×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Offset Bad Code, With Bad Code Offsets

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the don't-blame-me-I-voted-foss dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 279

An anonymous reader writes "Two weeks ago, The Daily WTF's Alex Papadimoulis announced Bad Code Offsets, a join venture between many big names in the software development community (including StackOverflow's Jeff Atwood and Jon Skeet and SourceGear's Eric Sink). The premise is that you can offset bad code by purchasing Bad Code Offsets (much in the same way a carbon-footprint is offset). The profits are donated to Free Software projects which work to eliminate bad code, such as the Apache Foundation and FreeBSD. The first cheques were sent out earlier today." Hopefully, they work better than carbon offsets, actually.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

279 comments

Put your "oh oh" in my "oh oh." (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30314960)

She got a pussy in her panties
She wore a pussy thong.

Deliberately bad? (4, Interesting)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#30314976)

Let me get this right-- you purchase this offset so that you can deliberately write bad code?

Why??

Re:Deliberately bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315014)

If you feel guilty for closed source code, make yourself feel better by writing a check.

Re:Deliberately bad? (4, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315038)

I think the intent is that you buy them as penance for bad code you've already written.

Which makes them pretty much unlike carbon offsets, but I guess someone thinks they're being amusing.

It's a clever fund-raising campaign for certain projects; I wouldn't read much more into it than that.

Re:Deliberately bad? (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315526)

I think the intent is that you buy them as penance for bad code you've already written.

Which makes them pretty much unlike carbon offsets. .

Regardless of prior or future offense, it's an old idea: simony.

Re:Deliberately bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315806)

gb2history

Indulgences

Re:Deliberately bad? (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315896)

I think the intent is that you buy them as penance for bad code you've already written.

Which makes them pretty much unlike carbon offsets. .

Regardless of prior or future offense, it's an old idea: simony.

but that's only a venial sin, right?

So I only have to worry about being cursed with ridiculous hair [wikipedia.org]?

Re:Deliberately bad? (1, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315076)

No no no. Do you know how Carbon offsets work?

My company spews out X amount of carbon a year. My Government puts a limit to Y amount of Carbon a year. Since it's detrimental to my business (reducing client base) to reduce my carbon output, I can purchase Carbon offsets so that some of my money goes towards greener projects. Thus I keep my clients Happy and I meet government regulation.

Now, there is no LAW forbidding bad code. But the same basic principle applies: You want to reduce the amount of Bad code you may have done, but you can't go back and change it. Buy a bad code offset.

Get it?

Re:Deliberately bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315172)

Only problem is, bad code only really hurts you and then your users, though users will just stop using your program/whatever if the code is that bad.

Re:Deliberately bad? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315314)

There's a huge difference between badly written code and non-functioning code. Users will feel the effect of non-functioning code.

Developers will feel the effect of badly written code. One of the reasons each Windows release has a handful of bugs is because its written by LOTS of different people. When you code things in such a manner that it's easier for other people to understand, bug fixes and general maintenance are much easier. It's also easier to add on to later.

Open Source projects are the kind that are meant to be used by other developers, so they generally focus on those good coding practices; comments, documenting, etc.

Re:Deliberately bad? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315584)

Open source projects are often written by LOTS of different people as well. And many of them have bugs in each release. Do you think Microsoft doesn't have any sort of internal code and bug tracking system?

The fact is, any software release has at least a handful of bugs, whether it's open source or not, and no matter who it was created by or how many people.

Have any references/citations? Have you actually seen any of the Windows source code, and compared it to any open source projects? I've seen some pretty horrible looking code in large open source projects. And I've worked on close-source projects that had very good, tight code.

Development quality is really about quality control, code reviews, testing, etc... it's about your development process. Any project, regardless of its source model or development team can use a good or poor development process.

Re:Deliberately bad? (4, Funny)

jimbobborg (128330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315682)

Do you think Microsoft doesn't have any sort of internal code and bug tracking system?

Sometimes I wonder...

Re:Deliberately bad? (2, Informative)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315442)

My company spews out X amount of carbon a year. My Government puts a limit to Y amount of Carbon a year.

For your specific type of business. Other businesses have other limits. Other governments put other limits, or no limits, on businesses in their jurisdiction.

Since it's detrimental to my business (reducing client base) to reduce my carbon output,...

I don't know what you mean by "reducing client base". You won't lose clients if you reduce your carbon output. It may cost you a VERY large bundle of money to do it, or it may be technically impossible to do it. In either case, under that specific regulatory policy, it is more profitable to buy "credits" than to actually reduce your carbon emissions. Or it may be more profitable to simply move your company to a country where such silliness isn't public policy.

... I can purchase Carbon offsets so that some of my money goes towards greener projects.

You are sending the money to the government, or some company making a profit off of buying and selling credits. Those "carbon offsets" you are buying are carbon emissions NOT being used by other companies, who have sold their credits. There is no reason to believe that your carbon offset payment goes to "greener projects", and no reason to believe that your payment has reduced the total level of carbon emissions.

Thus I keep my clients Happy and I meet government regulation.

Thus you keep your stockholders in the black, whether they are happy about being taxed or not. You meet government regulation, but not necessarily any environmentally beneficial goals.

Now, if the system was to actually provide tax credits for actual emission reductions, that would be fair and environmentally beneficial. Just swapping "credits" is a ludicrous waste of effort.

You want to reduce the amount of Bad code you may have done, but you can't go back and change it. Buy a bad code offset.

You have even less reason to believe that a "bad code offset" will actually reduce any of the bad code you've already released than believing that a carbon offset will reduce carbon emissions. It's a touchy-feely, feel-good, politically-correct concept with little real effect.

Re:Deliberately bad? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315510)

I know - in an Ideal world, things wouldn't be set up the way they are right now. I was using this "Ideal example" of how carbon offsets should work to mirror the idea of how these Bade code offsets DO work.

It's not going to reduce the bad code you've written, no. But it would (in theory, its practically impossible to imperically measure) go towards increasing the amount of Good code produced in the future.

Re:Deliberately bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315334)

Write bad code, write good code, don't write any code at all, do what ever you want. This is just something to help encourage people to donate money to get funding to a few open source projects.

Personally, I'd rather donate to the projects of my choice directly. But they are not taking any cut what-so-ever, so you can contribute to their pool and they can cut larger checks to the projects.

Re:Deliberately bad? (0)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315604)

they can only cut larger checks if more people donate to them than were already donating to the project originally and do not switch from donating directly to donating to this pool.

in other words, unless they are radically better at raising money than the individual projects (which i doubt) all it is is a shell game to change where the money comes from and thus allow for PR's to say "look how much money we donated to good code" (note i did not say open source, and note i did not say it was more than the projects were getting when taking donations directly....)

in other words its crap.
if you want to donate money, donate money directly.

that way you know it goes directly to the project you wish to receive it and they can do with it what they wish.

Re:Deliberately bad? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315692)

that way you know it goes directly to the project you wish to receive it and they can do with it what they wish.

Which you can do with this also.

You can specify which org the cash will go to, and 100% of the donation is given to that org.

This is just a gimmick to encourage people to donate. Donate directly, if you like. Donate via Alex's charity. Whatever floats your boat -- but if you want to support F/OSS, then donate time, code, or money (the F/OSS equivalent to ass, grass, or cash).

Re:Deliberately bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315542)

Because you are a JavaScript/WebApp developer.

/ducks

Re:Deliberately bad? (1)

whizzard (177251) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315566)

Let me get this right-- you purchase this offset so that you can deliberately write bad code?

This model has worked well for cheat offsets [cheatneutral.com], too.

You want me to pay what? (2, Informative)

Drethon (1445051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30314986)

The idea is ammusing and having the money donated to a open source project is cool but the prices are a tad high for my blood...

Re:You want me to pay what? (1)

Drethon (1445051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315068)

Oh and some better IE6 support would be nice, previewing a vertical column is annoying (yes there are those of us who get our hands slapped just for installing mozilla...) sigh.

Re:You want me to pay what? (3, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315178)

What about IE6 supporting this? If Microsoft pays they quota just for IE6 this will mean millons in donations to Apache Foundation, FreeBSD and others.

Re:You want me to pay what? (1)

Drethon (1445051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315456)

Sounds good to me but I know MS is less likely to listen than /. so I'm makin my plea where it has a slightly higher chance to be heard... Microsoft bad code offsets could repay the stimulus package though...

Re:You want me to pay what? (1)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315640)

so could ati's and nvidia's.....

each independently.

now throw in the shit wrong with half the projects included in ubuntu by default and we could wipe out world debt.

Re:You want me to pay what? (1)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315664)

and christ, how can i forget adobe and sun (java)?????

we have a surplus.

we can feed africa for a generation!!!!

Apache & FreeBSD = bad code? (5, Funny)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30314988)

which work to eliminate bad code, such as the Apache Foundation and FreeBSD.

Wow, that's a quite direct attack.

Re:Apache & FreeBSD = bad code? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315022)

I can't tell if you're completely misreading or trying to be funny.

But the money is going towards the Apache Foundation and FreeBSD, not that they are bad code.

Re:Apache & FreeBSD = bad code? (3, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315154)

What could possibly be bad in a code base that contains functions such as "void die_you_gravy_sucking_pig_dog(void)"?

Re:Apache & FreeBSD = bad code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315248)

I see that you have never encountered problems while coding.

Re:Apache & FreeBSD = bad code? (1)

Stratoukos (1446161) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315496)

What could possibly be bad in a code base that contains functions such as "void die_you_gravy_sucking_pig_dog(void)"?

That it's not written in CamelCase.

Re:Apache & FreeBSD = bad code? (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315730)

What could possibly be bad in a code base that contains functions such as "void die_you_gravy_sucking_pig_dog(void)"?

That it's not written in CamelCase.

Depends on the language if that's a good thing or not.

Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (4, Insightful)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315006)

* (carbon, code, whatever) offsets are really the Papal indulgences of the 21st century.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (1)

fedxone-v86 (1080801) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315204)

Papadimoulis indeed uses the word 'atone' in the linked announcement.

Seriously, why does it always have to be about sin and hell or fear in general? Can't we all just write good code?

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315242)

Yup. Environmentalism is the religion of the 21st century... and just like any religion, it can be used to control the populace and ensure that those in power remain in power.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (3, Informative)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315348)

More or less yes, but the principle is sound. Offsets are voluntary so those who feel "guilty" pay.

Essentially, no individual person or company pays for pollution - we all do, all across the world. I'm talking about any and all kinds of pollution, not just greenhouse gases.

Carbon credits - the government taxy, non-voluntary way - is a good idea because if, say, GM releases a bunch of sulfuric acid into the atmosphere, they don't need to pay for it, or any of the costs it inflicts on the planet. Instead, everybody does.

Credits are a perfect example of free-market ideals - polluting becomes a cost of doing business, and as the cost of polluting rises, companies will become more efficient or less profitable.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (0, Troll)

Atario (673917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315364)

I'm so sick of this meme.

Papal indulgences were charging money for a paper that says "well, that's ok, never mind" from the Pope.

Carbon offsets are money to fund programs that actually help the environment (with luck, help enough to undo what harm you did in the first place, or even more).

One is about meaningless bullshit. The other is about actual, real-world, physical fixes to actual, real-world, physical problems. Like, involving chemicals and engineering and stuff.

There is a difference, Al-Gore-phobes, and making this false analogy only makes you look stupid.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (4, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315718)

Carbon offsets are money to fund programs that actually help the environment (with luck, help enough to undo what harm you did in the first place, or even more).

I'm sorry, but buying credits from a company that doesn't produce as much carbon emission as the government says it can is in no way actually helping the environment. It's a ponzi scheme. You produce the same amount of carbon, THEY produce the same amount of carbon, but YOUR costs to do business go up and the middleman brokering the credits makes a fortune.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315810)

Yes, everyone produces the same amount of carbon TODAY. But with an economic incentive to produce less carbon it will be cost effective to install greener technology and produce less TOMORROW.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315828)

The problem is that a lot of the carbon-offsets money doesn't go to things like green-energy research, subsidizing alternative energy, or other such things that would help the environment. A good portion gets paid directly to polluters, who in return promise to pollute less than they "otherwise" would have, a totally notional promise that rewards the worst polluters, who agree to be slightly less bad in the future in return for the cash.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315844)

You say that the money spent on carbon offsets will be used to help the environment.

And yet, the money spent on Papal indulgences was used it to fund religious projects, which also helped the "environment". It is true that some of the money was probably spent on palaces for the Pope and his buddies, but some might have been spent on building more churches, schools and hospitals. Some of the money was spent solving actual real-world physical problems, involving poverty and disease and stuff. You cannot say, for certain, that all of the money spent on Papal indulgences was wasted, and that none of it improved the world.

I think the two are very similar, particularly in view of the quasi-religious nature of AGW belief.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (4, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315404)

They are an attempt to provide an economic incentive to pollute less. Without such incentive, the tragedy of the commons ensures we will wreck our collective selves while seeking individual profits.

This is not anywhere near the same thing as imaginary religious crap. It's economics, man.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (0, Troll)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315726)

Holy crap, the "I disagree and I don't wanna listen" mods are out in force today with the troll mods.

Here's to hoping that particular mod never gets points again... mine expired just a couple hours ago, or I'd counter the troll mod on your post and on other responses pointing out the idiocy of nweaver's post.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315474)

I have to disagree a bit. We buy carbon offsets for our company for the driving we have to do between datacenters/client sites/etc, because this is unavoidable driving. That carbon offset spending will shift to electric vehicle purchases from Tesla when the price comes down a bit more (we've already reserved a Model S Sedan as a company car, but they're still too expensive to get for everyone).

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315706)

And you've actually seen proof that Tesla's car is greener than other cars, with all production/manufacturing included (in both)? You are sure you're not just lining the pockets of people that are seeking to gain from the "go green" fad/hype going on right now? (including Al Gore, of course)

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315790)

Physical science doesn't lie. Electric vehicles will always be more efficient than an internal combustion vehicle.

http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/well_to_wheel.php [teslamotors.com]

It's hard to go through life *without* spending money here or there lining the pockets of "bad" people, just because of how money filters through the economy. But with regards to this issue, I believe we've made the correct choice.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315868)

More efficient than internal combustion? Most definitely. Now, how efficient we are at producing the electricity to charge the batteries that power the electric vehicle is a question, too, though.

Physical science doesn't lie, but marketers do, and you apparently always find "scientific evidence" for anything you want... you just have to be willing to ignore things, too. Yes, I'm a skeptic :P hehe.

...and now for something entirely unrelated. (3, Insightful)

eddy the lip (20794) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315040)

"Hopefully, they work better than carbon offsets, actually."

Way to ensure this whole thread goes off track, by trolling on an unrelated and politically charged topic. And with an example poorly chosen as proof of anything, at that.

Re:...and now for something entirely unrelated. (4, Funny)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315106)

"Hopefully, they work better than carbon offsets, actually."

Way to ensure this whole thread goes off track, by trolling on an unrelated and politically charged topic. And with an example poorly chosen as proof of anything, at that.

Don't pay any attention to the last line of the summary. If you ignore it, it will go away.

... just like global warming.

Re:...and now for something entirely unrelated. (2, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315366)

I've never actually met or talked to somebody that thought carbon offsets weren't a scam, except for those trying to sell them. I get your point about derailing the thread, but have to ask... do you actually think carbon offsets are legitimate?

Re:...and now for something entirely unrelated. (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315388)

Way to ensure this whole thread goes off track, by trolling on an unrelated and politically charged topic. And with an example poorly chosen as proof of anything, at that.

Too bad the moderation system for the most part extends only to comments and not the front page story its self. Mod the story and the editors -1 troll, dupe etc. and filter the front page like you would the comments in the story. If a story is modded into the ground, it doesn't show up on the front if you've set your view threshold high enough. That way we could filter out some of the more poorly written stories and give the editors a good reason to do their jobs properly otherwise there's a reduction in page views.
  Anyway to get this back on topic... These bad code offsets just look like another way to donate to various projects in a more marketable fashion. Sending a check to Mozilla is apparently not as interesting as donating through these "bad code offsets."

Re:...and now for something entirely unrelated. (4, Funny)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315588)

I really hope Mozilla won't be getting money from this. If anything, they should be contributing...

Not realistic (5, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315048)

I can't really see how Microsoft can afford this...

Re:Not realistic (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315134)

In other news, a handful of well known FOSS projects are reported to have been given an incredible amount of money. Apparently the sum total of the donations is remarkably close to equaling Microsoft's cash reserves. Microsoft, however, has not commented on this claim.

Re:Not realistic (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315618)

You neglected to mention that all contact numbers for Microsoft are now out of service, microsoft.com is giving a 404 error, and all email sent to known microsoft cronies is bouncing back as undeliverable.

Re:Not realistic (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315792)

Microsoft will simply follow the same methods used by the carbon offset people.

You pay your money to a carbon offset company, that you yourself own.

The only possible way this works is... (3, Funny)

Radtastic (671622) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315102)

... if the bad-code offset is a penalty after-the-fact for putting out bad code.

And no, I'm not going to RTFA. This is a horrible idea.

Re:The only possible way this works is... (3, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315240)

It's actually a great idea. Essentially its a way to donate to Open Source projects and better coding without having to decide which one and going through the hassle of contacting the project manager and trying to get his paypal information to send some cash over.

It is not so much a penalty as it is a donation, simply because no one is forcing you. They simply structured it around an already existing system (carbon offsets) - probably to give it a more meaningful feel to it.

Re:The only possible way this works is... (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315716)

It is not so much a penalty as it is a donation, simply because no one is forcing you. They simply structured it around an already existing system (carbon offsets) - probably to give it a more meaningful feel to it.

Then call it a donation. Meaningful feel to it? It feels silly, to me... not meaningful. :)

Re:The only possible way this works is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315840)

How do you know it's a horrible idea? You haven't RTFA'd.

Re-apply faulty offset concept.... (1, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315166)

...to yet another place it will not work.

A single incorrect critical line of code has the potential to bring down a system just like a single loose coupling on a remote control aircraft will bring turn it into a pile of broken wood. In some things any less than 100% just won't do the job. You can't offset that.

Re:Re-apply faulty offset concept.... (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315306)

A single incorrect critical line of code has the potential to bring down a system just like a single loose coupling on a remote control aircraft will bring turn it into a pile of broken wood.

You're missing the point. As long as that wood doesn't burn during the crash, the carbon remains sequestered!

Why - what are you talking about?

Re:Re-apply faulty offset concept.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315690)

bad design then. space probes get zapped with cosmic rays, flipping bits and corrupting calculations - but there are methods of design to mitigate this.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315208)

I firmly expect the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to purchase billions of US dollars worth of code offsets, to donate to Microsoft Corporation.

Bad code offsets? (4, Funny)

ozbird (127571) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315218)

You mean like this?

JMP 0x0BAD

Re:Bad code offsets? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315698)

it only works in 32-bit or greater ISAs.

JMP 0X0BADCODE

or

JMP 0xBAADCODE

if your programmers are sheeple.

cyber-indugences (1, Funny)

prgrmr (568806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315262)

From the "Bad Code FAQ":

Offsetting bad code also provides a salve to your conscience. [codeoffsets.com]

I wonder how that line would go over in a project plan? Nowhere in the FAQ does it ever mention actually removing or fixing the Bad Code for which they are willing to sell an Offset. Ironically, if they advocated, promoted, and actually assisted in that effort, their market for Bad Code Offsets would diminish. This smells like something that would have been pitched to the VC's back in the mid-90s as a means of generating revenue until a real product was ready.

Re:cyber-indugences (5, Insightful)

skywolf3 (1149597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315340)

You're missing the point. The point is to poke fun at carbon schemes and raise money for free software. It's not to actually offset bad code, just to support good code writing organizations.

Lutherans (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315278)

As a Catholic, let me tell all you greens and bad coders that letting people buy their way out of their sins just gets stuff nailed to your door. But good luck with it anyway.

There is already an interest expense (1)

lanyslinas (1650491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315304)

on Technical Debt [wikipedia.org]. Why make it higher? Carbon offsets are necessary because it's cheaper to pollute and there are no interest expenses. Not true for technical debt.

If you write bad code... (1)

croftj (2359) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315354)

the world would be better off if you just kept it to yourself. No need for the bad code offsets.

With that said, I have yet to run nto a developer who confessed to writing bad code. I know my code is all peaches and cream!

Bad code offset doesnt do anything for your soul (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315394)

This is why catholic church invented confession... So you can sin and stop feeling guilty about it.

Carbon trading is stupid. (2)

arthurh3535 (447288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315402)

No, it really is. It advocates that 3rd world countries can only advance to 1st world status by polluting... a lot. Instead of trying to develop these countries without all the pollution we had to do in the past, they are basically saying that 1st world countries have to subsidize that pollution advancement by lowering their own pollution in response.
 
It's a totally assanine proposition and basically is advocating that it's fine for 3rd world countries to pollute if they advance themselves up.

Re:Carbon trading is stupid. (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315504)

No, it really is. It advocates that 3rd world countries can only advance to 1st world status by writing bad code... a lot. Instead of trying to develop these countries' software without all the bad code we had to do in the past, they are basically saying that 1st world countries have to subsidize that poorly written software by lowering their own coding standards in response. It's a totally asanine proposition and basically is advocating that it's fine for 3rd world countries to program poorly if they advance themselves up.

Put that back on topic for you.

Your'e stupid. (1)

lanyslinas (1650491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315668)

Oh that's right, instead we should have 3rd world countries use all the affordable clean energy sources that secretly exist somewhere.

That makes no sense (0)

pavon (30274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315882)

Where are these third world countries getting the money to buy carbon offsets? And why would they since they don't have any laws mandating them? You have this completely backwards.

Carbon offsets are purchased by companies in first world countries which have laws setting CO2 quotas, or by rich yuppies who want to feel good about their energy-exorbitant house/car/jet. They do so because it is cheaper to buy bogus carbon offsets from third world countries than it is to actually lower their own CO2 generation.

I think you have this term confused with something else.

Re:Carbon trading is stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315888)

Do you know how much of a pain in the ass it is to make concrete? Sure, the idea that an undeveloped but somewhat well endowed country can advance to first world status without pollution is great, but it's just not practical. Have you tried it?

Bad code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315446)

Am I the only one who read the summary as saying Apache and BSD are bad code?

Gave up on DailyWTF (4, Insightful)

gauauu (649169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315508)

The day Alex announced this was the day I finally stopped reading the DailyWTF. It's gotten worse and worse over the past few years, with stories that were so embellished that you stop caring. The fun part about the site was laughing at real IT blunders. But Alex and his creative writing team overdid the writing to the point where the stories were often incredibly far from the real fact (the original submitters would often explain the "real" story in the comments". This might be bearable if their writing wasn't so awful. But often they interchange important character names, have horribly confusing grammatical constructs, and generally just make a mess out of the stories.

Then to top it off, Alex shows up occasionally and comes up with nonsense like this instead of posting another story.

I'm done. Yes, it was amusing for awhile, but I'm moving on.

It's like a swear box (2, Interesting)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315608)

It seems like a lot of people don't get this.

It's like a swear box. You know, in an attempt to get out of the habit of swearing, you put a dollar in box every time you swear. The contents of the box goes to charity.

This is exactly the same, except that in this case the habit you're trying to get out of is releasing bad code.

We all sneak out bad code from time to time - "it's ugly but it works; I can clean it up, or I can ship it and have an extra hour doing [insert recreation of choice]". The 'swear box' makes cleaning it up seem more attractive. And if you don't, a worthy cause benefits.

The analogy to carbon offsets is pretty weak, but I guess it's wry humour of a sort.

grammar offsets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315612)

The author of the tagline should buy a grammar offset for misusing that unfortunate comma.

Jeff Atwood a big name? (1)

thetagger (1057066) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315628)

Wow, kill me. Is he the guy that thinks that you can only discuss programming in English because other human languages would lack terms for stuff such as "linked lists" and so on? The guy that thinks that Stackoverflow, essentially a simplified web forum that could be designed by a semi-literate PHP monkey in 48 hours of work, is a major feat of software engineering?

There was a time when you had to do more than become a famous blogger's pet to become a well-known name in the industry.

Re:Jeff Atwood a big name? (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315830)

Stackoverflow, essentially a simplified web forum that could be designed by a semi-literate PHP monkey in 48 hours of work

How about you reply here on Monday with a link to your full working clone of it, then? Might as well submit it as a story, too, I'm sure a large number of people would be interested in trying it out.

Re:Jeff Atwood a big name? (1)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315836)

The guy that thinks that Stackoverflow, essentially a simplified web forum that could be designed by a semi-literate PHP monkey in 48 hours of work, is a major feat of software engineering?

Your point is addressed here:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001284.html [codinghorror.com]

If stackoverflow is so simple, why is there no other site that does the job as well?

bad developer offsets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30315686)

There is no bad code, only bad developers. Can you offset one of these jokers?

IIS? (1)

Zorix (968629) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315756)

Anyone else notice that this site supports the Apache Software Foundation and yet the server itself runs Microsoft IIS 6? I find that just a bit strange.

Geek20 Summit (1)

CranberryKing (776846) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315768)

will determine that the big name software developers will have to pay for their Bad Code Offsets to the the non-big name developers. But then it will turn out that the non-big name developers don't give a shit, so then coding for anything beyond 'hello world' will become economically infeasible.

Stupidity Offsets? (2, Funny)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315842)

Maybe we can sell Stupidity Offsets to dump rich people, I can think of a couple dozen people in Hollywood who would qualify to buy these, they would go towards educating people in universities on the subject of physics, chemistry, and biology.

Oh and I get to keep 10% of the money for my own "Operating Expenses".

Richard Garriott's take on carbon offsets (2, Interesting)

ryry (198300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30315922)

Richard G blasted into space last year [facebook.com], and to offset the tons of jet fuel his spaceship burned, he purchased some carbon offsets. At a talk in Austin earlier this year, he made what I thought was an interesting point: carbon offsets might not work as effectively as planned, but they help get you in the habit of doing something about the problem. When/if we discover a better way, then you've already got the habit formed -- you just switch it to whatever this new method might be.

I'm sure there are some flaws in that but it was an interesting take I hadn't heard before.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...