No, I don't think you understand how companies work. The most common workflow is update when you arrive and commit when you leave and eventually fix a file and commit it while you are working with something else.
I agree that this workflow is common, but it doesn't really help the developer as much as it could.
I don't want to launch into a huge treatise on common git workflows because there are graphical guides out there that illustrate it much more clearly than I could in a slashdot comment. Check out Atlassian's git workflows page, and in particular, look at the Feature Branch workflow and the Gitflow workflow.
Hopefully that will result in an "Aha!" moment for you, but if not, that's cool. You'll get there eventually.:) Most people who give git a serious try wind up preferring it. It does have a learning curve, though. Which is unfortunate. The curve can be flattened quite a bit with one of the graphical tools out there. Try SourceTree. It's a good one, but not open source. It's free as in beer, which some people hate.
How is that different from creating a branch for the developer/contractor/intern and only giving them write access to their branch, and when complete having someone else merge their branch back into master after doing any code review?
Mostly because merging in svn is (was?) broken beyond belief and your plan, while good in theory, just does (did?) not work in practice.
I see that svn 1.8 improves merging, and I hope that's true. That was really my biggest complaint with SVN was that nonlinear development was impossible due to such poor merging capabilities.
I can kind of see what you're saying, but I have never encountered this in a large project.
On some large projects, the entire project is in one large repository, which git supports.
On other projects, it is broken up into modules with separate repositories, but the artifacts from each module is deployed to an enterprise-wide maven repository. The modules can depend on each other and depend on certain versions of the other modules. With loose coupling between the modules like that, you don't need atomic commits between the modules.
Am I missing something? I've just never been in the position that you describe.
-SVN has much better visual tools and is simpler to operate
The svn command line is definitely simpler, but for git visual tools, try SourceTree. Awesome tool, but I think it's only free as in beer.
-SVN has a simpler merge policies which are friendlier when there isn't a central person pulling the changes.
I have never had good luck with svn merges. It always seemed to do what I didn't want it to do. Haven't tried under 1.8, though.
That being said, have you used github or bitbucket's pull request tool? I've used bitbucket, and it's frickin' awesome. The pull request workflow supports a full-on code review with back and forth possible, before the final pull is done. Super awesome.
-SVN is very friendly for projects with a lot of binary objects (ie videogames)
I'll take your word for it here. I've never worked with a lot of large binary objects.
-SVN allows different people to work on different directories individually, GIT doesn't.
I don't even know what that means.
-SVN has fine grained permissions, access and authentication controls, very useful when parts of your project (ie, APIs) are under NDA or you don't want them to leak.
I suppose with SVN you can restrict access to a certain directory, and this is not possible with git. With git, you'd need to pull the sensitive API out into its own project and control access to that other project, perhaps deploying the compiled library to a central server.
I read the article and I think that I have a reasonable understanding of what happened and why it happened. I was merely offering my observation that the fact that it does work that way is bullshit.
You shouldn't need to work so hard in order to retain your so-called "inalienable" rights.
I am not a lawyer, so if you want a good answer, ask a competent lawyer in your jurisdiction.
That being said, I believe that the answer is no. The fact that you want to consult with an attorney is not admissible at trial.
What happened with this guy is that he didn't ask for a lawyer. Had the cops asked if the shells would match the gun and he said, "Hey, wait a minute. Am I a suspect?! In that case, I want to speak with a lawyer. Now." that should have ended the questioning, as I understand it. And the fact that he wanted to speak with a lawyer should not have been admissible at trial.
If memory serves, this is a typical pattern for Cogent. Rather than paying for additional bandwidth as they are contractually obligated to do, they complain loudly in the media and make wild accusations.
I suspect nothing is preventing Cogent from paying for the excess transit. They just don't wanna.
I am also not a lawyer, but I think that you do have to identify yourself. Might want to look it up if you plan on giving Uncle LEO the silent treatment.
Can you outline the differences in scope / freedom between being detained and under arrest? as far as I'm concerned, they appear to be identical.
For your purposes, they are identical. Treat them identically. Identify yourself to the officer but don't answer any other questions. Invoke your right to counsel.
The difference between a stop and an arrest are a matter for your attorney in the event that you are formally charged. He or she will use the rules of levels of suspicion and levels of detention to try to get evidence suppressed and so forth.
As it says in TFS, is the guy in question WAS NOT being detained.
And here is where the injustice was committed. The police managed to confuse the suspect in a cloud of authority, language barrier, and decades of jurisprudence into thinking that he could or should answer questions.
Exercising your "inalienable" rights should not require so much effort and Constitutional knowledge. Salinas had no rights that day, and that's not what the founding fathers intended.
When you are detained, it really doesn't matter at that point if you are "stopped" or "arrested". You're not free to go (so don't try to flee), and you should not answer any questions beyond identifying yourself. If the police try to ask you any questions, ask to speak with a lawyer.
If you can't leave, and aren't free to go, what is your legal status?
It's a stop.
The police can only arrest you if they have probable cause (meaning it's more likely than not) to believe that you committed a crime. If they don't yet have probable cause, but they do have reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime (specific facts), they can detain you in a "stop" while they investigate those facts to see whether or not they will rise to the level of probable cause. If they do, you will be formally arrested. If they do not, then the stop will end and you are free to go.
A stop cannot last longer than it takes to investigate the facts.
while I'm not happy about this in general, how hard is it to simply state "I'm exercising my right to remain silent" and say nothing else afterwards?
What if you were in a foreign country and weren't familiar with the local magic incantation to assert your rights? Would you be so smart then?
Our rights under the Constitution were supposed to be inalienable. We should not require the accused to have that level of Constitutional knowledge in order to exercise those rights.
If a cop says, "Come here, I need to ask you some questions", then asks my name and where I'm going, and I answer, am I no longer protected by the Fifth Amendment if I don't want to answer any other questions?
You are still protected by the 5th, but you need to invoke it. If you're in the middle of speaking with law enforcement and they ask you a question that you don't want to answer, your best answer is "I invoke my right to counsel." If the officer keeps asking you, then say it in plain English, "I want a lawyer." Answer every subsequent question with, "I want a lawyer."
If there's one right that the court system hasn't yet eviscerated, it's your right to lawyer up.
He was willingly answering questions, he could have claimed the right without speaking by simply shutting up, but as seen again those who break the law often lack the ability to remain silent, even though they have the right.
I see your point, but I'm not comfortable living in a country where one has to have that level of Constitutional knowledge and that level of presence of mind under pressure just to exercise his "inalienable" right against self-incrimination.
If you fall silent in response to police interrogation, it should be assumed that you are exercising your right against self-incrimination without your needing to invoke the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by name. I totally disagree with Alito when he wrote, "It would have been a simple matter for him to say that he was not answering the officer's question on Fifth Amendment grounds."
Then again, who knows? Maybe I'll like it? I've never tried it. I probably never will. But, you know, maybe I will like it.
Good to keep an open mind! But anyway, I just thought I'd pass that along in case you have an inflexible preference for cisgendered women. Many men do.
that's the same thing the prostitute is selling: Not the sex, but the experience of sex.
That is not quite accurate. Men visit prostitutes for a variety of reasons. I've never visited on personally, but I've spoken with several men who have.
The guy I know who goes most often, it's his kink. Paying women for sex. Was at a bachelor party with him, and while most guys sort of nervously go into the strip clubs thinking, "can I please just get this over with?" He was a kid in a candy store. I've never seen anything like it. The rest of us just wound up leaving him there, and yes, he wound up bringing one of the dancers back to his hotel.
For most guys, though, I think it's convenience. It's not difficult to find a woman for sex. Just stay at the bar long enough and lower your standards. We've all been there. But for a married guy with kids, that's just not an option anymore.
To hear folks talk about it, it's sex that is almost completely on the man's terms. It's at a convenient time and location for him, and requires no investment of time beyond the meeting, itself. The customer will select a prostitute that is his type, physically, and who is open to performing the sex acts that he desires (and certainly would never act judgmentally toward him for wanting what he wants). She will make him feel like a king for an hour, showering him with compliments and affection. She is probably more likely to insist on condom usage, unlike that crazy lady you picked up at that dive bar. And of course, she will not contact his wife or show up at his home or place of business causing all manner of trouble. This is definitely a good and valuable service.
Also, I don't think that women are 100% honest when they talk about why they are against prostitution. You see, women are the providers of this thing that men want really, really, really badly (sex, of course), and they use this to get what they want from men. If they aren't getting what they want, it's, "Not tonight, honey. I have a headache." Well, the easy availability of women who are half their age, have 10 times their looks, are happy to look the other way with respect to their men's abundant nose hair, know where the Tylenol section of the local drugstore is, and will work to please their men for an hour for the small price of a few hundred bucks, that kind of throws the whole equation on its ear, now doesn't it. These women are a direct threat to female power, and that's why they are so strongly resented.
Alright, girlinatrainingbra, you need to start with the bikini pics and maybe holding hands with another chick or something.
Be careful what you ask for. Not to be rude or anything, but I noticed that girlintraining was posting very actively in the recent transgender thread...
where you get passed over for promotions because you're male, where you get hassled by women because you're male and where you are largely locked out of certain industries because you are male.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, SourceTree is on Windows now, too. Just so you know.
And I agree, it's a great tool.
No, I don't think you understand how companies work. The most common workflow is update when you arrive and commit when you leave and eventually fix a file and commit it while you are working with something else.
I agree that this workflow is common, but it doesn't really help the developer as much as it could.
I don't want to launch into a huge treatise on common git workflows because there are graphical guides out there that illustrate it much more clearly than I could in a slashdot comment. Check out Atlassian's git workflows page, and in particular, look at the Feature Branch workflow and the Gitflow workflow.
Hopefully that will result in an "Aha!" moment for you, but if not, that's cool. You'll get there eventually. :) Most people who give git a serious try wind up preferring it. It does have a learning curve, though. Which is unfortunate. The curve can be flattened quite a bit with one of the graphical tools out there. Try SourceTree. It's a good one, but not open source. It's free as in beer, which some people hate.
How is that different from creating a branch for the developer/contractor/intern and only giving them write access to their branch, and when complete having someone else merge their branch back into master after doing any code review?
Mostly because merging in svn is (was?) broken beyond belief and your plan, while good in theory, just does (did?) not work in practice.
I see that svn 1.8 improves merging, and I hope that's true. That was really my biggest complaint with SVN was that nonlinear development was impossible due to such poor merging capabilities.
I can kind of see what you're saying, but I have never encountered this in a large project.
On some large projects, the entire project is in one large repository, which git supports.
On other projects, it is broken up into modules with separate repositories, but the artifacts from each module is deployed to an enterprise-wide maven repository. The modules can depend on each other and depend on certain versions of the other modules. With loose coupling between the modules like that, you don't need atomic commits between the modules.
Am I missing something? I've just never been in the position that you describe.
-SVN has much better visual tools and is simpler to operate
The svn command line is definitely simpler, but for git visual tools, try SourceTree. Awesome tool, but I think it's only free as in beer.
-SVN has a simpler merge policies which are friendlier when there isn't a central person pulling the changes.
I have never had good luck with svn merges. It always seemed to do what I didn't want it to do. Haven't tried under 1.8, though.
That being said, have you used github or bitbucket's pull request tool? I've used bitbucket, and it's frickin' awesome. The pull request workflow supports a full-on code review with back and forth possible, before the final pull is done. Super awesome.
-SVN is very friendly for projects with a lot of binary objects (ie videogames)
I'll take your word for it here. I've never worked with a lot of large binary objects.
-SVN allows different people to work on different directories individually, GIT doesn't.
I don't even know what that means.
-SVN has fine grained permissions, access and authentication controls, very useful when parts of your project (ie, APIs) are under NDA or you don't want them to leak.
I suppose with SVN you can restrict access to a certain directory, and this is not possible with git. With git, you'd need to pull the sensitive API out into its own project and control access to that other project, perhaps deploying the compiled library to a central server.
Well, I'm glad to know that git now supports sparse checkouts, even if it does so in a convoluted fashion.
However, I have one question: Why would anyone want to check out only part of a repository?
(10.200.10.1 -> 010.200.010.001)
As much as that just made me throw up in my mouth, I've seen such nonsense out in the wild before.
Yuck.
I read the article and I think that I have a reasonable understanding of what happened and why it happened. I was merely offering my observation that the fact that it does work that way is bullshit.
You shouldn't need to work so hard in order to retain your so-called "inalienable" rights.
I am not a lawyer, so if you want a good answer, ask a competent lawyer in your jurisdiction.
That being said, I believe that the answer is no. The fact that you want to consult with an attorney is not admissible at trial.
What happened with this guy is that he didn't ask for a lawyer. Had the cops asked if the shells would match the gun and he said, "Hey, wait a minute. Am I a suspect?! In that case, I want to speak with a lawyer. Now." that should have ended the questioning, as I understand it. And the fact that he wanted to speak with a lawyer should not have been admissible at trial.
If memory serves, this is a typical pattern for Cogent. Rather than paying for additional bandwidth as they are contractually obligated to do, they complain loudly in the media and make wild accusations.
I suspect nothing is preventing Cogent from paying for the excess transit. They just don't wanna.
I am also not a lawyer, but I think that you do have to identify yourself. Might want to look it up if you plan on giving Uncle LEO the silent treatment.
I invoke my right to counsel.
Can you outline the differences in scope / freedom between being detained and under arrest? as far as I'm concerned, they appear to be identical.
For your purposes, they are identical. Treat them identically. Identify yourself to the officer but don't answer any other questions. Invoke your right to counsel.
The difference between a stop and an arrest are a matter for your attorney in the event that you are formally charged. He or she will use the rules of levels of suspicion and levels of detention to try to get evidence suppressed and so forth.
As it says in TFS, is the guy in question WAS NOT being detained.
And here is where the injustice was committed. The police managed to confuse the suspect in a cloud of authority, language barrier, and decades of jurisprudence into thinking that he could or should answer questions.
Exercising your "inalienable" rights should not require so much effort and Constitutional knowledge. Salinas had no rights that day, and that's not what the founding fathers intended.
When you are detained, it really doesn't matter at that point if you are "stopped" or "arrested". You're not free to go (so don't try to flee), and you should not answer any questions beyond identifying yourself. If the police try to ask you any questions, ask to speak with a lawyer.
If you can't leave, and aren't free to go, what is your legal status?
It's a stop.
The police can only arrest you if they have probable cause (meaning it's more likely than not) to believe that you committed a crime. If they don't yet have probable cause, but they do have reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime (specific facts), they can detain you in a "stop" while they investigate those facts to see whether or not they will rise to the level of probable cause. If they do, you will be formally arrested. If they do not, then the stop will end and you are free to go.
A stop cannot last longer than it takes to investigate the facts.
while I'm not happy about this in general, how hard is it to simply state "I'm exercising my right to remain silent" and say nothing else afterwards?
What if you were in a foreign country and weren't familiar with the local magic incantation to assert your rights? Would you be so smart then?
Our rights under the Constitution were supposed to be inalienable. We should not require the accused to have that level of Constitutional knowledge in order to exercise those rights.
If a cop says, "Come here, I need to ask you some questions", then asks my name and where I'm going, and I answer, am I no longer protected by the Fifth Amendment if I don't want to answer any other questions?
You are still protected by the 5th, but you need to invoke it. If you're in the middle of speaking with law enforcement and they ask you a question that you don't want to answer, your best answer is "I invoke my right to counsel." If the officer keeps asking you, then say it in plain English, "I want a lawyer." Answer every subsequent question with, "I want a lawyer."
If there's one right that the court system hasn't yet eviscerated, it's your right to lawyer up.
About 49 minutes total. Very worth it.
You're telling me that I need to watch 49 minutes of video in order to learn how to exercise my "inalienable" rights under the Constitution?
I seriously doubt that that's what our founding fathers intended.
He was willingly answering questions, he could have claimed the right without speaking by simply shutting up, but as seen again those who break the law often lack the ability to remain silent, even though they have the right.
I see your point, but I'm not comfortable living in a country where one has to have that level of Constitutional knowledge and that level of presence of mind under pressure just to exercise his "inalienable" right against self-incrimination.
If you fall silent in response to police interrogation, it should be assumed that you are exercising your right against self-incrimination without your needing to invoke the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by name. I totally disagree with Alito when he wrote, "It would have been a simple matter for him to say that he was not answering the officer's question on Fifth Amendment grounds."
Then again, who knows? Maybe I'll like it? I've never tried it. I probably never will. But, you know, maybe I will like it.
Good to keep an open mind! But anyway, I just thought I'd pass that along in case you have an inflexible preference for cisgendered women. Many men do.
46% of game buyers are women?
That figure includes Candy Crush.
that's the same thing the prostitute is selling: Not the sex, but the experience of sex.
That is not quite accurate. Men visit prostitutes for a variety of reasons. I've never visited on personally, but I've spoken with several men who have.
The guy I know who goes most often, it's his kink. Paying women for sex. Was at a bachelor party with him, and while most guys sort of nervously go into the strip clubs thinking, "can I please just get this over with?" He was a kid in a candy store. I've never seen anything like it. The rest of us just wound up leaving him there, and yes, he wound up bringing one of the dancers back to his hotel.
For most guys, though, I think it's convenience. It's not difficult to find a woman for sex. Just stay at the bar long enough and lower your standards. We've all been there. But for a married guy with kids, that's just not an option anymore.
To hear folks talk about it, it's sex that is almost completely on the man's terms. It's at a convenient time and location for him, and requires no investment of time beyond the meeting, itself. The customer will select a prostitute that is his type, physically, and who is open to performing the sex acts that he desires (and certainly would never act judgmentally toward him for wanting what he wants). She will make him feel like a king for an hour, showering him with compliments and affection. She is probably more likely to insist on condom usage, unlike that crazy lady you picked up at that dive bar. And of course, she will not contact his wife or show up at his home or place of business causing all manner of trouble. This is definitely a good and valuable service.
Also, I don't think that women are 100% honest when they talk about why they are against prostitution. You see, women are the providers of this thing that men want really, really, really badly (sex, of course), and they use this to get what they want from men. If they aren't getting what they want, it's, "Not tonight, honey. I have a headache." Well, the easy availability of women who are half their age, have 10 times their looks, are happy to look the other way with respect to their men's abundant nose hair, know where the Tylenol section of the local drugstore is, and will work to please their men for an hour for the small price of a few hundred bucks, that kind of throws the whole equation on its ear, now doesn't it. These women are a direct threat to female power, and that's why they are so strongly resented.
Alright, girlinatrainingbra, you need to start with the bikini pics and maybe holding hands with another chick or something.
Be careful what you ask for. Not to be rude or anything, but I noticed that girlintraining was posting very actively in the recent transgender thread...
where you get passed over for promotions because you're male, where you get hassled by women because you're male and where you are largely locked out of certain industries because you are male.
You mean sorta like exactly what exists now?