That isn't a problem - there are no medical bills when you're dead.
Having just lost a friend whose breast cancer started 10 years ago, I'm acutely aware that if you die of cancer there can be huge medical bills before you are dead. (or there would be, if it wasn't all taken care of by the NHS as it was in this case).
Then take up smoking - the cancer kills you much faster, and if it doesn't the heart disease will:-)
You can shoot dogs, or poison them, or bribe them with meat.
No one is going to think your house is being broken into, just because a dog is barking.
The smartest AI in the world is still orders of magnitude dumber than an untrained guard dog.
Sure, you can poison dogs, but only one at a time, thereby making it slower to break in. You can shoot dogs, but that just alerts everyone within earshot. You can try bribing my rottweilers with meat, but I don't think it will be very successful - they've remained quite hostile to strangers after eating the stranger's meat in the past.
I'm in the crime capital of the world (probably), and the only times I've ever been broken into was when I had no dogs, because... (say it with me)
Even an untrained guard dog is a larger hurdle to cross than the smartest home security system.
A year on a coin cell would give you enough energy to send a ping say once a minute.
Depends on the transmission power requirements. Doubling the distance between transmitter and receiver generally means quadrupling the power output; noise of any sort (refrigerator motor, microwave, baby-monitor) causes retransmits, temperature deviations might affect battery performance, false-positives occur more often than expected, etc. In general take your best estimate of battery-life under perfect conditions, then halve it.
You forgot to say crying manbabies and accuse him of being bitter just because he can't (find a job/get laid/make a friend) or some other made up thing:-)
But no one's losing freedoms in this case except the freedom to hurt others. Just like we don't let you have the freedom to drive in the opposing lane of traffic.
No one currently has "the freedom to hurt others". Taking away firearms does nothing to that freedom because it currently does not exist.
The easiest way to shut down criticism and/or discussion is by slinging mud. If there's ever a discussion you want to shut down because it offends your puritanical ideals, simply call the other party names until they get annoyed. *Then* you get to play the victim card using their annoyance as proof of their aggression.
This is basic lawyering - Seen it, done it, in multiple courts.
I'm pretty certain that that is undefined behaviour. It might work, it might crash, it might give you the "correct" answer the first 10000 times and then give you a different answer. In short - what that does is not predictable, which is different from 'weird'.
No, I am not. That's why I have a computer, to do tedious things for me - like correctly indenting code.
But you're going to be doing the tedious things like adding curly brackets in - Python is great because it avoids that.
No, it doesn't. You still have to add the 'block-start' symbol (AKA the opening brace in other languages). You cannot start a block without a block-start symbol in python. In some cases you even *need* a special keyword to end a block.
It literally only applies if you're invested heavily in the python community and have picked it up from there.
It applies if you want to be able to understand other people's code more easily.
You must be mad - you *do* realise that with all languages other than python I can simply reindent and/or reformat to my preferences? I don't *need* to understand other peoples formatting unless I'm using python.
That inability to choose how to sculpt the visual aspect of code in Python is a monstrous shortcoming
No, I think it's perfectly in-keeping with the rest of the zen of Python.
This whole "pythonesque way or the highway" results in python's stupidities being propagated instead of fixed. Significant whitespace was a stupid design decision, one among many other stupid design decisions. I feel it is the worst design decision in python - take away all ability for the computer to determine that you may have made a block-level mistake.
But she makes more progress in half a movie (and years less time in the story) than Luke
You mean, when Luke, whose previous dogfighting experience was shooting womp rats, evaded turbolasers down a long trench pursued by a mature Sith lord and destroyed the death star by nailing a tiny target without his targeting computer on?
Yup. He destroyed a stationary target of two metres because he was used to hitting moving targets of two metres.
Versus when Rey nearly lost to a badly wounded teenage sith apprentice?
What? Badly wounded? All his limbs still worked, all his force-voodoo still worked and he was, from all appearances, at full strength.
It was well written and subtle, with good character development and pacing.
Subtle is the last word I would use to describe it. Nothing was subtle. Everything about the main characters were predictable. The only difference between ANH and this is that in ANH Luke didn't simply pick up a lightsabre and significantly damage Darth Vader on the first try. If Luke had, in ANH, significantly hurt Darth Vader on his first try it would have been a very boring plot. In TFA this happens. Subtle it aint.
The action wasn't boring like a Bay film and I felt it was true to the best of the franchise.
The only odd bits were a couple of lines that felt out of place because they used modern phrasing, and somehow I expected nothing to have changed in 30 years.
I liked the action. I liked the phrasing as well. Those are the good parts. The poor parts were breaking suspension of disbelief. They shouldn't have done that.
He's also got his head firmly stuck in the past and believes that genes are everything. Epigenetics is a thing, but he doesn't seem to accept it.
Epigenetics is *widely* cautioned against. Dawkins is not the only notable scientist in this regard; claiming that genes trump epigenetics in expression of characteristics is not in any way unusual. It's a new(ish) field - give it some time.
It should be noted that some of these sex photos had found their way to the woman's husband through unknown third parties [...] In short, they can't prove he maliciously send or spread those pictures but they're going to take away his means to do it again.
So copies of the pictures are already with some unknown third party, but he should destroy his copies? What happens if the unknown third-party you refer to simply publish those pictures? Does he get punished again?
There is no easy way out of this - this case established that some unknown third-party has the pictures. If he actually does go ahead and *anonymously* release those pictures there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to him - after all they've already established that someone else also has those pictures. The woman involved must have been seriously whacked with the stupid-stick to allow this sort of situation to occur.
Cute. He thinks that his gun will allow him to fight the country with the largest standing army and the biggest arsenal on the planet.
It's kinda adorable.
Kinda like the middle-east conflicts, which have all been resolved since the introduction of the largest standing army and the biggest arsenal on the planet into poverty-stricken areas which had only guns and improvised weapons....
Imagine if Disney sold toxic chemicals to your kids with some addictive flavouring to keep them hooked. That's pretty much what the versions of femininity and masculinity it sells are.
The rest of the world disagrees with your assessment. Regardless of your ideology, ruminate on this: Lego used to target generic blocks at all kids and they almost went out of business. They started targeting narrow demographics and they made tons of money.
Likewise, Disney is not creating the demand, they're simply satisfying it.
Yes, I posted an in-depth definition above. And darned if Trump doesn't fit the definition. Go ahead scroll up and see for yourself.
You should rather stick to trying to shout down the egalitarians; people tend to think you are only joking and not actually insane. Insisting that the dictionary meaning is wrong is just not as funny as you appear to believe.
For anyone still reading, all of those links show that a single man shouted a nazi reference to a crowd of people who shouted at him first. Seriously, read the links.
Once again I reiterate - just because your political ideology differs from someone else does not mean that they are Hitler and you are not.
If the followers of said religion have a shared history and culture, yes. 'Race' is a pretty vague word to begin with, so don't be surprised it means things you didn't assume it to.
You need to get out more. Followers of Islam do not share history and culture. Besides, race has a very specific meaning. If you have to deviate from any dictionary meaning and/or scientific meaning of a word to make your argument work, then your argument is irreversibly broken.
Negroid Muslims in Africa, numbering in the hundreds of millions, have a distinct race from Asian Indian Muslims, also numbering in the hundreds of millions. And neither of those two distinct races are middle eastern nor do the African negroids share any culture with the Asian inhabitants of India.
That's not the part that makes him a fascist. It's the part about consulting with industry leaders to "close up the Internet" that does it.
That's not really fascist either, is it? TBH you're usually quite funny, but here you grabbed the wrong end of the stick and refuse to let go. As odious as Trump is, fascism is very very very far from both what he says and what he does.
You're not very good at this, are you?
Fascism has a very narrow meaning. It does not mean "people I do not like" and it does not mean "People who are bigoted", although there may be an intersection of unlikeable, bigoted and fascist people.
(PS. It's been a long time since you whined about crying manbabies;-) Why stop? You provided endless humour with your persecution complex:-))
Slashdot Mirror
What an ethical argument. Would you care to provide some sort of actual argument, starting from any publicly recognized system of ethics?
"My body, My choice".
(Yes, I'm *for* vaccinations, and against anti-vaxxers. Doesn't mean I support forced and/or coerced injections by the state).
That isn't a problem - there are no medical bills when you're dead.
Having just lost a friend whose breast cancer started 10 years ago, I'm acutely aware that if you die of cancer there can be huge medical bills before you are dead. (or there would be, if it wasn't all taken care of by the NHS as it was in this case).
Then take up smoking - the cancer kills you much faster, and if it doesn't the heart disease will :-)
You can shoot dogs, or poison them, or bribe them with meat. No one is going to think your house is being broken into, just because a dog is barking.
The smartest AI in the world is still orders of magnitude dumber than an untrained guard dog.
Sure, you can poison dogs, but only one at a time, thereby making it slower to break in. You can shoot dogs, but that just alerts everyone within earshot. You can try bribing my rottweilers with meat, but I don't think it will be very successful - they've remained quite hostile to strangers after eating the stranger's meat in the past.
I'm in the crime capital of the world (probably), and the only times I've ever been broken into was when I had no dogs, because... (say it with me)
Even an untrained guard dog is a larger hurdle to cross than the smartest home security system.
A year on a coin cell would give you enough energy to send a ping say once a minute.
Depends on the transmission power requirements. Doubling the distance between transmitter and receiver generally means quadrupling the power output; noise of any sort (refrigerator motor, microwave, baby-monitor) causes retransmits, temperature deviations might affect battery performance, false-positives occur more often than expected, etc. In general take your best estimate of battery-life under perfect conditions, then halve it.
I never thought I'd see the day when regulars on /. argued for DRM.
You forgot to say crying manbabies and accuse him of being bitter just because he can't (find a job/get laid/make a friend) or some other made up thing :-)
But no one's losing freedoms in this case except the freedom to hurt others. Just like we don't let you have the freedom to drive in the opposing lane of traffic.
No one currently has "the freedom to hurt others". Taking away firearms does nothing to that freedom because it currently does not exist.
The easiest way to shut down criticism and/or discussion is by slinging mud. If there's ever a discussion you want to shut down because it offends your puritanical ideals, simply call the other party names until they get annoyed. *Then* you get to play the victim card using their annoyance as proof of their aggression.
This is basic lawyering - Seen it, done it, in multiple courts.
To be honest I prefer faulty logic to produce a crash and not inaccurate results.
Or in C, "x = ++x++ + ++x++;"
I'm pretty certain that that is undefined behaviour. It might work, it might crash, it might give you the "correct" answer the first 10000 times and then give you a different answer. In short - what that does is not predictable, which is different from 'weird'.
No, I am not. That's why I have a computer, to do tedious things for me - like correctly indenting code.
But you're going to be doing the tedious things like adding curly brackets in - Python is great because it avoids that.
No, it doesn't. You still have to add the 'block-start' symbol (AKA the opening brace in other languages). You cannot start a block without a block-start symbol in python. In some cases you even *need* a special keyword to end a block.
It literally only applies if you're invested heavily in the python community and have picked it up from there.
It applies if you want to be able to understand other people's code more easily.
You must be mad - you *do* realise that with all languages other than python I can simply reindent and/or reformat to my preferences? I don't *need* to understand other peoples formatting unless I'm using python.
That inability to choose how to sculpt the visual aspect of code in Python is a monstrous shortcoming
No, I think it's perfectly in-keeping with the rest of the zen of Python.
This whole "pythonesque way or the highway" results in python's stupidities being propagated instead of fixed. Significant whitespace was a stupid design decision, one among many other stupid design decisions. I feel it is the worst design decision in python - take away all ability for the computer to determine that you may have made a block-level mistake.
You mean, when Luke, whose previous dogfighting experience was shooting womp rats, evaded turbolasers down a long trench pursued by a mature Sith lord and destroyed the death star by nailing a tiny target without his targeting computer on?
Yup. He destroyed a stationary target of two metres because he was used to hitting moving targets of two metres.
Versus when Rey nearly lost to a badly wounded teenage sith apprentice?
What? Badly wounded? All his limbs still worked, all his force-voodoo still worked and he was, from all appearances, at full strength.
It was well written and subtle, with good character development and pacing.
Subtle is the last word I would use to describe it. Nothing was subtle. Everything about the main characters were predictable. The only difference between ANH and this is that in ANH Luke didn't simply pick up a lightsabre and significantly damage Darth Vader on the first try. If Luke had, in ANH, significantly hurt Darth Vader on his first try it would have been a very boring plot. In TFA this happens. Subtle it aint.
The action wasn't boring like a Bay film and I felt it was true to the best of the franchise.
The only odd bits were a couple of lines that felt out of place because they used modern phrasing, and somehow I expected nothing to have changed in 30 years.
I liked the action. I liked the phrasing as well. Those are the good parts. The poor parts were breaking suspension of disbelief. They shouldn't have done that.
He's also got his head firmly stuck in the past and believes that genes are everything. Epigenetics is a thing, but he doesn't seem to accept it.
Epigenetics is *widely* cautioned against. Dawkins is not the only notable scientist in this regard; claiming that genes trump epigenetics in expression of characteristics is not in any way unusual. It's a new(ish) field - give it some time.
but now consent is removed for possession he can't review them either.
Having sex once does not grant perpetual consent, and neither does taking sexuality explicit photos.
It only works that way if she own's the photos in question. You are assuming that she does.
It should be noted that some of these sex photos had found their way to the woman's husband through unknown third parties [...] In short, they can't prove he maliciously send or spread those pictures but they're going to take away his means to do it again.
So copies of the pictures are already with some unknown third party, but he should destroy his copies? What happens if the unknown third-party you refer to simply publish those pictures? Does he get punished again?
There is no easy way out of this - this case established that some unknown third-party has the pictures. If he actually does go ahead and *anonymously* release those pictures there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to him - after all they've already established that someone else also has those pictures. The woman involved must have been seriously whacked with the stupid-stick to allow this sort of situation to occur.
Cute. He thinks that his gun will allow him to fight the country with the largest standing army and the biggest arsenal on the planet.
It's kinda adorable.
Kinda like the middle-east conflicts, which have all been resolved since the introduction of the largest standing army and the biggest arsenal on the planet into poverty-stricken areas which had only guns and improvised weapons....
(I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning)
Imagine if Disney sold toxic chemicals to your kids with some addictive flavouring to keep them hooked. That's pretty much what the versions of femininity and masculinity it sells are.
The rest of the world disagrees with your assessment. Regardless of your ideology, ruminate on this: Lego used to target generic blocks at all kids and they almost went out of business. They started targeting narrow demographics and they made tons of money.
Likewise, Disney is not creating the demand, they're simply satisfying it.
Yes, I posted an in-depth definition above. And darned if Trump doesn't fit the definition. Go ahead scroll up and see for yourself.
You should rather stick to trying to shout down the egalitarians; people tend to think you are only joking and not actually insane. Insisting that the dictionary meaning is wrong is just not as funny as you appear to believe.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
http://www.adweek.com/prnewser...
http://media.breitbart.com/med...
For anyone still reading, all of those links show that a single man shouted a nazi reference to a crowd of people who shouted at him first. Seriously, read the links.
Once again I reiterate - just because your political ideology differs from someone else does not mean that they are Hitler and you are not.
If the followers of said religion have a shared history and culture, yes. 'Race' is a pretty vague word to begin with, so don't be surprised it means things you didn't assume it to.
You need to get out more. Followers of Islam do not share history and culture. Besides, race has a very specific meaning. If you have to deviate from any dictionary meaning and/or scientific meaning of a word to make your argument work, then your argument is irreversibly broken.
Negroid Muslims in Africa, numbering in the hundreds of millions, have a distinct race from Asian Indian Muslims, also numbering in the hundreds of millions. And neither of those two distinct races are middle eastern nor do the African negroids share any culture with the Asian inhabitants of India.
racist comments about Muslims
Really? Collective reference to followers of a religion is now "racist"? What the hell are you on?
That's not the part that makes him a fascist. It's the part about consulting with industry leaders to "close up the Internet" that does it.
That's not really fascist either, is it? TBH you're usually quite funny, but here you grabbed the wrong end of the stick and refuse to let go. As odious as Trump is, fascism is very very very far from both what he says and what he does.
You're not very good at this, are you?
Fascism has a very narrow meaning. It does not mean "people I do not like" and it does not mean "People who are bigoted", although there may be an intersection of unlikeable, bigoted and fascist people.
;-) Why stop? You provided endless humour with your persecution complex :-))
(PS. It's been a long time since you whined about crying manbabies