Process matters. There's a legitimate process for changing the Constitution as the world around us changes. I'm all for outlawing nuclear weapons in private hands, but the way do limit the second amendment is not by justices just deciding one day it means something different!
But of course, no one cares these days. You can't go to court or fly without a clearly unconstitutional search by government employees, and the NSA collects our private correspondence wholesale. The Fifth Amendment gets whittled away at the edges, and the First limited to Free Speech Zones. The federal government arrogates itself ever more power, and people just shrug, or even cheer if their side is in charge when it happens.
Well, I supposed this is what's meant by "you get the government you deserve".
Bankruptcy isn't a free-for-all, though. Judges (at least in the US) don't usually look kindly on blatant and obvious attempts to shirk debt. I suspect the publisher is on its last legs, though (most magazines are these days). If that's the case, this may not be some slimy legal hack, but genuinely the only way for a portion of the published magazines to keep going. It's still a bit odd, though, as "accounts payable" are quite high on the totem pole in bankruptcy proceedings (I forget whether AP or salary due is at the top, but both come before any interest by owners or investors).
Re: They're infringing my Second-Amendment drone r
on
That Toy Is Now a Drone
·
· Score: 5, Informative
In coding terms, the militia part is a comment, the right part is code. The militia part isn't part of the operative law of the constitution; never was. It clarifies intent, however.
But viewed in the context of the time, with a bunch of ordinary people with weaponry in their private possession (including military-grade stuff) just having used that to overthrow an oppressive government, it's quite clear the intent there was "a check on government overreach". Even through the 19th century, it was common for 1%ers to buy cannon, Gatling guns and other clearly military hardware, and bring it along to war, or donate it to the town for local defense. Due to some remarkably stupid procurement decisions by the US military, we would likely have been soundly defeated in the Spanish-American War had it not been for rich guys bringing along artillery they bought themselves (and Roosevelt basically inventing the modern "base of fire" infantry tactic with those Gatling guns.)
It's only been in the past century that we've had this notion that the right to keep and bear arms had secret limitations written in invisible ink.
Not to employment at Google, is the thing. I happen to know someone who declared himself herself, then started working at Google a couple months later (sincerely I think, but the timing makes you wonder).
Whites are certainly a minority in the worldwide talent pool of programmers. Especially Americans, who were anti-geek for far too long, culturally. I'd like the field to be a meritocracy - makes for better coworkers. But if Google wants to pay for training for a select group they favor, hey, it's their money, and their right to do so.
I think Google is trying to balance their demographics without lowering their hiring bar for women - and if so, that's great. Lowering barriers - good stuff. But if it turns out some groups simply aren't proportionally interested? Other fields need people too.
It's worth noting that the EPA also has a recent history of remarkably convenient hard drive crashes affecting an ongoing investigation.
Sarbanes-Oxley made it very clear that this shit doesn't fly for companies. You produce the records, or you get serious legal punishment (one of the few corporate cries that can land the CEO in jail, in extreme cases). No excuses accepted.
Why doesn't the government impose the same standard on itself? Yes, that was a rhetorical question.
Oh, the guidance is clear: don't trust the SCOTUS to have your back regardless of the written law; instead bribe your lawmakers early and often to establish clear legal allowance for what you're doing.
The Constitution is the primary law for the rule of law in the US. When the SCOTUS rules based on some desired social outcome or any other extra-constitutional principle (they're clever guys, they can always invent a line of reasoning), they subvert and ultimately destroy the rule of law. When they rule based on a close interpretation of the Constitution, followed by the text of the laws in question, they bolster the rule of law.
The DoJ thumbed it's nose at the federal courts a couple of years ago; I forget the issue. Federal judges in unrelated cases across the country began assigning homework to the random DoJ people trying to move stuff forward in court: "write a 4 page paper on why the DoJ is wrong on this issue as part of your next submission to this court". Classy.
Thumbing one's nose at federal judges does not end well. It's one thing if it's a politically contentious issue that the judges themselves are divided on, but this is not such a case. If the community of federal judges feels slighted in their authority by some part of the administration, they can get very creative in making their displeasure known.
More likely this will just go through the normal appeals process, and nothing will change until the SCOTUS eventually gets to the case.
An easier example of this: light moves much slower than c in glass, or in water. The open question is: does light move non-trivially slower than c in the vacuum of space (which is not an idealized vacuum).
As you say, the remote programs are there (experimentally anyhow), even if not tied to the proper degree programs yet. But that's fine - it means a likely outcome of the tuition bubble collapse is that these programs take the load, that once state colleges stop believing they can charge $100k for a degree, the "remote degree" will be mainstreamed. (Obviously, as long as they're still getting that $100K, nothing will change, but the fuse is lit on that whole scam.)
I would love an Android-sans-Google phone, if only I could have any confidence of one working with my carrier. Well, maybe my best bet is to go with Cyanogen or some other mod upfront on my next phone - just pay the effort to get it working before actually switching to it.
Why keep Google happy? I'd rather keep my correspondence (somewhat) private. Just try to find an app these days that doesn't want permissions to access everything on your phone! Since I'm not installing any apps except the basics these days, I don't much care about the app store, I just want to be Google-free.
Meh, I have a nice white-collar career with no degree, as do most of my friends (admittedly, there's selection bias at work in that sample!). It matters a lot in getting your first real job, but beyond that most places don't care. Fortunately, the "remote classroom" is happening; slowly, but it's coming. Many colleges are experimenting already with different ideas, even before the tuition bubble pops.
College is sold to children in High School, but really most Americans are still children throughout College. Childhood lasts until you take responsibility for your life, which is something we actively discourage in todays culture (and for the life of me I can't think why - do parents really enjoy coddling their teens than much?).
"Greed" does not have the narrow technical definition you seem to assert. The word is somewhat broad in its meaning. To some people it means simply "self-interest", and such people wonder at the nonsense hippies spout when objecting to greed. To others is means specifically self-interest to the harm of others, and they wonder how anyone sane can defend greed. But there's no real argument there, beyond the definition of a word.
"Psychopathic", however, really doesn't mean what you ant it to mean. It is a technical term, and it has a technical meaning something like "having persistent beliefs contrary to fact that interfere with daily life", and nothing (necessarily) to do with harming others. I think the word you want is "evil". Funny how people don't like to use that word.
When parents the "the new Common Core lessons" and they're total garbage, can you blame people for blaming Common Core? Sure, the idea of standards and the specific lesson plans are separable, but you know it's not the standards part people are upset with. When people attack "Common Core", it's the wretched new content that they're attacking. And they're right - it's remarkably bad.
"Greed" is too broad of a word. You make it sound like it's some demon manipulating man against his nature, and requiring only a plucky hero to slay. Complaining about "greed" is a shallow platitude.
There's nothing wrong with self interest per se; it's the source of most of the progress of humanity from the dawn of reason onwards. The problem is short-sightedness. Stupidly chasing short-term reward and hurting oneself long term, in predictable and obvious ways, as a result. The problem is irresponsibility, not greed. The more each of us act as if our actions have consequences, and realize that it's each of our duty to try, as best we can, to predict the outcomes of our choices in life, and act smartly in our long-term self interest, the better everyone in society will be. "Greed" is a distraction from the real problem.
We magnify the problem every time we remove negative consequences from bad choices. We make it worse with every social acceptance of choices where the upside goes to the individual, but the downside goes to society; to risks where if one loses, it's society and not one's own resources that will cushion the blow.
When the unexpectedly great happens, be charitable, it's only right. When the unexpectedly tragic happens it's on you to be ready for it. But instead we have a society very opposed to these basic pillars of ongoing civilization.
By definition, leading to a job is not the point. For students it may be the point, but for everyone else it is not.
Students are the point of the university system. "Everyone else" are just the employees hired to provide that service. Of course, it's not just what the students want, as they're not likely to have a mature grasp of life yet, it's also about how each of us benefits from educating the young. But by either measure, teaching something useful is the whole point.
And by far the most useful thing for a young adult is the ability to provide a living for himself. Other things are also important, but secondary to that overriding goal.
In the environment I'm currently in, nothing gets checked in without unit tests. Doesn't matter who wrote it. And you bet they're run on every build, or what's the point? But we don't like to half-ass software development - easier (and cheaper!) in the long run to have quality.
In the "dot com" bubble, many geeks got rich. I've worked with a couple guys over the years who made a million or two in that one. Quite a few math Phds got nice 6-figure jobs for a few years during the finance bubble - nice while it lasted.
The tuition bubble is far more evil. Students are walking away with ~100k in debt, and no better employment prospects* than they had before. Faculty are getting poorer. It's not like the janitorial staff are getting rich here. It's a bubble based on deceiving children that benefits no workers, only the top of the pile: the most evil bubble in my lifetime.
*Yeah, sure, a college education can have other benefits besides future salary prospects but that's not how it's sold to high-schoolers and parents! The sales pitch is outright fraud.
And nobody is going to bother running the unit tests
Wow, the spirit of the 1980s is alive and well I see. No code reviews either, I bet. It compiles, ship it!
But for overflow checking, like memory leaks, there are good tools for most environments, as well as static analysis tools that can warn you of likely-problematic nonstandard code. The tests in TFA seem oddly-intentioned.
If you're worried about someone diddling the stack, put sentinels on both ends of every important object and check them on every important function call. We did that when I did appliance development: the first time in every function that time you dereference a pointer to an interesting object, you check a marker at the end (one that's cleared on free, so you catch freed objects) and generation number at the front (to ensure the object wasn't freed and re-used, becoming a different instance than the caller thinks it is). While that helped with security, it helped immensely with debugging. Those object lifetime bugs where an object gets improperly freed, but the memory is re-used for the same class of object (as is normal with slab allocation) are just too insidious without such checks.
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly new, having come to national attention during the 2004 Democratic (of course) primary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Process matters. There's a legitimate process for changing the Constitution as the world around us changes. I'm all for outlawing nuclear weapons in private hands, but the way do limit the second amendment is not by justices just deciding one day it means something different!
But of course, no one cares these days. You can't go to court or fly without a clearly unconstitutional search by government employees, and the NSA collects our private correspondence wholesale. The Fifth Amendment gets whittled away at the edges, and the First limited to Free Speech Zones. The federal government arrogates itself ever more power, and people just shrug, or even cheer if their side is in charge when it happens.
Well, I supposed this is what's meant by "you get the government you deserve".
Bankruptcy isn't a free-for-all, though. Judges (at least in the US) don't usually look kindly on blatant and obvious attempts to shirk debt. I suspect the publisher is on its last legs, though (most magazines are these days). If that's the case, this may not be some slimy legal hack, but genuinely the only way for a portion of the published magazines to keep going. It's still a bit odd, though, as "accounts payable" are quite high on the totem pole in bankruptcy proceedings (I forget whether AP or salary due is at the top, but both come before any interest by owners or investors).
In coding terms, the militia part is a comment, the right part is code. The militia part isn't part of the operative law of the constitution; never was. It clarifies intent, however.
But viewed in the context of the time, with a bunch of ordinary people with weaponry in their private possession (including military-grade stuff) just having used that to overthrow an oppressive government, it's quite clear the intent there was "a check on government overreach". Even through the 19th century, it was common for 1%ers to buy cannon, Gatling guns and other clearly military hardware, and bring it along to war, or donate it to the town for local defense. Due to some remarkably stupid procurement decisions by the US military, we would likely have been soundly defeated in the Spanish-American War had it not been for rich guys bringing along artillery they bought themselves (and Roosevelt basically inventing the modern "base of fire" infantry tactic with those Gatling guns.)
It's only been in the past century that we've had this notion that the right to keep and bear arms had secret limitations written in invisible ink.
Not to employment at Google, is the thing. I happen to know someone who declared himself herself, then started working at Google a couple months later (sincerely I think, but the timing makes you wonder).
Whites are certainly a minority in the worldwide talent pool of programmers. Especially Americans, who were anti-geek for far too long, culturally. I'd like the field to be a meritocracy - makes for better coworkers. But if Google wants to pay for training for a select group they favor, hey, it's their money, and their right to do so.
I think Google is trying to balance their demographics without lowering their hiring bar for women - and if so, that's great. Lowering barriers - good stuff. But if it turns out some groups simply aren't proportionally interested? Other fields need people too.
You don't need surgery to self-identify as female. Just a note from a psychologist that you're totally srs.
It's worth noting that the EPA also has a recent history of remarkably convenient hard drive crashes affecting an ongoing investigation.
Sarbanes-Oxley made it very clear that this shit doesn't fly for companies. You produce the records, or you get serious legal punishment (one of the few corporate cries that can land the CEO in jail, in extreme cases). No excuses accepted.
Why doesn't the government impose the same standard on itself? Yes, that was a rhetorical question.
Oh, the guidance is clear: don't trust the SCOTUS to have your back regardless of the written law; instead bribe your lawmakers early and often to establish clear legal allowance for what you're doing.
The Constitution is the primary law for the rule of law in the US. When the SCOTUS rules based on some desired social outcome or any other extra-constitutional principle (they're clever guys, they can always invent a line of reasoning), they subvert and ultimately destroy the rule of law. When they rule based on a close interpretation of the Constitution, followed by the text of the laws in question, they bolster the rule of law.
The DoJ thumbed it's nose at the federal courts a couple of years ago; I forget the issue. Federal judges in unrelated cases across the country began assigning homework to the random DoJ people trying to move stuff forward in court: "write a 4 page paper on why the DoJ is wrong on this issue as part of your next submission to this court". Classy.
Thumbing one's nose at federal judges does not end well. It's one thing if it's a politically contentious issue that the judges themselves are divided on, but this is not such a case. If the community of federal judges feels slighted in their authority by some part of the administration, they can get very creative in making their displeasure known.
More likely this will just go through the normal appeals process, and nothing will change until the SCOTUS eventually gets to the case.
An easier example of this: light moves much slower than c in glass, or in water. The open question is: does light move non-trivially slower than c in the vacuum of space (which is not an idealized vacuum).
As you say, the remote programs are there (experimentally anyhow), even if not tied to the proper degree programs yet. But that's fine - it means a likely outcome of the tuition bubble collapse is that these programs take the load, that once state colleges stop believing they can charge $100k for a degree, the "remote degree" will be mainstreamed. (Obviously, as long as they're still getting that $100K, nothing will change, but the fuse is lit on that whole scam.)
I would love an Android-sans-Google phone, if only I could have any confidence of one working with my carrier. Well, maybe my best bet is to go with Cyanogen or some other mod upfront on my next phone - just pay the effort to get it working before actually switching to it.
Why keep Google happy? I'd rather keep my correspondence (somewhat) private. Just try to find an app these days that doesn't want permissions to access everything on your phone! Since I'm not installing any apps except the basics these days, I don't much care about the app store, I just want to be Google-free.
Meh, I have a nice white-collar career with no degree, as do most of my friends (admittedly, there's selection bias at work in that sample!). It matters a lot in getting your first real job, but beyond that most places don't care. Fortunately, the "remote classroom" is happening; slowly, but it's coming. Many colleges are experimenting already with different ideas, even before the tuition bubble pops.
College is sold to children in High School, but really most Americans are still children throughout College. Childhood lasts until you take responsibility for your life, which is something we actively discourage in todays culture (and for the life of me I can't think why - do parents really enjoy coddling their teens than much?).
"Greed" does not have the narrow technical definition you seem to assert. The word is somewhat broad in its meaning. To some people it means simply "self-interest", and such people wonder at the nonsense hippies spout when objecting to greed. To others is means specifically self-interest to the harm of others, and they wonder how anyone sane can defend greed. But there's no real argument there, beyond the definition of a word.
"Psychopathic", however, really doesn't mean what you ant it to mean. It is a technical term, and it has a technical meaning something like "having persistent beliefs contrary to fact that interfere with daily life", and nothing (necessarily) to do with harming others. I think the word you want is "evil". Funny how people don't like to use that word.
When parents the "the new Common Core lessons" and they're total garbage, can you blame people for blaming Common Core? Sure, the idea of standards and the specific lesson plans are separable, but you know it's not the standards part people are upset with. When people attack "Common Core", it's the wretched new content that they're attacking. And they're right - it's remarkably bad.
"Greed" is too broad of a word. You make it sound like it's some demon manipulating man against his nature, and requiring only a plucky hero to slay. Complaining about "greed" is a shallow platitude.
There's nothing wrong with self interest per se; it's the source of most of the progress of humanity from the dawn of reason onwards. The problem is short-sightedness. Stupidly chasing short-term reward and hurting oneself long term, in predictable and obvious ways, as a result. The problem is irresponsibility, not greed. The more each of us act as if our actions have consequences, and realize that it's each of our duty to try, as best we can, to predict the outcomes of our choices in life, and act smartly in our long-term self interest, the better everyone in society will be. "Greed" is a distraction from the real problem.
We magnify the problem every time we remove negative consequences from bad choices. We make it worse with every social acceptance of choices where the upside goes to the individual, but the downside goes to society; to risks where if one loses, it's society and not one's own resources that will cushion the blow.
When the unexpectedly great happens, be charitable, it's only right. When the unexpectedly tragic happens it's on you to be ready for it. But instead we have a society very opposed to these basic pillars of ongoing civilization.
By definition, leading to a job is not the point. For students it may be the point, but for everyone else it is not.
Students are the point of the university system. "Everyone else" are just the employees hired to provide that service. Of course, it's not just what the students want, as they're not likely to have a mature grasp of life yet, it's also about how each of us benefits from educating the young. But by either measure, teaching something useful is the whole point.
And by far the most useful thing for a young adult is the ability to provide a living for himself. Other things are also important, but secondary to that overriding goal.
In the environment I'm currently in, nothing gets checked in without unit tests. Doesn't matter who wrote it. And you bet they're run on every build, or what's the point? But we don't like to half-ass software development - easier (and cheaper!) in the long run to have quality.
In the "dot com" bubble, many geeks got rich. I've worked with a couple guys over the years who made a million or two in that one. Quite a few math Phds got nice 6-figure jobs for a few years during the finance bubble - nice while it lasted.
The tuition bubble is far more evil. Students are walking away with ~100k in debt, and no better employment prospects* than they had before. Faculty are getting poorer. It's not like the janitorial staff are getting rich here. It's a bubble based on deceiving children that benefits no workers, only the top of the pile: the most evil bubble in my lifetime.
*Yeah, sure, a college education can have other benefits besides future salary prospects but that's not how it's sold to high-schoolers and parents! The sales pitch is outright fraud.
And nobody is going to bother running the unit tests
Wow, the spirit of the 1980s is alive and well I see. No code reviews either, I bet. It compiles, ship it!
But for overflow checking, like memory leaks, there are good tools for most environments, as well as static analysis tools that can warn you of likely-problematic nonstandard code. The tests in TFA seem oddly-intentioned.
If you're worried about someone diddling the stack, put sentinels on both ends of every important object and check them on every important function call. We did that when I did appliance development: the first time in every function that time you dereference a pointer to an interesting object, you check a marker at the end (one that's cleared on free, so you catch freed objects) and generation number at the front (to ensure the object wasn't freed and re-used, becoming a different instance than the caller thinks it is). While that helped with security, it helped immensely with debugging. Those object lifetime bugs where an object gets improperly freed, but the memory is re-used for the same class of object (as is normal with slab allocation) are just too insidious without such checks.