I write software according to what I understand it should do. When I test it, I make sure it does what I understand it should do. If QA tests it, it's at least from another viewpoint, so it's not like id gets into production and the users are doing WHAT?
Supposed to work according to whom? The Founders were against political parties, and hence any sort of partisanship. My observation is that government worked better with less partisan rancor, like we had when I was a kid.
We're talking about people who were brought here as young children. They didn't violate the law. They didn't necessarily even know they wee here illegally. They're also more than paying their own way. Removing them would be a blow to the economy.
Nope. The President has the power to execute laws passed by Congress. If the laws say that something will be left for the Executive Branch to decide, then making and enforcing those decisions is perfectly Constitutional. It's not an extra power, it's delegation of power.
It wouldn't take that many Republicans to put a DACA bill through, given D cooperation (which I think would be forthcoming). The only problem would be if Trump vetoed it, and he's sufficiently unpredictable so I don't know what would happen.
Democrats don't like deporting people, to make a sweeping generalization. Republicans don't like depriving businesses of cheap abusable labor, to make a similarly sweeping generalization. This means there isn't any impetus to make it difficult to hire illegal immigrants.
You are completely correct: penalties to the companies employing illegals would solve this problem nicely.
At which point you've just added all that money to influencing the election of legislators. Congratulations on swamping State government elections with money, making the legislature less accountable to the people.
Consider Trump's remarks after the last Nazi demonstration. He blamed both sides for violence. Two days later, he came out against white supremacists. The day after that, he walked that back with "fine people on both sides". He has consistently been unwilling to come out and say "Nazis are bad" and leave it at that.
And, of course, you overlook the appointment of DeVos as Secretary of Education, whose only qualification was large campaign contributions. There are other unqualified people, and Trump has not submitted all that many names for Congressional approval. He's way behind.
It looks to me like he's making money by having businesses he profits from get paid by the US government, which is unconstitutional.
Russian collusion is still under investigation. If there was solid evidence, we likely wouldn't know it. We do know that Trump was closely tied to Russia in his business, asked for Russian espionage in his campaign, and his foreign policy is generally pro-Russia. That's a bit suspicious. What's more suspicious is people in his campaign lying about dealings with Russia. We'll have to wait on that one.
Of course Leviticus isn't a Commandment. What it is is part of the Bible, and I sometimes see it quoted as if it still means something. People pull out the anti-gay verse while wearing blended fabrics, possibly disrespecting their parents, and not checking which animal sacrifices are due.
OK, how about some cites? I haven't heard of widespread violence.
In any large movement, there are going to be some assholes out to find something to break or hurt or kill. Modern Nazis are basically all assholes by design.
Hollywood's going to mess things up no matter what. I think that having a more diverse set of characters might have a more positive effect.
I'm fairly sure that we're losing out on software talent due to social factors, so we may as well eliminate minor social factors like white male nerd in movies.
What I don't like about movies and TV is the portrayal of sex and violence as mostly consequence-free possible solutions to problems. (I'm way behind on TV shows, so they may have gotten better.)
You do realize what a realistic Hollywood depiction of me at work would be: Stare at screen. FIdget. Stare at screen. Break into a bust of keyboard activity, sometimes using the mouse. Read Slashdot. Bring application up, run for a bit, hit breakpoint. Stare at screen. Push key a few times. Star at screen. Occasional swear words and muttering.
What's wrong with a more varied depiction? This is Hollywood, not real life. Having more varied techies might help other people see themselves in technical fields, and encourage them to try if they want it.
That goes against the anecdotal evidence of me, some of my friends, and an odd relative. (Odd in a specific way, anyway.) We are and were mostly developers who found that companies in the Minneapolis area valued our experience.
My friends and I are retiring from our tech jobs (primarily software development) in our late 50s or early to mid-60s, depending on what we want to do. The only age-related problem I had getting jobs was solved with hair dye.
Whoa there. I would definitely say you have a moral right to say whatever you want where ever you want whenever you want, in some respect. I would even go so far as to say it's moral that you should have a way for any message to be heard.
The right to free speech does not mean a mandate to listen, or to provide a podium. You want to say something, you grab a soapbox or get your own website or something like that. Taking your words literally, you are saying that someone should be able to come into my house and say what they want, and I shouldn't be able to avoid it.
Truth is relative (truth is not the same as fact).
Nope. Truth is truth. We have limited understanding of the truth. You're talking about beliefs.
I find that stifling speech *in any form* is immoral to that end, regardless of the legal underpinnings.
Then you won't mind if I show up in your bedroom at 2AM to tell you about Pastafarianism?
People say things because they want them to have consequences. If speech doesn't have consequences, it's pointless. Some of these consequences will be favorable and some unfavorable to the speaker, and this is always potentially gong to happen. You can't remove unfavorable consequences without removing favorable ones.
Also, I was around back when unmoderated Usenet groups were quite useful, serving as public discussion forums on their topics. The inability to stifle speech meant that these became completely useless. No forum that doesn't have the means to stifle speech can possibly survive in a useful form.
If the Nazis won, there would be genocide. If Black Lives Matter won, police officers who killed people without good reason would be punished severely. If Antifa won, it would be more complicated, but nobody would be killed or deported. BLM and Antifa are reactions to problems. Nazis are a problem.
APIs are creative products in a lasting form, and hence are copyrightable by pretty much all copyright law.
Not even Larry Ellison argued that there are any restrictions to using a published API to write software that interfaces with the API. The Java APIs can be used to write implementations of the APIs or to be called by other software. At least US copyright law is very clear on this: copyright can't be used to stop people from doing something. Everyone in the case where Oracle sued Google agrees on that, and the appeal court noted that specifically.
Oracle's claim was that Google used the APIs not for interoperability of software (perfectly legal) but to present developers with a familiar API rather than making them learn a new one. By their argument, nobody would be writing Dalvik libraries that would be useful for regular Java programming, and nobody would be writing Android apps that called regular Java libraries, and that the only reason Google used them was because they were familiar.
If you haven't learned a new language, do so. Learn several new languages with different concepts while you're at it (not simultaneously), so you're reasonably familiar with the ideas behind the next big thing, whatever that is.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows 3.1 was, in its UI, an inferior copy of the Macintosh OS. It wasn't until the next century that Microsoft really caught up.
I write software according to what I understand it should do. When I test it, I make sure it does what I understand it should do. If QA tests it, it's at least from another viewpoint, so it's not like id gets into production and the users are doing WHAT?
Supposed to work according to whom? The Founders were against political parties, and hence any sort of partisanship. My observation is that government worked better with less partisan rancor, like we had when I was a kid.
We're talking about people who were brought here as young children. They didn't violate the law. They didn't necessarily even know they wee here illegally. They're also more than paying their own way. Removing them would be a blow to the economy.
Nope. The President has the power to execute laws passed by Congress. If the laws say that something will be left for the Executive Branch to decide, then making and enforcing those decisions is perfectly Constitutional. It's not an extra power, it's delegation of power.
It wouldn't take that many Republicans to put a DACA bill through, given D cooperation (which I think would be forthcoming). The only problem would be if Trump vetoed it, and he's sufficiently unpredictable so I don't know what would happen.
Democrats don't like deporting people, to make a sweeping generalization. Republicans don't like depriving businesses of cheap abusable labor, to make a similarly sweeping generalization. This means there isn't any impetus to make it difficult to hire illegal immigrants.
You are completely correct: penalties to the companies employing illegals would solve this problem nicely.
At which point you've just added all that money to influencing the election of legislators. Congratulations on swamping State government elections with money, making the legislature less accountable to the people.
Why term limits? Why can't we just refuse to re-elect people?
For most of his time as President, Obama had a Congress that was deliberately obstructionist He did what he could.
Consider Trump's remarks after the last Nazi demonstration. He blamed both sides for violence. Two days later, he came out against white supremacists. The day after that, he walked that back with "fine people on both sides". He has consistently been unwilling to come out and say "Nazis are bad" and leave it at that.
And, of course, you overlook the appointment of DeVos as Secretary of Education, whose only qualification was large campaign contributions. There are other unqualified people, and Trump has not submitted all that many names for Congressional approval. He's way behind.
It looks to me like he's making money by having businesses he profits from get paid by the US government, which is unconstitutional.
Russian collusion is still under investigation. If there was solid evidence, we likely wouldn't know it. We do know that Trump was closely tied to Russia in his business, asked for Russian espionage in his campaign, and his foreign policy is generally pro-Russia. That's a bit suspicious. What's more suspicious is people in his campaign lying about dealings with Russia. We'll have to wait on that one.
Of course Leviticus isn't a Commandment. What it is is part of the Bible, and I sometimes see it quoted as if it still means something. People pull out the anti-gay verse while wearing blended fabrics, possibly disrespecting their parents, and not checking which animal sacrifices are due.
OK, how about some cites? I haven't heard of widespread violence.
In any large movement, there are going to be some assholes out to find something to break or hurt or kill. Modern Nazis are basically all assholes by design.
Hollywood's going to mess things up no matter what. I think that having a more diverse set of characters might have a more positive effect.
I'm fairly sure that we're losing out on software talent due to social factors, so we may as well eliminate minor social factors like white male nerd in movies.
What I don't like about movies and TV is the portrayal of sex and violence as mostly consequence-free possible solutions to problems. (I'm way behind on TV shows, so they may have gotten better.)
You do realize what a realistic Hollywood depiction of me at work would be: Stare at screen. FIdget. Stare at screen. Break into a bust of keyboard activity, sometimes using the mouse. Read Slashdot. Bring application up, run for a bit, hit breakpoint. Stare at screen. Push key a few times. Star at screen. Occasional swear words and muttering.
Man, what a good example of a right-wing asshole.
What's wrong with a more varied depiction? This is Hollywood, not real life. Having more varied techies might help other people see themselves in technical fields, and encourage them to try if they want it.
FTFY.
That goes against the anecdotal evidence of me, some of my friends, and an odd relative. (Odd in a specific way, anyway.) We are and were mostly developers who found that companies in the Minneapolis area valued our experience.
My friends and I are retiring from our tech jobs (primarily software development) in our late 50s or early to mid-60s, depending on what we want to do. The only age-related problem I had getting jobs was solved with hair dye.
The right to free speech does not mean a mandate to listen, or to provide a podium. You want to say something, you grab a soapbox or get your own website or something like that. Taking your words literally, you are saying that someone should be able to come into my house and say what they want, and I shouldn't be able to avoid it.
If the Nazis won, there would be genocide. If Black Lives Matter won, police officers who killed people without good reason would be punished severely. If Antifa won, it would be more complicated, but nobody would be killed or deported. BLM and Antifa are reactions to problems. Nazis are a problem.
C++ is like a straightedge razor, while Java is like scissors with rounded ends. C++ requires experienced people and Java really doesn't.
APIs are creative products in a lasting form, and hence are copyrightable by pretty much all copyright law.
Not even Larry Ellison argued that there are any restrictions to using a published API to write software that interfaces with the API. The Java APIs can be used to write implementations of the APIs or to be called by other software. At least US copyright law is very clear on this: copyright can't be used to stop people from doing something. Everyone in the case where Oracle sued Google agrees on that, and the appeal court noted that specifically.
Oracle's claim was that Google used the APIs not for interoperability of software (perfectly legal) but to present developers with a familiar API rather than making them learn a new one. By their argument, nobody would be writing Dalvik libraries that would be useful for regular Java programming, and nobody would be writing Android apps that called regular Java libraries, and that the only reason Google used them was because they were familiar.
If you haven't learned a new language, do so. Learn several new languages with different concepts while you're at it (not simultaneously), so you're reasonably familiar with the ideas behind the next big thing, whatever that is.