If the system favored one candidate over another, you'd want a revote, yes. But the voting system is never perfect and just about every close vote is contested. So, given the expense of elections, I'd argue against any revotes if the only problem is flawed code, and not an actual bias for one candidate / party or another.
Say you're a real company, with a real closed source code base and you decide to make an open source push.
You're going to have some code that you can't open, either for legal reasons or patent reasons or internal politics or because it's heavily patched code that only makes sense to a few key employees, and you want to clean it up before releasing it. So parts of it will remain closed. Otherwise, do explain how you'd sidestep all the legal, technical and political issues, while running a company and delivering a product.
I don't even understand the "astroturfing" charge since Netgear is promoting itself on its website. But say this is somehow relevant, for the sake of argument. Your participating developers are going to be your employees, at first. Maybe for a while. Seeing as how they're paid and the community is not, they're going to be the dominant influence. But if you really think there shouldn't be any paid developers, you need to explain how a company can shift gears from a closed source model to an open source model without taking the time to build up a community, and while not scaring off investors because they just fired their development staff.
I'm not saying they're above criticism, and yeah, I find the out of touch marketing message irritating and I don't understand why marketing types suck at life so much. But the open source fanboys here sound even more clueless, which is saying something. (Incidentally, I have nothing to do with Netgear, don't own or recall ever owning any of their products, and I work on databases, not networking.)
I'm sure they say in no uncertain terms. Seriously, after you've committed a felony, you're not going to sue someone who can send you straight to jail.
Reminds me of a guy who died last year at this time on the Bonneville Salt Flats attempting the same thing. Can you imagine flying off a motorcycle at 239 MPH? Insanity.
Flying off, no problem. The road rash when you hit the ground, ouch! The fact that you're being scraped over salt, owie owie owie!
Given that this is a first-iteration idea, I'm sure there is some nasty "bug" in it but I offer it up anyway.
Look, LOC is a perfectly good metric. Uptime or whatever it is you're measuring is a perfectly good metric. There are lots of metrics and they can certainly tell you stuff.
The problem is that people think that these things can replace the need for carefully considered judgment, or that management in general can be replaced with a set of policies and incentives. (And like metrics, policies and incentives are perfectly valid things in themselves, they're just not replacements for actual thought.)
There's a reason this happens: training, counseling, reviewing and, well, managing people takes a hell of a lot of time. And a lot of people really suck at it. There are managers that suck so hard that a naive measurement of LOC would actually be superior to their judgment. But in most situations, if managers set up a system like LOC and don't actively police it, people will simply game the system until it falls apart.
Likewise if you're a top-flight sys-admin then surely your skills are not completely in one product, but in the ability to learn products quickly and well and in overall knowledge of procedures and organization.
And the human resources troll reading a paragraph like that doesn't see ACME-FOOLATOR 12.5 WITH MEGA-XML, and tosses your resume in the garbage.
Yeah, who the fuck came up with that abominable phrase? In this era, the most easily offended person determines what's offensive, and companies have to enforce that. I'm not even against it, after all, I don't want to make someone miserable by telling filthy jokes if they really bother them. But by the same token, why can't I complain that I am offended at a term that suggests I'm nothing more than chattel? It boggles the mind.
The fact is, corporations get to have their cake and eat it too.
Actually, they can't eat cake, because they don't really exist. It's the same reason you can't really punish them.
Calling corporations "persons" (but not "natural persons") leads to a class system were some "persons" (corporations) have rights/indemnities that actual human persons do not.
So, can a corporation have free speech? No, because it doesn't have a mouth. Can a corporation carry a gun? No, because it doesn't have any hands to hold it with. Etc.
Sure, an executive might go to jail, but unless their crime involves financial misconduct, the odds of them going to jail is infinitesimal.
Ah, now we get to it. You don't like executives and think they should go to jail when a large group of people all get together and make an agreement to undertake a risky venture and said venture goes south.
Yes, that's how it used to be before incorporation, and the trouble with that system is that no one will take charge of those risky ventures because they'd be afraid of going to jail.
You talk about class and rights, but really you're just feeling vengeful and envious of people you don't even know, and I think you're pretty hypocritical in feigning concern for the little guy when under your system he'd be mired in poverty right now.
Maybe we should appreciate them for that, instead of taking apart the physics?
No. Watching sci-fi without taking apart the physics is like watching a cop show without trying to figure out who the bad guy is, or reading/. without complaining about the editors.
Summary doesn't make it clear that the Sheriff in question is Joe Arpaio, a sadistic, authoritarian monster that that believes in making prison as demeaning and painful affair as possible no matter what the offense.
And it's all legal and supported by his constituency.
So why is it liberals want more and more aspects of our lives run by the government, thus giving guys like Arpaio more control over our lives? Why do liberals scoff at the notion of a limiting Congress to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution?
We women don't sit around and say things like, "Come on, ladies, this arguing is stupid and pointless. Stop acting like men!"
Probably not, but at the same time there's much less social stigma attached to a woman acting in a masculine manner, so it's a pretty pointless comparison.
Though judging from the fact that this is what happened here and from the content of your comments, I guess we should start.
So basically, if I want to be sexist too, all the justification I need is to have listened to Rosie O'Donnell for five minutes. Gotcha.
There haven't been any advances in "machine intelligence" that should make *anyone* worried, unless your job requires very little intelligence and no actual decision making.
They aren't trying to get paid for *internet access*. They're trying to get paid from people reading their own made content. There's no problem in that.
If they just wanted to sell access and let the market decide whether it was a good business model, it would be fine. But they haven't, historically. We have laws that extend copyright to life of author plus 70 years. We have DMCA being used to bludgeon competitors. We have Sony distributing root-kits. We have Amazon removing content from people's hardware without authorization.
The real problem is that most of this stuff just isn't worth what they want to charge and their business model requires either duping people repeatedly, controlling customers' private property or having the government get involved. That's the problem.
I meant that new programmers shouldn't be doing anything so complex that it requires them to use anything other than the standard library. Learn the language, then play with the extras.
Except that Python's "batteries included" mentality means that you've already an extremely broad standard library so "what's in the standard library" isn't a good measure of how complex something is.
I think the GP is on the right track because kids want to produce something *tangible*. A game is something that they understand and that their friends will approve of. Also, some people might not be interested right away, but if they're looking at a programming class in college and they recall "oh, yeah, I remember we made some cool little games in high school" they'll have a much more positive recollection and be more inclined to go back into it.
I mean, you don't want second rate pictures in your pr0n stash?
I had problems building it back then, let alone writing the scripts for it and the hassle of figuring out which images were duplicates, but this utility seems to fit the bill.
Except for deforestation and burning of fossil fuels, most other CO2 related activities don't actually change the overall amount of carbon in play.
And this one, specifically, wouldn't because the amount of energy stored in fat is trivial compared to the energy burnt by an organism over its lifetime. The simplest math is to compare your lifespan of 70 years vs. your fat reserves of a few weeks.
If anything, this would be a (trivial) net gain since you'd be burning less energy hauling that fat around with you.
Using random values from the web, CO2 is 1.9769 g/L, and human body fat is 900.7 g/L. So the fat is going to expand about 500 times before it gets out of the body.
With Olestra, people were shocked, shocked, that you'd get runny shits if a fatty substance passed through your body undigested. My prediction: if this takes off, life will imitate art.
Slashdot Mirror
Pay-day loans exist as a business model, but I do not find that they are healthy for the communities that they exist in.
Actually they're far less worse for those communities than the alternative: loan sharks and organized crime. Poor people are poor, not stupid.
Well shit, in that case, they can't use SQL at all.
If that were really the case, they couldn't use any code whatsoever. The whole thing would have to be a collection of ASICs or something like that.
If the system favored one candidate over another, you'd want a revote, yes. But the voting system is never perfect and just about every close vote is contested. So, given the expense of elections, I'd argue against any revotes if the only problem is flawed code, and not an actual bias for one candidate / party or another.
Say you're a real company, with a real closed source code base and you decide to make an open source push.
You're going to have some code that you can't open, either for legal reasons or patent reasons or internal politics or because it's heavily patched code that only makes sense to a few key employees, and you want to clean it up before releasing it. So parts of it will remain closed. Otherwise, do explain how you'd sidestep all the legal, technical and political issues, while running a company and delivering a product.
I don't even understand the "astroturfing" charge since Netgear is promoting itself on its website. But say this is somehow relevant, for the sake of argument. Your participating developers are going to be your employees, at first. Maybe for a while. Seeing as how they're paid and the community is not, they're going to be the dominant influence. But if you really think there shouldn't be any paid developers, you need to explain how a company can shift gears from a closed source model to an open source model without taking the time to build up a community, and while not scaring off investors because they just fired their development staff.
I'm not saying they're above criticism, and yeah, I find the out of touch marketing message irritating and I don't understand why marketing types suck at life so much. But the open source fanboys here sound even more clueless, which is saying something. (Incidentally, I have nothing to do with Netgear, don't own or recall ever owning any of their products, and I work on databases, not networking.)
I'm sure they say in no uncertain terms. Seriously, after you've committed a felony, you're not going to sue someone who can send you straight to jail.
YHBT... anyhow, on OS X you can have multiple versions within a framework, and frameworks private to an application. So "it just works."
Packages work beautifully. Anything I need for my app can be bundled right along with it, or in any of the standard directories.
Reminds me of a guy who died last year at this time on the Bonneville Salt Flats attempting the same thing. Can you imagine flying off a motorcycle at 239 MPH? Insanity.
Flying off, no problem. The road rash when you hit the ground, ouch! The fact that you're being scraped over salt, owie owie owie!
>So what? I wouldn't want to work for a company with an HR department that clueless.
Quoth the Rolling Stones, "You can't always get what you want... But if you try sometime, you might find, you get what you need..."
That's one way of looking at it, another would be to say it was designed to guarantee revenge.
Look, LOC is a perfectly good metric. Uptime or whatever it is you're measuring is a perfectly good metric. There are lots of metrics and they can certainly tell you stuff.
The problem is that people think that these things can replace the need for carefully considered judgment, or that management in general can be replaced with a set of policies and incentives. (And like metrics, policies and incentives are perfectly valid things in themselves, they're just not replacements for actual thought.)
There's a reason this happens: training, counseling, reviewing and, well, managing people takes a hell of a lot of time. And a lot of people really suck at it. There are managers that suck so hard that a naive measurement of LOC would actually be superior to their judgment. But in most situations, if managers set up a system like LOC and don't actively police it, people will simply game the system until it falls apart.
Likewise if you're a top-flight sys-admin then surely your skills are not completely in one product, but in the ability to learn products quickly and well and in overall knowledge of procedures and organization.
And the human resources troll reading a paragraph like that doesn't see ACME-FOOLATOR 12.5 WITH MEGA-XML, and tosses your resume in the garbage.
Yeah, yeah, I know, networking and all that.
We're just "human resources".
Yeah, who the fuck came up with that abominable phrase? In this era, the most easily offended person determines what's offensive, and companies have to enforce that. I'm not even against it, after all, I don't want to make someone miserable by telling filthy jokes if they really bother them. But by the same token, why can't I complain that I am offended at a term that suggests I'm nothing more than chattel? It boggles the mind.
Yes, this is /., where I've been signing my posts for about a decade.
That's depressing.
You spend 99% of your time not being fired, the 1% when you are or are close to is liable to look pretty bad.
Heh... 90210 is a good one, but 12345 is in Schenectady, NY. Since 12345 is also the combination to my luggage, it's quite convenient.
The fact is, corporations get to have their cake and eat it too.
Actually, they can't eat cake, because they don't really exist. It's the same reason you can't really punish them.
Calling corporations "persons" (but not "natural persons") leads to a class system were some "persons" (corporations) have rights/indemnities that actual human persons do not.
So, can a corporation have free speech? No, because it doesn't have a mouth. Can a corporation carry a gun? No, because it doesn't have any hands to hold it with. Etc.
Sure, an executive might go to jail, but unless their crime involves financial misconduct, the odds of them going to jail is infinitesimal.
Ah, now we get to it. You don't like executives and think they should go to jail when a large group of people all get together and make an agreement to undertake a risky venture and said venture goes south.
Yes, that's how it used to be before incorporation, and the trouble with that system is that no one will take charge of those risky ventures because they'd be afraid of going to jail.
You talk about class and rights, but really you're just feeling vengeful and envious of people you don't even know, and I think you're pretty hypocritical in feigning concern for the little guy when under your system he'd be mired in poverty right now.
No. Watching sci-fi without taking apart the physics is like watching a cop show without trying to figure out who the bad guy is, or reading /. without complaining about the editors.
And it's all legal and supported by his constituency.
So why is it liberals want more and more aspects of our lives run by the government, thus giving guys like Arpaio more control over our lives? Why do liberals scoff at the notion of a limiting Congress to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution?
We women don't sit around and say things like, "Come on, ladies, this arguing is stupid and pointless. Stop acting like men!"
Probably not, but at the same time there's much less social stigma attached to a woman acting in a masculine manner, so it's a pretty pointless comparison.
Though judging from the fact that this is what happened here and from the content of your comments, I guess we should start.
So basically, if I want to be sexist too, all the justification I need is to have listened to Rosie O'Donnell for five minutes. Gotcha.
There haven't been any advances in "machine intelligence" that should make *anyone* worried, unless your job requires very little intelligence and no actual decision making.
So you can see why John Markoff is so worried.
They aren't trying to get paid for *internet access*. They're trying to get paid from people reading their own made content. There's no problem in that.
If they just wanted to sell access and let the market decide whether it was a good business model, it would be fine. But they haven't, historically. We have laws that extend copyright to life of author plus 70 years. We have DMCA being used to bludgeon competitors. We have Sony distributing root-kits. We have Amazon removing content from people's hardware without authorization.
The real problem is that most of this stuff just isn't worth what they want to charge and their business model requires either duping people repeatedly, controlling customers' private property or having the government get involved. That's the problem.
I meant that new programmers shouldn't be doing anything so complex that it requires them to use anything other than the standard library. Learn the language, then play with the extras.
Except that Python's "batteries included" mentality means that you've already an extremely broad standard library so "what's in the standard library" isn't a good measure of how complex something is.
I think the GP is on the right track because kids want to produce something *tangible*. A game is something that they understand and that their friends will approve of. Also, some people might not be interested right away, but if they're looking at a programming class in college and they recall "oh, yeah, I remember we made some cool little games in high school" they'll have a much more positive recollection and be more inclined to go back into it.
I mean, you don't want second rate pictures in your pr0n stash?
I had problems building it back then, let alone writing the scripts for it and the hassle of figuring out which images were duplicates, but this utility seems to fit the bill.
Except for deforestation and burning of fossil fuels, most other CO2 related activities don't actually change the overall amount of carbon in play.
And this one, specifically, wouldn't because the amount of energy stored in fat is trivial compared to the energy burnt by an organism over its lifetime. The simplest math is to compare your lifespan of 70 years vs. your fat reserves of a few weeks.
If anything, this would be a (trivial) net gain since you'd be burning less energy hauling that fat around with you.
Using random values from the web, CO2 is 1.9769 g/L, and human body fat is 900.7 g/L. So the fat is going to expand about 500 times before it gets out of the body.
With Olestra, people were shocked, shocked, that you'd get runny shits if a fatty substance passed through your body undigested. My prediction: if this takes off, life will imitate art.