Speaking of bad analogies...
Writing software for a phone is more akin to modding the Ford -- which DOES void the warranty.
Does anybody see the irony here that folks are pissed at Apple for insisting that Apple phone app developers work with Apple? Why don't all these developers just write PalmOS apps? Oh, that's right, because there is no market for them. Damn those guys at Apple for building a spectacular and extensible phone, thus providing me with a viable career as a phone app dev. Damn them for not offering me healthcare. And would it kill them to throw a brother some stock options?!
Permissiveness towards illegal aliens is mostly attributed to bleeding heart liberals and other 'populists'. But the hypocrisy of the conservatives on this issue should not go without notice. For those of you who eat food, recognize that the entire agriculture industry is supported by illegal aliens, whether it be fruit and vegetable picking, or the slaughtering/processing of animals. And we're not talking about family farms here, folks. Massive coporations hire illegals because they can pay them next to nothing and provide no benefits. US citizens occupying the lowest rungs on the economic ladder find these jobs unappealing. The hypocrisy/irony is that the people who are the most adamant about closing the borders and the people/corporations that are most supportive of being able to pay a non-living wage belong to the same party! (The one with the elephant.)
If we supported a legit minimum wage with benefits, these jobs would be taken by Americans, the opportunities for illegals would dry up, and they would not come here in the first place. Of course, apples and pork would cost more.
So which is it: no longer support companies that hire illegals or shut the fuck up about the Mexican coming across the border to take some crappy ass job that no self-respecting American would take.
Well yes, I did misunderstand you (I was however making a general point to the/. readers, not to you per se).
Now that I see where you are coming from, I must ask, are you a product of the Kansas school system? What are your data points to suggest that creationism is a legit scientific theory? The simple fact that there are gaps in evolution? That, because you can't explain how cell's evolved to be so complex that there must be intelligent design behind it? The fact is, natural selection with probabilistically distrubuted mutations thrown in does explain how complex organisms could have evolved over Billions of years. The fact that there are gaps in the evolutionary theory does not call it into question. Rather, the fact that the theory is predictive, observable (with zero contrary observations!), measurable, and there is an overwhelming scientific consensus should be convincing enough for anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty. And I'm only saying this because you base your argument on science. If you were the typical faith-based Creationist, I would not even argue with you -- there would be no point.
Did you know that the observation that the Earth revolves around the Sun is just a Theory?
I'm on the side of evolution. But the argument that a Creator who employs intelligent design must have Herself been created by a Meta-Creator just demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what God means to people that believe in Her. Regardless of one's position on evolution, those people that believe in God believe that She transcends time and space. It's like magic. There is no scientific explanation; no need for infinite recursion. That's the point. It's faith, stupid!
What makes this whole argument even sillier is that the most impressive astro-physicists on earth have no frickin idea how the universe was born. If the big bang theory holds, then how did that matter happen to be all in one place in the first place, and what is matter, and what's outside of the universe, and... All of these unknowns and unknowables leave a lot of room to believe in a Creator. A non-infinite-recursive Creator.
That being said, there is no God.
Hmmm, the "classic" article, What is Software Design?, by Jack Reeves, rests entirely on the notion that what everyone else calls development and testing, Reeves calls design. And the actual design -- that is class, entity relationship, data flow, state transition, and sequence dgms -- Reeves feels is simply unnecessary.
I can appreciate that detailed design is often overtaken by events during development and that sometimes the best approach is to code and refactor/refine, test, and repeat. But does that obviate the need for a true design phase for a project with any complexity?
And why can't Reeves just stick to the generally accepted lifecycle terms (design=blueprinting, dev=coding) to make his argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Educate yourself: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/16/climate_change_more_nonsense_by_the_mail_on_sunday.html
Speaking of bad analogies ...
Writing software for a phone is more akin to modding the Ford -- which DOES void the warranty.
Does anybody see the irony here that folks are pissed at Apple for insisting that Apple phone app developers work with Apple? Why don't all these developers just write PalmOS apps? Oh, that's right, because there is no market for them. Damn those guys at Apple for building a spectacular and extensible phone, thus providing me with a viable career as a phone app dev. Damn them for not offering me healthcare. And would it kill them to throw a brother some stock options?!
Permissiveness towards illegal aliens is mostly attributed to bleeding heart liberals and other 'populists'. But the hypocrisy of the conservatives on this issue should not go without notice. For those of you who eat food, recognize that the entire agriculture industry is supported by illegal aliens, whether it be fruit and vegetable picking, or the slaughtering/processing of animals. And we're not talking about family farms here, folks. Massive coporations hire illegals because they can pay them next to nothing and provide no benefits. US citizens occupying the lowest rungs on the economic ladder find these jobs unappealing. The hypocrisy/irony is that the people who are the most adamant about closing the borders and the people/corporations that are most supportive of being able to pay a non-living wage belong to the same party! (The one with the elephant.) If we supported a legit minimum wage with benefits, these jobs would be taken by Americans, the opportunities for illegals would dry up, and they would not come here in the first place. Of course, apples and pork would cost more. So which is it: no longer support companies that hire illegals or shut the fuck up about the Mexican coming across the border to take some crappy ass job that no self-respecting American would take.
Well yes, I did misunderstand you (I was however making a general point to the /. readers, not to you per se).
Now that I see where you are coming from, I must ask, are you a product of the Kansas school system? What are your data points to suggest that creationism is a legit scientific theory? The simple fact that there are gaps in evolution? That, because you can't explain how cell's evolved to be so complex that there must be intelligent design behind it? The fact is, natural selection with probabilistically distrubuted mutations thrown in does explain how complex organisms could have evolved over Billions of years. The fact that there are gaps in the evolutionary theory does not call it into question. Rather, the fact that the theory is predictive, observable (with zero contrary observations!), measurable, and there is an overwhelming scientific consensus should be convincing enough for anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty. And I'm only saying this because you base your argument on science. If you were the typical faith-based Creationist, I would not even argue with you -- there would be no point.
Did you know that the observation that the Earth revolves around the Sun is just a Theory?
I'm on the side of evolution. But the argument that a Creator who employs intelligent design must have Herself been created by a Meta-Creator just demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what God means to people that believe in Her. Regardless of one's position on evolution, those people that believe in God believe that She transcends time and space. It's like magic. There is no scientific explanation; no need for infinite recursion. That's the point. It's faith, stupid! What makes this whole argument even sillier is that the most impressive astro-physicists on earth have no frickin idea how the universe was born. If the big bang theory holds, then how did that matter happen to be all in one place in the first place, and what is matter, and what's outside of the universe, and ... All of these unknowns and unknowables leave a lot of room to believe in a Creator. A non-infinite-recursive Creator.
That being said, there is no God.
Hmmm, the "classic" article, What is Software Design?, by Jack Reeves, rests entirely on the notion that what everyone else calls development and testing, Reeves calls design. And the actual design -- that is class, entity relationship, data flow, state transition, and sequence dgms -- Reeves feels is simply unnecessary.
I can appreciate that detailed design is often overtaken by events during development and that sometimes the best approach is to code and refactor/refine, test, and repeat. But does that obviate the need for a true design phase for a project with any complexity?
And why can't Reeves just stick to the generally accepted lifecycle terms (design=blueprinting, dev=coding) to make his argument.
SHAKY STUFF, classic or no.