Subversion has distributed add-ons. For example, svk (I have not personally used it, but have heard good things). Subversion is more than just a version control system, it is more like a version control architecture. Take a look at all the related projects here. Most people just need cvs-replacement functionality, but there are certainly more options than that. I think it has a very good chance of catching up with BitKeeper shortly.
ps - now that I look at it again, it appears that svk has grown beyond a subversion add-on and supports other repository architectures.
Photoshop's interface is not badly designed. A LOT of people are immensely productive using it. Dismissing photoshop-like interfaces as badly designed is ignorant in light of how successful and popular it is. You can call the GIMP's interface superior, but Photoshop is very good on it's own.
Personally, the best programmers I know have graduated with degrees in electrical or computer engineering, not ComSci.
As a recent CompSci graduate, I totally agree with you. I feel that the skills I use on actual programming projects have very little to do with my degree. In fact, I've been coming to believe that there should be no computer science undergraduate degrees whatsoever, just computer or software engineering. Most of the kids in my program did not seem to get the science of computer science, the just wanted to learn to program, and the curriculum did not help them. Although I am fascinated by computer science, and will probably go back for grad school, I feel that the vast majority of my actual programming skills I picked up on my own and not due to the curriculum.
Programming is not a science, but neither is it an art. It is an engineering discipline. There are of course many pieces of science and art that go in to many software products, but the act of programming is engineering. In any engineering field you need to ensure that the practitioners have a minimum level of mathematical competency. Calculus is certainly not too much to ask. The thing that makes a good programmer is the ability to learn new systems and agorithms and adapt them to his/her needs. You don't need to be able to do calculus to be a good programmer, you need to be able to learn calculus to be a good programmer. Calculus is not rocket science, calculus is simple compared to the software systems dealt with in most programming jobs.
That being said, there are more and more non-programmer roles in software construction every day. The role of programmers is becomming more and more to create tools that artists can use to simply create applications without a need for general programming skills. This field is much newer however and there is no standardized way to train for such positions. Web design is getting close, I guess. The distinction between computer science and software engineering was a slow one to emerge, and it is still lost on many people. The distinction between software creation and programming will probably have similar problems, but I imagine that one day it will be similar to the distinction in architecture, where artists design what the building will look and feel like, and engineers design how the building will stay standing.
I think the issue is potentially dangerous for you and the university.
I hope you didn't let them get away with that FUD. At the very least you should force them to articulate the reasons they think BT is dangerous, Then likely you will have ample ammunition to prove that either they ignored your legitimate uses argument, or they grossly misunderstand the technical differences between BT and other p2p apps.
It's not a legitimate concern when you call the scientists involved "idiots". You just fear what you don't understand. General relativity is a very mature field and the scientists performing these experiments know what they're doing. To judge what technology we should be allowed to research, you should probably actually understand the science involved first. Next you should approach the issue with academic respect for your peers, or if you don't qualify as a peer at least some common politeness to your fellow human beings.
He doesn't suggest 301 as a solution, he suggests it to webmasters as a workaround when they have no other option. He clearly proposes a more proper solution at the bottom, but his fix requires fixing the search engines, and that's not happening.
What I'm confused about is how he says that the engines are implementing 302s according to the RFCs right now, it would seem that they are not by discarding the "hijacked page" as a duplicate of the "hijacking page". The rfc clearly says that a 302 is not a permanent condition. Since a permanent page and a non-permanent page are inherently not "the same", there is no justification for identifying these pages as duplicates and deleting one of them.
I liked what Bill Clinton said when he was promoting his biography on the Daily Show: It's not "going negative" when you're responding to an opponent's attack. Clinton loved it when his opponents went negative because it gave him an opportunity to counterpunch and while looking squeaky clean. Of course a politician who refrains from going negative when his opponent does so is going to lose, he's just letting himself get beat up. No voter likes a wuss. The trick is just defending yourself in the right way.
I like that you called it a paradox, because just like all paradoxes, while superficially confusing, it really does make sense if you look at it from the right perspective. Voters don't like negative political ads because they reveal what scumbags the candidates are. Negative political adds work because the candidates actually are scumbags, and the ads tell that truthfully. Voters simultaneously want as much information possible about the candidates, and want not to be disillusioned with the political process. That's why they express conflicting opinions about negative ads.
Which microsoft libraries is wine emulating? The Windows95 libraries, the Windows98 libraries, the windows2000 libraries? Do you get my point? You can emulate a particular library, but you can't emulate something abstract like the win32 api. The wine project's goal is to provide an alternative implementation of the win32 api, not to emulate any particular Microsoft library. The difference is a very subtle one, but it is one that the wine developers have chosen to emphasize as important to their motivations.
JoeBuck would seem to say no here. Although he's not the most insightful sports broadcaster in my opinion and I bet he's even less knowledgable about C compilers.
Because it's fun, otherwise I'd actually be getting work done.
In all serious though, the vast majority of the people who call wine an emulator do not know the difference between an implementation of an API, a system which emulates another system. These discussions provide great opportunities to educate people on the difference. The point is that it's not possible to emulate an abstract API, you can only emulate a concrete existing system. The wine project takes great pains to make sure it is implementing the API, and not emulating the bugs of a paritcular win32 implementation like windows98. Also, Wine doesn't form a complete operating system by itself, so it cannot be an emulator of an operating system, it is only a piece of such an emulator.
They can on properly configured systems, and wine implements the win32 API, it doesn't emulate it. You could say that wine emulates the Microsoft implementation of the win32 API. You do realize that the whole "wine means wine is not an emulator" thing is a big HHOS joke about how imprecise the word emulator is, don't you?
There is absolutely no reason to expect a general purpose dictionary like American Heritage to have an accurate definition for a piece of technical jargon like the word "emulator". Besides, that's not even a definition of the word "emulator" it's a definition of the word "to emulate". The word "emulator" has a much more specific technical meaning than just "something that emulates".
Yet when you click on the read more link, it takes you here instead of here where it should be. An article about data structure design is clearly of interest to no one but programmers. Even if it were cross listed in the other topics, the primary topic for this article should be developers.
Slashdot Mirror
it was a south park reference
ps - now that I look at it again, it appears that svk has grown beyond a subversion add-on and supports other repository architectures.
Photoshop's interface is not badly designed. A LOT of people are immensely productive using it. Dismissing photoshop-like interfaces as badly designed is ignorant in light of how successful and popular it is. You can call the GIMP's interface superior, but Photoshop is very good on it's own.
Personally, the best programmers I know have graduated with degrees in electrical or computer engineering, not ComSci.
As a recent CompSci graduate, I totally agree with you. I feel that the skills I use on actual programming projects have very little to do with my degree. In fact, I've been coming to believe that there should be no computer science undergraduate degrees whatsoever, just computer or software engineering. Most of the kids in my program did not seem to get the science of computer science, the just wanted to learn to program, and the curriculum did not help them. Although I am fascinated by computer science, and will probably go back for grad school, I feel that the vast majority of my actual programming skills I picked up on my own and not due to the curriculum.
Programming is not a science, but neither is it an art. It is an engineering discipline. There are of course many pieces of science and art that go in to many software products, but the act of programming is engineering. In any engineering field you need to ensure that the practitioners have a minimum level of mathematical competency. Calculus is certainly not too much to ask. The thing that makes a good programmer is the ability to learn new systems and agorithms and adapt them to his/her needs. You don't need to be able to do calculus to be a good programmer, you need to be able to learn calculus to be a good programmer. Calculus is not rocket science, calculus is simple compared to the software systems dealt with in most programming jobs.
That being said, there are more and more non-programmer roles in software construction every day. The role of programmers is becomming more and more to create tools that artists can use to simply create applications without a need for general programming skills. This field is much newer however and there is no standardized way to train for such positions. Web design is getting close, I guess. The distinction between computer science and software engineering was a slow one to emerge, and it is still lost on many people. The distinction between software creation and programming will probably have similar problems, but I imagine that one day it will be similar to the distinction in architecture, where artists design what the building will look and feel like, and engineers design how the building will stay standing.
I hope you didn't let them get away with that FUD. At the very least you should force them to articulate the reasons they think BT is dangerous, Then likely you will have ample ammunition to prove that either they ignored your legitimate uses argument, or they grossly misunderstand the technical differences between BT and other p2p apps.
Well put. I stand corrected on all three points, then.
Plus, even if the submitters could see everything in the queue, this solution would require them to RTFA and we can't have that!
It's not a legitimate concern when you call the scientists involved "idiots". You just fear what you don't understand. General relativity is a very mature field and the scientists performing these experiments know what they're doing. To judge what technology we should be allowed to research, you should probably actually understand the science involved first. Next you should approach the issue with academic respect for your peers, or if you don't qualify as a peer at least some common politeness to your fellow human beings.
What I'm confused about is how he says that the engines are implementing 302s according to the RFCs right now, it would seem that they are not by discarding the "hijacked page" as a duplicate of the "hijacking page". The rfc clearly says that a 302 is not a permanent condition. Since a permanent page and a non-permanent page are inherently not "the same", there is no justification for identifying these pages as duplicates and deleting one of them.
It looks like this has started already...
You and Morbo have got it figured out, the 2 major parties are indistinguisable for all relevant purposes:
Morbo will now introduce tonights candidates. Puny human number one, puny human number two, and Morbo's good friend Richard Nixon.
and this quote is even further off topic, but I had to post it anyways...
Morbo congratulates our gargantuan cyborg president. May death come swiftly to his enemies.
well what do you know? I had never heard that before, but apparently they're both correct.
You forgot the inexpensive, I think everyone else has too...
I like that you called it a paradox, because just like all paradoxes, while superficially confusing, it really does make sense if you look at it from the right perspective. Voters don't like negative political ads because they reveal what scumbags the candidates are. Negative political adds work because the candidates actually are scumbags, and the ads tell that truthfully. Voters simultaneously want as much information possible about the candidates, and want not to be disillusioned with the political process. That's why they express conflicting opinions about negative ads.
Which microsoft libraries is wine emulating? The Windows95 libraries, the Windows98 libraries, the windows2000 libraries? Do you get my point? You can emulate a particular library, but you can't emulate something abstract like the win32 api. The wine project's goal is to provide an alternative implementation of the win32 api, not to emulate any particular Microsoft library. The difference is a very subtle one, but it is one that the wine developers have chosen to emphasize as important to their motivations.
JoeBuck would seem to say no here. Although he's not the most insightful sports broadcaster in my opinion and I bet he's even less knowledgable about C compilers.
I stopped reading right there, start over please?
In all serious though, the vast majority of the people who call wine an emulator do not know the difference between an implementation of an API, a system which emulates another system. These discussions provide great opportunities to educate people on the difference. The point is that it's not possible to emulate an abstract API, you can only emulate a concrete existing system. The wine project takes great pains to make sure it is implementing the API, and not emulating the bugs of a paritcular win32 implementation like windows98. Also, Wine doesn't form a complete operating system by itself, so it cannot be an emulator of an operating system, it is only a piece of such an emulator.
Congratulations, you caught me because I applied a definition which I didn't agree with in the first place.
They can on properly configured systems, and wine implements the win32 API, it doesn't emulate it. You could say that wine emulates the Microsoft implementation of the win32 API. You do realize that the whole "wine means wine is not an emulator" thing is a big HHOS joke about how imprecise the word emulator is, don't you?
wine doesn't execute any programs, it is merely a set of libraries that are called by win32 programs that the linux kernel is executing.
There is absolutely no reason to expect a general purpose dictionary like American Heritage to have an accurate definition for a piece of technical jargon like the word "emulator". Besides, that's not even a definition of the word "emulator" it's a definition of the word "to emulate". The word "emulator" has a much more specific technical meaning than just "something that emulates".
you wrote this page, didn't you?
Yet when you click on the read more link, it takes you here instead of here where it should be. An article about data structure design is clearly of interest to no one but programmers. Even if it were cross listed in the other topics, the primary topic for this article should be developers.