Camera camera camera. the benefits of surveilance are not a sufficient reason to overcome the pervasive invasiveness. pychologically were a private species.
It need not be invasive. It would be quite easy to construct a system that would automatically erase any footage the moment a plane successfully lands and docks at the airport.
The only footage that would be seen then, is when there is a real problem.
Let me put it a different way: inflation is an imbalance between supply and demand... in this case the supply and demand of money. Its direct (if delayed) effects include the market value of goods to be exchanged for that money. This is expressed as prices of those goods.
It can always be measured in price. They are not independent.
Reduction in prices is not deflation. Deflation is reduction in the money supply.
You are getting your contexts confused. Not my fault.
A market -- which is to say, the market for a particular good -- can be considered aside from the markets for other goods.
Within that market, "money supply" is mostly meaningless because money is considered to be a universal commodity. So deflation is measured by price point.
And in fact, all deflation can be measured by price point. Government economic advisers have been harping about the "dangers" of deflation for a long time... yet the money supply was never in any danger. So ask yourself why. I already gave you all the hints you need.
Well, OK, so when should I expect that I can build a brochure site for a hotel that uses HTML5 videos and have one video format and one set of custom controls to work with? Because the world has moved on and Flash is no longer a viable option for this kind of work despite offering those advantages for many years, thanks to much the same browser developers who can't get their act together and actually provide a better replacement. They can't even manage to make the default "this is a video" overlay look the same, or even put it in roughly the same place so you can design placeholder graphics accordingly.
Please explain what this has to do with validation, which I thought was the topic under discussion?
But this brings us back to the original question from my first post in this thread: why? What objective advantage do you or your employer/client gain by insisting on such compliance?
Exactly what it is supposed to do: assurance that it will work as built across all major browsers.
Believe it or not, a majority of big-name sites are still using Flash, along with open-source JS players.
It seems to me you're complaining that using new features that aren't yet standardized, aren't yet standardized. I can sympathize with your frustration, but then if you don't like it, don't use them.
Browsers will never be "standardized" on the very latest features. That's not how it works. So if you don't want to get stuck, don't use the latest features. What else do you expect me to say?
Actually, that's exactly how a market economy works. Things get better and cheaper over time because of innovation and stiff competition. Or did you still spend $10,000 on a 40" flat screen TV this year, and hundreds of dollars for a 20MB disk drive? That must be frustrating for you.
Also, note: this feature of healthy markets is called "deflation" in that particular market. But... deflation is precisely the hated bugaboo of Obama and his crony Keynesian-interventionist-mainstream economists.
"Light quality" is so vague as to be meaningless. Not enough light? Don't like the color temperature? You get rainbows instead of "white" light? Photons moving too slow for your taste? What?
Yes, I was, and I respectfully disagree. Browsers today do a lot more, but frequently the support for newer features is so specific to each browser and in some cases so unstable that it is completely useless for real world projects
Correct. That's why you don't use newer features until they're absorbed by the standard.
But the point is that these non-standard-compliant implementation techniques don't break anything in practice, because every browser is tolerant of them and will always remain so because far too much would break otherwise.
What I meant was: if they don't validate. I didn't mean "break" in the sense that they don't work.
You may not care for the practice, but nothing leaves my hands into production until it validates, except when the stakeholder insists on using something that won't.
I have also had business experience with government contracts. One of the problems there (though it was in a somewhat different field, so doesn't apply as much here) is that those who couldn't properly make it in the engineering business ended up going to work for the government... and became the regulators. Rather the opposite of the "corporate capture" idea, but still a kind of revolving door.
As a result, the bureaucrats and regulators were not respected by the industry they were regulating, and were widely (and appropriately) vilified for interfering in efforts to just get the job done properly.
I don't know if SpaceX is leapfrogging ULA. The Alliance (why does that just sound wrong?) is responsible for a number of different booster programs spread out over time and territory.
Yeah, and was so "successful" at it that when there were problems getting Russian engines, they were temporarily grounded.
That said, some pressure on the behemoths to tighten up their act might be helpful - but remember although the ULA is presumably private, it is very much beholden to the Military Industrial Complex which means it is very much beholden to the Congress which means different booster programs spread out over time and territory as much time and territory as is possible.
Then where are they?
Granted, they are starting to produce some decent stuff again, but only really started doing so when SpaceX and a couple of other upstarts threatened their warm fuzzy government cocoon.
NASA has become too big and bureaucratic to get much done in any kind of hurry. Yes, that is partly, or perhaps even mostly, Congress' fault with its budget shenanigans. But it has gotten so bad that when the Space Shuttle was grounded, they didn't even have a replacement. Shoddy, short-term thinking. It's not possible to run a decent manned space program that way.
NASA was ordered by the President to clean up its crony-bureaucratic act after the Challenger disaster, clear back in '86. It never did. It was ordered to do so again after the Columbia disaster. It still hasn't.
If it finds itself unable to do so, inevitably it will be replaced.
Unfortunately, most of the major browsers today do not do this at all consistently. Even some of the people writing the standards have basically given up.
Were you doing websites 10 or 15 years ago? I was. Browser compatibility today is phenomenal in comparison. No, it's not perfect, or even wonderful... except when you compare to then.
HTML5 "living standard"? Seriously? If it changes arbitrarily then it's not a standard.
I agree. Please remind Congress about this in re: the U.S. Constitution.
Another common case is trendy MVC frameworks like Angular, which often use non-standard attributes on HTML elements for their own purposes. They could use standard "data-*" attributes, but once you've got a few of those sitting on many elements in your mark-up, it's just noise and excess weight, so they use their own prefix for namespacing instead. And yet, I don't see anyone claiming that either Google's search engine or Angular as a JS framework have failed as a result of these heinous crimes...
If it breaks my JS or CSS, I won't use it unless the stakeholder absolutely insists. And then I'll try to talk them out of it.
In the eyes of the investors the Silicon Valley no longer represents a place where technology means everything, where one can get the best talents to work on and create marvelous new and fancy and profitable ways to boldly forge new pathways towards the next technological frontier
And they would largely be correct.
The Silicon Valley, thanks to the feminazis like Ms. Pao, has turned into a place where one can get sued just because one bases one's hiring on the best qualified candidates - and not on the basis of creed, gender and/or racial background
But not for that reason.
The world today that we live in the Silicon Valley is no longer the only place where the investors can find talents - nowadays there are so many options for the investors - They can also go to Europe or India or Korea or Japan or China or Singapore or even Africa / South America
Or, even easier: Oregon or Washington or South Dakota or Texas.
Yeah, but 38 year-olds don't want to work 90+ hours a week for the minimum amount of money that the company is willing to pay.
I almost irrelevant but it's not irrelevant. What it is, is reinforcement of my point.
If you HAVE TO pay 1000 chimpanzees to stumble on the work that can be done by 10 educated and knowledgeable and experienced programmers, then... good luck with that. Because you'll need it.
It all ceased when companies stopped treating their employees like valued part of the organization, rather than "cogs in the wheel". That started about in the late 60s, into the 70s.
Federal law (and most states) by that time had already been changed to guarantee the kinds of working conditions unions originally existed to fight for. Subsequently, they started to make ever more shrill and strident demands. (Just as the global warmists are now, once they started to realize they really are losing.)
(Partly) as a response, companies started treating employees more like the interchangeable "parts" that unions demanded they be treated as... to the ultimate detriment of the employees.
Don't tell me that's false; I went through it myself. I didn't want to be a member of the union, but I had to in order to have the job. The union kept pressuring the company to give us things we didn't even want. And AS A DIRECT RESPONSE, the company said they'd treat us at the MINIMUM level the union could get away with forcing them to do.
Company execs (who I knew personally and very well) said it straight up: as long as the unions kept the pressure on, they would treat their employees like shit to the best of their ability.
And I was an employee, and I don't blame the company a damned bit. It was the UNION causing all the problems. I knew them too, by the way: a bunch of smarmy mafia-type amateur lawyers.
So: anecdotal evidence. But in my experience, that evidence is very real. The union didn't care about me, all it cared about was itself. It actually fucked me over.
Your Slashdot comments are full of them, some of which I have thoughtfully saved for posterity.
I have argued with you about them at the time, but only later mentioned them in self-defense from your personal attacks. Unlike you, I am not trying to discredit you, except for defense of your personal attacks. Unlike you, I have only made comments on Slasdot that (should it ever become necessary) I can back up with documentation.
In the meantime, you have been given "plenty of rope to hang yourself", as the saying goes. And to continue the metaphor: you have made an awful lot of effort to put that rope to the use for which it was intended.
If you think I am at all bothered by your lengthy exercises in self-abuse here, you are very much mistaken. The more you do, the more goes into the notebook for later.
I am very patient.
Hey... speaking of which: what happened to that fatal condition you claimed here on Slashdot to have? The one you strongly implied would claim your life in a very short time?
It seems you have outlasted the dreaded (claimed) prognistications you quoted to me. Congratulations! By lying about that too, you have probably broken a record for the unethical ways one may tell lies on Slashdot.
Yep. Last time I checked non-competes were not really allowed in my state either, and my guess is that an attempt at enforcing one against a lowly hourly laborer would be laughed out of court.
Flag as Inappropriate
IANAL, but as I understand it, even where non-compete do apply they can only be applied to "specialty knowledge", like trade secrets, learned on the job.
Which means this is pretty meaningless in the context of a normal warehouse worker, unless it pertains to technical knowledge of, for example, how robotic retrieval systems work.
I have personally seen code essential to execution time, which was neat and canonical, made literally more than 100 times more efficient in the sense of time and CPU cycles, by using methods that were a little less readable.
And I mean via testing, not just subjective impression.
There *IS* one problem here: efficiency is the last item, while "simple" and "pleasant to look at" are given higher priority on the list.
Yes, that is a regrettable trend I've seen lately. Yes, code should be readable, and should be easy to maintain. But there is a huge amount -- maybe even majority -- of time when efficiency should be considered before readability or beauty.
Slashdot Mirror
Camera camera camera. the benefits of surveilance are not a sufficient reason to overcome the pervasive invasiveness. pychologically were a private species.
It need not be invasive. It would be quite easy to construct a system that would automatically erase any footage the moment a plane successfully lands and docks at the airport.
The only footage that would be seen then, is when there is a real problem.
Let me put it a different way: inflation is an imbalance between supply and demand... in this case the supply and demand of money. Its direct (if delayed) effects include the market value of goods to be exchanged for that money. This is expressed as prices of those goods.
It can always be measured in price. They are not independent.
That would really suck wouldn't it?
But think of the money the electric company would have to pay you, if you used enough of them.
Reduction in prices is not deflation. Deflation is reduction in the money supply.
You are getting your contexts confused. Not my fault.
A market -- which is to say, the market for a particular good -- can be considered aside from the markets for other goods.
Within that market, "money supply" is mostly meaningless because money is considered to be a universal commodity. So deflation is measured by price point.
And in fact, all deflation can be measured by price point. Government economic advisers have been harping about the "dangers" of deflation for a long time... yet the money supply was never in any danger. So ask yourself why. I already gave you all the hints you need.
Here you go, you irritating character.
I know what CRI is, you pedantic twit. This doesn't address my comment at all, which was in reference to GP's vague statement about "light quality".
If GP had written CRI, then I (and everybody else) would have known what he meant.
Well, OK, so when should I expect that I can build a brochure site for a hotel that uses HTML5 videos and have one video format and one set of custom controls to work with? Because the world has moved on and Flash is no longer a viable option for this kind of work despite offering those advantages for many years, thanks to much the same browser developers who can't get their act together and actually provide a better replacement. They can't even manage to make the default "this is a video" overlay look the same, or even put it in roughly the same place so you can design placeholder graphics accordingly.
Please explain what this has to do with validation, which I thought was the topic under discussion?
But this brings us back to the original question from my first post in this thread: why? What objective advantage do you or your employer/client gain by insisting on such compliance?
Exactly what it is supposed to do: assurance that it will work as built across all major browsers.
Believe it or not, a majority of big-name sites are still using Flash, along with open-source JS players.
It seems to me you're complaining that using new features that aren't yet standardized, aren't yet standardized. I can sympathize with your frustration, but then if you don't like it, don't use them.
Browsers will never be "standardized" on the very latest features. That's not how it works. So if you don't want to get stuck, don't use the latest features. What else do you expect me to say?
Actually, that's exactly how a market economy works. Things get better and cheaper over time because of innovation and stiff competition. Or did you still spend $10,000 on a 40" flat screen TV this year, and hundreds of dollars for a 20MB disk drive? That must be frustrating for you.
Also, note: this feature of healthy markets is called "deflation" in that particular market. But... deflation is precisely the hated bugaboo of Obama and his crony Keynesian-interventionist-mainstream economists.
They hate success, if it doesn't include them.
What if we reverse the polarity of the graphene coating?
It sucks all the light out of other nearby fixtures.
Still not happy with the light quality, but
"Light quality" is so vague as to be meaningless. Not enough light? Don't like the color temperature? You get rainbows instead of "white" light? Photons moving too slow for your taste? What?
Yes, I was, and I respectfully disagree. Browsers today do a lot more, but frequently the support for newer features is so specific to each browser and in some cases so unstable that it is completely useless for real world projects
Correct. That's why you don't use newer features until they're absorbed by the standard.
But the point is that these non-standard-compliant implementation techniques don't break anything in practice, because every browser is tolerant of them and will always remain so because far too much would break otherwise.
What I meant was: if they don't validate. I didn't mean "break" in the sense that they don't work.
You may not care for the practice, but nothing leaves my hands into production until it validates, except when the stakeholder insists on using something that won't.
It is all in the TFA, folks, please read it from time to time.
I did read TFA, thanks very much. I was asking WHY her claims were rejected. We already knew THAT they were rejected.
Your comment adds nothing to the "why?"
I have also had business experience with government contracts. One of the problems there (though it was in a somewhat different field, so doesn't apply as much here) is that those who couldn't properly make it in the engineering business ended up going to work for the government... and became the regulators. Rather the opposite of the "corporate capture" idea, but still a kind of revolving door.
As a result, the bureaucrats and regulators were not respected by the industry they were regulating, and were widely (and appropriately) vilified for interfering in efforts to just get the job done properly.
I don't know if SpaceX is leapfrogging ULA. The Alliance (why does that just sound wrong?) is responsible for a number of different booster programs spread out over time and territory.
Yeah, and was so "successful" at it that when there were problems getting Russian engines, they were temporarily grounded.
That said, some pressure on the behemoths to tighten up their act might be helpful - but remember although the ULA is presumably private, it is very much beholden to the Military Industrial Complex which means it is very much beholden to the Congress which means different booster programs spread out over time and territory as much time and territory as is possible.
Then where are they?
Granted, they are starting to produce some decent stuff again, but only really started doing so when SpaceX and a couple of other upstarts threatened their warm fuzzy government cocoon.
NASA has become too big and bureaucratic to get much done in any kind of hurry. Yes, that is partly, or perhaps even mostly, Congress' fault with its budget shenanigans. But it has gotten so bad that when the Space Shuttle was grounded, they didn't even have a replacement. Shoddy, short-term thinking. It's not possible to run a decent manned space program that way.
NASA was ordered by the President to clean up its crony-bureaucratic act after the Challenger disaster, clear back in '86. It never did. It was ordered to do so again after the Columbia disaster. It still hasn't.
If it finds itself unable to do so, inevitably it will be replaced.
Unfortunately, most of the major browsers today do not do this at all consistently. Even some of the people writing the standards have basically given up.
Were you doing websites 10 or 15 years ago? I was. Browser compatibility today is phenomenal in comparison. No, it's not perfect, or even wonderful... except when you compare to then.
HTML5 "living standard"? Seriously? If it changes arbitrarily then it's not a standard.
I agree. Please remind Congress about this in re: the U.S. Constitution.
Another common case is trendy MVC frameworks like Angular, which often use non-standard attributes on HTML elements for their own purposes. They could use standard "data-*" attributes, but once you've got a few of those sitting on many elements in your mark-up, it's just noise and excess weight, so they use their own prefix for namespacing instead. And yet, I don't see anyone claiming that either Google's search engine or Angular as a JS framework have failed as a result of these heinous crimes...
If it breaks my JS or CSS, I won't use it unless the stakeholder absolutely insists. And then I'll try to talk them out of it.
Why must we keep electing people who are so fucking stupid?
Where have you been all your life?
They aren't stupid (most of them, anyway). On the contrary. They:
(A) think WE are stupid, and
(B) want US to think THEY are stupid. While the entire time their hired pickpocket is sneaking into our wallets.
Absolutely loving the reasoning here. There are two possible outcomes.
False dichotomy.
I am not much interested THAT Pao lost the suit. I am interested in WHY she lost the suit.
Until we know that, all other bets are off. You're guessing, and your guesses are probably not correct.
In the eyes of the investors the Silicon Valley no longer represents a place where technology means everything, where one can get the best talents to work on and create marvelous new and fancy and profitable ways to boldly forge new pathways towards the next technological frontier
And they would largely be correct.
The Silicon Valley, thanks to the feminazis like Ms. Pao, has turned into a place where one can get sued just because one bases one's hiring on the best qualified candidates - and not on the basis of creed, gender and/or racial background
But not for that reason.
The world today that we live in the Silicon Valley is no longer the only place where the investors can find talents - nowadays there are so many options for the investors - They can also go to Europe or India or Korea or Japan or China or Singapore or even Africa / South America
Or, even easier: Oregon or Washington or South Dakota or Texas.
Yeah, but 38 year-olds don't want to work 90+ hours a week for the minimum amount of money that the company is willing to pay.
I almost irrelevant but it's not irrelevant. What it is, is reinforcement of my point.
... good luck with that. Because you'll need it.
If you HAVE TO pay 1000 chimpanzees to stumble on the work that can be done by 10 educated and knowledgeable and experienced programmers, then
Even worse if you don't have to, but want to.
It all ceased when companies stopped treating their employees like valued part of the organization, rather than "cogs in the wheel". That started about in the late 60s, into the 70s.
Federal law (and most states) by that time had already been changed to guarantee the kinds of working conditions unions originally existed to fight for. Subsequently, they started to make ever more shrill and strident demands. (Just as the global warmists are now, once they started to realize they really are losing.)
(Partly) as a response, companies started treating employees more like the interchangeable "parts" that unions demanded they be treated as... to the ultimate detriment of the employees.
Don't tell me that's false; I went through it myself. I didn't want to be a member of the union, but I had to in order to have the job. The union kept pressuring the company to give us things we didn't even want. And AS A DIRECT RESPONSE, the company said they'd treat us at the MINIMUM level the union could get away with forcing them to do.
Company execs (who I knew personally and very well) said it straight up: as long as the unions kept the pressure on, they would treat their employees like shit to the best of their ability.
And I was an employee, and I don't blame the company a damned bit. It was the UNION causing all the problems. I knew them too, by the way: a bunch of smarmy mafia-type amateur lawyers.
So: anecdotal evidence. But in my experience, that evidence is very real. The union didn't care about me, all it cared about was itself. It actually fucked me over.
Good grief. When have I ever said false things?
Your Slashdot comments are full of them, some of which I have thoughtfully saved for posterity.
I have argued with you about them at the time, but only later mentioned them in self-defense from your personal attacks. Unlike you, I am not trying to discredit you, except for defense of your personal attacks. Unlike you, I have only made comments on Slasdot that (should it ever become necessary) I can back up with documentation.
In the meantime, you have been given "plenty of rope to hang yourself", as the saying goes. And to continue the metaphor: you have made an awful lot of effort to put that rope to the use for which it was intended.
If you think I am at all bothered by your lengthy exercises in self-abuse here, you are very much mistaken. The more you do, the more goes into the notebook for later.
I am very patient.
Hey... speaking of which: what happened to that fatal condition you claimed here on Slashdot to have? The one you strongly implied would claim your life in a very short time?
It seems you have outlasted the dreaded (claimed) prognistications you quoted to me. Congratulations! By lying about that too, you have probably broken a record for the unethical ways one may tell lies on Slashdot.
Rei's right. That's exactly what one would expect if dark matter is WIMPs.
I know. You got the "that was just a joke" part, yes?
Isn't this what one would expect if dark matter is WIMPs?
No... you're thinking of Dork Matter.
Just kidding. But that was a great "straight line".
Yep. Last time I checked non-competes were not really allowed in my state either, and my guess is that an attempt at enforcing one against a lowly hourly laborer would be laughed out of court. Flag as Inappropriate
IANAL, but as I understand it, even where non-compete do apply they can only be applied to "specialty knowledge", like trade secrets, learned on the job.
Which means this is pretty meaningless in the context of a normal warehouse worker, unless it pertains to technical knowledge of, for example, how robotic retrieval systems work.
I will elaborate just a little:
I have personally seen code essential to execution time, which was neat and canonical, made literally more than 100 times more efficient in the sense of time and CPU cycles, by using methods that were a little less readable.
And I mean via testing, not just subjective impression.
TFA has its priorities skewed.
There *IS* one problem here: efficiency is the last item, while "simple" and "pleasant to look at" are given higher priority on the list.
Yes, that is a regrettable trend I've seen lately. Yes, code should be readable, and should be easy to maintain. But there is a huge amount -- maybe even majority -- of time when efficiency should be considered before readability or beauty.