Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Nope... (Score 1) 179

by mark-t (#48435143) Attached to: It's Not Developers Slowing Things Down, It's the Process

None of the companies that I've ever worked for exercise that principle.... in my experience, if you are incompetent at what you are asked to do, then you are fired. If you are just barely competent enough to keep your position past your probationary period, then this would come up during an annual performance review, with a critique on your work habits and what you can do to improve. If no improvement is noted over the next several months, you will be laid off. In my experience, if you are going to get promoted, you will need to go above and beyond what your job expectations are, and show the employer that you are capable of taking on greater responsibilities than what you were initially hired for, while still meeting all of the expectations of your current position. If there are no exceptions to the "Dilbert Principle", then how does that experience jive with promoting the least competent people to management, exactly?

Or are you incorrect about your assertion that there are no exceptions?

Comment: In my experience.... (Score 2) 179

by mark-t (#48434971) Attached to: It's Not Developers Slowing Things Down, It's the Process

... when developers say "no", they soon find themselves unemployed.

Of course, one could theoretically argue that working for an employer who won't give due consideration to a developer's input isn't worth working for in the first place, but that nice little theory doesn't pay the rent. Oh, and try explaining to a future would-be employer about why your last job didn't work out... care take a guess how that will go down?

Of course, it might seem that working for yourself solves much of this problem, but even that still requires that you actually have paying clients, enough of them that you can support yourself on what they are willing to pay you. Of course, then you are actually back where you started, where saying "no" to a person who pays you money to do whatever it is that you do carries a risk of not getting paid by that person again. If you have enough clients, this may not be a problem to lose the odd one or two because they are dillholes, but getting to that point will take time... possibly many years... so until that time comes, you'll just have to do whatever the heck the person who is paying your salary tells you, unless you really have an affinity for living in a cardboard box on the street.

Comment: Uhmmm....What? (Score 1) 164

by mark-t (#48419081) Attached to: Microsoft Azure Outage Across the Globe

Isn't a cloud supposed to be, you know, *distributed*? So that this sort of thing doesn't ever happen, barring a catastrophe of no less than nation-wide proportions, where people are more liable to be more worried about other things than availability of said service anyways.

I would think this is more an illustration of a failure on Microsoft's part to properly implement their cloud services than it is indicative of a failure of such services in general.

Comment: Re:Study says less about altruism, more about fair (Score 1) 123

by mark-t (#48410647) Attached to: Electric Shock Study Suggests We'd Rather Hurt Ourselves Than Others
Altruism has nothing to do with hurting oneself needlessly. It has to do with putting another's needs above one's own. In this study people were more willing to hurt themselves for money than they are willing to hurt other people for money. If money were not involved, there would not necessarily be any motivation to do either.

Comment: Re:Where does the right to privacy come from? (Score 1) 136

by mark-t (#48391995) Attached to: 81% of Tor Users Can Be De-anonymized By Analysing Router Information

What if I'm in Saudia Arabia and am an atheist?

Even then.

I'm not suggesting if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide, because that's actually a completely misleading argument that can be easily shown to be a false notion anyways.

Privacy, as I said, is created by two things, neither of which one is really in direct control of. The first thing is how polite other people are making a deliberate choice to be... invading someone else's privacy, for any reason, almost invariably amounts to rude behavior. Privacy is a courtesy that as civilized human beings, we should always extend to those around us. The world, however, has more than its share of rude people, nor can you really legislate that people not be rude to other people, so the measure of confidence you can have in privacy in this factor is entirely out of your control.

The other thing that creates privacy is something that you may have a small amount of indirect level of control over, which is how disinterested other people are liable to be in whatever it is you are doing. but the only way you really can influence this is by taking efforts to try and secure some measure of privacy for yourself, to the extent that you do not harm other people or infringe on their rights, and to a degree that the efforts that must be taken by others to overcome the efforts you have put in to secure some privacy are likely to outweigh how interested other parties might be in knowing about whatever it is that you are keeping private. Such measures might give you a greater feeling of confidence or security, but since you actually do not have any real control over what other people might want or how badly they might want it, I would still suggest that any appearance of privacy you may seem to achieve for yourself is still going to largely be illusionary. Certainly, if the efforts required to overcome whatever barriers you try to put in place to give yourself some privacy amount to needing to break the law, then you can probably have a high degree of confidence in how much privacy you have, as long as whoever might be interested in your private affairs has not been offered any legal immunity... and you certainly deserve to have legal recourse when someone infringes on your privacy in that regard... not because they infringed on your privacy, per se, but because of whatever law it was that they actually broke.

Comment: Re:Where does the right to privacy come from? (Score 1) 136

by mark-t (#48390251) Attached to: 81% of Tor Users Can Be De-anonymized By Analysing Router Information
Just because I don't think people should really have any expectation of privacy at any time doesn't mean I think people should not have any right to do whatever is in within their own personal power and ability to directly control to preserve whatever privacy they feel they might be able to secure for themselves, to the extent that such efforts do not infringe on anyone else's freedoms or rights.

Comment: Where does the right to privacy come from? (Score 0) 136

by mark-t (#48388245) Attached to: 81% of Tor Users Can Be De-anonymized By Analysing Router Information
Where do people get the idea that privacy is some sort of inalienable right? I'll agree that it's a civic courtesy, and certainly it's impolite to disregard another person's privacy, but to that end, I see it as more of a social contract than any sort of actual right. I would suggest that any appearance of privacy we might seem to have is actually just an illusion offered by the fact that other people are either making a deliberate choice to be polite in that regard, or else they are simply not interested enough in what we think is private for others to be bothered with it. Either way, it's not something that you can actually control... its largely determined by what other people do or want.

Comment: Re:Shocked... (Score 1) 203

by mark-t (#48387797) Attached to: Window Washing a Skyscraper Is Beyond a Robot's Reach

I asked for a citation of how being broke was supposedly illegal, not about being a vagrant.

For what it's worth, you can be broke without being a vagrant anyways, and of course, being broke is not strictly required to be a vagrant either.

Vagrancy laws are only applicable to being broke if you consider vagrancy the only possible outcome of being broke. While that may statistically be the most likely outcome, it is far from the only one. A destitute person may have a friend who is letting them stay at their home at no charge, for instance (presumably to help them out until they can get financially on their feet).

Comment: Re:Perhaps when NVIDIA's NDK supports Netbeans.... (Score 1) 58

I suspect you were just trying to be contrary with that remark, but if you don't believe what I'm saying about what I've tried, then it really seems kind of pointless to be trying to convince me that I'm wrong about what I've said I prefer to use.

Comment: Re:Perhaps when NVIDIA's NDK supports Netbeans.... (Score 1) 58

by mark-t (#48383653) Attached to: Nvidia Shield Tablet Gets Android Lollipop Update, Half Life 2 EP1 and GRID


And you accuse me of starting a religious rant?

Of course I know that no single tool is good for every possible job... but believe me when I say that I've used plenty of different IDE's, and have found that of the ones currently available that I have tried, Netbeans has the best overall offerings.

For example, a wysywig editor for designing swing user interfaces, live connections to a database, allowing editing of the database without leaving the IDE, and probably most important of all, projects developed with netbeans are not in any way dependent on netbeans to build... the buildflle that it uses for a java project is just a regular ant file, and a plain makefile for native projects, so absolutely nothing special is needed to build such projects in other environments. They are also easy to import into other IDE's with minimal effort, generally requiring no actual project conversion of any kind. I have experienced a lot of grief building a java project that was developed with eclipse outside of eclipse.

Comment: Perhaps when NVIDIA's NDK supports Netbeans.... (Score 1) 58

by mark-t (#48381495) Attached to: Nvidia Shield Tablet Gets Android Lollipop Update, Half Life 2 EP1 and GRID

I'll probably start to pay attention to their android offerings

Which probably means never. But hey...

As an aside, I now predict that this post will rapidly be replied to by at least 3 or 4 commenters who will attempt to argue that eclipse is infinitely better than Netbeans, either completely unsubstantiated, or positing only subjective points of comparison, and if I weren't mentioning it here, it would also be replied to by at least one 'insentive clod' remark by somoebody who uses vi. The latter may still happen regardless, but I expect the fact that I've already mentioned it lowers the likelihood.

In order to get a loan you must first prove you don't need it.