braveo

11 ms·

61.
by braveo 9y ago
Please get out of here with that crap, the loudest majority of anti-trumpers tend to be young, white people who think they speak for every other race and religion.
62.
by braveo 9y ago
I think the idea is to get people to "right the ship" by forcing it to lean too far to the other side, causing them to quickly pull it back to center.
63.
by braveo 9y ago
No you wouldn't, that's internet badassery coupled with youth at work.
64.
by braveo 9y ago
Sure, but I bet your PS code isn't rigorous or bullet proof. and I should mention, I feel like that's a solved problem. I don't know the specifics of the project, but it's hard for me to buy that you needed to write dep
65.
by braveo 9y ago
Powershell works well as a shell, but fails specacularly as a programming language. The whole "I can run this script on 100 different machines at once super easy" is fine, but lets see you try to write some rigorous code in PS and
66.
by braveo 9y ago
While I've always preferred static over dynamic, Powershell is what finally got me to actively disliking dynamic languages. Not strongly disliking, but enough that I'll put up with a bit of pain in order to use a static language
67.
by braveo 9y ago
oh right, it's not the managements fault because the developers are the ones coming up with the nefarious ideas.
68.
by braveo 9y ago
no it wouldn't, they would just hire someone who was willing to do it.
69.
by braveo 9y ago
> On the one hand, there would be merit in requiring a professional license for programmers like in other engineering fields - a lot of the mess in our industry could be removed if at least some jobs would require a license Right, and we
70.
by braveo 9y ago
It doesn't matter if you're attacking, denigrating, claiming inferior, etc. The point you made is flawed or inaccurate, and that doesn't change because your motivations are clean.
71.
by braveo 9y ago
That's why I said your definition is flawed. The point is to get work done, not do it all in a single window. you talked about "capability" as if because someone uses an external debugger you can't debug effectively or
72.
by braveo 9y ago
That's because your definition is flawed. When it's all said and done, all that matters is that you're able to get the work done. Take vim, for example. You can quite often use CLI tools to get the work done due to vim&#x27
73.
by braveo 9y ago
The age isn't relevant, what's relevant is whether the patent/copyright currently exists and who holds said patent/copyright. And before you continue with this silly argument about age, copyright and patents can be inval
74.
by braveo 9y ago
right, that's MY point. You call it old code, I call it code that's currently covered by IP law, the rest doesn't matter. Atleast we agree now, the age of the code is irrelevant.
75.
by braveo 9y ago
> By the time we hit a similar number of years, those patents will be expired and Uber will be allowed to use the designs. Bullshit. The IP is still legally owned by someone else, and they're suing based up on that IP, not just beca
76.
by braveo 9y ago
> They use it because they need their systems to be bug-compatible with what they have been doing for decades, and they would not lose competitive advantage if they no longer had copyright over that code. You mean in the same way Google
77.
by braveo 9y ago
I'm sorry, but THAT is about the most ridiculous use of a strawman I've ever seen. Uber was using the CC information to LOOK UP MORE INFORMATION ON THE USER. Comparing that to someone simply refusing service is completely outlandi
78.
by braveo 9y ago
> Second, it's not clear that releasing the source would economically affect Blizzard Even if you ignore the fact that Blizzard owns the rights to the code. Which you shouldn't, but some people here seem to think that's a
79.
by braveo 9y ago
> You're ignoring the part where I said twice that taking money from all the rich with a tax would be okay That isn't the point the person you were responding to was making. And you know it, but you're trying to weasel yo
80.
by braveo 9y ago
If they were using the CC information for nefarious identification I would think that would fall under "is access restricted".
81.
by braveo 9y ago
> That's like saying that robbing Bill Gates and distributing the money to millions of poor people is morally good because it's good for many people. - FooBarWidget > That degrades property rights, so it's bad for the m
82.
by braveo 9y ago
It's an unimportant distinction for the purposes of this discussion. Under the law, damages have occurred, especially if someone then takes that source code and makes it public. So whether you have 2 copies or 1 copy or umpteen copies,
83.
by braveo 9y ago
So the splitting of the hairs you're attempting is to point out that IP typically expires at some point, and therefore we should all consider anything "old" as effectively having expired IP, regardless of whether that's
84.
by braveo 9y ago
this distinction does not matter, if you steal my code and release it I can sue for damages exactly the way I would if you were to somehow steal my house.
85.
by braveo 9y ago
They're right, they just don't understand it doesn't really work like that. In theory, being able to break encryption with a warrant is exactly the right scenario. In practice, if you an break it with a warrant, someone else
86.
by braveo 9y ago
and the property rights to my house are unimportant because the house is 20+ years old. oh wait.... something is wrong with that thought process, but I'll let you split another hair in your attempt at a meaningful dichotomy.
87.
by braveo 9y ago
Wait, so let me get this straight. Your reasoning for that is "it degrades property rights", but you're for publicly releasing Blizzards property for "the good of the many"? You want the source to be available and y
88.
by braveo 9y ago
When Jeff Atwoord originally announced Discourse he claimed his biggest goal was to kill off PHP for good, and he wrote Discourse in Ruby specifically to convince everyone else to move off of the "one true holdout" that PHP still
89.
by braveo 9y ago
No, they're honest. It's amazing to watch you bend over backwards to try and vilify a person who simply strives for accuracy.
90.
by braveo 9y ago
I agree with you with the caveat that the customer themselves can, and should, be changing things to suit their own needs. But at that point if the customer screws something up, they understand that's on them.

More ›