Microsoft already makes heavy HEAVY use of Perl to compile windows. In fact, the vast majority of the code compiling windows is in Perl. Mostly because they don't have a decent scripting language. There has been some people making components in C# as of my leaving the company, but I didn't like it much at all, because part of the build process is watching the build and fixing things when they break. (The Windows build process is a hobbled together lump of duct tape usually.) As such, having compiled binary blobs doing the work results in not being able to easily modify and work around issues. This is fine for things like compilers, which don't change over the course of the project (once a version of Windows is released, the compilers for that version never change. Correction, almost never change. There were some 2003 releases for IA-64 that needed a new compiler, because of a critical error in exception handling in the compiler.)
So....... I don't think Steve Ballmer would have any problems with using git, beyond his retarded "zomg must use MS products or die!" (The guy wouldn't let his kids have iPods, wtf?) But since it's internal, that's unlikely. But unless git can pass along all the information that SourceDepot (the heavily modified Perforce that Microsoft uses) uses, this is unlikely. SD has a lot of historical information about who checked in what, and when, and what was checked in. The build team depends upon this heavily, and so it's unlikely they would want to switch tools. Not to mention that the build code interacts directly with SD to do a lot of the monkey work, like lock a tree, declare a branch for build, and then unlock the tree once done.
Also, access control. There are strict rules about who can get windows source code and when, and it's maintained by a huge backend website. Also, checkins must have specific information, code reviews, etc, or they are automatically rejected. The idea behind git, my understand is, is that anyone can grab a copy and maintain their own tree, and that other tree would then merge in your tree to encapsulate your changes. The idea that at a widescale Microsoft would adopt such a decentralized model is purely fantasy.
Yeah..... that is one of the many reasons the US put "freedom of speech" in a Constitutional amendment and wrote very loose slander/libel laws.
Actually, the slander/libel laws are so loose due to case law establishing that the 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech is paramount, and thus things like prior restraint are impossible, and that truth is an absolute defense.
The states then came along with their Restatement of Torts and defined the slander/libel laws loosely around what tradition had already established.
Welcome to the Common Law system where case law and legal tradition were more instrumental in defining laws than legislators.
If their legal theory had held up, next thing we know we'd have had homeowners facing 10+ years in prison for "wiretapping" burglars' conversations on CCTV.
(Ooh, and the burglar was whistling "Happy Birthday", so you're liable for $160,000 in damages to the RIAA as well...)
CCTV doesn't come with audio recording precisely because in some states it is a violation of their wiretapping laws to record audio. It's not the BURGLARS that have an expectation of privacy in this case, but rather, employees and customers.
"a police officer on a traffic stop", or "a non-uniformed police officer on a traffic stop using a non-labeled vehicle, not identifying himself as police before pointing a gun like a crazy man"?
And... also from Bedfordshire News, who confirmed with Police that they visited the teen.
More likely, it's the case of a PC intimidating an individual, and they had no idea if he were actually banned or not. But it's a fairly safe assumption, especially if according to Bedfordshire News, the email said "A LOT more than just prick". Like, threatening language.
So, let's review what really happened: Angel gets drunk. Writes abusive and threatening email to White House. White House receives email. White House transmit it per S.O.P. to the Secret Service. Secret Service per S.O.P. investigates. Since Angel is not in the US, they contact the local police to investigate if Angel is a real threat. The Bedfordshire police sends two PC to the house. The PCs arrive and "rough the kid up" because that's what some cops do. Kid calls up news to whine. Reports gets blown out of proportion by the media assuming that there was some sinister action on part of the administration, when in reality it was entirely S.O.P.
Re:Cook's Illustrated, America's Test Kitchen
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
But you know, if you really feel like a competition, we could face off with souffles at dawn. Have at thee!
Humorously of note: MasterChef's most recent Pressure Cooker test was a duel of Soufflés.
Re:Cook's Illustrated, America's Test Kitchen
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
I said, "calling themselves"... I didn't recommend you boys saying it!
Re:Cook's Illustrated, America's Test Kitchen
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
They really are more sturdy than most assume and not nearly as difficult to make as most people think.
I can kind of see where some of the difficulty come in... I had to try 5 times before I made a mousse that wasn't just an egg and cream liquid. And then the very next try after the success, my egg whites fell while I was whipping the cream.
Pedantic Bitch? Is that what misogynistic mommies boys are calling smart, opinionated women nowadays? I just can't keep up with teenage slang...
Oh no... it's what pedantic bitches are calling themselves, because they're pedantic about terms.
Re:Cook's Illustrated, America's Test Kitchen
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
Well I've made all of two souffles in my life, a chocolate one and a cheese one and neither fell down, so this should be a shoe in, haha!
Wikipedia says that they're actually much more sturdy than people think, but just by cooling down, most of them will sink.
Oh sorry, I'm being a pedantic bitch again... sorry.
Re:Cook's Illustrated, America's Test Kitchen
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
Also, I believe flour absorbs water from the meat and releases it more quickly, helping the meat dry out and brown more quickly.
I'd have to say that this is unknown to me. As such, I shall refuse to opine until there exists empirical evidence either way...;)
Anyway, that's why I think we flour and brown meat destined for the stew pot or slow cooker.
My understanding here is that it's difficult to remove the water to get a good browning on the meat once it is in the stew, or braising.
Alternatively, when pan roasting a meat, you're browning it first so that it looks good, then you're actually cooking it in the oven. But there really isn't much reason why one cannot do it the other way around... although empirically, they've found that cooking it first, then searing/browning it after yields more moisture in the meat.
I also suspect the flouring of the meat destined for stew is to make a small amount of roux for the stew... plus, Maillard reactions are tasty.
I don't really want to get into a big argument over it, you are correct that meat browning isn't really the Maillard reaction
I will acknowledge that it's usually significantly more simple to lump many of the same reactions that are the same in technique to make things more simple. Perhaps it would be nicer if we had a term that would describe all three of: Maillard reaction, meat browning, and carmelization... something that starts of with its definition: "none of these techniques are chemically related, they just happen under the same circumstances, and produce similar results."
But you know, if you really feel like a competition, we could face off with souffles at dawn. Have at thee!
Dear me, I've yet to actually make a soufflé yet. But I've made mousse, and apparently a soufflé is a cooked mousse, so I might not lose entirely...
Very well, soufflés at dawn... TO THE DEATH!
Re:Cook's Illustrated, America's Test Kitchen
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
While this is true, many meat preparations use carbohydrates in the coating, and these do permit the Maillard reaction to take place, jump starting the browning of meat.
You can't really "jump start" the browning of the meat without extracting water from it, as both the Maillard reaction and the browning of meat don't start occurring until the water is removed.
But using a preparation over the meat that would really allow a Maillard reaction (say, like coating it in flour) doesn't make the meat brown any sooner...
All the funnier to those language geeks who understand a bit of French. "Sous-vide" = "under vacuum"
Re:Cook's Illustrated, America's Test Kitchen
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
"The browning reactions that occur when meat is roasted or seared have often been referred to as Maillard reaction browning. However, lean meat contains very few, if any, reducing sugars. Furthermore, red meat undergoes more extensive browning than does white meat. The browning reactions in lean meat are most likely due to the breakdown of the tetrapyrrole rings of the muscle protein myoglobin. Thus, the browning of meat is technically not a Maillard browning since it does not involve the reaction with a reducing sugar." source
Re:List geek cooking instructions here
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 3, Funny
It's an empirical question. In my opinion, any number of slaves in a labor market should make that labor illegal. That seems like a reasonable opinion.
So, no more cotton picking? Or is that ok now that we're able to control it and ensure that workers are not slaves?
The issue of human slavery in a labor market is a different issue from making that labor entirely illegal.
I personally think that Vice Squad should be rounding up people abusing children and non-consenting adults rather than abusing consenting adults.
Some politicians are bad people, and corrupt, should we outlaw all politics? Construction is highly dangerous and results in numerous deaths every year, should we issue a decree from on high that no one can actually consent to such an action? Boxing is a brutal sport that injures and kills as well... should we decry this, and declare it an unconscionable act as well?
Or should we put in place guidelines, enforcement and protections upon any and all employers to treat their employees fairly and reasonably?
The one being argumentative is you. BTW, I can call names too, you cunt.
LK
You openly admit that you do not have the background necessary to address my comments about French.
You however fail to recognize the lack of background necessary to actually address the validity of the double negative.
Logically, there is no reason to assume that there are three generations of electron. Logically, there is no reason why photons could be their own antiparticle. But empirical evidence tells us that these things are true.
In the same way, double negatives are used widely in all manner of languages all around the world. Your assertion about the "logical nature" of negatives within a sentence must therefore be inaccurate and flawed in some way, as it directly contradicts evidence.
I am being argumentative because the evidence supports my side, like Semmelweis, but unlike Semmelweis, my position is also affirmed by modern linguistic theories.
Your only argument in this matter is "this isn't the way I think it should work", which is a perfectly common sense notion, but completely unavailing, and like much of common science in science, wrong. It is for the reason of defending this empirically false position that you attain not just "argumentative" but "argumentative asshole".
*nod nod* I see... the argument that you're making here is that, "Government isn't stupid. It's just 'evil'." (Evil in this case being relative.)
I do like your argument, but you know, as with drugs, there are politicians here who are calling for legalization of at least pot... but then as groundswell comes up for an issue, it then starts to become politically acceptable to listen to the god-damned advisors, I suppose.
I speak from anecdotal evidence, so I know this does not apply to everyone in the field. There certainly are women who don't really want to do the job, and these people certainly deserve a path out of their professional field, but there are a number of people like that in almost all careers.
You'd be surprised that it doesn't take a big stretch for a woman to get to the 6 figure mark, or at least what would be a 6 figure income if their pay is used as "take home", and we extrapolate what they would be earning if they were paying their proper taxes, etc.
I know one particular former call girl who willingly and knowingly entered into the field of her own free will, and felt more honest about her earnings than when she was working as a computer programmer.
Most people object to prostitution on two grounds: human trafficking, which should be wrong anyways, mistreatment by their pimps, or the dangers presented by clients. Most people who are against prostitution are not against the prostitutes themselves. They see them as "trapped" in a position where they have a high likelihood of harm. Yet, if we legalized it, then human trafficking would still be wrong, mistreatment by their pimps could be handled by police and other governmental authorities, and protection against clients is guaranteed the same way.
In Sweden, prostitution is not illegal, but being a pimp and frequenting a prostitute are illegal. Imagine the wonderful nature of your transaction of: "if you stiff me, I can call the cops, and they'll arrest you, and I walk away." Clients won't screw their prostitutes in this case. The same with pimps. "Go ahead, slap me... I'll call the cops, and they'll haul you away, and I can admit openly that I'm a prostitute, and I won't get taken away."
How about making prostitution a SAFE profession, rather than demanding it be illegal to stop people from doing it? If you're concerned about their health from the sex alone, either physical and/or mental, then when shall we expect an intent to make promiscuity itself illegal?
I'm not arguing a linguistic point. I'm arguing a logic point.
The logical meaning of the words is the exact opposite of the speaker's intent.
The speakers who use this completely disagree with you. Particularly, the people who speak a language where use of every possible negative is absolutely required in every negative sentence.
Your logic is not automatically correct just because it appears sound. This is the very definition of "specious". You cannot accept that your argument LOOKS correct, to the range of evaluating it and the determination that via direct empirical evidence your argument is wrong.
It's unnecessary for that particular subject-verb arrangement.
Again, so you're now agreeing with me that it is "superfluous". The only reason SAE speakers do this is because of convention.
Yet you still argued the point that you knew I'd dispute?
Because it does not dismiss my argument. Again, remove any one of the negations in the sentence, and the sentence is still a single simple negation.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft already makes heavy HEAVY use of Perl to compile windows. In fact, the vast majority of the code compiling windows is in Perl. Mostly because they don't have a decent scripting language. There has been some people making components in C# as of my leaving the company, but I didn't like it much at all, because part of the build process is watching the build and fixing things when they break. (The Windows build process is a hobbled together lump of duct tape usually.) As such, having compiled binary blobs doing the work results in not being able to easily modify and work around issues. This is fine for things like compilers, which don't change over the course of the project (once a version of Windows is released, the compilers for that version never change. Correction, almost never change. There were some 2003 releases for IA-64 that needed a new compiler, because of a critical error in exception handling in the compiler.)
So....... I don't think Steve Ballmer would have any problems with using git, beyond his retarded "zomg must use MS products or die!" (The guy wouldn't let his kids have iPods, wtf?) But since it's internal, that's unlikely. But unless git can pass along all the information that SourceDepot (the heavily modified Perforce that Microsoft uses) uses, this is unlikely. SD has a lot of historical information about who checked in what, and when, and what was checked in. The build team depends upon this heavily, and so it's unlikely they would want to switch tools. Not to mention that the build code interacts directly with SD to do a lot of the monkey work, like lock a tree, declare a branch for build, and then unlock the tree once done.
Also, access control. There are strict rules about who can get windows source code and when, and it's maintained by a huge backend website. Also, checkins must have specific information, code reviews, etc, or they are automatically rejected. The idea behind git, my understand is, is that anyone can grab a copy and maintain their own tree, and that other tree would then merge in your tree to encapsulate your changes. The idea that at a widescale Microsoft would adopt such a decentralized model is purely fantasy.
Miniaturized relays are interesting, but an inverter which operates at 0.0005 Ghz is less interesting.
Also less interesting? That if we were to get it up to 1 GHz, then the processor would exhaust itself in two seconds.
Good enough for the flight controller in a smart missile.
I think smart missiles usually travel at least a few minutes away...
Miniaturized relays are interesting, but an inverter which operates at 0.0005 Ghz is less interesting.
Also less interesting? That if we were to get it up to 1 GHz, then the processor would exhaust itself in two seconds.
While we're being pedants here, the UK isn't an island either.
Or are you one of those people who doesn't understand the difference between the UK and Great Britain?
Great Britain isn't 1 island either. :)
Great Britain is one island. There are a number of islands in the British Isles, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_British_Isles
Yeah..... that is one of the many reasons the US put "freedom of speech" in a Constitutional amendment and wrote very loose slander/libel laws.
Actually, the slander/libel laws are so loose due to case law establishing that the 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech is paramount, and thus things like prior restraint are impossible, and that truth is an absolute defense.
The states then came along with their Restatement of Torts and defined the slander/libel laws loosely around what tradition had already established.
Welcome to the Common Law system where case law and legal tradition were more instrumental in defining laws than legislators.
HOMEOWNERS
Here's an analogy for you. Employer is to employee/customers as homeowner is to roommates/household members/guests/visitors.
If their legal theory had held up, next thing we know we'd have had homeowners facing 10+ years in prison for "wiretapping" burglars' conversations on CCTV.
(Ooh, and the burglar was whistling "Happy Birthday", so you're liable for $160,000 in damages to the RIAA as well ...)
CCTV doesn't come with audio recording precisely because in some states it is a violation of their wiretapping laws to record audio. It's not the BURGLARS that have an expectation of privacy in this case, but rather, employees and customers.
"a police officer on a traffic stop", or "a non-uniformed police officer on a traffic stop using a non-labeled vehicle, not identifying himself as police before pointing a gun like a crazy man"?
We can only hope for the answer to be "both".
And... also from Bedfordshire News, who confirmed with Police that they visited the teen.
More likely, it's the case of a PC intimidating an individual, and they had no idea if he were actually banned or not. But it's a fairly safe assumption, especially if according to Bedfordshire News, the email said "A LOT more than just prick". Like, threatening language.
So, let's review what really happened: Angel gets drunk. Writes abusive and threatening email to White House. White House receives email. White House transmit it per S.O.P. to the Secret Service. Secret Service per S.O.P. investigates. Since Angel is not in the US, they contact the local police to investigate if Angel is a real threat. The Bedfordshire police sends two PC to the house. The PCs arrive and "rough the kid up" because that's what some cops do. Kid calls up news to whine. Reports gets blown out of proportion by the media assuming that there was some sinister action on part of the administration, when in reality it was entirely S.O.P.
But you know, if you really feel like a competition, we could face off with souffles at dawn. Have at thee!
Humorously of note: MasterChef's most recent Pressure Cooker test was a duel of Soufflés.
I said, "calling themselves"... I didn't recommend you boys saying it!
They really are more sturdy than most assume and not nearly as difficult to make as most people think.
I can kind of see where some of the difficulty come in... I had to try 5 times before I made a mousse that wasn't just an egg and cream liquid. And then the very next try after the success, my egg whites fell while I was whipping the cream.
Pedantic Bitch? Is that what misogynistic mommies boys are calling smart, opinionated women nowadays? I just can't keep up with teenage slang...
Oh no... it's what pedantic bitches are calling themselves, because they're pedantic about terms.
Well I've made all of two souffles in my life, a chocolate one and a cheese one and neither fell down, so this should be a shoe in, haha!
Wikipedia says that they're actually much more sturdy than people think, but just by cooling down, most of them will sink.
Oh sorry, I'm being a pedantic bitch again... sorry.
Also, I believe flour absorbs water from the meat and releases it more quickly, helping the meat dry out and brown more quickly.
I'd have to say that this is unknown to me. As such, I shall refuse to opine until there exists empirical evidence either way... ;)
Anyway, that's why I think we flour and brown meat destined for the stew pot or slow cooker.
My understanding here is that it's difficult to remove the water to get a good browning on the meat once it is in the stew, or braising.
Alternatively, when pan roasting a meat, you're browning it first so that it looks good, then you're actually cooking it in the oven. But there really isn't much reason why one cannot do it the other way around... although empirically, they've found that cooking it first, then searing/browning it after yields more moisture in the meat.
I also suspect the flouring of the meat destined for stew is to make a small amount of roux for the stew... plus, Maillard reactions are tasty.
I don't really want to get into a big argument over it, you are correct that meat browning isn't really the Maillard reaction
I will acknowledge that it's usually significantly more simple to lump many of the same reactions that are the same in technique to make things more simple. Perhaps it would be nicer if we had a term that would describe all three of: Maillard reaction, meat browning, and carmelization... something that starts of with its definition: "none of these techniques are chemically related, they just happen under the same circumstances, and produce similar results."
But you know, if you really feel like a competition, we could face off with souffles at dawn. Have at thee!
Dear me, I've yet to actually make a soufflé yet. But I've made mousse, and apparently a soufflé is a cooked mousse, so I might not lose entirely...
Very well, soufflés at dawn... TO THE DEATH!
While this is true, many meat preparations use carbohydrates in the coating, and these do permit the Maillard reaction to take place, jump starting the browning of meat.
You can't really "jump start" the browning of the meat without extracting water from it, as both the Maillard reaction and the browning of meat don't start occurring until the water is removed.
But using a preparation over the meat that would really allow a Maillard reaction (say, like coating it in flour) doesn't make the meat brown any sooner...
All the funnier to those language geeks who understand a bit of French. "Sous-vide" = "under vacuum"
"The browning reactions that occur when meat is roasted or seared have often been referred to as Maillard reaction browning. However, lean meat contains very few, if any, reducing sugars. Furthermore, red meat undergoes more extensive browning than does white meat. The browning reactions in lean meat are most likely due to the breakdown of the tetrapyrrole rings of the muscle protein myoglobin. Thus, the browning of meat is technically not a Maillard browning since it does not involve the reaction with a reducing sugar." source
fork(); fork(); fork(); fork(); fork(); fork(); fork(); fork(); fork(); fork(); fork(); fork(); fork();
Change the 'f' to a 'b' and you get Swedish Chef.
You mean: s/f/b/g for Swedish Chef.
It's an empirical question. In my opinion, any number of slaves in a labor market should make that labor illegal. That seems like a reasonable opinion.
So, no more cotton picking? Or is that ok now that we're able to control it and ensure that workers are not slaves?
The issue of human slavery in a labor market is a different issue from making that labor entirely illegal.
I personally think that Vice Squad should be rounding up people abusing children and non-consenting adults rather than abusing consenting adults.
Some politicians are bad people, and corrupt, should we outlaw all politics? Construction is highly dangerous and results in numerous deaths every year, should we issue a decree from on high that no one can actually consent to such an action? Boxing is a brutal sport that injures and kills as well... should we decry this, and declare it an unconscionable act as well?
Or should we put in place guidelines, enforcement and protections upon any and all employers to treat their employees fairly and reasonably?
You're just being an argumentative asshole!
The one being argumentative is you. BTW, I can call names too, you cunt.
LK
You openly admit that you do not have the background necessary to address my comments about French.
You however fail to recognize the lack of background necessary to actually address the validity of the double negative.
Logically, there is no reason to assume that there are three generations of electron. Logically, there is no reason why photons could be their own antiparticle. But empirical evidence tells us that these things are true.
In the same way, double negatives are used widely in all manner of languages all around the world. Your assertion about the "logical nature" of negatives within a sentence must therefore be inaccurate and flawed in some way, as it directly contradicts evidence.
I am being argumentative because the evidence supports my side, like Semmelweis, but unlike Semmelweis, my position is also affirmed by modern linguistic theories.
Your only argument in this matter is "this isn't the way I think it should work", which is a perfectly common sense notion, but completely unavailing, and like much of common science in science, wrong. It is for the reason of defending this empirically false position that you attain not just "argumentative" but "argumentative asshole".
*nod nod* I see... the argument that you're making here is that, "Government isn't stupid. It's just 'evil'." (Evil in this case being relative.)
I do like your argument, but you know, as with drugs, there are politicians here who are calling for legalization of at least pot... but then as groundswell comes up for an issue, it then starts to become politically acceptable to listen to the god-damned advisors, I suppose.
I speak from anecdotal evidence, so I know this does not apply to everyone in the field. There certainly are women who don't really want to do the job, and these people certainly deserve a path out of their professional field, but there are a number of people like that in almost all careers.
You'd be surprised that it doesn't take a big stretch for a woman to get to the 6 figure mark, or at least what would be a 6 figure income if their pay is used as "take home", and we extrapolate what they would be earning if they were paying their proper taxes, etc.
I know one particular former call girl who willingly and knowingly entered into the field of her own free will, and felt more honest about her earnings than when she was working as a computer programmer.
Most people object to prostitution on two grounds: human trafficking, which should be wrong anyways, mistreatment by their pimps, or the dangers presented by clients. Most people who are against prostitution are not against the prostitutes themselves. They see them as "trapped" in a position where they have a high likelihood of harm. Yet, if we legalized it, then human trafficking would still be wrong, mistreatment by their pimps could be handled by police and other governmental authorities, and protection against clients is guaranteed the same way.
In Sweden, prostitution is not illegal, but being a pimp and frequenting a prostitute are illegal. Imagine the wonderful nature of your transaction of: "if you stiff me, I can call the cops, and they'll arrest you, and I walk away." Clients won't screw their prostitutes in this case. The same with pimps. "Go ahead, slap me... I'll call the cops, and they'll haul you away, and I can admit openly that I'm a prostitute, and I won't get taken away."
How about making prostitution a SAFE profession, rather than demanding it be illegal to stop people from doing it? If you're concerned about their health from the sex alone, either physical and/or mental, then when shall we expect an intent to make promiscuity itself illegal?
There is a lot of belief in politics that if we make something illegal, people will stop doing it.
This idea is retarded, and recognizably inconsistent with reality.
I'm not arguing a linguistic point. I'm arguing a logic point.
The logical meaning of the words is the exact opposite of the speaker's intent.
The speakers who use this completely disagree with you. Particularly, the people who speak a language where use of every possible negative is absolutely required in every negative sentence.
Your logic is not automatically correct just because it appears sound. This is the very definition of "specious". You cannot accept that your argument LOOKS correct, to the range of evaluating it and the determination that via direct empirical evidence your argument is wrong.
It's unnecessary for that particular subject-verb arrangement.
Again, so you're now agreeing with me that it is "superfluous". The only reason SAE speakers do this is because of convention.
Yet you still argued the point that you knew I'd dispute?
Because it does not dismiss my argument. Again, remove any one of the negations in the sentence, and the sentence is still a single simple negation.
You're just being an argumentative asshole!
Technically, there is no distinction based on sex. However, I do not know the de facto state of affairs.