And since the government would subsidize the mortgage interest, even if 150k/year were his whole income, just the mortgage-interest rebate alone would be enough to live a comfortable lifestyle!
The trolls and flamebait all get moderated down to -1. But so do unpopular opinions. So it is far from a perfect system. Want to guarantee yourself a -1, post something good about Windows/10!
We're starting to see a lot of 7 and 8 year car loans at very low rates. Cars last a lot longer now so longer-term financing may make some sense. Although I genuinely struggle to think it's really a good idea in most cases.
Data access layers send SQL to the database, sure, but they guarantee that it is well-formed. That's their purpose. With the 4GLs, the clients sent the SQL directly. If somebody connected with out out-of-date or modified client, they could cause all kinds of havoc. A data access tier guarantees a well-formed transaction.
If a thread is dominated by "Your mom wears combat boots" posts, I would avoid it due to the thread being boring. Toxic comments are also boring comments. You don't want to get rid of every boring comment but if something is both toxic and boring, there's no point of keeping it. We don't have an algorithm for boring, but since toxic has probably a 0.99 correlation with sleep-inducing, it seems reasonable to assume that all toxic posts are boring.
The 4GL's of the 1990s were a terrible idea because they didn't ensure well-formed transactions. They had the clients send SQL directly to the database. They weren't a bad idea due to lack of expressiveness of the languages!
The fact that people are gluing code together from StackOverflow is what indicates the need for this type of solution. As has been mentioned in previous comments, the real work that (good) programmers do is to understand the nuances of the problem that they are trying to solve. You can get an 80% solution very easily. It just won't handle the corner cases correctly. And when you go to handle those, you spend a lot of time thinking an discussing about what the "correct" behavior should be. But once you've decided on the correct behavior and that, in order to implement it, you need data from three different sources, why in the world would you want to recreate the code to retrieve that data? It's more likely to be buggy than code that you copy and paste. The fact that you're copying a large chunk of code indicates that the languages aren't expressive enough. Right now we've been making up for that by having IDEs that generate a lot of code and/or copying existing swaths. I'm not saying that this is the right solution, just that it is trying to solve an important problem. Now sure if you are developing firmware for a networking switch or other low-level tasks, copying a bunch of code is probably a recipe for disaster. But for many applications, the languages are really lacking.
For cost-conscious patients, urgent care doctors are a great alternative to the emergency room. For those who have low or no deductibles / co-pays, the ER may be the first thing that they think of. But there's also a large swath of the population who can only get medical care in the ER due to being uninsured / under-insured.
Can't believe I'm saying this. But had the breech been disclosed sooner and all the users had left, maybe there never would have been an offer at all. Now it only costs 10% of the deal price. Maybe the new response to security incidents should be the ostrich technique.
I would assume that the plants keep some reserves for this and, if the safety stock is low, bring in backup supplies via LNG tanker. Can you cite some contrary evidence? It would add meaningfully to the discussion.
I think that you may be the only one who is confused. Right to repair laws don't require any design changes in order to make things easier to repair. They simply require that parts are available for purchase and instructions are obtainable.
No but one can recognize that certain 'irreverence' is designed to gently nudge us to reconsider our beliefs or 'sacred cows' as you call them. Even if we aren't ultimately persuaded, the examination is beneficial. In other cases, such as this one, there is (hopefully) not subtle push towards reexamination. Rather it serves only to instill fear in a group of people who have already suffered mightily. If you bring up a valid point, you can weather the backlash. When your 'irreverence' has no redeeming value, you torpedo your reputation.
A ban on booth babes would mean that the people in the booth are there because they have knowledge and information to offer rather than for their attractiveness. The summary makes it sound like the booth babes just wear more clothes, but they are still booth babes. Their primary purpose is to look nice and then refer people to those with actual knowledge. It's a sales tactic that seems to work but the push back against booth babes is that people want to be valued for their humanity rather than their sexuality. Of course this is somewhat of a case of being careful what you wish for. As somebody who has been said to "look like he knows what he's talking about" I can say that I wouldn't mind being valued as a sexual object but that's somewhat of a digression.
Even though this is not brought up in the article (or any of the other very good responses to this thread), US law has a tradition of mens rea meaning that somebody has to have a criminal sate of mind to be charged with a crime. We tend to lose sight of this because mens rea is *not* necessary for civil liability and oftentimes civil penalties are so severe that they feel like criminal prosecution. But they are still civil. Also sometimes, criminal negligence is a surrogate mens rea. But we still have this legal principle. I am most definitely not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and if you get legal advice from me you would be quite foolish.
I agree with your main point although when I read the article I kept thinking that I would always prefer the Windows driver over the third-party driver. Third-party ones tend to be horribly buggy. Once a device has a built-in driver is when I know that it will actually work correctly. Until then it's a crap shoot.
It does for now. But social media companies are not going to just sit still and acquiesce to this. It would drive away all of their users. So they will start offering users more permanent ways of deleting things. And online reputation companies will grow their business scrubbing profiles. And in the end, it will create only the type of inefficiency that anti-government types hate and will do nothing to benefit our country. All of these ideas seem to be built on the premise that the US is the most desirable place in the world. In the 1960s, this was probably true. But it's becoming less and less true each day. The bad policy that we adopt now will come back to haunt us in the future.
It is not possible to write a law that leaves a constitutional interpretation to the president. Foreigners may not have constitutional rights. But American corporations and states do. If Congress passed a law that said the president could adjust the tax rates of individual corporations as he saw fit, that would be arbitrary and capricious. What you're really pointing out is that maybe the law you cite gives the president unconstitutional powers. That doesn't seem to be in play here. Only whether the exercise of that power was constitutional. But you're right, that may be the conclusion on appeal that the president can't be given this power at all. Obama was a bit smarter than Trump and probably worked very hard to avoid a situation where the court had to address a constitutional issue.
I have no idea how this got modded up. I guess the moderators didn't actually click on the link. Removing a country from the visa waiver program in order to screen travelers more thoroughly may not be something that we all agree with. But it's a far cry from revoking the visas of people who have already been thoroughly screened. It's one thing to argue in favor of the ban on it's own merits. Many would disagree but it would be inappropriate to down mod a legitimate point. It's another to compare two totally different things. In fact many of the people affected by the Trump ban had already met the more stringent requirements of the Obama administration so this was just for spite. This has nothing to do with cheap H1B labor. MSFT may want that. And they will have to argue their case if the policy for assigning H1B based on salary gets debated. The travel ban was argued on merits and a judge agreed that irreparable harm would occur. The judge did not agree that this case was similar to anything in the linked article.
I do a lot of the interviews in my company and I can say that there is a dearth of qualified candidates. Requisitions stay open for months or years at a time. And we pay above market. Some of the candidates just don't have the technical skills (don't know a buffer overflow from an IRQ) or lack the ability to think through problems. We try hard to make sure that everybody gets to present themselves in the best possible light. We will actually try teaching people something new during the interviews to see if they can pick it up and explain it back to us. But most fail. We aren't looking at H1Bs. We do without. But if there are qualified people out there, I'd love to hear from them.
We have cheap, low-end doctors. We call them nurse practitioners. Except that they aren't so low-end. I've seen many of them and been very happy. I really don't need a high-end doctor since I'm in good health. Save those for the sick people.
Slashdot Mirror
And since the government would subsidize the mortgage interest, even if 150k/year were his whole income, just the mortgage-interest rebate alone would be enough to live a comfortable lifestyle!
The trolls and flamebait all get moderated down to -1. But so do unpopular opinions. So it is far from a perfect system. Want to guarantee yourself a -1, post something good about Windows/10!
Yes. It's called Windows Signature.
We're starting to see a lot of 7 and 8 year car loans at very low rates. Cars last a lot longer now so longer-term financing may make some sense. Although I genuinely struggle to think it's really a good idea in most cases.
I can't speak for Android but I can say that for iPhone the biggest power draws seem to be the GPS receiver and the cellular radio!
Data access layers send SQL to the database, sure, but they guarantee that it is well-formed. That's their purpose. With the 4GLs, the clients sent the SQL directly. If somebody connected with out out-of-date or modified client, they could cause all kinds of havoc. A data access tier guarantees a well-formed transaction.
Which may offset all of the environmental benefits of recycling it!
If a thread is dominated by "Your mom wears combat boots" posts, I would avoid it due to the thread being boring. Toxic comments are also boring comments. You don't want to get rid of every boring comment but if something is both toxic and boring, there's no point of keeping it. We don't have an algorithm for boring, but since toxic has probably a 0.99 correlation with sleep-inducing, it seems reasonable to assume that all toxic posts are boring.
The 4GL's of the 1990s were a terrible idea because they didn't ensure well-formed transactions. They had the clients send SQL directly to the database. They weren't a bad idea due to lack of expressiveness of the languages!
The fact that people are gluing code together from StackOverflow is what indicates the need for this type of solution. As has been mentioned in previous comments, the real work that (good) programmers do is to understand the nuances of the problem that they are trying to solve. You can get an 80% solution very easily. It just won't handle the corner cases correctly. And when you go to handle those, you spend a lot of time thinking an discussing about what the "correct" behavior should be. But once you've decided on the correct behavior and that, in order to implement it, you need data from three different sources, why in the world would you want to recreate the code to retrieve that data? It's more likely to be buggy than code that you copy and paste. The fact that you're copying a large chunk of code indicates that the languages aren't expressive enough. Right now we've been making up for that by having IDEs that generate a lot of code and/or copying existing swaths. I'm not saying that this is the right solution, just that it is trying to solve an important problem. Now sure if you are developing firmware for a networking switch or other low-level tasks, copying a bunch of code is probably a recipe for disaster. But for many applications, the languages are really lacking.
For cost-conscious patients, urgent care doctors are a great alternative to the emergency room. For those who have low or no deductibles / co-pays, the ER may be the first thing that they think of. But there's also a large swath of the population who can only get medical care in the ER due to being uninsured / under-insured.
Can't believe I'm saying this. But had the breech been disclosed sooner and all the users had left, maybe there never would have been an offer at all. Now it only costs 10% of the deal price. Maybe the new response to security incidents should be the ostrich technique.
I would assume that the plants keep some reserves for this and, if the safety stock is low, bring in backup supplies via LNG tanker. Can you cite some contrary evidence? It would add meaningfully to the discussion.
I think that you may be the only one who is confused. Right to repair laws don't require any design changes in order to make things easier to repair. They simply require that parts are available for purchase and instructions are obtainable.
No but one can recognize that certain 'irreverence' is designed to gently nudge us to reconsider our beliefs or 'sacred cows' as you call them. Even if we aren't ultimately persuaded, the examination is beneficial. In other cases, such as this one, there is (hopefully) not subtle push towards reexamination. Rather it serves only to instill fear in a group of people who have already suffered mightily. If you bring up a valid point, you can weather the backlash. When your 'irreverence' has no redeeming value, you torpedo your reputation.
A ban on booth babes would mean that the people in the booth are there because they have knowledge and information to offer rather than for their attractiveness. The summary makes it sound like the booth babes just wear more clothes, but they are still booth babes. Their primary purpose is to look nice and then refer people to those with actual knowledge. It's a sales tactic that seems to work but the push back against booth babes is that people want to be valued for their humanity rather than their sexuality. Of course this is somewhat of a case of being careful what you wish for. As somebody who has been said to "look like he knows what he's talking about" I can say that I wouldn't mind being valued as a sexual object but that's somewhat of a digression.
Even though this is not brought up in the article (or any of the other very good responses to this thread), US law has a tradition of mens rea meaning that somebody has to have a criminal sate of mind to be charged with a crime. We tend to lose sight of this because mens rea is *not* necessary for civil liability and oftentimes civil penalties are so severe that they feel like criminal prosecution. But they are still civil. Also sometimes, criminal negligence is a surrogate mens rea. But we still have this legal principle. I am most definitely not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and if you get legal advice from me you would be quite foolish.
He just copied it.
I agree with your main point although when I read the article I kept thinking that I would always prefer the Windows driver over the third-party driver. Third-party ones tend to be horribly buggy. Once a device has a built-in driver is when I know that it will actually work correctly. Until then it's a crap shoot.
It does for now. But social media companies are not going to just sit still and acquiesce to this. It would drive away all of their users. So they will start offering users more permanent ways of deleting things. And online reputation companies will grow their business scrubbing profiles. And in the end, it will create only the type of inefficiency that anti-government types hate and will do nothing to benefit our country. All of these ideas seem to be built on the premise that the US is the most desirable place in the world. In the 1960s, this was probably true. But it's becoming less and less true each day. The bad policy that we adopt now will come back to haunt us in the future.
See Zermatt, Switzerland. http://www.zermatt.ch/en/arriv...
It is not possible to write a law that leaves a constitutional interpretation to the president. Foreigners may not have constitutional rights. But American corporations and states do. If Congress passed a law that said the president could adjust the tax rates of individual corporations as he saw fit, that would be arbitrary and capricious. What you're really pointing out is that maybe the law you cite gives the president unconstitutional powers. That doesn't seem to be in play here. Only whether the exercise of that power was constitutional. But you're right, that may be the conclusion on appeal that the president can't be given this power at all. Obama was a bit smarter than Trump and probably worked very hard to avoid a situation where the court had to address a constitutional issue.
I have no idea how this got modded up. I guess the moderators didn't actually click on the link. Removing a country from the visa waiver program in order to screen travelers more thoroughly may not be something that we all agree with. But it's a far cry from revoking the visas of people who have already been thoroughly screened. It's one thing to argue in favor of the ban on it's own merits. Many would disagree but it would be inappropriate to down mod a legitimate point. It's another to compare two totally different things. In fact many of the people affected by the Trump ban had already met the more stringent requirements of the Obama administration so this was just for spite. This has nothing to do with cheap H1B labor. MSFT may want that. And they will have to argue their case if the policy for assigning H1B based on salary gets debated. The travel ban was argued on merits and a judge agreed that irreparable harm would occur. The judge did not agree that this case was similar to anything in the linked article.
I do a lot of the interviews in my company and I can say that there is a dearth of qualified candidates. Requisitions stay open for months or years at a time. And we pay above market. Some of the candidates just don't have the technical skills (don't know a buffer overflow from an IRQ) or lack the ability to think through problems. We try hard to make sure that everybody gets to present themselves in the best possible light. We will actually try teaching people something new during the interviews to see if they can pick it up and explain it back to us. But most fail. We aren't looking at H1Bs. We do without. But if there are qualified people out there, I'd love to hear from them.
We have cheap, low-end doctors. We call them nurse practitioners. Except that they aren't so low-end. I've seen many of them and been very happy. I really don't need a high-end doctor since I'm in good health. Save those for the sick people.