It seems that you aren't familiar with the culture of the third world countries. If you take your possession things (either live or not) outside your property (or land), you better have a very good guard or you could easily lose some if not all of them. Even if you have them inside your property, the thievery rate is much higher than compared to the first world countries.
Now, if you do not feed the water buffaloes within your own property (land), where would you let them go wild eating? If you provide food for them, it would worth more to use them to work instead of sell or eat its meat when it is fully grown.
But your first argument said it is taxed on money you have already paid taxes for? So which definition you really want to use. Please be clear.
I think you are looking at the meaning of earned income from a different angle. The angle you are looking from is from those who believe that earning from money after taxed should not be taxed again. To me, the value of capital/principal at the time it is used to make more money has no meaning in taxes. Using your example, making 8% does not account inflation of the year which for you may think it is the loss. Though, the gross profit (not deduct by inflation) is still fully qualified for being taxed because it is what is more.
I am neither a millionaire nor a dead beat. I own my own home. Still, I have no problem at all to pay taxes for any reason. The only concern I have is how my tax money is being used, not how much I need to pay.
Interesting... I never knew that divorce records are that secret and cannot be obtained via anyway but you... http://www.wikihow.com/Find-Divorce-Records describes briefly about how to obtain it. Would that still be a "big" secret?
Today, my code has far fewer comments, but is easier to read and understand.
That's very subjective. If the code really explains itself, then it is good. However, each person usually thinks that his or her code is clear to himself/herself. Also, not every code the person does would have the same quality (self explanation). Remember, nothing is perfect. I would rather leave more comments than think that my code is clean and clear to everyone else.
What if the code is correct, and the comments are wrong? Sure, that may be a bug in your eyes, but why spend the time writing incorrect comments?
Then go back (or refer) to one of reasons that Simon Brook's comment pointed out -- Procrastination. It is the programmer/developer responsibility to do it at the same time when update codes. The comment concept works if and only if every programmer/developer is at the same level (everyone does it and does it right). If one or more are not, that could easily screw the whole concept of having comments. It is a good practice, but not everyone does good practice.
your coding team members can write sentences better than they can write code
Writing comment does not require to be perfect. An average write up about what it does may be suffice. If you are talking about the time spent in writing comments, then you should already know that it could be as much time spent as in coding. That's normal.
write high quality code
Please define the phrase above. It is too broad and there aren't many (if none) programmers/developers who can actually write a whole software/program codes that are correct, robust, optimal, and maintainable. If you are talking about a module or a small function/method, then I would see that is much more possible. However, it is not practical for real work because it is very rare to use only one function/method/module for a program/software.
And I believe that is one of the problems too for not having comment. How would one know that the code is up to date to the design document, or vice versa -- if there is any hack in the code that does not match the design document? Not to be offended, but both are developer's responsibilities (not only maintain codes but also documents).
"describe what the module does and leave the description of how the module does what it does to reading the actual code."
If I understand you correctly, it means that only one description should be there but not the other? If so, I have to disagree. The description of what module does should be placed on the top of the module, but the description of how the module process should be inside the code (inline). What module does could be taken from the design document; where as, its process is related to the algorithm used. Leaving out the description of the algorithm (process) is similar to encrypting the code because those who inherit the code may not understand why certain thing is there. Both type of descriptions should be there but in different places.
Even though both have some good and not so good answers, I don't think that either of them has a good enough answer to most of questions.
For Obama, his answers are very abstract. In other words, his answers tend to be simplified for layman and are targeted certain group of readers. Because of this abstract type of answers, these answers are often too vague and need to be clarified. I am not sure how he could reach the goal he is promising.
For Romney, his answers are descriptive with many key words that people nowadays want to hear -- job creation, middle class, Reagan Economic, research, economic, etc. One major issue I am seeing is that his answers contain mixed messages (certain answers would be mutual exclusive for certain political side). I think the reason is from his intention to target all groups of readers -- some answers are way far to the left, some for those who are in the middle, and some others are way far to the right. One thing I do not like at all is that his answers contain attack to his opponent. This is exactly one of reasons that politic makes me sick.
All in all, I am not really satisfied with their answers...
Are you implying that those people (including myself) are old?;)
Actually, I played all up to 8 (in Japanese version first, and then in English). When I was 12, I played Final Fantasy 1 when it first came out (in Japanese) and I was hooked because the battle system was completely unique that day. I am an old school and I like cartoon more than real. I like them up to 7. Once 8 came out and I tried for a couple hours, I no longer wanted to play it any more because the game looked too real and not a single part is cartoon.
I agree with many people here that $50k is a joke for just a software with a crappy old case that you could still play using emulator and a downloaded ROM...
You'll really have to wait until 3d metal printing becomes common before that happens.
And that would not be very long if you see how 3d-printing starts to be more and more popular... When it comes, it will be too late to prevent anything because what these people think is 1)benefit themselves for what so called "research" and 2)short-sighted.
Well, please define the word hard? Do you mean the sluggish control and movement that make it hard? Or the monotone display? Or too many display colors that blind your eyes? Or else?
I did play pong when I was a kid as well, but I never got into the game because it is so boring. The only thing that keep me playing it for a while was to figure out the computer's movement pattern. Another game, racing car, is also not my type. I don't like it but has nothing else to play.
Comparing games in the early age and now is not wise because the difficulty and challenge have evolved and should not be looked at the same level. Early age games do not provide much graphic and control, so it is a challenge to conquer it with minimum available resources. Modern games offer a lot more options and help, but that could easily become overwhelming to play.
Now it is all about psychology. Why make a video game when you can make an experience.
That's what video games have evolved. Do you think that keeping video games to be pong-liked would sell? Do you think that bouncing a ball by controlling a stick up/down (or left/right) is very attractive to play? If so, you completely have no idea what current society is. Maybe you don't understand or may be denying the meaning of evolution.
PS: If you think the government wants to control minds, I would say you should replace it with religious. However, religious has already been successful in doing so. To me, government attempts to regulate but not everyone will ever be happy -- some people like it and some oppose. You should already know that. Anyway, I don't like to tie politic with my opinion, so I would rather stop it right here.
Seriously, on the "back" of a contract for 2,500 Kindles? What kind of "payoff" do you think they'd get for negotiating a 2-3,000 piece contract for an item the gov't would by at or below retail?
If you read the article, you would see that the high cost is not from the hardware but implied from other thing else (below).
The acquisition by the department included an immediate need for 2,500 e-readers and 50 titles of content, and required provision of a secure, centrally managed content distribution and management platform to manage unlimited number of devices, besides the ability to access and download content over 3G cellular networks and Wi-Fi connections worldwide, according to a note in June.
My problem is not the cost, but why? Why do they need an e-reader for? Can't they use something else instead of e-reader? The cost for any electronic stuff often times is not from its hardware. Also, what benefits do they get from using this product? Is the benefit worthwhile? If it is not worthwhile right now, how long do they need to have the product in order to break even with its usefulness? Anyway, my only question would be... why? Why? WHY?
To me, you nail it when you said "people believed" at the time. I agree that it is the belief in 1700s that having blacks as slaves is better than letting them loose anywhere in the country because the belief benefits those who own slaves. It is normal for humans to take their own side.
However, many people still think in one node, and convince themselves that everything said by Founding Fathers is exactly the same as their goal by applying their own belief to it. How could one know exactly the full meaning of what they said? How could one know exactly what they were thinking in their head? The declaration of independent is similar to laws to me. It is written as broad as it could be. I know that it cannot and should not be specific, but one should understand that the one must not interpret in one way or the other. Too bad, the way people interpret it nowadays more likely to benefit themselves on way or the other.
It depends on how you define "free speech." Many people in America think that its definition is to say or express "whatever" they want. Well, it is a two-edged sword because there is always a consequence of an action whether or not it is significant. Too many people do not realize that and over do the what you call "free speech."
In Thailand, saying anything bad or insult the royal family in public could easily open the door to their jail. Is the action a free speech? Yes, but it is not acceptable because of their culture. Is it good? Somewhat. Is it bad? Also somewhat.
Therefore, you need to understand the root of the culture of where you are looking at. The culture could be very different from yours, and that should at least make you ponder before you throw out your opinion. Remember, you can't simply take back what you said because the damage might have already been done once you said it.
When I first read the article, I asked myself "what is the meaning of 'good' software?" in the article and "what does good mean?". Then after I read through it, I found out that the article does NOT explain the meaning of "good" but rather generalizes that any software is bad if it "fails" to correctly serve even one of its purposes. All examples in the article are about money (of course). The meaning of "good" software in this article means "ideal/perfect" and "robust" software. I really doubt that any huge software could be even close to a robust software, leave alone the "perfect" part.
The solutions given in this article do NOT guarantee that a good software will be produced either. In other words, the "cost" of software implementation and qualified developers can only be used as an implication of software quality, but they are NOT the software quality themselves. One could spend billions of dollars and have all knowledgeble team, but could still get a crappy software even though it is unlikely. And even though the software is good, it could still fail under certain conditions (either by itself or being tampered from external sources -- hack -- or both).
Nevertheless, I like the conclusion of the article that the solution is to accept whatever might happen and attempt to reduce the damage done by software failure. That is what everyone should expect and be prepared for.
No, the soultion for this sort of "harassing" is just learn to ignore people. That's it - that's the entire remedy.
To say is easier than to do because each person has different level of tolerance. The law may be too harsh, but what level of tolerance is acceptable? In this case, a person had a very sad event happened a year before, and then lost his dream again this year. Then someone dug up his pain from the past and shoved it into his face again. Some may be able to over look the offensive comment, but many may not.
I think you should read the whole paragraph before jump the gun. You could easily misunderstand what the person is trying to say... Both of you (jdogalt & DarkOx)...
No one needs to figure out how many litres of petrol they'll get for $20.
I disagree with this part. One needs to be able to figure out it out. This sounds like you are not living in the U.S. Given a situation where you have to pay cash up front when you pump gas at a gas station. You either do not have a credit/debit card or do not want to use one. Your car's gas tank is about 3/4 empty. A gallon of gas (the type you want) is $3.00. You know that your car can hold up to 16 gallon and you have $100 in your pocket. You need a full tank of gas and you walk into the counter to pay for the gas.
If you cannot calculate the amount (on a paper or in your mind) and you spend the whole $100, what do you think would happen? Or even you spend $50 and hope that your gas tank would hold up, what would happen? How about you spend only $20? You would have to pump the gas to see if it is full, go back in to spend some more if it is not, and keep doing until the tank is full; however, this still does not guarantee a good solution.
Therefore, the sentence of "no one needs to figure out..." is not always true. Yep, we often "use" algebra in real life but "we often do not realize that it is algebra."
The hardest problem with learning is that you get lost in all the unresolved references, when the teacher (or book) assumes knowledge from the student that the student doesn't yet have, not the learning new stuff itself.
I totally agree with this reason. Though this is one of many reasons why learning is hard. The disruption of learning from other students as AlphaWolf_HK stated is also another reason. Which reason has more influence than the other? It would depend on many other factors (again). In other words, one reason may out weight others under a certain circumstance.
Of course it could also be solved by having much smaller classes and more teachers, but I don't quite think that will happen anytime soon.
This would be a maybe to me. Too many factors involved in this solution (i.e. teacher performance, student learning capabilities, institute funds, etc.)
That's why Wikipedia is the best online teacher, without all the unnecessary personal involvements.
I agree, but not totally. Rarely the information on there is incorrect or bias. This kind of content then may or may not be very useful because it will be depended on the reader's (in this case would be student's) judgment.
This is a very good idea. The only problem with them is their purpose. From "if your goal is serving society," the purpose of those that try to patent genes is not to "serve society" but to "make money of society" instead. I think the original purpose of patent is good, but it is now changed and is being exploited more and more because some people see (or create) loop holes in the system.
The site is not in English, so how could one be sure that someone on the other side would be speaking English? Please don't give an excuse that he could let his daughter talk because talking on the phone using someone else could deliver a different message.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that you aren't familiar with the culture of the third world countries. If you take your possession things (either live or not) outside your property (or land), you better have a very good guard or you could easily lose some if not all of them. Even if you have them inside your property, the thievery rate is much higher than compared to the first world countries.
Now, if you do not feed the water buffaloes within your own property (land), where would you let them go wild eating? If you provide food for them, it would worth more to use them to work instead of sell or eat its meat when it is fully grown.
Anything involved digital is called "hacker"? =))
But your first argument said it is taxed on money you have already paid taxes for? So which definition you really want to use. Please be clear.
I think you are looking at the meaning of earned income from a different angle. The angle you are looking from is from those who believe that earning from money after taxed should not be taxed again. To me, the value of capital/principal at the time it is used to make more money has no meaning in taxes. Using your example, making 8% does not account inflation of the year which for you may think it is the loss. Though, the gross profit (not deduct by inflation) is still fully qualified for being taxed because it is what is more.
I am neither a millionaire nor a dead beat. I own my own home. Still, I have no problem at all to pay taxes for any reason. The only concern I have is how my tax money is being used, not how much I need to pay.
Interesting... I never knew that divorce records are that secret and cannot be obtained via anyway but you... http://www.wikihow.com/Find-Divorce-Records describes briefly about how to obtain it. Would that still be a "big" secret?
Today, my code has far fewer comments, but is easier to read and understand.
That's very subjective. If the code really explains itself, then it is good. However, each person usually thinks that his or her code is clear to himself/herself. Also, not every code the person does would have the same quality (self explanation). Remember, nothing is perfect. I would rather leave more comments than think that my code is clean and clear to everyone else.
What if the code is correct, and the comments are wrong? Sure, that may be a bug in your eyes, but why spend the time writing incorrect comments?
Then go back (or refer) to one of reasons that Simon Brook's comment pointed out -- Procrastination. It is the programmer/developer responsibility to do it at the same time when update codes. The comment concept works if and only if every programmer/developer is at the same level (everyone does it and does it right). If one or more are not, that could easily screw the whole concept of having comments. It is a good practice, but not everyone does good practice.
your coding team members can write sentences better than they can write code
Writing comment does not require to be perfect. An average write up about what it does may be suffice. If you are talking about the time spent in writing comments, then you should already know that it could be as much time spent as in coding. That's normal.
write high quality code
Please define the phrase above. It is too broad and there aren't many (if none) programmers/developers who can actually write a whole software/program codes that are correct, robust, optimal, and maintainable. If you are talking about a module or a small function/method, then I would see that is much more possible. However, it is not practical for real work because it is very rare to use only one function/method/module for a program/software.
And I believe that is one of the problems too for not having comment. How would one know that the code is up to date to the design document, or vice versa -- if there is any hack in the code that does not match the design document? Not to be offended, but both are developer's responsibilities (not only maintain codes but also documents).
"describe what the module does and leave the description of how the module does what it does to reading the actual code."
If I understand you correctly, it means that only one description should be there but not the other? If so, I have to disagree. The description of what module does should be placed on the top of the module, but the description of how the module process should be inside the code (inline). What module does could be taken from the design document; where as, its process is related to the algorithm used. Leaving out the description of the algorithm (process) is similar to encrypting the code because those who inherit the code may not understand why certain thing is there. Both type of descriptions should be there but in different places.
Even though both have some good and not so good answers, I don't think that either of them has a good enough answer to most of questions.
For Obama, his answers are very abstract. In other words, his answers tend to be simplified for layman and are targeted certain group of readers. Because of this abstract type of answers, these answers are often too vague and need to be clarified. I am not sure how he could reach the goal he is promising.
For Romney, his answers are descriptive with many key words that people nowadays want to hear -- job creation, middle class, Reagan Economic, research, economic, etc. One major issue I am seeing is that his answers contain mixed messages (certain answers would be mutual exclusive for certain political side). I think the reason is from his intention to target all groups of readers -- some answers are way far to the left, some for those who are in the middle, and some others are way far to the right. One thing I do not like at all is that his answers contain attack to his opponent. This is exactly one of reasons that politic makes me sick.
All in all, I am not really satisfied with their answers...
Do you mean a whole body covered suit but not arms & legs? ;)
Someone seems to stick to twelve angry men movie... I am not sure that there is any patent trial that has 12 jurors in the past few years.
because very few people have actually played 1-6.
Are you implying that those people (including myself) are old? ;)
Actually, I played all up to 8 (in Japanese version first, and then in English). When I was 12, I played Final Fantasy 1 when it first came out (in Japanese) and I was hooked because the battle system was completely unique that day. I am an old school and I like cartoon more than real. I like them up to 7. Once 8 came out and I tried for a couple hours, I no longer wanted to play it any more because the game looked too real and not a single part is cartoon.
I agree with many people here that $50k is a joke for just a software with a crappy old case that you could still play using emulator and a downloaded ROM...
You'll really have to wait until 3d metal printing becomes common before that happens.
And that would not be very long if you see how 3d-printing starts to be more and more popular... When it comes, it will be too late to prevent anything because what these people think is 1)benefit themselves for what so called "research" and 2)short-sighted.
Video games used to be hard
Well, please define the word hard? Do you mean the sluggish control and movement that make it hard? Or the monotone display? Or too many display colors that blind your eyes? Or else?
I did play pong when I was a kid as well, but I never got into the game because it is so boring. The only thing that keep me playing it for a while was to figure out the computer's movement pattern. Another game, racing car, is also not my type. I don't like it but has nothing else to play.
Comparing games in the early age and now is not wise because the difficulty and challenge have evolved and should not be looked at the same level. Early age games do not provide much graphic and control, so it is a challenge to conquer it with minimum available resources. Modern games offer a lot more options and help, but that could easily become overwhelming to play.
Now it is all about psychology. Why make a video game when you can make an experience.
That's what video games have evolved. Do you think that keeping video games to be pong-liked would sell? Do you think that bouncing a ball by controlling a stick up/down (or left/right) is very attractive to play? If so, you completely have no idea what current society is. Maybe you don't understand or may be denying the meaning of evolution.
PS: If you think the government wants to control minds, I would say you should replace it with religious. However, religious has already been successful in doing so. To me, government attempts to regulate but not everyone will ever be happy -- some people like it and some oppose. You should already know that. Anyway, I don't like to tie politic with my opinion, so I would rather stop it right here.
Seriously, on the "back" of a contract for 2,500 Kindles? What kind of "payoff" do you think they'd get for negotiating a 2-3,000 piece contract for an item the gov't would by at or below retail?
If you read the article, you would see that the high cost is not from the hardware but implied from other thing else (below).
The acquisition by the department included an immediate need for 2,500 e-readers and 50 titles of content, and required provision of a secure, centrally managed content distribution and management platform to manage unlimited number of devices, besides the ability to access and download content over 3G cellular networks and Wi-Fi connections worldwide, according to a note in June.
My problem is not the cost, but why? Why do they need an e-reader for? Can't they use something else instead of e-reader? The cost for any electronic stuff often times is not from its hardware. Also, what benefits do they get from using this product? Is the benefit worthwhile? If it is not worthwhile right now, how long do they need to have the product in order to break even with its usefulness? Anyway, my only question would be... why? Why? WHY?
To me, you nail it when you said "people believed" at the time. I agree that it is the belief in 1700s that having blacks as slaves is better than letting them loose anywhere in the country because the belief benefits those who own slaves. It is normal for humans to take their own side.
However, many people still think in one node, and convince themselves that everything said by Founding Fathers is exactly the same as their goal by applying their own belief to it. How could one know exactly the full meaning of what they said? How could one know exactly what they were thinking in their head? The declaration of independent is similar to laws to me. It is written as broad as it could be. I know that it cannot and should not be specific, but one should understand that the one must not interpret in one way or the other. Too bad, the way people interpret it nowadays more likely to benefit themselves on way or the other.
It depends on how you define "free speech." Many people in America think that its definition is to say or express "whatever" they want. Well, it is a two-edged sword because there is always a consequence of an action whether or not it is significant. Too many people do not realize that and over do the what you call "free speech."
In Thailand, saying anything bad or insult the royal family in public could easily open the door to their jail. Is the action a free speech? Yes, but it is not acceptable because of their culture. Is it good? Somewhat. Is it bad? Also somewhat.
Therefore, you need to understand the root of the culture of where you are looking at. The culture could be very different from yours, and that should at least make you ponder before you throw out your opinion. Remember, you can't simply take back what you said because the damage might have already been done once you said it.
When I first read the article, I asked myself "what is the meaning of 'good' software?" in the article and "what does good mean?". Then after I read through it, I found out that the article does NOT explain the meaning of "good" but rather generalizes that any software is bad if it "fails" to correctly serve even one of its purposes. All examples in the article are about money (of course). The meaning of "good" software in this article means "ideal/perfect" and "robust" software. I really doubt that any huge software could be even close to a robust software, leave alone the "perfect" part.
The solutions given in this article do NOT guarantee that a good software will be produced either. In other words, the "cost" of software implementation and qualified developers can only be used as an implication of software quality, but they are NOT the software quality themselves. One could spend billions of dollars and have all knowledgeble team, but could still get a crappy software even though it is unlikely. And even though the software is good, it could still fail under certain conditions (either by itself or being tampered from external sources -- hack -- or both).
Nevertheless, I like the conclusion of the article that the solution is to accept whatever might happen and attempt to reduce the damage done by software failure. That is what everyone should expect and be prepared for.
No, the soultion for this sort of "harassing" is just learn to ignore people. That's it - that's the entire remedy.
To say is easier than to do because each person has different level of tolerance. The law may be too harsh, but what level of tolerance is acceptable? In this case, a person had a very sad event happened a year before, and then lost his dream again this year. Then someone dug up his pain from the past and shoved it into his face again. Some may be able to over look the offensive comment, but many may not.
I think you should read the whole paragraph before jump the gun. You could easily misunderstand what the person is trying to say... Both of you (jdogalt & DarkOx)...
No one needs to figure out how many litres of petrol they'll get for $20.
I disagree with this part. One needs to be able to figure out it out. This sounds like you are not living in the U.S. Given a situation where you have to pay cash up front when you pump gas at a gas station. You either do not have a credit/debit card or do not want to use one. Your car's gas tank is about 3/4 empty. A gallon of gas (the type you want) is $3.00. You know that your car can hold up to 16 gallon and you have $100 in your pocket. You need a full tank of gas and you walk into the counter to pay for the gas.
If you cannot calculate the amount (on a paper or in your mind) and you spend the whole $100, what do you think would happen? Or even you spend $50 and hope that your gas tank would hold up, what would happen? How about you spend only $20? You would have to pump the gas to see if it is full, go back in to spend some more if it is not, and keep doing until the tank is full; however, this still does not guarantee a good solution.
Therefore, the sentence of "no one needs to figure out..." is not always true. Yep, we often "use" algebra in real life but "we often do not realize that it is algebra."
The hardest problem with learning is that you get lost in all the unresolved references, when the teacher (or book) assumes knowledge from the student that the student doesn't yet have, not the learning new stuff itself.
I totally agree with this reason. Though this is one of many reasons why learning is hard. The disruption of learning from other students as AlphaWolf_HK stated is also another reason. Which reason has more influence than the other? It would depend on many other factors (again). In other words, one reason may out weight others under a certain circumstance.
Of course it could also be solved by having much smaller classes and more teachers, but I don't quite think that will happen anytime soon.
This would be a maybe to me. Too many factors involved in this solution (i.e. teacher performance, student learning capabilities, institute funds, etc.)
That's why Wikipedia is the best online teacher, without all the unnecessary personal involvements.
I agree, but not totally. Rarely the information on there is incorrect or bias. This kind of content then may or may not be very useful because it will be depended on the reader's (in this case would be student's) judgment.
This is a very good idea. The only problem with them is their purpose. From "if your goal is serving society," the purpose of those that try to patent genes is not to "serve society" but to "make money of society" instead. I think the original purpose of patent is good, but it is now changed and is being exploited more and more because some people see (or create) loop holes in the system.
The site is not in English, so how could one be sure that someone on the other side would be speaking English? Please don't give an excuse that he could let his daughter talk because talking on the phone using someone else could deliver a different message.
The 1020 is supposed to be 10 power to the 20th, not a ton.