How, exactly, would you automatically enter the MAC address of my own provided cable modem (which could be from any company, with or without ':', in any font of any size, on any number of labels), using only the gear the installer has out in the field? Bonus points for methods that can be proven to be fail safe all the way to the back end database (we'll pretend it's immutable once there, even if I upgrade my gear and it automatically is corrected for argument's sake so that a rep. can't accidentally fat-finger an overwrite).
I'm rational, I know my vote doesn't mean jack... whereas if you read this very comment section there are hundreds of people that believe that not only does their vote mean something, but if they could do the incredible of changing someone's mind (through insults, at that), that the two or two hundred votes mean a thing. Your vote might mean something depending on where you live, but most likely, the candidates won't even bother visiting your state let alone think of you for a nanosecond. From the perspective of someone that can't afford to buy legislature watching others in the same boat, it'd be hilarious if you guys didn't take it so seriously.
But it's great entertainment for me, so carry on picking a tribe and waging war against people that are more like you than those you defend. I've been called cynical by the very people that, once stripped of their preconceived notions (read: lost enough money to no longer be paid lip service - on both sides of the aisle; everyone is alike more than they are different, trust me), tell me how terrible the system is. You gotta' love the irony and bring a big bucket of pop corn. Chances are, if you're reading this, your vote is a waste of natural resources. If that's not your thing, your vote is a waste of your time. Once you can accept that, you can grab a bucket of pop corn and enjoy the show.
[...]
There are some drawbacks to that method of development, though. Poor quality deploys can definitely piss off your customer base. You also only find the bugs the customers find and report to you. A few projects ago, I was looking at a web front end a company put together for user management. For testing these, the software I was using at the time would act as a proxy to the server and completely bypass the javascript UI once you started playing back your tests. Unfortunately, all the data validation was happening on the client side. Naturally one of the tests I wrote was to try to enter a user with full administrative access on the system from an account that didn't have permission to create users. They system happily accepted it. I got some push-back from the developer when I reported it, because I was "making direct calls to the back end! No one's ever going to do that!" It's difficult not to be... hostile... in the face of that sort of ignorance.
[...]
I have so little tolerance for stuff like that. I think I might be known for my saying "anyone with a bit of skill, the time and motivation will absolutely own you for that design." But honestly, I think the reason it gets under my skin so much is that as a developer, you should be assuming that anything outside of your current scope is ever changing and completely out of your control and most of the time 90% of those issues can be solved by good instinct in your model and flow and a few extra lines of cheap code. I recently got on my boss' nerves a bit for a design decision that he later mostly agreed with; we're passing commands to the localhost via a web service. I took extra time to do one way encryption on the credentials and make the bus extensible even though it was only sending to the local host.
My reasoning was that at some point someone was going to realize that we could do this and say, "that's great! Can we send commands from back at the core to a remote appliance? I've got a use case for this!" Chances are that's going to be me for an implementation I need later in the project. At that point it's too late to update all the calling methods and double check the JSON (I made a class that created this for the callers so their workflow is always the same if the back end changes, they always just need to give their same input and the class takes care of the details), etc. And since it was done at design time, I had everything fresh in my mind.
Even if it never gets used that way, I sleep better at night not worry about it. As icing on the cake, I usually find giving myself some power and flexibility nearly always makes my life easier down the road and usually opens up interesting possibilities that a poor or not well thought out design and implementation would. Still, it's hard to sell the idea sometimes until you've been able to say "oh, I already have a thing for that" in enough situations.
Did that developer honestly believe that everyone would just say "oh, it seems like all the bugs are gone even though they weren't closed and they were here Friday, but it's all good because it just so happens one of the devs wants to discuss pushing the now bug free code!"?
I've been lucky, my end users are our technicians and 9 out of 10 times they can point out _exactly_ where a bug is, can reproduce it and only need me to verify some stuff from the back end. The other night I got a phone call that started with "Hey, you busy? $largeClient is giving us funny results and it looks like a false positive..." In about 20 minutes in WebEx (when it gets to the Linux CLI the technicians know enough to get around, but usually just pass off the screen to me because I know it better and where files are off the top of my head for each version of our appliance, which works well since they are very familiar with getting connected to various companies VPNs and I'm very familiar with the CLI - it really speeds up the process when people are familiar with one aspect and can get to point B to pass off to someone that can accelerate to point C, etc), I was able to get them to walk me through what they were seeing and then verify some of my assumptions. It's a pleasure when you can talk to someone and say "okay, wait, I thought that the output should be this if XYZ, but I have no idea where that came from." and they give you an answer I'd otherwise have to research for hours to find out with a simple, "Oh, yeah. Cisco changed that in UCOS 10.5 because they changed the platform to VMWare 6.0. You can check the platform version this way." Of course, I'm lucky enough to work at a place where even the people that don't code, write code (usually, but not always, crappy code, but they're smart enough to know that and thus aren't dangerous). Good end users/testers/bug reporters are a joy to work with.
16-32 MB RAM sounds about right for the era. IIRC, my 200 MHz PII desktop had 8-16 MB.
As for comparing the P75 to your smart watch... Sure, but don't forget to compare the power and heat envelopes of your watch vs. that P75. You watch does all that and sips, what, 1 watt-hour per 72 hour period? A watt hour would probably be enough to power the P75 for the 16 millisecond hold up time on its PSU after cold booting it.
With the username Jason Levine I pictured you as you describe yourself.:) I think you do have a point that it seems to be somewhat generational as much as sociopolitical.
I over plan because every time I've had someone not writing code tell me the scope of the thing I'm writing and I ask "will it have to do xyz?" it will eventually end up having to do xyz no matter how flatly it is denied. Last week the turnaround on one of my silly questions ("is the service always run under that exact user?") was less than a day.
I had already implemented and documented the new variable and which properties file it went in by the time I was told I'd need it. Ditto for things that will only ever connect to a service on the local server - use a socket and protocol to connect to the localhost, because it will be connecting from somewhere else and you can't redesign it at that point.
That being said, I agree with your point in principle, but with the huge caveat about scope creep and accurate project requirements.
You're not old or wrong. The hipsters just discovered UNIX pipes/sockets and decided that they should give them a trendy name... I shit you not, meet etcd (to be fair, it's pipes with a few extras, but nothing worthy of a name because I guarantee this has been done in the last 40 years once or twice). https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is actually the problem I have with Design Patterns - not them in and of themselves; I don't think they needed names, but I'm okay with them having names. I came to figure out Inversion of Control in college before I knew it was a thing. Having common terminology doesn't hurt, but lately it's gone too far. The problem is that someone, somewhere decided that this idea could apply to EVERYTHING. Then we get Enterprise Design Patterns (hello, Spring, OSGI, Blueprints, etc. - each a very specific thing that is so incredibly abstract as if to mock the very idea of naming conventions), Enterprise Cloud Design Patterns, etc. An "Enterprise Cloud Design Pattern" used to be called a topology and they could be expressed in terms of their layout (star, bus, hub and spoke, etc) in terms everyone understood and was comfortable with. Adding virtual machines and "cloud" and load balancers doesn't change the fact that it's a star topology with redundant load balancers in front of it. You don't need a specific term for that.
Now, allow me to rant for a second... Related to the point, the worst quality software I've seen lately describes what it does in these terms. For instance, if you weren't familiar with J2EE, would you ever know what Karaf ( http://karaf.apache.org/ ) is? Don't bother looking for answers in the documentation, because it's sparse and often incorrect when not hand-wavy. I spent a day trying to just get the web interface up to launch something in Karaf (since they recommend that) only to find that "just launch the thing and then open your browser" isn't the way you launch something and you can't access it from your browser. I couldn't get to step two of the documentation that I had to look in Google caches for because their own links to the 2.4 documentation are dead. That's the version that the current version of OpenNMS ships, and they actually changed the command "features:xyz" to "feature:xyz" just so the only documentation where they got their links right is effectively useless until you figure out why nothing works.
Before you judge all of us, just remember, we actually freakin' did it; we busted down the doors of FIFA and brought people out in cuffs ( https://youtu.be/qr6ar3xJL_Q?t... ). So, call it a wash?
I thought they used the Spyder stack originally under the BSD license? To be fair, they knew enough to not try to roll a TCP/IP stack on their own. *Cough*NetBUI,NetBIOS*Cough*
You've almost fully got the picture; the people who put him on TV sell ad time to both sides of the aisle during the election season (at a premium). When he's on, numbers are up and ad space is worth more. You ever notice how even when someone wins by a landslide, the media polls always have the candidates neck-and-neck all the way while they're selling ad space to both parties? This is simply the manifestation of a conflict of interest, IMHO.
What is the disease does this country have in listening to people like this?
Because there is a change happening in America. No longer can "old, white Christian guys" (OWCG) be assured that they are the most powerful group. Now you have "upstarts" like women and Latinos and non-Christians gaining power. OWCGs see this as a threat but they feel powerless to stop them. Trump taps into OWCGs' frustration and fans their various hatreds (xenophobia, racism, etc). He says what they are all thinking because he himself is an OWCG. So they follow him and cheer him on without worrying about where his proposals will lead America. Because they see a Trump presidency as returning OWCGs to the seat of power and shoving everyone else back into their "proper place" of obeying the rules that OWCGs set.
In the long run, OWCGs can't win.
Old (well, young-ish) White Christian Guy here. I didn't know I was trying to win anything or oppress anyone by my race or religious affiliation. I'm just trying to make a living, meet a nice girl and settle down. Maybe work on some open source software in the mean time. Are you sure you aren't self-projecting at all?
and why should we pretend that the bottom of the barrel trailer park trash that support him are anything to be listened to.
Because their vote counts just as much as yours or mine does. Ignore them at your own peril.
I think GPP probably does more for the opposing party if he goes around representing a group of people nearly as eloquently as he does here. I guess it's more people to hate though, so, the more the merrier.
Suicides also skew the numbers to a not insignificant degree. It's hard enough that the numbers aren't apples-to-apples to begin with before narratives from both sides come in.
Those numbers are easy when you factor in gang violence. Nearly by definition rival factions in close proximity that roam in packs. In a lot of the inner cities near daily violence between rivals is nearly common. That being said, the numbers seem to be somewhat dwindling. Could be a local minimum, or the 90s were a local maximum or the beginning of a trend. I guess history will have something to say on the issue.
As an interesting aside, I've heard a theory that youth gang membership and violence might be slowly or dwindling due to the availability of cheap, high tech, entertainment. Just about anyone that can save any amount of money can buy an Xbox or Playstation (or, steal or go over to visit a friend that has one) which the theory states keeps bored kids off the streets. I'm not sure I buy it completely, but if bored youth are an appreciable cross section of gangs, I can't argue with the logic.
I heard an interesting (conspiracy-like) theory; both sides are sure the economy is going to tank during the next cycle and neither wants to be in charge when it does, so they're all trying to get enough spotlight now to be welcome in 2020, but they're all trying to lose. The theory was based somewhat in fact; when you look at the recession that was stalled in 1849 by the gold rush and consider that ~$1T (adjusted for inflation) was pumped into the economy to only stall the crash for a handful of years and then compare that to quantitative easing, there is a striking resemblance. This, of course, is predicated on the assumption that everything at the macro level is cyclic, which I think isn't too far of a stretch. But, I don't know it holds that much weight either.
Maybe it will work in our favor. MS changed the licensing for Windows Server 2016, and that OS has some major advances in it (Storage Spaces Direct, shielded VMs) that are not common now. It would be interesting seeing someone make a device driver that can take disks from a number of machines and present them as one volume, similar to how an Isilon can have 3+ nodes, and disk I/O can be easily be shunted over the Infiniband bus to the nodes which actually have the data. I would love to see open source alternatives to AD and Exchange that can scale, replicate, delegate, and expand not just up, but out. [...].
You can actually do all this at the file system, logical volume, and service levels with clustered Samba-4. CLVM(if you want to) +GFS2+CTDB+Samba-4. Bob's your uncle. There are more powerful and complex solutions, but this is pretty standard. Ref: http://www.golinuxhub.com/2014...
If you're feeling froggy, drop in OpenChange on top of Samba-4 for all your Exchange server/protocol needs. Ref: http://www.openchange.org/cook...
I, too, don't believe much is impossible so far as software is probably the most abstract and malleable construct that Man has devised and created. I say that with a huge caveat though; when someone asks if I can add a feature or write a piece of code my response has always been "with sufficient motivation and time anything is doable". That being said, while I usually _start_ with "yes", many things come down to "I can do this, but it's not worth doing" or "I can do this, but something else is shipping late". That's the nature of the game.
As an example, I tried to explain to someone earlier today why trying to do high end DSP apps for Android phones would take massive resources due to the engineering envelopes that are inherent to the system (high level, JITted language with GC, multiple hardware profiles with a short life span, and the need for low level access on a platform where you're on top of many layers of abstraction makes for a lot of interesting challenges that would devour resources). I'm not saying it can't be done, but I surely wouldn't invest in it.
Greetings from the Great North (that is, West St. Paul). I can confirm we've got the same here and at the office in Minneapolis. See you again in 6 months or randomly in an underground tunnel/walkway in the Cities.
One of the things I really hate currently is taking the current fads in interface design and applying them in the not unlikely scenario that I'm driving with my iPod/iPhone docked. If I'm plugged in, with my phone in landscape orientation for more than a few moments (ie, to make selection of a choice of things easier in the orientation layout), even if I'm not driving DON'T EVER ASK ME ANYTHING OR POP UP OR INTERFERE WITH ME AT ALL! I'm in a context where it is reasonable to assume I'm viewing something and don't want to be bothered.
You mention the shake interaction; I found out that Google Maps on iOS has this while driving and using it for navigating when something triggered it and in small text Maps pops up a "useful and helpful" explanation that I can report issues with the app by shaking the device. But then they took it one step further and made it a modal dialog with "OK"/"cancel" such that you have to read, process the info and successfully choose and execute one of two options. Did anyone at Google, at any point, think and articulate that perhaps having an easy to accidentally trigger interface was a bad idea and that perhaps the worst way to handle the fact that it was easy to accidentally trigger was to pop up a modal dialog box with small text and then proceed to force a user to use multiple higher level cognitive functions while the device's sensors indicate that, one could reasonably assume, they are in the middle of operating a vehicle at 75 MPH? Either they considered it and didn't care or they never considered in what context one might use their application. So they're either dumb or evil, take your pick.
That's the tip of the iceberg. I'm reasonably certain that the point of Google Maps when in GPS mode is to kill and maim as many as possible. It'd be one thing if they didn't have access to sensors that can give a very reasonable assumption as to the context in which the device is operating, but there's more than enough information to derive the context in which the phone is operating. GPS, power, Bluetooth, NFC, screen orientation, mic, etc. I cannot think of a situation in which I'm in a loud environment, Bluetooth connected to an audio device with remote controls, power connected, screen in landscape orientation, while moving at > 5 MPH, with a mapping application using GPS, in which it cannot be reasonably assume I'm driving. Yet, so many of these apps that only get used in that very context won't take that into consideration with regards to their interface. The only one I've ever seen get it right is a war-driving application. Feedback is large text in a dashboard mode in landscape orientation, or a different output in vertical orientation with configurable audio feedback at defined intervals. It never tries to ask you a question while its in use and the layout is such that you aren't likely to need to interact outside of one large start/stop button and changing the device's orientation.
Slashdot Mirror
How, exactly, would you automatically enter the MAC address of my own provided cable modem (which could be from any company, with or without ':', in any font of any size, on any number of labels), using only the gear the installer has out in the field? Bonus points for methods that can be proven to be fail safe all the way to the back end database (we'll pretend it's immutable once there, even if I upgrade my gear and it automatically is corrected for argument's sake so that a rep. can't accidentally fat-finger an overwrite).
Well played, sir. Well played.
I'm rational, I know my vote doesn't mean jack... whereas if you read this very comment section there are hundreds of people that believe that not only does their vote mean something, but if they could do the incredible of changing someone's mind (through insults, at that), that the two or two hundred votes mean a thing. Your vote might mean something depending on where you live, but most likely, the candidates won't even bother visiting your state let alone think of you for a nanosecond. From the perspective of someone that can't afford to buy legislature watching others in the same boat, it'd be hilarious if you guys didn't take it so seriously.
But it's great entertainment for me, so carry on picking a tribe and waging war against people that are more like you than those you defend. I've been called cynical by the very people that, once stripped of their preconceived notions (read: lost enough money to no longer be paid lip service - on both sides of the aisle; everyone is alike more than they are different, trust me), tell me how terrible the system is. You gotta' love the irony and bring a big bucket of pop corn. Chances are, if you're reading this, your vote is a waste of natural resources. If that's not your thing, your vote is a waste of your time. Once you can accept that, you can grab a bucket of pop corn and enjoy the show.
[...] There are some drawbacks to that method of development, though. Poor quality deploys can definitely piss off your customer base. You also only find the bugs the customers find and report to you. A few projects ago, I was looking at a web front end a company put together for user management. For testing these, the software I was using at the time would act as a proxy to the server and completely bypass the javascript UI once you started playing back your tests. Unfortunately, all the data validation was happening on the client side. Naturally one of the tests I wrote was to try to enter a user with full administrative access on the system from an account that didn't have permission to create users. They system happily accepted it. I got some push-back from the developer when I reported it, because I was "making direct calls to the back end! No one's ever going to do that!" It's difficult not to be... hostile... in the face of that sort of ignorance. [...]
I have so little tolerance for stuff like that. I think I might be known for my saying "anyone with a bit of skill, the time and motivation will absolutely own you for that design." But honestly, I think the reason it gets under my skin so much is that as a developer, you should be assuming that anything outside of your current scope is ever changing and completely out of your control and most of the time 90% of those issues can be solved by good instinct in your model and flow and a few extra lines of cheap code. I recently got on my boss' nerves a bit for a design decision that he later mostly agreed with; we're passing commands to the localhost via a web service. I took extra time to do one way encryption on the credentials and make the bus extensible even though it was only sending to the local host.
My reasoning was that at some point someone was going to realize that we could do this and say, "that's great! Can we send commands from back at the core to a remote appliance? I've got a use case for this!" Chances are that's going to be me for an implementation I need later in the project. At that point it's too late to update all the calling methods and double check the JSON (I made a class that created this for the callers so their workflow is always the same if the back end changes, they always just need to give their same input and the class takes care of the details), etc. And since it was done at design time, I had everything fresh in my mind.
Even if it never gets used that way, I sleep better at night not worry about it. As icing on the cake, I usually find giving myself some power and flexibility nearly always makes my life easier down the road and usually opens up interesting possibilities that a poor or not well thought out design and implementation would. Still, it's hard to sell the idea sometimes until you've been able to say "oh, I already have a thing for that" in enough situations.
I've been lucky, my end users are our technicians and 9 out of 10 times they can point out _exactly_ where a bug is, can reproduce it and only need me to verify some stuff from the back end. The other night I got a phone call that started with "Hey, you busy? $largeClient is giving us funny results and it looks like a false positive..." In about 20 minutes in WebEx (when it gets to the Linux CLI the technicians know enough to get around, but usually just pass off the screen to me because I know it better and where files are off the top of my head for each version of our appliance, which works well since they are very familiar with getting connected to various companies VPNs and I'm very familiar with the CLI - it really speeds up the process when people are familiar with one aspect and can get to point B to pass off to someone that can accelerate to point C, etc), I was able to get them to walk me through what they were seeing and then verify some of my assumptions. It's a pleasure when you can talk to someone and say "okay, wait, I thought that the output should be this if XYZ, but I have no idea where that came from." and they give you an answer I'd otherwise have to research for hours to find out with a simple, "Oh, yeah. Cisco changed that in UCOS 10.5 because they changed the platform to VMWare 6.0. You can check the platform version this way." Of course, I'm lucky enough to work at a place where even the people that don't code, write code (usually, but not always, crappy code, but they're smart enough to know that and thus aren't dangerous). Good end users/testers/bug reporters are a joy to work with.
16-32 MB RAM sounds about right for the era. IIRC, my 200 MHz PII desktop had 8-16 MB.
As for comparing the P75 to your smart watch... Sure, but don't forget to compare the power and heat envelopes of your watch vs. that P75. You watch does all that and sips, what, 1 watt-hour per 72 hour period? A watt hour would probably be enough to power the P75 for the 16 millisecond hold up time on its PSU after cold booting it.
Apropos, my boy Freddy Brooks : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
With the username Jason Levine I pictured you as you describe yourself. :) I think you do have a point that it seems to be somewhat generational as much as sociopolitical.
I over plan because every time I've had someone not writing code tell me the scope of the thing I'm writing and I ask "will it have to do xyz?" it will eventually end up having to do xyz no matter how flatly it is denied. Last week the turnaround on one of my silly questions ("is the service always run under that exact user?") was less than a day.
I had already implemented and documented the new variable and which properties file it went in by the time I was told I'd need it. Ditto for things that will only ever connect to a service on the local server - use a socket and protocol to connect to the localhost, because it will be connecting from somewhere else and you can't redesign it at that point.
That being said, I agree with your point in principle, but with the huge caveat about scope creep and accurate project requirements.
You're not old or wrong. The hipsters just discovered UNIX pipes/sockets and decided that they should give them a trendy name... I shit you not, meet etcd (to be fair, it's pipes with a few extras, but nothing worthy of a name because I guarantee this has been done in the last 40 years once or twice). https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is actually the problem I have with Design Patterns - not them in and of themselves; I don't think they needed names, but I'm okay with them having names. I came to figure out Inversion of Control in college before I knew it was a thing. Having common terminology doesn't hurt, but lately it's gone too far. The problem is that someone, somewhere decided that this idea could apply to EVERYTHING. Then we get Enterprise Design Patterns (hello, Spring, OSGI, Blueprints, etc. - each a very specific thing that is so incredibly abstract as if to mock the very idea of naming conventions), Enterprise Cloud Design Patterns, etc. An "Enterprise Cloud Design Pattern" used to be called a topology and they could be expressed in terms of their layout (star, bus, hub and spoke, etc) in terms everyone understood and was comfortable with. Adding virtual machines and "cloud" and load balancers doesn't change the fact that it's a star topology with redundant load balancers in front of it. You don't need a specific term for that.
Now, allow me to rant for a second... Related to the point, the worst quality software I've seen lately describes what it does in these terms. For instance, if you weren't familiar with J2EE, would you ever know what Karaf ( http://karaf.apache.org/ ) is? Don't bother looking for answers in the documentation, because it's sparse and often incorrect when not hand-wavy. I spent a day trying to just get the web interface up to launch something in Karaf (since they recommend that) only to find that "just launch the thing and then open your browser" isn't the way you launch something and you can't access it from your browser. I couldn't get to step two of the documentation that I had to look in Google caches for because their own links to the 2.4 documentation are dead. That's the version that the current version of OpenNMS ships, and they actually changed the command "features:xyz" to "feature:xyz" just so the only documentation where they got their links right is effectively useless until you figure out why nothing works.
You drive a hard bargain! I'll take two!
Before you judge all of us, just remember, we actually freakin' did it; we busted down the doors of FIFA and brought people out in cuffs ( https://youtu.be/qr6ar3xJL_Q?t... ). So, call it a wash?
I thought they used the Spyder stack originally under the BSD license? To be fair, they knew enough to not try to roll a TCP/IP stack on their own. *Cough*NetBUI,NetBIOS*Cough*
You've almost fully got the picture; the people who put him on TV sell ad time to both sides of the aisle during the election season (at a premium). When he's on, numbers are up and ad space is worth more. You ever notice how even when someone wins by a landslide, the media polls always have the candidates neck-and-neck all the way while they're selling ad space to both parties? This is simply the manifestation of a conflict of interest, IMHO.
Because there is a change happening in America. No longer can "old, white Christian guys" (OWCG) be assured that they are the most powerful group. Now you have "upstarts" like women and Latinos and non-Christians gaining power. OWCGs see this as a threat but they feel powerless to stop them. Trump taps into OWCGs' frustration and fans their various hatreds (xenophobia, racism, etc). He says what they are all thinking because he himself is an OWCG. So they follow him and cheer him on without worrying about where his proposals will lead America. Because they see a Trump presidency as returning OWCGs to the seat of power and shoving everyone else back into their "proper place" of obeying the rules that OWCGs set.
In the long run, OWCGs can't win.
Old (well, young-ish) White Christian Guy here. I didn't know I was trying to win anything or oppress anyone by my race or religious affiliation. I'm just trying to make a living, meet a nice girl and settle down. Maybe work on some open source software in the mean time. Are you sure you aren't self-projecting at all?
Except Rule #1 of negotiation is "Don't make inflammatory statements to the press before, during, or after negotiations."
What are you talking about? What rule list did you get that from? The first rule of negotiation, if anything, is, "never accept the first offer."
Pfft... You're going to have to do better than that. ;)
and why should we pretend that the bottom of the barrel trailer park trash that support him are anything to be listened to.
Because their vote counts just as much as yours or mine does. Ignore them at your own peril.
I think GPP probably does more for the opposing party if he goes around representing a group of people nearly as eloquently as he does here. I guess it's more people to hate though, so, the more the merrier.
Suicides also skew the numbers to a not insignificant degree. It's hard enough that the numbers aren't apples-to-apples to begin with before narratives from both sides come in.
Those numbers are easy when you factor in gang violence. Nearly by definition rival factions in close proximity that roam in packs. In a lot of the inner cities near daily violence between rivals is nearly common. That being said, the numbers seem to be somewhat dwindling. Could be a local minimum, or the 90s were a local maximum or the beginning of a trend. I guess history will have something to say on the issue.
As an interesting aside, I've heard a theory that youth gang membership and violence might be slowly or dwindling due to the availability of cheap, high tech, entertainment. Just about anyone that can save any amount of money can buy an Xbox or Playstation (or, steal or go over to visit a friend that has one) which the theory states keeps bored kids off the streets. I'm not sure I buy it completely, but if bored youth are an appreciable cross section of gangs, I can't argue with the logic.
I heard an interesting (conspiracy-like) theory; both sides are sure the economy is going to tank during the next cycle and neither wants to be in charge when it does, so they're all trying to get enough spotlight now to be welcome in 2020, but they're all trying to lose. The theory was based somewhat in fact; when you look at the recession that was stalled in 1849 by the gold rush and consider that ~$1T (adjusted for inflation) was pumped into the economy to only stall the crash for a handful of years and then compare that to quantitative easing, there is a striking resemblance. This, of course, is predicated on the assumption that everything at the macro level is cyclic, which I think isn't too far of a stretch. But, I don't know it holds that much weight either.
[...]
Maybe it will work in our favor. MS changed the licensing for Windows Server 2016, and that OS has some major advances in it (Storage Spaces Direct, shielded VMs) that are not common now. It would be interesting seeing someone make a device driver that can take disks from a number of machines and present them as one volume, similar to how an Isilon can have 3+ nodes, and disk I/O can be easily be shunted over the Infiniband bus to the nodes which actually have the data. I would love to see open source alternatives to AD and Exchange that can scale, replicate, delegate, and expand not just up, but out. [...].
You can actually do all this at the file system, logical volume, and service levels with clustered Samba-4. CLVM(if you want to) +GFS2+CTDB+Samba-4. Bob's your uncle. There are more powerful and complex solutions, but this is pretty standard. Ref: http://www.golinuxhub.com/2014...
If you're feeling froggy, drop in OpenChange on top of Samba-4 for all your Exchange server/protocol needs. Ref: http://www.openchange.org/cook...
Really, a thermos is the ultimate AI. When I put cold things in one, they stay cold. When I put hot things in one, they stay hot. How does it know?!
I, too, don't believe much is impossible so far as software is probably the most abstract and malleable construct that Man has devised and created. I say that with a huge caveat though; when someone asks if I can add a feature or write a piece of code my response has always been "with sufficient motivation and time anything is doable". That being said, while I usually _start_ with "yes", many things come down to "I can do this, but it's not worth doing" or "I can do this, but something else is shipping late". That's the nature of the game.
As an example, I tried to explain to someone earlier today why trying to do high end DSP apps for Android phones would take massive resources due to the engineering envelopes that are inherent to the system (high level, JITted language with GC, multiple hardware profiles with a short life span, and the need for low level access on a platform where you're on top of many layers of abstraction makes for a lot of interesting challenges that would devour resources). I'm not saying it can't be done, but I surely wouldn't invest in it.
Greetings from the Great North (that is, West St. Paul). I can confirm we've got the same here and at the office in Minneapolis. See you again in 6 months or randomly in an underground tunnel/walkway in the Cities.
One of the things I really hate currently is taking the current fads in interface design and applying them in the not unlikely scenario that I'm driving with my iPod/iPhone docked. If I'm plugged in, with my phone in landscape orientation for more than a few moments (ie, to make selection of a choice of things easier in the orientation layout), even if I'm not driving DON'T EVER ASK ME ANYTHING OR POP UP OR INTERFERE WITH ME AT ALL! I'm in a context where it is reasonable to assume I'm viewing something and don't want to be bothered.
You mention the shake interaction; I found out that Google Maps on iOS has this while driving and using it for navigating when something triggered it and in small text Maps pops up a "useful and helpful" explanation that I can report issues with the app by shaking the device. But then they took it one step further and made it a modal dialog with "OK"/"cancel" such that you have to read, process the info and successfully choose and execute one of two options. Did anyone at Google, at any point, think and articulate that perhaps having an easy to accidentally trigger interface was a bad idea and that perhaps the worst way to handle the fact that it was easy to accidentally trigger was to pop up a modal dialog box with small text and then proceed to force a user to use multiple higher level cognitive functions while the device's sensors indicate that, one could reasonably assume, they are in the middle of operating a vehicle at 75 MPH? Either they considered it and didn't care or they never considered in what context one might use their application. So they're either dumb or evil, take your pick.
That's the tip of the iceberg. I'm reasonably certain that the point of Google Maps when in GPS mode is to kill and maim as many as possible. It'd be one thing if they didn't have access to sensors that can give a very reasonable assumption as to the context in which the device is operating, but there's more than enough information to derive the context in which the phone is operating. GPS, power, Bluetooth, NFC, screen orientation, mic, etc. I cannot think of a situation in which I'm in a loud environment, Bluetooth connected to an audio device with remote controls, power connected, screen in landscape orientation, while moving at > 5 MPH, with a mapping application using GPS, in which it cannot be reasonably assume I'm driving. Yet, so many of these apps that only get used in that very context won't take that into consideration with regards to their interface. The only one I've ever seen get it right is a war-driving application. Feedback is large text in a dashboard mode in landscape orientation, or a different output in vertical orientation with configurable audio feedback at defined intervals. It never tries to ask you a question while its in use and the layout is such that you aren't likely to need to interact outside of one large start/stop button and changing the device's orientation.