It's hard to add productive code to a large existing project. Large existing projects are mostly written in C. Therefore it's hard to contribute to C projects.
If this is what passes for logic among the Rusty Firefox set, I'll avoid it.
And Rust is famously corrosive. Once your product starts to Rust, it gets ugly and easily broken. Pretty soon even a toddler can punch holes through it.
Because you apparently have no interest in defending either what you said or what your fellow lefties do, I'll just say that you provide support for my hypothesis that if not fit double standards, lefties would have no standards at all.
I never defended stupid signs at tea party rallies, or crimes like the Trump rally-goer who punched a protester being escorted from the venue. I only pointed out that leftist misbehavior is at least bad.
Many of the people carrying those signs were leftists trying to make the tea party look bad, and if you want to point to stupid signs at rallies, the "Chimpy McBushitler" squad from the mid-2000s would like to have a word with you.
Tea Party people have never rioted, never forced invited speakers away from public events, and never suppressed speech that they disagree with as "violence". Leftists have done all of these things in multiple places. It's either ignorant or dishonest to suggest that the riot at Berkeley was an isolated event.
Twitter uses the blue check mark for things beyond a simple chain of responsibility. Those uses are the ones that gave rise to the derogatory use of "verified".
Unless Twitter removes check marks by default when people change their profile pic, what you quoted wasn't a rule about what would cause Twitter to un-delegate verify someone; it was an example. Neither you nor Twitter have identified any previously written rule that they were applying when they un-verified Milo.
How many riots did conservatives start during Obama's time in office? If they were so much more violent than leftists have been in the first two months of Trump's presidency, surely you can find plenty of examples.
That kind of thing has happened in more places than just Berkeley -- for example, at Middlebury College, where leftist thugs sent a liberal professor to the hospital because she helped protect an invited speaker from assault -- even when she knew she disagreed with the speaker.
And in every case, leftist intolerance, calls for violence, and outright violence have been tolerated by staff and faculty who are almost uniformly liberal.
If you're being blocked like that, one of two things is probably the case: either you're unproductive enough that you only have one small task in your backlog, or somebody really screwed up the problem statement. If it's the former, you shouldn't bother the more productive members of the team. If it's the latter, somebody was probably being lazy and didn't care about derailing productive development time.
People don't notice the productivity hit when they're typing code that could basically be written in their sleep. Most programmers have worked on projects where they do need to concentrate.
For those whose coworkers are thinking hard, I would recommend writing down your questions and asking them in batches of three or so. This has a lot of benefits:
You'll be able to answer some fraction of your own questions, either just by thinking more or by exploring the surrounding problem more.
You'll get a clearer understanding of what was missing from the design (or code or your own knowledge), making it easier to understand how to improve it the next time around.
You'll practice clear communications.
You'll amortize the cost of interruptions, which your coworkers will appreciate.
Acquiescence requires that the party making the new claim not be aware that they are infringing the other party's rights. (In the GA/SC boundary disputes, there were reasonable and independent bases to declare that some of the islands were in SC under the treaty and usual rules of territory.). The OpenSSL group here is clearly aware that they do not hold the copyrights here, or have permission to change the license.
Per capita power consumption doubled in the past 50 years, and there's no reason to think it won't again -- most of the world's population is still in developing economies. Population growth will also continue, although not at the same pace as in the past. If your point about long-range social forecasts being hard is that this article had no business being published in a reputable journal, I agree, but if we're going to debate the merits of the article we have to make some long-range projections.
As I said earlier, you cannot reasonably compare growth rates during early adoption phases with steady-state capacity, and you are also confusing installation growth rate with production growth rate (which is the derivative of the former).
While indium, tellurium, and other uncommon and/or hard-to-refine elements -- which are critical parts of modern solar cells -- are technically not rare earth elements, they are often treated as such in popular media and policy analysis.
So, congratulations on finding a pedantically correct but practically irrelevant issue with half of one of my points, while ignoring or pretending away the rest? Maybe you should try to debunk some of your own bullshit sometime.
Pragmatism is not sufficient to legally justify the assumption that people are okay with the relicensing unless they object. I'm pretty sure both common law and civil law jurisdictions would side with a contributor who objects after the fact, even if they did get the notice.
Theo de Raadt is not the world most reasonable person, but I don't think any lawyer would say that the OpenSSL people are on solid legal footing with opt-opt relicensing.
Self driving cars are usually not being programmed by their target audience. The car's developers can scale back the "selfishness" that exploits other vehicles driving in a cooperative manner. Their notice is to make life good for their customers overall, not for their most greedy customers at the expense of the rest.
Pretty clearly an editing error in the original, because the lawsuit was conditional on Samsung competing against "it", which would make no sense if "it" was the Commission rather than Qualcomm.
You got the nail on the head. One of the strongest contributors to the success of a company is aggressive competition. However, it's hard to keep that competition from leaking over to competition within the company, and that internal competition often manifests as arrogance and mistreatment of others. Sometimes that is explicitly group-oriented -- sexism, racism, or other -isms -- and sometimes it is just prima donnas being jerks to the rest of the team.
Slashdot Mirror
It's hard to add productive code to a large existing project. Large existing projects are mostly written in C. Therefore it's hard to contribute to C projects.
If this is what passes for logic among the Rusty Firefox set, I'll avoid it.
And Rust is famously corrosive. Once your product starts to Rust, it gets ugly and easily broken. Pretty soon even a toddler can punch holes through it.
Because you apparently have no interest in defending either what you said or what your fellow lefties do, I'll just say that you provide support for my hypothesis that if not fit double standards, lefties would have no standards at all.
I never defended stupid signs at tea party rallies, or crimes like the Trump rally-goer who punched a protester being escorted from the venue. I only pointed out that leftist misbehavior is at least bad.
Many of the people carrying those signs were leftists trying to make the tea party look bad, and if you want to point to stupid signs at rallies, the "Chimpy McBushitler" squad from the mid-2000s would like to have a word with you.
Tea Party people have never rioted, never forced invited speakers away from public events, and never suppressed speech that they disagree with as "violence". Leftists have done all of these things in multiple places. It's either ignorant or dishonest to suggest that the riot at Berkeley was an isolated event.
The non-GPL fork of Journalism File System has 90% less Fake News Files.
Twitter uses the blue check mark for things beyond a simple chain of responsibility. Those uses are the ones that gave rise to the derogatory use of "verified".
People make jokes on Twitter? Start revoking those check marks, stat!
Unless Twitter removes check marks by default when people change their profile pic, what you quoted wasn't a rule about what would cause Twitter to un-delegate verify someone; it was an example. Neither you nor Twitter have identified any previously written rule that they were applying when they un-verified Milo.
How many riots did conservatives start during Obama's time in office? If they were so much more violent than leftists have been in the first two months of Trump's presidency, surely you can find plenty of examples.
That kind of thing has happened in more places than just Berkeley -- for example, at Middlebury College, where leftist thugs sent a liberal professor to the hospital because she helped protect an invited speaker from assault -- even when she knew she disagreed with the speaker.
And in every case, leftist intolerance, calls for violence, and outright violence have been tolerated by staff and faculty who are almost uniformly liberal.
That's just, like, your alternative facts, man!
That's Heaping Bullshit Marchitecture, for those not in the know.
If you're being blocked like that, one of two things is probably the case: either you're unproductive enough that you only have one small task in your backlog, or somebody really screwed up the problem statement. If it's the former, you shouldn't bother the more productive members of the team. If it's the latter, somebody was probably being lazy and didn't care about derailing productive development time.
Northern C# Great Lakes Region Council of 2017 or Northern C# Great Lakes Region Council of C# 4.0?
("Die, heretic!")
People don't notice the productivity hit when they're typing code that could basically be written in their sleep. Most programmers have worked on projects where they do need to concentrate.
For those whose coworkers are thinking hard, I would recommend writing down your questions and asking them in batches of three or so. This has a lot of benefits:
You'll be able to answer some fraction of your own questions, either just by thinking more or by exploring the surrounding problem more.
You'll get a clearer understanding of what was missing from the design (or code or your own knowledge), making it easier to understand how to improve it the next time around.
You'll practice clear communications.
You'll amortize the cost of interruptions, which your coworkers will appreciate.
Acquiescence requires that the party making the new claim not be aware that they are infringing the other party's rights. (In the GA/SC boundary disputes, there were reasonable and independent bases to declare that some of the islands were in SC under the treaty and usual rules of territory.). The OpenSSL group here is clearly aware that they do not hold the copyrights here, or have permission to change the license.
Per capita power consumption doubled in the past 50 years, and there's no reason to think it won't again -- most of the world's population is still in developing economies. Population growth will also continue, although not at the same pace as in the past. If your point about long-range social forecasts being hard is that this article had no business being published in a reputable journal, I agree, but if we're going to debate the merits of the article we have to make some long-range projections.
As I said earlier, you cannot reasonably compare growth rates during early adoption phases with steady-state capacity, and you are also confusing installation growth rate with production growth rate (which is the derivative of the former).
While indium, tellurium, and other uncommon and/or hard-to-refine elements -- which are critical parts of modern solar cells -- are technically not rare earth elements, they are often treated as such in popular media and policy analysis.
So, congratulations on finding a pedantically correct but practically irrelevant issue with half of one of my points, while ignoring or pretending away the rest? Maybe you should try to debunk some of your own bullshit sometime.
Pragmatism is not sufficient to legally justify the assumption that people are okay with the relicensing unless they object. I'm pretty sure both common law and civil law jurisdictions would side with a contributor who objects after the fact, even if they did get the notice.
Theo de Raadt is not the world most reasonable person, but I don't think any lawyer would say that the OpenSSL people are on solid legal footing with opt-opt relicensing.
Your conclusion is only viable if you make a bunch of unwarranted assumptions:
Self driving cars are usually not being programmed by their target audience. The car's developers can scale back the "selfishness" that exploits other vehicles driving in a cooperative manner. Their notice is to make life good for their customers overall, not for their most greedy customers at the expense of the rest.
Hadoop is not tools, it is one particular tool. Some tools are just bad -- I give you the magnetic stud finder as an example.
When X is in its early adoption phase, "doubling X within Y time" once is easy. It's hard to keep doing it several more times.
Pretty clearly an editing error in the original, because the lawsuit was conditional on Samsung competing against "it", which would make no sense if "it" was the Commission rather than Qualcomm.
You got the nail on the head. One of the strongest contributors to the success of a company is aggressive competition. However, it's hard to keep that competition from leaking over to competition within the company, and that internal competition often manifests as arrogance and mistreatment of others. Sometimes that is explicitly group-oriented -- sexism, racism, or other -isms -- and sometimes it is just prima donnas being jerks to the rest of the team.