Vim & Vision
Geek History Meme Permalink
$ history | awk {'print $2'} | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head
96 ls
68 cd
59 vim
44 perl
34 git
23 python
20 fortune
16 sudo
12 cat
11 mv
Ah yes, I remember getting bored and smashing through some fortune there...
(Yes, this is an old meme. I don't care.)
Subversion - Executable Files Permalink
If you've got a file in your svn repo already that is not executable but should be:
svn propset svn:executable ON filename
Monkey Kick Permalink
Movember Burgers Permalink
Movember is well underway. I am sporting a 'stache and a tickler, as the rules permit.
Grill'd are offering a sweet deal for Movember participants:
We will again be giving out a free burger every day to all registered Mo Bros between 2-5pm and 8-10pm from the 11th-30th Movember at any Grill'd restaurant around Australia.
Let the mooching begin!
Dear Australia Permalink
Dear Australia,
I would like to register my opposition to the mandatory internet content filtering proposal.
I am aware that I will be able to opt-out of the 'kiddy-friendly' stream, but will still be forced to consume the 'legal' one.
While I do not intend on viewing illegal webpages, I am concerned that any internet filtering will be a step back in time for Australia.
Here are my main concerns:
Speed
All traffic must pass through a server that determines whether it is legal or not, and this will affect speed.
False positives
How is the list updated? What measures are in place to deal with the inevitable false positives? What recourse do the public have if websites they own or operate are incorrectly blocked? Is there an independent tribunal or ombudsman who will oversee these matters? And if the incorrect blocking of sites causes a loss of income (due to loss of advertising revenue) will the owner be compensated?
Censorship
How transparent is the URL vetting procedure? If a government puts any filtering in place then it is very easy for them to slowly increase the number of sites blocked, and broaden the reasons they are blocked. For example they may block any websites that speak out against the filtering, then be able to claim that the system is merely exhibiting false positives. What is to stop the government also blocking any sites that speak out against the government itself? Will the public have a list of blocked URLs and a description for why they are blocked?
I understand that the government wants to stop illegal things like paedophilia websites, and I am all for the removal and prosecution of the people that run and view those sites, but this content filtering will not stop them. There are already many sophisticated encryption, VPN and peer-to-peer technologies that bypass URL checking. Mandatory internet filtering will at best be inconveniencing the masses and at worst censoring them. The money for this scheme should instead be used on special task forces to investigate paedophilia syndicates, online fraudsters and scammers etc rather than blanket-filtering all content.
The internet is an invaluable stream of information and innovation. The government owes the public access to this information so that we can grow with the rest of the world.
Censorship is simply wrong. It is a slippery slope from censoring illegal content to fascism - please don't let Australia go down this road.
Fuzzing Permalink
A fuzzer:
is a software testing technique that provides random data ("fuzz") to the inputs of a program. If the program fails (for example, by crashing, or by failing built-in code assertions), the defects can be noted.
... here is an example by lcamtuf. Neat!
Question Permalink
Why are SCM and ticket systems separate?
e.g. Why use git or svn and then have to tie them in with RT or Jira? Couldn't there be a nice command line utility that reports on tickets and bugs too?
Instead of tying commits to bugs in external reporting systems, it would be great to issue some command in your SCM to:
- Check what tickets are assigned to you
- Attach a commit to a ticket or multiple tickets
- Assign a bug to another developer
... etc.
Get The Facts Permalink
When you formally protest something, get the facts first. Facts should be gathered from a primary source only.
Even if your underlying argument is correct, presenting that argument with even ONE erroneous "fact" immediately discredits you. You can't then turn around and say "Oh but... my main argument still holds!" - you may think you can, but you don't understand the human brain. There is so much information that we trawl through everyday that our minds have to be able to dismiss ideas and concepts based on small samples of failure. If we didn't do this then we would get bogged down learning everything about everything just in order to form an opinion. Another way of saying this might be "first impressions count."
For example, you might hate George W. Bush. I'm sure you can name some of his mistakes (or at least what you consider mistakes), but can you remember his successes? Did you take everything he said since those mistakes in an objective way - or did you stop believing him based on his already diminished credibility? You did the latter, didn't you? That's how our brains work - we get through life by identifying patterns so we don't get fooled again.
So the moral is, when you formally present an argument make sure you are whiter than white, cleaner than clean, with your facts double-checked and from a primary source - because it is all too easy for your opponent to dismiss your entire argument based on your first factual error. Protect your credibility using caution and research!
Rants and friendly discussions are not formal arguments or protests. Errors are almost encouraged here (preferably posed as questions) - they help us learn.
Interviews Considered Harmful Permalink
This article is brilliant. It attacks the notion of asking logic puzzles in interviews, using the classic Microsoft question as an example:
How would I move mount Fuji? I wouldn't try and move it at all. Moving a mountain has never been attempted by anyone, ever. Any attempt to move a mountain would likely run vastly over budget. It's likely the technology doesn't even exist to do this in an environmentally friendly way; although the Russians did happen to experiment with nuclear weapons in civil engineering. Why do you want to move the mountain anyway? There's probably an easier way to do whatever it is you want to achieve and it will almost certainly cost a lot less money.
Tag Clouds and Caching Permalink
On the right you will notice a new tag cloud. I wrote a tag_cloud templatetag in Django for it. Generating a tag cloud involves a little calculation, so I cached it using Django 1.0's Template Fragment Caching. It lets me wrap anything in a template with a cache templatetag, specifying seconds to cache for.
I have two separate cache settings, one for dev and one for prod environments (in their corresponding settings files.) They are using Django's filesystem caching - so the cache is just stored on disk. I am storing the cache in a subdirectory of the codebase, but I don't want the cache being carried around in the Git repo, so I added:
/cache/*
... to my .gitignore file in the codebase root. Nice!
Older Posts ... (Nothing Newer)
Colophon
Django, Python, 960.gs, Git, Vim, WebFaction
The Author
The author is a software engineer living in Australia. He sux at guitar, loves camping, doesn't like cake, does like coffee and is a lazy home brewer.
Meta
Help
Latest entries 
Agile Beer Censorship Comedy Cool Django Git Hardcore Python Rant SQLite Shell Slackware Standards Testing Vim WDTEM svn
Frequently Used Redirects
/r/365/
/r/hoadster/
/r/dd/
/r/debono/
/r/uncleian/
♥ Actors/Artists/Characters
