I think you mean 450,000 sq km for Sweden. About the size of California, but w/ 1/4 the population. And that's far less density than our megaregions like the Great Lakes, NorthEast (DC-Boston), Texas Triangle, and mid-south Florida. Except for patches, none of these regions have comparable internet. What's the telco's excuse again?
You are not far off. I bet the primary reason they are doing this is because if they don't, regulations will force them to and those regulations will go too far in removing any flexibilities they would want. Not to mention it will cost them more. By kind of meeting 30% of the way there, they take the wind out of the sales of the opposition. Proper self-regulation is always preferred, but you do lose a lot of ground in the debate.
I think the number of "commercial firms" actually doing proper QA and code review is minuscule. Its almost a margin of error in the stats. Sure, all the paper work is there with the sigs etc. But I have never seen the actual process ever being properly done by qualified folks with any of the big IT consulting firms. Heck, my small 25k-50k projects don't even get it right... where I am the PM.
Because the budgets, time constraints, & resources are never setup to do this correctly. With crunch time, code review is the first thing to go out the window, and QA the second (again, the paperwork is all there and signed but it means nothing).
You show me a project that did proper code review & QA and I will show you a project that was done on time, in budget, and within scope. I understand the fallacies on both sides, but I believe the many eyes to be more effective than commercial code review & QA.
I think reuse is far more secure than multiple options. In the long run. Reuse will find more bugs and make it more aware. Reuse will have a much larger impact, but that just ups the priority to get it fixed. Multiple options will only decrease the impact but will open up for duplicate bugs, finding less of them, more entropy for fragmentation, and less priority & longer time for getting them fixed. Multiple options will be less secure... you just won't think it is.
Water problems don't appear overnight either. See Georgia, they have known about their water issue for over 10 years and didn't do anything about it.
Exactly. People forget that there was a time, not too long ago that for the majority of the world's population, the whole family worked from sun up till sun down. Individuals couldn't really survive for long on their own. And they had a LOT less than we did. I am sure they would be happy to let their kids play all day rather than earning a living from birth.
You can't mine iron much faster with more information at hand, crop yields don't increase with more information at hand. Travel times aren't reduced since several decades, and where they are indeed reduced...
Totally disagree. Not to nitpick words, but information by definition is useful data that you can understand & incorporate. So unless you got a ton of just raw useless data (ie: just a simple text file of first & last names of every person who went on site) on your We Mine Iron Inc. server then the information would certainly speed up your mining to consumer operations. Same with crop yields. Information is just as useful and many times more so as mechanical efficiencies. If one doesn't see the increase in productivity, then they don't really have useful data (no information) or they don't know how to properly measure it.
Travel times? Work from home. Video conferencing. Remote monitoring. Smart Grids. Smart Factories. Parking Reservation Systems. Online Shopping. Video Funerals! Another way to look at it is that travel time has been reduced from days & hours to 5 minutes.
Very well said. Without overtime, there is an artificial unknown resource buffer. Rather than saying there are 120-140 man hours available this week for 3 resources, it ends up being anywhere from 120-300 hours.
HOW do you do planning on a 120-300 hour variance? 120-140 you can say give them 120 hours of work and if they need to stretch a little to 140; hopefully they will. And as a PM, I MUST make sure my 120 is accurate cause if I give them 150 hours... that is not a stretch, that is OVERTIME which hurts my project budget or delivery. Both I must explain to my stakeholders. On the flip side, with more accurate costs/planning/delivery known, the customer can actually make better decisions on what they will pay for and what they won't.
With the unknown variance, people start fantasizing that they are giving 50 hours of work when its actually 100. Then the attitudes start with thinking that it WAS 50 hrs of work and its the developer's own problem for taking longer. The project plans note 50 rather than the 100. Future projects look to the past to see that something was only 50 hrs and this lazy developer on this project is taking 200 for the same thing...
With the unknown, it just makes it all unaccountable and a dangerous wildcard that prevents accurate estimates. Plus to make matters worse, the middle 10-35 hours are FAR more productive than the hours 45-100. And we wonder why project deliverables suck, aren't on time, nor on budget. And even if I stuck to proper labor estimates, my competition won't, and I won't get any contracts... Even thou I can deliver a more accurate product, closer to time, and closer to budget at a TCO very close to the competitor who will waste resources on CYA and excuses for delays and result in an inferior product.
Honestly, people are very bad at judging labor to complete a task. And without regulations, we are leaving it to our human nature to set ourselves up for failure.
If you had to maintain 100 PV installations for 1 thermal or hydro powerplant cause the losses on storage required to compensate for the higher losses and massive swings in production... then its not unusual that PV ends up being more expensive. Of course the ratio varies based on location/etc and there will be a wide sweet spot. But with hydrogen's storage losses and Denmark's low solar exposure... its probably going to lean against PV.
This is what I was thinking, and they don't need hills. A lot of Denmark is near or below sea level. They are an expert at flood control and land reclamation from the sea. They can build walls in the sea to create artificial valleys. Pump water out when they have plenty of energy and let it fall back in when they don't. They have plenty of inlets to block off for this endeavor, thou one or two is probably more than enough for the country.
Imagine a wide road that crosses an inlet. On it are wind mills (and a few more out to sea), possibly augmented by a solar roof, and below it is a Dam. The wind and solar pump out the inlet with excess power, and the electric dam lets it back in.
Assume the API is a separate file like headers in C. I think the question here is can I use your header file for my program but have the interface point toward the code I created? That is a bit tougher. In itself, it has no value, but it is a piece of work... but technically w/o an implementation, it might as well be a random string of characters.
Personally, I follow your logic, the API is equivalent to a table of contents and using it alone should fall under fair use. Even if it by itself (meaning no book or program) was copyrightable, it has no value w/o an underlying implementation. Thus even the most rudimentary implementation using it provides far more value than the standalone copyrightable work and so should fall under fair use. On the flip side, if it is copyrightable, I think the original author should be given credit for writing it first (atleast for the first 120 years or whatever current copyright law is)... which sucks. Its like adding a foot note that says "The 'Dear,' and 'Thank you,' in this letter were bought to you by
Ignoring the insults in your post... You still provided the far more expensive emergency medical care to the former group in the old system. What has changed? Now you know you are doing it?
True if you ignore the 10 million that the old systems didn't cover but we all provided more expensive emergency care anyway and the new system does cover.
I would assume so. These devices are 200 to 400 dollars each. That is still a lot of money. People would have returned them or at least posted very negative reviews if they got something unexpected. But it seems even with 1000 reviews these devices have very good 4 to 5 star ratings. So I would say they are valid purchases.
1) US prints money and invests in China
2) China builds stuff
3) US buys stuff.
4) China buys US stocks/bonds/securities.
5) US invests in China - stock
Profits are somewhere in there. Eventually the banks will figure out that you can just bounce between #4 & #5. Profits come with bailouts.