're working with, what does matter is the things you accomplish. I knew from the start what I went into, but that does not excuse the Borland people from being ranted at. They produced some of the best development tools of their day, but this particular piece of software is an absolute abomination. And it's not because of the number of bugs in it, that's ok, bugs happen. It's the design decisions they made.
1) User Code is run ON the UI thread of the IDE. Any error tears the whole thing down. 2) There is no concurrency model. At.All. There is nothing you can do to ensure data is flushed, except wait and hope. There are a number of different methods you can call that says they flush data. But they lie. 3) Exception handling code is supposed to be used for program flow control (I kid you not). Exceptions are not very exceptional, and you can retry, completely ignoring that the internal state might be corrupted. Which it is most of the time anyways, from sheer stupidity. 4) They rolled their own textbox control that captures mouse events, and stubbornly ignores them. No sir, you may not scroll in this window, we forbid it. 5) Text buffers inside the IDE are all fixed size (about 64k). But none of them are checked for overflow, completely defeating the purpose. Writing too much code in one sitting may tear down the IDE with a GPF. There are no prior warnings to this. It just happens. 6) If you do manage to write too much code, pray that you have an old copy of the source because the IDE will keep crashing with GPF if you re-open it. 7) When you save your work the output is a mangled soup of plain text + native x86 code. There is no way to edit source code outside the IDE.
Correct, as a developer I'd like to fix bugs in my enterprise level software but the overhead required to do so is high enough to outway the benefits.
On the other hand, if you are a developer for a FOSS project you are able to correct broken code at your leisure, submit it for peer review and have it accepted. The overhead is still there but it's spread out to feel less visible (IMHO). I'm perfectly fine writing a fix and having it be rejected for being inadequate. I'm less okay with spending 4 hours having people sign things so that I can correct a defect that takes 2 minutes of development work.
Well sure, but that really has nothing to do with the cost of a bug. The motivation for fixing the bug may be different, but the data release tells us that the two have nearly identical impact when ground down to a (useless) number. We could go into the merits of using static analysis of code to say anything about code quality other than: "there are 0.69 rookie mistakes for every 1000 lines of code", but that is a whole other story.
The article does a poor job of covering up that this is Coverity peddling their --Warnings_as_Errors --Pedantic solution to a problem the compiler people have solved already.
Yes, legacy systems suck, but they can't last forever so competent management has a plan to replace them, especially if they're rickety, and competent IT has a plan to protect/isolate them.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, "not forever" is a long, long time - just shy of forever. Legacy systems last however long the business can derive a profit from running them. Including the profit of sacking anyone not absolutely vital/related in the development department, then renaming it to IT (cause that's business'y). On the bright side, the learning experience of it all far outweighs any that could be had in any of the run-of-the-mill dev shop around here.
BTW, *epic* rant.
Thank you. That one has boiled for many, many a working day.
Right, that about does it. Report anyone using anything short of the latest version of anything for a violation of being stupid without a license. Problem solved, more along. You will of course not mind us shutting down your life support sir! why you see it's running a version of the firmware we simply cannot tolerate in this, our perfect utopia. Shut the fuck up, armchair warrior.
Exactly this. Some of us are stuck with legacy systems, built with legacy tools and the original developers are long, long gone. While we try to unwind the horrible spaghetti mess that is our core business software, we have to make due with Win-XP VMs and all sorts of neat tricks to keep the rickety shit from collapsing in on itself.
(Incidently, if any of you reading this worked at Borland/Inprise in the late nineties: hello how ar... FUCK YOU! and fuck your ridiculous fucking desktop database fucking crap. You fucking morons have no fucking clue how to nail a board onto another board, and you should all be lined up and punched in the dick./rant)
First of all, what the fuck is up with using the subject for half the reply? Seriously, cut it out. You people look like retards.
Hiding stuff in plain sight has never been very hard, you don't need youtube for that. Anything connected to the 'net is pretty much hidden in plain sight, no need to involve a millions-of-users-per-month website, when a simple IP distributed would do the trick just as fine. Encryption is no secret, no matter what the feds tell you, the ban en exports of encryption algorithms has not made the rest of the world go sans encryption. The example in the article is about the dumbest security idea since, shit i don't know... ever?
Slashdot Mirror
Definitions of technical terms never stopped marketing from mangling them. Nobody in that office gives a shit what 4G means, as long as they can sell it. 4G LTE just might sound better in a commercial than 4G. More three letter acronyms just communicates "we're smart; we know our shit; trust us".
The armed forces only have room for so many cooks before the rest are trained as grunts and shipped to some desert to die. Getting veterans benefits only works out if you survive. Of course OP might get a cool American flag for his trouble of raising one unit of cannon fodder.
Education isn't going to live your life for you. You have to do actual work in order to improve your situation. If the work you provide to an employer is of such a high quality that it can generate "heavy profit", then there should have been plenty of room to negotiate an increase in salary, 401k or a health plan. Your situtation now has very little to do with your education; for the most part your education is only relevant for your first job interview.
I'm pretty sure I've seen that bit on the Simpson's but I can't find a reference for it.
You obviously missed the point so I'll spoon feed it to you just this once.
Sending 17 guys on "intensive training" is not a solution if this sort of thing has happened before. If it was a solution the "intensive training" would have helped the last time and this time would not exist. Doing this sort of thing publicly is called a FUCKING COVER UP. Someone is covering their ASS and THROWING 17 guys UNDER THE BUS for it.
For the point to work it doesn't fucking matter what "intensive training" is, or if it is even a physical thing. It could be a very abstract conecpt. All that matters is that it is being used (again) as a tool to try and calm YOU down, not fix THEIR problem.
Yeah, a drive that depends on any kind of OS besides the bare metal firmware on the board to which it is attached makes me uneasy. There are just so many more answers to the "what could possibly go wrong" question.
As opposed to just straight up monitoring if someone is pilfering with your shit?
C'mon now, are you suggesting this as a fix for the flawed philosophy that a user account can have any sort of privileges against a database that stores user information? There are certain methods within certain processes that might need those kinds of privileges, but the problem only arises when you equate a user and a process, and assign permissions to them from the same set.
Looking at a finer grain than [yes|no] assignment on a user/process level would make for a much better use of your time, than trying to patch yet another hole in the whole concept of "security" in IT right now.
Doesn't this concern anyone? I mean, failing an inspection once, sure. But repeatedly failing seems to suggest that "intensive training" might not be the solution someone sold it to be. Because it sure smells like someone sold someone else a truckload of bullshit and 17 guys took the fall for it.
Undercutting competition is pretty much the definition of the hallowed free market. He who can sustain the loss the longest wins, that shouldn't surprise anyone.
Bieber is just manipulating the teenage girl flock mentality for profit, for the moment he's pretty harmless. Sign up someone we'd really be better of without. Kim-Jong-Un, now that'd be a show worth watching.
He gets voted off?
I'm willing to bet that the combined ineptitude of the /. editor's have a better chance of setting foot on Mars using nothing but toilet rolls and bent spoons, than this mission has. It's a scam, the sign-up fee would be your clue.
If that's the reason you think you wont go, you're not smart enough. Which incidently qualifies you to go. How's that for Catch-22?
The article mentions 20% volume market share, that's pretty much the chineese share of the world's population. Congrats, you've retaken your own market, good for you guys.
The article also mentions that Apple has a 48% revenue share. What the fuck guys. Pick a measure and stick to it. All that tells us is that Apple phones are probably more expensive per processor than their competitors. Big surprise.
(like Bas saying he doesn't want any engineers...WTF??)
They probably don't want anyone smart enough to see through the scam that it boils down to being. Kind of like the cold fusion guys some months back that didn't want an audience for their test run. What happened to those people anyways?
WTF does this mean?
Someone found a really small island to have the enrollment on? Who knows?
78000 * 40 cm = 3120000 cm = 31200 m = 31.2 km.
I know there are at least a 100,000 more qualified people that will volunteer and do a better job then I on the mission
Being qualified for this "mission" only entails being expendable on Earth. This mission is most likely going absolutely nowhere, the real unknowns are what the showstopper is going to be. Will it be their tenuous grasp on basic science? Or perhaps the fact that they havn't got the faintest idea about how they're going to get to Mars in the first place? Maybe it'll be something completely different... We just don't know. Exciting times.
I'm perfectly capable of negotiating my own salary, that's not the point with this. It really doesn't matter what tools you're working with, what does matter is the things you accomplish. I knew from the start what I went into, but that does not excuse the Borland people from being ranted at. They produced some of the best development tools of their day, but this particular piece of software is an absolute abomination. And it's not because of the number of bugs in it, that's ok, bugs happen. It's the design decisions they made.
1) User Code is run ON the UI thread of the IDE. Any error tears the whole thing down.
2) There is no concurrency model. At.All. There is nothing you can do to ensure data is flushed, except wait and hope. There are a number of different methods you can call that says they flush data. But they lie.
3) Exception handling code is supposed to be used for program flow control (I kid you not). Exceptions are not very exceptional, and you can retry, completely ignoring that the internal state might be corrupted. Which it is most of the time anyways, from sheer stupidity.
4) They rolled their own textbox control that captures mouse events, and stubbornly ignores them. No sir, you may not scroll in this window, we forbid it.
5) Text buffers inside the IDE are all fixed size (about 64k). But none of them are checked for overflow, completely defeating the purpose. Writing too much code in one sitting may tear down the IDE with a GPF. There are no prior warnings to this. It just happens.
6) If you do manage to write too much code, pray that you have an old copy of the source because the IDE will keep crashing with GPF if you re-open it.
7) When you save your work the output is a mangled soup of plain text + native x86 code. There is no way to edit source code outside the IDE.
Correct, as a developer I'd like to fix bugs in my enterprise level software but the overhead required to do so is high enough to outway the benefits.
On the other hand, if you are a developer for a FOSS project you are able to correct broken code at your leisure, submit it for peer review and have it accepted. The overhead is still there but it's spread out to feel less visible (IMHO). I'm perfectly fine writing a fix and having it be rejected for being inadequate. I'm less okay with spending 4 hours having people sign things so that I can correct a defect that takes 2 minutes of development work.
Well sure, but that really has nothing to do with the cost of a bug. The motivation for fixing the bug may be different, but the data release tells us that the two have nearly identical impact when ground down to a (useless) number.
We could go into the merits of using static analysis of code to say anything about code quality other than: "there are 0.69 rookie mistakes for every 1000 lines of code", but that is a whole other story.
The article does a poor job of covering up that this is Coverity peddling their --Warnings_as_Errors --Pedantic solution to a problem the compiler people have solved already.
Yes, legacy systems suck, but they can't last forever so competent management has a plan to replace them, especially if they're rickety, and competent IT has a plan to protect/isolate them.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, "not forever" is a long, long time - just shy of forever. Legacy systems last however long the business can derive a profit from running them. Including the profit of sacking anyone not absolutely vital/related in the development department, then renaming it to IT (cause that's business'y). On the bright side, the learning experience of it all far outweighs any that could be had in any of the run-of-the-mill dev shop around here.
BTW, *epic* rant.
Thank you. That one has boiled for many, many a working day.
Right, that about does it. Report anyone using anything short of the latest version of anything for a violation of being stupid without a license. Problem solved, more along. You will of course not mind us shutting down your life support sir! why you see it's running a version of the firmware we simply cannot tolerate in this, our perfect utopia. Shut the fuck up, armchair warrior.
Then your legacy system is severed from any public lan.
No they most definately are not. This whole article would never be up there unless that was decidedly NOT the case.
Apparently a wide one.
Exactly this.
Some of us are stuck with legacy systems, built with legacy tools and the original developers are long, long gone. While we try to unwind the horrible spaghetti mess that is our core business software, we have to make due with Win-XP VMs and all sorts of neat tricks to keep the rickety shit from collapsing in on itself.
(Incidently, if any of you reading this worked at Borland/Inprise in the late nineties: hello how ar... FUCK YOU! and fuck your ridiculous fucking desktop database fucking crap. You fucking morons have no fucking clue how to nail a board onto another board, and you should all be lined up and punched in the dick. /rant)
First of all, what the fuck is up with using the subject for half the reply? Seriously, cut it out. You people look like retards.
Hiding stuff in plain sight has never been very hard, you don't need youtube for that. Anything connected to the 'net is pretty much hidden in plain sight, no need to involve a millions-of-users-per-month website, when a simple IP distributed would do the trick just as fine.
Encryption is no secret, no matter what the feds tell you, the ban en exports of encryption algorithms has not made the rest of the world go sans encryption. The example in the article is about the dumbest security idea since, shit i don't know... ever?