I can see it now, Bob plays Halo 15 hours a day, every day except Sundays, when he takes a shower because his mom enters the basement.... Joe, his friend, pretends to play because he's really doing benders because Bob still has issues beating him.... Laura, walking with Bob, is Joe's girlfriend when she's not with Bob (she's free 15 hours a day)....
It would read like a good Jersey Shore episode. I guess that means there's a troupe of folks that would follow it.
What we got was at least the initial piece of what we wanted, internet being put under Title II. Now, the real question is how much of Title II is going to be enforced? But, besides that, the other biggie was the wholesale throw out of exclusivity contracts that prevent municipalities from laying their own cable.
God may have created life (directly or indirectly) all over the universe.
True, we know that there is nowhere in the universe that His noodly appendages doesn't grace.
And although being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, requires a human to find, judge, and act on his will. Guess noodly appendages can't wreak wrath anymore.
I can see a new hilarity meme - "This is the year of the windows phone!", to go along side of "This is the year of the Linux Desktop", or "The year of Net Neutrality"..... wait, we got that one!
I'd have to disagree given how many countries now have long range rocket technology. It's merely a matter of scale after that. The biggest issue most have is guidance technology. Apparently that's still a big problem, much like the V1/V2s in WWII, they weren't good for eliminating a target, but they were excellent for demoralizing the populace.
Sorry - it doesn't direct delete, if I implied that, my bad. Cmd-Delete sends it to Trash, so you can do a delete every other file entry, or some other non easy pattern, and then clear trash without ever leaving the keyboard.
FYI - some other keyboard short cuts:
(Shft)Cmd-Tab (previous)next process
(Shft)Cmd-` (back tic above Tab, with the tilda) (previous)next window within the current process
Those 4 combos keep me out of mission control entirely, which I can only recall having opened once or twice, and found it to be largely useless. Note that they are both process based, and it is possible to have multiple process open the same application. I have multiple instances of an IDE open right now, as an example, each in their own process. One or two may have multiple windows within the process. I sometimes have the same issue with mvim (macvim), depending upon how it is launched or the file opened.
Shift-Cmd-Delete has to be done while a Finder window has focus. Note that you have to have something in Trash, otherwise you get the "error" tone, which really indicates it's empty. It's worked for me ever since I found out about in, circa Tiger? Panther? I don't know, quite a long time ago. I know for a fact it works in Snow Leopard, Mountain Lion, Mavericks, and Yosemite, as I have all of those systems running currently or in the past 6 months Although, now that I think about it, the first thing I do with any mac is install QuickSilver on it. I don't think it affects this though, as I don't recall that ever being a problem on anyone else's mac either. Other than that, I run Caffeine and Fantastical and that's pretty much it for enhancements.
I've tried some other enhancements/replacements such as PathFinder, BusyCal (they have something new out recently) PostBox, and a couple of others, but don't really care for those, at least when I tried them. To be fair, PostBox was only used for a short while, and I am still in the process of getting back to evaluating that one. The drive to replace Mail was removed when I finally debugged my configuration issue with Mail (removing a second Gmail account) although I still have some oddities with it.
Nice on the tests, thanks for posting those. If you try that on a network connected disk in Finder, you'll probably find that the behavior is.... not what you'd like. I do not believe that Finder uses the remote system as a proxy, because if it did, it should be able to delete much faster than it does. Oh well, at least local files work fine.
We were of the same mind right up until your last sentence. Finder is good for browsing, shit-slow for copying or deleting more than a handful of files, and doesn't actually delete, which adds an extra step (emptying the trash). Because of this, I find that Finder is better utilized for browsing, especially media collections, while the command line is often faster for manipulation. Try deleting a folder with several subfolders, several levels deep, and over 10k files; make a copy first, so you can do it in Finder, then again on the command line. Time them. In fact, make two copies, one from Finder and one from the CLI, and time those, too.
We're still of the same mind-set, I don't solely use it for file manipulation, but when I use it, that's about the only functional thing I do with it.:) BTW, you are aware that Cmd-Delete deletes the file, and Shift-Cmd-Delete empties the trash, right? That helps with the keyboard deletion of files when you're selecting and deleting. As for deleting thousands, every time I wind up with a project directory with 100K files in it that I delete via Finder, I sigh, sit back for a brief second, and browse slashdot while that's going on. Finder has a lot of challenges, one of which is not using the proper UNIX APIs to handle file manipulations. The trashcan is rarely used, I'd rather it dropped it into TimeMachine (TM) if it wasn't already backed up and the directory is a backed up item.
It's even worse on network volumes, since those are much higher latency, and often much slower, to begin with.
For network work, I almost always ssh in. It removes 99.999% of the back and forth crap.
I'll have to admit that I've never once locked Finder (or rm) in deleting files that were accessible. I do have the oddly marked iso in trash that was marked as in use, which a reboot cleared (power outage, same issue, need a new UPS, apparently the battery's dead). That includes directory structures with several GB of data in 100s of thousands of files in probably 50 top level directories (a largish software project). I've done that more than once, because cleaning up multiple related projects when done is easier from Finder, even if it takes a minute or so to complete. (I'm running a 4 disk RAID0 scratch space along with 2 SSDs for the OS and user area, not exactly standard I know, on a hexcore box with 24GB RAM.... which is about to undergo a rather radical reconfiguration since I got some new SSDs in.....) My MBP also has no issues with these activities, and there Finder's horrid delete slowness is almost imperceptible, those PCIExpress SSDs are freaky awesome fast. You barely have time to sip your drink before it's ready, and then only if you're deleting more than 100K entries.
BTW, using scp, there's still a pretty significant pause at the end of the transfer of a largish file set as the system computes the hashes to check that the file(s) were actually transmitted properly. I haven't actually done a side by side test to see if scp is faster than Finder in network transfers. I suspect it is, especially with directory tree structures, but I I can't recall the last time I tried that. I generally just transfer tarballs or media files.
I wouldn't know, the first thing I do on a Mac is configure it to my tastes and use cases, and after that, it stays out of my way. One of those is that file extensions are always shown. The thing to know is that executables are set by permissions, not extensions, so extensions only give you a hint. The executable permission needs to either be set, or be set within a container that you copy it out of. So in general, you can't execute anything you download as a standalone app.
That's pretty hugely untrue. You can run any file under OSX by enabling the execute perm, or make then not executable by removing it. Well, that's from the command line anyways, from finder... you use that for anything other than scanning data files in a folder? I will admit that Finder has default apps assigned to various extensions, but that information can be overridden IIRC, on a per file basis. I guess I wouldn't be a typical user, since I almost never use the Dock, LaunchPad, Mission Control, or even spotlight and Finder is only for some minor file manipulation, such as copying things from A to B or deleting things.
In 2009 the top 50% of income-tax payers paid 97.75% of the total tax [ntu.org]. Do you suppose, the bottom 50% could pay much less than 2.25% — and would it help them, even if it could be arranged?
So, as suspected, you don't have any substantiation to your claim, that the "top 1%" impoverishes everybody else. Class warfare much?
This is the only interesting statement in your post, 1 fact and a false conclusion. Of course the top 50% paid the majority of the taxes. In 1910, the top 10% paid the majority of the taxes. Some stats: there were 305M in the US in 2009, of which roughly 74M were children and 40M were over 65. So excluding people like Buffet (a top 0.001%er over 65 and an outlier) we'll say there were roughly 190M eligible working people, of which 117M reported wages/salaries which gives you a working population of roughly 61%, just to put employment in proper perspective. Average income was $54,265 for those 117M people, yet the average per capita income was more than $38K as total income was $11,852,715,000,000, or roughly $101K per taxpayer. Yet these numbers are somewhat off, as "taxpayer" can be a single individual or married couple, but the back of napkin calculations jibe with the Dept of Labor of a workforce about 60% employed, so I'll call it a wash.
Historically, we have used a stepped tax system. With the first income tax, the first step only included the top 10%, as the income level was set to that level, so only people earning above that mark paid tax. The overly complex graduated system we have now in simple terms is setup so that people that earn more pay more tax, but has devolved to the point that you pay tax even if you're below the median income (say, if you're single with no kids and no mortgage, ie, no deductions)
All I'm promoting is that the tax system gets reset to a simpler system keyed to inflation, so that people making 125% of the median pay no tax, and people above it do. Remove most, if not all deductions, and be done with it. (This is similar to the "flat tax" proposals that have been floating about) If you're concerned that I'm attempting to shift the tax to others, don't be, I'll fall into the "taxed" group. I'd be happier if people above me on the scale weren't paying less than I do however.
To quote a friend of mine: "I'm happy to pay taxes, it means I'm making money".
In 1930-40-ies we were governed by an Illiberal icon — was FDR a proponent of "trickle down"?
IIRC, proportionate wealth and growth were relatively static from about Oct 1929 through 1940, when the war effort began really rolling. So FDR had nothing to do with it.
What makes you think, the wealth-concentration you dislike so much in the second half of 20th century was due to "trickle down economics"?
It actually didn't really start until the 80s, and if you'll recall, that era was prefaced by several recessions and double digit inflation in the 70s, a similar stoppage of wealth growth as in the 30s.
In fact, what makes you think, the policy was practiced at all — whatever effect it did or did not have on wealth-consolidation?
Just perhaps that was the stated economic policy of the Reps as they rolled back taxes on the wealthy?
the top 1% is gathering it back quickly, impoverishing everyone else.
This statement implies fixed size "bucket" (which you just said is not the case) and zero-summed game — somebody's gain must be somebody else's loss, according to this logic.
It may not be a fixed sized bucket, but the rates of change in size and flux can game it one way or the other. Higher taxes on the rich mean their wealth growth rate is slowed, as the flow in is slowed. Relatively, this means the other segment's proportional wealth growth rate increases, given an assumed common wealth growth rate between the two scenarios.
Meanwhile, I can easily demonstrate, how the "hope and change" President turned out to be either incompetent or a fraud
Red-herring - the last several presidents can be shown to be both. It may be harder to show that Bush Jr was competent or not a fraud, given that he started a war on false pretenses that he couldn't finish and put us trillions in debt and destabilized an entire region of the world, snatching defeat out of the hands of victory, or how under his presidency, he managed to steer us into the Great Recession, only slightly lesser than that wonderful period known as the Great Depression. But enough about segues.
and thus undeserving of the office, to which hysterical Illiberals have elected him — twice.
Because otherwise we'd have that paragon of politics Palin instead of Biden to make fun of? Or perhaps that ever American loving Romney, as long as you're not 1 in 2 Americans? I think you should perhaps drop that hypocritical tone and consider that the Reps killed their own chances in 2008. Had McCain chosen a sensible moderate as his running mate and rejected the more extremist planks of the Rep platform after nomination, it's highly likely he would have won.
Just remember that no law supersedes the Constitution, no matter what it says. A court merely needs to find it violating the Constitution, which so far has been side stepped by, IMNSHO, spurious judgements about lack of standing by judges not willing to take a stand against the immoral and unethical activities that would otherwise have to be faced in court. A judge should not be a rubberstamp machine, but too many seem to be just that when it comes to things that matter, and lack any ability to use common sense and ruling precedents don't apply to their case and making the "safe" decision.
Tell me more about this republican misrule. Perhaps you refer to DHS, and TSA?... NSA and it's siblings from the Five Eyes spying...Go ahead - tell us exactly WHAT the republicans were doing wrong.
Yep, those are all generally bad and crappy, and all currently known bad aspects originated with the Reps or while they were in charge indicating either approval or gross negligence in oversight, take your pick.
Once you've done that - tell me how we are one iota better off today with the democrat in the White House.
Net Neutrality.
and the end of the banning of municipal ISP bans.
Neither of those would have happened under Reps. I was surprised it happened under the Dems. I'll take what I can get though.
Only chumps and fools defend either party. Republicans and Democrats are an inbred family, sleeping together for the past three generations.
"infinitely better", huh? Go ahead, and tell us HOW it is better.
I agree that disassembling the 2 party system would be best for all involved and that the 2 parties share many bad aspects, which is why voters are so disillusioned. They're not really voting for someone they support, they're mostly voting against someone they consider worse, basically the lesser evil, which at this point is mostly the Dems, although the Reps seem to be splintering before our eyes. For instance, the only thing that would make me vote for Hillary is if Ted was her opposition. I doubly detest the Reps for putting me in a position to even consider that possibility. If the Reps run someone less offensive, I might at least be able to vote for some third party again, even though it's pointless.
.. the trickle-down economics, which you seem to deride without any clear reasons or citations.
Trickle-down economics is essentially saying let's dump all the money up top, and the overflow, like an overflowing bucket, will reach all the people down below the top. The problem with trickle down economics is that neither the top nor the bucket are fixed sizes, and thus shrinking the top's numbers and increasing the size meant less for everyone else. This is what occurred in reality, and can be easily seen in the consolidation of wealth in the upper 0.5 - 1% at levels not seen since the 1940s. It should be noted that the major dip from the 40s through the 2000s also matched a huge growth in total wealth, but as that increase in overall wealth growth has slowed, the top 1% is gathering it back quickly, impoverishing everyone else.
This is a point that's been stated over and over, we finally got part one: net neutrality. Part 2 is partially here, with the banning of those exclusive monopoly cabling deals. Now if the tax payer paid for cabling can be turned over to the municipalities, we can finally get to a point where your cable is essentially locally owned, and the services you may desire, email, web hosting, TV stations, etc, can be provided by whom ever you choose.
How could it have "passed all its tests" if it wasn't connected to the rest of the system?
It's a component. It's self-contained, like, say, a database or search appliance. You're not telling me they have to be attached to the rest of the system to be tested, do you? However, what happens under realistic loads with the oddities of connectivity sometimes fall outside even the most comprehensive testing, especially when distributed concurrency rears its pretty head.
It's hard to do agile without continuous integration;
I don't recall if they actually had their checkbox marked off, but we certainly did, with several hundred tests, all written to the spec. Funny thing, there were 3 specs, with multiple versions that had occurred over time. Somehow, the "official" spec in my hands wasn't the complete spec being developed by the other team, they'd decided in a scrum that changing a couple of details would make it easier for themselves. They wound up undoing those changes, and rewriting half their component as a result, extending the timeline by 300%.
But integration blowups are the norm in my experience... - they're the main thing that leads to "the first 90% of the project, then the second 90% of the project".
Integration is about 90% of what I do. It doesn't matter what project style is used, if the integration isn't properly spec'd and planned, you will be doing a second 90% after the first, and possibly a third and more. (NOTE: I removed waterfall from your quote, because it's relevant to all. Integration can be a real problem.)
Make it cheap and easy to change the requirements, because the requirement are going to change, and there's no holding back the tide.
It's never going to be cheap and easy in general to change requirements. That's as true of building bridges as it is for building software. There are changes that are easy - make the railing painted black instead of pink, for instance, vs expensive - gold railings vs wood. But changing the base structure, going from arch to suspension to truss in any order will never be cheap. (Think going from relational to Mongo to Hadoop) The purpose is the same, get a car from one side to the other, the car manages it the same way - driving on a roadway, but everything else about it is different. For data stores, the data is stored and comes back out, but the aspects of how its done and the implications for the application server are rather different, depending upon how you set them up. One or more may not even meet the base requirements used as a starting point for designing the application.
Ah, well, the ideal anyway for Agile is that's the team.
The team's always in the fire, but generally the "big" guy is the one that takes responsibility for driving the project. You can't have a 100+ person "team" owning a project. Someone needs to be the grown up.
Wait, what? OK, by "PM" do you mean Product Manager (guy who's constantly visiting customers, or at least on the phone with them, often has an MBA), or a Project Manager (useless wanker).
the latter, and generally aptly described. Although on larger projects, they can be useful as long as they stay in their tracking role.
I've never seen Agile done well at companies that still employed the latter (but then I've never done consulting).
I've done some consulting over the years, mostly to rescue failing projects. But I've spent time in enough companies as an established employee to know the consulting experiences were by no means unique.
Sounds like "Scrum consultants" selling snake oil, then moving on to the next victims ahead of the angry mob.
As you can tell from my posts, I pretty much consider Agile itself snake oil.
Agile achieves 3 things if done right: much less throw-away work, early integration for fewer last-minute surprises, and a dev team who's emotionally committed to the dates, rather than hating management for the dates and wanting to hurt them in return. Those can make a pretty significant difference, but if you have intelligent, non-dickish management to begin with then only the first really changes (and if management is bad enough, nothing gets better).
I guess my point is that Agile just generally doesn't work the way it's pitched for projects that I work on, and is highly unpleasant and/or inefficient when people attempt to use some or all of it. To me, the only person that really benefits from the whole thing is the PM (either one actually) because they can see the lack of progress that results, all the while selling it up the chain as an accomplishment. I've seen several directors on up fired over the years for doing precisely that, only to be replaced by another Agile proponent that immediately starts having hour long scrums, because, obviously, people aren't getting enough work done. This is fine when I can stay on the outside, but these things are usually black holes that take in everyone near them. Then it's time to bail.
You are clueless. There are cases where the original requirements missed a key bit of functionality that wasn't realized until a later requirement change caused a core change in the DB structure. In fact, I just finished altering a DB structure for exactly that reason. It took 4 days, but then, this current work is designed by a team that approaches software like me, so what's a relatively large change in structure and functionality was accomplished with relatively little effort and almost 0 affect on upper layers. We have well-defined application boundaries and integration API layers which by their nature are extremely loosely coupled. I have seen similar changes on other projects take months and teams of people to accomplish.
The person who "owns" the project. Generally they run it, as it's their ass in the fire.
Agile projects need a Product Owner (and that's usually where projects diverge the most from the ideal - I've never met a PM who actually attended scrums), to stack rank work and answer team questions about requirements.
I don't believe I've been on an agile project where PMs did not run the scrums. Most because they thought they should, and 1 that actually ran the project like I would have. That project succeeded by the measures stated when I joined, but failed by the original measures. I'm not sure I'd call that project Agile nor SCRUM, but more like a development sweatshop, unless that's what successful Agile devolves to. All the other PM run projects failed, due to missed deadlines, missing functionality, and/or cost overruns. I have missed on occasion in projects where I was responsible, as has everyone, but never by more than 20% on time and I've always delivered everything in the original requirements. (see below)
...One point of Agile is that the scope falls off, rather than the date slipping, but that's not all that different from tradition.
I always agree to a core scope that must be met, and then the nice to haves that are negotiable. This approach leads me to a much better success rate, happier clients, and successful projects. The agile approach has left disaster and/or disappointment everywhere I've seen it. Because the world is promised, and only some is delivered, on "successful" projects. Success does not mean delivering everything on time and within budget. You at an optimistic best get 2 of those 3 with Agile.
No, in fact, that's not what he said - he said Agile says "you don't need a plan."
I did not, in fact, state that at all. What I said is "One of the many failings of Agile is that no where does it really say anything meaningful" and "Because no where does Agile say that mini-projects are part of the process"
I said "Agile says 'plan in small increments, and revisit your plan to refactor and rework it constantly.'" What part of "keep the top priority things up to date, clear, and well-estimated," says "don't plan anything!" to you? Because in my world, estimating, clarifying, and 'scheduling things for inclusion in upcoming sprints' is EXACTLY what constitutes "making a plan."
Perhaps because I deal with projects that cover 100s of developers with budgets in the millions? And a business doesn't want to know in 8 or 16 weeks that their budget is going to be run over by 200%, or their timeline is going to be double? Ie, before committing to rewriting, lets say, an airline reservation or large shipping logistics system as examples, they'd like some realistic idea of the cost and time involved. Agile as the "manifesto" and in practice is incredibly inept at doing what I consider real work. It may work fine for small projects and teams, but that doesn't legitimize it any more than a working car made of paper mache is ready for 150mph on the autobahn.
So, you have no plan other than for a few weeks, and you are just sitting down and banging code out since "there's very little point or value in trying"...
No, you unmitigated buffoon,
That's pretty much exactly what you said, and now having been called out on it, you're resorting to name-calling. About as well thought out as the manifesto....
you have a rolling window of "several weeks to months of planned work," for the lifecycle of your project. You engage in planning THROUGHOUT the project life cycle, you don't just say "We'll plan the first 2 weeks, and then wing it from there."
And yet that is wholly the same thing as winging it for the scope of what I'm discussing. 2 weeks, 2 months, whatever your window is, is irrelevant. I don't need to know 12 months in that the costs are going to double, or the time line is going to be missed by even 1 month, or that I'm going to have to cut half my features, which basically means I miss delivery. This is the real world, and people don't like driving cars with 2 wheels and no seats, or flying in a plane with no windows. If you still don't get it, you're a... well, you ask it yourself, so, wear the badge with pride.
Anybody who is still able to pretend that this is what Agile teaches in 2015 is a fucking moron. Are you a fucking moron? You might just be.
And that attitude describes exactly why Agile projects fail and have massive cost overruns and are late, because, surprisingly, there are more similarities between building bridges and building software than most suspect. Change costs money and time, and a change in a fundamental core component, can have outsized effects on everything else, including instability and poor performance, which can be overlooked during the Agile development process. I personally witnessed such a project where a component was designed and built, passed all its tests, but once it was to a point it could be connected to the other portions of the system, it failed miserably and the next 12 months was spent "fixing" it, which really never got to the point it needed to because every fix led to the discovery of a new problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see it now, Bob plays Halo 15 hours a day, every day except Sundays, when he takes a shower because his mom enters the basement.... Joe, his friend, pretends to play because he's really doing benders because Bob still has issues beating him.... Laura, walking with Bob, is Joe's girlfriend when she's not with Bob (she's free 15 hours a day)....
It would read like a good Jersey Shore episode. I guess that means there's a troupe of folks that would follow it.
What we got was at least the initial piece of what we wanted, internet being put under Title II. Now, the real question is how much of Title II is going to be enforced? But, besides that, the other biggie was the wholesale throw out of exclusivity contracts that prevent municipalities from laying their own cable.
True, we know that there is nowhere in the universe that His noodly appendages doesn't grace.
And although being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, requires a human to find, judge, and act on his will. Guess noodly appendages can't wreak wrath anymore.
You'd have to redefine gender, as planets are "she" (mother earth), and generally stars are "he" by inference.
I can see a new hilarity meme - "This is the year of the windows phone!", to go along side of "This is the year of the Linux Desktop", or "The year of Net Neutrality"..... wait, we got that one!
There's a difference in hitting LA or the Galapagos, which is the type of error margin you can get with ICBMs.
I'd have to disagree given how many countries now have long range rocket technology. It's merely a matter of scale after that. The biggest issue most have is guidance technology. Apparently that's still a big problem, much like the V1/V2s in WWII, they weren't good for eliminating a target, but they were excellent for demoralizing the populace.
Sorry - it doesn't direct delete, if I implied that, my bad. Cmd-Delete sends it to Trash, so you can do a delete every other file entry, or some other non easy pattern, and then clear trash without ever leaving the keyboard.
FYI - some other keyboard short cuts:
Those 4 combos keep me out of mission control entirely, which I can only recall having opened once or twice, and found it to be largely useless. Note that they are both process based, and it is possible to have multiple process open the same application. I have multiple instances of an IDE open right now, as an example, each in their own process. One or two may have multiple windows within the process. I sometimes have the same issue with mvim (macvim), depending upon how it is launched or the file opened.
Shift-Cmd-Delete has to be done while a Finder window has focus. Note that you have to have something in Trash, otherwise you get the "error" tone, which really indicates it's empty. It's worked for me ever since I found out about in, circa Tiger? Panther? I don't know, quite a long time ago. I know for a fact it works in Snow Leopard, Mountain Lion, Mavericks, and Yosemite, as I have all of those systems running currently or in the past 6 months Although, now that I think about it, the first thing I do with any mac is install QuickSilver on it. I don't think it affects this though, as I don't recall that ever being a problem on anyone else's mac either. Other than that, I run Caffeine and Fantastical and that's pretty much it for enhancements.
I've tried some other enhancements/replacements such as PathFinder, BusyCal (they have something new out recently) PostBox, and a couple of others, but don't really care for those, at least when I tried them. To be fair, PostBox was only used for a short while, and I am still in the process of getting back to evaluating that one. The drive to replace Mail was removed when I finally debugged my configuration issue with Mail (removing a second Gmail account) although I still have some oddities with it.
Nice on the tests, thanks for posting those. If you try that on a network connected disk in Finder, you'll probably find that the behavior is.... not what you'd like. I do not believe that Finder uses the remote system as a proxy, because if it did, it should be able to delete much faster than it does. Oh well, at least local files work fine.
We were of the same mind right up until your last sentence. Finder is good for browsing, shit-slow for copying or deleting more than a handful of files, and doesn't actually delete, which adds an extra step (emptying the trash). Because of this, I find that Finder is better utilized for browsing, especially media collections, while the command line is often faster for manipulation. Try deleting a folder with several subfolders, several levels deep, and over 10k files; make a copy first, so you can do it in Finder, then again on the command line. Time them. In fact, make two copies, one from Finder and one from the CLI, and time those, too.
We're still of the same mind-set, I don't solely use it for file manipulation, but when I use it, that's about the only functional thing I do with it. :) BTW, you are aware that Cmd-Delete deletes the file, and Shift-Cmd-Delete empties the trash, right? That helps with the keyboard deletion of files when you're selecting and deleting. As for deleting thousands, every time I wind up with a project directory with 100K files in it that I delete via Finder, I sigh, sit back for a brief second, and browse slashdot while that's going on. Finder has a lot of challenges, one of which is not using the proper UNIX APIs to handle file manipulations. The trashcan is rarely used, I'd rather it dropped it into TimeMachine (TM) if it wasn't already backed up and the directory is a backed up item.
It's even worse on network volumes, since those are much higher latency, and often much slower, to begin with.
For network work, I almost always ssh in. It removes 99.999% of the back and forth crap.
I'll have to admit that I've never once locked Finder (or rm) in deleting files that were accessible. I do have the oddly marked iso in trash that was marked as in use, which a reboot cleared (power outage, same issue, need a new UPS, apparently the battery's dead). That includes directory structures with several GB of data in 100s of thousands of files in probably 50 top level directories (a largish software project). I've done that more than once, because cleaning up multiple related projects when done is easier from Finder, even if it takes a minute or so to complete. (I'm running a 4 disk RAID0 scratch space along with 2 SSDs for the OS and user area, not exactly standard I know, on a hexcore box with 24GB RAM.... which is about to undergo a rather radical reconfiguration since I got some new SSDs in.....) My MBP also has no issues with these activities, and there Finder's horrid delete slowness is almost imperceptible, those PCIExpress SSDs are freaky awesome fast. You barely have time to sip your drink before it's ready, and then only if you're deleting more than 100K entries.
BTW, using scp, there's still a pretty significant pause at the end of the transfer of a largish file set as the system computes the hashes to check that the file(s) were actually transmitted properly. I haven't actually done a side by side test to see if scp is faster than Finder in network transfers. I suspect it is, especially with directory tree structures, but I I can't recall the last time I tried that. I generally just transfer tarballs or media files.
I wouldn't know, the first thing I do on a Mac is configure it to my tastes and use cases, and after that, it stays out of my way. One of those is that file extensions are always shown. The thing to know is that executables are set by permissions, not extensions, so extensions only give you a hint. The executable permission needs to either be set, or be set within a container that you copy it out of. So in general, you can't execute anything you download as a standalone app.
That's pretty hugely untrue. You can run any file under OSX by enabling the execute perm, or make then not executable by removing it. Well, that's from the command line anyways, from finder... you use that for anything other than scanning data files in a folder? I will admit that Finder has default apps assigned to various extensions, but that information can be overridden IIRC, on a per file basis. I guess I wouldn't be a typical user, since I almost never use the Dock, LaunchPad, Mission Control, or even spotlight and Finder is only for some minor file manipulation, such as copying things from A to B or deleting things.
In 2009 the top 50% of income-tax payers paid 97.75% of the total tax [ntu.org]. Do you suppose, the bottom 50% could pay much less than 2.25% — and would it help them, even if it could be arranged? So, as suspected, you don't have any substantiation to your claim, that the "top 1%" impoverishes everybody else. Class warfare much?
This is the only interesting statement in your post, 1 fact and a false conclusion. Of course the top 50% paid the majority of the taxes. In 1910, the top 10% paid the majority of the taxes. Some stats: there were 305M in the US in 2009, of which roughly 74M were children and 40M were over 65. So excluding people like Buffet (a top 0.001%er over 65 and an outlier) we'll say there were roughly 190M eligible working people, of which 117M reported wages/salaries which gives you a working population of roughly 61%, just to put employment in proper perspective. Average income was $54,265 for those 117M people, yet the average per capita income was more than $38K as total income was $11,852,715,000,000, or roughly $101K per taxpayer. Yet these numbers are somewhat off, as "taxpayer" can be a single individual or married couple, but the back of napkin calculations jibe with the Dept of Labor of a workforce about 60% employed, so I'll call it a wash.
Historically, we have used a stepped tax system. With the first income tax, the first step only included the top 10%, as the income level was set to that level, so only people earning above that mark paid tax. The overly complex graduated system we have now in simple terms is setup so that people that earn more pay more tax, but has devolved to the point that you pay tax even if you're below the median income (say, if you're single with no kids and no mortgage, ie, no deductions)
All I'm promoting is that the tax system gets reset to a simpler system keyed to inflation, so that people making 125% of the median pay no tax, and people above it do. Remove most, if not all deductions, and be done with it. (This is similar to the "flat tax" proposals that have been floating about) If you're concerned that I'm attempting to shift the tax to others, don't be, I'll fall into the "taxed" group. I'd be happier if people above me on the scale weren't paying less than I do however.
To quote a friend of mine: "I'm happy to pay taxes, it means I'm making money".
In 1930-40-ies we were governed by an Illiberal icon — was FDR a proponent of "trickle down"?
IIRC, proportionate wealth and growth were relatively static from about Oct 1929 through 1940, when the war effort began really rolling. So FDR had nothing to do with it.
What makes you think, the wealth-concentration you dislike so much in the second half of 20th century was due to "trickle down economics"?
It actually didn't really start until the 80s, and if you'll recall, that era was prefaced by several recessions and double digit inflation in the 70s, a similar stoppage of wealth growth as in the 30s.
In fact, what makes you think, the policy was practiced at all — whatever effect it did or did not have on wealth-consolidation?
Just perhaps that was the stated economic policy of the Reps as they rolled back taxes on the wealthy?
This statement implies fixed size "bucket" (which you just said is not the case) and zero-summed game — somebody's gain must be somebody else's loss, according to this logic.
It may not be a fixed sized bucket, but the rates of change in size and flux can game it one way or the other. Higher taxes on the rich mean their wealth growth rate is slowed, as the flow in is slowed. Relatively, this means the other segment's proportional wealth growth rate increases, given an assumed common wealth growth rate between the two scenarios.
Meanwhile, I can easily demonstrate, how the "hope and change" President turned out to be either incompetent or a fraud
Red-herring - the last several presidents can be shown to be both. It may be harder to show that Bush Jr was competent or not a fraud, given that he started a war on false pretenses that he couldn't finish and put us trillions in debt and destabilized an entire region of the world, snatching defeat out of the hands of victory, or how under his presidency, he managed to steer us into the Great Recession, only slightly lesser than that wonderful period known as the Great Depression. But enough about segues.
and thus undeserving of the office, to which hysterical Illiberals have elected him — twice.
Because otherwise we'd have that paragon of politics Palin instead of Biden to make fun of? Or perhaps that ever American loving Romney, as long as you're not 1 in 2 Americans? I think you should perhaps drop that hypocritical tone and consider that the Reps killed their own chances in 2008. Had McCain chosen a sensible moderate as his running mate and rejected the more extremist planks of the Rep platform after nomination, it's highly likely he would have won.
Just remember that no law supersedes the Constitution, no matter what it says. A court merely needs to find it violating the Constitution, which so far has been side stepped by, IMNSHO, spurious judgements about lack of standing by judges not willing to take a stand against the immoral and unethical activities that would otherwise have to be faced in court. A judge should not be a rubberstamp machine, but too many seem to be just that when it comes to things that matter, and lack any ability to use common sense and ruling precedents don't apply to their case and making the "safe" decision.
Tell me more about this republican misrule. Perhaps you refer to DHS, and TSA? ... NSA and it's siblings from the Five Eyes spying...Go ahead - tell us exactly WHAT the republicans were doing wrong.
Yep, those are all generally bad and crappy, and all currently known bad aspects originated with the Reps or while they were in charge indicating either approval or gross negligence in oversight, take your pick.
Once you've done that - tell me how we are one iota better off today with the democrat in the White House.
Net Neutrality.
and the end of the banning of municipal ISP bans.
Neither of those would have happened under Reps. I was surprised it happened under the Dems. I'll take what I can get though.
Only chumps and fools defend either party. Republicans and Democrats are an inbred family, sleeping together for the past three generations.
"infinitely better", huh? Go ahead, and tell us HOW it is better.
I agree that disassembling the 2 party system would be best for all involved and that the 2 parties share many bad aspects, which is why voters are so disillusioned. They're not really voting for someone they support, they're mostly voting against someone they consider worse, basically the lesser evil, which at this point is mostly the Dems, although the Reps seem to be splintering before our eyes. For instance, the only thing that would make me vote for Hillary is if Ted was her opposition. I doubly detest the Reps for putting me in a position to even consider that possibility. If the Reps run someone less offensive, I might at least be able to vote for some third party again, even though it's pointless.
About as well as trickle-down economics.
.. the trickle-down economics, which you seem to deride without any clear reasons or citations.
Trickle-down economics is essentially saying let's dump all the money up top, and the overflow, like an overflowing bucket, will reach all the people down below the top. The problem with trickle down economics is that neither the top nor the bucket are fixed sizes, and thus shrinking the top's numbers and increasing the size meant less for everyone else. This is what occurred in reality, and can be easily seen in the consolidation of wealth in the upper 0.5 - 1% at levels not seen since the 1940s. It should be noted that the major dip from the 40s through the 2000s also matched a huge growth in total wealth, but as that increase in overall wealth growth has slowed, the top 1% is gathering it back quickly, impoverishing everyone else.
Finally!
This is a point that's been stated over and over, we finally got part one: net neutrality. Part 2 is partially here, with the banning of those exclusive monopoly cabling deals. Now if the tax payer paid for cabling can be turned over to the municipalities, we can finally get to a point where your cable is essentially locally owned, and the services you may desire, email, web hosting, TV stations, etc, can be provided by whom ever you choose.
How could it have "passed all its tests" if it wasn't connected to the rest of the system?
It's a component. It's self-contained, like, say, a database or search appliance. You're not telling me they have to be attached to the rest of the system to be tested, do you? However, what happens under realistic loads with the oddities of connectivity sometimes fall outside even the most comprehensive testing, especially when distributed concurrency rears its pretty head.
It's hard to do agile without continuous integration;
I don't recall if they actually had their checkbox marked off, but we certainly did, with several hundred tests, all written to the spec. Funny thing, there were 3 specs, with multiple versions that had occurred over time. Somehow, the "official" spec in my hands wasn't the complete spec being developed by the other team, they'd decided in a scrum that changing a couple of details would make it easier for themselves. They wound up undoing those changes, and rewriting half their component as a result, extending the timeline by 300%.
But integration blowups are the norm in my experience ... - they're the main thing that leads to "the first 90% of the project, then the second 90% of the project".
Integration is about 90% of what I do. It doesn't matter what project style is used, if the integration isn't properly spec'd and planned, you will be doing a second 90% after the first, and possibly a third and more. (NOTE: I removed waterfall from your quote, because it's relevant to all. Integration can be a real problem.)
Make it cheap and easy to change the requirements, because the requirement are going to change, and there's no holding back the tide.
It's never going to be cheap and easy in general to change requirements. That's as true of building bridges as it is for building software. There are changes that are easy - make the railing painted black instead of pink, for instance, vs expensive - gold railings vs wood. But changing the base structure, going from arch to suspension to truss in any order will never be cheap. (Think going from relational to Mongo to Hadoop) The purpose is the same, get a car from one side to the other, the car manages it the same way - driving on a roadway, but everything else about it is different. For data stores, the data is stored and comes back out, but the aspects of how its done and the implications for the application server are rather different, depending upon how you set them up. One or more may not even meet the base requirements used as a starting point for designing the application.
Ah, well, the ideal anyway for Agile is that's the team.
The team's always in the fire, but generally the "big" guy is the one that takes responsibility for driving the project. You can't have a 100+ person "team" owning a project. Someone needs to be the grown up.
Wait, what? OK, by "PM" do you mean Product Manager (guy who's constantly visiting customers, or at least on the phone with them, often has an MBA), or a Project Manager (useless wanker).
the latter, and generally aptly described. Although on larger projects, they can be useful as long as they stay in their tracking role.
I've never seen Agile done well at companies that still employed the latter (but then I've never done consulting).
I've done some consulting over the years, mostly to rescue failing projects. But I've spent time in enough companies as an established employee to know the consulting experiences were by no means unique.
Sounds like "Scrum consultants" selling snake oil, then moving on to the next victims ahead of the angry mob.
As you can tell from my posts, I pretty much consider Agile itself snake oil.
Agile achieves 3 things if done right: much less throw-away work, early integration for fewer last-minute surprises, and a dev team who's emotionally committed to the dates, rather than hating management for the dates and wanting to hurt them in return. Those can make a pretty significant difference, but if you have intelligent, non-dickish management to begin with then only the first really changes (and if management is bad enough, nothing gets better).
I guess my point is that Agile just generally doesn't work the way it's pitched for projects that I work on, and is highly unpleasant and/or inefficient when people attempt to use some or all of it. To me, the only person that really benefits from the whole thing is the PM (either one actually) because they can see the lack of progress that results, all the while selling it up the chain as an accomplishment. I've seen several directors on up fired over the years for doing precisely that, only to be replaced by another Agile proponent that immediately starts having hour long scrums, because, obviously, people aren't getting enough work done. This is fine when I can stay on the outside, but these things are usually black holes that take in everyone near them. Then it's time to bail.
You are clueless. There are cases where the original requirements missed a key bit of functionality that wasn't realized until a later requirement change caused a core change in the DB structure. In fact, I just finished altering a DB structure for exactly that reason. It took 4 days, but then, this current work is designed by a team that approaches software like me, so what's a relatively large change in structure and functionality was accomplished with relatively little effort and almost 0 affect on upper layers. We have well-defined application boundaries and integration API layers which by their nature are extremely loosely coupled. I have seen similar changes on other projects take months and teams of people to accomplish.
What does "running the project" mean here?
The person who "owns" the project. Generally they run it, as it's their ass in the fire.
Agile projects need a Product Owner (and that's usually where projects diverge the most from the ideal - I've never met a PM who actually attended scrums), to stack rank work and answer team questions about requirements.
I don't believe I've been on an agile project where PMs did not run the scrums. Most because they thought they should, and 1 that actually ran the project like I would have. That project succeeded by the measures stated when I joined, but failed by the original measures. I'm not sure I'd call that project Agile nor SCRUM, but more like a development sweatshop, unless that's what successful Agile devolves to. All the other PM run projects failed, due to missed deadlines, missing functionality, and/or cost overruns. I have missed on occasion in projects where I was responsible, as has everyone, but never by more than 20% on time and I've always delivered everything in the original requirements. (see below)
...One point of Agile is that the scope falls off, rather than the date slipping, but that's not all that different from tradition.
I always agree to a core scope that must be met, and then the nice to haves that are negotiable. This approach leads me to a much better success rate, happier clients, and successful projects. The agile approach has left disaster and/or disappointment everywhere I've seen it. Because the world is promised, and only some is delivered, on "successful" projects. Success does not mean delivering everything on time and within budget. You at an optimistic best get 2 of those 3 with Agile.
No, in fact, that's not what he said - he said Agile says "you don't need a plan."
I did not, in fact, state that at all. What I said is "One of the many failings of Agile is that no where does it really say anything meaningful" and "Because no where does Agile say that mini-projects are part of the process"
I said "Agile says 'plan in small increments, and revisit your plan to refactor and rework it constantly.'" What part of "keep the top priority things up to date, clear, and well-estimated," says "don't plan anything!" to you? Because in my world, estimating, clarifying, and 'scheduling things for inclusion in upcoming sprints' is EXACTLY what constitutes "making a plan."
Perhaps because I deal with projects that cover 100s of developers with budgets in the millions? And a business doesn't want to know in 8 or 16 weeks that their budget is going to be run over by 200%, or their timeline is going to be double? Ie, before committing to rewriting, lets say, an airline reservation or large shipping logistics system as examples, they'd like some realistic idea of the cost and time involved. Agile as the "manifesto" and in practice is incredibly inept at doing what I consider real work. It may work fine for small projects and teams, but that doesn't legitimize it any more than a working car made of paper mache is ready for 150mph on the autobahn.
No, you unmitigated buffoon,
That's pretty much exactly what you said, and now having been called out on it, you're resorting to name-calling. About as well thought out as the manifesto....
you have a rolling window of "several weeks to months of planned work," for the lifecycle of your project. You engage in planning THROUGHOUT the project life cycle, you don't just say "We'll plan the first 2 weeks, and then wing it from there."
And yet that is wholly the same thing as winging it for the scope of what I'm discussing. 2 weeks, 2 months, whatever your window is, is irrelevant. I don't need to know 12 months in that the costs are going to double, or the time line is going to be missed by even 1 month, or that I'm going to have to cut half my features, which basically means I miss delivery. This is the real world, and people don't like driving cars with 2 wheels and no seats, or flying in a plane with no windows. If you still don't get it, you're a... well, you ask it yourself, so, wear the badge with pride.
Anybody who is still able to pretend that this is what Agile teaches in 2015 is a fucking moron. Are you a fucking moron? You might just be.
And that attitude describes exactly why Agile projects fail and have massive cost overruns and are late, because, surprisingly, there are more similarities between building bridges and building software than most suspect. Change costs money and time, and a change in a fundamental core component, can have outsized effects on everything else, including instability and poor performance, which can be overlooked during the Agile development process. I personally witnessed such a project where a component was designed and built, passed all its tests, but once it was to a point it could be connected to the other portions of the system, it failed miserably and the next 12 months was spent "fixing" it, which really never got to the point it needed to because every fix led to the discovery of a new problem.