"If a programmer writes software for a living, he should better be specialized in one or two problem domains outside of software if he does not want his job taken by domain experts who learn programming in their spare time."
Seems a bizarre sentiment, but after reading this sentence, I feel like I really wanna donate some money to the guy. If he gives a way I will surely do.
I live in Greece, and it is an optional extra here.
If you pay with a card, a lot of times there is a menu on the POS which you choose a percentage for tipping, which ranges from 0% upto I dont remember how much (but a lot).
Personally I always give a generous tip, (unless the server intentionally does something bad), just because it feels good to. It is not charity or pity for low wage. It is just that I would welcome a tip too if I were in the waiter's shoes, no matter how much my wage would be.
U.S Elections 2016: "Pure Evil" vs "Corrupted Good"
Some people see this a battle between purity and corruption,
Some see this as a battle between good and evil.
I think the difference in meaning,interpretation and semantics in the context of politics is much more distinguishable when we compare purity and corruption than when we compare good and evil.
How about making "defer" be snooze with a hard limit of 2 or 3 times max?
This I think would work because you could snooze if really you cant/dont want to deal with a message immediately but eventually you would have to.
Or maybe have up to X "snooze slots" so that you cant snooze everything and you snooze things that truly dont deserve to be deleted. And you would have to empty a slot by dealing with a snoozed message to be able to snooze a new one.
So it is illegal. So basically I am not free to block hot spots in my own area if I use it for public access, which essentially amounts to "Even if you own an area, whenever it is publicly accessible, you do not own its 'air'". I find it a bit too restrictive.
I dont know, but it's my property and it seems logical that as long as they know they cant make that call, the decision is theirs and so is the liability.
Hypothetical question: I buy some land to host conventions. I make the buildings and enclose them in a big faraday cage. Then I make deals with anyone that agrees: Whoever wants to host a convention in my center, they will accept that inside the convention center, there will not be any kind of transmission, except my own wifi. Leaving aside the ways I could accomplish this, is what I want legal?
Or maybe Greece condition is worse and the side-effects of that pill would kill it anyway, and Greek government suspects it and tries to try other alternatives first.
When I imagine a world with an easy to use encrypted email system such that anyone could transparently use, I cant avoid imagining either a world sunken in spam, or a world where each individual no matter their computer skills" would have to maintain anti-spam systems. So we are back to square one regarding mass adoption...
True, but the problem is that while we can agree on what is illegal, we cant agree on what is wrong. So we "sign" a contract called law, in order to establish some common ground. So when I see that the contract no longer suits me( and I do believe that this is the case indeed nowadays with many laws), I consider it unethical to just breach the terms of the contract instead of negotiating a change. I still want others to respect the contract even if it doesnt suit them, don't I?
I agree. My point is that there is a separation between the morality value of the isolated action and the morality value of the action in the context of a law. If we disconnect those two, we have a potential problem caused by "metamorality": We give sound reasoning for anyone to disconnect them too. Who's to say that our moral laws are better or worse than others? Consensus? Then how do we establish the consensus? I think by creating laws. And if we see a great deviation from what we see as "right" or "wrong" and the law, we should then try to change the law. Law is the metalanguage of that consensus you are talking about. Without law, there still is a consensus, but you dont have any means of presenting it, thus rendering it invisible to those who don't see it. In other words, when someone with opposite moral values acts in direct conflict with yours, law is the only thing that gives you a way to prevent those actions. What else could you say to them? After all, they have their own consensus in their minds. And of course, they could choose to ignore the law. You see?
I am sure the people who would murder you in your sleep can easily come up with a similar argument. For them, murdering someone is not as morally heavy as it is for you.
>Where did I say I wanted an argument for why it is wrong?
In your first response.
>Should we ignore those laws that codify the opposite of our beliefs? Many people would say yes. Many of our heroes are lionized for doing this.
First, this defeats the purpose of law. Everyone has their own beliefs. Imagine what would happen if everyone started selectively obeying the laws that are compatible with their beliefs. Believe me there is quite a diversity of belief systems out there.
Secondly, those many people that would say yes, should try to change the law instead of ignoring it. I can also accept a code of ethics that accepts ignoring the law, as long as it waives the rights given by law.
No. I mean it is written on a piece of paper and enforced by sometimes armed men to whom you implicitly grant authority to do, whenever you use the law to protect your own rights. That is the trade off in democracy: We have to obey laws we dont like or agree with, in order to be able to enjoy the benefits of those we do agree with
True, but where did I use the law in my response to you? You wanted an argument for why it is wrong. I gave it to you. Anyway, I agree with you, but if this doesnt go two ways, it means there are laws that don't codify right or wrong. And even worse, laws that codify the opposite of our belief. Should we ignore those laws?
I hear you, but isnt deposit interest an incentive for the depositor? Doesn't the interest partly reflect the risk the depositor takes? Theory aside, deciding between a bank with such precedent and one without and with equal interests, I don't think anyone would choose the 1st. This alone says something.
Well, suppose that you do pay for something and the seller gets your money but never delivers you the goods. Consider your feelings, thoughs, or whatever as an argument for "why it's wrong"
Jesus didn't steal anything, he copied something that he originally had created, something that he had donated to the fishermen in the first place. He created (well, his father) the fish on the 5th (or 6th I dont remember) day of the creation, remember?
> The court found that even if all allegations in her complaint were taken to be true, they still would not establish that Warner Brothers was bound by that contract.
So it is possible that:
1) X sells rights to Y, having Y commit to obligations in exchange.
2) Z acquires Y.
3) Z now has the rights but not the obligations.
3 years ago, in Cyprus, the reverse happened (savings were cut off) but people still deposit money into their bank accounts without getting increased interest, despite this precedent. Why should a loan writing off cause loan interests to go up?