The only way I would accept that would be for you to opt out of every tax payer sponsored program contributing to you, every law protecting your societal status. That you would opt out of every insuree sponsored insurance benefit, every patient sponsored medical treatment. That you would establish an adequately funded trust fund for every one of your dependents as well as a fund to pay for disposing of your larded a** when you quiescently eat yourself to death.
In other words, if you do not want society to regulate what you do, then you have not right to ask that same society to contribute to your benefit.
What is considered a crime and the severity there of is a societal issue expressed through government legislation. Fill in some of the bits between either end and you'll see that it really isn't a false continuum. To help inspire your imagination I'll start things for you. Obviously the position of some are debatable but also not the point
Parent depriving their child of typical experiences because of their lifestyle
Parent depending upon the aid of their child because of their lifestyle
Parent influencing their child into the same lifestyle
Parent depriving their child of essentials because of their lifestyle
Parent orphaning their child due to unhealthy lifestyle
Parent harming their child's health because of their lifestyle (think hot box smoking or reckless driving)
Parent mentally abusing their child
Parent physically abusing their child
Parent physically and irreparably damaging their child
You do realize that that 1% require the other 99% to carry out their wishes right? Ultimately the other 99% have to vote, have to buy, have to believe. It is not the fault of the 1% that the other 99% are sheep.
In addition, increasing the cost of smoking hits the group deciding whether to take up smoking in the first place. i.e. kids If they don't smoke then, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of them not smoking later.
You know that's strange I always thought government was supposed to be represented by us for us. I fail to see why we as a society should not cure our cancers before they metastasis. There are plenty of places around the world for those wishing to be anarchists to go if they do not wish to be responsible to and for the society in which they belong.
If government is supposed to be represented by and for a given society, I fail to see how this is an improper mechanism for self-correction. Can you think of a more appropriate way for a group of people to come together to enact corrective change?
Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?
It would be far more humane and much less burdensome to everyone else to simply euthanize them. Even if we were to stand aloof and let people ruin their health on their own there's the unfortunate problem of so many laws guaranteeing them medical treatment in the event of a medical emergency. The cost of which is passed on to us either by way of insurance premiums and/or an increase in the prices charged to everyone for treatment. There's also the basic problem of cleanup after they quiescently consume their way to death. Then of course there's basic notions inconvenience for anyone that doesn't have to shop in the big and tall or plus size stores and yet must be around them. Consider the seat on a commercial jet or similar situations. The nausea induced from simply having to look at or smell them when they come within proximity. The unneeded tax expense that goes towards subsidizing farmers growing the raw materials used to make their feed.
Maybe in your perfect world we could simply cut them off and never be bothered by people that are distasteful and a burden to us. But the real world is far more complicated, and far more messy. The inconvenient reality is that most people, while perhaps not to the same extreme, indulge in unhealthy lifestyles that burden others. Left unhindered, it is also far more likely that these lifestyle habits will spread and infect more cultures rather than burn themselves out--if we just let them die. If a house gets dirty, you don't move, you clean the house. As a society we let the dirt--the unhealthy lifestyles--in, as a society we need to sweep the dirt out.
That's OK, because then they can sell you additional items at the concession stand when you refill. Since you also missed all those parts that make it impossible to follow the super complex plot of a modern movie they can sell you another ticket to catch what you missed.
Aside from being a rip off relative to imports it doesn't change the DPI which was the biggest reason for the gripe. Most people really don't need or want a big screen TV sitting 20 inches from my face. For my office where extra screen real estate is helpful I solved problem with 3 - 23.1" 1080p displays for a fraction of the price. But, the DPI is still just under 100. It is frustrating that I can get a super sharp, crisp display in a handheld but when I want to gawk at something on my desktop there's no chance of getting anything north of 100 DPI. Even laptops are easily had with 130 - 170 DPI. Everything for the desktop is fuzzed with anti-aliasing to overcome the low DPI. It's really hard on the eyes, especially for people like me that stare at text all day. Give me a nice 24" panel with a DPI somewhere north of 200. In other words, how about a nice 10MP display, that doesn't have a 50ms response time, nor a $12,000+ medical diagnostic display price tag.
Forget laptops. Why are the only panels I can get for my desktop 1080p? Well that is unless I wish to spend well north of $1000 to add 640 more to the horizontal and 520 to the vertical. Or sailing towards $10,000 and beyond for a nice 10MP medical diagnostic display.
I've not heard anything about them cuddling together in caves. But, there have been plenty of reports about rape and pornography (male on female). So, I would suspect this is pretty much an anti-education for girls thing as they're saying. They're fearful of what an educated woman would mean to their absolute control over them.
It isn't the "show" from studio {x} that's the original work. It's the all-inclusive composition delivered to your TV set that the broadcaster is claiming is a copyrighted work. By removing the ads from the composition the broadcaster put together they're supposedly creating a derivative work.
I think they're trying to suggest that this is no longer time shifting (determined to be legal) but now a derivative work that exceeds the bounds of fair use.
A good teacher will never have a single student. It doesn't matter how much juggling they do it is impossible to achieve the same level of synchronization with the individual student as is possible with a piece of software. If humans "teachers" still exist in the future, it is inevitable that their roles will dramatically change as software steps in to augment and eventually provide the lessons.
COTS was NASA and co's gambit to bypass Congress' inability to fully fund and support vehicle development to completion for essential launch services. NASA's budget isn't a monolithic entity. Congress allocates specific funds to specific pursuits. If COTS causes Congress to do anything to NASA's budget it be to shrink the allocation dedicated for launch services. However, that's because they wouldn't need it. Whether Congress chooses to reallocate those funds to other pursuits in NASA I suppose is anybody's guess.
Oh, come now. They make excellent computers. In all seriousness, government really doesn't need to be in a position of duplicating viable and affordable private sector alternatives. The private sector is far more adept at squeezing out economic efficiencies. The resources available to government would be better applied to research and other services that are either financially too risky or just simply not (yet) commercially viable.
I think you may be mixing in the whole "Waterfall" thing. But that's really not was I was trying to imply. What I'm talking about is where an Engineer comes in, takes higher level requirements, and maps them to a basic architecture. They design the high level components, their boundary interfaces and probably scope out some of the internals. They then hand some of the implementation work over to junior level team members and take on the design and implementation of others parts themselves. Rinse-repeat until release. It's the part that you'd hand over to the "junior team member" that's being referred to as "monkey work". The junior member obviously is going to have to put some design work of their own into things, but they know what's expected in terms of inputs, outputs and behaviors of the part they've been charged with implementing. The engineer works from a substantially cleaner canvas and their work informs that of others. The size of the project and/or team and level of formality at the dev-house usually dictates just how much "freedom" is given to the junior member to implement according to their own ideas. In some shops they're allowed to take pretty big bites, others they're a lot more "managed".
If that is a viable solution then that would be great. Unfortunately, the nature of software development doesn't always make it easy to utilize unskilled or low-skilled individuals. Right now I'd love to be able to bring in a couple interns to deal with maintenance related tasks so we can put more focus on next generation products. Regrettably, the time required for hand holding nascent programmers in addition to bringing them up to speed on the legacy products they'd be working on just isn't in our time budget.
What the boss is referring to as "monkey work" is what you'd toss in the lap of "programmers" while the rest is what you'd toss in the lap of the "engineers". In spite of the touchy feelings and baggage surrounding these titles there is a difference. The latter deals with open-ended problems with non-obvious solutions that must be researched, thought out and designed. The former deals with hanging flesh on bone, filling in the details of an already solved problem with an already spec'd solution. It really isn't terribly unlike the development and manufacturing process of physical goods. You have a group of people that figure out what is needed and how it should be implemented, and you have a group of people that do the actual implementation or manufacturing. Sometimes the roles are shared, other times they are not.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way I would accept that would be for you to opt out of every tax payer sponsored program contributing to you, every law protecting your societal status. That you would opt out of every insuree sponsored insurance benefit, every patient sponsored medical treatment. That you would establish an adequately funded trust fund for every one of your dependents as well as a fund to pay for disposing of your larded a** when you quiescently eat yourself to death.
In other words, if you do not want society to regulate what you do, then you have not right to ask that same society to contribute to your benefit.
It's called the emergency ward at the hospital. I am unaware of any state in the U.S. that does not provide one.
What is considered a crime and the severity there of is a societal issue expressed through government legislation. Fill in some of the bits between either end and you'll see that it really isn't a false continuum. To help inspire your imagination I'll start things for you. Obviously the position of some are debatable but also not the point
You do realize that that 1% require the other 99% to carry out their wishes right? Ultimately the other 99% have to vote, have to buy, have to believe. It is not the fault of the 1% that the other 99% are sheep.
In addition, increasing the cost of smoking hits the group deciding whether to take up smoking in the first place. i.e. kids If they don't smoke then, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of them not smoking later.
You know that's strange I always thought government was supposed to be represented by us for us. I fail to see why we as a society should not cure our cancers before they metastasis. There are plenty of places around the world for those wishing to be anarchists to go if they do not wish to be responsible to and for the society in which they belong.
If government is supposed to be represented by and for a given society, I fail to see how this is an improper mechanism for self-correction. Can you think of a more appropriate way for a group of people to come together to enact corrective change?
Don't ruin a perfectly good house. Cut the man...
On the plus side the stupid people are lowering the average and in effect raising their own IQ by breeding.
Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?
It would be far more humane and much less burdensome to everyone else to simply euthanize them. Even if we were to stand aloof and let people ruin their health on their own there's the unfortunate problem of so many laws guaranteeing them medical treatment in the event of a medical emergency. The cost of which is passed on to us either by way of insurance premiums and/or an increase in the prices charged to everyone for treatment. There's also the basic problem of cleanup after they quiescently consume their way to death. Then of course there's basic notions inconvenience for anyone that doesn't have to shop in the big and tall or plus size stores and yet must be around them. Consider the seat on a commercial jet or similar situations. The nausea induced from simply having to look at or smell them when they come within proximity. The unneeded tax expense that goes towards subsidizing farmers growing the raw materials used to make their feed.
Maybe in your perfect world we could simply cut them off and never be bothered by people that are distasteful and a burden to us. But the real world is far more complicated, and far more messy. The inconvenient reality is that most people, while perhaps not to the same extreme, indulge in unhealthy lifestyles that burden others. Left unhindered, it is also far more likely that these lifestyle habits will spread and infect more cultures rather than burn themselves out--if we just let them die. If a house gets dirty, you don't move, you clean the house. As a society we let the dirt--the unhealthy lifestyles--in, as a society we need to sweep the dirt out.
That's OK, because then they can sell you additional items at the concession stand when you refill. Since you also missed all those parts that make it impossible to follow the super complex plot of a modern movie they can sell you another ticket to catch what you missed.
Aside from being a rip off relative to imports it doesn't change the DPI which was the biggest reason for the gripe. Most people really don't need or want a big screen TV sitting 20 inches from my face. For my office where extra screen real estate is helpful I solved problem with 3 - 23.1" 1080p displays for a fraction of the price. But, the DPI is still just under 100. It is frustrating that I can get a super sharp, crisp display in a handheld but when I want to gawk at something on my desktop there's no chance of getting anything north of 100 DPI. Even laptops are easily had with 130 - 170 DPI. Everything for the desktop is fuzzed with anti-aliasing to overcome the low DPI. It's really hard on the eyes, especially for people like me that stare at text all day. Give me a nice 24" panel with a DPI somewhere north of 200. In other words, how about a nice 10MP display, that doesn't have a 50ms response time, nor a $12,000+ medical diagnostic display price tag.
Forget laptops. Why are the only panels I can get for my desktop 1080p? Well that is unless I wish to spend well north of $1000 to add 640 more to the horizontal and 520 to the vertical. Or sailing towards $10,000 and beyond for a nice 10MP medical diagnostic display.
Unfortunately that would not be culturally acceptable to most of those presently sending their girls to school.
I've not heard anything about them cuddling together in caves. But, there have been plenty of reports about rape and pornography (male on female). So, I would suspect this is pretty much an anti-education for girls thing as they're saying. They're fearful of what an educated woman would mean to their absolute control over them.
It isn't the "show" from studio {x} that's the original work. It's the all-inclusive composition delivered to your TV set that the broadcaster is claiming is a copyrighted work. By removing the ads from the composition the broadcaster put together they're supposedly creating a derivative work.
I think they're trying to suggest that this is no longer time shifting (determined to be legal) but now a derivative work that exceeds the bounds of fair use.
A good teacher will never have a single student. It doesn't matter how much juggling they do it is impossible to achieve the same level of synchronization with the individual student as is possible with a piece of software. If humans "teachers" still exist in the future, it is inevitable that their roles will dramatically change as software steps in to augment and eventually provide the lessons.
Moving 100m bubbles around with lasers. That's pretty impressive...
COTS was NASA and co's gambit to bypass Congress' inability to fully fund and support vehicle development to completion for essential launch services. NASA's budget isn't a monolithic entity. Congress allocates specific funds to specific pursuits. If COTS causes Congress to do anything to NASA's budget it be to shrink the allocation dedicated for launch services. However, that's because they wouldn't need it. Whether Congress chooses to reallocate those funds to other pursuits in NASA I suppose is anybody's guess.
Oh, come now. They make excellent computers. In all seriousness, government really doesn't need to be in a position of duplicating viable and affordable private sector alternatives. The private sector is far more adept at squeezing out economic efficiencies. The resources available to government would be better applied to research and other services that are either financially too risky or just simply not (yet) commercially viable.
Most likely stuff like the dosage calculator for TSAs scanners and various applications in military intelligence.
I think you may be mixing in the whole "Waterfall" thing. But that's really not was I was trying to imply. What I'm talking about is where an Engineer comes in, takes higher level requirements, and maps them to a basic architecture. They design the high level components, their boundary interfaces and probably scope out some of the internals. They then hand some of the implementation work over to junior level team members and take on the design and implementation of others parts themselves. Rinse-repeat until release. It's the part that you'd hand over to the "junior team member" that's being referred to as "monkey work". The junior member obviously is going to have to put some design work of their own into things, but they know what's expected in terms of inputs, outputs and behaviors of the part they've been charged with implementing. The engineer works from a substantially cleaner canvas and their work informs that of others. The size of the project and/or team and level of formality at the dev-house usually dictates just how much "freedom" is given to the junior member to implement according to their own ideas. In some shops they're allowed to take pretty big bites, others they're a lot more "managed".
If that is a viable solution then that would be great. Unfortunately, the nature of software development doesn't always make it easy to utilize unskilled or low-skilled individuals. Right now I'd love to be able to bring in a couple interns to deal with maintenance related tasks so we can put more focus on next generation products. Regrettably, the time required for hand holding nascent programmers in addition to bringing them up to speed on the legacy products they'd be working on just isn't in our time budget.
What the boss is referring to as "monkey work" is what you'd toss in the lap of "programmers" while the rest is what you'd toss in the lap of the "engineers". In spite of the touchy feelings and baggage surrounding these titles there is a difference. The latter deals with open-ended problems with non-obvious solutions that must be researched, thought out and designed. The former deals with hanging flesh on bone, filling in the details of an already solved problem with an already spec'd solution. It really isn't terribly unlike the development and manufacturing process of physical goods. You have a group of people that figure out what is needed and how it should be implemented, and you have a group of people that do the actual implementation or manufacturing. Sometimes the roles are shared, other times they are not.