The White House is a (relatively) small building which faces a real, live, no-shit security threat for which armed guards and big fences are a rational, effective, and cost-effective response.
Big fences along the entirety of the United States land border and random citizens arming themselves to the teeth, by contrast, are dumb responses to the threats which the country, as a whole, faces - not least, shooting each other with guns at a rate that far exceeds any other developed country.
Sherpas and other guides die to take people to the top of Everest so how is this any differnt?
Leaving aside the question about whether the design was adequately verified with on-ground experiments (including static full system tests but also validation of individual engine components), why have a design that requires a human pilot on board for flight testing?
We have nasty spiders and snakes, but you don't use firearms to kill either of those. Both only strike humans defensively. Our large land animals are all herbivores; kangaroo, emus and cassowaries have a very nasty kick but they'll run away in preference to attacking you. Dingoes, despite the high-profile death of Azarea Chamberlain back in 1978, are basically wild dogs, and represent little threat to people.
We also have a collection of potentially lethal acquatic species, including the Blue-Ringed Octopus, several species of jellyfish, and some sharks. Again, guns aren't a lot of use against them.
Crocodiles, which I guess you're referring to with the giant knife reference, are the one animal that will actually try to eat an adult human. They only live in the tropical north of the country, far away from the major population centres, and any that move in near the cities in those regions are killed or relocated by professional shooters.
So, no, you don't need a gun to protect yourself from the wildlife in Australia. And despite some myths, if you want a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target shooting, or need one for farming or pest control, you can get one in Australia. You just can't walk into a gun shop and buy an AR-15 or a big-calibre handgun for "self-defence" here. And, nearly 20 years after the changes to the gun laws, that remains overwhelmingly popular here.
Such authors will now have to register with the state watchdog Roskomnadzor, disclose their real identity and follow the same rules as journalists working in conventional state-registered mass media.
The restrictions include the demand to verify information before publishing it and abstain from releasing reports containing slander, hate speech, extremist calls or other banned information such as, for example, advice on suicide. Also, the law bans popular bloggers from using obscene language, drawing heavy criticism and mockery from the online crowd.
So.., now you're not legally allowed to lie to a large number of people or incite violence based on those lies. Gee. That's bad how? Might be nice to have something like that in the West, because right now it's perfectly legal for FOX News to outright lie to their viewers.
Russia, like any large nation the US hates, (see Venezuela) must defend against the standard CIA tactics used to de-stabilize governments and population bases through grass roots propaganda tactics. Forcing creeps and liars out of the game seems like a pretty good way to do this. You don't want to be forced out? Then follow the law and back up your claims with fact checking verification of what you are writing, don't use hate speech and don't incite violence. How hard is that?
There's a reason you're not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and this falls neatly beneath the same rubric.
Honestly, think of the gossips and cruel kids in school spreading lies in deliberate attempts to undermine healthy energies. Putin has the guts to whip the carpet out from under such types.
So now, once you reach 3000 readers, the Russian government says you are a news source with real pull and must start acting in a manner befitting such responsibility. Is 3000 the right magic number to have picked? I don't know, but it makes perfect sense to draw a line somewhere.
Of course, any law can be abused, but right now I don't see this as an abuse. I see it as a sensible measure as Russia is under increasing media attack by a truly psychopathic nation whose leadership is completely disconnected from objective reality, has a tail-spinning economy and seemingly bottomless war lust. Of course you have to take measures to protect your populace from that kind of sickness.
But naturally, this proactive move is being spun with wicked and/or childish glee in the West (depending on whether you are CIA or just ignorant and easily led).
Incidentally, It's kinda sad how little of the topics under discussion in "Peopleware" have actually been empirically examined in the peer-reviewed literature...
If grinding and brewing is too tough get a super automatic espresso machine. Better long term purchase than a Keurig. Unground beans and water in and espresso out at the push of a button.
Sure it is 700-800 bucks but if you like coffee it is AWESOME (my wife and I drink a lot of coffee). The only problem is all other coffee tastes like old dishwater after you have one of these.
This story has half the number of comments than the one about code after it, despite it being slightly older.
Just shows you don't know how to look at data.
Sweet Jesus, it's true.
And he even brought up that 97% turkey.
AGW True Believers are the quintessential "Correlation != Causation" offenders.
But given that we have the IT professional community that we have:
- Document that you've told your boss, and probably your boss's boss, and probably the legal department (perhaps informally and verbally initially). If you've told them, it's their problem, not yours
- Start polishing your resume. Whistleblowing usually has negative consequences for the whistleblower - and, furthermore, continuing to work for an organization which has such a lax attitude to software poses a risk to your career if you stay there.
Incidentally, your case neatly demonstrates the near-uselessness of the IEEE-ACM Software Engineering Code of Ethics, which is very long on what the ethical obligations of a software engineer are, but has nothing useful to say about what you should do where others are ordering you to act unethically.
Bunch of papers at SC13 presented this year. Suggest sunny look them up.