You should try the UK. I live in one small town ten miles from an even smaller town in which my office is located. It takes me about fifteen minutes to drive from door to door. I leave at 8.45 and arrive around 9. I do this because I have to.
Alternatively, there's one bus I can catch. This leaves at 7am and takes an hour and a half. The return journey takes the same amount of time. That's three hours a day to cover twenty miles. I can't catch a train. The service has been cancelled and the station closed. Before that, the train I could catch arrived at 7am cost £4 a day and was cancelled approximately once a week. Occasionally, a replacement bus would be provided. Other times it just wouldn't turn up. Once a week. Try appearing professional when you can't even guarantee you're going to be present. I can't cycle because the only routes are along a busy dual carriageway with no cycle lanes or a busy single lane country road with no visibility and lunatic drivers. I have no particular desire to commit bicycle suicide so this option is right out. Oh, and I can't walk on a regular basis (Though I have done in summer) because it takes around two and a half hours. That's a five hour daily commute. Sorry people, but that just isn't reasonable.
You're right that with reorganisation these things can work but people don't just live in cities. There's millions of people who live in rural or small town environments that have absolutely no viable public transport service. None, nada, zero. In this day and age with all the concerns over the environment, that's a disgrace.
Not that I'm denying the right for the Chinese to keep their secrets safe from the NSA, CIA or whomever wants to peek at their secrets but it seems somewhat apposite that this story is posted a day after this one. In fifty years time are we going to be praising a Colonel Hong for saving the world from another imminent disaster or are we actually going to learn something this time round?
Do they even have any higher end lines any more? As they've already spun off their development tools to an independent company, I suspect they'll be going down the IBM route of services, services, services but quite what they have to offer, I'm not sure. To be honest, I'm not convinced they'll will be with us as independent company for too much longer.
The big morality issue for me is where you draw the line between the destruction of an embryo being moral and immoral. If you're using the term embryo to refer to a potentially viable human being capable of maturing into a fully functional human being, then at what point does it deserve a degree of protection?
Regardless of whether you draw your answers from God, Bob or his noodly appendage, it seems to me that you have to have reasonable grounds for making this kind of distinction, otherwise it's just entirely arbitrary.
This distinction wasn't considered important in the case of Tony Bland, a PVS patient who was allowed to die in the UK several years ago.
Although it isn't recognised as brain death, in this instance doctors allowed the feeding tubes to be removed, effectively, as you say, starving him to death. In the UK at least, it seems the two are usually equated.
That said, this episode with the cartoons says very little about human nature. And that goes for both the newspapers reprinting them and those orchestrating the violence in my opinion.
That depends how you define 'code'. IMHO, most, if not all issues that afflict multiple developers working on the same code can be rectified by intelligent work at the design stage. Effective objectivisation and analysis can keep units of code modular enough for group approaches to work in a reasonable fashion. Extreme programming, for me, offers nothing more than a reasonable dose of common sense and an unwillignness to let ego get in the way of quality software.
I do see your point but I don't think formalising interdeveloper processes offers any particular benefits over and above having intelligent, flexible, socially able developers in your team.
Isn't that called communication? Y'know, there's a lot to be said for communicating with other developers through some kind of natural language interface...;o)
I don't wish to be blase, but the issues raised by co-operative development won't be solved by the latest and greatest development model, but by an increased willingness to express ourselves and our ideas with greater clarity and respect for the individual than is usually found in this industry.
The trouble is what you see as the problem is exactly the reason why the gaming industry has become so succesful. It's the same reason the rest of the entertainment industry make so much money. Cash cows don't graze on originality, they munch on sameness and predictability. In return you can milk them for all they're worth.
To paraphrase the sage Fry,
"That's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid and unexpected things make them feel scared."
That's a good point and one I've been wondering about for a while. Will the easy availability of single tracks from iTunes mean the death of the album format and a shift towards music that's easier, though not necessarily more rewarding to listen to? For example, Pink Floyd's The Wall is a work in it's own right and while the better known songs such as Comfortably Numb or Another Brick in the Wall stand up in their own right, they are still part of a bigger work. It's a bit like reading the great speeches and passages of Shakespeare without reading the bits that glue them together. (Bleh, and I know comparing Pink Floyd to Shakespeare might be stretching it a bit, but the analogy holds...;o))
I think something important might be lost if this shift become more prevalent.
Y'know, I do wonder whether they did. The 'Secret Organisation of Al Qaeda in Europe'? That doesn't ring true. Besides, at the moment there are relatively few casualties in relation to the size of the attack, it was timed after the peak of the rush hour, the London transport network is effectively crippled and all in the week that masses of anarchist organisations happen to be in the country? Hmmm. Let's not jump to conclusions people.
Actually, they didn't. Look at the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings, Omagh or Warrington. The IRA had no more respect for civilians than any other terrorist organisation.
Bleh. So we destroy any kids who don't show immediate aptitude for a particular discipline while at school? Oops. Bye-bye Einstein. How about the kids who love art but, in your phraseology, suck? Did you not get any enjoyment from it? You did? But you suck, ergo, no art for you. Yes, you're right, promoting people above their ability is a bad thing, but history is replete with people who didn't show their true colours until later in life.
Jeez. Slashdot and it's intellectual elitist, reductionism. You've got to love it.
No, I think Pinker statement is intended to suggest that because this paper is politically incorrect people will try harder to disprove it, as with numerous other studies linking abilities or disabilities to racial, social or sexual characteristics. If you read his books, it's pretty clear he doesn't have much respect for political correctness, though he does shy away from some of the logical conclusions of his reasoning, IMHO.
What are you not getting? For a start I'd argue with your assertion that it's just the.001% of sites that sit on a boundary that cause an issue. Have you tried Google's image search? Sites that contain sexually explicit advice? The Onion's Savage Love advice column? And that's three off the top off my head. Since when did ICANN become responsible for moralising the internet?
Besides the only people likely to use.xxx domains are those who can't get.com domains. Just like.biz,.info and all those other domains you hardly ever see.
Ok, so I didn't RTFA, but exactly who's standards are going to be used to judge sites that need a.xxx domain anyway? Is it the US? UK? Holland? Iran? Who? This is just stupid..org,.com and.logicalsitetype are all fine since they represent an agreed organisational type, but.xxx? Please.
Umm, since when did we need to justify anonymity in a free democratic nation?
How about the fact that I don't want anyone to know who I am because they have no damn right to? Maybe I choose to anonymously share files. Maybe I choose to carry no ID when I'm out. Maybe I'd really like to be able to anonymise my websurfing and downloading, purely because I prefer it.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should try the Motorola W220 Don't know if you can get it in your part of the world, but nice phone, no camera. Sorted.
You should try the UK. I live in one small town ten miles from an even smaller town in which my office is located. It takes me about fifteen minutes to drive from door to door. I leave at 8.45 and arrive around 9. I do this because I have to.
Alternatively, there's one bus I can catch. This leaves at 7am and takes an hour and a half. The return journey takes the same amount of time. That's three hours a day to cover twenty miles. I can't catch a train. The service has been cancelled and the station closed. Before that, the train I could catch arrived at 7am cost £4 a day and was cancelled approximately once a week. Occasionally, a replacement bus would be provided. Other times it just wouldn't turn up. Once a week. Try appearing professional when you can't even guarantee you're going to be present. I can't cycle because the only routes are along a busy dual carriageway with no cycle lanes or a busy single lane country road with no visibility and lunatic drivers. I have no particular desire to commit bicycle suicide so this option is right out. Oh, and I can't walk on a regular basis (Though I have done in summer) because it takes around two and a half hours. That's a five hour daily commute. Sorry people, but that just isn't reasonable.
You're right that with reorganisation these things can work but people don't just live in cities. There's millions of people who live in rural or small town environments that have absolutely no viable public transport service. None, nada, zero. In this day and age with all the concerns over the environment, that's a disgrace.
Not that I'm denying the right for the Chinese to keep their secrets safe from the NSA, CIA or whomever wants to peek at their secrets but it seems somewhat apposite that this story is posted a day after this one. In fifty years time are we going to be praising a Colonel Hong for saving the world from another imminent disaster or are we actually going to learn something this time round?
Do they even have any higher end lines any more? As they've already spun off their development tools to an independent company, I suspect they'll be going down the IBM route of services, services, services but quite what they have to offer, I'm not sure. To be honest, I'm not convinced they'll will be with us as independent company for too much longer.
Shame really, as Delphi rocked.
Truly, the author of that piece has a dizzying intellect...
The big morality issue for me is where you draw the line between the destruction of an embryo being moral and immoral. If you're using the term embryo to refer to a potentially viable human being capable of maturing into a fully functional human being, then at what point does it deserve a degree of protection? Regardless of whether you draw your answers from God, Bob or his noodly appendage, it seems to me that you have to have reasonable grounds for making this kind of distinction, otherwise it's just entirely arbitrary.
This distinction wasn't considered important in the case of Tony Bland, a PVS patient who was allowed to die in the UK several years ago. Although it isn't recognised as brain death, in this instance doctors allowed the feeding tubes to be removed, effectively, as you say, starving him to death. In the UK at least, it seems the two are usually equated.
No link to the New Scientist, but here's the paper written to support the original hypothesis:
link
Actually the riots in France had less to do with religion and more to do with police behaviour, poverty and politics.
Wikipedia link
That said, this episode with the cartoons says very little about human nature. And that goes for both the newspapers reprinting them and those orchestrating the violence in my opinion.
lol, and while you're at it, do you want to send out the invites to the Municipal Fortress of Vengeance or shall I?
Well, eggsactly...
In Soviet Russia Cows tip you? Yeah. Sure. Pull the udder one...
That depends how you define 'code'. IMHO, most, if not all issues that afflict multiple developers working on the same code can be rectified by intelligent work at the design stage. Effective objectivisation and analysis can keep units of code modular enough for group approaches to work in a reasonable fashion. Extreme programming, for me, offers nothing more than a reasonable dose of common sense and an unwillignness to let ego get in the way of quality software.
I do see your point but I don't think formalising interdeveloper processes offers any particular benefits over and above having intelligent, flexible, socially able developers in your team.
Isn't that called communication? Y'know, there's a lot to be said for communicating with other developers through some kind of natural language interface... ;o)
I don't wish to be blase, but the issues raised by co-operative development won't be solved by the latest and greatest development model, but by an increased willingness to express ourselves and our ideas with greater clarity and respect for the individual than is usually found in this industry.
The trouble is what you see as the problem is exactly the reason why the gaming industry has become so succesful. It's the same reason the rest of the entertainment industry make so much money. Cash cows don't graze on originality, they munch on sameness and predictability. In return you can milk them for all they're worth.
To paraphrase the sage Fry,
"That's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid and unexpected things make them feel scared."
That's a good point and one I've been wondering about for a while. Will the easy availability of single tracks from iTunes mean the death of the album format and a shift towards music that's easier, though not necessarily more rewarding to listen to? For example, Pink Floyd's The Wall is a work in it's own right and while the better known songs such as Comfortably Numb or Another Brick in the Wall stand up in their own right, they are still part of a bigger work. It's a bit like reading the great speeches and passages of Shakespeare without reading the bits that glue them together. (Bleh, and I know comparing Pink Floyd to Shakespeare might be stretching it a bit, but the analogy holds... ;o))
I think something important might be lost if this shift become more prevalent.
Y'know, I do wonder whether they did. The 'Secret Organisation of Al Qaeda in Europe'? That doesn't ring true. Besides, at the moment there are relatively few casualties in relation to the size of the attack, it was timed after the peak of the rush hour, the London transport network is effectively crippled and all in the week that masses of anarchist organisations happen to be in the country? Hmmm. Let's not jump to conclusions people.
Actually, they didn't. Look at the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings, Omagh or Warrington. The IRA had no more respect for civilians than any other terrorist organisation.
Bleh. So we destroy any kids who don't show immediate aptitude for a particular discipline while at school? Oops. Bye-bye Einstein. How about the kids who love art but, in your phraseology, suck? Did you not get any enjoyment from it? You did? But you suck, ergo, no art for you. Yes, you're right, promoting people above their ability is a bad thing, but history is replete with people who didn't show their true colours until later in life.
Jeez. Slashdot and it's intellectual elitist, reductionism. You've got to love it.
No, I think Pinker statement is intended to suggest that because this paper is politically incorrect people will try harder to disprove it, as with numerous other studies linking abilities or disabilities to racial, social or sexual characteristics. If you read his books, it's pretty clear he doesn't have much respect for political correctness, though he does shy away from some of the logical conclusions of his reasoning, IMHO.
What are you not getting? For a start I'd argue with your assertion that it's just the .001% of sites that sit on a boundary that cause an issue. Have you tried Google's image search? Sites that contain sexually explicit advice? The Onion's Savage Love advice column? And that's three off the top off my head. Since when did ICANN become responsible for moralising the internet?
.xxx domains are those who can't get .com domains. Just like .biz, .info and all those other domains you hardly ever see.
Besides the only people likely to use
Ok, so I didn't RTFA, but exactly who's standards are going to be used to judge sites that need a .xxx domain anyway? Is it the US? UK? Holland? Iran? Who? This is just stupid. .org, .com and .logicalsitetype are all fine since they represent an agreed organisational type, but .xxx? Please.
Umm, since when did we need to justify anonymity in a free democratic nation?
How about the fact that I don't want anyone to know who I am because they have no damn right to? Maybe I choose to anonymously share files. Maybe I choose to carry no ID when I'm out. Maybe I'd really like to be able to anonymise my websurfing and downloading, purely because I prefer it.
Isn't that reason enough?
"The Thomas Jefferson Experience"? Man, my band has just found itself a new name!
Fuck. On behalf of all Liverpool fans on here, and especially any with mod points, YEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!