One time I wrote this sort of script, and discovered that there's an MD5 collision between one of the Linux system files and a Quake 3 Arena game file (I checked, the contents were different).
I'm glad I didn't run the deletion part of it without checking the uniqueness output first.
$19.95 for a beta of something you can whip up in about an hour of shell scripting.
Hell, I wrote exactly what people are talking about here in an afternoon in college - I even did both SHA and MD5, because I ended up finding a SHA collision between one of the Quake 3 files and a Linux system file.
The whole article could be summarized like this: "We have no fucking clue how to manage rockstar developers".
Actually I think it's even worse than that - notice that as soon as the author gets into the meat of the article, it transforms from "rockstar developers" to "senior developers".
The two terms are not interchangeable. A "senior developer" has spent many years in the field, a "rockstar developer" is someone who fits the 10x productivity rule. Although he mentions it in passing, this is the fundamental problem with the article: being a "senior developer" affects your productivity by maybe 1.5x - 2x; being good at programming affects your productivity by 0x-10x.
If you tell your HR department you need to hire ten "senior programmers", you're probably not going to get any sort of rockstar programmers out of it; the rockstars are already employed, and you're not going to find them just because you want them to be there. You're just going to get a bunch people with ten year's experience who aren't very good at what they do (which is why they're looking for a job).
Not only that, but apparently the GP believes in a God who is statisically indistinguishable from randomness. It's fine if that's what floats your boat, but I'm pretty sure that's indistinguishable from atheism.
Physics is different in America, that's why we can't get cars with more than 40 mpg. According to a previous poster the air resistance here in the States is so much greater than in Europe that it makes this an impossible goal.
Just FYI, although theologically guided evolution is more accurate than creationism, it's still a couple steps short of the actual theory of evolution we have today.
The modern theory of evolution simply has no place for God to stick his fingers in. There's no mechanism in it by which divine intervention could happen, and in all the data we have gathered (and there's a lot of data) there are absolutely no divine fingerprints.
In order to argue that the modern theory of evolution is "in no way incompatible with the belief that God... Has guided the process", you must use the same dodges and evasions that young earth creationists do - "oh, God just made it look natural, secretly he's doing all the heavy lifting", "God's just sneaky, putting in all that fossil DNA to make it look like this happened naturally".
Basically, theological evolution is not compatible with the modern theory of evolution, except in the playground "You can't prove he didn't!" way, and arguing that it is is wrong and misleading.
Pray tell, how did that "majority of scientists" get their degrees? Did they, perhaps, attend public high schools and universities? Were their tuitions paid by public money? Did they take public transit while working as poor grad students? Are their labs funded through public grants?
Scientists can be conned into voting against their own best interests just like anyone else. My wife knows a researcher at one of the big national labs in the middle of the country who rails against "wasteful" government spending, while not realizing that her own livelyhood came from that exact source. Her reasoning? "I earned that scholarship and these NSF grants! The guys who built the shrimp treadmill are just wasting money!".
So you think that skin color or gender is what makes a person correct for a given job? Do you understand how absurd that actually sounds?
So you think that out of all the people who are qualified to be Vice President, the "correct" choice just happened to be a white, Anglo-Saxon male? Do you understand how absurd that sounds?
Well there's a reason why people have taken to calling the Republicans "the party of No" - their strategy in the last few decades essentially seems to have been "block every Democrat proposal when they have the power, then campaign on the fact that the Dems didn't accomplish anything".
I mean, just look our current health care reform that the Democrats had to fight and plead for and still got no Republican votes. The Republicans were adamantly against it, despite the fact that it was largely based on a Republican proposal from the 90's (when it seemed like First Lady Hillary would push for true, single payer universal health care).
They've just gone nuts, their entire political strategy seems to have devolved into a toddler's temper tantrum.
If more evidence turns up to support man-made global climate change, and the ocean levels rise, then climate deniers in congress and the senate should have to pay to relocate everyone living in coastal cities. Fair is fair but, it won't work out that way.
Do you actually know how much the sea level rise is predicted to be, and over what timeframe? Right now we're estimating about 200 cm by 2100. That's not really enough to warrant mass relocation of most first-world coastal cities, I'd imagine, and there's plenty of time to make modifications to existing harbors and such in the meantime.
Yes, there are some areas that may be seriously screwed (like Bangladesh, IIRC), but honestly it'll mostly be business as usual in the USA.
I once had a guy at Lowes tell me that plumber's silicone grease (grease, not sealant) does not exist. Apparently, because he didn't know about it, they didn't carry it.
The weirdest part is, your body doesn't care, it still decides that the last thing you ate was sickening.
For instance, one time I got pretty bad food poisoning after eating a gyro, and now I can't stand the way that gyro place smells. The thing is, though, that I'm like 80% sure that the food poisoning was from some undercooked beef that I'd made earlier in the week and and eaten for lunch that day. My body doesn't care though, it thinks gyros = bad just because it was the last, most fragrant thing I ate before getting sick.
Almost every purported author of the Bible was at the lowest strung of society, many having been martyred.
Wait, so who do you think wrote the Bible? As far as I'm aware, we have absolutely no idea who did, except that the earliest parts of the New Testament were written in about 60 AD by essentially unknown authors and the letters from Paul were mostly from Paul, and the Old Testament was probably an oral history that eventually got written down.
I'm not aware of any biblical authors having been martyred ever, except maybe the dude who came up with version 0.1 (but he was excommunicated by other Christians, so I don't think that counts).
Basically I have no idea why you mentioned martyrs unless you mean Jesus wrote the Bible before getting himself killed.
And as for their social status, again we have no idea who actually wrote the thing so it's hard to say. I mean, sure, you might think of Jesus as a poor carpenter, but he was also a Jewish Rabbi, he (mostly) knew his Old Testament according to the NT - that's not something any poor schlob on the streets knows off the top of his head.
... few customers are willing to put in the time to spec out an entire project at the beginning (and are unwilling to freeze their business process during the project)...
Actually, even if they spec out exactly what they think they want and you implement it perfectly, on delivery you're still going to realize that 90% of the time what they said they wanted in the spec isn't what they needed.
Asking someone to spec out an application sight unseen is essentially asking them to commit the planning fallacy, except for feature estimation instead of time estimation. Humans seem to be largely incapable of making detailed plans more than a few "units" in advance, no matter whether or not those units are time, feature or cost based.
That's why Agile projects can "take longer" than equivalent Waterfall projects - if the client had somehow managed to spec out exactly what they really needed in the first place for the Waterfall project, I bet you it would have ended up taking about as long as the Agile version; the Waterfall project was only "completed" faster because nobody could foresee some of the features that would end up being required.
Further, there's a whole heck of a lot less risk with the Agile project; if some feature isn't quite what you wanted, you'll find out in a couple of weeks, not a several months.
One of the main things you should be doing when practicing agile is continuous integration. The point is that you should be able to release at the drop of a hat.
That's one of the problems with these self-reported "Agile" failures - sure, it borders on a no true Scotsman argument, but if you're "doing agile" with five or six week "sprints", hour-long sit-down meetings instead of standups, no product manager, no backlog, no continuous integration - then can you really say that agile methodologies failed?
What really happened was you were trying to do waterfall faster, which just doesn't work. It's like saying baseball doesn't work because you made a few "tweaks".
We received some unprecedented scathing and shocking comments about the level of competence, professionalism, and attitudes of some members of the Agile movement.
I loved this line, it sounds so much like "what the hell, Agile encourages developers to talk back? This is bullshit, slaves do what they're told".
Yeah, but like the article says, jQuery 2.0 is API compatible with jQuery 1.9. This means that regardless of which one you're dishing up, your code remains the same.
It's like if Python 3 and Python 2 had exactly the same features, and you just picked which one worked better on your computer when running a Python program.
oh my god the predicted vicious cycle of warming from excess CO2 doesn't care about the hockey stick at all, it's based on way older paleoclimate data than the stuff they used.
One of the claims denialists used to love trotting out was "CO2 rises always follow temperature rises in the paleo data, therefore CO2 doesn't cause warming". No. The first part is true, the implication isn't.
It means that when the earth warms up, reservoirs of CO2 start dumping their shit out into the atmosphere. Reservoirs, I might add, that we don't actually know much about. This causes more warming. (seriously, it's a basic physical fact, Arrhenius worked it out in 1890 or so). The more warming causes more dumping. Repeat until you're back to the Jurassic.
The hockey stick graph has jack shit to do with this, it doesn't go back far enough. Michael Mann has almost nothing to do with this, he deals with more modern temperature reconstructions. The only thing that needs to happen to trigger this cycle is for the earth to get warm enough. Right now we're kickstarting the process by putting more CO2 into the atmosphere ourselves, but it could be caused by anything that makes the mean global temperature rise above some trigger level (and again, we don't know what the trigger is).
There doesn't need to be a hockey stick or anything like that. The earth just has to get warm enough. And at this point it probably will.
Yes but that's kinda the point. Alcohol fucks people up even worse, yet it's legal. It's inconsistent to claim that marijuana is illegal because of outcome A when alcohol is legal but causes outcome A in even more people. We need to either ban alcohol, or legalize marijuana - and banning alcohol just doesn't work.
But in casual conversations with my fellow citizens, my perception is that a clear majority support it, or at least tolerate it.
That's because the clear majority of the people you're talking to aren't, themselves, getting stopped and frisked.
Their opinions would be different if that was the case, and in fact that's probably why the police officers are primarily stopping and frisking people who are unlikely to vote or be politically active.
You realize that the whole "information for free" part of Christianity is relatively modern, right? There's a reason why the Church flipped out about first the Gutenberg Bible and then even more about the Luther Bible - they didn't want just anyone being able to read the thing, you never know what damn fool ideas those laymen are going to get into their heads (and to be honest they were right).
Yes, Christianity is shareware today, but it has a history of being locked down tighter than Steve Jobs' iPad.
When I interned at Microsoft, I talked to some guys at MSR once for my project. They'd developed a dataset that was slightly better than current state of the art in the field. I distinctly remember saying "Oh that would be useful to have, are you going to publish the data?", to which they responded "Well you know, it's just data, takes a lot of effort to publish, who has the time?" while looking guilty.
So yeah, MSR is a gilded cage for people who might otherwise be out there starting competitors, or publishing papers thatwould lead to competitors. It's really only in the tools and programming languages divisions that MS lets MSR's freak flag fly (the next version of the.net languages are going to natively support continuation passing style, for goodness sakes, and they're essentially releasing the C# parser as a library)
Slashdot Mirror
One time I wrote this sort of script, and discovered that there's an MD5 collision between one of the Linux system files and a Quake 3 Arena game file (I checked, the contents were different).
I'm glad I didn't run the deletion part of it without checking the uniqueness output first.
$19.95 for a beta of something you can whip up in about an hour of shell scripting.
Hell, I wrote exactly what people are talking about here in an afternoon in college - I even did both SHA and MD5, because I ended up finding a SHA collision between one of the Quake 3 files and a Linux system file.
Actually I think it's even worse than that - notice that as soon as the author gets into the meat of the article, it transforms from "rockstar developers" to "senior developers".
The two terms are not interchangeable. A "senior developer" has spent many years in the field, a "rockstar developer" is someone who fits the 10x productivity rule. Although he mentions it in passing, this is the fundamental problem with the article: being a "senior developer" affects your productivity by maybe 1.5x - 2x; being good at programming affects your productivity by 0x-10x.
If you tell your HR department you need to hire ten "senior programmers", you're probably not going to get any sort of rockstar programmers out of it; the rockstars are already employed, and you're not going to find them just because you want them to be there. You're just going to get a bunch people with ten year's experience who aren't very good at what they do (which is why they're looking for a job).
Not only that, but apparently the GP believes in a God who is statisically indistinguishable from randomness. It's fine if that's what floats your boat, but I'm pretty sure that's indistinguishable from atheism.
Physics is different in America, that's why we can't get cars with more than 40 mpg. According to a previous poster the air resistance here in the States is so much greater than in Europe that it makes this an impossible goal.
Pray tell, how is this different from "You can't prove he didn't!"?
Just FYI, although theologically guided evolution is more accurate than creationism, it's still a couple steps short of the actual theory of evolution we have today.
The modern theory of evolution simply has no place for God to stick his fingers in. There's no mechanism in it by which divine intervention could happen, and in all the data we have gathered (and there's a lot of data) there are absolutely no divine fingerprints.
In order to argue that the modern theory of evolution is "in no way incompatible with the belief that God ... Has guided the process", you must use the same dodges and evasions that young earth creationists do - "oh, God just made it look natural, secretly he's doing all the heavy lifting", "God's just sneaky, putting in all that fossil DNA to make it look like this happened naturally".
Basically, theological evolution is not compatible with the modern theory of evolution, except in the playground "You can't prove he didn't!" way, and arguing that it is is wrong and misleading.
It looks like you probably need an ellipsectomy too, but that might be a pre-existing condition.
Pray tell, how did that "majority of scientists" get their degrees? Did they, perhaps, attend public high schools and universities? Were their tuitions paid by public money? Did they take public transit while working as poor grad students? Are their labs funded through public grants?
Scientists can be conned into voting against their own best interests just like anyone else. My wife knows a researcher at one of the big national labs in the middle of the country who rails against "wasteful" government spending, while not realizing that her own livelyhood came from that exact source. Her reasoning? "I earned that scholarship and these NSF grants! The guys who built the shrimp treadmill are just wasting money!".
If it can be learned in a day, why do universities offer four year degrees in it?
So you think that out of all the people who are qualified to be Vice President, the "correct" choice just happened to be a white, Anglo-Saxon male? Do you understand how absurd that sounds?
Well there's a reason why people have taken to calling the Republicans "the party of No" - their strategy in the last few decades essentially seems to have been "block every Democrat proposal when they have the power, then campaign on the fact that the Dems didn't accomplish anything".
I mean, just look our current health care reform that the Democrats had to fight and plead for and still got no Republican votes. The Republicans were adamantly against it, despite the fact that it was largely based on a Republican proposal from the 90's (when it seemed like First Lady Hillary would push for true, single payer universal health care).
They've just gone nuts, their entire political strategy seems to have devolved into a toddler's temper tantrum.
Do you actually know how much the sea level rise is predicted to be, and over what timeframe? Right now we're estimating about 200 cm by 2100 . That's not really enough to warrant mass relocation of most first-world coastal cities, I'd imagine, and there's plenty of time to make modifications to existing harbors and such in the meantime.
Yes, there are some areas that may be seriously screwed (like Bangladesh, IIRC), but honestly it'll mostly be business as usual in the USA.
I once had a guy at Lowes tell me that plumber's silicone grease (grease, not sealant) does not exist. Apparently, because he didn't know about it, they didn't carry it.
I found it in the store anyway.
The weirdest part is, your body doesn't care, it still decides that the last thing you ate was sickening.
For instance, one time I got pretty bad food poisoning after eating a gyro, and now I can't stand the way that gyro place smells. The thing is, though, that I'm like 80% sure that the food poisoning was from some undercooked beef that I'd made earlier in the week and and eaten for lunch that day. My body doesn't care though, it thinks gyros = bad just because it was the last, most fragrant thing I ate before getting sick.
Wait, so who do you think wrote the Bible? As far as I'm aware, we have absolutely no idea who did, except that the earliest parts of the New Testament were written in about 60 AD by essentially unknown authors and the letters from Paul were mostly from Paul, and the Old Testament was probably an oral history that eventually got written down.
I'm not aware of any biblical authors having been martyred ever, except maybe the dude who came up with version 0.1 (but he was excommunicated by other Christians, so I don't think that counts).
Basically I have no idea why you mentioned martyrs unless you mean Jesus wrote the Bible before getting himself killed.
And as for their social status, again we have no idea who actually wrote the thing so it's hard to say. I mean, sure, you might think of Jesus as a poor carpenter, but he was also a Jewish Rabbi, he (mostly) knew his Old Testament according to the NT - that's not something any poor schlob on the streets knows off the top of his head.
Actually, even if they spec out exactly what they think they want and you implement it perfectly, on delivery you're still going to realize that 90% of the time what they said they wanted in the spec isn't what they needed.
Asking someone to spec out an application sight unseen is essentially asking them to commit the planning fallacy, except for feature estimation instead of time estimation. Humans seem to be largely incapable of making detailed plans more than a few "units" in advance, no matter whether or not those units are time, feature or cost based.
That's why Agile projects can "take longer" than equivalent Waterfall projects - if the client had somehow managed to spec out exactly what they really needed in the first place for the Waterfall project, I bet you it would have ended up taking about as long as the Agile version; the Waterfall project was only "completed" faster because nobody could foresee some of the features that would end up being required.
Further, there's a whole heck of a lot less risk with the Agile project; if some feature isn't quite what you wanted, you'll find out in a couple of weeks, not a several months.
That's one of the problems with these self-reported "Agile" failures - sure, it borders on a no true Scotsman argument, but if you're "doing agile" with five or six week "sprints", hour-long sit-down meetings instead of standups, no product manager, no backlog, no continuous integration - then can you really say that agile methodologies failed?
What really happened was you were trying to do waterfall faster, which just doesn't work. It's like saying baseball doesn't work because you made a few "tweaks".
I loved this line, it sounds so much like "what the hell, Agile encourages developers to talk back? This is bullshit, slaves do what they're told".
Yeah, but like the article says, jQuery 2.0 is API compatible with jQuery 1.9. This means that regardless of which one you're dishing up, your code remains the same.
It's like if Python 3 and Python 2 had exactly the same features, and you just picked which one worked better on your computer when running a Python program.
oh my god the predicted vicious cycle of warming from excess CO2 doesn't care about the hockey stick at all, it's based on way older paleoclimate data than the stuff they used.
One of the claims denialists used to love trotting out was "CO2 rises always follow temperature rises in the paleo data, therefore CO2 doesn't cause warming". No. The first part is true, the implication isn't.
It means that when the earth warms up, reservoirs of CO2 start dumping their shit out into the atmosphere. Reservoirs, I might add, that we don't actually know much about. This causes more warming. (seriously, it's a basic physical fact, Arrhenius worked it out in 1890 or so). The more warming causes more dumping. Repeat until you're back to the Jurassic.
The hockey stick graph has jack shit to do with this, it doesn't go back far enough. Michael Mann has almost nothing to do with this, he deals with more modern temperature reconstructions. The only thing that needs to happen to trigger this cycle is for the earth to get warm enough. Right now we're kickstarting the process by putting more CO2 into the atmosphere ourselves, but it could be caused by anything that makes the mean global temperature rise above some trigger level (and again, we don't know what the trigger is).
There doesn't need to be a hockey stick or anything like that. The earth just has to get warm enough. And at this point it probably will.
Yes but that's kinda the point. Alcohol fucks people up even worse, yet it's legal. It's inconsistent to claim that marijuana is illegal because of outcome A when alcohol is legal but causes outcome A in even more people. We need to either ban alcohol, or legalize marijuana - and banning alcohol just doesn't work.
That's because the clear majority of the people you're talking to aren't, themselves, getting stopped and frisked.
Their opinions would be different if that was the case, and in fact that's probably why the police officers are primarily stopping and frisking people who are unlikely to vote or be politically active.
You realize that the whole "information for free" part of Christianity is relatively modern, right? There's a reason why the Church flipped out about first the Gutenberg Bible and then even more about the Luther Bible - they didn't want just anyone being able to read the thing, you never know what damn fool ideas those laymen are going to get into their heads (and to be honest they were right).
Yes, Christianity is shareware today, but it has a history of being locked down tighter than Steve Jobs' iPad.
When I interned at Microsoft, I talked to some guys at MSR once for my project. They'd developed a dataset that was slightly better than current state of the art in the field. I distinctly remember saying "Oh that would be useful to have, are you going to publish the data?", to which they responded "Well you know, it's just data, takes a lot of effort to publish, who has the time?" while looking guilty.
So yeah, MSR is a gilded cage for people who might otherwise be out there starting competitors, or publishing papers thatwould lead to competitors. It's really only in the tools and programming languages divisions that MS lets MSR's freak flag fly (the next version of the .net languages are going to natively support continuation passing style, for goodness sakes, and they're essentially releasing the C# parser as a library)