Why do I have to enter my name and e-mail address, if they're free?
Free as in "I don't have to give money" kind of free (the common sense definition used by the majority of human beings.)
Think of it this way. Someone is going to give you a book for free, but you have to go to his bookstore. That is, you have to walk in. By the logic derived from your silly protestation, you could say "hey, if it is free, why do I have to give you my physical presence.".
You can keep protesting against something you don't have to give money for. It is your right, but it does make you quite silly for not understanding the meaning of trade-offs and the generally accepted definition of "free" as used by human civilizations for centuries.
If ARM wastes more time, Intel will eventually usurp the mobile market by being more "compatible".
Um, what percentage of phone buyers do you think are interested in their phone being a fully open hardware platform? Don't get me wrong I'd love it to exist, but people aren't going to abandon closed-source SoC based phones because of it.
Non sequitur. What matters is not what the customers want (or know), but the costs associated with developing in a platform. Someone has to build shit, and if the platform is fragmented, well, then that adds up to the cost, doesn't?
Managers like to sneak up on their employees, and look over their shoulders. They like to be an ever-present looming threat keeping the prole's heads down and working hard. It's a constant trickle of pleasure in their bloodstreams. Productivity and mental health numbers don't matter to them.
Not all managers. In 22 years doing this in software (and 28 when I include other fields), I can say for certain that this is not the general case. If a) you have a good manager, and b) you have given them reason to trust you, they don't do that.
However, if a) you do not have a good manager, or b) you have given them reason to mistrust you, then yeah, they'll sneak upon you.
This is not specific of software. It happens everywhere. Life is what you make of it.
Welcome to the late 20th century, where email exists.
And skype and webex and slack. I collaborate with a co-worker in Phoenix and one in Naples on a daily basis while I work off Broward (north of Miami). We conduct daily stand ups, code reviews and design meetings all remotely.
A few weeks ago, I worked remotely with a team in Japan. And in the past I've done the same with people on the West Coast and India.
This is the type of shit that has been possible for more than a decade.
Now, I understand the rationale for being against telecommuting. But they are rarely technical, and sometimes, they are completely legitimate and rational.
It's all a bunch of teenagers kicking the back of your seat and smacking gum and talking on phones. I'll pass.
YMMV, and it all depends on where you go. Go to a shitty theater in a shitty neighbor? Then you'll get a shitty experience.
I for one avoid those, and take my kids to really nice ones. This is one of my favorites in the western (better) part of Broward County, FL, which is build as a theme park (see image). My kids go crazy there.
My kids went in awe when I took them to watch Kung-Fu Panda 3 and Finding Dory. Sure, they can (and will) watch them again at home in DVD, but they love going out and eat a "movie hot dog" (that's how they call them) and play in the arcades before the movie starts. It's a break from the routine, and a small treat I give them twice or thrice a year...
... plus they get to see lots and lots of people. More than what they'll see in a park, in densities greater than in a zoo. That's another part of the human experience that they are learning to relish.
You know what I miss? Drive-in theaters. I grew up watching movies like that. Too bad there aren't that many anymore, for my kids would love it.
It is always the craftman not the tool. This is not to say there are tools that are more adequate than others. A flaw in the language? A good developer knows how to see shit like that a mile away and work around it (and that has more to do with training and ethics than experience.)
Their article calls for LangSec testing, and applauds the use of languages like Go and Rust over memory-unsafe languages like C.
So what? There is shitty code in Java, C# and even Ruby (which I love but that people treat it as a golden calf.)
The Linux kernel is rock solid, and guess what, it's written in C. It's the developers, always.
Expect to see shitty code in Go and Rust in no time as shitty developers flock to it.
Besides, my observation was obviously meant for high-density areas, like pretty much every important city in the US, which is where the majority of the people live, where the engines of the economy run. It is not applicable to small density areas, which as charming as they might be, are not where the bulk of the nation is, and which are more economically unsustainable as time goes by.
So I really don't get what the hell your comment was all about.
Says that self driving cars will put an end to car ownership.
It could put a dent in it but unless this makes people so broke that they can't own their own car I think personal space will still win out.
I refer to you (as I've done many times in other threads) to Tokyo. You can party, go to work and take your kids anywhere in the whole Kanto region without a car.
That only works in very high-density areas. Those of us who don't live in battery-hen conditions won't be getting good access to public transport anytime soon. You may enjoy living in such a manner that four or five of the six sides that make up your home are shared with someone else. I do not.
The fact that you call it a 'battery-hen condition" shows you have never been in Tokyo... so it is hard to say how objective your description is. And even when you step out of Tokyo, say, go Chiba, you find sizeable homes... and yet, you still have access to excellent public transportation. You barely need a car.
I don't live in Tokyo currently, but I've stayed in Shinawaga (beautiful condos with lots of greenery) and in Yokohama where my in-laws live. Their 2-story house is not large, as it lacks a large patio, but it is very comfortable, not to mention the adjacent amenities, green areas and what not that come with a well-run alpha city.
The fact that large cities in the US do not have good public transportation is simply lack of planning. There is nothing inherently in urban sprawl or large homes that preclude us from having it.
I won't be moving to a high-density area anytime soon as I'm used to my 700sqm house on 4000sqm land with a 80000l pool in the yard.
Which is OK, but that doesn't preclude us from having good transportation. My house is 167 sqm (I wouldn't live in anything over 371 sqm, the cleaning just gets a part-time job) with a good enough patio for fruit trees and stuff. It is in a community of houses that size and big, with plenty of green, among similar communities...
... it is situated in a city ranked the 8th best in the country (Weston), 7 miles away from Southwest Ranches - a ranching community where I might buy a 2-acre/8000 sqm property, double of what you have, when my kids get older - all enclosed within the 8th largest metropolitan area in the US (South Florida) with a 300 billion dollar economy rivaling Singapore.
We have a lot of condo canyons mind you, from the claustrophobic to the incredibly spacious (with the only think lacking being a patio). But we have a large, specious homes and ranches.
There is nothing, ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOTHING that preclude us in South Florida (or any well-run megapolis) from having good public transportation other than myopic self-interests, politics and lack of urban planning.
When I lived in LA, I did not need a car at all. I lived in Van Nuy and worked in Burbank and traveled to Downtown, Santa Monica and Hawthorne on a regular basis. LOOK MA, NO CAR!
Buses travel every other artery at a 30-min frequency, and houses weren't small (though like in all urban areas, there are more condos than full-sized homes.) Traffic is terrible obviously, but public transportation is absolutely superior to what we have here in South Florida, and more than sufficient for people to exercise job mobility without having to own a car.
and (literally) park-like front garden.
Good for you. Since we are going to compare properties, why not? I have a very nice lake view on my backyard with plenty of fruit trees and some northfolk pines or weeping willows in the near future. Here is a picture from the front going back all the way to the lake on the backyard. I still have some fixes to do. Not a 700sqm home, but certainly not a box.
Says that self driving cars will put an end to car ownership.
It could put a dent in it but unless this makes people so broke that they can't own their own car I think personal space will still win out.
We own cars because we have to. Our public transportation systems usually suck, and we cannot go anywhere (jobs, entertainment, whatever) without it. I refer to you (as I've done many times in other threads) to Tokyo. You can party, go to work and take your kids anywhere in the whole Kanto region without a car.
As our car ownership increases, the negative impact in our infrastructure, economy, environment and productivity decreases. Cities around this country are battling with how to deal with this. Out of necessity, car ownership (or at least individual driving within a city) will decrease.
Autonomous cars will be one of the many ways this will be addressed. It will happen. And car manufacturers are betting on it and trying to jump ahead of it instead of being relegated to the losing side of things.
Here I have 4 kids, each requiring different car seats size / adjustments. We are bringing and keeping different stuff for the kids (Stroller, diapers, their favorite movies) which stay with us without needing to grab it at our Xth destination. Keeping our previous purchases safe while we go for our next stop, and the items we don't need at that stop (no stroller at the grocery store) is a major win that lyft rides won't provide.
It might definitely help reduce the percentage of ownership, but it certainly can't sign the death certificate.
That's a very particular way of viewing things, very particular of this country. In cities with excellent public infrastructure (say Tokyo or the Kanto Region as a whole), you truly do not need a car, even with kids.
So the fact that it cannot happen here shows how poorly designed our cities are in general, and how costly that is. We own cars not because we are (or like to be) independent, but because we are crucially and almost fatally dependent on them for basic transportation in a way almost unimaginable in a 1st world country.
THE REAL issue is where is the cure for cancer? Where is the FUSION POWER? Where is clean energy production? How do we care and feed for 7 billion people? These problems should come before billionaires playing model rockets.
It's their fucking money to use as they please. You do not get to say "should" or "should not" with other's people's fortunes.
Anyone who says "where is the cure for cancer" is an idiot. There is not one cancer, but an enormous class of problems with different biological characteristics, requiring very specific treatments.
Space travel is not just about playing with rockets, but also integrating a variety of technologies and science fields. Chances are advances in rocket propulsion will lead to advances that play right into fusion power (or other technologies.)
Furthermore, we can care for 7 billion people. We have the means, and the technical know-how to produce enough food without depleting the planet for 7 billions and more. What we have is not a technology problem, but a socio-economic problem. You do not solve those by telling billionaires hey, don't use your money that way!.
Don't you think that having two African-American presidents in a row wouldn't be very good from a diversity perspective?
Dude, the whole reason for Trump being a contender today is because having ONE African-American president was too much diversity for some folks. That's the reality behind all the sophistries these folks pull out of their good'ol' collective bald-eagle say-merry-xmas-or-i-kill-you poop shoots.
Actually the government can (and does) criminalize price gouging on certain items (like gas in case of an emergency or catastrophes.)
The result is simple: Without the extra incentive to get on the road and drive from Brooklyn or Long Island out to Manhattan and into a traffic nightmare with panicked people and possibly even bombs going off around you,...you won't get anyone coming to give you a ride. The Government cannot compel people to go to work. It can only arrange for you not to have any Ubers available, since the drivers are in their socks watching the Mets instead.
That's speculation. We know that people have ventured to do business when there is risk involve or in case of catastrophes (even to the point of providing services for free or for delayed payment.) There are plenty of cases where this has been the case, so it could go either way.
Now, I'm not saying that government must dictate that there cannot be a price increase to meet demand. Actually it shouldn't.
But we are conflating an increase in price to meet demand with price gouging in a disaster. There are not one and the same (even if the line that divides them can be perceived as being subjective.)
Furthermore the government has the power to have a say on that, for better or worse. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't. And we cannot be assuming how people and business can operate in a disaster purely from a financial incentive POV. History, recent history shows that people and businesses are willing to take TEMPORARY risks or increase costs in the name of altruism.
I don't understand the problem myself. Without Uber you wouldn't have had a ride at all. If you don't like the pricing try waiting for a taxi or use another service.
Repeat after me: Uber is NOT run by the government... that's both what makes it good... AND what leads to scenarios like this. You can't have the good (low fares, clean cars, drivers that give a shit) without allowing them to work with the free market (supply / demand).
Actually the government can (and does) criminalize price gouging on certain items (like gas in case of an emergency or catastrophes.)
In this case, there are no laws that prevent gouging on transportation fares by a private transportation company after an emergency (and a terror attack fits that definition). Whether that can (or should) change, that's another story. But there is nothing preventing the government at the local, state or federal level from imposing sanctions.
Unrestrained free market is like communism, a dogmatic ideology, a religion that when you let it run amok it shows some butt ugly consequences.
With that said, I wouldn't blame Uber since this is not a case of intentionally gouging fares (it was just an algorithm adjustment.) But I'm sure some revisions will take place in the future to halt that optimization case of a disaster (common good PR sense and the need not to bring government hounds to enact laws and sanctions) without incurring loss in competitiveness.
Using tabs enables the viewer to view the code indentation with as much spacing as they see fit. That means on my X character wide ultra high res terminal, i can ensure that there is a noticable level of identation. People who don't get that tabs can be redefined to make formatting more legible for the person reading your code are assholes.
Or you could say that in projects with a lot of people, it pays to force an indentation standard based on a universal number of spaces, a constant retained from revision to revision. Then when you, the generic you, do a diff in any tool, it will look exactly the same regardless of a user's editor setup.
I'm sure there are people who will disagree and will put valid counter-arguments. I can only say that after doing this for a while and having to deal with disparate formatting of the same file in the same bloody branch (making diffs almost impossible to discern without some serious massage), then a standard spacing becomes a lifesaver.
See, programmers are very talented, but also extremely opinionated. Sorry, most cannot do shit without having someone forcing some rules upon them. The amount of ego is just staggering, and almost everyone, when left to her devices reformats and shuffle shit on a file to fit her own needs without ever thinking "gee, I wonder if the next person who has to maintain this piece of code will be able to effectively discern logical/structural changes from formatting ones without involving file-massaging heroics.".
You are changing the goalposts... That's bullshit no matter how you cut it... The first iPhone being just slightly better than the phones of the time? Utter garbage and disingenuous history revisionism.
Fuck off no-one cares about these tired iPhone arguments anymore. It's just a phone, get over it.
You care enough to argue back, don't you? We are not arguing about iPhones (that's you again moving the goalposts). We are arguing about your technologically inaccurate statements. You don't like being called on inaccurate statements? Then motherfuckingduh don't make inaccurate statements. Or better yet, let it go (since you claim no one cares about these arguments anymore.)
The thread is about whether Elon is a copy of Steve, or a better version altogether.
Yes, then stick to that theme and don't post inaccurate shit like saying the first iPhone was just *slightly* better than the technology available at the time (which is inaccurate and easy to disprove by just pulling up the specs of every single major phone at the time.)
I think he's much better since the stuff he is doing is much cooler.
No one said otherwise. Feel free to hump that strawman, just don't complain when you get blisters.
We've already had this argument a million times in here. The point is do you prefer a slightly better phone or and the fastest car in the world? Or a rocket?
I'm no fan of Elon either, but I think most people would think cars and rockets are cooler than phones and laptops
You are changing the goalposts. I'm not talking about comparing cars and rockets or whether the later is way cooler than the former (what a stupid strawman.) I'm talking about (and taking you to task) this which you wrote:
while Steve built a telephone that was slightly better than the existing telephones of the day
That's bullshit no matter how you cut it. Rockets cooler than phones? Of course! The first iPhone being just slightly better than the phones of the time? Utter garbage and disingenuous history revisionism.
Why Aren't Techies Improving The World?
We can ask this question to the human population in general.
"the latest app that solves some made up problem. I'm impressed by apps that solve real problems
Well, technology is not just apps. And techies aren't strictly in the world of app development. There are all types of development in this world going on making a difference. If you can't be bothered doing a single fucking google on it, then there is not one goddamned reason to spend time giving you some real-world examples.
Furthermore, techies aren't solely in software. Oncologists and chemists, physicists, scientists and engineers of all disciplines are techies in their domain. It takes a very stupid, uneducated and shallow mind to think techie == software, let alone techie == app development.
I know you're only trying to be funny but Elon builds fast cars and rockets, while Steve built a telephone that was slightly better than the existing telephones of the day (until the competition caught up and made even better telephones).
I'll leave it the reader to decide which is cooler.
I'm not a fan of Jobs, and I'm certainly not an iPhone fanboy, but GTFO, the first iPhone was leaps and bounds better than anything available at the time. It was a paradigm shift in both mobile phone and personal computing technologies.
General dislike for someone or something should not preclude us from being objective.
who claims an entire ethnic group is majoritarily composed of rapists and murders
Trump never did that. He said a majority of the illegal immigrants from Mexico were rapists and murderers. Now, that's still bigoted and bad, but he didn't say that Hispanics were rapists and murderers.
Claiming that a majority of a group (illegal Mexicans) are made of rapists and murderers is not (in)morally different from claiming that they all are as a group (since Mexico is not sending their best).
Split hairs as much as you want, that was a clear dog whistle since people who listen to that crap tend not to make any differentiation between an illegal immigrant or a US national of Hispanic background (be it a naturalized citizen like me or someone with roots stretching back 300 years.
Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, what's the difference, they are all the same shit. I know that because I've seen it and hear it in the flesh. Let me show you a little pice of this reality. I know that this is purely an anecdotal piece, but it is not some random shit, but something very common that, sadly, I've seen way too many times:
https://twitter.com/luisespinal/status/756649054344474624
Slashdot Mirror
Why do I have to enter my name and e-mail address, if they're free?
Free as in "I don't have to give money" kind of free (the common sense definition used by the majority of human beings.)
Think of it this way. Someone is going to give you a book for free, but you have to go to his bookstore. That is, you have to walk in. By the logic derived from your silly protestation, you could say "hey, if it is free, why do I have to give you my physical presence.".
You can keep protesting against something you don't have to give money for. It is your right, but it does make you quite silly for not understanding the meaning of trade-offs and the generally accepted definition of "free" as used by human civilizations for centuries.
If ARM wastes more time, Intel will eventually usurp the mobile market by being more "compatible".
Um, what percentage of phone buyers do you think are interested in their phone being a fully open hardware platform? Don't get me wrong I'd love it to exist, but people aren't going to abandon closed-source SoC based phones because of it.
Non sequitur. What matters is not what the customers want (or know), but the costs associated with developing in a platform. Someone has to build shit, and if the platform is fragmented, well, then that adds up to the cost, doesn't?
Managers like to sneak up on their employees, and look over their shoulders. They like to be an ever-present looming threat keeping the prole's heads down and working hard. It's a constant trickle of pleasure in their bloodstreams. Productivity and mental health numbers don't matter to them.
Not all managers. In 22 years doing this in software (and 28 when I include other fields), I can say for certain that this is not the general case. If a) you have a good manager, and b) you have given them reason to trust you, they don't do that.
However, if a) you do not have a good manager, or b) you have given them reason to mistrust you, then yeah, they'll sneak upon you.
This is not specific of software. It happens everywhere. Life is what you make of it.
Welcome to the late 20th century, where email exists.
And skype and webex and slack. I collaborate with a co-worker in Phoenix and one in Naples on a daily basis while I work off Broward (north of Miami). We conduct daily stand ups, code reviews and design meetings all remotely.
A few weeks ago, I worked remotely with a team in Japan. And in the past I've done the same with people on the West Coast and India.
This is the type of shit that has been possible for more than a decade.
Now, I understand the rationale for being against telecommuting. But they are rarely technical, and sometimes, they are completely legitimate and rational.
It's all a bunch of teenagers kicking the back of your seat and smacking gum and talking on phones. I'll pass.
YMMV, and it all depends on where you go. Go to a shitty theater in a shitty neighbor? Then you'll get a shitty experience.
I for one avoid those, and take my kids to really nice ones. This is one of my favorites in the western (better) part of Broward County, FL, which is build as a theme park (see image). My kids go crazy there.
My kids went in awe when I took them to watch Kung-Fu Panda 3 and Finding Dory. Sure, they can (and will) watch them again at home in DVD, but they love going out and eat a "movie hot dog" (that's how they call them) and play in the arcades before the movie starts. It's a break from the routine, and a small treat I give them twice or thrice a year...
You know what I miss? Drive-in theaters. I grew up watching movies like that. Too bad there aren't that many anymore, for my kids would love it.
Are Flawed Languages Creating Bad Software?
It is always the craftman not the tool. This is not to say there are tools that are more adequate than others. A flaw in the language? A good developer knows how to see shit like that a mile away and work around it (and that has more to do with training and ethics than experience.)
Their article calls for LangSec testing, and applauds the use of languages like Go and Rust over memory-unsafe languages like C.
So what? There is shitty code in Java, C# and even Ruby (which I love but that people treat it as a golden calf.)
The Linux kernel is rock solid, and guess what, it's written in C. It's the developers, always.
Expect to see shitty code in Go and Rust in no time as shitty developers flock to it.
They have common IT security practices.
Like Passw0rd as the general password for all accounts with sudo access? :)
That only works in very high-density areas.
Besides, my observation was obviously meant for high-density areas, like pretty much every important city in the US, which is where the majority of the people live, where the engines of the economy run. It is not applicable to small density areas, which as charming as they might be, are not where the bulk of the nation is, and which are more economically unsustainable as time goes by.
So I really don't get what the hell your comment was all about.
Says that self driving cars will put an end to car ownership.
It could put a dent in it but unless this makes people so broke that they can't own their own car I think personal space will still win out.
I refer to you (as I've done many times in other threads) to Tokyo. You can party, go to work and take your kids anywhere in the whole Kanto region without a car.
That only works in very high-density areas. Those of us who don't live in battery-hen conditions won't be getting good access to public transport anytime soon. You may enjoy living in such a manner that four or five of the six sides that make up your home are shared with someone else. I do not.
The fact that you call it a 'battery-hen condition" shows you have never been in Tokyo... so it is hard to say how objective your description is. And even when you step out of Tokyo, say, go Chiba, you find sizeable homes... and yet, you still have access to excellent public transportation. You barely need a car.
I don't live in Tokyo currently, but I've stayed in Shinawaga (beautiful condos with lots of greenery) and in Yokohama where my in-laws live. Their 2-story house is not large, as it lacks a large patio, but it is very comfortable, not to mention the adjacent amenities, green areas and what not that come with a well-run alpha city.
The fact that large cities in the US do not have good public transportation is simply lack of planning. There is nothing inherently in urban sprawl or large homes that preclude us from having it.
I won't be moving to a high-density area anytime soon as I'm used to my 700sqm house on 4000sqm land with a 80000l pool in the yard.
Which is OK, but that doesn't preclude us from having good transportation. My house is 167 sqm (I wouldn't live in anything over 371 sqm, the cleaning just gets a part-time job) with a good enough patio for fruit trees and stuff. It is in a community of houses that size and big, with plenty of green, among similar communities...
We have a lot of condo canyons mind you, from the claustrophobic to the incredibly spacious (with the only think lacking being a patio). But we have a large, specious homes and ranches.
There is nothing, ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOTHING that preclude us in South Florida (or any well-run megapolis) from having good public transportation other than myopic self-interests, politics and lack of urban planning.
When I lived in LA, I did not need a car at all. I lived in Van Nuy and worked in Burbank and traveled to Downtown, Santa Monica and Hawthorne on a regular basis. LOOK MA, NO CAR!
Buses travel every other artery at a 30-min frequency, and houses weren't small (though like in all urban areas, there are more condos than full-sized homes.) Traffic is terrible obviously, but public transportation is absolutely superior to what we have here in South Florida, and more than sufficient for people to exercise job mobility without having to own a car.
and (literally) park-like front garden.
Good for you. Since we are going to compare properties, why not? I have a very nice lake view on my backyard with plenty of fruit trees and some northfolk pines or weeping willows in the near future. Here is a picture from the front going back all the way to the lake on the backyard. I still have some fixes to do. Not a 700sqm home, but certainly not a box.
http://bit.ly/2cArnM4
And you know what's awesome? Within driving distance I can t
Says that self driving cars will put an end to car ownership.
It could put a dent in it but unless this makes people so broke that they can't own their own car I think personal space will still win out.
We own cars because we have to. Our public transportation systems usually suck, and we cannot go anywhere (jobs, entertainment, whatever) without it. I refer to you (as I've done many times in other threads) to Tokyo. You can party, go to work and take your kids anywhere in the whole Kanto region without a car.
As our car ownership increases, the negative impact in our infrastructure, economy, environment and productivity decreases. Cities around this country are battling with how to deal with this. Out of necessity, car ownership (or at least individual driving within a city) will decrease.
Autonomous cars will be one of the many ways this will be addressed. It will happen. And car manufacturers are betting on it and trying to jump ahead of it instead of being relegated to the losing side of things.
Business-wise, it is the smart move.
Reason #1 it won't happen; families.
Here I have 4 kids, each requiring different car seats size / adjustments. We are bringing and keeping different stuff for the kids (Stroller, diapers, their favorite movies) which stay with us without needing to grab it at our Xth destination. Keeping our previous purchases safe while we go for our next stop, and the items we don't need at that stop (no stroller at the grocery store) is a major win that lyft rides won't provide.
It might definitely help reduce the percentage of ownership, but it certainly can't sign the death certificate.
That's a very particular way of viewing things, very particular of this country. In cities with excellent public infrastructure (say Tokyo or the Kanto Region as a whole), you truly do not need a car, even with kids.
So the fact that it cannot happen here shows how poorly designed our cities are in general, and how costly that is. We own cars not because we are (or like to be) independent, but because we are crucially and almost fatally dependent on them for basic transportation in a way almost unimaginable in a 1st world country.
THE REAL issue is where is the cure for cancer? Where is the FUSION POWER? Where is clean energy production? How do we care and feed for 7 billion people? These problems should come before billionaires playing model rockets.
It's their fucking money to use as they please. You do not get to say "should" or "should not" with other's people's fortunes.
Anyone who says "where is the cure for cancer" is an idiot. There is not one cancer, but an enormous class of problems with different biological characteristics, requiring very specific treatments.
Space travel is not just about playing with rockets, but also integrating a variety of technologies and science fields. Chances are advances in rocket propulsion will lead to advances that play right into fusion power (or other technologies.)
Furthermore, we can care for 7 billion people. We have the means, and the technical know-how to produce enough food without depleting the planet for 7 billions and more. What we have is not a technology problem, but a socio-economic problem. You do not solve those by telling billionaires hey, don't use your money that way!.
What a twat.
Don't you think that having two African-American presidents in a row wouldn't be very good from a diversity perspective?
Dude, the whole reason for Trump being a contender today is because having ONE African-American president was too much diversity for some folks. That's the reality behind all the sophistries these folks pull out of their good'ol' collective bald-eagle say-merry-xmas-or-i-kill-you poop shoots.
Actually the government can (and does) criminalize price gouging on certain items (like gas in case of an emergency or catastrophes.)
The result is simple: Without the extra incentive to get on the road and drive from Brooklyn or Long Island out to Manhattan and into a traffic nightmare with panicked people and possibly even bombs going off around you,...you won't get anyone coming to give you a ride. The Government cannot compel people to go to work. It can only arrange for you not to have any Ubers available, since the drivers are in their socks watching the Mets instead.
That's speculation. We know that people have ventured to do business when there is risk involve or in case of catastrophes (even to the point of providing services for free or for delayed payment.) There are plenty of cases where this has been the case, so it could go either way.
Now, I'm not saying that government must dictate that there cannot be a price increase to meet demand. Actually it shouldn't.
But we are conflating an increase in price to meet demand with price gouging in a disaster. There are not one and the same (even if the line that divides them can be perceived as being subjective.)
Furthermore the government has the power to have a say on that, for better or worse. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't. And we cannot be assuming how people and business can operate in a disaster purely from a financial incentive POV. History, recent history shows that people and businesses are willing to take TEMPORARY risks or increase costs in the name of altruism.
Exactly.
I don't understand the problem myself. Without Uber you wouldn't have had a ride at all. If you don't like the pricing try waiting for a taxi or use another service.
Repeat after me: Uber is NOT run by the government... that's both what makes it good... AND what leads to scenarios like this. You can't have the good (low fares, clean cars, drivers that give a shit) without allowing them to work with the free market (supply / demand).
Actually the government can (and does) criminalize price gouging on certain items (like gas in case of an emergency or catastrophes.)
In this case, there are no laws that prevent gouging on transportation fares by a private transportation company after an emergency (and a terror attack fits that definition). Whether that can (or should) change, that's another story. But there is nothing preventing the government at the local, state or federal level from imposing sanctions.
Unrestrained free market is like communism, a dogmatic ideology, a religion that when you let it run amok it shows some butt ugly consequences.
With that said, I wouldn't blame Uber since this is not a case of intentionally gouging fares (it was just an algorithm adjustment.) But I'm sure some revisions will take place in the future to halt that optimization case of a disaster (common good PR sense and the need not to bring government hounds to enact laws and sanctions) without incurring loss in competitiveness.
... with the easy-to-use web interface that any major provider will give you, then maybe you shouldn't be running your own domain.
Hire someone competent to run it for you.
While you're at it, have them prevent sql injections, install a valid Hhttps certificate, and set file permissions appropriately.
Spoken like somebody who knows his job can easily be taken over by automated systems.
What a strange comment. Hiring someone who can competently run it implies hiring someone who can automate it.
Nobody gets raises for being a cunt. Come up with a plan to fix this in a cost-effective manner, and maybe next time they'll pay attention.
Hahahahaha, been living under a rock, haven't you?
Using tabs enables the viewer to view the code indentation with as much spacing as they see fit. That means on my X character wide ultra high res terminal, i can ensure that there is a noticable level of identation. People who don't get that tabs can be redefined to make formatting more legible for the person reading your code are assholes.
Or you could say that in projects with a lot of people, it pays to force an indentation standard based on a universal number of spaces, a constant retained from revision to revision. Then when you, the generic you, do a diff in any tool, it will look exactly the same regardless of a user's editor setup.
I'm sure there are people who will disagree and will put valid counter-arguments. I can only say that after doing this for a while and having to deal with disparate formatting of the same file in the same bloody branch (making diffs almost impossible to discern without some serious massage), then a standard spacing becomes a lifesaver.
See, programmers are very talented, but also extremely opinionated. Sorry, most cannot do shit without having someone forcing some rules upon them. The amount of ego is just staggering, and almost everyone, when left to her devices reformats and shuffle shit on a file to fit her own needs without ever thinking "gee, I wonder if the next person who has to maintain this piece of code will be able to effectively discern logical/structural changes from formatting ones without involving file-massaging heroics.".
Whereas i still use c++ code from 1990. Admittedly it uses printf rather than that fancy new std::cout...
Well, cout has been there forever, and std:cout is almost 20 years old. I do get your point, though, printf and their ilk are eternal.
And it all went downhill from there
LOL, best retort ever :)
You are changing the goalposts... That's bullshit no matter how you cut it... The first iPhone being just slightly better than the phones of the time? Utter garbage and disingenuous history revisionism.
Fuck off no-one cares about these tired iPhone arguments anymore. It's just a phone, get over it.
You care enough to argue back, don't you? We are not arguing about iPhones (that's you again moving the goalposts). We are arguing about your technologically inaccurate statements. You don't like being called on inaccurate statements? Then motherfuckingduh don't make inaccurate statements. Or better yet, let it go (since you claim no one cares about these arguments anymore.)
The thread is about whether Elon is a copy of Steve, or a better version altogether.
Yes, then stick to that theme and don't post inaccurate shit like saying the first iPhone was just *slightly* better than the technology available at the time (which is inaccurate and easy to disprove by just pulling up the specs of every single major phone at the time.)
I think he's much better since the stuff he is doing is much cooler.
No one said otherwise. Feel free to hump that strawman, just don't complain when you get blisters.
We've already had this argument a million times in here. The point is do you prefer a slightly better phone or and the fastest car in the world? Or a rocket? I'm no fan of Elon either, but I think most people would think cars and rockets are cooler than phones and laptops
You are changing the goalposts. I'm not talking about comparing cars and rockets or whether the later is way cooler than the former (what a stupid strawman.) I'm talking about (and taking you to task) this which you wrote:
while Steve built a telephone that was slightly better than the existing telephones of the day
That's bullshit no matter how you cut it. Rockets cooler than phones? Of course! The first iPhone being just slightly better than the phones of the time? Utter garbage and disingenuous history revisionism.
Why Aren't Techies Improving The World? We can ask this question to the human population in general.
"the latest app that solves some made up problem. I'm impressed by apps that solve real problems
Well, technology is not just apps. And techies aren't strictly in the world of app development. There are all types of development in this world going on making a difference. If you can't be bothered doing a single fucking google on it, then there is not one goddamned reason to spend time giving you some real-world examples.
Furthermore, techies aren't solely in software. Oncologists and chemists, physicists, scientists and engineers of all disciplines are techies in their domain. It takes a very stupid, uneducated and shallow mind to think techie == software, let alone techie == app development.
I know you're only trying to be funny but Elon builds fast cars and rockets, while Steve built a telephone that was slightly better than the existing telephones of the day (until the competition caught up and made even better telephones). I'll leave it the reader to decide which is cooler.
I'm not a fan of Jobs, and I'm certainly not an iPhone fanboy, but GTFO, the first iPhone was leaps and bounds better than anything available at the time. It was a paradigm shift in both mobile phone and personal computing technologies.
General dislike for someone or something should not preclude us from being objective.
who claims an entire ethnic group is majoritarily composed of rapists and murders
Trump never did that. He said a majority of the illegal immigrants from Mexico were rapists and murderers. Now, that's still bigoted and bad, but he didn't say that Hispanics were rapists and murderers.
Claiming that a majority of a group (illegal Mexicans) are made of rapists and murderers is not (in)morally different from claiming that they all are as a group (since Mexico is not sending their best).
Split hairs as much as you want, that was a clear dog whistle since people who listen to that crap tend not to make any differentiation between an illegal immigrant or a US national of Hispanic background (be it a naturalized citizen like me or someone with roots stretching back 300 years.
Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, what's the difference, they are all the same shit. I know that because I've seen it and hear it in the flesh. Let me show you a little pice of this reality. I know that this is purely an anecdotal piece, but it is not some random shit, but something very common that, sadly, I've seen way too many times: https://twitter.com/luisespinal/status/756649054344474624