Hopefully a well seasoned senior engineer has that talent, but too many choose not to use it (or develop it). I actually just lost the opportunity to develop a full fledged JSF2.0 application and am sad that the creative department decided to include the tool in their application suite. Back to building service calls.
Such pedantry has personally saved me much embarrassment, and I'm a native speaker of this stupid language. I'd say you did more than just save Chatsubo, there are others on this board thinking about that phrase now.
I'm on my first TDD and I have to say it doesn't come naturally. I'm feeling quite like the poster and am here for good advice. I already have the Pragmatic Programmer on my amazon wishlist.
However, unlike the poster I have several years of experience and now that I'm in an environment that supports TDD, it's not as easy as many proclaim. It requires a certain style of problem solving that I have yet to acclimate. I do see the benefits and when my thinking shifts, it should be an extraordinary tool. But please do not give the impression it can be picked up overnight.
You did not prove that solar is not cheaper. Price per watt at optimal anything is not interesting to anyone, including the GP. New solar lowering business cost is a difficult equation that is case specific. You are just as incorrect as the GP.
That's one of the reasons given for the retro-gaming craze. Modern games spend too much time developing complex systems. Time spent developing complex systems is time not spent ensuring complex paths. Developing both is what every sandbox game attempts, with minimal success. The retro-gaming craze is definitely tied to nostalgia, but also the fact that simple systems allow incredibly complex path structures.
I think you actually add weight to the GP's premise, even if you tore down one of his points. We are optimization engines (at least us rational engineer types). But when we optimize we don't do it like computers. We don't check all possible routes as we consider many of them sub-optimal. But computational theory mandates that even the seemingly sub-optimal paths be explored. Some people do this kind of experimentation some times, but it's too time consuming so that's the exception rather than the rule. In fact I'd surmise that every good engineer has done this at least once in their life, then hopefully realized the usefulness of computers.
Music, movies, software and books are all things that fall under IP. They take significant amounts of time and money and effort to create, but once created they are trivially reproduced.
False. It takes great expense and effort to recreate some of the concerts I've enjoyed. It is near impossible to duplicate the emotional involvement of a crowd in a theater (live actors or big screen). It is next to impossible to replicate WoW's servers. Just because it has become trivial to reproduce those areas where industries previously profited does not mean that it is trivial to reproduce the artistic work and status of enjoying said work. If industry would discontinue profits from distribution, we could all come out ahead.
Ideas do continue to be worthless. It is implementations that are useful. 20th century progress was not built on ideas. It was built on real and tangible goods and services that created capital transactions. That such goods and services were based on ideas is immaterial. There are many goods and services (real and otherwise) that are based on ideas that are worthless, even if the idea is solid. I have no money for patent trolls and others who sit on their ass trying to collect on other's hard-work, even if they had a good idea once. I've had many good ideas, but haven't or couldn't implemented them for various reasons. Why give me an incentive to build nothing of value but attempt to capitalize on my idea? How does that advance America?
Do I have that right culturally? Absolutely. My peers and I decided long ago that we were not interested in the legal definition of copyright. Companies like Apple and Steam have gone a long way towards healing the right between what is legally acceptable and what is culturally acceptable. I have not downloaded music or video games in a long time partially because services are available that are easier than copyright infringement, but also because my peers and I no longer consider the cost of such items prohibitive. I leave it to the current college students and indie artists to fight the good fight there.
What my peers and I are still not sold on is the stranglehold of content some distributors have. This is primarily for visual content. NetFlix and Hulu are the solutions here, but as long as companies like HBO prevent me from legally obtaining their works for outrageous DVD prices or a cable subscription, my peers and I will encourage copyright violations. If you, personally, do not like the position my culture has taken, it is worth your time to understand our culture like Apple and Steam have. Proselytizing is, on the other hand, counter-productive and only reinforces our decisions.
Copyright is not capitalism. Government granted monopolies are about the highest definition of anti-capitalism. If supply and demand were actually encouraged then publishing and distribution would hit the cost of $0.00 as competition would push the natural cost to nil. However, due to copyright laws and government backed monopolies, there is no competition. Only one entity gets to determine these prices on the white market.
Picasso paintings are worth millions because everyone wants the original. It has nothing to do with copyright, which speaking of Picasso, I can obtain a legal copy here for significantly less than millions. And such a product is a great service as physical paintings cannot take advantage of digital distribution. I am not nearly so interested in The Beatles (White Album) master tapes, even though it is consistently one of my favorite listens. Yes, it'd be cool to have, but I can't "use" them like I can "use" a Picasso original on my wall.
Your statement about fairness is disagreeable to me. I do not find it fair for someone to sit on their ass because their grandparent was able to create 1 item of considerable value. I don't even find it fair for the grandparent to do the same. I especially do not find it fair for that same grandparent to control who is able to modify, perform, or distribute that work. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder and not worth arguing.
What I do find worth arguing is that copyright has hurt artistic creation more than aided it. Copyright steals the ability of artists to build from each other, and has developed a nonsensical desire for "original" work, as though art can be designed without copying the techniques of those that came before. There exists a legal point at which one work of work is too similar to another. Why don't the markets decide that someone is building too strongly on someone else's work? Currently it isn't allowed. Assume that Vanilla Ice really did take the bass line for "Ice Ice Baby" straight from Queen's work. Does that truly hurt Queen's ability to create? Which is the greater promotion of art, fining Vanilla Ice? Or letting people judge the quality of both works on their own time and to their own tastes?
Distilling all 20th century innovation into an argument for copyright is some kind of logical fallacy. The level of dissonance is massive. First and foremost, few would contribute any of the major innovations (anti-biotics, semi-conductors, computational theory, etc.) to copyright. Second, not quite as few people will completely reject the necessity of the many extensions copyright received in the 20th century. 20th century innovation can be contributed to capital flow towards innovation and increasing the number of potential innovators. The patent system is almost certainly a key factor in the former, but copyright could only play an ancillary role in the latter, and I have yet to see anyone defend that claim.
I'll even come out on the side of copyright hurting innovation. Commercialization of rock 'n roll has gradually lead to the absence of art in pop music. This is a bold claim and I don't have the time or inclination to back it up on Slashdot, but I know I am far from alone in that belief. I'll further the claim by stating my own belief that because innovation stems from being surrounded by new ideas, such a commercialization hinders the next wave of innovators.
I'd say the problem is that you taught an OS course to students enrolled in a Software Engineering program. If low-level courses are taught in Java, the students are not learning the fundamentals of Computer Science. Java explicitly hides all the gritty details that CS students need to know, but Software Engineers shouldn't ever need to handle (given the CS students can right them competent OSs, Compilers, and VMs).
This was a massive problem at my school and now in my life. I wanted CS, but was surrounded by programmers, software engineers, and future MBAs. Thankfully I was taught CS (and Computer Engineering, yay EE!), but the school moved towards a Software Engineering focus (I was 1 of 2 students fighting against it). Then I moved home to a blue collar town without much of any tech work and promptly began my career in Systems Administration and Software Engineering. O cruel irony. At least I've finally learned to love coding rather than just computing.
Since you asked so nicely.;)
Let me start by saying that my "research" is from a court ordered dependency program. About half of the material is propaganda, but the other half is real research. Also, thanks to mandatory AA meetings, I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the research.
Heavy alcoholic drinkers do suffer from diabetes. However, it is actually the lesser of evils compared to kidney and liver problems. Drinking with destroyed liver or kidneys will kill quicker than anaphylactic shock. Modern sanitation and understandings of poison prevent most causes of liver and kidney damage, so it's particularly interesting when someone dies of liver or kidney failure.
Drinkers who may not fall under the "heavy alcoholic drinker" category are much more likely than non-drinkers to suffer diabetes. And since they are not "heavy alcoholic drinkers" we as a society do not single out alcohol as the cause of their problems. Which is probably fair given the other parts of the average American diet that also promote diabetes.
The question was open ended and you are making just as many assumptions as anyone else. The way I read it, he's looking for suggestions on what tech stacks are easily secured, and what design methods keep them secure. The latter has very little to do with tech stack and is more important to security. No framework forces a coder into security. And since the author hasn't had to worry about it, previously used technologies may be completely out of the question. The author doesn't know, which is probably why the question is quite open.
You need to know that common sense is a ridiculous call to name yourself an authority leading into the well-known fallacy. You should also be weary of making inference where you do not intend. You clearly implied that Apple's planned obsolescence follows from their closed-source model. This is precisely because./ readers are expect to apply some form of logic to posts rather than just assuming stream of consciousness statements. A third recommendation would be that if you ever feel the need to call someone out on their logic, you should give your own posts an open-minded read. You may have found your own mistakes before looking the bigger fool.
brokeninside certainly gives the theoretical reasons, but in truth there are no such things as CISC and RISC anymore. RISC was developed because someone back in the 80s realised that the complex instructions of x86 and the like were not only slowing down the system, they were also useless. In theory RISC vs CISC should have been a trade-off between simple instructions that run quickly versus well packed instructions that perform several tasks in one much slower cycle. However, it turned out that the trade-off was nonexistent. The complex instructions were too specific for compilers and higher order languages to use, so the vast majority of code was effectively running RISC operations on CISC platforms. So Intel being the thinkers they are changed everything when they introduced a RISC-like architecture with extensive microcoding to make it's CISC instruction set work up to snuff. Calling Intel a CISC architecture is like calling Russia Communist. And since the RISC architectures have incorporated multiplication and other instructions that don't fit neatly into RISC theory, there isn't a true RISC archictecture out there.
CISC vs RISC was a paradigm shift, not an ongoing debate.
No, it's often pointless. Especially given a nerds aversion to punching. Physical access to machine usually correlates to physical access to the person behind the machine. Social engineering (physical abuse being a quick and dirty version) wins every time.
No, it does diminish the usefulness of crypto. I've never encrypted my email because there's nothing worth encrypting. Now suppose there was something worth encrypting? Then there's someone out there with a wrench and/or money to entice the password out of me. Encryption has it's place, but if you encrypt your email you either send company data outside the DMZ (good use), or you do it because you can (not bad, just pointless). The NSA does not read our email, they aren't interested in recipes nor the current email jokes intended for baby boomers.
It's giving people something they want and knowing how to make a profit on it. You make it sound like anyone could have made Facebook with enough money. If that were the case MySpace or one of it's ancestors would still be the Social Media king.
I think you missed the point about politics. A great manager doesn't ignore politics, they work with and around them. A good engineer generally creates politics. We don't have to, but we're also not usually very good at smoothing over responses or giving in to business demands. We're not good at setting other's expectations nor making other people work for us. These are all skills good management needs and most engineers disdain. It took me several years to realize that being straight-forward is not a useful skill when dealing with other departments. I'm still learning how to be both honest and reserved in my approach with business people and incompetent co-workers.
Kazakhstan, the second largest SSR in the former USSR, was the location of many nuclear weapons, military facilities, and space launches. Russia demanded as much back as possible, but certainly some things were "lost" in the shuffle.
Churchs will want to take the money so they can give it to the charity. At least, the several I attended as a youth did. But I would also trust the church I grew up in to actually hand over the money without a dime removed. I don't care for their religion or morality, but good people nonetheless.
I'm not reducing my energy. I'm using it smarter and expecting it cleaner. I have no plans to give up my electrical appliances, nor will I unless the need actually arises. And that need will not come.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully a well seasoned senior engineer has that talent, but too many choose not to use it (or develop it). I actually just lost the opportunity to develop a full fledged JSF2.0 application and am sad that the creative department decided to include the tool in their application suite. Back to building service calls.
Such pedantry has personally saved me much embarrassment, and I'm a native speaker of this stupid language. I'd say you did more than just save Chatsubo, there are others on this board thinking about that phrase now.
I'm on my first TDD and I have to say it doesn't come naturally. I'm feeling quite like the poster and am here for good advice. I already have the Pragmatic Programmer on my amazon wishlist.
However, unlike the poster I have several years of experience and now that I'm in an environment that supports TDD, it's not as easy as many proclaim. It requires a certain style of problem solving that I have yet to acclimate. I do see the benefits and when my thinking shifts, it should be an extraordinary tool. But please do not give the impression it can be picked up overnight.
You did not prove that solar is not cheaper. Price per watt at optimal anything is not interesting to anyone, including the GP. New solar lowering business cost is a difficult equation that is case specific. You are just as incorrect as the GP.
Hopefully very few. The screens are about the only part of the device complex enough to warrant building in our economy.
That's one of the reasons given for the retro-gaming craze. Modern games spend too much time developing complex systems. Time spent developing complex systems is time not spent ensuring complex paths. Developing both is what every sandbox game attempts, with minimal success. The retro-gaming craze is definitely tied to nostalgia, but also the fact that simple systems allow incredibly complex path structures.
I think you actually add weight to the GP's premise, even if you tore down one of his points. We are optimization engines (at least us rational engineer types). But when we optimize we don't do it like computers. We don't check all possible routes as we consider many of them sub-optimal. But computational theory mandates that even the seemingly sub-optimal paths be explored. Some people do this kind of experimentation some times, but it's too time consuming so that's the exception rather than the rule. In fact I'd surmise that every good engineer has done this at least once in their life, then hopefully realized the usefulness of computers.
Music, movies, software and books are all things that fall under IP. They take significant amounts of time and money and effort to create, but once created they are trivially reproduced.
False. It takes great expense and effort to recreate some of the concerts I've enjoyed. It is near impossible to duplicate the emotional involvement of a crowd in a theater (live actors or big screen). It is next to impossible to replicate WoW's servers. Just because it has become trivial to reproduce those areas where industries previously profited does not mean that it is trivial to reproduce the artistic work and status of enjoying said work. If industry would discontinue profits from distribution, we could all come out ahead.
Ideas do continue to be worthless. It is implementations that are useful. 20th century progress was not built on ideas. It was built on real and tangible goods and services that created capital transactions. That such goods and services were based on ideas is immaterial. There are many goods and services (real and otherwise) that are based on ideas that are worthless, even if the idea is solid. I have no money for patent trolls and others who sit on their ass trying to collect on other's hard-work, even if they had a good idea once. I've had many good ideas, but haven't or couldn't implemented them for various reasons. Why give me an incentive to build nothing of value but attempt to capitalize on my idea? How does that advance America?
Do I have that right legally? No.
Do I have that right culturally? Absolutely. My peers and I decided long ago that we were not interested in the legal definition of copyright. Companies like Apple and Steam have gone a long way towards healing the right between what is legally acceptable and what is culturally acceptable. I have not downloaded music or video games in a long time partially because services are available that are easier than copyright infringement, but also because my peers and I no longer consider the cost of such items prohibitive. I leave it to the current college students and indie artists to fight the good fight there.
What my peers and I are still not sold on is the stranglehold of content some distributors have. This is primarily for visual content. NetFlix and Hulu are the solutions here, but as long as companies like HBO prevent me from legally obtaining their works for outrageous DVD prices or a cable subscription, my peers and I will encourage copyright violations. If you, personally, do not like the position my culture has taken, it is worth your time to understand our culture like Apple and Steam have. Proselytizing is, on the other hand, counter-productive and only reinforces our decisions.
Copyright is not capitalism. Government granted monopolies are about the highest definition of anti-capitalism. If supply and demand were actually encouraged then publishing and distribution would hit the cost of $0.00 as competition would push the natural cost to nil. However, due to copyright laws and government backed monopolies, there is no competition. Only one entity gets to determine these prices on the white market.
Picasso paintings are worth millions because everyone wants the original. It has nothing to do with copyright, which speaking of Picasso, I can obtain a legal copy here for significantly less than millions. And such a product is a great service as physical paintings cannot take advantage of digital distribution. I am not nearly so interested in The Beatles (White Album) master tapes, even though it is consistently one of my favorite listens. Yes, it'd be cool to have, but I can't "use" them like I can "use" a Picasso original on my wall.
Your statement about fairness is disagreeable to me. I do not find it fair for someone to sit on their ass because their grandparent was able to create 1 item of considerable value. I don't even find it fair for the grandparent to do the same. I especially do not find it fair for that same grandparent to control who is able to modify, perform, or distribute that work.
Fairness is in the eye of the beholder and not worth arguing.
What I do find worth arguing is that copyright has hurt artistic creation more than aided it. Copyright steals the ability of artists to build from each other, and has developed a nonsensical desire for "original" work, as though art can be designed without copying the techniques of those that came before. There exists a legal point at which one work of work is too similar to another. Why don't the markets decide that someone is building too strongly on someone else's work? Currently it isn't allowed. Assume that Vanilla Ice really did take the bass line for "Ice Ice Baby" straight from Queen's work. Does that truly hurt Queen's ability to create? Which is the greater promotion of art, fining Vanilla Ice? Or letting people judge the quality of both works on their own time and to their own tastes?
Distilling all 20th century innovation into an argument for copyright is some kind of logical fallacy. The level of dissonance is massive. First and foremost, few would contribute any of the major innovations (anti-biotics, semi-conductors, computational theory, etc.) to copyright. Second, not quite as few people will completely reject the necessity of the many extensions copyright received in the 20th century. 20th century innovation can be contributed to capital flow towards innovation and increasing the number of potential innovators. The patent system is almost certainly a key factor in the former, but copyright could only play an ancillary role in the latter, and I have yet to see anyone defend that claim.
I'll even come out on the side of copyright hurting innovation. Commercialization of rock 'n roll has gradually lead to the absence of art in pop music. This is a bold claim and I don't have the time or inclination to back it up on Slashdot, but I know I am far from alone in that belief. I'll further the claim by stating my own belief that because innovation stems from being surrounded by new ideas, such a commercialization hinders the next wave of innovators.
gweihir is a hardened troll. Don't worry about it too much.
I'd say the problem is that you taught an OS course to students enrolled in a Software Engineering program. If low-level courses are taught in Java, the students are not learning the fundamentals of Computer Science. Java explicitly hides all the gritty details that CS students need to know, but Software Engineers shouldn't ever need to handle (given the CS students can right them competent OSs, Compilers, and VMs).
This was a massive problem at my school and now in my life. I wanted CS, but was surrounded by programmers, software engineers, and future MBAs. Thankfully I was taught CS (and Computer Engineering, yay EE!), but the school moved towards a Software Engineering focus (I was 1 of 2 students fighting against it). Then I moved home to a blue collar town without much of any tech work and promptly began my career in Systems Administration and Software Engineering. O cruel irony. At least I've finally learned to love coding rather than just computing.
Since you asked so nicely. ;)
Let me start by saying that my "research" is from a court ordered dependency program. About half of the material is propaganda, but the other half is real research. Also, thanks to mandatory AA meetings, I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the research.
Heavy alcoholic drinkers do suffer from diabetes. However, it is actually the lesser of evils compared to kidney and liver problems. Drinking with destroyed liver or kidneys will kill quicker than anaphylactic shock. Modern sanitation and understandings of poison prevent most causes of liver and kidney damage, so it's particularly interesting when someone dies of liver or kidney failure.
Drinkers who may not fall under the "heavy alcoholic drinker" category are much more likely than non-drinkers to suffer diabetes. And since they are not "heavy alcoholic drinkers" we as a society do not single out alcohol as the cause of their problems. Which is probably fair given the other parts of the average American diet that also promote diabetes.
The question was open ended and you are making just as many assumptions as anyone else. The way I read it, he's looking for suggestions on what tech stacks are easily secured, and what design methods keep them secure. The latter has very little to do with tech stack and is more important to security. No framework forces a coder into security. And since the author hasn't had to worry about it, previously used technologies may be completely out of the question. The author doesn't know, which is probably why the question is quite open.
You need to know that common sense is a ridiculous call to name yourself an authority leading into the well-known fallacy. You should also be weary of making inference where you do not intend. You clearly implied that Apple's planned obsolescence follows from their closed-source model. This is precisely because ./ readers are expect to apply some form of logic to posts rather than just assuming stream of consciousness statements. A third recommendation would be that if you ever feel the need to call someone out on their logic, you should give your own posts an open-minded read. You may have found your own mistakes before looking the bigger fool.
brokeninside certainly gives the theoretical reasons, but in truth there are no such things as CISC and RISC anymore. RISC was developed because someone back in the 80s realised that the complex instructions of x86 and the like were not only slowing down the system, they were also useless. In theory RISC vs CISC should have been a trade-off between simple instructions that run quickly versus well packed instructions that perform several tasks in one much slower cycle. However, it turned out that the trade-off was nonexistent. The complex instructions were too specific for compilers and higher order languages to use, so the vast majority of code was effectively running RISC operations on CISC platforms. So Intel being the thinkers they are changed everything when they introduced a RISC-like architecture with extensive microcoding to make it's CISC instruction set work up to snuff. Calling Intel a CISC architecture is like calling Russia Communist. And since the RISC architectures have incorporated multiplication and other instructions that don't fit neatly into RISC theory, there isn't a true RISC archictecture out there.
CISC vs RISC was a paradigm shift, not an ongoing debate.
No, it's often pointless. Especially given a nerds aversion to punching. Physical access to machine usually correlates to physical access to the person behind the machine. Social engineering (physical abuse being a quick and dirty version) wins every time.
No, it does diminish the usefulness of crypto. I've never encrypted my email because there's nothing worth encrypting. Now suppose there was something worth encrypting? Then there's someone out there with a wrench and/or money to entice the password out of me. Encryption has it's place, but if you encrypt your email you either send company data outside the DMZ (good use), or you do it because you can (not bad, just pointless). The NSA does not read our email, they aren't interested in recipes nor the current email jokes intended for baby boomers.
It's giving people something they want and knowing how to make a profit on it. You make it sound like anyone could have made Facebook with enough money. If that were the case MySpace or one of it's ancestors would still be the Social Media king.
I think you missed the point about politics. A great manager doesn't ignore politics, they work with and around them. A good engineer generally creates politics. We don't have to, but we're also not usually very good at smoothing over responses or giving in to business demands. We're not good at setting other's expectations nor making other people work for us. These are all skills good management needs and most engineers disdain. It took me several years to realize that being straight-forward is not a useful skill when dealing with other departments. I'm still learning how to be both honest and reserved in my approach with business people and incompetent co-workers.
Kazakhstan, the second largest SSR in the former USSR, was the location of many nuclear weapons, military facilities, and space launches. Russia demanded as much back as possible, but certainly some things were "lost" in the shuffle.
Churchs will want to take the money so they can give it to the charity. At least, the several I attended as a youth did. But I would also trust the church I grew up in to actually hand over the money without a dime removed. I don't care for their religion or morality, but good people nonetheless.
I'm not reducing my energy. I'm using it smarter and expecting it cleaner. I have no plans to give up my electrical appliances, nor will I unless the need actually arises. And that need will not come.