If 99.999% is not good enough then you need to immediately stop using all power sources because none are completely safe. Oil and gas kill and maim plenty every year. Heck, wars are fought over it. Coal burning plants emit radiation too, in fact, more than nuke plants. Coal also causes no end of respiratory problems for people of all ages and likely early death for the elderly with failing respiratory systems. To date, nuclear has proved to be the safest form of energy we have, even including Chernovol.
And if you want to lower the cost of nuclear power while also drastically decreasing the amount of waste, make them recycle the fuel. As is, we throw away up to 95% of our usable fuel which increases our waste 95% while drastically increasing the lifespan at which it is dangerous.
Nuclear options are all very solvable but the biggest problem to date is the anti-nuke people forcing the prohibition of newer, safer reactor designs. Stop being the problem and help with a solution. With your current anti-nuke position, you have blood on your hands and are the biggest obstacle preventing safer, cheaper energy.
I'm loosely familiar with both. Both are development processes. A development process is not a replacement for RC/CM process. Given that CM falls well outside of a development process and RC, when done right, simply has an intersection with development, I seriously doubt you understood what they were teaching. They may be self proclaimed experts but if you're accurately representing what they are teaching, they are no more an expert than you are.
Did you happen to note that pretty consistently, everyone told you the same thing? There is a reason for that. Regardless of where the source of the issue is, it's very clear the process your preaching is fundamentally broken. I strongly urge you to learn it from a credible source.
What implications does this have for the big bang? I assume that before the big bang, space was colder, thusly opening the door for for creation of this type of matter before the universe heated. Does this have implications beyond computing?
So then it's agreed you pulled this pet theory out your butt.
Here's a hint: Try googling revision control, software development process, and configuration management.
As I said before, there are plenty of books and free information available. There are even courses you can take. Regardless of which sources you use, you direly need to use at least one.
You need to do something. If you insist you know what you are talking about, when it's clear you don't, at least don't start preaching to others like it's fact. You're making this stuff up and it shows.
You're completely incorrect on every point. If you had a clue as to what you were talking about, you would not be making such assertions. My position is RC-101; so unless you have documentation which provides any substance, you've not even left the gate. Since my position is the defacto position, it is you that needs to provide proof that the industry at large and best practises to boot are wrong.
You seem to be under the impression that revision control (RC) is all about people. It's not. It's about quality, reproducibility, accountability, and lower cost of maintenance, integration, and testing. In turn, people have a role to play in each one of those aspects; and their role is tempered by process. You're working under the assumption that every developer can understand the smallest detail in every aspect of the code. This is almost never true for complex software.
The basic ability to branch and merge is required for complex software and magnified by the number of developers involved in a given feature set. Having the ability to modify code and then integrate and test code changes in a selective, controlled fashion means fewer bugs and faster fixes. Without the means to selectively merge means the act of bug hunts potentially changes from hours to a needle in a haystack effort.
It's obvious you've never worked on complex projects and likely never on large projects with large numbers of developers. If the world developed as you proposed, no large/complex project would ever be completed as every developer would suddenly be forced to debug/integrate every other developer's code which was constantly changing - repeat infinitum. Or, as you suggestion, you now have serialized all software development; meaning one developer bug-fixes while all other wait. That would be pure chaos and/or a huge waste of man power while working overtime to lower overall quality. In short, your pet theory breaks the second the words, "complex", and, "multiple developers" are thrown into the mix on a single software feature. And when I say, "breaks", I mean, "horribly breaks."
I strongly urge you to either read the freely available information on revision control and configuration management before you contribute more pet theories. Additionally, many books are available which will explain in short order why your theory is fundamentally broken.
Branching and merging is a fact of life. If you don't branch or merge, likely your project is either trivial or your pool of developers small. Larger projects with many developers require the ability to branch and merge large bodies of code. Attributing this fact to personalities is nothing but hand waving. Personality conflicts may be the root-cause for you but is not the root for the majority of people that require such functionality.
Simple fact is, branching and merging is required for complex software development. In part, that's why git was developed in the first place.
Germans were actually afraid to walk the streets. Germans were ambushed and shot on a regular basis. It was classic guerilla tactics; true hit and run. Groups of soldiers smaller than two or three were often killed. These tactics limited the movement of Germans at all times unless they were willing to commit a squad or more. This helped lessen patrols making their other activities easier to accomplish; namely sabotage.
The French were commonly rounded up and executed as vengeance for the street killings of Germans.
I'm not an NRA member and these facts are commonly available in most history books covering WWII. Granted, given the recent constitutional violations whereby both federal troops and city/country officers were illegally used to confiscate legally owned weapons from law abiding citizens following Katrina, giving money to the NRA has popped into my mind.
Keep in mind, literally, little old ladies were punched in the face and taken down after they were asked to present their firearm. It's scary how close to Nazi Germany it was in parts of the US following Katrina. Ya, I know that's an often abused cliche, but in this case, it's a literal parallel. It was so bad, new laws were passed to outlaw what was already outlawed. Go figure. There needs to be lots of people in jail for violating a constitutional right like that - especially for instructing federal troops to do so; which last I heard was treason.
You are of course assuming the entire military would fall in line. That is very doubtful. More than likely you'd see the military splinter, civilians absorbed, and an all out civil war develop. Don't forget, the soldiers pulling the triggers have families too.
my responsibility is not to go out in a blaze of ineffective glory, but to do my best to make things better.
Worked real well for the French while the Germans fucked your wife, your mother, your sisters, and your daughters; kill some at their pleasure. While some successful spying resulted of these encounters, the efforts that made the biggest difference in France were the men, women, and children the took up arms and kept the Germans busy while the Allies were able to support and eventually free them.
The entire legal system is set up on the assumption that everyone (with the possible exception of the defendant) is by and large fairly straight up.
Given that this has never been true, one of the foundations on which the legal system rests fairly well validates the legal system is completely broken. In the US you buy justice. Until that changes, the US legal system is completely broken.
Create multiple users, each with its own path. Use runas features. Some people use wrapper scripts to set their path. Most people seem to prefer the first option as they typically don't use the command line in the first place. If you are a command line guy, you'll likely prefer the second option.
A third option is to use cygwin, which does honor the environment's path and magic. Some people hate cygwin. If you're are command line person on windows, you should seriously consider cygwin as it addresses many of Window's short comings.
Clean code is the enemy of robust code? I've never heard anyone state that before.
He doesn't know what he's saying. Clean code normally means robust code but may not be performant code. Just the same, they need not be mutually exclusive.
Please explain. If you used DBAPI standard interfaces, it's unlikely anything you were using broke or changed. Most DBAPI packages do a pretty good job (all I've seen) of explaining which interfaces comply with the DBAPI spec and which interfaces don't. My guess is you didn't pay attention. That's a coder problem, not a language problem.
When you have system dependencies, that's a little different. Just install your new python ensuring your old python is still the system default python. Change your path. You're done.
The system scripts still run. Your new scripts now run using the new python. Oppps...stuff works well and no issues exist.
Changing my path is not practical. It's too broad. I'd have to write a shell script wrapper for the application which did 'env PATH=new_python:$PATH the_real_application "$*"' or something. And it's not just me; I'd have to communicate this to all other users of the system somehow. And changing one line of a script is not trivial, if I'm not root.
You have a system admin problem not a python problem. If you can't run system installed software and your admin refuses to help, you have an admin problem. Making it a python problem when your admin isn't doing his job, doesn't really make it a python problem.
All this may seem like minor things, but it adds up. And no other good language puts me in situations like that.
You still have multiple ways to address the issue. It is trivial. Even with multiple users.
Or those of us who have been around for a while, and seen innocent backwards-incompatible changes become maintenance nightmares... Ok, maybe not a nightmare in this case, but an inconvenience and annoyance which will keep being inconvenient and annoying for years, until the last Python 2.x dependency goes away.
Or you can trivially fix it as above and be done with it. You're making it a mountain when it isn't even a mole hill. If you have such problems, stop using that version. It really is that easy.
Here's why your issues simply don't exist. For your situation to have occurred, you must have an admin that installs a new version of python and makes it the default system version. Furthermore, you must have multiple users using scripts installed system wide, which would have been installed by the same admin, which are now broken, and an admin that refuses to help make these system wide scripts which you can't edit, and can't run using the old version of python. And, that means you refuse to change your user environment. That's nothing but a bad admin and lazy users, pure and simple. Furthermore, it's unlikely that your admin would install a new python version as the default, installed the non-default libraries, and decided the user base doesn't really need the new version and that they users requiring python in the first place don't need to run the scripts which are the entire purpose of having a new python install in the first place. In other words, nothing in your argument makes practical sense.
And yes, those are run on sentences. I used them on purpose to highlight your convoluted argument.
It is the way python simply installs. Each python install places its library into a numbered directory (e.g. python2.4, python2.5). The only thing you may have to change is the "python" proper binary, which is copied from or linked to the numbered python binary.
In other words, each python install should have its own directory structure which insures one installation doesn't effect the other. The only other issues is which binary you get when you run "python". Typically "python" proper points to the newest install but that's easy to change too. Simply link/copy "python" back to whatever version you prefer for your default.
I can't speak for OSX but the above is true for the other platforms. I'd be surprised if it is not true for OSX.
For whatever reason, people fail to understand python natively supports parallel installs. Furthermore, since python's preferred script magic is "#!/bin/env python", rather than, "#!/bin/python", the executing script will use the python that it finds in your path. Additionally, you can also tie python to a specific version as "python2.5". Want a different python? Change your path. A script requires a specific version of python? Change the script to require it. It's one line and trivial. It's at the top of the file, so there's no hunting even.
New python releases only pose problems for the uninitiated, the ignorant, or the dumb.
Yeah and the same for closed source licenses. Big freaking deal.
It is a big deal. Before this many lawyers implied the license agreement had no legal merit and that since the code was freely given, was not subject to copyright protection. Even MS has implied such cock and bull. This cleanly highlights the license is valid and on square footing with more traditional closed source licenses.
So to summarize, this validate open source licences have merit, as either a contractual agreement or as copyright violation; depending on which side of the coin you operate.
Is that before or after the first 40 miles are used and who long was the over all distance?
In other words, is that 50MPG on a 100 mile trip where 40% of it was run from batteries or is that 50MPG on a 1000 mile trip where the initial battery charge is nothing but noise?
What of those people that have been out there, saving for a home they could afford...waiting for housing prices to adjust to more reasonable levels....you actually want their tax dollars to pay for people who jumped in over their heads and pay off their houses?
Re-read what I said. You're 180-degrees off from my position. I specifically avoid rewarding the people that caused this whole situation. The people being rewarded are those that did everything right, which in turn brings money back to the banks so they can mitigate their losses. In other words, it rewards people like you and me. Those that bought more house than they can pay for are still left to deal with the banks.
In other words, if you did the right thing then you get rewarded, which helps bail out the banks. If you did the wrong thing, contributing to this problem, you still have debt to pay; which the banks will still feel. What this does is it helps make the banks solvent again, defers payment for some, and pays off houses for others. Best of all, the banks are not rewarded for fraud and neither are the fraudulent home owners.
You can further qualify this by home owners who have owned their home for five or more years and are still in good standing since January of this year. After all, we don't want to punish people who are suffering because of the economic woes brought about by the fraudulent activity. So on and so on. You get the idea. In other words, qualify who is reward so as to exclude those that caused this problem in the first place. The banks suddenly have cash which allows them to be solvent again yet they must still deal with the ramifications of their own poor business practises. In short, they are still going to take a loss; but a survivable loss.
This proposal is leaps and bounds better than rewarding the banks for fraud; which ultimately is trickle down theory, which we know doesn't work to kick start the economy. At least my plan makes sense. Their plan is rewarding the rich and powerful for fraud while doing nothing to stimulate the economy - unless you consider wall street to be the economy - it is not.
And to be absolutely clear, wall street has lost 10%+ on many historic occasions before. This is not the first time. The sky is not falling. The recent fear mongering is an attempt to pass the charity which is only good for the rich and powerful.
Slashdot Mirror
(99.999 is NOT GOOD ENOUGH!)
If 99.999% is not good enough then you need to immediately stop using all power sources because none are completely safe. Oil and gas kill and maim plenty every year. Heck, wars are fought over it. Coal burning plants emit radiation too, in fact, more than nuke plants. Coal also causes no end of respiratory problems for people of all ages and likely early death for the elderly with failing respiratory systems. To date, nuclear has proved to be the safest form of energy we have, even including Chernovol.
And if you want to lower the cost of nuclear power while also drastically decreasing the amount of waste, make them recycle the fuel. As is, we throw away up to 95% of our usable fuel which increases our waste 95% while drastically increasing the lifespan at which it is dangerous.
Nuclear options are all very solvable but the biggest problem to date is the anti-nuke people forcing the prohibition of newer, safer reactor designs. Stop being the problem and help with a solution. With your current anti-nuke position, you have blood on your hands and are the biggest obstacle preventing safer, cheaper energy.
I'm loosely familiar with both. Both are development processes. A development process is not a replacement for RC/CM process. Given that CM falls well outside of a development process and RC, when done right, simply has an intersection with development, I seriously doubt you understood what they were teaching. They may be self proclaimed experts but if you're accurately representing what they are teaching, they are no more an expert than you are.
Did you happen to note that pretty consistently, everyone told you the same thing? There is a reason for that. Regardless of where the source of the issue is, it's very clear the process your preaching is fundamentally broken. I strongly urge you to learn it from a credible source.
What implications does this have for the big bang? I assume that before the big bang, space was colder, thusly opening the door for for creation of this type of matter before the universe heated. Does this have implications beyond computing?
Where is the "+1 Really Scary" mod when you need it?
Git just adds to the management mess.
How does Git add to the management mess?
So then it's agreed you pulled this pet theory out your butt.
Here's a hint: Try googling revision control, software development process, and configuration management.
As I said before, there are plenty of books and free information available. There are even courses you can take. Regardless of which sources you use, you direly need to use at least one.
You need to do something. If you insist you know what you are talking about, when it's clear you don't, at least don't start preaching to others like it's fact. You're making this stuff up and it shows.
You're completely incorrect on every point. If you had a clue as to what you were talking about, you would not be making such assertions. My position is RC-101; so unless you have documentation which provides any substance, you've not even left the gate. Since my position is the defacto position, it is you that needs to provide proof that the industry at large and best practises to boot are wrong.
You seem to be under the impression that revision control (RC) is all about people. It's not. It's about quality, reproducibility, accountability, and lower cost of maintenance, integration, and testing. In turn, people have a role to play in each one of those aspects; and their role is tempered by process. You're working under the assumption that every developer can understand the smallest detail in every aspect of the code. This is almost never true for complex software.
The basic ability to branch and merge is required for complex software and magnified by the number of developers involved in a given feature set. Having the ability to modify code and then integrate and test code changes in a selective, controlled fashion means fewer bugs and faster fixes. Without the means to selectively merge means the act of bug hunts potentially changes from hours to a needle in a haystack effort.
It's obvious you've never worked on complex projects and likely never on large projects with large numbers of developers. If the world developed as you proposed, no large/complex project would ever be completed as every developer would suddenly be forced to debug/integrate every other developer's code which was constantly changing - repeat infinitum. Or, as you suggestion, you now have serialized all software development; meaning one developer bug-fixes while all other wait. That would be pure chaos and/or a huge waste of man power while working overtime to lower overall quality. In short, your pet theory breaks the second the words, "complex", and, "multiple developers" are thrown into the mix on a single software feature. And when I say, "breaks", I mean, "horribly breaks."
I strongly urge you to either read the freely available information on revision control and configuration management before you contribute more pet theories. Additionally, many books are available which will explain in short order why your theory is fundamentally broken.
Branching and merging is a fact of life. If you don't branch or merge, likely your project is either trivial or your pool of developers small. Larger projects with many developers require the ability to branch and merge large bodies of code. Attributing this fact to personalities is nothing but hand waving. Personality conflicts may be the root-cause for you but is not the root for the majority of people that require such functionality.
Simple fact is, branching and merging is required for complex software development. In part, that's why git was developed in the first place.
Germans were actually afraid to walk the streets. Germans were ambushed and shot on a regular basis. It was classic guerilla tactics; true hit and run. Groups of soldiers smaller than two or three were often killed. These tactics limited the movement of Germans at all times unless they were willing to commit a squad or more. This helped lessen patrols making their other activities easier to accomplish; namely sabotage.
The French were commonly rounded up and executed as vengeance for the street killings of Germans.
I'm not an NRA member and these facts are commonly available in most history books covering WWII. Granted, given the recent constitutional violations whereby both federal troops and city/country officers were illegally used to confiscate legally owned weapons from law abiding citizens following Katrina, giving money to the NRA has popped into my mind.
Keep in mind, literally, little old ladies were punched in the face and taken down after they were asked to present their firearm. It's scary how close to Nazi Germany it was in parts of the US following Katrina. Ya, I know that's an often abused cliche, but in this case, it's a literal parallel. It was so bad, new laws were passed to outlaw what was already outlawed. Go figure. There needs to be lots of people in jail for violating a constitutional right like that - especially for instructing federal troops to do so; which last I heard was treason.
You are of course assuming the entire military would fall in line. That is very doubtful. More than likely you'd see the military splinter, civilians absorbed, and an all out civil war develop. Don't forget, the soldiers pulling the triggers have families too.
my responsibility is not to go out in a blaze of ineffective glory, but to do my best to make things better.
Worked real well for the French while the Germans fucked your wife, your mother, your sisters, and your daughters; kill some at their pleasure. While some successful spying resulted of these encounters, the efforts that made the biggest difference in France were the men, women, and children the took up arms and kept the Germans busy while the Allies were able to support and eventually free them.
The entire legal system is set up on the assumption that everyone (with the possible exception of the defendant) is by and large fairly straight up.
Given that this has never been true, one of the foundations on which the legal system rests fairly well validates the legal system is completely broken. In the US you buy justice. Until that changes, the US legal system is completely broken.
*cough*
Airlines
*cough*
Stock Market
*cough*
Financial Sector/Economy
*cough*
You seem to be batting 1000.
Admittedly, I did forget about the Windows case.
Create multiple users, each with its own path. Use runas features. Some people use wrapper scripts to set their path. Most people seem to prefer the first option as they typically don't use the command line in the first place. If you are a command line guy, you'll likely prefer the second option.
A third option is to use cygwin, which does honor the environment's path and magic. Some people hate cygwin. If you're are command line person on windows, you should seriously consider cygwin as it addresses many of Window's short comings.
Clean code is the enemy of robust code? I've never heard anyone state that before.
He doesn't know what he's saying. Clean code normally means robust code but may not be performant code. Just the same, they need not be mutually exclusive.
Please explain. If you used DBAPI standard interfaces, it's unlikely anything you were using broke or changed. Most DBAPI packages do a pretty good job (all I've seen) of explaining which interfaces comply with the DBAPI spec and which interfaces don't. My guess is you didn't pay attention. That's a coder problem, not a language problem.
When you have system dependencies, that's a little different. Just install your new python ensuring your old python is still the system default python. Change your path. You're done.
The system scripts still run. Your new scripts now run using the new python. Oppps...stuff works well and no issues exist.
Changing my path is not practical. It's too broad. I'd have to write a shell script wrapper for the application which did 'env PATH=new_python:$PATH the_real_application "$*"' or something. And it's not just me; I'd have to communicate this to all other users of the system somehow. And changing one line of a script is not trivial, if I'm not root.
You have a system admin problem not a python problem. If you can't run system installed software and your admin refuses to help, you have an admin problem. Making it a python problem when your admin isn't doing his job, doesn't really make it a python problem.
All this may seem like minor things, but it adds up. And no other good language puts me in situations like that.
You still have multiple ways to address the issue. It is trivial. Even with multiple users.
Or those of us who have been around for a while, and seen innocent backwards-incompatible changes become maintenance nightmares ... Ok, maybe not a nightmare in this case, but an inconvenience and annoyance which will keep being inconvenient and annoying for years, until the last Python 2.x dependency goes away.
Or you can trivially fix it as above and be done with it. You're making it a mountain when it isn't even a mole hill. If you have such problems, stop using that version. It really is that easy.
Here's why your issues simply don't exist. For your situation to have occurred, you must have an admin that installs a new version of python and makes it the default system version. Furthermore, you must have multiple users using scripts installed system wide, which would have been installed by the same admin, which are now broken, and an admin that refuses to help make these system wide scripts which you can't edit, and can't run using the old version of python. And, that means you refuse to change your user environment. That's nothing but a bad admin and lazy users, pure and simple. Furthermore, it's unlikely that your admin would install a new python version as the default, installed the non-default libraries, and decided the user base doesn't really need the new version and that they users requiring python in the first place don't need to run the scripts which are the entire purpose of having a new python install in the first place. In other words, nothing in your argument makes practical sense.
And yes, those are run on sentences. I used them on purpose to highlight your convoluted argument.
It is the way python simply installs. Each python install places its library into a numbered directory (e.g. python2.4, python2.5). The only thing you may have to change is the "python" proper binary, which is copied from or linked to the numbered python binary.
In other words, each python install should have its own directory structure which insures one installation doesn't effect the other. The only other issues is which binary you get when you run "python". Typically "python" proper points to the newest install but that's easy to change too. Simply link/copy "python" back to whatever version you prefer for your default.
I can't speak for OSX but the above is true for the other platforms. I'd be surprised if it is not true for OSX.
For whatever reason, people fail to understand python natively supports parallel installs. Furthermore, since python's preferred script magic is "#!/bin/env python", rather than, "#!/bin/python", the executing script will use the python that it finds in your path. Additionally, you can also tie python to a specific version as "python2.5". Want a different python? Change your path. A script requires a specific version of python? Change the script to require it. It's one line and trivial. It's at the top of the file, so there's no hunting even.
New python releases only pose problems for the uninitiated, the ignorant, or the dumb.
Why would Python 3.0 'die out'?
Its widely believed a large asteroid fell from the sky and wiped the mighty python 3.0 out. ;)
Yeah and the same for closed source licenses. Big freaking deal.
It is a big deal. Before this many lawyers implied the license agreement had no legal merit and that since the code was freely given, was not subject to copyright protection. Even MS has implied such cock and bull. This cleanly highlights the license is valid and on square footing with more traditional closed source licenses.
So yes, it is a big freaking deal.
So to summarize, this validate open source licences have merit, as either a contractual agreement or as copyright violation; depending on which side of the coin you operate.
Is that before or after the first 40 miles are used and who long was the over all distance?
In other words, is that 50MPG on a 100 mile trip where 40% of it was run from batteries or is that 50MPG on a 1000 mile trip where the initial battery charge is nothing but noise?
What of those people that have been out there, saving for a home they could afford...waiting for housing prices to adjust to more reasonable levels....you actually want their tax dollars to pay for people who jumped in over their heads and pay off their houses?
Re-read what I said. You're 180-degrees off from my position. I specifically avoid rewarding the people that caused this whole situation. The people being rewarded are those that did everything right, which in turn brings money back to the banks so they can mitigate their losses. In other words, it rewards people like you and me. Those that bought more house than they can pay for are still left to deal with the banks.
In other words, if you did the right thing then you get rewarded, which helps bail out the banks. If you did the wrong thing, contributing to this problem, you still have debt to pay; which the banks will still feel. What this does is it helps make the banks solvent again, defers payment for some, and pays off houses for others. Best of all, the banks are not rewarded for fraud and neither are the fraudulent home owners.
You can further qualify this by home owners who have owned their home for five or more years and are still in good standing since January of this year. After all, we don't want to punish people who are suffering because of the economic woes brought about by the fraudulent activity. So on and so on. You get the idea. In other words, qualify who is reward so as to exclude those that caused this problem in the first place. The banks suddenly have cash which allows them to be solvent again yet they must still deal with the ramifications of their own poor business practises. In short, they are still going to take a loss; but a survivable loss.
This proposal is leaps and bounds better than rewarding the banks for fraud; which ultimately is trickle down theory, which we know doesn't work to kick start the economy. At least my plan makes sense. Their plan is rewarding the rich and powerful for fraud while doing nothing to stimulate the economy - unless you consider wall street to be the economy - it is not.
And to be absolutely clear, wall street has lost 10%+ on many historic occasions before. This is not the first time. The sky is not falling. The recent fear mongering is an attempt to pass the charity which is only good for the rich and powerful.