I thought what he said was that the development team is being held hostage by IT, who convinced somebody they were "the computer guys" so they should be in charge of "all the technical computery stuff."
It is insightful, perhaps you didn't understand the language it was written in?
In English it says, "What are they talking about, they just spewed a bunch of words without enough context to even identify which jargon set is being used. And the key word is a relatively new product/project, whose name is repeated umpteen times like it was written by a marketing droid, but is never explained even in context of the other jargon words."
Also, you just signed up yesterday, I can tell by your user id. You don't get to pine for my golden days of yesteryear, those are mine. Get your own, order them now and you can have them in a couple decades when you forget what it was really like.
But this one was just pure technobabble for anyone outside of very specific fields.
Indeed, not all developers run their code "in somebody's cloud," some of us generally expect hardware to be provisioned to run our software. Not saying that the cloud doesn't have its place, but it is rather odd to see people getting snooty over it when "websites running in public clouds" is sortof fry-cook level development.
If something I'm working on has a cloud component, that doesn't mean I would want to be deploying it. Most of the people on the development team wouldn't need to know about the cloud-whatever either.
I can't imagine it is a desirable task for a sysadmin either, unless they're actually working for the cloud company.
Equating it to knowing what a filesystem is... that is just funny. I did check wikipedia, it looks great if I needed it. But few people do, or will, even if they're deploying a lot of code to servers. It seems to mostly be for the use cases where you want less than a full cloud compute instance, but have multiple apps that can share resources, but they don't trust each other and there isn't a sysadmin/devops team to set up apache or whatever in a way that is safe. So this makes it cost less extra overhead to run different apache (or whatever server) instances for each app, without having to run a full virtualized OS for each app.
Online sarcasm was deprecated in 1986, there was a posting on all Major BBS based systems about it. Kids these days just can't follow the Best Practices.
And some of us are software developers, don't consume advertising or "hype" other than places like this. I only clicked on this to find out if it was something interesting, or just the next big blahblah.
Judging from the lack of interest displayed even in the "everybody who is anybody heard of it already" responses suggests to me that it is fluff.
Anyways, I'm not going to take a long enough break from writing firmware to both look up some unrelated thing, and also talk about it on slashdot.
I'd rather be a sewer cleaner than a telemarketer..
Exactly! I was young and needed a job once, and I applied at one of these places... listened in on the line for a few minutes, and realized wow, I'd rather dig for grubs in the forest than do a job that sleazy.
How many of the people on the phone even waited until they were starving to death before stooping so low? Probably none. They're just sleazy assholes who don't mind.
That is silly, because the existing state of things is that if the US Government wants to arrest somebody who is in the UK, they get arrested and handed over. If they want to handcuff them roughly, they can just do it at the airport during the handoff.
It is a weak argument. The government over here already has all the powers. You seem to actually think they care about if the documents have a fancy wax seal from the UK or not, for stuff they can do anyways? LOL
OTOH, the UK government doesn't have the data in their database. This would actually give them additional access. And the NSA clears it to make sure it only data about non-Americans. I don't trust the NSA to respect my privacy, but I do trust their technical abilities at signals intelligence; they will probably press the right buttons to cause my data to be automatically removed from any data dump they Officially Give to a Foreign Government. Unofficially, who knows, but that isn't this proposal. And they won't tell us about that one.;)
Right, you're so worried about France you're unable to comprehend my comment in the context of the United States of America.
I'm not a relativist of any sort, you're guessing at random shit, and guessing wrong. Assume I'm an arrogant American from a western state. Now try to parse it again. Within the context of American politics, the Democratic Party is a center right business party. If you can't understand the claim, don't blame France.
Behind the curtain was, "all your data is belong to us." The proposal here is, "process to get a warrant for something that is already happening behind the curtain, but in secret without process."
Yes, I was paying attention. I still am, and it seems most of the people here are more interesting in keeping it behind the curtain than shining light on it.
She wasn't even a dissenting member, she was never even a trade negotiator, and wasn't working for the government at the late stage when the compromises were being worked out.
She said it was going to be great before it was negotiated, when she worked for the government. Then they negotiated it, and by then she didn't work for the government. She got the details recently, same as the rest of us, and she has opposed it since the first real details were leaking out early last year.
I'm not sure what his angle is here. She quite simply has nothing to do with this deal, and the entire reason to discuss her stance on it has to do with if she would sign it as President.
So, surely you recognize that somebody who wasn't involved in the negotiations at all, but worked for one of the parties in the negotiations when the negotiations had started, but had not worked for that organization for a few years when the agreement was made would not know anything at all about it.
At least certainly less than any of the people who had ever been in the room...;)
We're talking about telemarketers here. If you can physically harm them over the phone line... it might delay the next call. Totally worth it.
If no innocents are being killed, I say fire at will, stake those vampires!
They have no right to call you, you merely don't have methods to stop them. Often they're calling in violation of the law, and if they harm themselves doing it, well they should buy telephones that don't harm them. Blaming their victim for screaming too loudly is pathetic; it is their telephone manufacturer who has a duty to make a safe device, not the person they call with it.
Did you know how health care is done in Europe? Did you check if their system is a failure? You make a bunch of assertions based on speculation about things for which there are real comparisons available in the world.
You're just hand-waving about the 5th Amendment. You heard on some radio program some blowhard mad about it, so you want to say stuff. But for somebody who hasn't been fed that issue, you don't even identify the claimed problem. If you were complaining about the 4th Amendment, there are well established complaints to be made indeed, but you'd still have to actually make the complaint in a reasoned way at the start of any discussion about it, even with people who might agree; if those people are rational beings, anyways.
You are certainly right that if Republicans of yesteryear had actually meant any of the shit they were claiming to support, they would be dancing in the streets over Romneycare having been passed, among other things.
It may be that some you'll realize that the Democractic Party is the center-right pro-business party in the US, but I won't be holding my breath. Few people can overcome the color-coding of the flags. Once a red, always a red.
Gosh, if they did that to the tea it would probably inflame the passions of the English-born so drastically that they might even throw it into the sea in protest.
Sorry Mr Nutcase, but you seem to have gotten that backwards. The UK authorities will apply directly for the US warrant, and if it is approved then the data will be collected by the US and handed over to them. When they say that US citizens data won't be given even when they "emerged" in the investigation, that is what they mean. The way you read it it would contradict itself, but actually it doesn't. This is data that is already stored by the NSA, but requires a warrant to view. This is not a warrant that would allow UK agents to come to the US and install phone taps.;)
No, we didn't even need to stop shooting them for invading our country until January, 1815.
But we're good friends, now.
Anyhow, this only applies to UK citizens who are physically in the US. It seems reasonable, but of course the details of whatever the actual proposed bill in Congress is is what will matter. If the actual bill is what is described in the summary, it won't be scary or even controversial outside of tin-hat circles.
I'm very suspicious of those people claiming that it is bad for there to be clear rules about wire taps. Are you people sure you're actually fighting on the side you tried to take? Don't just presume... stop, check your own uniform, make sure.;)
It's little wonder then why Americans are so dependent on coffee, antidepressants and psychologists.
No, that is your tee-vee. Also known as a "boob tube." Don't believe everything it tells you. Also, the anti-coffee nonsense has been consistently disproved by science for decades. Coffee is good for you, and it is not strongly addictive.
The people who take a lot of anti-depressants are mostly the people whose private lives consist mostly of watching television. Without drugs, it would be an empty life. It has nothing at all to do with their work. If they work more hours, they will be happier, not the reverse.
As for psychologists, that is more of a European thing. It isn't even easy to find one here. Few people go for that nonsense. Way more common here are traditional "counselors," who simply listen, and talk to somebody in a supportive way. Working class people can't afford counseling, and often wouldn't even have time off during the right hours to schedule it! 1 session would cost 2 days wages for the working class. That is about 2 hours for a middle class professional.
I don't see how anyone can maintain a healthy work/life balance with those sorts of demands unless their working day is very short or long weekends are the norm.
Where I live all full time workers are entitled to four weeks annual leave, with some employers giving their staff a fifth week. Plus a certain number of days sick leave, but it's considered fraudulent to take those unless you're actually sick. Not unreasonable I think.
Right, you don't imagine workers who enjoy working hard. You can only imagine workers who just want to go home early, or stay home. Here we have workers for whom working hard is a moral issue; they agreed to be a laborer, and so be good at their position in life is to labor enthusiastically. You presume that to work harder or be more dedicated they must be less happy; what if they have increased sense of self, sense of place, because they are truly more dedicated to their toiling? Many of these workers keep working after they reach retirement age, and receive reduced pension payments because they're still working, but refuse to stop working even thought they're effectively throwing away half their wages; why? Because they enjoy working, they don't want to retire. They're already living the life they value, day after day.
You find it shocking that they only get a tiny bit of paid vacation, but many of them refuse to take it. What would they do, sit in a chair all week and be bored? I've seen workers forced to take a 1 week vacation hang out in the break room at work for most of the week, because that is where they want to be! With their team, their comrades, at work.
People who want a life/work balance don't work as laborers. But don't assume our laborers are their by mistake. The idea that workers would be more productive by being given a worse lot is funny; no, they're more productive because they believe in themselves, in their role in society. Extra time off is for people who don't believe in their role, and they'll never be the most productive even when they're doing a good job.
Most of the rich people also work a lot, also believe in their role, are highly productive at their hoarding activities, and take lots of "working vacations" where they don't actually take a single day off but they're working from the beach with a phone and laptop, and can take breaks to pose for photos with their families, who are actually vacationing.
Think about it; these are the people Europe drove out because they weren't willing to conform. Maybe conformists are less productive? Conformists see a dreamer staring out the window instead of looking busy, and think they're lazy. They don't see them toil all weekend building whatever they were dreaming of.
Right, the non-actor acted but was not an actor, so now you can stop trying to correct me and shut up and go read about it.
In the phrase "paid actor" that is not the same word as just, "oh, a person was lying so that is acting so they are an actor." No, "paid actor" implies something different. It isn't even more or less bad, that's the stupid part of your argument. You want to be right because what happened was immoral and you were shocked and scandalized, but the problem is that instead of arguing for your moral outrage, you're arguing for details that were hyperbole rather than accurate description.
So go away, you're not even arguing for anything. You're arguing incorrect details. When somebody says, "it wasn't an actor it was an involved principle" you're not even contradicting them to say, "gosh saying a lie is acting so the person is an actor." You're just failing to comprehend the words, and insisting that words mean different things than the context makes clear. But no, telling your own lie is just lying; it doesn't make you an actor, or an acrobat, or a space alien, or whatever, even if acting or acrobatics might be used in a colorful description.
I didn't say that, so no. Your statement has 0% possibility of refuting what I said. Try again. If you didn't even re-phrase it to pretend that it is the same thing as what I said, you won't even convince me that you understood what I said; much less that your insight is superior.
Also, to change my opinion I warn you that you'll need to be using 30 year charts, not just 1 year where the accounting games gave certain countries inflated numbers that year. And I won't consider numbers that plot and scheme to include passive banking income as "worker productivity," because it isn't. Those profits aren't even "workers" in that phrase. Dollars are not workers, humans are workers.
There are other countries you could make a case for being #1, but they aren't Norway, Luxembourg or Ireland.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought what he said was that the development team is being held hostage by IT, who convinced somebody they were "the computer guys" so they should be in charge of "all the technical computery stuff."
As a developer, I though the entire point of Docker was to reduce dependence on an entire layer of IT: the human gatekeepers
Finally somebody explained both what it is for, and why I haven't heard of it... I'm not suffering under a BOFH!
They should have just said in the summary, "Docker, a BOFH-resistant deployment system."
It is insightful, perhaps you didn't understand the language it was written in?
In English it says, "What are they talking about, they just spewed a bunch of words without enough context to even identify which jargon set is being used. And the key word is a relatively new product/project, whose name is repeated umpteen times like it was written by a marketing droid, but is never explained even in context of the other jargon words."
Also, you just signed up yesterday, I can tell by your user id. You don't get to pine for my golden days of yesteryear, those are mine. Get your own, order them now and you can have them in a couple decades when you forget what it was really like.
Right, but this is rewritable. OTOH, so are/were the ROMs...
Actually, I have to get back to some firmware programming for a microcontroller, but don't worry: I won't be using the EEPROM, only the flash.
But this one was just pure technobabble for anyone outside of very specific fields.
Indeed, not all developers run their code "in somebody's cloud," some of us generally expect hardware to be provisioned to run our software. Not saying that the cloud doesn't have its place, but it is rather odd to see people getting snooty over it when "websites running in public clouds" is sortof fry-cook level development.
If something I'm working on has a cloud component, that doesn't mean I would want to be deploying it. Most of the people on the development team wouldn't need to know about the cloud-whatever either.
I can't imagine it is a desirable task for a sysadmin either, unless they're actually working for the cloud company.
Equating it to knowing what a filesystem is... that is just funny. I did check wikipedia, it looks great if I needed it. But few people do, or will, even if they're deploying a lot of code to servers. It seems to mostly be for the use cases where you want less than a full cloud compute instance, but have multiple apps that can share resources, but they don't trust each other and there isn't a sysadmin/devops team to set up apache or whatever in a way that is safe. So this makes it cost less extra overhead to run different apache (or whatever server) instances for each app, without having to run a full virtualized OS for each app.
Yeah, that is esoteric.
Online sarcasm was deprecated in 1986, there was a posting on all Major BBS based systems about it. Kids these days just can't follow the Best Practices.
And some of us are software developers, don't consume advertising or "hype" other than places like this. I only clicked on this to find out if it was something interesting, or just the next big blahblah.
Judging from the lack of interest displayed even in the "everybody who is anybody heard of it already" responses suggests to me that it is fluff.
Anyways, I'm not going to take a long enough break from writing firmware to both look up some unrelated thing, and also talk about it on slashdot.
That's it, I'm replacing my rubber ducky with a "hyperspace" button from Asteroids.
I'd rather be a sewer cleaner than a telemarketer..
Exactly! I was young and needed a job once, and I applied at one of these places... listened in on the line for a few minutes, and realized wow, I'd rather dig for grubs in the forest than do a job that sleazy.
How many of the people on the phone even waited until they were starving to death before stooping so low? Probably none. They're just sleazy assholes who don't mind.
That is silly, because the existing state of things is that if the US Government wants to arrest somebody who is in the UK, they get arrested and handed over. If they want to handcuff them roughly, they can just do it at the airport during the handoff.
It is a weak argument. The government over here already has all the powers. You seem to actually think they care about if the documents have a fancy wax seal from the UK or not, for stuff they can do anyways? LOL
OTOH, the UK government doesn't have the data in their database. This would actually give them additional access. And the NSA clears it to make sure it only data about non-Americans. I don't trust the NSA to respect my privacy, but I do trust their technical abilities at signals intelligence; they will probably press the right buttons to cause my data to be automatically removed from any data dump they Officially Give to a Foreign Government. Unofficially, who knows, but that isn't this proposal. And they won't tell us about that one. ;)
Right, you're so worried about France you're unable to comprehend my comment in the context of the United States of America.
I'm not a relativist of any sort, you're guessing at random shit, and guessing wrong. Assume I'm an arrogant American from a western state. Now try to parse it again. Within the context of American politics, the Democratic Party is a center right business party. If you can't understand the claim, don't blame France.
What are you, some kind of freedom fry?
Behind the curtain was, "all your data is belong to us." The proposal here is, "process to get a warrant for something that is already happening behind the curtain, but in secret without process."
Yes, I was paying attention. I still am, and it seems most of the people here are more interesting in keeping it behind the curtain than shining light on it.
She wasn't even a dissenting member, she was never even a trade negotiator, and wasn't working for the government at the late stage when the compromises were being worked out.
She said it was going to be great before it was negotiated, when she worked for the government. Then they negotiated it, and by then she didn't work for the government. She got the details recently, same as the rest of us, and she has opposed it since the first real details were leaking out early last year.
I'm not sure what his angle is here. She quite simply has nothing to do with this deal, and the entire reason to discuss her stance on it has to do with if she would sign it as President.
So, surely you recognize that somebody who wasn't involved in the negotiations at all, but worked for one of the parties in the negotiations when the negotiations had started, but had not worked for that organization for a few years when the agreement was made would not know anything at all about it.
At least certainly less than any of the people who had ever been in the room... ;)
You might want to look up the word "literally." It literally does not mean what you say here.
We're talking about telemarketers here. If you can physically harm them over the phone line... it might delay the next call. Totally worth it.
If no innocents are being killed, I say fire at will, stake those vampires!
They have no right to call you, you merely don't have methods to stop them. Often they're calling in violation of the law, and if they harm themselves doing it, well they should buy telephones that don't harm them. Blaming their victim for screaming too loudly is pathetic; it is their telephone manufacturer who has a duty to make a safe device, not the person they call with it.
These days you might accidentally SWAT yourself that way.
It is pretty derpy of you, though.
Did you know how health care is done in Europe? Did you check if their system is a failure? You make a bunch of assertions based on speculation about things for which there are real comparisons available in the world.
You're just hand-waving about the 5th Amendment. You heard on some radio program some blowhard mad about it, so you want to say stuff. But for somebody who hasn't been fed that issue, you don't even identify the claimed problem. If you were complaining about the 4th Amendment, there are well established complaints to be made indeed, but you'd still have to actually make the complaint in a reasoned way at the start of any discussion about it, even with people who might agree; if those people are rational beings, anyways.
You are certainly right that if Republicans of yesteryear had actually meant any of the shit they were claiming to support, they would be dancing in the streets over Romneycare having been passed, among other things.
It may be that some you'll realize that the Democractic Party is the center-right pro-business party in the US, but I won't be holding my breath. Few people can overcome the color-coding of the flags. Once a red, always a red.
Gosh, if they did that to the tea it would probably inflame the passions of the English-born so drastically that they might even throw it into the sea in protest.
Sorry Mr Nutcase, but you seem to have gotten that backwards. The UK authorities will apply directly for the US warrant, and if it is approved then the data will be collected by the US and handed over to them. When they say that US citizens data won't be given even when they "emerged" in the investigation, that is what they mean. The way you read it it would contradict itself, but actually it doesn't. This is data that is already stored by the NSA, but requires a warrant to view. This is not a warrant that would allow UK agents to come to the US and install phone taps. ;)
No, we didn't even need to stop shooting them for invading our country until January, 1815.
But we're good friends, now.
Anyhow, this only applies to UK citizens who are physically in the US. It seems reasonable, but of course the details of whatever the actual proposed bill in Congress is is what will matter. If the actual bill is what is described in the summary, it won't be scary or even controversial outside of tin-hat circles.
I'm very suspicious of those people claiming that it is bad for there to be clear rules about wire taps. Are you people sure you're actually fighting on the side you tried to take? Don't just presume... stop, check your own uniform, make sure. ;)
I haven't replied to my own comment in years, but I couldn't let my their/there mistake stand unchallenged. Shame on me!
It's little wonder then why Americans are so dependent on coffee, antidepressants and psychologists.
No, that is your tee-vee. Also known as a "boob tube." Don't believe everything it tells you. Also, the anti-coffee nonsense has been consistently disproved by science for decades. Coffee is good for you, and it is not strongly addictive.
The people who take a lot of anti-depressants are mostly the people whose private lives consist mostly of watching television. Without drugs, it would be an empty life. It has nothing at all to do with their work. If they work more hours, they will be happier, not the reverse.
As for psychologists, that is more of a European thing. It isn't even easy to find one here. Few people go for that nonsense. Way more common here are traditional "counselors," who simply listen, and talk to somebody in a supportive way. Working class people can't afford counseling, and often wouldn't even have time off during the right hours to schedule it! 1 session would cost 2 days wages for the working class. That is about 2 hours for a middle class professional.
I don't see how anyone can maintain a healthy work/life balance with those sorts of demands unless their working day is very short or long weekends are the norm.
Where I live all full time workers are entitled to four weeks annual leave, with some employers giving their staff a fifth week. Plus a certain number of days sick leave, but it's considered fraudulent to take those unless you're actually sick. Not unreasonable I think.
Right, you don't imagine workers who enjoy working hard. You can only imagine workers who just want to go home early, or stay home. Here we have workers for whom working hard is a moral issue; they agreed to be a laborer, and so be good at their position in life is to labor enthusiastically. You presume that to work harder or be more dedicated they must be less happy; what if they have increased sense of self, sense of place, because they are truly more dedicated to their toiling? Many of these workers keep working after they reach retirement age, and receive reduced pension payments because they're still working, but refuse to stop working even thought they're effectively throwing away half their wages; why? Because they enjoy working, they don't want to retire. They're already living the life they value, day after day.
You find it shocking that they only get a tiny bit of paid vacation, but many of them refuse to take it. What would they do, sit in a chair all week and be bored? I've seen workers forced to take a 1 week vacation hang out in the break room at work for most of the week, because that is where they want to be! With their team, their comrades, at work.
People who want a life/work balance don't work as laborers. But don't assume our laborers are their by mistake. The idea that workers would be more productive by being given a worse lot is funny; no, they're more productive because they believe in themselves, in their role in society. Extra time off is for people who don't believe in their role, and they'll never be the most productive even when they're doing a good job.
Most of the rich people also work a lot, also believe in their role, are highly productive at their hoarding activities, and take lots of "working vacations" where they don't actually take a single day off but they're working from the beach with a phone and laptop, and can take breaks to pose for photos with their families, who are actually vacationing.
Think about it; these are the people Europe drove out because they weren't willing to conform. Maybe conformists are less productive? Conformists see a dreamer staring out the window instead of looking busy, and think they're lazy. They don't see them toil all weekend building whatever they were dreaming of.
Right, the non-actor acted but was not an actor, so now you can stop trying to correct me and shut up and go read about it.
In the phrase "paid actor" that is not the same word as just, "oh, a person was lying so that is acting so they are an actor." No, "paid actor" implies something different. It isn't even more or less bad, that's the stupid part of your argument. You want to be right because what happened was immoral and you were shocked and scandalized, but the problem is that instead of arguing for your moral outrage, you're arguing for details that were hyperbole rather than accurate description.
So go away, you're not even arguing for anything. You're arguing incorrect details. When somebody says, "it wasn't an actor it was an involved principle" you're not even contradicting them to say, "gosh saying a lie is acting so the person is an actor." You're just failing to comprehend the words, and insisting that words mean different things than the context makes clear. But no, telling your own lie is just lying; it doesn't make you an actor, or an acrobat, or a space alien, or whatever, even if acting or acrobatics might be used in a colorful description.
I didn't say that, so no. Your statement has 0% possibility of refuting what I said. Try again. If you didn't even re-phrase it to pretend that it is the same thing as what I said, you won't even convince me that you understood what I said; much less that your insight is superior.
Also, to change my opinion I warn you that you'll need to be using 30 year charts, not just 1 year where the accounting games gave certain countries inflated numbers that year. And I won't consider numbers that plot and scheme to include passive banking income as "worker productivity," because it isn't. Those profits aren't even "workers" in that phrase. Dollars are not workers, humans are workers.
There are other countries you could make a case for being #1, but they aren't Norway, Luxembourg or Ireland.