If they keep making them the same way they make them now. But the technological progress works at their economies of scale. They have no incentive to automate many of the menial tasks which go into production of the devices if hiring X10 more people somewhere else is cheaper than automating at home. But this is not progress. It's regression. First, new automation technologies don't get built, so cheaper (in the long run) production techniques don't get implemented. And, second, fewer people are trained in building industrial automation technologies. So other industries don't benefit from the added insight of those people. Everyone loses when automation is disparaged. Companies start looking for places with the cheapest cost of menial labor.
Public subsidies are generally well-known. If you can point to any subsidies which are specific to chicken producers in the US, I might agree with you. Otherwise, according to your proposed theory, African chicken growers would be better off buying the subsidized chicken feed from abroad and that would eliminate the arbitrage opportunity.
Most political organizations throughout history have felt it necessary to foster scientific discovery and invention, and to create self-regulating bodies to further the same.
I would agree with "many". Probably not with "most". But ok. In the particular example of UN, I think that when it tries anything other than its primary mandate (being a forum for the world leader... not nations... leaders) to voice their collective opinion on the state of the world's affairs, it does not succeed. UN has never managed to stop a war. UN has never managed to resolve a humanitarian crises. UN has never managed to even bring attention to the most severe of the human rights violations in the world (it usually only singles out those violations which are committed by the prime targets of those with a voice while the most severe violations go unnoticed). UN is a place for the heads of states to voice their opinions. That is all. To suggest that this does not bias scientific conclusions which they are willing to tolerate is, at the very least, myopic.
We elected a government that sent a representative to the meetings?
Just because a collection of representatives of nations discussed something, does not mean that the conclusions which they made represents the will of the world's population. For example, many of the member states are dictatorships. Do their representatives represent the will of the people of those nations? I would think not. They would represent the wishes of their bosses -- the dictators. Should we assume that the dictators represent the wishes of their people to be subjugated? We get into absurd territory there.
Well, I have a PhD in math and I have to honestly tell you, I'd like to believe that the scientists involved in climate research are not influenced by 3rd-party agendas, but given the viscera of their rhetoric, I just can't imagine how that can be. I have no vested interest in their conclusion being true or being false. But if the scientific method is compromised, I can't put any kind of estimate on how true what they say happens to be. And I certainly don't think that a political organization can be unbiased when it comes to cherry picking sources of scientific conclusions. It just doesn't add up. You can't possibly claim that they don't have a political agenda. They do by the very nature of what they do. So the UN themselves cannot honestly claim that they are in a fact-finding business. They are in the business of advocacy of the agenda which suits their political bosses. That's just the job.
UN is a political organization. Or is that in question? It's not a scientific organization. Why should anyone care what a political organization have to say about any particular scientific question? By the very nature of politics, the organization must prioritize its political agenda over unbiased fact-finding.
You blame too much on subsidies. US farmers can produce much higher numbers of animals per square foot of land because they can keep them in essentially non-moving positions their entire lives and feed them with methods allowed by better technology. Free-range chickens, for example, are multiple times more expensive in the US because they are much less efficient to produce. So the advanced technology is what allows for lower production cost rather than subsidies.
So think about for a moment, politics in England prevented more food from being produced in England.
No, the food production was at the peak capacity. The politics were over whether to impose tariffs on food import. The full production of food could not sustain the population or England. If tariffs were lowered, more food would be imported. This created larger work force for the industrialists (more profit for the the industrialists). If tariffs were raised, it meant that the food prices would rise and the domestic producers would get more profits for the food they were already producing. Either way, the amount of food produced would stay the same. And in both scenarios there would still be food shortages. It was only a matter of how large those shortages would be.
When transport technology made it cheap and easy to distribute.
No, the main transportation breakthrough were at the end of the 19th century. It's how US got overproduction of food and nearly bankrupted all the farmers. In the 20th century the actual amount of food produced was significantly increased because of short-stock wheat.
It's called reckless endangerment. It's the principle behind laws against exceeding posted speed limits even if you don't collide with something.
You arguing against your own point. It takes a law to make speeding illegal. As dangerous as it may be, it would not be criminal or actionable for someone for anyone who hasn't caused harm through those actions (ie, for anyone who hasn't hit anyone). Since there is no law requiring the federal government to protect the state of the environment to remain suitable for future generations, failing to issue such protections is not actionable. And any judge worth the name would know that. The government cannot even be sued for failing to prevent 9/11 and 9/11 has already happened. Suing for failing to protect against probable threats cannot be possible if they cannot be sued for failing to protect against threats which have already materialized. The suit would revolve around the debate which is purely political: whether the harm is foreseeable. And such a decision cannot be made by a jury.
It is absolutely clear that you speak from a perspective of academia,
Fuck you with a cherry on top. Just because I write code, doesn't mean I don't think about how we could all save ourselves time by having a better language. Oh, and fuck you. Did I mention the "fuck you" part? Ok, good. Because I thought I didn't tell you "fuck you," just yet. That would me an omission on my part.
so you want C to be typeless without the need for casting?
No, I want to be able to write to the memory location instead of having the value copied to the stack and then either thrown away or copied to a yet another memory location. Yes, you can do it by passing an extra parameter, but avoiding passing of this extra parameter is the main reason people use C++. The only feature of C++ which is not present in C is an automatic calling of a method (destructor) upon exiting the scope.
regardless the fact that some members hold code
No, they don't. Some code is bound to "classes". But it need not be. Structs and unions don't hold code. If the type of your return value was a struct and you could write to the elements of that struct directly (a la matlab syntax), you would have functions which are not bound to classes and which operate on specific data without having to jump through all the dumb syntax hoops that you jump through to write C++.
On the other hand, for GUI design, the idea of a GUI widget as class, with each form field having field.value makes perfect sense. Radio_button and check_box being subclasses of widget is a great idea.
It does make sense in certain situations to closely tailor functions to operate on very specialized data. But it's not accomplished better by binding these functions to the said data. Discriminated unions with explicit dispatch mechanisms would be a much better solution than having platform-dependent discriminators (pointers). It would have trivialized the serialization and would have increased re-use through duck-typing. Simply treating memory locations as such instead of blessing them to be some compile-time fixed types only reduces code reuse and forces a whole lot of extraneous syntax details which go largely unused. C should have been extended by allowing direct access to the space where the return value is to be written from the with the scope of the functions (maybe optionally a write-only access to allow for promises to enable optimization). a.plus(b) would then work regardless of the type of a. And there would be no need to worry about whether 'a' is a primitive or a derived type. But because 'plus()' became a method bound to some abstract idea of a class (which exists only in the imagination of a programmer), you can't do something like a.plus(b).minus(c) unless you have syntax for returning the rval reference of a from `plus()`. That's a lot of cool verbiage, but if `plus` just had language-provided syntax for writing to the memory represented by `a`, this would all be a non-issue.
C++ ended up needing templates to accomplishes what it should have done from the get go. Except the syntax for it is atrocious and it still fixes behavior at compile time.
Food has never been a production issue, it has always been a distribution issue.
That's just factually wrong. The main political division in 19th century England was between the food producers and industrialists. Both subscribed to the idea of Malthusian equilibrium. Which essentially viewed starvation as an inevitable form of population control. Food only became plentiful in the 20th century and largely due to the of short-stock wheat invented by Norman Borlaug.
Suing LGBT for potentially giving AIDS is far fetched. But you do get the principle right. You can't sue someone who sneezes for potentially getting you sick and causing to miss earning power while sick. You can sue for something that has already happened or has failed to happen as a consequence of someone's actions. But suing for harm which hasn't happened, especially suing for inaction? The judge may have enjoyed recently legalized Oregon specialties.
the idea that functions must be bounded to data is ridiculous. data and operations are duals and each can be thought of acting on the other. polymorphism leads to code bloat and decreases readability (you always have to be mindful which class in the inheritance chain a particular method came from). Also, compile-time is way too early to make a decision on which particular way a particular piece of data will be treated. Especially if these pieces of data come in homogeneous containers. The binding of behavior to data should have been done through better syntax which would allow it to happen pretty far into the run time.
Charles Schumer got ex-patriot Act passed. I do hope all the people who voluntarily give up their citizenship don't get to take it back. We just ended the era of the insane running the asylum. Let's hope Canada keeps the crazy ones.
academic journals are biased. they have mechanisms to check the bias, but peer review is anything but fault-proof. in fact, it's often a clusterfuck. "legal fiction" is considered the law. should it be treated as fact? indicating what the source of the statements is would be enough information for anyone to make their own judgement on the validity of what they see. it would, however, be nice if the geographic location (not pinpoint, but general geographic area) of originating pages/comments were known. especially when it comes to political discussions of any kind.
Well, IT workers might be paid more than developers because they need to be in closer proximity to the clients for many of the IT tasks. But developers are generally paid much less than equally-intelligent and equally-educated professionals in legal and medical fields. Despite all the fear, Indian post-secondary education is not as good as US private university education when it comes to either applied math or CS. There is a lot of factors which cause this, not the least of it is that the best students from India come to the US for their university studies. But this is just one of many factors which influence this. What drives the wages lower is that there is a constant churn in development just like there is physical production. Some of the work simply requires citizenship or ability to impose legal requirements (which can be expected to be followed by US residents), or something similar. Any work which cannot be justified in this manner has already gone to India. Inability to hold people accountable to what they produce does carry a price with it. In many instances, that price is the difference in labor cost. Whatever arbitrage opportunities existed in the labor market, they have already been taken advantage of and, therefore, have diminished to virtually nothing. There are other factors. You might as well ask why Australia ever beats India in cricket given that India adds an Australia-size population every year. If building something in India were as simple as building it in the US, India would simply be a wealthier country than the US and the difference in labor cost would be absent. Wealth doesn't come from money. It comes from being able to buy something useful with the money you have.
The courts have final word in what is legal because their opinion of the meaning of the law is binding. You haven't mentioned why the hypothetical company would deny such government request. If it did so on the basis of a questionable legality of the warrant, the government would do what I originally said they would do. They would go to court.
And? I don't think anyone contests that. But the researcher haven't tried to see if the wait times would go up if they used identifying markers for other groups. Vegetarians? Republicans? Or, more narrowly, Trump supporters? Using "black" sounding names is a marker which makes it more likely that a person belongs to a certain group. It doesn't prove that this group experiences more hostility than individuals from other groups which are generally judged by their group membership. A study from a few years ago showed that Prius drivers were the most hostile drivers on the road. So group-affiliation can be an indication of anti-social behavior just as much it can make a person be more likely to be on the receiving end of anti-social behavior. They should do a study of what the delay would be if the desired destination is a Trump rally vs a sporting event (to eliminate congestion as a baseline for bias against driving to a location).
Sorry, in which way does MS vs DOJ situation not fit the description "what the US Government would do to a corporation that denied assistance to legal warrants from the judicial branch?"
Uhm... go to court? It's what's happening to Microsoft. They are refusing to give access to data stored in Ireland. For now, at least, the issue is in the hands of the courts.
but not general warrants, they are expressly forbidden.
You may think so. And it may have been the writers' intent. But the decision about what The Constitution means is relegated to (usually) 9 individuals (currently 8). I am going to go ahead and assume (despite the thin veil of anonymity) that you are not one of those individuals. And until their majority states otherwise in a court case, the choice to use such warrants remains available to the executive.
The subtle difference between sharing data and writing a non-existent program to access data inside a device when no such program currently exists remains the key. Of course, Apple shares data which they have and can provide when they get subpoenas. They probably do it even without subpoenas under the assumption that the government is a good-faith actor. But such assumption was not enough (as far as we know) to force Apple to write a program which would have made hacking into their own devices possible. So this story DOES NOT contradict the claim that Apple did not help the government break into secure storage on iPhones. I am not saying that Apple didn't do it. But I am pointing out that there is difference between what this email says Apple did and what the government asked them to do in the instance which became famous earlier this year.
Slashdot Mirror
If they keep making them the same way they make them now. But the technological progress works at their economies of scale. They have no incentive to automate many of the menial tasks which go into production of the devices if hiring X10 more people somewhere else is cheaper than automating at home. But this is not progress. It's regression. First, new automation technologies don't get built, so cheaper (in the long run) production techniques don't get implemented. And, second, fewer people are trained in building industrial automation technologies. So other industries don't benefit from the added insight of those people. Everyone loses when automation is disparaged. Companies start looking for places with the cheapest cost of menial labor.
Public subsidies are generally well-known. If you can point to any subsidies which are specific to chicken producers in the US, I might agree with you. Otherwise, according to your proposed theory, African chicken growers would be better off buying the subsidized chicken feed from abroad and that would eliminate the arbitrage opportunity.
Most political organizations throughout history have felt it necessary to foster scientific discovery and invention, and to create self-regulating bodies to further the same.
I would agree with "many". Probably not with "most". But ok. In the particular example of UN, I think that when it tries anything other than its primary mandate (being a forum for the world leader... not nations... leaders) to voice their collective opinion on the state of the world's affairs, it does not succeed. UN has never managed to stop a war. UN has never managed to resolve a humanitarian crises. UN has never managed to even bring attention to the most severe of the human rights violations in the world (it usually only singles out those violations which are committed by the prime targets of those with a voice while the most severe violations go unnoticed). UN is a place for the heads of states to voice their opinions. That is all. To suggest that this does not bias scientific conclusions which they are willing to tolerate is, at the very least, myopic.
We elected a government that sent a representative to the meetings?
Just because a collection of representatives of nations discussed something, does not mean that the conclusions which they made represents the will of the world's population. For example, many of the member states are dictatorships. Do their representatives represent the will of the people of those nations? I would think not. They would represent the wishes of their bosses -- the dictators. Should we assume that the dictators represent the wishes of their people to be subjugated? We get into absurd territory there.
Well, I have a PhD in math and I have to honestly tell you, I'd like to believe that the scientists involved in climate research are not influenced by 3rd-party agendas, but given the viscera of their rhetoric, I just can't imagine how that can be. I have no vested interest in their conclusion being true or being false. But if the scientific method is compromised, I can't put any kind of estimate on how true what they say happens to be. And I certainly don't think that a political organization can be unbiased when it comes to cherry picking sources of scientific conclusions. It just doesn't add up. You can't possibly claim that they don't have a political agenda. They do by the very nature of what they do. So the UN themselves cannot honestly claim that they are in a fact-finding business. They are in the business of advocacy of the agenda which suits their political bosses. That's just the job.
UN is a political organization. Or is that in question? It's not a scientific organization. Why should anyone care what a political organization have to say about any particular scientific question? By the very nature of politics, the organization must prioritize its political agenda over unbiased fact-finding.
You blame too much on subsidies. US farmers can produce much higher numbers of animals per square foot of land because they can keep them in essentially non-moving positions their entire lives and feed them with methods allowed by better technology. Free-range chickens, for example, are multiple times more expensive in the US because they are much less efficient to produce. So the advanced technology is what allows for lower production cost rather than subsidies.
So think about for a moment, politics in England prevented more food from being produced in England.
No, the food production was at the peak capacity. The politics were over whether to impose tariffs on food import. The full production of food could not sustain the population or England. If tariffs were lowered, more food would be imported. This created larger work force for the industrialists (more profit for the the industrialists). If tariffs were raised, it meant that the food prices would rise and the domestic producers would get more profits for the food they were already producing. Either way, the amount of food produced would stay the same. And in both scenarios there would still be food shortages. It was only a matter of how large those shortages would be.
When transport technology made it cheap and easy to distribute.
No, the main transportation breakthrough were at the end of the 19th century. It's how US got overproduction of food and nearly bankrupted all the farmers. In the 20th century the actual amount of food produced was significantly increased because of short-stock wheat.
It's called reckless endangerment. It's the principle behind laws against exceeding posted speed limits even if you don't collide with something.
You arguing against your own point. It takes a law to make speeding illegal. As dangerous as it may be, it would not be criminal or actionable for someone for anyone who hasn't caused harm through those actions (ie, for anyone who hasn't hit anyone). Since there is no law requiring the federal government to protect the state of the environment to remain suitable for future generations, failing to issue such protections is not actionable. And any judge worth the name would know that. The government cannot even be sued for failing to prevent 9/11 and 9/11 has already happened. Suing for failing to protect against probable threats cannot be possible if they cannot be sued for failing to protect against threats which have already materialized. The suit would revolve around the debate which is purely political: whether the harm is foreseeable. And such a decision cannot be made by a jury.
It is absolutely clear that you speak from a perspective of academia,
Fuck you with a cherry on top. Just because I write code, doesn't mean I don't think about how we could all save ourselves time by having a better language. Oh, and fuck you. Did I mention the "fuck you" part? Ok, good. Because I thought I didn't tell you "fuck you," just yet. That would me an omission on my part.
so you want C to be typeless without the need for casting?
No, I want to be able to write to the memory location instead of having the value copied to the stack and then either thrown away or copied to a yet another memory location. Yes, you can do it by passing an extra parameter, but avoiding passing of this extra parameter is the main reason people use C++. The only feature of C++ which is not present in C is an automatic calling of a method (destructor) upon exiting the scope.
regardless the fact that some members hold code
No, they don't. Some code is bound to "classes". But it need not be. Structs and unions don't hold code. If the type of your return value was a struct and you could write to the elements of that struct directly (a la matlab syntax), you would have functions which are not bound to classes and which operate on specific data without having to jump through all the dumb syntax hoops that you jump through to write C++.
your joke was so funny, i decided to reply to it instead of yawning myself to sleep by the time i'd finish reading it.
On the other hand, for GUI design, the idea of a GUI widget as class, with each form field having field.value makes perfect sense. Radio_button and check_box being subclasses of widget is a great idea.
It does make sense in certain situations to closely tailor functions to operate on very specialized data. But it's not accomplished better by binding these functions to the said data. Discriminated unions with explicit dispatch mechanisms would be a much better solution than having platform-dependent discriminators (pointers). It would have trivialized the serialization and would have increased re-use through duck-typing. Simply treating memory locations as such instead of blessing them to be some compile-time fixed types only reduces code reuse and forces a whole lot of extraneous syntax details which go largely unused. C should have been extended by allowing direct access to the space where the return value is to be written from the with the scope of the functions (maybe optionally a write-only access to allow for promises to enable optimization). a.plus(b) would then work regardless of the type of a. And there would be no need to worry about whether 'a' is a primitive or a derived type. But because 'plus()' became a method bound to some abstract idea of a class (which exists only in the imagination of a programmer), you can't do something like a.plus(b).minus(c) unless you have syntax for returning the rval reference of a from `plus()`. That's a lot of cool verbiage, but if `plus` just had language-provided syntax for writing to the memory represented by `a`, this would all be a non-issue. C++ ended up needing templates to accomplishes what it should have done from the get go. Except the syntax for it is atrocious and it still fixes behavior at compile time.
Food has never been a production issue, it has always been a distribution issue.
That's just factually wrong. The main political division in 19th century England was between the food producers and industrialists. Both subscribed to the idea of Malthusian equilibrium. Which essentially viewed starvation as an inevitable form of population control. Food only became plentiful in the 20th century and largely due to the of short-stock wheat invented by Norman Borlaug.
Suing LGBT for potentially giving AIDS is far fetched. But you do get the principle right. You can't sue someone who sneezes for potentially getting you sick and causing to miss earning power while sick. You can sue for something that has already happened or has failed to happen as a consequence of someone's actions. But suing for harm which hasn't happened, especially suing for inaction? The judge may have enjoyed recently legalized Oregon specialties.
the idea that functions must be bounded to data is ridiculous. data and operations are duals and each can be thought of acting on the other. polymorphism leads to code bloat and decreases readability (you always have to be mindful which class in the inheritance chain a particular method came from). Also, compile-time is way too early to make a decision on which particular way a particular piece of data will be treated. Especially if these pieces of data come in homogeneous containers. The binding of behavior to data should have been done through better syntax which would allow it to happen pretty far into the run time.
Charles Schumer got ex-patriot Act passed. I do hope all the people who voluntarily give up their citizenship don't get to take it back. We just ended the era of the insane running the asylum. Let's hope Canada keeps the crazy ones.
academic journals are biased. they have mechanisms to check the bias, but peer review is anything but fault-proof. in fact, it's often a clusterfuck. "legal fiction" is considered the law. should it be treated as fact? indicating what the source of the statements is would be enough information for anyone to make their own judgement on the validity of what they see. it would, however, be nice if the geographic location (not pinpoint, but general geographic area) of originating pages/comments were known. especially when it comes to political discussions of any kind.
Well, IT workers might be paid more than developers because they need to be in closer proximity to the clients for many of the IT tasks. But developers are generally paid much less than equally-intelligent and equally-educated professionals in legal and medical fields. Despite all the fear, Indian post-secondary education is not as good as US private university education when it comes to either applied math or CS. There is a lot of factors which cause this, not the least of it is that the best students from India come to the US for their university studies. But this is just one of many factors which influence this. What drives the wages lower is that there is a constant churn in development just like there is physical production. Some of the work simply requires citizenship or ability to impose legal requirements (which can be expected to be followed by US residents), or something similar. Any work which cannot be justified in this manner has already gone to India. Inability to hold people accountable to what they produce does carry a price with it. In many instances, that price is the difference in labor cost. Whatever arbitrage opportunities existed in the labor market, they have already been taken advantage of and, therefore, have diminished to virtually nothing. There are other factors. You might as well ask why Australia ever beats India in cricket given that India adds an Australia-size population every year. If building something in India were as simple as building it in the US, India would simply be a wealthier country than the US and the difference in labor cost would be absent. Wealth doesn't come from money. It comes from being able to buy something useful with the money you have.
How's the whole concept different from keeping an encrypted file with all the credentials stored in a dropbox folder?
The courts have final word in what is legal because their opinion of the meaning of the law is binding. You haven't mentioned why the hypothetical company would deny such government request. If it did so on the basis of a questionable legality of the warrant, the government would do what I originally said they would do. They would go to court.
And? I don't think anyone contests that. But the researcher haven't tried to see if the wait times would go up if they used identifying markers for other groups. Vegetarians? Republicans? Or, more narrowly, Trump supporters? Using "black" sounding names is a marker which makes it more likely that a person belongs to a certain group. It doesn't prove that this group experiences more hostility than individuals from other groups which are generally judged by their group membership. A study from a few years ago showed that Prius drivers were the most hostile drivers on the road. So group-affiliation can be an indication of anti-social behavior just as much it can make a person be more likely to be on the receiving end of anti-social behavior. They should do a study of what the delay would be if the desired destination is a Trump rally vs a sporting event (to eliminate congestion as a baseline for bias against driving to a location).
Sorry, in which way does MS vs DOJ situation not fit the description "what the US Government would do to a corporation that denied assistance to legal warrants from the judicial branch?"
Uhm... go to court? It's what's happening to Microsoft. They are refusing to give access to data stored in Ireland. For now, at least, the issue is in the hands of the courts.
but not general warrants, they are expressly forbidden.
You may think so. And it may have been the writers' intent. But the decision about what The Constitution means is relegated to (usually) 9 individuals (currently 8). I am going to go ahead and assume (despite the thin veil of anonymity) that you are not one of those individuals. And until their majority states otherwise in a court case, the choice to use such warrants remains available to the executive.
The subtle difference between sharing data and writing a non-existent program to access data inside a device when no such program currently exists remains the key. Of course, Apple shares data which they have and can provide when they get subpoenas. They probably do it even without subpoenas under the assumption that the government is a good-faith actor. But such assumption was not enough (as far as we know) to force Apple to write a program which would have made hacking into their own devices possible. So this story DOES NOT contradict the claim that Apple did not help the government break into secure storage on iPhones. I am not saying that Apple didn't do it. But I am pointing out that there is difference between what this email says Apple did and what the government asked them to do in the instance which became famous earlier this year.