"To be more specific, this is a Virtualbox Ubuntu virtual machine running on Windows 10, grabbing a file across SMB from a Samba file server running inside the Windows Subsystem for Linux through Bash."
The Enterprise computer never complained about imprecise queries because that wouldn't have moved the plot forward (unless the plot was something like "a hostile alien has taken over the computer"). It would give the impression that the character who gave the query didn't know how to use the computer, which just slows down the story for no good reason and makes the character seem incompetent.
A robot that's smart enough to do any of A, B or C should (1) be able to figure out from context and history which one you most likely meant and (2) when it can't do (1), ask you questions until it can figure out which one you meant.
Why do people think things like the Bechdel test are worth more than a fart in the breeze
A test is just providing some objective information about something.
What you do with that is your business.
The Bechdel test was presumably invented to identify movies that fail the Bechdel test as deficient, problematic, etc.
But the test can just as easily be interpreted the other way. Netflix might someday soon come up with a category called "Bechdel Failures" and learn that it is extremely popular with men.
I think it would be great if there was some kind of logo or something that indicated if a movie passed or failed the Bechdel test; feminists could look for passing films, and I could look for failing films.
Can you show me which quote of Trump's mentions race? I quickly scanned your link and did not come across any mention of any races.
I don't have any evidence of Trump naming or implying any race at any time with any of his various immigration comments.
His focus has been on
- stopping _illegal_ immigration
- stopping the legal immigration of people that are at an increased risk of becoming terrorists
- reducing immigration that appears to have a negative effect on American jobs
There is a tremendous amount of racial confirmation bias about Trump, in part because that's what the left always resorts to, and because he hasn't adopted SJW phrases and talking points.
Contrastingly, there is historical evidence of him breaking _down_ racial and other bigotry barriers in his personal and business life.
Perhaps Mrs. Clinton has observed that discussing any aspect of immigration in a negative way makes her more like Donald Trump -- a man whom she very often implies is pretty much the worst thing ever.
It's a bit interesting that when Mrs. Clinton talks negatively about immigration, she's described as empathetic for Americans.
Contrastingly, when Donald Trump talks about immigration, he's described as a racist.
I think people are wise to be suspicious of anyone running for public office. But, of Clinton, Johnson, and Trump, Trump is the only one that has ever said he wants to limit and reform immigration for the benefit of Americans who are seeking American jobs. He's also the one talking about punishing American companies who engage in behaviors that subvert American workers and jobs so replace them with foreign workers and jobs.
If you are upset with companies abusing immigration law to the detriment of American workers, and you wish someone would finally do something about it, Trump would seem like your candidate.
This election promises to be another "hold your nose" affair, but there do seem to be legitimate differences in what the candidates want to accomplish and how they want to do it.
How does $2k USD strike you?
example in use:
It occurred to me that you could adapt the airframe and application from cruise missile (the blog post), to ultra-low cost, man-deployable SAM.
A 350mph SAM isn't going to go very high, or chase down aircraft that have flown past. It won't work like a big expensive fixed SAM installation.
The current US application of airpower is flying low, slow, over and over, in repeatable patterns, because total air superiority is assumed.
And so if you watch US airpower fly over your burnt-out city, and then you see them turning to make another pass, you pull out your low-buck SAM, get it fired up, and, when the aircraft has heading back towards you, you fire at it, head on, from a field or building rooftop or whatever.
A 350mph object coming straight at an aircraft that is used to assuming air space dominance, and which is giving off no radar emissions, is going to catch at least a few super-power aircraft off guard and take them down.
This only needs to succeed once or twice. That will cause a significant change in the use of theater air-power..
There has been very little air-to-air combat in a long time. The majority of combat has been developed super powers against 2nd or 3rd world states, or against entities that aren't even states at all.
The only fighter air power requirement is a few hours of work to make sure that there is total airspace superiority, and then every other attack/recon aircraft in the super-power's arsenal loiters over its targets unopposed.
The software & silicon revolution is going to throw a wrench in all of this very soon.
Suppose you are ISIS. You cannot build all the infrastructure to have an airbase with fighter jets and trained humans to operate and maintain them, etc, and even if you could, the super powers would just stroll by and put a crater in your runway.
So what you need is an assymetric response to air power.
In the Soviet/Afghan war, the US funneled stinger missiles and other man-launched AA and AT weapons to the jihadists, and they were able to cripple the Soviet war machine.
The folks in the middle east are already plenty good at making IEDs - they have the "warhead" part figured out.
What's to stop them from putting ArduoPlane brains inside of RC powered jets and putting IEDs on them, and then using optical seekers (e.g. no active emissions, so the big jets never know its coming), and then shooting down low flying aircraft of all types and configurations?
The per-unit cost for something like this would be under $10k per copy. The impact of shooting down just one super-powers aircraft would be tremendous. It would cause an operational re-think and might even change the balance of air-power in the theater.
The Superpowers are going to need to stop playing the manned-aircraft one-ups-man-ship game, and embrace low cost swarms.
For each ISIS fighter that launches a home-made SAM, the super-power will need to respond with a swarm of airbone hunter/killer drones... already nearby, on station.
I think battles between various super-powers competing 5th gen manned fighters are unlikely and will hopefully never happen. I desperately want to avoid a shooting war with Russia or China...
You may be thinking of Harper & Row v Nation Enterprises. The publisher of President Ford's memoirs sued the publisher of a magazine for printing a review of the book that contained about a page's worth of quotations from it. That much would normally be fair use (the book is about 500 pages), but the quotations contained the only information from the book that most people were really interested in - Ford's account of why he pardoned Richard Nixon.
Good points. It sounds, then, as though the majority of people who are doing Agile wrong will only stop doing it wrong when the next shiny buzzword-compliant methodology comes along, leaving the ones who were doing it right still doing it.
You could say that about a lot of things, but yes, Agile does seem to have more than its share of "you're doing it wrong."
The notion that if you have a fixed release date, you should sacrifice features for quality, seems counterintuitive to many. It's much easier for a sales or marketing person to say, "Our next release will be on this date and have these features," (and leave unsaid, "But we have no idea how good any of them will be.") than it is to say, "Our next release will be on this date, and we don't know yet what features it will have, but we promise they'll all be really good!"
True. Fortunately we haven't found it necessary to limit an individual's speaking time - we just accept that some will be terse and some will be verbose, and it usually averages out. I sometimes deputise for our scrum master, and when I send him a report of the meeting, it's very rare that anyone gets more than one line, no matter how much they said.
If at first you don't succeed, you must be a programmer.