If you have this much code, I bet there's some duplicated code in there. Ferret it out with CPD and you'll have that much less code to write tests for.
It probably wouldn't hurt to search for unused code while you're at it - again, you'll reduce the amount of code you need to write tests for.
Yup. On RubyForge we run a rsync job over stunnel to iBackup every 6 hours.
This works like a charm; it only takes a minute or two to run (that is, except after the nightly Postgres backup, when it takes about 20 minutes to send over the new database dump). It's an easy way to have an offsite backup.
Not sure how much effort it would be to get it working with dotgnu as well... maybe it wouldn't be too bad since much of the connector code appears to be in lib/dotnet/bridge.rb. Lots of C# code in there, though.
> when government is the BIGGEST corporation > of them all, and the ONLY one (well, the RIAA > is close now) that has the power to use \ > guns to enforce it's will...
Exactly right. Dinesh D'Souza has a neat way of putting this in Letters To A Young Conservative. He says something to the effect of "any clerk at the IRS has more power than the CEO of General Motors. Why? Suppose I go to that clerk and say 'I won't pay Social Security anymore. I don't want any money when I retire, I'll depend on my own means or that of my friends or children or whatever.' What will happen? Well, the IRS will send me letters for a while, and then they'll send people to take me to jail. If I try to defend myself, I'll be shot."
The government is different from a corporation. It has guns, and it makes the laws. This doesn't mean the government is bad... but it's... different. There's a lot of power there, and a need for responsibility.
> Bush just recently claimed that "god told > him to attack Iraq"
This alleged quote is from Haaratz quoting Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas as saying in a meeting with other Palestinian that Bush told him this. The reliability of that chain of sources is questionable, to say the least.
> Look at how many religious leaders got > their followers to kill people
This also applies to atheistic leaders - Stalin - and pagan leaders - Hitler. There's no monopoly on cruelty.
The 14th amendment - to which I presume you're referring, if not, please correct me - says that all citizens have the same "privileges or immunities". It does not, however, say that all behaviors are entitled to be granted the same legal status.
> is not a document with any legal > "teeth" behind it.
True. It does, however, state some of the principles under which America was founded. Thus it helps us understand why America has some of the laws that it does.
It does, however, reflect some principles upon which America was founded.
> The Constitution
Yup, the Constitution lays low on religion. Quite neutral.
> Jefferson [...]specifically chose > religiously generic language
Jefferson also wrote letters later in life saying that he did not want his administration to be a "government without religion," but one that would "strengthen... religious freedom."
> What the current definition of marriage > is or where it came from is irrelevant.
Quite to the contrary. If we seek to redefine marriage we should take the time to learn why laws regarding marriage were created.
> As long as marriage is a legal institution > it must be non-descriminatory
Marriage has been a legal institution for quite a while and has been discriminatory all along, so the above statement is false. Did you mean "_should_ be non-discriminatory"? If so, from where do you derive this moral imperative?
> calling it a simple rephrasing is dishonest
Thanks for the information that they are different. I haven't studied the difference between the two; that's why my statement included the disclaimer "hm. I'm not sure."
> come up with a supportable, non-religion-based
There is none. If right and wrong are arbitrary, anything is permissable.
To turn the question around: if you can come up with a supportable, non-religion-based argument as to why the definition of marriage should be expanded to include gays, I'd be perfectly willing to consider it. As you craft this argument, please refrain from employing moral language like "should" and "fairness".
> It is very apparent [...] that such things > are not okay
I agree, but for a different reason. I feel that these things are not OK because God says so. Why do you feel they are not OK?
> universally outlawed by almost all societies
If something is "outlawed by almost all societies", does that make it wrong? How about if something is accepted by almost all societies? Is it then right?
> texts of Judeo-Christian religions
Correct.
> you'll usually get a "WTF is the problem? > It doesn't hurt anyone"
Or, for some atheistic regimes, you'll get a "these people will be shot". Or, in China, subjected to shock treatment. Or other arbitrary punishments. At least a Christian can (and should) acknowledge that he, too, is a sinner.
> Ask a fundamentalist Christian and you > get Bible quotes
Of course. That's because the Bible condemns homosexuality as one of many sexual sins.
> this country claims a seperation of > church and state
That is true, America has separation of church and state. That's why we have a President, not a Pope or a Bishop.
At the same time, see the Declaration of Independence - "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights".
Can we reconcile "separation of church and state" with "endowed by their Creator with [...] rights"? I believe we can.
> the legal (civil) status of gay marriage
From what is the legal definition of marriage derived? If the definition of marriage is arbitrary, then you're correct - nothing should prevent the concept of marriage from being expanded to include anything - 1 day "term" marriages, marriages between people and animals, marriages between people and objects, etc.
> you're being intellectually dishonest > and hypocritcal
I agree.
> why you feel threatened by the concept > of gay marriage
Perhaps this should be rephrased as "gay civil unions". Then the hot button 'marriage' wouldn't be in there. Hm. Maybe that's not a useful distinction. I'm not sure.
> including stories of incest, rape, genocide, etc
Yes, the Bible contains both history and instruction.
> the Old isn't really the 'way it is.'
Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them". The people you have spoken to are mistaken.
Slashdot Mirror
> 300,000 lines of functionality
If you have this much code, I bet there's some duplicated code in there. Ferret it out with CPD and you'll have that much less code to write tests for.
It probably wouldn't hurt to search for unused code while you're at it - again, you'll reduce the amount of code you need to write tests for.
I think Mauricio is in the process of moving it over to RubyForge...
This hourly build is driven by Ruby and Ant for the exact reasons that you mention - Ruby's great at parsing text (or XML using REXML).
Eclipse does more than just Java, too... check out the Ruby language support here.
Whatever you do, don't mention the war!
...are available on RubyForge. Makes it even easier to reuse .NET code...
> or better yet rsync
Yup. On RubyForge we run a rsync job over stunnel to iBackup every 6 hours.
This works like a charm; it only takes a minute or two to run (that is, except after the nightly Postgres backup, when it takes about 20 minutes to send over the new database dump). It's an easy way to have an offsite backup.
...there's a Ruby to .NET bridge over on RubyForge.
Not sure how much effort it would be to get it working with dotgnu as well... maybe it wouldn't be too bad since much of the connector code appears to be in lib/dotnet/bridge.rb. Lots of C# code in there, though.
> it is now the standard for companies needing a
:-). But PG handles RubyForge - 180,000 records, about 20K hits per day - just fine.
> low or mid range solution
Is it?
> it improves with each iteration.
As does Postgres.
> Our needs aren't high-end, but it handles
> our 300GB databases
That's a lot higher-end than where I'm at
It's yet another GForge installation.
> the notion that the government should use
> the LEAST AMOUNT OF POWER necessary
Right you are. And the interpretation of "Constitutional mandates" keeps expanding.
> when government is the BIGGEST corporation
> of them all, and the ONLY one (well, the RIAA
> is close now) that has the power to use \
> guns to enforce it's will...
Exactly right. Dinesh D'Souza has a neat way of putting this in Letters To A Young Conservative. He says something to the effect of "any clerk at the IRS has more power than the CEO of General Motors. Why? Suppose I go to that clerk and say 'I won't pay Social Security anymore. I don't want any money when I retire, I'll depend on my own means or that of my friends or children or whatever.' What will happen? Well, the IRS will send me letters for a while, and then they'll send people to take me to jail. If I try to defend myself, I'll be shot."
The government is different from a corporation. It has guns, and it makes the laws. This doesn't mean the government is bad... but it's... different. There's a lot of power there, and a need for responsibility.
> charge by either ethernet frames or TCP packets
Time to change that TCP window size.
More than I'd expect from a post by someone named "Anonymous".
> basic morality is inborn
Then why do we violate it so frequently?
> Bush just recently claimed that "god told
> him to attack Iraq"
This alleged quote is from Haaratz quoting Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas as saying in a meeting with other Palestinian that Bush told him this. The reliability of that chain of sources is questionable, to say the least.
> Look at how many religious leaders got
> their followers to kill people
This also applies to atheistic leaders - Stalin - and pagan leaders - Hitler. There's no monopoly on cruelty.
The 14th amendment - to which I presume you're referring, if not, please correct me - says that all citizens have the same "privileges or immunities". It does not, however, say that all behaviors are entitled to be granted the same legal status.
> is not a document with any legal
> "teeth" behind it.
True. It does, however, state some of the principles under which America was founded. Thus it helps us understand why America has some of the laws that it does.
> is NOT a legal document
... religious freedom."
It does, however, reflect some principles upon which America was founded.
> The Constitution
Yup, the Constitution lays low on religion. Quite neutral.
> Jefferson [...]specifically chose
> religiously generic language
Jefferson also wrote letters later in life saying that he did not want his administration to be a "government without religion," but one that would "strengthen
> What the current definition of marriage
> is or where it came from is irrelevant.
Quite to the contrary. If we seek to redefine marriage we should take the time to learn why laws regarding marriage were created.
> As long as marriage is a legal institution
> it must be non-descriminatory
Marriage has been a legal institution for quite a while and has been discriminatory all along, so the above statement is false. Did you mean "_should_ be non-discriminatory"? If so, from where do you derive this moral imperative?
> calling it a simple rephrasing is dishonest
Thanks for the information that they are different. I haven't studied the difference between the two; that's why my statement included the disclaimer "hm. I'm not sure."
> come up with a supportable, non-religion-based
There is none. If right and wrong are arbitrary, anything is permissable.
To turn the question around: if you can come up with a supportable, non-religion-based argument as to why the definition of marriage should be expanded to include gays, I'd be perfectly willing to consider it. As you craft this argument, please refrain from employing moral language like "should" and "fairness".
> I disagree
Fair enough.
> They serve the needs of society
And why is that a good thing?
> very quickly falls into disorder and chaos
And why is that a bad thing?
> It is very apparent [...] that such things
> are not okay
I agree, but for a different reason. I feel that these things are not OK because God says so. Why do you feel they are not OK?
> universally outlawed by almost all societies
If something is "outlawed by almost all societies", does that make it wrong? How about if something is accepted by almost all societies? Is it then right?
> texts of Judeo-Christian religions
Correct.
> you'll usually get a "WTF is the problem?
> It doesn't hurt anyone"
Or, for some atheistic regimes, you'll get a "these people will be shot". Or, in China, subjected to shock treatment. Or other arbitrary punishments. At least a Christian can (and should) acknowledge that he, too, is a sinner.
> Ask a fundamentalist Christian and you
> get Bible quotes
Of course. That's because the Bible condemns homosexuality as one of many sexual sins.
> this country claims a seperation of
> church and state
That is true, America has separation of church and state. That's why we have a President, not a Pope or a Bishop.
At the same time, see the Declaration of Independence - "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights".
Can we reconcile "separation of church and state" with "endowed by their Creator with [...] rights"? I believe we can.
> the legal (civil) status of gay marriage
From what is the legal definition of marriage derived? If the definition of marriage is arbitrary, then you're correct - nothing should prevent the concept of marriage from being expanded to include anything - 1 day "term" marriages, marriages between people and animals, marriages between people and objects, etc.
> you're being intellectually dishonest
> and hypocritcal
I agree.
> why you feel threatened by the concept
> of gay marriage
Perhaps this should be rephrased as "gay civil unions". Then the hot button 'marriage' wouldn't be in there. Hm. Maybe that's not a useful distinction. I'm not sure.
> Leviticus 19:
These commandments were made by God to the Jewish people at that time.
> they are sinners too
That's certainly true enough; we're all sinners.
> including stories of incest, rape, genocide, etc
Yes, the Bible contains both history and instruction.
> the Old isn't really the 'way it is.'
Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them". The people you have spoken to are mistaken.
> Hipocracy is older than that book
Sin is old. God is older. And He is good.
> It is very difficult to make an argument
> against the ethicality of homosexuality
> without relying on interpretations of
> religious texts.
It's very difficult to make an ethical argument about _anything_ without relying on interpretations of religious texts.
> other less well suited individuals
There's no such thing. See the Declaration of Independence and, more importantly, the Bible.
> prevent my government from running amok
That would deny the nature of government.
> compulsion to meddle in the affairs of others
Preserving life != meddling.
> You belittle all liberty, not just "privacy"
This statement constitutes an ad hominem argument. Come now, you're better than that!
> interfere inside a citizen's body
Generally, yes, of course. However, human reproduction being what it is, one citizen lives inside another for 9 months.
> That should remain a person's sovereign domain
Unless it affects another person - which is most certainly does, in this case.
> privacy is a lynchpin of free expression
Right, but privacy doesn't allow me to kill other people.
> It's no trivial thing to mess with
Nor is a baby's life.
> You belittle it with no real understanding
I seek not to belittle privacy - only to suggest that a child's life is more important.