Then Mr. CIO starts hiring his nontechnical cronies at $70K+ (rejects from the sales department) supposedly to do some of the things you do, but really just to prove some personal vendetta of how ANYONE can become a seasonaed Java developer overnight. These newly employed friends of the CIO are of course completely out of their field, so they then proceed to surf hardcore porn sites unsupervised for weeks on end during company time. They just end up dragging the entire "team" down to a new depth of creative anguish, and sexually offending your department's few women in the process.
It's at this point that I would take one of the women aside and say the following: "I didn't say this and we never spoke. The new guys are surfing hardcore porn right now - I suggest you get really offended and talk to a lawyer. At least that way, one of us will come out of this better off."
That is the point where you should not only quit, but quit and form a new startup taking all the good people with you. Then if you're like me, you can really kick ass for a few years, sell it and retire 39 and happy.
Your way sounds good too.
I've seen similar phenomena several times, usually with MBA's somehow getting assigned by the executive team to head up technical projects for which the MBA is not even remotely qualified.
We've got an MBA on our team, but he isn't the mangler - he's a teammate and he sticks to what he's good at: beating up on other teams to get the things we need to do our job.
The interracial marriage issue is not related to gay marriage. The crux of the problem is that gay marriage is marriage within the same sex (not gender, sex).
Sure it is. People used the same arguments against interracial marriage 50 years ago, including the point you just mentioned; just change same sex to some hand-wringing about keeping to your own kind.
It's funny how you are trying to imply that one has to do with the other while at the same time dismissing the polygamy argument.
The polygamy argument is a non-sequitor - there is no way that allowing 2 guys to get hitched will lead to more support for harems in the US. The only similarity is that bigots view both of them as wrong. Why else would they also drag man-boy relationships and bestiality into the debate? What we're talking about is 2 adults in a consensual relationship, not any of that other crap.
Have you wonder exactly WHY married people have those rights? Why is the government in the marriage business to begin with? It's because the points that you mention have to do with the long-term preservation of the society and the perpetuation of the state. In other words: Efficient and effective reproduction and child-rearing. Gay marriage, just like marriage between relatives or polygamy, by nature have aspects that are contrary to that principle.
First point: hetero marriage doesn't always involve child-rearing, and some gays want to adopt children. Whether you agree with this, I would argue that nearly anything beats being raised in an orphanage. Second point: a stable society is a separate issue from reproduction. Gay married people can be every bit as boring and domestic as straight people. They just want legal recognition for their personal commitment to each other.
A white woman and a black man are, are you sitting down? They are a man and a woman!
Heh, you're a dense one. 50 years ago, the black man would have been lynched for such an offense. Now it's normal.
You're right, the government doesn't have a right to tell them that they can't go to a "gay" church and get married. However, the government doesn't have to recognize that marriage either since efficient reproduction, the primary reason why the government has a vested interest in marriage, doesn't come into the picture.
Sorry, no. Church has nothing to do with this - this is solely about government recognition of a union, and the government should have to recognize that union, as the primary reason that they're interested is because married people have a bunch of rights already enumerated in this thread. The high points are inheritance, parental rights, and social security.
How about polygamy? Thats one thats been consensually practiced since the dawn of time. Where does it end?
What about Gay Marriage? That's what we want to know - what basis does the government have for telling two guy that they can't be married? Goatfuckers don't have much basis for argument - goats can't consent to sex or marriage. I figure that it will end once gays are no longer controversial. When was the last time you saw someone work themelves into a froth over a white woman and a black man, anyway?
Bullshit. This country was founded on the ideals of natural rights and the body of English common law. Many of the founding fathers were Deists, which is roughly equivalent to hippie tree hugger.
The poster, just like you or I, cannot marry any person he wants. I can't certainly marry my sister, or my mom, or a married woman, or a 10-year old, or two women, or Bob down the street. Can you? Can a gay man? Can a straight man? Can a bisexual man? Can a sheep-loving man?
Don't be an asshole. Nobody wants to marry a sheep, or at least they aren't asking for that right to be recognized. They want to be able to marry the single non-relative 18+ person of their choice.
For example, if you believe that for marriage all you should need is love then you can make an argument that two men can love each other. IMHO it would be the wrong argument to make, but at least it would be an honest argument.
I wouldn't argue that - love isn't a legal requirement and isn't present with a lot of hetero couples. All that's needed is two people who decide to get married.
Well, when the head of MS starts desperately following bizarre orders from Evangelicals, you realize he's gotta be looking for allies. My guess is, his contract is expiring soon, and he's looking for a loophole.
Yes, but why the lunatic fringe? It's not like they have any pull upstairs.
The entire boat was designed for people to have fun on, you make it sound like a jail.
It is a jail. Tell me again how you intend to leave? you can't enter the country except as a tourist, and then only for 3 days. You think some third-worlder is going to take a taxi to LAX, then hop on a plane back home on the money they're paying him?
well, yeah, theoretically. but is this the way to treat the engines of a cruise ship? and how long will it take to regain control of your vessel when you need it?
Plus: the open sea isn't a nice place for machinery - if you leave the engines off for a month, what are the odds that they won't start again? Who wants to play that game when spare parts are potentially days away?
And the last thing we need is for judges to enforce the laws and constitution as it was written. I mean, why should we be bound by an agreement we made in the past? We should just be able to change the terms of the agreement whenever we feel like it, without the permission of the other parties, right?
The Judicial branch is one of the three branches of government. Their duty is to interpret the law and judge defendants. Are you really suggesting that they be wholly subject to the will of Congress?
That is like saying people who plunk down a few hundred thousand dollars for a really nice (or at least expensive) car or boat will not tune it. $1600 is dirt cheap for a 4-way configuration; I expect that the overclockers will give it a lot more attention than they give current quad-cpu offerings.
Exactly. At $300k, you're buying a pretuned car that is damn fast and difficult to improve on. A $1600/cpu 4way box starts at around $10k or more and is useless for games. I can't see overclockers spending the price of a cheap car on a computer just to crank up the speed and burn it out. That's potentially a $6400 mistake.
You're not listening, are you? If you're shopping for a $5000 camera body, chances are that you already have a fair amount of lenses (have you checked the prices of these things? hint: they're not cheap, my high-end laptop is cheap in comparison).
You're not listening either. The point is that this sort of bad behavior gets noticed, and newbies will probably go to Canon as a result. Nikon will retain their existing customers for a time, but continued bad behavior will convince even them to jump ship.
If the code contradicts the design then the code is *wrong*. Period. Being to lazy to code to design spec. shouldn't be tolerated. If you have issues with the design, get the training and experience to be an Analyst or Architect. It isn't the programmer's job to defy the design.
I'll follow that rule when I get designs that lack errors. As it stands, I am the designer and the coder. Design docs are generally viewed as a predictive tool, rather than documenting what's actually there. This last part is a problem, but it will take time to change.
When software fails, most software engineers shrug their shoulders and release a patch or sometimes even redefine success to eliminate errors.
That's because, when software fails, it usually doesn't kill anybody. The general fallout is some lost work or a slightly delayed order. The reason software still crashes is that people aren't willing do do things differently. This implies that it isn't that big a deal.
Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The reason is that when programs ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, they may ask for a great deal more than they ever actually bring into use -- the total may easily run to hundreds of megabytes. These addresses have to be assigned to somewhere by the system. If there is a page file available, the system can assign them to it -- if there is not, they have to be assigned to RAM, locking it out from any actual use.
Not true. When a program allocates a large chunk of ram, all it gets are the page table entries. Only when it actually writes to a page does the ram get used. This means that I can allocate 1.5G of ram and scribble in half of it and only be using 750M
For one thing, the Moon has one third less gravity than your Earth. I don't know if you can understand that, but our vertical leap is beyond all measurement.
5/6ths, actually. I bow to your superior hang time.
but it is the danger that they would just match against nearly everything and you have the same effect as with personalized log files.
Nah, no danger there. Match against specific attack signatures for widely depolyed trojans and your false positive rate will drop to near zero. For instance, a zombie box may lurk on a specific IRC channel. If you match 42000 of these connections, then they can all be reasonably assumed to be zombied hosts.
dunno what to do, but personalized logs are an evil, which is not allowed to take IMO.
In my proposed scenario, logs are only kept long enough to identify compromised hosts.
1. Ideas that can't be stated with mathematical precision are crap.
2. This statement is not specific enough to make a good programming specification.
3. Therefore, this statement is worthless.
If you can't explain something clearly, then you don't underrstand it yourself.
This is so unclear as to obscure the existence of a point in the first place.
Therefore, you don't know what you're talking about.
most likely he was reffering to the law in germany, that every logged connection data must be either anonymized (for technical logs) or must be needed for accounting procedures (but maximum is AFAIK 3 months).
What about matching a customer's traffic against a profile of a particular trojan, then acting on that? Would that be covered by the privacy legislation, or would that be considered 'public' behavior?
For a proof of this theory, try getting inaccurate data removed from your credit report. Darn near impossible without a lawyer getting involved. The reporting companies. If they were liable for mis information, I would imagine that data would be a heck of a lot easier to get corrected, due to a certainty of loss in court.
BTDT. Send a dispute to the 3 credit agencies (Experian, Transunion, Equifax) and wait for about a month. If it's legit, it will generally be removed. If you have proof of its falsity, send a copy of that too.
Slashdot Mirror
Then Mr. CIO starts hiring his nontechnical cronies at $70K+ (rejects from the sales department) supposedly to do some of the things you do, but really just to prove some personal vendetta of how ANYONE can become a seasonaed Java developer overnight. These newly employed friends of the CIO are of course completely out of their field, so they then proceed to surf hardcore porn sites unsupervised for weeks on end during company time. They just end up dragging the entire "team" down to a new depth of creative anguish, and sexually offending your department's few women in the process.
It's at this point that I would take one of the women aside and say the following: "I didn't say this and we never spoke. The new guys are surfing hardcore porn right now - I suggest you get really offended and talk to a lawyer. At least that way, one of us will come out of this better off."
That is the point where you should not only quit, but quit and form a new startup taking all the good people with you. Then if you're like me, you can really kick ass for a few years, sell it and retire 39 and happy.
Your way sounds good too.
I've seen similar phenomena several times, usually with MBA's somehow getting assigned by the executive team to head up technical projects for which the MBA is not even remotely qualified.
We've got an MBA on our team, but he isn't the mangler - he's a teammate and he sticks to what he's good at: beating up on other teams to get the things we need to do our job.
The interracial marriage issue is not related to gay marriage. The crux of the problem is that gay marriage is marriage within the same sex (not gender, sex).
Sure it is. People used the same arguments against interracial marriage 50 years ago, including the point you just mentioned; just change same sex to some hand-wringing about keeping to your own kind.
It's funny how you are trying to imply that one has to do with the other while at the same time dismissing the polygamy argument.
The polygamy argument is a non-sequitor - there is no way that allowing 2 guys to get hitched will lead to more support for harems in the US. The only similarity is that bigots view both of them as wrong. Why else would they also drag man-boy relationships and bestiality into the debate? What we're talking about is 2 adults in a consensual relationship, not any of that other crap.
Have you wonder exactly WHY married people have those rights? Why is the government in the marriage business to begin with? It's because the points that you mention have to do with the long-term preservation of the society and the perpetuation of the state. In other words: Efficient and effective reproduction and child-rearing. Gay marriage, just like marriage between relatives or polygamy, by nature have aspects that are contrary to that principle.
First point: hetero marriage doesn't always involve child-rearing, and some gays want to adopt children. Whether you agree with this, I would argue that nearly anything beats being raised in an orphanage. Second point: a stable society is a separate issue from reproduction. Gay married people can be every bit as boring and domestic as straight people. They just want legal recognition for their personal commitment to each other.
A white woman and a black man are, are you sitting down? They are a man and a woman!
Heh, you're a dense one. 50 years ago, the black man would have been lynched for such an offense. Now it's normal.
You're right, the government doesn't have a right to tell them that they can't go to a "gay" church and get married. However, the government doesn't have to recognize that marriage either since efficient reproduction, the primary reason why the government has a vested interest in marriage, doesn't come into the picture.
Sorry, no. Church has nothing to do with this - this is solely about government recognition of a union, and the government should have to recognize that union, as the primary reason that they're interested is because married people have a bunch of rights already enumerated in this thread. The high points are inheritance, parental rights, and social security.
How about polygamy? Thats one thats been consensually practiced since the dawn of time. Where does it end?
What about Gay Marriage? That's what we want to know - what basis does the government have for telling two guy that they can't be married? Goatfuckers don't have much basis for argument - goats can't consent to sex or marriage. I figure that it will end once gays are no longer controversial. When was the last time you saw someone work themelves into a froth over a white woman and a black man, anyway?
This country was founded on biblical principles.
Bullshit. This country was founded on the ideals of natural rights and the body of English common law. Many of the founding fathers were Deists, which is roughly equivalent to hippie tree hugger.
The poster, just like you or I, cannot marry any person he wants. I can't certainly marry my sister, or my mom, or a married woman, or a 10-year old, or two women, or Bob down the street. Can you? Can a gay man? Can a straight man? Can a bisexual man? Can a sheep-loving man?
Don't be an asshole. Nobody wants to marry a sheep, or at least they aren't asking for that right to be recognized. They want to be able to marry the single non-relative 18+ person of their choice.
For example, if you believe that for marriage all you should need is love then you can make an argument that two men can love each other. IMHO it would be the wrong argument to make, but at least it would be an honest argument.
I wouldn't argue that - love isn't a legal requirement and isn't present with a lot of hetero couples. All that's needed is two people who decide to get married.
Well, when the head of MS starts desperately following bizarre orders from Evangelicals, you realize he's gotta be looking for allies. My guess is, his contract is expiring soon, and he's looking for a loophole.
Yes, but why the lunatic fringe? It's not like they have any pull upstairs.
By utilizing an inexpensive aircraft carrier they could at least send these people home for occasional weekends and vacations.
Don't worry, if they get out of hand, they're sure to listen to Reason.
The entire boat was designed for people to have fun on, you make it sound like a jail.
It is a jail. Tell me again how you intend to leave? you can't enter the country except as a tourist, and then only for 3 days. You think some third-worlder is going to take a taxi to LAX, then hop on a plane back home on the money they're paying him?
well, yeah, theoretically. but is this the way to treat the engines of a cruise ship? and how long will it take to regain control of your vessel when you need it?
Plus: the open sea isn't a nice place for machinery - if you leave the engines off for a month, what are the odds that they won't start again? Who wants to play that game when spare parts are potentially days away?
And the last thing we need is for judges to enforce the laws and constitution as it was written. I mean, why should we be bound by an agreement we made in the past? We should just be able to change the terms of the agreement whenever we feel like it, without the permission of the other parties, right?
The Judicial branch is one of the three branches of government. Their duty is to interpret the law and judge defendants. Are you really suggesting that they be wholly subject to the will of Congress?
A person convicted of a felony cannot vote (assuming they completed their prison sentence)?
It varies by state. Of the states where you can, it's usually only for non-violent crimes.
That is like saying people who plunk down a few hundred thousand dollars for a really nice (or at least expensive) car or boat will not tune it. $1600 is dirt cheap for a 4-way configuration; I expect that the overclockers will give it a lot more attention than they give current quad-cpu offerings.
Exactly. At $300k, you're buying a pretuned car that is damn fast and difficult to improve on. A $1600/cpu 4way box starts at around $10k or more and is useless for games. I can't see overclockers spending the price of a cheap car on a computer just to crank up the speed and burn it out. That's potentially a $6400 mistake.
I also wonder what will happen when people discover that one core can be overclocked more than another core.
At $1600+ for a 4way config, I don't think anybody is going to be overclocking these bad boys.
You're not listening, are you? If you're shopping for a $5000 camera body, chances are that you already have a fair amount of lenses (have you checked the prices of these things? hint: they're not cheap, my high-end laptop is cheap in comparison).
You're not listening either. The point is that this sort of bad behavior gets noticed, and newbies will probably go to Canon as a result. Nikon will retain their existing customers for a time, but continued bad behavior will convince even them to jump ship.
why? is the problem radioactive?
Yeah, it's contaminated with obviousium. Exposure to Obviousium makes you view everything as obvious and not worthy of mention.
If the code contradicts the design then the code is *wrong*. Period. Being to lazy to code to design spec. shouldn't be tolerated. If you have issues with the design, get the training and experience to be an Analyst or Architect. It isn't the programmer's job to defy the design.
I'll follow that rule when I get designs that lack errors. As it stands, I am the designer and the coder. Design docs are generally viewed as a predictive tool, rather than documenting what's actually there. This last part is a problem, but it will take time to change.
When software fails, most software engineers shrug their shoulders and release a patch or sometimes even redefine success to eliminate errors.
That's because, when software fails, it usually doesn't kill anybody. The general fallout is some lost work or a slightly delayed order. The reason software still crashes is that people aren't willing do do things differently. This implies that it isn't that big a deal.
Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The reason is that when programs ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, they may ask for a great deal more than they ever actually bring into use -- the total may easily run to hundreds of megabytes. These addresses have to be assigned to somewhere by the system. If there is a page file available, the system can assign them to it -- if there is not, they have to be assigned to RAM, locking it out from any actual use.
Not true. When a program allocates a large chunk of ram, all it gets are the page table entries. Only when it actually writes to a page does the ram get used. This means that I can allocate 1.5G of ram and scribble in half of it and only be using 750M
For one thing, the Moon has one third less gravity than your Earth. I don't know if you can understand that, but our vertical leap is beyond all measurement.
5/6ths, actually. I bow to your superior hang time.
but it is the danger that they would just match against nearly everything and you have the same effect as with personalized log files.
Nah, no danger there. Match against specific attack signatures for widely depolyed trojans and your false positive rate will drop to near zero. For instance, a zombie box may lurk on a specific IRC channel. If you match 42000 of these connections, then they can all be reasonably assumed to be zombied hosts.
dunno what to do, but personalized logs are an evil, which is not allowed to take IMO.
In my proposed scenario, logs are only kept long enough to identify compromised hosts.
1. Ideas that can't be stated with mathematical precision are crap.
2. This statement is not specific enough to make a good programming specification.
3. Therefore, this statement is worthless.
most likely he was reffering to the law in germany, that every logged connection data must be either anonymized (for technical logs) or must be needed for accounting procedures (but maximum is AFAIK 3 months).
What about matching a customer's traffic against a profile of a particular trojan, then acting on that? Would that be covered by the privacy legislation, or would that be considered 'public' behavior?
For a proof of this theory, try getting inaccurate data removed from your credit report. Darn near impossible without a lawyer getting involved. The reporting companies. If they were liable for mis information, I would imagine that data would be a heck of a lot easier to get corrected, due to a certainty of loss in court.
BTDT. Send a dispute to the 3 credit agencies (Experian, Transunion, Equifax) and wait for about a month. If it's legit, it will generally be removed. If you have proof of its falsity, send a copy of that too.