This is also ignoring just how cheap those 16:9 screens are, compared with what you paid for a 4:3 CRT 15 years ago. They are able to be so cheap partly due to cheaper components, but also due to volume. If a monitor can work as both a TV and a computer display, that greatly expands its possible market, which means the manufacturer can sell more and defray more startup costs per unit. That translates into a lower price at the point of sale.
This is also why resolutions of more than 1080 lines cost more: there is simply a smaller market for them, and the fixed startup costs have to be paid over fewer units sold, otherwise no one could afford to make them.
Someone who has never seen the term in that context would have no idea what "there will be some redundancies" is supposed to mean.
Just come out and say "some people will lose their jobs" and be done with it.
But no, we have to pretend we aren't doing anything unpleasant to anyone, so we have to dress it up in dry, clinical-sounding lingo so no one's emotions are stirred.
When you go to a website (such as Slashdot), you are there for the information provided. You sought it out--Slashdot didn't push it on you. As part of the tacit agreement you make as a reader, you are agreeing to support the site through whatever options are available, be they ads, a premium membership, a donation, or something else. If you are not interested in meeting that obligation, then it is unethical of you to take what is offered without accepting the site's terms.
Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean it is ethically correct. It is technically possible for me to obtain and use your credit card information for my own benefit. Is it legal? Is it ethical? Absolutely not.
I will grant that this is not a black-and-white issue. No one is obligated to accept malware ads, nor be tracked all over the Internet (which isn't something that benefits the site running the ads, anyway.) However, I think unilaterally blocking all ads goes too far. If you don't like the ads, don't use the site. It's that simple. Block enough to protect your private information and your computer, but I think that is about all you could ethically justify.
Nonsense. Europeans do just fine with their pluralistic political bodies. The idea that only a two-party system is viable is just narrow American thinking.
Typically, it allows you to vote in your party's primary election, which is how the party's candidates for the general election are chosen.
Some states have open primaries in which you don't have to be registered with a party in order to vote in their primary; however, other states require a party affiliation to do so.
If I have to do more than a typical 8-hour day's work in one stretch, there comes a point where it just becomes utterly mind-numbing and I'm not even sure what I'm doing anymore. That is, if I am expected to be concentrating and coding that whole time. In reality, I don't spend an awful lot of time coding. Usually, I am planning out my code first, then I write it, then I test it. The actual writing of it is the shortest part. The planning and testing eat up the bulk of my "development" time. But if I get stuck on the planning phase (which seems to happen to everyone at one time or another), I'll go work on something else for a while and come back to it later, hopefully with a new solution cooked up.
I don't know who these people are who grind out code for 16+ hours a day. On a good day, you could expect a developer to turn out several hundred to a couple thousand lines of code. Two thousand lines over 16 hours is 125 lines per hour, or a bit more than 2 lines per minute. Typing speed is clearly not the limiting factor here, as we're talking maybe a dozen or so words per minute at that rate.
The problem is managers thinking developers are basically human code factories that can produce a sustained output over a length of time, and that length of time can be any arbitrary amount they want. It simply does not work that way. The code isn't the hard part--the brain power that goes into developing the solution (which is then turned into code) is the real challenge, and there is only so much of that a person can do in a day, no matter how many hours they are scheduled to be at the office.
Yeah, the intent behind the letter is bleedingly obvious. Only a fool would say it's not a clear threat wrapped up in diplomatic euphemism. Even the way it starts, with "you need to be aware," gives it the tone of a stern warning.
It's not like the UK is going to come out and say "we will send police into your embassy to drag Assange out, whether you like it or not." Diplomacy is never handled so crassly.
Indeed. If being a hacker means you don't believe in behaving respectfully toward others, then I sure as hell don't want to be one.
It's not "politically correct" to respect people's personal space and to treat women like human beings instead of walking sex toys. It's just basic human decency.
An automated car is capable of being a better driver simply because it has resources we don't.
It can see everything around it in all directions at all times. We can't.
It can detect exactly how much traction each wheel is getting at any given moment, and react within milliseconds. We can't.
It can instantaneously produce a calculation to determine how to avoid an imminent collision and adjust it in real-time if the variables (e.g. traction, speed of oncoming vehicle, etc.) change. We can sort of do this, but not as quickly or accurately as a computer.
It never gets tired, it never gets distracted, it is never intoxicated.
Driving is a pretty narrow problem domain: follow a route, adjusting your vector as necessary, while avoiding running into anything else. That's basically it. A lot of things can happen while driving, but they all fall into that same general response pattern.
That's odd. I even used an incognito window (so no cookies or anything) to test it, and while it did prompt me to sign in, it also displayed the article immediately without me being logged in.
Yeah, it should be damned difficult to "accidentally" run your test system in a production environment. If it's not, then the separation between your test and production environments isn't nearly strong enough.
I've done some game development on the side, and that requires more advanced math, but still nothing overly fancy--linear algebra and trig, that's about it.
I've spent the last 10 years working on enterprise software, and the most complex math I've run into there involves multiplication and division. Some of it is very elaborate, mind you, but it's not really advanced math.
That said, it takes a good background in mathematics (particularly set theory and boolean logic) to do good database design, something my peers seem absolutely awful at.
The problem is, you can't measure how many defects there are, only how many you've found, so you have to work on better ways of a) preventing them and b) finding the ones you didn't prevent.
How do you prove there are no bugs in something? You can wrap unit tests around all code, ensure 100% coverage, have documented use cases and tests for all of them... and still end up missing bugs because there was a corner case nobody thought of, or an interaction of modules that no one anticipated.
There is, in fact, no known practical way to prove--mathematically or programmatically--that a given piece of software is free of defects. Probably the very definition of an NP-Hard problem.;)
Yes, actually. You can measure it in terms of raw numbers of defects found. You can also determine the number of defects produced per some measure of effort (e.g. 1000 man-hours.)
You need quality control, which is about ensuring good practices that are documented, repeatable, and measurable, and quality assurance, in which the results of your process are analyzed for their overall quality.
Good QC should make QA's job a lot easier. (Or harder, depending on how you look at it.)
There is, of course, no number that says "this represents the total quality of this product." As with anything else, quality in software can only be measured in terms of failures (defects.) You want fewer and fewer failures over time--that is a sign of a good quality process.
Slashdot Mirror
This is also ignoring just how cheap those 16:9 screens are, compared with what you paid for a 4:3 CRT 15 years ago. They are able to be so cheap partly due to cheaper components, but also due to volume. If a monitor can work as both a TV and a computer display, that greatly expands its possible market, which means the manufacturer can sell more and defray more startup costs per unit. That translates into a lower price at the point of sale.
This is also why resolutions of more than 1080 lines cost more: there is simply a smaller market for them, and the fixed startup costs have to be paid over fewer units sold, otherwise no one could afford to make them.
If you only had one eye, a 1:1 monitor would make a bit more sense.
But most people have two. An aspect ratio where the horizontal dimension is larger than the vertical dimension makes sense.
The British euphemize everything. :-p
It's an annoying euphemism, in any case.
Someone who has never seen the term in that context would have no idea what "there will be some redundancies" is supposed to mean.
Just come out and say "some people will lose their jobs" and be done with it.
But no, we have to pretend we aren't doing anything unpleasant to anyone, so we have to dress it up in dry, clinical-sounding lingo so no one's emotions are stirred.
Is it true they get paid for this?
Silly analogy.
When you go to a website (such as Slashdot), you are there for the information provided. You sought it out--Slashdot didn't push it on you. As part of the tacit agreement you make as a reader, you are agreeing to support the site through whatever options are available, be they ads, a premium membership, a donation, or something else. If you are not interested in meeting that obligation, then it is unethical of you to take what is offered without accepting the site's terms.
Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean it is ethically correct. It is technically possible for me to obtain and use your credit card information for my own benefit. Is it legal? Is it ethical? Absolutely not.
I will grant that this is not a black-and-white issue. No one is obligated to accept malware ads, nor be tracked all over the Internet (which isn't something that benefits the site running the ads, anyway.) However, I think unilaterally blocking all ads goes too far. If you don't like the ads, don't use the site. It's that simple. Block enough to protect your private information and your computer, but I think that is about all you could ethically justify.
Nonsense. Europeans do just fine with their pluralistic political bodies. The idea that only a two-party system is viable is just narrow American thinking.
Typically, it allows you to vote in your party's primary election, which is how the party's candidates for the general election are chosen.
Some states have open primaries in which you don't have to be registered with a party in order to vote in their primary; however, other states require a party affiliation to do so.
Well, they got the "Anonymous Coward" part right on that one.
If I have to do more than a typical 8-hour day's work in one stretch, there comes a point where it just becomes utterly mind-numbing and I'm not even sure what I'm doing anymore. That is, if I am expected to be concentrating and coding that whole time. In reality, I don't spend an awful lot of time coding. Usually, I am planning out my code first, then I write it, then I test it. The actual writing of it is the shortest part. The planning and testing eat up the bulk of my "development" time. But if I get stuck on the planning phase (which seems to happen to everyone at one time or another), I'll go work on something else for a while and come back to it later, hopefully with a new solution cooked up.
I don't know who these people are who grind out code for 16+ hours a day. On a good day, you could expect a developer to turn out several hundred to a couple thousand lines of code. Two thousand lines over 16 hours is 125 lines per hour, or a bit more than 2 lines per minute. Typing speed is clearly not the limiting factor here, as we're talking maybe a dozen or so words per minute at that rate.
The problem is managers thinking developers are basically human code factories that can produce a sustained output over a length of time, and that length of time can be any arbitrary amount they want. It simply does not work that way. The code isn't the hard part--the brain power that goes into developing the solution (which is then turned into code) is the real challenge, and there is only so much of that a person can do in a day, no matter how many hours they are scheduled to be at the office.
Yeah, the intent behind the letter is bleedingly obvious. Only a fool would say it's not a clear threat wrapped up in diplomatic euphemism. Even the way it starts, with "you need to be aware," gives it the tone of a stern warning.
It's not like the UK is going to come out and say "we will send police into your embassy to drag Assange out, whether you like it or not." Diplomacy is never handled so crassly.
Indeed. If being a hacker means you don't believe in behaving respectfully toward others, then I sure as hell don't want to be one.
It's not "politically correct" to respect people's personal space and to treat women like human beings instead of walking sex toys. It's just basic human decency.
An automated car is capable of being a better driver simply because it has resources we don't.
It can see everything around it in all directions at all times. We can't.
It can detect exactly how much traction each wheel is getting at any given moment, and react within milliseconds. We can't.
It can instantaneously produce a calculation to determine how to avoid an imminent collision and adjust it in real-time if the variables (e.g. traction, speed of oncoming vehicle, etc.) change. We can sort of do this, but not as quickly or accurately as a computer.
It never gets tired, it never gets distracted, it is never intoxicated.
Driving is a pretty narrow problem domain: follow a route, adjusting your vector as necessary, while avoiding running into anything else. That's basically it. A lot of things can happen while driving, but they all fall into that same general response pattern.
That's odd. I even used an incognito window (so no cookies or anything) to test it, and while it did prompt me to sign in, it also displayed the article immediately without me being logged in.
Yeah, it should be damned difficult to "accidentally" run your test system in a production environment. If it's not, then the separation between your test and production environments isn't nearly strong enough.
A random delay attached to each trade would also work. I'm not against the transaction taxes, either, though.
I was able to view it without being logged in, so I don't know what you're talking about.
You don't have to be able to spell it in order to say it!
This is accurate per my experience, as well.
I've done some game development on the side, and that requires more advanced math, but still nothing overly fancy--linear algebra and trig, that's about it.
I've spent the last 10 years working on enterprise software, and the most complex math I've run into there involves multiplication and division. Some of it is very elaborate, mind you, but it's not really advanced math.
That said, it takes a good background in mathematics (particularly set theory and boolean logic) to do good database design, something my peers seem absolutely awful at.
The problem is, you can't measure how many defects there are, only how many you've found, so you have to work on better ways of a) preventing them and b) finding the ones you didn't prevent.
How do you prove there are no bugs in something? You can wrap unit tests around all code, ensure 100% coverage, have documented use cases and tests for all of them... and still end up missing bugs because there was a corner case nobody thought of, or an interaction of modules that no one anticipated.
There is, in fact, no known practical way to prove--mathematically or programmatically--that a given piece of software is free of defects. Probably the very definition of an NP-Hard problem. ;)
Yes, I know. I should have pointed out the relative severity of defects.
I agree with you. Severity is certainly relative (and I should have said as much when talking about raw defects.)
Yes, actually. You can measure it in terms of raw numbers of defects found. You can also determine the number of defects produced per some measure of effort (e.g. 1000 man-hours.)
You need quality control, which is about ensuring good practices that are documented, repeatable, and measurable, and quality assurance, in which the results of your process are analyzed for their overall quality.
Good QC should make QA's job a lot easier. (Or harder, depending on how you look at it.)
There is, of course, no number that says "this represents the total quality of this product." As with anything else, quality in software can only be measured in terms of failures (defects.) You want fewer and fewer failures over time--that is a sign of a good quality process.
I've never seen jellomizer post anything that wasn't psychotic, jingoistic (but I repeat myself!) drivel.
Based on your username, I think the problem is that you aren't peeing in the pool...