batasrki

Zed's "colored history in the Ruby world" is not relevant to your discussion of BSD vs GPL licenses. It feels like you put it in just to stick it to those "awful" Ruby people.

Also, your response to my comment doesn't improve or change my opinion of the article. Without that part there, it would've been a perfectly acceptable advance of the discussion of the two license systems. As it is, it damages the your argument.

Bitter maybe too harsh a criticism, but since you've chosen to put the irrelevant paragraph that made a side-comment on the Ruby community in an article about OSS licenses, you've pretty much opened yourself up to it.

Yeah, myself as well. I don't understand this bitterness that comes from the Python community. Or maybe, it's just a vocal minority. There was no need for this in the article.

Nice. The part I always struggle with is the Photoshop part. Creating nice, repeatable background images is always hard. This has a nice explanation of it.

Thank you for completely clarifying the situation. This is what I was talking about. He didn't battle the villains outright and beating them, what he was doing WAS unethical.

This makes me wonder why the game admins did not step in and stop him from antagonizing the community like this. It wasn't normal play behaviour.

It doesn't excuse the threatening, but at least puts it into proper context.

Who says they should, especially when the "enforcing" can be distilled down to plain old bullying and threatening? If I were the game designer, those ones would be the first to go and then maybe the professor.

No, the game designer gets to enforce the rules. The majority can abide by the rules or they can leave. Voting with your wallet is the most powerful way of voting, after all.

If the rules in PvP area specify PvP battles and someone wants to battle that way, that's what they're allowed to do. If he did something illegal, it's up to the game designers to correct that. If he did something unethical, like teleporting a villain to a kill zone, he may be disliked.

At no point, though, should he be threatened with bodily harm or being bullied by the "majority". If they had ignored him and/or engaged him in battle, he'd have no data for his study.

Actually, he was killing villains, not heroes. He was on the heroes team, therefore technically he was not killing his teammates.

Having said that, however, he did not engage villains in combat, but rather teleport them to a kill zone. That's unethical, for sure. Had he simply engaged villains, I'd see nothing wrong with that. If other players don't want to kill villains, even if that's their job as heroes, that's their problem.

I've understood it as an option to feel who called you. That would make a big difference for me. If I feel the name and that name is my wife's, I'd probably excuse myself a minute later and call back. If it's an incomprehensible vibration, it's someone I don't know or who calls rarely. That type of call can wait.

Also, your suggestion can be combined with his. Distinctive vibration for the name + urgent/normal as a second vibe.

I don't know why you're being downmodded for that comment. You're quite right about people just applying to anything and anywhere without a forethought or research.

Someone should, indeed.

Yeah, but at the same time, he's being misleading about the effects of N+1 query problem. It's a problem for a reason.

Anyone experienced enough in web development will maybe get his point, but the newbies who read his blog will not and will fight more senior developers on this topic, all because "Jeff Atwood said it".

That's where the bashing is centered on.

Only one problem there. Microsoft has pretty much EOL'd LINQ-to-SQL in favour of Entity Framework.

So, the performance improvements and code improvements that you speak of will never get done.

True, for Twitter news. However, there's been other sources, such as Huffington Post who have been getting similar reports through e-mail and YouTube.

Those sources are not connected to Twitter, so no parroting there.

I agree that state changes being reported by one person are not necessarily true. However, a state change being reported similarly by multiple unconnected sources is helluva more believable. Also, remember that BBC/CNN/etc. did not jump on this story. As a matter of fact, they've ignored it for the whole weekend, even when their international stations were reporting it on other TV channels. Who knows what their motivation for that is, besides verification (which might not have been possible, considering that communication sources were progressively jammed by security forces).

As for the number of people goes, if you take a look at the videos, you'll get a clearer picture as to how many people there are. From what I saw, it was 50+ across and it was pretty consistent width as far as the camera could see. I'm not saying that 3 million is accurate, I was just saying that videos show a lot more than 5 across and that's where you were off. ;)

Not that I don't agree with your assertion of scrutiny, but...

1) If you watched any of the videos shot by foreigners and Iranians alike, you'd notice that there were at least 50 across if not more. This makes your calculation wrong by an order of magnitude. The videos are there to prove it.

2) Mousavi being under house arrest and then let out due to pressure caused by so many people marching and protesting is a more likely scenario. Don't underestimate the stupidity of snap decisions made when the reaction was unexpected.

3) The president of the election committee can dissent with the Ayatollah, even if it were dangerous for him personally to do so. Also, Ayatollah went back on his proclamation a day later and asked for an inquiry into the elections. This makes that the president's claim that much more valid.

None of these claims are unlikely, but caution must be exercised anyway. I'd rather believe the people in the streets than what someone from the media can tell me. If you don't believe me, watch the Twitter streams. There's a lot of misinformation there, but also a lot of good information. Sifting through this is a journalist's job.

>"...if my daughter took pictures of herself, of her own volition and sent them out, it's really her decision"

And that's the key here, isn't it? She wasn't coerced into these pictures. She may have been peer-pressured, but the article doesn't cover whether this is the norm in this school or not. I suspect not. She did it, she distributed the picture. What did she think it was going to happen?

Her father's quote is laughable: "This country has laws in place to protect children. Those laws need to be enforced, and parents need to pursue those laws to the fullest extent to protect their children." What the hell does he think happened here?

Does anyone here think that this is an easy way to get subscribers for an app?

I mean, the lack of an anonymous or guest account, as well as the requirement of all that info, never makes me feel to try the app out.

I get the feel that Ozzie feels upstaged by Google. He's been trying really hard to do "collaboration tools" since Lotus Notes with not much mainstream success.

And now, here comes Google and boom, everyone wants one.

No. What now?

Is that intuitively the orthogonal method to append()? Not in my view. If I appended something, I'd want to remove it or delete it, not pop it. If I push'ed, then popping would be obvious.

And I attended the Nikola Tesla elementary school in a suburb of Belgrade called Rakovica. :)

I am embarrassed to say that I haven't yet. I've been back to Belgrade at least twice since I've emigrated to Canada, but I didn't make the time to go.

I'm planning to go back very soon, so that will be a priority.

I cannot upmod this enough. This man is an idol of mine and a huge source of pride for every Serbian geek out there.

>Multiple Apps in a Project

Also, don't forget that this is solved problem in Rails 2.3 with the use of engines. So, really this claim is plainly false.

"If it completely can't get a font, presumably it'll use the same fallback rules it already uses when you call for a font that isn't there."

The question is what defines "can't get a font completely". Is it a timeout? How long is this timeout? If I spend time and resources to optimize the loading time of my site and the JS script times out getting a font, isn't that lost time for me?

This all feels like a workaround for license issues as opposed to a true solution. Type foundries should let web developers purchase fonts that can be published on the web.

Even though I posted this link, I don't fully agree with the premise. Not only will there be an explosion of "This looks cool" font usage, I'm worried what happens when their servers or their network fails. What about when it slows down due to unforeseen spike in traffic? They haven't talked about the backup options, which scares me.

Also, someone has mentioned that this is really pandering to the type foundries who aren't willing to modify their business models and their licensing to accommodate web usage. Maybe this is a good first step or maybe it's a RIAA thing for the fonts.

I thought it was interesting, though.

The talk is from CUSEC, probably this one: http://vimeo.com/2723800

As for his "attitude", I've actually met him and talked to him face-to-face. His internet persona is a put-on and he only talks like that to piss people off. In actuality, he's a really nice guy who is super-smart and who does not take shit from people. It's actually too bad that there aren't more of him in our industry. Scope creeps, memory leaks, etc. would be a thing of the past.

What makes this story slanderous? Do you have proof that it is so?

If not, you're just trolling and you should know better.

That is, I think, the problem with posing a question like this. I can only speak about what I'd do. This question would kick my mind into "real-world" mode. I'd want to compare alternative approaches and generally talk it out.

If this is not what the interviewer wanted, they'd be better served by asking a slightly more fantastical question that would still show problem-solving skills. Also, the interviewer should qualify the question by saying that "this isn't a real world situation, I just want an algorithm". I don't know how someone would react to that situation.

Would this be something you'd do in a real-world situation? Or would you question the requirements and the need for such a feature?

I'd be doing the latter, so why should I have to behave differently during an interview?