Except if you compare private sector wages in right-to-work vs. collective bargaining states. GDP per capita differences are all over the place, but in states that don't engage in union busting, wages are higher.
Normally I'd give you a [citation needed] but in this case, I don't care whether or not you pulled that little factoid out of your arse. That was easily the worst piece of analysis that I've seen in a long time.
1. GDP per capita is not the same as income 2. Whether or not employees can be forced to join a union is not the only variable affecting income levels. Because you have not isolated that variable, your statement is meaningless.
That doesn't mean I consider the people using it to expect it to shut down all debate and make them autowin through credibility smashing.
Well, let's test your theory. Here's how the discussion in this thread progressed:
cayenne8: Political correctness, is killing all the fun things in life for straight guys. Rude Turnip: Next thing you know, you won't be able to get all the good seats in the front of the bus without the negroes getting all uppity about it. Check your privilege.
Perhaps there is a valid point hidden in Rude Turnip's bile, but he certainly couldn't be bothered to state it explicitly. Instead, he not-so-implicitly called cayenne8 a racist, sexist, white male. He followed that by writing "Check your privilege" which communicates that cayenne8 isn't allowed to have a view or comment anymore because he is too clueless to participate.
So yes, I think that your description of "shut down all debate and make them autowin through credibility smashing" applies 100%. Do you see it differently? Do you think that Rude Turnip was trying to engage in honest discourse here?
"Check your privilege" means "I have lost this debate, but I can't admit that you are smarter than me so I am going to attack you personally."
Cause if there's one thing this debate needs, it's another strawman argument. Thanks for pointing out how horribly stupid those people you don't like are.
I'm sorry, but are you proposing an alternative definition? Because as far as I can tell, my definition is correct.
When people lob substanceless platitudes like "check your privilege", they have no intention of raising a valid argument and instead want to impeach their opponent's credibility. Did the original "check your privilege" poster offer any substantive argument? Not as I remember.
I'm allowed to point this out without it being a strawman argument.
Which brings to mind a great line from " Ball Four," in which a fellow says to a teammate, "I see you with a different girl every night. you must be a really lousy lay."
Well, how else to get better than lots and lots of practice?
Maybe things would get better if 'girls worth meeting' weren't solely contained within the sub set of 'pretty girls'.
Guys are more than happy to meet girls who are not pretty, but we're not going to attempt a romantic relationship with someone that we don't find attractive. Every girl I've ever asked out or hooked up with I've found attractive on some level.
Good news is that there is no single standard for "attractive". Sure, we have "conventional attractiveness", but most people aren't really constrained by that. By way of example, there are men who are most attracted to extremely fat women. They call them Big Beautiful Women (or BBW, for short). To me, they look totally unhealthy, like they could have a heart attack at any moment (I like strong, athletic women), but different people like different things. So there is no reason for anyone to feel like a pariah due to not being conventionally attractive.
If you are wanting them to make that assessment about you guys, maybe turnabout is fair play.
Oh, please.
You know what? I'm glad that our society has finally decided to ditch this idiotic charade that women don't care about men's looks, that they are attracted to deeper qualities because they are so much more mature and enlightened.
Next thing you know, you won't be able to get all the good seats in the front of the bus without the negroes getting all uppity about it. Check your privilege.
Does this phrase ever work? All it ever seems to do is turn a debate personal.
Heh. You know, I've been reading so much Leftist claptrap on facebook over the last few years that I don't even notice that type of phrase anymore.
Since when? You do know that they have not closed the strip clubs right?
I'm sorry. Since when are strip clubs fun?
I hate strip clubs. Does anyone seriously enjoy going into a loud, uncomfortable environment to pay gobs of money to be teased by naked chicks and leave frustrated?
Most geeks learned early on that babes aren't interested. The more attractive a female was, the more likely she was to snub any geeks that approached.
My personal experience contradicts this completely. I'm a geek back from when being a geek actually meant something. In other words, I learned to program on an Apple ][ back when it was state of the art and carried it through college and on to my career.
Anyway, in high school, I made the novel decision to ignore the fact that I was a completely awkward little dork and start talking to hot chicks. Just cleared my throat, took a deep breath, and did it. And how did that turn out? Well, I dated 2 cheerleaders, a triathlete, a leggy blonde-haired blue-eyed (and seriously annoying) band geek, a ski racer, and a few other chicks who weren't really all that hot.
Seems chicks read geeks' being scared of them as their being aloof and elitist and they react poorly to being looked down upon (or at least perceiving that they are being looked down upon). Who knew?
I'm not convinced there is any realistic reason this information needs to be private, although I might feel differently if i lived somewhere else in the world where angry armed mods drag you from your home for expressing a view point.
I keep my domain registrations private due to the spam. It's shocking how much email and snail mail spam I used to get before making my registrations private.
No one should graduate a 4 year college without at least 2 semesters of calculious and one 200 level or above elective in math and 2 lab science.
MMmmmmm! Calculicious!
All kidding aside, why do you think college grads need 2 semesters of calculus? I have 3 semesters and I haven't used anything beyond basic derivatives since graduation.
I'd rather see people take statistics and personal finance. That way, they'd be less easy to manipulate via flawed statistics and confusing financial terms.
I write code for other people for a living, and they own it and don't want it shared; why should I have to write code for myself to develop a "portfolio" I can demonstrate on demand just tobe hireable?
It's going to depend on the individual company and/or hiring manager.
As for me, if I can see a project that a candidate worked on and can see an actual example of the type of output that I can expect from that person, then that is a huge plus factor (or minus factor, if the quality is not something that the applicant should have been proud of). You can learn so much about a candidate via github.
For instance, one applicant that comes to mind had a project out on github that showed a perfectly sensible design, but one thing stood out to me. The unit tests all passed and were mostly written before the code was written. This is why I'd much rather learn about a candidate's habits and practices from github than from an interview. Anyone can say that he or she practices test-driven development. It's much more reliable for me to see it right in front of me.
I wouldn't eliminate a candidate merely for not having any self-published code, but it is a big help for me for it to be there.
I look at rummaging around in google to check out an applicant as more or less equivalent to hiring an investigator to do a background check. The fact that googling is easier and cheaper than hiring an investigator does not change the motive for doing so.
I don't google applicants, but I do ask if they have any projects on github that they're proud of and would want me to look at.
I've spent a lot of time on private projects under NDA, which obviously don't go on github.
Don't you ever code up anything for yourself? If so, you should consider open-sourcing it and storing it on github. Why do you lose? You'll want to have your code in a VCS somewhere, no?
I will point out that the need for push/pull is not an architectural flaw. It is the necessary consequence of using a distributed version control system. If you prefer to use a centralized version control system, then you should do so.
I am aware of the git documentation advising users to use push/pull to achieve synchronization between computers, and while that is an OK way to do it, I feel that it lacks some elegance and automation. Basically, you'd need to set up git remotes for all computers that you work on, and when you move from one computer to the next, you'd do a pull from the one that you were just working on previously. Maybe some people work well in this way, but that solution seems a bit fragile to me.
The other option is to push/pull with a centralized server. I don't personally like this option because I don't like to push changes before they're ready to be seen by others. And switching computers doesn't mean that I'm ready to publish my changes. Seems like a misuse of git's workflow to me.
Personally, I prefer to use the right tool for the job, and so I use a version control system to track versions of files, and I use a synchronization tool to synchronize. You are free to shoehorn the wrong tool into your job if that is what makes you happiest and most productive.
If you modify a library and a consumer of the library, then you want an atomic commit for the changes, especially if it's an internal API that you don't expose outside of the project and so don't need to maintain ABI compatibility for out-of-tree consumers.
In the Java world, I'm just so used to publishing artifacts to Maven repositories that it never really even entered my consciousness that there would be a reason to have atomic commits between modules. When modules depend on other modules, it is always a specific version, and every version of that artifact is always available via Maven.
If you do need atomic commits between modules, then yes, you would have to have a very convoluted workflow with git, if it's even possible at all. But, really, isn't it better to go the loosely-coupled route? What if some code that is outside of your SVN repository uses one of your modules? How do you keep them synchronized?
FYI, git does now support sparse checkouts, but I have never had the occasion to test that feature.
Let me say it again. I think you will be much happier if you use a tool other than git for file synchronization. Git is a version control system. Try some type of sync tool or use a network-attached filesystem, if appropriate. Dropbox seems like an obvious choice because it's fairly cross-platform.
And you are correct about branches being the finest granularity of pull requests. It makes a lot more sense if you are using a common git workflow of doing each unit of work on its own branch. So if you are fixing issue #2773, you would create a branch for that fix. And if you were adding feature #2552, you'd create a branch for that. But you wouldn't do any more work on your branch for "fixing issue #2773" once it's fixed. You'd never make more commits to it. You'd probably just delete it.
I'm not sure how it works on github, but on bitbucket, you can set the pull request to automatically delete the branch once it's accepted. There is no need to keep those little branches around forever.
doing almost anything in git is more complicated and more work than doing the same thing in svn.
Except for branching/merging, which was hopefully corrected in svn 1.8.
Beyond that, I'm not sure that I totally understand your complaint with respect to repositories and working copies, but I see that you want to keep several computers in sync. I think what might be happening here is that you are not using a central git server, and instead are trying to sync between computers by pushing/pulling between them. Is that correct?
You'd want to use a central git server like the one that comes with it or gitolite or one of the many web-based git hosting applications. Or, more creatively, what you might really want is to sync your repositories/working copies with dropbox or something like it. After all, you're not trying to collaborate with anybody on all of those computers. You just want to be able to work on any one of them. If it were me, I'd probably test out dropbox.
Slashdot Mirror
The proper response to Zimmerman's acquittal is outrage.
Why? How can you say that with such certainty? Were you there and know what happened?
Here, let's make it simple shall we? And now you know the chain of events, and can understand why it *was* self defense, and why you're wrong.
What's the basis for this account of the story? I'm not disputing it; I just haven't seen this before and I'd like to read more.
Why did you opt to get your refund as a debit card? Why not get it direct deposited?
Except if you compare private sector wages in right-to-work vs. collective bargaining states. GDP per capita differences are all over the place, but in states that don't engage in union busting, wages are higher.
Normally I'd give you a [citation needed] but in this case, I don't care whether or not you pulled that little factoid out of your arse. That was easily the worst piece of analysis that I've seen in a long time.
1. GDP per capita is not the same as income
2. Whether or not employees can be forced to join a union is not the only variable affecting income levels. Because you have not isolated that variable, your statement is meaningless.
Cheers!
That doesn't mean I consider the people using it to expect it to shut down all debate and make them autowin through credibility smashing.
Well, let's test your theory. Here's how the discussion in this thread progressed:
cayenne8: Political correctness, is killing all the fun things in life for straight guys.
Rude Turnip: Next thing you know, you won't be able to get all the good seats in the front of the bus without the negroes getting all uppity about it. Check your privilege.
Perhaps there is a valid point hidden in Rude Turnip's bile, but he certainly couldn't be bothered to state it explicitly. Instead, he not-so-implicitly called cayenne8 a racist, sexist, white male. He followed that by writing "Check your privilege" which communicates that cayenne8 isn't allowed to have a view or comment anymore because he is too clueless to participate.
So yes, I think that your description of "shut down all debate and make them autowin through credibility smashing" applies 100%. Do you see it differently? Do you think that Rude Turnip was trying to engage in honest discourse here?
I don't consider the idea of privilege, itself "claptrap"; it's just the throw-away phrase "check your privilege" that is basically just noise.
I apologize if my sentence was unclear, but I consider the facebook rants to be claptrap.
What does that even mean?
"Check your privilege" means "I have lost this debate, but I can't admit that you are smarter than me so I am going to attack you personally."
Cause if there's one thing this debate needs, it's another strawman argument. Thanks for pointing out how horribly stupid those people you don't like are.
I'm sorry, but are you proposing an alternative definition? Because as far as I can tell, my definition is correct.
When people lob substanceless platitudes like "check your privilege", they have no intention of raising a valid argument and instead want to impeach their opponent's credibility. Did the original "check your privilege" poster offer any substantive argument? Not as I remember.
I'm allowed to point this out without it being a strawman argument.
Which brings to mind a great line from " Ball Four," in which a fellow says to a teammate, "I see you with a different girl every night. you must be a really lousy lay."
Well, how else to get better than lots and lots of practice?
Maybe things would get better if 'girls worth meeting' weren't solely contained within the sub set of 'pretty girls'.
Guys are more than happy to meet girls who are not pretty, but we're not going to attempt a romantic relationship with someone that we don't find attractive. Every girl I've ever asked out or hooked up with I've found attractive on some level.
Good news is that there is no single standard for "attractive". Sure, we have "conventional attractiveness", but most people aren't really constrained by that. By way of example, there are men who are most attracted to extremely fat women. They call them Big Beautiful Women (or BBW, for short). To me, they look totally unhealthy, like they could have a heart attack at any moment (I like strong, athletic women), but different people like different things. So there is no reason for anyone to feel like a pariah due to not being conventionally attractive.
If you are wanting them to make that assessment about you guys, maybe turnabout is fair play.
Oh, please.
You know what? I'm glad that our society has finally decided to ditch this idiotic charade that women don't care about men's looks, that they are attracted to deeper qualities because they are so much more mature and enlightened.
So you can just admit the truth at this point.
What does that even mean?
"Check your privilege" means "I have lost this debate, but I can't admit that you are smarter than me so I am going to attack you personally."
Next thing you know, you won't be able to get all the good seats in the front of the bus without the negroes getting all uppity about it. Check your privilege.
Does this phrase ever work? All it ever seems to do is turn a debate personal.
Heh. You know, I've been reading so much Leftist claptrap on facebook over the last few years that I don't even notice that type of phrase anymore.
Since when?
You do know that they have not closed the strip clubs right?
I'm sorry. Since when are strip clubs fun?
I hate strip clubs. Does anyone seriously enjoy going into a loud, uncomfortable environment to pay gobs of money to be teased by naked chicks and leave frustrated?
Oh please, sign me up.
Most geeks learned early on that babes aren't interested. The more attractive a female was, the more likely she was to snub any geeks that approached.
My personal experience contradicts this completely. I'm a geek back from when being a geek actually meant something. In other words, I learned to program on an Apple ][ back when it was state of the art and carried it through college and on to my career.
Anyway, in high school, I made the novel decision to ignore the fact that I was a completely awkward little dork and start talking to hot chicks. Just cleared my throat, took a deep breath, and did it. And how did that turn out? Well, I dated 2 cheerleaders, a triathlete, a leggy blonde-haired blue-eyed (and seriously annoying) band geek, a ski racer, and a few other chicks who weren't really all that hot.
Seems chicks read geeks' being scared of them as their being aloof and elitist and they react poorly to being looked down upon (or at least perceiving that they are being looked down upon). Who knew?
I'm not convinced there is any realistic reason this information needs to be private, although I might feel differently if i lived somewhere else in the world where angry armed mods drag you from your home for expressing a view point.
I keep my domain registrations private due to the spam. It's shocking how much email and snail mail spam I used to get before making my registrations private.
No one should graduate a 4 year college without at least 2 semesters of calculious and one 200 level or above elective in math and 2 lab science.
MMmmmmm! Calculicious!
All kidding aside, why do you think college grads need 2 semesters of calculus? I have 3 semesters and I haven't used anything beyond basic derivatives since graduation.
I'd rather see people take statistics and personal finance. That way, they'd be less easy to manipulate via flawed statistics and confusing financial terms.
I write code for other people for a living, and they own it and don't want it shared; why should I have to write code for myself to develop a "portfolio" I can demonstrate on demand just tobe hireable?
It's going to depend on the individual company and/or hiring manager.
As for me, if I can see a project that a candidate worked on and can see an actual example of the type of output that I can expect from that person, then that is a huge plus factor (or minus factor, if the quality is not something that the applicant should have been proud of). You can learn so much about a candidate via github.
For instance, one applicant that comes to mind had a project out on github that showed a perfectly sensible design, but one thing stood out to me. The unit tests all passed and were mostly written before the code was written. This is why I'd much rather learn about a candidate's habits and practices from github than from an interview. Anyone can say that he or she practices test-driven development. It's much more reliable for me to see it right in front of me.
I wouldn't eliminate a candidate merely for not having any self-published code, but it is a big help for me for it to be there.
I look at rummaging around in google to check out an applicant as more or less equivalent to hiring an investigator to do a background check. The fact that googling is easier and cheaper than hiring an investigator does not change the motive for doing so.
I don't google applicants, but I do ask if they have any projects on github that they're proud of and would want me to look at.
Frankly, any company that expects any given hire to have an extensive record of blog posts and tweets is not one I would really want to work for.
If you're interviewing for a programming job, nobody's going to ask you for your Twitter handle. They might, however, ask for your github login.
I've spent a lot of time on private projects under NDA, which obviously don't go on github.
Don't you ever code up anything for yourself? If so, you should consider open-sourcing it and storing it on github. Why do you lose? You'll want to have your code in a VCS somewhere, no?
Well, you should use whatever tool works for you.
I will point out that the need for push/pull is not an architectural flaw. It is the necessary consequence of using a distributed version control system. If you prefer to use a centralized version control system, then you should do so.
I am aware of the git documentation advising users to use push/pull to achieve synchronization between computers, and while that is an OK way to do it, I feel that it lacks some elegance and automation. Basically, you'd need to set up git remotes for all computers that you work on, and when you move from one computer to the next, you'd do a pull from the one that you were just working on previously. Maybe some people work well in this way, but that solution seems a bit fragile to me.
The other option is to push/pull with a centralized server. I don't personally like this option because I don't like to push changes before they're ready to be seen by others. And switching computers doesn't mean that I'm ready to publish my changes. Seems like a misuse of git's workflow to me.
Personally, I prefer to use the right tool for the job, and so I use a version control system to track versions of files, and I use a synchronization tool to synchronize. You are free to shoehorn the wrong tool into your job if that is what makes you happiest and most productive.
If you modify a library and a consumer of the library, then you want an atomic commit for the changes, especially if it's an internal API that you don't expose outside of the project and so don't need to maintain ABI compatibility for out-of-tree consumers.
In the Java world, I'm just so used to publishing artifacts to Maven repositories that it never really even entered my consciousness that there would be a reason to have atomic commits between modules. When modules depend on other modules, it is always a specific version, and every version of that artifact is always available via Maven.
If you do need atomic commits between modules, then yes, you would have to have a very convoluted workflow with git, if it's even possible at all. But, really, isn't it better to go the loosely-coupled route? What if some code that is outside of your SVN repository uses one of your modules? How do you keep them synchronized?
FYI, git does now support sparse checkouts, but I have never had the occasion to test that feature.
Let me say it again. I think you will be much happier if you use a tool other than git for file synchronization. Git is a version control system. Try some type of sync tool or use a network-attached filesystem, if appropriate. Dropbox seems like an obvious choice because it's fairly cross-platform.
And you are correct about branches being the finest granularity of pull requests. It makes a lot more sense if you are using a common git workflow of doing each unit of work on its own branch. So if you are fixing issue #2773, you would create a branch for that fix. And if you were adding feature #2552, you'd create a branch for that. But you wouldn't do any more work on your branch for "fixing issue #2773" once it's fixed. You'd never make more commits to it. You'd probably just delete it.
I'm not sure how it works on github, but on bitbucket, you can set the pull request to automatically delete the branch once it's accepted. There is no need to keep those little branches around forever.
Have Subversion still those horrible .svn in every single sub-directory?
No. Now, there is now only a single .svn directory, located in the root of your working copy.
I've cloned large repositories before. It doesn't take long. Git compresses. Disk space is cheap.
This just seems like a non-problem to me.
doing almost anything in git is more complicated and more work than doing the same thing in svn.
Except for branching/merging, which was hopefully corrected in svn 1.8.
Beyond that, I'm not sure that I totally understand your complaint with respect to repositories and working copies, but I see that you want to keep several computers in sync. I think what might be happening here is that you are not using a central git server, and instead are trying to sync between computers by pushing/pulling between them. Is that correct?
You'd want to use a central git server like the one that comes with it or gitolite or one of the many web-based git hosting applications. Or, more creatively, what you might really want is to sync your repositories/working copies with dropbox or something like it. After all, you're not trying to collaborate with anybody on all of those computers. You just want to be able to work on any one of them. If it were me, I'd probably test out dropbox.