Maybe you could create one to game the system the other way around. I just wonder what you'd have to post - probably something like "I just had to pay the interest on my credit card fifth time in a row. Damn, why am I always one day late!". Instant credit score!
but then if you've never had a car loan, a credit card, or any kind of debt, even if it's because you're financially well off, it's still probably a bad idea to hand you a 300k mortgage.
I still don't quite see the connection. How is the situation above any different from a person who kept paying off 2 digit monthly ballances off of a credit card for the last two years? Why should you trust that one with 300k? look at it the other way around - what are the most common traits for people who declared bankrupcy? Large outstanding debts, little savings, no safety nets (i.e. disability insurance or other applicable insurances), unstable income etc.
These are BTW things that European banks look into before providing a mortgage and the personal mortgage market has been fine in EU for the most part (countries like Spain mostly had problems with large construction projects failing).
Gene Roddenberry had nothing to do woth DS9 - not even in the first seasons. I think the creators were just still searching for the right tone and themes for the show for the first one and half seasons. The problem was I think that the characters were not fleshed out yet. For instance, the ferengi merchant was pretty much just a caricature at first but later they added some deeper qualities to him. Similarly, the main villain, who was played wonderfully Louise Fletcher (a.k.a. nurse Ratchet from One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest) was just too despicable with no redeeming qualities. You can empathize with the later villains much better.
Generally they added more memorable recurring characters and that gave them much more room for good stories. And maybe it's not just that they had to learn how to do that, you have to give a large cast some time to flourish. All in all the quality was already pretty good at the end of Season 2 with some great episodes like The Maquis 1&2, The Jem Haddar or The Wire.
After WWII the West and the Soviets split Germany. East Germany has socialism, where everyone's needs were provided for. West Germany had a capitalist system, where people got what they worked for. Well it didn't take long for people working in the East to figure out that they could do much better in the West, so they left.
It was not socialism that created the gap but rather the planned economy system that would be very inefficient on its own but it also (expectedly) came with massive corruption. Nobody is proposing Finland goes off capitalism.
Here in Canada we already enjoy a brain drain of our medical professionals. Why stay in Canada with lower incomes and higher taxes, when you can jump across the boarder and make out so much better. And I predict that Finland will see the same thing. Many Fins already speak Swedish and English so the barrier to exit is low. If you are a high paid professional why lose a huge chunk of your income to those who don't work when you can leave via the Schengen agreement.
But don't take my word for it, or the media's word for it, sit down and do the math yourself. Basic income that provides any meaningful level of income is crazy expensive, well beyond what a few cuts here and there is going to cover.
There are tangible things you get for your taxes in your country. You can make a lot of money in the US - for as long as you (or your family members) don't get seriously sick or you try to fund your kid's college. It's a high risk - high reward kind of situation and a lot of people don't like it. I live in Germany now and I pay almost half of my income in taxes (though some of them are called "insurance" they are still taxes. It's a lot but I'm still fine with it because I get a lot in return - not having to worry about much
If you think that Win7 on up doesn't suffer from the same issues
I am very positive that Win7 does not have the same issues as WinXP. It's got different ones. Even the one that you describe does not technically exist in WinXP because it does not even have an elevation of privileges mechanism - the privileges are simply all granted at the start.
I'd like some of what you're smoking
I do not smoke, but I do enjoy a glass of wine from time to time - I'd recommend an aromatic white from New Zealand - and stay away from the Malborough ones, they are hopelessly overpriced. Try something from Gisbourne or Napier...
I don't see how IT is any different from other proffessions - technology brings change everywhere. Doctors have to keep up with the latest medicine tech and procedures, lawyers have to keep up with changes both in case laws and black letter laws - same goes for people like accountants or anybody in a regulated industry. Even assembly line workers have to keep learning new stuff - the ones that wouldn't need to have already been replaced by robots.
For Microsoft OSes, I was fine with XP. I didn't care for some of the UI changes that were done following Windows 2000, but it seemed quite stable.
You might be fine with win xp on at home (although you shouldn't) but it should have no place in proffessional environment. Windows 7 fixed some gaping security issues with XP. Here are some examples:
- in XP If something is started by a user with administrator rights, it automatically runs in administrator context, Win 7 has a much better structured User Access Control (though still not as good as even 80's era Unix)
- in XP the memory space for programs is alloted in sequential address spaces, which greatly helps when cracking a program, in Win 7 memory is alloted in random spaces
- win 7 fixes the Structured Exception Handler exploit of XP
- win 7 has integrated hdd encryption
- win 7 includes moder crypto tools (though even those should be replaced with stronger ones soon)
Running your stuff on Win XP is just not feasible - not because of the superficial UI differences, but the deeply engrained unsecure mechanisms it employs.
You can get from novice to a full fledged programmer in a couple of weeks. Back when I started college, I felt that I was a dismal programmer and my teacher suggested I should look at the (now legendary) book "Thinking in C++ "by Bruce Eckel (he was the one that inspired a lot of "Thinking in" copy-cats). So I did - I went through all the content and did all the exercises suggested. It took a couple of weeks of long hours since it's like 1000 pages long, but at the end I felt I understood programming to an acceptable degree.
The 20 years that followed just validated my experience - while I had to learn some specific areas of computing for specific projects, like WinSock (hey, it was the 90's), or parallel programming (which admittedly took another similar learning session), I was always head and shoulders above the average corporate developer.
I've also seen a lot of other people do it in a similar way - a relatively shor burst (like up to two months) of concentrated learning and self-training. On the other hand I've never seen a shitty programmer become a good programmer slowly over the course of 4 years. That just does not happen - either you put the effor in and become better rapidly, or you half-ass it and learn very little.
The problem with the coding academies is that they have low standards and they don't push people. A lot of folks don't have the patience necessary and should be failing these courses, but they are handed the certificate anyway. That's just the way it is with diploma mills.
But most importantly, no one can demonstrate how it is wrong.
You may end up "cleaning up" something that's not there and crashing. While it's hard to see how that would be a problem in a simple function that you've written yourself, it becomes a problem with time - after it's grown to a couple hundred lines, modified by 10 people in the span of 6 years. The failure scenario might be relatively rare and not detected during testing.
Is there a routine that can be reused in other parts of your code?
Are there complex/critical parts that should be (unit) tested separately?
If the answer to any of those questions is yes, split the method. In my experience, most of the time when I see a very long method, it fails the second question - testability. I can't really remember an example of a very long method that would just contain simple straightforward stuff.
I would even go one step further - just like most people don't know how fuel injection works, programmers don't necessarily know how processors work. Programming is just usage of the computer and it would be helpful to a lot of people. Anyone who ever needs to work with long lists of things whether it's data in spreadsheets or in databases or long lists of files could benefit from knowing how to write even some simple scripts. Nowdays that's pretty much everyone with a desk job. It's the difference of knowing how to drive and using a driver anytime you need to go somewhere.
I mean even just in terms of pragmatic emotionless corporation logic.
They introduced a series of cars that were WAY ahead of anything the competition could produce in terms of price/power/efficiency and seriously did not expect that somebody would want to analyze that magical engine to see how it works? (and find out it's cheating and drop the bomb in a couple of years to maximize the damage). Even if none of the competitors have anything to do with the reveal (which I find unlikely), that should have been the first thing VW execs should have expected!
I sympathize with your sentiment about human to human interaction, but it misses the point. If you've been doxxed it means people are trying to hurt you. The more details they have on you, the more they can hurt you. You can get death threats including things like getting a grenade mailed to you. You can get trouble with the police - like getting swatted or accused of sexual offences etc. People can call your employer/bank/spouse to bad mouth you or call your utility provider to have them disconnect you (cause you are leaving the country for 6 months etc.).
There are a lot of ways you can fuck somebody's life up just with the real life information you have on them. I'm happy for you that you don't have these kind problems and hope you never will, but don't assume nothing bad can happen just because it never happened to you.
The strongest lasers at the moment are approaching 10^18 Watt - but concentrated in one direction, I assume this would be distinctly detectable at a distance of 50 light years by our current technology (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). But this means a civilization would have to specifically aim a massive communication device at us. You cannot expect radiation of this scale as a waste product of omnidirectional broadcasting system.
I remember reading that digital communication is virtually undetectable at galactic distances
I think it we should not expect to detect it even on interstellar distances.
Take for instance the 51 Pegasi - it's the nearest Sun-like star you can see from the northern hemisphere. It's some 50 light years away and you can barely see it with a naked eye (you'll have to go outside of a populated area in order to see it due to light pollution). That dim spot of light is what is left of the 4*10^26 Watts of power that was generated by that star. The problem is that even atomic bombs pale in comparison to that output - even if there was a civilisation on Pegasi 51 communicating using Fat Man bombs, we would be lucky to detect single fotons out of each pulse...
Sony devices that are tested for their waterproof abilities are placed gently inside a container filled with tap water and lowered to a depth of 1.5 metres.After 30 minutes in the container, the device is gently taken out and its functions and features are tested.
But nuts and beans don't contain complete protein. You REALLY need to know what you are doing if you want to achieve a healthy fruitarian diet and include supplements. And there are those who have no clue.
Vegan diets are ALL ABOUT low protein, low fat, high carb.
I think you are confusing vegans with frutarians, who are just a small subset of vegans. Vegan diet can range from "mostly protein" (vegan athletes) to "just carbs until my children die horribly" extreme frutarians.
I've never worked for a company that had a significant manufacturing component, but I kind of wonder how the blue/white collar split works there for the people who setup, maintain and manage seriously complicated factory systems.
Manufacturing does not have many traditional blue collar workers anymore. Nowdays manufacturing means one of two things - either you are controlling automated systems that are assembling mass produced products (like cars or toasters) or you are assembling really complicated and expensive pieces of technology by hand (like MR scanners). Both of those require high amount of expertise and are well payed.
The few simple manial jobs that are left are disappearing - if your work does not require empathy, creativity or good analytical thinking, you will be replaced by a machine sooner or later
That still remains to be seen. Of course, it cannot turn as well as the best fighters and it can't truck as much tonnage as the best bombers - but that much was clear from the get go. The big selling point of the F-35 is that it can see and destroy the enemy/target before the enemy can see it. If that really turns out to be the case then it will outperform all of the other aircraft. Even the A-10.
The reason A-10 is built so robustly is that it needs to be really close to its targets for direct visual identification. The JSF people say the F-35 does not need to be in visual range as it can detect even well concealed targets electronically and destroy them from far away. It will not be exposed to small arms fire and it will not need to loiter too much (the enemy will not see it whether it's there or not).
Well, that's the theory at least. Remains to be seen whether it will stand the test of real deployment. Until then it's too soon to declare it inferior.
The astronomical cost of the F-35 means that 1) we won't make that many of them and 2) we won't deploy that many of them.
Depends on how you are calculating the costs. If you consider just the production costs, it's not that expensive. If you take all the development and testing costs from day 1 and divide them by the amount of planes produced, the costs are indeed astronomical - at the moment. The more you produce though, the less expensive each unit becomes. And if it really turns out to be THE multirole fighter for the next 40 years, the costs per piece will be extremely manageable.
The fact that you don't even read what you post here is quite indicative. None of the studies on basal metabolic rate shows anything contrary to my previous statement that any time people in controlled environment reduced their calorie intake, they lost weight or to the general notion that nutrition is governed by laws of thermo dynamics on the macro level.
As I don't expect you to progress beyond ad hominems at this point, I am not going to waste any more time with your posts. But if you want to be taken seriously next time, please learn at least the basics. I highly recommend this series of lectures which are a great introduction in nutrition science for laymen like you.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you could create one to game the system the other way around. I just wonder what you'd have to post - probably something like "I just had to pay the interest on my credit card fifth time in a row. Damn, why am I always one day late!". Instant credit score!
but then if you've never had a car loan, a credit card, or any kind of debt, even if it's because you're financially well off, it's still probably a bad idea to hand you a 300k mortgage.
I still don't quite see the connection. How is the situation above any different from a person who kept paying off 2 digit monthly ballances off of a credit card for the last two years? Why should you trust that one with 300k? look at it the other way around - what are the most common traits for people who declared bankrupcy? Large outstanding debts, little savings, no safety nets (i.e. disability insurance or other applicable insurances), unstable income etc.
These are BTW things that European banks look into before providing a mortgage and the personal mortgage market has been fine in EU for the most part (countries like Spain mostly had problems with large construction projects failing).
Gene Roddenberry had nothing to do woth DS9 - not even in the first seasons. I think the creators were just still searching for the right tone and themes for the show for the first one and half seasons. The problem was I think that the characters were not fleshed out yet. For instance, the ferengi merchant was pretty much just a caricature at first but later they added some deeper qualities to him. Similarly, the main villain, who was played wonderfully Louise Fletcher (a.k.a. nurse Ratchet from One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest) was just too despicable with no redeeming qualities. You can empathize with the later villains much better.
Generally they added more memorable recurring characters and that gave them much more room for good stories. And maybe it's not just that they had to learn how to do that, you have to give a large cast some time to flourish. All in all the quality was already pretty good at the end of Season 2 with some great episodes like The Maquis 1&2, The Jem Haddar or The Wire.
After WWII the West and the Soviets split Germany. East Germany has socialism, where everyone's needs were provided for. West Germany had a capitalist system, where people got what they worked for. Well it didn't take long for people working in the East to figure out that they could do much better in the West, so they left.
It was not socialism that created the gap but rather the planned economy system that would be very inefficient on its own but it also (expectedly) came with massive corruption. Nobody is proposing Finland goes off capitalism.
Here in Canada we already enjoy a brain drain of our medical professionals. Why stay in Canada with lower incomes and higher taxes, when you can jump across the boarder and make out so much better. And I predict that Finland will see the same thing. Many Fins already speak Swedish and English so the barrier to exit is low. If you are a high paid professional why lose a huge chunk of your income to those who don't work when you can leave via the Schengen agreement.
But don't take my word for it, or the media's word for it, sit down and do the math yourself. Basic income that provides any meaningful level of income is crazy expensive, well beyond what a few cuts here and there is going to cover.
People much more suited than you or me did the math and concluded basic income is affordable
There are tangible things you get for your taxes in your country. You can make a lot of money in the US - for as long as you (or your family members) don't get seriously sick or you try to fund your kid's college. It's a high risk - high reward kind of situation and a lot of people don't like it. I live in Germany now and I pay almost half of my income in taxes (though some of them are called "insurance" they are still taxes. It's a lot but I'm still fine with it because I get a lot in return - not having to worry about much
If you think that Win7 on up doesn't suffer from the same issues
I am very positive that Win7 does not have the same issues as WinXP. It's got different ones. Even the one that you describe does not technically exist in WinXP because it does not even have an elevation of privileges mechanism - the privileges are simply all granted at the start.
I'd like some of what you're smoking
I do not smoke, but I do enjoy a glass of wine from time to time - I'd recommend an aromatic white from New Zealand - and stay away from the Malborough ones, they are hopelessly overpriced. Try something from Gisbourne or Napier...
I don't see how IT is any different from other proffessions - technology brings change everywhere. Doctors have to keep up with the latest medicine tech and procedures, lawyers have to keep up with changes both in case laws and black letter laws - same goes for people like accountants or anybody in a regulated industry. Even assembly line workers have to keep learning new stuff - the ones that wouldn't need to have already been replaced by robots.
For Microsoft OSes, I was fine with XP. I didn't care for some of the UI changes that were done following Windows 2000, but it seemed quite stable.
You might be fine with win xp on at home (although you shouldn't) but it should have no place in proffessional environment. Windows 7 fixed some gaping security issues with XP. Here are some examples:
- in XP If something is started by a user with administrator rights, it automatically runs in administrator context, Win 7 has a much better structured User Access Control (though still not as good as even 80's era Unix)
- in XP the memory space for programs is alloted in sequential address spaces, which greatly helps when cracking a program, in Win 7 memory is alloted in random spaces
- win 7 fixes the Structured Exception Handler exploit of XP
- win 7 has integrated hdd encryption - win 7 includes moder crypto tools (though even those should be replaced with stronger ones soon)
Running your stuff on Win XP is just not feasible - not because of the superficial UI differences, but the deeply engrained unsecure mechanisms it employs.
You can get from novice to a full fledged programmer in a couple of weeks. Back when I started college, I felt that I was a dismal programmer and my teacher suggested I should look at the (now legendary) book "Thinking in C++ "by Bruce Eckel (he was the one that inspired a lot of "Thinking in" copy-cats). So I did - I went through all the content and did all the exercises suggested. It took a couple of weeks of long hours since it's like 1000 pages long, but at the end I felt I understood programming to an acceptable degree.
The 20 years that followed just validated my experience - while I had to learn some specific areas of computing for specific projects, like WinSock (hey, it was the 90's), or parallel programming (which admittedly took another similar learning session), I was always head and shoulders above the average corporate developer.
I've also seen a lot of other people do it in a similar way - a relatively shor burst (like up to two months) of concentrated learning and self-training. On the other hand I've never seen a shitty programmer become a good programmer slowly over the course of 4 years. That just does not happen - either you put the effor in and become better rapidly, or you half-ass it and learn very little.
The problem with the coding academies is that they have low standards and they don't push people. A lot of folks don't have the patience necessary and should be failing these courses, but they are handed the certificate anyway. That's just the way it is with diploma mills.
But most importantly, no one can demonstrate how it is wrong.
You may end up "cleaning up" something that's not there and crashing. While it's hard to see how that would be a problem in a simple function that you've written yourself, it becomes a problem with time - after it's grown to a couple hundred lines, modified by 10 people in the span of 6 years. The failure scenario might be relatively rare and not detected during testing.
My rule of thumb for long methods is very simple:
Is there a routine that can be reused in other parts of your code?
Are there complex/critical parts that should be (unit) tested separately?
If the answer to any of those questions is yes, split the method. In my experience, most of the time when I see a very long method, it fails the second question - testability. I can't really remember an example of a very long method that would just contain simple straightforward stuff.
This one got really popular earlier this year!
I would even go one step further - just like most people don't know how fuel injection works, programmers don't necessarily know how processors work. Programming is just usage of the computer and it would be helpful to a lot of people. Anyone who ever needs to work with long lists of things whether it's data in spreadsheets or in databases or long lists of files could benefit from knowing how to write even some simple scripts. Nowdays that's pretty much everyone with a desk job. It's the difference of knowing how to drive and using a driver anytime you need to go somewhere.
Wait, 1.01^121 (every third day) is 3.3 So we are talking about THREE HUNDERT percent a year. Never mind.
Seems like a reasonable target. I bet he learned the lesson from Madoff: "If it sounds too good to be true, you are dealing with an amateur."
I mean even just in terms of pragmatic emotionless corporation logic.
They introduced a series of cars that were WAY ahead of anything the competition could produce in terms of price/power/efficiency and seriously did not expect that somebody would want to analyze that magical engine to see how it works? (and find out it's cheating and drop the bomb in a couple of years to maximize the damage). Even if none of the competitors have anything to do with the reveal (which I find unlikely), that should have been the first thing VW execs should have expected!
I sympathize with your sentiment about human to human interaction, but it misses the point. If you've been doxxed it means people are trying to hurt you. The more details they have on you, the more they can hurt you. You can get death threats including things like getting a grenade mailed to you. You can get trouble with the police - like getting swatted or accused of sexual offences etc. People can call your employer/bank/spouse to bad mouth you or call your utility provider to have them disconnect you (cause you are leaving the country for 6 months etc.).
There are a lot of ways you can fuck somebody's life up just with the real life information you have on them. I'm happy for you that you don't have these kind problems and hope you never will, but don't assume nothing bad can happen just because it never happened to you.
The strongest lasers at the moment are approaching 10^18 Watt - but concentrated in one direction, I assume this would be distinctly detectable at a distance of 50 light years by our current technology (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). But this means a civilization would have to specifically aim a massive communication device at us. You cannot expect radiation of this scale as a waste product of omnidirectional broadcasting system.
I remember reading that digital communication is virtually undetectable at galactic distances
I think it we should not expect to detect it even on interstellar distances.
Take for instance the 51 Pegasi - it's the nearest Sun-like star you can see from the northern hemisphere. It's some 50 light years away and you can barely see it with a naked eye (you'll have to go outside of a populated area in order to see it due to light pollution). That dim spot of light is what is left of the 4*10^26 Watts of power that was generated by that star. The problem is that even atomic bombs pale in comparison to that output - even if there was a civilisation on Pegasi 51 communicating using Fat Man bombs, we would be lucky to detect single fotons out of each pulse...
As long as you drop it "gently"...
From Xperia blog:
Sony devices that are tested for their waterproof abilities are placed gently inside a container filled with tap water and lowered to a depth of 1.5 metres.After 30 minutes in the container, the device is gently taken out and its functions and features are tested.
But nuts and beans don't contain complete protein. You REALLY need to know what you are doing if you want to achieve a healthy fruitarian diet and include supplements. And there are those who have no clue.
Vegan diets are ALL ABOUT low protein, low fat, high carb.
I think you are confusing vegans with frutarians, who are just a small subset of vegans. Vegan diet can range from "mostly protein" (vegan athletes) to "just carbs until my children die horribly" extreme frutarians.
I've never worked for a company that had a significant manufacturing component, but I kind of wonder how the blue/white collar split works there for the people who setup, maintain and manage seriously complicated factory systems.
Manufacturing does not have many traditional blue collar workers anymore. Nowdays manufacturing means one of two things - either you are controlling automated systems that are assembling mass produced products (like cars or toasters) or you are assembling really complicated and expensive pieces of technology by hand (like MR scanners). Both of those require high amount of expertise and are well payed.
The few simple manial jobs that are left are disappearing - if your work does not require empathy, creativity or good analytical thinking, you will be replaced by a machine sooner or later
But it can't do _any_ of the roles well.
That still remains to be seen. Of course, it cannot turn as well as the best fighters and it can't truck as much tonnage as the best bombers - but that much was clear from the get go. The big selling point of the F-35 is that it can see and destroy the enemy/target before the enemy can see it. If that really turns out to be the case then it will outperform all of the other aircraft. Even the A-10.
The reason A-10 is built so robustly is that it needs to be really close to its targets for direct visual identification. The JSF people say the F-35 does not need to be in visual range as it can detect even well concealed targets electronically and destroy them from far away. It will not be exposed to small arms fire and it will not need to loiter too much (the enemy will not see it whether it's there or not).
Well, that's the theory at least. Remains to be seen whether it will stand the test of real deployment. Until then it's too soon to declare it inferior.
The astronomical cost of the F-35 means that 1) we won't make that many of them and 2) we won't deploy that many of them.
Depends on how you are calculating the costs. If you consider just the production costs, it's not that expensive. If you take all the development and testing costs from day 1 and divide them by the amount of planes produced, the costs are indeed astronomical - at the moment. The more you produce though, the less expensive each unit becomes. And if it really turns out to be THE multirole fighter for the next 40 years, the costs per piece will be extremely manageable.
Not making many of them does not make sense.
The fact that you don't even read what you post here is quite indicative. None of the studies on basal metabolic rate shows anything contrary to my previous statement that any time people in controlled environment reduced their calorie intake, they lost weight or to the general notion that nutrition is governed by laws of thermo dynamics on the macro level.
As I don't expect you to progress beyond ad hominems at this point, I am not going to waste any more time with your posts. But if you want to be taken seriously next time, please learn at least the basics. I highly recommend this series of lectures which are a great introduction in nutrition science for laymen like you.