Yes it does. The difficult part is knowing the balance, as indicated by the summary: "programming may in fact be transforming into an art, one that requires a skilled hand and a creative mind [...]"
Personally, I believe we'd be better off it professional programming transformed from an art into an engineering discipline. IMHO, building robust and efficient applications should be a boring and repetitive exercise in design and implementation of prescribed design patterns... maybe then we'd turn our industry's abysmal success rates around.
There will however always be BAD code by bad programmers. I've taken over Java progress where everything was OOP'ed into hell (as in a bazillion classes more than was needed for the application) and PHP projects which should be OOP'ed but consisted of about 500 files that included each other in a huge confusing net.
I see this one as a lack-of-experience problem. People have good intentions and want to build scalable, extensible, maintainable code. This is good. Unfortunately however, they're wrong. The apps they're building are small irregardless of the amount of thought they put into them, and they won't have to scale and extend the way they think they might - you don't need interfaces and impls and arbitrary inheritance for everything when the webapp is 4 screens of Spring WebFlow! Sure, if you're building something that warrants it, this is the way to go, but most of aren't building apps that big or flexible. It seems to take time to learn this, and to know when to apply the patterns and when to just build it.
As a smarter man than I once said, Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. If you do that, your code will work, it'll be understandable by the next guy, and you'll have a fighting chance of meeting your deadlines.
I'm sure the same people calling for Assange to be hanged are the same people that also say "if you've got nothing to hide..." about going through an airport scanner. They want to have that nice cozy feeling that the nanny state is protecting *them*.
It's not their Nanny that's protecting them, it's their Creepy Uncle Pete.
Seems kinda stupid to me. Car makers overcharge for the things already. Consumer Reports just did some article about how big the blind spot in cars is and depending on model and driver height it varies between 6 and 150+ feet (for spotting a toddler).
So how about either mandating a better view out the back of the car, or only requiring then on cars where the blindspot is over 15 feet for an average height person?
Better ideas for cutting down on deaths: bigger bumpers, lower speed limit (like 45), tougher driving tests, taking away licenses more aggressively, mandating disc brakes (probably more effective at safety), or just some public safety commercial. Those would probably all be more effective at saving lives.
These are low speed accidents so the "better ideas" you propose won't help here. Mandating better field of view only gets you so far if a) people aren't looking, and b) someone who wasn't there when you looked walks out behind you.
The problem is that neither infants or oldies get out of the way if they realize they are in danger, and the oldies only need to be knocked (or scared) off balance and a broken bone can turn fatal. While I think that regular parking sensors can alert drivers just fine, perhaps the push for video based systems is so they can be used in court later or by insurance companies as evidence.
The reality is like this hippie guy, when I arrive at my destination, I need to do business-perform work, if I don't or can't I loose value in front of my clients, hence such steps are necessary.
I always add the extra costs (+10%) into my bill so I don't loose anything in the long run (and I claim the costs back through a tax refund kachingx2), however sometimes I wonder that its a shame that such things need to be done.
A professional should be polite and courteous, and should also watch their spelling. Details matter.
The difference being that I can deprive you of your property, but I cannot deprive you of your ideas.
Nobody owes you anything for having those ideas though, so don't go thinking (ha) that they're intrinsically worth something; You have to put them into action first.
Both Feta and the proper name of Parmesan enjoy "protected designation of origin" status within the EU already, as well as plenty of other foods such as Parma Ham.
Sure, but it's BS because they were in common use worldwide to describe the kind of product as opposed to the origin, well before the EU became the EU.
No, it's not brand recognition, it's type recognition. Port and Champagne and Burgundy tell you what kind of taste to expect... will it have bubbles, will it be red, and how strong. This is an attempt to reclaim the use of words that stopped having a brand or regional meaning a very long time ago. Expect to see the same with Feta and Parmesan cheese, for example.
It's not quite like Chrysler reclaiming the Jeep trademark because that was an actual brand (even if they were late to the party in reclaiming it), it's more like Ford trying to own the "ute" name worldwide, because it was used to describe utility vehicles in Aussie two generations ago and they'd like to make some money off it now.
The terrorists have continued to win since 9/11 because they continue to successfully insight terror.
Terror? Seriously? They've been inciting stupidity at best - I can't believe anyone is actually scared of those clowns, which makes justifying the public responses even harder.
I know others have said it but I want to say it again: Facebook is right.
Um, no.
How about a car analogy? General Motors cannot sue Tesla Motors or Bentley Motors for using the term "Motors" in their name, despite being in the same class of industry. Nor can Mitsubishi Electric sue General Electric for using the term "Electric" in their name, despite being in the same class of industry.
Now they may sound half similar but people won't confuse them just like they won't confuse facebook, fuckbook, teachbook, or any other *book website that happens to be somehow in realm of social-networking. If it involved people collaborating online, it's arguably social networking - it's just too broad a category for one douchbag company to own.
iPad is between phone and computer. If you call a netbook your computer, then so be it. Then, the iPad will fit between your netbook and your phone.
It has no phone related functions, so no, it's not between a computer and a phone. It's dumbed-down tablet PC, kinda like those cheesy kids "laptop" things from Asia a few years ago were dumbed-down laptop PCs. Only this one is shinier.
Traffic lights also don't finance themselves... the goal of the OP is to "seed" a busy street, and then grow the system to eventually cover a large area.
I actually own several IP's of several software technologies.
Claiming to own "IP" is B.S. You're either trolling or failing, or drinking the kool-aid. Which is it? I'm assuming you've been granted some patents after reading further, but please write for your audience.
I'd wager than many folks on Slashdot would be able to say I own X patents (possibly giving #s) or perhaps can mention some files in projects they have copyright on, or maybe they registered some trademark. I've never really considered trade secrets to be IP rather than just secrets, but that's just my opinion. I don't buy in to the "Imaginary Property" argument, and maintain that the term is a buzzword that should have died years ago.
That's not entirely true. Scraping the link provided won't give you data from people who have turned off public search listings, so the torrent is potentially more useful... Note: This only includes people who have Public Search Listings available on Facebook. Anyone can opt out of appearing here by changing their Search privacy settings.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you just use "irregardless"???
Yes. I always liked The Far Side cartoons.
Yes it does. The difficult part is knowing the balance, as indicated by the summary: "programming may in fact be transforming into an art, one that requires a skilled hand and a creative mind [...]"
Personally, I believe we'd be better off it professional programming transformed from an art into an engineering discipline. IMHO, building robust and efficient applications should be a boring and repetitive exercise in design and implementation of prescribed design patterns... maybe then we'd turn our industry's abysmal success rates around.
There will however always be BAD code by bad programmers. I've taken over Java progress where everything was OOP'ed into hell (as in a bazillion classes more than was needed for the application) and PHP projects which should be OOP'ed but consisted of about 500 files that included each other in a huge confusing net.
I see this one as a lack-of-experience problem. People have good intentions and want to build scalable, extensible, maintainable code. This is good. Unfortunately however, they're wrong. The apps they're building are small irregardless of the amount of thought they put into them, and they won't have to scale and extend the way they think they might - you don't need interfaces and impls and arbitrary inheritance for everything when the webapp is 4 screens of Spring WebFlow! Sure, if you're building something that warrants it, this is the way to go, but most of aren't building apps that big or flexible. It seems to take time to learn this, and to know when to apply the patterns and when to just build it.
As a smarter man than I once said, Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. If you do that, your code will work, it'll be understandable by the next guy, and you'll have a fighting chance of meeting your deadlines.
I'm sure the same people calling for Assange to be hanged are the same people that also say "if you've got nothing to hide..." about going through an airport scanner. They want to have that nice cozy feeling that the nanny state is protecting *them*.
It's not their Nanny that's protecting them, it's their Creepy Uncle Pete.
Seems kinda stupid to me. Car makers overcharge for the things already. Consumer Reports just did some article about how big the blind spot in cars is and depending on model and driver height it varies between 6 and 150+ feet (for spotting a toddler).
So how about either mandating a better view out the back of the car, or only requiring then on cars where the blindspot is over 15 feet for an average height person?
Better ideas for cutting down on deaths: bigger bumpers, lower speed limit (like 45), tougher driving tests, taking away licenses more aggressively, mandating disc brakes (probably more effective at safety), or just some public safety commercial. Those would probably all be more effective at saving lives.
These are low speed accidents so the "better ideas" you propose won't help here. Mandating better field of view only gets you so far if a) people aren't looking, and b) someone who wasn't there when you looked walks out behind you.
The problem is that neither infants or oldies get out of the way if they realize they are in danger, and the oldies only need to be knocked (or scared) off balance and a broken bone can turn fatal. While I think that regular parking sensors can alert drivers just fine, perhaps the push for video based systems is so they can be used in court later or by insurance companies as evidence.
Cameras aren't necessary - mildly enhancing the standard ultrasonic parking sensors would address this problem for a fraction of the cost.
*puts sunglasses on*
YEEAAAAHHHHH!!!!
The reality is like this hippie guy, when I arrive at my destination, I need to do business-perform work, if I don't or can't I loose value in front of my clients, hence such steps are necessary.
I always add the extra costs (+10%) into my bill so I don't loose anything in the long run (and I claim the costs back through a tax refund kachingx2), however sometimes I wonder that its a shame that such things need to be done.
A professional should be polite and courteous, and should also watch their spelling. Details matter.
The difference being that I can deprive you of your property, but I cannot deprive you of your ideas.
Nobody owes you anything for having those ideas though, so don't go thinking (ha) that they're intrinsically worth something; You have to put them into action first.
Now my generation is letting it happen, and we're watching it unfold, and it's unfolding...
Hmm. Are we? Is it Gen-X and Gen-Y doing this, or is the Boomers and grown-up Gen-Z kids doing it?
Surely 30-somethings aren't buying into this tripe are they?!
Probably some kind of theft of services...
OMG. Software piracy is rape!
I do think they are magnanimous enough to let you keep the box - so far they aren't licensing that to you.
Why not? It's no different from the CD. The artwork and text is copyrighted too.
Frankly, I'm more concerned about News Corp than I am about North Korea.
Both Feta and the proper name of Parmesan enjoy "protected designation of origin" status within the EU already, as well as plenty of other foods such as Parma Ham.
Sure, but it's BS because they were in common use worldwide to describe the kind of product as opposed to the origin, well before the EU became the EU.
No, it's not brand recognition, it's type recognition. Port and Champagne and Burgundy tell you what kind of taste to expect... will it have bubbles, will it be red, and how strong. This is an attempt to reclaim the use of words that stopped having a brand or regional meaning a very long time ago. Expect to see the same with Feta and Parmesan cheese, for example.
It's not quite like Chrysler reclaiming the Jeep trademark because that was an actual brand (even if they were late to the party in reclaiming it), it's more like Ford trying to own the "ute" name worldwide, because it was used to describe utility vehicles in Aussie two generations ago and they'd like to make some money off it now.
World peace might be easy, yet peace on an internet forum seems to be beyond you.
My karma is excellent, however your view of it may vary depending on your preferences...
The terrorists have continued to win since 9/11 because they continue to successfully insight terror.
Terror? Seriously? They've been inciting stupidity at best - I can't believe anyone is actually scared of those clowns, which makes justifying the public responses even harder.
Let's say they figure out how to make money from allegedly doing good things. Are they going to return it to their contributors as well?
Speaking of which, where's my cheque for contributing to Slashdot's value for all these years?
I know others have said it but I want to say it again: Facebook is right.
Um, no.
How about a car analogy? General Motors cannot sue Tesla Motors or Bentley Motors for using the term "Motors" in their name, despite being in the same class of industry. Nor can Mitsubishi Electric sue General Electric for using the term "Electric" in their name, despite being in the same class of industry.
Now they may sound half similar but people won't confuse them just like they won't confuse facebook, fuckbook, teachbook, or any other *book website that happens to be somehow in realm of social-networking. If it involved people collaborating online, it's arguably social networking - it's just too broad a category for one douchbag company to own.
iPad is between phone and computer. If you call a netbook your computer, then so be it. Then, the iPad will fit between your netbook and your phone.
It has no phone related functions, so no, it's not between a computer and a phone. It's dumbed-down tablet PC, kinda like those cheesy kids "laptop" things from Asia a few years ago were dumbed-down laptop PCs. Only this one is shinier.
Traffic lights also don't finance themselves... the goal of the OP is to "seed" a busy street, and then grow the system to eventually cover a large area.
They do if they have red-light cameras installed.
Replication isn't as good with PostgreSQL. And that matters.
Take a look at PostgreSQL 9 (or ChronicDB)
I actually own several IP's of several software technologies.
Claiming to own "IP" is B.S. You're either trolling or failing, or drinking the kool-aid. Which is it? I'm assuming you've been granted some patents after reading further, but please write for your audience.
I'd wager than many folks on Slashdot would be able to say I own X patents (possibly giving #s) or perhaps can mention some files in projects they have copyright on, or maybe they registered some trademark. I've never really considered trade secrets to be IP rather than just secrets, but that's just my opinion. I don't buy in to the "Imaginary Property" argument, and maintain that the term is a buzzword that should have died years ago.
You can still click through the whole database and get all the information at http://facebook.com/directory.
That's not entirely true. Scraping the link provided won't give you data from people who have turned off public search listings, so the torrent is potentially more useful...
Note: This only includes people who have Public Search Listings available on Facebook. Anyone can opt out of appearing here by changing their Search privacy settings.
In case you don't know, there are people who have to work for a living and can't stay home all day taking care of their parents.
Also, in case you don't know, there are people who have to work for a living and can't stay home all day taking care of their children.
It's all about priorities. Not judging, just saying.