As I said in another post, life is worth living because it is dynamic and unpredictable.
According to the MBTI, that's a P trait. Js want quite the opposite. Especially when the pereson is an S. Considering J/P is about 50/50 in the population, your comment would be correct about half the time, and dreadfully incorrect for the other half.
Though, the priest and Levite would have not passed by. The reasons given are ridiculous. First of all, they are nonsensical. A non-jew cannot impurify a priest, and the dead man mostly requires a tent. However, even if that was the case, Jewish Law requires that even the High Priest "defile" himself for a dead man with noone to care for him. And for the Levite, even more so. Further, being the man was not taken for dead, the entire reasoning is bogus.
The Samaritan was not a Jewish-Pagan mixture. The "Samaritans" were not jewish, and were known for being quite incompassionate. They did incorporate some Jewish practices as they lived nearby and added them to their services.
The entire story is a classic example of anti-semitism. (Yeah, yeah, anti-Jewish, however, the colloquial term is "anti-semitism".) Think about the story is more objective terms. A helpless victim of discrimination and violence needs help. Two Jews think there is some remote chance that the victim might "defile" them, and thus merilessly walk away. A third man, known for normally being icompassionate, takes compassion is this drastic case, and helps the man.
That anyone sees this parable as anything but a burlesque is mind boggling.
Linux is not an operating system. When will you get it? And this was posted on Slashdot??
Linux is a kernel. Linux/GNU is an Operating System, in that it is both a kernel, and a set of tools to make said kernel useful.
And what is it where these American-centric idiots, who believe the world revolves around them? ATO (Australian IRS equivalent)
Not only is that stupid, it wastes more time than saying simple "Australian Taxation Office". Both less words and less keystrokes and, get this, more easily understood.
Is Slashdot getting dumber? Or is it so late that the Gremlins have come to haunt us?
Considering Arch-Terrorist Yasser Arafat is also a Nobel Prize Laureate, being an NPL is an insult, not a booster for credence. What next? Are they Time's Man of the Year as well? Give me a break.
The worst part about it is that Arafat got a prize started by Alfred Nobel, to *counteract* the terrible effect that the very dynamite that Arafat uses and promotes, causes.
The Nobel Prize is a political prize. Had it been merely recognition, it wouldn't involve money. The thought that this is used to bolster the recipient's apoliticality is absolutely hilarious.
Slashdot keeps politicking, and still keeps on ticking. Amazing.
REXX is actually a nice language, nothing like COBOL, and very much like BASIC, except it has great array handling. Saying REXX is not needed, would be like saying Apple didn't need BASIC, or that Bash doesn't need a scripter. Considering it was supported mostly everywhere it was (and is) a fantastic idea.
As for PL/SQL, it is a great language. If someone say "Larry made me do it", they shouldn't be using it, as they obviously know nothing about the database and how to code for better results with less stress on the system.
PL/SQL is also supported in PostgreSQL. They should probably get together with Microsft and standardize it with tSQL. They both have neat ideas, but a standard (just as SQL is a standard) would be nice to work with.
They're not idiots. But you can react like an idiot, and get treated like one.
But, you have serious concerns, and you would like to talk about them seriously. So, you simply state, in a nice manner "I have some concerns about this contract, i would like to discuss them with you."
Try to set up a time. Before the meeting, markup the contract the way you want it. Even add clarity elsewhere. Make a copy or two and bring it to the meeting, and go through each one. Be ready to compromise, and be ready to fight nicely. That is, before you get there know which concerns are very important to you, and which ones are not.
During the meeting, use comments like "you don't seriously mean that *anything* i create even on my *own* time are to be yours?" If said correctly, they will be on the defensive and smartly throw it back to you "how do you think we can protect our interests?". That's when the markups on the document help.
If they do end up acting like idiots, act back the same way. However, it is doubtful that it will come to that.
Your comments deny reality, and instead blame Windows. Whether Windows is coded well or not is not the question here. Dealing with the reality of Windows is. As such, an installer is needed.
> Office doesn't get used? What's that got to do with anything?
It's an excellent example of common DLLs.
> Adobe static links? Please don't appeal to Adobe as an example of good software design. It makes my whole body cringe.
It is an extremely common software suite. Common DLLS are used by it, and it is an excellent example.
> Are you ignorant or just plain stupid? I cannot take this comment seriously. Argumentum ad hominem doesn't strengthen your case.
But it does help convey that i am amazed at your comments.
For a desktop system (which is all Windows is good for), multiple users having different settings is mostly unimportant. *One* user being able to use multiple versions of the same app, however, can be very important on the desktop
That denies the current design of Windows software. Windows is designed to allow for one instance per user. More than that either should be suppoorted by the application, or should be expected not to work well.
This is only true of badly-designed, poorly-implemented software. Good software is *easy* to install.
I will repeat this to you now. This statement is sheer ignorance. You obviously haven't an idea as what goes into an installation.
I have woked on thousands of installation scripts. I've responded to tens of thousands of inquiries. I can tell you, that software intallation is complex, and only the simplest of applications should be "easy" to install.
Common DLLs are an example of misguided design. For all of its theoretical benefits,
Theoretical? OLE is theoretical? Office doesn't get used? Adobe static links? Are you ignorant or just plain stupid? I cannot take this comment seriously.
Common DLLs are used on every OS out there, and are absolutely wonderful.
rampant dynamic linking causes way more trouble than it's worth,
Why? Rampant dynamic linking is what people want. It saves memory, execution time, and file clutter.
and most "common" DLLs end up being used by exactly one app in almost all cases;
Of course most common DLLs do. Since every DLL is needed by another program. However, if all the programs that use common DLLs would put its own version on the system instead, you'd probably have hundreds more.
when there *are* multiple apps using it, there is danger of conflicts (especially under Win9x).
And what are these so-called conflicts? The only conflicts i've seen is when people don't dynamically link. There ends up being a name problem, as Windows can only load one DLL given any one name.
> Since the DLLs must be placed in the system directory
This is almost always a bad idea. It's probably the number one complaint of powerusers against low-quality Windows software. The problems it can cause are many and varied.
Actually, i believe it is a Windows logo requirement. It was because of the low quality of software that didn't do it. By having all DLLs in one place, there can be no name conflicts, and the correct DLL is always loaded. Plus versioning, and OS versioning, are no longer a problem.
Yeah, it's painful if your software litters oodles of files all over the drive. If you've got to clean junk out of multiple different directories, some of which do not belong just to the application in question, of *course* the uninstall process will be painful. But this is bad design. There should only be files in three types of places:
And files are the only problem?
What about registry writes? BDE/ODBC entries? Restoring Backups? Needing a reboot during the process (in-use DLLs)? Keeping common DLLs? And i though of that in just a moment. There is much more to be done.
1. The application itself and any needed libraries, controls, whatever,
in the application directory. This includes any "data" that ships
with the application and doesn't change (e.g., images used for toolbar
icons).
2. User-specific configuration information stored on a per-user basis.
3. Other (non-configuration) files that the user has created.
The uninstaller should always remove part 1 completely,
What if the controls come from a runtime environment (VB/VC/MFC)? What if the data is language tranlastion for more than one application (NERO)? What nif the images are user modifiable, and the unijnstall want to give to user a chance to save it?
ask whether to remove part 2 (config files) or not,
Each file infdividually. Uninstallers tend to do that.
and leave part 3 (documents) alone.
Actually, it should ask.
On Windows, these things would typically be in Program Files, Application Data, and My Documents, respectively.
And if the user isn't using NT (Application Data is not always there)? Or the user doesn't want to store it in "My Documents"?
Seriously, why don't apps just look at their environment, fix whatever is missing, and not require any install script at all?
There are so many things involved in installation that makes your question one of sheer ignorance. Having worked at a Windows Installation software company, i'll mention a few.
1) DLLs. In order for a DLL to be properly used in a system it must be registered. If it uses OLE, it must be "self-registered". That is, the DLL itself has a subroutine called OLESelf-Register, and it must be called in order to work so the OLE system knows where it is. For a quick example, find ComDlg32.ocx on a system (System or System32 directory) and choose proeprties. On the Version tab, in the list, you will see OLESelfRegister. To selfregister it (it doesn't hurt) go to start run and type regsvr32 ComDlg32.ocx. A dialog box then reports success.
Common DLLs must be marked on the system as to how many program claim to use it. This is so it is deleted only after the very last program stops using it.
Since the DLLs must be placed in the system directory, and the Windows directory is not always known, a system call to get the Windows directory is required.
2) BDE. For those programs using the BDE, the installation process is under an NDA.
3) Uninstall. Creating an uninstall can be painful. An automated system is nice.
4) Installing ODBC. This takes various system calls to be done properly.
5) INI writes. If an INI file is used, the official way to write to it is with as system call. (So NT can divert it to the registry).
6) Temporary files. Creating a temporary files for the installation requires a unique name, and automatic deletion.
There's so much more it's amazing, A very simple project does not need much other than a folder copy (assuming the user can make his own shortcuts). Most programs need some knowledge of Windows, and there is no reason for the programmers to waste their time there.
Also, note, that a great deal of programmers are absolute morons. They having the slightest idea what to do. They can do VB, but when it comes to windows they haven't a clue. For them, an instllation system is a must.
Also, now, with Windows Installer, the installation file must be a specific format. An installation system can make that for you easily.
The registry was actually there to fix INI issues. It was a wonderful fix. A central location for most settings was and is a good idea. It does not need to be thrown out. Reworked, yes. Thrown out, absolutely not.
>english is a hack, of many different languages and dialects, warped and twisted generation after generation
Show me a language, other than a manmade one like Sanskrit (yes, it was codified, organized and "fixed in stone" about 2000-2400 years ago), that isn't.
Hebrew. Although Ivrit, "Modern Hebrew", evolves, actual Hebrew is written and spoken by many religous Jews. It has not evolved in any major way that i know of.
have had Comcast Cable Internet for more than a year and have never been forced to have CATV
You are not forced. However, Basic Cable is $9.95, and that save $14.95 on the bill. That a net savings of $5.00. I have Basic Cable even though it's cnot connected.
INTP is a very unique group...only 1% of the world's population.
As are all the INs. The ENTs, are nearly as small too.
But it probably accounts for at least 75% of programmers.
Probably not. ISTPs do just as well. Though, i must admit, there were more INTP programmers than other. But, all NTs and the introverted NFs are likely to be programmers too, and show up much more then 25% of the time.
Slashdot readership I would estimate as high as 50%
You are *way* off there. Slashdot readerships has likely a higher than average N appearence. It is probably also very much introverted. But it is by no means that high in INTP.
All these tests are neccesarily flawed. Keirsey mentions as much at the beginning of his book.
The idea is to answer what your urges are, not what you actually would do. Further, there are rarely extremes cases of the letters, so the "iffy" questions balance out.
I don't like "telling people what to do" or "giving order" too much...
That's a J/P question. Js like giving orders. They believe in heirarchy.
but I do very much enjoy instructing people in the sense of teaching, or showing somebody how to do something.
That's T/F thing. Fs enjoy helping others. Family doctors are usually SFs.
The typology is properly explain in "Gifts Differing". Written by Meyers and her son. She and her mother (with consultations from Jung) came up with the original test.
The basis of these theories are Jung's work. Unfortunately, most books that i have read are tainted with Keirsey's poor understanding of the MBTI. And those tests reflect that.
I took the Keirsey test (before i read the book) and came up with a crazy type for myself. I read Gifts Differing, and knew *clearly* that i was INTJ. She explain each letter (I/E, S/N. T/F, J/P) in its own chapter, and then talks about the introverted and extroverted forms of each S, N, T, and F. If you are really interested, but believe in may be garbage, perhaps you would benefit by checking out Gifts Differing.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said in another post, life is worth living because it is dynamic and unpredictable.
According to the MBTI, that's a P trait. Js want quite the opposite. Especially when the pereson is an S. Considering J/P is about 50/50 in the population, your comment would be correct about half the time, and dreadfully incorrect for the other half.
Thanx for the links.
Though, the priest and Levite would have not passed by. The reasons given are ridiculous. First of all, they are nonsensical. A non-jew cannot impurify a priest, and the dead man mostly requires a tent. However, even if that was the case, Jewish Law requires that even the High Priest "defile" himself for a dead man with noone to care for him. And for the Levite, even more so. Further, being the man was not taken for dead, the entire reasoning is bogus.
The Samaritan was not a Jewish-Pagan mixture. The "Samaritans" were not jewish, and were known for being quite incompassionate. They did incorporate some Jewish practices as they lived nearby and added them to their services.
The entire story is a classic example of anti-semitism. (Yeah, yeah, anti-Jewish, however, the colloquial term is "anti-semitism".) Think about the story is more objective terms. A helpless victim of discrimination and violence needs help. Two Jews think there is some remote chance that the victim might "defile" them, and thus merilessly walk away. A third man, known for normally being icompassionate, takes compassion is this drastic case, and helps the man.
That anyone sees this parable as anything but a burlesque is mind boggling.
At least that's what they are calling it.
At least *what* are they calling *what*? Somebody doesn't know how to communicate......
Linux operating system
Linux is not an operating system. When will you get it? And this was posted on Slashdot??
Linux is a kernel. Linux/GNU is an Operating System, in that it is both a kernel, and a set of tools to make said kernel useful.
And what is it where these American-centric idiots, who believe the world revolves around them? ATO (Australian IRS equivalent)
Not only is that stupid, it wastes more time than saying simple "Australian Taxation Office". Both less words and less keystrokes and, get this, more easily understood.
Is Slashdot getting dumber? Or is it so late that the Gremlins have come to haunt us?
U obviously believe the US/Isreali gov lies.
You mean that you believe that the US and Israeli governments lie. I believe they tell the truth.
which includes 20 Nobel laureates
Considering Arch-Terrorist Yasser Arafat is also a Nobel Prize Laureate, being an NPL is an insult, not a booster for credence. What next? Are they Time's Man of the Year as well? Give me a break.
The worst part about it is that Arafat got a prize started by Alfred Nobel, to *counteract* the terrible effect that the very dynamite that Arafat uses and promotes, causes.
The Nobel Prize is a political prize. Had it been merely recognition, it wouldn't involve money. The thought that this is used to bolster the recipient's apoliticality is absolutely hilarious.
Slashdot keeps politicking, and still keeps on ticking. Amazing.
REXX is actually a nice language, nothing like COBOL, and very much like BASIC, except it has great array handling. Saying REXX is not needed, would be like saying Apple didn't need BASIC, or that Bash doesn't need a scripter. Considering it was supported mostly everywhere it was (and is) a fantastic idea.
As for PL/SQL, it is a great language. If someone say "Larry made me do it", they shouldn't be using it, as they obviously know nothing about the database and how to code for better results with less stress on the system.
PL/SQL is also supported in PostgreSQL. They should probably get together with Microsft and standardize it with tSQL. They both have neat ideas, but a standard (just as SQL is a standard) would be nice to work with.
I wonder what the has ship evolved into by now.
They're not idiots. But you can react like an idiot, and get treated like one.
But, you have serious concerns, and you would like to talk about them seriously. So, you simply state, in a nice manner "I have some concerns about this contract, i would like to discuss them with you."
Try to set up a time. Before the meeting, markup the contract the way you want it. Even add clarity elsewhere. Make a copy or two and bring it to the meeting, and go through each one. Be ready to compromise, and be ready to fight nicely. That is, before you get there know which concerns are very important to you, and which ones are not.
During the meeting, use comments like "you don't seriously mean that *anything* i create even on my *own* time are to be yours?" If said correctly, they will be on the defensive and smartly throw it back to you "how do you think we can protect our interests?". That's when the markups on the document help.
If they do end up acting like idiots, act back the same way. However, it is doubtful that it will come to that.
Your comments deny reality, and instead blame Windows. Whether Windows is coded well or not is not the question here. Dealing with the reality of Windows is. As such, an installer is needed.
> Office doesn't get used?
What's that got to do with anything?
It's an excellent example of common DLLs.
> Adobe static links?
Please don't appeal to Adobe as an example of good software design.
It makes my whole body cringe.
It is an extremely common software suite. Common DLLS are used by it, and it is an excellent example.
> Are you ignorant or just plain stupid? I cannot take this comment seriously.
Argumentum ad hominem doesn't strengthen your case.
But it does help convey that i am amazed at your comments.
For a desktop system (which is all Windows is good for), multiple users having different settings is mostly unimportant. *One* user being able to use multiple versions of the same app, however, can be very important on the desktop
That denies the current design of Windows software. Windows is designed to allow for one instance per user. More than that either should be suppoorted by the application, or should be expected not to work well.
This is only true of badly-designed, poorly-implemented software. Good
software is *easy* to install.
I will repeat this to you now. This statement is sheer ignorance. You obviously haven't an idea as what goes into an installation.
I have woked on thousands of installation scripts. I've responded to tens of thousands of inquiries. I can tell you, that software intallation is complex, and only the simplest of applications should be "easy" to install.
Common DLLs are an example of misguided design. For all of its theoretical
benefits,
Theoretical? OLE is theoretical? Office doesn't get used? Adobe static links? Are you ignorant or just plain stupid? I cannot take this comment seriously.
Common DLLs are used on every OS out there, and are absolutely wonderful.
rampant dynamic linking causes way more trouble than it's worth,
Why? Rampant dynamic linking is what people want. It saves memory, execution time, and file clutter.
and most "common" DLLs end up being used by exactly one app in almost all
cases;
Of course most common DLLs do. Since every DLL is needed by another program. However, if all the programs that use common DLLs would put its own version on the system instead, you'd probably have hundreds more.
when there *are* multiple apps using it, there is danger of conflicts
(especially under Win9x).
And what are these so-called conflicts? The only conflicts i've seen is when people don't dynamically link. There ends up being a name problem, as Windows can only load one DLL given any one name.
> Since the DLLs must be placed in the system directory
This is almost always a bad idea. It's probably the number one complaint
of powerusers against low-quality Windows software. The problems it can
cause are many and varied.
Actually, i believe it is a Windows logo requirement. It was because of the low quality of software that didn't do it. By having all DLLs in one place, there can be no name conflicts, and the correct DLL is always loaded. Plus versioning, and OS versioning, are no longer a problem.
Yeah, it's painful if your software litters oodles of files all over the
drive. If you've got to clean junk out of multiple different directories,
some of which do not belong just to the application in question, of *course*
the uninstall process will be painful. But this is bad design. There
should only be files in three types of places:
And files are the only problem?
What about registry writes? BDE/ODBC entries? Restoring Backups? Needing a reboot during the process (in-use DLLs)? Keeping common DLLs? And i though of that in just a moment. There is much more to be done.
1. The application itself and any needed libraries, controls, whatever,
in the application directory. This includes any "data" that ships
with the application and doesn't change (e.g., images used for toolbar
icons).
2. User-specific configuration information stored on a per-user basis.
3. Other (non-configuration) files that the user has created.
The uninstaller should always remove part 1 completely,
What if the controls come from a runtime environment (VB/VC/MFC)? What if the data is language tranlastion for more than one application (NERO)? What nif the images are user modifiable, and the unijnstall want to give to user a chance to save it?
ask whether to remove part 2 (config files) or not,
Each file infdividually. Uninstallers tend to do that.
and leave part 3 (documents) alone.
Actually, it should ask.
On Windows, these things would typically be in Program Files, Application Data, and My Documents, respectively.
And if the user isn't using NT (Application Data is not always there)? Or the user doesn't want to store it in "My Documents"?
There are other, bet
Seriously, why don't apps just look at their environment, fix whatever is missing, and not require any install script at all?
There are so many things involved in installation that makes your question one of sheer ignorance. Having worked at a Windows Installation software company, i'll mention a few.
1) DLLs. In order for a DLL to be properly used in a system it must be registered. If it uses OLE, it must be "self-registered". That is, the DLL itself has a subroutine called OLESelf-Register, and it must be called in order to work so the OLE system knows where it is. For a quick example, find ComDlg32.ocx on a system (System or System32 directory) and choose proeprties. On the Version tab, in the list, you will see OLESelfRegister. To selfregister it (it doesn't hurt) go to start run and type regsvr32 ComDlg32.ocx. A dialog box then reports success.
Common DLLs must be marked on the system as to how many program claim to use it. This is so it is deleted only after the very last program stops using it.
Since the DLLs must be placed in the system directory, and the Windows directory is not always known, a system call to get the Windows directory is required.
2) BDE. For those programs using the BDE, the installation process is under an NDA.
3) Uninstall. Creating an uninstall can be painful. An automated system is nice.
4) Installing ODBC. This takes various system calls to be done properly.
5) INI writes. If an INI file is used, the official way to write to it is with as system call. (So NT can divert it to the registry).
6) Temporary files. Creating a temporary files for the installation requires a unique name, and automatic deletion.
There's so much more it's amazing, A very simple project does not need much other than a folder copy (assuming the user can make his own shortcuts). Most programs need some knowledge of Windows, and there is no reason for the programmers to waste their time there.
Also, note, that a great deal of programmers are absolute morons. They having the slightest idea what to do. They can do VB, but when it comes to windows they haven't a clue. For them, an instllation system is a must.
Also, now, with Windows Installer, the installation file must be a specific format. An installation system can make that for you easily.
The registry was actually there to fix INI issues. It was a wonderful fix. A central location for most settings was and is a good idea. It does not need to be thrown out. Reworked, yes. Thrown out, absolutely not.
>english is a hack, of many different languages and dialects, warped and twisted generation after generation
Show me a language, other than a manmade one like Sanskrit (yes, it was codified, organized and "fixed in stone" about 2000-2400 years ago), that isn't.
Hebrew. Although Ivrit, "Modern Hebrew", evolves, actual Hebrew is written and spoken by many religous Jews. It has not evolved in any major way that i know of.
Assembly Language Step by Step is an excellent source for beginners who want to understand the concepts of Assembly.
The other way popups continue is by replacing part of Winsock. A winsock fixer will clean it.
Click the link the story mentioned. The author clearly states that Google caused more traffic than slashdot.
but everything I touched had a working backspace
:)
I just had to recognize this wonderful statement.
the story of how its author signed it "andy"
Signed what?
I could care less about a camera,
You mean you *couldn't* care less.
have had Comcast Cable Internet for more than a year and have never been forced to have CATV
You are not forced. However, Basic Cable is $9.95, and that save $14.95 on the bill. That a net savings of $5.00. I have Basic Cable even though it's cnot connected.
Most geeks are introverted and probably Ns. Past that i don't think you can say "most".
Welcome to the club. :)
INTP is a very unique group...only 1% of the world's population.
As are all the INs. The ENTs, are nearly as small too.
But it probably accounts for at least 75% of programmers.
Probably not. ISTPs do just as well. Though, i must admit, there were more INTP programmers than other. But, all NTs and the introverted NFs are likely to be programmers too, and show up much more then 25% of the time.
Slashdot readership I would estimate as high as 50%
You are *way* off there. Slashdot readerships has likely a higher than average N appearence. It is probably also very much introverted. But it is by no means that high in INTP.
All these tests are neccesarily flawed. Keirsey mentions as much at the beginning of his book.
The idea is to answer what your urges are, not what you actually would do. Further, there are rarely extremes cases of the letters, so the "iffy" questions balance out.
I don't like "telling people what to do" or "giving order" too much...
That's a J/P question. Js like giving orders. They believe in heirarchy.
but I do very much enjoy instructing people in the sense of teaching, or showing somebody how to do something.
That's T/F thing. Fs enjoy helping others. Family doctors are usually SFs.
The typology is properly explain in "Gifts Differing". Written by Meyers and her son. She and her mother (with consultations from Jung) came up with the original test.
The basis of these theories are Jung's work. Unfortunately, most books that i have read are tainted with Keirsey's poor understanding of the MBTI. And those tests reflect that.
I took the Keirsey test (before i read the book) and came up with a crazy type for myself. I read Gifts Differing, and knew *clearly* that i was INTJ. She explain each letter (I/E, S/N. T/F, J/P) in its own chapter, and then talks about the introverted and extroverted forms of each S, N, T, and F. If you are really interested, but believe in may be garbage, perhaps you would benefit by checking out Gifts Differing.