Holy crap, so many people jumping in to show off how they know the difference between the mean and the median. Newsflash - we all had rudimentary statistics as part of some highschool math course or other. In like 9th grade? Probably earlier.
The guy was just pointing out that real-world jobs pay a lot less, and the statistics are probably skewed by a small percentage that pay a lot more - and good luck getting one of those jobs.
Eh, that's how highly skilled professions work. There is no substitute for actually learning these skills in the field, so the schools basically don't even pretend to try. Rather, they try to (theoretically) teach the theoretical underpinnings of the given field, as well as produce well-rounded, more or less cultivated individuals who will be able to do well in their field; once they get some actual work experience under their belts.
The Blade Engine is akin to blogging software for visual storytellers.
I think that was the OPs exact point.
Sure, there will be a huge amount of crap, just like with blogs, but overall more is better.
No, no, a thousand times no. No one will ever convince me that completely destroying the "signal to noise" ratio of a particular creative field is somehow a good thing. Why on earth is it "better" to have this gigantic, suffocating mass of mediocrity?
That's the whole raison d'etre of the internet.
Or, you know, people with various complementary skills could collaborate directly with each other. Old pipey could be good for that too.
Graphic novels, Visual novels... you know, these people must actually understand the difference between their, lets say, "limited" creations and what is traditionally referred to as a 'novel'. Otherwise, it seems, they would not insist quite so ardently on calling them 'novels'.
I don't have time to become an expert in Java.... There's always a more pressing crisis.
Fair enough. I was just pointing out that the stuff you mention is pretty basic, and most of your problems are to do with your highly heterogeneous and demanding environment. For most people those issues don't even register, so "why would ANYONE code in it" is pretty dramatic, given the evidence.
(ugh, CVS, now there's something where the maintenance actually, physically hurts)
Not want: need. Java is completely broken in this respect.
The 1.4.2_something class loading (or was it class serialization?) issue you are talking about was a specific bug, bugs happen, all software has bugs. (hell, remember when 1.4.1_10 or thereabouts had a bug that would hang the installer, so you couldn't upgrade from it?)
Most of the time when you need multiple versions of java it's because of problems with the software using it, not the runtime itself. A good practice is to always build your software with the latest available version, but tell the compiler to target the lowest version you claim to support. Sadly many maintainers don't do this. And yes, that means sometimes you have to update the software when you update java.
Alternatively, if your app is particularly finnicky (<cough>Oracle</cough>), there's nothing wrong with bundling a specific JRE with that app - it doesn't need to be visible to anything else on the system, and there are no surprises about the runtime.
Either every single version of Java should run every single Java program written, or Java is irrecovably broken.
That's quite bold - can you think of a single example of something that actually achieves this?
It's because you frequently need DIFFERENT PATCH LEVELS of a JRE to allow all your programs to work.
That's a huge overstatement - it's happened, but "a few times in the history of java" is not "frequently". There's a difference between "not perfect" and "fundamentally broken".
There's a reason people say "write once, test everywhere".
Yep, it's not a magic bullet; and yet it's still a damn sight better than "write, port everywhere, test everywhere".
Sun do not allow Linux distributions to package the download.
Speaking of which - does Sun's new "as close to open source as you can get without being open source" licence allow for bundling with distros? Or does it depend on the distro now, the more "pure" ones won't bundle it, but they generally can?
As for the mess, I support java on about a dozen servers and 100 or so desktops, yes it does get annoying at times (best example was when we tried bundling a specific jre with InstallAnywhere for one of our apps - that thing fucked up the registry something fierce), but it's just not that big of a deal. Certainly not significant enough to influence technology selection.
Sun provides both a runtime and a full SDK for java. The SDK includes the runtime.
Java is made up of a number of different APIs, which are grouped into several platform "editions": J2SE, J2EE, and J2ME.
Java installers can be unpredictable about the locations they choose.
Sometimes people want to run specific versions of java.
1 and 2 are not rocket science, 5 minutes of googling will tell you the difference between them. 3 is true (can be more of a pain on Windows), but is really just an annoyance; and 4 is about your users' needs, not about java.
Good grief. If it's this hard just to install and maintain, why would ANYONE ever code in it?
So, you start off by admitting that you know nothing about the language whatsoever, and then declare the whole thing useless because you can't seem to get a handle on the installation process? And honestly, if it's part of your job to support java, you don't seem to be doing too well at it.
You brush off cross-platform execution because there are some exceptions that crop up from time to time. A bit of a baby/bathwater thing, no? In many environments, the cross-platform nature of java is huge and works just fine the majority of the time.
Incidentally, I don't think "object oriented" is a selling point for java; those go more along the lines of "flexibility, widespread adoption, excellent tool support, and a rich and well-tested set of libraries." But you know, that probably isn't worth it if you have to figure out how to put a binary on the fucking path.
Don't assume so much. Not all Slashdot readers are that tech-savvy.
This has nothing to do with technology, the word was used in its general sense.
I was trying to add a bit of clarity to an ambiguous term.
Whatever. I suppose that if you managed to find it confusing, I can't really argue that it's not. I guess I had more of a problem with you claiming that the devs did this on purpose, when in fact you just don't know what the word means.
"Ambiguate" is the reverse of "disambiguate." It's what happens when somebody assigns multiple meanings to a single term.
Ah yes, just like 'to able' means to fix something, 'ease' is a state of healthfulness, and 'cord' is agreement. I doubt you'll find a single dictionary that lists "ambiguate" and it's not part of common usage - therefore, not a word. Probably because it just sounds stupid.
Unlike this post, my first post did not contain a list.
Oh please, "kill the server or knock out a service" is a list of two actions that the attackers could have performed.
a) Eerybody who read this understood what "compromised" means. The lengths you go to to assign malice to the Debian devs are a little silly.
b) "ambiguate" is not a word.
c) "compromise" can never mean the things you list.
When we say that something's been compromised, we mean that it is known to have been exposed to malicious action, but we don't know what the extent of the damage is, so its integrity has been lost.
The system should be secure against malicious connections originating anywhere.
I believe the OP was making more of a "Know your enemy" kind of point, rather than "Block that IP range at the firewall so it never happens again". That would be pretty retarded.
"When you look at an information source, you should be checking the references. If there are no footnotes or references, read the article with interest but don't trust it for anything."
There, fixed it slightly for you. I still think that in the end, Wikipedia's single greatest contribution to society will be finally getting that statement through to people.
Re:Too recent & controversial for an encyclope
on
When Wikipedia Fails
·
· Score: 1
Where's the problem with that statement?
Actually I think it demonstrates one of the real problems with Wikipedia (as opposed to the imaginary ones you read about on The Register) - all the author did here was fudge up an irrelevant rumor with words like 'speculation' and 'many people believe' to make it seem "encyclopedic," and therefore acceptable; only because he wanted to talk about the stupid rumor. There is no reason for Wikipedia to parrot unsubstantiated rumors and gossip, even if the article clearly calls them unsubstantiated rumors and gossip.
In the end it's a combination of overemphasizing the bleeding obvious (like the articles that breathlessly go on and on about what a chair does) and glorifying the completely irrelevant (like the endless lists of video games in which chairs have been featured).
(though to me, at least, the wealth of excellent information on WP far outweighs these expected shortcomings)
All this vitriol about Wikipedia's abominable quality virtually always concerns current/recent events, persons still living, etc. The simple answer is that an encyclopedia is not where you go to find information on those topics (ever notice the "News" tab on Google?).
And yes, when a major and controversial event happens, it's like watching two dozen rabid, partisan bloggers forced to share a single soapbox - but so what? Does that somehow invalidate the hundreds of thousands of useful articles on there?
Incidentally, how good is the Britannica article about Ken Lay's death?
... your network isn't the slowest part of your setup. It's the consumer-grade Pentium and disk drive on your Dell, and the wimpy home data bus that connects them.
Erm, what? Sure that could be the "slowest part", relatively speaking, but if you move the functionality of your "wimpy" IDE/SATA bus to the incomparably slower home network connection, then yeah, the network will be the slowest part.
So the techs may have questioned her aobut something like a firewall and she said no.
Well, yeah, that's my point; they didn't just pull a random programmer off the street and make him do tech support - these are professional support people who should know better.
The problem was a very common one, and navigating around users who are not all that comfortable with computers is the whole point of their job.
Do we really want Google to turn into another Microsoft?
Well, seeing as history tends to repeat itself, they probably will; then 20 years from now Google will be the new MS and MS will be today's IBM. Wouldn't that be funny?
Slashdot Mirror
Holy crap, so many people jumping in to show off how they know the difference between the mean and the median. Newsflash - we all had rudimentary statistics as part of some highschool math course or other. In like 9th grade? Probably earlier.
The guy was just pointing out that real-world jobs pay a lot less, and the statistics are probably skewed by a small percentage that pay a lot more - and good luck getting one of those jobs.
Eh, that's how highly skilled professions work. There is no substitute for actually learning these skills in the field, so the schools basically don't even pretend to try. Rather, they try to (theoretically) teach the theoretical underpinnings of the given field, as well as produce well-rounded, more or less cultivated individuals who will be able to do well in their field; once they get some actual work experience under their belts.
Universities are not vocational schools.
The Blade Engine is akin to blogging software for visual storytellers.
I think that was the OPs exact point.
Sure, there will be a huge amount of crap, just like with blogs, but overall more is better.
No, no, a thousand times no. No one will ever convince me that completely destroying the "signal to noise" ratio of a particular creative field is somehow a good thing. Why on earth is it "better" to have this gigantic, suffocating mass of mediocrity?
That's the whole raison d'etre of the internet.
Or, you know, people with various complementary skills could collaborate directly with each other. Old pipey could be good for that too.
Just wanted to disagree with the flamebait moderation.
Just because someone isn't being nice about doesn't stop him from being right.
Tentacle Rape Wizard
"You got your Hentai in my Harry Potter fanfiction!"
"You got your Harry Potter fanfiction in my Hentai!"
Graphic novels, Visual novels... you know, these people must actually understand the difference between their, lets say, "limited" creations and what is traditionally referred to as a 'novel'. Otherwise, it seems, they would not insist quite so ardently on calling them 'novels'.
I don't have time to become an expert in Java. ... There's always a more pressing crisis.
Fair enough. I was just pointing out that the stuff you mention is pretty basic, and most of your problems are to do with your highly heterogeneous and demanding environment. For most people those issues don't even register, so "why would ANYONE code in it" is pretty dramatic, given the evidence.
(ugh, CVS, now there's something where the maintenance actually, physically hurts)
Not want: need. Java is completely broken in this respect.
The 1.4.2_something class loading (or was it class serialization?) issue you are talking about was a specific bug, bugs happen, all software has bugs. (hell, remember when 1.4.1_10 or thereabouts had a bug that would hang the installer, so you couldn't upgrade from it?)
Most of the time when you need multiple versions of java it's because of problems with the software using it, not the runtime itself. A good practice is to always build your software with the latest available version, but tell the compiler to target the lowest version you claim to support. Sadly many maintainers don't do this. And yes, that means sometimes you have to update the software when you update java.
Alternatively, if your app is particularly finnicky (<cough>Oracle</cough>), there's nothing wrong with bundling a specific JRE with that app - it doesn't need to be visible to anything else on the system, and there are no surprises about the runtime.
Either every single version of Java should run every single Java program written, or Java is irrecovably broken.
That's quite bold - can you think of a single example of something that actually achieves this?
It's because you frequently need DIFFERENT PATCH LEVELS of a JRE to allow all your programs to work.
That's a huge overstatement - it's happened, but "a few times in the history of java" is not "frequently". There's a difference between "not perfect" and "fundamentally broken".
There's a reason people say "write once, test everywhere".
Yep, it's not a magic bullet; and yet it's still a damn sight better than "write, port everywhere, test everywhere".
Sun do not allow Linux distributions to package the download.
Speaking of which - does Sun's new "as close to open source as you can get without being open source" licence allow for bundling with distros? Or does it depend on the distro now, the more "pure" ones won't bundle it, but they generally can?
As for the mess, I support java on about a dozen servers and 100 or so desktops, yes it does get annoying at times (best example was when we tried bundling a specific jre with InstallAnywhere for one of our apps - that thing fucked up the registry something fierce), but it's just not that big of a deal. Certainly not significant enough to influence technology selection.
- Sun provides both a runtime and a full SDK for java. The SDK includes the runtime.
- Java is made up of a number of different APIs, which are grouped into several platform "editions": J2SE, J2EE, and J2ME.
- Java installers can be unpredictable about the locations they choose.
- Sometimes people want to run specific versions of java.
1 and 2 are not rocket science, 5 minutes of googling will tell you the difference between them. 3 is true (can be more of a pain on Windows), but is really just an annoyance; and 4 is about your users' needs, not about java.Good grief. If it's this hard just to install and maintain, why would ANYONE ever code in it?
So, you start off by admitting that you know nothing about the language whatsoever, and then declare the whole thing useless because you can't seem to get a handle on the installation process? And honestly, if it's part of your job to support java, you don't seem to be doing too well at it.
You brush off cross-platform execution because there are some exceptions that crop up from time to time. A bit of a baby/bathwater thing, no? In many environments, the cross-platform nature of java is huge and works just fine the majority of the time.
Incidentally, I don't think "object oriented" is a selling point for java; those go more along the lines of "flexibility, widespread adoption, excellent tool support, and a rich and well-tested set of libraries." But you know, that probably isn't worth it if you have to figure out how to put a binary on the fucking path.
Don't assume so much. Not all Slashdot readers are that tech-savvy.
This has nothing to do with technology, the word was used in its general sense.
I was trying to add a bit of clarity to an ambiguous term.
Whatever. I suppose that if you managed to find it confusing, I can't really argue that it's not. I guess I had more of a problem with you claiming that the devs did this on purpose, when in fact you just don't know what the word means.
"Ambiguate" is the reverse of "disambiguate." It's what happens when somebody assigns multiple meanings to a single term.
Ah yes, just like 'to able' means to fix something, 'ease' is a state of healthfulness, and 'cord' is agreement. I doubt you'll find a single dictionary that lists "ambiguate" and it's not part of common usage - therefore, not a word. Probably because it just sounds stupid.
Unlike this post, my first post did not contain a list.
Oh please, "kill the server or knock out a service" is a list of two actions that the attackers could have performed.
You have got to be freakin' kidding.
a) Eerybody who read this understood what "compromised" means. The lengths you go to to assign malice to the Debian devs are a little silly.
b) "ambiguate" is not a word.
c) "compromise" can never mean the things you list.
When we say that something's been compromised, we mean that it is known to have been exposed to malicious action, but we don't know what the extent of the damage is, so its integrity has been lost.
The system should be secure against malicious connections originating anywhere.
I believe the OP was making more of a "Know your enemy" kind of point, rather than "Block that IP range at the firewall so it never happens again". That would be pretty retarded.
"When you look at an information source, you should be checking the references. If there are no footnotes or references, read the article with interest but don't trust it for anything."
There, fixed it slightly for you. I still think that in the end, Wikipedia's single greatest contribution to society will be finally getting that statement through to people.
Where's the problem with that statement?
Actually I think it demonstrates one of the real problems with Wikipedia (as opposed to the imaginary ones you read about on The Register) - all the author did here was fudge up an irrelevant rumor with words like 'speculation' and 'many people believe' to make it seem "encyclopedic," and therefore acceptable; only because he wanted to talk about the stupid rumor. There is no reason for Wikipedia to parrot unsubstantiated rumors and gossip, even if the article clearly calls them unsubstantiated rumors and gossip.
In the end it's a combination of overemphasizing the bleeding obvious (like the articles that breathlessly go on and on about what a chair does) and glorifying the completely irrelevant (like the endless lists of video games in which chairs have been featured).
(though to me, at least, the wealth of excellent information on WP far outweighs these expected shortcomings)
All this vitriol about Wikipedia's abominable quality virtually always concerns current/recent events, persons still living, etc. The simple answer is that an encyclopedia is not where you go to find information on those topics (ever notice the "News" tab on Google?).
And yes, when a major and controversial event happens, it's like watching two dozen rabid, partisan bloggers forced to share a single soapbox - but so what? Does that somehow invalidate the hundreds of thousands of useful articles on there?
Incidentally, how good is the Britannica article about Ken Lay's death?
So... it's SUX for short? At least they are getting more honest. (Can't wait to buy a "Sony 0wnz J00!1!")
... your network isn't the slowest part of your setup. It's the consumer-grade Pentium and disk drive on your Dell, and the wimpy home data bus that connects them.
Erm, what? Sure that could be the "slowest part", relatively speaking, but if you move the functionality of your "wimpy" IDE/SATA bus to the incomparably slower home network connection, then yeah, the network will be the slowest part.
Similar things have been known to happen even in regular companies (ie not goverment agencies): http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Intel_v_Schwartz/sc hwartz_case.intro
So the techs may have questioned her aobut something like a firewall and she said no.
Well, yeah, that's my point; they didn't just pull a random programmer off the street and make him do tech support - these are professional support people who should know better.
The problem was a very common one, and navigating around users who are not all that comfortable with computers is the whole point of their job.
The only story here is that your tech-support guys are retarded.
This is all well and good, but once The Dominion occupies a nearby station, they will eventually find a way to get through.
Then we'll have to rely on god-like aliens who are mostly only good for preachy religious episodes - this is not a good idea!
how out of touch the accademy awards are
It could also speak to how they don't live in their parents' basements.
Do we really want Google to turn into another Microsoft?
Well, seeing as history tends to repeat itself, they probably will; then 20 years from now Google will be the new MS and MS will be today's IBM. Wouldn't that be funny?
Maybe you mean: Everyone is connected by a common ancestor a LOT more recently than people think
Thanks. The summary made no sense whatsoever - it made it sound like people were spontaneously appearing in Greece around 500 BCE.