Sure, people kill people. But it's a lot easier and quicker to do so with a tool designed for the job.
The evidence from the natural experiment that the United States has conducted vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world is stark: having large numbers of firearms, particularly handguns, in civilian hands results in far higher murder rates than would otherwise be the case. And yes, we have murders here in Australia where I live (you have four times as many per capita than we do), but we haven't a mass shooting since 1996 when we banned semi-automatic weapons and made it harder to get pistols. So, frankly, it's you who are living in a fantasyland if you think every Tom, Dick, and Harry having a gun makes you safer.
Sure, they may only promote the responsible use of firearms, but in practice that's not what the legal landscape they support results in.
The historical evidence is overwhelming; large numbers of handguns distributed among a civilian population leads to lots of murders; automatic pistols and/or semi-automatic rifles with large magazines lead to occasional mass shootings. Getting rid of large numbers of guns also has the effect of considerably reducing suicide levels.
If you're prepared to live large numbers of unnecessary, painful, premature deaths as a society, well, that's your choice. But no amount of "but we only support the responsible use of firearms" puffery should disguise the fact that the NRA's lobbying maintains a legislative framework that virtually ensures those premature deaths will continue.
I am not a Catholic. I find its central tenets nonsensical. As an organization, I find the way it has systematically protected pedophiles within its ranks disgusting. I hope that, over time, it attracts fewer followers.
However, if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. The church has existed for longer than essentially any other human institution, and it will outlive all of us. Hundreds of millions of people take what its leader says seriously, for good and ill. Therefore, I don't think it's particularly important what the basis of the Pope's reasoning in his encyclical is except as that reasoning is persuasive amongst those who take Catholicism seriously.
What is important is that the Pope is saying "act on climate change", which might help to push some Catholics to do so.
Republicans hate big government, except when it comes to a) building big machines designed to kill people, and b) firing rockets into space.
Republicans have been the primary Congressional force running interference for the old space industry, either by throwing money at the likes of ATK to build rockets that will never fly, or actively blocking SpaceX from competing with the established players on contracts.
While the big government contracting model can get crews into space, it does so at such an exorbitant price it's simply not worth it. SpaceX, or more precisely the discarding of legacy design and especially legacy contracting models that SpaceX represents, at least gives us a chance of a sustainable space program because it is far, far better value for money. It's also far more in alignment with professed Republican principles, as distinct from revealed preferences from observed behaviour.
A revived crewed space program under the old model will result in bugger-all flying, lots of money wasted, and will get cancelled soon enough. Why bother?
For what it's worth, this has been discussed for many years, and these researchers have a rather humorous partial solution.
My take: it's not the world's biggest problem, but if it's necessary to provide comparisons with earlier papers go ahead and use Lenna, go right ahead. If you just need to illustrate a technique on human skin tones, pick something else and stop needlessly pissing people off.
Not every Agile process recommends that kind of approach. I teach Agile development, and I certainly don't.
When you see a lot of final year student projects, you see all sorts of interpretations of "Agile" methodology, from utter adhockery to an approach that's waterfall in all but name. The more successful students, and successful projects, will take the time to carefully design the parts of the system which are a) high-risk, and b) difficult to change, and don't bother with trivial design for simple, easily modified parts of the system.
That has to be the stupidest accusation of hypocrisy I've heard in a long time. Apples and fucking oranges.
The White House is a (relatively) small building which faces a real, live, no-shit security threat for which armed guards and big fences are a rational, effective, and cost-effective response.
Big fences along the entirety of the United States land border and random citizens arming themselves to the teeth, by contrast, are dumb responses to the threats which the country, as a whole, faces - not least, shooting each other with guns at a rate that far exceeds any other developed country.
I agree to some extent, but why have humans taking the risks in highly experimental spacecraft in 2014?
Leaving aside the question about whether the design was adequately verified with on-ground experiments (including static full system tests but also validation of individual engine components), why have a design that requires a human pilot on board for flight testing?
There's virtually nothing in the populated areas of Australia, other than other humans, that attacks humans and can be usefully defended against with a firearm.
We have nasty spiders and snakes, but you don't use firearms to kill either of those. Both only strike humans defensively.
Our large land animals are all herbivores; kangaroo, emus and cassowaries have a very nasty kick but they'll run away in preference to attacking you. Dingoes, despite the high-profile death of Azarea Chamberlain back in 1978, are basically wild dogs, and represent little threat to people.
We also have a collection of potentially lethal acquatic species, including the Blue-Ringed Octopus, several species of jellyfish, and some sharks. Again, guns aren't a lot of use against them.
Crocodiles, which I guess you're referring to with the giant knife reference, are the one animal that will actually try to eat an adult human. They only live in the tropical north of the country, far away from the major population centres, and any that move in near the cities in those regions are killed or relocated by professional shooters.
So, no, you don't need a gun to protect yourself from the wildlife in Australia. And despite some myths, if you want a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target shooting, or need one for farming or pest control, you can get one in Australia. You just can't walk into a gun shop and buy an AR-15 or a big-calibre handgun for "self-defence" here. And, nearly 20 years after the changes to the gun laws, that remains overwhelmingly popular here.
Haven't read "Death March" but the others you recommend (and I endorse) are about software engineering, not CS, in my view.
Incidentally, It's kinda sad how little of the topics under discussion in "Peopleware" have actually been empirically examined in the peer-reviewed literature...
Just a minor correction - my piece does indeed suggest that the OpenSSL developers have some strange priorities. However, it lays the larger blame at the companies that used OpenSSL, when all the information necessary to suggest that this kind of thing could happen was already available, and the potential consequences for larger companies of a breach are easily enough to justify throwing a little money at the problem (which could have been used any number of ways to help prevent this).
I suspect the HIV shot might be an easier sell than some of the others, because deaths from the initial epidemic are still recent enough for many people to remember.
- not to mention public health campaigns like this one.
While trade/labor unions are much maligned in the often libertarian-leaning IT community, this is the kind of situation where a bit of organization amongst colleagues - along the lines of what engineers or medical professionals have, would actually be useful.
But given that we have the IT professional community that we have:
Document that you've told your boss, and probably your boss's boss, and probably the legal department (perhaps informally and verbally initially). If you've told them, it's their problem, not yours
Start polishing your resume. Whistleblowing usually has negative consequences for the whistleblower - and, furthermore, continuing to work for an organization which has such a lax attitude to software poses a risk to your career if you stay there.
Incidentally, your case neatly demonstrates the near-uselessness of the IEEE-ACM Software Engineering Code of Ethics, which is very long on what the ethical obligations of a software engineer are, but has nothing useful to say about what you should do where others are ordering you to act unethically.
Here's the even funnier thing, this is an empirical question and the clear evidence is that, indeed, pollution from wood stoves *does* hurt other people.
Much and all as the 3D graphics prowess of modern smartphones is amazing, trying to do any serious gaming on them is an exercise in frustration.
Touchscreens are useful for some things, but their slow response times and lack of real tactile feedback makes it impossible to play fast-action games well on them.
Yes, it would be detectable. But that doesn't mean it would be at levels that pose a significant incremental risk to the wider ocean environment or human health.
It's possible to build very small nuclear reactors for use in space, but you can get away without shielding those (or, at least, only shielding in the directions you need to shield to protect the electronics).
The emitted radiation is far too dangerous for on-Earth use without tons of shielding.
Guess what, everywhere else that has implemented universal health care the local conservatives immediately tried to get rid of it. They succeeded nowhere.
To take some specific examples in the English-speaking world, in Australia, the local conservatives did manage to repeal it the first time around. The second time around, they didn't get back into government for thirteen years until they promised to keep it, and they've never seriously tried repealing it since despite long periods in power. In the UK, even that hero of the right, Margaret Thatcher, left the NHS alone. The overwhelming evidence is that once universal health care systems are introduced, they are enormously popular.
So, yeah, drag this one out into a political fight to the death. It's unlikely, but possible, you'll knock it off. But if your lot continues with this crap for too long once it's in place, you will consign yourself to electoral irrelevance; even the ridiculous malapportionment and gerrymandering that goes on in the US won't be enough to save them.
In the medium term, I won't be terribly sad at that; while sensible health care reform will ensure that millions of your fellow citizens have healthier, longer lives, it doesn't affect me directly. But a couple of your party's other insanities, particularly its delusions on climate science, do. And if you do manage to consign yourself to complete electoral irrelevance for a few terms, the United States will be able to act effectively on climate change.
"find a way to get the patient to care about the cost of their medical services..."? Are you completely deluded?
My partner had emergency surgery earlier this year. Was I really supposed to call round the hospitals in my city, weigh the experience and success rates of the surgeons and the fees they were charging, consider the various treatment options, and make a rational decision with the love of my life lying in the ER with gallons of morphine almost but not quite controlling her pain - and, heck, risk that she might suffer even more serious and permanent health implications - with more delay?
Back in the real world, the doc could have told me just about anything about the cost of the operation, and I would have agreed to it.
But, because I live in a country with universal health care, in a situation where the treatment was clearly medically justified, the docs were able to go ahead and do the surgery, and we got a bill for $0.
And your notion of an "end of year shutdown" in hospitals is complete and utter bollocks. Does not happen - if there's even a hint of this kind of thing, the relevant docs go to the media, who get the requisite photos of people who've recently been treated and interviews with the docs, and the government tips in some extra funds.
There is no legal impediment to the NSA collecting, logging, analyzing, and possibly mischaracterizing *everything* I do online, and sharing the results of that analysis with the relevant local cops.
The constitutional protections extended to American citizens do not apply to foreigners, from those living in other Western democracies, to those living in countries controlled by various "our-sonnfabitches" that the USA has supported over the years.
It's well documented that the CIA has, on a regular basis, interfered in the domestic politics of other countries around the world, including aiding politically convenient despots in enforcing repression.
In the old days, the computational tools to surveil everyone in the world simply didn't exist, so the CIA and NSA were naturally limited in who they could bother. Now, such limits apply to a much lesser extent. In terms of the technical capability (and I'm not implying equality of motives) it's heading in the direction of what the Stasi could do - to every single person on the entire planet.
And, sorry, I am *not* happy that the United States government has that kind of reach. And nor should you be.
Have you ever flown in a widebody jet? They may as well have no windows. And people fly in military cargo planes without passenger windows all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
The evidence from the natural experiment that the United States has conducted vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world is stark: having large numbers of firearms, particularly handguns, in civilian hands results in far higher murder rates than would otherwise be the case. And yes, we have murders here in Australia where I live (you have four times as many per capita than we do), but we haven't a mass shooting since 1996 when we banned semi-automatic weapons and made it harder to get pistols. So, frankly, it's you who are living in a fantasyland if you think every Tom, Dick, and Harry having a gun makes you safer.
The historical evidence is overwhelming; large numbers of handguns distributed among a civilian population leads to lots of murders; automatic pistols and/or semi-automatic rifles with large magazines lead to occasional mass shootings. Getting rid of large numbers of guns also has the effect of considerably reducing suicide levels.
If you're prepared to live large numbers of unnecessary, painful, premature deaths as a society, well, that's your choice. But no amount of "but we only support the responsible use of firearms" puffery should disguise the fact that the NRA's lobbying maintains a legislative framework that virtually ensures those premature deaths will continue.
I am not a Catholic. I find its central tenets nonsensical. As an organization, I find the way it has systematically protected pedophiles within its ranks disgusting. I hope that, over time, it attracts fewer followers.
However, if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. The church has existed for longer than essentially any other human institution, and it will outlive all of us. Hundreds of millions of people take what its leader says seriously, for good and ill. Therefore, I don't think it's particularly important what the basis of the Pope's reasoning in his encyclical is except as that reasoning is persuasive amongst those who take Catholicism seriously.
What is important is that the Pope is saying "act on climate change", which might help to push some Catholics to do so.
It'll be one fewer thing that we can rib you lot about...
Republicans have been the primary Congressional force running interference for the old space industry, either by throwing money at the likes of ATK to build rockets that will never fly, or actively blocking SpaceX from competing with the established players on contracts.
While the big government contracting model can get crews into space, it does so at such an exorbitant price it's simply not worth it. SpaceX, or more precisely the discarding of legacy design and especially legacy contracting models that SpaceX represents, at least gives us a chance of a sustainable space program because it is far, far better value for money. It's also far more in alignment with professed Republican principles, as distinct from revealed preferences from observed behaviour.
A revived crewed space program under the old model will result in bugger-all flying, lots of money wasted, and will get cancelled soon enough. Why bother?
My take: it's not the world's biggest problem, but if it's necessary to provide comparisons with earlier papers go ahead and use Lenna, go right ahead. If you just need to illustrate a technique on human skin tones, pick something else and stop needlessly pissing people off.
As a system administrator, I presume you don't have Steam on anything other than your personal desktop or a dedicated game machine...
Not every Agile process recommends that kind of approach. I teach Agile development, and I certainly don't. When you see a lot of final year student projects, you see all sorts of interpretations of "Agile" methodology, from utter adhockery to an approach that's waterfall in all but name. The more successful students, and successful projects, will take the time to carefully design the parts of the system which are a) high-risk, and b) difficult to change, and don't bother with trivial design for simple, easily modified parts of the system.
The White House is a (relatively) small building which faces a real, live, no-shit security threat for which armed guards and big fences are a rational, effective, and cost-effective response.
Big fences along the entirety of the United States land border and random citizens arming themselves to the teeth, by contrast, are dumb responses to the threats which the country, as a whole, faces - not least, shooting each other with guns at a rate that far exceeds any other developed country.
Leaving aside the question about whether the design was adequately verified with on-ground experiments (including static full system tests but also validation of individual engine components), why have a design that requires a human pilot on board for flight testing?
We have nasty spiders and snakes, but you don't use firearms to kill either of those. Both only strike humans defensively. Our large land animals are all herbivores; kangaroo, emus and cassowaries have a very nasty kick but they'll run away in preference to attacking you. Dingoes, despite the high-profile death of Azarea Chamberlain back in 1978, are basically wild dogs, and represent little threat to people.
We also have a collection of potentially lethal acquatic species, including the Blue-Ringed Octopus, several species of jellyfish, and some sharks. Again, guns aren't a lot of use against them.
Crocodiles, which I guess you're referring to with the giant knife reference, are the one animal that will actually try to eat an adult human. They only live in the tropical north of the country, far away from the major population centres, and any that move in near the cities in those regions are killed or relocated by professional shooters.
So, no, you don't need a gun to protect yourself from the wildlife in Australia. And despite some myths, if you want a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target shooting, or need one for farming or pest control, you can get one in Australia. You just can't walk into a gun shop and buy an AR-15 or a big-calibre handgun for "self-defence" here. And, nearly 20 years after the changes to the gun laws, that remains overwhelmingly popular here.
Incidentally, It's kinda sad how little of the topics under discussion in "Peopleware" have actually been empirically examined in the peer-reviewed literature...
Just a minor correction - my piece does indeed suggest that the OpenSSL developers have some strange priorities. However, it lays the larger blame at the companies that used OpenSSL, when all the information necessary to suggest that this kind of thing could happen was already available, and the potential consequences for larger companies of a breach are easily enough to justify throwing a little money at the problem (which could have been used any number of ways to help prevent this).
I suspect the HIV shot might be an easier sell than some of the others, because deaths from the initial epidemic are still recent enough for many people to remember. - not to mention public health campaigns like this one.
But given that we have the IT professional community that we have:
Incidentally, your case neatly demonstrates the near-uselessness of the IEEE-ACM Software Engineering Code of Ethics, which is very long on what the ethical obligations of a software engineer are, but has nothing useful to say about what you should do where others are ordering you to act unethically.
But, hey, science.
Much and all as the 3D graphics prowess of modern smartphones is amazing, trying to do any serious gaming on them is an exercise in frustration. Touchscreens are useful for some things, but their slow response times and lack of real tactile feedback makes it impossible to play fast-action games well on them.
Should we militarize the entire American workforce given that 13 Americans die every day in workplace accidents?
Yes, it would be detectable. But that doesn't mean it would be at levels that pose a significant incremental risk to the wider ocean environment or human health.
$30,000 would pay for 600 hours of individual tuition from such a tutor.
What do you think would improve a student's learning outcomes more?
The emitted radiation is far too dangerous for on-Earth use without tons of shielding.
To take some specific examples in the English-speaking world, in Australia, the local conservatives did manage to repeal it the first time around. The second time around, they didn't get back into government for thirteen years until they promised to keep it, and they've never seriously tried repealing it since despite long periods in power. In the UK, even that hero of the right, Margaret Thatcher, left the NHS alone. The overwhelming evidence is that once universal health care systems are introduced, they are enormously popular.
So, yeah, drag this one out into a political fight to the death. It's unlikely, but possible, you'll knock it off. But if your lot continues with this crap for too long once it's in place, you will consign yourself to electoral irrelevance; even the ridiculous malapportionment and gerrymandering that goes on in the US won't be enough to save them.
In the medium term, I won't be terribly sad at that; while sensible health care reform will ensure that millions of your fellow citizens have healthier, longer lives, it doesn't affect me directly. But a couple of your party's other insanities, particularly its delusions on climate science, do. And if you do manage to consign yourself to complete electoral irrelevance for a few terms, the United States will be able to act effectively on climate change.
Back in the real world, the doc could have told me just about anything about the cost of the operation, and I would have agreed to it.
But, because I live in a country with universal health care, in a situation where the treatment was clearly medically justified, the docs were able to go ahead and do the surgery, and we got a bill for $0.
And your notion of an "end of year shutdown" in hospitals is complete and utter bollocks. Does not happen - if there's even a hint of this kind of thing, the relevant docs go to the media, who get the requisite photos of people who've recently been treated and interviews with the docs, and the government tips in some extra funds.
There is no legal impediment to the NSA collecting, logging, analyzing, and possibly mischaracterizing *everything* I do online, and sharing the results of that analysis with the relevant local cops. The constitutional protections extended to American citizens do not apply to foreigners, from those living in other Western democracies, to those living in countries controlled by various "our-sonnfabitches" that the USA has supported over the years. It's well documented that the CIA has, on a regular basis, interfered in the domestic politics of other countries around the world, including aiding politically convenient despots in enforcing repression. In the old days, the computational tools to surveil everyone in the world simply didn't exist, so the CIA and NSA were naturally limited in who they could bother. Now, such limits apply to a much lesser extent. In terms of the technical capability (and I'm not implying equality of motives) it's heading in the direction of what the Stasi could do - to every single person on the entire planet. And, sorry, I am *not* happy that the United States government has that kind of reach. And nor should you be.
Have you ever flown in a widebody jet? They may as well have no windows. And people fly in military cargo planes without passenger windows all the time.