For my website, http://www.badstep.net/, I edit the files in abiword then use an ant script to drive the export method from the CLI of Abiword.
The reason I use Abiword is that the HTML export is that much better than anything elsen (at the time I looked at it), including XHTML, which is cool for XSLT to transform.
I just wish the ant developers would integrate Cygwin better into ant so's the whole operation could be seamless.
yeah, they should shut those down as well. Anything that can be used to communicate should be strictly controlled and monitored. Any use of restricted keywords and that's it - lights out, a hellfire missle headed your way.
Looking at wikipedia, the Japanese were developing an atomic bomb from 1941 onwards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_progr am with both the Air Force and the Navy having programs. Considering that the Brits had cracked the German codes and the US (most) of the Japanese codes, I wonder how this info slipped through the US fingers? Why wasn't this used by Truman as yet another figleaf?
Ah, you misread my post, as I thought many would do.
I am arguing that Japan was on the verge of defeat in 1946 - they were ready to talk terms. The Tokyo firestorm killed more than the number of people killed at Hiroshima. The leadership knew the gig was up.
As I said, the allies were diverting enormous resources from the Western and Eastern fronts to the Pacific Theatre. These included a lot of the bombing squadrons responsible for the destruction of Germany. Armoured divisions and shipping as well. They'd even painted the Lancaster bombers ready for shipping when the bomb was dropped.
The route I argue that Truman should have taken would have had a lot more casualties. However, the warning for the world that Truman intended with the dropping of the bomb had difficult consequences, and was a strategic defeat. The US has had forces tied up in Europe for 40 years, been faced with a nuclear weapon which has been an economic and moral burden. It hasn't given the US the automatic de facto right to leadership it thought it would get with the bomb. Once the US had the bomb, it could not argue that others could not have the bomb. In addition, there have been numerous scale wars where the US "supremacy" in nuclear weapons has been pointless. The possession of the bomb has brought the world to the brink of destruction at least once. The world is, measurably, a less safe place. Now we have the real possibility of rogue nations such as Iran obtaining the bomb. In short, the US screwed up.
The gift of hindsight is always a wonderful thing. I think the loss of 2 or 3 divisions of Allied troops (and a larger number of civilian casualties - possibly 150,000 all told) in 1946 would have secured an unarmed peace *without* the perpetual threat of world destruction hanging over us. A 150,000 casualties is a lot but it would have a peace worth dieing would it not? However this would have required a resolve, subtly, a lack of hubris and sheer moral courage which I fear was and is simply lacking.
You don't know that. It's an untested assertion, and a fig-leaf invented by Truman and his advisers.
I think that the atomic bomb should not have been used. The whole atomic program should have been diverted to civilian use. Without the bomb, there would have been no cold war, no nations waiting to send each other to oblivion. A whole cold war could have been avoided. The atom bomb was too terrible to invent, let alone too terrible to use and we will always live with the consequences.
Of course, you might say that someone would have to invent. I say again that this is an untested assertion and spread of the bomb would be something that could *more* easiliy have been controlled by discussion and treaty than it is now.
What apologists forget is that the bomb program was going in 1942, way before the casualties in Okinawa were even thought of. The bomb was built because they thought that if the Germans built one, then the Germans would win the war. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp45 at.html) It had nothing to do with the Japanese.
Notably, the German research program ground to a halt because of the recalcitrance of German scientists to work on the German bomb - both Hahn and Heisenberg state this, which is a bit wierd until one considers that atomic science was tainted for the Nazis by Einsteins "jewish" science and their management structures were chaotic.
Ironically, it was Niels Bohr who speeded the Allied program with his message resulting from his famous conversation with Heisenberg. The message stated that the Germans were working on their bomb - Heisenberg later claimed that he was tryng to get Bohr *not* too work on the bomb. I am not convinced that this would have happened: there were a lot of anti-fascists of sufficient calibre to finish the bomb without Bohr, although Bohr's blessing helped. The Americans had the bit between their teeth at this stage and I think Little Man and Big Boy were to become a reality come what may. The *German* threat was felt to be that great.
The bomb, therefore, was not built in reaction to the casualties caused by the Japanese. Indeed, US casualty rates never much of a concern to anyone until Truman and his advisers came up with this fig-leaf. My opinion is that Truman did not want a large Russian presence in the Pacific. Neither would he tolerate a large British presence again. The allies were re-tooling their armed forces for the Far East prior to the bomb dropping, although it is debatable whether the British would have made a large contribution at this stage. The Russian threat seems more of a motivator.
"keeps staff happy". Umm. Tesco's staff - the bottom ranks - are amongst the lowest in the UK. I've talked to a few of their checkout people and they didn't seem that happy working for Tescos. It's a buyers market and Tesco's seem to know it. Of course, areas will differ.
Maven is frustrating close to what we want it's unreal:
* validate - validate the project is correct and all necessary information is available
* compile - compile the source code of the project
* test - test the compiled source code using a suitable unit testing framework. These tests should not require the code be packaged or deployed
* package - take the compiled code and package it in its distributable format, such as a JAR.
* integration-test - process and deploy the package if necessary into an environment where integration tests can be run
* verify - run any checks to verify the package is valid and meets quality criteria
* install - install the package into the local repository, for use as a dependency in other projects locally
* deploy - done in an integration or release environment, copies the final package to the remote repository for sharing with other developers and projects.
Except for the last two. The system I work with *never* installs it locally. The resultant builds are copied across to a central repository where the distributions (akin to Linux distribs) are then bundled together to form ISO images to await delivery to the end-user.
I think the focus for "my" system and Maven is that I'm involved in producing distribs for end users. Maven seems to have a different focus: producing artefacts for internal distribution and usage. If only there was a way of combining the two!
The similarities btn my requirements and Maven seem to be close but for this focus element. I think that would extend to the single project file as well. Now, if only Maven could be tweaked *just a little".
You miss the point: I tell my distribution system what to build by having a manifest which describes a distribution in XML. This manifest is given to the build system which then builds what's in the manifest. Maven doesnt come *near* this level of sophistication or simplicity. I've got one build script which parses the XML file and *then* works out what to build. I've got another build script that builds the distributions.
The problem we have is that I have to schedule builds on every damn server rather than just "make it so".
"Ready to be bundled". Any distribution-building-system will make the bundles and deliver them. And smoke-test the damn things into the bargain. My latest "innovation" to my company's system is to run a completeness test on the distribution to be shipped by installing it and comparing it to what we wanted. Then run a series of automated smoke tests across the results.
If you took the system described in the book, I'd have to build on it by adding a 1001 patch scripts to get it to do the rest of the things that I want. I want a system that I can extend in a rational, maintainable way. Umm. Maybe I should look at Maven 2. How does it handle scheduled events?
CruiseControl is OKish in a limited way. We've considered using it to replace our build script. I suppose what I really want CruiseControl to do is to add a collect event (or post-build) event, where the results of the build system get updated to the central repository. That would make sense. We could then treat CruiseControl in a dumb way - feed it events from the scheduler, and a script on the scheduler run through the schedule script. Umm. Sorry - went of into free-form.
Right off the bat I can see several crucial elements missing from this book: the distribution manifest. How do you assemble distributions and their components? Distributions are rarely, if ever, one complete product. A typical large product will contain a *lot* of sub-components and if you're working with cross-platform components, like I do, then how do you handle them? How do you tell the build system what to build *without* a manifest?
Then there's the knotty problem of scheduling. If you're building a release distribution a week, you need a hard-core scheduler to keep up with the demand.
It seems to that this is a pretty low-level book. Any build-manager with a reasonably complex build system should be looking at something like Parabuild. Or a scheduler like Maui.
Just look at the history of the US in Iraq and the sorry saga of corruption at the hands of the US government. Just to make it worse, it's the Iraq's money they're spending. And it runs into billions. I quote from the London Review of Books article, which in turn quotes from the GAO, DCAA, IAMB etc: $8.8 billon unaccounted for under the Bremer regime; Halliburton charging $2.64 per gallon to Iraqis ($1.57 for Americans); $3.4 billion congressional monies into 'security'; KBR (subsiduary of Halliburton) charging $73 million for motor caravans for the US army (twice as much as built accommadation), $88 million for meals to US troops it never served; oil exports unmetered; and so and so forth.
My favourite quote:
"An Iraqi hospital administrator told me that, as he was about to sign a contract, the American army officer representing the CPA had crossed out the original price and double it. The Iraqi protested that the original price was enough. The American officer explained that the increase (more than $1 million) was his retirement package."
So, given this level of institutional corruption and lack of oversight, the bloody events that continue day-to-day in Iraq, violating people's civil rights world-wide by "ghosting" suspects, trial without jury, lack of judicial process for those of us who are *not* Americans, does anyone really want this bloody, corrupt regime of a US govt controlling the top-level domains?
What's equally as scary is that some of the "conventional" weapons are getting to be as big as the nukes. The Daisy-cutter, for example. Sometimes you won't be able to tell the difference.
There's also the "highway of death". People have speculated that napalm or one of it's uglier cousins was used there. See here
"revolutionary" is the last you want for a consumer platform. Old, dog-eared, stable, maybe, but never "revolutionary". This is the lowest of the low, the workingest of the workingest. Please.
OTOH, I thought the posts by CMdr Taco have become *dumber*. Was this worth the asking?
In a word: political. I may be whistling in the dark here, but you note that the article goes into depth about how the website is funded. The way the BBC is funded is reviewed occasionally by the govt. There have been a lot of complaints recently by the BBC's competitors about how the BBC is taking *their* market. So, the cheaper the solution the better, and none cheaper in the TCO stakes than linux, regardless of the MS propaganda.
I'd splash this across every linux site I could find if I was a Linux evangelist.
They say that they're doing these things. Until somebody actually tries to build an app that exchanges file format and MS *lets them do it*, that will be the day. Until then, this is more vapourware.
If you stop spouting mindless propaganda, it just leaves their mindless rubbish to try and dominate "developer mindshare". And, oh look, there's those bloody TCO adverts on virtually *every* techsite I go to. The MS marketing budget must be keeping the commercial net *afloat*.
TFF Firefox and the anti-flash plugin.
I agree you should pick your battlegrounds wisely and leave nothing for the enemy to pick at. Witness the petstore project fiasco for java, where an un-tuned app meant for mere newbie step-up was turned against Java by.NET marketing producing a "faster", "better" version. And I see some are trumpeting the change-over from Bitkeeper to GIT as an example of OSS "failure". McVoy has lost out big-time and he *knows* it, hence his bitter flailings at linux. But hey, temporary losses for future gains, eh?
Marketing: it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it. O'wise, how do people know you've built a better mousetrap?
It's my understanding that most - no, all - US entertainment shows are written under a collaborative process. Including X-Files, Buffy, Friends, Seinfeld etc. All movies employ teams of writers, either consecutively or together. The UK has a tradition of lone writers however the series tend to be short-lived and not as successful. So come on already, enough of the lone creative genius. Genius schmenius. Huh!
Of course successful programs fall off towards the end. THey all do. That's why they're dropped
Woooww...I was with you there - even though "Real Genius" is unknown to me - until you got to this part:
"and even got laid."
Is this some parallel universe you live in? The definition of geek means that "getting laid" is restricted to chicken eggs. Maybe you should hand in your geek card right now?
Slashdot Mirror
No, seriously
For my website, http://www.badstep.net/, I edit the files in abiword then use an ant script to drive the export method from the CLI of Abiword.
The reason I use Abiword is that the HTML export is that much better than anything elsen (at the time I looked at it), including XHTML, which is cool for XSLT to transform.
I just wish the ant developers would integrate Cygwin better into ant so's the whole operation could be seamless.
Maybe the two are connected somehow? Just a thought.
yeah, they should shut those down as well. Anything that can be used to communicate should be strictly controlled and monitored. Any use of restricted keywords and that's it - lights out, a hellfire missle headed your way.
fucking mad.
Apologies. *you* are right.
r am
Looking at wikipedia, the Japanese were developing an atomic bomb from 1941 onwards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_prog
with both the Air Force and the Navy having programs. Considering that the Brits had cracked the German codes and the US (most) of the Japanese codes, I wonder how this info slipped through the US fingers? Why wasn't this used by Truman as yet another figleaf?
Doesn't invalidate my argument though, does it?
Ah, you misread my post, as I thought many would do.
I am arguing that Japan was on the verge of defeat in 1946 - they were ready to talk terms. The Tokyo firestorm killed more than the number of people killed at Hiroshima. The leadership knew the gig was up.
As I said, the allies were diverting enormous resources from the Western and Eastern fronts to the Pacific Theatre. These included a lot of the bombing squadrons responsible for the destruction of Germany. Armoured divisions and shipping as well. They'd even painted the Lancaster bombers ready for shipping when the bomb was dropped.
The route I argue that Truman should have taken would have had a lot more casualties. However, the warning for the world that Truman intended with the dropping of the bomb had difficult consequences, and was a strategic defeat. The US has had forces tied up in Europe for 40 years, been faced with a nuclear weapon which has been an economic and moral burden. It hasn't given the US the automatic de facto right to leadership it thought it would get with the bomb. Once the US had the bomb, it could not argue that others could not have the bomb. In addition, there have been numerous scale wars where the US "supremacy" in nuclear weapons has been pointless. The possession of the bomb has brought the world to the brink of destruction at least once. The world is, measurably, a less safe place. Now we have the real possibility of rogue nations such as Iran obtaining the bomb. In short, the US screwed up.
The gift of hindsight is always a wonderful thing. I think the loss of 2 or 3 divisions of Allied troops (and a larger number of civilian casualties - possibly 150,000 all told) in 1946 would have secured an unarmed peace *without* the perpetual threat of world destruction hanging over us. A 150,000 casualties is a lot but it would have a peace worth dieing would it not? However this would have required a resolve, subtly, a lack of hubris and sheer moral courage which I fear was and is simply lacking.
You don't know that. It's an untested assertion, and a fig-leaf invented by Truman and his advisers.
5 at.html) It had nothing to do with the Japanese.
I think that the atomic bomb should not have been used. The whole atomic program should have been diverted to civilian use. Without the bomb, there would have been no cold war, no nations waiting to send each other to oblivion. A whole cold war could have been avoided. The atom bomb was too terrible to invent, let alone too terrible to use and we will always live with the consequences.
Of course, you might say that someone would have to invent. I say again that this is an untested assertion and spread of the bomb would be something that could *more* easiliy have been controlled by discussion and treaty than it is now.
What apologists forget is that the bomb program was going in 1942, way before the casualties in Okinawa were even thought of. The bomb was built because they thought that if the Germans built one, then the Germans would win the war. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp4
Notably, the German research program ground to a halt because of the recalcitrance of German scientists to work on the German bomb - both Hahn and Heisenberg state this, which is a bit wierd until one considers that atomic science was tainted for the Nazis by Einsteins "jewish" science and their management structures were chaotic.
Ironically, it was Niels Bohr who speeded the Allied program with his message resulting from his famous conversation with Heisenberg. The message stated that the Germans were working on their bomb - Heisenberg later claimed that he was tryng to get Bohr *not* too work on the bomb. I am not convinced that this would have happened: there were a lot of anti-fascists of sufficient calibre to finish the bomb without Bohr, although Bohr's blessing helped. The Americans had the bit between their teeth at this stage and I think Little Man and Big Boy were to become a reality come what may. The *German* threat was felt to be that great.
The bomb, therefore, was not built in reaction to the casualties caused by the Japanese. Indeed, US casualty rates never much of a concern to anyone until Truman and his advisers came up with this fig-leaf. My opinion is that Truman did not want a large Russian presence in the Pacific. Neither would he tolerate a large British presence again. The allies were re-tooling their armed forces for the Far East prior to the bomb dropping, although it is debatable whether the British would have made a large contribution at this stage. The Russian threat seems more of a motivator.
h
"keeps staff happy". Umm. Tesco's staff - the bottom ranks - are amongst the lowest in the UK. I've talked to a few of their checkout people and they didn't seem that happy working for Tescos. It's a buyers market and Tesco's seem to know it. Of course, areas will differ.
Almost there. I can just see Johnny being launched from space...
a fad whose time has gone...
Lusar
Now, let's see *that* modded as funny
Maven is frustrating close to what we want it's unreal:
* validate - validate the project is correct and all necessary information is available
* compile - compile the source code of the project
* test - test the compiled source code using a suitable unit testing framework. These tests should not require the code be packaged or deployed
* package - take the compiled code and package it in its distributable format, such as a JAR.
* integration-test - process and deploy the package if necessary into an environment where integration tests can be run
* verify - run any checks to verify the package is valid and meets quality criteria
* install - install the package into the local repository, for use as a dependency in other projects locally
* deploy - done in an integration or release environment, copies the final package to the remote repository for sharing with other developers and projects.
Except for the last two. The system I work with *never* installs it locally. The resultant builds are copied across to a central repository where the distributions (akin to Linux distribs) are then bundled together to form ISO images to await delivery to the end-user.
I think the focus for "my" system and Maven is that I'm involved in producing distribs for end users. Maven seems to have a different focus: producing artefacts for internal distribution and usage. If only there was a way of combining the two!
The similarities btn my requirements and Maven seem to be close but for this focus element. I think that would extend to the single project file as well. Now, if only Maven could be tweaked *just a little".
You miss the point: I tell my distribution system what to build by having a manifest which describes a distribution in XML. This manifest is given to the build system which then builds what's in the manifest. Maven doesnt come *near* this level of sophistication or simplicity. I've got one build script which parses the XML file and *then* works out what to build. I've got another build script that builds the distributions.
The problem we have is that I have to schedule builds on every damn server rather than just "make it so".
"Ready to be bundled". Any distribution-building-system will make the bundles and deliver them. And smoke-test the damn things into the bargain. My latest "innovation" to my company's system is to run a completeness test on the distribution to be shipped by installing it and comparing it to what we wanted. Then run a series of automated smoke tests across the results.
If you took the system described in the book, I'd have to build on it by adding a 1001 patch scripts to get it to do the rest of the things that I want. I want a system that I can extend in a rational, maintainable way. Umm. Maybe I should look at Maven 2. How does it handle scheduled events?
CruiseControl is OKish in a limited way. We've considered using it to replace our build script. I suppose what I really want CruiseControl to do is to add a collect event (or post-build) event, where the results of the build system get updated to the central repository. That would make sense. We could then treat CruiseControl in a dumb way - feed it events from the scheduler, and a script on the scheduler run through the schedule script. Umm. Sorry - went of into free-form.
Right off the bat I can see several crucial elements missing from this book: the distribution manifest. How do you assemble distributions and their components? Distributions are rarely, if ever, one complete product. A typical large product will contain a *lot* of sub-components and if you're working with cross-platform components, like I do, then how do you handle them? How do you tell the build system what to build *without* a manifest?
Then there's the knotty problem of scheduling. If you're building a release distribution a week, you need a hard-core scheduler to keep up with the demand.
It seems to that this is a pretty low-level book. Any build-manager with a reasonably complex build system should be looking at something like Parabuild. Or a scheduler like Maui.
Just look at the history of the US in Iraq and the sorry saga of corruption at the hands of the US government. Just to make it worse, it's the Iraq's money they're spending. And it runs into billions. I quote from the London Review of Books article, which in turn quotes from the GAO, DCAA, IAMB etc: $8.8 billon unaccounted for under the Bremer regime; Halliburton charging $2.64 per gallon to Iraqis ($1.57 for Americans); $3.4 billion congressional monies into 'security'; KBR (subsiduary of Halliburton) charging $73 million for motor caravans for the US army (twice as much as built accommadation), $88 million for meals to US troops it never served; oil exports unmetered; and so and so forth.
My favourite quote:
"An Iraqi hospital administrator told me that, as he was about to sign a contract, the American army officer representing the CPA had crossed out the original price and double it. The Iraqi protested that the original price was enough. The American officer explained that the increase (more than $1 million) was his retirement package."
So, given this level of institutional corruption and lack of oversight, the bloody events that continue day-to-day in Iraq, violating people's civil rights world-wide by "ghosting" suspects, trial without jury, lack of judicial process for those of us who are *not* Americans, does anyone really want this bloody, corrupt regime of a US govt controlling the top-level domains?
I sure don't.
Your royal biatch is acceptable in some circles I believe as in: "Yo, royal biatch, get down NOW!"
What's equally as scary is that some of the "conventional" weapons are getting to be as big as the nukes. The Daisy-cutter, for example. Sometimes you won't be able to tell the difference.
There's also the "highway of death". People have speculated that napalm or one of it's uglier cousins was used there. See here
"revolutionary" is the last you want for a consumer platform. Old, dog-eared, stable, maybe, but never "revolutionary". This is the lowest of the low, the workingest of the workingest. Please.
OTOH, I thought the posts by CMdr Taco have become *dumber*. Was this worth the asking?
five years? I think it's taking a damn sight mre than that.
The Time Between Releases is becoming ever longer...
And I agree with the 2nd para. Mac OS X for the desktop, linux for the server...
In a word: political. I may be whistling in the dark here, but you note that the article goes into depth about how the website is funded. The way the BBC is funded is reviewed occasionally by the govt. There have been a lot of complaints recently by the BBC's competitors about how the BBC is taking *their* market. So, the cheaper the solution the better, and none cheaper in the TCO stakes than linux, regardless of the MS propaganda.
I'd splash this across every linux site I could find if I was a Linux evangelist.
They say that they're doing these things. Until somebody actually tries to build an app that exchanges file format and MS *lets them do it*, that will be the day. Until then, this is more vapourware.
If you stop spouting mindless propaganda, it just leaves their mindless rubbish to try and dominate "developer mindshare". And, oh look, there's those bloody TCO adverts on virtually *every* techsite I go to. The MS marketing budget must be keeping the commercial net *afloat*.
.NET marketing producing a "faster", "better" version. And I see some are trumpeting the change-over from Bitkeeper to GIT as an example of OSS "failure". McVoy has lost out big-time and he *knows* it, hence his bitter flailings at linux. But hey, temporary losses for future gains, eh?
TFF Firefox and the anti-flash plugin.
I agree you should pick your battlegrounds wisely and leave nothing for the enemy to pick at. Witness the petstore project fiasco for java, where an un-tuned app meant for mere newbie step-up was turned against Java by
Marketing: it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it. O'wise, how do people know you've built a better mousetrap?
h
I have one word: "innovation" This is MS's strong suit, no?
It's my understanding that most - no, all - US entertainment shows are written under a collaborative process. Including X-Files, Buffy, Friends, Seinfeld etc. All movies employ teams of writers, either consecutively or together. The UK has a tradition of lone writers however the series tend to be short-lived and not as successful. So come on already, enough of the lone creative genius. Genius schmenius. Huh!
Of course successful programs fall off towards the end. THey all do. That's why they're dropped
Woooww...I was with you there - even though "Real Genius" is unknown to me - until you got to this part:
"and even got laid."
Is this some parallel universe you live in? The definition of geek means that "getting laid" is restricted to chicken eggs. Maybe you should hand in your geek card right now?
Nobody believed him. French ministers made the "mistake" pf speaking out loud. Blair went along with it as he was creating his own set of lies.