"By holding up modern China as an example of Communism, Smith expressly shows us that he is fucking propagandist scum inhabiting the more clever of propagandist echelons as the peon is then seemingly left with NO OPTIONS as to how they could potentially reorder or rethink their society."
The essence of crony-capitalism is the merger of state and corporate power--the definition of fascism.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Because it's one jot different anywhere else in the Industrialised World.
Most people realize that you can't offshore everything.
But, IT is not one of those things you can't offshore.
I would venture a guess that nobody was ever charged with recklessly endangering 100 square blocks of New York, or destruction of property, or vandalism, or criminal mischief, or anything else...
No matter how you twist it, something like 80% of techies are solidly liberal/progressive, judging by their political donations.
Last I checked, Texas was neither liberal nor progressive in practically any sense of the word.
This isn't Mann's critics pursuing him. This is part of a lawsuit that Mann filed against a journalist who criticized his work.
Mann filed the lawsuit, and the person he sued filed for subpoenas to get at Mann's emails because he believed that would reveal information he could use to defend the lawsuit.
This is a terrible decision, because it means you can be sued for libel (which is saying something abot someone that is alleged to be untrue) and then be prohibited from obtaining material to defend yourself (by showing that what you said is, in fact, true).
It is made worse by the fact that Mann is a government employee, because if this becomes the precedent, it will open the flood gates for government oppression via the civil court system, which has a lower standard of proof than the criminal system. If you criticize the government or its political employees, they can sue you, and you will be prohibited from obtaining evidence to defend yourself with.
"Shut up and swallow what we tell you" is basically what the court signed off on in this case.
in Australia the gun ban has 90% popular support
And in Afghanistan, the idea that a person renouncing Islam should be put to death, or that it is okay to marry girls at age 9, also enjoys 90% popular support. So what?
"There had been 11 gun massacres in the decade preceding 1996, but there have been no mass shootings since. "
Yet murder rate did not change significantly - it kept going down at the same rate as before the last ban.
(which is because those massacres are a statistically insignificant event, basically)
documented that after the laws were changed, the risk of an Australian being killed by a gun fell by more than 50 percent.
Yet again, one of those bullshit "by a gun" statistics. Who cares about a subset of murders where guns specifically are used? What matters is the overall murder rate regardless of tools. That did not show any correlation to gun bans.
Australia’s gun homicide rate, 0.13 per 100,000 people, according to GunPolicy.org, is a tiny fraction of that of the United States (3.6 per 100,000 people).
Another pointless "gun
BTW, it's true that Australia (and most other First World countries) has an overall lower homicide rate, and generally violent crime rate. But that has to do with the different approach to healthcare and other forms of welfare in US, which results in significantly higher income inequality, stratification, high poverty rates and low social mobility - which translates to more crime. Guns don't really play any role in this, as is evident when looking at crime rates within US - they correlate strongly with poverty, and not at all with lax/strict gun laws.
It should be noted that our gun homicide rates were already in decline, but the gun laws accelerated that slide."
Another pointless "gun
In a 2010 paper, economists Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill found that the law change had led to a 65 percent decline in the rate of firearm suicides. Firearm homicides fell by 59 percent.
Another pointless "gun
The US is an exceptionally dangerous place to live - to be at more risk, you have to go to countries in complete anarchy or at war.
This is an utterly stupid statement. You are much more likely to be shot in my home country - Russia - that despite it not being even remotely "in complete anarchy or war" - and despite the much more stringent gun laws, which are only marginally more liberal than Australian ones. Heck, US has lower homicide rates than a good half of Europe.
Then, of course, the rate varies wildly within US from state to state, so much so that the average is meaningless. In my state of residence, it's the same as in Finland and Norway, and it's not some kind of rural depopulated place.
Is it in either the Kerbal Space Program or Elite: Dangerous?
If I can't launch it or blow it up, how can I know if it really exists?
Ok, the envelope game. You can rework it to say the second envelope contains the next vulnerability in the queue of vulnerabilities. An empty queue is just as valid as a non-empty one, so if there are no further flaws then the envelope is empty. That way, all states are handled identically. What you REALLY want to do though is add a third envelope, also next item inquire, from QA. You do NOT know which envelope contains the most valuable prize but unless two bugs are found simultaneously (in which case you have bigger problems than game theory), you absolutely know two of the envelopes contain nothing remotely as valuable as the third. If no bugs are known at the time, or no more exist - essentially the same thing as you can't prove completeness and correctness at the same time, then the thousand dollars is the valuable one.
Monty Hall knows what is in two of the envelopes, but not what is in the third. Assuming simultaneous bug finds can be ignored, he can guess. Whichever envelope you choose, he will pick the least valuable envelope and show you that it is empty. Should you stick with your original choice or switch envelopes?
Clearly, this outcome will differ from the scenario in the original field manual. Unless you understand why it is different in outcome, you cannot evaluate a bounty program.
Now, onto the example of the car automotive software. Let us say that locating bugs is in constant time for the same effort. Sending the software architect on a one-way trip to Siberia is definitely step one. Proper encapsulation and modularization is utterly fundamental. Constant time means the First Law of Coding has been broken, a worse misdeed than breaking the First Law of Time and the First Law of Robotics on a first date. You simply can't produce enough similar bugs any other way.
It also means the architect broke the Second Law of Coding - ringfence vulnerable code and validate all inputs to it. By specifically isolating dangerous code in this way, a method widely used, you make misbehaviour essentially impossible. The dodgy code may be there but it can't get data outside the range for which it is safe.
Finally, it means the programmers failed to read the CERT Secure Coding guidelines, failed to test (unit and integrated!) correctly, likely didn't bother with static checkers, failed to enable compiler warning flags and basically failed to think. Thoughtlessness qualifies them for the Pitcairn Islands. One way.
With the Pitcairns now overrun by unemployed automotive software engineers, society there will collapse and Thunderdome v1.0a will be built! With a patchset to be released, fixing bugs in harnesses and weapons, in coming months.
Not to worry, he'd be saved by Mr. Canoe Head.
Smart engineering thinking. These are the details that make for verisimilitude.
Sad. A future that could never, ever be. Remember when the situation of Kubrick's 2001 seemed not only plausible, but likely?