Unless somebody has proof that somebody was trying to create a back door then stop with all of the "X-Files" shit
It was put in surreptitiously, is that not enough to conclude it was intentional? Its one thing to be a skeptic, but it is quite another to ignore facts.
Statistics are wonderful things, if you choose the right one you can make any case you want. I want to know more about the warrentees. I want to hear about the nature of the issues. Recoverable errors vs complete death. Infant mortality vs just wear.
Just letting the government do this stuff without fighting is cowardly. Our grandfathers fought in WWII. We need to fight the fight at home. We need to fight this stuff. MAKE IT PUBLIC show that the U.S.A. is becoming worse the the old soviet union. We have secret laws and secret police. This is not how a democracy is supposed to work! The general populace can stay in denial if the news can be drowned out. I believe (hope) we, as a country, may wake up if these sorts of things make lots of noise.
I voted for Obama, and while I don't think the alternatives would have been any better, we need a new kind of president that will not defend these policies. Terrorism has hit every free state. It is a fact of life. We either deal with the risks of freedom or give it up to these evil bastards. (insert Franklin quote)
Get a national security letter, fight it.
Get a court order, challenge it in a higher court, rinse, repeat.
Call the ACLU
Donate to the ACLU
encrypt, encrypt, encrypt.
The problem with reviewing or even understanding 2001, today, is that you are critiquing it out of time.
1st, that it was "all special effects," well, yes, but more importantly they are "accurate" special effects. Even today, 2001 portrays the PHYSICS of space travel better than any other movie ever made. It is one thing to use computers to create "action" with special effects, 2001 portrayed "space." I can't emphasize this enough. In 1969, this was simply revolutionary. Star Trek was fantasy, we had men going to the moon and trek was clearly scifi. 2001, at the time, seemed real and possible. It was science fiction in the classic sense that the science was real and the story was fiction.
It must be hard for people 40 years old and younger to imagine this period in time. About 12 years 10 years prior, the world changed with Sputnik. We were moving from weather balloons to weather satellites, science was changing everything and we were dreadfully afraid of the Russians beating us. 2001 was a view of space travel attainable from the perspective of the Apollo missions. It was astutely political. It asserted evolution. It worked in "our" albeit future, world.
Unfortunately, 2001 also suffered from concepts that are difficult to visualize. I agree with another post, it is almost impossible to understand without having read the book first.
Still one of my "Most Important Movies Ever Made"
It's probably just a question of what you're used to
Sorry, but you have no idea what I am "used too" and its almost always a mistake to assume.
From my perspective, and I've used Windows since version 1.03, I see IDEs as nothing more than a construct to get over the failure of the desktop environment. Think about it, the GUI desktop should be able to handle this, and for the most part in UNIX, it does. Windows, specifically, has a VERY BAD desktop metaphor. The ability to share between text windows and graphical windows is not natural. A command line text window is a kludge in Windows. In UNIX this just works. Highlight text in one window, middle click in another.
IDEs have a learning curve and this puts a lot of folk like you who are stuck in their ways with their command line tools off and that's okay.
*A* learning curve is OK, but every IDE has its own learning curve, then every iteration of those IDEs have learning curves as well. I like learning about new technologies and algorithms, but I'm busy. I'm sick of re-inventing the wheel every time I want to get down and get some work done.
But it's not a particularly steep learning curve, and if you bother to sit through it you become way more productive because things like intellisense let you churn out code way faster than you can manually type it.
I typically work on cross platform stuff, Linux, Windows, Mac. I have tried many IDEs and when all is said and done, I end up configuring a standard makefile based project. I have to do all the I normally do, but then I have to deal with the IDE on top of that. It just does not make my life any easier.
Lastly, to use VC, I'd have to run Windows, and, really, that's not something I'd want to do. I find the terribly unproductive.
No, you choose to make your life unnecessarily complicated.
Define "unnecessary." If you've ever needed to build an application that is worked on by a team of developers targets multiple platforms, i.e. Linux, Windows, and Mac. Toss in iPhone and Android, you'll son learn that understanding the "build process" is far from "unnecessary."
This seems to relate to some very basic concepts of programming. We created higher-order programming languages for a reason, and that reason was that we didn't want to fiddle with the inner automatable details every time we wanted to do something. That is in essence what you're doing by hand-writing make files, when a tool could do it in much less time, with less errors and in a more standardized way of doing things. While you're busy still hand-writing make files, a professional developer would have used the right tool for the job, and had a working prototype with acceptable performance long before you.
Perhaps, but I submit that the tools at hand are not developed well enough that they actually provide the functionality they promise. IDEs are fundamentally too limited to be used in a generic setting. They can target something very tightly constrained, but get dramatically overcomplicated quickly.
And to touch on your use of the word "Ignorance". What is programming if not ignorance? Are we not ignorant by not understanding an entire library and it's inner workings when we include that library? Are we not ignorant when we code to an API instead of coding passed that interface boundary and fiddling with the other module? The obvious answer is no
The obvious answer, BTW is yes. You need to know all of this stuff, and if you don't, you will get screwed by it eventually.
Would government controlled media behave any differently? That being said, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have to at least consider that we have a small bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
We are too focused on direct forms of control, the old communist and fascist couldn't even DREAM of what we have today, and it is all done with a fabric of self sustaining bribery.
Lets see how far we can get. We all need to donate. This is a test of our very democracy. I fear its long gone.
yeah, so you craft your own makefiles for wp8 compilation? look there's practical reasons for why people use visual studio and it's pretty simply getting paid...
I can't tell you the last time I had a simple "Windows only" project. Most of the times windows is in the mix, but so is Linux and Mac.
I use multiple IDE's depending on what product the code is for, you still end up knowing the build process because things can conflict and fail at different points in the building and they will fail.
Try adding cross platform and custom and thirdparty libraries to that mix.
also I don't agree that much with understanding the development process being out of tools that show you basic options.. if you're really hardcore and want to compile from commandline drop the make too then(what happens in many ide setups is just running make in-window anyhow).
Cross platfom, automated build, QA run test/release, and "professional" considerations like these make IDE generated projects almost impossible to use.
There is no benefit to knowing how to make a Make file if you're only going to compile a Windows app. Pretending that we all need to know the inner details of make is retarded.
Ignorance of the very foundation of what you are doing is what it is. If you choose ignorance, that is certainly your choice. I choose otherwise because I am a professional.
Protip: You can edit visual studio project files in VIM!!!
This is true, but I have projects that I still work on that can over 20 years old. I work on brand new stuff too. Find me an IDE that works for multiple varied projects in Java, C, C++, PHP, Python, and yes, even assembler.
You seem to think using a shitty editor is a good thing?
No, I would like easier tools, but I can't find them. IDEs almost by nessesity, force you into a working methodology that I find very unproductive.
In fact, on Linux, with a good desktop, the whole desktop is a very powerful IDE. I have editing Windows, source code indexing with ctags. Multitasking compilation, debugging, etc. Why limit myself with an IDE?
As far as I am concerned, IDEs are largely similar in their view of software development. They are like bloated bureaucracies that one has to deal with to do anything constructive. If you dare have a project format that VS, Eclipse, or what have you, doesn't understand, and you have to set up the environment to do everything manually. I know I sound like I am saying "Get off my lawn," but I am really saying we need to understand the development process better. IDEs obscure it too much. Tools like VIM and Emacs expose 100% of it. (In full disclosure I use VIM, ctags, make, etc.)
We need to come up with the programmer's equivalent of the SAE and define basic tools of the trade. It will never happen, of course, but that's *really* what we are fighting about.
I posted on Sarah Sharps' blog. I didn't use profanity, I even quoted Eleanor Roosevelt: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." I disagreed with her and stated that the most vile and ruinous censorship starts with a call for civility and that these are almost always from dubious motivations.
So, low and behold, it was moderated out of existence. It seems to me that Sarah has no interest in alternate viewpoints. It is her blog and she has the right to delete comments, but it is quite telling that she will silence a voice which does not agree with her while she is saying she wants to protect people's voices. Her calls for "civility" can be seen as nothing less than a call for censorship. We all must resist this sort of behavior because it is a direct attempt to diminish free speech and impose one person's morality on a larger group.
In computer science, there is a saying, there are three states for an option, 0, 1, or infinite. This basically means, no option, the option for one, or the option for some number greater than one of which any limit will be artificial in nature and short lived because it will not enough for some customer.
Freedom is like this. You have either no freedom, a very clearly stated freedom, or an on going battle for freedoms. GPL is option (1). This proposed license is, by definition, unfair, poorly thought out, and lastly, doomed to fail.
Seriously, a "bug" changes the license on files? A "bug?"
Please! Spare me! A license is a legal document.
They hoped it would not have been noticed and when it was, "oops!"
Sorry, Larry is a dirt bag, always has been, always will be.
"I've got some amyls. We could either party later or, like, start his heart." -- "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie"
