the moon base is where they send convicts now because australia is apparently already overpopulated with americans, and LV426 is a no go because people keep getting killed by some mysterious monsters (i don't beleive them because there aren't any real monsters... except the borg that have infiltrated congress)
the moon base is run by jfk and elvis
oh, and the dark side cant be filmed because of the civilization of rock spiders there and because the monolith orbiting jupiter told us not to mess with them
PS. if seven of nine ever runs for my electorate, i'll sure as hell be voting for her... WOOF!
nope. but i have 2 screens and i just have a browser open on the second screen.
firefox has a cool web developer toolbar addin that has some useful features that every web dev shouldnt be without
unless your output is merely on a browser... then the only real handy feature is syntax highlighting (which gedit does quite nicely), and for those that despise php, consider that assp is infinitely worse. i also do compiled languages as well (delphi is the most efficient environment as far as I'm concerned) but php is good for quick and dirty tools that don't have enough fat in the budget for fancy guis.
fuckin sweet ass! next time there's a bushfire i'm gunna crank up my fooly sick subwoofer with mah fiddy cent mp3s and drive towards it at a hundred miles and hour and open up a can o whoop ass on that flamage... n shit!
bong smoking retard hippies breed this sort of immaturity... "hey man that's a cool trinket... think i might just take that... whaddayamean it was your granmas... fuck off and leave my trinket alone... police orificer!!! that asshole tried to take my trinket... will you fuckin arrest her or somethin... puffff.... ooooooh yeah that's some good shit"
capitalism isn't immature; it's just its own worst enemy
What really spins my head here is the concept that someone would report trolling on the internet to the police. The kind of person that would do such a thing is surely the worst on earth.
nope, the worst is the tragically high number of braindead morons that use facebook at all
consultants performing pointless system investigations in ever ultimately futile attempts to pigeon hole a company's infomation system in such a way as to fit a commercially available system in an also futile attempt to remove programmers from the picture altogether.
also, dba's are generally cheaper than software engineers and programmers, so putting more workload on them is economically sensible if it improves development efficiency. having said that if you employ programmers with half a brain the db design would be no different regardless of which development methodology you use. anyone who needs to make a flowchart to normalise data isn't qualified to design a database in the first place.
if an organisation needs to extend support staff for agile projects, it is likely that they would also be required for waterfall. waterfall projects don't result in a simpler design, it just takes longer for waterfall to produce an outcome that most likely no longer meets all the needs of the organisation anyway.
the op is also right about agile not being new. i was programming that way long before i heard the term, but its a catchy name that can be used in marketing guff, and it also makes it easy to describe in conversation. agile is merely unplanned development by people that know what they are doing, which necessarily excludes CS graduates that cheated their way through exams and think that they know what they are doing just because their garbage compiles without errors. its also different from the philosophical types that have to analyze the organisation to the nth degree before they type a single line of code because they are so afraid of getting it wrong if they have nothing to back up every design choice. experienced agile programmers rarely need to document their decisions because reasons for them are usually obvious. agile programming also encompases the ability to recover from a fuck up without too much effort (it needn't even be a fuck up - it may just as well be a complete change of requirements by the client), so justification of an agile fuck up doesn't require the same amount of effort as trying to justify fucking up 6 months of fruitless planning and proposal preparation.
agile programming is also likely to face more stringent financial monitoring, because the bean counters can directly track tangible costs versus practical benefits. costs of agile development aren't represented by some abstract thumbsucked figures on a tender document that will no doubt be blown out anyway.
I develop using the extreme methodology because it works.
The main and deciding reason why is because clients and end-users never know what they want at the beginning, which is the critical flaw in waterfall design. It's the critical flaw in waterfall design of anything (not just software), but agile couldn't really ever suit development of say a jet airliner (though companies do try). You can offer a client or end-user something that you and they think they want, but when they start using it they will ALWAYS find something wrong with it. If you can't fix what's wrong, you've already fucked up by not meeting the needs of your client, but how could you since their needs are continually evolving. The main problem with waterfall is the lack of flexibility.
You can buy some huge does-everything package (take SAP for common example) and then spend the next 10 years trying to change your company and procedures to suit how it works. On the other hand, extreme programming takes and existing system and improves it incrementally with lots of user input and allowance for changing priorities. It allows change to fit the company as opposed to forcing the company to fit it.
Those who argue the other way will always come up with seemingly good reasons for companies changing to suit packages like SAP, but at the end of the day, every company is different, and companies would only be in a position to purchase a package like SAP if they had done pretty well for themselves already and knew a thing or two about making money in their operating industries. Who is SAP to tell any successful company how to operate their business?
Agile and extreme are the future, not by design or choice, but by evolution and market force. Companies are getting sick of pigeon-holing software like SAP that doesn't work out of the box as they claim in their fancy sales presentations (amongst many and varied other false claims required to make the sale). Companies employ agile programmers to come in and fix problems created by these monstrosities (interfacing their previous working solutions into things like SAP). Waterfall programmers can whinge all they want, but they are a dying breed in their death throws and will of course say all sorts of predictable shit to get themselves out of the holes they've dug over the years. If you can't hack the agile world, go flip burgers or something.
...scaremongering or FUD, except that its the linux crowd that is effectively doing microsoft's job for it (either that or shills posing as linux advocates, which isn't new either)
take a step back and think about it for a bit...
is there anything in human history that couldn't ever be broken into?
...ANYTHING?
history shows that the more you lock something down, the more effort is spent by persons outside the system to try breaking into it (proportional to its perceived worth/value). remember that hacking isn't all just script kiddies and softice; there are real hackers out there that can create devices that can get around pretty much any form of computer security. there is literally no such thing as a completely secure computer system.
even if (and its still a big IF imho) every single motherboard vendor decides to prevent anything but windows from booting, there will soon after be bios flash images or even replacement bios chips available to circumvent the secure boot features.
if OEMs decide to prevent anything but windows from booting, good on them... they are basically becoming microsoft subsidiaries anyway.
for my linux machines i will always buy the individual components (mobo, graphics, case, psu, etc) separately from my local computer guy for nearly half the price of an equivalent OEM box anyways.
if mobos are sold individually with uefi locking out all but windows (i doubt it), a community will spring up overnight to get around it, or new mobo vendors (chinese probably) will become prominent to take advantage of the gap in the market. remember that many fortune 500 corporations depend on linux for their daily operations, so regardless of what microsoft wants, much of the big end of the business world simply doesn't want windows running their back ends and datacenters. there will always be demand for linux, an markets always cater for demand.
UEFI will be a short-lived security blunder for microsoft, but the FUD campaign leading up to it will probably be looked back upon as a resounding financial success
commerical companies have been rushing to build a space shuttle
replacement for years. spacex is doing nothing new. they ALL waste
taxpayer money; spacex may be privately funded to some extent, but
the majority of funding comes from government grants and contracts.
space is profitable, but a space shuttle replacement is not and will
never be, because the original space shuttle wasn't profitable.
space companies are profitable because their business model is based
on wasting tax payer money. sure they build the odd spacecraft and
make a few public announcements about what they plan to do, but
companies have been doing what spacex is doing for years.
two of the best examples are boeing and lockheed martin
i'm not saying it won't ever happen, but spacex is just a precursor
to the next tax-wasting commercial space venture, each one
contributing a small amount to the overall picture.
eventually someday, when the global political and economic conditions
are right, and critical mass is achieved to the point when wall street
investors are convinced that the risk is low enough, perhaps a
company will be lucky enough to stand on the shoulders of giants
and make a buck from space on their own without wasting taxpayer
money, but i actually don't think that lucky venture will be a
profiteering corporation, but will be a multinational non-profit
organisation that doesn't require wall street investors at all but
leverages mass marketing and consumer sentiment in a way that
corporations could only dream of.
richard branson is in a similar position with virgin galactic
commerical space has been talked about for years, but wall
street investors don't buy it, instead ventures like virgin
galactic and spacex require dick waiving billionaires
if space tourism was ever going to be profitable, boeing and
lockheed martin would already have gone there because they have
been in the best positions for years to take advantage of it
space tourism will eventually happen, but not in the current
global political and economic environment. profiteering
corporations will never be able to raise enough money to
sustain the financial momentum for long term space research
and development programs, which is why success in space has
been the ballpark of government agencies in the past
from what you say, the only thing that musk is good at is
selling, which is a fine talent to be sure, but it will
take more than that to get you or me into orbit
motorola (now freescale), st micro, atmel, etc all provide a significant amount
of documentation and specifications for their chips
nvidia aren't obliged to offer anything, but i'm sure microsoft has access
to more info than the linux team, and they would pay nothing for it because
of market position. its unfair that competitors don't get the same
treatment merely because they can't offer comparable market advantage; actually
it may even anticompetitive. its just unfortunate that anticompetitive business
is so widespread that only very blatent and popular cases are even prosecuted,
which even then doesn't guarantee success.
i think the op was speaking economically, not technically
technical obstacles are rarely difficult to overcome in a
suitable work environment free of political, legal and economic
obstacles.
politics, bureacracy and corporate profiteering are nasa's biggest
obstacles. the same obstacles existed 50 years ago, but now they are
much more significant.
the moon race was fuelled largely by fear of communism driven by a
massive amount of propaganda. nowadays the united states is probably
seen as being the boogyman that other nations fear, so its much more
difficult for the us government propaganda machine to recreate the
same level of fear in its own citizens required to justify
multi-billion dollar political objectives like planting a flag
on the moon first.
combination of ip address and http "host" header maybe.
you don't need dns to be able to distinguish name-based hosts.
hyperlinks may be a bit more cumbersome; maybe "http://1.2.3.4//myhost/index.html" (note double-slash delimiting address and host) might work, with
the browser (hint hint w3c) parsing the URL into the respective http headers (revision of HTTP/1.1 to 1.2 maybe).
GET/index.html HTTP/1.2
Host: myhost
Connection: close
You could also still use different ports with this scheme: "http://1.2.3.4:8080//myhost/index.html"
this way only hyperlinks and browsers would be affected, and existing URLs should still be able to access the default virtual host
though it would possibly be easier and less painful for all of us for the apache foundation to make changes to Apache
rather than wait for the various browser vendors to incorporate a new URL spec
hey dipshit, maybe you should learn how to read, because the above quote is pretty much the same as "because patents aren't completely effective that we may as well have no protection at all", because if you had some other form of protection in mind you would have no doubt subjected me to it already.
inventors and society as a whole a harmed by the current patent system
there, ftfy.
repeating myself, but you're still comparing the current patent system with the concept of a patent, which is (again) why you're a retard.
unfortunately for you nothing i say will help you see the light, because you have been brainwashed by UCLA retards (you poor thing). you seem to have a limited grasp of basic business and you don't understand invention, so anything i say will keep going in one ear and out the other, and you will merely continue to spout the same bullshit.
there's no intellectual stimulation or challenge here so its getting boring. you're repeating the same shit and not building any argument and i'm just pointing out the same flaws in your understanding of how the world works each time. having to resort to calling you names just to keep myself interested only works for so long, and since i don't want to be responsible for you committing suicide it's time for me to go find some other poor unfortunate imbecile to pick a fight with.
Slashdot Mirror
you mean the sickening Van Halen radiation
gimme AC/DC any day
the moon base is where they send convicts now because australia is apparently already overpopulated with americans, and LV426 is a no go because people keep getting killed by some mysterious monsters (i don't beleive them because there aren't any real monsters... except the borg that have infiltrated congress)
the moon base is run by jfk and elvis
oh, and the dark side cant be filmed because of the civilization of rock spiders there and because the monolith orbiting jupiter told us not to mess with them
PS. if seven of nine ever runs for my electorate, i'll sure as hell be voting for her... WOOF!
nope. but i have 2 screens and i just have a browser open on the second screen. firefox has a cool web developer toolbar addin that has some useful features that every web dev shouldnt be without
gnome edit... syntax highlighting and tabs along the top for multiple files works well for me
unless your output is merely on a browser... then the only real handy feature is syntax highlighting (which gedit does quite nicely), and for those that despise php, consider that assp is infinitely worse. i also do compiled languages as well (delphi is the most efficient environment as far as I'm concerned) but php is good for quick and dirty tools that don't have enough fat in the budget for fancy guis.
i think eating toe jam should be illegal
you leave my fuckin straw man alone... or i'll call the police orificer... puffff.... ooooooh so gooood
fuckin sweet ass! next time there's a bushfire i'm gunna crank up my fooly sick subwoofer with mah fiddy cent mp3s and drive towards it at a hundred miles and hour and open up a can o whoop ass on that flamage... n shit!
fucking CS academics trying to claim credit for everything now aren't they
(unless you publicize everything)
hahahaha!!! you don't know much about facecrap do you
Capitalism breeds this sort of immaturity
bong smoking retard hippies breed this sort of immaturity... "hey man that's a cool trinket... think i might just take that... whaddayamean it was your granmas... fuck off and leave my trinket alone... police orificer!!! that asshole tried to take my trinket... will you fuckin arrest her or somethin... puffff.... ooooooh yeah that's some good shit"
capitalism isn't immature; it's just its own worst enemy
What really spins my head here is the concept that someone would report trolling on the internet to the police. The kind of person that would do such a thing is surely the worst on earth.
nope, the worst is the tragically high number of braindead morons that use facebook at all
jealous much?
who costs more?
consultants performing pointless system investigations in ever ultimately futile attempts to pigeon hole a company's infomation system in such a way as to fit a commercially available system in an also futile attempt to remove programmers from the picture altogether.
also, dba's are generally cheaper than software engineers and programmers, so putting more workload on them is economically sensible if it improves development efficiency. having said that if you employ programmers with half a brain the db design would be no different regardless of which development methodology you use. anyone who needs to make a flowchart to normalise data isn't qualified to design a database in the first place.
if an organisation needs to extend support staff for agile projects, it is likely that they would also be required for waterfall. waterfall projects don't result in a simpler design, it just takes longer for waterfall to produce an outcome that most likely no longer meets all the needs of the organisation anyway.
the op is also right about agile not being new. i was programming that way long before i heard the term, but its a catchy name that can be used in marketing guff, and it also makes it easy to describe in conversation. agile is merely unplanned development by people that know what they are doing, which necessarily excludes CS graduates that cheated their way through exams and think that they know what they are doing just because their garbage compiles without errors. its also different from the philosophical types that have to analyze the organisation to the nth degree before they type a single line of code because they are so afraid of getting it wrong if they have nothing to back up every design choice. experienced agile programmers rarely need to document their decisions because reasons for them are usually obvious. agile programming also encompases the ability to recover from a fuck up without too much effort (it needn't even be a fuck up - it may just as well be a complete change of requirements by the client), so justification of an agile fuck up doesn't require the same amount of effort as trying to justify fucking up 6 months of fruitless planning and proposal preparation.
agile programming is also likely to face more stringent financial monitoring, because the bean counters can directly track tangible costs versus practical benefits. costs of agile development aren't represented by some abstract thumbsucked figures on a tender document that will no doubt be blown out anyway.
I develop using the extreme methodology because it works.
The main and deciding reason why is because clients and end-users never know what they want at the beginning, which is the critical flaw in waterfall design. It's the critical flaw in waterfall design of anything (not just software), but agile couldn't really ever suit development of say a jet airliner (though companies do try). You can offer a client or end-user something that you and they think they want, but when they start using it they will ALWAYS find something wrong with it. If you can't fix what's wrong, you've already fucked up by not meeting the needs of your client, but how could you since their needs are continually evolving. The main problem with waterfall is the lack of flexibility.
You can buy some huge does-everything package (take SAP for common example) and then spend the next 10 years trying to change your company and procedures to suit how it works. On the other hand, extreme programming takes and existing system and improves it incrementally with lots of user input and allowance for changing priorities. It allows change to fit the company as opposed to forcing the company to fit it.
Those who argue the other way will always come up with seemingly good reasons for companies changing to suit packages like SAP, but at the end of the day, every company is different, and companies would only be in a position to purchase a package like SAP if they had done pretty well for themselves already and knew a thing or two about making money in their operating industries. Who is SAP to tell any successful company how to operate their business?
Agile and extreme are the future, not by design or choice, but by evolution and market force. Companies are getting sick of pigeon-holing software like SAP that doesn't work out of the box as they claim in their fancy sales presentations (amongst many and varied other false claims required to make the sale). Companies employ agile programmers to come in and fix problems created by these monstrosities (interfacing their previous working solutions into things like SAP). Waterfall programmers can whinge all they want, but they are a dying breed in their death throws and will of course say all sorts of predictable shit to get themselves out of the holes they've dug over the years. If you can't hack the agile world, go flip burgers or something.
probly the same chinese mobos that will continue to power the linux backends and datacenters of many fortune 500 companies
when you reverse things come at you from behind
just stop that dog dribblin on my seats
...scaremongering or FUD, except that its the linux crowd that is effectively doing microsoft's job for it (either that or shills posing as linux advocates, which isn't new either)
...ANYTHING?
take a step back and think about it for a bit...
is there anything in human history that couldn't ever be broken into?
history shows that the more you lock something down, the more effort is spent by persons outside the system to try breaking into it (proportional to its perceived worth/value). remember that hacking isn't all just script kiddies and softice; there are real hackers out there that can create devices that can get around pretty much any form of computer security. there is literally no such thing as a completely secure computer system.
even if (and its still a big IF imho) every single motherboard vendor decides to prevent anything but windows from booting, there will soon after be bios flash images or even replacement bios chips available to circumvent the secure boot features.
if OEMs decide to prevent anything but windows from booting, good on them... they are basically becoming microsoft subsidiaries anyway.
for my linux machines i will always buy the individual components (mobo, graphics, case, psu, etc) separately from my local computer guy for nearly half the price of an equivalent OEM box anyways.
if mobos are sold individually with uefi locking out all but windows (i doubt it), a community will spring up overnight to get around it, or new mobo vendors (chinese probably) will become prominent to take advantage of the gap in the market. remember that many fortune 500 corporations depend on linux for their daily operations, so regardless of what microsoft wants, much of the big end of the business world simply doesn't want windows running their back ends and datacenters. there will always be demand for linux, an markets always cater for demand.
UEFI will be a short-lived security blunder for microsoft, but the FUD campaign leading up to it will probably be looked back upon as a resounding financial success
commerical companies have been rushing to build a space shuttle replacement for years. spacex is doing nothing new. they ALL waste taxpayer money; spacex may be privately funded to some extent, but the majority of funding comes from government grants and contracts.
space is profitable, but a space shuttle replacement is not and will never be, because the original space shuttle wasn't profitable.
space companies are profitable because their business model is based on wasting tax payer money. sure they build the odd spacecraft and make a few public announcements about what they plan to do, but companies have been doing what spacex is doing for years.
two of the best examples are boeing and lockheed martin
i'm not saying it won't ever happen, but spacex is just a precursor to the next tax-wasting commercial space venture, each one contributing a small amount to the overall picture.
eventually someday, when the global political and economic conditions are right, and critical mass is achieved to the point when wall street investors are convinced that the risk is low enough, perhaps a company will be lucky enough to stand on the shoulders of giants and make a buck from space on their own without wasting taxpayer money, but i actually don't think that lucky venture will be a profiteering corporation, but will be a multinational non-profit organisation that doesn't require wall street investors at all but leverages mass marketing and consumer sentiment in a way that corporations could only dream of.
richard branson is in a similar position with virgin galactic
commerical space has been talked about for years, but wall street investors don't buy it, instead ventures like virgin galactic and spacex require dick waiving billionaires
if space tourism was ever going to be profitable, boeing and lockheed martin would already have gone there because they have been in the best positions for years to take advantage of it
space tourism will eventually happen, but not in the current global political and economic environment. profiteering corporations will never be able to raise enough money to sustain the financial momentum for long term space research and development programs, which is why success in space has been the ballpark of government agencies in the past
from what you say, the only thing that musk is good at is selling, which is a fine talent to be sure, but it will take more than that to get you or me into orbit
have you ever worked with microcontrollers?
motorola (now freescale), st micro, atmel, etc all provide a significant amount of documentation and specifications for their chips
nvidia aren't obliged to offer anything, but i'm sure microsoft has access to more info than the linux team, and they would pay nothing for it because of market position. its unfair that competitors don't get the same treatment merely because they can't offer comparable market advantage; actually it may even anticompetitive. its just unfortunate that anticompetitive business is so widespread that only very blatent and popular cases are even prosecuted, which even then doesn't guarantee success.
i think the op was speaking economically, not technically
technical obstacles are rarely difficult to overcome in a suitable work environment free of political, legal and economic obstacles.
politics, bureacracy and corporate profiteering are nasa's biggest obstacles. the same obstacles existed 50 years ago, but now they are much more significant.
the moon race was fuelled largely by fear of communism driven by a massive amount of propaganda. nowadays the united states is probably seen as being the boogyman that other nations fear, so its much more difficult for the us government propaganda machine to recreate the same level of fear in its own citizens required to justify multi-billion dollar political objectives like planting a flag on the moon first.
Elon Musk has been talking quite a bit
yeah he does that. unfortunately he doesn't do much else though
combination of ip address and http "host" header maybe.
/index.html HTTP/1.2
you don't need dns to be able to distinguish name-based hosts.
hyperlinks may be a bit more cumbersome; maybe "http://1.2.3.4//myhost/index.html" (note double-slash delimiting address and host) might work, with
the browser (hint hint w3c) parsing the URL into the respective http headers (revision of HTTP/1.1 to 1.2 maybe).
GET
Host: myhost
Connection: close
You could also still use different ports with this scheme: "http://1.2.3.4:8080//myhost/index.html"
this way only hyperlinks and browsers would be affected, and existing URLs should still be able to access the default virtual host
though it would possibly be easier and less painful for all of us for the apache foundation to make changes to Apache
rather than wait for the various browser vendors to incorporate a new URL spec
crutchy
treatment is worse than the disease
hey dipshit, maybe you should learn how to read, because the above quote is pretty much the same as "because patents aren't completely effective that we may as well have no protection at all", because if you had some other form of protection in mind you would have no doubt subjected me to it already.
inventors and society as a whole a harmed by the current patent system
there, ftfy.
repeating myself, but you're still comparing the current patent system with the concept of a patent, which is (again) why you're a retard.
unfortunately for you nothing i say will help you see the light, because you have been brainwashed by UCLA retards (you poor thing). you seem to have a limited grasp of basic business and you don't understand invention, so anything i say will keep going in one ear and out the other, and you will merely continue to spout the same bullshit.
there's no intellectual stimulation or challenge here so its getting boring. you're repeating the same shit and not building any argument and i'm just pointing out the same flaws in your understanding of how the world works each time. having to resort to calling you names just to keep myself interested only works for so long, and since i don't want to be responsible for you committing suicide it's time for me to go find some other poor unfortunate imbecile to pick a fight with.
cheers, fuckface