Obviously, all the moral responsibility is still on the human that presses the "on" button, or who turns off the safeties and places it in combat mode. Duh.
Even there you don't find any new moral or ethical issue.
Well, that's the thing about Dunning-Kruger; if you thought it through a little farther, you'd realize that a bunch of people glancing at my post and laughing are almost all at that early peak.;) You seem rather sure of yourself too, and yet, you didn't even get far enough in to touch on the meat of my comment.
Know going in that I'm an old-school software developer and that my comment was a universal truth. If you didn't understand it, or were too busy laughing at the nearest meme to try, that's fine; but it wasn't wrong. It can't be wrong, actually, because it was an observation of historical fact.
Almost everything is waterfall, and waterfall was never the extreme absolutist caricature that you and other idiots laugh at. Yes, you're right, I am superior to you when it comes to reading comprehension of the term "waterfall development model." What people laugh at never even existed, so how much chance do they have to be correct, or have some insight? The author of the book people point at to support their weird claim that waterfall was absolutist even clarified later, in response to those criticisms, that it is not and never was a static system with no changes allowed, you simply try not to make late changes. There was never anything at the end that said, "and when problems come up, you don't even respond." That is just idiocy, and the target audience of the book were engineers for whom that is actually rather obvious.
The vast majority of software was always made using waterfall process, and that is still true today.
Not-for-profit is a formal status that you apply for from the government.
That's why I talked about non-profits, not something general like "non-commercial uses." Non-commercial uses have more fair uses than commercial uses, but actual real-life, registered non-profits are also known as "charities" and receive substantial deference in these types of matters. They are presumed to be acting in the public interest. When they're also an archive, which is a type of library, they basically have the maximum possible deference for fair use.
Hey derp-stick, you consider the crimes of ISIS to be equivalent to a bullet in that analogy? So a whole training camp dug into the mountains, for a group that has done the things they have in Iraq and Syria, trying to take over a new area and commit those same crimes against a new group of civilians, that's just 1 bullet to you? hurdurrrrrrrrr to you to, maaaaaaaaaaan.
They're like a library. When it is non-profit and not in any way involved in competing with anything commercial, then its uses are inherently more fair.
Lawyers often tell people to "stay away" from things that are allowed, but would be expensive to defend. This is generally because they are things that are optional. But for an archive, they wouldn't tell them that. The same lawyer would tell them that they should stay within the real limits of an archive, and be prepared to defend those actions, because they're core to the purpose of the organization.
Waterfall always worked, it just was never the straw-man that you're taking aim at. You even drag in having an out-of-date spec, without considering that that hurts everybody the same. An agile project with an out-of-date spec doesn't have any advantage there.
You get it exactly backwards when you suggest that waterfall works for small projects with low complexity. Like, 101-level idiocy type of backwards. It is easily explained by your idea that your opinions are actually facts, though. It means you can't learn, not matter the size or obviousness of the mistake.
Some of that is pretty funny,. Myspace failed quickly at being the type of site that facebook became, but they were the most successful place for music bands for years after that. Branded pages is exactly what they were good at, and it isn't enough because many brands will just have their own domain. It is just niche hosting. The brands it benefits aren't the ones who can pay for it, after all.
Facebook got the right investment amounts to pay the media to hype them into mainstream awareness, and so used all the air available for the "lowest common denominator social site" niche.
If something replaces it, it will be because big business decided to throw that much money at the replacement, beyond that analysis is irrelevant.
Well, go and try to buy a house with hamburgers and then get back to us; let us know how much you saved and how much more "real" the burgers were as currency.
Obviously it depends on what kind of ethics you practice.
For a Buddhist it is fairly simple; did you use less violence than what you were trying to prevent others from using, and in the end did you reduce the overall level of suffering?
In the case of dropping the MOAB on a terrorist base, I think it clear that this passes Buddhist moral and ethical analysis. Killing 2 dozen people with a bomb is less violent than letting those people take over whole cities and murder a significant percent of the residents, which is what ISIS has done in other places. Also, being a remote location there was likely little additional or accidental suffering caused. Compare that to a single ISIS suicide bomber in a city!
It is true that angry words are best combated by kind words, and that minor violence sometimes requires angry words. In this way Buddhism teaches to use a lower level of violence than what you are trying to stop. However, that scale goes up to "total annihilation," and it is considered good to stop total annihilation even if requires partial annihilation. This is why some monks practice martial arts, even though they usually refuse to fight. You can stop a knife with a stick, if you know how. If you can stop a missile with a bullet, do it!
The ethical issues are exactly the same in every situation, and it does not matter if the killing is done with a rock in your hand, remotely by pulling the trigger on a gun, or remotely by pressing a button on a joystick.
Notice that the automation added by a robot is the same automation that was already added by a gun!
Airplanes and bombs are also the exact same type of automation.
A person decides to kill another person, and acts on it. That is the entire moral and ethical issue, and the technology used makes no difference.
When you read about a robot firing a gun, there is no change. Nobody said the robot is going to decide when the gun gets fired, that's like saying the string of a bow will decide when the arrow is released. Stop blaming the bow and take responsibility for your actions.
You don't need special tech to make electric subs stealthy. They're super-quiet when running on battery. That old tech is quieter than those fancy US and Russian tech. The reason the US and Russia needs all that fancy stealth sub tech is that nuclear power has lots of moving parts, all of which make weird noises. It is a steam turbine, after all, it is somewhat similar to having a coal power station onboard. Noisy as hell without all that fancy shit.
Compare the moving parts in a coal power station (including moving steam!) to the moving parts in a battery. OK, it should be obvious that with perfect future tech the nuclear-powered sub would eventually approach the low noise of the battery sub, but never quite reach it.
The problem is that the batteries don't last very long, and you eventually have to re-surface and run a diesel generator to recharge them, which is as noisy as a tug boat. Then everybody can follow you. So if you spend enough money on logistics, you can conspire to recharge from other batteries and make a silent voyage.
You nonsense about "nobody is trying to stop the drugs" is pretty funny. So this submarine sneaks up... you don't know who it is... how do you know it is the drug smugglers and not the North Koreans? Answer: You don't! Your argument that nobody cares about the drug subs would seem to imply that you're aware that the vulnerability is proven.
The problem with the idea that they are "rational" is that it implies that they feel exceptionally desperate. Rational, like a cornered animal?
The alternatives seem to be believing that they act crazy because they're mentally insane, which is highly unlikely, or because they see their situation as being exceedingly desperate, far more desperate than it really would be if they weren't threatening anybody. Which is crazy.
If they're internally sane, it implies that they are acting on information so bad that they their actions are effectively insane. It turns out it doesn't help the military analysis at all. They're just as dangerous and volatile if they're irrationally desperate as if they're irrationally evil.
If you find yourself near a newspaper, or an internet terminal, check the business news and you'll find out that the boycott as real. You're right that they're Wally World shoppers; since they stopped shopping at that other place across the street! They didn't simply sign a letter, or boycott in order to pressure the company to change, no, they stopped shopping there entirely.
There is really no advantage that Target has over the other box stores, they're often even located near each other.
And they might not actually go out of business, but they're certainly going to close a lot of stores, and they're probably going to be shopping for a buyer.
When "plug & play" became successful and the cards stopped coming with jumpers, they did start breaking them in half. They simply didn't realize that we were still able to reuse the ones with jumpers stripped. They thought we were collecting all the boards and sorting them at home, and surely throwing away the ones without jumpers.
And it would be silly for them to have a giant bag of jumpers. Back then the components that used jumpers for configuration came with the max amount needed; you would never change the number of jumpers on a board. When something was turned off, the jumper would go into a parking position; it wouldn't even say that that one wasn't connected. If you strip the jumpers off one board that is actually dead, you now have a surplus that will last decades. They went through so many old parts, if they had really started putting them in a bag it would have been full the first week.
But also there would be bags of regular garbage that would have jumpers in the bottom. Sometimes the RAM cards would be in there too, but it got pretty easy to recognize their "private customer data, lunch scraps, jumpers, and RAM" bags and just tear the bottom of the bag and grab the RAM. It was a different world then.
We knew what they were doing because sometimes we'd go into the stores and try to talk them into selling some of what they were throwing away as cheaper used stuff, but they wouldn't do it. They always said we should just save up for a few months and buy it from them full price. We never let on that their steps were failing, or they would have resorted to breaking them sooner.
I fished my first x86 out of a dumpster in my late teens. People were upgrading to 386 and the stores were just throwing the 286s in the garbage. Just throwing it the garbage! It was insane. Show up at 3am, Free Computer!!1!!!
Later I got 386s that way too; usually SX though. If it was a DX the store would resell it.
The modems they would strip the jumpers off to try to foil us, since there was no internet and no manuals, but it only took one weekend to try all the combinations and get an ISA internal modem configured.
You want a magic pony or something, who said anything about Seoul not being damaged?
Here is the thing though, if they're aiming their artillery at the city, and we're aiming ours at their artillery, then Seoul is damaged but not destroyed.
They've known this all along as they've continued to live next to the border. It is brave. The North even built giant invasion tunnels. Everybody stayed by the border.
Eventually Korea will be unified, and they will have it behind them.
Companies prove every year that bad publicity is bad.
Target is about to go under from bad publicity on the right.
A whole State is losing billions of dollars from bad publicity on the left, though that should go back to normal now.
It doesn't even matter who is mad, when people get pissed at your company, and your company relies on sales of cheap shit to the masses, or tourism, it hurts.
What confused people in the past was cases where companies got what was actually good publicity, but society had some traditional hang-up that told people it was "bad." So then the company benefits, and some people get confused. Things like a spokesperson or executive having a sex scandal was seen as "bad publicity," but then it would actually help the company. Because it turns out, sex sells. Who knew?!
This means they like to trick people. Do people trust them not to substitute ingredients? Deceptive ads don't only affect people who were tricked, everybody who believes that your ad was deceptive has had their view of your company altered.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, all the moral responsibility is still on the human that presses the "on" button, or who turns off the safeties and places it in combat mode. Duh.
Even there you don't find any new moral or ethical issue.
Well, that's the thing about Dunning-Kruger; if you thought it through a little farther, you'd realize that a bunch of people glancing at my post and laughing are almost all at that early peak. ;) You seem rather sure of yourself too, and yet, you didn't even get far enough in to touch on the meat of my comment.
Know going in that I'm an old-school software developer and that my comment was a universal truth. If you didn't understand it, or were too busy laughing at the nearest meme to try, that's fine; but it wasn't wrong. It can't be wrong, actually, because it was an observation of historical fact.
Almost everything is waterfall, and waterfall was never the extreme absolutist caricature that you and other idiots laugh at. Yes, you're right, I am superior to you when it comes to reading comprehension of the term "waterfall development model." What people laugh at never even existed, so how much chance do they have to be correct, or have some insight? The author of the book people point at to support their weird claim that waterfall was absolutist even clarified later, in response to those criticisms, that it is not and never was a static system with no changes allowed, you simply try not to make late changes. There was never anything at the end that said, "and when problems come up, you don't even respond." That is just idiocy, and the target audience of the book were engineers for whom that is actually rather obvious.
The vast majority of software was always made using waterfall process, and that is still true today.
Not-for-profit is a formal status that you apply for from the government.
That's why I talked about non-profits, not something general like "non-commercial uses." Non-commercial uses have more fair uses than commercial uses, but actual real-life, registered non-profits are also known as "charities" and receive substantial deference in these types of matters. They are presumed to be acting in the public interest. When they're also an archive, which is a type of library, they basically have the maximum possible deference for fair use.
Hey derp-stick, you consider the crimes of ISIS to be equivalent to a bullet in that analogy? So a whole training camp dug into the mountains, for a group that has done the things they have in Iraq and Syria, trying to take over a new area and commit those same crimes against a new group of civilians, that's just 1 bullet to you? hurdurrrrrrrrr to you to, maaaaaaaaaaan.
All of your questions are pure moral and ethical questions and the technology used has no bearing at all on the answers.
I wish I understood their secret
They're like a library. When it is non-profit and not in any way involved in competing with anything commercial, then its uses are inherently more fair.
Lawyers often tell people to "stay away" from things that are allowed, but would be expensive to defend. This is generally because they are things that are optional. But for an archive, they wouldn't tell them that. The same lawyer would tell them that they should stay within the real limits of an archive, and be prepared to defend those actions, because they're core to the purpose of the organization.
Waterfall always worked, it just was never the straw-man that you're taking aim at. You even drag in having an out-of-date spec, without considering that that hurts everybody the same. An agile project with an out-of-date spec doesn't have any advantage there.
You get it exactly backwards when you suggest that waterfall works for small projects with low complexity. Like, 101-level idiocy type of backwards. It is easily explained by your idea that your opinions are actually facts, though. It means you can't learn, not matter the size or obviousness of the mistake.
Some of that is pretty funny,. Myspace failed quickly at being the type of site that facebook became, but they were the most successful place for music bands for years after that. Branded pages is exactly what they were good at, and it isn't enough because many brands will just have their own domain. It is just niche hosting. The brands it benefits aren't the ones who can pay for it, after all.
Facebook got the right investment amounts to pay the media to hype them into mainstream awareness, and so used all the air available for the "lowest common denominator social site" niche.
If something replaces it, it will be because big business decided to throw that much money at the replacement, beyond that analysis is irrelevant.
Well, go and try to buy a house with hamburgers and then get back to us; let us know how much you saved and how much more "real" the burgers were as currency.
engineers
You're missing the engine part, all you have is an `eer.
A nothingeer does not an engineer make.
Obviously it depends on what kind of ethics you practice.
For a Buddhist it is fairly simple; did you use less violence than what you were trying to prevent others from using, and in the end did you reduce the overall level of suffering?
In the case of dropping the MOAB on a terrorist base, I think it clear that this passes Buddhist moral and ethical analysis. Killing 2 dozen people with a bomb is less violent than letting those people take over whole cities and murder a significant percent of the residents, which is what ISIS has done in other places. Also, being a remote location there was likely little additional or accidental suffering caused. Compare that to a single ISIS suicide bomber in a city!
It is true that angry words are best combated by kind words, and that minor violence sometimes requires angry words. In this way Buddhism teaches to use a lower level of violence than what you are trying to stop. However, that scale goes up to "total annihilation," and it is considered good to stop total annihilation even if requires partial annihilation. This is why some monks practice martial arts, even though they usually refuse to fight. You can stop a knife with a stick, if you know how. If you can stop a missile with a bullet, do it!
The ethical issue however is mostly the same.
The ethical issues are exactly the same in every situation, and it does not matter if the killing is done with a rock in your hand, remotely by pulling the trigger on a gun, or remotely by pressing a button on a joystick.
Notice that the automation added by a robot is the same automation that was already added by a gun!
Airplanes and bombs are also the exact same type of automation.
A person decides to kill another person, and acts on it. That is the entire moral and ethical issue, and the technology used makes no difference.
When you read about a robot firing a gun, there is no change. Nobody said the robot is going to decide when the gun gets fired, that's like saying the string of a bow will decide when the arrow is released. Stop blaming the bow and take responsibility for your actions.
You don't need special tech to make electric subs stealthy. They're super-quiet when running on battery. That old tech is quieter than those fancy US and Russian tech. The reason the US and Russia needs all that fancy stealth sub tech is that nuclear power has lots of moving parts, all of which make weird noises. It is a steam turbine, after all, it is somewhat similar to having a coal power station onboard. Noisy as hell without all that fancy shit.
Compare the moving parts in a coal power station (including moving steam!) to the moving parts in a battery. OK, it should be obvious that with perfect future tech the nuclear-powered sub would eventually approach the low noise of the battery sub, but never quite reach it.
The problem is that the batteries don't last very long, and you eventually have to re-surface and run a diesel generator to recharge them, which is as noisy as a tug boat. Then everybody can follow you. So if you spend enough money on logistics, you can conspire to recharge from other batteries and make a silent voyage.
You nonsense about "nobody is trying to stop the drugs" is pretty funny. So this submarine sneaks up... you don't know who it is... how do you know it is the drug smugglers and not the North Koreans? Answer: You don't! Your argument that nobody cares about the drug subs would seem to imply that you're aware that the vulnerability is proven.
The problem with the idea that they are "rational" is that it implies that they feel exceptionally desperate. Rational, like a cornered animal?
The alternatives seem to be believing that they act crazy because they're mentally insane, which is highly unlikely, or because they see their situation as being exceedingly desperate, far more desperate than it really would be if they weren't threatening anybody. Which is crazy.
If they're internally sane, it implies that they are acting on information so bad that they their actions are effectively insane. It turns out it doesn't help the military analysis at all. They're just as dangerous and volatile if they're irrationally desperate as if they're irrationally evil.
If you find yourself near a newspaper, or an internet terminal, check the business news and you'll find out that the boycott as real. You're right that they're Wally World shoppers; since they stopped shopping at that other place across the street! They didn't simply sign a letter, or boycott in order to pressure the company to change, no, they stopped shopping there entirely.
There is really no advantage that Target has over the other box stores, they're often even located near each other.
And they might not actually go out of business, but they're certainly going to close a lot of stores, and they're probably going to be shopping for a buyer.
I'd rather be in an ant farm than a mealworm farm! Service model wins again.
When "plug & play" became successful and the cards stopped coming with jumpers, they did start breaking them in half. They simply didn't realize that we were still able to reuse the ones with jumpers stripped. They thought we were collecting all the boards and sorting them at home, and surely throwing away the ones without jumpers.
And it would be silly for them to have a giant bag of jumpers. Back then the components that used jumpers for configuration came with the max amount needed; you would never change the number of jumpers on a board. When something was turned off, the jumper would go into a parking position; it wouldn't even say that that one wasn't connected. If you strip the jumpers off one board that is actually dead, you now have a surplus that will last decades. They went through so many old parts, if they had really started putting them in a bag it would have been full the first week.
But also there would be bags of regular garbage that would have jumpers in the bottom. Sometimes the RAM cards would be in there too, but it got pretty easy to recognize their "private customer data, lunch scraps, jumpers, and RAM" bags and just tear the bottom of the bag and grab the RAM. It was a different world then.
We knew what they were doing because sometimes we'd go into the stores and try to talk them into selling some of what they were throwing away as cheaper used stuff, but they wouldn't do it. They always said we should just save up for a few months and buy it from them full price. We never let on that their steps were failing, or they would have resorted to breaking them sooner.
Where's my flying car! LOL! :-)
They're called "business jets."
Woz is so dreamy! He's wrong though, the desert cities will have climate bubbles. Definitely climate bubbles.
I fished my first x86 out of a dumpster in my late teens. People were upgrading to 386 and the stores were just throwing the 286s in the garbage.
Just throwing it the garbage! It was insane. Show up at 3am, Free Computer!!1!!!
Later I got 386s that way too; usually SX though. If it was a DX the store would resell it.
The modems they would strip the jumpers off to try to foil us, since there was no internet and no manuals, but it only took one weekend to try all the combinations and get an ISA internal modem configured.
Timex/Sinclair 1000.
It was a devious monster, when you filled the 2K of RAM it would just lock up, no data error and chance to edit your code... reboot.
Of course I didn't have the tape drive.
No, they say they will nuke us. They're the only country in the world to develop the tech and say that, but it is what it is.
You want a magic pony or something, who said anything about Seoul not being damaged?
Here is the thing though, if they're aiming their artillery at the city, and we're aiming ours at their artillery, then Seoul is damaged but not destroyed.
They've known this all along as they've continued to live next to the border. It is brave. The North even built giant invasion tunnels. Everybody stayed by the border.
Eventually Korea will be unified, and they will have it behind them.
With google you *are* the product.
No, with google you're the service, they don't sell your data they only sell targeted ads.
If you're going to pretend to care, at least pretend to know wtf is going on.
Companies prove every year that bad publicity is bad.
Target is about to go under from bad publicity on the right.
A whole State is losing billions of dollars from bad publicity on the left, though that should go back to normal now.
It doesn't even matter who is mad, when people get pissed at your company, and your company relies on sales of cheap shit to the masses, or tourism, it hurts.
What confused people in the past was cases where companies got what was actually good publicity, but society had some traditional hang-up that told people it was "bad." So then the company benefits, and some people get confused. Things like a spokesperson or executive having a sex scandal was seen as "bad publicity," but then it would actually help the company. Because it turns out, sex sells. Who knew?!
This means they like to trick people. Do people trust them not to substitute ingredients? Deceptive ads don't only affect people who were tricked, everybody who believes that your ad was deceptive has had their view of your company altered.