A Wall Street Journal blog points out that even if this program's goals are met, we will be worse off by 2030 in terms of jet kerosene released into the atmosphere, assuming that the rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace. Maybe, maybe not. Why should that stop people from trying to make at least some sort of positive gain on this front? I'm getting rather sick of these naysayers who have to crap on every attempt at some new technology because it's not going to be the be all, end all solution to the problem at this exact moment in time.
The fact that he said that he couldn't draw any conclusions probably means that the windows code had by far the best quality out of any of them, and that shouldn't surprise anyone. Not quite.
The two systems with a commercial pedigree (Solaris and WRK) have slightly more positive than negative marks. However, WRK also has the largest number of negative marks, while Solaris has the second lowest number of positive marks.
and there is no right to privacy outlined in the constitution. Looks like another person who has failed to read the 9th Amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Monster. Fucking. Fail.
No, irregardless is a perfectly legitimate choice. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. You grammar Nazis are going to just have to accept the fact that the word is a legitimate part of the language now. You can fight it all you want but the language is going to evolve whether you like it or not.
For example, the ability of producers using RFID to track exactly where in the supply chain their products are and by which retailer they were ultimately sold to a consumer has the potential to make product recalls more effective. How about making it so that in this day and age you can actually mail a package and not have to worry about it getting lost along the way? I'd find that much more useful.
These cuffs sound like a natural progression of forced education. And of course only the children who resist will be subject to them. There's no need to impose more force on someone who choses to cooperate with their incarceration voluntarily. Yes, who knows what untold damage has been done to society through kids being forced to learn how to read, write and do maths. Clearly what society needs is more and more uneducated illiterates walking the streets.
It's not that I don't understand how it works, I do - and I appreciate that you can use any tool irresponsibly - but I'm not convinced that for the type of software development that most companies do DVCS makes sense. Except you keep making points that clearly show that you don't know how it works.
So what? Java is still a highly abstracted language hence why it is not a low-level language by any definition other than some bizarre one you've created.
But in my environment I want all of the changes being made (however offensive or broken) to be centrally auditable and not stashed away in some private repository. But that's a risk of any VCS. Exactly how is that any less of a concern just because you have a centralized server? I've seen that exact situation happen innumerable times using a CVCS. It seems more like you're just afraid of something you don't understand.
Much like C is a low-level language to produce assembler code, Java was (and mostly still is) a low-level language to produce JVM byte-code. I don't think that word means what you think it does.
In computer science, a low-level programming language is a language that provides little or no abstraction from a computer's microprocessor. That clearly doesn't describe Java.
Java is a crappy low-level language Java's a low level language? That's news to me.
the COBOL of the millenium." So you mean it's highly ubiquitous language with 100s of billions of lines of code written in it that spreads over innumerable applications?
You lose anyway. It comes with the territory.
You and the rest of the "ASCII text forever" crowd don't speak for me. And this crowd, whose membership I've been forced into against my will, doesn't speak for me either.
Flash doesn't exist anymore to do animation or dynamic graphics, it exists to run fast. So when is Adobe finally going to get around to meeting that goal?
This is a Javascript port of the Processing Visualization Language and a first step towards Javascript being a rival to Flash for online graphics content. Whoever wins, we lose.
Slashdot Mirror
'PC Load Letter'? What the fuck does that mean?
Or you could just save yourself the Mac premium and just use that extra money to purchase those as addons and still have a net gain in your pocket.
So what? Java is still a highly abstracted language hence why it is not a low-level language by any definition other than some bizarre one you've created.
It's a pretty sad day when twitter uses AC to defend himself rather than a sockpuppet.
I think his name is written "Stan".
So, half past a blue moon?
It's true! It's really true!