Copyrighting annotations is fine as long as they are truly commentary and have no legal force.
If they do have any legal force, then that's a whole different story.
They don't have legal force -- they just tell you how to interpret the law as written. That's COMPLETELY different. </sarcasm>
I'm sorry, this is wrong. The science has already been settled. You are INCORRECT, go back to the drawing board and do it until you get it right.
THAT's what irks me about that line. If we know everything, if it's all actually settled and done with (except for a few minor lose ends), then we need no more scientists or research -- DO WE?
SETTLED science then just becomes dogma, no better than religion.
If "The Ancients" knew everything -- or if the current set of scientists know everything -- then we're done, all we need are yet more marketeers to sell us things in different combinations. That being said, you move forward with what you believe you know but you don't set it in stone, never to be examined again.
I see it as a choice not between government regulation and no government regulation, but between smart government regulation and stupid government regulation.
SPOILER: stupid government regulation wins. There's no money to be made in "smart." If it just works, everybody forgets. if it's always breaking, the recriminations and money trail goes on for years and years.
all this story does is make extremely wealthy corporatists drool and jizz their stockings. the idea that the brightest minds could be coerced into working for less is all they're fucking born for. it's sad that everyone involved was not paid significantly more money.
My! Having a bad day (or bad outlook on life), are we?
I'm not one either, but: let's remodel your home, or buy a car, or write software exactly to your specs. Or just do something expensive like build a spaceship campus. Fine. The people that did your job may not be the brightest but are smart or (hopefully) they wouldn't be there
So why are YOU cheaping out on THEM? Forget paying what they asked for, forget trying to manage or lower the costs, pay them 99.9% of your net worth -- they're worth more than the pittance they want!
Oh, don't wanna? Me either. The more you have left, the more things you can do or have done. And by the way: the engineers obviously thought it was worth it or they wouldn't have done it in the first place. Economics.
The corporate beancounters look at ROI and risks. They don't like money sinks; that's their job. Someone else gets to decide whether to actually act or not -- whether the intangibles outweigh the tangibles (beans) in their judgement. Given enough losses and everyone loses their job.
Sounds like you disagree with, well, all of them. Become a wealthy corporatist and show them the error of their ways -- but if outgo always exceeds income, you won't be there long.
-----
And now offtopic: Perhaps I'm a wealthy corporatist. (I'm not.) "millions of people are starving", ie the poor. Yep. Lets give them, say $74 million, that'll fix it, right? Nope? How about more? How much more? Oh, now they want to eat a second time? OK, more money still. When do you stop; when they're not hungry? OK, done. Oh, you're tired of rice and beans and want something better? OK how about steaks (India? How about fish and chicken?) Oh by the way those poor by definition can't pay, so the people DOING all this are doing it for free, as well as transportation and energy. Humanitarians! Or they're not, the Government is paying for it. But what's that? In general the people; government is simply the controlling steward. Fine. As above, this works great until you hit zero resources, then EVERYONE is now hungry with no one to "save" them. That worked well -- until it didn't.
So: how do you continually feed the poor without going broke or forcing the providers to do it for free in which case they'll become broke? Solve that and you can literally BECOME your own wealthy corporation with the accolations and adoration of billions.
News: Bakeries allowed to buy subsidized flour are supposed to use 90 percent of it for bread and only 10 percent in cakes and pastries. Even with subsidized flour, bakers say the official bread price -- currently 250 bolivars a loaf (35 US cents) -- does not cover the cost of production. Bakers are increasingly nervous.
Really, I feed bad for the poor and gave 10% of my income to charities. (Used to, my income has wildly changed and I've got to figure out a new number.) But I'm not a humanitarian, 10% is about as much as I'm willing to go. And that money goes exactly where *I* want it to, not someone else deciding for me. And I'm not doing anything for Venezuela -- they're not my country and too far away. I'll help my local poor here; the actual humanitarians can help them.
The major peculiarity of the chemical is its "endochronicity": when it is mixed with water, it starts dissolving before it makes contact with water. Two of the carbon's four chemical bonds lie in normal space and time, one of the bonds projects into the future and another into the past.
This isn't related to the topic at hand, but relates to your statement: "There are people out there that will pay real money for a virtual shield in a video game"
You missed it last weekend. (So did I.)
$13k Worth Of Damage Done In âEve Onlineâ(TM) Annual âoeBurn Jitaâ Event
That's not virtual money, that's US Dollars. Virtual money was 5 Quintilian-Billion Venezuelan bolÃvars (actually 700 billion ISKs), but you can actually buy it with dollars. BitCoin too, I'm sure.
It's the annual "Burn Jita" event. Apparently all in-game items have to be manufactured and physically shipped around and collected. [OMG -- there's actually someone that does bookkeeping on their own personal time for FUN?] Jita is the largest (by far) physical marketplace hub. In-game security (CONCORD) is high there I guess, but just like a real police force isn't instantaneous, There are people (500 of them) who for whatever reason (RTFM earlier link) want to "cause as much havoc inside of Hisec for fun, and for profit". And they do.
I guess since the only thing you can actually truly lose is your account (and you could just go make another) they want to "paint the town Red", as it were. That, and the excitement of resource management, reaction time, adrenaline, and notoriety. Oh and faking out real people with false information.
And never mind the money ($26 per person, that's a movie and popcorn) but all of the time involved in setting up and executing...
This was because my ISP purposely kept their bandwidth to netflix low. The other ISP in my area did the same thing.
Peering and network egress. They want predictable charges (and profit!) and so push their own service in liew of those outsiders that they have to pay to access.
It's not just NetFlix, it's access to the entire internet. NetFlix and YouTube are just a (large bandwidth) part of it. I don't see why people don't mention the larger picture. -----
You've got Mr. Comcast's house and Miss AT&Ts house, next door to each other, but completely separate. Both are completely wired and have lots and lots of rooms, and a basement where all of the equipment lives for each house.
Johnny Comcast fires up his phone and connects wirelessly. Jimmy Comcast connects his Ethernet cable in the room across the hall. They BOTH talk to servers downstairs running Kodi, email, ESPN, and what-not. And they play multi-user games with everyone else in the house.
Next Door, Jane AT&T and Julie AT&T do the same thing with their own servers in their own basement. All of them use their computers 24 hours a day to interact with their siblings. (kids these days -- they NEVER sleep!)
And both parents are happy -- the kids are busy using free* internal resources (* well, they'd have to keep those servers up anyway) and the kids even pay the parents part of their bi-weekly allowance. Life is good.
SUDDENLY DISASTER -- puberty! Johnny discovers Jane and vice-versa. They begin to email, then talk, then video-stream to each other. "Use our basement servers? Hell no, I've got someone else to talk to now."
So how does the House of Comcast and House of AT&T actually talk to each other? Well DUH -- they have an ISP who charges internet usage fees. [It's an analogy, give me a break!] Suddenly the negligible predictable outside fees become outrageous because the kids are now always talking outside their own network. Those weekly fees the kids pay are suddenly going to the outside upstream ISP and not profiting the house. INGRATES! Even worse, we can completely control the network costs within the house but can't control access or fees going outside. And we can't stop them!
Well, no, but the next best thing: if we don't pay our ISP bill they'll shut us off but we can limit the outgoing bandwidth and more importantly those unpredictable corresponding fees. If you want it bad enough you'll just put up with it and if you don't you'll switch back to our servers in the basement. [Basement cat anyone?]
Now, exit analogy: Comcast and AT&T are "Real People (tm)", the houses are each corporations, the rooms are cities, WiFi wireless is actually 3G/4G/5G cell access, the offspring are the customers, the monthly payments are real and so is the network egress problem. The more you talk outside their network the more it costs them (for no good reason in their eyes) so they try to entice you to stay internal and/or make you suffer to visit outside sites. They'll put up with GeoCities and BestBuy, but NetFlix? You're paying someone ELSE, using up all of our bandwidth, and not paying US for it? Insufferable! Outrageous! How rude!
THIS is the problem. I've heard that "Network Neutrality" -- the real, actual law -- is a misleading name akin to the Patriot Act and does something else; I haven't looked into that. But the IDEA is that internet PIPES connecting to CONTENT shouldn't restrict bandwidth. If they can overall minimize bandwidth somehow, great. And if not, that's fine too -- do your connectivity jobs and handle it. (Conversely you are going to have occasional network limiting spikes. Who's to say how much is acceptable? Well that would be the customer *IF* they had some place else to go.)
At first glance I thought they meant that you could not install ANY desktop apps. So you only had the ones you had, but no more.
And then you start removing them finally leaving nothing but normal programs and all's right with the world. (Except for all of the telemetry and monitoring and the missing Start Menu.)
if only Microsoft could find a way to disable Metro...
Isn't there already enough disdain for stupid laws and red tape?
FTFY: Isn't there enough stupid laws and red tape? Congress: NO.
We get paid to make laws and try very hard to do both. Especially the former. Well, the latter too. But the former -- don't forget the former. NEVER forger the former.
----
Then again, Trump wants to "remove two laws for every new law". Let's hope that none of them are in the "Too Stupid To Die" category. It may fail horribly (-2 for +1) but at least it's an attempt.
But then again, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." [Ie, what the actual ramifications are.] So then why have experts if you aren't going to listen to them? Or is it because you've got disagreeing experts?
I can't wait to try and maintain code generated by pasting together random code snippets. And people thought old COBOL mainframe code was expensive to keep going, well hold on to your hats.
Just have the AI do a full blown rewrite.
Rewrite? Hell, if it's so intelligent have the AI clone itself and then
perform the actual task to start with.
You want to have a single, one-ring-to-rule-them-all to handle planets? Why? Just deem Pluto (my precious) and whatever else a planet and be done with it -- an administrative decision. No problem, just ask your local PHB secretary about these.
Oh, you actually want a real rule? Then how about any large body that directly orbits a sun? Now, define large: diameter, atmospheric pressure (Do we call it a planet if it doesn't have an atmosphere?) "weight", mass, temperature, internal composition, a definable surface or what-not AND remember to define exactly what a sun is and we're done.
And if you find two wanna-be "planets" orbiting each other while both orbit around a sun -- just break out the Death Star. It's got to earn it's keep SOMEhow.
We had a guy we hired as part of an IBM software purchase. (Even the tech consultants said this was the most complex implantation they had ever seen and that NONE of the previous installs had actually worked properly -- that boded well for the future.)
Knew a guy -- he was nice but clueless. After a few months they added him to the on-call rotation. Monday morning, big uproar. Off call people had to babysit and restart the customer facing app multiple times. Where was the on-call guy? After a while he came in and his manager wanted to know "What happened?" Yeah, the on-call alert kept going off over the weekend. And it just kept going off so I turned it off.
The next day he was fired. And not that everyone's the same, but to join the parent: we also had a woman from that same company. She could run rings around any of us. True, it was her area of expertise and it wasn't ours, but you could ask any question about any part and she would have a good understandable answer with pointers. had they hired about 19 more of her they might have actually gotten it all to work.
"If something goes wrong IBM will darken the sky with consultants to get you going again." I think that was their selling line that we bought. Lets just say that when all was said and done, every physical and logical device was covered with political dark, sticky, smelly stuff that had fallen from that sky. I don't think that's quite what our CEO was looking for. The tech support guys kept it operating by sheer force of effort and dedication. Once every two week it would have a disaster -- the IBM DB2 databases they used for LDAP wouldn't start, or work, or would kill itself and they're have to restore, sometimes even from tape. And I really don't know why.
It didn't directly affect me -- I was next door in a nearby silo, but weekly went to my boss, shook his shoulders and said "Don't get us within a MILE of anything they're doing. I like the people but they're building a career 100% busywork black-hole." And then no reason, but 2 years later they're shutting our entire side of the company down. Even if they were planning on shutting us down some day, I *DO* think that was a little part of sooner rather than later.
Nature finds a way. --- Haven't they seen Jurassic Park?
I dislike Jeff Goldblum but I absolutely HATE that line.
Life finds a way....unless it DOESN'T. Just ask the Dodo, the dinosaur, the Neanderthal, and all of the other extinct species. But you can't, they're extinct; ask one of these instead.
Life TRIES to find a solution (anthropomorphising life? It that legal?) but -- like everything else -- has resource restraints. If there's time and it can and it's lucky, it succeeds and offspring enjoys the benefits. If not, there's no offspring. Either way NO PROBLEM. That is unless you're the missing offspring.
Gaia? Save the Earth? Complete nonsense, the EARTH will do just fine with or without us. Just see Venus, Mars, or even Jupiter. Now the biosphere that we live in? That you might want to save.
Since January, some unemployed Finns have been receiving a stipend of e560 (L477) per month; amount isn't means-tested and is paid regardless of whether recipient finds a job
Of course there's back and forth -- you didn't test correctly, you're a union and afraid of losing power, your mother wears Army boots. Glad he's trying another test, more data is useful As Long As you write down and publish all of the variables you think you're testing As Well As exactly how you tested and how you derived your results.
"I'm testing to see if pigs can fly -- maybe I just need a lot more thrust."
And 110 firefighters and 19 trucks is a **MINOR** fire ??
That was actually my first thought -- but if it really IS a minor fire, then (a) they're bored, and (b) it gives them a valid excuse to get out (c) and socialize and (d) watch two guys actually put out a fire.
On NPR I listened to Says You! at Sat noon all of the time -- a nice game of wordplay. Right after that Wait Wait Don't Tell Me came on. On the former, very occasionally one of the panelists would make a snarky political remark but that was extremely few and always had a funny bent related to the topic at hand. On the latter....
I was lazy and listened to the next show on (WWDTM) and came to greatly dislike that show -- they always had political jokes on "both" sides of the isle. The D ones were always funny / nice (Obama was feeding a rescued dove and it grabbed the entire cracker and flew away leaving Obama forlorn) while the R ones weren't quite the same (Trump was feeding a dove by stuffing an entire box of crackers down it's throat, but when the poor weak migrant bird lifted it's wing to protest he bit it's head off and ate its dripping raw corpse while accidentally eating some feathers as well.)
Yes of course I'm making that bit up; I haven't listened to the show in years. But that's how it always seemed to me -- soft funny jokes for the ones they like, hard mean ones for the ones they don't. I guess that's life, clans, and showbiz/politics.
I also found it interesting: both had a find-the-truth game. SY had a word with 3 definitions, only 1 correct, find it. I liked that game. WW had a similar one: 3 news articles, 1 correct, find it. I didn't like that one but couldn't figure out why. I finally decided you'd either learn a new unused word and vocabulary definition and ignore the false definitions (or forget about the entire thing completely) but while you might remember the correct news article, you might also remember the IN-correct news article, forgetting that it was incorrect.
Recursion is an easy way to implement solutions to a number of problems. But if you don't have a clearly finite depth then it can be dangerous.
In '88 (90?) I had a copy of Unix Sort for PC (MS-DOS) complied in I believe a Lattice C compiler from LifeBoat. It worked fine but ran slow as a dog, and this was when IBM AT were fast. So I found the routine that did the actual in-memory sort and made it recursive. It easily worked over 5x as fast but had the slight problem of ABENDing when it ran out of stack space, which the old version didn't have.
So I fixed it: I left the recursive sort in place but did a free space stack check on entry. If there was less than 4K (4K!) left I switched to the slower non-recursive routine. I was able to keep sort speed around 4x of the original slower program but still have the program always successfully complete.
It was a simple fix, but I have to admit I was impressed with myself for implementing that.
EVERYTHING can be misused. Add meaningful comments so they are not misunderstood. Write everything for your peers and their less-experienced colleagues. If you're a genius who writes working code that no one else understands, you're not a genius. But if the person following you really is a blithering idiot, then nothing you do will help.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyrighting annotations is fine as long as they are truly commentary and have no legal force. If they do have any legal force, then that's a whole different story.
They don't have legal force -- they just tell you how to interpret the law as written. That's COMPLETELY different. </sarcasm>
RMS is also an opinionated boomer hippie asshole.
RMS: "Flattery will get you nowhere."
I'm sorry, this is wrong. The science has already been settled. You are INCORRECT, go back to the drawing board and do it until you get it right.
THAT's what irks me about that line. If we know everything, if it's all actually settled and done with (except for a few minor lose ends), then we need no more scientists or research -- DO WE? SETTLED science then just becomes dogma, no better than religion.
If "The Ancients" knew everything -- or if the current set of scientists know everything -- then we're done, all we need are yet more marketeers to sell us things in different combinations. That being said, you move forward with what you believe you know but you don't set it in stone, never to be examined again.
Good for these guys.
Anyone wanna summarize the list so I don't have to read 160 articles to see if I agree/disagree with them?
1. THE ROBOTS ARE COMING -- find a different job.
I see it as a choice not between government regulation and no government regulation, but between smart government regulation and stupid government regulation.
SPOILER: stupid government regulation wins. There's no money to be made in "smart." If it just works, everybody forgets. if it's always breaking, the recriminations and money trail goes on for years and years.
(GOD I'm getting cynical in my old age.)
all this story does is make extremely wealthy corporatists drool and jizz their stockings. the idea that the brightest minds could be coerced into working for less is all they're fucking born for. it's sad that everyone involved was not paid significantly more money.
My! Having a bad day (or bad outlook on life), are we?
I'm not one either, but: let's remodel your home, or buy a car, or write software exactly to your specs. Or just do something expensive like build a spaceship campus. Fine. The people that did your job may not be the brightest but are smart or (hopefully) they wouldn't be there
So why are YOU cheaping out on THEM ? Forget paying what they asked for, forget trying to manage or lower the costs, pay them 99.9% of your net worth -- they're worth more than the pittance they want!
Oh, don't wanna? Me either. The more you have left, the more things you can do or have done. And by the way: the engineers obviously thought it was worth it or they wouldn't have done it in the first place. Economics.
The corporate beancounters look at ROI and risks. They don't like money sinks; that's their job. Someone else gets to decide whether to actually act or not -- whether the intangibles outweigh the tangibles (beans) in their judgement. Given enough losses and everyone loses their job.
Sounds like you disagree with, well, all of them. Become a wealthy corporatist and show them the error of their ways -- but if outgo always exceeds income, you won't be there long.
-----
And now offtopic: Perhaps I'm a wealthy corporatist. (I'm not.) "millions of people are starving", ie the poor. Yep. Lets give them, say $74 million, that'll fix it, right? Nope? How about more? How much more? Oh, now they want to eat a second time? OK, more money still. When do you stop; when they're not hungry? OK, done. Oh, you're tired of rice and beans and want something better? OK how about steaks (India? How about fish and chicken?) Oh by the way those poor by definition can't pay, so the people DOING all this are doing it for free, as well as transportation and energy. Humanitarians! Or they're not, the Government is paying for it. But what's that? In general the people; government is simply the controlling steward. Fine. As above, this works great until you hit zero resources, then EVERYONE is now hungry with no one to "save" them. That worked well -- until it didn't.
So: how do you continually feed the poor without going broke or forcing the providers to do it for free in which case they'll become broke? Solve that and you can literally BECOME your own wealthy corporation with the accolations and adoration of billions.
News: Bakeries allowed to buy subsidized flour are supposed to use 90 percent of it for bread and only 10 percent in cakes and pastries.
Even with subsidized flour, bakers say the official bread price -- currently 250 bolivars a loaf (35 US cents) -- does not cover the cost of production.
Bakers are increasingly nervous.
Really, I feed bad for the poor and gave 10% of my income to charities. (Used to, my income has wildly changed and I've got to figure out a new number.) But I'm not a humanitarian, 10% is about as much as I'm willing to go. And that money goes exactly where *I* want it to, not someone else deciding for me. And I'm not doing anything for Venezuela -- they're not my country and too far away. I'll help my local poor here; the actual humanitarians can help them.
If you need your car to bring excitement into your life, ...
... then you need to cut your brake lines. That'll solve your problem right quick.
Old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.
What we need is a .msi file...
No you don't. And here you go!
ForGrandma.bat:
When will people admit that [U]EFI was a mistake?
(from below) but all it accomplished was trying to lockout Linux from PC hardware.
Microsoft: SUCCESS! What?? A misteak? ... You clearly don't work here. Begone, open-source heathen!
Thiotimoline
The major peculiarity of the chemical is its "endochronicity": when it is mixed with water, it starts dissolving before it makes contact with water. Two of the carbon's four chemical bonds lie in normal space and time, one of the bonds projects into the future and another into the past.
This isn't related to the topic at hand, but relates to your statement: "There are people out there that will pay real money for a virtual shield in a video game" You missed it last weekend. (So did I.) $13k Worth Of Damage Done In âEve Onlineâ(TM) Annual âoeBurn Jitaâ Event That's not virtual money, that's US Dollars. Virtual money was 5 Quintilian-Billion Venezuelan bolÃvars (actually 700 billion ISKs), but you can actually buy it with dollars. BitCoin too, I'm sure.
It's the annual "Burn Jita" event. Apparently all in-game items have to be manufactured and physically shipped around and collected. [OMG -- there's actually someone that does bookkeeping on their own personal time for FUN?] Jita is the largest (by far) physical marketplace hub. In-game security (CONCORD) is high there I guess, but just like a real police force isn't instantaneous, There are people (500 of them) who for whatever reason (RTFM earlier link) want to "cause as much havoc inside of Hisec for fun, and for profit". And they do.
I guess since the only thing you can actually truly lose is your account (and you could just go make another) they want to "paint the town Red", as it were. That, and the excitement of resource management, reaction time, adrenaline, and notoriety. Oh and faking out real people with false information.
And never mind the money ($26 per person, that's a movie and popcorn) but all of the time involved in setting up and executing...
This was because my ISP purposely kept their bandwidth to netflix low. The other ISP in my area did the same thing.
Peering and network egress. They want predictable charges (and profit!) and so push their own service in liew of those outsiders that they have to pay to access.
It's not just NetFlix, it's access to the entire internet. NetFlix and YouTube are just a (large bandwidth) part of it. I don't see why people don't mention the larger picture.
-----
You've got Mr. Comcast's house and Miss AT&Ts house, next door to each other, but completely separate. Both are completely wired and have lots and lots of rooms, and a basement where all of the equipment lives for each house.
Johnny Comcast fires up his phone and connects wirelessly. Jimmy Comcast connects his Ethernet cable in the room across the hall. They BOTH talk to servers downstairs running Kodi, email, ESPN, and what-not. And they play multi-user games with everyone else in the house.
Next Door, Jane AT&T and Julie AT&T do the same thing with their own servers in their own basement. All of them use their computers 24 hours a day to interact with their siblings. (kids these days -- they NEVER sleep!)
And both parents are happy -- the kids are busy using free* internal resources (* well, they'd have to keep those servers up anyway) and the kids even pay the parents part of their bi-weekly allowance. Life is good.
SUDDENLY DISASTER -- puberty! Johnny discovers Jane and vice-versa. They begin to email, then talk, then video-stream to each other. "Use our basement servers? Hell no, I've got someone else to talk to now."
So how does the House of Comcast and House of AT&T actually talk to each other? Well DUH -- they have an ISP who charges internet usage fees. [It's an analogy, give me a break!] Suddenly the negligible predictable outside fees become outrageous because the kids are now always talking outside their own network. Those weekly fees the kids pay are suddenly going to the outside upstream ISP and not profiting the house. INGRATES! Even worse, we can completely control the network costs within the house but can't control access or fees going outside. And we can't stop them!
Well, no, but the next best thing: if we don't pay our ISP bill they'll shut us off but we can limit the outgoing bandwidth and more importantly those unpredictable corresponding fees. If you want it bad enough you'll just put up with it and if you don't you'll switch back to our servers in the basement. [Basement cat anyone?]
Now, exit analogy: Comcast and AT&T are "Real People (tm)", the houses are each corporations, the rooms are cities, WiFi wireless is actually 3G/4G/5G cell access, the offspring are the customers, the monthly payments are real and so is the network egress problem. The more you talk outside their network the more it costs them (for no good reason in their eyes) so they try to entice you to stay internal and/or make you suffer to visit outside sites. They'll put up with GeoCities and BestBuy, but NetFlix? You're paying someone ELSE, using up all of our bandwidth, and not paying US for it? Insufferable! Outrageous! How rude!
THIS is the problem. I've heard that "Network Neutrality" -- the real, actual law -- is a misleading name akin to the Patriot Act and does something else; I haven't looked into that. But the IDEA is that internet PIPES connecting to CONTENT shouldn't restrict bandwidth. If they can overall minimize bandwidth somehow, great. And if not, that's fine too -- do your connectivity jobs and handle it. (Conversely you are going to have occasional network limiting spikes. Who's to say how much is acceptable? Well that would be the customer *IF* they had some place else to go.)
Oh. :-(
At first glance I thought they meant that you could not install ANY desktop apps. So you only had the ones you had, but no more.
And then you start removing them finally leaving nothing but normal programs and all's right with the world. (Except for all of the telemetry and monitoring and the missing Start Menu.)
if only Microsoft could find a way to disable Metro...
Isn't there already enough disdain for stupid laws and red tape?
FTFY: Isn't there enough stupid laws and red tape?
Congress: NO.
We get paid to make laws and try very hard to do both. Especially the former. Well, the latter too. But the former -- don't forget the former. NEVER forger the former.
----
Then again, Trump wants to "remove two laws for every new law". Let's hope that none of them are in the "Too Stupid To Die" category. It may fail horribly (-2 for +1) but at least it's an attempt.
But then again, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." [Ie, what the actual ramifications are.] So then why have experts if you aren't going to listen to them? Or is it because you've got disagreeing experts?
I can't wait to try and maintain code generated by pasting together random code snippets. And people thought old COBOL mainframe code was expensive to keep going, well hold on to your hats.
Just have the AI do a full blown rewrite.
Rewrite? Hell, if it's so intelligent have the AI clone itself and then perform the actual task to start with.
The Only Problem. That, or the clones making their own clones.
No it's not. NEWS AT 11!
You want to have a single, one-ring-to-rule-them-all to handle planets? Why? Just deem Pluto (my precious) and whatever else a planet and be done with it -- an administrative decision. No problem, just ask your local PHB secretary about these.
Oh, you actually want a real rule? Then how about any large body that directly orbits a sun? Now, define large: diameter, atmospheric pressure (Do we call it a planet if it doesn't have an atmosphere?) "weight", mass, temperature, internal composition, a definable surface or what-not AND remember to define exactly what a sun is and we're done.
And if you find two wanna-be "planets" orbiting each other while both orbit around a sun -- just break out the Death Star. It's got to earn it's keep SOMEhow.
Yes, the one that you can find.
As for the other one -- we'll, there's only one, so never mind.
We had a guy we hired as part of an IBM software purchase. (Even the tech consultants said this was the most complex implantation they had ever seen and that NONE of the previous installs had actually worked properly -- that boded well for the future.)
Knew a guy -- he was nice but clueless. After a few months they added him to the on-call rotation. Monday morning, big uproar. Off call people had to babysit and restart the customer facing app multiple times. Where was the on-call guy? After a while he came in and his manager wanted to know "What happened?" Yeah, the on-call alert kept going off over the weekend. And it just kept going off so I turned it off.
The next day he was fired. And not that everyone's the same, but to join the parent: we also had a woman from that same company. She could run rings around any of us. True, it was her area of expertise and it wasn't ours, but you could ask any question about any part and she would have a good understandable answer with pointers. had they hired about 19 more of her they might have actually gotten it all to work.
"If something goes wrong IBM will darken the sky with consultants to get you going again." I think that was their selling line that we bought. Lets just say that when all was said and done, every physical and logical device was covered with political dark, sticky, smelly stuff that had fallen from that sky. I don't think that's quite what our CEO was looking for. The tech support guys kept it operating by sheer force of effort and dedication. Once every two week it would have a disaster -- the IBM DB2 databases they used for LDAP wouldn't start, or work, or would kill itself and they're have to restore, sometimes even from tape. And I really don't know why.
It didn't directly affect me -- I was next door in a nearby silo, but weekly went to my boss, shook his shoulders and said "Don't get us within a MILE of anything they're doing. I like the people but they're building a career 100% busywork black-hole." And then no reason, but 2 years later they're shutting our entire side of the company down. Even if they were planning on shutting us down some day, I *DO* think that was a little part of sooner rather than later.
Oooh! I was going to say lots of mirrors with a telescope far-away, but I like the fiber optics idea! It's cheap and even easily goes around corners!
Nature finds a way. --- Haven't they seen Jurassic Park?
I dislike Jeff Goldblum but I absolutely HATE that line.
Life finds a way....unless it DOESN'T. Just ask the Dodo, the dinosaur, the Neanderthal, and all of the other extinct species. But you can't, they're extinct; ask one of these instead.
Life TRIES to find a solution (anthropomorphising life? It that legal?) but -- like everything else -- has resource restraints. If there's time and it can and it's lucky, it succeeds and offspring enjoys the benefits. If not, there's no offspring. Either way NO PROBLEM. That is unless you're the missing offspring.
Gaia? Save the Earth? Complete nonsense, the EARTH will do just fine with or without us. Just see Venus, Mars, or even Jupiter. Now the biosphere that we live in? That you might want to save.
...according to Universal basic income 'useless', says Finland's biggest union
Since January, some unemployed Finns have been receiving a stipend of e560 (L477) per month; amount isn't means-tested and is paid regardless of whether recipient finds a job
Of course there's back and forth -- you didn't test correctly, you're a union and afraid of losing power, your mother wears Army boots. Glad he's trying another test, more data is useful As Long As you write down and publish all of the variables you think you're testing As Well As exactly how you tested and how you derived your results.
"I'm testing to see if pigs can fly -- maybe I just need a lot more thrust."
And 110 firefighters and 19 trucks is a **MINOR** fire ??
That was actually my first thought -- but if it really IS a minor fire, then (a) they're bored, and (b) it gives them a valid excuse to get out (c) and socialize and (d) watch two guys actually put out a fire.
On NPR I listened to Says You! at Sat noon all of the time -- a nice game of wordplay. Right after that Wait Wait Don't Tell Me came on. On the former, very occasionally one of the panelists would make a snarky political remark but that was extremely few and always had a funny bent related to the topic at hand. On the latter ....
I was lazy and listened to the next show on (WWDTM) and came to greatly dislike that show -- they always had political jokes on "both" sides of the isle. The D ones were always funny / nice (Obama was feeding a rescued dove and it grabbed the entire cracker and flew away leaving Obama forlorn) while the R ones weren't quite the same (Trump was feeding a dove by stuffing an entire box of crackers down it's throat, but when the poor weak migrant bird lifted it's wing to protest he bit it's head off and ate its dripping raw corpse while accidentally eating some feathers as well.)
Yes of course I'm making that bit up; I haven't listened to the show in years. But that's how it always seemed to me -- soft funny jokes for the ones they like, hard mean ones for the ones they don't. I guess that's life, clans, and showbiz/politics.
I also found it interesting: both had a find-the-truth game. SY had a word with 3 definitions, only 1 correct, find it. I liked that game. WW had a similar one: 3 news articles, 1 correct, find it. I didn't like that one but couldn't figure out why. I finally decided you'd either learn a new unused word and vocabulary definition and ignore the false definitions (or forget about the entire thing completely) but while you might remember the correct news article, you might also remember the IN-correct news article, forgetting that it was incorrect.
Recursion is an easy way to implement solutions to a number of problems. But if you don't have a clearly finite depth then it can be dangerous.
In '88 (90?) I had a copy of Unix Sort for PC (MS-DOS) complied in I believe a Lattice C compiler from LifeBoat. It worked fine but ran slow as a dog, and this was when IBM AT were fast. So I found the routine that did the actual in-memory sort and made it recursive. It easily worked over 5x as fast but had the slight problem of ABENDing when it ran out of stack space, which the old version didn't have.
So I fixed it: I left the recursive sort in place but did a free space stack check on entry. If there was less than 4K (4K!) left I switched to the slower non-recursive routine. I was able to keep sort speed around 4x of the original slower program but still have the program always successfully complete.
It was a simple fix, but I have to admit I was impressed with myself for implementing that.
EVERYTHING can be misused. Add meaningful comments so they are not misunderstood. Write everything for your peers and their less-experienced colleagues. If you're a genius who writes working code that no one else understands, you're not a genius. But if the person following you really is a blithering idiot, then nothing you do will help.