It's an entirely different kind of flying.
It's an entirely different kind of flying.
Fact is that the top earners of the country pay the vast majority of all income tax dollars I thought I did a post last week where I showed the math and sourced appropriate irs.gov docs, but I can't find it. The gist: The numbers showed that the top 1% of earners paid something like 30% of ALL tax dollars received (as of 2008 - when things were supposed to be best for "the rich" due to Bush); the top 5% paid over 50%; and the top 10% paid something like 70%.
Ok, so I see this a lot but what never seem to be mentioned is what percentage of total income is make by the people in those upper brackets.
If the to 1% make 50% of all earned income and only pay 30% of income taxes then it seems that they might be under taxed. The problem I have is that I don't really know how much the top 1%, 5%, or 10% make compared to the rest of the income earning population. Maybe someone with better than my poor Google skills can find an uncontroversial source for those numbers.
It's not that this necessarily invalidates your point, just that without the missing information I have no way to judge and yet I keep seeing similar posts to yours which kind of bothers me.
I see your joking and sarcasm comprehension is at a 4th grade level.
I'll simplify it for you.
I... WAS... FUCKING... JOKING!!!
The city I moved from last year upgraded all their meters to electronic ones. When you arrive you punch the spot number into a machine that takes coins or credit. You can also add money from your phone, so you don't need to return to fill up the meter. Enforcement is by a Google Streets-style car that drives around and records license plate numbers. There's no discretion. If your car is there when they go past and you haven't paid, you get a ticket.
I've never heard of a meter maid covering up a parking signs. I'm not American though. Perhaps you have more corruption than we do.
If your lectures are so bad you have to force students to attend, then maybe you should spend more time honing your teaching skills and less time on the Draconian tracking systems
I find it quite rare that every student is interested in the topic, regardless of the professors teaching skills. The next time you teach a class ask your students "Where would you rather be than here" and see if anyone says "nowhere". The difference is some people choose to act on that, even if you are an incredibly interesting and engaging teacher.
Accuracy will suck, even with a trained human.
Hence a running joke in the Deaf community about the saleswoman peddling beauty aids with "Olive Juice". (it lipreads as "I love you" ) I believe it was a "sunshine II" skit. Yeah, I was an interpreter for like 10 years.
First! (Presumably) I wonder how this will play out in EU where MS was forced to include multiple browsers...
Doubtful because Apple isn't as large as Microsoft and therefor not considered a threat of a monopoly. Even in the smart phone business. So while there is competition, there can't be a forcing like this.
Uh no, it's to demonstrate that the code "works". The problem here is what it means "to work". Part of the usefulness of TDD is that you might not fully understand what it means "to work" yet, and the tests help you flesh that out.
Let me clarify, so you don't think I'm 100% ditching what you're saying versus stating it a different way. A test suite will tend to have BOTH tests for what the correct behavior *is* and also tests for what the correct behavior *is not*. In other words, what you're doing is defining the BOUNDARIES between correct and incorrect behavior. You're right in the sense that if your *strategy* is to write only *optimistic* tests (i.e. "proving that it works"), you'll miss subtle areas where the behavior isn't fully clarified (i.e. corner cases).
But here's the problem: for absolutely anything in the universe, there is an INFINITE number of things something *is not*, but only a finite amount of things something *is*. I've seen people go too crazy with using tests as a way of type-checking everything where smarter data types would have been a better choice, or performing a hundred "this isn't what I want" tests that could have been handled with a single "this IS what I want" test. My point is that you're supposed to program for the correct case, not design as if you always expect everything to go wrong. Write for the correct case, test for the correct cases FIRST, test for the EXCEPTIONAL cases, and write handling code for the things that are exceptional. Don't write an infinite test suite of what something is not.
CONCLUSION: Write the most EFFECTIVE tests you can that covers the most ground. Don't write *pointless* tests you have to maintain later if there was a better test. If a test covers a lot of logical ground by defining the boundaries of what something *is not*, then write the test for that. If it covers a lot of ground by defining what something *is*, write the test for that.
... when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. -- Fred Brooks