kangar00
Joined 10 years ago
Karma
77
Submissions
24
Member since
May 4
Recent submissions
Comment · 10 years ago
Comment · 10 years ago
I apologize. I assumed he was generalizing.
Comment · 10 years ago
> That's the compiler's business. I don't care one way or the other about its implementation details.
Actually, you do- for at least several reasons.
1. If the runtime or compiler were to have problems with interdependencies.
2. If the compiled code that will actually be executed or the application or service itself across cores, processors, VMs, geography at runtime takes longer to run because of its compiler implementation, that might make it more expensive or too slow for your needs or to compete.
3. There may be a security flaw in the compiler, e.g. https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-72/p...
4. The compiler may have a bug or problem prohibiting you from finishing your code in a timely manner, e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.0.4/gcc/Cross_002dCompi... or http://www.securitycurrent.com/en/writers/paul-robertson/mot...
5. The compiler may lack other required functionality or features.
Comment · 10 years ago
> If you cannot figure out in one minute what a C++ file is doing, assume the code is incorrect.
This statement at first resonated with me, and then I thought about it: this doesn't reduce the complexity of the overall application or service, it just means that one file is simple. You could have 10,000 files instead of 1 much shorter one; is that any more simple?
Comment · 10 years ago
> I don't think JavaScript's syntax is a selling point
Under "Why OCaml?" on the Reason page, it states, "OCaml has a very mature (and still growing) ecosystem for targeting browser and JavaScript environments with a focus on language interoperability and integration with existing JavaScript code," and "Reason‘s non-invasive approach to the OCaml compiler allows Reason code to take advantage of all of the existing OCaml compiler optimizations/backends such as ... and even JavaScript compilation."
It seems like what's being said is that one of the main goals for Reason is to integrate with JavaScript, and it would seem to make sense instead of changing between language syntaxes, you'd want more in common between them, so it makes sense why they are similar. I'm confused as to why you seem to be trying to distance Reason and OCaml from JavaScript, when it definitely seems like the similarity with and integration with JavaScript would be a driving factor in Reason's development now, even if maybe it wasn't in the beginning.
Reason seems really cool, btw.
Comment · 10 years ago
From part 2 of this series: https://hbr.org/2012/10/how-big-companies-should-innovate
"If the antibodies already exist within your organization to destroy new endeavors, you need to go outside of the organization to overcome them."
Another option is to just fire or move employees that are resistant to change and innovation to other parts of the company where their resistance to change might be more helpful. I don't understand why this option is not considered or discussed.
Comment · 10 years ago
James A. Kirk, not James T. Kirk:
http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg1000/Pages/bio1.aspx
Comment · 10 years ago
Comment · 10 years ago
> Would you like me to go into more detail?
Sure.
Comment · 10 years ago
> CIA's policy is probably controlled by someone else, and that's where changes need to be made because I like to think they don't come up with the stuff on their own.
Beyond you liking to think that, what evidence do you have that the CIA's policy is controlled by anyone other than the CIA's Deputy Director who commands internal operations, and its Director, who reports to the director of National Intelligence as well as having to answer to Congress and the White House?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Or...
For the most part, theories of secret groups that control things are false, not counting well-known groups like the Masons, etc. that make secrecy part of their identity. There is plenty of evidence to support that Congress and the White House are lobbied heavily by outside interest, and that's no secret. Combine that with the varied interests and agendas in the involved organizations, human error, incorrect or misinterpreted information, etc. and you have plenty enough reason for things like this to go wrong.
If you are an American citizen, and you believe the U.S. government is so wrong and misguided, nothing is typically stopping you from leaving the country or attempting to vote for others that might be able to make some changes, but the fact is that there is an extreme momentum of the country that is simultaneous chaotic and well-intentioned, so no matter who you vote for, things will typically continue on. Well- maybe not if Trump is elected, because the entire country could turn into a sideshow ;) , but this is true for the most part.
If you live in another democratic country, vote for leaders that you believe will positively influence the U.S. in one way or another, or you can speak up about it.
Belief in some shadowy group is just not helpful, and is a result of the imprint on the psyche from movies, television, and other media sources. There are real groups out there with influence, and real single players with influence, but it's really not that hidden; it's just complex.
Comment · 10 years ago
Oraclepocalypse? Aren't their lawyers busy with Google?: http://fortune.com/2016/05/13/google-oracle-java-email/
Here's another post about GPL violations related to combining ZFS and Linux: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/
Quote from that:
"Is The Analysis Different With Source-Only Distribution?
We cannot close discussion without considering one final unique aspect to this situation. CDDLv1 does allow for free redistribution of ZFS source code. We can also therefore consider the requirements when distributing Linux and ZFS in source code form only.
Pure distribution of source with no binaries is undeniably different. When distributing source code and no binaries, requirements in those sections of GPLv2 and CDDLv1 that cover modification and/or binary (or “Executable”, as CDDLv1 calls it) distribution do not activate. Therefore, the analysis is simpler, and we find no specific clause in either license that prohibits source-only redistribution of Linux and ZFS, even on the same distribution media.
Nevertheless, there may be arguments for contributory and/or indirect copyright infringement in many jurisdictions. We present no specific analysis ourselves on the efficacy of a contributory infringement claim regarding source-only distributions of ZFS and Linux. However, in our GPL litigation experience, we have noticed that judges are savvy at sniffing out attempts to circumvent legal requirements, and they are skeptical about attempts to exploit loopholes. Furthermore, we cannot predict Oracle's view — given its past willingness to enforce copyleft licenses, and Oracle's recent attempts to adjudicate the limits of copyright in Court. Downstream users should consider carefully before engaging in even source-only distribution.
We note that Debian's decision to place source-only ZFS in a relegated area of their archive called contrib, is an innovative solution. Debian fortunately had a long-standing policy that contrib was specifically designed for source code that, while licensed under an acceptable license for Debian's Free Software Guidelines, also has a default use that can cause licensing problems for downstream Debian users. Therefore, Debian communicates clearly to their users that this code is problematic by keeping it out of their main archive. Furthermore, Debian does not distribute any binary form of zfs.ko.
(Full disclosure: Conservancy has a services agreement with Debian in which Conservancy occasionally gives its opinions, in a non-legal capacity, to Debian on topics of Free Software licensing, and gave Debian advice on this matter under that agreement. Conservancy is not Debian's legal counsel.)"
Comment · 10 years ago
It seems like this could have worked if the parent bought points and the kid could redeem earned points for gifts like Amazon gift cards, etc. This model is used by a lot of corporate reward programs.
Comment · 10 years ago
I didn't know about the relic milpa idea. I guess if there were a lot of thick solid fertilizer just in that rectangular area that wouldn't run off easily, it could possibly do that.
I think someone should check it out to be sure.
Comment · 10 years ago
It may be anything, but I think it's a little strange how they shot this down so fast without any evidence. Makes me wonder if this is a desperate attempt to deter looters.
I agree that it could use adjustments.
Real-life karma is a good thing, but karma points are mostly a bandaid for "no other way of trying to keep trolling and other poor quality communication down".
The serious downside of having karma is providing undeserved power and prestige via a high status and ability to have certain actions to those that don't necessarily deserve it.
But the only way to get rid of it and get similar benefit is to have a community that can elect users into power that deserve it, like StackOverflow's elections. It would be even better if you gave the power to everyone and they were all wise enough and dependable enough to wield that power as needed, but that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.