Yeah, and Return of the Jedi wasn't nearly as good as The Empire Strikes Back, so you've got a very good movie that needs to have a much worse movie attached to make sense.
When the Surface and Surface Pro had been out for several months, I found that intelligent people didn't know the actual difference between the two. Microsoft's marketing here was amazingly bad.
The USN has had air defense guns on ships that will fire automatically for a long time. The day-to-day human control is switching the things on and off.
Part of what makes Uber unique is the fact that they employ humans, which is a considerable benefit for any sane society to see value in.
Nope. A sane society would like a business that employed few people better. Of course, the sane society would also have a better way of dealing with the unemployed and/or a better way to help create more jobs for the displaced humans to do.
Given enough hardship, people will vote for change. Clearly, they won't necessarily vote intelligently, but either the powers that be will go along or there will be chaos.
A court's primary jobs (at least in the US) is to interpret the law as written and considering precedents and to legally decide matters of fact. Striking a law down is rare, although it does tend to make the news more than the latest civil trial between two companies. Most laws are perfectly legal. Most of the bills introduced in Congress and state legislatures that would be illegal are political grandstanding only and die a quiet death in committee, once the sponsors' constituents have forgotten about it.
I was on contract-for-hire at a bank when I was told to advance something into production. What I didn't realize was that the production version had been changed on the fly, with nothing in source control. I'm fairly sure that's why the manager didn't want to hire me, and I know perfectly well that's why I didn't want to be hired there.
Why do we need signatures? You can use "svn blame" to find what I did without bothering with a signature. Code goes into the release branch and that is put into production when ready, all without signatures.
The first time someone violates it, you find that another manager ordered it done. The second time, you call management and they say the guy did what he should have. The third time, you make it "him or me" and you really should be prepared for termination. That's how it will work in the typical company.
Users don't know what they want. That's YOUR problem, not theirs. After paying through the nose a few times, they'll find someone else who can do a better job and you'll be hitting the unemployment office. When you explain why you were let go, nobody will want to hire you for anything other than a junior-level position.
You're responsible for providing software the users want. Providing software precisely to user specs is ducking responsibility and wasting effort.
Users are paid to do their job. Their skills usually don't include systems analysis and requirements design. Those are relatively rare and somewhat expensive skills, and it makes sense to hire people with these skills and put them in a department where they'll use them routinely. As you get above junior level (we call it "associate" around here), you will be expected to be able to do more than just code to a spec. If you want to be a senior, you'll be expected to know the business well enough to make intelligent decisions.
However it's easy to make a bad architecture with many of the programming languages and development environments that are around today.
Speaking as an old fart who's been around for a while, you put an extraneous "m" in "any", unfortunately not caught by your spelling checker because it's still grammatical.
When I was writing my own tests for the testers, I was upset about two things.
First, both the code and the tests were built according to one person's understanding of the requirements. I have been hit by now and then by "The user was doing WHAT?" - and it can be a perfectly reasonable thing for the user to do, just not one I anticipated.
Second, that was my code. Those were my tests. I'd write the code first and then the test, and, amazing as it was, would you believe the tests showed that the code was fine? It wasn't a matter of knowing the weak spots, it was a matter of knowing the code.
Some of our input is through the GUI, which is hard to automate. Some of the output is visual on the screen, or the output of gcode that goes to CNC mills. I've been looking for ways to automate the tests off and on for years, and haven't found anything that would allow 100% coverage.
As far as anecdotal evidence goes, my first collision happened when I heard something on the radio, glanced down to turn up the volume, and when I looked up I saw brake lights everywhere.
In which case you're preventing the passenger from doing anything. I've often coordinated with other cars by having passengers use phones to talk to passengers in other cars. A passenger with a GPS app can be very useful also.
They don't need a study to find that people use their phones while driving. They need a study to find out how many do it and how much they use them. We know there's a problem; how big and pervasive is it?
Socialism is an economic system based on a philosophy. It does not lead to totalitarianism. All the totalitarian Socialist governments I'm aware of either had Communism imposed on them or were already pretty much totalitarian, and had little or no experience with democracy. Democratic governments have incorporated Socialist and even Communist elements for a long time.
The problem with classical liberalism as you describe it is that it's really hard on the have-nots. The usual philosophy of Socialism is to help the downtrodden, and the usual philosophy behind Capitalism is to ignore them or exploit them further. Socialist philosophy would indicate that we should help the less fortunate to be productive and prosperous citizens when we can, and especially to make sure their children have a chance. I don't believe societies should be run on rigid ideology, and I can't agree that society should not help the less fortunate. Socialism does imply a bigger government than classical liberalism, but I don't see that as a problem. It's a difference in degree, not kind.
Classic liberalism, as you put it, doesn't imply a free market. It implies a market with limited or no government intervention, and markets like that generally become less free in modern economies. The right to buy from whom you want is a positive right, as is the right to enter a field of business. Capitalism is not the same as a free market, and you can have capitalism with captive markets and socialism with free markets (think of a society of small farmers who work their own land).
Jacobins primarily believed in political equality, with economic equality being secondary. They wanted a radical reconstruction of society to decentralize power.
Read up on how Nazi Germany worked. Businesses were in the hands of businessmen. The Nazis courted them for their support in their rise to power. They remained private businesses providing wealth to their owners and controllers throughout Nazi rule, and operated somewhat independently of the government. Government intrusion was less than the US with the War Production Board, which did things like mandate license-building of planes and such. There was no accountability to the people, because according to the Fuehrer Principle Hitler had no accountability to anyone. The Third Reich did establish an official labor union, but the main purpose was to eliminate labor unions that were actually favorable to the workers and keep the workers helpless in the face of big business.
The National Socialist German Workers' Party started as at least partly socialist, but that wing was eliminated in the 1930s. The party name and the word "Socialist" were useful in propaganda, but the NSDAP didn't act on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Approximately every science fiction movie ever made bends the rules of science. Almost all written science fiction does the same.
Yeah, and Return of the Jedi wasn't nearly as good as The Empire Strikes Back, so you've got a very good movie that needs to have a much worse movie attached to make sense.
You are, to a very great degree, maligning the WWII-era Red Army. Probably closer to the Nationalist Chinese armies of the period.
When the Surface and Surface Pro had been out for several months, I found that intelligent people didn't know the actual difference between the two. Microsoft's marketing here was amazingly bad.
The USN has had air defense guns on ships that will fire automatically for a long time. The day-to-day human control is switching the things on and off.
Fortunately, ISIS doesn't have anywhere near the threat or military potential of 1939 Germany.
I have to give them credit for taking advantage of stupid and/or desperate investors along with desperate ordinary people.
Nope. A sane society would like a business that employed few people better. Of course, the sane society would also have a better way of dealing with the unemployed and/or a better way to help create more jobs for the displaced humans to do.
Given enough hardship, people will vote for change. Clearly, they won't necessarily vote intelligently, but either the powers that be will go along or there will be chaos.
A court's primary jobs (at least in the US) is to interpret the law as written and considering precedents and to legally decide matters of fact. Striking a law down is rare, although it does tend to make the news more than the latest civil trial between two companies. Most laws are perfectly legal. Most of the bills introduced in Congress and state legislatures that would be illegal are political grandstanding only and die a quiet death in committee, once the sponsors' constituents have forgotten about it.
I was on contract-for-hire at a bank when I was told to advance something into production. What I didn't realize was that the production version had been changed on the fly, with nothing in source control. I'm fairly sure that's why the manager didn't want to hire me, and I know perfectly well that's why I didn't want to be hired there.
Why do we need signatures? You can use "svn blame" to find what I did without bothering with a signature. Code goes into the release branch and that is put into production when ready, all without signatures.
The first time someone violates it, you find that another manager ordered it done. The second time, you call management and they say the guy did what he should have. The third time, you make it "him or me" and you really should be prepared for termination. That's how it will work in the typical company.
Analyst writes specifications, gives to coders. Developers are normally expected to do more than translate a spec into machine-readable form.
Users don't know what they want. That's YOUR problem, not theirs. After paying through the nose a few times, they'll find someone else who can do a better job and you'll be hitting the unemployment office. When you explain why you were let go, nobody will want to hire you for anything other than a junior-level position.
You're responsible for providing software the users want. Providing software precisely to user specs is ducking responsibility and wasting effort.
Users are paid to do their job. Their skills usually don't include systems analysis and requirements design. Those are relatively rare and somewhat expensive skills, and it makes sense to hire people with these skills and put them in a department where they'll use them routinely. As you get above junior level (we call it "associate" around here), you will be expected to be able to do more than just code to a spec. If you want to be a senior, you'll be expected to know the business well enough to make intelligent decisions.
Sounds perfectly safe to me, unless you actually have to have it go from one place to another. Then you might strain your back pushing it.
Speaking as an old fart who's been around for a while, you put an extraneous "m" in "any", unfortunately not caught by your spelling checker because it's still grammatical.
When I was writing my own tests for the testers, I was upset about two things.
First, both the code and the tests were built according to one person's understanding of the requirements. I have been hit by now and then by "The user was doing WHAT?" - and it can be a perfectly reasonable thing for the user to do, just not one I anticipated.
Second, that was my code. Those were my tests. I'd write the code first and then the test, and, amazing as it was, would you believe the tests showed that the code was fine? It wasn't a matter of knowing the weak spots, it was a matter of knowing the code.
Some of our input is through the GUI, which is hard to automate. Some of the output is visual on the screen, or the output of gcode that goes to CNC mills. I've been looking for ways to automate the tests off and on for years, and haven't found anything that would allow 100% coverage.
They told me that if I voted for Hillary, the US would make provocative bomb strikes in the Middle East. They weer right!
As far as anecdotal evidence goes, my first collision happened when I heard something on the radio, glanced down to turn up the volume, and when I looked up I saw brake lights everywhere.
In which case you're preventing the passenger from doing anything. I've often coordinated with other cars by having passengers use phones to talk to passengers in other cars. A passenger with a GPS app can be very useful also.
They don't need a study to find that people use their phones while driving. They need a study to find out how many do it and how much they use them. We know there's a problem; how big and pervasive is it?
Socialism is an economic system based on a philosophy. It does not lead to totalitarianism. All the totalitarian Socialist governments I'm aware of either had Communism imposed on them or were already pretty much totalitarian, and had little or no experience with democracy. Democratic governments have incorporated Socialist and even Communist elements for a long time.
The problem with classical liberalism as you describe it is that it's really hard on the have-nots. The usual philosophy of Socialism is to help the downtrodden, and the usual philosophy behind Capitalism is to ignore them or exploit them further. Socialist philosophy would indicate that we should help the less fortunate to be productive and prosperous citizens when we can, and especially to make sure their children have a chance. I don't believe societies should be run on rigid ideology, and I can't agree that society should not help the less fortunate. Socialism does imply a bigger government than classical liberalism, but I don't see that as a problem. It's a difference in degree, not kind.
Classic liberalism, as you put it, doesn't imply a free market. It implies a market with limited or no government intervention, and markets like that generally become less free in modern economies. The right to buy from whom you want is a positive right, as is the right to enter a field of business. Capitalism is not the same as a free market, and you can have capitalism with captive markets and socialism with free markets (think of a society of small farmers who work their own land).
Jacobins primarily believed in political equality, with economic equality being secondary. They wanted a radical reconstruction of society to decentralize power.
Read up on how Nazi Germany worked. Businesses were in the hands of businessmen. The Nazis courted them for their support in their rise to power. They remained private businesses providing wealth to their owners and controllers throughout Nazi rule, and operated somewhat independently of the government. Government intrusion was less than the US with the War Production Board, which did things like mandate license-building of planes and such. There was no accountability to the people, because according to the Fuehrer Principle Hitler had no accountability to anyone. The Third Reich did establish an official labor union, but the main purpose was to eliminate labor unions that were actually favorable to the workers and keep the workers helpless in the face of big business.
The National Socialist German Workers' Party started as at least partly socialist, but that wing was eliminated in the 1930s. The party name and the word "Socialist" were useful in propaganda, but the NSDAP didn't act on it.