Things have been the opposite for me for the past 3 years than for most other software engineers. I was layed off in mid 2001, but immediately found work. I have since quit that job and the one after after finding better opportunities. I'm making far more money than ever now. Not to say that this has been the case for my friends and coworkers, but opportunities still abound in my experience. If you're willing to work hard and network, there's a lot of opportunities available.
Speaking of portability, QT is a bit problematic, as they use non-standard C++ extensions to accomplish their purposes. (Something that the GTK C++ extensions purposely avoided.) Similar to what Microsoft has done with C++.
C++ has been my language of choice for the past 10 or so years, but it's sad to see the bastardization happening all over by these toolkits.
yes, an RPM contains information about its dependencies--same as.deb files. but resolving and downloading the dependent files is left to a tool like urpmi or apt-get. For all I have ever seen,.RPM==.DEB and apt-get==urpmi==up2date==etc.
From LinuxWorld: This is an interesting proposal because Debian has as good a technology as anyone (arguably better by many).... The difficulty of installation of applications across distributions due to conflicts and lack of supporting libraries could be solved by Debian's apt tools, which are quite superior for the installation and resolution of dependencies in comparison to rpm.
Can we stop being so ignorant about RPM, please!!! RPM is a packaging standard, not a delivery/dependency resolving mechanism. Please don't tell me that RPM is worse than apt-get, because you're comparing a package to a delivery mechanism. RPM is the equivalent of a.deb package, and they really are functionally equivalent.
If you want to compare delivery and dependency resolution mechanisms, try comparing Mandrake's urpmi or RedHat's up2date to apt. And urpmi is arguably better than apt:
We still believe that Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost are "one" God--but one in purpose, not one in flesh. Jesus is still a God, but he will do nothing but that which is in complete harmony with God the Father. So in that sense, they are one God, but different persons. (As opposed to the gods of Greek mythology or other such gods who were jealous and often rivals.)
Jesus said "no man cometh unto the Father, but _by_ me" (John 14:6) (that "by" is an important word). In other words, we all can go to the Father, but we cannot do it without Jesus' help. "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." (paraphrased) I doubt if that portion of Mormon belief is much or at all different than other Christian religions, is it?
As I understand it Mormanism directly contracts the Bible. For instance, Mormans do not believe in the trinity (one God in three persons) but rather that the father and son are seperate beings.
It only contradicts the Bible if the Bible really says that (or better yet means that--it does not). Jesus prayed to his Father while here on earth. Stephen the apostle saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. How and why would *one* being do that? (Anyway, you can probably twist anything in the Bible around any way you want to, and it's logical that people would do that to fit their understanding of their religion.)
They also believe God was once flesh, that Jesus was his literal son, and that we will all day become just like (read: equal) to God.
Yes, sort of: Can become like Him is the belief. Sounds pretty strange to some until you think of what we as parents and families do here on earth: Try to make our children better than we are. Not much different in this Mormoon belief. After all, we've got eternities after this life, don't we? The belief that we sit around playing a harp on a cloud for x^y eons is a bit silly, I think. Do we stop learning or progressing after this life? That sounds more heretical to me. No, God wants nothing more than to give us all that he has.
Now perhaps some of this is misunderstanding but many "anti-Morman" books and websites state this as official Morman teachings. I cannot say for myself since I have not looked into it first hand.
Been there, done that (reading the anti-Mormon literature, that is. Unfortunately, most views on Mormonism are extremely polarized and not helpful. Pick up a copy of the Book of Mormon (an amazing book) and read it. Your perspective on Mormons will change, and it won't be because some anti-Mormon told you to think that way.
Also:
- not all religions believe that judgement happens the moment you die. God's a god of justice AND mercy.
- Not all religions believe that if you're not a member of their religion, you're going to hell (this is certainly not a Mormon belief)
"why do you hold these (to me) irrational belief?"
Maybe it sounds irrational to someone from your perspective, but so would turning a human into a diamond to anybody 100 years ago. Strange that people believe that we humans can do almost anything, but it would be irrational or impossible for God to be real or do anything himself. If he does exist and Christians are correct, resurrecting people is a drop in the bucket compared to the forming of a universe.
"(And also, what do vulcans have to do with anything?)"
"Vulcan" = a person who is logical to the point of ignoring emotions or spiritual reasoning.
Being in the minority here....(I'm non athiest/agnostic)...I'll venture a comment
A good friend of mine, age 85, died this morning. I can't imagine the disrespect it would take to cremate his remains or pressurize them to diamonds.
My personal belief? Just as Jesus was resurrected with a perfected body, that's the destiny of everybody else on earth: a physical resurrection to a perfected body. Hard to imagine for all you Vulcans out there? Well, it was for Thomas, too, until he had proof.
That being my belief, anything other than a proper and reverent burial seems to me a sacrilege.
True, most engineering problems are solved with procedural code. But this is not necessarily because procedural code is the best tool for the job. At the University attended, the CS programmers were taught OO, and those with an engineering major were taught no more and no less than how to write procedural spaghetti code. But just because the majority of engineering classes teach procedural code doesn't mean that it's the best practice.
- objects are great for maintaining/encapsulating state.
- as problems get larger and more complex, they are much more easily solved/maintained using a basis of simple objects. "Complex systems that work are invariably built on simple systems that work" (paraphrasing Booch).
- true, you can write lots of simple procedures, but they will almost always be more complex than they have to be because of lack of inheritance, encapsulation, etc.
Of course, I know lots of people who write objects that are really nothing more than a bunch of spaghetti-code procedures packed in a class. But once you learn to do it right, there are very few problems that are better solved procedurally.
Slashdot Mirror
good thing they didn't lose their 1337 laptops!
what's ironical is that ironical isn't a word
At 30 years, I would have instead put the (man) in parenthesis! :-)
Lysol. Or wet your hands with antibacterial gel (Purel or the like) and rub them across your keyboard. Repeat.
I'm obviously talking about cleaning your keyboard from bacteria, not dirt.
Okay, then, I guess you can wait to start worrying until shortly after you die. ;-)
Things have been the opposite for me for the past 3 years than for most other software engineers. I was layed off in mid 2001, but immediately found work. I have since quit that job and the one after after finding better opportunities. I'm making far more money than ever now. Not to say that this has been the case for my friends and coworkers, but opportunities still abound in my experience. If you're willing to work hard and network, there's a lot of opportunities available.
I read through his proof and...nope, it's wrong. I know the real answer, but am leaving it as an exercise for the interested student.
don't tell me this was statically compiled and includes all the fonts, and 3d libraries in the download!
Phil Hendrie would love this! But not until they come out with a bowling alley background sound....
Speaking of portability, QT is a bit problematic, as they use non-standard C++ extensions to accomplish their purposes. (Something that the GTK C++ extensions purposely avoided.) Similar to what Microsoft has done with C++.
C++ has been my language of choice for the past 10 or so years, but it's sad to see the bastardization happening all over by these toolkits.
yes, an RPM contains information about its dependencies--same as .deb files. but resolving and downloading the dependent files is left to a tool like urpmi or apt-get. For all I have ever seen, .RPM==.DEB and apt-get==urpmi==up2date==etc.
From LinuxWorld: This is an interesting proposal because Debian has as good a technology as anyone (arguably better by many).... The difficulty of installation of applications across distributions due to conflicts and lack of supporting libraries could be solved by Debian's apt tools, which are quite superior for the installation and resolution of dependencies in comparison to rpm.
.deb package, and they really are functionally equivalent.
:-)
Can we stop being so ignorant about RPM, please!!! RPM is a packaging standard, not a delivery/dependency resolving mechanism. Please don't tell me that RPM is worse than apt-get, because you're comparing a package to a delivery mechanism. RPM is the equivalent of a
If you want to compare delivery and dependency resolution mechanisms, try comparing Mandrake's urpmi or RedHat's up2date to apt. And urpmi is arguably better than apt:
$ urpmi evolution
takes less characters to type than:
$ apt-get evolution
We still believe that Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost are "one" God--but one in purpose, not one in flesh. Jesus is still a God, but he will do nothing but that which is in complete harmony with God the Father. So in that sense, they are one God, but different persons. (As opposed to the gods of Greek mythology or other such gods who were jealous and often rivals.)
Jesus said "no man cometh unto the Father, but _by_ me" (John 14:6) (that "by" is an important word). In other words, we all can go to the Father, but we cannot do it without Jesus' help. "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." (paraphrased) I doubt if that portion of Mormon belief is much or at all different than other Christian religions, is it?
As I understand it Mormanism directly contracts the Bible. For instance, Mormans do not believe in the trinity (one God in three persons) but rather that the father and son are seperate beings.
:-)
It only contradicts the Bible if the Bible really says that (or better yet means that--it does not). Jesus prayed to his Father while here on earth. Stephen the apostle saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. How and why would *one* being do that? (Anyway, you can probably twist anything in the Bible around any way you want to, and it's logical that people would do that to fit their understanding of their religion.)
They also believe God was once flesh, that Jesus was his literal son, and that we will all day become just like (read: equal) to God.
Yes, sort of: Can become like Him is the belief. Sounds pretty strange to some until you think of what we as parents and families do here on earth: Try to make our children better than we are. Not much different in this Mormoon belief. After all, we've got eternities after this life, don't we? The belief that we sit around playing a harp on a cloud for x^y eons is a bit silly, I think. Do we stop learning or progressing after this life? That sounds more heretical to me. No, God wants nothing more than to give us all that he has.
Now perhaps some of this is misunderstanding but many "anti-Morman" books and websites state this as official Morman teachings. I cannot say for myself since I have not looked into it first hand.
Been there, done that (reading the anti-Mormon literature, that is. Unfortunately, most views on Mormonism are extremely polarized and not helpful. Pick up a copy of the Book of Mormon (an amazing book) and read it. Your perspective on Mormons will change, and it won't be because some anti-Mormon told you to think that way.
Also:
- not all religions believe that judgement happens the moment you die. God's a god of justice AND mercy.
- Not all religions believe that if you're not a member of their religion, you're going to hell (this is certainly not a Mormon belief)
Thanks for hearing me out!
"why do you hold these (to me) irrational belief?"
Maybe it sounds irrational to someone from your perspective, but so would turning a human into a diamond to anybody 100 years ago. Strange that people believe that we humans can do almost anything, but it would be irrational or impossible for God to be real or do anything himself. If he does exist and Christians are correct, resurrecting people is a drop in the bucket compared to the forming of a universe.
"(And also, what do vulcans have to do with anything?)"
"Vulcan" = a person who is logical to the point of ignoring emotions or spiritual reasoning.
I said it was disrespectful, not that you lose any "ticket" by doing so. Resurrection isn't just reserved for the "well preserved." :-)
My personal belief is that there is a "universal" resurrection--everybody gets a free ticket. Judgement is a whole different story.
Being in the minority here....(I'm non athiest/agnostic)...I'll venture a comment
A good friend of mine, age 85, died this morning. I can't imagine the disrespect it would take to cremate his remains or pressurize them to diamonds.
My personal belief? Just as Jesus was resurrected with a perfected body, that's the destiny of everybody else on earth: a physical resurrection to a perfected body. Hard to imagine for all you Vulcans out there? Well, it was for Thomas, too, until he had proof.
That being my belief, anything other than a proper and reverent burial seems to me a sacrilege.
AOL **is** one of the apps that Lindows claims to support. At least it's been up on their Click-n-Run site for a while.
I have yet to see a post here from someone who's tried the latest (prerelease) Lindows with some MS software. Does MS Office install on Lindows?
"Millions?" Not!
Nice opinion, but in the interest of getting the facts straight:
"NuSphere ended up providing $312,501, according to MySQL AB, before a feud that ripped their collaboration apart."
According to the article, 2.5 Million was promised.
True, most engineering problems are solved with procedural code. But this is not necessarily because procedural code is the best tool for the job. At the University attended, the CS programmers were taught OO, and those with an engineering major were taught no more and no less than how to write procedural spaghetti code. But just because the majority of engineering classes teach procedural code doesn't mean that it's the best practice. - objects are great for maintaining/encapsulating state. - as problems get larger and more complex, they are much more easily solved/maintained using a basis of simple objects. "Complex systems that work are invariably built on simple systems that work" (paraphrasing Booch). - true, you can write lots of simple procedures, but they will almost always be more complex than they have to be because of lack of inheritance, encapsulation, etc. Of course, I know lots of people who write objects that are really nothing more than a bunch of spaghetti-code procedures packed in a class. But once you learn to do it right, there are very few problems that are better solved procedurally.