I ask, because there's an assumption implicit in your post that code that one programmer writes will be hard for another programmer to read. In C, Java or Python, that typically doesn't happen -- the language spec is simple enough that anyone who's halfway competant knows the whole thing (or at least 95%, and where the reference material is to look up things in the other 5%), and the standard runtime library is consistent (and there's quality reference material to use in looking up parts one doesn't know).
That's a whole different story with Perl, where the language spec is byzantine and it's trivial for an average Perl coder to write code that another average Perl coder can't read; likewise, C++ has its share of odd corner cases (though at least the whole spec is documented enough to have 3rd party implementations!). In a well-designed language, though, these kinds of issues just aren't, and the difference between someone of high skill and someone of low skill isn't being ale to read a given code or not, but rather being able to see a better algorithm or a corner case that could turn into a bug if unhandled.
Not necessarily. UML is mostly useful to app-level programmers (and those who work with them), whereas UML is mostly useful to sysadmins and system-level programmers (with whom UML, to the best of my knowledge, has never really caught on).
I'm at least a nominal member of all three sets, and I work much more with UML than UML.
Re:its all going to back fire and die
on
Inside TechTV/G4
·
· Score: 1
hire me, ive done loads, and I see dumb shits getting good jobs (GWB), whats the go?
Maybe, but your command of the language doesn't put a very good face forward to the public. If you want folks to take you seriously, particularly for any position where most communication or work is done electronically, perhaps you should learn to write better.
I wonder if at a current age of 24 years old, I will ever live to even see the first hints of such a beautiful, proliferant civilization
Of course you will, if you look for them. Stop moaning, and instead join and associate with the subset of humanity that already has these beliefs -- like almost any subset, it's larger than it looks from the outside.
It looks to me more like the **AA will sue everything under the sun... the site that indexes the trackers, the site that hosts the trackers and the individuals that are ul/dl the files. I don't think they are thinking about bang for the buck anymore -- Their whole approach seems to have become very emotional.
The sites that index the trackers are very few; they can afford to sue all of them.
The sites that host the trackers are many, but they can at least sue the ones who host the largest number, plus maybe a few more as examples.
The individuals -- they can sue a few as examples, but it's still just a drop in the bucket.
That solves plenty. Note that they're suing not the individual users, but rather the folks hosting the sites with links to trackers? That's because they get much better bang-for-buck that way.
If the only folks they can sue are the individual infringing users, their ability to shut down the rampant misuse of BitTorrent for massive copyright violation is dramatically decreased.
...most particularly, by ioctls. Everywhere else (almost), a userspace program can do anything a kernel module can do; ioctls, however, ensure that you can *never* have a userspace program sitting behind/dev/foo in place of the "foo" kernel module.
There are some other places where Plan 9 fixed up Unix's warts, but IMHO this is one of the bigger ones. Encouraging folks to write kernelspace drivers is just icky.
a small price to pay not to constantly walk all over the id-files with find/grep/sed when you do magical things...
Replacing find with "tla inventory" works in the common cases, I find -- and baz's patching up "add" to ignore the user's requests when it's told to do something stupid likewise helps with some of the more common (find . | xargs tla add) goofs.
It's not just about needing to use "tla mv" on moving directories -- you'd also have to use "tla rm" on deleting them, and would otherwise be a mess. Anyhow, I like the current behaviour -- and if need be, you can tell find to do fancy things. For instance:
...so find itself ignores.arch-ids directories, directories starting with,, or +, and {arch}. Of course, if you don't need fancy functionality you're better off with inventory in the first place... but this should at least give an example of what kind of thing is possible.
Heh. As far as forks go, there's Landry's "arx", which basically came about because of a falling out between Tom and a fellow who was trying to take partial mantainership duties for him, and Canonical's "baz", which is a basically friendly fork intended to experiment with making UI improvements; any changes they make that the community likes will (in theory) get folded back into tla 1.x, and perhaps used as food-for-thought for tla2 (which is a complete rewrite).
larch and tla are both Tom's; larch was once the reference implementation of the Arch protocol, and now tla is.
Tom is now working on tla2, incidentally, and leaving Matthew Dempsky to maintain tla 1.x; this appears to be working out much better than did previous times when Tom tried to cede partial control over his baby.
IMNSHO, distributed revision control is something long past-due for wider adoption... be nice to see it used outside of Linus's BitKeeper adoption and the (reasonably large number of) projects using Arch.
The impact of distributed revision control is that someone doesn't need to be trusted with commit access to a repository owned by the maintainers to do revision-controlled work -- instead, they just make a branch inside an archive they control, and changes can be merged back and forth between that one, the "official" branch, and/or any other 3rd-party branches at-will. As a casual contributor to a large number of projects, I find this extremely useful -- I have my own revision-controlled archive containing only my changes, and I don't need to get the trust and/or approval of the project maintainers before getting started.
Personally, I like Arch, but it's not the only game in town -- Darcs, Monotone and SVK are all in the same problem space (within the Free camp), as well as BitKeeper (in the proprietary camp). I'd like to think that this is what these folks mean by distributed storage (as the revision control archive doesn't necessarily sit all in one place) -- the concept needs all the exposure I can get, so I don't need to go the $#%@ pain of maintaining my own branches (w/o assistance from my revision control tools) again!
why should any foreign nation benefit from my product for example?
Why do you think you can stop them? The whole "sovereign nation" thing has a rather key word in it: "sovoreign". That is:
2. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other; possessing,
or entitled to, original authority or jurisdiction; as, a
sovereign state; a sovereign discretion.
Independant of, and unlimited by, any other. What does that mean? Well, you don't get to say jack shit about what their laws are, and they don't get to control yours. Personally, I think that's perfectly fair. (Now, you can pressure them to change their laws via trade agreements and such, and that's fair game too).
I prefer a different tack: Use a general-purpose VPN solution. IPsec (been around a long time, heavily analyzed, no obvious bugs) and OpenVPN (uses SSL for all the sensitive bits, much simpler but more than flexible enough for almost all use cases) both do quite well sitting on top of a wireless connection, and by restricting access to the network beyond the access point to folks coming through the VPN, moochers and such are avoided.
Ideally, I prefer the belt-and-suspenders route: WPA, then a VPN, then app-level encryption on top.
He's used to having computers that won't run modern software -- the one I'm replacing for him is a bottom-end Pentium; his spare is an IBM PS/1. The Pentium died on account of spyware and virii (he was hitting the porn sites and not being very careful about ActiveX controls and such); this way, I can give him something that he can't easily break.
Since I'm only visiting about 2x/year, and I'm the only tech support he's got, "won't break" is more important than "runs mainstream software".
"Word", maybe, but "Internet Explorer"? Nobody I know who's insufficiently savvy to identify Linspire as not being windows cares about "Internet Explorer" -- they just want "The Internet".
"Most people"? Naaw. My girlfriend's father is "most people". He doesn't know or care what the OS is or the applications' names are as long as he has email, web access and bare-bones word processing -- and he's out-of-date enough that Windows XP and Office XP will be every bit as foreign as Linspire and OpenOffice.
I could name you more "non-infringing" uses of P2P than non-people-injuring uses of guns.
*sigh*. Not only is it an obvious troll, but I'm going to bite anyhow.
I'm in Texas. We have lots of people here who live in the boonies, and literally have alligators and/or poisonous snakes in their backyards.
You might have a point wrt handguns -- but certainly not guns in general. (And wrt handguns, the usual counterargument -- roughly, making criminals nervous of actions taken by an armed general population -- holds some weight).
Not too surprisingly, out in the boonies (where every home has a shotgun and typically more, and police response times are 30min at the very minimum), folks don't get robbed too much -- indeed, it's considered polite to leave your car keys on your dashboard so folks can move your vehicle if they have to. Armed society being a polite society, and such.
Honestly, I can't argue (and am not arguing) against globalization -- I'm a libertarian, and am quite certain that the free market will balance everything out (including the market rates at which folks can afford to sell/rent land, food, etc. in the Bay Area), given some time.
Things'll be a bit uncomfortable in the process, though -- because, as I was pointing out, the current cost of living in South Bay isn't something that could be sustained without the inflated payscales there.
Understand, I know how to live cheaply. When I was living in South Bay, I subletted a couch in a single-bed apartment and took mass transport to work (need to work past 11:00? No more trains, sleep in the office), or later my (used, very low maintenance) motorcycle. I didn't travel for recreation, and my only computer was the one at my office. Granted, I had electricity and running water.
Even so, my cost-of-living then was higher than it is now as a homeowner in Austin, TX. South Bay is exceedingly uncheap. (Granted, I ate out on a semi-regular basis then -- but the hours I worked didn't permit me to cook for myself, whereas now I still work hours that don't permit me to cook for myself but have a SO who cooks for me).
I'd like to think that this variety of lifestyle (running water, electricity, some variety of cheap transport) is indeed supportable worldwide, preferably w/ some additional items as well (basic health care would be nice -- I was uninsured at the time). Even so, what it costs (or at least what it did cost during the boom) to maintain this minimal lifestyle in South Bay is much, much more than it would cost to do the same thing in Bangalore, or what it costs in Texas (I was living with friends for ~6 months in.tx.us before finding a place to live, and so have some familiarity with minimal lifestyle costs here as well).
Sure, Americans are much richer than Indians on average, but are you trying to argue that they deserve to be so much richer?
If you think that 3x as much pay translates to even nearly 3x as much buying power -- 'fraid not. Living in the Silicon Valley area is extremely expensive -- $3000/mo for rent alone wasn't remotely atypical when I was there. An American trying to live in South Bay on the pay an Indian can use to live comfortably in Bangalore would literally starve to death.
One impression I got from what I read of the series was that Sauron was not so much an individual as a plot element incarnate. Does that change when taking a larger view of the book? Does one ever have an opportunity to empathise and understand on a basic human level (as opposed to a more abstract concept of greed/ambition/whatever) what it is that Sauron was driven by? If so, I may want to go back, pick the series back up, and finish what of it is left.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you write Perl?
I ask, because there's an assumption implicit in your post that code that one programmer writes will be hard for another programmer to read. In C, Java or Python, that typically doesn't happen -- the language spec is simple enough that anyone who's halfway competant knows the whole thing (or at least 95%, and where the reference material is to look up things in the other 5%), and the standard runtime library is consistent (and there's quality reference material to use in looking up parts one doesn't know).
That's a whole different story with Perl, where the language spec is byzantine and it's trivial for an average Perl coder to write code that another average Perl coder can't read; likewise, C++ has its share of odd corner cases (though at least the whole spec is documented enough to have 3rd party implementations!). In a well-designed language, though, these kinds of issues just aren't, and the difference between someone of high skill and someone of low skill isn't being ale to read a given code or not, but rather being able to see a better algorithm or a corner case that could turn into a bug if unhandled.
Not necessarily. UML is mostly useful to app-level programmers (and those who work with them), whereas UML is mostly useful to sysadmins and system-level programmers (with whom UML, to the best of my knowledge, has never really caught on).
I'm at least a nominal member of all three sets, and I work much more with UML than UML.
hire me, ive done loads, and I see dumb shits getting good jobs (GWB), whats the go?
Maybe, but your command of the language doesn't put a very good face forward to the public. If you want folks to take you seriously, particularly for any position where most communication or work is done electronically, perhaps you should learn to write better.
I wonder if at a current age of 24 years old, I will ever live to even see the first hints of such a beautiful, proliferant civilization
Of course you will, if you look for them. Stop moaning, and instead join and associate with the subset of humanity that already has these beliefs -- like almost any subset, it's larger than it looks from the outside.
It looks to me more like the **AA will sue everything under the sun ... the site that indexes the trackers, the site that hosts the trackers and the individuals that are ul/dl the files. I don't think they are thinking about bang for the buck anymore -- Their whole approach seems to have become very emotional.
The sites that index the trackers are very few; they can afford to sue all of them.
The sites that host the trackers are many, but they can at least sue the ones who host the largest number, plus maybe a few more as examples.
The individuals -- they can sue a few as examples, but it's still just a drop in the bucket.
That solves plenty. Note that they're suing not the individual users, but rather the folks hosting the sites with links to trackers? That's because they get much better bang-for-buck that way.
If the only folks they can sue are the individual infringing users, their ability to shut down the rampant misuse of BitTorrent for massive copyright violation is dramatically decreased.
...most particularly, by ioctls. Everywhere else (almost), a userspace program can do anything a kernel module can do; ioctls, however, ensure that you can *never* have a userspace program sitting behind /dev/foo in place of the "foo" kernel module.
There are some other places where Plan 9 fixed up Unix's warts, but IMHO this is one of the bigger ones. Encouraging folks to write kernelspace drivers is just icky.
But most people don't and my program will fail to build for them :(
That makes sense, and is a valid reason to use a fancid-up find command instead of inventory.
Replacing find with "tla inventory" works in the common cases, I find -- and baz's patching up "add" to ignore the user's requests when it's told to do something stupid likewise helps with some of the more common (find . | xargs tla add) goofs.
It's not just about needing to use "tla mv" on moving directories -- you'd also have to use "tla rm" on deleting them, and would otherwise be a mess. Anyhow, I like the current behaviour -- and if need be, you can tell find to do fancy things. For instance:
Heh. As far as forks go, there's Landry's "arx", which basically came about because of a falling out between Tom and a fellow who was trying to take partial mantainership duties for him, and Canonical's "baz", which is a basically friendly fork intended to experiment with making UI improvements; any changes they make that the community likes will (in theory) get folded back into tla 1.x, and perhaps used as food-for-thought for tla2 (which is a complete rewrite).
larch and tla are both Tom's; larch was once the reference implementation of the Arch protocol, and now tla is.
Tom is now working on tla2, incidentally, and leaving Matthew Dempsky to maintain tla 1.x; this appears to be working out much better than did previous times when Tom tried to cede partial control over his baby.
Works, sure.
Not a good way to be popular, if done without adequate cause.
IMNSHO, distributed revision control is something long past-due for wider adoption... be nice to see it used outside of Linus's BitKeeper adoption and the (reasonably large number of) projects using Arch.
The impact of distributed revision control is that someone doesn't need to be trusted with commit access to a repository owned by the maintainers to do revision-controlled work -- instead, they just make a branch inside an archive they control, and changes can be merged back and forth between that one, the "official" branch, and/or any other 3rd-party branches at-will. As a casual contributor to a large number of projects, I find this extremely useful -- I have my own revision-controlled archive containing only my changes, and I don't need to get the trust and/or approval of the project maintainers before getting started.
Personally, I like Arch, but it's not the only game in town -- Darcs, Monotone and SVK are all in the same problem space (within the Free camp), as well as BitKeeper (in the proprietary camp). I'd like to think that this is what these folks mean by distributed storage (as the revision control archive doesn't necessarily sit all in one place) -- the concept needs all the exposure I can get, so I don't need to go the $#%@ pain of maintaining my own branches (w/o assistance from my revision control tools) again!
Why do you think you can stop them? The whole "sovereign nation" thing has a rather key word in it: "sovoreign". That is: Independant of, and unlimited by, any other. What does that mean? Well, you don't get to say jack shit about what their laws are, and they don't get to control yours. Personally, I think that's perfectly fair. (Now, you can pressure them to change their laws via trade agreements and such, and that's fair game too).
If he bought new hardware for himself, I wouldn't be giving him this hand-me-down in the first place.
Hmm. Sounds like we're implementing very similar solutions in very similar environments.
Mind if I ask where you work?
I prefer a different tack: Use a general-purpose VPN solution. IPsec (been around a long time, heavily analyzed, no obvious bugs) and OpenVPN (uses SSL for all the sensitive bits, much simpler but more than flexible enough for almost all use cases) both do quite well sitting on top of a wireless connection, and by restricting access to the network beyond the access point to folks coming through the VPN, moochers and such are avoided.
Ideally, I prefer the belt-and-suspenders route: WPA, then a VPN, then app-level encryption on top.
He's used to having computers that won't run modern software -- the one I'm replacing for him is a bottom-end Pentium; his spare is an IBM PS/1. The Pentium died on account of spyware and virii (he was hitting the porn sites and not being very careful about ActiveX controls and such); this way, I can give him something that he can't easily break.
Since I'm only visiting about 2x/year, and I'm the only tech support he's got, "won't break" is more important than "runs mainstream software".
and of lastly porn..lots of it.
Well, of course. That falls under "web browsing".
"Word", maybe, but "Internet Explorer"? Nobody I know who's insufficiently savvy to identify Linspire as not being windows cares about "Internet Explorer" -- they just want "The Internet".
"Most people"? Naaw. My girlfriend's father is "most people". He doesn't know or care what the OS is or the applications' names are as long as he has email, web access and bare-bones word processing -- and he's out-of-date enough that Windows XP and Office XP will be every bit as foreign as Linspire and OpenOffice.
I could name you more "non-infringing" uses of P2P than non-people-injuring uses of guns.
*sigh*. Not only is it an obvious troll, but I'm going to bite anyhow.
I'm in Texas. We have lots of people here who live in the boonies, and literally have alligators and/or poisonous snakes in their backyards.
You might have a point wrt handguns -- but certainly not guns in general. (And wrt handguns, the usual counterargument -- roughly, making criminals nervous of actions taken by an armed general population -- holds some weight).
Not too surprisingly, out in the boonies (where every home has a shotgun and typically more, and police response times are 30min at the very minimum), folks don't get robbed too much -- indeed, it's considered polite to leave your car keys on your dashboard so folks can move your vehicle if they have to. Armed society being a polite society, and such.
So move -- I did.
Honestly, I can't argue (and am not arguing) against globalization -- I'm a libertarian, and am quite certain that the free market will balance everything out (including the market rates at which folks can afford to sell/rent land, food, etc. in the Bay Area), given some time.
Things'll be a bit uncomfortable in the process, though -- because, as I was pointing out, the current cost of living in South Bay isn't something that could be sustained without the inflated payscales there.
Understand, I know how to live cheaply. When I was living in South Bay, I subletted a couch in a single-bed apartment and took mass transport to work (need to work past 11:00? No more trains, sleep in the office), or later my (used, very low maintenance) motorcycle. I didn't travel for recreation, and my only computer was the one at my office. Granted, I had electricity and running water.
.tx.us before finding a place to live, and so have some familiarity with minimal lifestyle costs here as well).
Even so, my cost-of-living then was higher than it is now as a homeowner in Austin, TX. South Bay is exceedingly uncheap. (Granted, I ate out on a semi-regular basis then -- but the hours I worked didn't permit me to cook for myself, whereas now I still work hours that don't permit me to cook for myself but have a SO who cooks for me).
I'd like to think that this variety of lifestyle (running water, electricity, some variety of cheap transport) is indeed supportable worldwide, preferably w/ some additional items as well (basic health care would be nice -- I was uninsured at the time). Even so, what it costs (or at least what it did cost during the boom) to maintain this minimal lifestyle in South Bay is much, much more than it would cost to do the same thing in Bangalore, or what it costs in Texas (I was living with friends for ~6 months in
Sure, Americans are much richer than Indians on average, but are you trying to argue that they deserve to be so much richer?
If you think that 3x as much pay translates to even nearly 3x as much buying power -- 'fraid not. Living in the Silicon Valley area is extremely expensive -- $3000/mo for rent alone wasn't remotely atypical when I was there. An American trying to live in South Bay on the pay an Indian can use to live comfortably in Bangalore would literally starve to death.
Hmm.
One impression I got from what I read of the series was that Sauron was not so much an individual as a plot element incarnate. Does that change when taking a larger view of the book? Does one ever have an opportunity to empathise and understand on a basic human level (as opposed to a more abstract concept of greed/ambition/whatever) what it is that Sauron was driven by? If so, I may want to go back, pick the series back up, and finish what of it is left.