However there may or may not be whitespace between those two tokens, so a simple text-search may not be able to find it without great rigmarole (you'd have to have a search capable of finding tokens separated by any amount of whitespace, such as a regex).
Any programmer who can't do this without thinking hard should check in his keyboard.
Besides which, fuck and shit and all those words have been common English usage for over a thousand years. It's only been about a century and half since the Victorians decided legs were limbs and people never defecated. Enough. I'm tired of toeing Victoria's line. The bitch is dead, we don't have to be afraid anymore. The words only have power because hysteric lexiphobes insist that they do. And the biggest "moralists" always turn out to be the biggest wankers anyway, so I really don't care what the Guardians of Nice Mannerisms have to say anyway. They'll be in the docket for child molestation soon enough.
Well, they are right in thinking that the "cities control things". Because they do, as much as non-entities can control things. Because that's where most people in the US live. And that's where the engines of commerce and foreign trade are. And that's where wealth, power, and media are concentrated. And that's where culture evolves and where the challenges of labor, poverty, and other social issues are largely fought. I could pretend like this were not the case when talking with people "back home" (which by the way, has been encroached by the city since I left). But why lie? However, person A, living in city B, doesn't control things anymore, and probably less so, than person C, living in rural area D. What's better than tyranny of the majority? Tyranny of the minority? Ummmmm.....
I'm no constitutional scholar, but, seems to me, "the tyranny of the majority" is not about giving more power to the minority in a general (e.g. presidential) election. The phrase is supposed to support the republic form of government: e.g. the chosen congress critters are allowed to decide because they would make a wiser decision than a popular referendum on issues, e.g. that rights enumerated in the constitution designed to protect the minority (e.g. bill of rights, due process), are not easily subverted with a simple majority.
The extra power given to less populous states (the senate and the electoral college) don't have anything to do with tyranny of the majority, but instead are the result of the historical necessities and compromises required to form the union in the first place.
I think the assertion that abandoning the electoral system would further disenfranchise those who live in rural states is false. Many of these places are already ignored by campaigns under the electoral system. The populous states that sit on the fence control things (and these are not the *most* populous states, lately), and the electoral system enhances that effect (and also ensures to bring both parties toward the center somewhat).
The cities in the map are really no where like 100% one way, though some of the rural areas might be. The popular contest was pretty close as was the electoral contest. Mostly, in cities and in rural areas, the votes range in the 35%/65% to 65%/35% range. So the ideas that the cities would vote as a monolithic entity if we got rid of the electoral college, is, well, just fucking stupid.
Yeah, that's true, and I even support that, but it seems to be impossible to propose anything like that without being coming off as someone who doesn't support the troops. They deserve blame, but they get an iota more credit than the other guys.
Cities don't vote, people vote. If people live in cities, why would you hold it against them? It's funny that when people suggest this, they are so brainwashed by the electoral system that they assume all the citizens of a large city would essentially vote the same way. This is nonsense. A more typical voter split in a big biased city in a blue state might be 65%/35%. Those 35% join with other votes in other places, and if that candidate could mass enough, he would win. Isn't that what we want? The will of the people, not the will of the cities?
namespaces - allows group aliasing and lookup/binding changes
overloading - ok, maybe
classes - more than you let on - aggregation, scoping, encapsulation, polymorphism - you can do all in c with something you roll yourself, but chaces are, you'll fuck it up unless you have a pretty narrow use case
template - bzzz - more than a fancy preprocessor
exceptions - once you get them, embrace them, and especially their use with RAII, writing place C is distasteful
Just because 40 minutes a day of cycling didn't cure you of your caloric surplus problem or gland problem or whatever doesn't mean that it is "worthless". Light aerobic activity is good for your heart, lungs, and arteries. A definite improvement over a sedentary lifestyle. Sure, heavy aerobic activity is even better for some people. And if you want to shed the pounds, you're probably going to need more than tooling back and forth to and from work on your bike. For example, a small daily caloric deficit is essential to the process.
If you want heavy aerobic workout on the bike, come ride with me sometime. I have trouble losing too much weight.
I think it's hilarious you call be a nut job for promoting cycling when I've read your anti-cycling stuff all over this thread and on other occasions in this very forum.
Doesn't work for you? Fine. I think it's a pretty great thing to advocate on many counts though. It's not like I'm advocating heroin or violence or something. Your nutjob bar is pretty fucking low.
Rich from am AC. Of course, not being constrained to a wheel chair, I'm not going to be able to brag about my experiences there. Of course the OP who brought up fake hips and wheel chairs wasn't thus affected, either. So woo hoo. Why should I not bring up the great accomplishments of these people when some other schmutz brings up the wheel chair as a general excuse against riding a bike?
First, let me say as a cyclist, that many cyclists are a little too loose with the law. I wait for read lights except for at the rare vacant intersections with known problems detecting bikes, and I stop at stop signs and only roll it when there is no one around (e.g. same as in a car). When I'm waiting at a red light, and some joker on a bike blows through without regard to cross traffic, I think - what an ass - he's going to get creamed. But I don't hate all cyclists for it.
Nothing makes bicyclists so special that they don't have the to follow the law. Here's the thing - motorist are a little loose with the law as well. Car drivers roll stop signs, run red lights, speed, fail to signal, talk on cell phones or text-message while driving. I see it every day, from a large number of motorists. Sometimes it's worse than just negligence - drivers acting aggressively, using their cars as tools of intimidation, assault, etc.
And of course, the same applies to pedestrians.
So do you also hold motorists in general in disdain because many many motorists don't obey the law? Do you not see these infractions? I'd be willing to bet that you yourself break traffic rules a half-dozen times or more on your average trip.
We could all do well to be safer on the roads - cyclists, motorists, pedestrians. Don't be a hater.
900 people a year are killed on bicycles in the United States. Apparently, 0.22% of them died on this one road you describe. I would avoid that road if I were cycling in your neck of the woods.
Yeah, all that stuff is great! What's the downside again? You nailed all the upsides.
What, exactly, is a recovering cyclist? Is your car like methadone or more like Rehab? Do you ever drive by a cycling and start Jonesing, seeing the cyclists sheer, endorphine-fueled joy? Come one, get back on your bike, you know you want to. First ride is free.
You big list of shit is way overblown - I commute by bike almost every day of the year - and almost none of that crap is an issue. Hilarious. Good luck with your commuting lifestyle choice, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always found the fact that religion is cultural, almost inherited, to be one of the most damning pieces of evidence against it.
Any programmer who can't do this without thinking hard should check in his keyboard.
You are deluded. The propensity to cuss is orthogonal to intelligence.
Fucking well put.
Your two year old watches live news feeds? And you worry about him hearing the word "fuck"?
Funny, reminds me of a kids in the hall skit. "Would you like to beat me up now?"
Wow, just wow.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but, seems to me, "the tyranny of the majority" is not about giving more power to the minority in a general (e.g. presidential) election. The phrase is supposed to support the republic form of government: e.g. the chosen congress critters are allowed to decide because they would make a wiser decision than a popular referendum on issues, e.g. that rights enumerated in the constitution designed to protect the minority (e.g. bill of rights, due process), are not easily subverted with a simple majority.
The extra power given to less populous states (the senate and the electoral college) don't have anything to do with tyranny of the majority, but instead are the result of the historical necessities and compromises required to form the union in the first place.
I think the assertion that abandoning the electoral system would further disenfranchise those who live in rural states is false. Many of these places are already ignored by campaigns under the electoral system. The populous states that sit on the fence control things (and these are not the *most* populous states, lately), and the electoral system enhances that effect (and also ensures to bring both parties toward the center somewhat).
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/p urple_america_2004.gif
The cities in the map are really no where like 100% one way, though some of the rural areas might be. The popular contest was pretty close as was the electoral contest. Mostly, in cities and in rural areas, the votes range in the 35%/65% to 65%/35% range. So the ideas that the cities would vote as a monolithic entity if we got rid of the electoral college, is, well, just fucking stupid.
Yeah, that's true, and I even support that, but it seems to be impossible to propose anything like that without being coming off as someone who doesn't support the troops. They deserve blame, but they get an iota more credit than the other guys.
Cities don't vote, people vote. If people live in cities, why would you hold it against them? It's funny that when people suggest this, they are so brainwashed by the electoral system that they assume all the citizens of a large city would essentially vote the same way. This is nonsense. A more typical voter split in a big biased city in a blue state might be 65%/35%. Those 35% join with other votes in other places, and if that candidate could mass enough, he would win. Isn't that what we want? The will of the people, not the will of the cities?
They tried something like that. Did you miss the threatened veto? The dems don't have enough pull to override a veto.
How can we notice patterns if you're posting as an AC?
Ok, I just bought one!
Not if you use C99 - come on people, the standard is 8 years old already.
I've seen that happen - you end up with C code that you just compile with a C++ compiler.
1992? I tried right an OS in c++ in 1970, bloody stupid idea!!!
overloading - ok, maybe
classes - more than you let on - aggregation, scoping, encapsulation, polymorphism - you can do all in c with something you roll yourself, but chaces are, you'll fuck it up unless you have a pretty narrow use case
template - bzzz - more than a fancy preprocessor
exceptions - once you get them, embrace them, and especially their use with RAII, writing place C is distasteful
I know both, you guys are both right
Just because 40 minutes a day of cycling didn't cure you of your caloric surplus problem or gland problem or whatever doesn't mean that it is "worthless". Light aerobic activity is good for your heart, lungs, and arteries. A definite improvement over a sedentary lifestyle. Sure, heavy aerobic activity is even better for some people. And if you want to shed the pounds, you're probably going to need more than tooling back and forth to and from work on your bike. For example, a small daily caloric deficit is essential to the process.
If you want heavy aerobic workout on the bike, come ride with me sometime. I have trouble losing too much weight.
I think it's hilarious you call be a nut job for promoting cycling when I've read your anti-cycling stuff all over this thread and on other occasions in this very forum.
Doesn't work for you? Fine. I think it's a pretty great thing to advocate on many counts though. It's not like I'm advocating heroin or violence or something. Your nutjob bar is pretty fucking low.
Rich from am AC. Of course, not being constrained to a wheel chair, I'm not going to be able to brag about my experiences there. Of course the OP who brought up fake hips and wheel chairs wasn't thus affected, either. So woo hoo. Why should I not bring up the great accomplishments of these people when some other schmutz brings up the wheel chair as a general excuse against riding a bike?
I am a fucking nutjob though.
Nothing makes bicyclists so special that they don't have the to follow the law. Here's the thing - motorist are a little loose with the law as well. Car drivers roll stop signs, run red lights, speed, fail to signal, talk on cell phones or text-message while driving. I see it every day, from a large number of motorists. Sometimes it's worse than just negligence - drivers acting aggressively, using their cars as tools of intimidation, assault, etc.
And of course, the same applies to pedestrians.
So do you also hold motorists in general in disdain because many many motorists don't obey the law? Do you not see these infractions? I'd be willing to bet that you yourself break traffic rules a half-dozen times or more on your average trip.
We could all do well to be safer on the roads - cyclists, motorists, pedestrians. Don't be a hater.
900 people a year are killed on bicycles in the United States. Apparently, 0.22% of them died on this one road you describe. I would avoid that road if I were cycling in your neck of the woods.
What, exactly, is a recovering cyclist? Is your car like methadone or more like Rehab? Do you ever drive by a cycling and start Jonesing, seeing the cyclists sheer, endorphine-fueled joy? Come one, get back on your bike, you know you want to. First ride is free.
You big list of shit is way overblown - I commute by bike almost every day of the year - and almost none of that crap is an issue. Hilarious. Good luck with your commuting lifestyle choice, though.