Would you visit a doctor who has had a few weeks of medicine bootcamp? Drive over a bridge designed by an engineer with a few weeks of engineering bootcamp? Maybe fly in a plane flown by a pilot with a few weeks of pilot bootcamp?
No? Why not? Do you not appreciate the efficiency of that approach anymore, now?
Yeah, because just a handful of weeks of education for people who are only motivated by money is going to turn out such great professionals. And who needs a well-rounded education anyway when someone with an extremely narrow skillset (who is therefore also less employable) is so much cheaper...
Indeed, one password is not nearly enough. Each file should have its own password! Consisting of at least 38 characters that are randomly generated and consist of lowercase, uppercase, punctuation, digits, Chinese, whitespace, and dingbats! And changing every 24 hours!
In fact I don't think that's secure enough yet. Maybe we should just not allow any 'files'. That way the hackers can never take them.
Do security people even understand that one of the primary goals of security must always still be that it must still be possible for work to be done? That, despite everything, they are a _service_, not a goal? That without any work going on, they will also be out of a job?
So why are so many distros using it? Maybe you should just take that as a hint to take it more seriously?
What is the actual problem of using systemd as a mount tool? I've read the entire thread and not seen a single complaint other than the fact that it is "systemd by leonart poetering", which to me seems like an extremely childish case of shooting the messenger.
Maybe it is because not everybody enjoys profanity as much as you do? Could you think of anything that could be on that button and still be culturally neutral, recognisable, and not offensive?
For the love of God, please don't. That way we would end up with ads in our query results, and three years down the line it gets discontinued without warning.
Besides, they could simply translate 'oracle' into 'postgresql' in all web searches without messing PostgreSQL up. May be hard on the people trying to learn about the PostgreSQL of Delphi, but for the rest I don't see much of a problem.
That "tiny fraction" includes pretty much everything with a 3D renderer, i.e. virtually all games, lots of visualisation tools, etc. And do enlighten us on all those abuses; maybe the people I work with are just too smart, but the only uses I've seen in their work or in the open source tools I've examined were by and large responsible.
Another huge class of useful overloads are those for operator[] (for arrays and array-like things like maps), operator() (for functors, although that role is now taken over by lambdas), and operator-> for smart pointers. All of which I would positively hate to do without. I'll admit to not being fantastically happy about using operator to stream stuff (not that it's a disaster), but being able to manipulate strings with operator+ or operator== is great.
Throwing exceptions for failed resource deallocation is a very bad idea, and is strongly frowned upon in the C++ community (since it might lead to the double exception problem). I have _never_ seen any piece of software that had an appropriate response for close() failing anyway, whether it was based on exceptions or return codes. If Java throw an exception in that case it's braindead language design, and not so much a sign of a general problem with exceptions.
Like all the tools in the toolkit, and like every language, _how_ you use it matters.
Exceptions are great: they let you separate error generation from error handling in a very clean and straightforward way. They make it impossible to 'just ignore' error conditions as well. They remove mountains of error handling code from places where it doesn't belong, making the intent of the surrounding code much clearer. Being non-local is not a problem, it is a vital feature.
As for 'not knowing which code can throw' - learn the mindset that all code can throw, and work from there. It means learning how to properly use RAII, which also helps making your code much cleaner.
It most certainly was a net gain. Maybe not in the software that you write, but when you do any kind of work with non-standard math types (vectors, matrices, complex numbers, bigints, etc.) then they are phenomenally helpful to readability.
What the compiler does truly doesn't matter. All those rules you are supposed to obey are only intended for correctness and clarity on source code level.
Assembly only has one kind of flow control ("jump", i.e. goto), but that certainly does not imply that you should only use goto's everywhere from now on!
That's elitist bullshit. Sure, programmers vary in qualifications from horrifyingly bad to mindblowingly excellent, but don't use words like "application programmer" for our less gifted brethren and "system programmer" for the better ones; that just makes you look like an elitist prick.
If something is a private variable that comes with a pair of trivial get/set functions, it is arguably already public, just with lousy syntax. Just make it public.
"But what if we want a less trivial get/set later on, JohannesG, what will you do then, huh?"
Simple. I will move the variable into the private section, add the required get/set functions, and let the compiler tell me where I need to change the code to call them properly. So what if I have to edit 10-20 lines? Because usually that's about the worst of it... And if you know it is potentially going to be much more of course I wouldn't recommend this.
Also, magic numbers. No, I'm _not_ going to declare a constant or enum for every damn possible unnamed value I could send over your MIL1553 or RS232 bus; if your damn manual cannot be bothered to name them, neither will I. Most of these occur exactly one time in the program anyway, and if I have to do any debugging I'll be comparing my code to your manual. I'd like both to speak the same language, and if you chose that language to be hexadecimal, I will happily include those magical hexadecimal numbers directly in my code, screaming QA drones notwithstanding.
That's a lousy comparison. I'm not saying the problem cannot be solved, I'm asking you to demonstrate that a problem exists to begin with. And to do it without "corrected" data, without hockeystick formulas, and with comparable methodologies (e.g. don't claim "sea water temperature rose sharply just when we started observing it from space, instead of on the sea itself").
No wait - actually it is a good comparison. You state "the network went on for days". That's not, in fact, a problem description, it is how it is supposed to work (for days! Maybe even longer!). So yeah, I'm like that first engineer, and I'll ask you what your problem actually is?
Your slur on my qualifications is misplaced and only convinces me further that something is very wrong with this supposed 'science'. In fact it's a point I forgot: the incredible hostility you occasionally encounter in these discussions. There was even this guy:
I read an article about the worst storm to ever hit the Netherlands. It was so bad, the wind and hail caused buildings to collapse, including the centuries old church in Utrecht. The year? 1674. Katrina and Sandy are not a new development.
Forced migration and war are already upon us anyway, and have nothing to do with climate change.
Your argument that there _could be_ more fusion research is precisely my point: there could be, but there isn't. Apparently it isn't all that important to the people with the power to actually do these things. Their total lack of urgency does not magically translate into total dedication to the cause on my part.
If you remove 9/11 that comes down to 164 americans killed by terrorists since 2011.
If you remove all the other deaths, the statistics for terrorism are looking frightening though.
What possible reason is there for removing such a significant part of your data set? This is like that European 'research' the other day that concluded right-wing extremism was far more dangerous than islamic terrorism. To come to this astounding conclusion they had to come up with a data set that excluded any attacks by multiple terrorists (why?), and used a very specific period that would include Breivik but exclude pretty much every islamic terror attack in Europe.
- The climate change proponents ask for a lot. They state they want hundreds of billions of dollars, although it is not clear what for. They leave unstated that the only way humanity can continue to live at its current level of development, is to either develop a source of energy that is as of yet still science fiction (fusion), or to vastly reduce the number of humans on the planet, or to vastly reduce the energy usage per human - i.e. return to the lifestyle of the 19th century.
- There is virtually no investment of any kind in fusion research. If it were tackled like the Manhattan program or the moon landing we could have workable fusion in a decade, but fusion research remains at minimal funding levels and remains forever on the far horizon. Of the alternatives, fission is voted down on account of being "too scary", and renewables remain marginal and unreliable. Again, there is no serious investment: governments hand out a bit of subsidy and hope for the best.
- Governments are also not showing much interest in other possible ways of reducing climate change. Are American cities being remodelled with a focus on less driving? Has the EU stopped its wasteful (and easily eliminated) trekking back and forth to Strassburg? Is _anything_ being done to stop the massive overpopulation of the planet? No - and in fact governments (at least in Europe) _want_ more people, terrified as they are of their populations shrinking. The only answer government seems to have is to raise taxes. That is suspiciously convenient.
- "The science" is actually a mass of utterly impenetrable papers - tens of thousands of them, all refering to each other, and usually without complete data sets. Almost no one can read and understand them all. For interpretation we therefore rely on gate keepers, who reduce those trillions of data points to a single sound byte. We have to rely on the judgement of a handful of completely unknown people, for choices that will completely change our planet and our way of life. These people literally have the power to shape the world in their image, and we have no idea what agenda they might have.
So there you have it. The people with the power to change things do not seem to give a fuck, and the only thing they are interested in is reducing the rest of humanity to a standard of living last seen before electricity became a thing. Please do excuse me for being sceptical...
We will fix the EU, but the only language it understands is this one. Here's to my country leaving as well!
The correct way to build the EU would have been to grow it slowly, over a period of generations. Forcing it in a few years, using immigration as a weapon against the identity of the people of Europe, for no better reasons than power, money, and glory for a handful of unelected bureaucrats, is shameful and doomed to fail.
Once the coming civil war is over and the guilty have been sentenced, then we can consider a new union. One that actually respects the people and cultures it unifies.
"I wonder how many Slashdot readers are suffering from bipolar disorder", the article asks. "You are programming nerds, surely there is lots wrong with you."
Which, on the whole, is not a very nice thing to say to your loyal readers.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you visit a doctor who has had a few weeks of medicine bootcamp? Drive over a bridge designed by an engineer with a few weeks of engineering bootcamp? Maybe fly in a plane flown by a pilot with a few weeks of pilot bootcamp?
No? Why not? Do you not appreciate the efficiency of that approach anymore, now?
Yeah, because just a handful of weeks of education for people who are only motivated by money is going to turn out such great professionals. And who needs a well-rounded education anyway when someone with an extremely narrow skillset (who is therefore also less employable) is so much cheaper...
Indeed, one password is not nearly enough. Each file should have its own password! Consisting of at least 38 characters that are randomly generated and consist of lowercase, uppercase, punctuation, digits, Chinese, whitespace, and dingbats! And changing every 24 hours!
In fact I don't think that's secure enough yet. Maybe we should just not allow any 'files'. That way the hackers can never take them.
Do security people even understand that one of the primary goals of security must always still be that it must still be possible for work to be done? That, despite everything, they are a _service_, not a goal? That without any work going on, they will also be out of a job?
So why are so many distros using it? Maybe you should just take that as a hint to take it more seriously?
What is the actual problem of using systemd as a mount tool? I've read the entire thread and not seen a single complaint other than the fact that it is "systemd by leonart poetering", which to me seems like an extremely childish case of shooting the messenger.
Maybe it is because not everybody enjoys profanity as much as you do? Could you think of anything that could be on that button and still be culturally neutral, recognisable, and not offensive?
For the love of God, please don't. That way we would end up with ads in our query results, and three years down the line it gets discontinued without warning.
Besides, they could simply translate 'oracle' into 'postgresql' in all web searches without messing PostgreSQL up. May be hard on the people trying to learn about the PostgreSQL of Delphi, but for the rest I don't see much of a problem.
That "tiny fraction" includes pretty much everything with a 3D renderer, i.e. virtually all games, lots of visualisation tools, etc. And do enlighten us on all those abuses; maybe the people I work with are just too smart, but the only uses I've seen in their work or in the open source tools I've examined were by and large responsible.
Another huge class of useful overloads are those for operator[] (for arrays and array-like things like maps), operator() (for functors, although that role is now taken over by lambdas), and operator-> for smart pointers. All of which I would positively hate to do without. I'll admit to not being fantastically happy about using operator to stream stuff (not that it's a disaster), but being able to manipulate strings with operator+ or operator== is great.
Throwing exceptions for failed resource deallocation is a very bad idea, and is strongly frowned upon in the C++ community (since it might lead to the double exception problem). I have _never_ seen any piece of software that had an appropriate response for close() failing anyway, whether it was based on exceptions or return codes. If Java throw an exception in that case it's braindead language design, and not so much a sign of a general problem with exceptions.
Like all the tools in the toolkit, and like every language, _how_ you use it matters.
Exceptions are great: they let you separate error generation from error handling in a very clean and straightforward way. They make it impossible to 'just ignore' error conditions as well. They remove mountains of error handling code from places where it doesn't belong, making the intent of the surrounding code much clearer. Being non-local is not a problem, it is a vital feature.
As for 'not knowing which code can throw' - learn the mindset that all code can throw, and work from there. It means learning how to properly use RAII, which also helps making your code much cleaner.
It most certainly was a net gain. Maybe not in the software that you write, but when you do any kind of work with non-standard math types (vectors, matrices, complex numbers, bigints, etc.) then they are phenomenally helpful to readability.
What the compiler does truly doesn't matter. All those rules you are supposed to obey are only intended for correctness and clarity on source code level.
Assembly only has one kind of flow control ("jump", i.e. goto), but that certainly does not imply that you should only use goto's everywhere from now on!
You consider all of these 'bad ideas that do work'? Or merely 'bad ideas and you fail at reading comprehension'?
That's elitist bullshit. Sure, programmers vary in qualifications from horrifyingly bad to mindblowingly excellent, but don't use words like "application programmer" for our less gifted brethren and "system programmer" for the better ones; that just makes you look like an elitist prick.
If something is a private variable that comes with a pair of trivial get/set functions, it is arguably already public, just with lousy syntax. Just make it public.
"But what if we want a less trivial get/set later on, JohannesG, what will you do then, huh?"
Simple. I will move the variable into the private section, add the required get/set functions, and let the compiler tell me where I need to change the code to call them properly. So what if I have to edit 10-20 lines? Because usually that's about the worst of it... And if you know it is potentially going to be much more of course I wouldn't recommend this.
Also, magic numbers. No, I'm _not_ going to declare a constant or enum for every damn possible unnamed value I could send over your MIL1553 or RS232 bus; if your damn manual cannot be bothered to name them, neither will I. Most of these occur exactly one time in the program anyway, and if I have to do any debugging I'll be comparing my code to your manual. I'd like both to speak the same language, and if you chose that language to be hexadecimal, I will happily include those magical hexadecimal numbers directly in my code, screaming QA drones notwithstanding.
That's a lousy comparison. I'm not saying the problem cannot be solved, I'm asking you to demonstrate that a problem exists to begin with. And to do it without "corrected" data, without hockeystick formulas, and with comparable methodologies (e.g. don't claim "sea water temperature rose sharply just when we started observing it from space, instead of on the sea itself").
No wait - actually it is a good comparison. You state "the network went on for days". That's not, in fact, a problem description, it is how it is supposed to work (for days! Maybe even longer!). So yeah, I'm like that first engineer, and I'll ask you what your problem actually is?
Your slur on my qualifications is misplaced and only convinces me further that something is very wrong with this supposed 'science'. In fact it's a point I forgot: the incredible hostility you occasionally encounter in these discussions. There was even this guy:
http://www.americanthinker.com...
Just... wow. So how comes this is considered a science and not a religion?
I read an article about the worst storm to ever hit the Netherlands. It was so bad, the wind and hail caused buildings to collapse, including the centuries old church in Utrecht. The year? 1674. Katrina and Sandy are not a new development.
Forced migration and war are already upon us anyway, and have nothing to do with climate change.
Your argument that there _could be_ more fusion research is precisely my point: there could be, but there isn't. Apparently it isn't all that important to the people with the power to actually do these things. Their total lack of urgency does not magically translate into total dedication to the cause on my part.
If you remove 9/11 that comes down to 164 americans killed by terrorists since 2011.
If you remove all the other deaths, the statistics for terrorism are looking frightening though.
What possible reason is there for removing such a significant part of your data set? This is like that European 'research' the other day that concluded right-wing extremism was far more dangerous than islamic terrorism. To come to this astounding conclusion they had to come up with a data set that excluded any attacks by multiple terrorists (why?), and used a very specific period that would include Breivik but exclude pretty much every islamic terror attack in Europe.
Very well.
- The climate change proponents ask for a lot. They state they want hundreds of billions of dollars, although it is not clear what for. They leave unstated that the only way humanity can continue to live at its current level of development, is to either develop a source of energy that is as of yet still science fiction (fusion), or to vastly reduce the number of humans on the planet, or to vastly reduce the energy usage per human - i.e. return to the lifestyle of the 19th century.
- There is virtually no investment of any kind in fusion research. If it were tackled like the Manhattan program or the moon landing we could have workable fusion in a decade, but fusion research remains at minimal funding levels and remains forever on the far horizon. Of the alternatives, fission is voted down on account of being "too scary", and renewables remain marginal and unreliable. Again, there is no serious investment: governments hand out a bit of subsidy and hope for the best.
- Governments are also not showing much interest in other possible ways of reducing climate change. Are American cities being remodelled with a focus on less driving? Has the EU stopped its wasteful (and easily eliminated) trekking back and forth to Strassburg? Is _anything_ being done to stop the massive overpopulation of the planet? No - and in fact governments (at least in Europe) _want_ more people, terrified as they are of their populations shrinking. The only answer government seems to have is to raise taxes. That is suspiciously convenient.
- "The science" is actually a mass of utterly impenetrable papers - tens of thousands of them, all refering to each other, and usually without complete data sets. Almost no one can read and understand them all. For interpretation we therefore rely on gate keepers, who reduce those trillions of data points to a single sound byte. We have to rely on the judgement of a handful of completely unknown people, for choices that will completely change our planet and our way of life. These people literally have the power to shape the world in their image, and we have no idea what agenda they might have.
So there you have it. The people with the power to change things do not seem to give a fuck, and the only thing they are interested in is reducing the rest of humanity to a standard of living last seen before electricity became a thing. Please do excuse me for being sceptical...
Indeed, it would be a tragedy if your funny cat movies were altered in some way.
The biggest spy of them all is running the backend...
We will fix the EU, but the only language it understands is this one. Here's to my country leaving as well!
The correct way to build the EU would have been to grow it slowly, over a period of generations. Forcing it in a few years, using immigration as a weapon against the identity of the people of Europe, for no better reasons than power, money, and glory for a handful of unelected bureaucrats, is shameful and doomed to fail.
Once the coming civil war is over and the guilty have been sentenced, then we can consider a new union. One that actually respects the people and cultures it unifies.
"I wonder how many Slashdot readers are suffering from bipolar disorder", the article asks. "You are programming nerds, surely there is lots wrong with you."
Which, on the whole, is not a very nice thing to say to your loyal readers.
Three of the four reactors were in use for years after the accident. Apparently it was still possible to find staff.
It is also possible to book a daytrip to the exclusion zone as a tourist. Costs around $100.
Here's some wildlife: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chern...
Check this out: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chern...