No. My argument is: You have to understand the problem and its cases first and then code it. At least that is what we learned from the analysis of different software development methods. Some developers think that the perfect model to fit all cases will emerge when they code. This is true for very small problems, where they can keep the cases all in their head. As an alternative you could come from the cases. Define your input and desired output and all parameters which effect the result. You define your constraints. If you believe in a strict test driven development, you even could design the tests. then you divide the problem and specifies the different sub-problems before you try to implement that in C, Java, Fortran, Cobol etc.
Your argument is:You start with some input (subset of the real input or maybe a specification of the input) and a desired output. Then you fiddle around and try to come up with a suitable transformation which reads the input and provides the desired output. To "test" if it works you run it with input data. When it does not suit your needs you modify the transformation code. On a sample input basis you cannot know all alternatives of input look like. And if you have just a specification of input code, you have to generate suitable input from that specification.
My proposition is, if you know what the input is and what the output is and what the cases are, you should be able to come up with a specification for the transformation before you implement it. The specification is then the model for the implementation. That approach is much saver and you can even try to proof if the code is supporting all specified input. I know most people work differently. But it is expensive and results in long coding nights and a lot of extra hours.
Most programmers think, that coding takes the most part of the development. In some cases they would admit that testing is also very time consuming. But the real issue is the understanding of the problem. A lot of programmers design while their code. This results in strange development cycles which also includes trying to understand what the program does. As this can be done with a debugger, an interpreter or a trace analysis tool. The real issue is the problem description. First, understand the problem and its borderline cases. Second, come up with a solution for that problem. And third, try to implement it.
BTW: Most programs of today do not contain that many surprising new algorithms. They collect data, the validate data to some constraints, they store data, they provide an interface to query the data. In desktop applications like Inkscape or Word the data is stored in in memory models. And there exist serializers and renderers for the content. So the code as such is not hard to understand, as we all know such structures.
I know I have no vote in that matter. But if I could, I would vote for South Africa. For two reasons: First, it is a poor country with a growing problem in violence. The cause of that is the high unemployment rate and problems in the education system and the overall education. This is typical for countries where the wealth is distributed unequally. The same problems are known in China or Brazil or even the USA. Therefore, the telescope should go there because it will generate jobs there, it will increase the feeling of people that something is actually developing, and it improves the desire for knowledge which normally has positive effects to the education system as well (at least people what ti be educated more than before). Second, it is a great country. I have been there and I liked it. It was a dynamic society. Not like those Western countries which have big problems in that area.
BTW: Australia is most likely also a great country. But I have never been there and I do not have relatives there. So my vote is for ZA and not AUS.
A lot changed since the 1970s. In the 1970s computer were science fiction and science fiction was en vogue. We tried to build our own computers based on transistors and later on microchips. In the 1980s things already improved so much, that a lot of people could by a home computer like ZX spectrum, Commodore C64 or Amstrad CPC 464. These machines provided a simple BASIC interface. They were designed for start and play. Where play meant programming. And you could dig into those machines and learn to peek and poke around in the hardware. Then you learned assembler etc. In the 1990s this moved to PCs. While old PCs still allowed you to access the hardware and you had to work with the console. Upcoming GUIs made the direct experience of the machine much more complicated. You couldn't re-program Pong in a week, while learning BASIC.
So on one side, computers get more complex and shield people from the machine and the machine feeling, and on the other side the sci-fi feeling is no longer so intriguing today than in those days. While in the 1970s, if you understood computers you could build your own moon lander software. At least a facsimile. And a lot of the people did. And the program would only display longitude, latitude and height above ground, as well as, speed and fuel. But all without graphic (which had to be imagined). Today moon landing is lame. Especially compared to those days. the whole society is no longer in technology.
In short: The whole setting is different. And the nerds of today go into gaming and become dorks.
So the real question is: Are they suicidal/crazy or are they rational like the US and the USSR during the Cold War?
Suicidal states, like Nazi Germany, almost went down that path. However, they could not survive for more than 13 years. And even they did not use chemical weapons of mass destruction (it would have been horrible a V2 combined with dichloroethyl sulfide). So my assumption is, that a country with stayed relatively stable for more then 30 years can be considered rational to the point that they are not suicidal.
They developed concrete which could be used to build better bunkers and 1000 other things which can profit from it. This concrete will allow the Iranians to kill us all with their mid-range missiles. True those only are sufficient to hit Israel which would then retaliate with their own nukes on their own missiles proudly mounted on German submarines. So that would mean suicide for Iran, but they are fanatics, aren't they?
Honestly! They have to fear the US or Israel much much more than the other way round.
If we want a regime change in that country, then we should not support the government. However, when we need an enemy ready all the time, like Saddam Hussein, then we should wave our arms and cry wolf. And if it doesn't work very well, then we hit them in the face even kill some Iranians. That will keep them angry and the Mullahs and radicals (like their president) in charge.
I thought it is from the ministry for wasting money on the military instead on socialism (e.g. schools, healthcare, roads, houses, retirement and unemployment).
The bad thing is, that this delays further positive development in Iran itself as we generate a perfect enemy form them as no cost. They do not need the bomb. the best is, not to build it, but to be able to build it. It would be a good move, if the EU countries would say no to a military strike.
The point is: Attacking Iran is not going to improve anything. It is better to back Israel with Western nuclear arsenals which will provide a suitable second strike option, which would render a nuclear attack to Israel useless. We can then wait until the Iranians work a way out how they can become a democracy. And remember when we Western states hadn't messed up in the 1960s we wouldn't in this situation today.
This shows me that regular news have done their work. You are afraid and focused on the "threat of the Iranian-bomb"./. seems also influenced by that type of news. The real news is that they developed a high performance concrete which has a wide range of practical uses. Like reduced material use. Earthquake-safe houses. I am absolutely sure that Turks and Californians are interested in that. So yes the stuff matters and it is technology.
And yes there is a little bit of propaganda in it, as the Iranians can now build save bunkers for their nukes they may or may not build.
Well when the US have 8500 warheads. Wouldn't it be an option just to give the Iranians one or two of them so they do not need to build their own? I've heard in Germany there are still some of these warheads laying around and the Germans are eager to get rid of the junk.
There are two possible options on this topic: a) Iran wants to build an A-bomb b) Iran wants only to use nuclear energy and have the option to build a bomb.
If is is option (b) we could stop worrying about attacks on Israel and other countries in the region. then the Iranians only have the same stupid nuclear waste disposal problem. And we could try to help them there.
If it is option (a) then the situation is a little different. An Iran with a fair number of nukes and missiles would be able to eliminate any neighboring country in a first strike. This situation will make other countries in the region very nervous. When they attack Israel, which has its own nukes, they could cause the total destruction of Israel. However, Israel has the capability for a second strike. If there is any doubt in that, the US, the UK and France could support that capabilities by providing support with their nuclear arsenals.
That would result in the following situation (between Israel and Iran). Iran could destroy Israel. However, it will be destroyed just 20 minutes later. Therefore Iran cannot win that situation. They could commit suicide, yes, but I do not believe that the Mullahs want to destroy Iran. This results in an situation where the Iran cannot be attacked with conventional weapons by its neighbors and it cannot attack Israel. What is missing is a way to provide similar protection to other middle east countries so they do not have to develop their own nuclear weapons.
First we have to ask why are they doing it? And there are two possible answers: a) It is a way to make police work cheaper and b) it is dogma, that the state should not do what a private company can do for the state.
In the UK it looks like both arguments are used. The problem with cheap policemen can be seen in Latin-America. If you do not pay your police force well, they are more vulnerable to corruption. In addition private companies always lower the standards, we have seen that in Iraq (e.g. Blackwater/Xe) and any place they hired "security" to protect property.
The second problem with the step to privatized government tasks is the stability of the state and its primary tasks. The state has the monopoly on violence. If any part of that is outsourced it looses this monopoly. If you look back in history when this monopoly was developed, it was done to increase the coherence of states, it was also a necessity for national states and it made it safer to travel which had positive effects on all sort of things, like trade and education. If we change that back, we will end up with something like the kings had before they developed conscription. This cold result in a state begging for policemen.
Honestly, I find that move totally misguided, like many things they did in the UK recently.
The technology was not good enough in the early 1980s. Most people did not have computers, and communication was done by fax (business only) and telephone. The world was much slower in those days. But the biggest difference between such telephone based systems of the early 1980s (there were similar systems in Germany, France etc.) and the Internet in 1990s was the ownership. The Internet came out of universities and hi-tech corporations. And it was supplemented by a world wide modem-based communication systems such as Fido or UUCP-based networks. While modem speeds increased and cable/line cost decreased it became cheaper to have a computer hooked up to the net all the time. during my university time, I also worked for an internet company and in 1996 we had a ISDN-line (128kbit) from our home to the ISP that was awesome. As we worked there, traffic was free.
In short: The main difference between 1983 and 1993 was the difference in the approach 1983 big companies or state driven corporations tried to establish such systems. While the Internet was created more bottom up. A wide range of companies and organizations developed the network in the beginning. And we had cheap technology. Everyone could setup a server with Linux and co. as the software was available.
If driving backwards is the real problem, then the natural thing to do: Remove that option from the transmission system. Cars can only go forward.
Ok, that might cause problems with parking lots, but that can be fixed with different parking lot designs.
Anyway, I assume that the camera will not really help not to overrun people. the best would be a system which detects person in danger and stops the car.
In winter that still means 5 hour darkness before German-bedtime. Enough time to race on the Autobahn. Nevertheless, most people are watching TV at that time. 20:00 Tagesschau (news), followed by unspeakable bad TV, followed by Tagesthemen (more noews) 22:35-23:00. However, the last news thing is only for "educated" people. the rest has to be in bed by then.
Another good reason for darkness on the Autobahn: You cannot see the special driving skills of those who inhabit the road at night. This is very important, as all Germans think: 'I have perfect driving skills, but all the others suck.'
The question is: Do we need to import water intensive products from countries wiht a water "income" problem, while throwing away our own agriculture products to stabilize market prices?
The answer is: No. We should not force poor countries to produce meat and meat pre-products, like soja and corn, which we only use feed to animals in our country. Yes this will make meat more expensive for consumers, but only because they would have to pay the full price for the production and cannot externalize cost to people in poor countries who have to suffer from that ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
No. My argument is: You have to understand the problem and its cases first and then code it. At least that is what we learned from the analysis of different software development methods. Some developers think that the perfect model to fit all cases will emerge when they code. This is true for very small problems, where they can keep the cases all in their head. As an alternative you could come from the cases. Define your input and desired output and all parameters which effect the result. You define your constraints. If you believe in a strict test driven development, you even could design the tests. then you divide the problem and specifies the different sub-problems before you try to implement that in C, Java, Fortran, Cobol etc.
Your argument is:You start with some input (subset of the real input or maybe a specification of the input) and a desired output. Then you fiddle around and try to come up with a suitable transformation which reads the input and provides the desired output. To "test" if it works you run it with input data. When it does not suit your needs you modify the transformation code. On a sample input basis you cannot know all alternatives of input look like. And if you have just a specification of input code, you have to generate suitable input from that specification.
My proposition is, if you know what the input is and what the output is and what the cases are, you should be able to come up with a specification for the transformation before you implement it. The specification is then the model for the implementation. That approach is much saver and you can even try to proof if the code is supporting all specified input. I know most people work differently. But it is expensive and results in long coding nights and a lot of extra hours.
Most programmers think, that coding takes the most part of the development. In some cases they would admit that testing is also very time consuming. But the real issue is the understanding of the problem. A lot of programmers design while their code. This results in strange development cycles which also includes trying to understand what the program does. As this can be done with a debugger, an interpreter or a trace analysis tool. The real issue is the problem description. First, understand the problem and its borderline cases. Second, come up with a solution for that problem. And third, try to implement it.
BTW: Most programs of today do not contain that many surprising new algorithms. They collect data, the validate data to some constraints, they store data, they provide an interface to query the data. In desktop applications like Inkscape or Word the data is stored in in memory models. And there exist serializers and renderers for the content. So the code as such is not hard to understand, as we all know such structures.
I know I have no vote in that matter. But if I could, I would vote for South Africa. For two reasons: First, it is a poor country with a growing problem in violence. The cause of that is the high unemployment rate and problems in the education system and the overall education. This is typical for countries where the wealth is distributed unequally. The same problems are known in China or Brazil or even the USA. Therefore, the telescope should go there because it will generate jobs there, it will increase the feeling of people that something is actually developing, and it improves the desire for knowledge which normally has positive effects to the education system as well (at least people what ti be educated more than before). Second, it is a great country. I have been there and I liked it. It was a dynamic society. Not like those Western countries which have big problems in that area.
BTW: Australia is most likely also a great country. But I have never been there and I do not have relatives there. So my vote is for ZA and not AUS.
A lot changed since the 1970s. In the 1970s computer were science fiction and science fiction was en vogue. We tried to build our own computers based on transistors and later on microchips. In the 1980s things already improved so much, that a lot of people could by a home computer like ZX spectrum, Commodore C64 or Amstrad CPC 464. These machines provided a simple BASIC interface. They were designed for start and play. Where play meant programming. And you could dig into those machines and learn to peek and poke around in the hardware. Then you learned assembler etc. In the 1990s this moved to PCs. While old PCs still allowed you to access the hardware and you had to work with the console. Upcoming GUIs made the direct experience of the machine much more complicated. You couldn't re-program Pong in a week, while learning BASIC.
So on one side, computers get more complex and shield people from the machine and the machine feeling, and on the other side the sci-fi feeling is no longer so intriguing today than in those days. While in the 1970s, if you understood computers you could build your own moon lander software. At least a facsimile. And a lot of the people did. And the program would only display longitude, latitude and height above ground, as well as, speed and fuel. But all without graphic (which had to be imagined). Today moon landing is lame. Especially compared to those days. the whole society is no longer in technology.
In short: The whole setting is different. And the nerds of today go into gaming and become dorks.
So the real question is: Are they suicidal/crazy or are they rational like the US and the USSR during the Cold War?
Suicidal states, like Nazi Germany, almost went down that path. However, they could not survive for more than 13 years. And even they did not use chemical weapons of mass destruction (it would have been horrible a V2 combined with dichloroethyl sulfide). So my assumption is, that a country with stayed relatively stable for more then 30 years can be considered rational to the point that they are not suicidal.
They developed concrete which could be used to build better bunkers and 1000 other things which can profit from it. This concrete will allow the Iranians to kill us all with their mid-range missiles. True those only are sufficient to hit Israel which would then retaliate with their own nukes on their own missiles proudly mounted on German submarines. So that would mean suicide for Iran, but they are fanatics, aren't they?
Honestly! They have to fear the US or Israel much much more than the other way round.
If we want a regime change in that country, then we should not support the government. However, when we need an enemy ready all the time, like Saddam Hussein, then we should wave our arms and cry wolf. And if it doesn't work very well, then we hit them in the face even kill some Iranians. That will keep them angry and the Mullahs and radicals (like their president) in charge.
I thought it is from the ministry for wasting money on the military instead on socialism (e.g. schools, healthcare, roads, houses, retirement and unemployment).
The bad thing is, that this delays further positive development in Iran itself as we generate a perfect enemy form them as no cost. They do not need the bomb. the best is, not to build it, but to be able to build it. It would be a good move, if the EU countries would say no to a military strike.
Wall as a service?
The point is: Attacking Iran is not going to improve anything. It is better to back Israel with Western nuclear arsenals which will provide a suitable second strike option, which would render a nuclear attack to Israel useless. We can then wait until the Iranians work a way out how they can become a democracy. And remember when we Western states hadn't messed up in the 1960s we wouldn't in this situation today.
War is not solving the problem.
This shows me that regular news have done their work. You are afraid and focused on the "threat of the Iranian-bomb". /. seems also influenced by that type of news. The real news is that they developed a high performance concrete which has a wide range of practical uses. Like reduced material use. Earthquake-safe houses. I am absolutely sure that Turks and Californians are interested in that. So yes the stuff matters and it is technology.
And yes there is a little bit of propaganda in it, as the Iranians can now build save bunkers for their nukes they may or may not build.
Well when the US have 8500 warheads. Wouldn't it be an option just to give the Iranians one or two of them so they do not need to build their own? I've heard in Germany there are still some of these warheads laying around and the Germans are eager to get rid of the junk.
There are two possible options on this topic: a) Iran wants to build an A-bomb b) Iran wants only to use nuclear energy and have the option to build a bomb.
If is is option (b) we could stop worrying about attacks on Israel and other countries in the region. then the Iranians only have the same stupid nuclear waste disposal problem. And we could try to help them there.
If it is option (a) then the situation is a little different. An Iran with a fair number of nukes and missiles would be able to eliminate any neighboring country in a first strike. This situation will make other countries in the region very nervous. When they attack Israel, which has its own nukes, they could cause the total destruction of Israel. However, Israel has the capability for a second strike. If there is any doubt in that, the US, the UK and France could support that capabilities by providing support with their nuclear arsenals.
That would result in the following situation (between Israel and Iran). Iran could destroy Israel. However, it will be destroyed just 20 minutes later. Therefore Iran cannot win that situation. They could commit suicide, yes, but I do not believe that the Mullahs want to destroy Iran. This results in an situation where the Iran cannot be attacked with conventional weapons by its neighbors and it cannot attack Israel. What is missing is a way to provide similar protection to other middle east countries so they do not have to develop their own nuclear weapons.
You forget, that they can buy more guns then you. So you lose.
The thing is. If it becomes real, it becomes less funny ;-)
With your text proposal, I would like to submit the following badger sample as a good blueprint for the animation and music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI
For the snake we could you: Ah! A Cameron.
First we have to ask why are they doing it? And there are two possible answers: a) It is a way to make police work cheaper and b) it is dogma, that the state should not do what a private company can do for the state.
In the UK it looks like both arguments are used. The problem with cheap policemen can be seen in Latin-America. If you do not pay your police force well, they are more vulnerable to corruption. In addition private companies always lower the standards, we have seen that in Iraq (e.g. Blackwater/Xe) and any place they hired "security" to protect property.
The second problem with the step to privatized government tasks is the stability of the state and its primary tasks. The state has the monopoly on violence. If any part of that is outsourced it looses this monopoly. If you look back in history when this monopoly was developed, it was done to increase the coherence of states, it was also a necessity for national states and it made it safer to travel which had positive effects on all sort of things, like trade and education. If we change that back, we will end up with something like the kings had before they developed conscription. This cold result in a state begging for policemen.
Honestly, I find that move totally misguided, like many things they did in the UK recently.
The technology was not good enough in the early 1980s. Most people did not have computers, and communication was done by fax (business only) and telephone. The world was much slower in those days. But the biggest difference between such telephone based systems of the early 1980s (there were similar systems in Germany, France etc.) and the Internet in 1990s was the ownership. The Internet came out of universities and hi-tech corporations. And it was supplemented by a world wide modem-based communication systems such as Fido or UUCP-based networks. While modem speeds increased and cable/line cost decreased it became cheaper to have a computer hooked up to the net all the time. during my university time, I also worked for an internet company and in 1996 we had a ISDN-line (128kbit) from our home to the ISP that was awesome. As we worked there, traffic was free.
In short: The main difference between 1983 and 1993 was the difference in the approach 1983 big companies or state driven corporations tried to establish such systems. While the Internet was created more bottom up. A wide range of companies and organizations developed the network in the beginning. And we had cheap technology. Everyone could setup a server with Linux and co. as the software was available.
If driving backwards is the real problem, then the natural thing to do: Remove that option from the transmission system. Cars can only go forward.
Ok, that might cause problems with parking lots, but that can be fixed with different parking lot designs.
Anyway, I assume that the camera will not really help not to overrun people. the best would be a system which detects person in danger and stops the car.
In winter that still means 5 hour darkness before German-bedtime. Enough time to race on the Autobahn. Nevertheless, most people are watching TV at that time. 20:00 Tagesschau (news), followed by unspeakable bad TV, followed by Tagesthemen (more noews) 22:35-23:00. However, the last news thing is only for "educated" people. the rest has to be in bed by then.
Another good reason for darkness on the Autobahn: You cannot see the special driving skills of those who inhabit the road at night. This is very important, as all Germans think: 'I have perfect driving skills, but all the others suck.'
I life in Germany and we have the problem today, that the sewer system was created for much more water usage http://www.hydrologie.uni-oldenburg.de/ein-bit/12045.html (german). As you can see: After re-industrialization (1975) the consumption growed steadily until 1990. This was more or less the time when it became common in Germany that wasting water, especially drinking water is a stupid idea. In http://www.me-vermitteln.de/Portals/0/Redaktion/grafiken/umwelt/Entwicklung%20Wasserverbrau%20pro%20Person_g.jpg you can see that the current trend is still pointing downwards.
For comparission of water usage per person world wide: http://chartsbin.com/view/1455
The question is: Do we need to import water intensive products from countries wiht a water "income" problem, while throwing away our own agriculture products to stabilize market prices?
The answer is: No. We should not force poor countries to produce meat and meat pre-products, like soja and corn, which we only use feed to animals in our country. Yes this will make meat more expensive for consumers, but only because they would have to pay the full price for the production and cannot externalize cost to people in poor countries who have to suffer from that ignorance.
Syrian opposition says: "Yes!"
As long as the atmospheric shield code is not 12345 that should not be a problem.
Swiss German is normally used to describe the German dialect spoken in Switzerland. For more detail http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweizerdeutsch (German) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_German (English). So I guess he is referring to that dialect.