I read a paper on SOA once. It might as well be titled how to prevent small rocks from crashing into our Sun.
So you base your opinion on reading a paper on SOA once? Amazing.
Anything that uses XML for RPC and has no concept of distributed transactions (Compensation) rightfully deserves to continue its steady march into irrelevent obscurity
1. XML for RPC, why not? It's just a freaking format for transporting stuff. I know there are obvious problems with the bulk of WS-*, but there is nothing inherently wrong with using XML for RPC in certain contexs
2. Distributed transactions are an academic/vendor/architect astronaut white elephant, the solution for very extreme, fringe scenarios where simultaneous ACID properties over distributed resources is actually needed more than scalability. They aren't scalable, they are hard to reason with, and this is why no one that has to deal with massive scalability and availability requirements uses them.
If it doesn't at least support distributed transactions its not worth wasting ones time over.
Uh, why would an enterprise architecture style provides for transaction management, which is an application-specific feature. Distributed transactions are not even an infrastructure feature. No one worth mentioning uses them, and almost everyone that uses them didn't need them in the first place. This is why people in the trenches opt for compensating (rollback) transactions and "sagas" over distributed transactions. And this is not "news", so I don't know from what kind of work experience you keep talking about distributed transactions as the make-or-break factor in deciding over SOA... or anything for that matter.
As a CS student I think you should focus on product development, not IT. You absolutely should intern at a technology company whose main focus is products - and whose _customers_ may include IT departments. You won't be paid a whole lot, but the tasks you get will also be very simple, relatively speaking, and while they may be important, once taken care of you'll have plenty of time to poke around with whatever interests you. You may be asked to say add an option to a compiler, tweak a kernel build, or add data gathering and instrumentation - things that the other developers would like to have but don't find time to do themselves. If in the process you find something you think might make an interesting project by all means suggest it, chances are you'll get to go do it, unless it seems overly ambitious to the extreme.
"I'm in college and working towards my Bachelors in Computer Science. Last year I passed both my CompTIA A+ and Network+ certifications and now have been offered (via a staffing company) a full-time Internship at a wireless lab of a major laptop manufacturer. The pay is going to be around $8 an hour full-time but that is not my primary motivator. I'm considering this significant decrease in pay from my previous (non-IT) job to be counterbalanced by what valuable knowledge I may gain both in the technical aspects and industry insight while I finish school. This field is all new to me and I don't personally know anyone who has worked in it before who will give me their honest opinions on it. Although I know circumstances differ greatly, in general, what can I expect as an IT Intern? What have been your experiences?"
$8/hr is still kinda low, even for an intern doing IT work, but still. Learn as much as you can, even if it means devoting more hours to learning after your daily work is done. Having said that, this is all assuming that there is a chance to learn the nitty gritty details of Unix/Windows administration, laying out networks, troubleshooting production problems (and if you are lucky, learning shell/perl/powershell programming and setting up cron/database jobs, schedule remote user/software updates, setting up security shit, and things like that.
And this is the thing, if all you get to do is install software for users and answering phone calls from customers (being the human router who creates a ticket for them and assign them to the actual person who will do the grunt work), then fuck it, you will not learn anything.
There are three levels of IT support (usually): tier I (what I just described), tier II and tier III (the later being the one where you get your hands dirty into the servers, the network, the latrine, whatever pile of shit needs to be stirred to get things back up and running.) Tier III is where you want to be if you want to maximize your learning experience. Tier II might or might not (depending on the company), but tier I, you'll bore yourself to death and you won't learn squat.
I've worked on Tier III support and I believe it helped me become a better software developer - that experienced helped me understand really well what it takes to get things running beyond my IDE and my compiler - routers, firewalls, caching and ssl devices, database listeners, job schedulers. You learn the things that will have a direct effect on your software (things that architect astronauts usually like to gloss over as they do their pretty UML modeling because they have no fucking clue how to model them or take them into account.)
I did that for a couple of years, longer than what I was planning. It was not by choice. Once you get into IT, you are stuck in it while the software development industry moves on. You can get yourself obsolete as a computer scientist and developer really quickly in a matter of 3-4 years.
But that takes me to my question - you are about to graduate from Computer Science, but you are getting CompTIA A+ and Network+ certifications and are currently looking into doing IT-related internships. Why? Not that there is anything wrong if that's the type of job you want to do, but a MIS degree (with a good focus on programming) would have served you better.
I don't know, but at least for me, Computer Science trained me for software development, software engineering, and well, computer science. It is an overkill degree to do IT work (where the business/management/people skills you get in a MIS degree combined with CompTia A+ and Network+ certs will suit better.)
Unless you get to do Tier III support during your internship, that will be a waste of the investment you have made in your Computer Science studies.
All the details are secret; we can not know whether or not there was indeed any blackmail involved, other than the words of a woman and a judge. I myself do not feel that blackmail is a crime, in any case. Immoral, perhaps, but certainly not something to go to court over.
Interesting. So, say you or your significant other happens to have a STD, say, herpes. And let's supposed that it was contracted in a manner that you don't want to made public. Certainly not to your children or in-laws. This is something that you and your significant other manage pretty well within the privacy of your life.
And say that, I, somehow, legally or not, get a copy of your medical records which include by your own account with luxury of details how the STD got acquired in the first place. And then I send you a photocopy of it with a letter telling you that if you don't wire $10K (or whatever amount you feel like for the sake of argument) I will make that letter document available to your in-laws, your co-workers, your church and your kids.
Blackmail. Now, not finding blackmail in general criminal, or thinking that is criminal only in extreme cases (like the hypothetical one presented here), that will either be immensely idiotic or disturbingly wrong on so many levels that it is horrible to contemplate.
Java's problem is that it just doesn't work half the time. I mean often it seems like the perfect solution but then when you go to implement stuff, it just won't work correctly. So annoying. You waste more time trying to debug crap than actually developing your application. And by debug I mean it's usually some sort of problem with the browser plugin or some implementation retardedness in the JVM or whatever.
Just because YOU have problems doing your school homework and toy apps with Java, that doesn't mean Java does not work half the time in the industry, in the real world for the rest of us.
Come on. I know nobody RTFAs, but the word "server" is in the fucking summary.
How funny that you mentioned that no one RTFA - the first sentence that reads on the CommonJS' page reads as follows: Welcome to CommonJS, a group with a goal of building up the JavaScript ecosystem for web servers, desktop and command line apps and in the browser. It is not specific to server development.
But let's play your line of argument. I know that the word "server" is in the summary. So what? Ever heard of "separation of concerns"?
Just because it runs on the server, it does not mean it has to have access to thread functionality. Most application-specific Java code that runs on a web server/JEE container does. not. ever. ever. spawns. a. thread. Doesn't have to. The container is the one that managers concurrency, with app-specific code being executed in a thread to handle incoming requests.
App-specific code running on a web server is, from an architectural point of view, to be treated as managed code Every time you see managed code spawning a thread (except in initialization servlets), you should see that as a sign of a code snafu, something that can be better replaced (in most instances) with some sort of message-driven plumbing.
In a similar manner, you can have managed code on groovy, clojure or, why not, javascript, running on top of a server that does concurrency management for you.
None of the things CommonJS strives for are for building multi-threading servers, but to build managed code that runs on the server side of things.
And assuming that there was a valid initiative to include a concurrency mechanism on JavaScript, an actor/messaging/rendezvous mechanism would be more appropriate for app-specific concurrency as opposed to bare-bones threading.
A lot of the "JS sux" crowd seem stuck in the Netscape era, recalling the horrors of javascript coding on geocities-look-alike websites that bloomed and died (like red tides) during the dot-com boom.
RIAs that work well on IE and FireFox (the predominant browsers used in commercial sectors) are being developed today in JavaScript with jquery, gwt or dojo. And crappy client-side applications are being written as well. But anyone with a modicum of work experience knows that the responsibility of writing shitty applications rest squarely on the developer.
Some of the crappiest, worst code I've seen had been written on Java, C# and C++. And also, some of the clearest, most maintainable and elegant pieces of code I've seen were written in FoxPro and JavaScript. Every single language sucks in one aspect or another.
A good software professional, a pragmatic one, he looks at the language, at the tool, works around the problems and gets the stuff done with it in a clean manner.
Shitty programmer OTOH will screw it up no matter what.
And coding divas will get all emotionally attached to a given language, throwing subjective infantile rants towards whatever language they don't like recalling anecdotal memories mixed with technical impressions too superficial to be called "first-hand educated knowledge".
I don't like JS global scoping and lack of namespaces, but I do love it's object prototyping capabilities and support for functional programming. You can write some really complex client-side, browser-running systems with a brevity and clarity you cannot match with Java or C#.
That is the reality. It is a perfect tool? Nope. It is a good tool for what it is intended to? Yes. You can't get emotional against a tool, specially if you have never been able (or are incapable or have never assigned) to create a good NON-TRIVIAL application with it.
Here's my three favourite language flaws, which make the language nearly unusable for non-trivial projects:
Variables are global by default, leading to accidental memory leaks, conflicts and various other fun things.
A lack of namespaces.
Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks), i.e:
function a() {
var b = 1;
{
var b = 2;
}
alert(b);
}
will alert 2.
Global variables, lack of namespaces and block scopes are nuances that can be worked around with proper coding practices and a good understanding of the language. This is orthogonal to pointers and memory allocation in C - you play them wrong and you'll get some funny results too. But, just as in C, in JavaScript (and in any programming language for that matter), the ultimate responsibility is on the programmer.
... the browser might just as well support GWBasic. However fancy javascript may be , it doesn't take the worlds most advanced scripting language to to do pop up windows,mouseover events and selective loading.
Instead of trying to makd the browser a cut down OS as both MS and Firefox coders seem to be headed for, they should go back to basics and make the browser a simple reliable graphics display program with some user I/O thrown in. Not some bloated monstrosity that has all the reliability of a 20 year old unserviced Trabant. Having to support an ever more complex OO interpreted language doesn't help this reliability.
The problem with this thinking is that the web, as it is utilized nowadays, requires more than a simple reliable graphics display program with some user I/O thrown in it. It is here, I sometimes don't like it either, but it is here. That's the modus operandi nowadays. So we suck it up and make it work. That's what they pay us for.
We have been running good (and bad) RIA with various degrees of JS for quite some time. I've seen some really good stuff, and some really bad stuff, both using the browser and javascript. This, and taking into account that good and bad code can be written in any language leads to conclude squarely that there is nothing intrinsic in the language and browser that can lead someone other than a shitty developer to create crappy software. And this is a truth for any software development system.
See subject-line, because that is what javascript also entails, since it is typically the delivery mechanism utilized by malicious website or ads that cause malware infestations today.
Is is a language problem, or a security engineering problem? Don't bother answering it, it is a rhetorical question.
It needs threads. I know the unwashed masses don't know what to do with them, but if you *do* know, then they can really be used to make much simpler code.
Explain to me what kind of client-side, browser-running work requires explicit usage of threads and how this will actually and definitely will lead to much simpler client-side, browser-running code? ***
I'm looking forward to see some examples of this.
*** not to mention that out of all concurrency models possible, the things you ask for client-side code is threads. Fantastic.
I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely, but JS is not a particularly 'good' language. The only advantage I can see is that thousands of Web developers can now write desktop applications. Is that necessarily a good thing? or will it just lead to more inefficient crapware?
Dude, we get crapware in any language. Have you see the average code churned out in Java, C# or C? What exactly is wrong with JS? It is a good tool for what it does. That people suck at it is another thing. In the last three large projects I've been involved (my tasks on those three have always been back-end work mind you except for Swing work at the present time), three different teams have produced phenomenal work on complex, rich UIs in JavaScript.
I wouldn't want to have done that work on Swing. Can be done, but it can really turn into a PITA to get it right and clean. That JS work I've seen has been far more superior in quality that a lot of the back-end and JSP shit that I've had to fix or integrate with in Java. Some of those javascript "web developers" you refer to can give a lesson or two on software engineering principles to many Java/C#/C++ dilettante wannabes who think JavaScript is good for nothing.
I mean seriously, I don't even work on JavaScript, but I've seen enough good work on it to really wonder what the hell some of you guys are babbling about. Not a single objective explanation of it, just pure soapbox opera. Furthermore, anyone with enough work experience knows that good software and bad software can (and is written) in any language. Suckage is language independent.
Actually the stress was from management and coworkers, which the stress from Dotnet language was nothing compared towards. Everything was fine at my job, until I got mentally and physically sick, and then I was discriminated against until I kept getting sicker and sicker and eventually fired for being too sick.
I remember these words:
"Programmers are a dime a dozen. We get 500+ resumes a week for your position alone. We can easily hire a programmer who won't get sick on the job for a fraction of what we pay you." after that I was fired and escorted out by a security guard and my programming books and other property got mailed to my old address and I had to hunt it down to get it back. You'd think they'd use my new address instead of the old one, as my paychecks were mailed to my new address not the old one.
But it wasn't VB.net alone that made me sick, I want to clarify.
So what the hell did you include that for, in a post regarding DotNet?
It doesn't really matter in the web as 90% of the time is spent hitting the database.
Youtube runs pretty much 100% on Python, Facebook runs on Erlang and PHP. Erlang has the benefit of being highly scalable, yet it is relatively slow.
Speen in the web doesn'trelly matter much. What's important is scalability, and today's shared-nothing approach pretty mucha guarantees that at the language level.
From my experience:
that depends on the application.
I've seen applications spending 40%-60% time spending in delivering content and page rendering. In sites with lots of promos and static pages, the average per page user experience involves a much smaller % of time hitting the db.
In a well-written application using a well-designed RDB, and specially if using OR mappers with caching, the goal is to minimize % spent on the db.
With rare exceptions, every time you see an app that is intended to handle a lot of traffic spending a great % of its time on the db, you should take that as a f* up at different levels (architectural, design, implementation, database design, network topology, etc.)
Isn't the best approach to develop fast, identify the bottlenecks and then rewrite those parts in a faster language, like Python C modules?
You can't "re-code" bottlenecks at the architectural level, even if your language allows a cost-effective way to write and call native written modules. And that's the danger of "develop fast, identify and fix later".
Let me rephrase it - the problem with "develop fast, identify later" is that people seem to believe that this approach lets them avoid the identification of problems at the architectural level (by architectural meaning problems whose resolution have a significant cost, be them how you compose your system down to specific language features and even coding styles and paradigms.)
The idea of developing fast is to delay the resolution of these architectural concerns to the last responsible minute. But unfortunately, people do a poor job, fail to recognize that the last responsible minute might occur very early on during developing, leaving it until it hits production, go "oh shit" and start making poor-man, poorly made fixes with hacks that will not be sustainable on the long run during the application lifespan.
If Kansas wants to teach creationism, let them. If you don't want your child to learn creationism, don't live there.
This is the stupidest post I've seen on a long time. How old are you? Are you still in a college dorm? There are people who can't afford to move out of Kansas and who would like their children to enjoy their constitutional right for an education that will make them competitive. What would you suggest to them?
Originally, that was the whole point of having states. Different states could execute policies differently and individuals would chose where to live based on how those policies met their needs.
Uh, how nice that you forget to mention the whole point of the federal government and its power to dictate policy to the states on different legal subjects (interstate commerce, national defense, currency, etc.)
Kinda like a free market, but with government.
Except that free market and government are not comparable. That statement right there is an indictment to your education.
Part of the whole idea of "freedom" is letting people make the "wrong" choice.
And here is where you show your ignorance on governance and the meaning of freedom. You might have a point if every single person in Kansas wanted this kind of shit, and if the long term consequences of their economy and national unity HAD NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER to the other states and peoples of the union.
If we were to take this "freedom means being able to make the wrong choice" to its logical conclusion, we could argue that committing a crime (a wrong choice) is also part of freedom. It isn't. Freedom is not some absolute thing that exists outside some form of regulation. Not even in the most "primitive"/egalitarian societies of today do you see such a crazy notion.
Your right to make the wrong choice ends where it has probable cause to negatively affect someone else. The idea of a board of education is to improve the education of the masses, to make them more competitive.
When that fails, when a significant sector of the population chooses to go backwards, causing the whole nation to become less competitive, that's where their right to go wrong ends. That's the price of being members of the union.
If, indeed, it is your opinion, that the federal Department of Education ought to trump the local school boards ("raping the Constitution" in the process), then it is not currently working anyway. May as well get rid of this giant bureaucracy — formed in 1979 it failed to improve the levels of education — things will not get any worse and might get better.
zomg! argh! violate the constitution. Dude, chill the localized rhetoric out.
You say that without the DoE, it might get better. Considering the Kansas precedence, it is also obvious that it *might not*... or better yet, that the situation will degrade.
The problem is not about centralized or decentralized boards of education, but on having a consensus on what constitutes the minimum curriculum that will improve US's standing when compared against the standards (and results) from other countries,say Japan or Germany.
There is nothing in the constitution that says the DoE cannot establish a generalized curriculum (just as the federal government has the right to regulate or protect interstate commerce.)
There are three scenarios where the Kansas fuckapocalipse wouldn't have taken place:
1. The DoE had the power to enforce a minimum curriculum (assuming said curriculum is scientifically sound), or
2. It is impossible for retarded creationist ignorantnuts to run local/state school districts.
I agree with you that we have to get rid of the giant DoE bureaucracy... by replacing it with something more effective, run by educated men of science determined to bring US scholastic averages to same levels as in other developed countries, and with the teeth to force local school districts to implement said curriculums.
I don't agree that getting rid of it entails leaving the ultimate curriculum design to the state and local school districts.
BTW, I'm not bagging on the Chinese. I'm simply stating that for democracy to takes place, they have to undergo a deep and widespread cultural change. Their culture has been based on authoritarian figures, be it dynastic or socialist. And yet, they are now consciously in the 20-21st century. So it is up to them to get democratic institutions to work for them. No amount of protestation from our part against collaborating search engines will ever change that.
Try security and stabilization: the era the Nationalist government attempted to reign in was torn apart by war, famine, and a highly corrupt and ineffective government.
And war and famine were the product of warlordism (which I mentioned in my first post), and corruption has never been something just up in the ruling elite. It's been present at all levels of society for hundreds, if not, thousands of years.
When you're constantly living in fear of getting shot and/or starving to death, democracy and human rights aren't really on the top of your "must have" list.
Exactly. This reinforces my statement that they (or anyone for that matter) can say that Chinese or the PRC's government does not believe in freedom, human rights and democracy because they were ideas they tried and failed.
They were never tried to begin with, independently of the circumstances why they were never implemented in the first place.
One thing I've learned, from watching the history of my own country, and many who come from war-torn countries will agree with, is that violence, war and corruption does not occur in a vacuum "up there" with the ruling elite. There is a social context, an ethos that runs, in one shape or another, up and down the classes/divisions of a society.
Societies that are found in that type of quagmire must change, either on their own or pressured by external forces (*) to reshape their ethos and create institutions and a sense of law of the land, which all combined makes it harder for that kind of chaos to take place.
(*) And no, I'm saying that they should be invaded and force-fed democracy. But in every society in history, their ethos and social institutions do not change for the better (or worse) in navel-gazing isolation. It is always pressure from external forces (constructive and destructive) that causes the change. It is up to each society to construct a less chaotic, less unjust reality.
BTW, I'm not bagging on the Chinese. I'm simply stating that for democracy to takes place, they have to undergo a deep and widespread cultural change. Their culture has been based on authoritarian figures, be it dynastic or socialist. And yet, they are now consciously in the 20-21st century. So it is up to them to get democratic institutions to work for them. No amount of protestation from our part against collaborating search engines will ever change that.
While the Chinese political system was rapidly turning to the end of its dynastic cycle (the pattern is pretty consistently recurrent in Chinese history), the wounds were not self induced.
The mix of colonialism and outright invasion together with cultural shock from military defeats sent China into a state of coma.
Much of the setbacks of China in the past two centuries was about drinking too much western coolaid. Not that the western ideas were worthless, but the political reforms that were supposed to "modernize" China was so laced with immature imitation of western ideology that they basically failed one by one. (Not unlike what's happening when the US tried to set up a government in Iraq)
If there's a rational explanation to China's deaf ears on petitions to human rights, freedom, democracy and the such, it's not because of some evil agenda, but rather the fact that it was tried, and didn't work out. Yes, maybe they didn't try hard enough, but nobody's in a hurry to take those risks again.
I hardly see early 1900's warlordism and subsequent fuck ups like the Cultural Revolution as the result of western cool aid. Human rights, freedom and democracy had never been tried out. The only that had ever been tried was industrialization. But human rights, freedom and democracy? When were they tried? And certainly there had been Chinese polities that have enjoyed them to various degrees of success (Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.)
Everything that has been tried in mainland China has been about twisted concepts of modernization and industrialization, during the unraveling of the Qing dinasty (or more like a lip service as reaction to Western/Japanese interventionism.) It was pretty much non-existing with the warlords period and during the Sino-Japanese war. And then, they went at it again with the establishment of the PRC within the frame of failed ideologies and false, snake-oil sociology.
At no point there has been a single entity or polity in Mainland China that has tried human rights, freedom and democracy. Ergo, they can't claim they have given up on them because they are failed concepts.
The marketing companies of the West aren't interested in fighting their battles. Stop expecting ad pimps to be responsible for liberating anyone. Instead, raise your expectations of the Chinese.
Stop expecting the Chinese to be responsible for liberating anyone. Instead, despair.
Not us anyone, but themselves. There is no reason to despair for 1.34B that prove ultimately incapable of liberating themselves. Most of their wounds since the late 1800's are culturally self induced.
It'd be nice to see them finally get the fuck up as a modern, democratic (or at least humane in the modern sense) nation, but there is a point that you just go "agh, WTF" and just sit back and watch the train wreck, waiting to see if it implodes into a self-sucking black hole, hoping it doesn't fuck up nearby nations in the process.
I find it deplorable that search engines, corps and entire governments bend over to China's economic might and implement/look over things that are unjustifiable by any modern notion of morality. But social reform is not their job or duty - that's the people's. The onus is eventually on them.
One could argue that knowledge is power, and that by removing search access to them you deprive them of the ability to fight for freedom. But the Chinese as a whole aren't some tiny tinie minority fighting for survival with bows and arrows. They have always proved themselves resourceful, and at some point they need to take responsibility for their own destiny.
Their freedom is not dependent on western search engines or corporations choosing to fight a moral fight that is not their own and for which they are not capable of even dreaming to win. Freedom, freedom in the modern sense of the world as people in the developed world knows, that depends on them, the Chinese people.
Nah; I don't need to sully any of that. He resigned (we obviously do not have all of the information, because I honestly doubt that the conversation went "you said pussy twice!" and the guy went "GAH oh noes I quit! D:") because "concerned citizen" noticed that this was coming from a local school IP address. Now, this could have two variations: if it was an elementary school, it would seem strange. If it was either a middle or high school, well, it could have easily been from any student who felt like trolling.
So, Mr. concerned citizen forwarded a message along the lines of "this e-mail address from your IP address said "pussy" twice on my website". If it had been any student e-mail, that would be the end of it because the teachers just do not have student e-mail addresses on file (usually). If it had been the headmasters e-mail address, Mr. concerned citizen would have been duly ignored.
And then Mr. concerned citizen writes an article celebrating his ability to turn someone in for saying "pussy" twice. It's slightly difficult (and disturbing) to believe that Mr. concerned citizen had the local school IP address memorized to the point where a brief glance at the e-mail alert tipped him off that this was a serious issue.
It will be a delight to see if this becomes a normal thing. You know, adults posting on a not-child oriented website and being punished for using naughty words. I'm sure the teacher wasn't on a lunch break, or wasn't waiting for 1200 copies to print, or wasn't waiting for his students to finish a test, etc. Almost as atrocious as someone replying to slashdot on the clock, with their employers computer assets.
But maybe I just find the idea of being tracked to your job by a hypersensitive journalist a little off putting.
I'd find being tracked to my home computer by a hypersensitive journalist off putting.
But to be tracked down to my job PC, I would not find that off putting at all. In fact, that's what any person with at least a pair of functioning neurons should expect, independently of whether the journalist was right or not.
Intelligence and a bit of common sense, specially when using one's employer's assets. I mean, c'mon. These aren't partial differential equations. It's really that simple.
Suppose he decides that he should moderate out disagreeable posts? He's well within his rights to do so, as a moderator.
I just find it ridiculous that the adults have greater difficulty coping with foul language than the kids.
And that, ladies and gentlemen is what differentiates between adults and children.
Seriously, it's a word. Delete it and warn him if you really feel threatened by it; you don't contact the organization it came from.
That is his prerogative and right, and this is what most of the posters here fail to realize. People who say otherwise do so just as a matter of convenience without any valid, logical reason or principle behind their argumentation.
So, instead of saying to the journalist not to do something that is his right, you should be saying "dude, don't fool around while using a work's computer, specially if it is in the education sector."
Which is a more reasonable and valid proposition.
How comical it would have been if he had called them instead..."Hello Mr. Rumples, I have a serious issue to address. You see, someone from within your school said pussy....twice. On the internet."
Comical or not, it can happen and it will happen, justifiably or not. So you can either be intelligent or e-tarded. Just as in real life, on the net, Darwin is unforgiving.
Why did you bother crossposting it on the FP? You're already modded up.
Because most knee-jerking/.ers posters need to have a good dose of reality rammed into their heads from time to time. It's not like I really care about some e-creed of getting myself modded up or down.
I can understand the need to put the breaks on blatant cross-posting, but when all is said and done, there are two types of/.er posters here: one will look at the cross-post, rub a bunch of neurons inside their skulls before agreeing (or disagreeing) with the post. Then is the other kind what will go ZOMG!!11(10+1)POSTWH0R3! going into a debating frenzy on the merits of the modd'ing system.
Which one are you (and by you I mean any reader), that's your own deal dude.
Yeah, it will come handy for e-fooling around while on the clock using work assets <sarcasm>
Your personal freedoms and right to anonymity end when you use equipment that is not your own (but your company) and you are doing it while on the clock for purposes other than those tasked to you while on the clock.
At home (or out of your company's equipment) and while off the clock, certainly, protect your privacy and right of anonymity.
While on the clock and/or using your company's assets, sorry dude, you have no right to that.
Slashdot Mirror
I read a paper on SOA once. It might as well be titled how to prevent small rocks from crashing into our Sun.
So you base your opinion on reading a paper on SOA once? Amazing.
Anything that uses XML for RPC and has no concept of distributed transactions (Compensation) rightfully deserves to continue its steady march into irrelevent obscurity
1. XML for RPC, why not? It's just a freaking format for transporting stuff. I know there are obvious problems with the bulk of WS-*, but there is nothing inherently wrong with using XML for RPC in certain contexs
2. Distributed transactions are an academic/vendor/architect astronaut white elephant, the solution for very extreme, fringe scenarios where simultaneous ACID properties over distributed resources is actually needed more than scalability. They aren't scalable, they are hard to reason with, and this is why no one that has to deal with massive scalability and availability requirements uses them.
If it doesn't at least support distributed transactions its not worth wasting ones time over.
Uh, why would an enterprise architecture style provides for transaction management, which is an application-specific feature. Distributed transactions are not even an infrastructure feature. No one worth mentioning uses them, and almost everyone that uses them didn't need them in the first place. This is why people in the trenches opt for compensating (rollback) transactions and "sagas" over distributed transactions. And this is not "news", so I don't know from what kind of work experience you keep talking about distributed transactions as the make-or-break factor in deciding over SOA... or anything for that matter.
As a CS student I think you should focus on product development, not IT. You absolutely should intern at a technology company whose main focus is products - and whose _customers_ may include IT departments. You won't be paid a whole lot, but the tasks you get will also be very simple, relatively speaking, and while they may be important, once taken care of you'll have plenty of time to poke around with whatever interests you. You may be asked to say add an option to a compiler, tweak a kernel build, or add data gathering and instrumentation - things that the other developers would like to have but don't find time to do themselves. If in the process you find something you think might make an interesting project by all means suggest it, chances are you'll get to go do it, unless it seems overly ambitious to the extreme.
^^^ Yes, yes and yes to this.
"I'm in college and working towards my Bachelors in Computer Science. Last year I passed both my CompTIA A+ and Network+ certifications and now have been offered (via a staffing company) a full-time Internship at a wireless lab of a major laptop manufacturer. The pay is going to be around $8 an hour full-time but that is not my primary motivator. I'm considering this significant decrease in pay from my previous (non-IT) job to be counterbalanced by what valuable knowledge I may gain both in the technical aspects and industry insight while I finish school. This field is all new to me and I don't personally know anyone who has worked in it before who will give me their honest opinions on it. Although I know circumstances differ greatly, in general, what can I expect as an IT Intern? What have been your experiences?"
$8/hr is still kinda low, even for an intern doing IT work, but still. Learn as much as you can, even if it means devoting more hours to learning after your daily work is done. Having said that, this is all assuming that there is a chance to learn the nitty gritty details of Unix/Windows administration, laying out networks, troubleshooting production problems (and if you are lucky, learning shell/perl/powershell programming and setting up cron/database jobs, schedule remote user/software updates, setting up security shit, and things like that.
And this is the thing, if all you get to do is install software for users and answering phone calls from customers (being the human router who creates a ticket for them and assign them to the actual person who will do the grunt work), then fuck it, you will not learn anything.
There are three levels of IT support (usually): tier I (what I just described), tier II and tier III (the later being the one where you get your hands dirty into the servers, the network, the latrine, whatever pile of shit needs to be stirred to get things back up and running.) Tier III is where you want to be if you want to maximize your learning experience. Tier II might or might not (depending on the company), but tier I, you'll bore yourself to death and you won't learn squat.
I've worked on Tier III support and I believe it helped me become a better software developer - that experienced helped me understand really well what it takes to get things running beyond my IDE and my compiler - routers, firewalls, caching and ssl devices, database listeners, job schedulers. You learn the things that will have a direct effect on your software (things that architect astronauts usually like to gloss over as they do their pretty UML modeling because they have no fucking clue how to model them or take them into account.)
I did that for a couple of years, longer than what I was planning. It was not by choice. Once you get into IT, you are stuck in it while the software development industry moves on. You can get yourself obsolete as a computer scientist and developer really quickly in a matter of 3-4 years.
But that takes me to my question - you are about to graduate from Computer Science, but you are getting CompTIA A+ and Network+ certifications and are currently looking into doing IT-related internships. Why? Not that there is anything wrong if that's the type of job you want to do, but a MIS degree (with a good focus on programming) would have served you better.
I don't know, but at least for me, Computer Science trained me for software development, software engineering, and well, computer science. It is an overkill degree to do IT work (where the business/management/people skills you get in a MIS degree combined with CompTia A+ and Network+ certs will suit better.)
Unless you get to do Tier III support during your internship, that will be a waste of the investment you have made in your Computer Science studies.
In any case, good luck!
All the details are secret; we can not know whether or not there was indeed any blackmail involved, other than the words of a woman and a judge. I myself do not feel that blackmail is a crime, in any case. Immoral, perhaps, but certainly not something to go to court over.
Interesting. So, say you or your significant other happens to have a STD, say, herpes. And let's supposed that it was contracted in a manner that you don't want to made public. Certainly not to your children or in-laws. This is something that you and your significant other manage pretty well within the privacy of your life.
And say that, I, somehow, legally or not, get a copy of your medical records which include by your own account with luxury of details how the STD got acquired in the first place. And then I send you a photocopy of it with a letter telling you that if you don't wire $10K (or whatever amount you feel like for the sake of argument) I will make that letter document available to your in-laws, your co-workers, your church and your kids.
Blackmail. Now, not finding blackmail in general criminal, or thinking that is criminal only in extreme cases (like the hypothetical one presented here), that will either be immensely idiotic or disturbingly wrong on so many levels that it is horrible to contemplate.
Speed is not Java's problem.
Java's problem is that it just doesn't work half the time. I mean often it seems like the perfect solution but then when you go to implement stuff, it just won't work correctly. So annoying. You waste more time trying to debug crap than actually developing your application. And by debug I mean it's usually some sort of problem with the browser plugin or some implementation retardedness in the JVM or whatever.
Just because YOU have problems doing your school homework and toy apps with Java, that doesn't mean Java does not work half the time in the industry, in the real world for the rest of us.
Come on. I know nobody RTFAs, but the word "server" is in the fucking summary.
How funny that you mentioned that no one RTFA - the first sentence that reads on the CommonJS' page reads as follows: Welcome to CommonJS, a group with a goal of building up the JavaScript ecosystem for web servers, desktop and command line apps and in the browser. It is not specific to server development.
But let's play your line of argument. I know that the word "server" is in the summary. So what? Ever heard of "separation of concerns"?
Just because it runs on the server, it does not mean it has to have access to thread functionality. Most application-specific Java code that runs on a web server/JEE container does. not. ever. ever. spawns. a. thread. Doesn't have to. The container is the one that managers concurrency, with app-specific code being executed in a thread to handle incoming requests.
App-specific code running on a web server is, from an architectural point of view, to be treated as managed code Every time you see managed code spawning a thread (except in initialization servlets), you should see that as a sign of a code snafu, something that can be better replaced (in most instances) with some sort of message-driven plumbing.
In a similar manner, you can have managed code on groovy, clojure or, why not, javascript, running on top of a server that does concurrency management for you.
None of the things CommonJS strives for are for building multi-threading servers, but to build managed code that runs on the server side of things.
And assuming that there was a valid initiative to include a concurrency mechanism on JavaScript, an actor/messaging/rendezvous mechanism would be more appropriate for app-specific concurrency as opposed to bare-bones threading.
RIAs that work well on IE and FireFox (the predominant browsers used in commercial sectors) are being developed today in JavaScript with jquery, gwt or dojo. And crappy client-side applications are being written as well. But anyone with a modicum of work experience knows that the responsibility of writing shitty applications rest squarely on the developer.
Some of the crappiest, worst code I've seen had been written on Java, C# and C++. And also, some of the clearest, most maintainable and elegant pieces of code I've seen were written in FoxPro and JavaScript. Every single language sucks in one aspect or another.
A good software professional, a pragmatic one, he looks at the language, at the tool, works around the problems and gets the stuff done with it in a clean manner.
Shitty programmer OTOH will screw it up no matter what.
And coding divas will get all emotionally attached to a given language, throwing subjective infantile rants towards whatever language they don't like recalling anecdotal memories mixed with technical impressions too superficial to be called "first-hand educated knowledge".
I don't like JS global scoping and lack of namespaces, but I do love it's object prototyping capabilities and support for functional programming. You can write some really complex client-side, browser-running systems with a brevity and clarity you cannot match with Java or C#.
That is the reality. It is a perfect tool? Nope. It is a good tool for what it is intended to? Yes. You can't get emotional against a tool, specially if you have never been able (or are incapable or have never assigned) to create a good NON-TRIVIAL application with it.
Here's my three favourite language flaws, which make the language nearly unusable for non-trivial projects:
will alert 2.
Global variables, lack of namespaces and block scopes are nuances that can be worked around with proper coding practices and a good understanding of the language. This is orthogonal to pointers and memory allocation in C - you play them wrong and you'll get some funny results too. But, just as in C, in JavaScript (and in any programming language for that matter), the ultimate responsibility is on the programmer.
... the browser might just as well support GWBasic. However fancy javascript may be , it doesn't take the worlds most advanced scripting language to to do pop up windows ,mouseover events and selective loading.
Instead of trying to makd the browser a cut down OS as both MS and Firefox coders seem to be headed for, they should go back to basics and make the browser a simple reliable graphics display program with some user I/O thrown in. Not some bloated monstrosity that has all the reliability of a 20 year old unserviced Trabant. Having to support an ever more complex OO interpreted language doesn't help this reliability.
The problem with this thinking is that the web, as it is utilized nowadays, requires more than a simple reliable graphics display program with some user I/O thrown in it. It is here, I sometimes don't like it either, but it is here. That's the modus operandi nowadays. So we suck it up and make it work. That's what they pay us for.
We have been running good (and bad) RIA with various degrees of JS for quite some time. I've seen some really good stuff, and some really bad stuff, both using the browser and javascript. This, and taking into account that good and bad code can be written in any language leads to conclude squarely that there is nothing intrinsic in the language and browser that can lead someone other than a shitty developer to create crappy software. And this is a truth for any software development system.
See subject-line, because that is what javascript also entails, since it is typically the delivery mechanism utilized by malicious website or ads that cause malware infestations today.
Is is a language problem, or a security engineering problem? Don't bother answering it, it is a rhetorical question.
It needs threads. I know the unwashed masses don't know what to do with them, but if you *do* know, then they can really be used to make much simpler code.
Explain to me what kind of client-side, browser-running work requires explicit usage of threads and how this will actually and definitely will lead to much simpler client-side, browser-running code? ***
I'm looking forward to see some examples of this.
*** not to mention that out of all concurrency models possible, the things you ask for client-side code is threads. Fantastic.
I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely, but JS is not a particularly 'good' language. The only advantage I can see is that thousands of Web developers can now write desktop applications. Is that necessarily a good thing? or will it just lead to more inefficient crapware?
Dude, we get crapware in any language. Have you see the average code churned out in Java, C# or C? What exactly is wrong with JS? It is a good tool for what it does. That people suck at it is another thing. In the last three large projects I've been involved (my tasks on those three have always been back-end work mind you except for Swing work at the present time), three different teams have produced phenomenal work on complex, rich UIs in JavaScript.
I wouldn't want to have done that work on Swing. Can be done, but it can really turn into a PITA to get it right and clean. That JS work I've seen has been far more superior in quality that a lot of the back-end and JSP shit that I've had to fix or integrate with in Java. Some of those javascript "web developers" you refer to can give a lesson or two on software engineering principles to many Java/C#/C++ dilettante wannabes who think JavaScript is good for nothing.
I mean seriously, I don't even work on JavaScript, but I've seen enough good work on it to really wonder what the hell some of you guys are babbling about. Not a single objective explanation of it, just pure soapbox opera. Furthermore, anyone with enough work experience knows that good software and bad software can (and is written) in any language. Suckage is language independent.
Actually the stress was from management and coworkers, which the stress from Dotnet language was nothing compared towards. Everything was fine at my job, until I got mentally and physically sick, and then I was discriminated against until I kept getting sicker and sicker and eventually fired for being too sick.
I remember these words: "Programmers are a dime a dozen. We get 500+ resumes a week for your position alone. We can easily hire a programmer who won't get sick on the job for a fraction of what we pay you." after that I was fired and escorted out by a security guard and my programming books and other property got mailed to my old address and I had to hunt it down to get it back. You'd think they'd use my new address instead of the old one, as my paychecks were mailed to my new address not the old one.
But it wasn't VB.net alone that made me sick, I want to clarify.
So what the hell did you include that for, in a post regarding DotNet?
It doesn't really matter in the web as 90% of the time is spent hitting the database. Youtube runs pretty much 100% on Python, Facebook runs on Erlang and PHP. Erlang has the benefit of being highly scalable, yet it is relatively slow. Speen in the web doesn'trelly matter much. What's important is scalability, and today's shared-nothing approach pretty mucha guarantees that at the language level.
From my experience:
Isn't the best approach to develop fast, identify the bottlenecks and then rewrite those parts in a faster language, like Python C modules?
You can't "re-code" bottlenecks at the architectural level, even if your language allows a cost-effective way to write and call native written modules. And that's the danger of "develop fast, identify and fix later".
Let me rephrase it - the problem with "develop fast, identify later" is that people seem to believe that this approach lets them avoid the identification of problems at the architectural level (by architectural meaning problems whose resolution have a significant cost, be them how you compose your system down to specific language features and even coding styles and paradigms.)
The idea of developing fast is to delay the resolution of these architectural concerns to the last responsible minute. But unfortunately, people do a poor job, fail to recognize that the last responsible minute might occur very early on during developing, leaving it until it hits production, go "oh shit" and start making poor-man, poorly made fixes with hacks that will not be sustainable on the long run during the application lifespan.
If Kansas wants to teach creationism, let them. If you don't want your child to learn creationism, don't live there.
This is the stupidest post I've seen on a long time. How old are you? Are you still in a college dorm? There are people who can't afford to move out of Kansas and who would like their children to enjoy their constitutional right for an education that will make them competitive. What would you suggest to them?
Originally, that was the whole point of having states. Different states could execute policies differently and individuals would chose where to live based on how those policies met their needs.
Uh, how nice that you forget to mention the whole point of the federal government and its power to dictate policy to the states on different legal subjects (interstate commerce, national defense, currency, etc.)
Kinda like a free market, but with government.
Except that free market and government are not comparable. That statement right there is an indictment to your education.
Part of the whole idea of "freedom" is letting people make the "wrong" choice.
And here is where you show your ignorance on governance and the meaning of freedom. You might have a point if every single person in Kansas wanted this kind of shit, and if the long term consequences of their economy and national unity HAD NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER to the other states and peoples of the union. If we were to take this "freedom means being able to make the wrong choice" to its logical conclusion, we could argue that committing a crime (a wrong choice) is also part of freedom. It isn't. Freedom is not some absolute thing that exists outside some form of regulation. Not even in the most "primitive"/egalitarian societies of today do you see such a crazy notion.
Your right to make the wrong choice ends where it has probable cause to negatively affect someone else. The idea of a board of education is to improve the education of the masses, to make them more competitive.
When that fails, when a significant sector of the population chooses to go backwards, causing the whole nation to become less competitive, that's where their right to go wrong ends. That's the price of being members of the union.
And? Did DoE's existence prevent that? Nope — they had nothing to do with it.
If, indeed, it is your opinion, that the federal Department of Education ought to trump the local school boards ("raping the Constitution" in the process), then it is not currently working anyway. May as well get rid of this giant bureaucracy — formed in 1979 it failed to improve the levels of education — things will not get any worse and might get better.
zomg! argh! violate the constitution. Dude, chill the localized rhetoric out.
You say that without the DoE, it might get better. Considering the Kansas precedence, it is also obvious that it *might not*... or better yet, that the situation will degrade.
The problem is not about centralized or decentralized boards of education, but on having a consensus on what constitutes the minimum curriculum that will improve US's standing when compared against the standards (and results) from other countries,say Japan or Germany.
There is nothing in the constitution that says the DoE cannot establish a generalized curriculum (just as the federal government has the right to regulate or protect interstate commerce.)
There are three scenarios where the Kansas fuckapocalipse wouldn't have taken place:
1. The DoE had the power to enforce a minimum curriculum (assuming said curriculum is scientifically sound), or
2. It is impossible for retarded creationist ignorantnuts to run local/state school districts.
I agree with you that we have to get rid of the giant DoE bureaucracy... by replacing it with something more effective, run by educated men of science determined to bring US scholastic averages to same levels as in other developed countries, and with the teeth to force local school districts to implement said curriculums.
I don't agree that getting rid of it entails leaving the ultimate curriculum design to the state and local school districts.
BTW, I'm not bagging on the Chinese. I'm simply stating that for democracy to takes place, they have to undergo a deep and widespread cultural change. Their culture has been based on authoritarian figures, be it dynastic or socialist. And yet, they are now consciously in the 20-21st century. So it is up to them to get democratic institutions to work for them. No amount of protestation from our part against collaborating search engines will ever change that.
Try security and stabilization: the era the Nationalist government attempted to reign in was torn apart by war, famine, and a highly corrupt and ineffective government.
And war and famine were the product of warlordism (which I mentioned in my first post), and corruption has never been something just up in the ruling elite. It's been present at all levels of society for hundreds, if not, thousands of years.
When you're constantly living in fear of getting shot and/or starving to death, democracy and human rights aren't really on the top of your "must have" list.
Exactly. This reinforces my statement that they (or anyone for that matter) can say that Chinese or the PRC's government does not believe in freedom, human rights and democracy because they were ideas they tried and failed.
They were never tried to begin with, independently of the circumstances why they were never implemented in the first place.
One thing I've learned, from watching the history of my own country, and many who come from war-torn countries will agree with, is that violence, war and corruption does not occur in a vacuum "up there" with the ruling elite. There is a social context, an ethos that runs, in one shape or another, up and down the classes/divisions of a society.
Societies that are found in that type of quagmire must change, either on their own or pressured by external forces (*) to reshape their ethos and create institutions and a sense of law of the land, which all combined makes it harder for that kind of chaos to take place.
(*) And no, I'm saying that they should be invaded and force-fed democracy. But in every society in history, their ethos and social institutions do not change for the better (or worse) in navel-gazing isolation. It is always pressure from external forces (constructive and destructive) that causes the change. It is up to each society to construct a less chaotic, less unjust reality.
BTW, I'm not bagging on the Chinese. I'm simply stating that for democracy to takes place, they have to undergo a deep and widespread cultural change. Their culture has been based on authoritarian figures, be it dynastic or socialist. And yet, they are now consciously in the 20-21st century. So it is up to them to get democratic institutions to work for them. No amount of protestation from our part against collaborating search engines will ever change that.
While the Chinese political system was rapidly turning to the end of its dynastic cycle (the pattern is pretty consistently recurrent in Chinese history), the wounds were not self induced.
The mix of colonialism and outright invasion together with cultural shock from military defeats sent China into a state of coma.
Much of the setbacks of China in the past two centuries was about drinking too much western coolaid. Not that the western ideas were worthless, but the political reforms that were supposed to "modernize" China was so laced with immature imitation of western ideology that they basically failed one by one. (Not unlike what's happening when the US tried to set up a government in Iraq)
If there's a rational explanation to China's deaf ears on petitions to human rights, freedom, democracy and the such, it's not because of some evil agenda, but rather the fact that it was tried, and didn't work out. Yes, maybe they didn't try hard enough, but nobody's in a hurry to take those risks again.
I hardly see early 1900's warlordism and subsequent fuck ups like the Cultural Revolution as the result of western cool aid. Human rights, freedom and democracy had never been tried out. The only that had ever been tried was industrialization. But human rights, freedom and democracy? When were they tried? And certainly there had been Chinese polities that have enjoyed them to various degrees of success (Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.)
Everything that has been tried in mainland China has been about twisted concepts of modernization and industrialization, during the unraveling of the Qing dinasty (or more like a lip service as reaction to Western/Japanese interventionism.) It was pretty much non-existing with the warlords period and during the Sino-Japanese war. And then, they went at it again with the establishment of the PRC within the frame of failed ideologies and false, snake-oil sociology.
At no point there has been a single entity or polity in Mainland China that has tried human rights, freedom and democracy. Ergo, they can't claim they have given up on them because they are failed concepts.
The marketing companies of the West aren't interested in fighting their battles. Stop expecting ad pimps to be responsible for liberating anyone. Instead, raise your expectations of the Chinese.
Stop expecting the Chinese to be responsible for liberating anyone. Instead, despair.
Not us anyone, but themselves. There is no reason to despair for 1.34B that prove ultimately incapable of liberating themselves. Most of their wounds since the late 1800's are culturally self induced.
It'd be nice to see them finally get the fuck up as a modern, democratic (or at least humane in the modern sense) nation, but there is a point that you just go "agh, WTF" and just sit back and watch the train wreck, waiting to see if it implodes into a self-sucking black hole, hoping it doesn't fuck up nearby nations in the process.
I find it deplorable that search engines, corps and entire governments bend over to China's economic might and implement/look over things that are unjustifiable by any modern notion of morality. But social reform is not their job or duty - that's the people's. The onus is eventually on them.
One could argue that knowledge is power, and that by removing search access to them you deprive them of the ability to fight for freedom. But the Chinese as a whole aren't some tiny tinie minority fighting for survival with bows and arrows. They have always proved themselves resourceful, and at some point they need to take responsibility for their own destiny.
Their freedom is not dependent on western search engines or corporations choosing to fight a moral fight that is not their own and for which they are not capable of even dreaming to win. Freedom, freedom in the modern sense of the world as people in the developed world knows, that depends on them, the Chinese people.
Nah; I don't need to sully any of that. He resigned (we obviously do not have all of the information, because I honestly doubt that the conversation went "you said pussy twice!" and the guy went "GAH oh noes I quit! D:") because "concerned citizen" noticed that this was coming from a local school IP address. Now, this could have two variations: if it was an elementary school, it would seem strange. If it was either a middle or high school, well, it could have easily been from any student who felt like trolling.
So, Mr. concerned citizen forwarded a message along the lines of "this e-mail address from your IP address said "pussy" twice on my website". If it had been any student e-mail, that would be the end of it because the teachers just do not have student e-mail addresses on file (usually). If it had been the headmasters e-mail address, Mr. concerned citizen would have been duly ignored.
And then Mr. concerned citizen writes an article celebrating his ability to turn someone in for saying "pussy" twice. It's slightly difficult (and disturbing) to believe that Mr. concerned citizen had the local school IP address memorized to the point where a brief glance at the e-mail alert tipped him off that this was a serious issue.
It will be a delight to see if this becomes a normal thing. You know, adults posting on a not-child oriented website and being punished for using naughty words. I'm sure the teacher wasn't on a lunch break, or wasn't waiting for 1200 copies to print, or wasn't waiting for his students to finish a test, etc. Almost as atrocious as someone replying to slashdot on the clock, with their employers computer assets.
But maybe I just find the idea of being tracked to your job by a hypersensitive journalist a little off putting.
I'd find being tracked to my home computer by a hypersensitive journalist off putting.
But to be tracked down to my job PC, I would not find that off putting at all. In fact, that's what any person with at least a pair of functioning neurons should expect, independently of whether the journalist was right or not.
Intelligence and a bit of common sense, specially when using one's employer's assets. I mean, c'mon. These aren't partial differential equations. It's really that simple.
Suppose he decides that he should moderate out disagreeable posts? He's well within his rights to do so, as a moderator.
I just find it ridiculous that the adults have greater difficulty coping with foul language than the kids.
And that, ladies and gentlemen is what differentiates between adults and children.
Seriously, it's a word. Delete it and warn him if you really feel threatened by it; you don't contact the organization it came from.
That is his prerogative and right, and this is what most of the posters here fail to realize. People who say otherwise do so just as a matter of convenience without any valid, logical reason or principle behind their argumentation.
So, instead of saying to the journalist not to do something that is his right, you should be saying "dude, don't fool around while using a work's computer, specially if it is in the education sector."
Which is a more reasonable and valid proposition.
How comical it would have been if he had called them instead..."Hello Mr. Rumples, I have a serious issue to address. You see, someone from within your school said pussy....twice. On the internet."
Comical or not, it can happen and it will happen, justifiably or not. So you can either be intelligent or e-tarded. Just as in real life, on the net, Darwin is unforgiving.
The guy had it coming.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1449584&cid=30155058
Why did you bother crossposting it on the FP? You're already modded up.
Because most knee-jerking /.ers posters need to have a good dose of reality rammed into their heads from time to time. It's not like I really care about some e-creed of getting myself modded up or down.
I can understand the need to put the breaks on blatant cross-posting, but when all is said and done, there are two types of /.er posters here: one will look at the cross-post, rub a bunch of neurons inside their skulls before agreeing (or disagreeing) with the post. Then is the other kind what will go ZOMG!!11(10+1)POSTWH0R3! going into a debating frenzy on the merits of the modd'ing system.
Which one are you (and by you I mean any reader), that's your own deal dude.
Time to start using TOR: http://www.torproject.org/.
Here kitty, kitty!
Yeah, it will come handy for e-fooling around while on the clock using work assets <sarcasm>
Your personal freedoms and right to anonymity end when you use equipment that is not your own (but your company) and you are doing it while on the clock for purposes other than those tasked to you while on the clock.
At home (or out of your company's equipment) and while off the clock, certainly, protect your privacy and right of anonymity.
While on the clock and/or using your company's assets, sorry dude, you have no right to that.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1449584&cid=30155058