I love it; Kubrik's Eyes Wide Shut is sent back to the editing room for a penis and a vagina, and yet movies like Saw 1 through 4 are perfectly acceptable mass media.
And somehow, Manhunt 2 is a lightning rod for debate.
You're on a website. You trust it enough to connect to it and assume it will not exploit your system should its owners become aware of a client exploit you are susceptible to and are unaware of. Where did you get your anti-virus or firewall software or your patches to bugs that are discovered in your network stack or network daemons? Super happy fun land?
As soon as you plug that cable in, you impart some minimum amount of trust to teh interwebs. As far as I can tell, nobody who has installed reputable trustable anti-virus software has had their machine zombified.
So you're making a moot point. If you want to take this to infinity, you trust the manufacturer of your CPU not to hide some plastic explosives in there that detonates when you boot it up on some random date. I think what you meant to say was, "There is always a risk in everything you do, which you can minimize to a practically irrelevant level if you are sufficiently educated in the relevant subject matter."
It simply serves no purpose to take someone from their home in the dead of night, fly them to an "undisclosed" location and torture them for no apparent reason.
I make you look thorough to your superior.
Next, you use a plane and pay for the fuel to fly this guy to the "undisclosed" location. Then you waste the interrogator's time, and prison resources (food, space, AC... whatever) to hold and "interrogate" this person.
If its not my budget I'm spending, then it only matters that I am marginally able to justify the costs.
You send 5 guys to be interrogated, waste about 100 hrs of the interrogators time only to find out that these guys are completely innocent, your General is going to hear about it. From there, it rolls back down to you. It is well known in military circles that not only does shit roll downhill, but it gets bigger as it goes.
Defender of the public sector as I am, but I have a very difficult time believing this given how much of the federal budget is for military spending. It doesn't strike me as an institution which is cut throat when it comes to cost efficiency. Your point depends very much on 'the General hearing it (I'll add, caring about it, if hes unable to pass the intelligence buck elsewhere)' and the interrogator thinking his time was wasted, even if the guy is totally clean.
This is why there are no hard and fast rules about who gets picked up and who doesn't. Well, that and the fact that it would bog down soldiers to have to work their way through a checklist of who is a terrorist and who isn't. "OK, step 15 reads, 'The subject can be taken into custody if he is carrying a weapon.' Well, he had a donkey with a bomb strapped to it. Does that count as a weapon, livestock or farming equipment? Also, do we take him or his donkey? Maybe we should count it as an old-school car bomb."
When you spend 20$, and 25 cents of it goes to the author of the music, "paying for something someone else has created" is not exactly the issue.
The problem with people like you is that you've no concept of the history of copyright law, why it exists, and what its role is in the economy today.
If you think it all comes down to "paying for something someone else has created", you'd probably have more than a few personal reservations about the current state of copyright laws.
How hard is it to either completely yank the naughty bits or replace them with functionally-identical bits
You can't just open the binary in a text editor and zero-out the bits that are the surrounded by that 'im naughty' glow. You need to change the all the associated assets (the animations) remove all offending particle effects, yadda yadda. It's not a walk in the park. You've just worked in crunch mode for however many months to make sure the game never crashes, and suddenly, you're ripping out assets, rewriting significant chuncks of production/camera code.. its not an easy process.
What they did was 'hide' the offending manhunts with post processing overlays and camera cuts. But to go in and remove animations and change actual 'kill code' (how the hero/enemies are interacting with each other under the censored textures/effects) would have been a huge task and created another stabilization cycle that would have lasted far longer. In short, it would have all but guaranteed that the project would end up in the red once all was said and done.
What most people don't realize is that one of the biggest challenges in building video games is to make the 'build' process stable. An animation depends on a model which depends on textures. The game code depends on all those things, the number of joints a character has, even down to innocuous sounding things like whether a particular joint will ever be non-orthagonal to the floor. You change the animations, suddenly you rendered a lot of the testing you've done completely useless, because the math being used to make certain calculations for things like camera angle, relative positions of objects or joints to each other etc, now depend on a whole new set of assumptions.
So no, you cant just yank the naughty bits. The devil is in the details, and unless you know the details, pretty much everything always looks simple unless you're the one doing it. Adding new stuff to make the old stuff relatively inaccessible is the only sane way to bow to the demands of the ESRB without requiring a whole new front to back testing cycle. Removing stuff, now thats tricky, because identifying what things depend on those things are sometimes programmatically detectable (by your build process, dependancy tree, and build validation code) but much much more dangerously only discoverable via testing.
This discussion is a microcosm of my opinion, but my interest in piqued, and I feel like chiming in.
The two parties wave the right hand ("medicare! military! taxes!") over here and keep voters transfixed. Meanwhile, the left hand is obliging a corporate oligarchy, and neither party really has a problem with this.
I'm confused by the whole affair. Campaign finance reform and cutting off the influence that lobby groups have would be a good start, but somewhere along the line, it became a dirty opinion that messing in any way with any amount of power the private sector has is an affront to the American Dream of getting rich and doing whatever the hell you want with your money. Separation of Church and State was a good start, but separation of government and the private sector would be awesome.
If Congress stands firm and denies him funding for the war and for his little domestic Big Brother operations, he has no choice.
Whats any less "Big Brother" about a Democratic administration? Just because you're not in a war doesn't mean vast sums of the tax base are not subsidizing risk in private markets. There is plenty of literature and documentation of the varying amounts of harm that private interests can inflict in foreign places without actually being in the middle of a war. (The agricultural and pharmaceutical industries are always fending off criticism about this.)
What really has to be asked is, "Why are these the only two viable political parties?" It should be pointed out that neither party is particularly fond of talking about biting the hand that feeds them in order to create a government that that can make choices that benefit all participants in an economy, not just the ones that are currently successful. Sometimes when I read these threads, I can't help but wonder why people put so much energy and time into bickering over Repub/Dem politics. Its become the political version of a false dichotomy, and the whole situation to me strikes me as being a bunch of people campaigning on a series of appeals to spite. Voters are chomping at the bit to chop off the nose to spite the face. "Fuck the whole system!" I hear, but I rarely hear, "Even if I realize it will totally destabilize the very institutions that historically have lead to our cultural and economic dominance and maybe more importantly, access to some version of the moral highground." I sense a groundswell of isolationism, and that frightens me as somebody who doesn't want to see people being lead to their own irrelevance on a global scale by a bunch of demogogues.
I look at the whole war thing and say, "Well, you're a democracy, he was voted in, and now that the hornets nest is stirred up, you should be there with the best of intentions and make sure a power vacuum isn't created." I'm very much against the war, occupation, emergency shopping trip for oil, whatever anyone wants to call it, but it seems grossly wrong to me that Americans should want to just get the hell out of the place since it didn't turn out to be as fun or noble feeling as it initially sounded. America did very well with Germany and Japan, but its long list of failures in foreign military intervention are littered with "get in, get out" mentalities, whether the public was for it or against it. It just doesn't work. If the US wants to make a strong statement about its belief in democracy and capitalism, it should at least stick with its initiatives, regardless of whether particular individual voter were complicit with the approach. My understanding of history is that the US succeeds (as it has, in some situations) when they recognize something as a long term commitment from the get-go. However, high tailing it home after something got too complicated is as cowardly as creating the power vacuum in the first place. Why do Iraqis want Americans out? Because anti-American sentiment + short road trip for its detractors = totally uninvolved Iraq's lawn got totally trashed. But how to deal with t
This is nowhere near being new. I implemented something like this years ago.
I called it four-oh-find:)... on a 404, my 404 redirect page executes a search based on the PATH_INFO part of the URL.
Its neither innovative nor clever. It took me 5 minutes to implement. Had I wanted to seperate searches based on a predefined token in the URL, that would have been dead easy as well.
Tell me why a customer would consider a raise in price as a discount. Thats works on the accounting side of things if you have to raise prices, but to the customer, it makes absolutely no sense to thank a company for not raising its price by cutting a service. A customer expects a company to battle cost by working internally rather than reducing the value of a product so as to not raise prices.
Speaking as a game programmer in the industry, the PS3 has its work cut out for it. Ironically, the xboxor 360 (and I'm a former FreeBSD programmer and no MS sympathizer) is really turning out to be the current gen platform of choice. Its not all that surprising, given that if you want to release on PC and console, you have your work cut out for you if you're trying to do Wii/PC or PS3/PC.
If anything, the PS2 was too successful. If the Wii keeps on doing what its doing, developers will either go 'next gen' with the xbox 360 for pipeline efficiency (developed on windows, ship on 'windows') or current gen with a bajillion ps2s and the Wii so you can reuse most of your assets on both platforms.
360/Ps3 is still out of the reach of many developers simply because of the costs associated with making a next gen cross platform engine.
Well, to be fair, the US had their largest military and diplomatic presence in both these countries long, LONG, after the respective 'occupations'. Thats the point.
What I find interesting is that the US occupation of Germany and Japan have been basically wildly successful. Both economies rebounded, yes with plenty of circumstantial help, but also the commitment of the US military from the top level policy makers to the people who moved their families there to live their lives out.
Occupation is a dirty word, but the successes of Japan and Germany suggest that you really have to make a long term commitment to a country you attack if you want to rebuild them with good intentions.
Japan is a feel good story for the US military and despite the domestic misgivings another poster alluded too, this is how the world would rather see countries involved in wars with the US turn out. In that respect, its hard to fault the US for having a role in turning a bad situation into a healthy, globally involved nation.
Games, especially strategy and multiplayer fps games, make curious examples, because people's appreciation for them flourish with familiarity.
I went through a period of thinking all modern games were shit, but when I give a game a fair shake, and get to know them, I find there are way more great games than time to play them. Company of Heroes is a wonderfully deep, fun RTS and Team Fortress 2 is a fast paced, fun, easy to pick up difficult to master FPS. But I know what you're saying.. I still play Q3 Rocket Arena on a regular basis. Its hard to let go when you know the game inside and out and have it running to perfection on your machine.
It seems patently obvious to me that the stats are "IT person kissing a co-worker".. meaning, more IT guys have kissed co-workers than IT females.
Any humour derived from pointing out the difference between IT males and IT females should not be based on assuming only IT workers were kissing other IT workers, because humour is a lot funnier when it doesn't depend on such an obvious mis-interpretation of plain english.
I'm not dumping on your parade, but cmon, its only funny if it draws from accurate interpretations of the survey.:)
Well, it never bothers them that you do. I'm sure some realize it. After 9 years of programming, I have just decided to under promise, over deliver. Lose a contract, or not get promoted? Fuck it, its not worth it. Sanity is worth it. In the end, somebody will pay you for making quality products or providing quality services without having to live at work. So I say it'll be fixed by tomorrow afternoon, and fix it at 10am. They'll be more appreciative, and you got more sleep so you can clock more quality work hours. I like to say that 25% of the skill of a developer is managing expectations. *Technically*, we could write a word processor in assembly on 386, but telling somebody who is responsible for purchasing computer equipment and software tools that is suicide. Having people realize how fucking hard and taxing your job is and how challenging it is to fix things that appear small to a customer or designer is key to keeping people around you happy to provide you the proper environment to kick ass.
One other thing that people forget is that frequently the problems that crop up that programmers and IT folks have to fix are problems that may not have occurred had the work force been better rested. Near the end of a particular development cycle, we were working 12 to 14 hour shifts 6 or 7 days a week, alternating between folks during the day and folks at night. Near gold, it was basically a team would come in and have to fix the bug caused by the folks the earlier 12 hour shift caused fixing another bug. Everyone was so overworked that nobody could make rational steps towards fixing things properly. Seemed to me that we could have finished off earlier were we not pressed into 'work every hour you're awake' mode for the last 4 weeks. You end up causing problems that you then have to stay up even more hours to fix.
If your clients dont know when you fix things or do things for them, change that. Send them an email timestamped at 1am when you fix the problem. Mention it offhand when you discuss the resolution of the problem. You'd be surprised how willing people are to compromise or help you change the situation so you don't need to be on call for them 24/7.. they might cut you some slack on short term hack jobs to create better long term infrastructure, monitoring, fixes, etc.
Using chroot on a process is like handing a person a map with an X on the destination. You've shown them where they're supposed to go, you haven't really done anything to prevent them from running off in another direction.
No, we see that, we just dont see why "Well, *hes* about to violate the law and profit from it" equals, "Its morally ok that I violate the law and profit from it."
When somebody is about to rape someone, do you say, "Well, the rape will happen, so I might as well get in there myself first?"
Uh, to make money for my shareholders, I paid a few guys to go out and kill the owners of my competition. Only those weak souls who accepted my payments for killing my competitors are at fault. I was only trying to increase shareholder value.
See where this logic breaks down? Offering bribes is tantamount to changing the fucking rules of capitalism.
Capitalism = fine. Bribing people? Its illegal because PEOPLE WILL ACCEPT BRIBES. I dare you to tell the cops you're bribing somebody to drive drunk.
Why is the government at fault for expressing what you say is 'human nature'?
They're stupid for being greedy? Or they're stupid for not being greedy, but thinking SBC would not be greedy?
Dipshits like you run the gamut from the frycook to the CEO; for some reason, you think its the referees fault when hes smacked over the head with a baseball bat.
Is it the Irish or the Scottish that like to imagine that all the beer you've left undrank in your life goes into a post-death barrel? You're supposedly hung over the barrel, by the feet. If you drown, to hell.. if you can breathe easy, to heaven.
Slashdot Mirror
I love it; Kubrik's Eyes Wide Shut is sent back to the editing room for a penis and a vagina, and yet movies like Saw 1 through 4 are perfectly acceptable mass media.
And somehow, Manhunt 2 is a lightning rod for debate.
Thats fucked up, in my opinion.
You're on a website. You trust it enough to connect to it and assume it will not exploit your system should its owners become aware of a client exploit you are susceptible to and are unaware of. Where did you get your anti-virus or firewall software or your patches to bugs that are discovered in your network stack or network daemons? Super happy fun land?
As soon as you plug that cable in, you impart some minimum amount of trust to teh interwebs. As far as I can tell, nobody who has installed reputable trustable anti-virus software has had their machine zombified.
So you're making a moot point. If you want to take this to infinity, you trust the manufacturer of your CPU not to hide some plastic explosives in there that detonates when you boot it up on some random date. I think what you meant to say was, "There is always a risk in everything you do, which you can minimize to a practically irrelevant level if you are sufficiently educated in the relevant subject matter."
Genius, Einstein.
In my line of work, we call that office politics.
It simply serves no purpose to take someone from their home in the dead of night, fly them to an "undisclosed" location and torture them for no apparent reason.
I make you look thorough to your superior.
Next, you use a plane and pay for the fuel to fly this guy to the "undisclosed" location. Then you waste the interrogator's time, and prison resources (food, space, AC... whatever) to hold and "interrogate" this person.
If its not my budget I'm spending, then it only matters that I am marginally able to justify the costs.
You send 5 guys to be interrogated, waste about 100 hrs of the interrogators time only to find out that these guys are completely innocent, your General is going to hear about it. From there, it rolls back down to you. It is well known in military circles that not only does shit roll downhill, but it gets bigger as it goes.
Defender of the public sector as I am, but I have a very difficult time believing this given how much of the federal budget is for military spending. It doesn't strike me as an institution which is cut throat when it comes to cost efficiency. Your point depends very much on 'the General hearing it (I'll add, caring about it, if hes unable to pass the intelligence buck elsewhere)' and the interrogator thinking his time was wasted, even if the guy is totally clean.
This is why there are no hard and fast rules about who gets picked up and who doesn't. Well, that and the fact that it would bog down soldiers to have to work their way through a checklist of who is a terrorist and who isn't. "OK, step 15 reads, 'The subject can be taken into custody if he is carrying a weapon.' Well, he had a donkey with a bomb strapped to it. Does that count as a weapon, livestock or farming equipment? Also, do we take him or his donkey? Maybe we should count it as an old-school car bomb."
I don't even know what to make of that.
When you spend 20$, and 25 cents of it goes to the author of the music, "paying for something someone else has created" is not exactly the issue.
The problem with people like you is that you've no concept of the history of copyright law, why it exists, and what its role is in the economy today.
If you think it all comes down to "paying for something someone else has created", you'd probably have more than a few personal reservations about the current state of copyright laws.
Daily beheadings? Why do I picture you masturbating while you say these words?
The only person I want arguing with Jack Thompson is a court of law.
So far, they seem to have been pretty effective at nullifying any lasting effects his demogogeury might have on state or federal legistlation.
How hard is it to either completely yank the naughty bits or replace them with functionally-identical bits
.. its not an easy process.
You can't just open the binary in a text editor and zero-out the bits that are the surrounded by that 'im naughty' glow. You need to change the all the associated assets (the animations) remove all offending particle effects, yadda yadda. It's not a walk in the park. You've just worked in crunch mode for however many months to make sure the game never crashes, and suddenly, you're ripping out assets, rewriting significant chuncks of production/camera code
What they did was 'hide' the offending manhunts with post processing overlays and camera cuts. But to go in and remove animations and change actual 'kill code' (how the hero/enemies are interacting with each other under the censored textures/effects) would have been a huge task and created another stabilization cycle that would have lasted far longer. In short, it would have all but guaranteed that the project would end up in the red once all was said and done.
What most people don't realize is that one of the biggest challenges in building video games is to make the 'build' process stable. An animation depends on a model which depends on textures. The game code depends on all those things, the number of joints a character has, even down to innocuous sounding things like whether a particular joint will ever be non-orthagonal to the floor. You change the animations, suddenly you rendered a lot of the testing you've done completely useless, because the math being used to make certain calculations for things like camera angle, relative positions of objects or joints to each other etc, now depend on a whole new set of assumptions.
So no, you cant just yank the naughty bits. The devil is in the details, and unless you know the details, pretty much everything always looks simple unless you're the one doing it. Adding new stuff to make the old stuff relatively inaccessible is the only sane way to bow to the demands of the ESRB without requiring a whole new front to back testing cycle. Removing stuff, now thats tricky, because identifying what things depend on those things are sometimes programmatically detectable (by your build process, dependancy tree, and build validation code) but much much more dangerously only discoverable via testing.
This discussion is a microcosm of my opinion, but my interest in piqued, and I feel like chiming in.
The two parties wave the right hand ("medicare! military! taxes!") over here and keep voters transfixed. Meanwhile, the left hand is obliging a corporate oligarchy, and neither party really has a problem with this.
I'm confused by the whole affair. Campaign finance reform and cutting off the influence that lobby groups have would be a good start, but somewhere along the line, it became a dirty opinion that messing in any way with any amount of power the private sector has is an affront to the American Dream of getting rich and doing whatever the hell you want with your money. Separation of Church and State was a good start, but separation of government and the private sector would be awesome.
If Congress stands firm and denies him funding for the war and for his little domestic Big Brother operations, he has no choice.
Whats any less "Big Brother" about a Democratic administration? Just because you're not in a war doesn't mean vast sums of the tax base are not subsidizing risk in private markets. There is plenty of literature and documentation of the varying amounts of harm that private interests can inflict in foreign places without actually being in the middle of a war. (The agricultural and pharmaceutical industries are always fending off criticism about this.)
What really has to be asked is, "Why are these the only two viable political parties?" It should be pointed out that neither party is particularly fond of talking about biting the hand that feeds them in order to create a government that that can make choices that benefit all participants in an economy, not just the ones that are currently successful. Sometimes when I read these threads, I can't help but wonder why people put so much energy and time into bickering over Repub/Dem politics. Its become the political version of a false dichotomy, and the whole situation to me strikes me as being a bunch of people campaigning on a series of appeals to spite. Voters are chomping at the bit to chop off the nose to spite the face. "Fuck the whole system!" I hear, but I rarely hear, "Even if I realize it will totally destabilize the very institutions that historically have lead to our cultural and economic dominance and maybe more importantly, access to some version of the moral highground." I sense a groundswell of isolationism, and that frightens me as somebody who doesn't want to see people being lead to their own irrelevance on a global scale by a bunch of demogogues.
I look at the whole war thing and say, "Well, you're a democracy, he was voted in, and now that the hornets nest is stirred up, you should be there with the best of intentions and make sure a power vacuum isn't created." I'm very much against the war, occupation, emergency shopping trip for oil, whatever anyone wants to call it, but it seems grossly wrong to me that Americans should want to just get the hell out of the place since it didn't turn out to be as fun or noble feeling as it initially sounded. America did very well with Germany and Japan, but its long list of failures in foreign military intervention are littered with "get in, get out" mentalities, whether the public was for it or against it. It just doesn't work. If the US wants to make a strong statement about its belief in democracy and capitalism, it should at least stick with its initiatives, regardless of whether particular individual voter were complicit with the approach. My understanding of history is that the US succeeds (as it has, in some situations) when they recognize something as a long term commitment from the get-go. However, high tailing it home after something got too complicated is as cowardly as creating the power vacuum in the first place. Why do Iraqis want Americans out? Because anti-American sentiment + short road trip for its detractors = totally uninvolved Iraq's lawn got totally trashed. But how to deal with t
This is nowhere near being new. I implemented something like this years ago.
:) ... on a 404, my 404 redirect page executes a search based on the PATH_INFO part of the URL.
I called it four-oh-find
Its neither innovative nor clever. It took me 5 minutes to implement. Had I wanted to seperate searches based on a predefined token in the URL, that would have been dead easy as well.
Tell me why a customer would consider a raise in price as a discount. Thats works on the accounting side of things if you have to raise prices, but to the customer, it makes absolutely no sense to thank a company for not raising its price by cutting a service. A customer expects a company to battle cost by working internally rather than reducing the value of a product so as to not raise prices.
Speaking as a game programmer in the industry, the PS3 has its work cut out for it. Ironically, the xboxor 360 (and I'm a former FreeBSD programmer and no MS sympathizer) is really turning out to be the current gen platform of choice. Its not all that surprising, given that if you want to release on PC and console, you have your work cut out for you if you're trying to do Wii/PC or PS3/PC.
If anything, the PS2 was too successful. If the Wii keeps on doing what its doing, developers will either go 'next gen' with the xbox 360 for pipeline efficiency (developed on windows, ship on 'windows') or current gen with a bajillion ps2s and the Wii so you can reuse most of your assets on both platforms.
360/Ps3 is still out of the reach of many developers simply because of the costs associated with making a next gen cross platform engine.
Well, to be fair, the US had their largest military and diplomatic presence in both these countries long, LONG, after the respective 'occupations'. Thats the point.
What I find interesting is that the US occupation of Germany and Japan have been basically wildly successful. Both economies rebounded, yes with plenty of circumstantial help, but also the commitment of the US military from the top level policy makers to the people who moved their families there to live their lives out.
Occupation is a dirty word, but the successes of Japan and Germany suggest that you really have to make a long term commitment to a country you attack if you want to rebuild them with good intentions.
Japan is a feel good story for the US military and despite the domestic misgivings another poster alluded too, this is how the world would rather see countries involved in wars with the US turn out. In that respect, its hard to fault the US for having a role in turning a bad situation into a healthy, globally involved nation.
Games, especially strategy and multiplayer fps games, make curious examples, because people's appreciation for them flourish with familiarity.
.. I still play Q3 Rocket Arena on a regular basis. Its hard to let go when you know the game inside and out and have it running to perfection on your machine.
I went through a period of thinking all modern games were shit, but when I give a game a fair shake, and get to know them, I find there are way more great games than time to play them. Company of Heroes is a wonderfully deep, fun RTS and Team Fortress 2 is a fast paced, fun, easy to pick up difficult to master FPS. But I know what you're saying
You know why this rang so true to you? I work in the games industry too ;)
It seems patently obvious to me that the stats are "IT person kissing a co-worker" .. meaning, more IT guys have kissed co-workers than IT females.
:)
Any humour derived from pointing out the difference between IT males and IT females should not be based on assuming only IT workers were kissing other IT workers, because humour is a lot funnier when it doesn't depend on such an obvious mis-interpretation of plain english.
I'm not dumping on your parade, but cmon, its only funny if it draws from accurate interpretations of the survey.
So... I guess when I fall asleep at my desk and then suddenly wake up with a raging boner, that must mean that I'm both sleep and sex starved?
No, it means you should keep your phone off vibrate when you sleep.
Well, it never bothers them that you do. I'm sure some realize it. After 9 years of programming, I have just decided to under promise, over deliver. Lose a contract, or not get promoted? Fuck it, its not worth it. Sanity is worth it. In the end, somebody will pay you for making quality products or providing quality services without having to live at work. So I say it'll be fixed by tomorrow afternoon, and fix it at 10am. They'll be more appreciative, and you got more sleep so you can clock more quality work hours. I like to say that 25% of the skill of a developer is managing expectations. *Technically*, we could write a word processor in assembly on 386, but telling somebody who is responsible for purchasing computer equipment and software tools that is suicide. Having people realize how fucking hard and taxing your job is and how challenging it is to fix things that appear small to a customer or designer is key to keeping people around you happy to provide you the proper environment to kick ass.
.. they might cut you some slack on short term hack jobs to create better long term infrastructure, monitoring, fixes, etc.
One other thing that people forget is that frequently the problems that crop up that programmers and IT folks have to fix are problems that may not have occurred had the work force been better rested. Near the end of a particular development cycle, we were working 12 to 14 hour shifts 6 or 7 days a week, alternating between folks during the day and folks at night. Near gold, it was basically a team would come in and have to fix the bug caused by the folks the earlier 12 hour shift caused fixing another bug. Everyone was so overworked that nobody could make rational steps towards fixing things properly. Seemed to me that we could have finished off earlier were we not pressed into 'work every hour you're awake' mode for the last 4 weeks. You end up causing problems that you then have to stay up even more hours to fix.
If your clients dont know when you fix things or do things for them, change that. Send them an email timestamped at 1am when you fix the problem. Mention it offhand when you discuss the resolution of the problem. You'd be surprised how willing people are to compromise or help you change the situation so you don't need to be on call for them 24/7
Using chroot on a process is like handing a person a map with an X on the destination. You've shown them where they're supposed to go, you haven't really done anything to prevent them from running off in another direction.
What a succinct way of putting it.
Looks to me as if architectural works were only added in 1990.
Thats considered a pretty eloquent conversation by xbox live standards.
No, we see that, we just dont see why "Well, *hes* about to violate the law and profit from it" equals, "Its morally ok that I violate the law and profit from it."
When somebody is about to rape someone, do you say, "Well, the rape will happen, so I might as well get in there myself first?"
Uh, to make money for my shareholders, I paid a few guys to go out and kill the owners of my competition. Only those weak souls who accepted my payments for killing my competitors are at fault. I was only trying to increase shareholder value.
See where this logic breaks down? Offering bribes is tantamount to changing the fucking rules of capitalism.
Capitalism = fine.
Bribing people? Its illegal because PEOPLE WILL ACCEPT BRIBES. I dare you to tell the cops you're bribing somebody to drive drunk.
You pit? I pit? Who pits?
Thats the point.
Who is the one not being greedy?
Why is the government at fault for expressing what you say is 'human nature'?
They're stupid for being greedy? Or they're stupid for not being greedy, but thinking SBC would not be greedy?
Dipshits like you run the gamut from the frycook to the CEO; for some reason, you think its the referees fault when hes smacked over the head with a baseball bat.
Is it the Irish or the Scottish that like to imagine that all the beer you've left undrank in your life goes into a post-death barrel? You're supposedly hung over the barrel, by the feet. If you drown, to hell .. if you can breathe easy, to heaven.