as long as your code is maintainable, works, commented, and capable, you're doing a good job
I strongly disagree. Anyone in a CS program can debug code that doesn't work, or refactor code that looks bad. The benefit of experience is being able to anticipate what might go wrong in the future or under different conditions. It's about knowing what to look out for before it becomes a problem.
I'm sure all the newbie coders whose work adorns The Daily WTF thought their code was maintainable and functional, but it shows up on TDWTF because it broke when conditions changed and someone had to go fix it. Bottom line: if you don't have a lot of coding experience, you don't have the experience to judge your own work.
once you start having 30 server, 50 servers? 100 servers? it's impractical, wasteful and a fucking nightmare.
I know what you mean. I've started giving my co-workers aliases so I can remember what they do and where they are: I call Bob G. in Accounting ORDACTGCLRK001, Rosie M. in HR is ORDHRBNFTS012, Ron P. in New York IT is LGAITSYSADM023. Otherwise, there's no way in hell I could remember which of my co-workers to contact when I need something.
I think patents should be eradicated outright, screw reform. Geniuses aren't special.
Innovation requires more effort than genius. There are few "Ah-ha!" developments that come to people in the middle of the night in a dream. Patents are intended to create a profit incentive for people to put in the requisite effort, thereby encouraging innovation for the public good.
Without a profit incentive, why should I spend years in my lab building a better solar panel, or heart valve, or internal combustion engine? As soon as my years of hard work pay off and I put my product on the market, countless other companies would be able to offer the same thing for only the cost of reverse engineering my product. I endured all the up-front development costs, yet I make the same profit as everyone else who starts selling it because I have to compete with everyone else. I'm a nice guy, but I'm not self-sacrificing.
Seriously... this software patent crap has to stop.
That was the original intent, yes. But overly broad patents owned by litigious corporations with deep pockets have created a fear among inventors or potential inventors that any new invention will be labeled as infringing by some corporation owning some broad patent. As a result, only the litigious corporations with deep pockets dare take the risk of selling a new invention.
I'm pretty sure the quote I'm referring to was focused on the sudent's learning. I didn't intend to imply a focus on teachers' interests, only that the lecture vs. books debate is not a new one.
Didn't Aristotle or Socrates decry the spread of books for learning and teaching? I can't find the quote, but it was something along the lines of "learning through written word will destroy the lecture and eliminate the teacher."
Precisely! Upgrading for the sake up upgrading is the hobgoblin of little minds. I'll be running Firefox 3.6 and Win XP 64-bit until developers get over the current trend toward minimalism.
My own experience was at the state level, where state law prevented me from recovering damages (including attorney's fees) from a state-run agency. Perhaps related to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
In the US, public agencies -- like police departments -- are often immune from liability in civil cases. If the UK is the same, privatization could open up the potential for abuses to actually be punished.
I also think it's shameful that a pharmacy would fill a prescription they cannot plainly read and/or do not fully understand
Personally, I think it's shameful that a patient would ever hand over a prescription without understanding what drug they a being prescribed, or would take pills from a bottle without reading the label to verify what drug it is.
It sounded to me like GP was making the unjustified assumption that any purchase would be intended to support the artist. The subject started with "if you want to support the artist...".
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Today's recording industry has been around for what, 50 years now? Haven't they been duping people since Elvis? Any artist who was too stupid to sign on the dotted line in the last 30 years without a competent lawyer present deserves a Darwin Award. Hate on the recording industry all you want, but don't forget that it's not just consumers who keep them in business. Many artists DO have that lawyer present and choose to sign anyway.
all these copyright laws and extensions are all about returning profits to the artists, right?
Not if the artist voluntarily signs away those rights. Once they do, it IS the recording label's product. For all the discussion in recent years about how little an artist gets in royalties from the record labels, it's rarely mentioned that the artist chose to sign on the dotted line. Presumably, they were willing to give up a larger share of the profits from their music in exchange for the higher volume of sales offered by the labels. And no, they weren't all duped.
Presumably, the person buying the album. I didn't buy a sandwich today to support the restaurant owner, I bought it because I was hungry and thought it would taste good.
Correlation does not imply causation. The smokers and drinkers among the working poor fuck themselves.
Targeting one group is not an implicit targeting of another, loosely correlated, group. To suggest that sin taxes are taxes on the working poor is to suggest that either (1) the working poor are predisposed to smoking, drinking and gambling; or (2) that smokers, drinkers and gamblers are predisposed to being poor.
A tax on cell phone service is not a tax on cancer patients; tough on drugs is not tough on black people; preventing people from making a mess in a public park is not preventing people from exercising free speech; and requesting picture ID at a poling place is not requesting that the poor stay home on election day.
Meanwhile, those of us in established businesses Do Shit Right The First Time because our work is expected to hold up for years. "We Get Shit Done" is a euphemism for "We don't bother plan or learn best practices, we'll just kludge something together and fix it when it breaks."
Perhaps, as long as you remain obscure. But once you become a research target -- being suspected of a crime, mentioned in a news story, or applying for a security clearance, for example -- then all that data can provide seeds for speculation about your motives, integrity, or personality.
The public IP addresses of my servers are buried in relative obscurity, just another 32-bit number among millions. But if I post a log file to a support forum then you can bet that I'll strip that IP address out.
That's more or less the vision of this company's owner. I heard him speak at PopTech a couple of years ago, and he has some very interesting goals. Unfortunately, they seem to be limited at the moment to helping you build that ugly-ass rally car on their home page.
This is a US government project, so all US citizens are essentially stakeholders. All government agencies are stakeholders. You just can't please that many people, and it's the process of trying to do so that does projects like this in.
I didn't mean to suggest that the guy calling the shots would ignore stakeholders. He's a project manager. This person is in a position to consider ALL input and make fair compromises, instead of trying to create an amalgamation of whimsical directives by those who "outrank" him but don't have the complete picture (e.g. politicians responsible for project funding, the guy he works for, the gal he owes a favor to). While I did say a lot of people would be annoyed with the details of the end result, they wouldn't be the majority. Those people truly willing to compromise will be happy with a working system that meets the goals set out for the project.
Slashdot Mirror
as long as your code is maintainable, works, commented, and capable, you're doing a good job
I strongly disagree. Anyone in a CS program can debug code that doesn't work, or refactor code that looks bad. The benefit of experience is being able to anticipate what might go wrong in the future or under different conditions. It's about knowing what to look out for before it becomes a problem.
I'm sure all the newbie coders whose work adorns The Daily WTF thought their code was maintainable and functional, but it shows up on TDWTF because it broke when conditions changed and someone had to go fix it. Bottom line: if you don't have a lot of coding experience, you don't have the experience to judge your own work.
once you start having 30 server, 50 servers? 100 servers? it's impractical, wasteful and a fucking nightmare.
I know what you mean. I've started giving my co-workers aliases so I can remember what they do and where they are: I call Bob G. in Accounting ORDACTGCLRK001, Rosie M. in HR is ORDHRBNFTS012, Ron P. in New York IT is LGAITSYSADM023. Otherwise, there's no way in hell I could remember which of my co-workers to contact when I need something.
I think patents should be eradicated outright, screw reform. Geniuses aren't special.
Innovation requires more effort than genius. There are few "Ah-ha!" developments that come to people in the middle of the night in a dream. Patents are intended to create a profit incentive for people to put in the requisite effort, thereby encouraging innovation for the public good.
Without a profit incentive, why should I spend years in my lab building a better solar panel, or heart valve, or internal combustion engine? As soon as my years of hard work pay off and I put my product on the market, countless other companies would be able to offer the same thing for only the cost of reverse engineering my product. I endured all the up-front development costs, yet I make the same profit as everyone else who starts selling it because I have to compete with everyone else. I'm a nice guy, but I'm not self-sacrificing.
Seriously... this software patent crap has to stop.
The crap, yes. Patents themselves, no.
That was the original intent, yes. But overly broad patents owned by litigious corporations with deep pockets have created a fear among inventors or potential inventors that any new invention will be labeled as infringing by some corporation owning some broad patent. As a result, only the litigious corporations with deep pockets dare take the risk of selling a new invention.
I'm pretty sure the quote I'm referring to was focused on the sudent's learning. I didn't intend to imply a focus on teachers' interests, only that the lecture vs. books debate is not a new one.
Didn't Aristotle or Socrates decry the spread of books for learning and teaching? I can't find the quote, but it was something along the lines of "learning through written word will destroy the lecture and eliminate the teacher."
Precisely! Upgrading for the sake up upgrading is the hobgoblin of little minds. I'll be running Firefox 3.6 and Win XP 64-bit until developers get over the current trend toward minimalism.
My own experience was at the state level, where state law prevented me from recovering damages (including attorney's fees) from a state-run agency. Perhaps related to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
In the US, public agencies -- like police departments -- are often immune from liability in civil cases. If the UK is the same, privatization could open up the potential for abuses to actually be punished.
Or stick it to the car of the agent who planted it.
I also think it's shameful that a pharmacy would fill a prescription they cannot plainly read and/or do not fully understand
Personally, I think it's shameful that a patient would ever hand over a prescription without understanding what drug they a being prescribed, or would take pills from a bottle without reading the label to verify what drug it is.
[The United States of] America
It sounded to me like GP was making the unjustified assumption that any purchase would be intended to support the artist. The subject started with "if you want to support the artist...".
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Today's recording industry has been around for what, 50 years now? Haven't they been duping people since Elvis? Any artist who was too stupid to sign on the dotted line in the last 30 years without a competent lawyer present deserves a Darwin Award. Hate on the recording industry all you want, but don't forget that it's not just consumers who keep them in business. Many artists DO have that lawyer present and choose to sign anyway.
all these copyright laws and extensions are all about returning profits to the artists, right?
Not if the artist voluntarily signs away those rights. Once they do, it IS the recording label's product. For all the discussion in recent years about how little an artist gets in royalties from the record labels, it's rarely mentioned that the artist chose to sign on the dotted line. Presumably, they were willing to give up a larger share of the profits from their music in exchange for the higher volume of sales offered by the labels. And no, they weren't all duped.
Who's benefiting?
Presumably, the person buying the album. I didn't buy a sandwich today to support the restaurant owner, I bought it because I was hungry and thought it would taste good.
Correlation does not imply causation. The smokers and drinkers among the working poor fuck themselves.
Targeting one group is not an implicit targeting of another, loosely correlated, group. To suggest that sin taxes are taxes on the working poor is to suggest that either (1) the working poor are predisposed to smoking, drinking and gambling; or (2) that smokers, drinkers and gamblers are predisposed to being poor.
A tax on cell phone service is not a tax on cancer patients; tough on drugs is not tough on black people; preventing people from making a mess in a public park is not preventing people from exercising free speech; and requesting picture ID at a poling place is not requesting that the poor stay home on election day.
Meanwhile, those of us in established businesses Do Shit Right The First Time because our work is expected to hold up for years. "We Get Shit Done" is a euphemism for "We don't bother plan or learn best practices, we'll just kludge something together and fix it when it breaks."
Just because it could be worse doesn't mean it can't be better.
Your mundanity is your privacy
Perhaps, as long as you remain obscure. But once you become a research target -- being suspected of a crime, mentioned in a news story, or applying for a security clearance, for example -- then all that data can provide seeds for speculation about your motives, integrity, or personality.
The public IP addresses of my servers are buried in relative obscurity, just another 32-bit number among millions. But if I post a log file to a support forum then you can bet that I'll strip that IP address out.
That's more or less the vision of this company's owner. I heard him speak at PopTech a couple of years ago, and he has some very interesting goals. Unfortunately, they seem to be limited at the moment to helping you build that ugly-ass rally car on their home page.
The 21 hour day on the way back ought to even it out.
This is a US government project, so all US citizens are essentially stakeholders. All government agencies are stakeholders. You just can't please that many people, and it's the process of trying to do so that does projects like this in.
I didn't mean to suggest that the guy calling the shots would ignore stakeholders. He's a project manager. This person is in a position to consider ALL input and make fair compromises, instead of trying to create an amalgamation of whimsical directives by those who "outrank" him but don't have the complete picture (e.g. politicians responsible for project funding, the guy he works for, the gal he owes a favor to). While I did say a lot of people would be annoyed with the details of the end result, they wouldn't be the majority. Those people truly willing to compromise will be happy with a working system that meets the goals set out for the project.
So, we're relying on security through obscurity?
Free text metadata? Let's not go there.
Google and it's users seem to be doing a pretty good job of utilizing free text to locate documents.