But on the other hand, what would possibly be gained by loading the astronauts before the fuel?
Reduces the chance of forgetting to put the astronauts in before launching. It's the same reason I put my pants on as soon as I wake up in the morning.
I feel your pain. UI development is growing ever more complex and messy.
In the pre-web days you had pretty much one target UI platform and it all worked the same on all desktops. Life was smooth*.
Then the web came along with different browser brands and versions. You had to test the UI on multiple browser brands and combo's. One org I worked for had a testing room with about 10 variations of browsers and OS's. When the testers were not available, I had to visit all 10 for every release. I considered gluing a spring to my arse.
Now we have that AND mobile devices with a wide variety of screen sizes.
A sufficient testing room would probably need at least 50 test stations. We also have to design apps for different screen-sizes. ("Smart" frameworks that do all it automatically is a pipe-dream. It takes human judgement to adjust, machines are too stupid still, unless you live with half-ass junk, which is common.)
This is crazy, something has to give.
I've kicking around going back to WYSIWYG and/or client-side vector rendering instead of auto-flow (at least client-side auto-flow.) It would simplify the client by moving most rendering logic and flow to the server, of which there is only one version of instead of 50, like the %@$# client side has.
I'm 99.99999361% sure Vulcans would NOT do it the way we've had been. We humans F'd UI (non) standards.
The only upside is job security for trying to tame the giant steaming piles with their 7-foot teeth. If a logical standard came along, I bet 2/3 of devs would be fired.
* You had "DLL hell" back then, but what was mostly the installers' problem, not the developers'. Now we have the equivalent in client-variation-hell which screws mostly the developer, or requires more testers.
Complaining is easy; propose an alternative to move the economy. The whole world is in a funk, by the way, not just US.
All I've seen from the right is more trickle-down plans and either vague deregulation, or deregulation that turns us into a 3rd-world country.
More trickle-down won't work because the rich are already flush with cash. They don't expand biz because of insufficient consumers. Insufficient consumption is the current bottleneck. If you don't fix that, you don't fix the econ. Go!...
That's fear-mongering. China has much more to lose in a trade-war than we do such that they will likely work something out. Their economy is addicted to exports, we are not. Addicts don't readily give up their drug supply. (We are addicted to oil, but that's another story.)
and their imports shift to Europe and Japan instead
They already have more tariffs than we do. We are behind the game.
Protectionism is one of those solutions that is "simple, obvious, and wrong".
Corporate propaganda. And don't give me the typical Smoot-Hawley story. Smoot-Hawley was a bad idea for us because we were a net exporter at the time, for one. Plus, we don't have to kick in the tariffs all at once. We gradually ramp them up to give everyone time to adjust. Smoot-Hawley did it wrong.
The mentioned tax loopholes affect organizations unevenly such that some companies may indeed go overseas to avoid the US tax system. But that's more about being uneven than having high taxes.
In general different countries will have different tax laws such that some portion of companies may find a better deal overseas even if the average tax difference is small or even better in the US.
As an analogy, the typical things I buy at the market may favor me going to Store B over Store A. But, that doesn't necessarily mean Store A has worse deals in general; but rather just for my particular preferences. I'm not everybody. The companies that leave for tax reasons are not every-co.
Focusing on just those that leave due to this factor is cherry-picking evidence. Some co's may move to the US from countries for similar reasons: for their particular domain or situation, it makes business sense at the given place and time.
This unevenness is unavoidable because every country will have different tax philosophies and laws. As long as it works out in aggregate, we are fine. Some come; some go.
The biggest issue affecting US competitiveness is business taxes.
That's disputable. If you factor in all the loopholes, US taxes are typical of developed countries, no higher and no lower.
Anyhow, profits are too hard to measure for international corporations. They've got bits and pieces all over, in some places where the local laws make it hard for the IRS to verify as these corporations shift stuff around the globe to play tax shell games.
Instead, base their US taxes on revenues in the US and any money shipped out of the US.
Better yet, tariff their goods if they don't follow decent pollution and labor laws.
Why should we let our jobs slip away via lopsided conditions whereby other countries keep their labor cheap, oppressed, and poisoned so that their goods are cheap enough to get our consumer money in order to buy a fat military to use against us and our allies?
We are double-kicking our own ass: jobs & military
(I would vote for Trump if he weren't stupid in many other areas outside of trade. Our trade deals DO suck.)
Her statement also suggests that ranking enemies by enemy-ness levels (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) is perhaps futile. Russia has helped us with the Iran deal, and terrorism in the relatively recent past. They don't like terrorists either, for they've had problems with them also. Our relationship with them is thus largely situational. It's been rough lately, but could change, depending on world events. Her response was nuanced because our relationship with the country is nuanced.
not that the riders were black, but rather that the names chosen "sounded black". This is significant as it introduces culture...
Most people don't name themselves. Even if we call the discrimination "culturism", it doesn't fix the problem.
Is "culturism" a lower "sin" than racism? (Assuming "race" even exists.) I'm not getting your point.
Are you saying it's comparable to one avoiding people or names that sounds rural (aka "redneck")? Even if that were true, there's probably roughly an equal number of rural folks who don't like "liberal city slickers" such that it balances out.
I suggest either not giving out names or allowing pseudo-names.
I use a pseudo-name at burger joints because they mispronounce my actual name so badly that sometimes I don't recognize it. "Tub Lizard, your burger is ready" -- using my/. handle as an example here. I'm sure Uber drivers would also mangle it.
She'll get the benefit of the a doubt due to her age and gender.
But a 30-year-old man accused of the same crime would NOT get the benefit of the doubt.
Once my wife started kicking me because I was saying stupid crap (as usual). I jokingly shouted "husband abuse!" She replied, "You weigh almost double what I do, what jury would believe you?"
(And with all the zombied PC's floating around, this pirate accusation problem will spread.)
Slashdot Mirror
They are steaming mad.
We have the newly invented Note-7 Drive, and now the Soylent Drive.
Green Orion babes, here we come!
(That's "Orion", not "Onion")
But that's how warp-drive will be accidentally discovered.
Reduces the chance of forgetting to put the astronauts in before launching. It's the same reason I put my pants on as soon as I wake up in the morning.
No policy change will make everyone happy. That's not news.
along with the quakes, pollution, and explosions associated with it.
The Soviets lost a lot of their key technicians by having them hang around the rocket during fueling and tests.
I feel your pain. UI development is growing ever more complex and messy.
In the pre-web days you had pretty much one target UI platform and it all worked the same on all desktops. Life was smooth*.
Then the web came along with different browser brands and versions. You had to test the UI on multiple browser brands and combo's. One org I worked for had a testing room with about 10 variations of browsers and OS's. When the testers were not available, I had to visit all 10 for every release. I considered gluing a spring to my arse.
Now we have that AND mobile devices with a wide variety of screen sizes.
A sufficient testing room would probably need at least 50 test stations. We also have to design apps for different screen-sizes. ("Smart" frameworks that do all it automatically is a pipe-dream. It takes human judgement to adjust, machines are too stupid still, unless you live with half-ass junk, which is common.)
This is crazy, something has to give.
I've kicking around going back to WYSIWYG and/or client-side vector rendering instead of auto-flow (at least client-side auto-flow.) It would simplify the client by moving most rendering logic and flow to the server, of which there is only one version of instead of 50, like the %@$# client side has.
I'm 99.99999361% sure Vulcans would NOT do it the way we've had been. We humans F'd UI (non) standards.
The only upside is job security for trying to tame the giant steaming piles with their 7-foot teeth. If a logical standard came along, I bet 2/3 of devs would be fired.
* You had "DLL hell" back then, but what was mostly the installers' problem, not the developers'. Now we have the equivalent in client-variation-hell which screws mostly the developer, or requires more testers.
So 93% is illegal? The 7% is probably accidental then, or foreplay.
Glad to hear your visit to Washington DC's national institutions went well.
A full conductor.
Complaining is easy; propose an alternative to move the economy. The whole world is in a funk, by the way, not just US.
All I've seen from the right is more trickle-down plans and either vague deregulation, or deregulation that turns us into a 3rd-world country.
More trickle-down won't work because the rich are already flush with cash. They don't expand biz because of insufficient consumers. Insufficient consumption is the current bottleneck. If you don't fix that, you don't fix the econ. Go!...
That's fear-mongering. China has much more to lose in a trade-war than we do such that they will likely work something out. Their economy is addicted to exports, we are not. Addicts don't readily give up their drug supply. (We are addicted to oil, but that's another story.)
They already have more tariffs than we do. We are behind the game.
Corporate propaganda. And don't give me the typical Smoot-Hawley story. Smoot-Hawley was a bad idea for us because we were a net exporter at the time, for one. Plus, we don't have to kick in the tariffs all at once. We gradually ramp them up to give everyone time to adjust. Smoot-Hawley did it wrong.
That's filtering by geographical area, not by gang-ness directly.
Addendum:
The mentioned tax loopholes affect organizations unevenly such that some companies may indeed go overseas to avoid the US tax system. But that's more about being uneven than having high taxes.
In general different countries will have different tax laws such that some portion of companies may find a better deal overseas even if the average tax difference is small or even better in the US.
As an analogy, the typical things I buy at the market may favor me going to Store B over Store A. But, that doesn't necessarily mean Store A has worse deals in general; but rather just for my particular preferences. I'm not everybody. The companies that leave for tax reasons are not every-co.
Focusing on just those that leave due to this factor is cherry-picking evidence. Some co's may move to the US from countries for similar reasons: for their particular domain or situation, it makes business sense at the given place and time.
This unevenness is unavoidable because every country will have different tax philosophies and laws. As long as it works out in aggregate, we are fine. Some come; some go.
Come closer, I'll help you ruffle your ridges
That's disputable. If you factor in all the loopholes, US taxes are typical of developed countries, no higher and no lower.
Anyhow, profits are too hard to measure for international corporations. They've got bits and pieces all over, in some places where the local laws make it hard for the IRS to verify as these corporations shift stuff around the globe to play tax shell games.
Instead, base their US taxes on revenues in the US and any money shipped out of the US.
Better yet, tariff their goods if they don't follow decent pollution and labor laws.
Why should we let our jobs slip away via lopsided conditions whereby other countries keep their labor cheap, oppressed, and poisoned so that their goods are cheap enough to get our consumer money in order to buy a fat military to use against us and our allies?
We are double-kicking our own ass: jobs & military
(I would vote for Trump if he weren't stupid in many other areas outside of trade. Our trade deals DO suck.)
They are the same thing because there is no such thing as "race", and the term has come to refer to culture over time.
How do you know when gangsters are ordering rides?
If there is any doubt about the reasons behind their H-1B desires, this should set it to rest.
Her statement also suggests that ranking enemies by enemy-ness levels (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) is perhaps futile. Russia has helped us with the Iran deal, and terrorism in the relatively recent past. They don't like terrorists either, for they've had problems with them also. Our relationship with them is thus largely situational. It's been rough lately, but could change, depending on world events. Her response was nuanced because our relationship with the country is nuanced.
Most people don't name themselves. Even if we call the discrimination "culturism", it doesn't fix the problem.
Is "culturism" a lower "sin" than racism? (Assuming "race" even exists.) I'm not getting your point.
Are you saying it's comparable to one avoiding people or names that sounds rural (aka "redneck")? Even if that were true, there's probably roughly an equal number of rural folks who don't like "liberal city slickers" such that it balances out.
I suggest either not giving out names or allowing pseudo-names.
I use a pseudo-name at burger joints because they mispronounce my actual name so badly that sometimes I don't recognize it. "Tub Lizard, your burger is ready" -- using my /. handle as an example here. I'm sure Uber drivers would also mangle it.
That implies they are mutually exclusive. I'd even argue there's a correlation.
She'll get the benefit of the a doubt due to her age and gender.
But a 30-year-old man accused of the same crime would NOT get the benefit of the doubt.
Once my wife started kicking me because I was saying stupid crap (as usual). I jokingly shouted "husband abuse!" She replied, "You weigh almost double what I do, what jury would believe you?"
(And with all the zombied PC's floating around, this pirate accusation problem will spread.)
Worse: a TSA guy resembling Ken Bone gives you the "deep glove" inspection.
Free spontaneous unicorns, rainbows, and intoxication? Sounds just like Windows 10. They were right!