It strikes me that relying on callers to correctly test their code for incompatible types is asking for trouble. Expecting callers to know what a function can do (by Reading The FM) seems overly optimistic.
But then again, the evil empire's ecosystem works not because we can read each other's source code but because we buy each other's dlls and expect them to expose trivially simple interfaces. If it don't say "I take strings too," it don't take strings.
Someone explain to me why dynamic typing is a good thing. I usually think dynamic typing means insidious bugs that are really hard to hunt down. I was quite suprised to see dynamic typing when I first checked out Python.
-Walk into cybercafe -Try to reboot pc, discover it is locked down. -Get special dispensation from coffee slinger guy -Reboot. -Assume Knoppix likes hardware -Attempt to connect to network -Lacking network permissions, ask coffee slinger guy for those permissions. He doesn't know the settings, has to call the owner on his cell to get info.. -Assume owner picks up and understands request. -Assume owner doesn't tell you to forget it, and actually remembers settings/provides them. -Insert other nonsense here -Finally, check balance.
Clearly some people let their advocacy agenda ("Windoze blows! Linux rules!") get ahead of common sense.
Of course, this is coming from a guy who is switching banks over bad web design/usability issues. (Citsibusiness.com I'm looking at you!) Maybe some customers are willing to jump through hoops to satisfy their banks, but I doubt it.
I once outsourced an ASP 3.0 job. It came back in server side javascript. Yeah, I guess you *can* write ASP in javascript, but nobody does. I sent the code back and told them to do it like the other 99.999% of ASP.
FWIW, I started in VB and still prefer the verbose approach to flow control. Nest a while, a for, a case, and an if statement together in VB and in C# and you will immediately see which is easier to figure out. "End If" is pretty clear what it does. "}" depends on position. Of course, there is the argument that using {}'s encourages you to avoid big gnarly flow control messes, but that doesn't mean people don't do it.
Somebody should develop a tool to bombard their websites with junk data. They want acct #s and passwords? Give em 10,000 fake ones for every real one. Let them try and figure out which is which. It could even be a distributed app: FoilPhishers@Home.
But yeah, send 'em to Federal PMITA prison at first opportunity too.
Actually, its about secret administrative directives on technical matters that are authorized by enormous public laws that are debated in public by elected representatives.
But that wouldn't fuel your sense of outrage, and correspondingly support your fantasies that you are living in exciting dramatic times straight out of a crappy distopian science fiction novel.
OK, I'll bite. Why is it so outrageous that airline security policies are not made public?
I can see the visible parts of the secret procedures: show your ID, ditch all your change before going through the metal detectors. I don't know how exactly the ID info gets used or what threshold the metal detector ignores, but it makes good sense for people outside the security apparatus to be ignorant of this. Otherwise, the value of these techniques falls precipitously.
If I didn't like showing my ID or going through a metal detector, I could still pester my congressman. Of course, I would probably be ignored because most folks don't have a problem with this stuff as it all seems to be common sense.
Let's also add that there is absolutely no incentive for accurate or readable work.
Wiki contributors aren't paid, it doesn't count towards publication for tenure, and your hard work and expertise is likely to be overridden by some ignoramus anyway. Why would anyone with anything to contribute exert effort the to do so? Brittanica authors by contrast, get paid for articles and tend to be written by recognized experts or at least junior experts in need of some cash.
Their review process could always improve, but that is hardly a reason to embrace the faith-based approach like wikipedia for all human knowledge.
Most complaints about Britannica and such come from those who don't understand how to use it. It isn't going to tell you everything you need to know about a subject. It will give you a concise overview that should give you an appreciation for the main outlines of a topic and some notion where to go next.
These guys are in the business of stealing other people's intellectual property. Why get picky now? Keeping this stuff out of memos is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Yep. I goofed. I even looked it up then didn't change the text. 10K, yes. 13K, no. So let's fix it: there aren't many 13K+ routes, like 10 per day.
Other than Quantas, who really needs a plane that can go more than 13,000 km in any one direction? Are there really lots of people clamouring for the opportunity to spend more than 17 hours at a stretch in coach?
I would really doubt that range = better fuel economy on shorter trips. I would really, really doubt bigger range = cheaper to operate. After all, empty giant fuel tanks cost money to buy and haul around. Better shorter range with paying cargo/passengers.
Keep in mind that the A340 is a 4 engine aircraft, wheras Boeing is focusing on 2 engine jets. The 777 had to comission new insanely huge engines in order to acheive that.
A relative who works for United says it makes a huge difference in maint times. 4 oil changes instead of 2. 4 engine overhauls instead of 2. etc.
Range: There are very few destinations that are more than 10,000 km apart. What are we talking about? 15 flights per day worldwide? Only so many people want to fly betwen Sydney and New York.
I think what Boeing is really doing here is finding markets where Airbus has nothing. They don't have a viable competitor to the 777 or the proposed 7E7. That's where the high margins lie. Why fight over a super jumbo when you can clean up in other markets?
Keep in mind that this assumes that traffic will continue to be small city --> hub --> hub --> small city. So to fly from Detroit (America's auto city) to Chongqing (China's auto city) you fly Detroit-->Chicago-->Beijing-->Chongqing.
The A380 model requires this to continue to be the case. The 7E7 model figures people will prefer Detroit-->Chongqing. I have no idea which model will represent the future of aviation, but neither seems stupid.
For domestic flights, the US workhorse is the tiny 737, not the giant 747. People prefer lots of convenient flights to one giant flight per day between destinations. I wouldn't expect that to change either. If the big planes always beat small ones, we would expect the US airfleet to be all 747s. That isn't the case.
First, I think it's also to learn macroeconomics, if you plan on becoming anything more than a cubicle-dwelling drone. If you want to take mattesr into your own hands, you have to have a good understanding of the big picture.
Actually, if you want to take matters into your own hands and start a business, you will need micro. I took macro, and while I understand why daily newspaper a lot better, I still wish I knew the business basics that are covered in every micro class. Sure, I can read "microeconomics in 30 seconds" or "microeconomics for idiots," but those are a poor substitute for a good teacher, a good text, and good assignments.
Go read! Better than that, get a university degree. The more liberal the better. Couldn't agree more. I have stopped hiring interns from deep within the CS department. They just couldn't grasp the user issues. They thought specs just fell from the sky. They were unable to connect their software to the people who actually used it all day. My liberal arts college grads (who majored in CS or econ or history or whatever) instinctively understood that their job was solving people's problems. The engineers didn't. They were trained how to build stuff, but they weren't trained to think about people's needs. The tech stuff they can always learn. I'm not so sure about the thinking patterns.
By adding a dubious, four year old dig at MS to the post, they manage to get the reviewer's actual comments ignored in favor of yet another M$ sux thread. Good going guys!
Advertising works. But you are aware it costs money? Real money, like hundreds of thousands of dollars for a one shot two page ad, not the use of someone else's banwith that spam costs. If spam has a 1/10000 sucess rate at $10 in sending costs, it is a bargain. If a two page ad has a 1/10000 sucess rate at $300,000 in advertsing costs, it is a disaster.
So that single ad, backed by no coherent marketing strategy got what, 20 new users? Why not just find those 20 people and write them a check for $7,000 a piece? It would be a better use of resources.
Attention fan boys: just because you like the product or the ideology that goes along with it doesn't mean you must like every idiotic thing that the foundation does.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, you used an actual piece of evidence to suggest that imperfect security measures with minimal civil rights impacts might be a good thing.
Isn't that somehow prohibited in YRO threads?
Thanks for the post. I see why it might be a good thing, but I still wouldn't do it.
.Net I can see how I achieve the same results by implementing multiple overloaded versions of (basically) the same function.
r ing())u nction(ISomeMultiLineInterface)
Working mostly in
MyCatlikeFunction(String)
MyCatlikeFunction(St
MyCatlikeFunction(FileObject)
MyCatlikeF
More work for the author, less for the caller.
It strikes me that relying on callers to correctly test their code for incompatible types is asking for trouble. Expecting callers to know what a function can do (by Reading The FM) seems overly optimistic.
But then again, the evil empire's ecosystem works not because we can read each other's source code but because we buy each other's dlls and expect them to expose trivially simple interfaces. If it don't say "I take strings too," it don't take strings.
Someone explain to me why dynamic typing is a good thing. I usually think dynamic typing means insidious bugs that are really hard to hunt down. I was quite suprised to see dynamic typing when I first checked out Python.
And if your aren't at home, let's also add:
-Walk into cybercafe
-Try to reboot pc, discover it is locked down.
-Get special dispensation from coffee slinger guy
-Reboot.
-Assume Knoppix likes hardware
-Attempt to connect to network
-Lacking network permissions, ask coffee slinger guy for those permissions. He doesn't know the settings, has to call the owner on his cell to get info..
-Assume owner picks up and understands request.
-Assume owner doesn't tell you to forget it, and actually remembers settings/provides them.
-Insert other nonsense here
-Finally, check balance.
Clearly some people let their advocacy agenda ("Windoze blows! Linux rules!") get ahead of common sense.
Of course, this is coming from a guy who is switching banks over bad web design/usability issues. (Citsibusiness.com I'm looking at you!) Maybe some customers are willing to jump through hoops to satisfy their banks, but I doubt it.
To hijack the thread, where should those of us who are not drooling, slavishly anti-Microsoft cretins go?
Any suggestions are welcome.
Whoever supports that will hate you.
I once outsourced an ASP 3.0 job. It came back in server side javascript. Yeah, I guess you *can* write ASP in javascript, but nobody does. I sent the code back and told them to do it like the other 99.999% of ASP.
FWIW, I started in VB and still prefer the verbose approach to flow control. Nest a while, a for, a case, and an if statement together in VB and in C# and you will immediately see which is easier to figure out. "End If" is pretty clear what it does. "}" depends on position. Of course, there is the argument that using {}'s encourages you to avoid big gnarly flow control messes, but that doesn't mean people don't do it.
Somebody should develop a tool to bombard their websites with junk data. They want acct #s and passwords? Give em 10,000 fake ones for every real one. Let them try and figure out which is which. It could even be a distributed app: FoilPhishers@Home.
But yeah, send 'em to Federal PMITA prison at first opportunity too.
Actually, its about secret administrative directives on technical matters that are authorized by enormous public laws that are debated in public by elected representatives.
But that wouldn't fuel your sense of outrage, and correspondingly support your fantasies that you are living in exciting dramatic times straight out of a crappy distopian science fiction novel.
I'm sure.
OK, I'll bite. Why is it so outrageous that airline security policies are not made public?
I can see the visible parts of the secret procedures: show your ID, ditch all your change before going through the metal detectors. I don't know how exactly the ID info gets used or what threshold the metal detector ignores, but it makes good sense for people outside the security apparatus to be ignorant of this. Otherwise, the value of these techniques falls precipitously.
If I didn't like showing my ID or going through a metal detector, I could still pester my congressman. Of course, I would probably be ignored because most folks don't have a problem with this stuff as it all seems to be common sense.
So how is this an outrage again?
You forgot to add "dumbass."
Let's also add that there is absolutely no incentive for accurate or readable work.
Wiki contributors aren't paid, it doesn't count towards publication for tenure, and your hard work and expertise is likely to be overridden by some ignoramus anyway. Why would anyone with anything to contribute exert effort the to do so? Brittanica authors by contrast, get paid for articles and tend to be written by recognized experts or at least junior experts in need of some cash.
Their review process could always improve, but that is hardly a reason to embrace the faith-based approach like wikipedia for all human knowledge.
Most complaints about Britannica and such come from those who don't understand how to use it. It isn't going to tell you everything you need to know about a subject. It will give you a concise overview that should give you an appreciation for the main outlines of a topic and some notion where to go next.
Which is a bigger threat?
Linux servers with intuitive, usable UI tools or worms targeting Windows/security issues?
Because making the browser into a great computing platform would commoditize the OS and their main source of revenue. They don't want good web apps.
These guys are in the business of stealing other people's intellectual property. Why get picky now? Keeping this stuff out of memos is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Separate then question is basic investigating technique.
1: "We met in college in 1998."
2: "We met through work last year."
oops.
Lying is hard. Two people lying is harder. Investigators know that.
You might have been picked at random, or for cause, or to give someone on the job practice on live subjects. Who knows?
Richard Reid attacked AA flight 63 Paris-Miami. With the name "American" right on the side of the damn plane, they might be a bit nervous.
As with most YRO stories, which of "your" "rights" were threatened "online" again?
Yep. I goofed. I even looked it up then didn't change the text. 10K, yes. 13K, no. So let's fix it: there aren't many 13K+ routes, like 10 per day.
Other than Quantas, who really needs a plane that can go more than 13,000 km in any one direction? Are there really lots of people clamouring for the opportunity to spend more than 17 hours at a stretch in coach?
I would really doubt that range = better fuel economy on shorter trips. I would really, really doubt bigger range = cheaper to operate. After all, empty giant fuel tanks cost money to buy and haul around. Better shorter range with paying cargo/passengers.
Keep in mind that the A340 is a 4 engine aircraft, wheras Boeing is focusing on 2 engine jets. The 777 had to comission new insanely huge engines in order to acheive that.
A relative who works for United says it makes a huge difference in maint times. 4 oil changes instead of 2. 4 engine overhauls instead of 2. etc.
Range: There are very few destinations that are more than 10,000 km apart. What are we talking about? 15 flights per day worldwide? Only so many people want to fly betwen Sydney and New York.
I think what Boeing is really doing here is finding markets where Airbus has nothing. They don't have a viable competitor to the 777 or the proposed 7E7. That's where the high margins lie. Why fight over a super jumbo when you can clean up in other markets?
Keep in mind that this assumes that traffic will continue to be small city --> hub --> hub --> small city. So to fly from Detroit (America's auto city) to Chongqing (China's auto city) you fly Detroit-->Chicago-->Beijing-->Chongqing.
The A380 model requires this to continue to be the case. The 7E7 model figures people will prefer Detroit-->Chongqing. I have no idea which model will represent the future of aviation, but neither seems stupid.
For domestic flights, the US workhorse is the tiny 737, not the giant 747. People prefer lots of convenient flights to one giant flight per day between destinations. I wouldn't expect that to change either. If the big planes always beat small ones, we would expect the US airfleet to be all 747s. That isn't the case.
First, I think it's also to learn macroeconomics, if you plan on becoming anything more than a cubicle-dwelling drone. If you want to take mattesr into your own hands, you have to have a good understanding of the big picture.
Actually, if you want to take matters into your own hands and start a business, you will need micro. I took macro, and while I understand why daily newspaper a lot better, I still wish I knew the business basics that are covered in every micro class. Sure, I can read "microeconomics in 30 seconds" or "microeconomics for idiots," but those are a poor substitute for a good teacher, a good text, and good assignments.
Go read! Better than that, get a university degree. The more liberal the better.
Couldn't agree more. I have stopped hiring interns from deep within the CS department. They just couldn't grasp the user issues. They thought specs just fell from the sky. They were unable to connect their software to the people who actually used it all day. My liberal arts college grads (who majored in CS or econ or history or whatever) instinctively understood that their job was solving people's problems. The engineers didn't. They were trained how to build stuff, but they weren't trained to think about people's needs. The tech stuff they can always learn. I'm not so sure about the thinking patterns.
By adding a dubious, four year old dig at MS to the post, they manage to get the reviewer's actual comments ignored in favor of yet another M$ sux thread.
Good going guys!
I cant believe the above anon troll was modded up + 5.
You're reading slashdot. Anything that bashes MS, no matter how ignorant, is "insightful."
Advertising works.
But you are aware it costs money? Real money, like hundreds of thousands of dollars for a one shot two page ad, not the use of someone else's banwith that spam costs. If spam has a 1/10000 sucess rate at $10 in sending costs, it is a bargain. If a two page ad has a 1/10000 sucess rate at $300,000 in advertsing costs, it is a disaster.
So that single ad, backed by no coherent marketing strategy got what, 20 new users? Why not just find those 20 people and write them a check for $7,000 a piece? It would be a better use of resources.
Attention fan boys: just because you like the product or the ideology that goes along with it doesn't mean you must like every idiotic thing that the foundation does.