It's a huge problem. But given the quality of "drivers" we have today, letting drivers get away with impaired driving, vehicular homicide, etc. would be a huge problem as well. I wish I knew how to solve the one without causing the other. Freedom requires responsibility, and it only seems to take a handful of jacka**es who can't figure that out in order to detract from the freedom of everyone.
If there is both cellular and VPN infrastructure available to you (I know, big "if" in many such places), you could upload frequently to servers you control, in a relatively free jursidiction; then, have a service or daemon encrypt there, then delete all unencrypted copies. That's what I'd try to do. One might even distribute parts of the public key to different individuals in relatively free jurisdictions so they can't rubber-hose it out of you, although that implies a commitment to truth above that to one's own life, which is a fairly high bar; yet, if one does not have such a commitment, one probably does not go to places where such commitment is required in the first place.
I defeat this system by listing, in separate categories, every skill I've heard of, but explicitly separated out by those I know well, those I know less well, and those I've only at most played around with. The computer sees them all and screens me out of none. A human being on the other hand will see whether the majority of what they are looking for falls into the "knows well" category, or the "just played with." I don't like to have to do this. It does feel mildly deceptive and dishonest in that I'm giving myself an advantage over others who haven't figured this out. But in the end I am always going to be honest and straightforward with any human being who interviews me. There's no reason not to. I'm going to crash and burn on a new job anyway if I pretend to have 25 years' experience in Perl when it looks to me like line noise. But I don't want to be passed over for the job that's an otherwise perfect fit but requires some very occasional Perl. If there is deception here, at least some of it IMO falls on employers and their screening tools, for trying to screen people out of jobs for which they might actually be an excellent fit.
What I think you say in jest is not far from the actual mark according to some of my friends in NYC. I personally find it a wonderful place to visit, but would never want to live there. The cost of living, traffic, taxes, deeply rooted corruption, pervasive leftism, and overall lack of freedom just don't appeal to me. There are lots of things I love about the city, but not nearly enough to overcome these.
I can understand that point of view, but must respectfully disagree, in that the more extreme forms of leftism, and the more extreme reactions/overreactions thereto, seem to work together to bring out the worst in people, myself included, rather than the best.
Single Responsibility Principle for the win: make sure every unsafe block does exactly one thing and only one thing. It should hopefully then be obvious what caused the need for unsafe, and why.
IMO, a top dev empowers other devs by helping them to become more productive; a decent dev adds more value over time than he or she takes away; a crappy dev takes away more value over time than he or she adds. The fact that most code bases rot over time is at least in part due to the fact that crappy devs tend to predominate over top or even decent ones; same bell curve as with most other skills, except that software development is one in which crappy work is significantly worse than no work at all. IMO, crappy devs can learn to add value only by being mentored, and being taught to learn from their mistakes so that over time they become better. Leaving them alone, without motivating them to improve, drags down the entire team.
You can learn and use C++ as a fairly understandable, high-ish level language IF you are the only one to work on that code. You just use the subset of relatively modern features you need.
But if you want to understand and interoperate with other people's code, or to be one of multiple developers on a C++ project, then you end up having to learn painfully large subsets not only of the language itself, but all of the weird and bizarre quirks, edge and corner cases, syntactical weirdnesses (e.g., the "vexing parse"), and whatnot.
Let me be blunt. I am not smart enough to use C++ usefully, even though I can more than handily use just about every other tool I've ever been asked. It is just too big. I can be far more effective using higher-level languages where possible, and C only when necessary.
I will not bow to any form of PC, but I will try to avoid terms that people may legitimately find disrespectful. And I'm more than open to suggestions as to how what used to be called the "master/slave" relationship might be expressed in a more sensitive way. Human relationships are often hierarchical in nature, far more so in most contexts than I'd prefer. Relationships among software components often are as well. That 's not likely to change anytime soon, and, until and unless it does, there has to be *some* kind of vocabulary to describe them.
It shares the same fundamental flaw, the idea that some people get to rule over others without the latter's consent, while adding additional flaws of its own. I consider it fully within the spectrum of leftist/socialist/communist behaviors that my oath to defend the Constitution requires me to oppose. Fortunately, a job typically does the trick more effectively than any level of persuasion or even force possibly could. Leftists, usually, grow up. Just not as fast as the rest of us.
Is there any cost-effective use for these sorts of things in climates like mine (northeast Ohio, on the edge of the primary Lake Erie snow belt) with significant cloud cover almost year-round? Not trolling. I really am curious. The answer was a definite no in the past, but perhaps that has changed?
My understanding is that OOXML started out being exactly that, and was tweaked just enough to be approved, just barely, by ECMA/ISO. With the result that Microsoft could claim it as an "international standard," and compliant applications could potentially create Microsoft-readable files but would still have extreme difficulty reading Microsoft-created ones, because of all the items in the spec that read like "This specifies that the code should call RenderFoobarFactory()" but with no indication of what a FoobarFactory was. It may still be that bad. I stopped bothering with it years ago. LibreOffice and its cousins work well enough, and interoperate well enough, for my purposes. But anything whose longevity I care about is saved in a truly open format such as ODF.
Same here! While I have to use proprietary tools at work, I really appreciate not having to depend on them at home, nor having to further decimate my family's limited budget to pay for them, continuously, over and over and over again. Thank you LibreOffice team, and all other Free Software providers, for a job extremely well done!
Back in the early 2000s, when it was "uncool" to be a Linux geek such as myself, my co-workers thought it'd be hilarious to get a photo of Clippy and me in Microsoft's Independence, Ohio office (near Cleveland). Hence, somewhere, hopefully buried in the bowels of a forgotten filing cabinet in the sub-basement, there exists exactly such a photo. But please tell no one. A person could lose their Linux geek card for much less!!!
When Microsoft comes out with a version of Office that is free as in speech, supports GENUINELY open file formats (no, XML-encoded binary dumps do not a "standard" make), and runs on Linux, which is my primary desktop OS at home, please let me know.
Uggh . . I meant politically viable, not economically viable. Markets are always more economically viable than their alternatives; just not always politically viable.
Yeah. My first impression was that Amazon is trying to reinvent the HMO. That might very well work. In Seattle. But scaling that model up to a much larger city, or a less wealthy or developed one, or conversely down to a more rural and widely dispersed area, may pose challenges. In the end, people's lives often depend on specialists who may not actually practice outside of large cities, and/or may be too busy to take new patients or to see patients as soon as they need to be seen if there is to be a positive outcome. Those won't be in the HMO. So the HMO will need to negotiate with whomever controls them. In the process, gradually becoming a PPO, which is basically the least-broken kind of insurance model that we have, but still very badly broken to other countries' "national healthcare" systems which ironically are often much more market-oriented than our own. (I favor market-oriented reforms, but realize most of them are not economically viable, which is why I might be OK with a national system PROVIDED that a genuinely market-oriented system is allowed to exist in parallel with it.)
Slashdot Mirror
You keep using these Turkish words. I don't think they mean what I think they mean.
It's a huge problem. But given the quality of "drivers" we have today, letting drivers get away with impaired driving, vehicular homicide, etc. would be a huge problem as well. I wish I knew how to solve the one without causing the other. Freedom requires responsibility, and it only seems to take a handful of jacka**es who can't figure that out in order to detract from the freedom of everyone.
My network connection is usually down. I couldn't be downloading code every time my browser opens if I wanted to, you insensitive clod! :)
If there is both cellular and VPN infrastructure available to you (I know, big "if" in many such places), you could upload frequently to servers you control, in a relatively free jursidiction; then, have a service or daemon encrypt there, then delete all unencrypted copies. That's what I'd try to do. One might even distribute parts of the public key to different individuals in relatively free jurisdictions so they can't rubber-hose it out of you, although that implies a commitment to truth above that to one's own life, which is a fairly high bar; yet, if one does not have such a commitment, one probably does not go to places where such commitment is required in the first place.
I defeat this system by listing, in separate categories, every skill I've heard of, but explicitly separated out by those I know well, those I know less well, and those I've only at most played around with. The computer sees them all and screens me out of none. A human being on the other hand will see whether the majority of what they are looking for falls into the "knows well" category, or the "just played with." I don't like to have to do this. It does feel mildly deceptive and dishonest in that I'm giving myself an advantage over others who haven't figured this out. But in the end I am always going to be honest and straightforward with any human being who interviews me. There's no reason not to. I'm going to crash and burn on a new job anyway if I pretend to have 25 years' experience in Perl when it looks to me like line noise. But I don't want to be passed over for the job that's an otherwise perfect fit but requires some very occasional Perl. If there is deception here, at least some of it IMO falls on employers and their screening tools, for trying to screen people out of jobs for which they might actually be an excellent fit.
What I think you say in jest is not far from the actual mark according to some of my friends in NYC. I personally find it a wonderful place to visit, but would never want to live there. The cost of living, traffic, taxes, deeply rooted corruption, pervasive leftism, and overall lack of freedom just don't appeal to me. There are lots of things I love about the city, but not nearly enough to overcome these.
I can understand that point of view, but must respectfully disagree, in that the more extreme forms of leftism, and the more extreme reactions/overreactions thereto, seem to work together to bring out the worst in people, myself included, rather than the best.
Single Responsibility Principle for the win: make sure every unsafe block does exactly one thing and only one thing. It should hopefully then be obvious what caused the need for unsafe, and why.
IMO, a top dev empowers other devs by helping them to become more productive; a decent dev adds more value over time than he or she takes away; a crappy dev takes away more value over time than he or she adds. The fact that most code bases rot over time is at least in part due to the fact that crappy devs tend to predominate over top or even decent ones; same bell curve as with most other skills, except that software development is one in which crappy work is significantly worse than no work at all. IMO, crappy devs can learn to add value only by being mentored, and being taught to learn from their mistakes so that over time they become better. Leaving them alone, without motivating them to improve, drags down the entire team.
You can learn and use C++ as a fairly understandable, high-ish level language IF you are the only one to work on that code. You just use the subset of relatively modern features you need.
But if you want to understand and interoperate with other people's code, or to be one of multiple developers on a C++ project, then you end up having to learn painfully large subsets not only of the language itself, but all of the weird and bizarre quirks, edge and corner cases, syntactical weirdnesses (e.g., the "vexing parse"), and whatnot.
Let me be blunt. I am not smart enough to use C++ usefully, even though I can more than handily use just about every other tool I've ever been asked. It is just too big. I can be far more effective using higher-level languages where possible, and C only when necessary.
I will not bow to any form of PC, but I will try to avoid terms that people may legitimately find disrespectful. And I'm more than open to suggestions as to how what used to be called the "master/slave" relationship might be expressed in a more sensitive way. Human relationships are often hierarchical in nature, far more so in most contexts than I'd prefer. Relationships among software components often are as well. That 's not likely to change anytime soon, and, until and unless it does, there has to be *some* kind of vocabulary to describe them.
It shares the same fundamental flaw, the idea that some people get to rule over others without the latter's consent, while adding additional flaws of its own. I consider it fully within the spectrum of leftist/socialist/communist behaviors that my oath to defend the Constitution requires me to oppose. Fortunately, a job typically does the trick more effectively than any level of persuasion or even force possibly could. Leftists, usually, grow up. Just not as fast as the rest of us.
Is there any cost-effective use for these sorts of things in climates like mine (northeast Ohio, on the edge of the primary Lake Erie snow belt) with significant cloud cover almost year-round? Not trolling. I really am curious. The answer was a definite no in the past, but perhaps that has changed?
All true, but didn't things get better when they made peace with the Sons?
AOL itself went away eventually - not nearly as long ago as many think. . . but the September that Never Ended did not.
Yeah, I know this will be moderated trollbait, but IMO systemd is close to unforgiveable.
Everything has happened before, and everything will happen again.
Now that it has left the business of numbers and gunrunning, extortion has now become the most popular La Cosa Nostra service of all time.
My understanding is that OOXML started out being exactly that, and was tweaked just enough to be approved, just barely, by ECMA/ISO. With the result that Microsoft could claim it as an "international standard," and compliant applications could potentially create Microsoft-readable files but would still have extreme difficulty reading Microsoft-created ones, because of all the items in the spec that read like "This specifies that the code should call RenderFoobarFactory()" but with no indication of what a FoobarFactory was. It may still be that bad. I stopped bothering with it years ago. LibreOffice and its cousins work well enough, and interoperate well enough, for my purposes. But anything whose longevity I care about is saved in a truly open format such as ODF.
Same here! While I have to use proprietary tools at work, I really appreciate not having to depend on them at home, nor having to further decimate my family's limited budget to pay for them, continuously, over and over and over again. Thank you LibreOffice team, and all other Free Software providers, for a job extremely well done!
Back in the early 2000s, when it was "uncool" to be a Linux geek such as myself, my co-workers thought it'd be hilarious to get a photo of Clippy and me in Microsoft's Independence, Ohio office (near Cleveland). Hence, somewhere, hopefully buried in the bowels of a forgotten filing cabinet in the sub-basement, there exists exactly such a photo. But please tell no one. A person could lose their Linux geek card for much less!!!
When Microsoft comes out with a version of Office that is free as in speech, supports GENUINELY open file formats (no, XML-encoded binary dumps do not a "standard" make), and runs on Linux, which is my primary desktop OS at home, please let me know.
Single payer sounds a whole lot better, than allowing my employer decide whether I live or die,
Except now you have government deciding whether you live or die. You can change employers. Good luck changing the government.
Uggh . . I meant politically viable, not economically viable. Markets are always more economically viable than their alternatives; just not always politically viable.
Yeah. My first impression was that Amazon is trying to reinvent the HMO. That might very well work. In Seattle. But scaling that model up to a much larger city, or a less wealthy or developed one, or conversely down to a more rural and widely dispersed area, may pose challenges. In the end, people's lives often depend on specialists who may not actually practice outside of large cities, and/or may be too busy to take new patients or to see patients as soon as they need to be seen if there is to be a positive outcome. Those won't be in the HMO. So the HMO will need to negotiate with whomever controls them. In the process, gradually becoming a PPO, which is basically the least-broken kind of insurance model that we have, but still very badly broken to other countries' "national healthcare" systems which ironically are often much more market-oriented than our own. (I favor market-oriented reforms, but realize most of them are not economically viable, which is why I might be OK with a national system PROVIDED that a genuinely market-oriented system is allowed to exist in parallel with it.)