Yeah, if you're going to do something like this, you need to give your developers something to believe in, a reason to work for the company. Otherwise your developers will see it and find another place to work.

And honestly, it's not clear at all that HP has anything to believe in. If you say, "During this critical turnaround period, HP needs all hands on deck," you better have an actual way to turn the company around.

My post had nothing to do with regulations or corporations.

lol you need to calm down and get a better job.

Do you really think laws against violent crime are biased against the minority population? Really?

How about an alternate explanation, people growing up in inner city poverty are more violent. Once they break the cultural cycle of violence, we see that skin color doesn't matter. It's culture, not melanin.

It's a matter of prioritization that you're missing. The founders desired a free state, and understood that the existence of such is wholly contingent upon certain rights of the individual being sacrosanct. It's pretty clear from a reading of the Bill of Rights which those were: speech, press, religion, personal ownership of arms, security of house, home and private effects, right to a trial by jury with representation of legal counsel, etc., etc.

They understood that without these liberties **of individuals** being protected as inviolate (or as nearly so as practicable), a free state could not exist. To attempt to examine the relative worth of the 5th Amendment by evaluating its possible effects on crime in society misses the point...the free society desired by the architects of the republic simply does not exist without it (again, see Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay). Ergo, any utilitarian analysis of this sort is pointless on its face.

Joke (noun) -- a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, esp. a story with a funny punchline.

...that the Secretary of Education is furloughed right now, or he'd have some explaining to do!

Is that what I said? Please learn to read.

Well, you are wrong. The Liskov substitution principle is almost a necessity for truly flexible code. The Alan Kay style of OOP is much nicer in my opinion, but she got that principle right.

I say that OOP makes it easier to learn about modularity because I've seen it. I used to agree with you completely, because I'd seen a lot of people, some of them good programmers, struggling to learn C++ or Java. I understood and agreed with the quote, "Claiming Java is easier than C++ is like saying that K2 is shorter than Everest."

Since then though, I've seen a lot of kids grow up the other way, learning Java or whatever first. To them, OOP is obvious, but pointers are very difficult for them. Organizing code into modular sections just makes sense, since you are kind of forced to think in terms of classes anyway.

We spent $2.9 trillion (out of $2.5 trillion in revenue) on "mandatory" and defense in 2012. In other words, we were already $400 billion in the red before we even spent a penny on national parks or NASA or roads or any of the other stuff people actually want the government to do. In 2012, all that stuff cost only $615 billion, which is small peanuts compared to the "mandatory" junk. Clearly, all this whining about cutting out little chunks of programs, like the Tea Partiers are doing, is pretty much worthless.

More to the point, they're certainly not talking about cutting "mandatory"+defense by 36%, which is what it actually would have taken in order to balance the budget in 2012. Even Paul Ryan's plan would have an ~$850 billion deficit in 2013 and a ~$525 billion deficit in 2014!

(2012 revenue total came from here; the rest came from here)

Not to mention, of course, I could also cite stuff like this and this....

Good question.

I've seen horses get bitter and sad when they were not taken out to work for a while.

No they aren't, that's such a silly assertion I'm not even sure why you would make it. If anything, specialization has been increasing.

Those polls were poorly done.....ask people if they think that it's ok that the ACA forces you to buy insurance, and you'll get similarly negative results.

I'm not sure what your post has to do with mine.

People staying at budget and midscale hotel chains are more price sensitive, so they're going to not come to your hotel if you don't have free wifi. The people staying a luxury hotels are not as price sensitive and are more likely to be worried about other things beside a charge for internet access when selecting a hotel.

Put a bit more cynically, those high-priced hotels cater to people who have no concept of the value of money, and show their contempt for their customers' financial skills at every possible opportunity. The problem is, a lot of those folks end up at those hotels because some travel agency booked them there in a block along with the rest of their tour group. Those folks are pretty unhappy about it.

These days, I just make sure I have enough of a data allowance on my phone so that I don't have to care about the Internet service at hotels, under the assumption that half of them will want to extort money for Internet service and half of the remaining hotels won't have service that actually works. It really doesn't make sense to spend ten bucks per day for Internet service on a ten-day trip when you could spend ten or fifteen bucks for 30 days and a gigabyte of cellular data.

The company is paying for that.