That's one valid point. My real problem with it is that I've seen this promised before, and the things delivered were exceptionally unimpressive. In fact, the closest I've seen to something that does this so far was never touted under that rubric....the spreadsheet.
OTOH, back in the days of the Apple ][+ there was this program called "The Last One", touted as "The last program you'll ever need to buy!". It quickly sank without a trace.
All that said, a lot of what programmers do *is* cut an paste...only we call it linking in libraries, and we already have automated tools to do it.
And *that* said, I can easily imagine certain areas in which programmers are currently working being automated. Certainly there are areas where I used to work that have been automated. It's been a long time since I had to write a hash table, e.g., or a doubly linked list, or... well, lots of things. Expect the process to continue, and probably to speed up a bit. I don't expect the genuine automatic programmer before 2025 at the earliest.... And even then I expect there will be areas it can't really handle....but I consider that requiring all children learn to code to be a really stupid move. Get them to think critically, OK. That would be a good thing, if you can figure out how to do it.
I followed it for a year or so, but it got old. Don't know what it's like in recent decades. Schlock is an alien with a number of useful talents, but beauty isn't one of them. There is (or was) also a handsome captain, a (slightly) mad scientist, a "beautiful" nurse, etc. And they get in a lot of fights. (I may have misremembered some of that.)
Point. I thought that was probably true, but couldn't find a reference, so I went with the more inclusive term. (You can't get a 2/3 vote without also getting a majority vote.)
As I said, the chances are extremely remote, and it could only happen if a large number of Republican legislators get extremely upset.
Well, actually I do usually call it fascism...but it's "fascism-lite" rather than the full-blown model, and I'm thinking of Mussolini's ideas and practices.
Well...no. I learned to distrust the media by observing an event that I later saw covered on the media. This has happened three times (not a large sample) and in each case the media grossly distorted the event. A bad fire got turned into a city destroying nightmare, e.g. You'd be surprised at what can be done by careful selection of camera angles and framing.
That's not the constitution, but the exception for the border isn't the constitution either. I could see an argument in favor of it if they left it up to the states, but when they make it federal they blow it. And the constitution certainly never said that anything within 200 miles of the border, or other access point (international airport, e.g.) was a part of the border, but that's what the feds have been claiming for decades. Without any right to do so, but with the power to make it pretty much stick.
The hardware is probably expensive...the databases, not so much so. To correct that, building ONE database is quite expensive. Copying it to lots of dolls makes the incremental cost cheap.
The question that might make this wrong is "Does the doll understand human speech, or the speech of one particular person?". If each doll needs a separate specialized database, then it would, indeed, be expensive, but then one wonders "Who's paying for all these customized databases?".
Yes, but how would that scale? Mind you, this isn't an argument in favor of SAP, as I believe that you could redesign that into something that would scale, albeit it would be a bit less flexible. I'd want to use a different DB engine, possibly PostGreSQL. I don't like C#, but there's nothing really wrong with it, I just think that if you want to scale it you need to convert it from a single DB into a hierarchy, with each local entity being a complete sub-module analogous to your current system, but the overall system holding a summary of all its dependent nodes...and probably producing a different set of reports.
Grounds for impeachment is whatever the House of Representatives finds suitable. Please note that the House is currently dominantly Republican.
A successful impeachment can be done on whatever grounds the Senate finds acceptable. Please also note that the Senate is dominantly Republican.
A successful impeachment requires a majority vote of the House. A successful conviction requires a majority vote of the Senate. The chances of this happening are extremely slim. It would require that a large number of Republicans in both the House and the Senate be thoroughly outraged.
P.S.: The causes I listed are not the official grounds, which are, IIRC, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", but the term doesn't appear to be well defined, and there is no clear test, so as a matter of practice it's whatever the Representatives and Senators find suitable.
While he's wrong, so are you. 20th Century US was not Capitalist, it was oligarchist. The monopolies established via government power were only slightly subtler than those that Teddy Roosevelt fought. So far nobody has successfully challenged them except in minor corners. I suppose you could call it state sponsored capitalism, but if you take out the downside risk, then what remains can't really be called capitalism.
P.S.: Neither Socialism nor Capitalism is a desirable system. Though most of the 20th century the oligarchism was actually superior to either. And note that it contains elements of both. There is currently, however, clear evidence that with increasing automation it has reached a limit, where it is no longer a reasonably good choice. What should replace it, and how to get there, is as yet unclear.
I think you need evidence if you are going to claim that Trump is illiterate. I've seen no evidence that causes me to think that probable. (I would doubt that he enjoys reading, however.)
The problem is I consider ALL the media news to be propaganda, and don't really believe any of it. I'm even dubious about the things that are agreed upon by both the left an right sides of the political spectrum.
So I'm not really sure that Trump is an uncontrolled idiot, but that's what his public appearances suggest, except when I get a bit paranoid about what he's really after. So far I'm willing to believe that when I feel that way I'm being paranoid.
If you think the *accusations* against Clinton were as bad as the equivalent admitted facts WRT Trump, then you need to check your prescriptions. There were, of course, accusations that don't yet have any near equivalent WRT Trump, and perhaps he'll avoid those. But there are also accusations against Trump that have no near equivalent WRT Clinton...one can only hope those will be proven false.
No. And I was born in the 1940's. Perhaps it was true in the 1840's.
If you mean to I remember a lot of nuts claiming that we were a "christian nation", then yah, I remember that. But it was a lie at the time, and it had been a lie for at least a decade. (I can't remember any further back, but I suspect longer.) And what they were proposing wasn't Christian anyway.
I thought Mozilla had stopped development on Thunderbird. If that's true, what's the advantage in haven't the Mozilla branded version? Not only why bother, but better to avoid it, because you can patch your own version.
Am I wrong, and is Mozilla actually doing some development, or at least bug fixing, on Thunderbird?
OK, but the bad boss is a real problem. Theoretically a good CEO would handle that problem, but if you don't have a CEO, how does it get handled? (And in the process I must admit that even a reasonably good CEO often doesn't handle the problem...at least not very quickly.)
Now all that said, let me comment about "Too often, ICs look expect management to be some kind of "super" version of themselves.". It's true that managers need a different skill set, but they need to adequate understanding of what the people they are managing do, and this is often denied. And even when not actively denied, the understanding often isn't present. And unfortunately this lack of understanding itself is often denied. Managers of engineers doesn't need to be a good engineer, but they need to understand what engineers do, and what things might reasonably be expected. I've experienced managers who not only don't understand programming, they refuse to understand that they don't understand programming. (Fortunately I retired soon after that management change.)
But if you eliminate the CEO, who keeps the managers in check and responsive? A problem with the current system is that often there is nobody to keep the CEO in check and responsive, but if you eliminate the CEO, who keeps the next level down in check and responsive?
Come up with a design that you think looks plausible. In detail.
This is sort of like the idea of mesh networks. It looks good, and it works fine on a small scale, but you start running into problems as the scale gets larger. There may be ways around it, but so far nobody has designed a mesh network that can scale well, and I'm not sure they can design an equivalent corporate structure. This doesn't mean it's impossible...but there are so many ways of gaming the system, and you need to prevent all of them, there are so many communication inefficiencies, and you need to streamline all of them simultaneously, etc. So it's a tough design problem.
I'd go further than that. In my opinion anything that has an active switch (say a mechanical thermostat) has the intelligence equivalent of a single bit. Note that while this can be represented by a single bit, it is a bit more complex than that, because it takes some action based on that bit. (Some action here is just allowing or forbidding current to flow, but that counts.)
But you also need enforceable and enforced anti-corruption laws on the regulators. And they should constrain what the regulators are allowed to do or accept after they leave office as well as while holding it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's one valid point. My real problem with it is that I've seen this promised before, and the things delivered were exceptionally unimpressive. In fact, the closest I've seen to something that does this so far was never touted under that rubric....the spreadsheet.
OTOH, back in the days of the Apple ][+ there was this program called "The Last One", touted as "The last program you'll ever need to buy!". It quickly sank without a trace.
All that said, a lot of what programmers do *is* cut an paste...only we call it linking in libraries, and we already have automated tools to do it.
And *that* said, I can easily imagine certain areas in which programmers are currently working being automated. Certainly there are areas where I used to work that have been automated. It's been a long time since I had to write a hash table, e.g., or a doubly linked list, or... well, lots of things. Expect the process to continue, and probably to speed up a bit. I don't expect the genuine automatic programmer before 2025 at the earliest. ... And even then I expect there will be areas it can't really handle....but I consider that requiring all children learn to code to be a really stupid move. Get them to think critically, OK. That would be a good thing, if you can figure out how to do it.
So how fast are they moving? And in which direction?
I followed it for a year or so, but it got old. Don't know what it's like in recent decades. Schlock is an alien with a number of useful talents, but beauty isn't one of them. There is (or was) also a handsome captain, a (slightly) mad scientist, a "beautiful" nurse, etc. And they get in a lot of fights. (I may have misremembered some of that.)
So it's pretty much a standard formula, but not too bad. https://www.schlockmercenary.c... thanks to Google.
Point. I thought that was probably true, but couldn't find a reference, so I went with the more inclusive term. (You can't get a 2/3 vote without also getting a majority vote.)
As I said, the chances are extremely remote, and it could only happen if a large number of Republican legislators get extremely upset.
Well, actually I do usually call it fascism...but it's "fascism-lite" rather than the full-blown model, and I'm thinking of Mussolini's ideas and practices.
Well...no. I learned to distrust the media by observing an event that I later saw covered on the media. This has happened three times (not a large sample) and in each case the media grossly distorted the event. A bad fire got turned into a city destroying nightmare, e.g. You'd be surprised at what can be done by careful selection of camera angles and framing.
That's what the law says.
Now, do you want to bet the guy trying to search your phone knows, or admits knowing, the law?
That's not the constitution, but the exception for the border isn't the constitution either. I could see an argument in favor of it if they left it up to the states, but when they make it federal they blow it. And the constitution certainly never said that anything within 200 miles of the border, or other access point (international airport, e.g.) was a part of the border, but that's what the feds have been claiming for decades. Without any right to do so, but with the power to make it pretty much stick.
The hardware is probably expensive...the databases, not so much so. To correct that, building ONE database is quite expensive. Copying it to lots of dolls makes the incremental cost cheap.
The question that might make this wrong is "Does the doll understand human speech, or the speech of one particular person?". If each doll needs a separate specialized database, then it would, indeed, be expensive, but then one wonders "Who's paying for all these customized databases?".
Yes, but how would that scale? Mind you, this isn't an argument in favor of SAP, as I believe that you could redesign that into something that would scale, albeit it would be a bit less flexible. I'd want to use a different DB engine, possibly PostGreSQL. I don't like C#, but there's nothing really wrong with it, I just think that if you want to scale it you need to convert it from a single DB into a hierarchy, with each local entity being a complete sub-module analogous to your current system, but the overall system holding a summary of all its dependent nodes...and probably producing a different set of reports.
Maybe he'll replace it with a Note 7.
Grounds for impeachment is whatever the House of Representatives finds suitable. Please note that the House is currently dominantly Republican.
A successful impeachment can be done on whatever grounds the Senate finds acceptable. Please also note that the Senate is dominantly Republican.
A successful impeachment requires a majority vote of the House. A successful conviction requires a majority vote of the Senate. The chances of this happening are extremely slim. It would require that a large number of Republicans in both the House and the Senate be thoroughly outraged.
P.S.: The causes I listed are not the official grounds, which are, IIRC, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", but the term doesn't appear to be well defined, and there is no clear test, so as a matter of practice it's whatever the Representatives and Senators find suitable.
While he's wrong, so are you. 20th Century US was not Capitalist, it was oligarchist. The monopolies established via government power were only slightly subtler than those that Teddy Roosevelt fought. So far nobody has successfully challenged them except in minor corners. I suppose you could call it state sponsored capitalism, but if you take out the downside risk, then what remains can't really be called capitalism.
P.S.: Neither Socialism nor Capitalism is a desirable system. Though most of the 20th century the oligarchism was actually superior to either. And note that it contains elements of both. There is currently, however, clear evidence that with increasing automation it has reached a limit, where it is no longer a reasonably good choice. What should replace it, and how to get there, is as yet unclear.
Don't believe it. Only *some* hacks act to protect you against successor hacks...and then usually only of the same nature.
Maybe he's depending on archive.org .
I think you need evidence if you are going to claim that Trump is illiterate. I've seen no evidence that causes me to think that probable. (I would doubt that he enjoys reading, however.)
The problem is I consider ALL the media news to be propaganda, and don't really believe any of it. I'm even dubious about the things that are agreed upon by both the left an right sides of the political spectrum.
So I'm not really sure that Trump is an uncontrolled idiot, but that's what his public appearances suggest, except when I get a bit paranoid about what he's really after. So far I'm willing to believe that when I feel that way I'm being paranoid.
If you think the *accusations* against Clinton were as bad as the equivalent admitted facts WRT Trump, then you need to check your prescriptions. There were, of course, accusations that don't yet have any near equivalent WRT Trump, and perhaps he'll avoid those. But there are also accusations against Trump that have no near equivalent WRT Clinton...one can only hope those will be proven false.
I think you missed the sarcasm tag.
No. And I was born in the 1940's. Perhaps it was true in the 1840's.
If you mean to I remember a lot of nuts claiming that we were a "christian nation", then yah, I remember that. But it was a lie at the time, and it had been a lie for at least a decade. (I can't remember any further back, but I suspect longer.) And what they were proposing wasn't Christian anyway.
I thought Mozilla had stopped development on Thunderbird. If that's true, what's the advantage in haven't the Mozilla branded version? Not only why bother, but better to avoid it, because you can patch your own version.
Am I wrong, and is Mozilla actually doing some development, or at least bug fixing, on Thunderbird?
OK, but the bad boss is a real problem. Theoretically a good CEO would handle that problem, but if you don't have a CEO, how does it get handled? (And in the process I must admit that even a reasonably good CEO often doesn't handle the problem...at least not very quickly.)
Now all that said, let me comment about "Too often, ICs look expect management to be some kind of "super" version of themselves.". It's true that managers need a different skill set, but they need to adequate understanding of what the people they are managing do, and this is often denied. And even when not actively denied, the understanding often isn't present. And unfortunately this lack of understanding itself is often denied. Managers of engineers doesn't need to be a good engineer, but they need to understand what engineers do, and what things might reasonably be expected. I've experienced managers who not only don't understand programming, they refuse to understand that they don't understand programming. (Fortunately I retired soon after that management change.)
But if you eliminate the CEO, who keeps the managers in check and responsive? A problem with the current system is that often there is nobody to keep the CEO in check and responsive, but if you eliminate the CEO, who keeps the next level down in check and responsive?
Come up with a design that you think looks plausible. In detail.
This is sort of like the idea of mesh networks. It looks good, and it works fine on a small scale, but you start running into problems as the scale gets larger. There may be ways around it, but so far nobody has designed a mesh network that can scale well, and I'm not sure they can design an equivalent corporate structure. This doesn't mean it's impossible...but there are so many ways of gaming the system, and you need to prevent all of them, there are so many communication inefficiencies, and you need to streamline all of them simultaneously, etc. So it's a tough design problem.
I'd go further than that. In my opinion anything that has an active switch (say a mechanical thermostat) has the intelligence equivalent of a single bit. Note that while this can be represented by a single bit, it is a bit more complex than that, because it takes some action based on that bit. (Some action here is just allowing or forbidding current to flow, but that counts.)
But you also need enforceable and enforced anti-corruption laws on the regulators. And they should constrain what the regulators are allowed to do or accept after they leave office as well as while holding it.