Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... (Score 1) 645

by walshy007 (#47547005) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

When you are as famous as linus, every time you swear at code you're likely to get media attention. So I don't think it is as prevalent as you may think it is.

I certainly know that if there a media circus every time I swore it would be a lot more frequently than what we've heard from linus.

Comment: Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... (Score 5, Insightful) 645

by walshy007 (#47546981) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

From linus at a prior time

Oh, I'll be polite when it's called for. But when people who know better send me crap, I'll curse at them. I suspect you'll notice me cursing *way* more at top developers than random people on the list. I expect more from them, and conversely I'll be a lot more upset when they do something that I really think was not great. For example, my latest cursing explosion was for the x86 maintainers, and it comes from the fact that I *know* they know to do better. The x86 tip pulls have generally been through way more testing than most other pulls I get (not just compiling, but even booting randconfigs etc). So when an x86 pull request comes in that clearly missed that expected level of quality, I go to town. Similarly, you will see fireworks if some long-term maintainer makes excuses for breaking user space etc. That will make me go into incoherent rages. The "polite Linus" example that you point to? That was a maintainer asking for direction for when things went wrong and *before* sending me something dubious. Of course I'm polite then. Sarah, I don't have Tourettes syndrome. You seem to think that my cursing is uncontrolled and random. I argue that it has causes. Big difference.

Yes. And I do it partly (mostly) because it's who I am, and partly because I honestly despise being subtle or "nice". The fact is, people need to know what my position on things are. And I can't just say "please don't do that", because people won't listen. I say "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle," and I mean it. And I definitely am not willing to string people along, either. I've had that happen too—not telling people clearly enough that I don't like their approach, they go on to re-architect something, and get really upset when I am then not willing to take their work. Sarah, first off, I don't have that many tools at hand. Secondly, I simply don't believe in being polite or politically correct. And you can point at all those cultural factors where some cultures are not happy with confrontation (and feel free to make it about gender too—I think that's almost entirely cultural too). And please bring up "cultural sensitivity" while at it. And I'll give you back that same "cultural sensitivity". Please be sensitive to _my_ culture too.

In effect you are whining that calling a crap code submission crap is not professional. Linus is a very pragmatic and practical man. That so many people want everything to go smoothly and politely even when shitty things are submitted/done reflects poorly on that "everyone is a winner" kind of culture that propagates that mentality.

We should not prioritize peoples feelings over code quality. If something horribly break things that we've known for a while and know they are capable of better, we should be able to tell people that that was crap and we expect more of them without them whinging to the political correctness police yelling "abuse".

This mentality seems to keep on spreading amongst the new generations, and I fear for what the software development industry will look like in fifty years with all of the pragmatic people thrown out by those more concerned of peoples feelings.

Comment: Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... (Score 5, Informative) 645

by walshy007 (#47546909) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

From a prior discussion from linus.

Oh, I'll be polite when it's called for. But when people who know better send me crap, I'll curse at them. I suspect you'll notice me cursing *way* more at top developers than random people on the list. I expect more from them, and conversely I'll be a lot more upset when they do something that I really think was not great. For example, my latest cursing explosion was for the x86 maintainers, and it comes from the fact that I *know* they know to do better. The x86 tip pulls have generally been through way more testing than most other pulls I get (not just compiling, but even booting randconfigs etc). So when an x86 pull request comes in that clearly missed that expected level of quality, I go to town. Similarly, you will see fireworks if some long-term maintainer makes excuses for breaking user space etc. That will make me go into incoherent rages. The "polite Linus" example that you point to? That was a maintainer asking for direction for when things went wrong and *before* sending me something dubious. Of course I'm polite then. Sarah, I don't have Tourettes syndrome. You seem to think that my cursing is uncontrolled and random. I argue that it has causes. Big difference.

Yes. And I do it partly (mostly) because it's who I am, and partly because I honestly despise being subtle or "nice". The fact is, people need to know what my position on things are. And I can't just say "please don't do that", because people won't listen. I say "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle," and I mean it. And I definitely am not willing to string people along, either. I've had that happen too—not telling people clearly enough that I don't like their approach, they go on to re-architect something, and get really upset when I am then not willing to take their work. Sarah, first off, I don't have that many tools at hand. Secondly, I simply don't believe in being polite or politically correct. And you can point at all those cultural factors where some cultures are not happy with confrontation (and feel free to make it about gender too—I think that's almost entirely cultural too). And please bring up "cultural sensitivity" while at it. And I'll give you back that same "cultural sensitivity". Please be sensitive to _my_ culture too.

some people don't believe in going "oh I'm sorry dear, you are an awesome sugar plum fairy but your performance in this little area was below expectations, especially when it is quite clear said person should know far better given their position of responsibility.

He is clear, to the point, and gets things done.

This is not abuse, this is quite clearly saying that it is screwed, and how it is screwed. It is productive conversation.

All of linus' tirades are followed by an in-depth message detailing in what way they are wrong, being direct and to the point is his style, which he is entitled to.

If calling for standards of quality in a very direct way is abuse.. well.. start a new kernel where you accept any old tripe and see how it goes? And only interact/depend on with projects who have a similar standard and means of management.

Linus is a very pragmatic, practical engineer. Don't let feelings get in the way of practical needs people. His style works far better than most.

Comment: Re:Murder, for example (Score 1) 1330

by walshy007 (#47404977) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

Nah, I'm just not under the illusion that we are special in any way. The universe doesn't give a shit about whether we survive or not, that we often want to is simply a personal bias, not an inherent truth, and those personal biases can vary..

Whether we survive or not is just a thing that happens, it's not inherently "right" or "wrong". No matter what happens to us the universe keeps turning, doing it's thing.

Perhaps the goal of preventing human extinction is the one arbitrary priority, the one "unicorn in the garden" [orain.org], as a starting point to make atheism practical.

You don't need that assumption to make atheism practical. Atheism is practical because "god" is not a falsifiable concept, this doesn't make it wrong, but it puts it in the realm of other things of that realm like the tooth fairy and santa. Things that even if they so happened by some freaky coincidence to be right there is no possible way to have evidence of it because of the lack of ability of the conjecture to be tested.

Critical rationalism allows atheism to function. Not in a hard "there is no god, for sure" stance, but in the "there is no reason, and can be no reason to prefer the conjecture that there is a god, so I'm going to totally ignore it like all other untestable things" sense.

Comment: Re:Murder, for example (Score 1) 1330

by walshy007 (#47398021) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

add the axiom "Humankind ought to continue to exist."

Why? what justification do you have for this?

If you think this goal isn't right, feel free to remove yourself.

Just because someone doesn't think that it is an inherent truth that it is "right" that all people should continue to exist doesn't mean they think that people should not exist

Otherwise, you can continue by answering questions like this: Does the benefit to humankind of not living in fear of being murdered outweigh the benefit to humankind of having the freedom to murder someone?

What people consider to be a benefit or detriment depends entirely on their desired outcomes and priorities, which can be arbitrary. When what is "benefit" is arbitrary so too can be your morals if what is of benefit is your guiding light.

Comment: Re:Logic itself is a human construct (Score 1) 1330

by walshy007 (#47396783) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

The main problem I see with people who talk about "morals derived from logic", comes from people not realizing that it all comes down to their own biases and their own preferences.

Sure, the system you've devised might be a reasonable and logical way to achieve the goals you intend.. but why do you have those goals? why are those goals "right"?

It all comes down to an a priori justification of their morals in the end. They just haven't recursively analyzed their own morals enough to realize it yet.

When all morals are effectively arbitrary (as the priorities and values that influence them can be) it is hard to say they are defined by "logic".

Comment: Re:Distinct DNA (Score 1) 1330

by walshy007 (#47374159) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

The question is, and or at least definitely should be, are you doing harm to something that can suffer? here's the key issue: Does it have a nervous system, and does that nervous system couple to something sophisticated enough to convert those signals into suffering?

Aside from our own personal biases that lend us toward favouring our own systems, how would you define suffering?

If it is reacting to stimuli that causes it harm, plants, vegetables and many forms of life do that. If you try to not eat anything of that nature you'll quickly find yourself starving.

Why should only harm that can be applied to us or things like us be considered harm?

Comment: Re:Distinct DNA (Score 1) 1330

by walshy007 (#47374145) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

They don't care because it happened naturally without interference. Much like how if an old man dies in his sleep naturally people don't tend to care, but if he dies in his sleep with a pillow shoved over his face by a party conscious of what it will do, people do care.

Like how you don't see PETA activists trying to fight off all the violent animal deaths that happen in nature.. because there was no interference.

Comment: Re:A win for freedom (Score 1) 1330

by walshy007 (#47374117) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

However, if I needed "little blue pills" and was employed at Hobby Lobby, they would be more than happy to provide them to me. They also see nothing wrong in investing in the contraception companies in their 401K. Apparently, making money off of "godless abortion pills" is perfectly fine religiously.

Wouldn't the abortion pills they're against in this case not count as contraception? I mean.. isn't the point of contraception to stop conception?

The only reason I can see to try to avoid the name "abortion pill" is the social stigma, but that can be worked on. (imitation of kang's voice) "Abortions for all!"

Comment: Why the quadcopter obsession? (Score 1) 30

by walshy007 (#47219791) Attached to: A Quadcopter Development Platform (Video)

Why not just build an RC helicopter sizable enough to do what you want?

You want automation? It can be done on an rc helicopter too.

I just don't see the point of having a bunch of weak motors as opposed to a single strong one with control of thrust via cyclic and collective pitch controls on the blades.

Comment: Re:Just Tack on a Fee (Score 1) 626

by walshy007 (#47070533) Attached to: Driverless Cars Could Cripple Law Enforcement Budgets

The energy required to transport food from farms to houses is at least an order of magnitude less than the energy consumed by an automobile for commuting. Possibly two orders of magnitude. So the only way that growing your own food at home saves energy is if you don't drive.

We have a winner! When you have local production and consumption you tend to not have to drive so much. Also, trucks used for transportation of goods cause pretty much all non-weather related road wear, causing a lot of savings on road maintenance to boot.

That's how the right wing rationalizes their own flavor of totalitarianism, but I don't want to live in a country where the government doesn't let us live the way we want.

I don't see how "we would like this area to be designated for free range humans please" is totalitarian. Unless you consider no smoking zones, no parking areas, speed limits, and all zoning laws at all totalitarian.

Utter chaos isn't necessarily the best solution.

Comment: Re:Just Tack on a Fee (Score 1) 626

by walshy007 (#47054091) Attached to: Driverless Cars Could Cripple Law Enforcement Budgets

If you want to make the land as efficient as possible in growing crops, you need to minimize roof and asphalt area and maximize cropland area.

You're forgetting the labor required to work the farm, unless you're talking about modern farming practices that are very petrol dependent.. in which case so much for 'sustainable'.

If every family household had a few acres, we could all effectively grow our own crops. While not all of our needs would be met, we would reduce our dependence on items transported from far away by a fair margin, reducing energy consumption from transportation.

The small'ish houses rooftops can be lined with solar panels, so the solar energy from that portion can be used also.

Unfortunately, the right wing opposes this, and they use density and height limits to achieve their goal of preventing people from living sustainably.

They use density and height limits to stop people having to live like caged chickens. To some people that is life, others would prefer to be free range humans.

Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and then give it back to them.

Working...