That's the quality reserve which lets you recognize professional project management. At least they were able to deliver within six days. Ok, the whole creation was somewhat buggy, and a complete system restart was necessary after the most important data was backed up in the Ark.
Actually, it's not the Left, that is anti-nicotine, and it's not the nicotine, they are against. If you manage to find a way to smoke without actually producing smoke, everthing is fine.
Actually, it's quite easy to produce high quality booze or cigarettes. The uncle of my mother used to grow tabacco and ferment it. My father was distilling a quite good cherry schnaps just for fun once (made from our own cherries). It's something each somewhat dedicated amateur will master.
It's much more complicated than just "the evil banks launder drug money". If you use the money from drug sales to buy lets say on the next food market, then open up a restaurant and sell the food there, you already have washed your money, because then your drug money gets orderly booked and taxed and is as clean as you want. Do this with several layers of legit companies and then even a very investigative reporter or police officer will have a hard time to prove money laundering.
But there still goes the old saying (as in the Perl documentation): A program is correct if it solves the problem before the boss fires you. You always have to compare the man-hours it saves with the man-hours necessary to reimplement it on a clean base. And in many cases, the reimplementation will eat much more highly paid man-hours than the reimplemented program will ever save compared to the kludge version where one knows all the quirks already.
Satellite imagery is a very late addition to the game. Artillery cannons have a large range of dozens of miles, and they had it already in WWI. When the Germans attacked the Belgian fortresses at Liege, they did it with their big 16.5-inch-howitzer ("Big Bertha") which had a firing range of about 8 mls. No way for the Belgians to figure out where the cannon actually was placed, they just got the shells on their fortresses. The Paris Gun of 1918 even had a firing range of 80 mls, and when it attacked Paris, the Parisians could not hear the muzzle sound, so they had no clue from where they were attacked.
You could argue the same already for spears, arrows, cannonballs and bullets. The place where they inflict damage is not the place where the person responsible for them is. With the advent of ballistic missiles, this person didn't even need to be in the same country or at the same continent. Cruise missiles are nothing else than one-way-drones.
This is in principle an age old problem, and it is unresolved since then. But there is not much pressure to actually resolve it, because it just means that heroism doesn't win wars, but armoury, weapons, tactics and overwhelming resources do.
International laws have existed since we have the idea of nations. After the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, there was the Congress of Vienna (1814/15), which effectively created a codex of international law in Europe. Then we have the founding of the International Red Cross after the Battle of Solferino 1859, which in turn was recognized subsequently by all warwaging countries and led to the first treaty about the Geneva Convention in 1864. And even before, there were multisided agreements between different powers which could also be viewed as international law -- think about the flagging rules of battle ships, merchant ships and pirate ships during the Age of the European Expansion between the 15th and the 18th century.
And yes, like every law, also international laws are often and constantly broken, and enforcing those laws is even more complicated than national law.
But on the other hand, having seen so many programming languages and how they handle things will give you the ability to assess each new language very fast and understand their intrinsic details because you have seen the same thing several times already.
It's the same with foreign languages: You understand your own language much better if you have mastered at least on foreign one.
As someone who has had cancer, I have learned a lot. Most importantly, all the various cancer charities are complete frauds. Despite taking in untold Billions of dollars, the number of people dying from cancer has increased, not decreased over the last 20 years. And nobody has ever had their cancer cured because someone wore a pink ribbon or yellow wristband or walked 10 kilometers.
If you had bothered to actually read even the slashdot article (you don't even need the links), you would understand why the number of people dying of cancer increases. Everyone who has died so far has died of something. Many of the causes people were dying of, we have minimalized or fully eliminated in the last 150 years, Nearly no one dies of the bubonic plague anymore for instance, and most of the other infections are in retreat. With every cause we eliminate, all the remaining causes get a bigger share. And in the end, there are two main causes remaining: coronary diseases and cancer. Everyone of us, given that he dies not of anything else before, will in the end die of either coronary diseases or cancer, which means that they will increase their share, if we further eliminate the other causes for an premature death.
What is actually increasing is the average age humans die because of coronary diseases or cancer. That means, we are able to push the time further away, when cancer or coronary diseases will get us.
The difference is that your dad might not have money you can borrow. China has. And that's what's wrong with many of the silver-spoon-population, they take for granted what isn't. They think everything is easy because they had it easy, and they just don't have an idea why it shouldn't be easy for someone else.
This is a fallacy. You don't have a high barrier of entry to become a health care provider. Train for becoming a nurse, it's not very expensive, and after that you can legally provide health care. That's one reason why nurses are not paid high wages. The market works here - not for the lowering of your costs, but against the people actually helping you to get healthy.
Doctors are constantly breaking the law by poisoning people, keeping them drugged, causing grievious bodily harm. The barrier of entry is not necessarily the governmental regulation itself, it's the fact, that doctors are allowed to do things no other is allowed to do -- because they supposedly know what they are doing. If you can prove that you can be trusted enough to be taken out of the normal course of law when it comes to keeping people in strict confinement, cutting them up, drug them until they fall unconcious, it might be ok. But if you can't show that you are know what you are doing, keep out!
In a marketplace, competition will, generally, drive the bad actors to fail and reward the good actors.
The problem with this is that "good" and "bad" are determined in the terms of the market and not in terms of the individual. You as a person are not a market. There is no guarantee that you get to become an actor in the market. There is nothing per se that causes the definition of good in the market to somehow correlate to the definition of good for you. The only way get some correlation is by the individuals to bound together and change the market rules until there is some fit.
People usually call this "having a government and laws and regulations and get them enforced."
If someone sings the high praise of the free, unregulated market, you can be sure that he either has no clue about this, or contrary, that he knows it very well and just wants you to give up the part of the regulation that caused to morph the market more in your direction and less in his.
I was referring to the classical meaning of movement: having a speed difference to your environment (or a referrential system).
If you are moving at the same speed than your referrential system, you aren't moving at all.
Yes, because travelling forward in time is actually possible. It's called relativistic time dilation. Mostly this gets interpreted as the local time being slower than the time in the space surrounding it due to the speed of the object the time is valid for. But one could also interpret it as the object moving forward in time (actually in time-space).
GUIs are walled gardens in the sense that it's not easy to expand a GUI once it is compiled and shipped. With a command line interface you just install another binary, and your CLI is expanded by one command.
A CLI also allows you to concat several commands into larger, more complex "commands" (shell scripts, batch files...). Try that with a GUI! Once a GUI is ready, it stays that way until you install the new version of the GUI. Ok, there are some GUIs you can expand with plugins, but the plugins need to be written exactly for this one GUI framework, while a command line interface works everywhere. Imagine a binary that can only be started from tcsh and refuses to run under bash or ksh...
No. "Privilege" is just privilege. It means a right not everyone has (from latin privus - private and lex - law, "private law"). And not everyone has the means to get to the next used book shop, to even know about the next used book shop, especially not every teenager. And not everyone has enough pocket money to buy even used books.
Ok, you cite exactly one example, and one that predates the southern U.S. by 150-200 years. And if you bothered to read the whole article you would notice that in 1662, the legal equality between whites and blacks in Virginia ended, and Anthony Johnson moved to Maryland.
But it doesn't make anything about the "70% of all slave owners were black" more convincing.
Actually, it's not so easy, as a 1..10 scale is not really covering anything. I would for instance have a problem dating a devout, pious woman, though she might be attractive by most other criteria. On the other hand, if she appears bookish and has excellent verbal skills (or even be bilingual), I could be very interested. For some reason I seem to fall for some quirks in the personality of people. I am really bad at estimating other people's intelligence, but I like it if they appear to think strategically or be at least very tenacious at the things they are working to achieve. Try to express that in a 1..10 scale!
Slashdot Mirror
That's the quality reserve which lets you recognize professional project management. At least they were able to deliver within six days. Ok, the whole creation was somewhat buggy, and a complete system restart was necessary after the most important data was backed up in the Ark.
Actually, it's not the Left, that is anti-nicotine, and it's not the nicotine, they are against. If you manage to find a way to smoke without actually producing smoke, everthing is fine.
Actually, it's quite easy to produce high quality booze or cigarettes. The uncle of my mother used to grow tabacco and ferment it. My father was distilling a quite good cherry schnaps just for fun once (made from our own cherries). It's something each somewhat dedicated amateur will master.
But even in countries where the conservative right is not so much about small government, they are resolutely pro war-on-drugs.
It's much more complicated than just "the evil banks launder drug money". If you use the money from drug sales to buy lets say on the next food market, then open up a restaurant and sell the food there, you already have washed your money, because then your drug money gets orderly booked and taxed and is as clean as you want. Do this with several layers of legit companies and then even a very investigative reporter or police officer will have a hard time to prove money laundering.
But there still goes the old saying (as in the Perl documentation): A program is correct if it solves the problem before the boss fires you. You always have to compare the man-hours it saves with the man-hours necessary to reimplement it on a clean base. And in many cases, the reimplementation will eat much more highly paid man-hours than the reimplemented program will ever save compared to the kludge version where one knows all the quirks already.
Satellite imagery is a very late addition to the game. Artillery cannons have a large range of dozens of miles, and they had it already in WWI. When the Germans attacked the Belgian fortresses at Liege, they did it with their big 16.5-inch-howitzer ("Big Bertha") which had a firing range of about 8 mls. No way for the Belgians to figure out where the cannon actually was placed, they just got the shells on their fortresses. The Paris Gun of 1918 even had a firing range of 80 mls, and when it attacked Paris, the Parisians could not hear the muzzle sound, so they had no clue from where they were attacked.
This is in principle an age old problem, and it is unresolved since then. But there is not much pressure to actually resolve it, because it just means that heroism doesn't win wars, but armoury, weapons, tactics and overwhelming resources do.
And yes, like every law, also international laws are often and constantly broken, and enforcing those laws is even more complicated than national law.
A war is when the majority of actors in it agree it's a war.
Then unroll the recursion and use list processing instead.
It's the same with foreign languages: You understand your own language much better if you have mastered at least on foreign one.
Luckily, about everything you could code boils down to list processing and recursion.
Because the testicles are places of intensive cell division and thus prone to errors?
As someone who has had cancer, I have learned a lot. Most importantly, all the various cancer charities are complete frauds. Despite taking in untold Billions of dollars, the number of people dying from cancer has increased, not decreased over the last 20 years. And nobody has ever had their cancer cured because someone wore a pink ribbon or yellow wristband or walked 10 kilometers.
If you had bothered to actually read even the slashdot article (you don't even need the links), you would understand why the number of people dying of cancer increases. Everyone who has died so far has died of something. Many of the causes people were dying of, we have minimalized or fully eliminated in the last 150 years, Nearly no one dies of the bubonic plague anymore for instance, and most of the other infections are in retreat. With every cause we eliminate, all the remaining causes get a bigger share. And in the end, there are two main causes remaining: coronary diseases and cancer. Everyone of us, given that he dies not of anything else before, will in the end die of either coronary diseases or cancer, which means that they will increase their share, if we further eliminate the other causes for an premature death.
What is actually increasing is the average age humans die because of coronary diseases or cancer. That means, we are able to push the time further away, when cancer or coronary diseases will get us.
The difference is that your dad might not have money you can borrow. China has. And that's what's wrong with many of the silver-spoon-population, they take for granted what isn't. They think everything is easy because they had it easy, and they just don't have an idea why it shouldn't be easy for someone else.
Doctors are constantly breaking the law by poisoning people, keeping them drugged, causing grievious bodily harm. The barrier of entry is not necessarily the governmental regulation itself, it's the fact, that doctors are allowed to do things no other is allowed to do -- because they supposedly know what they are doing. If you can prove that you can be trusted enough to be taken out of the normal course of law when it comes to keeping people in strict confinement, cutting them up, drug them until they fall unconcious, it might be ok. But if you can't show that you are know what you are doing, keep out!
It's not just Skydrive, also the Metro GUI is not called Metro in the EU, because of the collision with the german wholesaler Metro.
In a marketplace, competition will, generally, drive the bad actors to fail and reward the good actors.
The problem with this is that "good" and "bad" are determined in the terms of the market and not in terms of the individual. You as a person are not a market. There is no guarantee that you get to become an actor in the market. There is nothing per se that causes the definition of good in the market to somehow correlate to the definition of good for you. The only way get some correlation is by the individuals to bound together and change the market rules until there is some fit.
People usually call this "having a government and laws and regulations and get them enforced."
If someone sings the high praise of the free, unregulated market, you can be sure that he either has no clue about this, or contrary, that he knows it very well and just wants you to give up the part of the regulation that caused to morph the market more in your direction and less in his.
I was referring to the classical meaning of movement: having a speed difference to your environment (or a referrential system). If you are moving at the same speed than your referrential system, you aren't moving at all.
Yes, because travelling forward in time is actually possible. It's called relativistic time dilation. Mostly this gets interpreted as the local time being slower than the time in the space surrounding it due to the speed of the object the time is valid for. But one could also interpret it as the object moving forward in time (actually in time-space).
A CLI also allows you to concat several commands into larger, more complex "commands" (shell scripts, batch files...). Try that with a GUI! Once a GUI is ready, it stays that way until you install the new version of the GUI. Ok, there are some GUIs you can expand with plugins, but the plugins need to be written exactly for this one GUI framework, while a command line interface works everywhere. Imagine a binary that can only be started from tcsh and refuses to run under bash or ksh...
Your argument still doesn't fly.
But it doesn't make anything about the "70% of all slave owners were black" more convincing.
Actually, it's not so easy, as a 1..10 scale is not really covering anything. I would for instance have a problem dating a devout, pious woman, though she might be attractive by most other criteria. On the other hand, if she appears bookish and has excellent verbal skills (or even be bilingual), I could be very interested. For some reason I seem to fall for some quirks in the personality of people. I am really bad at estimating other people's intelligence, but I like it if they appear to think strategically or be at least very tenacious at the things they are working to achieve. Try to express that in a 1..10 scale!