Forgot your password?

Comment: You guys (Score 4, Interesting) 148

by ADRA (#48174893) Attached to: Cisco Exec: Turnover In Engineering No Problem

I may just be interpretting this discussion different than everyone else here, but assuming every developer is happy with company, and company decides to implement a new development philosophy or production model (for strategic / financial / etc..) reasons, wouldn't it be sensible and actually expected that a non-trivial number of developers won't be happy with said changes?

For example, If my company went from Dev and IT groups to merging them into devops, some people are going to be rocking the idea, and a shit ton may be unhappy about the change and decide to move on. DevOps isn't any more or any less better for an employee, but it means a different set of tasks for that developer to live in. Maybe this change will significantly improve workplace productivity and the change isn't only merited, but essential for the company's survival. Same with, say dropping support for Windows/Linux/Mac/etcc OS's and just supporting a smaller set of OS's. Some would say there are valid reasons to adopt the standard (less IT burdens), and others who use said dropped OS's will be more willing to leave.

To assume that the company simply doesn't care about its developers walking out is a little bit of an overstatement. Many won't like a change (regardless of what it is), and if you're going to leave, you might as well leave when you perceive a negative change in your job.

Comment: Re:Windows 7 (Score 2) 138

by ADRA (#48151717) Attached to: Data From Windows 10 Feedback Tool Exposes Problem Areas

Quite literally, I'd be happy with Windows 2000 (plus a few common add-on programs) as long as their kernel/driver model were updated and games actually worked with it anymore. I held out with 2000 until like 2008 and by then I had to hack many game DLL's to ignore the XP only extensions and it was just too much hassle to stick with it. Today, Windows 7 works well enough, and with Classic Shell, everything but some annoying explorer aspects work about the same as 2000 did. No gloss, no FX, just productive bliss.

Comment: Re:what an idiot (Score 1) 263

by ADRA (#48107271) Attached to: Carl Sagan, as "Mr. X," Extolled Benefits of Marijuana

From Wikipedia: "Since winning the Nobel Prize, Mullis has been criticized in The New York Times for promoting ideas in areas in which he has no expertise.[6] He has promoted AIDS denialism,[7][8][9][10][11][12] climate change denial[7] and his belief in astrology.[6][7]"

An interesting role model in deed.

Comment: Re:Oracle trying to undo the GPL decision (Score 1) 146

by ADRA (#48103681) Attached to: Google Takes the Fight With Oracle To the Supreme Court

As of -whenever it was- no copyright attribution needs to be asserted in order to apply. As long as the classes, or their structure were leveraged from others' works. Take 'Pair', 'Triple' as an example. In Java, there's no Pair, but many people like to associate two entities together in a free-form way. To do this, you:

Make a constructor with optionally 2,1,0 arguments
Setter for the first item (optional)
Getter for the first item
Setter for the second item (optional)
Getter for the second item

That API will be all but identical to the hundreds if not thousands of distinct implementations of Pair. As a construct, Pair has probably existed for several decades, and its rather shocking to assume that any primitive construct can be copyrighted by the 'first guy to come up with it'. In fact, it will certifiably lead to the end of software development as a whole (at least in the US) if such a ridiculously broad claim is upheld.

Comment: Crossing Borders (Score 2) 123

by ADRA (#48098291) Attached to: US Remains Top Country For Global Workers

Once you start crossing borders, 'nations' become less worrisome. I'd like to know how many of the 'willing expats' have travelled out-of-nation prior to the survey. I'd bet that the majority have. I'd assume that there are fewer of the Americans surveyed who have travelled abroad, but this is just my gut feel. I've heard 'stories' mind you, of people who've never left their counties *shudder*.

Once you leave and explore the world a little, you'll find that many places are quite nice to visit / live for a while. Some will be learning experiences, some will just be for material gain, and others will receive opportunities that their own country can't offer. Why the specific people thought what they did was another topic.

Although one big reason is that there's still the prevailing belief that moving to America will increase your chance at happiness, security, or financial success. I'd still consider that debatable, but the circumstances are very relevant.
Tells me there's a large shift in immigration for people moving into OIL rich nations which makes sense since there's probably a great financial incentive to move (10 year old data alas). The US is 30th, so still pretty strong on the immigration front, but seems to be slowwing per capita over time, which may indicate tighter immigration policies or less incentive from 2005-2008. Of course post-housing meltdown numbers would be more interesting, but oh well.

Comment: Re:Why does Gnome continue using horizontal panels (Score 1) 267

by ADRA (#48094829) Attached to: GNOME 3 Winning Back Users

1. The vertical space on my start bar is very small, like 1/3 of an inch on one of my 27" diagonal monitors. For that price, I can actually read contextual words on my task list which is why I don't have to click an icon then click again to find the 'right' window to jump back to. Many people do it differently, but its the way I work.
2. My 'reading' screen is vertically oriented, my 'work' screen is horizontal, but my IDE's have lots of important side-bar crap that fills in. With my current 2x27" setup, I've never thought, damn, I need more screen real-estate. All in all, I have maybe 2% of my total screen real-estate constantly occupied with static OS items. If I was using XFCE (I like the top/bottom bars for Linux), it would be double that, but still very acceptible for my use cases.

Comment: Re:change is baaaaaaaad (Score 1) 267

by ADRA (#48094677) Attached to: GNOME 3 Winning Back Users

Nah, I hate Unity / Gnome 3 because they were quite clearly Apple desktop and tablet clones. Not that there's anything wrong with those UI's, they just don't fit my workflow. Instead of adding options to support *shocked* many application styles, they said fuck you, this is the way, or you can go jump off a roof. Having a project so hostile to their community is probably the fastest way of losing them.

Comment: Re:I'll take another look at it. (Score 1) 267

by ADRA (#48094445) Attached to: GNOME 3 Winning Back Users

The negativity was turning one product into an entirely brand new product. If you hate XFCE, then you also hate Gnome 2, which was largely the same. The hate as you'd put it was that they decide they didn't want to be an Apple anymore, instead they wanted to produce Oranges. They just assumed that everyone should be eating Oranges now because... why? They were perfectly in their right to build the best Orange they can, but assuming that they wouldn't piss off their entire existing userbase of Apple eaters is a little naive.

Comment: Re:False logic (Score 1) 346

by ADRA (#48093393) Attached to: Why America Won't Match Sweden's Cheap, Fast, Competitive Internet Services

One could rightly argue that the 'artifiicial' comes from the fact that many of the fixed costs associated with the build were paid with taxpayers dollars and yet given almsot absolte control over by the providers. This is what you'd call artificial barriers. If said lines were offered access to equally based on subscriber %, you'd at least have an even (or at least much closer to) 'even playing field. I have no problems with a big provider investing $600 or whatever it is to provide service for a household, but I do have a problem with it when provider A pays $80, and provider B pays $200 and provider C pays $1000 based on ... who knows. You could make the same argument about cell providers and spectrum, but whatev's.

Comment: Re:Government involvement (Score 2) 346

by ADRA (#48093241) Attached to: Why America Won't Match Sweden's Cheap, Fast, Competitive Internet Services

I think the idea of hating government roots from an inherent fear of losing control. If you have no idea how to control (or even get involved) with your political process, how can you ever hope to control it? Hint, making the government smaller won't be the magic bullet that will bring happiness to all. It won't fix your disproportionate financial disparity, it won't help the cycle of violence that is now almost institutional in some parts of America.

Maybe instead of bitching about your government , you actually step up and do something about it. Only then will things actually get done to improve the lives of people. The government is only as good as those who participate in it (and watered down for 'politics'). If you don't like the fact that politicians are being bought by donators, then create grass root movements and actively hurt their chances of being re-elected. The internet makes this so cheap, how is this not a bigger thing from the country self-described as the upholder of democracy (you know something something for the people and all that)? Organize, focus, do SOMETHING. But please don't whine about a system you don't have any participation in.

Comment: Re:not complicated...monopology (Score 3, Insightful) 346

by ADRA (#48093101) Attached to: Why America Won't Match Sweden's Cheap, Fast, Competitive Internet Services

The definition of Monopoly really comes from that 6th company attempting to enter the market:

1. No legal/physical means to provide service in said jusirdiction: Monopoly
2. Not financially feasible entering said market leaving a few dominant players to fight over market share: Ologopoly (this can happen with anything as long as competition exists, this should eventually reach saturation in price conscious markets)
3. Simple boundaries for entry, and good rate of return: Open competition mode, that should arguably not last exceedingly long as continually entering competitors race in and lower prices to entice more business

For Sweden, the stiff steep fixed costs of entry have been largely paid and continually subsidized by government maintainance, which gives a natural benefit to players entering the market in avoiding large capital outlays. This doesn't mean the system is 'bad' or inefficient, or even taking cash from tax payers. They -could- be revenue positive for all we know as many gov corps are, so don't give me that song that all government is somehow intrinsically wasteful (or a bunch of robbers). It just shows your political leanings, not your common sense.

Since the cost of entering the market requires comparitively little vs. an American incumbant, they can and most likely do discount their rates against one another to maintain their position. Its very possible but I couldn't be sure that the gov actually sets pricing guidelines, but for that I wouldn't know. So no, the Comcasts of Sweeden aren't making stupidly large profits, but I'm sure they're in the market because there's enough room to make a desired profit point. Think of it like the days of dial-up. In those days, anyone could be an ISP with a few lines and a bigger pipe paid to an ILEC (or some other provider) and you could get by. You would grow if you had a good service offering beyond just the physical medium (which was by and large the same besides over-saturation).

Comment: Re:I can believe it... (Score 1) 69

by ADRA (#48075665) Attached to: Hackers Compromised Yahoo Servers Using Shellshock Bug

Maybe if you bothered to look at the relay logs in the header, you'd probably know they were sent from a fictional server pretending to be you (or totally legit from an exploit), but since said note was absent in your comment, I'm assuming you didn't know about spoofing email, which any script kiddie could do trivially.

Secondly, I can't say about Yahoo, but google has 2 factor auth to avoid said problems. Third, Google has account access history so that if 'bad people' were logged into the account, you'd at least be able to view a record of who/when. I'd be very surprised if Yahoo didn't offer a similar example.

Evolution is a million line computer program falling into place by accident.