What. No, no they have not. They said it was specific to a technology, that's it.
No, that's not it. He also said it was 90% related to his current job.
You then concluded that it was more along the line of "C# or Java: Haskell to the Rescue!". but it could easily be technology-related, for example automation controls.
"Along the line of" doesn't mean "identical to", it means similar. Ok, automation controls. Same thing. It's not going to be the quantum leap that you're proposing.
There's lots of reasons why someone in the public sector might have something to gain by visiting a conference being held in Vegas.
Show me where I said there was no reason to go.
You don't know what the subject matter is, but you're sure you do.
Really? Show me where I said THAT, too.
The provided evidence is insufficient to jump to the conclusion you're now standing upon.
Whatever the topic of the conference, it is it already 90% related to his current job, then it isn't going to be anything like the "buggy whip/automobile" leap that you made.
And yet somehow the state of Minnesota (and many other states) manage to define "food" and "clothing" in such a way as to result in zero sales tax being applied to those purchases day after day.
Well, yes, by their definition of "food", "food" is not taxed. It is a tautology. They define food this way:
Food. Groceries for human consumption.
Candy, soft drinks, dietary supplements and
prepared food are taxable.
So, if your dinner consists of what the common man calls "food", and you run through the drive-through on your way from one minimum-wage job to the next and pick up a Big Mac and a soda, you pay sales tax. That's a swell definition of "food" for someone who doesn't have time to cook his own, and if you need a dietary supplement as part of your diet, you pay taxes on it, too. Grab a candy bar and a bag of chips to go with that can of Coke during a rushed lunch -- sales tax.
Ok, great, you're talking about ALL binary distributed software.
I was talking about the claim that it is notoriously difficult to get the same code to compile to the identical binary on two different systems, or even one system that has had any kind of upgrade to it. You said it wasn't. I disagreed.
You're original comment was ambiguous enough to imply the source for the CLI was somehow overly complicated to access and compile.
Huh? My're [sic] original comment refuted your claim that making identical binaries was not notoriously difficult. Not even the OP said it was hard to compile, he said that it was difficult to get an identical binary to verify that the distributed executable was produced from the proffered source code.
Instead, you could just go around copying and pasting your comment anytime anyone releases a native executable making your point rather... what's the word?
My point has nothing to do with the release of executable binary, it was specific to your claim that it isn't difficult to produce the identical binary for comparison from the alleged source for that program. The word you are looking for is "right", or "correct", or perhaps "insightful". Or maybe just "knows how hard it is better than you do because I've tried it".
Middle class income and tax/earned income credits? On what planet!?
On planet Earth, in the USA, we have both middle class income earners and people who make so little that they get to classify their rent and other payments as "earned income tax credits". Those middle class people also get some tax credits, like the ones for installing energy efficient whatsits or getting rid of the clunker cars.
I don't think you know what the word charity means.
There is a reason that charitable deductions exist, and if you don't understand why then you shouldn't be discussing tax policy.
States that have different tax rates on different goods already face this problem and demonstrate that it isn't as easy as you want to pretend. What is "food"? Is it fair for a poor person who works two jobs and doesn't have time to cook for himself to be paying taxes on prepared food while the idle rich guy can buy caviar and lobster tails with no tax at all?
It is impossible. I am not aware of any merchants that dodge sales tax,
It is quite possible, and if you raise (or create) a sales tax in the amount you'll need to replace the income tax you'll see a lot of them doing it -- because the customers will want it.
If the sales tax is 4%, it's not worth it. When the sales tax goes to 20% or more, look out. Why do you think there is illegal cigarette traffic, because you can't get the smokes that taste right? Or is it tax-stamp created?
You'll also immediately get calls for the return of a tax on those awful rich people who are now avoiding taxation on their luxurious incomes because they don't spend most of it, while the poor folks are stuck paying taxes on every penny they earn because they have to spend it all to get by. Then you'll get a demand for some kind of tax credit for the poor, which will require an IRS and that awful paperwork you're trying to get rid of.
You'll see charity as we know it drying up because there will be no tax benefit to it, and people who could afford to buy a house because the mortgage interest was deductable won't be buying houses.
In fact, all of those social engineering projects that our tax code has been used to promote will go away. At least until you create a paperwork nightmare just as large as the existing one to bring them all back.
How about we simplify taxes so there's no need to issue refunds in the first place?
Then how will people get all their tax credits, like earned income? How would you take into account deductions that don't take place on a regular or known schedule? E.g., I gave $1000 to the Red Cross in December of last year, how does that get entered on my W4 in time to make any difference?
When I see a simplification that doesn't wind up costing the middle class (me) more money, I'll support it. I've run the number for the 'fair tax' and it really ain't.
Straw man. We don't know what kind of conference this is.
Yes, we do know what kind of conference this is because the OP told us.
The short version is I would like to attend a national conference, hosted in Las Vegas, and that while specific to a technology, it is what 90% of my day is related to so its directly work related.
If the conference relates to 90% of what his existing work day involves, then it is absolutely not equivalent to the "buggy whip/automobile" chasm. It's going to be more along the line of "C# or Java: Haskell to the Rescue!".
Unless you really believe that 90% of the buggy whip industry was related to the automobiles that replaced the need for them.
And it's "good enough." And the photo industry has been just destroyed (I mean the part that sells pictures to clients.
The same problem exists in any market where the professionals need to convince the clients that perfection is the minimum acceptable product in order for the professionals to stay in business. Professional engineers have some claim that "good enough" may actually wind up costing lives, but nobody I know of has ever died from a "good enough" photograph.
Yes. The binary produced by a compiler and linker depends on the version of the compiler and linker and libraries, the flags and options used, the locations of libraries, the link order, and a myriad other things.
I've even found it notoriously difficult to get some open source projects to compile AT ALL because of differences between compiler versions. I'm always amazed when it happens, and there is no question that the binaries that are produced are different.
Rename `cli` to `exercism`. Review the code.
The question is not whether you can "review the code", it is whether the code you can review is the same code that went into the published executable. Since it is notoriously difficult to get identical binary output from compiling identical input (unless you force everyone to use one specific environment/OS/version) it is notoriously difficult to verify the source for any downloaded executable.
requiring higher capital requirements, more diligent use of mark-to-market, risk analysis and so on.
But having any effective risk analysis would have meant that the banks wouldn't make loans to people who couldn't afford them, and that failure to make loans to such people was the reason for the regulations that were in place forcing them to make those loans. The buzzword was "redlining", and the solution was "community reinvestment", aka The Community Reinvestment Act. If the banks were complaining, it was because they were forced to make risky loans in the first place and then prevented from recapitalizing by selling those loans. A bank only has so much money, and if all the money is in the hands of people who cannot or will not pay it back the bank goes out of business.
If you think it makes sense to force banks to hand money out to people who use welfare checks or "sweat equity" as proof of income so they can buy houses they can never pay off, and then let the banks run out of money to do that because they can't sell the loans off, you're a part of the problem, not the solution.
but there is a direct line between the bailouts and the lack of regulations.
There is a direct line between the over-regulation, repeated previous bailouts, and the final big one. Had banks been allowed to continue their proper risk evaluation for loans the collapse would not have happened. Over-regulation and the threat of lawsuits from activist groups like Jackson's PUSH or ACORN forced the bad loans to be created.
My opinion is that there would have been a benefit in having those directly responsible suffer the most
I agree, but it is unlikely that Clinton, Dodd, Frank, Waters, Obama, or any of the others who pushed the Community Reinvestment Act, community activism, and forced banks to make bad loans to people who couldn't pay them back would ever be punished at all, much less "suffer the most".
"Architects of Ruin" by Peter Schweizer is a pretty good eye-opening read regarding the entire history that led up to the bubble bursting. It wasn't an isolated event that happened overnight, it took many years to develop. The short story is, if you force banks to make bad loans then that debt has to go somewhere. If you don't think the CRA etc forced banks to make those loans, then you don't know the history.
What you mean is that you cannot comprehend how one could exist, therefore it is implausible. The arguments against there being a God typically depend on human comprehension, or lack there of, and the belief that what a human cannot comprehend cannot exist. You think it would be really hard for a God to create a universe, therefore a God that can create a universe easily isn't plausible.
This is the same kind of failure that has people using "password" for a password. "Nobody would ever guess that's my password, so it's super secure." Their inability to comprehend doesn't create the truth, it only obscures it.
Don't see the point of that.
Another "cannot comprehend why, therefore it isn't true" argument. I can easily come up with a reason I'd do it. It will give my creations a great deal of pleasure trying to figure things out. A secondary reason would be that by making it clear I had made it all, I create a strong impetus for y'all to worship me. Just look at the various gods that y'all have imagined based on correlations of things like "if I behead a virgin the crop god will bless us with a good crop". I don't want that kind of forced worship.
I'm just pointing out that 'forge' is kinda weak.
"Forge" is in the eyes of the beholder. Of COURSE I know it isn't really billions of years old, but I made it look that way to YOU with your limited senses. Aren't y'all having a wonderful time arguing about what really happened?
But foreknowledge of the result does not negate the perfection of those laws, or the lack thereof.
Huh? Where did I say it did. I was simply pointing out that your billions of years old universe could have just as easily been the product of a creator who created the physical laws and let them take their natural course. Who dares say my laws lack perfection?
If there is such a thing as a perfect law, idk; E=MC2 or whatever, that implies that any old physical laws can't just be easily created.
It implies you cannot imagine anyone or anything finding it easy. I cannot imagine anyone running an ironman for fun, much less because it is easy, and yet people do it.
Which leaves me with one conclusion: God killed himself to make the universe. It's made out of him.
Interesting result from logic that is based on "I cannot comprehend it being any other way". Very reminiscent of the cargo cults, where people couldn't imagine any other explanation for boxes of food falling from the sky.
What we call an observation is really just a hypothesis:
You may call your hypotheses "observations". To do that, you need to go deep into the metaphysical where eventually you have to decide if what you see is real or just a figment of your imagination. "I think my memory is reliable" kind of things.
I'm talking about the difference between using a thermometer to measure temperature and measuring the thickness of a tree ring. One is a direct observation, the other indirect. Only those who spend years contemplating their navels would argue that the two measurements are the same.
hypotheses 2-100: "I saw an apple fall down"
If "I saw" is a hypothesis to you, then there is no reason to continue.
Are you suggesting there is some dishonesty in Randi's willingness to give you $10 million dollars
I thought I was pretty clear when I talked about the kind of debunking that consists of simply duplicating an alleged psychic phenomenon using magic tricks and then claiming that this proves that the psychic version was also a magic trick. I guess I wasn't clear enough.
I remember from years ago where Randi would do just that -- do the same things people who claimed paranormal powers did and then he'd reveal the magic trick or slight of hand. One example was someone who could move cigarettes (IIRC) laying on a table with his mental powers. Randi showed how he could do it by cupping his hands just right and blowing. That was his proof that the other guy was a fraud.
That nobody has claimed that prize means that so far anybody who claims to have supernatural powers is full of shit.
No, that just means that nobody has claimed the prize. It proves nothing else. Just as Uri Geller's failure to perform upon command for Carson doesn't prove anything.
Science still can prove, one way or another, the origins of the universe with science.
This is perhaps the textbook example of how science is misunderstood. Science cannot prove how something that was not directly observed happened. It can only disprove certain proposed mechanisms based on current observation and understanding.
So, when someone says that "the CBR proves the big bang theory is correct", what they actually should say is that "the CBR is consistent with the big bang theory". I.e., the former doesn't disprove the latter.
A good analogy is found in art. I have a painting on my wall here. It looks like a Van Gogh. It is painted in the same style as other paintings that are believed to be his. A chemist has taken a paint chip and measured the properties, and found it is consistent with paint used in Van Gogh's time. Another scientist has dated the canvas and it comes from that time period. All the science data is consistent with a painting by Van Gogh.
But it isn't a Van Gogh. It's a forgery.
All I can say is, were I a God able to create a Universe from a single word, I'd certainly be able to forge it to look like it was billions of years old. Or I could just as easily create the physical laws with the knowledge of the result.
I mean, if you are designing some object to be 3D printed, are you not the creator of that object even if it takes three hours for it to print out? You told the CAD program what you wanted, and the CAD program told the printer, it just took a bit of time. That's how Algore created the Internet, after all. He didn't do the actual work, he just spoke it into existence, so to speak.
'We're going to debunk one of the biggest conspiracies in the world,' Herkelman said."
No, they demonstrated that the conspiracy theorists claims that the photograph was fake because there wasn't enough illumination given the position of the sun and lunar module are incorrect.
No, they didn't actually do that, and they had much grander claims about what they did, as I quoted from the summary. "We managed to create a fake photograph" doesn't disprove anything about any other photograph.
The additional "light source" is the reflection off Armstrong's suit, and not some sound stage.
The light source in their photo was from an astronauts hyper-reflective suit (they mention all the layers that go into it, as if anything below the first one or two would reflect much. If the top layers were so reflective, then there wouldn't be anything for the lower layers to reflect.) This does not prove that the light source in some other photograph was not a key light. Or, the photographer taking the photo on the sound stage was also wearing such a reflective suit -- they had one guy in a real astronaut's suit, they could just as easily have had two.
The claim is "there's no possible way this could have happened", and they showed one plausible way, thus negating the assertion.
The claim was actually that "this could only happen if". Claiming that something that did happen (the lighting) couldn't possibly happen at all is obviously incorrect, so it would have been trivial to disprove that claim forty years ago. Just show the photo!
Using modern technology to fake a photograph does not contradict the claim "this could only happen if" when that technology didn't exist, and it only shows that there is, indeed, yet another way to fake such a photograph.
It's a publicity stunt. It doesn't "debunk one of the biggest conspiracies in the world", it may potentially call into question one claim about one photograph. It is like saying that the conspiracy theory that JFK is still alive, or was shot by the CIA, or any number of related theories, are disproven because someone used a different style of rifle, or used a bullet made of tantalum instead of lead, while making the same kind of shot today.
This kind of argument is the same kind of erroneous argument that The Amazing Randi uses to debunk psychic phenomena. That he can duplicate those allegedly psychic phenomena using modern technology or magician's slight of hand tricks doesn't prove anything about the original phenomena other than there could be another explanation. To prove that Uri Geller was bending spoons using magic tricks and not his mind actually requires catching Uri Geller using magic tricks. To claim that it is LIKELY he is using magic requires a lesser amount of evidence, which is what Nvidia has accomplished here.
Nvidia saying "hey, look, we faked a moon landing photograph" using our fancy new hardware" is nice, but it doesn't prove the authenticity of any other.
Ummm, I really don't understand this. Nvidia was able to recreate an allegedly faked photograph, therefore proving the photo was not a hoax? Finding yet another way to create a hoax proves the first way of making that hoax didn't happen? Nvidia dropped a highly reflective astronaut suit into the CGI program to get the right lighting; NASA couldn't have dropped a key light onto the terrestrial "lunar" film set to do the same thing?
It is a wonderful publicity stunt, but as proof of anything other than how great the Nvidia renderers are it's meaningless. Will they next produce a CGI of bigfoot, thus proving that bigfoot exists?
Oh, no CTO? Too bad, so sad. Thou shalt fail, o maker of buggy-whips. Enjoy this moment while it lasts.
You're equating the "buggy whip/automobile" quantum leap with the "C/C#/C++/Ruby/Perl/python/haskell/lisp/whatever" language wars? Or "cloud/client/distributed/centralized"? Or even "sql/nosql"?
Do you also believe that "on a computer" is sufficient to justify issuing a new patent for something? I mean, if what language is being used to develop a product is such a major sea change that a company would fail for not changing at the right time, then changing from "by hand" to "on a computer" must be orders of magnitude more important, surely worthy of patent protection for the company of the CTO who has pushed for such critical innovation.
Let me get this straight. So if somebody you don't actually know, who is probably located thousands of miles away from you, makes an obviously harmful suggestion that isn't directed at you,
Most arguments where the word "obvious" plays a critical part are usually not so obvious. Just as "common sense" isn't.
Many of the things we take for granted today are magical black boxes to many people, based on the simple Clarke assertion: "any technology sufficiently advanced will be seen as magic". Remember that just a few years ago the simple analog cell phone was viewed as magic and people expected that the conversations they were transmitting in the clear over radio waves were private and they had some expectation of privacy. Infomercials routinely sell us small convection ovens as miracle cooking devices, and any man who has trouble peeing should buy this magical remedy.
In this hoax, we're combining the magical microwave oven and mystical cell phone made by the shamans at Apple. It would take a necromancer of the upper levels to realize that combining the white magic of the microwave with the black magic created by The Fruit That Cannot be Spoken would result in Bad Things.
If I bring it up around the dinner table before she (or anyone) asks, it may also save her some embarrassment.
Ah, what would you say had you not seen this? "Hey, never heard of that, sounds legit, let me get back to you."
Why yes, that's how I always bring things up at the dinner table. "Hey, I never heard of that". "What didn't you hear about?" "I dunno, what haven't you asked about yet?"
I think the OP was talking about making a pre-emptive comment, as in "bringing it up around the dinner table before she asks", as in "hey, did you hear the latest hoax about...". Not responding to someone else bringing it up as something they'd already done, also known as "AFTER she asks".
Personally, if a company isn't willing to invest in me, then why the hell should I invest in it?
Because they're paying you to?
(and yes, for anyone not a developer it will grow stale, even if you train yourself or pay for your own training, because you'll never use it in a practical work setting.
And having the company pay for training that you will never use in their practical work setting keeps you from going stale the same way? Or are you arguing that every company doing software development must switch to the lasted fad language and invest a large amount of money in converting the current systems so that the developers won't "go stale" by using the same tools that have gotten the company this far?
Now, don't get me wrong. There may be technical or other reasons to switch or expand into the latest fads. I'm just saying that "let's keep our developers on their toes by changing for no other reason than to keep them on their toes" isn't one of them. And when you accept that, then a company not paying to teach old people new tricks they'll never be using for that company is only an expense, not an asset.
You must be nuts. You think the Canadian government should be asking everyone in the country if they are Netflix subscribers? Or that Netflix subscribers should have to register with the government? Don't be looney.
It's the job of the company paying the corporate income taxes to justify the amount of payment, not the job of every customer of that company.
No. I didn't come anywhere close to saying you couldn't express your opinion, and I told you that explicitly. You misread what I said, so the problem is yours.
Slashdot Mirror
What. No, no they have not. They said it was specific to a technology, that's it.
No, that's not it. He also said it was 90% related to his current job.
You then concluded that it was more along the line of "C# or Java: Haskell to the Rescue!". but it could easily be technology-related, for example automation controls.
"Along the line of" doesn't mean "identical to", it means similar. Ok, automation controls. Same thing. It's not going to be the quantum leap that you're proposing.
There's lots of reasons why someone in the public sector might have something to gain by visiting a conference being held in Vegas.
Show me where I said there was no reason to go.
You don't know what the subject matter is, but you're sure you do.
Really? Show me where I said THAT, too.
The provided evidence is insufficient to jump to the conclusion you're now standing upon.
Whatever the topic of the conference, it is it already 90% related to his current job, then it isn't going to be anything like the "buggy whip/automobile" leap that you made.
And yet somehow the state of Minnesota (and many other states) manage to define "food" and "clothing" in such a way as to result in zero sales tax being applied to those purchases day after day.
Well, yes, by their definition of "food", "food" is not taxed. It is a tautology. They define food this way:
So, if your dinner consists of what the common man calls "food", and you run through the drive-through on your way from one minimum-wage job to the next and pick up a Big Mac and a soda, you pay sales tax. That's a swell definition of "food" for someone who doesn't have time to cook his own, and if you need a dietary supplement as part of your diet, you pay taxes on it, too. Grab a candy bar and a bag of chips to go with that can of Coke during a rushed lunch -- sales tax.
Ok, great, you're talking about ALL binary distributed software.
I was talking about the claim that it is notoriously difficult to get the same code to compile to the identical binary on two different systems, or even one system that has had any kind of upgrade to it. You said it wasn't. I disagreed.
You're original comment was ambiguous enough to imply the source for the CLI was somehow overly complicated to access and compile.
Huh? My're [sic] original comment refuted your claim that making identical binaries was not notoriously difficult. Not even the OP said it was hard to compile, he said that it was difficult to get an identical binary to verify that the distributed executable was produced from the proffered source code.
Instead, you could just go around copying and pasting your comment anytime anyone releases a native executable making your point rather ... what's the word?
My point has nothing to do with the release of executable binary, it was specific to your claim that it isn't difficult to produce the identical binary for comparison from the alleged source for that program. The word you are looking for is "right", or "correct", or perhaps "insightful". Or maybe just "knows how hard it is better than you do because I've tried it".
Middle class income and tax/earned income credits? On what planet!?
On planet Earth, in the USA, we have both middle class income earners and people who make so little that they get to classify their rent and other payments as "earned income tax credits". Those middle class people also get some tax credits, like the ones for installing energy efficient whatsits or getting rid of the clunker cars.
I don't think you know what the word charity means.
There is a reason that charitable deductions exist, and if you don't understand why then you shouldn't be discussing tax policy.
Don't tax food or medicine.
States that have different tax rates on different goods already face this problem and demonstrate that it isn't as easy as you want to pretend. What is "food"? Is it fair for a poor person who works two jobs and doesn't have time to cook for himself to be paying taxes on prepared food while the idle rich guy can buy caviar and lobster tails with no tax at all?
It is impossible. I am not aware of any merchants that dodge sales tax,
It is quite possible, and if you raise (or create) a sales tax in the amount you'll need to replace the income tax you'll see a lot of them doing it -- because the customers will want it.
If the sales tax is 4%, it's not worth it. When the sales tax goes to 20% or more, look out. Why do you think there is illegal cigarette traffic, because you can't get the smokes that taste right? Or is it tax-stamp created?
You'll also immediately get calls for the return of a tax on those awful rich people who are now avoiding taxation on their luxurious incomes because they don't spend most of it, while the poor folks are stuck paying taxes on every penny they earn because they have to spend it all to get by. Then you'll get a demand for some kind of tax credit for the poor, which will require an IRS and that awful paperwork you're trying to get rid of.
You'll see charity as we know it drying up because there will be no tax benefit to it, and people who could afford to buy a house because the mortgage interest was deductable won't be buying houses.
In fact, all of those social engineering projects that our tax code has been used to promote will go away. At least until you create a paperwork nightmare just as large as the existing one to bring them all back.
How about we simplify taxes so there's no need to issue refunds in the first place?
Then how will people get all their tax credits, like earned income? How would you take into account deductions that don't take place on a regular or known schedule? E.g., I gave $1000 to the Red Cross in December of last year, how does that get entered on my W4 in time to make any difference?
When I see a simplification that doesn't wind up costing the middle class (me) more money, I'll support it. I've run the number for the 'fair tax' and it really ain't.
Straw man. We don't know what kind of conference this is.
Yes, we do know what kind of conference this is because the OP told us.
If the conference relates to 90% of what his existing work day involves, then it is absolutely not equivalent to the "buggy whip/automobile" chasm. It's going to be more along the line of "C# or Java: Haskell to the Rescue!".
Unless you really believe that 90% of the buggy whip industry was related to the automobiles that replaced the need for them.
And it's "good enough." And the photo industry has been just destroyed (I mean the part that sells pictures to clients.
The same problem exists in any market where the professionals need to convince the clients that perfection is the minimum acceptable product in order for the professionals to stay in business. Professional engineers have some claim that "good enough" may actually wind up costing lives, but nobody I know of has ever died from a "good enough" photograph.
Notoriously difficult?
Yes. The binary produced by a compiler and linker depends on the version of the compiler and linker and libraries, the flags and options used, the locations of libraries, the link order, and a myriad other things.
I've even found it notoriously difficult to get some open source projects to compile AT ALL because of differences between compiler versions. I'm always amazed when it happens, and there is no question that the binaries that are produced are different.
Rename `cli` to `exercism`. Review the code.
The question is not whether you can "review the code", it is whether the code you can review is the same code that went into the published executable. Since it is notoriously difficult to get identical binary output from compiling identical input (unless you force everyone to use one specific environment/OS/version) it is notoriously difficult to verify the source for any downloaded executable.
requiring higher capital requirements, more diligent use of mark-to-market, risk analysis and so on.
But having any effective risk analysis would have meant that the banks wouldn't make loans to people who couldn't afford them, and that failure to make loans to such people was the reason for the regulations that were in place forcing them to make those loans. The buzzword was "redlining", and the solution was "community reinvestment", aka The Community Reinvestment Act. If the banks were complaining, it was because they were forced to make risky loans in the first place and then prevented from recapitalizing by selling those loans. A bank only has so much money, and if all the money is in the hands of people who cannot or will not pay it back the bank goes out of business.
If you think it makes sense to force banks to hand money out to people who use welfare checks or "sweat equity" as proof of income so they can buy houses they can never pay off, and then let the banks run out of money to do that because they can't sell the loans off, you're a part of the problem, not the solution.
but there is a direct line between the bailouts and the lack of regulations.
There is a direct line between the over-regulation, repeated previous bailouts, and the final big one. Had banks been allowed to continue their proper risk evaluation for loans the collapse would not have happened. Over-regulation and the threat of lawsuits from activist groups like Jackson's PUSH or ACORN forced the bad loans to be created.
My opinion is that there would have been a benefit in having those directly responsible suffer the most
I agree, but it is unlikely that Clinton, Dodd, Frank, Waters, Obama, or any of the others who pushed the Community Reinvestment Act, community activism, and forced banks to make bad loans to people who couldn't pay them back would ever be punished at all, much less "suffer the most".
"Architects of Ruin" by Peter Schweizer is a pretty good eye-opening read regarding the entire history that led up to the bubble bursting. It wasn't an isolated event that happened overnight, it took many years to develop. The short story is, if you force banks to make bad loans then that debt has to go somewhere. If you don't think the CRA etc forced banks to make those loans, then you don't know the history.
Doesn't seem plausible.
What you mean is that you cannot comprehend how one could exist, therefore it is implausible. The arguments against there being a God typically depend on human comprehension, or lack there of, and the belief that what a human cannot comprehend cannot exist. You think it would be really hard for a God to create a universe, therefore a God that can create a universe easily isn't plausible.
This is the same kind of failure that has people using "password" for a password. "Nobody would ever guess that's my password, so it's super secure." Their inability to comprehend doesn't create the truth, it only obscures it.
Don't see the point of that.
Another "cannot comprehend why, therefore it isn't true" argument. I can easily come up with a reason I'd do it. It will give my creations a great deal of pleasure trying to figure things out. A secondary reason would be that by making it clear I had made it all, I create a strong impetus for y'all to worship me. Just look at the various gods that y'all have imagined based on correlations of things like "if I behead a virgin the crop god will bless us with a good crop". I don't want that kind of forced worship.
I'm just pointing out that 'forge' is kinda weak.
"Forge" is in the eyes of the beholder. Of COURSE I know it isn't really billions of years old, but I made it look that way to YOU with your limited senses. Aren't y'all having a wonderful time arguing about what really happened?
But foreknowledge of the result does not negate the perfection of those laws, or the lack thereof.
Huh? Where did I say it did. I was simply pointing out that your billions of years old universe could have just as easily been the product of a creator who created the physical laws and let them take their natural course. Who dares say my laws lack perfection?
If there is such a thing as a perfect law, idk; E=MC2 or whatever, that implies that any old physical laws can't just be easily created.
It implies you cannot imagine anyone or anything finding it easy. I cannot imagine anyone running an ironman for fun, much less because it is easy, and yet people do it.
Which leaves me with one conclusion: God killed himself to make the universe. It's made out of him.
Interesting result from logic that is based on "I cannot comprehend it being any other way". Very reminiscent of the cargo cults, where people couldn't imagine any other explanation for boxes of food falling from the sky.
What we call an observation is really just a hypothesis:
You may call your hypotheses "observations". To do that, you need to go deep into the metaphysical where eventually you have to decide if what you see is real or just a figment of your imagination. "I think my memory is reliable" kind of things.
I'm talking about the difference between using a thermometer to measure temperature and measuring the thickness of a tree ring. One is a direct observation, the other indirect. Only those who spend years contemplating their navels would argue that the two measurements are the same.
hypotheses 2-100: "I saw an apple fall down"
If "I saw" is a hypothesis to you, then there is no reason to continue.
Are you suggesting there is some dishonesty in Randi's willingness to give you $10 million dollars
I thought I was pretty clear when I talked about the kind of debunking that consists of simply duplicating an alleged psychic phenomenon using magic tricks and then claiming that this proves that the psychic version was also a magic trick. I guess I wasn't clear enough.
I remember from years ago where Randi would do just that -- do the same things people who claimed paranormal powers did and then he'd reveal the magic trick or slight of hand. One example was someone who could move cigarettes (IIRC) laying on a table with his mental powers. Randi showed how he could do it by cupping his hands just right and blowing. That was his proof that the other guy was a fraud.
That nobody has claimed that prize means that so far anybody who claims to have supernatural powers is full of shit.
No, that just means that nobody has claimed the prize. It proves nothing else. Just as Uri Geller's failure to perform upon command for Carson doesn't prove anything.
Science still can prove, one way or another, the origins of the universe with science.
This is perhaps the textbook example of how science is misunderstood. Science cannot prove how something that was not directly observed happened. It can only disprove certain proposed mechanisms based on current observation and understanding.
So, when someone says that "the CBR proves the big bang theory is correct", what they actually should say is that "the CBR is consistent with the big bang theory". I.e., the former doesn't disprove the latter.
A good analogy is found in art. I have a painting on my wall here. It looks like a Van Gogh. It is painted in the same style as other paintings that are believed to be his. A chemist has taken a paint chip and measured the properties, and found it is consistent with paint used in Van Gogh's time. Another scientist has dated the canvas and it comes from that time period. All the science data is consistent with a painting by Van Gogh.
But it isn't a Van Gogh. It's a forgery.
All I can say is, were I a God able to create a Universe from a single word, I'd certainly be able to forge it to look like it was billions of years old. Or I could just as easily create the physical laws with the knowledge of the result.
I mean, if you are designing some object to be 3D printed, are you not the creator of that object even if it takes three hours for it to print out? You told the CAD program what you wanted, and the CAD program told the printer, it just took a bit of time. That's how Algore created the Internet, after all. He didn't do the actual work, he just spoke it into existence, so to speak.
No, they demonstrated that the conspiracy theorists claims that the photograph was fake because there wasn't enough illumination given the position of the sun and lunar module are incorrect.
No, they didn't actually do that, and they had much grander claims about what they did, as I quoted from the summary. "We managed to create a fake photograph" doesn't disprove anything about any other photograph.
The additional "light source" is the reflection off Armstrong's suit, and not some sound stage.
The light source in their photo was from an astronauts hyper-reflective suit (they mention all the layers that go into it, as if anything below the first one or two would reflect much. If the top layers were so reflective, then there wouldn't be anything for the lower layers to reflect.) This does not prove that the light source in some other photograph was not a key light. Or, the photographer taking the photo on the sound stage was also wearing such a reflective suit -- they had one guy in a real astronaut's suit, they could just as easily have had two.
The claim is "there's no possible way this could have happened", and they showed one plausible way, thus negating the assertion.
The claim was actually that "this could only happen if". Claiming that something that did happen (the lighting) couldn't possibly happen at all is obviously incorrect, so it would have been trivial to disprove that claim forty years ago. Just show the photo!
Using modern technology to fake a photograph does not contradict the claim "this could only happen if" when that technology didn't exist, and it only shows that there is, indeed, yet another way to fake such a photograph.
It's a publicity stunt. It doesn't "debunk one of the biggest conspiracies in the world", it may potentially call into question one claim about one photograph. It is like saying that the conspiracy theory that JFK is still alive, or was shot by the CIA, or any number of related theories, are disproven because someone used a different style of rifle, or used a bullet made of tantalum instead of lead, while making the same kind of shot today.
This kind of argument is the same kind of erroneous argument that The Amazing Randi uses to debunk psychic phenomena. That he can duplicate those allegedly psychic phenomena using modern technology or magician's slight of hand tricks doesn't prove anything about the original phenomena other than there could be another explanation. To prove that Uri Geller was bending spoons using magic tricks and not his mind actually requires catching Uri Geller using magic tricks. To claim that it is LIKELY he is using magic requires a lesser amount of evidence, which is what Nvidia has accomplished here.
Nvidia saying "hey, look, we faked a moon landing photograph" using our fancy new hardware" is nice, but it doesn't prove the authenticity of any other.
That Nvidia is in on the hoax!!!1!!one!!!!
Ummm, I really don't understand this. Nvidia was able to recreate an allegedly faked photograph, therefore proving the photo was not a hoax? Finding yet another way to create a hoax proves the first way of making that hoax didn't happen? Nvidia dropped a highly reflective astronaut suit into the CGI program to get the right lighting; NASA couldn't have dropped a key light onto the terrestrial "lunar" film set to do the same thing?
It is a wonderful publicity stunt, but as proof of anything other than how great the Nvidia renderers are it's meaningless. Will they next produce a CGI of bigfoot, thus proving that bigfoot exists?
Oh, no CTO? Too bad, so sad. Thou shalt fail, o maker of buggy-whips. Enjoy this moment while it lasts.
You're equating the "buggy whip/automobile" quantum leap with the "C/C#/C++/Ruby/Perl/python/haskell/lisp/whatever" language wars? Or "cloud/client/distributed/centralized"? Or even "sql/nosql"?
Do you also believe that "on a computer" is sufficient to justify issuing a new patent for something? I mean, if what language is being used to develop a product is such a major sea change that a company would fail for not changing at the right time, then changing from "by hand" to "on a computer" must be orders of magnitude more important, surely worthy of patent protection for the company of the CTO who has pushed for such critical innovation.
Let me get this straight. So if somebody you don't actually know, who is probably located thousands of miles away from you, makes an obviously harmful suggestion that isn't directed at you,
Most arguments where the word "obvious" plays a critical part are usually not so obvious. Just as "common sense" isn't.
Many of the things we take for granted today are magical black boxes to many people, based on the simple Clarke assertion: "any technology sufficiently advanced will be seen as magic". Remember that just a few years ago the simple analog cell phone was viewed as magic and people expected that the conversations they were transmitting in the clear over radio waves were private and they had some expectation of privacy. Infomercials routinely sell us small convection ovens as miracle cooking devices, and any man who has trouble peeing should buy this magical remedy.
In this hoax, we're combining the magical microwave oven and mystical cell phone made by the shamans at Apple. It would take a necromancer of the upper levels to realize that combining the white magic of the microwave with the black magic created by The Fruit That Cannot be Spoken would result in Bad Things.
If I bring it up around the dinner table before she (or anyone) asks, it may also save her some embarrassment.
Ah, what would you say had you not seen this? "Hey, never heard of that, sounds legit, let me get back to you."
Why yes, that's how I always bring things up at the dinner table. "Hey, I never heard of that". "What didn't you hear about?" "I dunno, what haven't you asked about yet?"
I think the OP was talking about making a pre-emptive comment, as in "bringing it up around the dinner table before she asks", as in "hey, did you hear the latest hoax about...". Not responding to someone else bringing it up as something they'd already done, also known as "AFTER she asks".
Or this.
Personally, if a company isn't willing to invest in me, then why the hell should I invest in it?
Because they're paying you to?
(and yes, for anyone not a developer it will grow stale, even if you train yourself or pay for your own training, because you'll never use it in a practical work setting.
And having the company pay for training that you will never use in their practical work setting keeps you from going stale the same way? Or are you arguing that every company doing software development must switch to the lasted fad language and invest a large amount of money in converting the current systems so that the developers won't "go stale" by using the same tools that have gotten the company this far?
Now, don't get me wrong. There may be technical or other reasons to switch or expand into the latest fads. I'm just saying that "let's keep our developers on their toes by changing for no other reason than to keep them on their toes" isn't one of them. And when you accept that, then a company not paying to teach old people new tricks they'll never be using for that company is only an expense, not an asset.
That's up to the users of Netflix to report.
You must be nuts. You think the Canadian government should be asking everyone in the country if they are Netflix subscribers? Or that Netflix subscribers should have to register with the government? Don't be looney.
It's the job of the company paying the corporate income taxes to justify the amount of payment, not the job of every customer of that company.
Splitting that hair pretty finely, eh?
No. I didn't come anywhere close to saying you couldn't express your opinion, and I told you that explicitly. You misread what I said, so the problem is yours.