I'm a software tester and former programmer (long story), and a few years back had to go through several iterations of testing some code written by a well-respected (deservedly so, as best I can tell) developer. I was new at the company at the time.
It was supposed to take a file containing a series of things and convert it into an equivalent file with multiple series of those things, because some recipients of those types of files could only handle (say) 50 in a series, but could handle any number of series.
None but the final attempt split properly. (Yes, it did finally go to Prod.) Some had the wrong size series, or weren't equivalent, or both.
I'm foggy on the exact details of the failures now, but I do recall how I tested. So a series of 23 should turn into 4 series of 5 followed by a series of 3 -- all in the same order as the original file. A series of 15 should turn into 3 series of 5 -- all in the same order. A series of 4 should remain a series of 4. It should work for upper limits that aren't 5. And that did happen, eventually.
But before then? Nope. Non-equivalent output. The wrong number of things in the final series (8 instead of 3, as I recall). Omitted series. Stuff like that.
The program may have been well-structured and very maintainable, in a global sense. Given what I've learned since about the developer, that's very likely. But in the guts of the thing, I gotta wonder.
Every time someone says "I have nothing to hide", the conclusion that immediately comes is this: So, in saying this, you are giving your permission to find out anything I can about you, and do whatever I want with that information.
Do you really mean that?
Besides the somewhat obvious problem that with size comes not only economies of scale, but also diseconomies of scale, where things get harder to do, the bigger the organization.
This is in part due to the "owner-agent problem". Unless the managers and owners are the same people, you have to deal with making the incentives for the managers align with those of the owners -- and make the incentives of the managers subordinates align, too. You have to take precautions against dishonesty, sloppiness, sloth. At some point, the effects of the economies of scale may get swamped by the diseconomies of scale, and getting bigger means getting less profitable (or less effective, if profit is not the objective).
A company that fails goes bankrupt, and goes away. (Or, less ideally, gets bailed out by the government.) Its assets get sold to new owners, and its employees get hired by new employers, presumably better ones. If not, they go toes up, too.
Failing government bureaucracies, on the other hand, don't generally get shut down. I'm hard-pressed to give an example of one, at the federal level. The FSLIC, perhaps. (Or did it just get folded into the FDIC, or some other quasi-independent government "corporation"?) There might be some at the state or local level.
These silly footprint measures (carbon footprint, water footprint) are finally beginning to wear.
There's lots of stuff that goes into making stuff. Water isn't the only thing that goes into foods A, B, C. Petroleum isn't the only thing that goes into non-foods D, E, F.
Too bad there isn't a way to sum up the stuff that goes into making stuff.
Oh, wait. There is. It's called "money". The total cost of making something is the sum of all that.
Its usefulness breaks down when some entity with guns at its disposal (government, usually) interferes with the process, and makes something artificially expensive or worse, artificially inexpensive. You know, like water in California.
Then you find activities as goofy as people raising rice in a desert. Such as people raising rice in a desert.
But it gets people re-elected, and that's what's important.
The Military-Industrial Complex is one of a collection of comparable tacit and not-so-tacit alliances of interests whose members benefit at the expense of the taxpayer, delivering little or nothing for their money.
Really? Next thing you know, you'll want the MPAA to bear the costs of finding people pirating movies, rather than having the Department of Homeland Security doing it at taxpayer expense.
"If Google Glass is outlawed, only outlaws will have Google Glass."
So? Just shift the decimal point, call it by another name, problem solved. The software supports that kind of a change to the protocol.
A friend said that's what they did in Israel, when dealing with persistent inflation. The name changes -- pounds, shekels, dollars, quatloos, whatever -- but the continuity is there. (Of course, in that case, they shifted the decimal point in the other direction.)
Or it may be that this and other problems with bitcoin will require solutions which which require a new cryptocurrency to replace or supplement bitcoin.
Or maybe people will find ways around the problems of the (dwindling) quantity of bitcoins, as was done with problems from the (insufficiently-growing) quantity of gold.
Either way, it'll be interesting to watch -- and interesting to watch governments try to put the genie back in the bottle.
Let's hope it takes them less time to figure out the impossibility than it had taken with alcohol prohibition.
So is all non-economic activity, apparently. The definition of "interstate commerce" has expanded to include activities which are not: (1) commerce, (2) between states.
That was the Official Truth, per the Wickard v Filburn ruling, but lately the Supreme Court has backed off from that. Some. A time or two.
Slashdot Mirror
"Dog and cats -- living together."
"Silicon Valley demands Jesse Jackson address lack of qualified applicants interested in working there"
"That's racist!"
A vaguely similar story.
I'm a software tester and former programmer (long story), and a few years back had to go through several iterations of testing some code written by a well-respected (deservedly so, as best I can tell) developer. I was new at the company at the time.
It was supposed to take a file containing a series of things and convert it into an equivalent file with multiple series of those things, because some recipients of those types of files could only handle (say) 50 in a series, but could handle any number of series.
None but the final attempt split properly. (Yes, it did finally go to Prod.) Some had the wrong size series, or weren't equivalent, or both.
I'm foggy on the exact details of the failures now, but I do recall how I tested. So a series of 23 should turn into 4 series of 5 followed by a series of 3 -- all in the same order as the original file. A series of 15 should turn into 3 series of 5 -- all in the same order. A series of 4 should remain a series of 4. It should work for upper limits that aren't 5. And that did happen, eventually.
But before then? Nope. Non-equivalent output. The wrong number of things in the final series (8 instead of 3, as I recall). Omitted series. Stuff like that.
The program may have been well-structured and very maintainable, in a global sense. Given what I've learned since about the developer, that's very likely. But in the guts of the thing, I gotta wonder.
There is (or was) an organization along those lines.
It was criticized by the usual idiots, for the usual reasons, motivated by the usual primitive urges untempered by thoughtfulness.
If in front of me there were 50 stalled drivers blocking the road, it might make me angry.
The driver in front of me might have had 49 stalled drivers blocking the road.
Does this treaty have a name? Does anyone know what provisions of this treaty Russia is violating?
And what would the heirs of the DPDGs do when they inherited those shuttered mines? Leave them shuttered, or open them up and reap huge profits?
I guess a more insightful DPDG would create a foundation to own shuttered mines, with a provision that the mines never be re-opened.
Yep. They'd either be able to charge monopoly or near-monopoly prices if they stayed in business, or demand a high price to be bought out.
I'm guessing the deep-pocketed do-gooders would have to just walk away and let them keep mining. They're only 10%, right?
Of course, if it got that far, the DPDGs would get the government to force them to sell. Assuming they could still afford it.
BTW, if you go to the profile for the person who posted "But I personally have nothing to hide", you'll find the e-mail address is hidden.
You can't make this kind of stuff up, folks.
Every time someone says "I have nothing to hide", the conclusion that immediately comes is this: So, in saying this, you are giving your permission to find out anything I can about you, and do whatever I want with that information. Do you really mean that?
Besides the somewhat obvious problem that with size comes not only economies of scale, but also diseconomies of scale, where things get harder to do, the bigger the organization. This is in part due to the "owner-agent problem". Unless the managers and owners are the same people, you have to deal with making the incentives for the managers align with those of the owners -- and make the incentives of the managers subordinates align, too. You have to take precautions against dishonesty, sloppiness, sloth. At some point, the effects of the economies of scale may get swamped by the diseconomies of scale, and getting bigger means getting less profitable (or less effective, if profit is not the objective). A company that fails goes bankrupt, and goes away. (Or, less ideally, gets bailed out by the government.) Its assets get sold to new owners, and its employees get hired by new employers, presumably better ones. If not, they go toes up, too. Failing government bureaucracies, on the other hand, don't generally get shut down. I'm hard-pressed to give an example of one, at the federal level. The FSLIC, perhaps. (Or did it just get folded into the FDIC, or some other quasi-independent government "corporation"?) There might be some at the state or local level.
These silly footprint measures (carbon footprint, water footprint) are finally beginning to wear.
There's lots of stuff that goes into making stuff. Water isn't the only thing that goes into foods A, B, C. Petroleum isn't the only thing that goes into non-foods D, E, F.
Too bad there isn't a way to sum up the stuff that goes into making stuff.
Oh, wait. There is. It's called "money". The total cost of making something is the sum of all that.
Its usefulness breaks down when some entity with guns at its disposal (government, usually) interferes with the process, and makes something artificially expensive or worse, artificially inexpensive. You know, like water in California.
Then you find activities as goofy as people raising rice in a desert. Such as people raising rice in a desert.
But it gets people re-elected, and that's what's important.
If a country can be destroyed by exposure to videos and social media, it's a pretty damn weak, fragile place.
That's probably not what he wants as the subtext, but there it is.
So, we could a different kind of piracy: piracy software.
Sometimes it's hard to tell the idiots from the scoundrels.
I had a bet with myself about this particular one. It was pure chance that I got his party affiliation right.
The Military-Industrial Complex is one of a collection of comparable tacit and not-so-tacit alliances of interests whose members benefit at the expense of the taxpayer, delivering little or nothing for their money.
Slashdot, I'm disappointed.
Politicians and bureaucrats suddenly discover global warming is an ally, not a threat.
Surely someone can do better.
Yeah.
Another one: "The Man From Earth". Someone told me it wasn't science fiction, because, well you know. No spaceships. No aliens. No time travel.
Someone could make a case for it not being SF, I suppose. But not on those grounds.
Spaceships do not science fiction make, or "Spaceballs" would have been a science fiction movie.
Practical fusion power is now only 25 years away.
Again.
... think of it as "crowd-sourced quantitative easing".
Really? Next thing you know, you'll want the MPAA to bear the costs of finding people pirating movies, rather than having the Department of Homeland Security doing it at taxpayer expense.
"If Google Glass is outlawed, only outlaws will have Google Glass."
So? Just shift the decimal point, call it by another name, problem solved. The software supports that kind of a change to the protocol.
A friend said that's what they did in Israel, when dealing with persistent inflation. The name changes -- pounds, shekels, dollars, quatloos, whatever -- but the continuity is there. (Of course, in that case, they shifted the decimal point in the other direction.)
Or it may be that this and other problems with bitcoin will require solutions which which require a new cryptocurrency to replace or supplement bitcoin.
Or maybe people will find ways around the problems of the (dwindling) quantity of bitcoins, as was done with problems from the (insufficiently-growing) quantity of gold.
Either way, it'll be interesting to watch -- and interesting to watch governments try to put the genie back in the bottle.
Let's hope it takes them less time to figure out the impossibility than it had taken with alcohol prohibition.
Yeah. A form of regulation called "common sense".
Some people are capable of learning from their own mistakes, and sometimes even the mistakes of others.
As for the rest, no amount government regulation is going to help.
Sometimes "regulation" looks a lot like restraint of trade by existing providers.
Now, who is pushing for this "regulation" of trade schools, again?
Sure. Why not?
So is all non-economic activity, apparently. The definition of "interstate commerce" has expanded to include activities which are not: (1) commerce, (2) between states.
That was the Official Truth, per the Wickard v Filburn ruling, but lately the Supreme Court has backed off from that. Some. A time or two.
http://duckduckgo.com/?q=wickard.v.filburn