Ironically, if Obama had done even half of what he promised to clean up the government, he could have asked for a Cuban-style health care system and his popularity would have made it impossible for the Republicans to stop him. We've reached the point where an honest politician with balls could practically control the federal government just by sheer force of the people's awe at his honesty.
This reads like a work of fan fiction.
I live here in the real world, where 30% of the country votes Republican and hates Democratic presidents no matter what, and a large part of the rest listens to these people, or are just plain racist. A 2008 black president would never, never, never (oh, and did I say "never"?) have been able to talk Congress into passing socialized medicine. The fact that he passed any kind of universal coverage at all is in retrospect just ridiculous. I'm still in awe that he managed it. I say "he", but frankly a lot of people sacrificed for this. And it still teetered on a razor's edge at multiple points.
Do you not remember Senator Robert Byrd being wheeled into the Senate Chamber straight from his deathbed to break a Republican filibuster? They were trying to delay a vote (on an unrelated bill ahead of ACA on the docket) until he died and they could likely pick up his seat and kill the whole effort. Remember him whispering "shame shame" at his fellow senators for forcing him to do that, as many of them cynically applauded him? That's my memory. Thereafter Byrd did die, and they did pick up the seat, which stuck Congress with the bill in the form the Senate passed. Nothing new could possibly get past the filibuster.
If Obama had delayed even a couple of days in starting the process, we wouldn't have the ACA today. That's a fact.
He favored gay marriage.....once it was politically expedient.
That's hindsight. It was still a minority position when Obama "came out" in favor of it, and he was handing a huge issue on a silver platter to all the folks who hate him. However, his statement immediately made it a partisan issue, which brought around a large amount of Democrats who were on the fence about it. Overnight it became a majority opinion. Perhaps it looks obvious in retrospect, but he was going out on a bit of a limb when he did it.
Now perhaps he was a master strategist and saw that all this would happen. Or perhaps he just decided it was time to do the Right Thing.
He failed to get his trade bill, which is either good or bad, depending on your ideology, but it shows his lack of competence for working with congress.
Bad congressional relations is probably the most legit possible complain about this POTUS. However, framing it as a matter of his "competence" is just flat out wrong. He did great working with Congress while Democrats ran both houses, and lots of legislation got passed. That included universal health care legislation that has eluded every president since FDR started trying it nearly a century ago. So he's clearly got the chops.
It was only after Republicans took over that he couldn't get anything done with Congress. Congress also can't get anything done amongst themselves right now either though. The Republicans can't even get things done within their own Caucus. Blaming the POTUS for this is just downright weird.
That sounds cool and all, but what do they actually do there? What does an Engineering business need with a political functionary?
For the most part, the value in having a former administration official is in leveraging their political ties. However, the Obama administration had notoriously bad relations with Congress, so there just won't be a lot of value there.
The best I can come up with is that It does get you an in with the White House for the next year and a half or so. Since Congress can't do anything, that's the only branch that matters right now. So its good to have someone in your employ who the head of the FCC will answer a phone call from. Sure, their utility ends in a year and a half, but by then most of these folks will have left to join political campaigns anyway. There are now 5 dems running, so experienced operatives are going to be in demand. If you are lucky, you may even end up with a former employee working in the next White House. It sure doesn't look like Congress will get any more functional in the meantime.
That, combined with a generally quite low tax burden (compared to most first world nations the US has very low taxes), means that raising taxes in the US is a very valid strategy.
Theoretically possible I suppose, but politically completely impossible. Even talk about allowing "temporary" tax cuts expire was politically impossible. The entire debate wasn't on letting them expire, but on who would get them permanently. Actually raising taxes in the US isn't a subject that can even be broached.
I seriously, seriously doubt, that Google, a global company that sees the world as its target market, only trained their algorithm on white people. They're Google engineers. They are not morons. It probably occurred to them to build a diverse sample set.
You would think so, yes, but that's clearly not what happened.
One thing a lot of people don't realize is that machine recognition keys on things that humans do not. If you let it take a short-cut in its training, it will. The rather famous example is the zebra-striped sofa. Nearly all recognition software will tell you a zebra-striped sofa is a zebra. Why? Because nobody though to train the computer on sofas with a similar pattern. In the absence of that, the computer could "cheat" on recognition by just comparing the pattern, regardless of shape.
Just comparing the deepness of skin hue, regardless of body/face shape is precicesly what you'd expect to see in a recognition program that was not trained on dark-skinned people. Not thinking to do that is precisely the kind of error you'd expect from a company that employs almost no African Americans. People have an unfortunate tendency to look around themselves and think what they see is representative.
Apologizing for a program miscategorizing an image it has never seen before as somehow "racist" makes about as much sense as GE apologizing because my toaster looks like a frowny-face from just the right angle
Most recognition software learns by going through a ton of examples and being told when its right and when its wrong. Most likely what happened here is that the learning phase used images of gorillas, but for "humans" used almost all pictures of white people. The computer doesn't know any better than it was trained, and if it wasn't trained to see black people as human too, then IMHO Google has well-earned the crap it is getting.
No license: default copyright. No-one is allowed to redistribute without your express permission.
No license is worse than that. It means nobody knows what the terms of your use of this software are. For all anybody knows, you actually agreed to something outlandish like the deed to your house in exchange for the right to make a backup copy. You can't prove otherwise, because you can't present a copy of this "no license".
If a company ends up with such software and an audit happens, there will be major problems. So I don't ever ever use someone else's software if it didn't come with some kind of license.
If you want your software to be used by as many people/corporations as possible, use BSD.
That seems to be the general public consensus.
Personally, if I'm in that situation I use CC0 instead. Its effectively Public Domain, with a completely permissive fallback license for areas where Public Domain isn't possible (eg: arguably the USA). The BSD is a lot of legalese in an attempt to accomplish the same thing. Even after all that effort, some versions of it actually fail and render the code GPL incompatible. Seeing the BSD is a huge drag, because I have to scan the entire text of the damn license looking for common gotchas like advertising clauses. Why?
If total freedom is what you want to give, there's no sense in half-assing it with BSD. Use CC0.
Whatever you do, please please please use a well-known license. I'm am completely sick of having to read and grok screens full of leagalese and then go to The FSF list of licenses to see if there's something important I missed. I'm sure every license has some nuance that makes it better for some purpose or other, but I don't care.
While I understand the attraction of BSD (and its zillion variants), I've found that I can cover all use-cases for my own work with one of three licenses (in order of stringency)
GPL - For full-blown applications that I don't want some schmuck trying to swipe and close off to make themselves a profit off my work. This is the most well-known license in existence, so your users should know exactly what they are getting.
GPL with linking and inclusion exceptions - For reusable libraries. This allows a client to use my library in a non-GPL program of their own with whatever license they want. (But keeps the library itself GPL). Yes, this is supposedly what the LGPL is for, but it has issues with modern languages like C++ and Ada that use language features that amount to textual inclusion of library code in the client's program. The simple boilerplate exception verbiage in ECos fixes this problem, and otherwise leaves the license the well-known GPL.
CC0 - For stuff I want used as much as humanly possible, including incorporated into other people's programs if they like. CC0 is as close to "Public Domain" as it is legally possible to get in this day and age.
Now in the poster's case, you'd need to be very careful around the GPL. Check here to make sure all the licenses on all that other stuff is GPL compatible. If not, you can't use GPL. But even if you can, there's no guarantee those other licenses are all compatible with each other. This is why, again, developers should do their users a favor and stick to well-known GPL compatible licenses.
yes indeed the public wants to ride in uninsured taxis so they will have to pick up their own medical bills if there is an accident
How is this different that if I get into an accident as a passenger in a friend's car? Is this a huge issue? Should I refuse to let friends drive me anywhere?
So, you see your truck as more of a "lifestyle" purchase than a utilitarian one?
My grandfather was a small farmer and a rancher. He was a really sweet guy, but also the toughest human being I have ever met or will meet. If you open your dictionary to Ornery, you'll probably see his picture.
He owned 4 pickups, and one car. One of the pickups was actually an ancient Ford "Power wagon" with a wood bed. Some guy tried to buy it off him for a museum, but grandpa refused because he was still using it.
However, whenever he needed to go into town for something, he'd take the car, not one of the pickups.
So people who drive pristine pickups in the city? Yes, they are 100% just making a statement. They probably think that statement is "I'm a tough country guy". However, the statement they are actually making is "I'm a total poser". I've seen a tough country guy, and they ain't it. A real pickup has dents and rust. A real country guy leaves his pickup at home unless he needs it for something. If you are driving a pickup around to try to impress people, then by definition you aren't country.
Of course this is a cultural thing. People born after 1980 perhaps never saw this, and don't think twice about such things. I guess now I'm learning why old folks have a reputation for being cranky...
People that complain about having to work endless unpaid overtime just need to grow a pair and stand up to being abused. Do exactly what you're paid for, then go home. Seriously.
Nice macho talk. But, as someone who mostly does that, I can tell you firsthand what actually happens when you do that is that nearly everyone else gets more work done than you, and this shows up in things like performance appraisals, raises, promotions, and in bad times layoffs.
Its still worth it to me. I love my work, but my lifelong ambition since I was young was to have a family. Now that I have one, I'll be damned if I'm going to squander the few short hours on this earth I get with them over a little more money. But if you make this decision, and you have coworkers who don't, you will be making a career sacrifice. I can't really blame others (particularly unmarried folks) from not wanting to make that sacrifice.
Think on this a bit: If one person makes a selfish destructive decision, its probably legit to get mad at that person. If nearly everyone does it, you almost certainly have a systemic problem.
c++ code like std::vector. With that you store data contiguously in memory but you also don't have any manual memory management. No new, no delete, no malloc, no free.
...until you add more elements that it allocated storage for, at which point it will silently do the equivalent of a C realloc() (but with copy constructors and destructors to worry about). Still, I agree that std::vector is wonderful. I use it a ton myself. You just have to know what you are doing (like with most things). If you can't deal with the realloc at runtime, either set its size large enough to avoid that in your worst ever case, or simply don't add new elements at runtime.
I also heard that one late poll wasn't published by the pollsters because it was so far different from the average or consensus picture
Yup, that's a known issue with pollsters. As the election date closes, they start to "tweak" their results to say the same thing as everyone else. They might let an anomalous-looking result slide in the middle of the campaign, because there's its a graph you care about, not the individual data points. But people treat that final data point very differently. Nobody wants to be the pollster who screwed up the election prediction the worst.
This makes detection of large late surges kind of challenging, as seen in the US most recently and spectacularly in Eric Cantor's primary loss last cycle, which pollsters had him winning by a very comfortable margin.
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
So your argument is that the engineers should break into the set where they are shooting the new Star Wars film, load everyone onto the Millennium Falcon, and go looking for a convenient exhaust shaft at Disney Corporate HQ to shoot a plasma bolt down?
Disney is also a special case in Florida because it's THE major employer in the Orlando area. If you burn your bridges there, it's unlikely you'll work in that town again
FWIW, Lockheed Martin has two large plants in Orlando, both I believe with something on the order of 1,000 engineers. One does a lot of simulation work, and some general government contracting, and the other does a lot of heavy-duty government contracting on weapon systems, making stuff like missiles. Having worked in one of them (almost two decades ago), I don't believe they give two shits about Disney.
If you are instead doing theme-park related work, there are several other competing theme parks in the area. And then a half-hour drive to the east you have Cape Canveral.
Not that losing a job doesn't suck, but there are lots of local options outside of Disney.
That's why I said I could be convinced. That would be line of logic it would take. However, unless the ruling is that TW has to do this for anyone who asks for no extra charge, we aren't talking true neutrality.
Technically, this has nothing to do with throttling traffic. Instead it is about TW not going out of their way to help speed up a company's traffic by providing peering.
I could see the FCC arguing that is covered too, if the ISP is providing it to anybody. I don't think the world would come crashing down if that was the ruling.
OTOH, this takes extra effort on the ISP's side, and they can't do it with everyone. If everybody is made a peer, then they'd have to put in some extra structure to handle all the peers, and eventually everybody would be right back where they started from. Either way, its certain if I started an online video business tomorrow (TEDTube), I couldn't reasonably demand TW peer me with my $0 to invest in the effort. So I'm not rich enough to demand what CNS is demanding, no matter what.
So there is going to be a limit somewhere, and it looks like CNS is trying to argue that that Net Neutrality somehow demands that the limit be moved just far enough for them to get in. There's no principle here.
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.
Re:And so the cycle of "reform" continues
on
FDA Bans Trans Fat
·
· Score: 1
People now complain about mandatory minimum sentencing, which was a '70s reform meant to end the problem of wildly disparate sentences.
You are right that "wildly disparate sentences" was the codeword used at the time. However, in normal circumstances, that is a good thing. Humans are not computers, so every situation involving human behavior is unique. That's why we have human judges, and have traditionally valued them for the quality of their... er.. judgement. Perhaps a homeless veteran with PTSD shouldn't get the same sentence as your average Joe for the same crime. Perhaps we shouldn't have to sit down and work out laws to cover every single possible personal situation.
So why did we really get worked up about mandatory minimums and "three strikes" and petty drug crimes all of a sudden in the early 80's? I can't say for sure, but one has to wonder if its really a coincidence that the effect of these laws was to take a tremendous amount of young black men off the streets and leave the rest in mortal fear of the cops only a decade after the legalized oppression of Jim Crow got outlawed nationwide.
The original start date is quite debatable. Some argue back even further (like '79!). Its complicated because C++ had an unusually long development period. Personally I don't really consider anything prior to C++ "2.0" (1991) to be anything more than an experimental waypoint in the development of the language. After that you can start making arguments, but I still don't put it before the first true compilers (not precompilers) became widely available and a lot of people starting using it for serious projects. The 1998 ISO standardization is a very convenient milepost for that time.
C++ is "Venerable"? Based on its first standard version, it is 17 years old. Seriously, we set the bar of language decrepitude at only 17 years?
I might might let it slide if you used that adjective for C or something even older. But C++ has only just now gone through enough revisions to start getting halfway decent. You wanna just chuck it in the retirement home right when they are starting to get some of the kinks worked out? One or two more revisions and they were going to get it up to the capabilities of Ada.:-)
Emacs is is an IDE. The "I" stands for integrated. Emacs has a mode for integrating with about any other software development tool you can imagine (including some other IDEs).
Well, I'm supporting some hardware/software systems that go back to the 70's (45 years). I'm afraid I don't have much encouraging to say though.
The nice thing about PDP-11's is that they were relatively ubiquitous, so there are lots of folks out there offering emulators, and even some with PDP-11's on a PCI card. The biggest problem we've had is with getting access to old sources. Source control discipline wasn't that hot back then, and a lot of the code was just done in machine language. Even if we had the sources to that, there aren't exactly a lot of folks conversant in it still working today. Plus a lot of the stuff still stuck there is stuck there because of hardware dependencies. For example, we had one networking protocol that goes back to somebody's decision to use the PDP-11 printer port for networking. Nobody ever tried upgrading both sides at once, so we stuck using this historical oddity in our system through several "upgrades" on both sides of the link. Its not so easy to find cards for this anymore when another single-side "upgrade" comes along.
On the plus side, a lot of our older stuff runs on some company's personal flavor of Unix, so the ubiquity of Linux for ports to modern hardware has been a huge boon for modern ports. So if past history is any guide, I'd highly recommend targeting Unix.
Slashdot Mirror
Ironically, if Obama had done even half of what he promised to clean up the government, he could have asked for a Cuban-style health care system and his popularity would have made it impossible for the Republicans to stop him. We've reached the point where an honest politician with balls could practically control the federal government just by sheer force of the people's awe at his honesty.
This reads like a work of fan fiction.
I live here in the real world, where 30% of the country votes Republican and hates Democratic presidents no matter what, and a large part of the rest listens to these people, or are just plain racist. A 2008 black president would never, never, never (oh, and did I say "never"?) have been able to talk Congress into passing socialized medicine. The fact that he passed any kind of universal coverage at all is in retrospect just ridiculous. I'm still in awe that he managed it. I say "he", but frankly a lot of people sacrificed for this. And it still teetered on a razor's edge at multiple points.
Do you not remember Senator Robert Byrd being wheeled into the Senate Chamber straight from his deathbed to break a Republican filibuster? They were trying to delay a vote (on an unrelated bill ahead of ACA on the docket) until he died and they could likely pick up his seat and kill the whole effort. Remember him whispering "shame shame" at his fellow senators for forcing him to do that, as many of them cynically applauded him? That's my memory. Thereafter Byrd did die, and they did pick up the seat, which stuck Congress with the bill in the form the Senate passed. Nothing new could possibly get past the filibuster.
If Obama had delayed even a couple of days in starting the process, we wouldn't have the ACA today. That's a fact.
He favored gay marriage.....once it was politically expedient.
That's hindsight. It was still a minority position when Obama "came out" in favor of it, and he was handing a huge issue on a silver platter to all the folks who hate him. However, his statement immediately made it a partisan issue, which brought around a large amount of Democrats who were on the fence about it. Overnight it became a majority opinion. Perhaps it looks obvious in retrospect, but he was going out on a bit of a limb when he did it.
Now perhaps he was a master strategist and saw that all this would happen. Or perhaps he just decided it was time to do the Right Thing.
He failed to get his trade bill, which is either good or bad, depending on your ideology, but it shows his lack of competence for working with congress.
Bad congressional relations is probably the most legit possible complain about this POTUS. However, framing it as a matter of his "competence" is just flat out wrong. He did great working with Congress while Democrats ran both houses, and lots of legislation got passed. That included universal health care legislation that has eluded every president since FDR started trying it nearly a century ago. So he's clearly got the chops.
It was only after Republicans took over that he couldn't get anything done with Congress. Congress also can't get anything done amongst themselves right now either though. The Republicans can't even get things done within their own Caucus. Blaming the POTUS for this is just downright weird.
That sounds cool and all, but what do they actually do there? What does an Engineering business need with a political functionary?
For the most part, the value in having a former administration official is in leveraging their political ties. However, the Obama administration had notoriously bad relations with Congress, so there just won't be a lot of value there.
The best I can come up with is that It does get you an in with the White House for the next year and a half or so. Since Congress can't do anything, that's the only branch that matters right now. So its good to have someone in your employ who the head of the FCC will answer a phone call from. Sure, their utility ends in a year and a half, but by then most of these folks will have left to join political campaigns anyway. There are now 5 dems running, so experienced operatives are going to be in demand. If you are lucky, you may even end up with a former employee working in the next White House. It sure doesn't look like Congress will get any more functional in the meantime.
That, combined with a generally quite low tax burden (compared to most first world nations the US has very low taxes), means that raising taxes in the US is a very valid strategy.
Theoretically possible I suppose, but politically completely impossible. Even talk about allowing "temporary" tax cuts expire was politically impossible. The entire debate wasn't on letting them expire, but on who would get them permanently. Actually raising taxes in the US isn't a subject that can even be broached.
Try 1979 at a Ford plant in Detroit.
...and again in 1987 in an Omni Consumer Products corporate boardroom in Detroit.
I seriously, seriously doubt, that Google, a global company that sees the world as its target market, only trained their algorithm on white people. They're Google engineers. They are not morons. It probably occurred to them to build a diverse sample set.
You would think so, yes, but that's clearly not what happened.
One thing a lot of people don't realize is that machine recognition keys on things that humans do not. If you let it take a short-cut in its training, it will. The rather famous example is the zebra-striped sofa. Nearly all recognition software will tell you a zebra-striped sofa is a zebra. Why? Because nobody though to train the computer on sofas with a similar pattern. In the absence of that, the computer could "cheat" on recognition by just comparing the pattern, regardless of shape.
Just comparing the deepness of skin hue, regardless of body/face shape is precicesly what you'd expect to see in a recognition program that was not trained on dark-skinned people. Not thinking to do that is precisely the kind of error you'd expect from a company that employs almost no African Americans. People have an unfortunate tendency to look around themselves and think what they see is representative.
Apologizing for a program miscategorizing an image it has never seen before as somehow "racist" makes about as much sense as GE apologizing because my toaster looks like a frowny-face from just the right angle
Most recognition software learns by going through a ton of examples and being told when its right and when its wrong. Most likely what happened here is that the learning phase used images of gorillas, but for "humans" used almost all pictures of white people. The computer doesn't know any better than it was trained, and if it wasn't trained to see black people as human too, then IMHO Google has well-earned the crap it is getting.
No license: default copyright. No-one is allowed to redistribute without your express permission.
No license is worse than that. It means nobody knows what the terms of your use of this software are. For all anybody knows, you actually agreed to something outlandish like the deed to your house in exchange for the right to make a backup copy. You can't prove otherwise, because you can't present a copy of this "no license".
If a company ends up with such software and an audit happens, there will be major problems. So I don't ever ever use someone else's software if it didn't come with some kind of license.
If you want your software to be used by as many people/corporations as possible, use BSD.
That seems to be the general public consensus.
Personally, if I'm in that situation I use CC0 instead. Its effectively Public Domain, with a completely permissive fallback license for areas where Public Domain isn't possible (eg: arguably the USA). The BSD is a lot of legalese in an attempt to accomplish the same thing. Even after all that effort, some versions of it actually fail and render the code GPL incompatible. Seeing the BSD is a huge drag, because I have to scan the entire text of the damn license looking for common gotchas like advertising clauses. Why?
If total freedom is what you want to give, there's no sense in half-assing it with BSD. Use CC0.
Whatever you do, please please please use a well-known license. I'm am completely sick of having to read and grok screens full of leagalese and then go to The FSF list of licenses to see if there's something important I missed. I'm sure every license has some nuance that makes it better for some purpose or other, but I don't care.
While I understand the attraction of BSD (and its zillion variants), I've found that I can cover all use-cases for my own work with one of three licenses (in order of stringency)
Now in the poster's case, you'd need to be very careful around the GPL. Check here to make sure all the licenses on all that other stuff is GPL compatible. If not, you can't use GPL. But even if you can, there's no guarantee those other licenses are all compatible with each other. This is why, again, developers should do their users a favor and stick to well-known GPL compatible licenses.
yes indeed the public wants to ride in uninsured taxis so they will have to pick up their own medical bills if there is an accident
How is this different that if I get into an accident as a passenger in a friend's car? Is this a huge issue? Should I refuse to let friends drive me anywhere?
So, you see your truck as more of a "lifestyle" purchase than a utilitarian one?
My grandfather was a small farmer and a rancher. He was a really sweet guy, but also the toughest human being I have ever met or will meet. If you open your dictionary to Ornery, you'll probably see his picture.
He owned 4 pickups, and one car. One of the pickups was actually an ancient Ford "Power wagon" with a wood bed. Some guy tried to buy it off him for a museum, but grandpa refused because he was still using it.
However, whenever he needed to go into town for something, he'd take the car, not one of the pickups.
So people who drive pristine pickups in the city? Yes, they are 100% just making a statement. They probably think that statement is "I'm a tough country guy". However, the statement they are actually making is "I'm a total poser". I've seen a tough country guy, and they ain't it. A real pickup has dents and rust. A real country guy leaves his pickup at home unless he needs it for something. If you are driving a pickup around to try to impress people, then by definition you aren't country.
Of course this is a cultural thing. People born after 1980 perhaps never saw this, and don't think twice about such things. I guess now I'm learning why old folks have a reputation for being cranky...
People that complain about having to work endless unpaid overtime just need to grow a pair and stand up to being abused. Do exactly what you're paid for, then go home. Seriously.
Nice macho talk. But, as someone who mostly does that, I can tell you firsthand what actually happens when you do that is that nearly everyone else gets more work done than you, and this shows up in things like performance appraisals, raises, promotions, and in bad times layoffs.
Its still worth it to me. I love my work, but my lifelong ambition since I was young was to have a family. Now that I have one, I'll be damned if I'm going to squander the few short hours on this earth I get with them over a little more money. But if you make this decision, and you have coworkers who don't, you will be making a career sacrifice. I can't really blame others (particularly unmarried folks) from not wanting to make that sacrifice.
Think on this a bit: If one person makes a selfish destructive decision, its probably legit to get mad at that person. If nearly everyone does it, you almost certainly have a systemic problem.
c++ code like std::vector. With that you store data contiguously in memory but you also don't have any manual memory management. No new, no delete, no malloc, no free.
...until you add more elements that it allocated storage for, at which point it will silently do the equivalent of a C realloc() (but with copy constructors and destructors to worry about). Still, I agree that std::vector is wonderful. I use it a ton myself. You just have to know what you are doing (like with most things). If you can't deal with the realloc at runtime, either set its size large enough to avoid that in your worst ever case, or simply don't add new elements at runtime.
I also heard that one late poll wasn't published by the pollsters because it was so far different from the average or consensus picture
Yup, that's a known issue with pollsters. As the election date closes, they start to "tweak" their results to say the same thing as everyone else. They might let an anomalous-looking result slide in the middle of the campaign, because there's its a graph you care about, not the individual data points. But people treat that final data point very differently. Nobody wants to be the pollster who screwed up the election prediction the worst.
This makes detection of large late surges kind of challenging, as seen in the US most recently and spectacularly in Eric Cantor's primary loss last cycle, which pollsters had him winning by a very comfortable margin.
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
So your argument is that the engineers should break into the set where they are shooting the new Star Wars film, load everyone onto the Millennium Falcon, and go looking for a convenient exhaust shaft at Disney Corporate HQ to shoot a plasma bolt down?
Disney is also a special case in Florida because it's THE major employer in the Orlando area. If you burn your bridges there, it's unlikely you'll work in that town again
FWIW, Lockheed Martin has two large plants in Orlando, both I believe with something on the order of 1,000 engineers. One does a lot of simulation work, and some general government contracting, and the other does a lot of heavy-duty government contracting on weapon systems, making stuff like missiles. Having worked in one of them (almost two decades ago), I don't believe they give two shits about Disney.
If you are instead doing theme-park related work, there are several other competing theme parks in the area. And then a half-hour drive to the east you have Cape Canveral.
Not that losing a job doesn't suck, but there are lots of local options outside of Disney.
That's why I said I could be convinced. That would be line of logic it would take. However, unless the ruling is that TW has to do this for anyone who asks for no extra charge, we aren't talking true neutrality.
Technically, this has nothing to do with throttling traffic. Instead it is about TW not going out of their way to help speed up a company's traffic by providing peering.
I could see the FCC arguing that is covered too, if the ISP is providing it to anybody. I don't think the world would come crashing down if that was the ruling.
OTOH, this takes extra effort on the ISP's side, and they can't do it with everyone. If everybody is made a peer, then they'd have to put in some extra structure to handle all the peers, and eventually everybody would be right back where they started from. Either way, its certain if I started an online video business tomorrow (TEDTube), I couldn't reasonably demand TW peer me with my $0 to invest in the effort. So I'm not rich enough to demand what CNS is demanding, no matter what.
So there is going to be a limit somewhere, and it looks like CNS is trying to argue that that Net Neutrality somehow demands that the limit be moved just far enough for them to get in. There's no principle here.
In January of this year, Monster sued Beats, accusing its founders of fraud....Monster is accusing Apple of bullying them
I think the term you are looking for here is psychological projection
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.
People now complain about mandatory minimum sentencing, which was a '70s reform meant to end the problem of wildly disparate sentences.
You are right that "wildly disparate sentences" was the codeword used at the time. However, in normal circumstances, that is a good thing. Humans are not computers, so every situation involving human behavior is unique. That's why we have human judges, and have traditionally valued them for the quality of their ... er .. judgement. Perhaps a homeless veteran with PTSD shouldn't get the same sentence as your average Joe for the same crime. Perhaps we shouldn't have to sit down and work out laws to cover every single possible personal situation.
So why did we really get worked up about mandatory minimums and "three strikes" and petty drug crimes all of a sudden in the early 80's? I can't say for sure, but one has to wonder if its really a coincidence that the effect of these laws was to take a tremendous amount of young black men off the streets and leave the rest in mortal fear of the cops only a decade after the legalized oppression of Jim Crow got outlawed nationwide.
Or perhaps it is. Who's to say?
The original start date is quite debatable. Some argue back even further (like '79!). Its complicated because C++ had an unusually long development period. Personally I don't really consider anything prior to C++ "2.0" (1991) to be anything more than an experimental waypoint in the development of the language. After that you can start making arguments, but I still don't put it before the first true compilers (not precompilers) became widely available and a lot of people starting using it for serious projects. The 1998 ISO standardization is a very convenient milepost for that time.
C++ is "Venerable"? Based on its first standard version, it is 17 years old. Seriously, we set the bar of language decrepitude at only 17 years?
I might might let it slide if you used that adjective for C or something even older. But C++ has only just now gone through enough revisions to start getting halfway decent. You wanna just chuck it in the retirement home right when they are starting to get some of the kinks worked out? One or two more revisions and they were going to get it up to the capabilities of Ada. :-)
Brutal.
Emacs is is an IDE. The "I" stands for integrated. Emacs has a mode for integrating with about any other software development tool you can imagine (including some other IDEs).
Well, I'm supporting some hardware/software systems that go back to the 70's (45 years). I'm afraid I don't have much encouraging to say though.
The nice thing about PDP-11's is that they were relatively ubiquitous, so there are lots of folks out there offering emulators, and even some with PDP-11's on a PCI card. The biggest problem we've had is with getting access to old sources. Source control discipline wasn't that hot back then, and a lot of the code was just done in machine language. Even if we had the sources to that, there aren't exactly a lot of folks conversant in it still working today. Plus a lot of the stuff still stuck there is stuck there because of hardware dependencies. For example, we had one networking protocol that goes back to somebody's decision to use the PDP-11 printer port for networking. Nobody ever tried upgrading both sides at once, so we stuck using this historical oddity in our system through several "upgrades" on both sides of the link. Its not so easy to find cards for this anymore when another single-side "upgrade" comes along.
On the plus side, a lot of our older stuff runs on some company's personal flavor of Unix, so the ubiquity of Linux for ports to modern hardware has been a huge boon for modern ports. So if past history is any guide, I'd highly recommend targeting Unix.