You are restricting everything to the rather black-and-white constraints of the human imagination. Of course, I guess we can't expect much more, from a human.
Science is based in a belief that scepticism will reveal fallacy, but that is an assumption that may be fallacious, in itself. The limits of human perception constrain all our knowledge and we would do well to remember that. Barring, of course, those of us with an intuitive feel for quantum mechanics.
Agile, like many new ideas, has a tendency to overreach. The exasperated users are the same ones who dread system updates. They see any technological change or inconvenience as the result of a vast technocratic conspiracy. These people are the ones who want it "to just work" and have little patience for the tedious process of taking matters to that point. These complaints stem from taking this group outside its narrow comfort zone.
On the other hand, there are end users, usually termed "power users", who love their engagement with technology and its processes. It is these people who should be part of the ongoing development process. The larger mass of users should be consulted and upgraded, but infrequently. Of course, this requires you not break backward compatibility with each new release. You know who you are.
They are about exclusivity. The patent holder only needs to convince doctors to prescribe the medication to have guaranteed profitability. I suspect more is spent on marketing to said physicians than is spent on clinical trials, by a pretty wide margin.
Just install Linux and run your Windows programs under Wine for the ultimate experience that will turn MS users green with envy, while you keep your green in your wallet.
Monsanto should simply be held fully responsible for any negative financial impact this might have on the American wheat industry. They, of course, should be able to pursue the recovery of funds from any negligent license holders, but the ultimate responsibility is theirs.
To some degree, agile is sold as, "Implement this and you'll never have to really manage a software project again." Just follow the steps, we are told, and everything will just work itself out. When agile fails, we're told it is because the steps weren't properly implemented. Everything is put on the method and very little demanded of the ones in charge. That's a really prescription to fail; accountability is the first requirement for success.
In theory, since a movie is just a series of still frames, the same techniques could be used to modify individual frames as are used to "photoshop" a still image, (albeit, tediously). You might find the tools and tutorials at this site of some help in analyzing individual frames: http://fotoforensics.com/
Since radioactive materials have been actively released into the environment for well over half-a-century, current background levels may not be a good measure of the actual, natural background levels.
With this logic applied, beleaguered industries worldwide can gain instant relief! Just think, of it. For an example, when you fill the tank or change the oil of your car, you'll owe the manufacturer for your *new* vehicle!
Remind me again how Circuit Court judges are selected.
It was largely a cottage industry in the nation which instituted the Second Amendment, and evidence would suggest the founders of that nation were not overly concerned with governing the affairs of Europe. That had to wait until the Marshall Plan.
Upon reflection, I see where you have misinterpreted the tenor of my "plinking cans" comment. Plinking cans, or match shooting for another example, are commonly regarded as recreational pastimes not necessarily pursuant to the use of the firearm in other applications. It was in that capacity that I intended it, not as a general reference to target practice, as you appear to have taken it.
The first point was that the initial adoption of pistols was primarily by outlaws, while the cavalry examples you cite were later developments.
The rifle was, for example, developed for the hunting of game. It's use in a military capacity had to wait until the advent of the American Revolution.
So your defense is that any target practice validates a weapon as not intended to kill humans? If then, we use Sarin to kill some gophers, is it henceforth alright to use it on people?
The cavalry you mention were primarily marauders and highwaymen which can only loosely be called cavalry. Regardless, the purpose of the arm was the destruction of human life. You may wish to note that plinking cans developed somewhat later.
I apologize for my error in specifying the First Amendment; I meant to say Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Side arms are not generally considered pivotal to the maintenance of a militia, the stated focus of the amendment's intent. Pistols were first developed in in 16th Century France, their primary use was by highwaymen.
Perhaps it's worth noting that, when the Second Amendment was instituted, gunsmithing and the manufacture of firearms was a cottage industry. On the flip side, it's probably fair to say the founders were most interested in the protection of long arms, not handguns. The pistol was developed for the sole purpose of the destruction of human life; not so with long arms, though initial development mainly concentrated on that purpose. .
Slashdot Mirror
... is self-destruction. Microsoft, Erdogan, Mursi -- delusions of grandeur have a remarkably similar outcome across all "platforms".
... these companies were founded on an initial innovation, but bought, borrowed or stole most of their innovation hence.
First, learn. Learn anything you can. History, languages, geography, philosophy, any and all of it will enrich your life and expand your mind.
Second and perhaps even more importantly, get outdoors, in nature and remember what it is to be a human on planet earth.
You are restricting everything to the rather black-and-white constraints of the human imagination. Of course, I guess we can't expect much more, from a human.
Science is based in a belief that scepticism will reveal fallacy, but that is an assumption that may be fallacious, in itself. The limits of human perception constrain all our knowledge and we would do well to remember that. Barring, of course, those of us with an intuitive feel for quantum mechanics.
Agile, like many new ideas, has a tendency to overreach. The exasperated users are the same ones who dread system updates. They see any technological change or inconvenience as the result of a vast technocratic conspiracy. These people are the ones who want it "to just work" and have little patience for the tedious process of taking matters to that point. These complaints stem from taking this group outside its narrow comfort zone.
On the other hand, there are end users, usually termed "power users", who love their engagement with technology and its processes. It is these people who should be part of the ongoing development process. The larger mass of users should be consulted and upgraded, but infrequently. Of course, this requires you not break backward compatibility with each new release. You know who you are.
They are about exclusivity. The patent holder only needs to convince doctors to prescribe the medication to have guaranteed profitability. I suspect more is spent on marketing to said physicians than is spent on clinical trials, by a pretty wide margin.
I guess that would be a Bill-ious yellow.
Just install Linux and run your Windows programs under Wine for the ultimate experience that will turn MS users green with envy, while you keep your green in your wallet.
Only then will the world be safe for despots, (and forget that etymology nonsense, as well.)
... of my recently granted patent on adenosine triphosphate. All your life are belong to me!
Monsanto should simply be held fully responsible for any negative financial impact this might have on the American wheat industry. They, of course, should be able to pursue the recovery of funds from any negligent license holders, but the ultimate responsibility is theirs.
To some degree, agile is sold as, "Implement this and you'll never have to really manage a software project again." Just follow the steps, we are told, and everything will just work itself out. When agile fails, we're told it is because the steps weren't properly implemented. Everything is put on the method and very little demanded of the ones in charge. That's a really prescription to fail; accountability is the first requirement for success.
In theory, since a movie is just a series of still frames, the same techniques could be used to modify individual frames as are used to "photoshop" a still image, (albeit, tediously). You might find the tools and tutorials at this site of some help in analyzing individual frames: http://fotoforensics.com/
You might also find some of the information at the associated Hacker Factor blog of use: http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/categories/17-FotoForensics
Since radioactive materials have been actively released into the environment for well over half-a-century, current background levels may not be a good measure of the actual, natural background levels.
With this logic applied, beleaguered industries worldwide can gain instant relief! Just think, of it. For an example, when you fill the tank or change the oil of your car, you'll owe the manufacturer for your *new* vehicle!
Remind me again how Circuit Court judges are selected.
... using "The Manchurian Candidate" as the trigger. Preferably, the 1962 version of the film.
It was largely a cottage industry in the nation which instituted the Second Amendment, and evidence would suggest the founders of that nation were not overly concerned with governing the affairs of Europe. That had to wait until the Marshall Plan.
Upon reflection, I see where you have misinterpreted the tenor of my "plinking cans" comment. Plinking cans, or match shooting for another example, are commonly regarded as recreational pastimes not necessarily pursuant to the use of the firearm in other applications. It was in that capacity that I intended it, not as a general reference to target practice, as you appear to have taken it.
The first point was that the initial adoption of pistols was primarily by outlaws, while the cavalry examples you cite were later developments.
The rifle was, for example, developed for the hunting of game. It's use in a military capacity had to wait until the advent of the American Revolution.
So your defense is that any target practice validates a weapon as not intended to kill humans? If then, we use Sarin to kill some gophers, is it henceforth alright to use it on people?
The cavalry you mention were primarily marauders and highwaymen which can only loosely be called cavalry. Regardless, the purpose of the arm was the destruction of human life. You may wish to note that plinking cans developed somewhat later.
I apologize for my error in specifying the First Amendment; I meant to say Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Side arms are not generally considered pivotal to the maintenance of a militia, the stated focus of the amendment's intent. Pistols were first developed in in 16th Century France, their primary use was by highwaymen.
Perhaps it's worth noting that, when the Second Amendment was instituted, gunsmithing and the manufacture of firearms was a cottage industry. On the flip side, it's probably fair to say the founders were most interested in the protection of long arms, not handguns. The pistol was developed for the sole purpose of the destruction of human life; not so with long arms, though initial development mainly concentrated on that purpose. .
Cyborgs.
Do you imagine the pun was intentional?