Just ignoring the law and breaking it doesn't make you a fearless defender of freedom. It just makes you a criminal. Only if, through your actions, you actually hope to effect real change, can you justify them using your thesis.
Seems to be variable. I had absolutely no problems installing FC6, 7 and Fedora 8 and 9. Just pop the CD in and go. I'm not saying these install problems don't exist, I've just never seen them.
Says it uses "photon pressure," so just under c would be the cut-off, I reckon. It would probably leave the solar system long before it reached that velocity, though.
A tax should not be odious to the payer. It should not put you in a position where you are unable to support yourself as a result of paying. This isn't justice, really. The main reason is that your ability to pay the following year would be diminished, making such taxes solely punitive in nature. The treasury loses in the medium to long term.
If I have $1,000 and you take $400 away, I'm under a lot more pressure than if I have $10,000 and you take $4,000 from me. This is because money, like many things, has a marginal value.
It follows that, as one's wealth increases, a greater proportion of it may be taxed without being called punitive, until some maximum is reached.
Progressive taxation isn't about "punishing" success, it's about not "punishing" failure, for reasons that have little to do with justice per se.
Whether earned income should be taxed at all is another matter entirely.
Proper links will become invalid when the site being linked to changes or disappears. TinyURL links become invalid when either the site being linked to changes or disappears, or TinyURL changes or disappears.
I get the feeling that DNS is a better bet than TinyURL.
You could use Genesis as a post-facto justification, but that's not the only interpretation you could give, and it doesn't actually explain why privacy didn't become a concern with conversion, but emerged later.
The assumption of privacy (with regards to sex and sleeping and stuff) in Christendom is more a result of the Little Ice Age than of any inherent moral concerns. During the Medieval Warm Period, there was a big hall where the lord and his maintainers all just slept together in. There was a fire in the middle, and it wafted out of the door. Privacy just wasn't an issue. When the winters got colder, you needed to close that door to kill the draft. This meant that chimneys needed to be invented, and beds needed some insulation, leading to four-poster beds, houses that were commonly more than one floor, and , ultimately, the assumption of privacy when sleeping.
I agree that data coming from an untrusted source should be vetted as a matter of course. You can do a lot to help that using methods specific to the domain (e.g. using prepared SQL statements rather than concatenating strings, avoiding null terminated strings like the plague), but I am of the opinion that making user input conform to a type system is tangential to the issue of security.
After all, you're just pulling bytes from a pipe of some kind. Bytes from a pipe are not subject to compiler magic, and are pretty much by definition unsafe.
If you can give an example where type theory trumps domain specific sanity checks, I'm all ears.
Strong and weak are often confused with dynamic and static. They're orthogonal concepts.
An example of a weakly statically typed language would be C. You have to declare the all the types, so you know what type you're dealing with compile time, but a boolean can be treated like an integer or a pointer. An example of a strongly dynamically typed language would be Lisp. You don't have type declarations (well in Common Lisp they're optional), and you don't know the type of a variable at compile time, but a list cannot be treated like a number.
You do get dynamically weakly typed languages, like PHP. You also get statically strongly typed languages, like Haskell. Assuming that strong and static are the same thing, or that weak and dynamic is the same thing, is a big mistake.
D oyuo have it on plain text at the bottom? If it's HTML formatted (which I think might be the default, I dunno), you have to put markup in for that kind of stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Just ignoring the law and breaking it doesn't make you a fearless defender of freedom. It just makes you a criminal. Only if, through your actions, you actually hope to effect real change, can you justify them using your thesis.
You're right, I neglected the mass of the spacecraft. Silly me.
I think I was trying for "the root of anti-science."
Seems to be variable. I had absolutely no problems installing FC6, 7 and Fedora 8 and 9. Just pop the CD in and go. I'm not saying these install problems don't exist, I've just never seen them.
Says it uses "photon pressure," so just under c would be the cut-off, I reckon. It would probably leave the solar system long before it reached that velocity, though.
Sqrt(-science). Makes sense.
Oh how quaint, you use a computer to perform partial differentiation in 20 dimensional space? I'm much more forward thinking: I use pen and paper.
Automating stuff that doesn't require thought frees the mind to actually think.
A tax should not be odious to the payer. It should not put you in a position where you are unable to support yourself as a result of paying. This isn't justice, really. The main reason is that your ability to pay the following year would be diminished, making such taxes solely punitive in nature. The treasury loses in the medium to long term.
If I have $1,000 and you take $400 away, I'm under a lot more pressure than if I have $10,000 and you take $4,000 from me. This is because money, like many things, has a marginal value.
It follows that, as one's wealth increases, a greater proportion of it may be taxed without being called punitive, until some maximum is reached.
Progressive taxation isn't about "punishing" success, it's about not "punishing" failure, for reasons that have little to do with justice per se.
Whether earned income should be taxed at all is another matter entirely.
Blade Jones? Indiana Runner? Indiade Junner? Bladiana Rones?
Yes. It's so they can't do that to the users of the software they distribute.
Myocardial infarctions? Nasty.
Proper links will become invalid when the site being linked to changes or disappears. TinyURL links become invalid when either the site being linked to changes or disappears, or TinyURL changes or disappears.
I get the feeling that DNS is a better bet than TinyURL.
Who says anarchy doesn't have rules? It's mostly a matter of who makes em.
You could use Genesis as a post-facto justification, but that's not the only interpretation you could give, and it doesn't actually explain why privacy didn't become a concern with conversion, but emerged later.
The assumption of privacy (with regards to sex and sleeping and stuff) in Christendom is more a result of the Little Ice Age than of any inherent moral concerns. During the Medieval Warm Period, there was a big hall where the lord and his maintainers all just slept together in. There was a fire in the middle, and it wafted out of the door. Privacy just wasn't an issue. When the winters got colder, you needed to close that door to kill the draft. This meant that chimneys needed to be invented, and beds needed some insulation, leading to four-poster beds, houses that were commonly more than one floor, and , ultimately, the assumption of privacy when sleeping.
This is the pertinent meaning.
That's so ace, it's going in my sig.
What percentage of global internet users is 10m? Is is greater than 4%?
Yeah, just like all those students from the 60s and 70s voted to legalise marijuana.
Society changes, but it's often much slower than one might expect.
I agree that data coming from an untrusted source should be vetted as a matter of course. You can do a lot to help that using methods specific to the domain (e.g. using prepared SQL statements rather than concatenating strings, avoiding null terminated strings like the plague), but I am of the opinion that making user input conform to a type system is tangential to the issue of security.
After all, you're just pulling bytes from a pipe of some kind. Bytes from a pipe are not subject to compiler magic, and are pretty much by definition unsafe.
If you can give an example where type theory trumps domain specific sanity checks, I'm all ears.
Strong and weak are often confused with dynamic and static. They're orthogonal concepts.
An example of a weakly statically typed language would be C. You have to declare the all the types, so you know what type you're dealing with compile time, but a boolean can be treated like an integer or a pointer. An example of a strongly dynamically typed language would be Lisp. You don't have type declarations (well in Common Lisp they're optional), and you don't know the type of a variable at compile time, but a list cannot be treated like a number.
You do get dynamically weakly typed languages, like PHP. You also get statically strongly typed languages, like Haskell. Assuming that strong and static are the same thing, or that weak and dynamic is the same thing, is a big mistake.
Well OK, I'll tell my high school maths teacher was wrong when I meet her. Seriously, thanks for that.
A function is a one-to-one mapping.
D oyuo have it on plain text at the bottom? If it's HTML formatted (which I think might be the default, I dunno), you have to put markup in for that kind of stuff.
Why did the vast majority of those asked fail to comply with this law?
As well as the ability to have multi-line lambdas. Hence my comment.