It doesn't "create 120,000 jobs". All it does is shift jobs from one place to another.
No, it shifts money from one use to another. Not all uses of money are equal in effect on jobs, so its quite possible it does create jobs. (Of course, lots of job creation analysis doesn't really look at the job losses, if any, from wherever the money is taken from, so doesn't really address net job creation; if that's the case with whatever underpins this claim, it may well be defective for that reason, but the whole oft-repeated-on-slashdot claim that government-initiated infrastructure programs categorically do not create jobs but move jobs around is completely bogus.)
With respect to your comment, I can only point out that you completely missed the point.
No more than you did in responding to it. That is, like you, I was aware of the US broadband scandal, but I didn't realize you were intending to make an oblique reference to it. OTOH, the actual results of the US effort were in large part what I was referring to when saying the results in the US would depend on how tightly constrained the telecoms were in the use of the money.
Substantively, though, I think we're on the same page here.
Maybe outcomes are less of a product of the system that is used and more a result of the skill and effort level of the educators and parents in question.
The skill and effort level of the educators, at least, is, in large part, a product of the system of training, selecting, supervising, and retaining educators. And the skill and effort level of parents at any given time is, in large part, a product of the output of the system at an earlier stage.
So I'm not at all convinced that there is an either/or here.
Korea is roughly 1/100th the size of the US. If we estimate a similar plan in the US based on size only, it would cost $2.46 trillion USD.
If we assume that the costs would scale with land area. Of course, if you took South Korea, split it in half, and added an equal area of uninhabited desert between the two halves, you wouldn't double the cost; the assumption that the costs would scale with land area is ludicrous.
The actual costs would probably be closer to scaling with population, where the US is less than 10 times as big as South Korea, though that would probably underestimate things a bit because distance does have some effect.
I wonder what might happen if the US gave its private telecom companies $200 billion to execute such a plan...
That depends how tightly constrained they were in how to execute it.
It's not creating an anonymous function, but it's doing the same work otherwise. Can you give an example of why the Ruby way is better?
IMO, Ruby's use of blocks is simpler, cleaner, and more elegant than the variety of Python techniques that cover different parts of what Ruby does with blocks. But, largely, its subjective.
In their own territory, sure but since the US didn't ratify the UN Conventions on the Law of the Sea they (should) still abide by the olden laws of the high seas which allowed for everybody to do whatever they want except for 'enemies of mankind' which are mainly pirates and slave traders.
The US considers almost the entirety of UNCLOS to be binding as declarative of customary international law; its objection to ratification centers pretty much entirely on the parts related to undersea mining in international waters.
Even under the new conventions they would have to abide by the laws of or deliver them to the country which flag the vessel flies under.
The US laws at issue apply to stateless vessels, who either don't fly a flag or who lose the protection of any flags flown by flying multiple flags of convenience (see Convention on the High Seas, 1958, Art. 6, Sec. 2.)
I don't believe in elaborate lies, because they fall-apart due to internal inconsistencies.
Actually, most elaborate journalistic hoaxes have fallen apart not because of internal inconsistencies, but because they are too successful, draw lots of attention, and then get people to follow up on them and find out they aren't true. (e.g., they fail based on external, rather than internal, inconsistencies -- the fabrications of Stephen Glass at The New Republic, for instance.)
But, at any rate, even if we were to accept that was an established fact that elaborate lies tend, more often than not, to fall apart due to internal inconsistencies, that would require us to assume that elaborate lies occurred often enough for such a tendency to be observed, so it would not be a rational basis for disbelieving, as you claim to, in the existence of such lies.
Plus there's lack of motive - why create an elaborate lie about a dumb teacher, and then two days later apologize for his comments to that teacher?
Because its humanizing, adds depth to the story, and gets people to believe in it more.
Is the subject of the exsistance of Black Sheep still up to debate because I do not have physical proof of the sheep I once owned?
Uh, yeah, from the perspective of any reasonable person third party, your claim that you had a black sheep (or a chupacabra, or a pink unicorn) in your posession 5 years ago but that all the evidence is gone does nothing to settle the issue of the existence of the claimed item.
I don't see why people are letting teachers like "Karen" remain anonymous.
One possibility is that it is because if the subject wasn't anonymous, making up invented stories that paint the subject in a negative light and publishing them would be libel.
If I have a black sheep, that is proof that black sheep exist.
That is not an anecdote. It is a fact subject to repeatable, independent observation (that is, other people can come and look at and verify the existence of your black sheep.)
An anecdote would be if someone told you that they had a black sheep.
Well if he did lie, it's a pretty elaborate lie, because in a later entry he said he talked to Karen the Teacher, and that she was near-crying. He also revealed that the student had been disrupting the class so, in this instance, the teacher was justified in taking the Linux Demo CDs. He apologized to the teacher for not getting the full story upfront.
So I don't think he was running a hoax.
Uh, why? Some of the best known hoaxes have been elaborate, detailed lies similar to this (some on much broader scales). So the whole argument that it was elaborate, so it must not be a hoax is just nonsense, based on actual real-world hoaxes as well as simple logic.
Because its a multidimensional, subjective thing so, for any given person, there won't be one clearly superior product, and no two people will be guaranteed to have the same preferences.
What would be nice (and facilitate the kind of cross-tracker tracking that OP seems concerned about) would be some kind of least-common-denominator communication protocol and issue data format so that even if everyone isn't using the same tool, its possible to do basic centralized tracking of issues stored in different trackers.
In the next sentence, you state correctly that Moore's "Law" is an observation not a law!
On definition of "law" is "a generalization based on consistent experience or results"; this is a particular kind of observation, the precise kind, in fact, that Moore's Law was when it was formulated.
The programmer in the back of your mind should. Why use a gantt chart which models time when you can use a DAG which models only the dependencies?
Well, the original question was how to respond to management "how are we doing?" questions, and management likes to have expectation of time to certain goals. Of course, unless there at time commitments associated with all the bugs (many of which are external) involved, the time piece of your gantt chart is going to be a wag anyway, but if you have the kind of management that care more about precision and presentation than accuracy, then I suppose it might still be useful.
To this, RMS would say that if it weren't for the GNU components, most other OSes wouldn't have been "produced" either...
So? The issue isn't whether GNU has produced lots of useful free components that have been incorporated in various OS's. Its the claim that it "has produced an operating system".
There is a clause in the GPL about how other software can interact with it.
Of course, since you don't need any license to distribute software that isn't a distributive work under copyright law, even if it "interacts with" another piece of software, such a license term has dubious effect.
That depends on your definition of "has produced". GNU certainly is actively developing an operating system, but I would say that an OS project that has managed to go 25 years without a stable kernel release cannot fairly be said to "have produced" an operating system.
This was a legitimate idea that people actually believed?
Well, yeah, but to be fair, the people that believe it and promote it have consisted largely of people who are either or both of (a) young, ignorant, and impressionable, and (b) people who have themselves whacked their heads hundreds of times and knocked themselves out.
To "stay positive in oncology" (that is, if cancer patients have an optimistic/positive posture) has been confirmed multiple times to be effective.
Er, no, its been repeatedly shown to be completely bunk, as was discussed (with citations) in response to the previous response to GP claiming the same thing even before the parent was posted.
If you read it and actually understood it, you wouldn't have said it only applied to the PAA and the powers of congress. That statement right there contradicts your entire premise. The rulling specifically said it applied to the government having a special interest over the fourth amendment.
Yeah, you still don't get it. The two issues are:
1) Is the government barred from this action by the Fourth Amendment? and 2) Can the President do it, even when it is expressly prohibited by statute?
The case was about the PAA, so it addressed only #1.
It did not address #2, which is an important grounds on which the TSP outside of (and particularly prior to) the PAA has been challenged.
It, therefore, not only did not specifically hold the TSP as a whole legal, it did not say anything about a major grounds for challenges against the TSP.
You have to look past the physical words of the ruling into the cases it has drawn to support it's ruling. It has pulled from several other cases (each cited well enough to get the fundamentals of) like Tuong, Keith and the secrete sealed case 310 f.3d 717. It hits more but these are the ones I remember. What that does is show that the cases the court pulled from believed that the president had the executive ability to conduct national security investigations and surveillance in matters of foreign intelligence purposes.
First off, I'm familiar with the (publicly revealed) portions of the cases at issue, and this characterization is not accurate, but that's beside the point, since the citation of one case by another does not mean the court is approving anything in the cited case except the part relevant to question at issue in the case being decided, and the question (and the holding) in the case did not address the issue of independent powers of the President.
Now congress can no more limit the powers of the president by a law then they can pass a law limiting the powers of the supreme court to rule on certain cases in matters of constitutionality.
That depends; there are two types of "independent" Presidential powers (that is, powers which don't stem from specific legislative) -- inherent powers which Congress cannot limit, and what might be called "negative powers" the President has so long as no contrary law exists -- in foreign affairs, the second class of powers is particularly large. Views on the scope of the first class of powers vary widely; they at least extend so far as certain express Constitutional powers of the Presidency (e.g., the pardon and veto), what else they contain is subject to much debate. The recent case on the PAA doesn't address either kind of independent Presidential power (and even if it had, it would have been dicta not binding precedent) because the issue before it only concerned actions under an express Congressional grant of power. Courts are not legislatures, they have power only to address the questions brought before them.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it shifts money from one use to another. Not all uses of money are equal in effect on jobs, so its quite possible it does create jobs. (Of course, lots of job creation analysis doesn't really look at the job losses, if any, from wherever the money is taken from, so doesn't really address net job creation; if that's the case with whatever underpins this claim, it may well be defective for that reason, but the whole oft-repeated-on-slashdot claim that government-initiated infrastructure programs categorically do not create jobs but move jobs around is completely bogus.)
No more than you did in responding to it. That is, like you, I was aware of the US broadband scandal, but I didn't realize you were intending to make an oblique reference to it. OTOH, the actual results of the US effort were in large part what I was referring to when saying the results in the US would depend on how tightly constrained the telecoms were in the use of the money.
Substantively, though, I think we're on the same page here.
The skill and effort level of the educators, at least, is, in large part, a product of the system of training, selecting, supervising, and retaining educators. And the skill and effort level of parents at any given time is, in large part, a product of the output of the system at an earlier stage.
So I'm not at all convinced that there is an either/or here.
If we assume that the costs would scale with land area. Of course, if you took South Korea, split it in half, and added an equal area of uninhabited desert between the two halves, you wouldn't double the cost; the assumption that the costs would scale with land area is ludicrous.
The actual costs would probably be closer to scaling with population, where the US is less than 10 times as big as South Korea, though that would probably underestimate things a bit because distance does have some effect.
That depends how tightly constrained they were in how to execute it.
IMO, Ruby's use of blocks is simpler, cleaner, and more elegant than the variety of Python techniques that cover different parts of what Ruby does with blocks. But, largely, its subjective.
The US considers almost the entirety of UNCLOS to be binding as declarative of customary international law; its objection to ratification centers pretty much entirely on the parts related to undersea mining in international waters.
The US laws at issue apply to stateless vessels, who either don't fly a flag or who lose the protection of any flags flown by flying multiple flags of convenience (see Convention on the High Seas, 1958, Art. 6, Sec. 2.)
If they are on validly foreign-flagged ships, they are prohibited from doing so under international law (e.g., the Convention on the High Seas, 1958).
Stateless vessels are not protected in the same way.
Actually, most elaborate journalistic hoaxes have fallen apart not because of internal inconsistencies, but because they are too successful, draw lots of attention, and then get people to follow up on them and find out they aren't true. (e.g., they fail based on external, rather than internal, inconsistencies -- the fabrications of Stephen Glass at The New Republic, for instance.)
But, at any rate, even if we were to accept that was an established fact that elaborate lies tend, more often than not, to fall apart due to internal inconsistencies, that would require us to assume that elaborate lies occurred often enough for such a tendency to be observed, so it would not be a rational basis for disbelieving, as you claim to, in the existence of such lies.
Because its humanizing, adds depth to the story, and gets people to believe in it more.
Uh, yeah, from the perspective of any reasonable person third party, your claim that you had a black sheep (or a chupacabra, or a pink unicorn) in your posession 5 years ago but that all the evidence is gone does nothing to settle the issue of the existence of the claimed item.
One possibility is that it is because if the subject wasn't anonymous, making up invented stories that paint the subject in a negative light and publishing them would be libel.
No, its not.
That is not an anecdote. It is a fact subject to repeatable, independent observation (that is, other people can come and look at and verify the existence of your black sheep.)
An anecdote would be if someone told you that they had a black sheep.
Uh, why? Some of the best known hoaxes have been elaborate, detailed lies similar to this (some on much broader scales). So the whole argument that it was elaborate, so it must not be a hoax is just nonsense, based on actual real-world hoaxes as well as simple logic.
Because its a multidimensional, subjective thing so, for any given person, there won't be one clearly superior product, and no two people will be guaranteed to have the same preferences.
What would be nice (and facilitate the kind of cross-tracker tracking that OP seems concerned about) would be some kind of least-common-denominator communication protocol and issue data format so that even if everyone isn't using the same tool, its possible to do basic centralized tracking of issues stored in different trackers.
On definition of "law" is "a generalization based on consistent experience or results"; this is a particular kind of observation, the precise kind, in fact, that Moore's Law was when it was formulated.
Well, the original question was how to respond to management "how are we doing?" questions, and management likes to have expectation of time to certain goals. Of course, unless there at time commitments associated with all the bugs (many of which are external) involved, the time piece of your gantt chart is going to be a wag anyway, but if you have the kind of management that care more about precision and presentation than accuracy, then I suppose it might still be useful.
He may also be doing other things, but he's still Chairman of the Board of Directors of Microsoft Corp.
It's not the Google Compiler Collection, you know.
Quite. Sometimes, even preview doesn't help if your brain really knows what you meant to write and refuses to see anything else.
If its statically-linked, I'd tend to agree with that. If its dynamically-linked, I'd say that's far less likely to be the case.
So? The issue isn't whether GNU has produced lots of useful free components that have been incorporated in various OS's. Its the claim that it "has produced an operating system".
More precisely:
No, the hurd is the (still incomplete) kernel, GNU is the (still incomplete) Operating System.
Of course, since you don't need any license to distribute software that isn't a distributive work under copyright law, even if it "interacts with" another piece of software, such a license term has dubious effect.
That depends on your definition of "has produced". GNU certainly is actively developing an operating system, but I would say that an OS project that has managed to go 25 years without a stable kernel release cannot fairly be said to "have produced" an operating system.
Well, yeah, but to be fair, the people that believe it and promote it have consisted largely of people who are either or both of (a) young, ignorant, and impressionable, and (b) people who have themselves whacked their heads hundreds of times and knocked themselves out.
Er, no, its been repeatedly shown to be completely bunk, as was discussed (with citations) in response to the previous response to GP claiming the same thing even before the parent was posted.
Yeah, you still don't get it. The two issues are:
1) Is the government barred from this action by the Fourth Amendment?
and
2) Can the President do it, even when it is expressly prohibited by statute?
The case was about the PAA, so it addressed only #1.
It did not address #2, which is an important grounds on which the TSP outside of (and particularly prior to) the PAA has been challenged.
It, therefore, not only did not specifically hold the TSP as a whole legal, it did not say anything about a major grounds for challenges against the TSP.
First off, I'm familiar with the (publicly revealed) portions of the cases at issue, and this characterization is not accurate, but that's beside the point, since the citation of one case by another does not mean the court is approving anything in the cited case except the part relevant to question at issue in the case being decided, and the question (and the holding) in the case did not address the issue of independent powers of the President.
That depends; there are two types of "independent" Presidential powers (that is, powers which don't stem from specific legislative) -- inherent powers which Congress cannot limit, and what might be called "negative powers" the President has so long as no contrary law exists -- in foreign affairs, the second class of powers is particularly large. Views on the scope of the first class of powers vary widely; they at least extend so far as certain express Constitutional powers of the Presidency (e.g., the pardon and veto), what else they contain is subject to much debate. The recent case on the PAA doesn't address either kind of independent Presidential power (and even if it had, it would have been dicta not binding precedent) because the issue before it only concerned actions under an express Congressional grant of power. Courts are not legislatures, they have power only to address the questions brought before them.