Well, the previous employer presumably owns the code, so notifying them would be the right thing to do.
Unfortunately for the submitter, this is likely to be at best plagiarism, which the new employers may or may not be interested in.
Still, notifying the previous employer might at least garner their acknowledgement that the code predates the newer contractor. Which might be enough to deal with the allegations.
Not really, Java is crossplatform as the main point of it existing, what you don't want is for an application to behave differently on OSX than on Linux than on *BSD than on Windows, that would be really, really bad. To an extent that's probably inevitable, but things like this are included, even where it duplicates functionality, to ensure that the program runs as identically to the same program being run on a different OS as possible.
You've sort of just proven the GP's point. The Romans didn't have spaces or punctuation in Latin, and they could read and write just fine, the reason why English and most modern languages do have whitespace is that it makes it easier to read in a more efficient fashion. The language itself would function just fine without the white space, it's just that you would need to know a much larger number of words before you could start reading.
Spoken like somebody who hasn't ever coded. You've got ( ) { } [ ] and arguably "" and '' with which to surround things you want enclosed. Now, it is debatable as to whether the current consensus as to which to allocate to what is correct, but the fact of the matter is that if you enclose something with those pairs of characters that people will naturally get the hint that something has been enclosed.
Whereas using tabs and newlines in this fashion conveys no such thing.
What's more, because the newline terminates the line, it means that you can't do things like split regexes onto multiple lines to enhance legibility as those would be executed as if they were intended to be different lines of code.
Just because you don't understand why the convention is typically to use curly braces like that instead of white space, does not mean that it's an arbitrary decision. It just means that you need to read up a bit before you speak up.
The abstraction happens once and then really doesn't need much work until there's a patch or an upgrade that changes it. The timezone info changes regularly, and there is no way that Oracle could ever be finished with it.
Until all the API calls and all the hardware are identical across the various OSes, the only way of making code portable is via a portable environment. All the other languages that I can think of that are write once run most places do something similar. Ultimately, when you have differences in endianness and number and type of registers, you're going to be stuck with portable environments to get code running on all supported platforms with minimal fussing around with machine dependent requirements.
Of course you can always find poorly formatted code that's confusing, but the bottom line here is that this is not an appropriate way of using white space. White space is for the purpose of separating elements and making it more readable.
The fact that most other languages use {} to denote blocks is a good reason to use that in other languages as well. It's something that works, is clear in intention and after all these years, nobody has come up with anything better.
It should be up to the developers as to how precisely they format their code for legibility, not the people writing the language.
It's been known since at least the '60s that brain cells regenerate, the question was whether that applied to the grey matter or just the glial cells.
And AFAIK, it's been accepted for years that neurogenesis applies to grey cells. Arguing that it doesn't apply would require one to have an alternate explanation for why and how memory and learning occur after the brain supposedly doesn't create new neurons. Or how precisely all that development happens in the brain after birth.
You're probably doing something weird there. I rarely if ever see Fx use more than about 512mb of RAM, the main exceptions are when I'm playing a flash game. There could be something wrong with Fx on your computer, but more likely you've got some memory hog extensions or addons installed that are causing this.
What you're failing to comprehend here is that Chrome tabs are completely separate from each other, meaning that even things which should be shared are duplicated. Hence the ungodly amount of bloat, Fx developers were allegedly working on a more efficient approach where it was just the tab specific things which were split into their own processes, but AFAICT that's taken a back seat to all the copy the chrome bullshit.
This is the result of handing the responsibilities for UI design to graphic designers rather than to people who actually care about usability and logical consistency. A good UI is one that is out of the way when you don't need it, but easily accessible when you do. Where you can easily find the options that you commonly need efficiently, but where infrequently used options are located in a logical location.
And yes, getting it right is hard, but you're not likely to ever approximate it, if you're focused on making it pretty.
Precisely, I've been using Firefox for over a decade now, and the developers seem hell bent on chasing everybody away from the browser. If I wanted to use Chrome, I would use Chrome. All the bullshit with the UI changes and the version number nuttiness aren't making me want to stay, the lack of reasonable alternatives is.
I disagree, Chrome did it wrong. And that's why the memory usage is so poor.
Firefox is still working on it, getting processes for the plugins and one for the UI at large and one for the content in the tabs basically. I wish they'd put more thought into that, rather than waste energy on stupid bullshit like this.
I do realize that it's different people, but I'm using Firefox because I don't want to use Chrome. At this point though, I might as well switch to Chrome as the Fx developers seem hell bent on turning it into Chrome.
Intel can get away with solder in components because they change the socket type so often that people are unlikely to be able to upgrade the processor anyways. AMD OTOH, has a tradition of not forcing you to do that every single time you upgrade.
Personally, I refuse to buy Intel parts, and quite frankly, the way I use my computer, I don't need the overpriced solutions that Intel is pushing.
The point is that a drug that's meant to drop the sodium levels ought not to be given without establishing that the sodium levels are high in the first place. And they definitely do have testing for that. Same goes for medications that are meant to increase potassium levels.
And no, of course they can't completely figure it out, but that doesn't get them off the hook for checking things like IGg and the levels of the hormones, neurotransmitters, elements or whatever they're wanting to change.
SSRIs are a common one which goes awry. If you have no seratonin being produced because your body is out of the supplies to produce it, no amount of SSRIs are going to increase the seratonin in the synaptic gap, as there's nothing to prevent from being subject to reuptake.
Sort of. Low toxicity is not no toxicity, and last I checked, which was admittedly a long time ago, the receptor molecules it binds to aren't a perfect fit, which does lead to the receptor molecules being damaged from time to time. That's not going to result in permanent damage, but it's unpredictable how long that will last.
What's more, taking any medicine where there's weak evidence to support the practice is bad news. And there's been a ton of change in the way that mental illness is treated since the last studies were done. What's more the "repressed" memories that LSD was allegedly to help unblock don't exist and few qualified therapists still believe that repressing memories is even possible. It's certainly not something that's compatible with modern knowledge coming in from neurobiology.
If that were really the case, then how do you explain that Oxycontin, Ritalin, Xanax et al., are still perfectly legal to prescribe?
The difference there is that Tylenol was approved during the '50s as a replacement of sorts for Aspirin. And served a very important need, to date LSD doesn't serve a need where there isn't already other options available. Sure, it might be good for therapy, but the only trials on that were back in the '60s and there's other research of that vintage that had serious problems as well. I believe you can find the military footage somewhere on line.
It's almost certainly an urban legend. The closer you get to approval the less likely you are to see this sort of behavior. There's no guarantee that you'd get approval for the medication to treat something else, and if you've really got to stage 3 trials, there's a ton of money that's been invested already, enough that the medication will be released if it passes the final trials and gains approval.
In this case, there's no profit motive to do that as repurposing an older drug would probably cost them more than just releasing the new one. Plus, the old medication would be closer to having its patent expire anyways.
As far as I know, neither LSD nor Ecstasy have ever passed any sort of medical trials on safety. Considering that the US is not the only country that has banned them, it takes a bit of explanation as to why they were banned across so much of the world, if they're genuinely safe.
There's other treatments for things that are banned because of safety concerns as well. But, you don't hear as much bitching about it as you do about drugs being banned.
One of the problems here is that the doctors don't always bother to conduct the testing necessary when doing the prescribing. I wound up with nasty hyponatremia the first time my doctor put me on blood pressure medication because my sodium levels weren't the problem, and she just assumed that lowering the levels would help. All it did was cause severe memory impairment and concentration issues within days. I discontinued the medication pretty much immediately and felt better.
A better course of action would have been to run the tests and verified that it wasn't potassium deficiency or one of the other causes of high blood pressure. As a practice, doctors really need to avail themselves of tests more often in prescribing. It's the 21st century and there are tests, in many cases, to help inform the prescription of medication which would go a fair distance to eliminating the problems that TFA talks about.
One thing you're missing is that neither aspirin nor acetaminophen would be able to pass drug trials these days because they're just not safe enough to be approved. Aspirin has the unfortunate shape that causes it to interfere with the stomach's ability to maintain the lining, IIRC, and acetaminophen does incredibly bad things to the liver if you're taking absorbing more of it than is safe to.
But yes, ultimately, a lot of the problems wouldn't be problems if we would take more concern of lifestyle. Some people would still need heart surgery, but not nearly as many as if people wouldn't be smoking, over eating and sitting on the couch for long hours.
I'm not a fan of big Pharma, but this is horseshit.
Tricyclics are substantially more dangerous than the newer generation of medications, sure you can OD on any of the psych medications, but the newer medications tend to be more narrowly focused than the old ones. Have you ever looked at the listing of things to avoid when it comes to MAO inhibitors?
A lot of the problem with the newer medications is that since they target smaller parts of the brain, it's less likely that any one medication will work properly, but it also means that it's less likely that it will interact with some other medication. For instance you can't take Prozac or Paxil if you're taking stimulant medication for ADHD because they use the same channels in the liver, IIRC.
Ultimately, this is not likely to be a problem in the near future as brain imaging scans to see what exactly is going on in the brain become more prevalent and there's more formal testing of what the medicine is actually doing. At present there's very little attention paid to how much of the medication actually gets to the site where it's needed. Something as simple as an undiagnosed food allergy can result in little or none of the medication making it to the brain. Which also effects how much seratonin, dopamine and the rest are there for the medications to work with.
A lot of these projects are created to ensure that the contractors are still in business in case they're needed. The stupid Boeing fuel tanker thing from a few years back wasn't because the USAF needed tankers, it was to make sure that the capability to make them was retained in case they needed something similar in the future.
In that case, Boeing was fine, but it was more about keeping them happy.
If you've properly engineered the code, then it will handle additions to the code base with much more ease than if you hadn't bothered to engineer it in the first place.
And yes, it's going to be a PITA at times, but the alternative is to do a complete rewrite from time to time when the code becomes an unmaintainable mess.
If it's over budget when engineered, it means that you fucked up the budget in the first place. The difference between properly engineered and the ugly software that violates any possible best practices you can imagine, is that with properly engineered code you have more of the cost up front, rather than hiding it in trying to figure out what things like "I'm not sure why this is here, but the guys who wrote this quit years ago and removing it breaks the software."
You can never ensure 100% perfect code, but the best practices didn't get to be best practices arbitrarily, they address common problems that should be avoided. Gunky code is invariably, unstable and insecure code.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the previous employer presumably owns the code, so notifying them would be the right thing to do.
Unfortunately for the submitter, this is likely to be at best plagiarism, which the new employers may or may not be interested in.
Still, notifying the previous employer might at least garner their acknowledgement that the code predates the newer contractor. Which might be enough to deal with the allegations.
Not really, Java is crossplatform as the main point of it existing, what you don't want is for an application to behave differently on OSX than on Linux than on *BSD than on Windows, that would be really, really bad. To an extent that's probably inevitable, but things like this are included, even where it duplicates functionality, to ensure that the program runs as identically to the same program being run on a different OS as possible.
You've sort of just proven the GP's point. The Romans didn't have spaces or punctuation in Latin, and they could read and write just fine, the reason why English and most modern languages do have whitespace is that it makes it easier to read in a more efficient fashion. The language itself would function just fine without the white space, it's just that you would need to know a much larger number of words before you could start reading.
Spoken like somebody who hasn't ever coded. You've got ( ) { } [ ] and arguably "" and '' with which to surround things you want enclosed. Now, it is debatable as to whether the current consensus as to which to allocate to what is correct, but the fact of the matter is that if you enclose something with those pairs of characters that people will naturally get the hint that something has been enclosed.
Whereas using tabs and newlines in this fashion conveys no such thing.
What's more, because the newline terminates the line, it means that you can't do things like split regexes onto multiple lines to enhance legibility as those would be executed as if they were intended to be different lines of code.
Just because you don't understand why the convention is typically to use curly braces like that instead of white space, does not mean that it's an arbitrary decision. It just means that you need to read up a bit before you speak up.
The abstraction happens once and then really doesn't need much work until there's a patch or an upgrade that changes it. The timezone info changes regularly, and there is no way that Oracle could ever be finished with it.
Until all the API calls and all the hardware are identical across the various OSes, the only way of making code portable is via a portable environment. All the other languages that I can think of that are write once run most places do something similar. Ultimately, when you have differences in endianness and number and type of registers, you're going to be stuck with portable environments to get code running on all supported platforms with minimal fussing around with machine dependent requirements.
I think we have a different definition of hidden.
Of course you can always find poorly formatted code that's confusing, but the bottom line here is that this is not an appropriate way of using white space. White space is for the purpose of separating elements and making it more readable.
The fact that most other languages use {} to denote blocks is a good reason to use that in other languages as well. It's something that works, is clear in intention and after all these years, nobody has come up with anything better.
It should be up to the developers as to how precisely they format their code for legibility, not the people writing the language.
It's been known since at least the '60s that brain cells regenerate, the question was whether that applied to the grey matter or just the glial cells.
And AFAIK, it's been accepted for years that neurogenesis applies to grey cells. Arguing that it doesn't apply would require one to have an alternate explanation for why and how memory and learning occur after the brain supposedly doesn't create new neurons. Or how precisely all that development happens in the brain after birth.
You're probably doing something weird there. I rarely if ever see Fx use more than about 512mb of RAM, the main exceptions are when I'm playing a flash game. There could be something wrong with Fx on your computer, but more likely you've got some memory hog extensions or addons installed that are causing this.
What you're failing to comprehend here is that Chrome tabs are completely separate from each other, meaning that even things which should be shared are duplicated. Hence the ungodly amount of bloat, Fx developers were allegedly working on a more efficient approach where it was just the tab specific things which were split into their own processes, but AFAICT that's taken a back seat to all the copy the chrome bullshit.
This is the result of handing the responsibilities for UI design to graphic designers rather than to people who actually care about usability and logical consistency. A good UI is one that is out of the way when you don't need it, but easily accessible when you do. Where you can easily find the options that you commonly need efficiently, but where infrequently used options are located in a logical location.
And yes, getting it right is hard, but you're not likely to ever approximate it, if you're focused on making it pretty.
Precisely, I've been using Firefox for over a decade now, and the developers seem hell bent on chasing everybody away from the browser. If I wanted to use Chrome, I would use Chrome. All the bullshit with the UI changes and the version number nuttiness aren't making me want to stay, the lack of reasonable alternatives is.
I disagree, Chrome did it wrong. And that's why the memory usage is so poor.
Firefox is still working on it, getting processes for the plugins and one for the UI at large and one for the content in the tabs basically. I wish they'd put more thought into that, rather than waste energy on stupid bullshit like this.
I do realize that it's different people, but I'm using Firefox because I don't want to use Chrome. At this point though, I might as well switch to Chrome as the Fx developers seem hell bent on turning it into Chrome.
Intel can get away with solder in components because they change the socket type so often that people are unlikely to be able to upgrade the processor anyways. AMD OTOH, has a tradition of not forcing you to do that every single time you upgrade.
Personally, I refuse to buy Intel parts, and quite frankly, the way I use my computer, I don't need the overpriced solutions that Intel is pushing.
The point is that a drug that's meant to drop the sodium levels ought not to be given without establishing that the sodium levels are high in the first place. And they definitely do have testing for that. Same goes for medications that are meant to increase potassium levels.
And no, of course they can't completely figure it out, but that doesn't get them off the hook for checking things like IGg and the levels of the hormones, neurotransmitters, elements or whatever they're wanting to change.
SSRIs are a common one which goes awry. If you have no seratonin being produced because your body is out of the supplies to produce it, no amount of SSRIs are going to increase the seratonin in the synaptic gap, as there's nothing to prevent from being subject to reuptake.
Sort of. Low toxicity is not no toxicity, and last I checked, which was admittedly a long time ago, the receptor molecules it binds to aren't a perfect fit, which does lead to the receptor molecules being damaged from time to time. That's not going to result in permanent damage, but it's unpredictable how long that will last.
What's more, taking any medicine where there's weak evidence to support the practice is bad news. And there's been a ton of change in the way that mental illness is treated since the last studies were done. What's more the "repressed" memories that LSD was allegedly to help unblock don't exist and few qualified therapists still believe that repressing memories is even possible. It's certainly not something that's compatible with modern knowledge coming in from neurobiology.
If that were really the case, then how do you explain that Oxycontin, Ritalin, Xanax et al., are still perfectly legal to prescribe?
The difference there is that Tylenol was approved during the '50s as a replacement of sorts for Aspirin. And served a very important need, to date LSD doesn't serve a need where there isn't already other options available. Sure, it might be good for therapy, but the only trials on that were back in the '60s and there's other research of that vintage that had serious problems as well. I believe you can find the military footage somewhere on line.
It's almost certainly an urban legend. The closer you get to approval the less likely you are to see this sort of behavior. There's no guarantee that you'd get approval for the medication to treat something else, and if you've really got to stage 3 trials, there's a ton of money that's been invested already, enough that the medication will be released if it passes the final trials and gains approval.
In this case, there's no profit motive to do that as repurposing an older drug would probably cost them more than just releasing the new one. Plus, the old medication would be closer to having its patent expire anyways.
As far as I know, neither LSD nor Ecstasy have ever passed any sort of medical trials on safety. Considering that the US is not the only country that has banned them, it takes a bit of explanation as to why they were banned across so much of the world, if they're genuinely safe.
There's other treatments for things that are banned because of safety concerns as well. But, you don't hear as much bitching about it as you do about drugs being banned.
One of the problems here is that the doctors don't always bother to conduct the testing necessary when doing the prescribing. I wound up with nasty hyponatremia the first time my doctor put me on blood pressure medication because my sodium levels weren't the problem, and she just assumed that lowering the levels would help. All it did was cause severe memory impairment and concentration issues within days. I discontinued the medication pretty much immediately and felt better.
A better course of action would have been to run the tests and verified that it wasn't potassium deficiency or one of the other causes of high blood pressure. As a practice, doctors really need to avail themselves of tests more often in prescribing. It's the 21st century and there are tests, in many cases, to help inform the prescription of medication which would go a fair distance to eliminating the problems that TFA talks about.
One thing you're missing is that neither aspirin nor acetaminophen would be able to pass drug trials these days because they're just not safe enough to be approved. Aspirin has the unfortunate shape that causes it to interfere with the stomach's ability to maintain the lining, IIRC, and acetaminophen does incredibly bad things to the liver if you're taking absorbing more of it than is safe to.
But yes, ultimately, a lot of the problems wouldn't be problems if we would take more concern of lifestyle. Some people would still need heart surgery, but not nearly as many as if people wouldn't be smoking, over eating and sitting on the couch for long hours.
I'm not a fan of big Pharma, but this is horseshit.
Tricyclics are substantially more dangerous than the newer generation of medications, sure you can OD on any of the psych medications, but the newer medications tend to be more narrowly focused than the old ones. Have you ever looked at the listing of things to avoid when it comes to MAO inhibitors?
A lot of the problem with the newer medications is that since they target smaller parts of the brain, it's less likely that any one medication will work properly, but it also means that it's less likely that it will interact with some other medication. For instance you can't take Prozac or Paxil if you're taking stimulant medication for ADHD because they use the same channels in the liver, IIRC.
Ultimately, this is not likely to be a problem in the near future as brain imaging scans to see what exactly is going on in the brain become more prevalent and there's more formal testing of what the medicine is actually doing. At present there's very little attention paid to how much of the medication actually gets to the site where it's needed. Something as simple as an undiagnosed food allergy can result in little or none of the medication making it to the brain. Which also effects how much seratonin, dopamine and the rest are there for the medications to work with.
Perhaps the new drugs sit in judgement of the old ones?
A lot of these projects are created to ensure that the contractors are still in business in case they're needed. The stupid Boeing fuel tanker thing from a few years back wasn't because the USAF needed tankers, it was to make sure that the capability to make them was retained in case they needed something similar in the future.
In that case, Boeing was fine, but it was more about keeping them happy.
If you've properly engineered the code, then it will handle additions to the code base with much more ease than if you hadn't bothered to engineer it in the first place.
And yes, it's going to be a PITA at times, but the alternative is to do a complete rewrite from time to time when the code becomes an unmaintainable mess.
Bullshit.
If it's over budget when engineered, it means that you fucked up the budget in the first place. The difference between properly engineered and the ugly software that violates any possible best practices you can imagine, is that with properly engineered code you have more of the cost up front, rather than hiding it in trying to figure out what things like "I'm not sure why this is here, but the guys who wrote this quit years ago and removing it breaks the software."
You can never ensure 100% perfect code, but the best practices didn't get to be best practices arbitrarily, they address common problems that should be avoided. Gunky code is invariably, unstable and insecure code.