Interesting problem here: on the one hand there is a valid objection to administering mood stabilizing medicines in this manner, but on the other hand drinking water might be unnaturally devoid of certain essential minerals.
I'm not particularly against unnatural things, but I can't find solid arguments against adding something to the drinking water, provided it is proven that this addition makes it healthier.
The grandparent just offers his analysis. No judgement is expressed if you read carefully. You may disagree, but from your post it seems that it was a good post sparkling an interesting discussion. I'm confused why you think that is "trolling at its worst".
Further more, you write about the statements being "unqualified" and "cannot be substantiated in ANY way", while you offer no arguments to back this up other than "no justice system can operate on such a weak foundation" and "is also simply wrong".
I'm reading: parent is so clearly wrong that I won't bother to give arguments, and because he is wrong he must be trolling.
I'd like to see grandparents claims substantiated or refuted. Modding grandparent down will lead to less readers, and therefore the chances of someone offering more information, or refuting the claims will go down.
Well, I for one am not going to risk anything by watching the video. Of some things you really do not need to see the graphics. And no, watching pr0n doesn't give you AIDS.
Look up trusting trust. Defects in the compiler, whether intentional or unintentional, can propagate themselves to the compiled work, even if the compiled work is the compiler itself.
This always gets me though: why doesn't this apply to C?
Yes, it would be nice to have a way to compile beautiful mathematical functions to machine code. Sadly you're dependent on those people that are writing the grammar and reference implementation of the compiler. What if they need one of those pesky algorithms for that?
If they can't recover the data, how did they prove it was ever there? I didn't read the article in good/. fashion, but if it avoids this question I'm sure it's not to be taken seriously.
I'm close to giving up on educating users with email, it's pretty hopeless I think.
Being a good example has more effect and is less annoying (for both parties) than constantly correcting people.
I seriously doubt that you were born a nerd (that's not an insult here right?). Anyway, I remember being educated on countless occasions and I have great respect for the people taking the trouble to do so.
If people need education there are plenty of links you can give them where they can get the information on their own.
Not true. As mentioned before, Reply All is a very useful thing as long as you keep the addresses in you To and CC fields limited to the addresses of persons that you *actually want to involve* in the discussion. If you're on the BCC and have a valid point to make you can do so and will be in the CC list thereafter.
If you're in the BCC and make a moronic response you will not be included in the discussion and your mail will likely be ignored.
Works like a charm and like other commenters in this thread I use it with pleasure almost all the time.
nntp anyone? This is not a new problem you know... And yes you can configure your client to periodically refresh, show you just the new items and use it for offline reading.
Yes, and if the management there knew what they were doing they could have used BCC instead of threatening their employees with repercussions for touching the Reply-All button.
Full rant here
As it is it is one of the stupidest things I read today. Do you seriously think that throwing hardware in whatever quantities can solve a problem other than the need for a pile of useless hardware?
You'll get my vote if you say that programming for performance is about the last thing you need to worry about, and programming for scalability one of the first. Only when you're program is working and scalable will it make any sense to "throw hardware at it".
The software markets are changing rapidly (what else is new). The interesting thing that is happening now, is that clients buying software to develop their apps with are becoming more willing to add a feature to an open source project on their budget.
Basically the only thing of value to them is getting the feature they need now implemented first. The competitor getting the feature too is not really a threat, because it isn't likely that he needs it.
If you're good you'll be able to work on an open source framework on a contract basis pretty soon I think.
With a larger dataset outscaling efficiency becomes more important than sorting efficiency. Sorting 1PB is different than sorting 1TB.
Since were relating to human proportions today, I'll compare your comparison to comparing running 100m to running a marathon. Apply story telling skills and score.
Well, following that logic an appliance braking down would be an attack on your rights too. IMO, it's just broken. If you can't fix it yourself take it back to the shop and try to get someone excited there.
(disclaimer: I work for SpringSource, but do have my own opinion)
So let me get this straight: you have used a framework that allows you to mix and match the use of your ORM solution with plain JDBC. It also has a dedicated WS project that isn't bad at all and you happen to need that too. Sounds like a good start to me.
The fact that you now have to write some code yourself is not a shortcoming of the frameworks you used, but a natural step in the evolution of any useful piece of software.
I'm biased because I'm a committer to Spring, but you can't seriously argue that having to extend Spring is an argument against using it.
I would say that the extensibility is one of the main strengths to look for in a framework, for exactly the reasons you're stumbling upon.
It seems like you've written an application that is actually used and now the users want more. Congratulations!
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting problem here: on the one hand there is a valid objection to administering mood stabilizing medicines in this manner, but on the other hand drinking water might be unnaturally devoid of certain essential minerals.
I'm not particularly against unnatural things, but I can't find solid arguments against adding something to the drinking water, provided it is proven that this addition makes it healthier.
The grandparent just offers his analysis. No judgement is expressed if you read carefully. You may disagree, but from your post it seems that it was a good post sparkling an interesting discussion. I'm confused why you think that is "trolling at its worst".
Further more, you write about the statements being "unqualified" and "cannot be substantiated in ANY way", while you offer no arguments to back this up other than "no justice system can operate on such a weak foundation" and "is also simply wrong".
I'm reading: parent is so clearly wrong that I won't bother to give arguments, and because he is wrong he must be trolling.
I'd like to see grandparents claims substantiated or refuted. Modding grandparent down will lead to less readers, and therefore the chances of someone offering more information, or refuting the claims will go down.
Well, I for one am not going to risk anything by watching the video. Of some things you really do not need to see the graphics. And no, watching pr0n doesn't give you AIDS.
Yeah right, and coffee making is CO2 neutral?
... killing a mosquito with a cannon?
Look up trusting trust. Defects in the compiler, whether intentional or unintentional, can propagate themselves to the compiled work, even if the compiled work is the compiler itself.
This always gets me though: why doesn't this apply to C?
Yes, it would be nice to have a way to compile beautiful mathematical functions to machine code. Sadly you're dependent on those people that are writing the grammar and reference implementation of the compiler. What if they need one of those pesky algorithms for that?
You can do the math yourself, but I think "most children" is a valid classification.
death benefits
Some might disagree with your usage of benefits.
If they can't recover the data, how did they prove it was ever there? I didn't read the article in good /. fashion, but if it avoids this question I'm sure it's not to be taken seriously.
Did you delete that dll for your mom too? http://www.tomshardware.com/news/avg-antivirus-virus-removal,6587.html
Good thing parent wasn't talking about VMWare. Granted, the information is interesting, but it has little to do with the parent's statement.
I'm close to giving up on educating users with email, it's pretty hopeless I think.
Being a good example has more effect and is less annoying (for both parties) than constantly correcting people.
I seriously doubt that you were born a nerd (that's not an insult here right?). Anyway, I remember being educated on countless occasions and I have great respect for the people taking the trouble to do so.
If people need education there are plenty of links you can give them where they can get the information on their own.
Not true. As mentioned before, Reply All is a very useful thing as long as you keep the addresses in you To and CC fields limited to the addresses of persons that you *actually want to involve* in the discussion. If you're on the BCC and have a valid point to make you can do so and will be in the CC list thereafter. If you're in the BCC and make a moronic response you will not be included in the discussion and your mail will likely be ignored. Works like a charm and like other commenters in this thread I use it with pleasure almost all the time.
nntp anyone? This is not a new problem you know... And yes you can configure your client to periodically refresh, show you just the new items and use it for offline reading.
Most companies are pretty stupid about the way they spread news.
Yes, and if the management there knew what they were doing they could have used BCC instead of threatening their employees with repercussions for touching the Reply-All button. Full rant here
You'll get my vote if you say that programming for performance is about the last thing you need to worry about, and programming for scalability one of the first. Only when you're program is working and scalable will it make any sense to "throw hardware at it".
The software markets are changing rapidly (what else is new). The interesting thing that is happening now, is that clients buying software to develop their apps with are becoming more willing to add a feature to an open source project on their budget.
Basically the only thing of value to them is getting the feature they need now implemented first. The competitor getting the feature too is not really a threat, because it isn't likely that he needs it.
If you're good you'll be able to work on an open source framework on a contract basis pretty soon I think.
Since were relating to human proportions today, I'll compare your comparison to comparing running 100m to running a marathon. Apply story telling skills and score.
You got baited into a flame in a very elaborate scheme to mock your intelligence (or lack thereof).
There is no category meta-flamebait, so you're proving the mods right I'd say.
I hope this helps.
http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/therollingstones19.shtml too good to be true...
Well, following that logic an appliance braking down would be an attack on your rights too. IMO, it's just broken. If you can't fix it yourself take it back to the shop and try to get someone excited there.
So let me get this straight: you have used a framework that allows you to mix and match the use of your ORM solution with plain JDBC. It also has a dedicated WS project that isn't bad at all and you happen to need that too. Sounds like a good start to me.
The fact that you now have to write some code yourself is not a shortcoming of the frameworks you used, but a natural step in the evolution of any useful piece of software.
I'm biased because I'm a committer to Spring, but you can't seriously argue that having to extend Spring is an argument against using it.
I would say that the extensibility is one of the main strengths to look for in a framework, for exactly the reasons you're stumbling upon.
It seems like you've written an application that is actually used and now the users want more. Congratulations!
The times they are a'changing on slashdot too I see. Since when did quoting a song *on topic* become trolling?