I guess you are in the camp of "both are establishment", which makes no sense to me. They both have money and are elitist, but that's not the issue in a principate. This may literally be one of the last times (in anyone reading's lifetime) that the political arena will result in a choice between a self-appointed egoist (who basically scammed his way via celebrity) and a multinational political favorite for POTUS. This will poison that contest forever, either through his failure to win or his failure as a president.
> Contemporary languages don't use them and with good reason.
We also don't use training wheels on motorcycles. Your objection misses the point entirely. BASIC is not a good general purpose language. It's not good for much at all. As a beginner language, it's one of the best fits.
That's a benefit. Understanding and being able to reference the order of execution explicitly and the cost of changes, is a huge lesson that it enforces accidentally. Talk about Poke and Peek, then we're getting into the problems with (apple) BASIC.
> Nothing about BASIC makes it more suited to beginners than many other languages out there, including but not limited to Python
Lack of features makes it more suited to beginners. Less things to need to understand or use for additional complexity. Algebra is taught before Calculus, necessarily. Humans learn with blocks before bridges.
TechDirt has been posting Fake News for years...er "tech rumors and dirt". Mudslinging with a tech focus is their brand.
Buzzfeed is more of a stream of whispers sourced by tweets, posts, texts and email. Both site are awful sources of "news", since that's not what they do.
> I honestly doubt Trump gives a shit about slashdot, so you'd have to explain better how it's relevant in any context.
Just because you don't understand the context, doesn't mean the debate doesn't exist. As is obvious from the content, it has nothing to do with Trump so that's a non sequitur or a disingenuous derail attempt. Quibbling about the type of trolling is not productive anyway. That's statistically, the use of AC on/. - At least between us, there's some accountability, unlike the ACs that pepper this thread.
Because it's a troll if you take it out of context (meaning in regard to the topic instead of/.'s system), otherwise his response is insightful. After decades, it's safe to say that anonymous speech (ACs) havent been helpful here. My biggest gripe is that is sucks up mod points (which could be doled out based on the number of non-ac posts) that would otherwise help build a community. Instead, I believe it has thinned it.
> I doubt you could even point out Syria or Aleppo on an unlabeled map without a quick Google search first.
As a candidate for POTUS, knowing something about the region is part of the job. He failed 2 basic interview questions (which developers do you admire, er uh...). He's unqualified, it's ok, lots of people are. Some of them are running for president anyway.
> For a guy who's built his candidacy on an ego trip this is important.
I don't think he's a billionaire either. At least, not in the same sense as the Clintons aren't billionaires. There's not a lot of value to actually being one, vs saying you are (or are not) one since the whole point is being able to leverage (other) capital. Being "unwilling" to self-fund his campaign was enough to recognize a fraudulent claim. That being said, his candidacy is based on his popularity so his ego is incidental. I don't care if Hillary is physically or even mentally damaged anymore than if Trump has a billion dollars or not. I think it's clear as to what things are true and neither matter to me in the slightest. While Trump may end up being a puppet, policy good and bad, can be undone. Hopefully he undoes some of the bad with the inevitable good he will unravel. Or maybe he won't do anything of the sort, but I'll roll the dice on him over Hillary.
> The higher taxes go, the more people find loopholes
Stop repeating this obvious misconception of tax law. There's nothing to "find". You either lobby more loopholes or you make clearly beneficial decisions that *might* get you in trouble and do a cost benefit against the penalties and lawyer fees.
"Lasers like that"? Lasers don't have to have emissions in the visible spectrum, but since they are so dangerous to the eyes regardless, it's common to ensure they do. As a matter of fact, nope.
> In this post we will describe our journey to providing an industry-leading playback experience using HTML5
In other words, a regular html5 player with ads enabled. Their mystery recommendation engine is the hardest part (depending on how complicated they make the VAST/VPAID).
> Syrians, who tend to be educated and hard-working, would do wonders for Detroit's economy
The Detroit economy needs jobs, not hard workers. When the auto industry started shutting down factories, Detroit fell. Importing more labor, won't fix the problem.
> Seeing that there's no longer a militia needed to repair foreign invaders, the 2nd no longer has justification.
I think you meant repel and that was not the intent. I know you have some warped and incorrect assumption about why there is a second amendment but there are plenty of supplementary materials produced describing how and why the drafters came up with the amendments.
> who has singlehandedly done more damage to the software world
That title is reserved by Bill Gates. WTF has Larry done to software? Nothing. I mean they took the baby MS steps of creating a walled garden of substandard software and letting their once decent product line fester and slowly moulder. Positioning to do it again is not any worse. Oracle fails to even come close to setting poor standards, wiping out standards, wiping out companies, creatior locking down hardware that MS achieved. What a warped perspective to imagine Oracle has affected the software profession (much less industry).
You've made an assumption that our species will be able to develop the technology prior to an ELE. There's lots of risk, but it's risky to NOT do it, if you think our ecology should propogate. Paradoxically, I think humanity is great, but our ecology is not with high-energy requirements and relatively short adaptation cycles leading to a lot of missed genetic advantages and junk encoding in the DNA.
> Because one of the fundamental questions of biology / philosophy and science fiction (have I left anybody else out?) is whether or not we're unique little snowflakes
That has nothing to do with the question asked. It PRESUPPOSED that life is already there, if you bother to re-read it. The question is about the existence of our role in guiding (our or other species) evolution, which is silly and borderline religious. Earth life cannot know or act on what the optimal configuration for life is going to be, so we have no choice but to continue and expanding is part of our known successful strategy for our form of life. Might as well say "stop having babies now" because it might make us more difficult for some other (morally) superior form of life to convert or remove humanity.
Yes, you might lose some advantage that studying and conquering an alien ecosystem might afford, but so what? That act has a different cost that's practically, much much higher. All of the non-apocalyptic concerns (like spinning a planet out of it's orbit) raised by destroying other ecosystems on other worlds are fundamentally counterproductive for our form of life...which I keep saying because any interplanetary colonization will necessitate or result in variation on our species, but will also include a nontrivial biome. This includes worlds in our solar system, which are not more or less ours than any other stellar body.
> It's capitalism that's devised a way to sell something to the farmers without them actually having to give up ownership
Socialism could have also devised this where you replace the anonymous vendor with the state (who requires the relationship from the supplying vendor to ensure "fairness" or whatever).
Currently, that appears to depend on where you live and the laws of that land.
If a fingerprint is recorded as a pattern, can you own that pattern? The answer is no. Practically and legally in the US. Then an alternate pattern (approximation) will be used and so on...
What about your DNA sequence? What about your hair after a haircut? The answer is no over a long enough time period. Nothing about you will be deemed to be owned by you until the state has ruled it so and then the state ignores that ruling anyway in the interest of convenience or justice or whatever reason dejour until the concept fades. Get used to it, make your money where you can in the meantime, copyright your fingerprints.
> The stations on cable TV were always existing TV stations like WGN or TBS.
Hilarious. There were originally very few cable channels and generally you needed specialty hardware to even access them since everyone way on over-the-air transmitted by hardline or stuck with rabbit ears. WGN...TBS....those didn't exist alongside the Z-channel (1980s representing). What you mean by cable is a product of the last few decades where almost all signal is now carried by cable. The premium involved in that is now considered, incorrectly, part of the cost of transmission. The fact that it's not over-the-air should give you pause. It's now carried by cable, whereas cable was originally an extra premium cost for specific channels that....no surprise, had no commercials and pushed that (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cable+no+commercials)
You're too young to know what you are talking about, since some of us were actually alive decades before the internet. Asking to prove the sky is blue, is transparently juvenile and ineffective at making a point (maybe it isn't blue?).
> You are a complete idiot. If I am wrong, cite some proof for your extremely stupid assertion.
This is about history, not some nebulous deductive assertion. It's very clear you aren't smart enough to make a basic observation without exploding into part and parcel nonsequitors....probably insults people throw at you, with proper context. Please let your guardian review your posts, in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
> Apparently not, otherwise she would not be winning by a significant margin.
That's not how lying works.
I guess you are in the camp of "both are establishment", which makes no sense to me. They both have money and are elitist, but that's not the issue in a principate. This may literally be one of the last times (in anyone reading's lifetime) that the political arena will result in a choice between a self-appointed egoist (who basically scammed his way via celebrity) and a multinational political favorite for POTUS. This will poison that contest forever, either through his failure to win or his failure as a president.
How different were things last year?
http://2016.presidential-candi...
> Contemporary languages don't use them and with good reason.
We also don't use training wheels on motorcycles. Your objection misses the point entirely. BASIC is not a good general purpose language. It's not good for much at all. As a beginner language, it's one of the best fits.
> Line numbers
That's a benefit. Understanding and being able to reference the order of execution explicitly and the cost of changes, is a huge lesson that it enforces accidentally.
Talk about Poke and Peek, then we're getting into the problems with (apple) BASIC.
> Nothing about BASIC makes it more suited to beginners than many other languages out there, including but not limited to Python
Lack of features makes it more suited to beginners. Less things to need to understand or use for additional complexity.
Algebra is taught before Calculus, necessarily. Humans learn with blocks before bridges.
> You can photograph anyone or anything in public
Ironically, copyright prohibits sale in a large number of cases. Did you catch a billboard in your photo? Whoops.
Relevant: http://www.wipo.int/export/sit...
TechDirt has been posting Fake News for years...er "tech rumors and dirt". Mudslinging with a tech focus is their brand.
Buzzfeed is more of a stream of whispers sourced by tweets, posts, texts and email. Both site are awful sources of "news", since that's not what they do.
> I honestly doubt Trump gives a shit about slashdot, so you'd have to explain better how it's relevant in any context.
Just because you don't understand the context, doesn't mean the debate doesn't exist. As is obvious from the content, it has nothing to do with Trump so that's a non sequitur or a disingenuous derail attempt. Quibbling about the type of trolling is not productive anyway. That's statistically, the use of AC on /. - At least between us, there's some accountability, unlike the ACs that pepper this thread.
Because it's a troll if you take it out of context (meaning in regard to the topic instead of /.'s system), otherwise his response is insightful. After decades, it's safe to say that anonymous speech (ACs) havent been helpful here. My biggest gripe is that is sucks up mod points (which could be doled out based on the number of non-ac posts) that would otherwise help build a community. Instead, I believe it has thinned it.
> I doubt you could even point out Syria or Aleppo on an unlabeled map without a quick Google search first.
As a candidate for POTUS, knowing something about the region is part of the job. He failed 2 basic interview questions (which developers do you admire, er uh...). He's unqualified, it's ok, lots of people are. Some of them are running for president anyway.
> For a guy who's built his candidacy on an ego trip this is important.
I don't think he's a billionaire either. At least, not in the same sense as the Clintons aren't billionaires. There's not a lot of value to actually being one, vs saying you are (or are not) one since the whole point is being able to leverage (other) capital. Being "unwilling" to self-fund his campaign was enough to recognize a fraudulent claim. That being said, his candidacy is based on his popularity so his ego is incidental. I don't care if Hillary is physically or even mentally damaged anymore than if Trump has a billion dollars or not. I think it's clear as to what things are true and neither matter to me in the slightest. While Trump may end up being a puppet, policy good and bad, can be undone. Hopefully he undoes some of the bad with the inevitable good he will unravel. Or maybe he won't do anything of the sort, but I'll roll the dice on him over Hillary.
> The higher taxes go, the more people find loopholes
Stop repeating this obvious misconception of tax law. There's nothing to "find". You either lobby more loopholes or you make clearly beneficial decisions that *might* get you in trouble and do a cost benefit against the penalties and lawyer fees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Lasers like that"? Lasers don't have to have emissions in the visible spectrum, but since they are so dangerous to the eyes regardless, it's common to ensure they do. As a matter of fact, nope.
> In this post we will describe our journey to providing an industry-leading playback experience using HTML5
In other words, a regular html5 player with ads enabled. Their mystery recommendation engine is the hardest part (depending on how complicated they make the VAST/VPAID).
When dealing with vendors, you will always have some "Admin password" for the administration account.
> Ideally, there should be no "admin password
That situation is wholly irrelevant to the topic that asserts the practical problem.
> Syrians, who tend to be educated and hard-working, would do wonders for Detroit's economy
The Detroit economy needs jobs, not hard workers. When the auto industry started shutting down factories, Detroit fell. Importing more labor, won't fix the problem.
> Seeing that there's no longer a militia needed to repair foreign invaders, the 2nd no longer has justification.
I think you meant repel and that was not the intent. I know you have some warped and incorrect assumption about why there is a second amendment but there are plenty of supplementary materials produced describing how and why the drafters came up with the amendments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... might lead you to some facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... must have been a crackpot in your eyes, despite the fact that he lived in the society that resulted in the laws you now interpret incorrectly.
> who has singlehandedly done more damage to the software world
That title is reserved by Bill Gates. WTF has Larry done to software? Nothing. I mean they took the baby MS steps of creating a walled garden of substandard software and letting their once decent product line fester and slowly moulder. Positioning to do it again is not any worse. Oracle fails to even come close to setting poor standards, wiping out standards, wiping out companies, creatior locking down hardware that MS achieved. What a warped perspective to imagine Oracle has affected the software profession (much less industry).
You've made an assumption that our species will be able to develop the technology prior to an ELE.
There's lots of risk, but it's risky to NOT do it, if you think our ecology should propogate.
Paradoxically, I think humanity is great, but our ecology is not with high-energy requirements and relatively short adaptation cycles leading to a lot of missed genetic advantages and junk encoding in the DNA.
> Because one of the fundamental questions of biology / philosophy and science fiction (have I left anybody else out?) is whether or not we're unique little snowflakes
That has nothing to do with the question asked. It PRESUPPOSED that life is already there, if you bother to re-read it.
The question is about the existence of our role in guiding (our or other species) evolution, which is silly and borderline religious.
Earth life cannot know or act on what the optimal configuration for life is going to be, so we have no choice but to continue and expanding is part of our known successful strategy for our form of life.
Might as well say "stop having babies now" because it might make us more difficult for some other (morally) superior form of life to convert or remove humanity.
Yes, you might lose some advantage that studying and conquering an alien ecosystem might afford, but so what? That act has a different cost that's practically, much much higher. All of the non-apocalyptic concerns (like spinning a planet out of it's orbit) raised by destroying other ecosystems on other worlds are fundamentally counterproductive for our form of life...which I keep saying because any interplanetary colonization will necessitate or result in variation on our species, but will also include a nontrivial biome. This includes worlds in our solar system, which are not more or less ours than any other stellar body.
> definitely infringes on the right to avoid self-incrimination.
The Canadian section 13 is not the same American right you're, ostensibly, citing.
> It's capitalism that's devised a way to sell something to the farmers without them actually having to give up ownership
Socialism could have also devised this where you replace the anonymous vendor with the state (who requires the relationship from the supplying vendor to ensure "fairness" or whatever).
Currently, that appears to depend on where you live and the laws of that land.
If a fingerprint is recorded as a pattern, can you own that pattern? The answer is no. Practically and legally in the US.
Then an alternate pattern (approximation) will be used and so on...
What about your DNA sequence? What about your hair after a haircut? The answer is no over a long enough time period. Nothing about you will be deemed to be owned by you until the state has ruled it so and then the state ignores that ruling anyway in the interest of convenience or justice or whatever reason dejour until the concept fades. Get used to it, make your money where you can in the meantime, copyright your fingerprints.
> The stations on cable TV were always existing TV stations like WGN or TBS.
Hilarious. There were originally very few cable channels and generally you needed specialty hardware to even access them since everyone way on over-the-air transmitted by hardline or stuck with rabbit ears. WGN...TBS....those didn't exist alongside the Z-channel (1980s representing). What you mean by cable is a product of the last few decades where almost all signal is now carried by cable. The premium involved in that is now considered, incorrectly, part of the cost of transmission. The fact that it's not over-the-air should give you pause. It's now carried by cable, whereas cable was originally an extra premium cost for specific channels that....no surprise, had no commercials and pushed that (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cable+no+commercials)
You're too young to know what you are talking about, since some of us were actually alive decades before the internet. Asking to prove the sky is blue, is transparently juvenile and ineffective at making a point (maybe it isn't blue?).
> You are a complete idiot. If I am wrong, cite some proof for your extremely stupid assertion.
This is about history, not some nebulous deductive assertion. It's very clear you aren't smart enough to make a basic observation without exploding into part and parcel nonsequitors....probably insults people throw at you, with proper context. Please let your guardian review your posts, in the future.