Torvalds claims, somewhat exaggeratedly, that he did write the core of git in two weeks, and, for any software developer, it's easy to see that git is a far more valuable tool to developers than any of its predecessors. After initial issues with bad command-line tools and crappy mswin compatibility, I think there are few reasons to complain about git nowadays.
I don't agree, I think there are valid reasons to complain about Git. The issue I have with Git is that it forces you into Torvalds' work flow model. You have to do things generally his way or Git is a pain in the...Where I see that the work flow he designed into Git is well suited for the work flow used by the Linux kernel project (and many similar projects) it is not usually the right work flow for other kinds of things.
Also, what Git is actually *doing* under the covers may not be obvious when you consider the choice of commands and modifiers used to invoke these actions. This is why folks complain about the documentation. Git sometimes just doesn't make conceptual sense, where the command you type is a verb that conveys the meaning of what you are doing and the modifiers do too. While it may be obvious to the designer what's going on, to the poor slob who's trying to use Git to complete a task will have a hard time because the non-intuitive nature of the user interface and the complicated conceptual way Git works internally.
My final critique is about how it seems Git's work flow is all about code merging and doesn't let you lock files. That same bit of code may get merged multiple times as it flows upstream in a project. Merging is a recipe for disaster for most projects so most revision control systems allow you to avoid it by doing file locking. Where I get that the Kernel Project doesn't wish to manage the access to their source and avoid merging in their workflow, there are other project models and workflows where this can be a huge time and trouble saver.
So, I do complain about Git. It's not the perfect tool for every revision control project, but was purpose built for ONE kind of project. You can shoehorn it into your workflow if you want, but I warn you the tool has it's drawbacks. Carefully consider these before you pick a tool like this..
Seriously? Do we not teach government anymore in school here in the good old USA? MOST of what they promise the CAN NOT do anyway, no one person or branch of government has the power to unilaterally just DO what they want. Plus, rarely does any single party hold enough control to get stuff done on their own power by controlling two branches. It was designed this way on purpose...
So stop expecting to get what the politicians are promising and realize when you are being duped, lied to and manipulated and stop voting for the candidate who will willingly sell you a bill of goods they cannot deliver just to get your vote. When they make promises they have no power on their own to keep, don't vote for them, which pretty much covers our current crop of presidential hopefuls....
And why not teach folks to code? In reality it is the basic skill you need to operate a computer, even if you are just running MS Office.
What is Excel but a way to write little "programs" called "formulas"? What are styles in Word if not just macros that you've programed in advance? Quite literally it is ALL Programming in one way or another, even if you think it's just data entry.
No, I see value in some basic programming skills and how they could be useful for even that Journeyman Plumber.
I learned Pascal and C in college, but I contend that the analytical skills used by a computer programmer haven't changed, even though the mechanics of how you accomplish these things has. There have been a lot of "Style" changes over the decades, but how the programing sausage is made hasn't changed.
Read the book.. Trust me.. You will see what I mean.
Bear in mind I date back to the days when the most important piece of equipment in the IT department was the little wooden column you used to wind the paper tape around. Are you sure not much has changed?
Oh the hardware has changed a lot, but the basic problems facing CS folks remain the same. The mechanics of what we do have changed, but the concepts haven't. I date back to the thumb switch modifications of boot loaders and core memory myself, but designing, writing and debugging programs still use the same analytical skills, even if editing your source no longer involves shuffling through a deck of cards.
Apple's refusal to cooperate with a legitimate law enforcement investigation to unlock a phone used by terrorists puts Apple on the side of terrorists instead of on the side of public safety
Apple isn't refusing to cooperate. They are filing an appeal to a novel ruling. There is a difference.
Actually, from what I've been reading, the actual ruling hasn't been officially entered by the judge, only a draft of what the judge is planning to order at the hearing on March 22 has been released so everybody can be ready to officially address the judge's order during the hearing.
Soooo, officially Apple hasn't refused to do anything yet because the judge hasn't officially ordered it...
I don't know.. Plumbers and welders might benefit from a few basic computer skills. If for nothing else than to produce Resumes when they need a job and Invoices when they have one. Maybe the don't need to know a programming language, but what can it hurt? Kind of like teaching history to kids, what are they going to use that information for as a plumber? Yet we do teach it. Some things are just good to know.
The problem with this is that Computer Science will likely go though another paradigm shift within the next decade. Never mind what ALM the MBA's will be spouting in 10 years. But maths and English will likely be the same.
CS hasn't changed all that much since the 60's if you ask me. Yea, we've added one new way to program (Object Oriented) to the mix, but even that wasn't all that huge of a paradigm shift, but more of a formalization of some existing best practices. Sure the names have changed and syntax varies, but conceptually CS is not different. We still face the same kinds of problems.
Don't believe me? Read "The Mythical Man Month" by Fredrik R. Brooks. This book is 4 decades old, yet still relevant to Computer Science today because the true problems it addresses haven't changed.
Wow, we will be totally rocking after the next EMP or CME event (or the zombie apocalypse).. Do you have a basement full of ammo, bottled water and freeze dried food too?
Even plumbers need some computer skills these days. If for nothing else than to create those head snapping bills you get when they show up to your house to "fix" your emergency leak.
This is not about "fair" or "qualified" according to the US Constitution. In fact, there is no specific criteria outlined at all. The process is the president nominates who he wants and the Senate can do what they want with it, including not taking up the nomination if they choose. That's what the Constitution says, so drop the "fair" and "qualified" criteria as they don't exist. What DOES exist is that the two branches must AGREE that the nominee is acceptable. If Obama want's to nominate a candidate that the Republicans can not refuse to confirm because the nominee is exactly what they want, something tells me they'd put the confirmation process on the fast track....
I'm sure the military has enough space that they can train safely using a berm as a back stop.
Not to mention, that I know of a number of shooting ranges where a mound of dirt is all they really have and they are located in the midst of residential properties. One range I know of is literally less than 200 yards from my friends back yard pool and on sunny Saturday afternoons it sounds like a military invasion is coming your way. It's perfectly safe as long as everybody follows the rules, and at this shooting range they are sticklers about that.
I think you describe EXACTLY what I mean. Obama and the Democrats didn't try to go all bi-partisan on us with the health care law and choose to force the issue, refusing to allow any amendments or even allow the 2,000 page bill to be read much less vetted by the public, but decided that they had to pass the bill NOW because they where going to loose their democrat only cloture ability in the Senate once Ted Kennedy's replacement from the special election was seated. They literally passed it at the last possible moment ON THEIR OWN, without a single Republican vote and steam rolled the bill into law. How you figure that's the Republicans being obstructionists is beyond me, they couldn't obstruct ANYTHING, and the Democrats used that fact to pass only what they wanted.
What about the debt limit debates? You mean the ones where he started out by pillaging Republicans for destroying the USA's Credit rating? Or where children and old folks would be starving in the streets if we didn't just shut up and go along? Then he gives up this sequester thing? Yea, tell me how effective Obama was in all that.
Tell me when Obama has offered compromise on an issue of importance beyond the sequester? It's all or nothing with him. He talks as if he's a grand unifier, that he's all about working together, but he never makes the first move and his administration always *starts* with the pillaging in the press. He also never chooses to consider the principles that motivate the other side of the debate, but routinely makes disparaging comments, setting up straw men to tear down his opponents. Ever heard that Republicans where Racist? About the "War on Women" or that Republicans want to "throw granny off the cliff?" None of that is a true representation of the Republican position, but they come from his administration.
So, there is really no reason I can see that I'd want to work with a guy like this. It's literally a no win situation for Republicans. It's not that they don't welcome compromise solutions when they are possible, it's just that there are specific principles with which there is not a compromise solution that's possible. Obama doesn't usually compromise on his principles, why do you think the Republicans should?
But the real thing here is that the voters have chosen to put Republicans in control of Congress over the last three election cycles starting in 2010. Not only that, they have chosen Republicans over Democrats in a lot of state and local elections as well. So, I would say that the evidence is that voters don't really want the Republicans to be cooperating with Obama all that much because they keep electing Republicans who are running on "I oppose Obama on..(insert policy/position of choice here)" platforms. If that wasn't working, then you can bet there would be a bit more bargaining going on, but as it stands, you get more votes saying "no" to Obama than you get cooperating with him as a Republican.
Surely you see this for what it is right? This is politics and it's a rough and tumble non-contact sport about getting votes and money to campaign with. Obama plays the game a bit rougher than most and he's not about compromise, but hardball. So the other team is forced to play his choice of games, which because they are now in control of congress and can literally shut him down at will, won't work out so well for Obama. He picked the game back in 2008, now we play it out. Sorry he doesn't like it now.
Seems a mound of dirt and some general rules about keeping the muzzle pointed down range when firing would accomplish the same thing, and they are cheaper and largely already in place for training..
The founding fathers also wanted Congress to approve or disapprove of the presidents nomination. They disapprove. There is nothing wrong with congress blocking this.
Congress does not yet have a SCOTUS nominee of which to disapprove. They're blocking the idea of giving any nominee an approve/disapprove hearing..
True, but they are blocking nothing right now. There is no nomination to consider because the president hasn't made one yet and they cannot block the president from naming his nominee when he's ready. So they've not done anything wrong in anybody's book yet, they are just threatening to not take up any nominations the president may make.
Think about it this way. It's a political move. The Republicans are really just thinking ahead by making this announcement. First, they apply political pressure to Obama to nominate a consensus nominee, somebody even the Republicans would find acceptable. Second, they defuse this political bomb at a time of their own choosing, right now rather than closer to the election where it can possibly hurt them. By the time we get to the election campaigns in late summer, this will be old news as will the "you are the party of NO!" charge related to it. Third, it placates their base. Most of these people are in congress having run on opposing Obama's policies and they know that any highly visible opposition to Obama will play well to their voters. Forth, it really doesn't matter. The ONLY way they can placate Obama is to totally just accept what he wants to do and rubber stamp whomever he nominates. Anything short of that brings out the flame throwers and their condemnation by Obama and his supporters and actually doing hearings would only fan the flames. Obama has made sure they are in a lose lose situation, so their best choice is to get it over with as soon as they can. All this says, preemptively say you won't take up a nomination.
But remember that Obama is playing politics here with the process too. He's ready to bring out the flame throwers and use the bully pulpit of the president to brow beat the Republicans. He knows his nominee will be DOA in the Senate and instead of working with the Senate to obtain their consent, he's going to unleash the "Do nothing congress" complaint like he's done many times in the past. Go back to the budget fights of the past, what did Obama say then? Go back to most of the major conflicts Obama has had with congress, the play book is the same with variations on the "They won't work with me and be reasonable" theme...
So, in a way, this is Obama's doing. There is nothing to gain by cooperating with him in any way. He's made it clear that anything short of full surrender is unacceptable and has rarely attempted to work out a compromise on anything. Plus, if you oppose him, he will pillage you in the press and use the bully pulpit to punish you. He's made it a no win situation too many times, so nobody will work with him.
The US constitution does not specify the factors upon which the Senate may "advise and consent" on a presidential nomination any more than it specifies qualifications the president must consider. Nor is there a specified time frame within which they must act upon a nomination as long as they are in session. The president may nominate anybody he chooses and the Senate then decides what to do with the nomination. It literally takes two sides (two branches) working together to get somebody confirmed.
Of course, depending on your political perspective, there may be moral and ethical questions to address when choosing what specific course of action (or inaction) to take....
I use OpenWRT myself on a fleet of Linksys and Netgear offerings... I'm with you though, I only use hardware for which there is third party open source firmware available.
Except that the all EV's don't have onboard engines, I'm with you on this. Seems like a serious oversight to allow the AC/Heat to run for extended periods when the vehicle is not plugged in or occupied. Even your everyday laptop can tell the difference between "plugged in" and "on Battery" while monitoring battery percentages to decide what appropriate operating parameters are why can't a battery operated car? Why can it not say, "Hey, it's been 10 min and nobody is in the vehicle and I'm not plugged in, I'm going to turn off that energy sucking environmental controls." or "Hey, I'm plugged in, the battery is full, I'll leave the environmental control system running.."
Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds claims, somewhat exaggeratedly, that he did write the core of git in two weeks, and, for any software developer, it's easy to see that git is a far more valuable tool to developers than any of its predecessors. After initial issues with bad command-line tools and crappy mswin compatibility, I think there are few reasons to complain about git nowadays.
I don't agree, I think there are valid reasons to complain about Git. The issue I have with Git is that it forces you into Torvalds' work flow model. You have to do things generally his way or Git is a pain in the...Where I see that the work flow he designed into Git is well suited for the work flow used by the Linux kernel project (and many similar projects) it is not usually the right work flow for other kinds of things.
Also, what Git is actually *doing* under the covers may not be obvious when you consider the choice of commands and modifiers used to invoke these actions. This is why folks complain about the documentation. Git sometimes just doesn't make conceptual sense, where the command you type is a verb that conveys the meaning of what you are doing and the modifiers do too. While it may be obvious to the designer what's going on, to the poor slob who's trying to use Git to complete a task will have a hard time because the non-intuitive nature of the user interface and the complicated conceptual way Git works internally.
My final critique is about how it seems Git's work flow is all about code merging and doesn't let you lock files. That same bit of code may get merged multiple times as it flows upstream in a project. Merging is a recipe for disaster for most projects so most revision control systems allow you to avoid it by doing file locking. Where I get that the Kernel Project doesn't wish to manage the access to their source and avoid merging in their workflow, there are other project models and workflows where this can be a huge time and trouble saver.
So, I do complain about Git. It's not the perfect tool for every revision control project, but was purpose built for ONE kind of project. You can shoehorn it into your workflow if you want, but I warn you the tool has it's drawbacks. Carefully consider these before you pick a tool like this..
So we can blame Larry AND Linus for git? I can live with that.
Seriously? Do we not teach government anymore in school here in the good old USA? MOST of what they promise the CAN NOT do anyway, no one person or branch of government has the power to unilaterally just DO what they want. Plus, rarely does any single party hold enough control to get stuff done on their own power by controlling two branches. It was designed this way on purpose...
So stop expecting to get what the politicians are promising and realize when you are being duped, lied to and manipulated and stop voting for the candidate who will willingly sell you a bill of goods they cannot deliver just to get your vote. When they make promises they have no power on their own to keep, don't vote for them, which pretty much covers our current crop of presidential hopefuls....
And why not teach folks to code? In reality it is the basic skill you need to operate a computer, even if you are just running MS Office.
What is Excel but a way to write little "programs" called "formulas"? What are styles in Word if not just macros that you've programed in advance? Quite literally it is ALL Programming in one way or another, even if you think it's just data entry.
No, I see value in some basic programming skills and how they could be useful for even that Journeyman Plumber.
I learned Pascal and C in college, but I contend that the analytical skills used by a computer programmer haven't changed, even though the mechanics of how you accomplish these things has. There have been a lot of "Style" changes over the decades, but how the programing sausage is made hasn't changed.
Read the book.. Trust me.. You will see what I mean.
Bear in mind I date back to the days when the most important piece of equipment in the IT department was the little wooden column you used to wind the paper tape around. Are you sure not much has changed?
Oh the hardware has changed a lot, but the basic problems facing CS folks remain the same. The mechanics of what we do have changed, but the concepts haven't. I date back to the thumb switch modifications of boot loaders and core memory myself, but designing, writing and debugging programs still use the same analytical skills, even if editing your source no longer involves shuffling through a deck of cards.
Ah, good ole Maricopa County. The home of jurisprudence by publicity stunt.
Isn't that in the neighborhood of that Sheriff that uses the pink underwear and tents for his county jail?
Apple's refusal to cooperate with a legitimate law enforcement investigation to unlock a phone used by terrorists puts Apple on the side of terrorists instead of on the side of public safety
Apple isn't refusing to cooperate. They are filing an appeal to a novel ruling. There is a difference.
Actually, from what I've been reading, the actual ruling hasn't been officially entered by the judge, only a draft of what the judge is planning to order at the hearing on March 22 has been released so everybody can be ready to officially address the judge's order during the hearing.
Soooo, officially Apple hasn't refused to do anything yet because the judge hasn't officially ordered it...
Some would argue that justice is ALWAYS for sale, if you have enough money.
Where not totally true in all cases, sadly money can still buy a lot of justice in some situations.
I don't know.. Plumbers and welders might benefit from a few basic computer skills. If for nothing else than to produce Resumes when they need a job and Invoices when they have one. Maybe the don't need to know a programming language, but what can it hurt? Kind of like teaching history to kids, what are they going to use that information for as a plumber? Yet we do teach it. Some things are just good to know.
Ah, surely you jest.... And it's funny too.
The problem with this is that Computer Science will likely go though another paradigm shift within the next decade. Never mind what ALM the MBA's will be spouting in 10 years. But maths and English will likely be the same.
CS hasn't changed all that much since the 60's if you ask me. Yea, we've added one new way to program (Object Oriented) to the mix, but even that wasn't all that huge of a paradigm shift, but more of a formalization of some existing best practices. Sure the names have changed and syntax varies, but conceptually CS is not different. We still face the same kinds of problems.
Don't believe me? Read "The Mythical Man Month" by Fredrik R. Brooks. This book is 4 decades old, yet still relevant to Computer Science today because the true problems it addresses haven't changed.
Wow, we will be totally rocking after the next EMP or CME event (or the zombie apocalypse).. Do you have a basement full of ammo, bottled water and freeze dried food too?
Even plumbers need some computer skills these days. If for nothing else than to create those head snapping bills you get when they show up to your house to "fix" your emergency leak.
"Obama has made sure they are in a lose lose situation"
So, I guess now we can get rid of that old "Obama got Osama" meme. Although "Obama got Scalia" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Straw man argument you know. You imply something I've never said. Scalia died of natural causes...
This is not about "fair" or "qualified" according to the US Constitution. In fact, there is no specific criteria outlined at all. The process is the president nominates who he wants and the Senate can do what they want with it, including not taking up the nomination if they choose. That's what the Constitution says, so drop the "fair" and "qualified" criteria as they don't exist. What DOES exist is that the two branches must AGREE that the nominee is acceptable. If Obama want's to nominate a candidate that the Republicans can not refuse to confirm because the nominee is exactly what they want, something tells me they'd put the confirmation process on the fast track....
I'm sure the military has enough space that they can train safely using a berm as a back stop.
Not to mention, that I know of a number of shooting ranges where a mound of dirt is all they really have and they are located in the midst of residential properties. One range I know of is literally less than 200 yards from my friends back yard pool and on sunny Saturday afternoons it sounds like a military invasion is coming your way. It's perfectly safe as long as everybody follows the rules, and at this shooting range they are sticklers about that.
I think you describe EXACTLY what I mean. Obama and the Democrats didn't try to go all bi-partisan on us with the health care law and choose to force the issue, refusing to allow any amendments or even allow the 2,000 page bill to be read much less vetted by the public, but decided that they had to pass the bill NOW because they where going to loose their democrat only cloture ability in the Senate once Ted Kennedy's replacement from the special election was seated. They literally passed it at the last possible moment ON THEIR OWN, without a single Republican vote and steam rolled the bill into law. How you figure that's the Republicans being obstructionists is beyond me, they couldn't obstruct ANYTHING, and the Democrats used that fact to pass only what they wanted.
What about the debt limit debates? You mean the ones where he started out by pillaging Republicans for destroying the USA's Credit rating? Or where children and old folks would be starving in the streets if we didn't just shut up and go along? Then he gives up this sequester thing? Yea, tell me how effective Obama was in all that.
Tell me when Obama has offered compromise on an issue of importance beyond the sequester? It's all or nothing with him. He talks as if he's a grand unifier, that he's all about working together, but he never makes the first move and his administration always *starts* with the pillaging in the press. He also never chooses to consider the principles that motivate the other side of the debate, but routinely makes disparaging comments, setting up straw men to tear down his opponents. Ever heard that Republicans where Racist? About the "War on Women" or that Republicans want to "throw granny off the cliff?" None of that is a true representation of the Republican position, but they come from his administration.
So, there is really no reason I can see that I'd want to work with a guy like this. It's literally a no win situation for Republicans. It's not that they don't welcome compromise solutions when they are possible, it's just that there are specific principles with which there is not a compromise solution that's possible. Obama doesn't usually compromise on his principles, why do you think the Republicans should?
But the real thing here is that the voters have chosen to put Republicans in control of Congress over the last three election cycles starting in 2010. Not only that, they have chosen Republicans over Democrats in a lot of state and local elections as well. So, I would say that the evidence is that voters don't really want the Republicans to be cooperating with Obama all that much because they keep electing Republicans who are running on "I oppose Obama on..(insert policy/position of choice here)" platforms. If that wasn't working, then you can bet there would be a bit more bargaining going on, but as it stands, you get more votes saying "no" to Obama than you get cooperating with him as a Republican.
Surely you see this for what it is right? This is politics and it's a rough and tumble non-contact sport about getting votes and money to campaign with. Obama plays the game a bit rougher than most and he's not about compromise, but hardball. So the other team is forced to play his choice of games, which because they are now in control of congress and can literally shut him down at will, won't work out so well for Obama. He picked the game back in 2008, now we play it out. Sorry he doesn't like it now.
Does this mean I can start firing my M16 in the air like those crazy arabs do?
On new years eve and the 4th of July?
No....
Seems a mound of dirt and some general rules about keeping the muzzle pointed down range when firing would accomplish the same thing, and they are cheaper and largely already in place for training..
The founding fathers also wanted Congress to approve or disapprove of the presidents nomination. They disapprove. There is nothing wrong with congress blocking this.
Congress does not yet have a SCOTUS nominee of which to disapprove. They're blocking the idea of giving any nominee an approve/disapprove hearing..
True, but they are blocking nothing right now. There is no nomination to consider because the president hasn't made one yet and they cannot block the president from naming his nominee when he's ready. So they've not done anything wrong in anybody's book yet, they are just threatening to not take up any nominations the president may make.
Think about it this way. It's a political move. The Republicans are really just thinking ahead by making this announcement. First, they apply political pressure to Obama to nominate a consensus nominee, somebody even the Republicans would find acceptable. Second, they defuse this political bomb at a time of their own choosing, right now rather than closer to the election where it can possibly hurt them. By the time we get to the election campaigns in late summer, this will be old news as will the "you are the party of NO!" charge related to it. Third, it placates their base. Most of these people are in congress having run on opposing Obama's policies and they know that any highly visible opposition to Obama will play well to their voters. Forth, it really doesn't matter. The ONLY way they can placate Obama is to totally just accept what he wants to do and rubber stamp whomever he nominates. Anything short of that brings out the flame throwers and their condemnation by Obama and his supporters and actually doing hearings would only fan the flames. Obama has made sure they are in a lose lose situation, so their best choice is to get it over with as soon as they can. All this says, preemptively say you won't take up a nomination.
But remember that Obama is playing politics here with the process too. He's ready to bring out the flame throwers and use the bully pulpit of the president to brow beat the Republicans. He knows his nominee will be DOA in the Senate and instead of working with the Senate to obtain their consent, he's going to unleash the "Do nothing congress" complaint like he's done many times in the past. Go back to the budget fights of the past, what did Obama say then? Go back to most of the major conflicts Obama has had with congress, the play book is the same with variations on the "They won't work with me and be reasonable" theme...
So, in a way, this is Obama's doing. There is nothing to gain by cooperating with him in any way. He's made it clear that anything short of full surrender is unacceptable and has rarely attempted to work out a compromise on anything. Plus, if you oppose him, he will pillage you in the press and use the bully pulpit to punish you. He's made it a no win situation too many times, so nobody will work with him.
The US constitution does not specify the factors upon which the Senate may "advise and consent" on a presidential nomination any more than it specifies qualifications the president must consider. Nor is there a specified time frame within which they must act upon a nomination as long as they are in session. The president may nominate anybody he chooses and the Senate then decides what to do with the nomination. It literally takes two sides (two branches) working together to get somebody confirmed.
Of course, depending on your political perspective, there may be moral and ethical questions to address when choosing what specific course of action (or inaction) to take....
This really should be left up to the next elected president, if we are to believe the do-nothing blow-hards in Congress.
Joe? Joe Biden is that you? I remember what you said back in '92... Sounds a lot like you.
I use OpenWRT myself on a fleet of Linksys and Netgear offerings... I'm with you though, I only use hardware for which there is third party open source firmware available.
Except that the all EV's don't have onboard engines, I'm with you on this. Seems like a serious oversight to allow the AC/Heat to run for extended periods when the vehicle is not plugged in or occupied. Even your everyday laptop can tell the difference between "plugged in" and "on Battery" while monitoring battery percentages to decide what appropriate operating parameters are why can't a battery operated car? Why can it not say, "Hey, it's been 10 min and nobody is in the vehicle and I'm not plugged in, I'm going to turn off that energy sucking environmental controls." or "Hey, I'm plugged in, the battery is full, I'll leave the environmental control system running.."