Governments don't really care how fuel economic your car is. That's your problem. You do not get taxed more because your car in inefficient (other than through fuel taxes).
But they do care how much CO2 it's producing. So many offer incentives for cars that emit less.
It's more of a two step process. First you have to be insane enough to have effectively a public facebook profile, open to credit rating companies to browse, and secondly say "wasted" in your updates.
It's a close run thing, but I'd say the first step is more an indication of a bad risk.
2. Comment the "odd" stuff, not the obvious stuff infer-able from function name etc.
The problem I have with "self-documenting" code is that you can only ever tell from it what the code is doing. It doesn't tell you why, that can only be a best guess. Only decent documentation can tell for sure.
So, to give an ultra simple example, if I have a line of code that says
index += 1;
Yes, it's obvious the index is getting incremented. But why this should be happening may be completely unfathomable, and indeed may appear to subsequent coders to be a bug. Only documented code can explain all.
Why would you consider an entire 20th-century ocean liner a luxury item?
It's impractical. It's far in excess of one person's needs. And if everyone can have one, then there is no status to be had in owning one. So unless you have a society where everyone wants to sit in splendid isolation on the bridge of their own person ocean liner, just like everyone else, who is going to want one?
The point is that once you reach the point of supply being effectively inexhaustible, there are no "luxury" goods. There are just goods. Possession would have no function other than immediate practical use, and no-one is impressed by acquisition. Culturally things would be the reverse of what we have now.
It's ridiculous. You even hear of people getting lengthy prison sentences just for driving a car! Do we need these kind of government regulations??
True, they happened to be driving their car at great speed through a crowd of pedestrians on the side walk, but still. As long as we can phrase criminally reckless behaviour as innocent sounding activities, the government should keep their nose out of it!
The evidence of history (and present day developing countries) is that an absence of building regulations (or enforcement of them) results in "politically well connected group of businesses" building sub-standard housing on the cheap, which are then crammed with "poorer people", who are the ones who suffer the slum conditions and disasters that befall them
So the exact opposite of what you suggest. It's the poorest who benefit most from these regulations.
Everybody knows what they are getting and that the usual "protections" from a government-licensed taxi service don't apply.
Really? I don't believe this to be true, and your argument from this point on fails because of it. Everyone doesn't know that they are not getting the protection of a licensed taxi. Maybe they don't know anything about Uber other than it provides what they understand to be taxis. Maybe their friend ordered the car and they think they're getting in a taxi?
And there are many regulations that people are legally not allowed to "opt out" of. For instance, I'm sure that many would be happy to build their house without following building regulations. Much cheaper. But they're not given that option. Many would be happy to accept a supply of gas from an unregulated supplier. All those rules add to the cost, and if you're prepared to accept the risks why not? Except the law is sometimes there to protect people from their own folly.
People on slashdot go all moist about Uber because they love the technology it uses. They don't care that Uber also ignores all the laws put there to protect passengers and drivers.
The solution is for proper taxi firms to use the same technology. It's not unusual for the established organisations to be slow off the mark on these things, and for an upstart new-entrant to make the running. If Uber was just adding tech to the business that would be great, but they also decided to break the regulations that are there for good reason. And why are they doing that? Not for anyone else's benefit. But because it's cheaper and easier for them to pretend the rules don't apply to them.
The best explanation I have ever heard is that an extrovert gets energized by being around people. An introvert gets tired.
Worth repeating.
Being an introvert does not mean you hide in your room, hate people and avoid talking to everyone. An evening to yourself is bliss, whereas an extrovert would consider it torture. An evening in a crowd, talking to people you don't know, is hard work, whereas an extrovert would consider it the best party ever.
It's not always a clear case of cheating/fraud/whatever. Often it's a case of how you chose to interpret the rules, and if you're in the mood there will be plenty of lawyers who will take your money to debate them.
I can think of at least one project I've developed for where we questioned what the software was doing, because it didn't seem "right". We were told it wasn't our job to interpret regulations. End of conversation.
Many of the search results that are removed are clearly in the public interest
The thing is that you don't know on whose request a web page has been removed. You could claim a news story about a murderer is in the public interest, and that murderer has no right to be forgotten. But what if that particular page mentions members of the murderer's family, who are completely innocent of his crime? Maybe it is they who have asked to have the page removed.
So it is not easy to spot obvious abuses of the system, when you don't know the basis for the removal.
You are seriously out of touch. You must either love Android, or you love iPhone, and you must hate the other with a passion. You must pick a side for the forthcoming religious Smartphone Wars, that will lay waste to the internet.
People like you will be shunned by both sides as contemptuous cowards. Your execution will be streamed for all to see, right after the shooting of the heretical Windows Phone users.
If you RTFA you'll see that the problem is (and this is nothing new for Android) that patches take ages to percolate from Google down to the various distros managed by manufacturers and phone networks. And that's only if the end user allows updates.
So this hack is likely to be live and exploitable for some while yet.
All of which are nothing compared to the scandal of the astronomical sums charged for basic healthcare in the US, the ridiculous profit margins enjoyed by the companies that run it, and the tragedy of millions of Americans being unable to afford it.
If they'd bothered checking, they would have found that practically every child in the class had an electronic device on them that could be used to disguise or trigger a bomb. Many of them would even have a digital clock displayed on them too.
Usually, you're going to give a child in class the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're not bombs. Usually. It saves a lot of time. Otherwise you'd be arresting the lot of them every morning.
But I guess this child made the mistake of being Muslim in a town of crazy people. That clearly made all the difference.
You know nothing about the NHS, or indeed state healthcare. Keep swallowing the misinformation and lies fed to you by the commercial interests in US healthcare and you get the health system you deserve.
Slashdot Mirror
Governments don't really care how fuel economic your car is. That's your problem. You do not get taxed more because your car in inefficient (other than through fuel taxes).
But they do care how much CO2 it's producing. So many offer incentives for cars that emit less.
The CO2 emissions can affect the way the car is taxed/licensed.
And no-one would dream of implementing the same technology on social media / messaging platforms!
It's more of a two step process. First you have to be insane enough to have effectively a public facebook profile, open to credit rating companies to browse, and secondly say "wasted" in your updates.
It's a close run thing, but I'd say the first step is more an indication of a bad risk.
Having a hole in your sugar is something that can cause a long-term grudge. This ain't over.
leftard
Thanks for flagging up an early reason to ignore your opinions.
2. Comment the "odd" stuff, not the obvious stuff infer-able from function name etc.
The problem I have with "self-documenting" code is that you can only ever tell from it what the code is doing. It doesn't tell you why, that can only be a best guess. Only decent documentation can tell for sure.
So, to give an ultra simple example, if I have a line of code that says
index += 1;
Yes, it's obvious the index is getting incremented. But why this should be happening may be completely unfathomable, and indeed may appear to subsequent coders to be a bug. Only documented code can explain all.
Or "people", as they are preferably known. If you want to sound less like a soulless corporate drone and more like a human.
Indeed that's even what TFA calls them.
Seriously, if the only problem you have with your parents getting older is their IT support, then you're unbelievably lucky.
Why would you consider an entire 20th-century ocean liner a luxury item?
It's impractical. It's far in excess of one person's needs. And if everyone can have one, then there is no status to be had in owning one. So unless you have a society where everyone wants to sit in splendid isolation on the bridge of their own person ocean liner, just like everyone else, who is going to want one?
The point is that once you reach the point of supply being effectively inexhaustible, there are no "luxury" goods. There are just goods. Possession would have no function other than immediate practical use, and no-one is impressed by acquisition. Culturally things would be the reverse of what we have now.
Have we a fourth gender now? Male, Female, Neuter, Bro.
Who are these people gendered "bro". Can they reproduce? How can I victimise them if I can't identify them?
It's ridiculous. You even hear of people getting lengthy prison sentences just for driving a car! Do we need these kind of government regulations??
True, they happened to be driving their car at great speed through a crowd of pedestrians on the side walk, but still. As long as we can phrase criminally reckless behaviour as innocent sounding activities, the government should keep their nose out of it!
Christianity? Well chances are they are.
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace - Corinthians 14:33
The evidence of history (and present day developing countries) is that an absence of building regulations (or enforcement of them) results in "politically well connected group of businesses" building sub-standard housing on the cheap, which are then crammed with "poorer people", who are the ones who suffer the slum conditions and disasters that befall them
So the exact opposite of what you suggest. It's the poorest who benefit most from these regulations.
Everybody knows what they are getting and that the usual "protections" from a government-licensed taxi service don't apply.
Really? I don't believe this to be true, and your argument from this point on fails because of it. Everyone doesn't know that they are not getting the protection of a licensed taxi. Maybe they don't know anything about Uber other than it provides what they understand to be taxis. Maybe their friend ordered the car and they think they're getting in a taxi?
And there are many regulations that people are legally not allowed to "opt out" of. For instance, I'm sure that many would be happy to build their house without following building regulations. Much cheaper. But they're not given that option. Many would be happy to accept a supply of gas from an unregulated supplier. All those rules add to the cost, and if you're prepared to accept the risks why not? Except the law is sometimes there to protect people from their own folly.
People on slashdot go all moist about Uber because they love the technology it uses. They don't care that Uber also ignores all the laws put there to protect passengers and drivers.
The solution is for proper taxi firms to use the same technology. It's not unusual for the established organisations to be slow off the mark on these things, and for an upstart new-entrant to make the running. If Uber was just adding tech to the business that would be great, but they also decided to break the regulations that are there for good reason. And why are they doing that? Not for anyone else's benefit. But because it's cheaper and easier for them to pretend the rules don't apply to them.
The best explanation I have ever heard is that an extrovert gets energized by being around people. An introvert gets tired.
Worth repeating.
Being an introvert does not mean you hide in your room, hate people and avoid talking to everyone. An evening to yourself is bliss, whereas an extrovert would consider it torture. An evening in a crowd, talking to people you don't know, is hard work, whereas an extrovert would consider it the best party ever.
It's not always a clear case of cheating/fraud/whatever. Often it's a case of how you chose to interpret the rules, and if you're in the mood there will be plenty of lawyers who will take your money to debate them.
I can think of at least one project I've developed for where we questioned what the software was doing, because it didn't seem "right". We were told it wasn't our job to interpret regulations. End of conversation.
Many of the search results that are removed are clearly in the public interest
The thing is that you don't know on whose request a web page has been removed. You could claim a news story about a murderer is in the public interest, and that murderer has no right to be forgotten. But what if that particular page mentions members of the murderer's family, who are completely innocent of his crime? Maybe it is they who have asked to have the page removed.
So it is not easy to spot obvious abuses of the system, when you don't know the basis for the removal.
Well she's asking the opinion of a plastic doll. That's not overly smart.
You are seriously out of touch. You must either love Android, or you love iPhone, and you must hate the other with a passion. You must pick a side for the forthcoming religious Smartphone Wars, that will lay waste to the internet.
People like you will be shunned by both sides as contemptuous cowards. Your execution will be streamed for all to see, right after the shooting of the heretical Windows Phone users.
If you RTFA you'll see that the problem is (and this is nothing new for Android) that patches take ages to percolate from Google down to the various distros managed by manufacturers and phone networks. And that's only if the end user allows updates.
So this hack is likely to be live and exploitable for some while yet.
All of which are nothing compared to the scandal of the astronomical sums charged for basic healthcare in the US, the ridiculous profit margins enjoyed by the companies that run it, and the tragedy of millions of Americans being unable to afford it.
This, in the richest country on the planet.
If they'd bothered checking, they would have found that practically every child in the class had an electronic device on them that could be used to disguise or trigger a bomb. Many of them would even have a digital clock displayed on them too.
Usually, you're going to give a child in class the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're not bombs. Usually. It saves a lot of time. Otherwise you'd be arresting the lot of them every morning.
But I guess this child made the mistake of being Muslim in a town of crazy people. That clearly made all the difference.
You know nothing about the NHS, or indeed state healthcare. Keep swallowing the misinformation and lies fed to you by the commercial interests in US healthcare and you get the health system you deserve.