Like many things, Emacs doesn't have version control as much as it interfaces or wraps it. You know, dired wraps/bin/ls (and mv and rm), compile wraps e.g./usr/bin/make, tramp wraps ftp and grep wraps.. um.. grep. And vc wraps version control:
;;; vc.el --- drive a version-control system from within Emacs ;; Supported version-control systems presently include CVS, RCS, GNU ;; Arch, Subversion, Bzr, Git, Mercurial, Monotone and SCCS (or its ;; free replacement, CSSC).
Emacs is the glue that binds together all the little tools into a more powerful whole. And not just Unix tools, e.g. I wrote a function (3 lines of elisp) that launches Windows Explorer with the current file pre-selected. On a Mac the same key combo launches Finder. You seriously underestimate Emacs by calling it a mere OS...
By the way, I don't use vc.el myself. Never have. Nor do I use Emacs to read mail. Unlike other editors of more monolithic design, you don't pay for what you don't use.
Putting ANY sort of "requirement" on a 5 year old is outrageous. Children develop at a different pace, especially at that age, and this year's math flunky could easily be next year's wiz kid. Unless you ruin it by sending the kid a clear message that she has no talent.
Well, bye-bye GPL then. No copyright, no GPL. I suppose this means the MIT (sic!) license side won, since that's the closest thing to having no copyright at all.
...based in California - cannot trust the security......UK - what is security?...Australia - the FBI asked us nicely...
You have some fine words there, now you just need to put them in order to form a sentence:-)
They're actually Australian-based, according to this press release. Not that it helps much - with a strong US presence they are still vulnerable to national security letters.
You think Google only finds URL's using crawlers? All it takes is a single mention somewhere in a google docs document, or in an email sent or received by gmail. Or something on the page itself, like google analytics, ads by google, or maybe a reference to a google-hosted Javascript or image file, or a link to a google-hosted page, anything with a referrer.
The MacBook keyboard is completely flat, and completely right-angled. That's not a good keyboard. As wrist-twisters go, it's not a bad one. But it's a wrist-twister.
Oh yes, they are completely infatuated with web apps.
The problem is, if you want to read mail on more than one platform - phone, tablet and PC - you need one or more of them to use a remote message store. Otherwise you can't see and search the mails received on one platform when you're on the other. Unless you sync all mails between devices, which is going to cost you in battery lifetime and possibly in mobile data bills.
Also, you don't really want to search email on a phone: That would be slow and run down your battery. It's more convenient to do on the server, using the phone as a thin client, but then the server needs access to the cleartext data.
That's all the answers I have. I can't tell you why people want to read email on phones, it seems crazy to stress yourself like that when you don't really have to, but apparently they do.
Probably non-native speakers are a bit more prone to this kind of mistake though. From an old Usenet quotes file:
I had a manual that described doing a track alignment on a floppy drive.
Basically loosen the lock screw, adjust, tighten the screw. But...the
author's english was from another continent...
Anybody here who comments his/her code in his native language?
I do. 100% variable names and comments in my native language. Unless I have concrete plans to share the code with the world, in that case I go for 100% English.
How do you deal with the jargon and what are the benefits of using your native language, apart from being able to type TL;DR-size comments with ease?
It's a big advantage that third-party libraries and my own code use different languages. It means my code and other code stands apart, without any conscious effort needed, which is valuable because what I do with it is so very different: my own code is mallable and subject to refactorings, whereas the names in third-party libraries are fixed externalities. Say for example I have a method name "afslut" - I can search/replace that to "luk" in an instant, because I know that "afslut" means what I've chosen it to mean and nothing else. If I had called it "close" instead, I would have had to worry about all the libraries I use that also use the name "close". And I can use names such as "hvis" and "indtil" freely, because they're not keywords, unlike "if" and "while".
And now that you mention it, the ease of writing comments is another advantage. I write long comments and maintain them. You know how people say that all comments are lies? Well, they're not. Maybe theirs are. Mine aren't.
I'm always getting flack for my choice, from people who have never tried using their own language for programming. Thank you for asking before judging. You have no idea how rare that is.
"Design patterns gained popularity in computer science after the book Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software was published in 1994" (my emphasis.)
The word pattern has had the meaning the GP used for a very long time. It's not new lingo.
The meaning has changed, at least with the way it's used in software today. A GoF pattern includes the solution to apply - the algorithm, you might say - when the pattern is encountered. Sid Meier memorised solution techniques, a.k.a. algorithms. If he had used the word 'pattern', it would have said nothing about how he solved the situations he recognised by a pattern.
In 1980, a 'pattern' was something your wallpaper had. The word had no computer connotations. You're judging the man on how well he used 21st century lingo back in the 1980's.
CONGRATULATIONS, sir, you have picked door #2, marked "Bitcoin mining will eventually stop." Behind that door we have... that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme. Also, congratulations to the zombie botnet owners of the world, who will soon be owning most bitcoin.
How very fortunate you did not pick door #1, the door marked "Bitcoin mining will pay for itself in perpetuity." Behind that door you would have found a colossal waste of resources. For every unit of value a bitcoin represents, the same value would be wasted by the mining machines, leading to economic loss and global warming escalation.
Bitcoin is a cool technology experiment - but in the end, it's just a bad idea.
Don't dismiss a black swan as an outlier... on that path lies damnation and subprime morgages. Instead, amortise it over a reasonable long period, e.g. 20 years.
But if it's 200k years old, hasn't it already survived some serious climate change?
Sure it has. And every time it's been like playing russian roulette with 5 live rounds, and most of its peers have been wiped out. And now there's only this little patch left, and we're putting 5 rounds in the chamber once again. It may be particularly resilient, but it may as well just have been lucky.
In a temperate climate, increased temperatures means higher agricultural production yields, which means lower resource contention, and fertile ground for peace and progress.
The study linked to by the GP is about mostly-temperate China. All is well when the sun shines, but when the temperature falls and crop yields do the same, it's a disaster for a slow-adapting tradition-bound empire.
Unfortunately, quite a lot of the world's population lives in tropical climates, where higher temperature is going to mean lower yields. And it doesn't help when resource contention is already high in these areas. So alas, the fairy tale of warmth and peace is not true - there is every reason to believe that global warming is going to lead to a less peaceful world.
Checking Wikipedia, it seems "The Heartland Institute" that produced this fairy tale has a climate skeptic history. Not really surprised.
It's fine to offer me a 10% stake in profits arising from my department, with a maximum of $10000 - if I'm *also* willing to accept a 10% stake in any losses arising from my department, with a maximum of $10000.
Practically, you do this by offering a 10% paycut, in exchange for a chance of a 20% bonus.
That doesn't change anything: There's still a lower bound on your losses, so if your prognosis is that your result will end up on or near that lower bound, you have a personal incentive for an unsound gamble.
Translation: His friends in the business like their bonuses.
Imagine your contract gives you 10% of what profits you make for your company during a calendar year. But it's December 31, and your balance is at zero, you're looking at no bonus at all. Now, if you could take $1M of the company's money to the casino and put everything on red, would you do it?
Of course you would, if you live only for money, as Daniel Indiviglio suggests. You have an 18/38 chance of winning with a $100K bonus to follow. And you have nothing to lose, provided you can make the gamble look like a reasonable enough gamble not to lose your job. And you can, because in real life it's not a casino gamble, but some kind of "financial product" that you can easily pretend carries no particular risk.
But for your employer, it's a terrible deal: The loss is 2/38*$1M on average - more than $50K. So the bonus has led you to make an unsound gamble.
The question then is, if there's no bonus and you are instead positioning yourself for the yearly pay negotiations, would you be tempted by the same gamble? And the answer's no: If you have a negotiation coming, the damage to your reputation from losses matters just as much as the benefit from wins. The bet that is a bad bet for the company is also a bad bet for you.
In short, Taleb is right. Drop the bonuses, stabilise the economy.
But they do look cool. They should make a model with no electronics at all, displaying the fixed image 16:01. I'd buy that: "Oh, sorry, mr. PHB, it's getting late, those TPS reports will have to wait until tomorrow."
If they were all using MS Office, I'm sure they wouldn't mind paying for it. No, the problem is that they'd have to pay as if everyone was using MS Office, because virtualisation and commercial licensing don't play ball.
From computerworld.dk, my translation:
The cause of the extra licensing costs are according to Vivian Thomsen in Microsoft's licensing policy.
She explains that if just one single VDI user among the 25,000 clinicians has access to Microsoft Office, that will trigger Office license payment for every single computer/client with access to the virtual desktop environment View from VMware.
The reason 5-year-olds get hyper is
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
He's making a 10-year prediction. I think that'd be more "climate" than "weather".
It very much depends on how he proposes to measure the earth's temperature in 10 years. If he means to compare the average temperature in the year 2020 to the average temperature in the year 2010, then that has nothing to do with "climate". That's a total crap shoot, except of course he hand-picked the year 2010 to get more favorable odds.
If on the other hand he means to compare the average temperature in the years 1990-2010 to the average temperature in the years 2000-2020, then we're getting closer to a measurement that actually means something. Somehow I don't think that's the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Like many things, Emacs doesn't have version control as much as it interfaces or wraps it. You know, dired wraps /bin/ls (and mv and rm), compile wraps e.g. /usr/bin/make, tramp wraps ftp and grep wraps .. um .. grep. And vc wraps version control:
Emacs is the glue that binds together all the little tools into a more powerful whole. And not just Unix tools, e.g. I wrote a function (3 lines of elisp) that launches Windows Explorer with the current file pre-selected. On a Mac the same key combo launches Finder. You seriously underestimate Emacs by calling it a mere OS...
By the way, I don't use vc.el myself. Never have. Nor do I use Emacs to read mail. Unlike other editors of more monolithic design, you don't pay for what you don't use.
Putting ANY sort of "requirement" on a 5 year old is outrageous. Children develop at a different pace, especially at that age, and this year's math flunky could easily be next year's wiz kid. Unless you ruin it by sending the kid a clear message that she has no talent.
If it cost $5B in expenses, that means somebody enjoyed $5B in revenues.
Broken window fallacy.
Oh, the message? Copyright is dead.
Shucks, really? I never knew, copyright is dead?!
Well, bye-bye GPL then. No copyright, no GPL. I suppose this means the MIT (sic!) license side won, since that's the closest thing to having no copyright at all.
...based in California - cannot trust the security... ...UK - what is security? ...Australia - the FBI asked us nicely...
You have some fine words there, now you just need to put them in order to form a sentence :-)
They're actually Australian-based, according to this press release. Not that it helps much - with a strong US presence they are still vulnerable to national security letters.
You think Google only finds URL's using crawlers? All it takes is a single mention somewhere in a google docs document, or in an email sent or received by gmail. Or something on the page itself, like google analytics, ads by google, or maybe a reference to a google-hosted Javascript or image file, or a link to a google-hosted page, anything with a referrer.
The MacBook keyboard is completely flat, and completely right-angled. That's not a good keyboard. As wrist-twisters go, it's not a bad one. But it's a wrist-twister.
Oh yes, they are completely infatuated with web apps.
The problem is, if you want to read mail on more than one platform - phone, tablet and PC - you need one or more of them to use a remote message store. Otherwise you can't see and search the mails received on one platform when you're on the other. Unless you sync all mails between devices, which is going to cost you in battery lifetime and possibly in mobile data bills.
Also, you don't really want to search email on a phone: That would be slow and run down your battery. It's more convenient to do on the server, using the phone as a thin client, but then the server needs access to the cleartext data.
That's all the answers I have. I can't tell you why people want to read email on phones, it seems crazy to stress yourself like that when you don't really have to, but apparently they do.
I had a manual that described doing a track alignment on a floppy drive. Basically loosen the lock screw, adjust, tighten the screw. But...the author's english was from another continent...
"...when adjustment is complete, screw it up."
Anybody here who comments his/her code in his native language?
I do. 100% variable names and comments in my native language. Unless I have concrete plans to share the code with the world, in that case I go for 100% English.
How do you deal with the jargon and what are the benefits of using your native language, apart from being able to type TL;DR-size comments with ease?
It's a big advantage that third-party libraries and my own code use different languages. It means my code and other code stands apart, without any conscious effort needed, which is valuable because what I do with it is so very different: my own code is mallable and subject to refactorings, whereas the names in third-party libraries are fixed externalities. Say for example I have a method name "afslut" - I can search/replace that to "luk" in an instant, because I know that "afslut" means what I've chosen it to mean and nothing else. If I had called it "close" instead, I would have had to worry about all the libraries I use that also use the name "close". And I can use names such as "hvis" and "indtil" freely, because they're not keywords, unlike "if" and "while".
And now that you mention it, the ease of writing comments is another advantage. I write long comments and maintain them. You know how people say that all comments are lies? Well, they're not. Maybe theirs are. Mine aren't.
I'm always getting flack for my choice, from people who have never tried using their own language for programming. Thank you for asking before judging. You have no idea how rare that is.
Also, superhuman powers of recovery.
"Design patterns gained popularity in computer science after the book Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software was published in 1994" (my emphasis.)
1994 > 1980s
The word pattern has had the meaning the GP used for a very long time. It's not new lingo.
The meaning has changed, at least with the way it's used in software today. A GoF pattern includes the solution to apply - the algorithm, you might say - when the pattern is encountered. Sid Meier memorised solution techniques, a.k.a. algorithms. If he had used the word 'pattern', it would have said nothing about how he solved the situations he recognised by a pattern.
In 1980, a 'pattern' was something your wallpaper had. The word had no computer connotations. You're judging the man on how well he used 21st century lingo back in the 1980's.
CONGRATULATIONS, sir, you have picked door #2, marked "Bitcoin mining will eventually stop." Behind that door we have ... that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme. Also, congratulations to the zombie botnet owners of the world, who will soon be owning most bitcoin.
How very fortunate you did not pick door #1, the door marked "Bitcoin mining will pay for itself in perpetuity." Behind that door you would have found a colossal waste of resources. For every unit of value a bitcoin represents, the same value would be wasted by the mining machines, leading to economic loss and global warming escalation.
Bitcoin is a cool technology experiment - but in the end, it's just a bad idea.
By my count from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2000s there were about 23 terrorism related deaths from 2000-2009, excluding 9/11 (which can be safely considered an outlier).
Don't dismiss a black swan as an outlier ... on that path lies damnation and subprime morgages. Instead, amortise it over a reasonable long period, e.g. 20 years.
Even so, your point still stands, of course.
But if it's 200k years old, hasn't it already survived some serious climate change?
Sure it has. And every time it's been like playing russian roulette with 5 live rounds, and most of its peers have been wiped out. And now there's only this little patch left, and we're putting 5 rounds in the chamber once again. It may be particularly resilient, but it may as well just have been lucky.
In a temperate climate, increased temperatures means higher agricultural production yields, which means lower resource contention, and fertile ground for peace and progress.
The study linked to by the GP is about mostly-temperate China. All is well when the sun shines, but when the temperature falls and crop yields do the same, it's a disaster for a slow-adapting tradition-bound empire.
Unfortunately, quite a lot of the world's population lives in tropical climates, where higher temperature is going to mean lower yields. And it doesn't help when resource contention is already high in these areas. So alas, the fairy tale of warmth and peace is not true - there is every reason to believe that global warming is going to lead to a less peaceful world.
Checking Wikipedia, it seems "The Heartland Institute" that produced this fairy tale has a climate skeptic history. Not really surprised.
Or balance the bonus by a malus:
It's fine to offer me a 10% stake in profits arising from my department, with a maximum of $10000 - if I'm *also* willing to accept a 10% stake in any losses arising from my department, with a maximum of $10000.
Practically, you do this by offering a 10% paycut, in exchange for a chance of a 20% bonus.
That doesn't change anything: There's still a lower bound on your losses, so if your prognosis is that your result will end up on or near that lower bound, you have a personal incentive for an unsound gamble.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/no-wall-street-bonuses-arent-destroying-the-economy/248093/
Translation: His friends in the business like their bonuses.
Imagine your contract gives you 10% of what profits you make for your company during a calendar year. But it's December 31, and your balance is at zero, you're looking at no bonus at all. Now, if you could take $1M of the company's money to the casino and put everything on red, would you do it?
Of course you would, if you live only for money, as Daniel Indiviglio suggests. You have an 18/38 chance of winning with a $100K bonus to follow. And you have nothing to lose, provided you can make the gamble look like a reasonable enough gamble not to lose your job. And you can, because in real life it's not a casino gamble, but some kind of "financial product" that you can easily pretend carries no particular risk.
But for your employer, it's a terrible deal: The loss is 2/38*$1M on average - more than $50K. So the bonus has led you to make an unsound gamble.
The question then is, if there's no bonus and you are instead positioning yourself for the yearly pay negotiations, would you be tempted by the same gamble? And the answer's no: If you have a negotiation coming, the damage to your reputation from losses matters just as much as the benefit from wins. The bet that is a bad bet for the company is also a bad bet for you.
In short, Taleb is right. Drop the bonuses, stabilise the economy.
Right. There are gas meters that can run for 20 years on a single AA cell. And these guys have a long-term goal of reaching 48 hours battery life?
But they do look cool. They should make a model with no electronics at all, displaying the fixed image 16:01 . I'd buy that: "Oh, sorry, mr. PHB, it's getting late, those TPS reports will have to wait until tomorrow."
If they were all using MS Office, I'm sure they wouldn't mind paying for it. No, the problem is that they'd have to pay as if everyone was using MS Office, because virtualisation and commercial licensing don't play ball.
From computerworld.dk, my translation:
because they're 5-year-olds.
For modding up well-informed posts like the parent.
He's making a 10-year prediction. I think that'd be more "climate" than "weather".
It very much depends on how he proposes to measure the earth's temperature in 10 years. If he means to compare the average temperature in the year 2020 to the average temperature in the year 2010, then that has nothing to do with "climate". That's a total crap shoot, except of course he hand-picked the year 2010 to get more favorable odds.
If on the other hand he means to compare the average temperature in the years 1990-2010 to the average temperature in the years 2000-2020, then we're getting closer to a measurement that actually means something. Somehow I don't think that's the idea.