I know it's comforting to read the news and be able to believe what they say
There is always a fine line between questioning news and the denial. In this particular instance you are claiming that "David Albright, a physicist, former UN weapons inspector and authority on the nuclear smuggling ring" is lying to the whole world, though other IAEA scientists saw the materials and could expose him. I'd listen to David, though, he just might know about the subject a little more than an average slashdotter. If you insist on using fuzzy logic, fine - David's statement has weight of 0.9999 and your opinion has weight of 0.0001.
We can find plans of nuclear weapons, but we can't find Osama?
Yes, and I am not surprised. Khan's network was captured intact - did you read how much data they got? More than a terabyte of documents. Even if none of that is encrypted it takes an army of specialists and linguists to go through them, which is probably what happened. On the other hand, Osama was never captured. I'd be amazed if, for example, the US Army captures a large building and Osama keeps running and hiding *inside* of that building. But Osama - if he is still alive, of course - hides somewhere on Earth, and even if he is merely in Pakistan it's plain impossible to find him, considering that a good deal of Pakistani land is not under control of the central government.
Probably because the story clearly says that the design in question belongs to Pakistan. All things considered, a Pakistani nuclear scientist would be in a better position to steal his country's secret rather than a US design. As a foreigner in the US he, and his agents, would not be allowed to see anything of that sort, not even close. But in Pakistan he'd be an insider, even if he officially is not involved, and then all kinds of things can be done.
It's highly unlikely that a rancher will shoot you, unless you [try to] shoot first.
But you need to consider that public land can be in use at the moment, just as a bench in a public park can be occupied before you approached it. If there is enough space on the bench you are permitted to sit there, but it doesn't mean that you and the other party on the bench can always happily share it.
If some public land is in legal use for feeding of animals, then it's better to not approach them, though every court in the country will affirm your right to do so. A horse, however, may be not so well versed in legal matters, and he is completely unafraid of consequences. If a horse kicks you in the head (which horses can do easily, just to get some exercise) there may be no head left on your shoulders. If you want to use such public land you obviously need to talk to the person who currently uses it; he has no prevailing right on the use, but he needs to remove his property from the land (and stop using it) before you can start your use. In other words, we return to the original concept - "talk to people first". That's the whole secret of success:-)
I was visiting a friend last weekend who lives on a ranch and keeps horses. Some of their grazing land is private, fenced - good luck getting there, you can be easily arrested if the land owner chooses so. Other parts of the grazing land belong to the county at the moment, since it's hillsides, but if owners' horses (or other animals, which was the case there) are grazing there you don't want to walk there either. Firstly, chances are that a common city slicker doesn't know how dangerous a horse can be (very), and secondly the owners may be a tad worried that someone not from the neighborhood is walking around their precious horses. I'm sure every single household in that area owns firearms, at least because there are plenty of wild animals that vary from mere pests to mild danger.
I'm guessing that the issue is not that the applications are too complex for a child to use, but rather for all children to use. Sure, you figured out the C64 on your own as a child, but could every other child that you went to school with have done the same thing?
I'm thinking of my own time in school, and most students were far more interested in mischief, games, talking. We did not have any computers with us, not even calculators - and why would we? The subjects of learning were, for example, behavior of literary heroes, or distribution of production of steel across South America, or what an atom is built out of, and so on. A computer in the class would be unnecessary. A computer after the class would not be used by 99% of students, except those who are destined to become geeks. If anyone out of the 99% mass would have an OLPC with him, it would be likely smashed within days at some football field, and most definitely never used for learning.
The desire to learn, IMO, is greatly exaggerated - or, I should rephrase, the distribution of that desire among population is highly uneven. It does not depend, generally, on the family, and I think it mostly depends on the genes of every specific child. And only so many, like 1% to 5%, really want to learn, like to learn, and once they are done with that they become famous scientists, inventors, writers, actors... the rest joins the mass of laborers, be it a peasant in a field or a cubicle dweller in an office. The mass does not like to learn, and does not need to learn really, except what the current job entails.
So giving a toy like OLPC to a sufficiently interested student might be useful. Giving an OLPC to a normal child, though, would be a waste. The criterion of selection could be very simple: the student should come up with a novel use scenario for the notebook (some preliminary reading may be needed as part of the test.) A student, for example, may propose a system that measures the temperature of the milk on the stove; once the temperature (or the level) reaches preset limits the stove is turned off to prevent the milk from boiling over. Another student may propose to set up two telescopes - at his house and at his friend's house - and exchange "secret messages" using computer-controlled light sources and photocells. Anyone who is creative enough to think of such things is qualified beyond any doubt. The rest of the students will not even apply, though all they need to get an OLPC is to tell the teacher what they want to do with it. Such use, IMO, is pretty much the only educational value one can extract from a computer below the level of a university.
There is, of course, the notion that OLPC can replace books. Maybe. But I know many people who hate reading on the screen, and considering the small size of the LCD and relatively low resolution it may be not the greatest idea. Besides, OLPC only replaces books, but not improves on the educational process in any way. If your teacher wants you to memorize this poem or that special historical date, you just have to do it, and the computer is of no help there. The only viable use of an OLPC as a book replacement is where there are no books, such as in really remote areas of really poor countries. I can not comment further since I never lived in such countries myself.
Tracks lead into major cities. A freight train can have 100 cars, each carrying 100 tons - 10 kilotons total. If the load happens to be explosive, it will demolish the whole city. Such things happened before, unintentionally.
You can't land a plane without having all controls in a working order. In wars some pilots managed to land their damaged small airplanes, but far more didn't.
Basically he's trying to create business for ASIC design houses by telling people that putting a bunch of licensed IP onto a chip is rocket science and they shouldn't try to do it in house.
Is it really? I honestly don't know. I suspect it depends a lot on the quality of the in house people and the quality of the ASIC design house.
It is true. You should not unnecessarily muck with VHDL/Verilog and 3rd party cores even if you work with an FPGA. This will not kill you, but it will make you poorer. HDLs are notoriously kludgy, and it takes a lot of effort to do it right. Proprietary cores rarely work as documented, and you have no visibility into them. When multiple cores are used, it's one large fingerpointing game between vendors. And you need to have good, experienced HDL coders. And you need to have all the tools, they cost big bucks.
But that's with mere FPGAs, where you can update your design whenever you wish. However here they are talking about ASICs - where all the wiring is done with masks when the IC is made. You'd have to be certifiably mad to even think about a casual design like this. ASIC designs are done by very competent teams, using "10% coding / 90% verification" time allocation, because you can't afford/any/ mistakes. And even then you make mistakes; but experienced teams with good tools make those mistakes smaller, and they call them "errata" - something that is not right but can be worked around. When you make the F0 0F bug, though, you trash the whole run.
So Microsoft risked a lot when it went for an in-house design. I am not surprised that they failed. They should have counted all the successful 3D video companies on the market and asked themselves why there are so few, and why top gaming cards cost so much.
But if you're a cash rich company then the bias will be to try to do as much as possible in house, because that gives you more freedom to value engineer later.
I am not MS, but I don't really see much business value in rolling your own video controller. More likely the NIH syndrome kicked in, or some people were overly concerned about their job security.
Try EME now, or 10/24 GHz... For me 144-146 MHz is an IF at the moment, though I am only working toward 10 GHz... not having it assembled already and aligned.
I see where your problem is. You have a product already (and a possible port,) and you only need to sell it. Linux has an entrenched competition, and you are absolutely right to not enter that market.
But that's only because you are forced, by legacy, into a losing "sell what you can make" concept. If you are a fresh startup you always want to adopt the opposite strategy - "make what you can sell." There are plenty of empty holes in the software market, for Linux or for Windows or for anything else. Look at expensive engineering CADs. They cost $5K to $50K per seat. The customers would love you if you can make a SolidWorks equivalent for $1,000, or Ansoft HFSS equivalent, or AutoCAD equivalent [there were attempts, very successful] and so on.
You don't even need to really try and go against Big Names. At work we use a LAN-based reservation system for meeting rooms and other resources. It is beyond atrocious; it's actually horrible, pain to use, and completely unintuitive. But it is large, covers multiple sites, time zones, supports clickable maps of buildings, searches (which never return anything) and so on. If you, for example, develop a competing solution that actually works and can be used by a mere man you will be rich. If you offer it as a B2B service with a subscription fee you will be infinitely rich.
I can't imagine that I'd want someone typing in the same file I'm working on.
The guy developed this editor probably before RCS (and surely before CVS, let alone SVN.) But most importantly, he never heard about ISO 9000. It would be a very stupid thing today to let two (or more) developers to change the same file. Why would they need to do that? Why can't they write their code independently, add unit testing while they are at it, test their pieces, and then merge? Of course they can, and they do.
So this N-Brains guy simply developed an editor with a feature that he thought is neat. However nobody else shared his enthusiasm, and the company is in trouble. Big surprise. I know some C coders who wouldn't mind using Notepad for some small jobs. As long as they can type the code in, it's just as good as more advanced editors. I can use vi, I used to like emacs, but at the current job I simply use Crimson Editor, it is free and has more than I need. In emacs I used to have a macro for inserting standard file and method comments (with javadoc syntax), I don't have them now, but I don't miss the function either.) A lot of my work is in thinking, then in typing. Obscure functions of text editors (even simple ones, like "Capitalize") comprise about 0% of my activities. And if I need a better editor, Visual Studio Express is free.
When someone has a problem with the code I usually ask them to open the editor and explain to me how the code works. Usually that alone finds the bug, and I don't need to even understand:-) In other cases I will ask if the guy is sure that this or that code path is taken, recommend to add debug, and so on. Often after dispensing the first batch of advices I can safely walk away, and I am free until the developer did all that and collected the debug output, knows more about where the problem may be, and is ready to discuss deeper. Hardly ever I need to operate his computer. Furthermore, several developers have ergonomic keyboards, keyboard trays, vertical mice, left-handed mice with inverted buttons, trackballs for the thumb, and other junk that I can not even use.
If the situation is as you put it, your unreasonable boss will always find a project to overload you, set an insane deadline, and force you to work unpaid overtime. Generally, overtime is caused by poor planning on his part. If an inferior tool requires 200 hours of work and better tool requires only 100 hours, make it known, in writing, and take your time. The boss can ask you to work a few extra hours, but he can't make you to produce results faster. Each time he asks if it's ready tell him "It would have been ready if only you bought me the $foo package." After a while he will stop asking. If you don't learn how to push back you will be pushed into a corner (and then you go postal.)
But I completely agree with the message of your post. Bad tools make no sense, even if they are free.
This creates a security hole similar to the "carnival booth" method. The real terrorist would just show some ID, real or not, and proceed carrying his ceramic knives into the protected area. The ID should not be used as a proof of safety of the passenger; it's meaningless, and the whole thread is exactly about that.
The fact that "An illegal immigrate faces deportation" is no surprise and should not impact your judgement here
The problem is that the guy is "Facing Imminent Deportation Without Hearing" and that's the real issue here. Looks like the police just wants him swept under the rug. As reported, he has a visa, but there are questions: due to confusion over his visa documentation, charged with offences relating to his immigration status. He sought legal advice and representation regarding these matters whilst in custody. On Friday 23rd May, the Home Office informed his solicitor that he was being removed on Sunday 1st June and Hicham was moved to an immigration detention centre. Now, is it reasonable to deport someone (who lived in the country for 13 years) within only 7 days, without proper court hearings, presentation of witnesses, debates about the applicable law? The Home Office just wants him out, and with him being out there will be no hearings, and no inconvenient truth will come out. But until his status is investigated, and his lawyers can speak for him and argue his status, we can not say that he is legal or illegal immigrant. That is to be determined, and the fight is for his right to be heard in court, and his status determined by the judge - not by a bureaucrat.
I was actually picking on the definition of theft that you provided ("No intent to permanently deprive = not theft".) It's flawed, and by providing an example I illustrated the problem. Wikipedia provides a different definition, more in line with common sense:
In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.
As you can see, their definition does not mention permanent vs. temporary taking of my stuff away. Instead it focuses on taking property without consent, such as without any right of the thief to do so. That's the problem with proposing legal definitions ad lib:-) they are at best funny.
Yes, hope is not a plan. But willingness to take risks may be part of the plan. For example, your star developer can be ran over by a bus. Does that mean that you need to hire another star developer, for comparable big $$$, and then see how those two will see each other? A small business has to take risks; a larger business can afford to take them. Very few businesses, though, are willing to pay for redundancies. That's what the insurance is for - to cover risks. You don't build a second house just in case your first one burns in fire. You just pay someone to cover that remote possibility.
No business is resilient. Resilience means redundancy, and redundancy means higher costs. The only type "business" that is truly resilient is the US Army; but that "business" is not run for profit, just the opposite in fact. For every normal business, however, disaster preparedness consists, primarily, of:
hoping that nothing bad happens
when that bad thing happens, hope that another employee will be able to step in
when no one is available for replacement, delay the project and make it Someone's Else Problem (your boss's, specifically)
if the loss is temporary, have the employee to make it up by working 24/7 until it's on schedule
when the loss of an employee is long term or permanent, hire a new one
when all else fails, file a business insurance claim
These methods, combined, usually provide adequate resilience; as the business grows, the (2) becomes more and more likely, and (3) is also a typical option in a large company; after all, your staffing level is given to you from the above, it's not like you can hire more people as backup whenever you want. So when an employee becomes unavailable, it's not your fault, as long as you had all vacancies filled.
In other words, if you return home and find your possessions gone, first you must look for a piece of paper that the thi^Wvisitor may have left. If the paper says "I promise, with all my honor, to return all the objects taken from here not later than on last day of year 3008" then don't report this as a theft, because it isn't: the loss of use of your stuff is not permanent.
even if they aren't spending all their time blackberrying about Terribly Important Meetings instead of watching little Fenella run around
He can't call in the Terribly Important Meeting with His Boss and Other Bosses? The parent will then be forced to take another option - stay at home and do the work, that's what brings in the cash for the family (and that's what will not get him fired, or refused promotion.) The child will wait for another chance; you can't go to a park, after all, if your family lives in a cardboard box.
Slashdot Mirror
A strawman.
I know it's comforting to read the news and be able to believe what they say
There is always a fine line between questioning news and the denial. In this particular instance you are claiming that "David Albright, a physicist, former UN weapons inspector and authority on the nuclear smuggling ring" is lying to the whole world, though other IAEA scientists saw the materials and could expose him. I'd listen to David, though, he just might know about the subject a little more than an average slashdotter. If you insist on using fuzzy logic, fine - David's statement has weight of 0.9999 and your opinion has weight of 0.0001.
We can find plans of nuclear weapons, but we can't find Osama?
Yes, and I am not surprised. Khan's network was captured intact - did you read how much data they got? More than a terabyte of documents. Even if none of that is encrypted it takes an army of specialists and linguists to go through them, which is probably what happened. On the other hand, Osama was never captured. I'd be amazed if, for example, the US Army captures a large building and Osama keeps running and hiding *inside* of that building. But Osama - if he is still alive, of course - hides somewhere on Earth, and even if he is merely in Pakistan it's plain impossible to find him, considering that a good deal of Pakistani land is not under control of the central government.
Probably because the story clearly says that the design in question belongs to Pakistan. All things considered, a Pakistani nuclear scientist would be in a better position to steal his country's secret rather than a US design. As a foreigner in the US he, and his agents, would not be allowed to see anything of that sort, not even close. But in Pakistan he'd be an insider, even if he officially is not involved, and then all kinds of things can be done.
But you need to consider that public land can be in use at the moment, just as a bench in a public park can be occupied before you approached it. If there is enough space on the bench you are permitted to sit there, but it doesn't mean that you and the other party on the bench can always happily share it.
If some public land is in legal use for feeding of animals, then it's better to not approach them, though every court in the country will affirm your right to do so. A horse, however, may be not so well versed in legal matters, and he is completely unafraid of consequences. If a horse kicks you in the head (which horses can do easily, just to get some exercise) there may be no head left on your shoulders. If you want to use such public land you obviously need to talk to the person who currently uses it; he has no prevailing right on the use, but he needs to remove his property from the land (and stop using it) before you can start your use. In other words, we return to the original concept - "talk to people first". That's the whole secret of success :-)
I was visiting a friend last weekend who lives on a ranch and keeps horses. Some of their grazing land is private, fenced - good luck getting there, you can be easily arrested if the land owner chooses so. Other parts of the grazing land belong to the county at the moment, since it's hillsides, but if owners' horses (or other animals, which was the case there) are grazing there you don't want to walk there either. Firstly, chances are that a common city slicker doesn't know how dangerous a horse can be (very), and secondly the owners may be a tad worried that someone not from the neighborhood is walking around their precious horses. I'm sure every single household in that area owns firearms, at least because there are plenty of wild animals that vary from mere pests to mild danger.
My old Sanyo PM-8200 phone and my current LG CU515 phone supported USB charging out of the box (as long as you have a cable.)
Probably because AP pays them to do this.
I'm thinking of my own time in school, and most students were far more interested in mischief, games, talking. We did not have any computers with us, not even calculators - and why would we? The subjects of learning were, for example, behavior of literary heroes, or distribution of production of steel across South America, or what an atom is built out of, and so on. A computer in the class would be unnecessary. A computer after the class would not be used by 99% of students, except those who are destined to become geeks. If anyone out of the 99% mass would have an OLPC with him, it would be likely smashed within days at some football field, and most definitely never used for learning.
The desire to learn, IMO, is greatly exaggerated - or, I should rephrase, the distribution of that desire among population is highly uneven. It does not depend, generally, on the family, and I think it mostly depends on the genes of every specific child. And only so many, like 1% to 5%, really want to learn, like to learn, and once they are done with that they become famous scientists, inventors, writers, actors ... the rest joins the mass of laborers, be it a peasant in a field or a cubicle dweller in an office. The mass does not like to learn, and does not need to learn really, except what the current job entails.
So giving a toy like OLPC to a sufficiently interested student might be useful. Giving an OLPC to a normal child, though, would be a waste. The criterion of selection could be very simple: the student should come up with a novel use scenario for the notebook (some preliminary reading may be needed as part of the test.) A student, for example, may propose a system that measures the temperature of the milk on the stove; once the temperature (or the level) reaches preset limits the stove is turned off to prevent the milk from boiling over. Another student may propose to set up two telescopes - at his house and at his friend's house - and exchange "secret messages" using computer-controlled light sources and photocells. Anyone who is creative enough to think of such things is qualified beyond any doubt. The rest of the students will not even apply, though all they need to get an OLPC is to tell the teacher what they want to do with it. Such use, IMO, is pretty much the only educational value one can extract from a computer below the level of a university.
There is, of course, the notion that OLPC can replace books. Maybe. But I know many people who hate reading on the screen, and considering the small size of the LCD and relatively low resolution it may be not the greatest idea. Besides, OLPC only replaces books, but not improves on the educational process in any way. If your teacher wants you to memorize this poem or that special historical date, you just have to do it, and the computer is of no help there. The only viable use of an OLPC as a book replacement is where there are no books, such as in really remote areas of really poor countries. I can not comment further since I never lived in such countries myself.
Tracks lead into major cities. A freight train can have 100 cars, each carrying 100 tons - 10 kilotons total. If the load happens to be explosive, it will demolish the whole city. Such things happened before, unintentionally.
You can't land a plane without having all controls in a working order. In wars some pilots managed to land their damaged small airplanes, but far more didn't.
You must have worked for Citrus Logic then!
It is true. You should not unnecessarily muck with VHDL/Verilog and 3rd party cores even if you work with an FPGA. This will not kill you, but it will make you poorer. HDLs are notoriously kludgy, and it takes a lot of effort to do it right. Proprietary cores rarely work as documented, and you have no visibility into them. When multiple cores are used, it's one large fingerpointing game between vendors. And you need to have good, experienced HDL coders. And you need to have all the tools, they cost big bucks.
But that's with mere FPGAs, where you can update your design whenever you wish. However here they are talking about ASICs - where all the wiring is done with masks when the IC is made. You'd have to be certifiably mad to even think about a casual design like this. ASIC designs are done by very competent teams, using "10% coding / 90% verification" time allocation, because you can't afford /any/ mistakes. And even then you make mistakes; but experienced teams with good tools make those mistakes smaller, and they call them "errata" - something that is not right but can be worked around. When you make the F0 0F bug, though, you trash the whole run.
So Microsoft risked a lot when it went for an in-house design. I am not surprised that they failed. They should have counted all the successful 3D video companies on the market and asked themselves why there are so few, and why top gaming cards cost so much.
But if you're a cash rich company then the bias will be to try to do as much as possible in house, because that gives you more freedom to value engineer later.
I am not MS, but I don't really see much business value in rolling your own video controller. More likely the NIH syndrome kicked in, or some people were overly concerned about their job security.
Try EME now, or 10/24 GHz ... For me 144-146 MHz is an IF at the moment, though I am only working toward 10 GHz... not having it assembled already and aligned.
But that's only because you are forced, by legacy, into a losing "sell what you can make" concept. If you are a fresh startup you always want to adopt the opposite strategy - "make what you can sell." There are plenty of empty holes in the software market, for Linux or for Windows or for anything else. Look at expensive engineering CADs. They cost $5K to $50K per seat. The customers would love you if you can make a SolidWorks equivalent for $1,000, or Ansoft HFSS equivalent, or AutoCAD equivalent [there were attempts, very successful] and so on.
You don't even need to really try and go against Big Names. At work we use a LAN-based reservation system for meeting rooms and other resources. It is beyond atrocious; it's actually horrible, pain to use, and completely unintuitive. But it is large, covers multiple sites, time zones, supports clickable maps of buildings, searches (which never return anything) and so on. If you, for example, develop a competing solution that actually works and can be used by a mere man you will be rich. If you offer it as a B2B service with a subscription fee you will be infinitely rich.
The guy developed this editor probably before RCS (and surely before CVS, let alone SVN.) But most importantly, he never heard about ISO 9000. It would be a very stupid thing today to let two (or more) developers to change the same file. Why would they need to do that? Why can't they write their code independently, add unit testing while they are at it, test their pieces, and then merge? Of course they can, and they do.
So this N-Brains guy simply developed an editor with a feature that he thought is neat. However nobody else shared his enthusiasm, and the company is in trouble. Big surprise. I know some C coders who wouldn't mind using Notepad for some small jobs. As long as they can type the code in, it's just as good as more advanced editors. I can use vi, I used to like emacs, but at the current job I simply use Crimson Editor, it is free and has more than I need. In emacs I used to have a macro for inserting standard file and method comments (with javadoc syntax), I don't have them now, but I don't miss the function either.) A lot of my work is in thinking, then in typing. Obscure functions of text editors (even simple ones, like "Capitalize") comprise about 0% of my activities. And if I need a better editor, Visual Studio Express is free.
When someone has a problem with the code I usually ask them to open the editor and explain to me how the code works. Usually that alone finds the bug, and I don't need to even understand :-) In other cases I will ask if the guy is sure that this or that code path is taken, recommend to add debug, and so on. Often after dispensing the first batch of advices I can safely walk away, and I am free until the developer did all that and collected the debug output, knows more about where the problem may be, and is ready to discuss deeper. Hardly ever I need to operate his computer. Furthermore, several developers have ergonomic keyboards, keyboard trays, vertical mice, left-handed mice with inverted buttons, trackballs for the thumb, and other junk that I can not even use.
But I completely agree with the message of your post. Bad tools make no sense, even if they are free.
This creates a security hole similar to the "carnival booth" method. The real terrorist would just show some ID, real or not, and proceed carrying his ceramic knives into the protected area. The ID should not be used as a proof of safety of the passenger; it's meaningless, and the whole thread is exactly about that.
The problem is that the guy is "Facing Imminent Deportation Without Hearing" and that's the real issue here. Looks like the police just wants him swept under the rug. As reported, he has a visa, but there are questions: due to confusion over his visa documentation, charged with offences relating to his immigration status. He sought legal advice and representation regarding these matters whilst in custody. On Friday 23rd May, the Home Office informed his solicitor that he was being removed on Sunday 1st June and Hicham was moved to an immigration detention centre. Now, is it reasonable to deport someone (who lived in the country for 13 years) within only 7 days, without proper court hearings, presentation of witnesses, debates about the applicable law? The Home Office just wants him out, and with him being out there will be no hearings, and no inconvenient truth will come out. But until his status is investigated, and his lawyers can speak for him and argue his status, we can not say that he is legal or illegal immigrant. That is to be determined, and the fight is for his right to be heard in court, and his status determined by the judge - not by a bureaucrat.
As you can see, their definition does not mention permanent vs. temporary taking of my stuff away. Instead it focuses on taking property without consent, such as without any right of the thief to do so. That's the problem with proposing legal definitions ad lib :-) they are at best funny.
Yes, hope is not a plan. But willingness to take risks may be part of the plan. For example, your star developer can be ran over by a bus. Does that mean that you need to hire another star developer, for comparable big $$$, and then see how those two will see each other? A small business has to take risks; a larger business can afford to take them. Very few businesses, though, are willing to pay for redundancies. That's what the insurance is for - to cover risks. You don't build a second house just in case your first one burns in fire. You just pay someone to cover that remote possibility.
These methods, combined, usually provide adequate resilience; as the business grows, the (2) becomes more and more likely, and (3) is also a typical option in a large company; after all, your staffing level is given to you from the above, it's not like you can hire more people as backup whenever you want. So when an employee becomes unavailable, it's not your fault, as long as you had all vacancies filled.
In other words, if you return home and find your possessions gone, first you must look for a piece of paper that the thi^Wvisitor may have left. If the paper says "I promise, with all my honor, to return all the objects taken from here not later than on last day of year 3008" then don't report this as a theft, because it isn't: the loss of use of your stuff is not permanent.
Only until someone has a heart attack and nobody can call 911.
He can't call in the Terribly Important Meeting with His Boss and Other Bosses? The parent will then be forced to take another option - stay at home and do the work, that's what brings in the cash for the family (and that's what will not get him fired, or refused promotion.) The child will wait for another chance; you can't go to a park, after all, if your family lives in a cardboard box.
Because you wouldn't. But the child may not be so sure, and the right thing here is to call and ask.
Besides, there are plenty of other situations where the smartest thing for the child to do is to call his parents and ask for an advice.