The chairs need rearranging.
The chairs need rearranging.
I think the author was pointing out one of the 'flaws' of capitalism; Technology and infrastructure makes offering such amenities a very cheap proposition. And yet, you wind up paying through the nose for them in certain situations; It is basically a misrepresentation of the true cost of the good or service being provided.
It's not a "misrepresentation", it's charging what the market will bear. Very obviously the real price is much lower.
Another factor not considered is that more well off travelers staying at high end hotels are very likely to have cellular connected devices already, so there's not as much of a need to even provide internet service. If you don't have to do something as often, you usually charge more because you lose scale.
This is just typical - they're trying to shed employees, cut staff, make money. That's what the Compaq merger was about. It had nothing to do with computers and had everything to do with Compaqs crappier HR policies which were adopted as HPs, saving the company millions, forever. My wife lost a week and a half of vacation time because of that. Dicks.
it is not exactly a well-designed language
Stroustrup always intended it to be a research language, so any mistake or misfeature that people could think of was stuck in with no thought to the accumulation of needless complexity.
It's not "designed", it's accreted.
Right - it's much more like Mussolini-style fascism, where the Corporations and Government form "partnerships", often with certain corporations given monopoly or defacto monopoly control in some markets.
Isn't that how America usualyl operates?
But Capitalism has been proven to lift millions of people out of poverty.
Capitalism made people so miserable it led to communist revolutions. The fear of more of them forced the capitalists to make some concessions to their "human resources". Then communism fell, after which the capitalists have been repealing those concessions. And so the history is repeating itself with social unrest on the rise again.
If a CEO gets the owner one million dollars per day, the owner can afford to pay that CEO $999,999 per day and still pocket $1 a day. It's not your business. The owner can decide if the CEO is worth it. The CEO can decide if the pay is worth it.
And the rest of the people can decide if it's in their best interests to support such as system or tear it down. The latter has happened before. Gartner seems to think it'll happen again and soon. You, apparently, think the current state of affairs is an unchangeable aspect of reality itself rather than a mere social compact.
Employees are free to sell their labor elsewhere. They have the right to order their affairs and sell their time as they see fit, finding the most advantageous deal they can.
And when the most advantegeous deal to the majority of people is to take to the streets and take a better one from the cold, dead hands of the CEO and the owner, what do you think will happen?
How about we point beginners to a simple imperative language with an interactive mode?
Because that works for some people and not others. I hate to leave anyone behind by suggesting one thing, and am not sure how to best find out which path of learning programming will be productive for any one student.
I would agree if most other things could be version controlled as well as code - but most things cannot be...
I could be persuaded that it's a more general skill that should be taught to everyone, not just programmers, but I don't know if people not inclined to be programmers would understand well or make effective use of version control. I suspect the answer is, they could not...
I really think it's better to live without version control while you learn programming so you can really appreciate it as one of the next intermediate steps you pick up. You have to interact with it anyway to make use of third party code so moving into it becomes natural as you become a more advanced coder.
The laws of thermodynamics are obviously wrong. Wrong in the same way that Newtonian physics is wrong. Meaning that it is close enough for anything I will ever get my hands on, but that it clearly does not explain everything that is happening, and it is clearly violated at some point.
Please give an example of such violation? Because I'm afraid I can't see this obvious flaw you posit.
Actually that's their after-their-first-lab-test photo.
So, it was a spectacular success?
Google for the Oracle California DMV disaster.
Doesn't matter. It's a government job, and everyone involved makes more money if it's a ten-year debacle than if it actually works.
Until you've programmed ASM for a micro controller, you really don't know what's going on under the hood, and you're almost certainly doomed to create bloated, slow-as-mud compared to what it *could* be, code.
Sit down with a 6809 system emulation and learn about stacks and heaps and PIC and addressing modes and registers and memory and IO and optimizing loops and etc. Then you've got a foundation. Then C and a linker AND a debugger, then something OO, then HTML, CSS, Python, PostgreSQL, follow the basic PostgreSQL with detailed DB stuff, make sure the math is there through at least algebra and geometry, explain 3D from acos() as pooltable reflection to the various lighting tech... this would be a good first year or possibly two.
You best learn to solve problems by... wait for it... solving problems.
Hands down, the most important idea in programming. See the C++ disaster for proof.
Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"