You're dealing with probabilities at that point. Child A has a 5% chance of becoming a violent psychopath. Child B had a 95% chance. Do you strangle child B at birth? Or give them their 5% chance of becoming something other than a violent psychopath? Where's the cutoff? And who decides?
Disclaimer: I live in Texas. We'd let child B grow up malnourished and abused in a slum before killing him for obvious psychopathic behavior verified by objective measurement, but we wouldn't abort ahead of time even if it was an option.
Agreed. I like what it *does.* It's just that the syntax adds nothing to the functionality. Any C-form or VB-form language is more readable and maintainable. Powershell, like Perl, follows the naive notion that the most efficient language is the one that is perfectly consistent and uses the smallest number of characters. While this might be correct from a mathematics point of view, it's laughable from a human factors/psychology point of view.
Preferably unpaid interns. Second in preference are outsourced $2/hour engineers in Sumwaristan. Absolutely dead last are competent, well paid native English-speaking engineers who can be brought up to speed in a month or two.
Competence and actual productivity of new hires are irrelevant. Neither quality shows up on a spreadsheet. If they do, they can't easily be traced back to the division head who made the hiring policies. If some troublemaker points out the problem, the division head will have moved on to another company or division before it becomes a problem.
An MBA is now the last resort for psychopaths who are just functional enough and smart enough to avoid jail.
Agreed. It was NOT better, however the tools provided by Powershell could have been more easily provided by extending the net framework to be *easily* available via vbscript or jscript. Changing the environment to use tags where old code would work, while allowing new code to be gradually included would have provided backward compatibility AND NOT screwed a few hundred thousand system administrators with a significant code investment.
And this is the fundamental problem with the shambles that is Microsoft's development platforms. "Well you have to recode...." IS ALWAYS THE WRONG ANSWER.
where you have millions of folks looking at your free software for long periods of time. If you're a commercial software vendor, however, with a $10,000 non web-based package and at most a few thousand users (There are still a *lot* of these), then this approach is very unlikely to succeed. Commercial software users are rarely interested enough to report a bug that doesn't actively interfere with their daily work.
This argument can be used for everything from kitchen knives to word processing software. It's an algorithm, with no value in and of itself. People will undoubtedly use it for purposes we might see as both good and evil. It's neither desirable nor possible to suppress technology because of it might one day be used in a way some arbitrary authority thinks is undesirable.
Wow. Leap to conclusions as your major form of exercise?
Yes, police can be no better than terrorists. That said, most aren't. Moreover, there's no possibility of having a coherent industrial scale society without policing of some sort.
If you really think the police are worse than gangs, I suggest you take residence in the Greenspoint or Sharpstown area of Houston for a year or two. Assuming you survive the experience, your opinion of gangs vs. police may end up changing a tad.
And actually, the biggest gangs are the ones you never see. They wear suits and live in the Hamptons. They wield money which is equivalent to, and often more potent than political power. Both the police, the mafia and the low level gangs work for them whether they know it or not.
whose targets are citizens rather than government personnel or buildings. Frankly, this is one case where I'd say the use of this technology is appropriate and overdue.
But these particular citizens are essentially domestic terrorists whose targets are other citizens, not buildings. Strikes me as an appropriate use of the technology.
Open source may be where "it" is at, but you'll notice that the dinosaurs like Apple, Google and Facebook are shuffling around a wee bit more money than even the most successfull "open source" anything.
Yes, Silicon valley is a consumer of open source. Why not? "Never give a sucker an even break," is an adage businesspeople still take to heart.
So, feel free. Go do some work for free on your latest "open source" project. Someone will be along to collect it and sell it, by and by.
In no particular order. Microsoft "dead ending" whatever technology I've committed to for a client. That's become a big one. Stupidity in general. Aging and its effects on my cognition. Typpos. The return of my cancer. Economic collapse. The price of gasoline by 2020 ($12/gal. in today's money. Ouch!). The next version of Windows (Shudder....).
...with the OS or the language platform anymore. Not enough long term profit in it. They want to be a sort of Cloud/HP/Apple. They want to be a smartphone/tablet and internet based business services vendor and that's it. There's apparently just not enough profit in the OS or supporting application developers.
Why don't they just admit it so we can all move on? Linux awaits.
Slashdot Mirror
You're dealing with probabilities at that point. Child A has a 5% chance of becoming a violent psychopath. Child B had a 95% chance. Do you strangle child B at birth? Or give them their 5% chance of becoming something other than a violent psychopath? Where's the cutoff? And who decides?
Disclaimer: I live in Texas. We'd let child B grow up malnourished and abused in a slum before killing him for obvious psychopathic behavior verified by objective measurement, but we wouldn't abort ahead of time even if it was an option.
More than coincidence?
Compressed air. Constant 1G acceleration. Underground tunnels. No problem!
Agreed. I like what it *does.* It's just that the syntax adds nothing to the functionality. Any C-form or VB-form language is more readable and maintainable. Powershell, like Perl, follows the naive notion that the most efficient language is the one that is perfectly consistent and uses the smallest number of characters. While this might be correct from a mathematics point of view, it's laughable from a human factors/psychology point of view.
Preferably unpaid interns. Second in preference are outsourced $2/hour engineers in Sumwaristan. Absolutely dead last are competent, well paid native English-speaking engineers who can be brought up to speed in a month or two.
Competence and actual productivity of new hires are irrelevant. Neither quality shows up on a spreadsheet. If they do, they can't easily be traced back to the division head who made the hiring policies. If some troublemaker points out the problem, the division head will have moved on to another company or division before it becomes a problem.
An MBA is now the last resort for psychopaths who are just functional enough and smart enough to avoid jail.
The body cavity search was just a deposit. For the actual fee, they charge and arm and a leg.
The point is that they shouldn't have had to.
Agreed. It was NOT better, however the tools provided by Powershell could have been more easily provided by extending the net framework to be *easily* available via vbscript or jscript. Changing the environment to use tags where old code would work, while allowing new code to be gradually included would have provided backward compatibility AND NOT screwed a few hundred thousand system administrators with a significant code investment.
And this is the fundamental problem with the shambles that is Microsoft's development platforms. "Well you have to recode...." IS ALWAYS THE WRONG ANSWER.
A more rational organization would have strangled the syntactic abomination that is powershell at birth.
Full disclosure: I use and despise Powershell every day. I'm getting better and better at both using and despising it.
where you have millions of folks looking at your free software for long periods of time. If you're a commercial software vendor, however, with a $10,000 non web-based package and at most a few thousand users (There are still a *lot* of these), then this approach is very unlikely to succeed. Commercial software users are rarely interested enough to report a bug that doesn't actively interfere with their daily work.
if it's used for "good" now, it may not be later.
This argument can be used for everything from kitchen knives to word processing software. It's an algorithm, with no value in and of itself. People will undoubtedly use it for purposes we might see as both good and evil. It's neither desirable nor possible to suppress technology because of it might one day be used in a way some arbitrary authority thinks is undesirable.
Wow. Leap to conclusions as your major form of exercise?
Yes, police can be no better than terrorists. That said, most aren't. Moreover, there's no possibility of having a coherent industrial scale society without policing of some sort.
If you really think the police are worse than gangs, I suggest you take residence in the Greenspoint or Sharpstown area of Houston for a year or two. Assuming you survive the experience, your opinion of gangs vs. police may end up changing a tad.
And actually, the biggest gangs are the ones you never see. They wear suits and live in the Hamptons. They wield money which is equivalent to, and often more potent than political power. Both the police, the mafia and the low level gangs work for them whether they know it or not.
whose targets are citizens rather than government personnel or buildings. Frankly, this is one case where I'd say the use of this technology is appropriate and overdue.
But these particular citizens are essentially domestic terrorists whose targets are other citizens, not buildings. Strikes me as an appropriate use of the technology.
It's the only way to be sure.
Install Linux as base OS. Always surf from a Linux virtual machine. Only use Windows when virtualized, and only when necesarry.
The next time I take vacation in Gondwanaland.
Open source may be where "it" is at, but you'll notice that the dinosaurs like Apple, Google and Facebook are shuffling around a wee bit more money than even the most successfull "open source" anything.
Yes, Silicon valley is a consumer of open source. Why not? "Never give a sucker an even break," is an adage businesspeople still take to heart.
So, feel free. Go do some work for free on your latest "open source" project. Someone will be along to collect it and sell it, by and by.
Certainly not the NSA. I'm shocked. Shocked! to hear anyone suggest such a thing. What was your name again?
At 55, it sure *looks* that way.
It's just not evenly distributed. On the plus side, Detroit would make a great game backdrop.
In no particular order. Microsoft "dead ending" whatever technology I've committed to for a client. That's become a big one. Stupidity in general. Aging and its effects on my cognition. Typpos. The return of my cancer. Economic collapse. The price of gasoline by 2020 ($12/gal. in today's money. Ouch!). The next version of Windows (Shudder....).
...with the OS or the language platform anymore. Not enough long term profit in it. They want to be a sort of Cloud/HP/Apple. They want to be a smartphone/tablet and internet based business services vendor and that's it. There's apparently just not enough profit in the OS or supporting application developers.
Why don't they just admit it so we can all move on? Linux awaits.
(Or, What can a clueless Microsoft management fuck up this week?)
Microsoft wants to cut down on piracy of its development tools.
All Java developement tools are free.
SharpDevelop is free.
Any questions?
If you mean "The Heritage Foundation" I have a bridge I could sell you...