Constitution free zone? After Hibel vs Nevada, police officers can stop you anywhere they want for any reason and arrest you if you don't produce ID according to the Supreme Court. I fail to see how the border patrol hunting for illegal aliens within 100 miles of the border is somehow anywhere near as bad as that.
Excellent, this is a reason to branch. You have an experimental feature you want developed in parallel with the project, but might not want to include it in the software. I recommend patching the trunk changes over as often as possible to maintain stability and ease the merging process. This also ensures that no code developed on the trunk conflicts or breaks the feature.
However, please recognize - this will be a very rare scenario.
Rare scenario? That's the norm for me. My primary area of work involves very large changes to a rendering engine on a large simulator project. Changes that can often take me 3-5 weeks to get to a point where I'm satisfied with them. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the changes, the system will probably be completely broken for the first week or two of this change. If I don't branch, I can't check in my code, as that would break things for the other developers. By not checking in my code, I lose the benefits of revision control on my own work, leading to a "WTF!? This worked yesterday!!!" scenario very quickly, which can be difficult to recover from if I forgot about some small change I made while half asleep the previous morning. Having my own development branch (or indeed, several different development branches each for different features) was immensely helpful at my previous place of employment. Subversion made doing that a dream, and Trac made keeping track of the relationships between branches a breeze. My current employer uses CVS exclusively... And the absolutely asinine way of handling branches in CVS has led to me not using separate dev branches... Much to the chagrin of myself and my coworkers...
I don't know where you were around that time, but I heard/read a lot of stuff about Americans who considered it unpatriotic and supportive of the terrorists to criticise.
Then you heard/read a half-truth at best.
I'm not an expert on de Tocqueville, but I thought he was even one of the sources of inspiration to the American founding fathers.
Considering he was born in 1805, 30 years after the Revolutionary War, I highly doubt that. He wrote Democracy in America around 1835-1840 about what the founding fathers had accomplished. If anything, they inspired him. But, to be fair, you've already admitted to not being an expert on him.
They too were an elite, you know?
Whether they were an elite is debatable, but they certainly did not hold the opinion that only "elites" should have a voice.
I know it's popular around the Intarwebs to accuse the so-called "main stream" media of being nothing but crap, but it's just not true.
Except that the news organization the GP is referring to got caught knowingly running faked documents in an attempt to affect a presidential election, willingly disregarding basic principles like fact checking... And then denying it with a straight face and staking their reputation on the truthfulness of said documents afterwards. So yeah, in this case, it is true.
Well, thirty seconds of research would have informed you that he's British. Or actually listening to an interview (like I did) and hearing his accent... But God forbid you actually research something when you can work in an anti-US jab instead!
Also, his "things have to cost money, and people will die without it" attitude sounds much more American than European to my ears.
Except that's not his attitude. His attitude is that only "professionals" should be producing content, and that "amateurs" producing content is destructive. He thinks everyone having a voice is a bad thing... Which is the kind of European attitude that led to the creation of the US.
And there's where you're wrong. No one considers anyone in government their "betters" here.:)
And if you think there's been a lack of criticism during this whole process, you must have been living under a rock...
De Tocqueville is dead, but I only offered him up as an example of how the attitude of the author in TFA has been pervasive in European "intellectuals" for a long, long time. Honestly I *like* de Tocqueville, but that doesn't mean he didn't have his faults.
Actually no he wasn't a dickhead, he was pretty much a genius and so far his description of the American political system is most certainly the best. But the fact that he did a good job describing American society and its political process had no relation to his typical euro-elite point of view. One could say he was capable of producing such a stellar compendium on America *despite* his bigotry.
Also, there are probably American Institutes named after bootleggers and drug lords. All it takes to have your name associated with an institute is someone with some money starting an "Institute" and naming it after you. In the case of de Tocqueville, he is widely admired by Americans (at least those who have heard of him, myself included), but the same is not true of everyone who has an "Institution" named after them.
With that in mind, if you want to apologize for someone, apologize for the subject of TFA, not de Tocqueville.
But Americans have been hearing for around two centuries now from Europeans that we don't give enough deference to our betters. My favorite example being Alexis de Tocqueville lamenting that "ordinary citizens" had too much voice in politics and society, meaning the "elites" didn't get their proper due. This attitude of "listen to your betters, and we'll tell you WHO those betters are" is a distinctly European one.
Heard an interview of this guy on the radio, actually. He spent most of the time waxing on about how all these "non-professional" people are creating content, and how that's a bad thing. He was arguing that only people with proper training and credentials should be allowed to produce and publish content. Of course he himself is the absolute arbiter of what makes someone "qualified" or "trained," which is of course ridiculous.
History is full of self-trained, self-taught, self-made geniuses and creatives. It's also full of blithering idiots, both with and without little pieces of paper with a school's name and a dean's signature stamped on them. Allowing (and encouraging) open publishing for the masses does nothing to reduce the value of good works. If anything, it allows for more good works to be created by people who otherwise may not have found out they had a talent for such things.
On the other hand, restricting the ability to publish to a select few "accredited" individuals will do nothing to improve the quality of works available, and if anything will lead to the protection and promotion of low-quality works as "professional"...
I mean, hell, how hard is it to get a Liberal Arts degree? I got a minor in humanities on accident...:P
And yet plenty of artists DO care whether they get reimbursed for their work. And it's their copyright to control.
If an artist doesn't mind people copying their stuff, they can always release it under a Creative Commons type license. An artist who has released an album via traditional means, however, is protected by copyright, and there is no logical, ethical, moral, or legal argument around that. Any attempt to get around it is just someone justifying their own bad behavior to themselves to salve a guilty conscience.
There's no sense in claiming you're pirating an artist's work because they're being screwed over by record companies. Practically EVERY LAST THING the "apologist" claimed was so entirely hypocritical as to make me think that they were in fact a caricature or a troll, and not a real person. Except I've met dozens of kids that are just as dunderheaded in face to face conversations!
You think "MINE" is childish but taking an artist's work from them without compensation isn't? Are you a caricature?
So you're admitting you're just a whiny, worthless, dreck of a human being with the ethical, moral, and mental development of a three year old who has learned the words "GIMME!" and "MINE!" and isn't scared to use them?
Punch in Freddie Mac and read the alternating glowing reports of how it's a great investment, and how there's bias/shady dealings/need to regulate... Lone voices in the wilderness...
Actually I'm very acutely aware of the US government's history vis a vis Latin America, but it's irrelevant. What I said had nothing to do with the US whatsoever, it's a universal truth. Government officials who accept bribes are the real problem. Companies can't give bribes to officials who won't accept them. And officials who won't accept them are much more likely to prosecute those trying to give them out.
I'm sorry, but the problem isn't companies bribing officials. The problem is officials ACCEPTING bribes. If the second didn't happen, the first wouldn't matter.
Licensing people who hold the lives of others in their hands is just common sense. But there's plenty of people making very convincing arguments that the AMA is actually bad for us in the long run, as they fight to limit the supply of physicians to keep prices/wages elevated.
If you wanted to propose an impartial testing procedure for software engineers who would be working on systems which could kill people, I think that would be reasonable. But the test should only be judged on merit, not whether some group of existing engineers want to invite the new guy into their club.
Guilds aren't all bad. Think about the benefits of of a guild that has minimum competency requirements to call yourself a "Unix System Administrator".
I can think of zero benefit from such an organization. It's already bad enough that some employers have the wool pulled over their eyes by certifications.
Wait, did you just advocate REMOVING Right To Work laws? Are you insane? Should we just go back to a guild system where if you want to learn a trade, everyone already working the trade can decide you're not allowed to? Wasn't that awesome?
Believe it or not, there are good safety reasons we can't just go and setup our own broadcast TV towers where ever we want.
Of course there are. There are also lighting requirements to prevent aircraft from smashing into them in the dark. But my point was that Google wouldn't be attempting to do anything nefarious and thereby exploit Mexico's third world status, not that there's no danger whatsoever from a radio antenna.
Since Mexico was pretty firmly in the US sphere of influence, it lands squarely there.
As far as I remember, it was never considered part of the "First World." It was never really politically aligned with the US or the USSR, so it falls into the third world. Being in the US's 'Sphere of Influence' doesn't really mean much, what matters is how closely a nation aligned with US policy.
We're not talking about setting up a machine that sprays toxic waste into the atmosphere or some sort of plant that will poison groundwater supplies, we're talking about setting up a goddamn broadcast antenna. Just like the ones Mexicans watch TV on currently. The original poster's point was that since the agency that decides whether or not you can SET UP broadcast antennas in the US is also the one that's being accused of RIGGING the test and LYING about the results, you'll have to find somewhere else to set up your antenna.
So take your trumped up "disgust" and stick it in your self righteous ass.
i'm guessing it's probably not possible for biological life to form in such a radically different environment, but then again maybe i just lack the imagination to conceive of such possibilities.
Yes, your feeble man-brain cannot contain the glory of the infernal court of Azathoth...
[O]utside the ordered universe [is] that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity--the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.
Sorry to stomp on your dreams, then. Visiting New Orleans once isn't so bad, but I wouldn't travel to the US just for New Orleans. There's too many better places to see, even in Louisiana, much less the rest of the country. On the bright side, the French Quarter faired the best out of any section in Katrina (the original settlers picked the best spot for a city, not the worst spot...). But traveling thousands of miles to go there when you could just go to Amsterdam...
Slashdot Mirror
Constitution free zone? After Hibel vs Nevada, police officers can stop you anywhere they want for any reason and arrest you if you don't produce ID according to the Supreme Court. I fail to see how the border patrol hunting for illegal aliens within 100 miles of the border is somehow anywhere near as bad as that.
Rare scenario? That's the norm for me. My primary area of work involves very large changes to a rendering engine on a large simulator project. Changes that can often take me 3-5 weeks to get to a point where I'm satisfied with them. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the changes, the system will probably be completely broken for the first week or two of this change. If I don't branch, I can't check in my code, as that would break things for the other developers. By not checking in my code, I lose the benefits of revision control on my own work, leading to a "WTF!? This worked yesterday!!!" scenario very quickly, which can be difficult to recover from if I forgot about some small change I made while half asleep the previous morning. Having my own development branch (or indeed, several different development branches each for different features) was immensely helpful at my previous place of employment. Subversion made doing that a dream, and Trac made keeping track of the relationships between branches a breeze. My current employer uses CVS exclusively... And the absolutely asinine way of handling branches in CVS has led to me not using separate dev branches... Much to the chagrin of myself and my coworkers...
Then you heard/read a half-truth at best.
Considering he was born in 1805, 30 years after the Revolutionary War, I highly doubt that. He wrote Democracy in America around 1835-1840 about what the founding fathers had accomplished. If anything, they inspired him. But, to be fair, you've already admitted to not being an expert on him.
Whether they were an elite is debatable, but they certainly did not hold the opinion that only "elites" should have a voice.
Except that the news organization the GP is referring to got caught knowingly running faked documents in an attempt to affect a presidential election, willingly disregarding basic principles like fact checking... And then denying it with a straight face and staking their reputation on the truthfulness of said documents afterwards. So yeah, in this case, it is true.
Well, thirty seconds of research would have informed you that he's British. Or actually listening to an interview (like I did) and hearing his accent... But God forbid you actually research something when you can work in an anti-US jab instead!
Except that's not his attitude. His attitude is that only "professionals" should be producing content, and that "amateurs" producing content is destructive. He thinks everyone having a voice is a bad thing... Which is the kind of European attitude that led to the creation of the US.
And there's where you're wrong. No one considers anyone in government their "betters" here. :)
And if you think there's been a lack of criticism during this whole process, you must have been living under a rock...
De Tocqueville is dead, but I only offered him up as an example of how the attitude of the author in TFA has been pervasive in European "intellectuals" for a long, long time. Honestly I *like* de Tocqueville, but that doesn't mean he didn't have his faults.
Actually no he wasn't a dickhead, he was pretty much a genius and so far his description of the American political system is most certainly the best. But the fact that he did a good job describing American society and its political process had no relation to his typical euro-elite point of view. One could say he was capable of producing such a stellar compendium on America *despite* his bigotry.
Also, there are probably American Institutes named after bootleggers and drug lords. All it takes to have your name associated with an institute is someone with some money starting an "Institute" and naming it after you. In the case of de Tocqueville, he is widely admired by Americans (at least those who have heard of him, myself included), but the same is not true of everyone who has an "Institution" named after them.
With that in mind, if you want to apologize for someone, apologize for the subject of TFA, not de Tocqueville.
But Americans have been hearing for around two centuries now from Europeans that we don't give enough deference to our betters. My favorite example being Alexis de Tocqueville lamenting that "ordinary citizens" had too much voice in politics and society, meaning the "elites" didn't get their proper due. This attitude of "listen to your betters, and we'll tell you WHO those betters are" is a distinctly European one.
Heard an interview of this guy on the radio, actually. He spent most of the time waxing on about how all these "non-professional" people are creating content, and how that's a bad thing. He was arguing that only people with proper training and credentials should be allowed to produce and publish content. Of course he himself is the absolute arbiter of what makes someone "qualified" or "trained," which is of course ridiculous.
History is full of self-trained, self-taught, self-made geniuses and creatives. It's also full of blithering idiots, both with and without little pieces of paper with a school's name and a dean's signature stamped on them. Allowing (and encouraging) open publishing for the masses does nothing to reduce the value of good works. If anything, it allows for more good works to be created by people who otherwise may not have found out they had a talent for such things.
On the other hand, restricting the ability to publish to a select few "accredited" individuals will do nothing to improve the quality of works available, and if anything will lead to the protection and promotion of low-quality works as "professional"...
I mean, hell, how hard is it to get a Liberal Arts degree? I got a minor in humanities on accident... :P
But extra points for trying to work in an anti-American jab.
And yet plenty of artists DO care whether they get reimbursed for their work. And it's their copyright to control.
If an artist doesn't mind people copying their stuff, they can always release it under a Creative Commons type license. An artist who has released an album via traditional means, however, is protected by copyright, and there is no logical, ethical, moral, or legal argument around that. Any attempt to get around it is just someone justifying their own bad behavior to themselves to salve a guilty conscience.
There's no sense in claiming you're pirating an artist's work because they're being screwed over by record companies. Practically EVERY LAST THING the "apologist" claimed was so entirely hypocritical as to make me think that they were in fact a caricature or a troll, and not a real person. Except I've met dozens of kids that are just as dunderheaded in face to face conversations!
You think "MINE" is childish but taking an artist's work from them without compensation isn't? Are you a caricature?
So you're admitting you're just a whiny, worthless, dreck of a human being with the ethical, moral, and mental development of a three year old who has learned the words "GIMME!" and "MINE!" and isn't scared to use them?
Punch in Freddie Mac and read the alternating glowing reports of how it's a great investment, and how there's bias/shady dealings/need to regulate... Lone voices in the wilderness...
Actually I'm very acutely aware of the US government's history vis a vis Latin America, but it's irrelevant. What I said had nothing to do with the US whatsoever, it's a universal truth. Government officials who accept bribes are the real problem. Companies can't give bribes to officials who won't accept them. And officials who won't accept them are much more likely to prosecute those trying to give them out.
I'm sorry, but the problem isn't companies bribing officials. The problem is officials ACCEPTING bribes. If the second didn't happen, the first wouldn't matter.
Licensing people who hold the lives of others in their hands is just common sense. But there's plenty of people making very convincing arguments that the AMA is actually bad for us in the long run, as they fight to limit the supply of physicians to keep prices/wages elevated.
If you wanted to propose an impartial testing procedure for software engineers who would be working on systems which could kill people, I think that would be reasonable. But the test should only be judged on merit, not whether some group of existing engineers want to invite the new guy into their club.
I can think of zero benefit from such an organization. It's already bad enough that some employers have the wool pulled over their eyes by certifications.
Wait, did you just advocate REMOVING Right To Work laws? Are you insane? Should we just go back to a guild system where if you want to learn a trade, everyone already working the trade can decide you're not allowed to? Wasn't that awesome?
It is Libertarian only to someone who has no understanding of what 'Libertarian' means but hates it anyway.
Of course there are. There are also lighting requirements to prevent aircraft from smashing into them in the dark. But my point was that Google wouldn't be attempting to do anything nefarious and thereby exploit Mexico's third world status, not that there's no danger whatsoever from a radio antenna.
As far as I remember, it was never considered part of the "First World." It was never really politically aligned with the US or the USSR, so it falls into the third world. Being in the US's 'Sphere of Influence' doesn't really mean much, what matters is how closely a nation aligned with US policy.
Well that's too bad, because it is a "third world" country whether it likes it or not.
We're not talking about setting up a machine that sprays toxic waste into the atmosphere or some sort of plant that will poison groundwater supplies, we're talking about setting up a goddamn broadcast antenna. Just like the ones Mexicans watch TV on currently. The original poster's point was that since the agency that decides whether or not you can SET UP broadcast antennas in the US is also the one that's being accused of RIGGING the test and LYING about the results, you'll have to find somewhere else to set up your antenna.
So take your trumped up "disgust" and stick it in your self righteous ass.
Yes, your feeble man-brain cannot contain the glory of the infernal court of Azathoth...
Sorry to stomp on your dreams, then. Visiting New Orleans once isn't so bad, but I wouldn't travel to the US just for New Orleans. There's too many better places to see, even in Louisiana, much less the rest of the country. On the bright side, the French Quarter faired the best out of any section in Katrina (the original settlers picked the best spot for a city, not the worst spot...). But traveling thousands of miles to go there when you could just go to Amsterdam...