All terrorists deserve to die, AND those that harbour them! They will get their day, and I hope it ends with burning flesh.
How exactly do you distinguish yourself from a terrorist? Is it because you've only got the tenacity to sit behind your greasy keyboard and spew obnoxious statements as if your pseudo-hatred was of any consequence?
Ah, I've mixed up my replies to you. I see that you meant that there is proof that Osama bin Laden (as an Afghan citizen -- which he is not) was directly involved in the attack on NYC. So could you please show me that proof?
Yes you said that before, but from what source are you drawing this information?
Whatever the source, doesn't it seem suspect to you that he'd be called a "guest" of the Taliban for months and months until this particular source to which you lend so much credence? Seriously, the guy's been treated with skepticism even by the Taliban.
Maybe he's talking about the response of the American people in general. I know that in my little town in Western Colorado, many people are saying things like "let's bomb the hell out of those ragheads" without really knowing much about the situation at all. I seriously doubt that anyone in Washington DC holds the same sort of ignorant fanatic ideal that lots of uninformed citizens do, but the best way to turn the uninformed citizens around is with information like this article in the LA times.
I think that michael's little comment is perceived better in that context. In fact, I think that's the only context where it's really important. Obviously the U.S. military strategists wouldn't be hearing anything new from him (or the LA times), but ordinary people might.
The USA funded the mujahedeen, not the Taliban. Of course, many of the Taliban came out of the mujahedeen but so did the late Massoud and many others in the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
From what I know, Pakistan put their money on the Pashtoonestan subset of the mujahedeen rebels. Some have said that, because the Pashtoonestan section of Pakistan (the halfspace divided by the Durand line some 100 years ago) was supposed to be given back to Afghanistan, the Pakistan government wanted to push the Taliban to power because they'd have some idealogical ties to Pakistan and wouldn't be likely to make a fuss over Pashtoonestan (which in fact they have not yet done).
OBL is the defense minister. Thus the terrorists were at the very least Afghani mercenaries, and could possibly be construed as regular forces.
He was something like their Secretary of State quite a while ago but now has nothing to do with the government.
Even if Al-Qaeda is involved, I doubt that anyone directly tied to the NYC attack was an Afghan. It'd be more likely that the "terrorists" came out of Middle Eastern countries with decent relations with the U.S. (in fact, bin Laden himself was once a citizen of Saudi Arabia).
Sanctions I see problems with (but that's a *UN* thing)... but slavery and settling are long over. There is no sense in killing a person for what his great great great great great great grandfather did.
I think that if you can say that the USA had it coming (and understand that when you say that, you're saying "those ~20,000 innocent civilian men and women deserved to die") you might want to check your pulse to make sure that your heart is still beating.
Indeed, the americans are reaping what they have sown with their horribly misguided, self-centered foreign and economic policies...
I'm not going to argue any of the comments that our country has done harmful things (like arming Israel) but I'd like you to point out one thing that we've done that justifies what has happened today. When did we directly kill what could be 20,000 civilians?
But the real reason that windows programmers swear by MSDev is its wizard system. MFC, the Win32 API wrapper with which most C++ GUI apps are built, requires a great deal of black magic. It uses obscure, undocumented macros to implement critical functionality. The only way to really use MFC is through the wizards, which take care of the macros for you.
I use the VC++ IDE all of the time and none of the applications I've produced for work have been touched by a "wizard." I don't use the MFC (except in a couple of cases when people asked me questions about it -- and then I just consulted their documentation for the macros that were necessary to create a scriptable component.) All of the applications that I write are built on top of my own wrapper of the Win32 programming interface.
I think that if you think that man beats the MSDN Library, you can't possibly be sane.:)
so how do you convince management to do a rewrite?
There are two primary methods. The first is to appeal to their reason. Let them know roughly how much money they're losing by not having a properly implemented system in place and about how long they'll need to suffer in the interim while the new system is being developed. The second method is to tie them down to a plank and pull off their fingernails until they consent.
So how do you go from a nightmae legacy design to a moden design with that kind of beast?
You rewrite the program.
My argument was that programs should be well designed from the outset. It's always going to be a huge amount of work to rewrite huge legacy applications if it's required. It's also going to be a huge amount of work to clean up a disaster (see Mozilla or the Hindenbergh).
From what I know (which may not be much at all), more time is usually saved by rewriting those programs completely (if they truly are that bad).
That's part of the "beauty" in "beautiful code." If the application is relatively easy to extend (say... adding an entry to a function table at startup along with descriptors for calling the function rather than inserting all sorts of special case code all over the place,) you'll be able to fix/enhance quicker than wasting time with bad code or with rewriting the entire thing.
It's not about a single instance of fixing/enhancing either, it's about doing that over time. I'm sure that if you've tried to extend poorly designed programs, you appreciate well written code.
Usually adding in features after an application has been developed makes an app a nightmare to work on and harder to debug.
Which, in the end, equates to lower profits. I've explained this to the financial folks at my company and they're all for it. In fact, I suggested that other programmers verify that my code is readable, maintainable, and well designed. That's now part of standard practice here.
Engineering to me means no vision, no skill and no insight. Just following the orders, sir.
You're talking about a very specific class of engineer. Namely, "cylindrical protein rotation engineers." But other than those burger flippers, engineers do not fit as cogs in a large systematic process. If that were so, every device we've got would have been designed by a machine (rather than having a machine plan the production aspects.)
What sort of free programming work are you doing for Linux?
Re:Haven't you seen the new Zelda previews??
on
The Future Of 3D
·
· Score: 1
Uh... the new Zelda is played in a space of three dimensions. The only thing that's different about it is that it uses a toon renderer for the rasterization/T&L step.
Slashdot Mirror
All terrorists deserve to die, AND those that harbour them! They will get their day, and I hope it ends with burning flesh.
How exactly do you distinguish yourself from a terrorist? Is it because you've only got the tenacity to sit behind your greasy keyboard and spew obnoxious statements as if your pseudo-hatred was of any consequence?
Calm down buddy, you're preaching to the choir.
Yes but I was talking about the general population, not the general population of men and women in the military.
Ah, I've mixed up my replies to you. I see that you meant that there is proof that Osama bin Laden (as an Afghan citizen -- which he is not) was directly involved in the attack on NYC. So could you please show me that proof?
Yes you said that before, but from what source are you drawing this information?
Whatever the source, doesn't it seem suspect to you that he'd be called a "guest" of the Taliban for months and months until this particular source to which you lend so much credence? Seriously, the guy's been treated with skepticism even by the Taliban.
Maybe he's talking about the response of the American people in general. I know that in my little town in Western Colorado, many people are saying things like "let's bomb the hell out of those ragheads" without really knowing much about the situation at all. I seriously doubt that anyone in Washington DC holds the same sort of ignorant fanatic ideal that lots of uninformed citizens do, but the best way to turn the uninformed citizens around is with information like this article in the LA times.
I think that michael's little comment is perceived better in that context. In fact, I think that's the only context where it's really important. Obviously the U.S. military strategists wouldn't be hearing anything new from him (or the LA times), but ordinary people might.
Just a thought.
The USA funded the mujahedeen, not the Taliban. Of course, many of the Taliban came out of the mujahedeen but so did the late Massoud and many others in the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
From what I know, Pakistan put their money on the Pashtoonestan subset of the mujahedeen rebels. Some have said that, because the Pashtoonestan section of Pakistan (the halfspace divided by the Durand line some 100 years ago) was supposed to be given back to Afghanistan, the Pakistan government wanted to push the Taliban to power because they'd have some idealogical ties to Pakistan and wouldn't be likely to make a fuss over Pashtoonestan (which in fact they have not yet done).
What do you think?
OBL is the defense minister. Thus the terrorists were at the very least Afghani mercenaries, and could possibly be construed as regular forces.
He was something like their Secretary of State quite a while ago but now has nothing to do with the government.
Even if Al-Qaeda is involved, I doubt that anyone directly tied to the NYC attack was an Afghan. It'd be more likely that the "terrorists" came out of Middle Eastern countries with decent relations with the U.S. (in fact, bin Laden himself was once a citizen of Saudi Arabia).
That is, the first direct attack by Afghanis on US soil.
Can you name one Afghan who is known to have been involved in the attack on NYC?
no it's partners.nytimes.com
um, the parent post is on topic
I asked (rhetorically) how likely he thought that was. I'm still waiting for an answer.
Why are you waiting for an answer if it was a rhetorical question?
Sanctions I see problems with (but that's a *UN* thing) ... but slavery and settling are long over. There is no sense in killing a person for what his great great great great great great grandfather did.
I think that if you can say that the USA had it coming (and understand that when you say that, you're saying "those ~20,000 innocent civilian men and women deserved to die") you might want to check your pulse to make sure that your heart is still beating.
Indeed, the americans are reaping what they have sown with their horribly misguided, self-centered foreign and economic policies...
I'm not going to argue any of the comments that our country has done harmful things (like arming Israel) but I'd like you to point out one thing that we've done that justifies what has happened today. When did we directly kill what could be 20,000 civilians?
... so obviously ignorant and uneducated.
It's interesting how you seem to define those terms.
But the real reason that windows programmers swear by MSDev is its wizard system. MFC, the Win32 API wrapper with which most C++ GUI apps are built, requires a great deal of black magic. It uses obscure, undocumented macros to implement critical functionality. The only way to really use MFC is through the wizards, which take care of the macros for you.
:)
I use the VC++ IDE all of the time and none of the applications I've produced for work have been touched by a "wizard." I don't use the MFC (except in a couple of cases when people asked me questions about it -- and then I just consulted their documentation for the macros that were necessary to create a scriptable component.) All of the applications that I write are built on top of my own wrapper of the Win32 programming interface.
I think that if you think that man beats the MSDN Library, you can't possibly be sane.
so how do you convince management to do a rewrite?
There are two primary methods. The first is to appeal to their reason. Let them know roughly how much money they're losing by not having a properly implemented system in place and about how long they'll need to suffer in the interim while the new system is being developed. The second method is to tie them down to a plank and pull off their fingernails until they consent.
So how do you go from a nightmae legacy design to a moden design with that kind of beast?
You rewrite the program.
My argument was that programs should be well designed from the outset. It's always going to be a huge amount of work to rewrite huge legacy applications if it's required. It's also going to be a huge amount of work to clean up a disaster (see Mozilla or the Hindenbergh).
From what I know (which may not be much at all), more time is usually saved by rewriting those programs completely (if they truly are that bad).
That's part of the "beauty" in "beautiful code." If the application is relatively easy to extend (say ... adding an entry to a function table at startup along with descriptors for calling the function rather than inserting all sorts of special case code all over the place,) you'll be able to fix/enhance quicker than wasting time with bad code or with rewriting the entire thing.
It's not about a single instance of fixing/enhancing either, it's about doing that over time. I'm sure that if you've tried to extend poorly designed programs, you appreciate well written code.
Usually adding in features after an application has been developed makes an app a nightmare to work on and harder to debug.
Which, in the end, equates to lower profits. I've explained this to the financial folks at my company and they're all for it. In fact, I suggested that other programmers verify that my code is readable, maintainable, and well designed. That's now part of standard practice here.
Not to mention that sequencing variable names can just be abstracted by using some container (arrays, lists, trees, etc.)
Engineering to me means no vision, no skill and no insight. Just following the orders, sir.
You're talking about a very specific class of engineer. Namely, "cylindrical protein rotation engineers." But other than those burger flippers, engineers do not fit as cogs in a large systematic process. If that were so, every device we've got would have been designed by a machine (rather than having a machine plan the production aspects.)
What sort of free programming work are you doing for Linux?
Uh ... the new Zelda is played in a space of three dimensions. The only thing that's different about it is that it uses a toon renderer for the rasterization/T&L step.
Well why do you think pseudo/pop-Science exists in the first place?