Agile techniques may not be all that good, but the other techniques also have their problems. For certain purposes (including what the project is) Agile is probably the best technique. (That I've never had those circumstances doesn't mean they don't exist. Some quite successful projects have used it.)
You are assuming the "imported hires" have the same requirements put on them. In the US this usually seems not to be the case. (I have no knowledge of the Spanish case.)
Killing women and children indiscriminately isn't something you do when you're on a tight budget and you need to hand-craft every bullet. Except perhaps by starting fires and then shooting anyone who tries to get out.
And that is why the series turned out differently. The authors had different goals.
You can't really say that either society would possibly work that way, too much is not revealed. (Hidden is wrong, when it probably wasn't even thought of.) And you can't say how to get from here to there. In either case.
Don't take fiction as a direct map of reality, it's a story composed to be dramatic, and entertaining, as well as to push the goals of the author. None of that requires an realism, except that drama doesn't work if you don't find it believable.
You're probably right. The article I read about it was over a decade ago, and not requiring electricity would make the putting up of the building a bit less insane.
I agree with you about "it's the money", I was merely taking issue with the claim that their hotel standards were particularly high. Some hotels in San Francisco have high standards, but that's not a civic requirement.
Actually he's correct about Tokyo having lots of tall buildings. So does San Francisco, and more are going up at the moment. But they are exceptionally expensive due to earthquake problems, and thus a VERY bad solution to housing.
Engineers have been very creative about ways to stabilize buildings in earthquake country...but the solutions are not low cost, and thus are a bad idea for anyone who can't pay astronomical prices. For businesses a prestige address may make sense, even with the cost/sq. ft. For housing it only makes sense for conspicuous consumption. That lets out police, fire-fighers, teachers, street-sweepers, sanitation workers, construction workers, and anyone else who is at all concerned with money. (San Francisco has a special fund to get teachers to live within city bounds, but the amount funded is so low that it gets next to no use.)
It's not true that San Francisco sets particularly high standards for hotels. It's got more than it's share of flop-houses, some dating back to the early 1900's, and perhaps some even earlier. I try to avoid them, but over the decades I've had occasion to visit some of them about 3 times. I can guarantee that "high standards" is not a valid descriptive term.
You want high rises in earthquake country. I have to think you're an idiot, except that with enough money it can be done. The key is "with enough money". When buildings start getting tall they experience exponential stresses under an earthquake. So much so that I believe the current tall buildings depend on electrically driven active countermeasures. This adds considerably to the expense of building them. But this hasn't kept them from being built.
So part of the reason I think you're an idiot is that you complain without realizing that huge buildings are already present, and more are on their way up. It's not just because you're advocating tall buildings in earthquake country. I'm just not sure how many will be left after the "big one". And 1906 wasn't the big one, it's just the biggest we can remember.
Well, earthquake prediction isn't a science. And it's vaguely possible that the "big one" will never happen. But that's not the way to bet.
SF is well on its way to GETTING a bunch of 50 story apartment buildings. And in earthquake territory on landfill that's not all that good an idea. (It's my understanding, possibly wrong, that the taller buildings depend on active countermeasures [which require electric power] to survive a major earthquake. Given the prevalence of aftershocks, this may not be such a good idea.)
Well, I don't remember my source, so it could have been someone inventing things...but it was in one of the sites operated by "the official press", not a blogger. All I really checked was a London Stock Market report, and I might well have misunderstood that. (It was hard to find a site that didn't demand javascript.)
Hmm, I thought you truncated that text until I checked. I thought it read "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people or by the states.", and now I can't find why I thought so. But perhaps it should have read that way, so the states would have more vigorously contested the expansion of federal power.
I do agree that the current "official interpretation" of the meaning of the ninth amendment is a blatant power grab of the "you can't stop us" variety, and without honest legal basis.
I followed your link, and it seems to only apply to unicode characters in links. There's NO reason that this should affect the display of text. About as I thought.
If you want to argue that only ASCII chars should be allowed in links, I'd have no problems with that. Since most users of this site use predominately English, and most valid web sites have ASCII urls, that should rarely cause a problem. But text is a different matter, and unicode text should be displayed as given. If you want to be especially careful you could display any text outside the ASCII set in dark blue rather than in black, but that seems quite unlikely to be needed.
You are optimistic. That is one possible scenario, but there are many that are far less rosy. And one very likely one is that the government will dither for a long time, and during the entire time of dithering private companies will be avoiding any investment in Britain, and removing any investments that are mobile. Companies don't like uncertainty (as you pointed out).
Then, even when the matter is resolved, and even presuming that there is a free trade agreement, Britain's economy will not only be depressed, but have been depressed for so long that there's no viable infrastructure. So moving back will not be seen as a valid move.
The problem is that "Direct Democracy" doesn't scale. I think there are better ways around it than "Representative Democracy", but none of them have ever been implemented. But Britain is too large for Direct Democracy to work, but it seems to have "Representative Democracy" working better than does the US. Again this may well be a problem of scale.
It wasn't a narrow vote, but it also wasn't "nationwide". Scotland and Northern Ireland voted "remain" with sizable majorities. Scotland, at least, is likely to break off from the UK over this violation of the promises made a year ago that their membership in the EU would be protected if they voted not to split from the UK. And Northern Ireland might do the same, because it was the EU that was the peace treaty guarantor with (Catholic) Ireland.
So. Interesting times. You can't do just one thing.
You do realize that it was a "Non-Binding referendum" don't you?
It was, essentially, a sounding of public opinion. Some people are saying that it didn't do a good job of sounding public opinion, and that it should be redone. They may, or may not, have a valid point.
But even if there is no additional referendum, it doesn't start the timer until Parliament votes to send a request to the EU for withdrawal. The current Prime Minister though that was such a bad idea that he's promised to resign before October. Perhaps he will. And there are other legal considerations, so it may be that Parliament can't legally pass that request without the approval of the Parliaments of Scotland and Northern Ireland (and Wales, if I understand correctly, but they probably wouldn't object).
It's not over, it's barely started. Parliament has to notify the EU that it wants to withdraw. And it appears that it's going to need some legal changes made by the Parliaments of Scotland and Northern Ireland before it's allowed to do so. And both of those areas were staunchly "remain", so they may be reluctant to make the needed legal changes.
Also, Scotland appears to have started negotiations for remaining in the EU after Britain leaves. Who knows what the result will be, but if might need to vote to separate from Britain before the effective date of Britain's withdrawal...which might lead the Scottish Parliament to delay making the changes that Britain would need for it's withdrawal.
And, in addition, Britain had just negotiated a set of changes and exemptions from standard EU terms, but which were conditional on the BREXIT vote failing. Those have all been declared invalid, and the negotiators are not pleased. And they are high EU officials.
And the pound had lost 1/3 of it's value during last Friday. Perhaps it will recover, or partially. But many corporations are planning to move their headquarters out of Britain, or to not locate there, or to decline to make loans. Signs of this are already present, but actions probably won't be clearly in motion before Monday.
And the Prime Minister has promised to resign before October, leaving the request to withdraw to his successor. And nobody knows who that will be, though various people have made various unhappy guesses.
I question that unicode is a security risk. In fact I deny it. You do need to take a few precautions, but not many, it's simple. The major problem AFAIKT is that it can be used to generate links that don't go where you think they do, and that can easily be guarded against in multiple different ways...and is uncommon anyway. Besides, since TinyURL has so many fans there are lots of ways to do *that*.
Look at the second line of reasoning. I'm not lawyer enough (i.e., at all) to know whether their first line of reasoning, which you are discussing, is valid. But the second line of reasoning is vile, evil, and any other disgusting term of abuse you can think of. And the judge should be impeached for saying it.
The conviction is probably sound. I think the first line of reasoning is probably valid. But that addendum where he says they didn't need a warrant anyway should lead to his impeachment...and *should* also lead to his disbarment, though there's not much chance of either.
Slashdot Mirror
Agile techniques may not be all that good, but the other techniques also have their problems. For certain purposes (including what the project is) Agile is probably the best technique. (That I've never had those circumstances doesn't mean they don't exist. Some quite successful projects have used it.)
You are assuming the "imported hires" have the same requirements put on them. In the US this usually seems not to be the case. (I have no knowledge of the Spanish case.)
Killing women and children indiscriminately isn't something you do when you're on a tight budget and you need to hand-craft every bullet. Except perhaps by starting fires and then shooting anyone who tries to get out.
And that is why the series turned out differently. The authors had different goals.
You can't really say that either society would possibly work that way, too much is not revealed. (Hidden is wrong, when it probably wasn't even thought of.) And you can't say how to get from here to there. In either case.
Don't take fiction as a direct map of reality, it's a story composed to be dramatic, and entertaining, as well as to push the goals of the author. None of that requires an realism, except that drama doesn't work if you don't find it believable.
You're probably right. The article I read about it was over a decade ago, and not requiring electricity would make the putting up of the building a bit less insane.
I agree with you about "it's the money", I was merely taking issue with the claim that their hotel standards were particularly high. Some hotels in San Francisco have high standards, but that's not a civic requirement.
Actually he's correct about Tokyo having lots of tall buildings. So does San Francisco, and more are going up at the moment. But they are exceptionally expensive due to earthquake problems, and thus a VERY bad solution to housing.
Engineers have been very creative about ways to stabilize buildings in earthquake country...but the solutions are not low cost, and thus are a bad idea for anyone who can't pay astronomical prices. For businesses a prestige address may make sense, even with the cost/sq. ft. For housing it only makes sense for conspicuous consumption. That lets out police, fire-fighers, teachers, street-sweepers, sanitation workers, construction workers, and anyone else who is at all concerned with money. (San Francisco has a special fund to get teachers to live within city bounds, but the amount funded is so low that it gets next to no use.)
It's not true that San Francisco sets particularly high standards for hotels. It's got more than it's share of flop-houses, some dating back to the early 1900's, and perhaps some even earlier. I try to avoid them, but over the decades I've had occasion to visit some of them about 3 times. I can guarantee that "high standards" is not a valid descriptive term.
You want high rises in earthquake country. I have to think you're an idiot, except that with enough money it can be done. The key is "with enough money". When buildings start getting tall they experience exponential stresses under an earthquake. So much so that I believe the current tall buildings depend on electrically driven active countermeasures. This adds considerably to the expense of building them. But this hasn't kept them from being built.
So part of the reason I think you're an idiot is that you complain without realizing that huge buildings are already present, and more are on their way up. It's not just because you're advocating tall buildings in earthquake country. I'm just not sure how many will be left after the "big one". And 1906 wasn't the big one, it's just the biggest we can remember.
Well, earthquake prediction isn't a science. And it's vaguely possible that the "big one" will never happen. But that's not the way to bet.
SF is well on its way to GETTING a bunch of 50 story apartment buildings. And in earthquake territory on landfill that's not all that good an idea. (It's my understanding, possibly wrong, that the taller buildings depend on active countermeasures [which require electric power] to survive a major earthquake. Given the prevalence of aftershocks, this may not be such a good idea.)
This strikes me as a exact match with a defined category of criminal action: Tortious interference with commerce
I'm no lawyer, so I may have this a bit wrong, but to me it looks like an exact match.
Things are so bad I can't tell which of these posts are satire.
Well, I don't remember my source, so it could have been someone inventing things...but it was in one of the sites operated by "the official press", not a blogger. All I really checked was a London Stock Market report, and I might well have misunderstood that. (It was hard to find a site that didn't demand javascript.)
Hmm, I thought you truncated that text until I checked. I thought it read "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people or by the states.", and now I can't find why I thought so. But perhaps it should have read that way, so the states would have more vigorously contested the expansion of federal power.
I do agree that the current "official interpretation" of the meaning of the ninth amendment is a blatant power grab of the "you can't stop us" variety, and without honest legal basis.
I followed your link, and it seems to only apply to unicode characters in links. There's NO reason that this should affect the display of text. About as I thought.
If you want to argue that only ASCII chars should be allowed in links, I'd have no problems with that. Since most users of this site use predominately English, and most valid web sites have ASCII urls, that should rarely cause a problem. But text is a different matter, and unicode text should be displayed as given. If you want to be especially careful you could display any text outside the ASCII set in dark blue rather than in black, but that seems quite unlikely to be needed.
You are optimistic. That is one possible scenario, but there are many that are far less rosy. And one very likely one is that the government will dither for a long time, and during the entire time of dithering private companies will be avoiding any investment in Britain, and removing any investments that are mobile. Companies don't like uncertainty (as you pointed out).
Then, even when the matter is resolved, and even presuming that there is a free trade agreement, Britain's economy will not only be depressed, but have been depressed for so long that there's no viable infrastructure. So moving back will not be seen as a valid move.
The problem is that "Direct Democracy" doesn't scale. I think there are better ways around it than "Representative Democracy", but none of them have ever been implemented. But Britain is too large for Direct Democracy to work, but it seems to have "Representative Democracy" working better than does the US. Again this may well be a problem of scale.
It wasn't a narrow vote, but it also wasn't "nationwide". Scotland and Northern Ireland voted "remain" with sizable majorities. Scotland, at least, is likely to break off from the UK over this violation of the promises made a year ago that their membership in the EU would be protected if they voted not to split from the UK. And Northern Ireland might do the same, because it was the EU that was the peace treaty guarantor with (Catholic) Ireland.
So. Interesting times. You can't do just one thing.
You do realize that it was a "Non-Binding referendum" don't you?
It was, essentially, a sounding of public opinion. Some people are saying that it didn't do a good job of sounding public opinion, and that it should be redone. They may, or may not, have a valid point.
But even if there is no additional referendum, it doesn't start the timer until Parliament votes to send a request to the EU for withdrawal. The current Prime Minister though that was such a bad idea that he's promised to resign before October. Perhaps he will. And there are other legal considerations, so it may be that Parliament can't legally pass that request without the approval of the Parliaments of Scotland and Northern Ireland (and Wales, if I understand correctly, but they probably wouldn't object).
It's not over, it's barely started. Parliament has to notify the EU that it wants to withdraw. And it appears that it's going to need some legal changes made by the Parliaments of Scotland and Northern Ireland before it's allowed to do so. And both of those areas were staunchly "remain", so they may be reluctant to make the needed legal changes.
Also, Scotland appears to have started negotiations for remaining in the EU after Britain leaves. Who knows what the result will be, but if might need to vote to separate from Britain before the effective date of Britain's withdrawal...which might lead the Scottish Parliament to delay making the changes that Britain would need for it's withdrawal.
And, in addition, Britain had just negotiated a set of changes and exemptions from standard EU terms, but which were conditional on the BREXIT vote failing. Those have all been declared invalid, and the negotiators are not pleased. And they are high EU officials.
And the pound had lost 1/3 of it's value during last Friday. Perhaps it will recover, or partially. But many corporations are planning to move their headquarters out of Britain, or to not locate there, or to decline to make loans. Signs of this are already present, but actions probably won't be clearly in motion before Monday.
And the Prime Minister has promised to resign before October, leaving the request to withdraw to his successor. And nobody knows who that will be, though various people have made various unhappy guesses.
And...
It's worth noting that the government denies that the Declaration of Independence has any legal status.
And yet...
How certain are you *which* is the lesser evil?
When both are such liars, certainty seems unwarranted.
I question that unicode is a security risk. In fact I deny it. You do need to take a few precautions, but not many, it's simple. The major problem AFAIKT is that it can be used to generate links that don't go where you think they do, and that can easily be guarded against in multiple different ways...and is uncommon anyway. Besides, since TinyURL has so many fans there are lots of ways to do *that*.
It's not the only one, though I agree that it's rare. It's probably because when slashcode was first written unicode was uncommon.
Look at the second line of reasoning. I'm not lawyer enough (i.e., at all) to know whether their first line of reasoning, which you are discussing, is valid. But the second line of reasoning is vile, evil, and any other disgusting term of abuse you can think of. And the judge should be impeached for saying it.
The conviction is probably sound. I think the first line of reasoning is probably valid. But that addendum where he says they didn't need a warrant anyway should lead to his impeachment...and *should* also lead to his disbarment, though there's not much chance of either.