pitay

What about Business Intelligence products such as Hyperion? They can provide reports from a defined data model which gets data directly from the database. People can create their pivots and other transformations on the data fairly easily. Is their something that Excel offers that makes it much better than one of these Business Intelligence products in certain situations?

This is more misrepresentation. When I posted the first comment, I didn't want it to be about our comments. The reason I gave the reply was the utter misrepresentation of my comment. Your reply was clearly meant to deceive people. Especially when you said 'Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here?' and then pretty much asking to provide a link for each sentence I said. While I was just warning people about people saying that linking to something helps it. Surely it is just more evidence that people take into consideration.

Also you hyped up the harm that an article could cause, yet you had no trouble trying to discredit me, quite hypocritical really. Are you saying the article could cause harm because you believe it is convincing?

My motivation was very plain and transparent. It was to have have people notice the 'trust my description but I won't show it to you' logic be criticized for the harmful garbage it is.

Anyway if someone misrepresents what I said, I will sometimes reply.

http://archive.is/GE0he

At least people can see what was written instead of relying on hearsay.

Yet you do not show it. As I mentioned before It seems like someone won't show what they are talking about is afraid that people may come to a different conclusion then they did.

Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here? You say you see a pattern yet you don’t provide any links. Are we just supposed to trust your description of it?

I didn't really want it to be about our comments. But this is where you have directed it. You talked about a specific think and didn't want to show it saying 'I won’t link to it, because it doesn’t need that kind of help', this is the logic I was specifically replying to. That is the logic people should reject, the other context has nothing to do with why I replied. Yet you are asking that talking about a generality or pattern I have noticed needs a link. They way you are arguing any statement that I make without a link makes me 'not practicing what I preach'. Your expectations of my post are massively higher than what I was criticizing, which I will repeat was the 'I won’t link to it, because it doesn’t need that kind of help' statement and the logic that comes from it. Your criticism also expected way more from my post than yours. The holding of ridiculous expectations someone with a different opinion to you is another pattern that should be criticized by the way.

But I did have something in mind actually when I mentioned the pattern. It may be slightly embarrassing that I came across this video while using the internet, but I will link to it.

'Propaganda Games - Ethical Game Design - Extra Credits' https://youtu.be/UP4_bMhZ4gA?list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5BpAzGdNmfiwlBx...

They specifically didn't name the games they were describing used as far as I remember, using the 'I don't want to give them more exposure' line, and maybe not wanting to expose people to them (but hypocritically they can). Surely people can make up their own minds about things. The video also has a tone of voice to sound 'caring' and cute graphics to try and sucker people believe what they say and that they are 'good'. You bet I didn't like it.

I have been completely honest in my previous comment when I mentioned a pattern. I have been completely honest in this comment. You saying 'Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here? You say you see a pattern yet you don’t provide any links. Are we just supposed to trust your description of it?' was completely unwarranted, I wasn't hiding anything or being dishonest, unlike your allusions.

It is strange logic that shining a light on something supposedly reprehensible actually helps it. This 'I won't show you the thing I am criticizing but trust my description of it' shouldn't be accepted. It seems like someone won't show what they are talking about is afraid that people may come to a different conclusion then they did.

This is about a pattern I have seen, rather than any one specific thing. People criticizing something without giving a name or a link because it might give it exposure. If someone is criticizing something legitimately, then giving it exposure is precisely what they would want. The 'trust my description but I won't show it to you' should be called out when it happens.

I have searched for the article using 'Freelancer.com' and the earliest one is from 10 days ago titled 'Freelancer.com has ruined my life'. I also see similar articles to this from longer ago. Definitely seems like a site to avoid.

Searching for 'Matt Barrie' only gave this story.

I would love to see the article about them being scam artists.

Luckily Motorola supported rooting the phone, which made CyanogenMod easily installable at the time. That fixed the update problems and even allowed me to transfer applications to an external SD Card if I wanted (I do not recommend this for any SD Card slower than a UHS SD Card). It now has LineageOS on it, as that is what replaced CyanogenMod when it ceased to be supported. Works great, although the phone itself may be a bit slow.

It's because that is where other people want to throw away things like 'equality under the law' and other such important things, you don't have that for people fired for trying to make things better for other people. Imagine if someone said "just arrest them" for people trying to organise a union, it would be absurd. Yet this is what happened with the Charlottesville thing. People were just reacting to the comments that were destroying legal concepts like "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilt by association". I.E it is a reaction to insane attacks on free speech that originally provoked the defensiveness in the first place.

Also, any comment that was for free speech got dishonestly attacked. There were misrepresentations of what people said, commentators pointing out petty things as if they were really important when they were not, and arguing that random historical thing that isn't relevant anymore is the basis to throw away someones legal rights.

You know why I made that comparison, because someone was saying arrest them just for associating with the group, I was showing how it would apply more widely, indeed it could apply to people who associate with BLM, it is terrible to throw away due process like that.

I think that the people who carry swastikas and the like are morons, who have a fantasy view of what actual Nazis were. They are certainly not part of the Nazi Party, because it died at the end of WW2. If you think my view of them is wrong, then please correct me.

One can criticize both groups and still not be neutral. As I have stated, I do not like the neo nazis (not sure if all the original protesters are that or if only a few of them are, either way, they all seem quite unlikable).

What I have really been against is the "just arrest people for being seen in a group" which is what my comment was really replying to. Asking for discriminatory laws like this is backwards, harking back to when there were discriminatory laws against people with black skin. Although I know this is not what you were replying to, this is just to show why I made the comment in the first place. Also I seem to be being called a libertarian just for disagreeing with what I replied to, I don't think I have ever actually agreed with anything that someone calling themselves a libertarian has said, that I remember anyway.

1. I was watching the news and in a picture I noticed one of the counter protesters using some sort of spray can as a flamethrower. I also saw the counter protesters beating up a spokesman for the protesters before the police saved him. So violence goes all around.

2. Arresting people just because someone like the parent here calls them violent is a really bad idea. As in, it's horrendous. If all someone has to do is call you violent to have you arrested, then boy can it be used to silence people that say things inconvenient to whoever wants to silence them. Saying "arrest their member" about a political group is extreme, ignores any legal precepts of innocent until proven guilty, and can be used by the most authoritarian groups to silence anyone they choose.

That said I do find protesters very unlikable. The counter protesters I have found a little bit more likeable but still unlikable, because they seem somewhat hypocritical and dishonest, given they have been somewhat violent as well, and have said that it doesn't matter that they were violent as well.

A little off topic, but it would be great if there was a method/system which could provide requirements tracking down the set of artifacts to where you could point to a bit of source code and say it implements that certain requirement. Sort of like a chain of responsibility for code and associated documents. That might be a pipe dream, I don't know.

Anyway, thanks for the information, I remember seL4 being mentioned in discussion of the sorry state of software on medical devices, but had forgotten it until you mentioned it. Thanks.

For example, a program must run on a platform that doesn't have everything formally defined or have guarantees. If a program relies on that platform and that influences the program in a way that makes the constraint reliant on the platform, then you are out of luck.

Another issue is choosing the constraints that the program will operate under. You would hope that the clients would give you the requirements including the constraints the software must operate under. But this isn't often the case. Having an incremental approach which includes clarifying requirements by mapping what the clients need to do to get their work done, which includes recording the specific steps that they perform or need to perform works pretty well when clients don't provide the requirements or constraints upfront.

I am relatively ignorant on formal engineering, but I do like that you have provided a fairly clear definition, which was "Clearly define the constraints in which your project will operate under and prove that they will hold under those constraints". It is better than the people saying know more math, without saying how, or what, or why it is useful in any clear way, and saying software is math just doesn't cut it.

[1]: http://iang.org/papers/market_for_silver_bullets.html

In an effort to make money, they have put clickthroughs to ads that people have to go through to download the mod. Keep in mind that Minecraft is rated 'E' for everyone, the modders are deliberately ignoring the fact that they put children in a spot where advertisers can abuse them.

I am specifically going to point out the 'Feed the Beast' team on promoting this behaviour, and them promoting that modders are the ultimate authority. It's pretty bad that permission has to be obtained from each mod author to include it in a modpack, even if it is just for a private server. It's pretty hypocritical of them, I'm pretty sure they didn't ask Mojang for permission to use the Minecraft game for their mods.

Note that I am not criticising all the Minecraft modders, just the ones who created the current toxic culture that pervades the Minecraft modding community. If you look at other modding communities, say for Skyrim, you will see it is completely different and someone coming from that community to the Minecraft modding scene will be shocked at the awfulness that pervades the culture there.

http://www.6502.org/tools/emu/

Someone else will have to provide an actual recommendation.

Would a man having a child with 10 women cause huge social problem? It certainly does. Do you want to be a single woman with kids? Doubt it.

Why should men get special status over women with the number of children they have? I really don't see any reason for that. There are men who deliberately get women pregnant and then leave them because they think they are great and winning life because they have so many children and let other people care for them. Those sort of people would support only having limits applied to women.

However, people having 2 or 3 or thereabouts children isn't something to be worried about too much, so go ahead if you want to. But people who have lots of children has to stop. This is per person, so it includes men who have children with different partners. If it is left too late, then less can be done about it.