The problem is that the assholes are allowed to draw a gun on people and even rough them up a little with no consequences. When it isn't warranted, that's called assault with a deadly weapon and battery, respectively.
That's still no excuse to injure an occupant of the vehicle by pulling them out of the car and slamming them to the ground. Surely by that point it would be apparent if an occupant of the vehicle intended to shoot their way out of the situation. That and if you have them physically under control enough to slam them down, they already can't go for a gun, the actual slamming isn't necessary.
OTOH, pulling a gun on someone who knows they've done nothing to call for that is a GREAT way to make them dangerous by putting them in fear for their life.
Add to that the fact that the scanner is only 80% accurate in the first place and even if it reads correctly, the database may be wrong (as it was in this case) and you have a significant chance that the people you're interacting with are completely innocent.
I didn't say Amazon was actually evading taxes. What they were doing was buying someone odd to be assessed les taxes. It's plenty shady, but evasion is the wrong word for it.
That's why I said "as for Amazon", to indicate that I was moving to answering a different point someone else was making (and conflating with the tax evasion sub-topic).
Not really, since they are no longer obligated to expend any resources to provide the service. While it sounds like they didn't do that anyway, they wouldn't really want to admit that in public.
Even Netscape is questionable. Look at the graph again. By the time the rewrite started, it was already on the way down. IE6 had already reached parity. Did the rewrite really reach back in time?
Clearly by the time the rewrite started they were already in deep trouble. So much that they had resorted to open sourcing the whiole thing hoping outside developers would turn their steaming pile into something. It coundn't, so they decided to do a re-write.
Did the re-write actually fail from natural causes or was it the kiss of death from AOL? Keep in mind, Netscape isn't the only once popular software that either died or was crippled under AOL's care.
When the community decided to rewrite the whole thing as Firefox, outside of AOL's deadly grasp, they succeeded. OTOH, IE finally died. So did IE's replacement (it's just going to be a skin over chromium now).
TL;DRthere's too many confounding factors in the Netscape debacle for it to answer the question of rewrite or not.
OTOH, each of those patches, especially the ugly ones represent a case of "if I knew then what I know now" for the architect. It MAY be that the problem is inherently warty, or perhaps there is a design based on the much improved knowledge of the problem that can solve it cleanly. If it's the latter, someone else may render you an also ran.
I'm not the one who goes around calling people idiots just for not having a specialized bit of knowledge.
If what I said above didn't make sense to you, then you must not have done embedded for long, or you stuck with the easy stuff (that is, drove a go-kart, now thing formula 1 driving is easy).
There is a class of embedded apps that isn't that hard and doesn't require the deep knowledge. Many Arduino projects fit that. Note that that's not a knock on Arduino, it has the big plus that it doesn't mind if you want/need to frob the registers directly to get more out of it.
Youtube videos are a modern form of communication in digital form. Let's apply an analohy, how do you reply to a long email? Do you top post or do you reply point by point inline?
Actually I'm quite productive. In part it's because I know that the first code you write is a rough in that may bear little to no resemblance to what actually ships. But to succeed with that you have to know what good code and great code look like so you can at least leave the door open for it to become that. A good developer knows when it's time to get a second opinion through a code review (a process you claim can't be done in real work).
You seem unconcerned with anything beyond the rough-in.
String reversal should be left to the standard libraries. Hopefully those were done by someone who believes in code review and iterative polishing.
Of course, the problem then is that sometimes anonymity is legitimately needed. For example, when sincerely posting a legitimate political opinion that might piss off the powers that be. Those powers might be government, a grumpy family member, or an employer with extreme opposite political views.
And you sound like one who thinks a guy who once raced in formula one can not run a go cart.
Not only is that not supported by anything I have said, even if it was it wouldn't advance your position at all.
Sorry, your explanations make no sense.
Perhaps that's because there really is something to the idea that embedded programming goes well beyond your experience. I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you. All of that would make perfect sense if you actually understood what you were making claims about. Any idiot can use a cross compiler, but you need to know a lot more to get the most out of a limited CPU that just barely has the capability to meet the design target.
If there is zero difference, how do you account for healthcare costing DOUBLE in the U.S.?
Are you claiming big pharma just hates America?
Or perhaps it's the rather significant difference that in Europe, the various governments actually check the power of the pharmaceutical companies to bend people over a barrel, keeping their profits more in line with other industries such that considerably less money goes to healthcare per capita in Europe. Those single buyers in Europe are non-profit.
The cover sheet and synopsis are supposed to summarize the long form, that is they are effectively written afterwards. Thus, anything in the cover sheet that disagrees with the long form should be considered one of those changes that you suggest should be honored.
Given the density of a long form contract, the cover sheet and summary are also the only part the customer is likely to actually be able to read for comprehension.
A law supporting consumers would explicitly make the cover sheet superior to the long form.
Slashdot Mirror
Use the PA to tell the occupants to get out of the car. That way you can see if they are armed and intend violence while you still have protection.
There's no need to rough them up or endanger their lives by pointing a gun at them (never aim at anything you don't intend to shoot).
The problem is that the assholes are allowed to draw a gun on people and even rough them up a little with no consequences. When it isn't warranted, that's called assault with a deadly weapon and battery, respectively.
Ever fall through a bad spot in a roof? While holding sheet metal?
That leaves a mark.
That's still no excuse to injure an occupant of the vehicle by pulling them out of the car and slamming them to the ground. Surely by that point it would be apparent if an occupant of the vehicle intended to shoot their way out of the situation. That and if you have them physically under control enough to slam them down, they already can't go for a gun, the actual slamming isn't necessary.
OTOH, pulling a gun on someone who knows they've done nothing to call for that is a GREAT way to make them dangerous by putting them in fear for their life.
Add to that the fact that the scanner is only 80% accurate in the first place and even if it reads correctly, the database may be wrong (as it was in this case) and you have a significant chance that the people you're interacting with are completely innocent.
I didn't say Amazon was actually evading taxes. What they were doing was buying someone odd to be assessed les taxes. It's plenty shady, but evasion is the wrong word for it.
That's why I said "as for Amazon", to indicate that I was moving to answering a different point someone else was making (and conflating with the tax evasion sub-topic).
Not really, since they are no longer obligated to expend any resources to provide the service. While it sounds like they didn't do that anyway, they wouldn't really want to admit that in public.
Even Netscape is questionable. Look at the graph again. By the time the rewrite started, it was already on the way down. IE6 had already reached parity. Did the rewrite really reach back in time?
Clearly by the time the rewrite started they were already in deep trouble. So much that they had resorted to open sourcing the whiole thing hoping outside developers would turn their steaming pile into something. It coundn't, so they decided to do a re-write.
Did the re-write actually fail from natural causes or was it the kiss of death from AOL? Keep in mind, Netscape isn't the only once popular software that either died or was crippled under AOL's care.
When the community decided to rewrite the whole thing as Firefox, outside of AOL's deadly grasp, they succeeded. OTOH, IE finally died. So did IE's replacement (it's just going to be a skin over chromium now).
TL;DRthere's too many confounding factors in the Netscape debacle for it to answer the question of rewrite or not.
OTOH, each of those patches, especially the ugly ones represent a case of "if I knew then what I know now" for the architect. It MAY be that the problem is inherently warty, or perhaps there is a design based on the much improved knowledge of the problem that can solve it cleanly. If it's the latter, someone else may render you an also ran.
He didn't retire, he got pushed out so they could bring in a cheaper recent grad or an H1-B.
I've interviewed plenty of people who would fail reverse a string
Granted, you said you don't do that particular test, but it is an example of basic tests used in this thread and *YOU* referred back to it.
I'm not the one who goes around calling people idiots just for not having a specialized bit of knowledge.
If what I said above didn't make sense to you, then you must not have done embedded for long, or you stuck with the easy stuff (that is, drove a go-kart, now thing formula 1 driving is easy).
There is a class of embedded apps that isn't that hard and doesn't require the deep knowledge. Many Arduino projects fit that. Note that that's not a knock on Arduino, it has the big plus that it doesn't mind if you want/need to frob the registers directly to get more out of it.
Youtube videos are a modern form of communication in digital form. Let's apply an analohy, how do you reply to a long email? Do you top post or do you reply point by point inline?
A repeat infringer is not the same as someone who has been accused without adjudication 3 times.
They avoid losing credibility as a platform for everyone?
Because you claimed that NOTHING was different. Their systems are quite different even if they buy from the same companies.
Apparently Nike NEEDS bullet proof shoes since shooting themselves in the foot is clearly a possability.
The gloves are bricked too....
High school headlines next year, Nerd's revenge, entire football team hacked and pantsed at the same time.
Actually I'm quite productive. In part it's because I know that the first code you write is a rough in that may bear little to no resemblance to what actually ships. But to succeed with that you have to know what good code and great code look like so you can at least leave the door open for it to become that. A good developer knows when it's time to get a second opinion through a code review (a process you claim can't be done in real work).
You seem unconcerned with anything beyond the rough-in.
String reversal should be left to the standard libraries. Hopefully those were done by someone who believes in code review and iterative polishing.
Of course, the problem then is that sometimes anonymity is legitimately needed. For example, when sincerely posting a legitimate political opinion that might piss off the powers that be. Those powers might be government, a grumpy family member, or an employer with extreme opposite political views.
you'd better dress everyone up in burkas right now.
There's almost certainly a few who would find that to be "hot" and about 100 times as many trolls who will claim they do too.
And you sound like one who thinks a guy who once raced in formula one can not run a go cart.
Not only is that not supported by anything I have said, even if it was it wouldn't advance your position at all.
Sorry, your explanations make no sense.
Perhaps that's because there really is something to the idea that embedded programming goes well beyond your experience. I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you. All of that would make perfect sense if you actually understood what you were making claims about. Any idiot can use a cross compiler, but you need to know a lot more to get the most out of a limited CPU that just barely has the capability to meet the design target.
If there is zero difference, how do you account for healthcare costing DOUBLE in the U.S.?
Are you claiming big pharma just hates America?
Or perhaps it's the rather significant difference that in Europe, the various governments actually check the power of the pharmaceutical companies to bend people over a barrel, keeping their profits more in line with other industries such that considerably less money goes to healthcare per capita in Europe. Those single buyers in Europe are non-profit.
So in fact, you are looking for slapdash crap coders.
The cover sheet and synopsis are supposed to summarize the long form, that is they are effectively written afterwards. Thus, anything in the cover sheet that disagrees with the long form should be considered one of those changes that you suggest should be honored.
Given the density of a long form contract, the cover sheet and summary are also the only part the customer is likely to actually be able to read for comprehension.
A law supporting consumers would explicitly make the cover sheet superior to the long form.
There's also a difference between "no difference" and some significant differences.