And yet here you are talking about it. Nobody made you spend your time in this discussion. You could have just looked at the next story but here you are.
That just breaks things even if you're trying to get it right.
Consider, I see well so I set tabstops at 2 chars on my editor. Except when my eyes are tired and I set it to 4. The next guy to read my code has limited vision and so he sets it to 8 chars (there are many vision problems that make it hard to tell if one letter is directly above another or not).
It's the typical blather of the rich and shameless. All the bad things were just luck and all the good things were just their innate superior abilities and hard work.
Fact is, anyone can grab the brass ring if they can afford multiple tries, but most people are lucky if they can afford even a single try.
Most software's job is to run. It should run even when conditions aren't ideal. If it can run with reasonable defaults when configuration is missing, it should. If the nice to haves are all missing, it should run. It should do it's best to not care what machine it is running on. The default condition is run. Only halt when running is impossible. Robustness is a virtue. All of this will depend on the skill of the programmer, of course.
DRM is the opposite. It's job is to only run if conditions are exactly met, however irrelevant to the ability of the program to run. The default is to not run. If anything looks the slightest bit out of place, halt. It is fragile by design. It does all the don'ts on purpose. It goes out of it's way to not run.
Most of the stock market is playing that game now. It's all about anticipating fluctuations in the stock's price and trading it around. Dividends would need a long term investment to pay off.
That was true a zillion years ago, and was why there was a vfork call that assumed it would be shortly followed by exec.
In anything for the last decade or so, the new process gets it's pages in the form of a copied page table. The new processes pages are the very same physical pages as the parent. The pages only get actually copied when written to. In the case of fork then exec, the child simply unmaps the shared pages again.
That setup keeps memory usage small and makes things a lot faster.
When committing a tort, the tortfeasor gets responsibility for all consequences, intended or not. Considering the text accompanying the image was "you deserve a seizure", it's pretty clear what the intent was. It certainly shows that the sender was very much aware that a seizure was possible.
There is a difference. One is obeying a legal ex parte order from a judge, the other is done on their own initiative. Are you suggesting that you believe that Twitter should insist that the court grind through the whole appeal process and make the lawyers fatter just to delay releasing information that they will inevitably be ordered to hand over?
And who will watch the people who tweak the search results to tell "the truth"? Who gets to arbitrate? Will they black hole the global warming deniers or promote them to the top? Is Snowden a hero or a villain? Do you want Google to decide that for you?
You may say they should only step in when the truth is certain, but remember, people have odd ideas about what that may be. To the fundamentalist, creation is so obviously true even the evolutionists must know it in their hearts and choose to lie.
I think I have a reasonable expectation that ranking of search results should be based in some part on whether the site is telling the truth or a pack of lies.
Got an algorithm for that? If so, got any idea what kind of shitstorm that would create? Sure, in the case of the Holocaust there's not much controversy, but imagine applying it in politics or global warming. Worse, imagine if the algorithm ever got it wrong or if it was a genuine toss-up!
Not just in the area of history or politics. Imagine the lawsuits flying if someone searches on "the best [product]"! One very happy producer of [product] and a bunch of lawsuits from the others.
Unless Google can come up with an absolutely positively mathematically provably infallible truth determining algorithm, they're much better off making no claims of truth and just returning links to sites responsive to the search terms.
How fortunate then that there is no such algorithm. There cannot be. The best minds in the world acting in good faith cannot always determine the truth, why do you expect it of a search engine?
The claim is actually better substantiated than the one I was countering and the surrounding evidence lends it support.
End of the day, even if we fly there and convince the surgeon to show us the fragments, we will still be relying on his word that they came from the patient. That's life. We have to make the best judgement based on what we can get. That often involves making a judgement call about who to believe. In turn, that calls for looking at whose story best fits the facts available.
I have presented the victim's report, the father's report, and reports from medical personnel on site. If that's not enough, too bad. I don't have a tardis so I can't take you back to witness the event in person.
On a side note, according to Snopes, the Morton County Sheriff's Department has removed their posting where they claimed that she was injured by an IED rather than a grenade.
At the same time, we have the opposing story that shows us a few common and obviously un-ruptured and un-modified empty propane cylinders but would have us believe that the so far non-violent protesters decided to be terrorists for a night and somehow accomplished the difficult task of getting propane cylinders to explode (it's REALLY not that easy to so) yet left no ruptured cylinders to be found.
They even went so far as to claim that a burned but in-tact cylinder was somehow involved (What, did the protesters weld it back together seamlessly afterwards) because they found what they think are bits of skin on it? That strikes me as a bit desperate.
I'm a bit more inclined to believe the explody thing came from the people who brought explody things and body armor with them.
You clearly have chosen to trust the unsubstantiated statement of law enforcement. I provided several documents where a fair number of people say otherwise. At least the pictures in my links show something that could plausibly cause such a nasty injury. You are making the mistake of the creationists, assuming the slightest uncertainty in the opposing theory is iron clad proof of your own.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet here you are talking about it. Nobody made you spend your time in this discussion. You could have just looked at the next story but here you are.
The one where you were apparently interested enough in TFA to click the link...
Agreed, that is the proper way to use tab.
Excellent link, thank you!
Actually, he didn't. Python accepts either one as long as you don't mix them.
You realize paragraphs introduce white space, don't you?
That just breaks things even if you're trying to get it right.
Consider, I see well so I set tabstops at 2 chars on my editor. Except when my eyes are tired and I set it to 4. The next guy to read my code has limited vision and so he sets it to 8 chars (there are many vision problems that make it hard to tell if one letter is directly above another or not).
Most written languages do exactly that, why not Python?
It works just fine as long as you're not silly enough to use a word processor as a text editor.
And if you're sensible enough to use tabs, you can even change the spacing to suit personal preferences and visual acuity.
It's the typical blather of the rich and shameless. All the bad things were just luck and all the good things were just their innate superior abilities and hard work.
Fact is, anyone can grab the brass ring if they can afford multiple tries, but most people are lucky if they can afford even a single try.
DRM is inherently buggy.
Most software's job is to run. It should run even when conditions aren't ideal. If it can run with reasonable defaults when configuration is missing, it should. If the nice to haves are all missing, it should run. It should do it's best to not care what machine it is running on. The default condition is run. Only halt when running is impossible. Robustness is a virtue. All of this will depend on the skill of the programmer, of course.
DRM is the opposite. It's job is to only run if conditions are exactly met, however irrelevant to the ability of the program to run. The default is to not run. If anything looks the slightest bit out of place, halt. It is fragile by design. It does all the don'ts on purpose. It goes out of it's way to not run.
Most of the stock market is playing that game now. It's all about anticipating fluctuations in the stock's price and trading it around. Dividends would need a long term investment to pay off.
The top of the stack actually is just one case of the COW rules. If it gets modified, it gets copied just like any other page.
File tables and such may or may not get deferred until a file is touched.
So forking really is pretty cheap. It's cost is negligible when it's for opening a new tab in the browser.
That was true a zillion years ago, and was why there was a vfork call that assumed it would be shortly followed by exec.
In anything for the last decade or so, the new process gets it's pages in the form of a copied page table. The new processes pages are the very same physical pages as the parent. The pages only get actually copied when written to. In the case of fork then exec, the child simply unmaps the shared pages again.
That setup keeps memory usage small and makes things a lot faster.
The account holder doesn't get to appeal, he isn't the recipient of the order.
When committing a tort, the tortfeasor gets responsibility for all consequences, intended or not. Considering the text accompanying the image was "you deserve a seizure", it's pretty clear what the intent was. It certainly shows that the sender was very much aware that a seizure was possible.
They are turning it over to the court under order as part of the discovery process. The court is directing that the information go to the plaintiff.
There is a difference. One is obeying a legal ex parte order from a judge, the other is done on their own initiative. Are you suggesting that you believe that Twitter should insist that the court grind through the whole appeal process and make the lawyers fatter just to delay releasing information that they will inevitably be ordered to hand over?
True to who? And given that people are incredibly bad at this, who will decide what truth Google will tell?
Unless that person is you, Google will eventually make a determination that you will call a lie.
And who will watch the people who tweak the search results to tell "the truth"? Who gets to arbitrate? Will they black hole the global warming deniers or promote them to the top? Is Snowden a hero or a villain? Do you want Google to decide that for you?
You may say they should only step in when the truth is certain, but remember, people have odd ideas about what that may be. To the fundamentalist, creation is so obviously true even the evolutionists must know it in their hearts and choose to lie.
I think I have a reasonable expectation that ranking of search results should be based in some part on whether the site is telling the truth or a pack of lies.
Got an algorithm for that? If so, got any idea what kind of shitstorm that would create? Sure, in the case of the Holocaust there's not much controversy, but imagine applying it in politics or global warming. Worse, imagine if the algorithm ever got it wrong or if it was a genuine toss-up!
Not just in the area of history or politics. Imagine the lawsuits flying if someone searches on "the best [product]"! One very happy producer of [product] and a bunch of lawsuits from the others.
obligatory meme
Unless Google can come up with an absolutely positively mathematically provably infallible truth determining algorithm, they're much better off making no claims of truth and just returning links to sites responsive to the search terms.
How fortunate then that there is no such algorithm. There cannot be. The best minds in the world acting in good faith cannot always determine the truth, why do you expect it of a search engine?
The claim is actually better substantiated than the one I was countering and the surrounding evidence lends it support.
End of the day, even if we fly there and convince the surgeon to show us the fragments, we will still be relying on his word that they came from the patient. That's life. We have to make the best judgement based on what we can get. That often involves making a judgement call about who to believe. In turn, that calls for looking at whose story best fits the facts available.
I have presented the victim's report, the father's report, and reports from medical personnel on site. If that's not enough, too bad. I don't have a tardis so I can't take you back to witness the event in person.
On a side note, according to Snopes, the Morton County Sheriff's Department has removed their posting where they claimed that she was injured by an IED rather than a grenade.
Read the reply to the thread starter.
At the same time, we have the opposing story that shows us a few common and obviously un-ruptured and un-modified empty propane cylinders but would have us believe that the so far non-violent protesters decided to be terrorists for a night and somehow accomplished the difficult task of getting propane cylinders to explode (it's REALLY not that easy to so) yet left no ruptured cylinders to be found.
They even went so far as to claim that a burned but in-tact cylinder was somehow involved (What, did the protesters weld it back together seamlessly afterwards) because they found what they think are bits of skin on it? That strikes me as a bit desperate.
I'm a bit more inclined to believe the explody thing came from the people who brought explody things and body armor with them.
Yes, because if it was actually a flashbang that was deliberately thrown AT someone, that would totally let law enforcement off the hook.
The one thing in common for all of those is that they cause grievous bodily harm if they go off while in contact with a person.
So if you prefer, read it as an explosive of some kind.
Then consider that a gun loaded with blanks is lethal at close range.
You clearly have chosen to trust the unsubstantiated statement of law enforcement. I provided several documents where a fair number of people say otherwise. At least the pictures in my links show something that could plausibly cause such a nasty injury. You are making the mistake of the creationists, assuming the slightest uncertainty in the opposing theory is iron clad proof of your own.