No, you choose to make your life unnecessarily complicated.
Define "unnecessary." If you've ever needed to build an application that is worked on by a team of developers targets multiple platforms, i.e. Linux, Windows, and Mac. Toss in iPhone and Android, you'll son learn that understanding the "build process" is far from "unnecessary."
This seems to relate to some very basic concepts of programming. We created higher-order programming languages for a reason, and that reason was that we didn't want to fiddle with the inner automatable details every time we wanted to do something. That is in essence what you're doing by hand-writing make files, when a tool could do it in much less time, with less errors and in a more standardized way of doing things. While you're busy still hand-writing make files, a professional developer would have used the right tool for the job, and had a working prototype with acceptable performance long before you.
Perhaps, but I submit that the tools at hand are not developed well enough that they actually provide the functionality they promise. IDEs are fundamentally too limited to be used in a generic setting. They can target something very tightly constrained, but get dramatically overcomplicated quickly.
And to touch on your use of the word "Ignorance". What is programming if not ignorance? Are we not ignorant by not understanding an entire library and it's inner workings when we include that library? Are we not ignorant when we code to an API instead of coding passed that interface boundary and fiddling with the other module? The obvious answer is no
The obvious answer, BTW is yes. You need to know all of this stuff, and if you don't, you will get screwed by it eventually.
Would government controlled media behave any differently? That being said, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have to at least consider that we have a small bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
We are too focused on direct forms of control, the old communist and fascist couldn't even DREAM of what we have today, and it is all done with a fabric of self sustaining bribery.
yeah, so you craft your own makefiles for wp8 compilation? look there's practical reasons for why people use visual studio and it's pretty simply getting paid...
I can't tell you the last time I had a simple "Windows only" project. Most of the times windows is in the mix, but so is Linux and Mac.
I use multiple IDE's depending on what product the code is for, you still end up knowing the build process because things can conflict and fail at different points in the building and they will fail.
Try adding cross platform and custom and thirdparty libraries to that mix.
also I don't agree that much with understanding the development process being out of tools that show you basic options.. if you're really hardcore and want to compile from commandline drop the make too then(what happens in many ide setups is just running make in-window anyhow).
Cross platfom, automated build, QA run test/release, and "professional" considerations like these make IDE generated projects almost impossible to use.
There is no benefit to knowing how to make a Make file if you're only going to compile a Windows app. Pretending that we all need to know the inner details of make is retarded.
Ignorance of the very foundation of what you are doing is what it is. If you choose ignorance, that is certainly your choice. I choose otherwise because I am a professional.
Protip: You can edit visual studio project files in VIM!!!
This is true, but I have projects that I still work on that can over 20 years old. I work on brand new stuff too. Find me an IDE that works for multiple varied projects in Java, C, C++, PHP, Python, and yes, even assembler.
You seem to think using a shitty editor is a good thing?
No, I would like easier tools, but I can't find them. IDEs almost by nessesity, force you into a working methodology that I find very unproductive.
In fact, on Linux, with a good desktop, the whole desktop is a very powerful IDE. I have editing Windows, source code indexing with ctags. Multitasking compilation, debugging, etc. Why limit myself with an IDE?
As far as I am concerned, IDEs are largely similar in their view of software development. They are like bloated bureaucracies that one has to deal with to do anything constructive. If you dare have a project format that VS, Eclipse, or what have you, doesn't understand, and you have to set up the environment to do everything manually. I know I sound like I am saying "Get off my lawn," but I am really saying we need to understand the development process better. IDEs obscure it too much. Tools like VIM and Emacs expose 100% of it. (In full disclosure I use VIM, ctags, make, etc.)
We need to come up with the programmer's equivalent of the SAE and define basic tools of the trade. It will never happen, of course, but that's *really* what we are fighting about.
I posted on Sarah Sharps' blog. I didn't use profanity, I even quoted Eleanor Roosevelt: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." I disagreed with her and stated that the most vile and ruinous censorship starts with a call for civility and that these are almost always from dubious motivations.
So, low and behold, it was moderated out of existence. It seems to me that Sarah has no interest in alternate viewpoints. It is her blog and she has the right to delete comments, but it is quite telling that she will silence a voice which does not agree with her while she is saying she wants to protect people's voices. Her calls for "civility" can be seen as nothing less than a call for censorship. We all must resist this sort of behavior because it is a direct attempt to diminish free speech and impose one person's morality on a larger group.
In computer science, there is a saying, there are three states for an option, 0, 1, or infinite. This basically means, no option, the option for one, or the option for some number greater than one of which any limit will be artificial in nature and short lived because it will not enough for some customer.
Freedom is like this. You have either no freedom, a very clearly stated freedom, or an on going battle for freedoms. GPL is option (1). This proposed license is, by definition, unfair, poorly thought out, and lastly, doomed to fail.
That works is the authors retain their copyright. "Contributors" to TheirSQL assign copyrights of contributions to, now, Oracle, then Sun, and before that MySQL AB.
I never really liked Java, I liked the idea of java. I *really* liked the idea of optimized bytecodes that could be JITed. Java was full of promise. It may well have gotten a C++ interface.
I wanted java to do well. It could have been a great thing. Richard Stallman was right, I suspected he was right all along, but I was optimistic that Sun would do well. When Ass Hole Ellison (AHE for short) bought sun, I knew it would get worse.
The last two reasons for using Java are tomcat and Android, and Android "java" doesn't matter much because it isn't even java byte codes. I guess tomcat could be replaced by PHP.
It is virtualy impossible to, 100% of the time to 100% of visitors, get the time right. The computers time can be wrong. A laptop set to EDT on a business trip tp LA will have the wrong time and the user won't adjust it because he's only going to be there a day or two. Besides, he or she may want to quickly see what time it is at home. How on earth could you adjust for that? IP addresses registered in one time zone may be servicing another, so geolocation of IPs doesn't work. What's left?
It *is* a tough problem and 100 days is probably right and I bet they still won't ever get to 100% of the time, general computers and laptops don't have the technology to maintain locationally accurate time. Removing the clock is a "simplification" that removes an unnessisary work load and no user will be harmed and the service will not be affected.
This is exactly the issue I'm concerned about. "Second amendment solutions" are not a solution in a working society. It means that something is seriously wrong.
This is something I am troubled by on a regular basis. It is increasingly clear that our government and legal system are stacked against common citizens.
At some point, it will occur to those being prosecuted for sharing some songs on the internet and being fined for more than they'll ever make in their lifetime, that the U.S. is a dictionary definition of a fascist state where government is intertwined with corporations and industry. The real problems are the corporate executives that can do this crap with no repercussions. There needs to be repercussions. If the legal system doesn't provide a way to bring the fight to the door of the powerful, then I fear that the our society will break down to the point where citizens must be vigilantes to get any sort of justice over the prosecutors, politicians, and the people who run the corporations.
Law enforcement has no interest in verifiable accurate technology, those things only provide "proof." What they really want is plausible "probable cause," which allows them get around all those pesky rights that citizens seem to think they want.
Believe me, I understand encryption. The problem is that if you know how the encryption key was made, which random number generator is used. How the seed was generated and any potential salt, you can limit the universe of potential keys. There are a lot of ways to reduce the "real" range of possibilities based on application weakness and user stupidity.
I doubt very much the the NSA does a dumb attack on crypto, they can guess based on the application being used, when, and from other information a MUCH smaller range of keys.
The math of encryption makes it seem almost impossible to break, the reality is user stupidity. Passwords are stupid simple and that will get you every time. Now, iMessage, where they have randomly generated keys, I could see those as being far more difficult to break, even for a massive super computer, but still, not impossible -- if the code breaking software is excluded from the initial brokerage of the shared secret. However, in many ssl type encryptions they re-negotiate the secret periodically. It is possible to insert yourself or monitor the exchange and calculate it.
Who knows? Encryption is based on the assumption that it would take a very very long time to break. When you virtually infinite resources to crack it, all bets are off.
The "Home of the Brave" is a joke at MIT, and U.S. universities across America. Once the wussy administrators take hold, all is lost without a fight. Wussy administrators will use security and safety as they cudgels, They will hide behind their desks and enact policy that eliminates any freedom that may challenge the status quo.
This is, in fact, what America deserves unless and until we ALL have the courage to fight it everywhere it is. I would say "Shame On You" to MIT, but I would be decades late.
Freedom of speech, as enshrined in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution protects us from our government. It does not protect us from our fellow citizens or employers. If you say something nasty to me about my wife, whether it is true or not
I don't know who started thus rumor, but it is not true. If you say something publicly, that is damaging, but true, then truth is the absolute defense against slander or libel.
The 1st amendment trumps many laws. We have the right to speak. These guys should absolutely file a civil rights law suit against Richards, SendGrid, and PyCon. If they are responsible to their employer for their remarks on the premise that their employer is responsible for their representation, then SendGrid is responsible for Richard's actions and is therefor a legitimate target.
the 1st Amendment does not protect you when I punch you in the nose.
Of course it doesn't, what you describe is battery. If you threaten me, that's assault. If you threaten me, then hit me, that's assault and battery. Making a dongle joke is neither.
We are all at risk here. Even though we have freedom of speech, we run the risk of losing our livelihoods if we say something that might offend someone somewhere. Richards was being a real "bitch." I say "bitch" because it is a disparaging name for a female. Not because I wish to be sexist. If the perpetrator of this nonsense was a guy, I'd call him a real "bastard." Calling a woman a "bastard" doesn't seem to be the correct usage in the English language. If someone can come up with a disparaging name to call a female that is not sexist, please suggest one, but if it is not sexists to call a guy a bastard, I refuse to accept that there is no non-sexist name we can call a woman when we are condemning her and her actions, but I digress.
Seriously, I've been in the situation where I have been pulled aside by management for saying something offensive, but they won't say what, to someone, but they won't say who, and that I should stop it, but they don't say how. The whole harassment mentality is very kafka-esque. The REAL hostile work environment is created by zero-tolerance crap, which, by definition, means "intolerant."
Human beings are imperfect. "Appropriate" behavior is a myth of the modern workplace police. Human beings build relationships and we communicate. We are not robots. Humor is part of humanity, and sometimes humor is off color. There is a difference between saying, "Hey, my dongle is bigger than yours" and "Have sex with me or your fired."
Also, lets be honest here, if ms Richard heard these jokes from her friends at that conference, she would not have complained. She should try to understand and take to heart Voltaire's quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." An evangelist should stand for something besides her own notoriety. Gatherings of human beings are generally improved when we all try to be tolerant of one another.
I need to preface that by saying I think Linus is 100% correct on the technical matter. As a "boss" he's appalling. He's absolutely right in his assessment as well. You don't pass the buck.
That being said, when something is this big, you do it privately. .
The spirit of the law is to protect users. The people creating sites don't care, and are, in fact, hostile to any such consideration.
In all reality, cookies enable some pretty good behavior on web sites, but more often than not, are designed to track user behavior against their own interests.
Your behaviors are those of a spammer. 420,000 addresses? You are surprised that you were blocked? There does not need to be any conspiracy, it only means that there is similarity in their algorithms.
Anyone that wishes to deliver 420K k-emails in a batch SHOULD be shut off. That volume of email can not contain any valuable information. Its nothing but the crap we have to endlessly delete. You are the type of email abuser that makes spam filters nessesary.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you choose to make your life unnecessarily complicated.
Define "unnecessary." If you've ever needed to build an application that is worked on by a team of developers targets multiple platforms, i.e. Linux, Windows, and Mac. Toss in iPhone and Android, you'll son learn that understanding the "build process" is far from "unnecessary."
This seems to relate to some very basic concepts of programming. We created higher-order programming languages for a reason, and that reason was that we didn't want to fiddle with the inner automatable details every time we wanted to do something. That is in essence what you're doing by hand-writing make files, when a tool could do it in much less time, with less errors and in a more standardized way of doing things. While you're busy still hand-writing make files, a professional developer would have used the right tool for the job, and had a working prototype with acceptable performance long before you.
Perhaps, but I submit that the tools at hand are not developed well enough that they actually provide the functionality they promise. IDEs are fundamentally too limited to be used in a generic setting. They can target something very tightly constrained, but get dramatically overcomplicated quickly.
And to touch on your use of the word "Ignorance". What is programming if not ignorance? Are we not ignorant by not understanding an entire library and it's inner workings when we include that library? Are we not ignorant when we code to an API instead of coding passed that interface boundary and fiddling with the other module? The obvious answer is no
The obvious answer, BTW is yes. You need to know all of this stuff, and if you don't, you will get screwed by it eventually.
Would government controlled media behave any differently? That being said, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have to at least consider that we have a small bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
We are too focused on direct forms of control, the old communist and fascist couldn't even DREAM of what we have today, and it is all done with a fabric of self sustaining bribery.
Lets see how far we can get. We all need to donate. This is a test of our very democracy. I fear its long gone.
yeah, so you craft your own makefiles for wp8 compilation? look there's practical reasons for why people use visual studio and it's pretty simply getting paid...
I can't tell you the last time I had a simple "Windows only" project. Most of the times windows is in the mix, but so is Linux and Mac.
I use multiple IDE's depending on what product the code is for, you still end up knowing the build process because things can conflict and fail at different points in the building and they will fail.
Try adding cross platform and custom and thirdparty libraries to that mix.
also I don't agree that much with understanding the development process being out of tools that show you basic options.. if you're really hardcore and want to compile from commandline drop the make too then(what happens in many ide setups is just running make in-window anyhow).
Cross platfom, automated build, QA run test/release, and "professional" considerations like these make IDE generated projects almost impossible to use.
There is no benefit to knowing how to make a Make file if you're only going to compile a Windows app. Pretending that we all need to know the inner details of make is retarded.
Ignorance of the very foundation of what you are doing is what it is. If you choose ignorance, that is certainly your choice. I choose otherwise because I am a professional.
Protip: You can edit visual studio project files in VIM!!!
This is true, but I have projects that I still work on that can over 20 years old. I work on brand new stuff too. Find me an IDE that works for multiple varied projects in Java, C, C++, PHP, Python, and yes, even assembler.
You seem to think using a shitty editor is a good thing?
No, I would like easier tools, but I can't find them. IDEs almost by nessesity, force you into a working methodology that I find very unproductive.
In fact, on Linux, with a good desktop, the whole desktop is a very powerful IDE. I have editing Windows, source code indexing with ctags. Multitasking compilation, debugging, etc. Why limit myself with an IDE?
As far as I am concerned, IDEs are largely similar in their view of software development. They are like bloated bureaucracies that one has to deal with to do anything constructive. If you dare have a project format that VS, Eclipse, or what have you, doesn't understand, and you have to set up the environment to do everything manually. I know I sound like I am saying "Get off my lawn," but I am really saying we need to understand the development process better. IDEs obscure it too much. Tools like VIM and Emacs expose 100% of it. (In full disclosure I use VIM, ctags, make, etc.)
We need to come up with the programmer's equivalent of the SAE and define basic tools of the trade. It will never happen, of course, but that's *really* what we are fighting about.
I posted on Sarah Sharps' blog. I didn't use profanity, I even quoted Eleanor Roosevelt: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." I disagreed with her and stated that the most vile and ruinous censorship starts with a call for civility and that these are almost always from dubious motivations.
So, low and behold, it was moderated out of existence. It seems to me that Sarah has no interest in alternate viewpoints. It is her blog and she has the right to delete comments, but it is quite telling that she will silence a voice which does not agree with her while she is saying she wants to protect people's voices. Her calls for "civility" can be seen as nothing less than a call for censorship. We all must resist this sort of behavior because it is a direct attempt to diminish free speech and impose one person's morality on a larger group.
In computer science, there is a saying, there are three states for an option, 0, 1, or infinite. This basically means, no option, the option for one, or the option for some number greater than one of which any limit will be artificial in nature and short lived because it will not enough for some customer.
Freedom is like this. You have either no freedom, a very clearly stated freedom, or an on going battle for freedoms. GPL is option (1). This proposed license is, by definition, unfair, poorly thought out, and lastly, doomed to fail.
Seriously, a "bug" changes the license on files? A "bug?"
Please! Spare me! A license is a legal document.
They hoped it would not have been noticed and when it was, "oops!"
Sorry, Larry is a dirt bag, always has been, always will be.
PostgreSQL
Everyone knows its better and more free. The MySQL lineage needs to die.
That works is the authors retain their copyright. "Contributors" to TheirSQL assign copyrights of contributions to, now, Oracle, then Sun, and before that MySQL AB.
It should not be illegal to expose when government acts illegally.
I never really liked Java, I liked the idea of java. I *really* liked the idea of optimized bytecodes that could be JITed. Java was full of promise. It may well have gotten a C++ interface.
I wanted java to do well. It could have been a great thing. Richard Stallman was right, I suspected he was right all along, but I was optimistic that Sun would do well. When Ass Hole Ellison (AHE for short) bought sun, I knew it would get worse.
The last two reasons for using Java are tomcat and Android, and Android "java" doesn't matter much because it isn't even java byte codes. I guess tomcat could be replaced by PHP.
They report news, and do it well.
It is virtualy impossible to, 100% of the time to 100% of visitors, get the time right. The computers time can be wrong. A laptop set to EDT on a business trip tp LA will have the wrong time and the user won't adjust it because he's only going to be there a day or two. Besides, he or she may want to quickly see what time it is at home. How on earth could you adjust for that? IP addresses registered in one time zone may be servicing another, so geolocation of IPs doesn't work. What's left?
It *is* a tough problem and 100 days is probably right and I bet they still won't ever get to 100% of the time, general computers and laptops don't have the technology to maintain locationally accurate time. Removing the clock is a "simplification" that removes an unnessisary work load and no user will be harmed and the service will not be affected.
This is exactly the issue I'm concerned about. "Second amendment solutions" are not a solution in a working society. It means that something is seriously wrong.
This is something I am troubled by on a regular basis. It is increasingly clear that our government and legal system are stacked against common citizens.
At some point, it will occur to those being prosecuted for sharing some songs on the internet and being fined for more than they'll ever make in their lifetime, that the U.S. is a dictionary definition of a fascist state where government is intertwined with corporations and industry. The real problems are the corporate executives that can do this crap with no repercussions. There needs to be repercussions. If the legal system doesn't provide a way to bring the fight to the door of the powerful, then I fear that the our society will break down to the point where citizens must be vigilantes to get any sort of justice over the prosecutors, politicians, and the people who run the corporations.
Law enforcement has no interest in verifiable accurate technology, those things only provide "proof." What they really want is plausible "probable cause," which allows them get around all those pesky rights that citizens seem to think they want.
Believe me, I understand encryption. The problem is that if you know how the encryption key was made, which random number generator is used. How the seed was generated and any potential salt, you can limit the universe of potential keys. There are a lot of ways to reduce the "real" range of possibilities based on application weakness and user stupidity.
I doubt very much the the NSA does a dumb attack on crypto, they can guess based on the application being used, when, and from other information a MUCH smaller range of keys.
The math of encryption makes it seem almost impossible to break, the reality is user stupidity. Passwords are stupid simple and that will get you every time. Now, iMessage, where they have randomly generated keys, I could see those as being far more difficult to break, even for a massive super computer, but still, not impossible -- if the code breaking software is excluded from the initial brokerage of the shared secret. However, in many ssl type encryptions they re-negotiate the secret periodically. It is possible to insert yourself or monitor the exchange and calculate it.
Who knows? Encryption is based on the assumption that it would take a very very long time to break. When you virtually infinite resources to crack it, all bets are off.
The "Home of the Brave" is a joke at MIT, and U.S. universities across America. Once the wussy administrators take hold, all is lost without a fight. Wussy administrators will use security and safety as they cudgels, They will hide behind their desks and enact policy that eliminates any freedom that may challenge the status quo.
This is, in fact, what America deserves unless and until we ALL have the courage to fight it everywhere it is. I would say "Shame On You" to MIT, but I would be decades late.
Freedom of speech, as enshrined in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution protects us from our government. It does not protect us from our fellow citizens or employers. If you say something nasty to me about my wife, whether it is true or not
I don't know who started thus rumor, but it is not true. If you say something publicly, that is damaging, but true, then truth is the absolute defense against slander or libel.
The 1st amendment trumps many laws. We have the right to speak. These guys should absolutely file a civil rights law suit against Richards, SendGrid, and PyCon. If they are responsible to their employer for their remarks on the premise that their employer is responsible for their representation, then SendGrid is responsible for Richard's actions and is therefor a legitimate target.
the 1st Amendment does not protect you when I punch you in the nose.
Of course it doesn't, what you describe is battery. If you threaten me, that's assault. If you threaten me, then hit me, that's assault and battery. Making a dongle joke is neither.
We are all at risk here. Even though we have freedom of speech, we run the risk of losing our livelihoods if we say something that might offend someone somewhere. Richards was being a real "bitch." I say "bitch" because it is a disparaging name for a female. Not because I wish to be sexist. If the perpetrator of this nonsense was a guy, I'd call him a real "bastard." Calling a woman a "bastard" doesn't seem to be the correct usage in the English language. If someone can come up with a disparaging name to call a female that is not sexist, please suggest one, but if it is not sexists to call a guy a bastard, I refuse to accept that there is no non-sexist name we can call a woman when we are condemning her and her actions, but I digress.
Seriously, I've been in the situation where I have been pulled aside by management for saying something offensive, but they won't say what, to someone, but they won't say who, and that I should stop it, but they don't say how. The whole harassment mentality is very kafka-esque. The REAL hostile work environment is created by zero-tolerance crap, which, by definition, means "intolerant."
Human beings are imperfect. "Appropriate" behavior is a myth of the modern workplace police. Human beings build relationships and we communicate. We are not robots. Humor is part of humanity, and sometimes humor is off color. There is a difference between saying, "Hey, my dongle is bigger than yours" and "Have sex with me or your fired."
Also, lets be honest here, if ms Richard heard these jokes from her friends at that conference, she would not have complained. She should try to understand and take to heart Voltaire's quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." An evangelist should stand for something besides her own notoriety. Gatherings of human beings are generally improved when we all try to be tolerant of one another.
I need to preface that by saying I think Linus is 100% correct on the technical matter. As a "boss" he's appalling. He's absolutely right in his assessment as well. You don't pass the buck.
That being said, when something is this big, you do it privately. .
The spirit of the law is to protect users. The people creating sites don't care, and are, in fact, hostile to any such consideration.
In all reality, cookies enable some pretty good behavior on web sites, but more often than not, are designed to track user behavior against their own interests.
Your behaviors are those of a spammer. 420,000 addresses? You are surprised that you were blocked? There does not need to be any conspiracy, it only means that there is similarity in their algorithms.
Anyone that wishes to deliver 420K k-emails in a batch SHOULD be shut off. That volume of email can not contain any valuable information. Its nothing but the crap we have to endlessly delete. You are the type of email abuser that makes spam filters nessesary.