"Framing Software Reuse: Lessons From the Real World" by Paul G. Bassett https://www.amazon.com/Framing... explains (among many other things) how to implement most of the benefits of OO - in COBOL. Search for "Basset Frame technology COBOL" to find out more. [Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with this technology, or products that use it. I just find it admirably clean, simple and practical].
You see the influence of money, and the power it commands, everywhere nowadays. Sportspeople who, 50 years ago, were forbidden to earn a penny from their talent on pain of exclusion for professionalism, can now earn millions in a few short years. Result: an explosion of drug-taking and other forms of cheating. Politicians who had no visible property and very little income when they began their careers seem to retire as multi-millionaires. Result: an explosion of dishonest practices, including treason. But the worst of all is the corrosive influence of money on science - which used to be the hallmark of reliable, objective truth. It's usually quite subtle, indirect, almost unnoticeable. But it leads to very clear and definite consequences. Scientists who challenge the established paradigms are no longer just up against intellectual inertia; they will be mocked, traduced, slandered and often find that strings are pulled to get them dismissed or ignored.
One good example (out of the thousands that could be mentioned) is the career of Dr John Yudkin, the British scientist who suggested 40 years ago that dietary fat was unlikely to cause disease, and that sugar was a much more likely cultprit. That ran directly counter to the gospel being preached (most profitably) by the American scientist Dr Ancel Keys, who told the world that fat and cholesterol cause heart disease, strokes and cancer. Keys directly libelled and slandered Yudkin, with the result that his work was disgracefully neglected. Today it is perfectly clear that, in all essentials, Yudkin was right and Keys was wrong. But guess which of them died rich and famous?
Maybe it's time I mentioned again that IBM mainframe I came across about 25 years ago. The users were complaining about slow response time, but a waiver was issued because they were in Australia and the mainframe was in London.
Oh, didn't I say? The slow response time was 2 seconds. Normally it would have had to be under half a second.
So matters are even worse than the articles suggest. Of course, the more sophisticated and complex medicine becomes, the more scope there is for errors, and the harder it becomes for doctors and surgeons to be sure of their diagnoses.
The Democratic Party, many of whose members consider themselves "liberals", apparently wants one of its elected legislators to be (unconstitutionally) ejected from Congress because of something she said. Now that is illiberal, because liberals believe in freedom (as far as possible) - including freedom of speech. Of course the freedom of legislators to speak their minds is, if possible, even more important than that of ordinary citizens. The fact that Tulsi Gabbard is absolutely right to ask for some evidence before the USA is committed to yet another war, is a separate matter.
This state of affairs, deplorable and dangerous as it is, has not come about recently. Mark Twain remarked on it in 1897.
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them".
- Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar, Ch. XX
and find some common ground... like the fact that Hillary and The Donald are BOTH scumbags who don't deserve to be president?
And right there you have the issue with the USA as a "liberal democracy". How can it be a liberal democracy when the "democracy" part gives voters the choice between a vile rich callous selfish lying warmonger and a vile rich callous selfish lying warmonger? And how liberal can it be when absolutely no one in the senior ranks of the government - or of either major political party - is in the least liberal?
I use the word "liberal" in its original and correct sense:
liberal n adjective 1 respectful and accepting of behaviour or opinions different from one's own. Ø(of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. ØTheology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change. 2 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. Ø(Liberal) relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party. 3 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience. 4 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal. 5 given, used, or giving in generous amounts. n noun 1 a person of liberal views. 2 (Liberal) a supporter or member of a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.
ORIGIN
Middle English (originally in sense 'suitable for a free man' hence 'suitable for a gentleman'): via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber 'free (man)'.
Like many other recent "tech fixes", this one attempts to paper over fissures in society that have quite different causes. More and more people are "badly off", however you measure it. They have less money, they are deeper in debt, even while they spend less; and increasingly, they have to work longer hours and have several earners per household. One of the obvious consequences is that people have less time for sleep, and more worries to distract them from it.
If you are doing something you find enjoyable or satisfying, you have enough spare time to express yourself as a person, you have the support you need from family and friends, and you are eating and exercising right, then sleep should open up under you like a black velvet crevasse you just can't help sliding into. You sleep for about 7-8 hours and awake refreshed. There are a few tips that most people nowadays have heard: avoid bright artificial lights, strenuous exercise, worrying thoughts, exciting entertainment and too much food and drink before sleep. Some others are less obvious, such as blackout curtains and other ways of making your bedroom as pitch-dark as possible - even a luminous clock dial can be a problem for some.
But if you are having to work too hard for too long, perhaps at several different jobs; if you can never work hard or fast enough; if your boss and co-workers are always giving you a hard time; if you are always worried about money and security; if you eat and drink the wrong things (for whatever reason), and don't get enough plain physical exercise, you will have trouble sleeping. And it's unlikely that any artificial aid will make up for serious lifestyle deficiencies.
There's also this excellent, if somewhat tongue-in-cheek, explanation by the great H.L. Mencken. Not bad prediction 96 years ahead!
"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
"The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron".
- H. L. Mencken (Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920)
Many analyses fall short because they assume that we think these things through logically. On the contrary, this is an area in which hardwired instincts in the lower, more primitive parts of our brains take over almost completely. And one of the most fascinating things about human beings is how very clever people can be completely sure they are doing something for logical reasons, when in fact they are being driven by blind instinct. (Dr Freud was onto that fact with regard, mostly, to sex; and Dr Adler with regard to power).
Homo sapiens evolved over at least two million years as a hunter-gatherer, living in groups ranging probably from family-sized to a maximum of perhaps 200 - possibly depending on the density of food sources. Such small groups would be critically dependent on effective and experienced command. Just like other land animals that live in herds, packs or prides, human beings instinctively recognize the vital necessity of social structure in the form of a well-defined pecking order and a universally accepted leader (alpha male or female). It's far better to have a relatively poor but generally accepted leader than no leader, when the group may break up or even start fighting each other. In that case they probably all die, and all their genes are lost.
So one of history's observations - that people are often very willing to greet and cheer a "man on a white horse" - shouldn't be so surprising at all. And the converse of accepting and supporting the leader is usually hating and fearing outsiders. Unfortunately, this is one of many respects in which our ancient instincts, which served us well as hunter-gatherers, are now extremely counter-survival. (Although it's not at all clear that there is any good solution to the problem of governing human societies larger than a few thousand).
News is already coming in that the terrorists have launched a big offensive towards the town of Al-Furqalas (known to Google Maps as Al-Furqlus). Surprise, surprise! Turns out Al-Furqalas is just 20 miles - half an hour by the local roads - from the Shayrat Military Airport.
What a lucky coincidence that the terrorists just happened to have all the men, vehicles, weapons, ammunition and supplies to launch a major offensive just when the USA took out the airbase.
In particular Iran was the big winner of Dubya's war against Saddam, and they seem to be playing a similar game in Syria now. Basically just laying low and moving into the power vacuums that appear.
So essentially your complaint against Iran is that they haven't started any wars? Unlike the USA, which has been at war for 222 out of its 239 years of existence (that's about 93% of its existence). http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
Without the collapse of Iraq there'd be no isis, and without isis the situation in Syria wouldn't be as messy as it is now.
And without the US government and its invasion of Iraq - an unprovoked war of aggression, the supreme international crime according to the Nuremburg Principles - there would be no ISIS. Indeed, Saddam Hussein kept Iraq pretty free from terrorists - if they entered the country, he killed them. If there aren't any terrorists, there won't be any terrorists.
The invasion - justified, as we know, by Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs which never existed - fragmented Iraq into its constituent parts. Those parts had always been unstable, thanks to Mr Sykes and M Picot who deliberately drew its borders back in 1916. They threw in a large Shia majority, a Sunni minority who were given power, and a substantial Kurdish minority who were obviously going to push for independence and a unified Kurdish state. When the USA charged in with its "Shock and Awe" (aka Blitzkrieg), it smashed all the delicate mechanisms that maintained a precarious state of peace. The Americans disbanded the army, the Baath Party, and every other major institution. Many of the Iraqi army officers and men are now fighting for ISIS.
More recently, some bright sparks in or near Washington (perhaps Langley?) hit on a cunning plan. Ever since Vietnam, American leaders have grappled with the problem of political blowback whenever American armed forces personnel were killed or injured. So why not deploy a "throw-away" army of plausibly deniable proxies to do your dirty work for you? And that is what ISIS is. Just look at the benefits:
1. Washington can tell ISIS to do anything, no matter how hideous or revolting, without the great mass of the public ever suspecting the connection. ISIS can burn captured pilots alive, drown people in a swimming pool, crucify all the inhabitants of a Christian village, and murder over 100,000 Syrian soldiers. And none of this is blamed on the US government! Glorious.
2. It's a win-win. If ISIS overthrows the Syrian government, well and good - mission accomplished. But if it is defeated, routed, massacred or even exterminated, Washington can just look happy and claim the credit.
3. No need to pay benefits, insurance, pensions. No VA costs! Profit!!
'Slashdot reader Humbubba shares a similar report from Washington Post, adding that Thursday's strike was the "first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country's civil war began six years ago."'
That's odd. Here was I thinking that the NATO air strike on Syrian Army positions last September, which killed about 100 Syrian soldiers and wounded about as many more, was a "direct American assault". It was immediately followed by a mass terrorist attack that overran the Syrian Army positions - which had previously held out stubbornly for years. Almost as if the terrorists had known about the air strike before it happened.
Of course, maybe some Americans think that killing a mere 100 soldiers and wounding another 100 doesn't really amount to an "assault". After all, they are Asian Muslims, aren't they?
Slashdot Mirror
"Framing Software Reuse: Lessons From the Real World" by Paul G. Bassett
https://www.amazon.com/Framing...
explains (among many other things) how to implement most of the benefits of OO - in COBOL. Search for "Basset Frame technology COBOL" to find out more. [Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with this technology, or products that use it. I just find it admirably clean, simple and practical].
Maybe we need a new handle - "Anonymous Cretin"?
You keep thinking this is some debate you're going to win. But the market cares nothing for your failed ideology. It responds to signals.
Yes, signals from government saying, "Here are a few hundred million dollars to do what we want".
Er, coal and natural gas are both fossil fuels. And both release carbon when burned.
Coal is needed to make steel for one and many other things too, so it is anything but dead..
You mean to say that you can't make steel with the power from a bunch of solar cells or a windmill? Who knew.
... it won't happen until FAKE NEWS is illimanated.
The layers of fake news are wrongly arranged, because they are ill laminated.
"Now listen up, people. We are in serious trouble. Apparently an honest person has infiltrated our organization".
You see the influence of money, and the power it commands, everywhere nowadays. Sportspeople who, 50 years ago, were forbidden to earn a penny from their talent on pain of exclusion for professionalism, can now earn millions in a few short years. Result: an explosion of drug-taking and other forms of cheating. Politicians who had no visible property and very little income when they began their careers seem to retire as multi-millionaires. Result: an explosion of dishonest practices, including treason. But the worst of all is the corrosive influence of money on science - which used to be the hallmark of reliable, objective truth. It's usually quite subtle, indirect, almost unnoticeable. But it leads to very clear and definite consequences. Scientists who challenge the established paradigms are no longer just up against intellectual inertia; they will be mocked, traduced, slandered and often find that strings are pulled to get them dismissed or ignored.
One good example (out of the thousands that could be mentioned) is the career of Dr John Yudkin, the British scientist who suggested 40 years ago that dietary fat was unlikely to cause disease, and that sugar was a much more likely cultprit. That ran directly counter to the gospel being preached (most profitably) by the American scientist Dr Ancel Keys, who told the world that fat and cholesterol cause heart disease, strokes and cancer. Keys directly libelled and slandered Yudkin, with the result that his work was disgracefully neglected. Today it is perfectly clear that, in all essentials, Yudkin was right and Keys was wrong. But guess which of them died rich and famous?
"Pure, White and Deadly" by Dr John Yudkin https://www.amazon.com/Pure-Wh...
Maybe it's time I mentioned again that IBM mainframe I came across about 25 years ago. The users were complaining about slow response time, but a waiver was issued because they were in Australia and the mainframe was in London.
Oh, didn't I say? The slow response time was 2 seconds. Normally it would have had to be under half a second.
Your IT staff are imbeciles and so are you for using WORD at all.
says the PHB...
Your dad sells pork, right?
Is that a euphemism for being a US Senator?
Ah... the cliche police strike again!
... Electronics manufacturers diagnose that poor office performance is caused by lack of up-to-date electronic hardware!
In other news, Oracle announces that lack of database software costs the USA $671 billion a year. [Disclosure: I made that up].
So matters are even worse than the articles suggest. Of course, the more sophisticated and complex medicine becomes, the more scope there is for errors, and the harder it becomes for doctors and surgeons to be sure of their diagnoses.
Here's a good example of how the word "liberal" is now used by some to mean its exact opposite:
http://theduran.com/democrats-...
The Democratic Party, many of whose members consider themselves "liberals", apparently wants one of its elected legislators to be (unconstitutionally) ejected from Congress because of something she said. Now that is illiberal, because liberals believe in freedom (as far as possible) - including freedom of speech. Of course the freedom of legislators to speak their minds is, if possible, even more important than that of ordinary citizens. The fact that Tulsi Gabbard is absolutely right to ask for some evidence before the USA is committed to yet another war, is a separate matter.
This state of affairs, deplorable and dangerous as it is, has not come about recently. Mark Twain remarked on it in 1897.
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them".
- Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar, Ch. XX
and find some common ground... like the fact that Hillary and The Donald are BOTH scumbags who don't deserve to be president?
And right there you have the issue with the USA as a "liberal democracy". How can it be a liberal democracy when the "democracy" part gives voters the choice between a vile rich callous selfish lying warmonger and a vile rich callous selfish lying warmonger? And how liberal can it be when absolutely no one in the senior ranks of the government - or of either major political party - is in the least liberal?
I use the word "liberal" in its original and correct sense:
liberal
n adjective
1 respectful and accepting of behaviour or opinions different from one's own. Ø(of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. ØTheology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
2 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. Ø(Liberal) relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party.
3 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.
4 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal.
5 given, used, or giving in generous amounts.
n noun
1 a person of liberal views.
2 (Liberal) a supporter or member of a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.
DERIVATIVES
liberalism noun
liberalist noun
liberalistic adjective
liberality noun
liberally adverb
liberalness noun
ORIGIN
Middle English (originally in sense 'suitable for a free man' hence 'suitable for a gentleman'): via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber 'free (man)'.
What ridiculous nonsense! Everyone knows Putin did it.
Like many other recent "tech fixes", this one attempts to paper over fissures in society that have quite different causes. More and more people are "badly off", however you measure it. They have less money, they are deeper in debt, even while they spend less; and increasingly, they have to work longer hours and have several earners per household. One of the obvious consequences is that people have less time for sleep, and more worries to distract them from it.
If you are doing something you find enjoyable or satisfying, you have enough spare time to express yourself as a person, you have the support you need from family and friends, and you are eating and exercising right, then sleep should open up under you like a black velvet crevasse you just can't help sliding into. You sleep for about 7-8 hours and awake refreshed. There are a few tips that most people nowadays have heard: avoid bright artificial lights, strenuous exercise, worrying thoughts, exciting entertainment and too much food and drink before sleep. Some others are less obvious, such as blackout curtains and other ways of making your bedroom as pitch-dark as possible - even a luminous clock dial can be a problem for some.
But if you are having to work too hard for too long, perhaps at several different jobs; if you can never work hard or fast enough; if your boss and co-workers are always giving you a hard time; if you are always worried about money and security; if you eat and drink the wrong things (for whatever reason), and don't get enough plain physical exercise, you will have trouble sleeping. And it's unlikely that any artificial aid will make up for serious lifestyle deficiencies.
There's also this excellent, if somewhat tongue-in-cheek, explanation by the great H.L. Mencken. Not bad prediction 96 years ahead!
"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
"The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron".
- H. L. Mencken (Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920)
Many analyses fall short because they assume that we think these things through logically. On the contrary, this is an area in which hardwired instincts in the lower, more primitive parts of our brains take over almost completely. And one of the most fascinating things about human beings is how very clever people can be completely sure they are doing something for logical reasons, when in fact they are being driven by blind instinct. (Dr Freud was onto that fact with regard, mostly, to sex; and Dr Adler with regard to power).
Homo sapiens evolved over at least two million years as a hunter-gatherer, living in groups ranging probably from family-sized to a maximum of perhaps 200 - possibly depending on the density of food sources. Such small groups would be critically dependent on effective and experienced command. Just like other land animals that live in herds, packs or prides, human beings instinctively recognize the vital necessity of social structure in the form of a well-defined pecking order and a universally accepted leader (alpha male or female). It's far better to have a relatively poor but generally accepted leader than no leader, when the group may break up or even start fighting each other. In that case they probably all die, and all their genes are lost.
So one of history's observations - that people are often very willing to greet and cheer a "man on a white horse" - shouldn't be so surprising at all. And the converse of accepting and supporting the leader is usually hating and fearing outsiders. Unfortunately, this is one of many respects in which our ancient instincts, which served us well as hunter-gatherers, are now extremely counter-survival. (Although it's not at all clear that there is any good solution to the problem of governing human societies larger than a few thousand).
Here is a good essay on a related topic: http://fredoneverything.org/th...
News is already coming in that the terrorists have launched a big offensive towards the town of Al-Furqalas (known to Google Maps as Al-Furqlus). Surprise, surprise! Turns out Al-Furqalas is just 20 miles - half an hour by the local roads - from the Shayrat Military Airport.
What a lucky coincidence that the terrorists just happened to have all the men, vehicles, weapons, ammunition and supplies to launch a major offensive just when the USA took out the airbase.
And just 20 miles away too!
So you are saying the U.S. needs to get better at nation building then?
Nearly right! 8-)
No, we are actually saying that the USA needs to butt out and mind its own business. If it can manage that without bursting.
In particular Iran was the big winner of Dubya's war against Saddam, and they seem to be playing a similar game in Syria now. Basically just laying low and moving into the power vacuums that appear.
So essentially your complaint against Iran is that they haven't started any wars? Unlike the USA, which has been at war for 222 out of its 239 years of existence (that's about 93% of its existence). http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
Without the collapse of Iraq there'd be no isis, and without isis the situation in Syria wouldn't be as messy as it is now.
And without the US government and its invasion of Iraq - an unprovoked war of aggression, the supreme international crime according to the Nuremburg Principles - there would be no ISIS. Indeed, Saddam Hussein kept Iraq pretty free from terrorists - if they entered the country, he killed them. If there aren't any terrorists, there won't be any terrorists.
The invasion - justified, as we know, by Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs which never existed - fragmented Iraq into its constituent parts. Those parts had always been unstable, thanks to Mr Sykes and M Picot who deliberately drew its borders back in 1916. They threw in a large Shia majority, a Sunni minority who were given power, and a substantial Kurdish minority who were obviously going to push for independence and a unified Kurdish state. When the USA charged in with its "Shock and Awe" (aka Blitzkrieg), it smashed all the delicate mechanisms that maintained a precarious state of peace. The Americans disbanded the army, the Baath Party, and every other major institution. Many of the Iraqi army officers and men are now fighting for ISIS.
More recently, some bright sparks in or near Washington (perhaps Langley?) hit on a cunning plan. Ever since Vietnam, American leaders have grappled with the problem of political blowback whenever American armed forces personnel were killed or injured. So why not deploy a "throw-away" army of plausibly deniable proxies to do your dirty work for you? And that is what ISIS is. Just look at the benefits:
1. Washington can tell ISIS to do anything, no matter how hideous or revolting, without the great mass of the public ever suspecting the connection. ISIS can burn captured pilots alive, drown people in a swimming pool, crucify all the inhabitants of a Christian village, and murder over 100,000 Syrian soldiers. And none of this is blamed on the US government! Glorious.
2. It's a win-win. If ISIS overthrows the Syrian government, well and good - mission accomplished. But if it is defeated, routed, massacred or even exterminated, Washington can just look happy and claim the credit.
3. No need to pay benefits, insurance, pensions. No VA costs! Profit!!
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wxE...
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rP8...
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/...
'Slashdot reader Humbubba shares a similar report from Washington Post, adding that Thursday's strike was the "first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country's civil war began six years ago."'
That's odd. Here was I thinking that the NATO air strike on Syrian Army positions last September, which killed about 100 Syrian soldiers and wounded about as many more, was a "direct American assault". It was immediately followed by a mass terrorist attack that overran the Syrian Army positions - which had previously held out stubbornly for years. Almost as if the terrorists had known about the air strike before it happened.
Of course, maybe some Americans think that killing a mere 100 soldiers and wounding another 100 doesn't really amount to an "assault". After all, they are Asian Muslims, aren't they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...