Submission + - Mystery of Gravity powered aircraft 4
Or was I fooled by a spoof?
> And some foolish folks decided to go ahead and replace
Have you ever taken a look at the original Bourne Shell code? All the way up to V7, this header file was applied to each and every line of source code of the original Bourne Shell:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin...
Essentially, this header turned C into a really crummy version of ALGOL -- and the source code was written with that in mind. It took them until 1984 to de-ALGOLize the source code, and it was still a horrible mess after that.
So the Bourne-Again Shell (Bash) was created in 1989 as a response to the shoddy code (and other limitations). Then, when that one bloated out of control, people started going back to the "minimal Bourne Shell" approach in the modern incarnations of Ash and Dash; but by then, Bash had already become the de-facto replacement for Bourne Shells.
In the end though, for any nasty bug you find in Bash, you'll probably find two in the original Bourne Shell --- only hidden behind virtually unreadable source code.
And it is very likely, that nasty things lurk in tcsh, ksh and others. After all, as someone sage once said: "Any non-trivial program that consists of more than three lines of code has at least one bug."
" If all money goes into a general fund, there's no distinguishing "whose" money it is..."
Sounds to me like an easy accounting exercise.
So don't put it in a general fund. Make a Restricted Account for privacy research. Then when you do privacy research, just make sure it comes from there and only there. Also make sure none of Google's money gets in there. Standard GAAP should handle that like a snap.
"Money" sounds "fungible", but it's not. In many ways, "money" = "$ combined with the source and destination". Or you can do it in reverse, and make Google's money a Restricted Account, and run it backwards in that general fund money can fund anything, but pulling Google's money needs a senior management review that it is "not reasonably construed" as privacy research.
And yes, get Legal on this. Because for example you can tweak a footnote of almost anything to "improve privacy" even if the original research was "Study of Seattle's laws penalizing food wastes in trash."
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
The world is just becoming messy because those old fluid "neutral zones" are closing up and Flannery O'Connor was right, "everything that rises must converge".
[...]
You can even skip 1 and 2 by pushing your windows (or whatever you want to call it) button, which acts like the upper corner thingy.
The "Windows" key is called the "meta key" on all platforms that I'm aware of.
"Now you know, and knowing is half the battle." -- Sgt. Slaughter (Sorry, but that GI Joe quote was too tempting)
> It's ironic, I was literally just reading that blog post.
Like rain on your wedding day.
Fair enough. At least I didn't use the term "literally" to mean "figuratively".
[...] They once had a brilliant young developer who wrote more in three months than their team did in years, before being sacked for delivering code with a bug that caused an outage. [...]
Please tell me this is an exaggeration. Show me a single developer who hasn't caused an issue of some sorts, in production, and I'll show you a developer that hasn't fully matured yet.
Hacking's just another word for nothing left to kludge.