Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: about the evidence... (Score 1) 749

by dreadway (#44009275) Attached to: Snowden Is Lying, Say House Intelligence Committee Leaders

That is because he provided HARD EVIDENCE. Power-point slides that explain the scope of the program. [...] The slides clearly show what is currently existing within the scope of the system and what is forecast for the future.

So, apparently some things are not yet adding up about the conclusions drawn from those PowerPoint slides:
http://www.rants.org/2013/06/11/epic_botch_of_prism_story/
https://medium.com/prism-truth/82a1791c94d3

I don't know. I assumed they were already doing this (almost all, slightly more, or slightly less) for at least the past ten years. I'm not keen about the civilization necessarily requiring a real, actual surveillance state, if that's what we indeed have. Finally, I don't know what to think about Snowden, and don't really care to jump to conclusions about that, either.

Here's some more I had been looking at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/10/1214540/-Five-stages?showAll=yes
http://cryptome.org/

Comment: Re:Unadvantages! (Score 5, Interesting) 312

by dreadway (#43790107) Attached to: Dart Is Not the Language You Think It Is

IMO the thing which crippled large Smalltalk projects was the corporate IT market embracing programming technologies which looked more like C. You had to fight hard to make Smalltalk code look like a procedural language, which a larger body of programmers were already used to. Java, C++, and C# look more like C, so I guess they have that going for them.

Smalltalk is a strongly-typed, late-binding language. Smalltalk's Object>>#doesNotUnderstand behavior is a hindrance for production-quality code only to the extent that your programmers are unwilling or unable to read and use someone else's API. Oh, and maybe your system design should not suck, no matter what programming technology is involved.

I worked for years as a Smalltalk programmer on big, corporate IT systems involving hundreds of programmers and handling hundreds of millions of $$$ per day in production, but corporate IT has had a mood swing and now our systems mostly use the early-binding programming technologies. I like being gainfully employed, but am not persuaded the tradeoffs of the extra code, convoluted syntax constructions, and tool paradigms actually represent any improvements. And finally, believe it or not, but the less senior programmers apparently have difficulty reading and understanding the code (even with its early-binding features) written by far more experienced programmers than myself, which in turn results in numerous and varied production defects. Who would have thunk it, eh?

A rolling disk gathers no MOS.

Working...