Ah yes, and why do I need that status bar again? The right thing to do would be to fork the thing if you want it to be different and see if other people agree on it and use it too.
Thankfully, I am able to learn. And the features I used with Firefox have not changed drastically. I have an URL input field, a back button, I can drag URLs to bookmarks, there is a search bar integrated nice. If it is once integrated into the URL input field fine. If they would change it one day into an unusable piece of junk, then I would look for a new browser, but they did not do that.
This whole discussion is like the MS introduction of ribbons. They make things easier for newbies, but everyone else has to find their stuff again. Unpleasant, but nothing you cannot figure out in a few days. And yes the ribbons are not perfect, and the organization of functionality still is not totally logic, but hey maybe they will adapt that in future. And then I will adapt too.
No I do not. Why should I even try to remember it? I also do not want to remember Mosaic. Beside nostalgic feelings and the lie that everything was better than and rude behavior on the net was reserved for alt.* , there is no need for it. If you want a new UI, write your own. You can use the gecko engine and plug it into your UI of choice. Fiddling around with icons and button positions is not going to help. You could even fork their UI and replace the bad preference dialog jungle. For an end user, however, all these considerations are unimportant. They want to work with the software.
In Europe, especially in Germany, many people use Firefox, because it is not MS and it does not suck like IE. And they are a lot of people. So to stay in the game not being replaced by the new MS browser, you have to provide a fast and responsive behavior of your browser. Firefox can do that, if they want. And from their post, it looks like that is direction they are going.
Most people just want to use their browser. Almost everyone I know uses Firefox mostly because IE sucked so much in the past. And they do not play around with themes. They might install icon sets, but only at home.
I know geeks like to configure everything and that is OK , but it is not what matters for the majority of users.
And no I do not want to use the Google sees it all tool for obvious reasons.
Really, themes are an important feature? I hardly ever configure something in my browser so it looks different. I might do so if I find something annoying, like this chat thing they included several releases ago. I want a working browser. It should be fast and stable. And I want to share bookmarks and the keyring in a save way between all my accounts. True the tool should be able to use the icons of the specific host OS or UI framework, but beyond that. I do not see the need of some extra theming stuff.
Instead make insurance compulsory and a general service for all without any deductibles. Your payment is determined based on your income. So if you do not have any income you are insured but have to pay nothing. Yes you call that socialism. I call it security. For example, until last month, I was working for the university. Presently, I am unemployed, because the project funding ended and a follow up project is still in the process to be granted (or not granted). So in the mean time, I get my money from unemployment insurance, they also pay my healthcare insurance, and my retirement fund.
No it is only in the wrong place. The correct headline is: US Government IT is poorly managed due to outsourcing.
But that is still wrong, as the IT does perfectly what it should do. It costs money which goes to private corporations and it is ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that.
Ah and in the end the state is broke, and so are you. And the private corporation owner is rich, because when the state finally sued the corporation, it went bankrupt, just after a year of great revenue for investors and the management. The latter was fired and got golden parachutes.
Well in that case. Why call it Star Trek when it is not Star Trek. It would be fine to make a new TV sci-fi series, but using the name Star Trek requires that you interconnect with the rest otherwise it looks fake. And there is a enough space out there to either make something new in Star Trek or invent a new series.
And any inconsistencies are fun to discuss or to point our in the series, as long as you do not try to answer, like the non walnut Klingons in TOS, which where fun mentioned in DS9, but lame when explained in Enterprise. What Star Trek definitely is not, is an action peng biong chack series, as the humans life in a positive alternate reality.
And while they addressed, racism, sexism, greed, stupidity, imperialism, lying, and other moral issues, there are enough nice things left which are totally present in the here and now, like refugee treks, proxy wars, climate change, science replaced by bigotry, drug lords, divide in the rich and the poor (states, worlds), limited resources, etc. And then you can combine that with all the fears people have with that. Migrants and refugees => lower wages, no retirement, no healthcare (a yes this is a European fear, as we currently have that), violence, losing identity, hunger, wars, all the dark ages again, etc. So that should help to create 20 to 30 episodes alone. And then there are all these personal issues which can discuss in a fiction series. Personal greed, anger, hate, egotism, chauvinisms (and there are plenty of them), ignorance, hardheartedness, jealousy.
So where does ST limit you to write a series? That you could use Ferengi to represent greed? Come on. You could invent other greedy species.
While "Enterprise" was mostly a series without substance, it had its moments when it tried to be Star Trek. Star Trek is about a positive future, an alternate reality to ours. A reality where we fail to live up to the ideas of the enlightenment. It did so in the 1960s by treating all crew members, like humans. It did not matter if they where blue or black or pink. It showed us that humans on other planets might ruin themselves over nothing (Let That Be Your Last Battlefield). In the 1980s TNG focused more on interrelationship things and problems of understanding, on action on real problems, and that we should not abandon technology or become it slave or subject.
However, in 2010* they blew up Vulcan, because logic sucks if you want to make an action movie. So most likely they also throw out any other part of the alternate reality. Because we all know that we life in the mirror universe.
A method should not evolve in something that does something completely different than before. Lets say it is labelled collectAllCustomers than it should do so. It should not start to collect only a specific group of customers. If the method has side effects which effect other methods behavior than this should be mentioned (if it is not plain obvious, like with getters and setters).
However, I absolutely agree with you that some "programmers", I would rather call them code monkeys, do not know what they do and they fuck up code beyond repair, which includes code comments and also documentation. Yes it is faster to not document decisions or even decide as you go, but later when you need to change it again, it is much harder to find out what the stuff does.
I would recommend that Google builds these apartments close to their campus, like a 10 to 20 minute walk or bike ride. Not a 50 km distance. To place living and working close together saves time and money, reduces stress, resource consumption, and requires less roads.
I read the article. Honestly, it sucks. And I should have known it. Anyway, to let come something good about it, here are his arguments: a) gotos are only a problem when the result in entangled code and in some cases they make code more readable, because you may avoid if-then-else trees. - This is wrong for a number of reasons: Too many nested if-then-else result in too much complexity and violate another coding style, ergo such structures are already bad in the first place, to fix them with a goto makes things not better. - Many languages used nowadays do not provide a real goto. Even though Java has jump labels, but should not use them!! b) Commenting all functions is wrong. - Well this is true, however, it is also not a rule. It was a rule in the days where your function names where limited. - You should document functions which have side effects, and you should document the purpose of classes, modules, etc. - Never document after writing. Write the documentation first, let it explain what the implementation should do and why, then write the code, then fix the documentation c) Jamming too much code on one line, i.e., do not write component.interface.orderSushi() - I do not know where the guy is from, but that is not against any rule - While he is right here, which jerk still uses such limitations? Checkstyle, PMD, and Findbugs have no problem with what he wants. And yes your line should not be that long that you cannot see the whole statement/expression. d) Not declaring types, he means not using types for declaration - In languages, like C and Java you must give variables a type - in Xtend the type can be inferred in many cases, then you can skip them in the definition. Yes you can, however, sometimes it is still more useful to type explicitly, because it prevents a variable or value to be used in the wrong way. e) Yo-yo code, he means do not convert numerical values to string to pass them to some code and convert it back afterwards - This is a perfect and good advice. Actually, it is an advice for a moron. You NEVER do that. - However, it makes sense in his example, because if you are ordered to use a library which uses strings you must convert, but that is not a violation of the do not make stupid moron code, it is the "bad luck, you have to interface with some moron's library" situation. f) Writing your own data structures is a bad choice - First, this is utter nonsense, we write new data structures for every program. Where is this guy from? - Second, he means storage routines. Well that depends. If you want to write your own OR-mapper then that is a wast of time. That will never be faster and never be able to work with any scaling technology. - Third, I cannot see a real clear argument in that section, but maybe he is right, because it is Tuesday. g) Breaking out of loops in the middle - That depends on the language. If your language has no garbage collection mechanism or you passed references to data and changed it, such jump out could leave you with an incomplete state. However, we do not teach that this is illegal or bad practice, as we teach Java at university. It could be stupid, if this results in a lot of code duplication in the dependent return (if (bla) { code; return rubbish; } h) Do not use short variable names - Yes you should not use short variable names, when they do not express what the variable does. - However, i,j,k are iterator variables. We know them from math. - In contrast f is not a good variable name (in most cases) so better call it fartCounter or even better countFarts, depending on the purpose in your game i) Redefining operators and functions is evil Yes it is. And no there are no good reasons to do so as a programmer unless your redefinition is WELL documented and stays the same in the whole program. It is already stupid that Java uses the plus sign for String concatenation. Especially, because String is a calls in Java and not a data type. However, it sucks even more if the + sign or * sign is redefined and means one time multiplication of two scalars and the time it is a cross product. It might be more code to type (or to provide by the IDE) to actually write a function name, but please do so, it increases readability.
Why not invest and build apartment buildings. That is most likely cheaper than a flipping truck. And with little help from Google that house might be close to the workplace. For Google it might be clever to build such house themselves and rent and sell it to their employees. At least it would require less space than everyone having a truck consuming the parking space.
Modern life sucks so much, lets go back to the caves. Cave life was so much more healthy, beside you die with 40, but hey, this is so much closer to what we where.
His main theme is, people do not want it and it did not work that way in the past. While it is usual to determine the future by past experience, it is not a totally save method to predict the future.
Use git for your server stuff you can use gitlab which can be installed locally. I do not know if it is easy to install on Windows, however, it is not important what runs on the server from a user's perspective. It works well on Linux.
The fun fact here is, VW engines where able to pass the test and if they used the same settings in normal operation then there would be no problem at all.
Of course all companies tune their devices to look good in the tests. This is nothing new and appears in all industries. The silly Mhz race with processors or the same shit with graphic processing units. Even on food labels they state calories, sugar etc. based on funky units, like meal size or portion. And we all know that cars use more fuel than advertised. True VW has really gone too far with it, but all the other are also cheats. And if there is a hell they will all go there.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes, and why do I need that status bar again? The right thing to do would be to fork the thing if you want it to be different and see if other people agree on it and use it too.
Thankfully, I am able to learn. And the features I used with Firefox have not changed drastically. I have an URL input field, a back button, I can drag URLs to bookmarks, there is a search bar integrated nice. If it is once integrated into the URL input field fine. If they would change it one day into an unusable piece of junk, then I would look for a new browser, but they did not do that.
This whole discussion is like the MS introduction of ribbons. They make things easier for newbies, but everyone else has to find their stuff again. Unpleasant, but nothing you cannot figure out in a few days. And yes the ribbons are not perfect, and the organization of functionality still is not totally logic, but hey maybe they will adapt that in future. And then I will adapt too.
No I do not. Why should I even try to remember it? I also do not want to remember Mosaic. Beside nostalgic feelings and the lie that everything was better than and rude behavior on the net was reserved for alt.* , there is no need for it. If you want a new UI, write your own. You can use the gecko engine and plug it into your UI of choice. Fiddling around with icons and button positions is not going to help. You could even fork their UI and replace the bad preference dialog jungle. For an end user, however, all these considerations are unimportant. They want to work with the software.
In Europe, especially in Germany, many people use Firefox, because it is not MS and it does not suck like IE. And they are a lot of people. So to stay in the game not being replaced by the new MS browser, you have to provide a fast and responsive behavior of your browser. Firefox can do that, if they want. And from their post, it looks like that is direction they are going.
Most people just want to use their browser. Almost everyone I know uses Firefox mostly because IE sucked so much in the past. And they do not play around with themes. They might install icon sets, but only at home.
I know geeks like to configure everything and that is OK , but it is not what matters for the majority of users.
And no I do not want to use the Google sees it all tool for obvious reasons.
Really, themes are an important feature? I hardly ever configure something in my browser so it looks different. I might do so if I find something annoying, like this chat thing they included several releases ago. I want a working browser. It should be fast and stable. And I want to share bookmarks and the keyring in a save way between all my accounts. True the tool should be able to use the icons of the specific host OS or UI framework, but beyond that. I do not see the need of some extra theming stuff.
Don't worry the BND is actually only a branch of NSA, they spy for the US on everyone including German diplomats.
Instead make insurance compulsory and a general service for all without any deductibles. Your payment is determined based on your income. So if you do not have any income you are insured but have to pay nothing. Yes you call that socialism. I call it security. For example, until last month, I was working for the university. Presently, I am unemployed, because the project funding ended and a follow up project is still in the process to be granted (or not granted). So in the mean time, I get my money from unemployment insurance, they also pay my healthcare insurance, and my retirement fund.
You are absolutely right. Could someone please mod that up. Thanks.
No other parts are outsourced too. Military, policing, writing laws for Corporate America, to name a few.
No it is only in the wrong place. The correct headline is: US Government IT is poorly managed due to outsourcing.
But that is still wrong, as the IT does perfectly what it should do. It costs money which goes to private corporations and it is ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that. In the end the mess will be ineffective. Therefore, it must be fixed by a private corporation, which will charge a ludicrous amount of money for that.
Ah and in the end the state is broke, and so are you. And the private corporation owner is rich, because when the state finally sued the corporation, it went bankrupt, just after a year of great revenue for investors and the management. The latter was fired and got golden parachutes.
Well in that case. Why call it Star Trek when it is not Star Trek. It would be fine to make a new TV sci-fi series, but using the name Star Trek requires that you interconnect with the rest otherwise it looks fake. And there is a enough space out there to either make something new in Star Trek or invent a new series.
And any inconsistencies are fun to discuss or to point our in the series, as long as you do not try to answer, like the non walnut Klingons in TOS, which where fun mentioned in DS9, but lame when explained in Enterprise. What Star Trek definitely is not, is an action peng biong chack series, as the humans life in a positive alternate reality.
And while they addressed, racism, sexism, greed, stupidity, imperialism, lying, and other moral issues, there are enough nice things left which are totally present in the here and now, like refugee treks, proxy wars, climate change, science replaced by bigotry, drug lords, divide in the rich and the poor (states, worlds), limited resources, etc.
And then you can combine that with all the fears people have with that. Migrants and refugees => lower wages, no retirement, no healthcare (a yes this is a European fear, as we currently have that), violence, losing identity, hunger, wars, all the dark ages again, etc.
So that should help to create 20 to 30 episodes alone. And then there are all these personal issues which can discuss in a fiction series. Personal greed, anger, hate, egotism, chauvinisms (and there are plenty of them), ignorance, hardheartedness, jealousy.
So where does ST limit you to write a series? That you could use Ferengi to represent greed? Come on. You could invent other greedy species.
While "Enterprise" was mostly a series without substance, it had its moments when it tried to be Star Trek. Star Trek is about a positive future, an alternate reality to ours. A reality where we fail to live up to the ideas of the enlightenment. It did so in the 1960s by treating all crew members, like humans. It did not matter if they where blue or black or pink. It showed us that humans on other planets might ruin themselves over nothing (Let That Be Your Last Battlefield). In the 1980s TNG focused more on interrelationship things and problems of understanding, on action on real problems, and that we should not abandon technology or become it slave or subject.
However, in 2010* they blew up Vulcan, because logic sucks if you want to make an action movie. So most likely they also throw out any other part of the alternate reality. Because we all know that we life in the mirror universe.
It sucks, but is still better than the present non regulation.
Totally! Ahm. I agree with your assessment.
A method should not evolve in something that does something completely different than before. Lets say it is labelled collectAllCustomers than it should do so. It should not start to collect only a specific group of customers. If the method has side effects which effect other methods behavior than this should be mentioned (if it is not plain obvious, like with getters and setters).
However, I absolutely agree with you that some "programmers", I would rather call them code monkeys, do not know what they do and they fuck up code beyond repair, which includes code comments and also documentation. Yes it is faster to not document decisions or even decide as you go, but later when you need to change it again, it is much harder to find out what the stuff does.
I would recommend that Google builds these apartments close to their campus, like a 10 to 20 minute walk or bike ride. Not a 50 km distance. To place living and working close together saves time and money, reduces stress, resource consumption, and requires less roads.
I read the article. Honestly, it sucks. And I should have known it. Anyway, to let come something good about it, here are his arguments:
a) gotos are only a problem when the result in entangled code and in some cases they make code more readable, because you may avoid if-then-else trees.
- This is wrong for a number of reasons: Too many nested if-then-else result in too much complexity and violate another coding style, ergo such structures are already bad in the first place, to fix them with a goto makes things not better.
- Many languages used nowadays do not provide a real goto. Even though Java has jump labels, but should not use them!!
b) Commenting all functions is wrong.
- Well this is true, however, it is also not a rule. It was a rule in the days where your function names where limited.
- You should document functions which have side effects, and you should document the purpose of classes, modules, etc.
- Never document after writing. Write the documentation first, let it explain what the implementation should do and why, then write the code, then fix the documentation
c) Jamming too much code on one line, i.e., do not write component.interface.orderSushi()
- I do not know where the guy is from, but that is not against any rule
- While he is right here, which jerk still uses such limitations? Checkstyle, PMD, and Findbugs have no problem with what he wants. And yes your line should not be that long that you cannot see the whole statement/expression.
d) Not declaring types, he means not using types for declaration
- In languages, like C and Java you must give variables a type
- in Xtend the type can be inferred in many cases, then you can skip them in the definition. Yes you can, however, sometimes it is still more useful to type explicitly, because it prevents a variable or value to be used in the wrong way.
e) Yo-yo code, he means do not convert numerical values to string to pass them to some code and convert it back afterwards
- This is a perfect and good advice. Actually, it is an advice for a moron. You NEVER do that.
- However, it makes sense in his example, because if you are ordered to use a library which uses strings you must convert, but that is not a violation of the do not make stupid moron code, it is the "bad luck, you have to interface with some moron's library" situation.
f) Writing your own data structures is a bad choice
- First, this is utter nonsense, we write new data structures for every program. Where is this guy from?
- Second, he means storage routines. Well that depends. If you want to write your own OR-mapper then that is a wast of time. That will never be faster and never be able to work with any scaling technology.
- Third, I cannot see a real clear argument in that section, but maybe he is right, because it is Tuesday.
g) Breaking out of loops in the middle
- That depends on the language. If your language has no garbage collection mechanism or you passed references to data and changed it, such jump out could leave you with an incomplete state. However, we do not teach that this is illegal or bad practice, as we teach Java at university. It could be stupid, if this results in a lot of code duplication in the dependent return (if (bla) { code; return rubbish; }
h) Do not use short variable names
- Yes you should not use short variable names, when they do not express what the variable does.
- However, i,j,k are iterator variables. We know them from math.
- In contrast f is not a good variable name (in most cases) so better call it fartCounter or even better countFarts, depending on the purpose in your game
i) Redefining operators and functions is evil
Yes it is. And no there are no good reasons to do so as a programmer unless your redefinition is WELL documented and stays the same in the whole program. It is already stupid that Java uses the plus sign for String concatenation. Especially, because String is a calls in Java and not a data type. However, it sucks even more if the + sign or * sign is redefined and means one time multiplication of two scalars and the time it is a cross product.
It might be more code to type (or to provide by the IDE) to actually write a function name, but please do so, it increases readability.
Why not invest and build apartment buildings. That is most likely cheaper than a flipping truck.
And with little help from Google that house might be close to the workplace. For Google it might be clever to build such house themselves and rent and sell it to their employees. At least it would require less space than everyone having a truck consuming the parking space.
Modern life sucks so much, lets go back to the caves. Cave life was so much more healthy, beside you die with 40, but hey, this is so much closer to what we where.
His main theme is, people do not want it and it did not work that way in the past. While it is usual to determine the future by past experience, it is not a totally save method to predict the future.
Use git for your server stuff you can use gitlab which can be installed locally. I do not know if it is easy to install on Windows, however, it is not important what runs on the server from a user's perspective. It works well on Linux.
Many kids would like to have this one http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b...
a blue elephant from German TV.
The fun fact here is, VW engines where able to pass the test and if they used the same settings in normal operation then there would be no problem at all.
Of course all companies tune their devices to look good in the tests. This is nothing new and appears in all industries. The silly Mhz race with processors or the same shit with graphic processing units. Even on food labels they state calories, sugar etc. based on funky units, like meal size or portion. And we all know that cars use more fuel than advertised. True VW has really gone too far with it, but all the other are also cheats. And if there is a hell they will all go there.