That's generally considered the "slippery slope fallacy" in debate. Maybe I set the "too much" point too high, but that doesn't mean we should shut them all down.
Hollywood is pathologically incapable of making a movie that conveys a conservative message.
I keep hearing this complaint, and if true, why don't Ruport Murdoch and Koch Bro's get together to make conservative entertainment? Nothing is stopping them.
"explicit consent" of the car owners -- who signed a lengthy contract at purchase time that contained a vague and misleading clause deep in its fine-print.
What about second-hand buyers? They don't typically sign a contract with original dealer or manufacturer.
Quit blaming Trump for every god damn thing that happens...The ISS was planned to be decommissioned around that time frame well before it ever left the ground in 1998!!!
But the early estimates were only estimates, not policy. It's pretty obvious that the President in office in the mid 2020's will be making the final call such that one shouldn't hired-wire the retirement date just yet.
And assessments are that ISS is in relatively good shape, and that certain portions or systems can potentially be shut down as units rather than an all-or-nothing retirement.
FBI Director Christopher Wray: either imbecile and/or not to be trusted
He's probably thinking short-term: kiss up to the current Boss T; and back-doors may be helpful to HIS job in the shorter term, with longer term consequences being somebody else's problem.
Unless, hackers crack the back-door quicker than he expects. Perhaps he's thinking he can then blame the product companies for "doing back doors sloppily". Thus, spin the breach as bad implementation, not bad law.
Those in higher positions are often pretty good at having a "blame plan" ready, in my experience. They don't plan much else well, but strategic blaming is a necessary skill to rise in power. CYA Calculus.
American astronauts could be grounded on Earth for years with no destination in space until NASA develops new vehicles for its deep space travel plans
If you want deep-space systems, it's best to have a place near Earth to test them.
Personally I'd rather see the money spent on unmanned missions and extra-solar planetary scopes: bigger science bang for the buck. BUT if we are going to have Mars-esque manned missions, ISS is a great place to test them out and train.
You appear to be 'doing it wrong'. Design first, not last.
There are a good many situations where that's just not possible and/or practical.
you surely have many other things to change.
Yes, but those are other aspects that are probably off our topic.
They just shouldn't expect anybody to come along and fix their messes later.
The Dilbertian work world is not logical and doesn't think long-term. I didn't invent humans, I'm just stuck with them. I'd rather have tools that better handle chaos rather than pretend chaos doesn't exist because "it just shouldn't". Trump-like bosses, managers, and customers are fairly common (and there are smart but devious people with agendas).
Defining what is atomic, what are keys, relationships etc is the schema
Yes, but you can arrive at those organically. DR automatically generates unique row ID's. If you reference such in another table, you have "created" a relationship without explicitly creating a relationship: Create On Use.
dozen RAD tools do for you. Sure Rose builds some ugly code, but it does what you ask...DBase3 did what you ask
Code generation has problems that data or meta-data driven processing doesn't. Creation of code is usually far easier than maintenance (change) of such code. Generation usually does not help the maintenance side, and often makes it worse. (DR is not really about front-ends, I'd note.)
As far as DBase3, it had its own query language, not SQL. While SQL has weak spots, it's the de-facto standard, and makes the learning curve smaller because many already know traditional RDBMS. (I'd choose SMEQL as the new query language standard if given a choice, but that's another topic.)
I used DBase a lot in the past. It got most of the its RAD capability by integrating the query language, programming language, and front-end conventions, NOT from dynamicy, which it really didn't have. That is indeed one path to RAD, but that requires integrating a full stack (UI, biz-logic, database). DR just focuses on the database and query side. A full stack could be built around it, but that's Stage 2.
people that don't have a clue about database design. Causes problems left and right.
Just because some people abuse a tool is not a reason to not have it. A lot of people mis-use chainsaws, but in the right hands they are powerful and efficient tools.
Also, many customers don't really know what they want until they actually use the system. The "static" database tools don't handle changing-minds well. And DR allows gradual cleaning and applying integrity settings at a later time in a project when it settles.
It does seem they are bothered by state initiatives to locally enforce NN and privacy rules. One possibility is that having a mish-mash of different state laws complicates their business.
Another possibility is a slippery-slope fear that once states get comfortable adding a few local Internet regulations, they may go further. I suspect both fears are causing their rethink.
Kids today don't have to feel bad about losing, what with their participation trophies.
No problem! Thanks to you-know-who, kids now quickly and often remind somebody when they are a "bigly loooozer!". MKGA! I'm serious, my relatives' kids & friends do it all the time.
As far as "innovation"; filtering (identifying), executing, packaging, and marketing play at least as big a role as raw ideas. There's no shortage of interesting ideas floating around. But that's just 1st base of success. Read "Hacker News" if you want lists.
[begin promo rant] For example, I'd really like to see a company create a "dynamic relational" RDBMS. It would make prototyping and small projects much easier: no need to directly create schemas because they are "create on use". You can later tighten them up by adding constraints as a project matures. The co. can give out a lighter version as OSS, and charge a fee for the enterprise edition, similar to PHP/Zend's model.
As I stated, I don't necessarily believe clouds are less secure, and don't disagree with your points from a technical standpoint. But if hundreds of companies get borked at the same time, some of them prominent, it will make the cloud look bad and the companies on it look bad.
The Obama administration also accused China of cheating on solar panels via government subsidies; and tariffs were tacked on as punishment. As I understand it, the World Trade Organization agreed that China cheated, but disagreed with the US's remedy.
While I cannot stand Trump in general, he is sometimes right about trade and visa workers. Just because you are an idiot does not mean you are always wrong. Go 15% of Trump!
"The cloud" is setting itself up for a really huge public failure because a breach in one portion can more easily be re-used in all portions. If the back ends are consistent enough to get the economy-of-scale cloud promises, that consistency also means hackers can leverage their knowledge to get access to a larger group of systems.
This is NOT saying that on average clouds are riskier, it only means that breaches will be quite public because it will affect more organizations.
It's sort of comparable to travelling by car versus plane. Cars are overall more risky per mile, but you don't see car crashes in the news very often, at least not in proportion to those killed. But plane crashes are usually headlines. The cloud is a plane.
Jeep focused on a niche, and AMC was dying. The big-3 arguably rigged the market against them with laws such as dealership requirements. It would be interesting to see how unionization would play out with more real domestic competitors.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but we are out of catchy scientific-sounding headlines. Perhaps AI and blockchain can make more (hiccup).
That's generally considered the "slippery slope fallacy" in debate. Maybe I set the "too much" point too high, but that doesn't mean we should shut them all down.
I keep hearing this complaint, and if true, why don't Ruport Murdoch and Koch Bro's get together to make conservative entertainment? Nothing is stopping them.
I think it's a cool idea if not overdone. If the sky turns into Pepsi ads, etc. then there's a reason to complain.
Write it as "ProblemSolving++ 1.0 through 9.0"
Most organizations are, public or private. Give the executives and marketers pretty eye-candy and they are happy. The rest is second fiddle.
What about second-hand buyers? They don't typically sign a contract with original dealer or manufacturer.
Eat-a-Tweet
But the early estimates were only estimates, not policy. It's pretty obvious that the President in office in the mid 2020's will be making the final call such that one shouldn't hired-wire the retirement date just yet.
And assessments are that ISS is in relatively good shape, and that certain portions or systems can potentially be shut down as units rather than an all-or-nothing retirement.
It's probably a fluke. Something will restore order, or should I say, restore chaos.
"Pssst, nice brain you have there. It would too bad if something terrible happened to it..."
He's probably thinking short-term: kiss up to the current Boss T; and back-doors may be helpful to HIS job in the shorter term, with longer term consequences being somebody else's problem.
Unless, hackers crack the back-door quicker than he expects. Perhaps he's thinking he can then blame the product companies for "doing back doors sloppily". Thus, spin the breach as bad implementation, not bad law.
Those in higher positions are often pretty good at having a "blame plan" ready, in my experience. They don't plan much else well, but strategic blaming is a necessary skill to rise in power. CYA Calculus.
If you want deep-space systems, it's best to have a place near Earth to test them.
Personally I'd rather see the money spent on unmanned missions and extra-solar planetary scopes: bigger science bang for the buck. BUT if we are going to have Mars-esque manned missions, ISS is a great place to test them out and train.
There are a good many situations where that's just not possible and/or practical.
Yes, but those are other aspects that are probably off our topic.
The Dilbertian work world is not logical and doesn't think long-term. I didn't invent humans, I'm just stuck with them. I'd rather have tools that better handle chaos rather than pretend chaos doesn't exist because "it just shouldn't". Trump-like bosses, managers, and customers are fairly common (and there are smart but devious people with agendas).
It's okay, we're switching to Pissed Off Cat
Yes, but you can arrive at those organically. DR automatically generates unique row ID's. If you reference such in another table, you have "created" a relationship without explicitly creating a relationship: Create On Use.
Code generation has problems that data or meta-data driven processing doesn't. Creation of code is usually far easier than maintenance (change) of such code. Generation usually does not help the maintenance side, and often makes it worse. (DR is not really about front-ends, I'd note.)
As far as DBase3, it had its own query language, not SQL. While SQL has weak spots, it's the de-facto standard, and makes the learning curve smaller because many already know traditional RDBMS. (I'd choose SMEQL as the new query language standard if given a choice, but that's another topic.)
I used DBase a lot in the past. It got most of the its RAD capability by integrating the query language, programming language, and front-end conventions, NOT from dynamicy, which it really didn't have. That is indeed one path to RAD, but that requires integrating a full stack (UI, biz-logic, database). DR just focuses on the database and query side. A full stack could be built around it, but that's Stage 2.
Just because some people abuse a tool is not a reason to not have it. A lot of people mis-use chainsaws, but in the right hands they are powerful and efficient tools.
Also, many customers don't really know what they want until they actually use the system. The "static" database tools don't handle changing-minds well. And DR allows gradual cleaning and applying integrity settings at a later time in a project when it settles.
It does seem they are bothered by state initiatives to locally enforce NN and privacy rules. One possibility is that having a mish-mash of different state laws complicates their business.
Another possibility is a slippery-slope fear that once states get comfortable adding a few local Internet regulations, they may go further. I suspect both fears are causing their rethink.
Australian leadership replied that Trump can have it if he can haul the chunk away using wind power. At least that's how I'll interpret "blow chunks".
Human Nature Rule #73: good jokes override logic and accuracy. (So do some Presidents, but that's another rule.)
Same as any other oligopoly.
They require too many steps & layers, and don't support SQL well enough.
No problem! Thanks to you-know-who, kids now quickly and often remind somebody when they are a "bigly loooozer!". MKGA! I'm serious, my relatives' kids & friends do it all the time.
As far as "innovation"; filtering (identifying), executing, packaging, and marketing play at least as big a role as raw ideas. There's no shortage of interesting ideas floating around. But that's just 1st base of success. Read "Hacker News" if you want lists.
[begin promo rant] For example, I'd really like to see a company create a "dynamic relational" RDBMS. It would make prototyping and small projects much easier: no need to directly create schemas because they are "create on use". You can later tighten them up by adding constraints as a project matures. The co. can give out a lighter version as OSS, and charge a fee for the enterprise edition, similar to PHP/Zend's model.
As I stated, I don't necessarily believe clouds are less secure, and don't disagree with your points from a technical standpoint. But if hundreds of companies get borked at the same time, some of them prominent, it will make the cloud look bad and the companies on it look bad.
The Obama administration also accused China of cheating on solar panels via government subsidies; and tariffs were tacked on as punishment. As I understand it, the World Trade Organization agreed that China cheated, but disagreed with the US's remedy.
While I cannot stand Trump in general, he is sometimes right about trade and visa workers. Just because you are an idiot does not mean you are always wrong. Go 15% of Trump!
"The cloud" is setting itself up for a really huge public failure because a breach in one portion can more easily be re-used in all portions. If the back ends are consistent enough to get the economy-of-scale cloud promises, that consistency also means hackers can leverage their knowledge to get access to a larger group of systems.
This is NOT saying that on average clouds are riskier, it only means that breaches will be quite public because it will affect more organizations.
It's sort of comparable to travelling by car versus plane. Cars are overall more risky per mile, but you don't see car crashes in the news very often, at least not in proportion to those killed. But plane crashes are usually headlines. The cloud is a plane.
Jeep focused on a niche, and AMC was dying. The big-3 arguably rigged the market against them with laws such as dealership requirements. It would be interesting to see how unionization would play out with more real domestic competitors.