What almost everyone gets wrong about agile is confusing the agile methodology with specific implementations of agile project management. Scrum, Kanban, Extreme Programming, Pair Programming, or any other agile techniques do not define the methodology itself. One of the reasons there are so many different agile methods and practices is the realization that no one method could work for any project or company. But the core tenants of agile development, just like the core tenants of the SDLC, PMBOK, Six Sigma, etc, could be applied to any project to great success.
Central to Agile is the proposition that the company is unable or unwilling to figure out what the requirements are before they develop the system. As Yogi Beara said, "if you don't know where you're going, you not get there." On small projects it might not hurt too much to figure it out as you go along, to backtrack and throw away code that has to be replaced. On large projects, and systems that need to integrate with other systems, you REALLY do need to figure out the requirements ahead of time and plan the architecture.
The core tenant of agile you are referring to is the realization that business needs will change or be further realized at every point in the project life cycle. This is not something which is up for serious debate for any project management methodology. You cannot know every requirement up front, changing or unknown requirements are far less unavoidable than death and taxes. Even a tightly managed project like sending the Curiousity rover to Mars required code modifications even as the craft prepared for its descent to the planet.
There are plenty of ways to manage changing requirements. Various agile methods are among those strategies. I happen to agree with the agile tenant that changing requirements should be embraced as a way to create better software, instead of something to be ignored so you can follow a pre-determined plan. This is a mindset I have even had on my "non-agile" projects (which includes the vast majority of them). The two main barriers to successfully maintaining this mindset is architecting software well enough to handle change and managing business expectations to accommodate change (which usually includes modified scope of impending releases). Every project can be handled this way, but not every company or development team is managed well enough to accomplish this. Managing business expectations is usually the most difficult part and where most agile teams end up failing.
If your team consists solely of programmers of medium competence, Agile may be the best choice. If you have even one excellent systems architect, you're far better off letting therm do their job, planning the system out first. If your team includes junior programmers (or veterans who haven't expanded their skill set over the years), Agile can leave them floundering, going one direction for a few weeks, then another direction for a few weeks, then completely backtracking for a few weeks. In summary, Agile is sometimes the best choice for your team, and when it is, you've done a poor job of hiring.
This seems very inconsistent. You say agile is the best choice if you have done a poor job of hiring, but then admit that agile is hard to do right with a junior or otherwise poor team. I do agree it is difficult to run a software development team in a highly efficient way with a poor team, regardless of what project management methodology you use. But I disagree that agile is less useful for very experience staff members. I think this is where it shines. Architects can focus their design at different levels of abstraction and in different contexts as it suits their current tasks. Nothing in agile stops designers from doing up front design and architecture, just from doing more than is necessary. It is very hard for inexperienced staff to know what is necessary, however, but this is much less of a problem for highly skilled employees.
There's not much to complain about in the USA in terms of software engineering wages, then, from a UK perspective, then, as even in London it's unlikely you would get offered that much with rather more experience.
I wonder how cities like London can be so expensive without salaries to match. Silicon Valley may have $2500/month studio apartments, but new college graduates can even make six figures there. Many European cities are just as expensive as the most pricey US cities, but with salaries often lower than the US Midwest. I guess I've always assumed its mostly old money.
A master plumber or HVAC person may not make as much, but doesn't have to worry about getting fired every 1.5-3 years as one does in IT.
Wow..I dunno where you live..but those guys most everywhere in the country in the US make close to the 6 digit figure if they're a good hustler.
So you're basically agreeing with him, since a skilled software developer will reach a six figure salary by his early 30's even in the Midwest. And doesn't have to literally work in shit.
Would this system flag fake news like the Michael Brown "Hands up, don't shoot" fake news that falsely claimed he had his hands up and was not charging at the police officer after already attacking him and attempting to take the officer's sidearm?
Hopefully yes it would. Ideally such a system would not only focus on the vast majority of fake news pushing a conservative agenda, but also the fake news pushing a liberal one.
We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.
With slavery, you have no ability to either leave a job or to better yourself so you can deserve a better one. Wage slaves have options, even if they may be dismal. I was a wage slave about 15 years ago, and it was certainly far different from anything I have heard about real slavery. Even when working on about $1 over minimum wage, I could afford to go drinking with friends, play video games, have hobbies, have some limited control over my schedule, etc. My life then had more in common with my current upper middle class lifestyle than it did with actual slavery.
And your statement is bullshit. Hence why you got called out on it.
Have you ever worked minimum wage when you required that money to pay the bills? (meaning not while in school)
I have (well, it was about $1 over minimum wage at the time), and I certainly enjoyed times when I was able to work 60 hours per week. That meant about $2200 take home per month instead of around $1300. I can tell you I really wanted that extra $900. So while my experience doesn't speak for everyone, his statement certainly was not bullshit for me or nearly anyone I worked with at the time.
No such thing as a bad reference, at least in the UK. You'd just sue them for lying, resulting in an expensive court case which would highlight publicly other failings in the company.
The lack of a glowing reference is the equivalent of a bad reference. If someone gives the standard title / date of hire / etc answers, a reference checker just has to ask if giving that answer is a company policy across the board. Since the answer to that is usually no, they will know the lack of information is equivalent to a very bad reference. And completely legal even in the UK.
The reason the word lost all meaning was because it was overused in places where it was not true. Brace yourself for losing the meaning of the word "fascist" due to the same reason - you think insulting people with inaccurate terms "wins" you the argument. Maybe it does, but you lost the election due to non-stop insults. You're a real slow learner.
What makes the words lose their meaning is people who think they only apply to some kind of comic book villain. They feel as long as someone isn't as bad as Hitler or Mussolini then he shouldn't be considered a fascist, and if someone isn't lynching anyone then he isn't a bigot. When we do this, we ignore the lessons of the past and doom ourselves to repeat them. If we convince ourselves that 1930s Germans were an evil population electing an evil leader, we won't be vigilant when our leaders start advocating violence (torture), blaming certain minority groups for our country's problems (immigrants and Muslims), and claiming they are the only strong leader who can fix the problem without giving policy details.
That is the true face of fascism, not the abstract cartoonishly evil figures we have turned past leaders into to make ourselves feel we could never be tempted by a similar demagogue.
Seriously though, the word bigot has lost all meaning and people like you are the reason.
Bigot: A person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Looking at Trump's rhetoric around undocumented immigrants, Muslims, and women, I'm hard pressed to see how bigot does not apply. It's almost as if the dictionary altered the definition to intentionally make it apply to Trump. They could have put Trump's picture next to the Merriam-Webster definition.
You do realize that attitude is what allowed Trump to win, right?
If you're not with us, your agin' us! Everyone not voting for my candidate is a bigot!
No, it was people like yourself who try to make it impossible to draw a distinction between a merely unpopular candidate and a dangerous fascist. Equating resistance to Trump with resistance to politicians like Clinton, Bush, or Obama is what creates a climate where average voters cannot tell the difference between a partisan politician and a demagogue. If you can't call Trump a bigot then the word loses all meaning.
Trump is the US version of Mohamed Morsi, and he shows that the US is not immune to the same populist failings of democracy we see in younger governments around the world. Our country made it through the Civil War, and we will almost certainly make it through a Trump presidency as well, but it is still a very dark time for the free world. There is still a chance that Trump won't follow through with his worst rhetoric, but currently each staff appointment is making this optimistic view less likely.
Google for machine safety standards. IEC 60601-1 seems to be a good starting point for medical devices.
We have the methods to write safe software. It's not easy and it is very time consuming.
There is still a fairly large difference between quality control in civil engineering and software development, even for safety critical devices. In college I worked with a professor whose area of research was requirements engineering, specifically requirements trace-ability. I did some work on a research project involving Siemens and the FDA where the goal was to improve specifications given to the FDA so they could monitor safety critical devices better. It was very eye opening just how difficult it is for the FDA to perform approval on devices which include a software component.
Right now their approach is basically to look for what they called "bad smells". It is impossible to thoroughly go over every software system with the same rigor they would over electronics or mechanic systems without an astronomically higher cost. So the best they can do is use their experience on where problems are most likely to be and to focus on areas where documentation is light. Just like an experienced software QA engineer would. My professor's research focused on AI and information retrieval to build tools which assist in investigation because a thorough review would be impossibly costly.
People often pontificate about whether civil engineering, electronics, or software engineering products are inherently more or less complex than each other. They look at number of bolts in a bridge and the lines of code in a software program and pretend they can compare the two. But coming from the actual mechatronics engineers and FDA officials whose job it is to oversee the safety of these products, software systems have simply too many external and internal inputs for software quality control to reach the rigor of other engineering disciplines. Human beings are simply not capable of handling the level of complexity it would take for software engineers to have the same confidence in their products as a civil engineer has in his.
Engineer experience and good QA practices really do make a big difference, but no software engineer will ever be capable of taking on the same level of responsibility for his products as a civil engineer does when he signs off on a bridge. This doesn't mean the industry cannot improve (it certainly can), it just means comparing the results of software QA with the results of civil engineering QA will always be faulty. Comparing each other's procedures to find ways to improve is still a good exercise though.
Thanks to Wikileaks we now know for a fact that she rigged everything against Bernie with the help of her minions in the DNC.
Of course they did. Why is that even news? Bernie is arguably not even a Democrat, so why wouldn't the DNC and Hillary fight against his primary run? People citing polling showing he would have beaten Trump are the deepest type of stupid; not realizing he didn't have to go through months of having his name and face next to Stalin and Mao for six months. Of course he was polling higher than Hillary.
The job of the DNC is to stop populist uprisings from damaging the party. I disagree with their stance, which is why I donated to the Bernie campaign, but faulting them from doing everything in their power to assist Hillary is deeply ignorant. If the RNC had done their job we wouldn't have a fascist in the White House.
Are we just going to conveniently forget the mainstream media's complete loss of credibility over the last election cycle
No, we are going to ignore this form of false news / propoganda, and realize the mainstream media still has more credibility than nearly any large organization other than perhaps the scientific community.
Your comment alludes to a more fundamental question of whether home owners could install these shingles themselves. While I would certainly rather pay someone to install a new roof, in the rural area I grew up in that was very rare. Even if you didn't have the skills you had a neighbor who could help. Very few people would "waste their money" paying someone else to do their home maintenance.
For people more willing to spend their time than money (or who only have excess time not money) the ability to install it yourself is a huge part of the cost function.
The doubling of price is in reference to assembly costs. So it is like 2x $20. This isn't doubling of $650. Also, parts costs don't double when assembled in USA vs China.
There is nothing in the article which makes this claim. Did you read it from another source?
The article clearly states production costs would double (with no labor / component distinction), and that those costs are currently estimated at $225 for an iPhone 7 with a 32GB memory. So this clearly means the production cost would increase from $225 to $450. The accuracy of statements coming from Foxconn is certainly up for debate, but you seem to be just making stuff up.
No. The component cost would not double. Only the labor cost.
There is nothing in the article which makes this claim. Did you read it from another source?
The article clearly states production costs would double (with no labor / component distinction), and that those costs are currently estimated at $225 for an iPhone 7 with a 32GB memory. So this clearly means the production cost would increase from $225 to $450. The accuracy of statements coming from Foxconn is certainly up for debate, but you seem to be just making stuff up.
"Since Inaugural Day 2001, the Democrats were against nearly anything and everything Pres Bush was in favor of. The Party of No, or have you been sleeping for these past eight years?"
How little the left remembers or cares about history.
Oh yes, because the Democratic party voted in lockstep to prevent the Iraq War, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (Bush Tax Cuts), and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (TARP). Oh wait, no they didn't, because they know how to run a functioning government when they don't hold the presidency. Were you even out of grade school during Bush's terms in office, or do you just go out of your way to stay willfully ignorant of recent political history?
The only major Bush program the Democrats did fervently fight was Bush's 2005 push to change social security, but in that case his own party couldn't even support him (and the public very strongly rejected his plans as well). They did oppose many of Bush's programs, such as his continuing the Iraq War as long as he did, but they never tried to shut down the government in a tantrum like today's Congress.
All democratic political systems require coalitions between disparate groups in order to govern. In the US you get to see the completed coalition before voting, as they are represented by the Republican and Democratic parties. In other countries you vote for one of many parties, and then leave it up to the elites in those parties to form coalitions without further public input.
There are pros and cons to both ways of running a democracy, and claiming a two party system is fundamentally different than a 3+ party system is deeply ignorant. The only significant difference is the lack of control a 3+ party system gives the electorate.
You do understand that while there's no solid evidence that there was not enough time to review them, unless I've missed a press release (very possible), there's also no solid evidence that there was enough. Fact is, we really have no idea, and to try to make any assertion one way or the other is literally people talking out of their asses.
Incorrect. One side has the FBI director in charge of the investigation saying they have had enough time to determine the emails don't change their conclusion on Clinton. So there is solid evidence that there was enough time.
have to be on premises and fixing stuff when the need arises.
Good luck on being able to not pay enough to live locally and offset my salary.
People who think needing to live locally is some form of protection forget the effect of a large number of colleagues in their local area becoming unemployed has on the job market for those remaining local jobs. Suddenly there is a downward pressure on wages for jobs which cannot be outsourced, ultimately affecting those jobs as well.
Slashdot Mirror
What almost everyone gets wrong about agile is confusing the agile methodology with specific implementations of agile project management. Scrum, Kanban, Extreme Programming, Pair Programming, or any other agile techniques do not define the methodology itself. One of the reasons there are so many different agile methods and practices is the realization that no one method could work for any project or company. But the core tenants of agile development, just like the core tenants of the SDLC, PMBOK, Six Sigma, etc, could be applied to any project to great success.
Central to Agile is the proposition that the company is unable or unwilling to figure out what the requirements are before they develop the system. As Yogi Beara said, "if you don't know where you're going, you not get there." On small projects it might not hurt too much to figure it out as you go along, to backtrack and throw away code that has to be replaced. On large projects, and systems that need to integrate with other systems, you REALLY do need to figure out the requirements ahead of time and plan the architecture.
The core tenant of agile you are referring to is the realization that business needs will change or be further realized at every point in the project life cycle. This is not something which is up for serious debate for any project management methodology. You cannot know every requirement up front, changing or unknown requirements are far less unavoidable than death and taxes. Even a tightly managed project like sending the Curiousity rover to Mars required code modifications even as the craft prepared for its descent to the planet.
There are plenty of ways to manage changing requirements. Various agile methods are among those strategies. I happen to agree with the agile tenant that changing requirements should be embraced as a way to create better software, instead of something to be ignored so you can follow a pre-determined plan. This is a mindset I have even had on my "non-agile" projects (which includes the vast majority of them). The two main barriers to successfully maintaining this mindset is architecting software well enough to handle change and managing business expectations to accommodate change (which usually includes modified scope of impending releases). Every project can be handled this way, but not every company or development team is managed well enough to accomplish this. Managing business expectations is usually the most difficult part and where most agile teams end up failing.
If your team consists solely of programmers of medium competence, Agile may be the best choice. If you have even one excellent systems architect, you're far better off letting therm do their job, planning the system out first. If your team includes junior programmers (or veterans who haven't expanded their skill set over the years), Agile can leave them floundering, going one direction for a few weeks, then another direction for a few weeks, then completely backtracking for a few weeks. In summary, Agile is sometimes the best choice for your team, and when it is, you've done a poor job of hiring.
This seems very inconsistent. You say agile is the best choice if you have done a poor job of hiring, but then admit that agile is hard to do right with a junior or otherwise poor team. I do agree it is difficult to run a software development team in a highly efficient way with a poor team, regardless of what project management methodology you use. But I disagree that agile is less useful for very experience staff members. I think this is where it shines. Architects can focus their design at different levels of abstraction and in different contexts as it suits their current tasks. Nothing in agile stops designers from doing up front design and architecture, just from doing more than is necessary. It is very hard for inexperienced staff to know what is necessary, however, but this is much less of a problem for highly skilled employees.
It's not a religious war. It can be and has been a disastrous waste of time, money, and life for many, many people.
Wait a minute, are you implying that religious wars are not a disastrous waste of time, money, and life?
There's not much to complain about in the USA in terms of software engineering wages, then, from a UK perspective, then, as even in London it's unlikely you would get offered that much with rather more experience.
I wonder how cities like London can be so expensive without salaries to match. Silicon Valley may have $2500/month studio apartments, but new college graduates can even make six figures there. Many European cities are just as expensive as the most pricey US cities, but with salaries often lower than the US Midwest. I guess I've always assumed its mostly old money.
A master plumber or HVAC person may not make as much, but doesn't have to worry about getting fired every 1.5-3 years as one does in IT.
Wow..I dunno where you live..but those guys most everywhere in the country in the US make close to the 6 digit figure if they're a good hustler.
So you're basically agreeing with him, since a skilled software developer will reach a six figure salary by his early 30's even in the Midwest. And doesn't have to literally work in shit.
Would this system flag fake news like the Michael Brown "Hands up, don't shoot" fake news that falsely claimed he had his hands up and was not charging at the police officer after already attacking him and attempting to take the officer's sidearm?
Hopefully yes it would. Ideally such a system would not only focus on the vast majority of fake news pushing a conservative agenda, but also the fake news pushing a liberal one.
It isn't like liberal partisans aren't as willing as conservative ones to use propaganda, it just doesn't work as well for them. Even the fake news networks admit fake news just doesn't work on liberals very well. As the owner of one of these fake news sites stated:
We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.
With slavery, you have no ability to either leave a job or to better yourself so you can deserve a better one. Wage slaves have options, even if they may be dismal. I was a wage slave about 15 years ago, and it was certainly far different from anything I have heard about real slavery. Even when working on about $1 over minimum wage, I could afford to go drinking with friends, play video games, have hobbies, have some limited control over my schedule, etc. My life then had more in common with my current upper middle class lifestyle than it did with actual slavery.
And your statement is bullshit. Hence why you got called out on it.
Have you ever worked minimum wage when you required that money to pay the bills? (meaning not while in school)
I have (well, it was about $1 over minimum wage at the time), and I certainly enjoyed times when I was able to work 60 hours per week. That meant about $2200 take home per month instead of around $1300. I can tell you I really wanted that extra $900. So while my experience doesn't speak for everyone, his statement certainly was not bullshit for me or nearly anyone I worked with at the time.
No such thing as a bad reference, at least in the UK. You'd just sue them for lying, resulting in an expensive court case which would highlight publicly other failings in the company.
The lack of a glowing reference is the equivalent of a bad reference. If someone gives the standard title / date of hire / etc answers, a reference checker just has to ask if giving that answer is a company policy across the board. Since the answer to that is usually no, they will know the lack of information is equivalent to a very bad reference. And completely legal even in the UK.
The reason the word lost all meaning was because it was overused in places where it was not true. Brace yourself for losing the meaning of the word "fascist" due to the same reason - you think insulting people with inaccurate terms "wins" you the argument. Maybe it does, but you lost the election due to non-stop insults. You're a real slow learner.
What makes the words lose their meaning is people who think they only apply to some kind of comic book villain. They feel as long as someone isn't as bad as Hitler or Mussolini then he shouldn't be considered a fascist, and if someone isn't lynching anyone then he isn't a bigot. When we do this, we ignore the lessons of the past and doom ourselves to repeat them. If we convince ourselves that 1930s Germans were an evil population electing an evil leader, we won't be vigilant when our leaders start advocating violence (torture), blaming certain minority groups for our country's problems (immigrants and Muslims), and claiming they are the only strong leader who can fix the problem without giving policy details.
That is the true face of fascism, not the abstract cartoonishly evil figures we have turned past leaders into to make ourselves feel we could never be tempted by a similar demagogue.
Seriously though, the word bigot has lost all meaning and people like you are the reason.
Bigot:
A person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Looking at Trump's rhetoric around undocumented immigrants, Muslims, and women, I'm hard pressed to see how bigot does not apply. It's almost as if the dictionary altered the definition to intentionally make it apply to Trump. They could have put Trump's picture next to the Merriam-Webster definition.
You do realize that attitude is what allowed Trump to win, right?
If you're not with us, your agin' us!
Everyone not voting for my candidate is a bigot!
No, it was people like yourself who try to make it impossible to draw a distinction between a merely unpopular candidate and a dangerous fascist. Equating resistance to Trump with resistance to politicians like Clinton, Bush, or Obama is what creates a climate where average voters cannot tell the difference between a partisan politician and a demagogue. If you can't call Trump a bigot then the word loses all meaning.
Trump is the US version of Mohamed Morsi, and he shows that the US is not immune to the same populist failings of democracy we see in younger governments around the world. Our country made it through the Civil War, and we will almost certainly make it through a Trump presidency as well, but it is still a very dark time for the free world. There is still a chance that Trump won't follow through with his worst rhetoric, but currently each staff appointment is making this optimistic view less likely.
Google for machine safety standards. IEC 60601-1 seems to be a good starting point for medical devices.
We have the methods to write safe software. It's not easy and it is very time consuming.
There is still a fairly large difference between quality control in civil engineering and software development, even for safety critical devices. In college I worked with a professor whose area of research was requirements engineering, specifically requirements trace-ability. I did some work on a research project involving Siemens and the FDA where the goal was to improve specifications given to the FDA so they could monitor safety critical devices better. It was very eye opening just how difficult it is for the FDA to perform approval on devices which include a software component.
Right now their approach is basically to look for what they called "bad smells". It is impossible to thoroughly go over every software system with the same rigor they would over electronics or mechanic systems without an astronomically higher cost. So the best they can do is use their experience on where problems are most likely to be and to focus on areas where documentation is light. Just like an experienced software QA engineer would. My professor's research focused on AI and information retrieval to build tools which assist in investigation because a thorough review would be impossibly costly.
People often pontificate about whether civil engineering, electronics, or software engineering products are inherently more or less complex than each other. They look at number of bolts in a bridge and the lines of code in a software program and pretend they can compare the two. But coming from the actual mechatronics engineers and FDA officials whose job it is to oversee the safety of these products, software systems have simply too many external and internal inputs for software quality control to reach the rigor of other engineering disciplines. Human beings are simply not capable of handling the level of complexity it would take for software engineers to have the same confidence in their products as a civil engineer has in his.
Engineer experience and good QA practices really do make a big difference, but no software engineer will ever be capable of taking on the same level of responsibility for his products as a civil engineer does when he signs off on a bridge. This doesn't mean the industry cannot improve (it certainly can), it just means comparing the results of software QA with the results of civil engineering QA will always be faulty. Comparing each other's procedures to find ways to improve is still a good exercise though.
Thanks to Wikileaks we now know for a fact that she rigged everything against Bernie with the help of her minions in the DNC.
Of course they did. Why is that even news? Bernie is arguably not even a Democrat, so why wouldn't the DNC and Hillary fight against his primary run? People citing polling showing he would have beaten Trump are the deepest type of stupid; not realizing he didn't have to go through months of having his name and face next to Stalin and Mao for six months. Of course he was polling higher than Hillary.
The job of the DNC is to stop populist uprisings from damaging the party. I disagree with their stance, which is why I donated to the Bernie campaign, but faulting them from doing everything in their power to assist Hillary is deeply ignorant. If the RNC had done their job we wouldn't have a fascist in the White House.
I seriously doubt they will be sympathetic to a bunch of whiney crybabies.
Considering people still voted for Republicans after their approach to governing for the past 8 years, voters overwhelmingly reward whiny crybabies.
Are we just going to conveniently forget the mainstream media's complete loss of credibility over the last election cycle
No, we are going to ignore this form of false news / propoganda, and realize the mainstream media still has more credibility than nearly any large organization other than perhaps the scientific community.
Your comment alludes to a more fundamental question of whether home owners could install these shingles themselves. While I would certainly rather pay someone to install a new roof, in the rural area I grew up in that was very rare. Even if you didn't have the skills you had a neighbor who could help. Very few people would "waste their money" paying someone else to do their home maintenance.
For people more willing to spend their time than money (or who only have excess time not money) the ability to install it yourself is a huge part of the cost function.
The doubling of price is in reference to assembly costs. So it is like 2x $20. This isn't doubling of $650. Also, parts costs don't double when assembled in USA vs China.
There is nothing in the article which makes this claim. Did you read it from another source?
The article clearly states production costs would double (with no labor / component distinction), and that those costs are currently estimated at $225 for an iPhone 7 with a 32GB memory. So this clearly means the production cost would increase from $225 to $450. The accuracy of statements coming from Foxconn is certainly up for debate, but you seem to be just making stuff up.
No. The component cost would not double. Only the labor cost.
There is nothing in the article which makes this claim. Did you read it from another source?
The article clearly states production costs would double (with no labor / component distinction), and that those costs are currently estimated at $225 for an iPhone 7 with a 32GB memory. So this clearly means the production cost would increase from $225 to $450. The accuracy of statements coming from Foxconn is certainly up for debate, but you seem to be just making stuff up.
"Since Inaugural Day 2001, the Democrats were against nearly anything and everything Pres Bush was in favor of. The Party of No, or have you been sleeping for these past eight years?"
How little the left remembers or cares about history.
Oh yes, because the Democratic party voted in lockstep to prevent the Iraq War, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (Bush Tax Cuts), and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (TARP). Oh wait, no they didn't, because they know how to run a functioning government when they don't hold the presidency. Were you even out of grade school during Bush's terms in office, or do you just go out of your way to stay willfully ignorant of recent political history?
The only major Bush program the Democrats did fervently fight was Bush's 2005 push to change social security, but in that case his own party couldn't even support him (and the public very strongly rejected his plans as well). They did oppose many of Bush's programs, such as his continuing the Iraq War as long as he did, but they never tried to shut down the government in a tantrum like today's Congress.
That was a fun read. Can you do it again but this time make it look like Truman was at fault for everything Stalin did? I like alternate realities.
Coal isn't dying because of politics. It is dying because of cheap shale gas. Coal is not coming back.
Technically anything could come back with enough subsidies.
All democratic political systems require coalitions between disparate groups in order to govern. In the US you get to see the completed coalition before voting, as they are represented by the Republican and Democratic parties. In other countries you vote for one of many parties, and then leave it up to the elites in those parties to form coalitions without further public input.
There are pros and cons to both ways of running a democracy, and claiming a two party system is fundamentally different than a 3+ party system is deeply ignorant. The only significant difference is the lack of control a 3+ party system gives the electorate.
You do understand that while there's no solid evidence that there was not enough time to review them, unless I've missed a press release (very possible), there's also no solid evidence that there was enough. Fact is, we really have no idea, and to try to make any assertion one way or the other is literally people talking out of their asses.
Incorrect. One side has the FBI director in charge of the investigation saying they have had enough time to determine the emails don't change their conclusion on Clinton. So there is solid evidence that there was enough time.
have to be on premises and fixing stuff when the need arises.
Good luck on being able to not pay enough to live locally and offset my salary.
People who think needing to live locally is some form of protection forget the effect of a large number of colleagues in their local area becoming unemployed has on the job market for those remaining local jobs. Suddenly there is a downward pressure on wages for jobs which cannot be outsourced, ultimately affecting those jobs as well.
Gift-giving programs like this always turn into runaway spirals.
And setting up straw man arguments always leads to being able to easily make ignorant comments seem insightful.