Another bill that looks helpful on the surface but really just supports their agenda.
Or both. They are not mutually exclusive. They are just not always aligned. As long as they happen to be aligned in this case, we all benefit. It's how a confrontational system benefits the general public -- by forcing two sides to challenge each others' shortcomings.
No, bitcoin is the new Dollar. Soviet Russia had (at times) a full maximum sentence penalty (15 year was the maximum sentence in SU) for private Dollar trading. They are Ok with people holding dollars now. Now they can dilute the rubles in sync with diluting dollars. You can't dilute bitcoin, so you can expect both countries (and eventually Europe) to start having harsher and harsher penalties for it.
In case you are still not getting it, design is not there to avoid work. It's there to solve a specific problem of human being being human. However, intelligent any one human being maybe, he is still of finite capacity. The only way to overcome this limitation is to structure things in self-contained interactive modules which can be reused even by those who don't understand their internals. Short of that, what you write has no use. Design itself is a science -- not art. And those who denigrate it usually only do so in order avoid learning a skill that is essential to their job and who, thus, want to slide by with limited skills. It's nothing short of a con job.
Sure, one-off "because it works" coding is one way to get to a disaster. Another way is to spend so much time on "development methodology" as opposed to actual coding that you can't possibly produce a working application before the deadline.My bets are on the latter in this case.
My bet is you are full of it shit. You produce unmaintainable crap and your clients curse the day they accepted your work. Even you can't fix it when it breaks. So you hustle your clients and hire some poor souls to dig the pile of crap that you dump on the screen. And when they quit you blame your problems not on the poor original design, but on the unfortunate circumstances of them quitting.
The Government owns nothing except that which the citizens allow.
Oh? The law is what gives the government its authority. Citizens (in a democracy) decide on who occupies the positions of power, but they don't decide on what the government can or cannot do. That's dictated by the law. Now who are these citizens, that you speak of, who exercise ultimate veto power over government actions? I never heard of them.
Government builds the roads and owns the roads. I don't think the Supreme Court will find an objection with government imposing requirement on those who operate machinery on these government-owned roads.
Yeah, let me fix that for you. Code without design is rape. It self-gratification of whoever was lucky enough to create the prototype and then a slow, violent fuck fest of whoever has to make something useful without throwing that prototype away.
That's EXACTLY how you get to a disaster -- you hire people who get off on coding and write throw-away crap "because it works." It works once. And, usually, only on your desktop.
On an unrelated note, your signature is unrelated to the argument it makes. Correlation is not causation. That's a truism. Correlation is correlation. The statement which actually says something is "correlation does not imply causation."
Well, what this website is supposed to do is pretty simple. You should be able to produce a prototype from scratch in about a month. The difference between coders and developers, of course, is that developers would make a scalable prototype and coders would keep changing core logic and realize in 6 months that it's a year away from collapse.
Are you nuts? Not ANY area. Of course, the government can monitor the border. It is charged with protecting the border. Anything else wouldn't be just wrong. It's would be insane. Just plain and simple lunacy.
I hope you don't evaluate the code based on code. I would know that the code sucks before seeing a single line of it. You look at the process and how the management thinks of priorities. It will tell you everything about what you'll see in the code. Any management that doesn't values individuals over a process will automatically produce bad code. There will always be opportunities to take shortcuts that are destructive in the long term. And bad management will take them. But even good general management principles are not enough. You have to know how to structure the code and how to structure the development process. If the management can't give you a clear explanation of both, they pretty much tell you what you need to know with what they don't say.
To be blunt, this smells like you're supposed to be a scapegoat.
I would definitely agree with that. It's the power v responsibility matrix: power with responsibility = player, power without responsibility = politician, responsibility without power =patsy (or scapegoat).
Get out.
You can. Or you can win. But if you win, be prepared to fight a fight afterwards. You'll make enemies of those who were hoping to make you the fall guy. But, then again, if you gonna make enemies who better than them?
When an app breaks because you fucked with it does all or even most of the blame for this rest on your predecessors shoulders?
Because good code doesn't do that.
I've seen this show many times before.. I would say it is a crapshoot as to who (old guy or new guy) was actually incompetent...usually some combination of both
No, if you can't tell, then you are definitely not competent enough to judge good code from bad code. If you think that making code work, is all takes to write the code, then you are definitely incompetent. Getting code to work is by estimates only 30% of the work. The rest is making it maintainable. If you don't know what that 70% should be, you are definitely the problem.
To summarize if someone comes to me and tells me 'x' is shit and needs to be rewritten you should expect to come fully prepared to back up your claims. Introspection required.
He did. Adding a feature broke other features. That's a red flag right away.
Then win. How? Fix 1 feature at a time. They will break other features. That's a given and it is expected. But as you fix em, use it a chance to refactor the code into self-contained well-encapsulated modules. There will be complaints about broken features. Fix em. That's expected. But don't go for quick fixes. Refactor. Refactor at every step until very little of the original code is left. And when everyone is finally sick of the problems in the code, offer to rewrite it. You'll have enough of the well-functioning components at that point that you'll be able to re-write it quickly. Look like a hero at that point. Win.
The building in SLC is so large, you can see it from space. Everyone knew about it. NSA just needed to make sure it was operating without a risk of a future shut down. They manufactures the Snowden controversy the same way all political scandals are manufactured -- first you are presented with the false choice that absorbs all the steam of opposing public opinion and then you are presented with the real choice of what they want to do when everyone is too jaded to oppose it. Harriet Miers/John Roberts was probably the most obvious exercise of this pattern. Here's a psychologist explaining the experimental evidence which demonstrates this pattern: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I thought of another government-provided service which demonstrates this point. The Post Office. Try making the argument that the government needs to collect income taxes in order to operate the Post Office. People would treat you as insane. Because everyone knows that you already pay feeds for using postal service (stamps and other postal fees). But when the Postal Office comes up short, the US Treasury makes up the difference. So it is supported by the income tax (in times of deficit). The only reason people accept the income tax argument in case of the roads is that most people have no idea that excise tax exists. They simply don't know that, just like in the case of the Post Office, they already pay for use when they buy gas. Which brings up another question, where does the government gets its authority to impose an excise tax? It's indistinguishable from the sales tax, but hidden. Where does the Constitution give governments (Federal and local) the authority to impose hidden taxes? Not sure that the Supreme Court ever took up a case of excise taxes. But I haven't looked into it.
What do you mean "my country"? It's obvious that I live in the US. You got figures for all years? The fact that there was a deficit in 1 year (especially the year when deficit was the most critical) does not mean that these are not the taxes maintaining the roads. In order to claim that roads are maintained through other means, you'd have to show that the excise tax (plus tolls) wasn't sufficient to maintain the roads in a long term. 2010 was a perfect storm of reduced economic activity (due to recession) and reduced fuel consumption due to increased vehicle efficiency. Which makes using of that year's data particularly suspect.
if you put a 10% tax on the sale of apples, apple vendors may lose that money from their profits, or they may pass the costs on to the people buy apples (losing nothing), or a mix of the two. The mix is determined by the elasticity of demand for apples -- if people can replace apples with a supplemental good, or elect to buy them less, then apple vendors can't pass on the tax.
It's an idiotic argument. You should know better. The sum total of the utility will be decreased by the amount uptaken in taxes. Those who would, otherwise, provide the now-destroyed utility would become unemployed.
The $1 dollar "not paid in salary" refers not to reduced salaries, but to reduced capital available for paying employees. Since it rarely results in reduced salaries, this strongly implies reduced employee count. This should have been obvious. Given the complexity of the arguments you construct, I will justifiably assume that it was obvious to you; and that your attempts to divert the conversation to the levels of personal income, from what was clearly a conversation about levels of capital available for business development and maintenance, is a deliberate attempt to change the subject. Please, do not attempt to claim that my assumption was not warranted. Such claims would laughable. Most posters who argued with me based on the side-effects of reduced levels of tax collection understood the point quite well. Given your level of sophistication, you understood it well as well.
But your specific, original claim that taxes always deprive workers of wages is simply not true in many cases.
Taxes on business activity always, without exception, reduce ability to pay salaries and result in reduced workfoce.
You talk about a scientist as if he were a literary character. Moving from accuracy to advocacy is not as simple as switching hats. It's more like switching careers. It takes the same personal toll. It's a very heavy context switch. Very few people manage it and usually the ones who do are the ones who dedicate themselves to being polymaths -- conditioning their minds to constant switching of contexts. They are the ones who are defined by their ability to switch contexts. To suggest that someone can easily go from science to politics is implausible. The politics inevitably corrupts them. It seduces them with ability to effect immediate change quicker than science ever could. The immediate gratification of political success corrupts them as any other immediate gratification would. They are, as you pointed out, only human.
In short, there's nothing wrong with a scientist playing the role of an advocate
There is if they insist on still calling themselves scientists when they do that. You know that the "climate science" gang went much further than that. They used popular sources to intimidate their skeptics. Just read through majority of responses about this topic in this thread. Most are foaming at the mouth. This is a religious level of fervor -- it's not a scientific advocacy. There is any number of questions I have on the topic, but I promise that with this level of fervor by this number of nuts I, with my PhD, would still be afraid to ask them out loud. They have denigrated pre-eminent physicists with life-times of achievement -- people to whom not a single one of the "climate scientists" could hold a candle when it comes to the level of their insight and intellect.
Anyone who suggests even for a second that the pro-AGW side is reasonable is blind. They are nothing of the sort. They are not even in the same ball park. This is the result of a political process being used to advocate for a scientific position. I don't see how you can claim that it hasn't corrupted the scientific inquiry.
People in free societies have generally been able to create mechanisms for adapting to natural conditions. In fact, the less free societies are, the less they have been able to adapt. Problems usually spell out opportunity in a frees society -- opportunities to solve the problems. They spell out doom in planned societies -- because they haven't been planned for.
Slashdot Mirror
Another bill that looks helpful on the surface but really just supports their agenda.
Or both. They are not mutually exclusive. They are just not always aligned. As long as they happen to be aligned in this case, we all benefit. It's how a confrontational system benefits the general public -- by forcing two sides to challenge each others' shortcomings.
No, bitcoin is the new Dollar. Soviet Russia had (at times) a full maximum sentence penalty (15 year was the maximum sentence in SU) for private Dollar trading. They are Ok with people holding dollars now. Now they can dilute the rubles in sync with diluting dollars. You can't dilute bitcoin, so you can expect both countries (and eventually Europe) to start having harsher and harsher penalties for it.
In case you are still not getting it, design is not there to avoid work. It's there to solve a specific problem of human being being human. However, intelligent any one human being maybe, he is still of finite capacity. The only way to overcome this limitation is to structure things in self-contained interactive modules which can be reused even by those who don't understand their internals. Short of that, what you write has no use. Design itself is a science -- not art. And those who denigrate it usually only do so in order avoid learning a skill that is essential to their job and who, thus, want to slide by with limited skills. It's nothing short of a con job.
Sure, one-off "because it works" coding is one way to get to a disaster. Another way is to spend so much time on "development methodology" as opposed to actual coding that you can't possibly produce a working application before the deadline.My bets are on the latter in this case.
My bet is you are full of it shit. You produce unmaintainable crap and your clients curse the day they accepted your work. Even you can't fix it when it breaks. So you hustle your clients and hire some poor souls to dig the pile of crap that you dump on the screen. And when they quit you blame your problems not on the poor original design, but on the unfortunate circumstances of them quitting.
The Government owns nothing except that which the citizens allow.
Oh? The law is what gives the government its authority. Citizens (in a democracy) decide on who occupies the positions of power, but they don't decide on what the government can or cannot do. That's dictated by the law. Now who are these citizens, that you speak of, who exercise ultimate veto power over government actions? I never heard of them.
Government builds the roads and owns the roads. I don't think the Supreme Court will find an objection with government imposing requirement on those who operate machinery on these government-owned roads.
They can only make these requirements for vehicles operating on roads which the government owns.
Yeah, let me fix that for you. Code without design is rape. It self-gratification of whoever was lucky enough to create the prototype and then a slow, violent fuck fest of whoever has to make something useful without throwing that prototype away.
On an unrelated note, your signature is unrelated to the argument it makes. Correlation is not causation. That's a truism. Correlation is correlation. The statement which actually says something is "correlation does not imply causation."
Well, what this website is supposed to do is pretty simple. You should be able to produce a prototype from scratch in about a month. The difference between coders and developers, of course, is that developers would make a scalable prototype and coders would keep changing core logic and realize in 6 months that it's a year away from collapse.
Are you nuts? Not ANY area. Of course, the government can monitor the border. It is charged with protecting the border. Anything else wouldn't be just wrong. It's would be insane. Just plain and simple lunacy.
Crossing a border undetected is not defecting. Crossing a border and then asking for asylum from the authorities is defecting.
Forbids what? Protecting the national border? Or forbids the federal government from having an immigration policy? Just generally.. wha?
Did we ever not? Or are you just generally sad?
I hope you don't evaluate the code based on code. I would know that the code sucks before seeing a single line of it. You look at the process and how the management thinks of priorities. It will tell you everything about what you'll see in the code. Any management that doesn't values individuals over a process will automatically produce bad code. There will always be opportunities to take shortcuts that are destructive in the long term. And bad management will take them. But even good general management principles are not enough. You have to know how to structure the code and how to structure the development process. If the management can't give you a clear explanation of both, they pretty much tell you what you need to know with what they don't say.
To be blunt, this smells like you're supposed to be a scapegoat.
I would definitely agree with that. It's the power v responsibility matrix: power with responsibility = player, power without responsibility = politician, responsibility without power =patsy (or scapegoat).
Get out.
You can. Or you can win. But if you win, be prepared to fight a fight afterwards. You'll make enemies of those who were hoping to make you the fall guy. But, then again, if you gonna make enemies who better than them?
When an app breaks because you fucked with it does all or even most of the blame for this rest on your predecessors shoulders?
Because good code doesn't do that.
I've seen this show many times before.. I would say it is a crapshoot as to who (old guy or new guy) was actually incompetent...usually some combination of both
No, if you can't tell, then you are definitely not competent enough to judge good code from bad code. If you think that making code work, is all takes to write the code, then you are definitely incompetent. Getting code to work is by estimates only 30% of the work. The rest is making it maintainable. If you don't know what that 70% should be, you are definitely the problem.
To summarize if someone comes to me and tells me 'x' is shit and needs to be rewritten you should expect to come fully prepared to back up your claims. Introspection required.
He did. Adding a feature broke other features. That's a red flag right away.
Then win. How? Fix 1 feature at a time. They will break other features. That's a given and it is expected. But as you fix em, use it a chance to refactor the code into self-contained well-encapsulated modules. There will be complaints about broken features. Fix em. That's expected. But don't go for quick fixes. Refactor. Refactor at every step until very little of the original code is left. And when everyone is finally sick of the problems in the code, offer to rewrite it. You'll have enough of the well-functioning components at that point that you'll be able to re-write it quickly. Look like a hero at that point. Win.
The building in SLC is so large, you can see it from space. Everyone knew about it. NSA just needed to make sure it was operating without a risk of a future shut down. They manufactures the Snowden controversy the same way all political scandals are manufactured -- first you are presented with the false choice that absorbs all the steam of opposing public opinion and then you are presented with the real choice of what they want to do when everyone is too jaded to oppose it. Harriet Miers/John Roberts was probably the most obvious exercise of this pattern. Here's a psychologist explaining the experimental evidence which demonstrates this pattern: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I thought of another government-provided service which demonstrates this point. The Post Office. Try making the argument that the government needs to collect income taxes in order to operate the Post Office. People would treat you as insane. Because everyone knows that you already pay feeds for using postal service (stamps and other postal fees). But when the Postal Office comes up short, the US Treasury makes up the difference. So it is supported by the income tax (in times of deficit). The only reason people accept the income tax argument in case of the roads is that most people have no idea that excise tax exists. They simply don't know that, just like in the case of the Post Office, they already pay for use when they buy gas. Which brings up another question, where does the government gets its authority to impose an excise tax? It's indistinguishable from the sales tax, but hidden. Where does the Constitution give governments (Federal and local) the authority to impose hidden taxes? Not sure that the Supreme Court ever took up a case of excise taxes. But I haven't looked into it.
What do you mean "my country"? It's obvious that I live in the US. You got figures for all years? The fact that there was a deficit in 1 year (especially the year when deficit was the most critical) does not mean that these are not the taxes maintaining the roads. In order to claim that roads are maintained through other means, you'd have to show that the excise tax (plus tolls) wasn't sufficient to maintain the roads in a long term. 2010 was a perfect storm of reduced economic activity (due to recession) and reduced fuel consumption due to increased vehicle efficiency. Which makes using of that year's data particularly suspect.
if you put a 10% tax on the sale of apples, apple vendors may lose that money from their profits, or they may pass the costs on to the people buy apples (losing nothing), or a mix of the two. The mix is determined by the elasticity of demand for apples -- if people can replace apples with a supplemental good, or elect to buy them less, then apple vendors can't pass on the tax.
It's an idiotic argument. You should know better. The sum total of the utility will be decreased by the amount uptaken in taxes. Those who would, otherwise, provide the now-destroyed utility would become unemployed.
But your specific, original claim that taxes always deprive workers of wages is simply not true in many cases.
Taxes on business activity always, without exception, reduce ability to pay salaries and result in reduced workfoce.
In short, there's nothing wrong with a scientist playing the role of an advocate
There is if they insist on still calling themselves scientists when they do that. You know that the "climate science" gang went much further than that. They used popular sources to intimidate their skeptics. Just read through majority of responses about this topic in this thread. Most are foaming at the mouth. This is a religious level of fervor -- it's not a scientific advocacy. There is any number of questions I have on the topic, but I promise that with this level of fervor by this number of nuts I, with my PhD, would still be afraid to ask them out loud. They have denigrated pre-eminent physicists with life-times of achievement -- people to whom not a single one of the "climate scientists" could hold a candle when it comes to the level of their insight and intellect.
Anyone who suggests even for a second that the pro-AGW side is reasonable is blind. They are nothing of the sort. They are not even in the same ball park. This is the result of a political process being used to advocate for a scientific position. I don't see how you can claim that it hasn't corrupted the scientific inquiry.
People in free societies have generally been able to create mechanisms for adapting to natural conditions. In fact, the less free societies are, the less they have been able to adapt. Problems usually spell out opportunity in a frees society -- opportunities to solve the problems. They spell out doom in planned societies -- because they haven't been planned for.