Never in my 36+ years of life I've seen or heard an ad for diamonds. And I learned about DeBeers here on/. My wife probably never heard of DeBeers either. Not every part of word is influenced by marketing of some company. However I still consider diamonds to be nice and interesting - simply because they are unusual. They are on the edge of the scale. That determines the price.
You really do need to remember that there are more than two people involved, and that they all have rights.
Correct. But don't forget the context. We talk about children getting a vaccination. They are not themselves able to execute their right to decide whether they get the vaccination or not. Actually, given that the vaccine is administrated by injection, I doubt that they would voluntarily agree. I'm just arguing that until they do, then I have to execute that right for them and I don't want that right to be taken from me.
Let's replace a single word in it and see how well that flies:
Yes. Replacing a word in a sentence can change the meaning of the sentence. What a surprise. But let's play that game for a while: So the slaves that you heard about enjoy love and care, right? The only thing that the children do not enjoy is freedom. No they are not free to do whatever they want to do. Because that means they would not go to school and would eat only chocolate in front of a TV or PlayStation all day long. That would not be "giving them freedom", that would be "neglecting my parenting duties".
And yes, my children do have rights. Such as the right to get proper health care. Now the question is, what "proper" means in this context and who decides what "proper" is. They are too young and lack the information to decide that for themselves. At this age I do it for them. Now explain to me, why your definition of what is "proper" would trump my definition?
For either or both reasons, we can and should use the law to force parents to vaccinate their children.
As long as I provide my children with love, care, food, clothes and shelter, I'm the one who is deciding what happens with them. And if you, law enforcement or whoever else will try stopping me from doing so, then I'll fight back. The only situation when you would be have right to handle my children against my will, is if my actions will restrict your rights. However the problem is that proving that would be problematic. Especially because medicine is not exact science. It is all about probabilities. The probability that vaccination helps is something. The probability that my decision to skip vaccination will hurt you is different thing. Unless you can turn those probabilities to certainty, I'll not agree with using force to interfere with my right do decide what is best for my children.
Having said that, my children get vaccination. But it is my decision.
A humorous error message often brightens the day of the poor guy in operations who has to report back to the developer.
... Our clients sometimes do not share our sense of humour. As the technical lead, if I find it, you can be damn sure you're taking it out again. And I am looking:)
Just recently I wrote a piece of code that communicates over network using socket. There is a routine that can be called from multiple places and all of them check the validity of the socket before calling the routine. But trying to be a good developer I test the socket validity in the routine again. It should not be possible that the test fails, but if it does (e.g. because the software was later extended) I log a message. Something like "We heave found an invalid socket. He is dead, Jim.".
I don't know if it qualifies as Easter Egg, but... it won't hurt, "brightens the day" a bit and I see nothing wrong with that. If you do, then I'm glad I don't work for you.
And whoever said you can't prevent execute on windows systems is ignorant. You've been able to deny "Read & Execute" via NTFS permissions since NT 3.
Yes, you can use NTFS permissions. But we talk about USB drives here. Every thumb drive that I've met was FAT formatted. Just like it came from factory. If you format it NTFS, then "well known SIDs" would work. But if you use some user specific permissions... well perhaps with well managed AD forest it might work. I still consider Linux solution more elegant.
In fact there can be much more fun with buffers. You can have one for every letter:
Yanking:
"{buffername}{cursor movement}
such as:
"ay2w - to buffer a yank 2 words
"by5j - to buffer b yank 5 lines down starting at cursor position
also:
"cdw - delete a word and put it in buffer c
Pasting:
"{buffername}{p|P}
such as:
"bp - paste content of buffer b after current cursor position
"aP - past content of buffer a at current cursor position
And the best thing is that it worked already in 1996 when I met vi. However I'm missing good (read short) documentation of vi basics. The documentation has grown too much with descriptions on code folding, syntax highlight, autocompletion, etc. etc. - and a newbie has no chance to find simple commands for moving around the screen (such as H - top "home" of screen, L - bottom "low" of screen, Ctrl-f - forward one page, Ctrl-u up one page,... ) in that. Also:map used to be good one - before all keystrokes and keystroke-combinations got assigned to something:-)
And Chernobyl had a tremendously bad design that never would have been approved in the West,... it was a horribly conceived experiment run by idiots that never would have been allowed in the West,
You are right that Soviets fucked up at Chernobyl. But never underestimate power of human stupidity. Considering the ability of West engineers to crash a major project due mixing yards and metres, I don't think that West is somehow immune from producing equally dangerous incidents.
You did not catch my sarcasm. Open source is open source - regardless of capitalization. The world has already some understanding of what "open source" means. It means Open Source - access to source code and right to tinker with it in order to enhance/improve/fix/learn/... or just for the fun of it. Now Microsoft comes by and attempts to sneak different meaning of open source to the public. Joe Sixpack is not going to catch the difference when the only hint is capitalization. Just like I pretended above. Therefore we are up in arms. We do not want Microsoft to take advantage of the label. Even if the label is not rubber stamped by USPTO. It is already coined. MS noticed a trendy word and wants to jump the bandwagon. Only the bandwagon has some rules. And anybody who wants to join, has to follow the rules. Simple CSS rule { text-transform: uppercase; } could make worlds of difference. That is not right.
You'll get the same people complaining that a) parents suck because they don't spend every waking hour monitoring their children (and even if you do, you're probably blinking too much you lazy bastard), while at the same time every time a monitoring technology is mentioned that WOULD allow parents to easily keep an eye on their children and what they're doing, the same group yells bloody murder that Little Billy is being sheltered too much and that he'll never stand on his own.
Both those groups want parents to spend more time with children. Neither groups says that children should not be "monitored" at all. Both groups say that children should be supervised, but it should not be done with technology.
They call it open source, not Open Source like you do
Sorry. I'm hearing-impaired and perhaps my screen reader is doing something wrong. Would you mind to explain the difference between "OPEN SOURCE" in 1st part of your sentence and "OPEN SOURCE" in 2nd part of your sentence?
almost all open source licenses place some form of restriction on what you can do with the code
There are good restrictions and bad restrictions;-)
The GPL restricts you from restricting rights of others. If GPL would not do that, then it would not protect interests of others. I.e. it would allow restriction of code accessibility. That means that, from logic point of view, that there is no way, how to please everyone. So GPL chooses the restriction that benefits the majority. That makes it Open. The restrictions, placed on code by MS, are not making the code Open.
The paranthesis after the method name inclines me to think of it as a function
That is just you. When I learned OOP, the term was "sending a message". As in "ourFoo.setDonTouch(5) means: send a message to object ourFoo that it should set something to value 5".
Let me get this straight: You suggest to tear down your protection from one type of DOS-attack (that is widely-used) in order to protect against another type of DOS-attack (that was just discovered) ?
I don't want to watch a 5 minute tutorial - I want to find the one line command to do something!
That is the price for going from command-line-friendly OS to click-all-day OS. Video is probably better conceive the information about navigating your way in a GUI.
to a fundamentally corrupt organization like the United Nations.
Hold on. Just to make sure I understand: You say that the system should not be moved
from entity that screwed up - hint: TFA
to entity where multiple countries have equal chance to push their agenda. You know all this plurality thing..
?
I don't say that UN never screwed up. They did. Sometimes by bending over to US. But considering the current state of affairs in US, it is hypercritical of US to call anybody corrupt.
Linux still uses the outmoded FHS at the front end... but look at the other options. Windows...
Giving Windows solution to filesystem hierarchy as example is really not a good example. Especially with no mechanism for concurrently having several versions of some library on the system. The OSX approach makes much more sense. But in both cases - why would the end user care where the files of particular applications are? There is the package manager for that. All that user is interested in, is to have easy access to start the application. From end-user point of view the location of files is irrelevant.
...As long as it's free as in beer and it works, they're happy....
Users don't want to be rebuffed with the old 'that's the great thing about FOSS - if there's something you don't like, you fix it yourself' line
The point is that the expectations of users are more diverse than what the developers can offer. And that is not going to change. The "as long as it works" is unrealistic. It may work in 95% of cases. It may be robust and whatever, but there is no chance to please everyone, on every hardware, on any combination of interacting apps. At that point the "fix it yourself" makes suddenly much more sense.
what if we let athletes do whatever they wanted in excel?
Aargh! Everything is being done in excel these days. Starting with meeting minutes and ending with drawing pictures or mechanical parts. But for christ's sake don't let them put hands on PowerPoint!
Slashdot Mirror
Never in my 36+ years of life I've seen or heard an ad for diamonds. And I learned about DeBeers here on /. My wife probably never heard of DeBeers either. Not every part of word is influenced by marketing of some company. However I still consider diamonds to be nice and interesting - simply because they are unusual. They are on the edge of the scale. That determines the price.
I guess that this is not so clear cut for everyone.
Correct. But don't forget the context. We talk about children getting a vaccination. They are not themselves able to execute their right to decide whether they get the vaccination or not. Actually, given that the vaccine is administrated by injection, I doubt that they would voluntarily agree. I'm just arguing that until they do, then I have to execute that right for them and I don't want that right to be taken from me.
Yes. Replacing a word in a sentence can change the meaning of the sentence. What a surprise. But let's play that game for a while: So the slaves that you heard about enjoy love and care, right? The only thing that the children do not enjoy is freedom. No they are not free to do whatever they want to do. Because that means they would not go to school and would eat only chocolate in front of a TV or PlayStation all day long. That would not be "giving them freedom", that would be "neglecting my parenting duties".
And yes, my children do have rights. Such as the right to get proper health care. Now the question is, what "proper" means in this context and who decides what "proper" is. They are too young and lack the information to decide that for themselves. At this age I do it for them. Now explain to me, why your definition of what is "proper" would trump my definition?
As long as I provide my children with love, care, food, clothes and shelter, I'm the one who is deciding what happens with them. And if you, law enforcement or whoever else will try stopping me from doing so, then I'll fight back. The only situation when you would be have right to handle my children against my will, is if my actions will restrict your rights. However the problem is that proving that would be problematic. Especially because medicine is not exact science. It is all about probabilities. The probability that vaccination helps is something. The probability that my decision to skip vaccination will hurt you is different thing. Unless you can turn those probabilities to certainty, I'll not agree with using force to interfere with my right do decide what is best for my children.
Having said that, my children get vaccination. But it is my decision.
Just recently I wrote a piece of code that communicates over network using socket. There is a routine that can be called from multiple places and all of them check the validity of the socket before calling the routine. But trying to be a good developer I test the socket validity in the routine again. It should not be possible that the test fails, but if it does (e.g. because the software was later extended) I log a message. Something like "We heave found an invalid socket. He is dead, Jim.".
I don't know if it qualifies as Easter Egg, but ... it won't hurt, "brightens the day" a bit and I see nothing wrong with that. If you do, then I'm glad I don't work for you.
Yes, you can use NTFS permissions. But we talk about USB drives here. Every thumb drive that I've met was FAT formatted. Just like it came from factory. If you format it NTFS, then "well known SIDs" would work. But if you use some user specific permissions ... well perhaps with well managed AD forest it might work. I still consider Linux solution more elegant.
- Yes, what?!
- YES, SIR !!!
Actually I imagined unfolding a really tiny beach bar with reggae music and glass of cocktail with umbrella ...
In fact there can be much more fun with buffers. You can have one for every letter:
Yanking:
"{buffername}{cursor movement}
such as:
"ay2w - to buffer a yank 2 words
"by5j - to buffer b yank 5 lines down starting at cursor position
also:
"cdw - delete a word and put it in buffer c
Pasting:
"{buffername}{p|P}
such as:
"bp - paste content of buffer b after current cursor position
"aP - past content of buffer a at current cursor position
And the best thing is that it worked already in 1996 when I met vi. However I'm missing good (read short) documentation of vi basics. The documentation has grown too much with descriptions on code folding, syntax highlight, autocompletion, etc. etc. - and a newbie has no chance to find simple commands for moving around the screen (such as H - top "home" of screen, L - bottom "low" of screen, Ctrl-f - forward one page, Ctrl-u up one page, ... ) in that. Also :map used to be good one - before all keystrokes and keystroke-combinations got assigned to something :-)
May I kindly opt out from your experiment?
You are right that Soviets fucked up at Chernobyl. But never underestimate power of human stupidity. Considering the ability of West engineers to crash a major project due mixing yards and metres, I don't think that West is somehow immune from producing equally dangerous incidents.
You did not catch my sarcasm. Open source is open source - regardless of capitalization. The world has already some understanding of what "open source" means. It means Open Source - access to source code and right to tinker with it in order to enhance/improve/fix/learn/... or just for the fun of it. Now Microsoft comes by and attempts to sneak different meaning of open source to the public. Joe Sixpack is not going to catch the difference when the only hint is capitalization. Just like I pretended above. Therefore we are up in arms. We do not want Microsoft to take advantage of the label. Even if the label is not rubber stamped by USPTO. It is already coined. MS noticed a trendy word and wants to jump the bandwagon. Only the bandwagon has some rules. And anybody who wants to join, has to follow the rules. Simple CSS rule { text-transform: uppercase; } could make worlds of difference. That is not right.
Both those groups want parents to spend more time with children. Neither groups says that children should not be "monitored" at all. Both groups say that children should be supervised, but it should not be done with technology.
Sorry. I'm hearing-impaired and perhaps my screen reader is doing something wrong. Would you mind to explain the difference between "OPEN SOURCE" in 1st part of your sentence and "OPEN SOURCE" in 2nd part of your sentence?
There are good restrictions and bad restrictions ;-)
The GPL restricts you from restricting rights of others. If GPL would not do that, then it would not protect interests of others. I.e. it would allow restriction of code accessibility. That means that, from logic point of view, that there is no way, how to please everyone. So GPL chooses the restriction that benefits the majority. That makes it Open. The restrictions, placed on code by MS, are not making the code Open.
That is just you. When I learned OOP, the term was "sending a message". As in "ourFoo.setDonTouch(5) means: send a message to object ourFoo that it should set something to value 5".
Let me get this straight: You suggest to tear down your protection from one type of DOS-attack (that is widely-used) in order to protect against another type of DOS-attack (that was just discovered) ?
That is the price for going from command-line-friendly OS to click-all-day OS. Video is probably better conceive the information about navigating your way in a GUI.
Good job putting that together. Would you care to put it on a web-site somewhere? (I mean other than /. discussion)
Hold on. Just to make sure I understand: You say that the system should not be moved
?
I don't say that UN never screwed up. They did. Sometimes by bending over to US. But considering the current state of affairs in US, it is hypercritical of US to call anybody corrupt.
Giving Windows solution to filesystem hierarchy as example is really not a good example. Especially with no mechanism for concurrently having several versions of some library on the system. The OSX approach makes much more sense. But in both cases - why would the end user care where the files of particular applications are? There is the package manager for that. All that user is interested in, is to have easy access to start the application. From end-user point of view the location of files is irrelevant.
The point is that the expectations of users are more diverse than what the developers can offer. And that is not going to change. The "as long as it works" is unrealistic. It may work in 95% of cases. It may be robust and whatever, but there is no chance to please everyone, on every hardware, on any combination of interacting apps. At that point the "fix it yourself" makes suddenly much more sense.
I have nothing to hide. I have nothing to share either.
What if you phone/e-mail/SMS your doctor or lawyer? What if the organized crime bribes a clerk to find out when and where the police raid will happen?
The sad thing is that even if this gets rejected in UK now, it will come up again and in more countries in future.
Aargh! Everything is being done in excel these days. Starting with meeting minutes and ending with drawing pictures or mechanical parts. But for christ's sake don't let them put hands on PowerPoint!