Also even with good design and skilled engineers, you will find on a major project that not all bugs can be fixed in any reasonable time, because of the destabilization that fixing a bug can cause (and worse, the unknown effects, that require further testing, and more time...).
People who glibly talk about shipping major software bug free, have either no experience of major software projects, are liars, or tend to creatively reclassify and ignore bugs so that they become 'documented issues' or 'known limitations' or 'under continued development' etc etc. It's particularly rich coming from the open source movement, who ship over and over continuously (presumably without bugs in any release...).
Fascinating, fascinating. Tell me, have you ever worked on a major software project that met this standard, and shipped? Did it make any money? Actually, do they have software in lala land?
One other pointlet - I have difficulty with the idea that it is a voluntary tax. Although I don't have a TV and wouldn't agree, I suspect that most people would consider it almost an essential, which is their choice but it means from their point of view, it isn't voluntary at all. To be slightly facetious, it's your choice whether you earn more than the threshold for income tax, but that could not be described as a voluntary tax. Secondly, it's arguably an involuntary tax if one only wants to watch commercial channels, in some sense of the word. I would consider a fishing license more like a voluntary tax, and a lottery ticket an unarguably voluntary tax.
"The BBC would have to goto HM Tresury every year hand in cap"
Point well taken and I agree that this would be undesirable. (NB that they already have to go to the politicians to get the license fee raised with inflation.) But it would be possible to mitigate this sufficiently to make it a better system than the dedicated (hypothecated) tax with all its official and personal administrative overhead. For example, an officially funded endowment. Or a 10-year funding renewal, amount fixed in real terms in the interim. Or a dedicated.25p on the income tax. Certainly the establishing law could be overturned with sufficient political pressure, but then so could the harebrained license scheme (which only ever made sense when less than 30% of people had TV's) and it would be considerably better than being subject to politically charged annual budget negotiations as they would be if they were subject to direct funding. Personally I prefer the idea of an endowment, funded by bonds whose maintenance is the government's responsibility. Once the BBC has gotten the lump sum and signed a piece of paper promising to spend it on free TV forevermore, it would not be possible to legislate the money back (except by some kind of preposterous windfall tax on them alone, which would be harder to enact than altering the license fee). TV licenses should go the way of dog licenses and radio licenses.
The Linux system (using Linux in its broadest sense) is explicitly a kernel wrapped later in a GUI. Generalizing somewhat, Windows 9x was designed from the GUI inwards, since the GUI was much more important to the market than the kernel. The different strengths and weaknesses of the two systems derive partly from the difference in the approaches: Linux is more stable, Windows 9x is easier to use. So far, so obvious. But here Win2k derives its advantage: its kernel was designed separately from the existing Windows 9x GUI that it fortuitously inherited, meaning that it has many of the advantages of a stable, tightly designed kernel while having an easier to use interface than Linux systems.
Agreed, but compare the Formula 1 advertising exemption bought by Tobacco with the endemic, structural corruption of the national American democratic system. The US has a great deal to teach us (Britons) about civil rights, and has an outstanding system of local democracy, but the occasional scandal aside, British national politics is astonishingly clean compared to almost any country in the world. National American politics is corrupt to an extent that would astonish a Western European "sheeperson".(BTW I lived in both countries, each for many years.)
By the way, before anyone mentions them, "TV Detector Vans" are a hilarious disinformation campaign. While it is theoretically possible to detect a TV in use, although pretty hard to nail down the right apartment in a tower block I should think, they don't spend any money on such ridiculous devices because they don't need to. Why drive around every street in the country with a van full of electronics if only 1% or so of the households don't have a license, and they obviously know perfectly well which these are. Then they harass them, looking in their windows and knocking on their doors - it's well known. The other way they find out is when you buy a TV, because you are automatically reported to the licensing agency. Even if that TV is in the attic and doesn't work, you must pay the license unless you trash it. Licenses for TVs are a mad scheme. If 99% of the population uses a service, why not fund it of general taxation? Then you wouldn't need these ridiculous ads about fictional detector vans - har de har.
Slashdot Mirror
People who glibly talk about shipping major software bug free, have either no experience of major software projects, are liars, or tend to creatively reclassify and ignore bugs so that they become 'documented issues' or 'known limitations' or 'under continued development' etc etc. It's particularly rich coming from the open source movement, who ship over and over continuously (presumably without bugs in any release...).
Fascinating, fascinating. Tell me, have you ever worked on a major software project that met this standard, and shipped? Did it make any money? Actually, do they have software in lala land?
Which would make Americans what, considering the vast popularity of outrageous scams here, such as chain letters? :-)
One other pointlet - I have difficulty with the idea that it is a voluntary tax. Although I don't have a TV and wouldn't agree, I suspect that most people would consider it almost an essential, which is their choice but it means from their point of view, it isn't voluntary at all. To be slightly facetious, it's your choice whether you earn more than the threshold for income tax, but that could not be described as a voluntary tax. Secondly, it's arguably an involuntary tax if one only wants to watch commercial channels, in some sense of the word. I would consider a fishing license more like a voluntary tax, and a lottery ticket an unarguably voluntary tax.
"The BBC would have to goto HM Tresury every year hand in cap" Point well taken and I agree that this would be undesirable. (NB that they already have to go to the politicians to get the license fee raised with inflation.) But it would be possible to mitigate this sufficiently to make it a better system than the dedicated (hypothecated) tax with all its official and personal administrative overhead. For example, an officially funded endowment. Or a 10-year funding renewal, amount fixed in real terms in the interim. Or a dedicated .25p on the income tax. Certainly the establishing law could be overturned with sufficient political pressure, but then so could the harebrained license scheme (which only ever made sense when less than 30% of people had TV's) and it would be considerably better than being subject to politically charged annual budget negotiations as they would be if they were subject to direct funding. Personally I prefer the idea of an endowment, funded by bonds whose maintenance is the government's responsibility. Once the BBC has gotten the lump sum and signed a piece of paper promising to spend it on free TV forevermore, it would not be possible to legislate the money back (except by some kind of preposterous windfall tax on them alone, which would be harder to enact than altering the license fee). TV licenses should go the way of dog licenses and radio licenses.
The Linux system (using Linux in its broadest sense) is explicitly a kernel wrapped later in a GUI. Generalizing somewhat, Windows 9x was designed from the GUI inwards, since the GUI was much more important to the market than the kernel. The different strengths and weaknesses of the two systems derive partly from the difference in the approaches: Linux is more stable, Windows 9x is easier to use. So far, so obvious. But here Win2k derives its advantage: its kernel was designed separately from the existing Windows 9x GUI that it fortuitously inherited, meaning that it has many of the advantages of a stable, tightly designed kernel while having an easier to use interface than Linux systems.
Agreed, but compare the Formula 1 advertising exemption bought by Tobacco with the endemic, structural corruption of the national American democratic system. The US has a great deal to teach us (Britons) about civil rights, and has an outstanding system of local democracy, but the occasional scandal aside, British national politics is astonishingly clean compared to almost any country in the world. National American politics is corrupt to an extent that would astonish a Western European "sheeperson".(BTW I lived in both countries, each for many years.)
By the way, before anyone mentions them, "TV Detector Vans" are a hilarious disinformation campaign. While it is theoretically possible to detect a TV in use, although pretty hard to nail down the right apartment in a tower block I should think, they don't spend any money on such ridiculous devices because they don't need to. Why drive around every street in the country with a van full of electronics if only 1% or so of the households don't have a license, and they obviously know perfectly well which these are. Then they harass them, looking in their windows and knocking on their doors - it's well known. The other way they find out is when you buy a TV, because you are automatically reported to the licensing agency. Even if that TV is in the attic and doesn't work, you must pay the license unless you trash it. Licenses for TVs are a mad scheme. If 99% of the population uses a service, why not fund it of general taxation? Then you wouldn't need these ridiculous ads about fictional detector vans - har de har.