I hate to say it but web developers need to stop using "frameworks" and "libraries" to do simple things.
People using the wrong tools for the wrong jobs is the problem - not frameworks in general.
There's so many websites that load jQuery or TinyMCE for no good reason other than the developer was lazy.
Laziness is one of the hallmarks of a good programmer. It's also an incredibly useful trait for aligning with management and/or a client. A programmer who saves himself having to reimplement tedious and repetitive things is a programmer that is saving money.
I code everything by hand, if it doesn't work in some browser, then that browser's implementation is broken. There should be no need to write against jQuery and assume that the underlying browser isn't braindead or futureproof. If you're writing against the standards for HTML5, CSS3 and the DOM, then you're better off writing your own code.
Eight years ago for an internal project, I wrote all my own DOM wrappers from scratch. It was fast, I knew every inch inside and out, and it worked in all DOM compliant browsers. It took a bit of foresight and prep work to get there, but the payoff was sound. There weren't a lot of options out there at the time, so this was pretty much the only option.
A year ago I started a contract job for a client. I elected to use jquery as a standardized DOM manipulation tool. The actual application code from a developer/client perspective all worked roughly the same as the hand-tooled code from before - except I didn't have to write, and more importantly bill the client, for any of that time. The jquery element traversal utilities alone will save you so much time you won't even believe it.
In the end, both projects ended up with chunk of code being loaded by the browser to make fiddling the DOM in a cross platform manner easier and more reliable for the application code. In the first case, that cost the company money. In the second case, it was 'free'. In both cases, the browser is downloading a dependency 'framework' in order for the application to function.
How can you prevent gun crime by putting the perpetrators in jail AFTER they've committed the crime?
This post is brilliant. It seems like there is an obvious opinion buried in it, but it's completely neutral. It's a basic allusion to the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' - a philosophical conversation that started long ago and is still relevant - with the current Crime of the Day stitched in.
How can you prevent crime by putting the perpetrators in jail AFTER they've committed the crime?
Damn good question. You first have to start by defining the limits of government, clarifying how much freedom is 'enough' and several other critical humanist concepts. It could (and has) keep philosophers busy for years.
This should be modded informative. Most useful thing I have read on slashdot since before these two started their international LUVer's quarrel.
Why is this not moderated to +5 Awesome? I read - with rapt attention - both of those stories, and never put together that they were two halves of a feud.
There are one or two outliers in either major party. Those outliers should be tossed from the data set because they are completely unrepresentative of the mass of those in the DNC or GOP.
While that may be true, they account for 100% of my elected senators. I'm not keen on them being 'tossed from the data set'!
For the record, both of the amendments mentioned in your quote were proposed by Democrats. Both from Oregon. This rampant anti constitutional behavior is orthogonal to party division. There are douche bags and sane people on both sides of the aisle.
Legal dispensaries under state law are illegal drug dealers under federal law. You may dislike this state of affairs, but being in denial about it doesn't help anyone. Obama only referred to drug users.
Which is exactly the same situation WA and CO are in right now, the only difference being whether the medical card is required or not. There are still going to be people selling the stuff to users.
It's disingenuous to think he's not referring to the whole package with his carefully worded statements. The GP is simply pointing out that similar statements have been made before with incongruous actions following.
the pinball game has structure around the plot and it's better then in the slot games.
That pin is by far my favorite. I've spent hours at it, and was extremely sad when the local pub that had it decided it wasn't worth the maintenance cost any more and replaced it with something terrible.
Yeah, and that's exactly what we do. I'm not sure why your comment was modded as funny. This is precisely how copyrights and patents work, and why they are set up the way they are.
It's exactly what we used to do, but the 'limited' part has been legislatively neutered in the modern era.
That's a bit of a fine line, because what will often promote the progress of science and useful arts is compensating the people who produce useful work so they can produce more of it by devoting themselves full time to it. And if they are compensated more for producing more and better work, they are more likely to produce more and better work.
It's almost as if there should be some carefully balanced compromise that strikes a balance between rewarding content creators while remaining beneficial to society at large. Perhaps a limited monopoly could be granted to the creator for the work before it passes into the public domain for all to benefit.
What will motivate me?
Pay me.
Other than that, my purpose and satisfaction in life has absolutely nothing to do with where I work.
Wow, this made me sad. I'm sorry you haven't found a job that brings you personal joy and a feeling of accomplishment.
Personally, I have been doing what I love since I was a child and figured out a way to make that my living. I couldn't be happier, and I don't feel like I'm begrudgingly trading in one third of my life for something as banal as money.
I certainly understand your perspective and I'm sure that a majority of people in this world agree with you. It's just not a world view that sits well with me.
You should never, never, never, ever use a production release as a beta test. This is what Q/A teams are for. Apple can afford them.
Wait, you're complaining about releasing betas into production, while implying that Apple should have stuck with Google, a company whose turn-by-turn directions are also a production release beta testâ"a company that almost invariably ships nearly every technology as beta? Did I miss something, or is the pot calling the kettle black?
I'm still trying to picture the Q/A process that would enable them to be sure every data point in their GIS DB was accurate.
I'm more concerned about the fact that the distance changes depending on where we are. That means that the Earth is moving, and I don't believe in that. It's more heliocentric non-sense by the astronomical community. What next; astronomical bodies that aren't perfectly spherical? The madness of the commoners, I tell you.
This is a copy/paste from a comment I made further up the thread, but seemed like it belonged here:
The UDID is primarily used by Apple to enforce the code signing and distribution processes.
In order to develop on a physical device, there is a provisioning song and dance you must go through involving certificates and the UDID. If you're lucky, this happens by magic in xcode these days. If not, you get to scream at xcode and fiddle with a web site. God help you if you happen to be on more than one development team (ie, have more than one developer certificate).
You also need the UDID of any testers you have in order to generate ad-hoc distribution builds.
I believe the UDID is also used for enterprise in-house distribution, but I'm not 100% sure on this one.
So, what can you do with it? It allows you to track a device across application boundaries. As pointed out elsewhere, this isn't exactly the same as tracking a user, but it's pretty close. Close enough for most marketing purposes, and certainly close enough for the difference to be lost on management when discussing said marketing opportunities.
Also noted above, it looks like Apple is actively trying to prevent apps from doing this. The vibe I get is that in general, Apple is trying to lock down any user tracking to an individual application - or suite of apps if they are set up to share (ie, two apps from the same developer can share data).
I guess you could also add them to your testing pool - but you're limited to 100 devices, so probably not worth it. I doubt the feedback would be helpful:)
The original function of the UDID was to allow stateless connections (like HTTP) to be able to coordinate sessions with the same device.
I can't speak for the veracity of your statement, but from my experience the UDID is primarily used by Apple to enforce the code signing and distribution processes.
In order to develop on a physical device, there is a provisioning song and dance you must go through involving certificates and the UDID. If you're lucky, this happens by magic in xcode these days. If not, you get to scream at xcode and fiddle with a web site. God help you if you happen to be on more than one development team (ie, have more than one developer certificate).
You also need the UDID of any testers you have in order to generate ad-hoc distribution builds.
I believe the UDID is also used for enterprise in-house distribution, but I'm not 100% sure on this one.
One man's easter egg can easily be another man's malware. This sounds kind of cool, until you realise there could be any number of malicious "easter eggs"
If you want to start from the 'unexpected code' position, then the difference between an easter egg and malware is solely based on intent.
For mine - I had to rewrite some software that handled magnetic card reader hardware for a POS system. We were transitioning to a completely different OS, but I had the original source to use as a template. The old code had an easter egg in it, so as an homage to the original developer I made sure the new version did as well.
Whenever you swiped a CostCo membership card, instead of playing the stock failure audio tone it would play a short recording of his dog barking.
Well, the stock cable is because all it does is USB and charge. Many other devices, peripherals and cables on the other hand do more and make use of those additional connections.
IMO, it's a good example. The sign "60" means that you must not exceed 60, ever, for any reason whatsoever. You are correct in saying that from logical point of view this should be treated as a good advice for a wise and aware driver. But this line of thinking fails when the law gets involved. The law does not allow you to exceed this speed - though it requires you to reduce the speed further in case of adverse weather conditions.
I agree - I think it's a perfect example as well. Laws have become less about protection and safety and more about revenue and control. They're only couched in terms of safety to help sell them to the masses. A focus on safety would have a posted speed recommendation that was set to something reasonable for the road based on road conditions for the area. Exceeding this recommendation would allow an officer to pull you over, and if you were (in his judgement) operating in an unsafe manner you would be fined or arrested.
Of course, this will never work as it relies on empathy, honesty, rational thought and allowing someone to exercise judgement. Our society has been trying to stamp those traits out of law for some time, so I don't see this trend reversing. Instead we're instituting mandatory minimums, three strikes, overly broad sex offender and child pornography classifications and anything else we can think of to remove actual judgement from judging. And the jails are full to overflowing to the point we have to let violent offenders out to make room for the three time shoplifter.
It's pretty clear that when the bulk of your population routinely ignores a law that the law isn't welcome. And when those laws stay on the books despite an overwhelming majority opposing them, then you have a pretty good idea of who is actually in power.
I look forward to the day when there are no channels at all, and you simply watch whatever the fuck you want to watch whenever the fuck you want to, regardless if it's made by some BIG STUDIO or by a couple of kids in their garage. Who the fuck should care about what "channel" anything is on. The future is channel-less.
I completely agree that it's time to drop antiquated notions like channels, time slots, prime time and other nonsense. People are moving away from that model. My DVR sits idle most of the week but for some reason on Thursday and Sunday night I have to micro manage the tuners to make sure I can record everything. Because apparently everything is on between 8PM and 10PM on those two nights.
This is nothing but inertia from The Way Things Were and no longer makes any sense.
Slashdot Mirror
People using the wrong tools for the wrong jobs is the problem - not frameworks in general.
Laziness is one of the hallmarks of a good programmer. It's also an incredibly useful trait for aligning with management and/or a client. A programmer who saves himself having to reimplement tedious and repetitive things is a programmer that is saving money.
Eight years ago for an internal project, I wrote all my own DOM wrappers from scratch. It was fast, I knew every inch inside and out, and it worked in all DOM compliant browsers. It took a bit of foresight and prep work to get there, but the payoff was sound. There weren't a lot of options out there at the time, so this was pretty much the only option.
A year ago I started a contract job for a client. I elected to use jquery as a standardized DOM manipulation tool. The actual application code from a developer/client perspective all worked roughly the same as the hand-tooled code from before - except I didn't have to write, and more importantly bill the client, for any of that time. The jquery element traversal utilities alone will save you so much time you won't even believe it.
In the end, both projects ended up with chunk of code being loaded by the browser to make fiddling the DOM in a cross platform manner easier and more reliable for the application code. In the first case, that cost the company money. In the second case, it was 'free'. In both cases, the browser is downloading a dependency 'framework' in order for the application to function.
This post is brilliant. It seems like there is an obvious opinion buried in it, but it's completely neutral. It's a basic allusion to the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' - a philosophical conversation that started long ago and is still relevant - with the current Crime of the Day stitched in.
Damn good question. You first have to start by defining the limits of government, clarifying how much freedom is 'enough' and several other critical humanist concepts. It could (and has) keep philosophers busy for years.
Why is this not moderated to +5 Awesome? I read - with rapt attention - both of those stories, and never put together that they were two halves of a feud.
While that may be true, they account for 100% of my elected senators. I'm not keen on them being 'tossed from the data set'!
For the record, both of the amendments mentioned in your quote were proposed by Democrats. Both from Oregon. This rampant anti constitutional behavior is orthogonal to party division. There are douche bags and sane people on both sides of the aisle.
Which is exactly the same situation WA and CO are in right now, the only difference being whether the medical card is required or not. There are still going to be people selling the stuff to users.
It's disingenuous to think he's not referring to the whole package with his carefully worded statements. The GP is simply pointing out that similar statements have been made before with incongruous actions following.
I fully intend to own it some day, so thanks for the tip!
I doubt it - it was plastered with images from the movies.
That pin is by far my favorite. I've spent hours at it, and was extremely sad when the local pub that had it decided it wasn't worth the maintenance cost any more and replaced it with something terrible.
It's exactly what we used to do, but the 'limited' part has been legislatively neutered in the modern era.
It's almost as if there should be some carefully balanced compromise that strikes a balance between rewarding content creators while remaining beneficial to society at large. Perhaps a limited monopoly could be granted to the creator for the work before it passes into the public domain for all to benefit.
Wow, this made me sad. I'm sorry you haven't found a job that brings you personal joy and a feeling of accomplishment.
Personally, I have been doing what I love since I was a child and figured out a way to make that my living. I couldn't be happier, and I don't feel like I'm begrudgingly trading in one third of my life for something as banal as money.
I certainly understand your perspective and I'm sure that a majority of people in this world agree with you. It's just not a world view that sits well with me.
I'm still trying to picture the Q/A process that would enable them to be sure every data point in their GIS DB was accurate.
Spheres? Heathen!
This is a copy/paste from a comment I made further up the thread, but seemed like it belonged here:
So, what can you do with it? It allows you to track a device across application boundaries. As pointed out elsewhere, this isn't exactly the same as tracking a user, but it's pretty close. Close enough for most marketing purposes, and certainly close enough for the difference to be lost on management when discussing said marketing opportunities.
Also noted above, it looks like Apple is actively trying to prevent apps from doing this. The vibe I get is that in general, Apple is trying to lock down any user tracking to an individual application - or suite of apps if they are set up to share (ie, two apps from the same developer can share data).
I guess you could also add them to your testing pool - but you're limited to 100 devices, so probably not worth it. I doubt the feedback would be helpful :)
I can't speak for the veracity of your statement, but from my experience the UDID is primarily used by Apple to enforce the code signing and distribution processes.
In order to develop on a physical device, there is a provisioning song and dance you must go through involving certificates and the UDID. If you're lucky, this happens by magic in xcode these days. If not, you get to scream at xcode and fiddle with a web site. God help you if you happen to be on more than one development team (ie, have more than one developer certificate).
You also need the UDID of any testers you have in order to generate ad-hoc distribution builds.
I believe the UDID is also used for enterprise in-house distribution, but I'm not 100% sure on this one.
If you want to start from the 'unexpected code' position, then the difference between an easter egg and malware is solely based on intent.
For mine - I had to rewrite some software that handled magnetic card reader hardware for a POS system. We were transitioning to a completely different OS, but I had the original source to use as a template. The old code had an easter egg in it, so as an homage to the original developer I made sure the new version did as well.
Whenever you swiped a CostCo membership card, instead of playing the stock failure audio tone it would play a short recording of his dog barking.
Just as I scrolled to this comment, the college radio station I'm listening played a clip of George Takei saying that. I'm a little unnerved.
I cannot stop laughing at this. More hobbit hugging!
Agreed. Seems 90% of the time I have mod points and am hard pressed to use them all. Then a little gem like this comes along and ... nothing.
"Oh yeah, well I don't see you with a fungineering degree"
Well, the stock cable is because all it does is USB and charge. Many other devices, peripherals and cables on the other hand do more and make use of those additional connections.
I agree - I think it's a perfect example as well. Laws have become less about protection and safety and more about revenue and control. They're only couched in terms of safety to help sell them to the masses. A focus on safety would have a posted speed recommendation that was set to something reasonable for the road based on road conditions for the area. Exceeding this recommendation would allow an officer to pull you over, and if you were (in his judgement) operating in an unsafe manner you would be fined or arrested.
Of course, this will never work as it relies on empathy, honesty, rational thought and allowing someone to exercise judgement. Our society has been trying to stamp those traits out of law for some time, so I don't see this trend reversing. Instead we're instituting mandatory minimums, three strikes, overly broad sex offender and child pornography classifications and anything else we can think of to remove actual judgement from judging. And the jails are full to overflowing to the point we have to let violent offenders out to make room for the three time shoplifter.
It's pretty clear that when the bulk of your population routinely ignores a law that the law isn't welcome. And when those laws stay on the books despite an overwhelming majority opposing them, then you have a pretty good idea of who is actually in power.
I completely agree that it's time to drop antiquated notions like channels, time slots, prime time and other nonsense. People are moving away from that model. My DVR sits idle most of the week but for some reason on Thursday and Sunday night I have to micro manage the tuners to make sure I can record everything. Because apparently everything is on between 8PM and 10PM on those two nights.
This is nothing but inertia from The Way Things Were and no longer makes any sense.
And Apple replaces those screens routinely when they break. From their point of view:
( higher sales from 'pretty' - screen replacement costs ) > lower sales from 'rugged'