Then you probably don't know what spreadsheets with formula are capable of...
I think I know python pretty well, but there are many things I don't know how to do with a spreadsheet that people who *really* know excel well can do... They're usually found in the finance industry, the people who have no programming training and can't write proper programs, but make up for it by "programming" excel spreadsheets like a guru.
1 hour train ride? Maybe, if you plan it beforehand and take the bullet Caltrain at a specific time of the day.
And that doesn't count the fact that to get to anywhere interesting from King & 4th you'd spend another half hour on public transport (or walking).
Driving is a bit better (1 hour is doable) if you can find somewhere to park in SF, and of course avoid the hours where the city is full of traffic...
I consider it lucky to be able to get from SJ to SF under 1.5 hours with public transport, and just assuming it will take 2 hours will make things less frustrating most of the time...
Show me a toilet seat made by people who don't care and I'll show you a fucked up toilet seat.
Maybe not toilet seats, but it applies to a lot of things. But then, if you've been to Japan and used a toilet there, you might agree that the toilet seats you've been using aren't really that great.
Besides, how is a person passionate about making toilet seats fucked up? If the toilet seats he makes is better than the competition, he makes better profits, and is happy about doing it. You, on the other hand, are sulking about people actually happy with their jobs. I'm really not sure who's the fucked up person...
If a person works 9 to 5 and spends his time at work doing his job as best as he can, with passion and heart, then he is passionate enough for me.
There's nothing inconsistent with being passionate about your job, and shutting down after working hours. I'm not sure what is the alternative ideal you propose -- unless you'd rather people hate their jobs and spend as much time reading slashdot at work as possible?
You know, on my death bed if all I accomplished in life was just having spent time with my family, that would be a very bland one indeed. It's not like nobody has time to spend a few hours a day doing something they really like doing, right?
And no I'm not in management. I'm just a lowly employee who finds that liking your job is better than hating it.
The people who are most likely to sue you for damages are probably the people who had no fscking idea that some obscure component used your software, let alone have seen your license.
Despite the claims of pseudo-lawyers, most software licenses do create contractual obligations on the licensor and licensee. Let's say the aircraft company hires a contractor to write a component for their plane controller. The contractor uses your OSS to do it. That disclaimer is valid against the contractor. Let's say the contractor compiles the software into binary code, and just gives the binary to the aircraft company. Now, depending on the license, the aircraft company probably has no notice of the license, and thus cannot be bound to it. And of course, the passengers, the nuclear power company, the poor residents living nearby, wouldn't have seen or known about your fancy license either. Thus, they can't be held against it either.
So in cases like these, your fancy disclaimer does (almost) nothing at all. There are some licenses which require all derivative works to display the disclaimer, but they don't help much.
It's still probably better than nothing though, but it's less useful than you'd think.
If I'm not very mistaken, a Hong Kong Chinese resident can request the Chinese embassy redirect passport application requests to the relevant government departments in Hong Kong to get a "Hong Kong, China" passport. It's kind of a "special version" of the Chinese passport that gets treated quite differently (usually in a good way) by most immigration departments in the world.
Hong Kong permanent residents can't get a vanilla "Chinese" passports though.
By "hindering the development of a YouTube app" you actually mean requiring Microsoft to obey the terms of service, right? The sort of co-operation Page was talking about doesn't mean Microsoft can do whatever they want, demand whatever they want, and everyone gives it to them on a plate for nothing. It means cooperating to find a reasonable solution that works for everyone. In this case, there's already an HTML5 website Windows Phone users can access, and if WP becomes popular enough then probably Google would make a native app that follows content creators requirements and allows the site to be funded. Or maybe provide the access they need to build a proper app that does follow the ToS. After all, that's what happened with the iPhone app despite the iPhone being Android's biggest competitor (it started out written by Apple and later moved to being written by Google).
This is sickening. If your views are representative of how everyone in Google thinks about the fiasco (I honestly hope not), the kool-aid you're drinking must be wonderful.
Perhaps "cooperation" in Google really means "just play by my rules but we won't help you unless there's profit to be made", but it's not how the world is understood by the normal person. Make no mistake, I do think Microsoft is being a dick when they decided to intentionally ignore Youtube terms and conditions when making their own app, but I don't think this vindicates the behavior of Google trying to block them from making a native app. Besides, if Microsoft is doing this as a calculated move to force Google back to the negotiation table for youtube API access, then that says a lot about Google's commitment to practice what they preach about "cooperation".
"Cooperation" doesn't mean "we'll help you if the venture becomes so profitable that we just can't ignore you", just as "cooperation" doesn't mean "we'll comply with your terms after you send us C&D letters". "Cooperation" doesn't mean "be nice to us, maybe one day we'll do a favor for you (no guarantees!)".
To be clear, I don't think there's a moral duty for Google to provide competitor's platforms with the best experience (if HTML5 was so great, why would Google bother to write a native app?) when using Google's services, after all, it's a dog eat dog world out there. However, the "cooperation", "play nice" message by your Great Infallible CEO is sickenly hypocritical at best. Hint: when you make the world a better place, you make the first step. You don't point fingers at everyone else demanding they comply with your grand visions and blaming them when it doesn't work out.
It's also funny how you lambast Microsoft over aggressive license fees, then in the same post justify how complying with Youtube's terms and licenses (c.f. "funded") is so important. I mean, proprietary is bad when you can't use it, right?
What the consensus means is that we are idiots to not invest in trying to avoid it.
Wait, what?
Let's assume it is unquestionably true that AGW is true. Why does it follow that we should invest in trying to avoid it?
I'm not saying it's unequivocally a bad idea to do so, but given that you're using the term "invest", you probably know you have the cost of investment and the expected payout. How could you intelligently invest in something if you don't even have these figured out?
I haven't heard of any solid data suggesting what the actual cost and benefits are, beyond the "sky is falling" arguments, which I don't think is what the 97% consensus is about. Besides, the point of "you're not a climate research scientist" goes both ways. On what grounds are scientists credible in making economic and policy changes without consulting actual economists and policy makers?
The problem is that science . . . as a scholarly field as opposed to the practice of science . . . has no way to deal with the idea that a significant percentage of our leaders are in willful denial of the sound science. The reality of the research is defeated by their ideology.
Mathematics as a scholarly field has no way to deal with the fact that idiots exist in this world either. Should we abolish logic and proofs, and just prove by consensus?
Like, "Euler thought this statement was true... who dares opine against him?"
You know what, this kind of thinking held back scientific progress for a while, when they thought Aristotle (and the community consensus) was infallible.
In case you don't know what it is, a counter example is a way to show that the original point was not as rigorous as it purports to be, by demonstrating a case that the claim does not hold.
The original (implicit) claim is that when 97% of scientists agree on something, it must be right. The GP provides a counter example. In doing so, he does not claim that his example is representative of the vast majority of similar cases.
I guess the problem with this story is that it's neither here nor there. Statements that 97% people believe in can be true (usually) or can be false (rarely). But given that we actually have evidence and data, why should we try to ascertain the truth by looking at what other people believe?
It's like having a headline "97% people believe the world is round" -- yeah it's probably true, but if you really want to know the truth badly enough, you don't ask around for personal belief statistics, you try to go around the world to see whether you can get back to the original spot.
Yes I do. Sort of. If everything is inherently mathematical, the very word of "mathematics" will become meaningless.
Just as you don't think about particle physics and thermaldynamics when you're cooking food, I don't think about mathematics when implementing a "onclick" function in a button.
Math is the basics of computer programming, as computer programs are mathematical algorithms.
This is simply wrong, especially the latter part. The former part is mostly a moot question on philosophical definitions, but to claim that (all) computer programs are mathematical algorithms is to ignore the fact that (for example) the web browser you're using to view my comment, is definitely not a mathematical algorithm in any commonly understood sense.
Sure, a bunch of underlying subroutines to parse the html content and constructing the data structures might be somewhat mathematical, but reading data from network, changing pixels on the screen, handling user input events, are definitely not "mathematical algorithms".
To be clear, I do think most computer programs are "algorithms" in the broad sense, but I don't see anything inherently "mathematical" about (for example) implementing the specs of HTML5, or handling a user clicking the submit button.
I guess it's my folly to actually expect more on slashdot, but there's more to CS and software than what they teach you in CS101.
I drove them crazy with forcing UML and unit tests and strong code review
You'd drive me crazy too (well, I'm a relatively "young guy"). UMLs are usually unhelpful. The problem is not so much on the details of UML, but the very concept of top-down design in non-trivial software. It simply does not work beyond using it as some basis of scribbling a draft at the very early stage of designing the framework or architecture of the software.
Unit tests have their uses but it depends on context (sometimes integration tests are more practical).
why aren't software companies clearly distinguishing between bugfixes and new feature releases? and why don't they offer long-term support contracts to ensure that all the bugs get fixed?
One word: SHINY!!!!. I mean, why fix the bugs on IE6 when you can upgrade to the LATEST, GREATEST, IE11 BETA????
It's actually really rare to find somebody who believes in not fixing things that are not sufficiently broken. Yes, even for people running software companies. And seriously, good luck finding a dev who's willing to fix bugs on IE6-only websites if they could make a good living developing the latest shiny.
Android stood on the shoulders of the "mess" that you're bashing as crappy. It's based on Linux kernel and toolset, and was born as a direct competitor to iOS, which had its roots in OSX. Besides, how is it not "reinventing the wheel, resolving old solved problems, etc., Stupid." ?
It is typically a thinly disguised Java programmer factory, since not enough schools make a distinction between computer science and software engineering
I don't know how you'd draw the line between CS and software engineering, but IMHO good software engineers worth their salt should know more than how to write vanilla code in Java. I mean, it's not like you need to write a parser or compiler every other week, but you actually do encounter those situations once a while.
The most unfortunate thing with the latter case is that when you really attempt to treat it like compiled Javascript, the gotchas with C++ is long enough to fill a thick book (literally).
Slashdot Mirror
Then you probably don't know what spreadsheets with formula are capable of...
I think I know python pretty well, but there are many things I don't know how to do with a spreadsheet that people who *really* know excel well can do... They're usually found in the finance industry, the people who have no programming training and can't write proper programs, but make up for it by "programming" excel spreadsheets like a guru.
1 hour train ride? Maybe, if you plan it beforehand and take the bullet Caltrain at a specific time of the day.
And that doesn't count the fact that to get to anywhere interesting from King & 4th you'd spend another half hour on public transport (or walking).
Driving is a bit better (1 hour is doable) if you can find somewhere to park in SF, and of course avoid the hours where the city is full of traffic...
I consider it lucky to be able to get from SJ to SF under 1.5 hours with public transport, and just assuming it will take 2 hours will make things less frustrating most of the time...
Where did it say hacking university is unauthorized war
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43224451/ns/us_news-security/t/sources-us-decides-cyber-attack-can-be-act-war/
Been living under a rock?
I personally don't think hacking should be even considered an act of war itself, but hey, I can't control what other people think.
Why would I feel better about China spying on me than I would about my own government spying on me?
I'm not American, and my outsider observation of American logic is this:
1. No nation should spy on their own civilians.
2. Other nations should never spy on Americans.
3. USA can spy on civilians of other nations.
i.e. as long as the Great American People are shielded from harm (or so they think), nobody really cares what the USA government does abroad.
So yes, nobody cares about what the USA government does to "them" if they're not Americans...
Replace "spy" by things like "illegal arrest", "unfair trial", "torture", whatever, and it still holds.
I didn't say it was logical or hypocrisy free. I'm actually surprised that apparently you're not aware of this.
Show me a toilet seat made by people who don't care and I'll show you a fucked up toilet seat.
Maybe not toilet seats, but it applies to a lot of things. But then, if you've been to Japan and used a toilet there, you might agree that the toilet seats you've been using aren't really that great.
Besides, how is a person passionate about making toilet seats fucked up? If the toilet seats he makes is better than the competition, he makes better profits, and is happy about doing it. You, on the other hand, are sulking about people actually happy with their jobs. I'm really not sure who's the fucked up person...
If a person works 9 to 5 and spends his time at work doing his job as best as he can, with passion and heart, then he is passionate enough for me.
There's nothing inconsistent with being passionate about your job, and shutting down after working hours. I'm not sure what is the alternative ideal you propose -- unless you'd rather people hate their jobs and spend as much time reading slashdot at work as possible?
You know, on my death bed if all I accomplished in life was just having spent time with my family, that would be a very bland one indeed. It's not like nobody has time to spend a few hours a day doing something they really like doing, right?
And no I'm not in management. I'm just a lowly employee who finds that liking your job is better than hating it.
[According to Common Law]
The people who are most likely to sue you for damages are probably the people who had no fscking idea that some obscure component used your software, let alone have seen your license.
Despite the claims of pseudo-lawyers, most software licenses do create contractual obligations on the licensor and licensee. Let's say the aircraft company hires a contractor to write a component for their plane controller. The contractor uses your OSS to do it. That disclaimer is valid against the contractor. Let's say the contractor compiles the software into binary code, and just gives the binary to the aircraft company. Now, depending on the license, the aircraft company probably has no notice of the license, and thus cannot be bound to it. And of course, the passengers, the nuclear power company, the poor residents living nearby, wouldn't have seen or known about your fancy license either. Thus, they can't be held against it either.
So in cases like these, your fancy disclaimer does (almost) nothing at all. There are some licenses which require all derivative works to display the disclaimer, but they don't help much.
It's still probably better than nothing though, but it's less useful than you'd think.
If I'm not very mistaken, a Hong Kong Chinese resident can request the Chinese embassy redirect passport application requests to the relevant government departments in Hong Kong to get a "Hong Kong, China" passport. It's kind of a "special version" of the Chinese passport that gets treated quite differently (usually in a good way) by most immigration departments in the world.
Hong Kong permanent residents can't get a vanilla "Chinese" passports though.
Surely you're not suggesting that non-state sponsored Chinese hackers have figured out how to get around the national firewall?
Getting around the GFW is a national pastime.
So, yes.
How the hell can you have an "approximate" number correct to 4 significant figures?
Yes you can. There's more to approximation than what you learned in elementary school...
(Besides, you can't fault them for not using base 10)
And those campaign managers will eventually be out of a job when the public gets desensitized and starts giving out "meh" responses.
By "hindering the development of a YouTube app" you actually mean requiring Microsoft to obey the terms of service, right? The sort of co-operation Page was talking about doesn't mean Microsoft can do whatever they want, demand whatever they want, and everyone gives it to them on a plate for nothing. It means cooperating to find a reasonable solution that works for everyone. In this case, there's already an HTML5 website Windows Phone users can access, and if WP becomes popular enough then probably Google would make a native app that follows content creators requirements and allows the site to be funded. Or maybe provide the access they need to build a proper app that does follow the ToS. After all, that's what happened with the iPhone app despite the iPhone being Android's biggest competitor (it started out written by Apple and later moved to being written by Google).
This is sickening. If your views are representative of how everyone in Google thinks about the fiasco (I honestly hope not), the kool-aid you're drinking must be wonderful.
Perhaps "cooperation" in Google really means "just play by my rules but we won't help you unless there's profit to be made", but it's not how the world is understood by the normal person. Make no mistake, I do think Microsoft is being a dick when they decided to intentionally ignore Youtube terms and conditions when making their own app, but I don't think this vindicates the behavior of Google trying to block them from making a native app. Besides, if Microsoft is doing this as a calculated move to force Google back to the negotiation table for youtube API access, then that says a lot about Google's commitment to practice what they preach about "cooperation".
"Cooperation" doesn't mean "we'll help you if the venture becomes so profitable that we just can't ignore you", just as "cooperation" doesn't mean "we'll comply with your terms after you send us C&D letters". "Cooperation" doesn't mean "be nice to us, maybe one day we'll do a favor for you (no guarantees!)".
To be clear, I don't think there's a moral duty for Google to provide competitor's platforms with the best experience (if HTML5 was so great, why would Google bother to write a native app?) when using Google's services, after all, it's a dog eat dog world out there. However, the "cooperation", "play nice" message by your Great Infallible CEO is sickenly hypocritical at best. Hint: when you make the world a better place, you make the first step. You don't point fingers at everyone else demanding they comply with your grand visions and blaming them when it doesn't work out.
It's also funny how you lambast Microsoft over aggressive license fees, then in the same post justify how complying with Youtube's terms and licenses (c.f. "funded") is so important. I mean, proprietary is bad when you can't use it, right?
Disclaimer: I don't work for Microsoft.
What the consensus means is that we are idiots to not invest in trying to avoid it.
Wait, what?
Let's assume it is unquestionably true that AGW is true. Why does it follow that we should invest in trying to avoid it?
I'm not saying it's unequivocally a bad idea to do so, but given that you're using the term "invest", you probably know you have the cost of investment and the expected payout. How could you intelligently invest in something if you don't even have these figured out?
I haven't heard of any solid data suggesting what the actual cost and benefits are, beyond the "sky is falling" arguments, which I don't think is what the 97% consensus is about. Besides, the point of "you're not a climate research scientist" goes both ways. On what grounds are scientists credible in making economic and policy changes without consulting actual economists and policy makers?
The problem is that science . . . as a scholarly field as opposed to the practice of science . . . has no way to deal with the idea that a significant percentage of our leaders are in willful denial of the sound science. The reality of the research is defeated by their ideology.
Mathematics as a scholarly field has no way to deal with the fact that idiots exist in this world either. Should we abolish logic and proofs, and just prove by consensus?
Like, "Euler thought this statement was true... who dares opine against him?"
You know what, this kind of thinking held back scientific progress for a while, when they thought Aristotle (and the community consensus) was infallible.
A counter example is, well, a counter example.
In case you don't know what it is, a counter example is a way to show that the original point was not as rigorous as it purports to be, by demonstrating a case that the claim does not hold.
The original (implicit) claim is that when 97% of scientists agree on something, it must be right. The GP provides a counter example. In doing so, he does not claim that his example is representative of the vast majority of similar cases.
I guess the problem with this story is that it's neither here nor there. Statements that 97% people believe in can be true (usually) or can be false (rarely). But given that we actually have evidence and data, why should we try to ascertain the truth by looking at what other people believe?
It's like having a headline "97% people believe the world is round" -- yeah it's probably true, but if you really want to know the truth badly enough, you don't ask around for personal belief statistics, you try to go around the world to see whether you can get back to the original spot.
Yes I do. Sort of. If everything is inherently mathematical, the very word of "mathematics" will become meaningless.
Just as you don't think about particle physics and thermaldynamics when you're cooking food, I don't think about mathematics when implementing a "onclick" function in a button.
Math is the basics of computer programming, as computer programs are mathematical algorithms.
This is simply wrong, especially the latter part. The former part is mostly a moot question on philosophical definitions, but to claim that (all) computer programs are mathematical algorithms is to ignore the fact that (for example) the web browser you're using to view my comment, is definitely not a mathematical algorithm in any commonly understood sense.
Sure, a bunch of underlying subroutines to parse the html content and constructing the data structures might be somewhat mathematical, but reading data from network, changing pixels on the screen, handling user input events, are definitely not "mathematical algorithms".
To be clear, I do think most computer programs are "algorithms" in the broad sense, but I don't see anything inherently "mathematical" about (for example) implementing the specs of HTML5, or handling a user clicking the submit button.
I guess it's my folly to actually expect more on slashdot, but there's more to CS and software than what they teach you in CS101.
I drove them crazy with forcing UML and unit tests and strong code review
You'd drive me crazy too (well, I'm a relatively "young guy"). UMLs are usually unhelpful. The problem is not so much on the details of UML, but the very concept of top-down design in non-trivial software. It simply does not work beyond using it as some basis of scribbling a draft at the very early stage of designing the framework or architecture of the software.
Unit tests have their uses but it depends on context (sometimes integration tests are more practical).
why aren't software companies clearly distinguishing between bugfixes and new feature releases? and why don't they offer long-term support contracts to ensure that all the bugs get fixed?
One word: SHINY!!!! . I mean, why fix the bugs on IE6 when you can upgrade to the LATEST, GREATEST, IE11 BETA????
It's actually really rare to find somebody who believes in not fixing things that are not sufficiently broken. Yes, even for people running software companies. And seriously, good luck finding a dev who's willing to fix bugs on IE6-only websites if they could make a good living developing the latest shiny.
"how hard can it be?"
That actually sounds like what you're saying!
Android stood on the shoulders of the "mess" that you're bashing as crappy. It's based on Linux kernel and toolset, and was born as a direct competitor to iOS, which had its roots in OSX. Besides, how is it not "reinventing the wheel, resolving old solved problems, etc., Stupid." ?
It is typically a thinly disguised Java programmer factory, since not enough schools make a distinction between computer science and software engineering
I don't know how you'd draw the line between CS and software engineering, but IMHO good software engineers worth their salt should know more than how to write vanilla code in Java. I mean, it's not like you need to write a parser or compiler every other week, but you actually do encounter those situations once a while.
I think he was aiming for +5 Funny.
Stupid mods...
The most unfortunate thing with the latter case is that when you really attempt to treat it like compiled Javascript, the gotchas with C++ is long enough to fill a thick book (literally).
An intelligent person comes to recognize that...
There's a reason why "PhD" is thought to be an abbreviation of "Permanent Head Damage".