So he found a company in China that could do his work for 3 different companies and produce the best code in the building, all for less than 50,000 dollars per year?
The real question, then, is what is the name of this company and what's the phone number?
Once this standard becomes popular, advertising resellers will stop paying for views/click for hits from browsers with DNT set. Unlike traditional ad blocking, the DNT header signals to the primary site that you are being uncooperative, making it trivial to redirect visitors who set that header to a "fix your browser" page.
Assuming DNT is actually respected by the server, DNT establishes a second pipeline WRT logging, analytics, error-reporting, and other server-side functions. Not only are DNT visitors of little or no value to site owners, but they also create additional cost for the provider to maintain that separate logging pipeline.
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP:DNT} 1
RewriteRule.*/disable-dnt.html
For your disable-dnt.html page, nothing fancy, nothing explanatory, just simple instructions: ALERT! Your browser cannot display this page.
Please select the menu Tools -- Options and uncheck Do Not Track. Then refresh this page to continue.
Problem solved. And all you have to say is that the cost of compliance with the "do not track" standard make supporting that option unfeasible. Or something like that.
In my past two jobs and over the past 20 years, we've worked with dozens of independent an unrelated vendors with locations around the country, including Virginia. Of all the locations where these companies have operations, the ones in Virginia have been dramatically, almost comically, more disaster-prone than the rest of the country and even the rest of the world. The running joke in the office is that whenever any vendor or service provider drops offline, we first check the weather in Virginia before checking to see if any of our own systems are offline. Every time, we see a post-mortem a few days later disclosing some failed system or backup or contingency, and every time, they say this problem that will never happen again.
You'd think that all the failing locations would share a operations center or service provider or even a single city, but it turns out that the only thing these disaster-prone operations have in common is that they're in Virginia. I have no idea why this is the case. But our company has a policy singling out Virginia saying that no mission-critical components are allowed to be based there.
Turns out that every major foiled terrorist plot on US soil since 9/11 was dreamed up, planned, funded, coordinated, and ultimately foiled by FBI agents. And there have been quite a few of them. This is such a persistent theme that the biggest surprise in this story is that the newspaper actually called them on it instead of using the fear-inducing headline to bolster readership.
Decades ago, the engineers did in fact consider 128 bit addresses, but in the end they went with 32 specifically because v4 was not considered a "production" version. There's a link on the wikipedia page for ipv6 to a video with vint cerf explaining exactly that.
Academic purist discovers that one of the most prolific and successful database users in the world is using a system he doesn't approve of. He decides, with no insider knowledge at all, and despite all evidence to the contrary, that they should throw everything away and start over from scratch using a system that he thinks would allow them to see the performance and scalability that they've already achieved.
Presumably he's tired of Facebook being used as a counter-example to everything he's been preaching.
Do you really think they make nothing but weapons? I mean, really?
That's essentially the same question as asking how people could have the moral dysfunction necessary to work for boeing (they make the apache helicopter, you know).
Raytheon makes a pretty large percentage of the aircraft used by general aviation and some commuter airlines, for example.
It's worth pointing out that NAU has more of an "at home" feel to it than most colleges you've heard of. It's less of a university, and more of a local school. Call it 13th grade.
In fact, Northern Arizona University has about half the number of students as Mesa Community College.
Gizmo uses SIP, and there's no shortage of SIP clients for Linux that are better maintained and more consistently compatible with Linux's ever-changing audio interface.
Don't be silenced, but don't riot either.
Are you seriously going to sit there and argue that open source is a sheer meritocracy with a straight face? Okay. Here are 4 examples:
These aren't examples of discrimination, these are examples of people making comments you find offensive. I don't think anyone argues that OSS is a "sheer meritocracy" -- there's far too much politics and ego-stroking for that to be the case. However, one consideration that is never actually considered is gender.
Have you ever been denied SVN commit access because you're a girl? Has your memory management patch been rejected because you weren't a man? Has anyone refused to explain to you the difference between covariance and contravariance because it's a "boys only" secret?
Be prepared to be offended. OSS has a "hobby" feel to it for most people, and as such there's an informality that makes people feel that they can let go of the business-like social inhibitions that are so often in place to prevent offending the sensibilities of the separate cultures that make up an audience. You get it unfiltered, and you might not like what makes it through.
Yours isn't the only culture that gets lampooned; it's just the only one you care about. If you were a deeply religious person, for example, you may be severely offended by the irreverent treatment of what you hold so dear by the proselyting atheists who make up a disproportionate amount of the community. And there are many other examples.
But if you have real examples of actual discrimination, of opportunities denied because of your gender, then there is a real problem that needs examination. However, if you're just offended, well then hello and welcome to the Internet.
So your world is divided into "people who agree with me" and "mindless zombies".
I think that's a bit of a stretch, don't you?
Miguel's argument: RMS attacked me, but he's also famously attacked many of the most important players in bringing parts of his ultimate dream to reality. Conclusion: RMS's has an unproductive penchant for attacking people in his speaking and writing, including his own allies, if they don't subscribe to all of his philosophies.
Your interpretation: People who don't agree with me are mindless zombies.
> I think.Net is a platform with technical merit
I have yet to see it. Really.
Might I suggest that you have yet to look?
C# and the CIL bring to the table:
Language independance: Build a class in Python, call it from Ruby. This is available today, not in the theoretical future.
Functional programming: lambda expressions, etc., conspicuously missing from java
Declarative programming: Linq -- seems like a silly idea until you've used it a few times, and you see how it can drastically improve performance on the back end, and code quality on the front end.
Your choice of strongly typed and dynamically typed mechanisms: Build a class using strongly typed semantics in the interest of verifiability, but make use of it in a dynamically typed application in the interest of development speed.
Speed: C# apps run nearly as fast as complied C; indistinguishable in many important cases.
If mono hadn't been an implementation of a standard proposed by Microsoft, it would have been hailed as god's gift to programmers.
He has no idea what the relationship between C#, CLR,.NET, and Mono is.
So you disagree with RMS: fine. But you're doing yourself a grave disservice by dismissing him as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Love him or hate him, he's a sharp guy who knows his stuff.
Stallman is a sharp guy who knows lots of stuff. But that doesn't mean he knows this stuff. RMS has a proud history of running on about things he disagrees with on principle without taking the time to fully understand them.
No one can be expected to understand everything about everything, and restricting someone with views as strong as RMS to only talking about things he fully understands would be an unacceptable handicap.
There most definitely is a logical argument. In a word: patents.
Not really. You're just as likely to run afoul of a MS patent (even one relating to the.NET project) while working with Java or C. While patents are indeed a serious problem, the risk is not any greater using Mono.
MS already tried one legal tack to go after OSS, namely the SCO lawsuit. There's no reason to think they wouldn't try another.
The SCO lawsuit was perpetrated by SCO, not Microsoft. While MS was happy to see it happen, they weren't behind it, and contrary to some/. conjecture, weren't funding it.
May I be the first to say "amen"? I've been very dissatisfied with the 2.6 kernel and its schedulers on the desktop, CFS in particular. CFS seems entirely braindead for desktop use compared to the older schedulers in 2.4 and yes, even 2.2.
Oh yeah, and which other scheduler's, if any, did this guy write?
Actually, he wrote CFS. Or rather, he wrote the original implementation of CFS. Ingo Molnar re-wrote his implementation and announced it as if he had come up with the idea. At least, from Con's perspective that's what happened. That's why he left Linux development, and why he has no intention of trying to get his scheduler into mainline.
This post is the utmost of absurdity. You create a strawman that is an awful piece of code, and then talk about why it sucks -- well, yeah it sucks, you deliberately crafted it to be so.
I realize that no one is going to read this now, but FWIW, here's an actual example from one of the most well-respected python projects in circulation:
def render_to_response(*args, **kwargs): """ Returns a HttpResponse whose content is filled with the result of calling django.template.loader.render_to_string() with the passed arguments. """ httpresponse_kwargs = {'mimetype': kwargs.pop('mimetype', None)} return HttpResponse(loader.render_to_string(*args, **kwargs), **httpresponse_kwargs)
You recognize it? Yep, that's one of the most commonly used functions in the Django project.
Sheriff Joe has been in an ever-escalating power-war with the rest of the government in the various cities, counties, and state of Arizona. In the past few weeks, the plot has slightly thickened as there has recently been some evidence of, and outcry regarding, misconduct on the part of the Sheriff's office in regards to personal use of state funds. I won't bore you with the details, but the reaction of the Sheriff's office hasn't been one that, shall we say, increases public safety.
I can't even imagine why the Sheriff's office would want to seize the records relating to law enforcement within the state, but I'm sure he has a Very Good Reason.
What would the boss do? Maybe he'd come to the conclusion that Java and C# are for professionals while Python and Ruby are for hobbyists?
It is.
Dynamic languages are fast and fun, but writing maintainable code in Ruby or Python takes an absurd amount of time and discipline. Take the following real-world, not-at-all-uncommon example. Imagine you have the function "get_results", and you want to quickly determine what all the parameters do. So you have a look at the code:
def get_results(**args): color = args.pop('color','red') return generator(color=color).encode(_fetch(**args))
Totally, completely, useless. So you end up following a series of rabbit holes trying to track down the actual usage of these parameters -- and even when you think you've got it all figured out, you still can't be certain because the complex interaction of possibilities in a dynamic language means that you never know what details will end up later being significant.
In order for the thing to be maintainable, the comments would have to outweigh the code by a factor of about 3 to 1, and the documentation needs to be rigorously maintained so that it stays in sync with the code. If you're the original author, then no problem! You wrote the function, so you know what it does. But in a corporate setting with a team of 5 programmers and average turnover, this is a nightmare.
Languages like Java and C# are significantly more verbose and explicit than languages like Python. You're forced to spell everything out in excruciating detail or the thing just won't run. It's like being FORCED to write documentation as part of your program: functions and parameters need to be explicitly declared, class structures can't change shape during execution -- all the important decisions about the shape and usage of your code needs to be decided and written down, and can't be changed without updating all your definitions.
Python and Ruby are "fun" because they don't make you work. There's a cost to skipping all that work, though.
Tell us how you know that Mono doesn't infringe on Microsoft's patents. Tell us how Moonlight doesn't infringe on Microsoft patents. Clear this stuff up.
/sigh
I'm not sure you understand how patents work.
Mono is an implementation of the standards on which.NET is built. It shares absolutely nothing else in common with.NET. The Mono team can be absolutely certain that their product does not infringe on Microsoft's copyright on the code, but no one can ever be certain about whether or not their product infringes on anyone's patents. That's what makes patents so scary.
Likewise, Richard Stallman can never be certain that GCC doesn't infringe on Microsoft's patents regarding Microsoft's C compiler, or that Emacs doesn't infringe on any patents in Microsoft Word.
What's worse is that actually researching to see if there is any patent infringement opens you up to more danger, because if you looked, then you'd be subject to triple damages in any court case for knowingly infringing on a patent. This is why the Linux kernel team intentionally avoids researching Microsoft's patent claims regarding Linux.
Mono is neither more nor less susceptible to patent claims from Microsoft than any other project; be it Python, Ruby, Java, AbiWord, or Gnome-Terminal.
Because clearly the appropriate response when the behavior of a single party might or might not have decreased the potential revenue on a product for a single entertainment company is to do millions of dollars worth of damage to hundreds of other unrelated companies.
The FBI: think of it like heart surgery with a backhoe.
Slashdot Mirror
So he found a company in China that could do his work for 3 different companies and produce the best code in the building, all for less than 50,000 dollars per year? The real question, then, is what is the name of this company and what's the phone number?
You heard it here first:
Once this standard becomes popular, advertising resellers will stop paying for views/click for hits from browsers with DNT set. Unlike traditional ad blocking, the DNT header signals to the primary site that you are being uncooperative, making it trivial to redirect visitors who set that header to a "fix your browser" page.
Assuming DNT is actually respected by the server, DNT establishes a second pipeline WRT logging, analytics, error-reporting, and other server-side functions. Not only are DNT visitors of little or no value to site owners, but they also create additional cost for the provider to maintain that separate logging pipeline.
RewriteEngine On .* /disable-dnt.html
RewriteCond %{HTTP:DNT} 1
RewriteRule
For your disable-dnt.html page, nothing fancy, nothing explanatory, just simple instructions:
ALERT!
Your browser cannot display this page.
Please select the menu Tools -- Options and uncheck Do Not Track. Then refresh this page to continue.
Problem solved. And all you have to say is that the cost of compliance with the "do not track" standard make supporting that option unfeasible. Or something like that.
As long as google doesn't completely fall apart for one week every year, they're pretty much got amazon cornered.
In my past two jobs and over the past 20 years, we've worked with dozens of independent an unrelated vendors with locations around the country, including Virginia. Of all the locations where these companies have operations, the ones in Virginia have been dramatically, almost comically, more disaster-prone than the rest of the country and even the rest of the world. The running joke in the office is that whenever any vendor or service provider drops offline, we first check the weather in Virginia before checking to see if any of our own systems are offline. Every time, we see a post-mortem a few days later disclosing some failed system or backup or contingency, and every time, they say this problem that will never happen again.
You'd think that all the failing locations would share a operations center or service provider or even a single city, but it turns out that the only thing these disaster-prone operations have in common is that they're in Virginia. I have no idea why this is the case. But our company has a policy singling out Virginia saying that no mission-critical components are allowed to be based there.
If only this were an isolated incident.
Turns out that every major foiled terrorist plot on US soil since 9/11 was dreamed up, planned, funded, coordinated, and ultimately foiled by FBI agents. And there have been quite a few of them. This is such a persistent theme that the biggest surprise in this story is that the newspaper actually called them on it instead of using the fear-inducing headline to bolster readership.
Connectivity provided by a 300-mile-long cat5 cable.
Decades ago, the engineers did in fact consider 128 bit addresses, but in the end they went with 32 specifically because v4 was not considered a "production" version. There's a link on the wikipedia page for ipv6 to a video with vint cerf explaining exactly that.
If this means that they're going to fix Unity's usability, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, meh.
Knock knock!
Who's there?
HIPAA.
HIPAA who?
Sorry, I'm not allowed to say.
Academic purist discovers that one of the most prolific and successful database users in the world is using a system he doesn't approve of. He decides, with no insider knowledge at all, and despite all evidence to the contrary, that they should throw everything away and start over from scratch using a system that he thinks would allow them to see the performance and scalability that they've already achieved.
Presumably he's tired of Facebook being used as a counter-example to everything he's been preaching.
Do you really think they make nothing but weapons? I mean, really?
That's essentially the same question as asking how people could have the moral dysfunction necessary to work for boeing (they make the apache helicopter, you know).
Raytheon makes a pretty large percentage of the aircraft used by general aviation and some commuter airlines, for example.
It's worth pointing out that NAU has more of an "at home" feel to it than most colleges you've heard of. It's less of a university, and more of a local school. Call it 13th grade.
In fact, Northern Arizona University has about half the number of students as Mesa Community College.
Gizmo uses SIP, and there's no shortage of SIP clients for Linux that are better maintained and more consistently compatible with Linux's ever-changing audio interface. Don't be silenced, but don't riot either.
These aren't examples of discrimination, these are examples of people making comments you find offensive. I don't think anyone argues that OSS is a "sheer meritocracy" -- there's far too much politics and ego-stroking for that to be the case. However, one consideration that is never actually considered is gender.
Have you ever been denied SVN commit access because you're a girl? Has your memory management patch been rejected because you weren't a man? Has anyone refused to explain to you the difference between covariance and contravariance because it's a "boys only" secret?
Be prepared to be offended. OSS has a "hobby" feel to it for most people, and as such there's an informality that makes people feel that they can let go of the business-like social inhibitions that are so often in place to prevent offending the sensibilities of the separate cultures that make up an audience. You get it unfiltered, and you might not like what makes it through.
Yours isn't the only culture that gets lampooned; it's just the only one you care about. If you were a deeply religious person, for example, you may be severely offended by the irreverent treatment of what you hold so dear by the proselyting atheists who make up a disproportionate amount of the community. And there are many other examples.
But if you have real examples of actual discrimination, of opportunities denied because of your gender, then there is a real problem that needs examination. However, if you're just offended, well then hello and welcome to the Internet.
I think that's a bit of a stretch, don't you?
Miguel's argument: RMS attacked me, but he's also famously attacked many of the most important players in bringing parts of his ultimate dream to reality. Conclusion: RMS's has an unproductive penchant for attacking people in his speaking and writing, including his own allies, if they don't subscribe to all of his philosophies.
Your interpretation: People who don't agree with me are mindless zombies.
A bit of a stretch, you must admit.
Might I suggest that you have yet to look?
C# and the CIL bring to the table:
If mono hadn't been an implementation of a standard proposed by Microsoft, it would have been hailed as god's gift to programmers.
Stallman is a sharp guy who knows lots of stuff. But that doesn't mean he knows this stuff. RMS has a proud history of running on about things he disagrees with on principle without taking the time to fully understand them.
No one can be expected to understand everything about everything, and restricting someone with views as strong as RMS to only talking about things he fully understands would be an unacceptable handicap.
Not really. You're just as likely to run afoul of a MS patent (even one relating to the .NET project) while working with Java or C. While patents are indeed a serious problem, the risk is not any greater using Mono.
The SCO lawsuit was perpetrated by SCO, not Microsoft. While MS was happy to see it happen, they weren't behind it, and contrary to some /. conjecture, weren't funding it.
Perhaps you're thinking of something else?
Actually, he wrote CFS. Or rather, he wrote the original implementation of CFS. Ingo Molnar re-wrote his implementation and announced it as if he had come up with the idea. At least, from Con's perspective that's what happened. That's why he left Linux development, and why he has no intention of trying to get his scheduler into mainline.
I realize that no one is going to read this now, but FWIW, here's an actual example from one of the most well-respected python projects in circulation:
You recognize it? Yep, that's one of the most commonly used functions in the Django project.
I can't even imagine why the Sheriff's office would want to seize the records relating to law enforcement within the state, but I'm sure he has a Very Good Reason.
It is.
Dynamic languages are fast and fun, but writing maintainable code in Ruby or Python takes an absurd amount of time and discipline. Take the following real-world, not-at-all-uncommon example. Imagine you have the function "get_results", and you want to quickly determine what all the parameters do. So you have a look at the code:
Totally, completely, useless. So you end up following a series of rabbit holes trying to track down the actual usage of these parameters -- and even when you think you've got it all figured out, you still can't be certain because the complex interaction of possibilities in a dynamic language means that you never know what details will end up later being significant.
In order for the thing to be maintainable, the comments would have to outweigh the code by a factor of about 3 to 1, and the documentation needs to be rigorously maintained so that it stays in sync with the code. If you're the original author, then no problem! You wrote the function, so you know what it does. But in a corporate setting with a team of 5 programmers and average turnover, this is a nightmare.
Languages like Java and C# are significantly more verbose and explicit than languages like Python. You're forced to spell everything out in excruciating detail or the thing just won't run. It's like being FORCED to write documentation as part of your program: functions and parameters need to be explicitly declared, class structures can't change shape during execution -- all the important decisions about the shape and usage of your code needs to be decided and written down, and can't be changed without updating all your definitions.
Python and Ruby are "fun" because they don't make you work. There's a cost to skipping all that work, though.
I'm not sure you understand how patents work.
Mono is an implementation of the standards on which .NET is built. It shares absolutely nothing else in common with .NET. The Mono team can be absolutely certain that their product does not infringe on Microsoft's copyright on the code, but no one can ever be certain about whether or not their product infringes on anyone's patents. That's what makes patents so scary.
Likewise, Richard Stallman can never be certain that GCC doesn't infringe on Microsoft's patents regarding Microsoft's C compiler, or that Emacs doesn't infringe on any patents in Microsoft Word.
What's worse is that actually researching to see if there is any patent infringement opens you up to more danger, because if you looked, then you'd be subject to triple damages in any court case for knowingly infringing on a patent. This is why the Linux kernel team intentionally avoids researching Microsoft's patent claims regarding Linux.
Mono is neither more nor less susceptible to patent claims from Microsoft than any other project; be it Python, Ruby, Java, AbiWord, or Gnome-Terminal.
Just because you made it different doesn't mean you made it better.
That goes double for UI.
The FBI: think of it like heart surgery with a backhoe.