Actually the request is not to ban spam filters, it is to ban carriers from applying filters which filter out speech the carrier chooses. This is not a request to prohibit individuals, or carriers on the behalf of individuals, from filtering out speech which the individual does not wish to receive. Blocking spam by the carrier of the carriers choice, is equivalent to blocking phone calls from a specific number by the carriers choice, which they are regulated not to be able to.
I hate spam texts as much as anyone else, but the argument being made in the filing is sound. The filling is not saying that you have to read or even receive his speech, only that the common carrier can not block his speech without your explicit request.
Can you imagine if that money had remained in the wallets of the taxpayers that earned it?
Isn't that exactly what the parent post said?
Agile Development definitely includes [sitting down and bang out code a few hours before the deadline] as (a non-ideal) part of its paradigm...
I think you might want to rediscover what agile is since there are no deadlines in agile methodologies. Heck agile has been defined by some as "development without deadlines". Too many people think that breaking up a project into intermediate chunks makes it an Agile project, and it does not. Adding daily status meetings to those intermediate development cycles does not make it agile either.
I'm still of the impression that Agile methodologies might actually work. I'll let you know if I ever see them in practice. (truth be told I have seen them in use once. it did work, and the term "agile" was never once discussed.)
I think part of the problem anyway is that software engineering doesn't tie up with more traditional engineering so that probably does mean it's not engineering.
"Software Engineering" does "tie up" with traditional engineering. The problem is that many people use the title "Software Engineer" with out actually practicing engineering, and should be carrying the title Developer or Programmer. Developers are the plumbers and electricians of software. Some would say that Developers do the real work. But that does not mean that quality software does not include Engineering. Software Engineering, such as that discussed by Frederick Brooks and David Parnas, and utilized at IBM and Xerox, is a far cry from the Software Development done in most start ups today.
Yes, I consider myself a Software Engineer. I take Engineering Ethincs seriously and apply Engineering Principles in my designs.
The article you are referencing says that the Wii U's graphics processor could be "at least a two generations ahead" of the existing consoles. This is not the entirety of the console, and was simply refering to the "shader capabilities, shadowing and lighting effects" and only then it's considering a "generation" to being a new version of Direct X, which is not nearly the same as what a generation is in the normal console sense.
This is not only a miss leading comparison, it has no really baring of processing capability, and is only a portion of the total capabilities of a video game console.
I'm not knocking the Wii U, since I have yet to see one in use and actually think new controlled concept will have a lot more game affect than the waggle of the Wii, I'm just saying you need to understand the details of an article when you are going to use it to justify your name calling of fellow gamers.
now if only we can figure out what to do with the 600,000 (minimum) extra babies...
Jonathan Swift had a solution to that problem in 1729, I bet it would still work today.
I think many companies should set fair, clear and objective metrics for employees - and then base pay off of it.
Problem with that is that metrics are easy to game. There is a classic example of a company that was providing bonuses to their quality assurance department based on number of bugs found. The engineers and the QA started talked and realized they could easily benefit by release buggy products so they started creating bugs and splitting the bonuses. This is an extreme example of gaming the system, but all metrics can be gamed and ultimately have the same outcome.
If you, in your obese state, chose to operate a motor vehicle and while doing so have a heart attack, veer across traffic and take out a healthy family of 5 you have caused harm to those around. If there is an emergency that requires citizens to assist with physical labor and you are too fat to get off your couch, you are putting those around you at risk. Of course if there is a food shortage your neighbors could just eat your lard ass, since your clear lack of brain cells would make the risk of transfer or prion disease pretty low.
We live in a collective society wether we like it or not, and choosing to make significantly unhealthy choices causes damage to the entire society.
Now I don't think the solution is to ban unhealthy behavior, but restrict those with unhealthy behavior from taking part in certain activities. If you are at a high risk of heart issues then you should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle. We already put those restrictions on people with seizure disorders be cause of the risk so why not extend it to include other risky health situations. Those that voluntarily put themselves at risk of health problems should not be able to utilize certain public services, particularly those that often require healthy citizens to operate.
"It's when they say 2 + 2 = 5 that I begin to argue." -- Eric Pepke