... then you haven't hidden it well enough.
Real Programmers' Easter eggs can undergo code inspections without being noticed by any of the other developers. (Do it well enough and you might get talent-scouted by the NSA!
as a general rule, vehicles with low operating costs retain value better than those with high operating costs
In general I think that's true, but I wonder about whether it applies to the special case of EVs in 2015-2020, given the current rapid evolution of battery manufacturing technology. For example, what do you suppose will happen to the resale value of an 80-mile-range Nissan Leaf if/when Chevy comes out with their 200-mile-range Chevy Bolt at a similar price point?
...and they all suck. Bad range, and terrible charge. People continue to buy gas cars because these issues are still not addressed in cars they could potentially afford.
Yes, but they suck quite a bit less than the electric cars of just a few years ago. The state of the art is advancing rapidly; every year there are more EVs and they become competitive for more use cases. The writing is on the wall.
Well, guess what, if that were possible, we would have the right tools by now. The fact of the matter is that performance, security, maintainability, etc. cannot be enforced by tools.
I take it you do all of your programming in assembly language, because there's nothing to be gained by using anything higher-level than that, because you totally know what you're doing at all times?
(Or if not, you've tacitly admitted that there is a benefit to using a tool that enforces some level of safety; you're only quibbling about what that tool should be)
I own a business. I am a business man. I decide who my potential customers are, and who I don't accept as customers. No one can make that choice for me.
That's some good bluster, but if you e.g. post "Whites Only" signs on your doors, you'll find yourself in court in very short order. There you'll find out that your freedom to accept or reject customers is in fact circumscribed by anti-discrimination laws.
I have a serious problem with gay marriage, as marriage is a religious ceremony, so the state should stay out of it.
Sounds like you actually have a problem with state-sponsored marriage (gay or straight), but you're only willing to apply your logic to gay marriage.
Civil union is the state sponsored joining, and should be the proper avenue for the state to allow something that religion indicates is wrong.
Which religion are you referring to? There are plenty of religions that approve of gay marriage, and there are also plenty of religions that think various straight marriages (e.g. second marriages, or inter-racial or inter-religious marriages) are wrong. It's not clear why any of that is relevant to what the state should or shouldn't do, given that (in the USA anyway), church and state are meant to be kept separate from each other.
However, it has to be understood that most of the benefits of marriage have to do with holding a family together for the benefit of the children, which a homosexual marriage may have some issues in creating.
It's actually quite easy for a homosexual marriage to have children. Gays of either gender can adopt, and gay women can get pregnant and give birth. And if you want to play the "it's all about the children" card, you then have to explain why infertile/childless straight couples should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of marriage.
Rather--I'm glad that neither the government nor anyone else can force them to take the ["Whites Only"] sign down.
Just to be clear -- the US government can and does force businesses to take any "Whites Only" signs down. Outside of "private clubs", discrimination by businesses was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Isn't that just a variation of the "If you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide" argument?
It sure is -- but does a person who is working at their workplace have a right to privacy? Particularly when hundreds of lives depend on their actions?
Hm, maybe FOUR people in the cockpit. Plus an armed TSA agent. And an armed TSA agent agent. That'll do the trick.
I say we get rid of the cockpit entirely, and instead provide a set of virtual controls in every passenger seat's seatback touchscreen. That way the passengers can fly the plane democratically. It will only fly into a mountain if that's what a majority of the passengers want it to do.
(Now, where do I pick up my consulting fee?
Chernobyl had nothing whatsoever to do with maintenance. It happened as the direct consequence of an ill conceived experiment, which deliberately bypassed safety protocols
Granted, but the fact is that people occasionally do make dumb mistakes. The fact that a dumb mistake in a nuclear power plant can render an entire region uninhabitable is what makes nuclear power so risky, and hence uneconomical to insure. Most other forms of power plant might in the worst case be badly damaged, but they wouldn't also permanently remove the surrounding zip code from civilization.
You already need a pass code but, apparently, also whoever is in the cockpit also has to authorize.
The above is incorrect -- the person in the cockpit doesn't have to authorize, he just has to not actively prevent re-entry. (The PIN system is designed so that if the person in the cockpit passes out, another flight crew member can get into the cockpit. A requirement that the person in the cockpit actively grant access to the cockpit would defeat the purpose)
what are we left with? keep the door open and we have murderous hijacking? keep the door locked and we have murderous pilots? yeah both are extremely rare outliers, but it's fucking scary either way
I imagine the eventual solution will be an airplane control system with software that does not allow the airplane to be deliberately crashed. (Of course then we'll have to worry about bugs in the software and/or evil programmers instead)
4. ???
(4) is "realize you should have been holding the bottle more tightly during step 3 -- go to find the mop and broom"
As they get older girls are told that some jobs are not for them, that they should be working to get good husbands. TV says to look pretty. [...] So by the time it comes to pick out a career or major in college these days, the number of women choosing computing, mathematics, or engineering is small (and in my experience much smaller than it used to be).
Granting all of the above is true, it's still not clear what can be done when many/most women, whether for reasons inherent or socially acquired, are simply not much interested in programming as a career(*). You can't tell them "oh yes you are interested, you have to be, because women are under-represented in this field" without denying them the right to make their own decisions about what they want to do with their lives.
It seems to me that if you want to crack this nut, you'd have to teach better parenting skills and try to reach girls at the elementary school level. By the time the woman is a young adult, her preferences are likely already largely formed.
(*) in this case, "not much interested" can be defined as "not sufficiently interested to spend the thousands of solitary hours necessary to become really good at it"
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all alike.
