Airport security can presumably tell the difference between innocent and not-so-innocent infractions. Google can't do this 100% of the time, so any information they give to an offender *might* be just what that offender needs in order to slip through more effectively next time.
If the consequences of repeatedly failing the airport screening were simply that you have to go through it again and again, it would be immediately obvious that providing a complete error message would be a disaster:
"you can't carry that penknife on board" (ditches penknife, tries again)
"you can't carry that belt-buckle-knife on board" (ditches belt-buckle knife, tries again)...
As long as you can comfortably fit into a declarative, purely dependency-oriented structure, Ant is great. But as soon as you have to cross the "scripting divide", which has happened with every nontrivial system I have dealt with, Ant becomes really clumsy. To me, the SCons approach of providing a build and dependency management framework that you can easily invoke from a general-purpose scripting language is much more elegant.
Sure, sometimes software is slow because of sloppy coding. But in many cases (like this one, perhaps), performance is due to explicit design decisions that are optimizing for quality attributes other than speed.
No tale or report, just a verbatim quote and a mildly derogatory nickname.
maliciously uttered,
I didn't utter anything, I typed it.
tending to injure the reputation of another;
If quoting Bush verbatim tends to injure his reputation, I can hardly claim credit!
the malicious utterance of defamatory reports; the dissemination of malicious tales or suggestions to the injury of another.
Again, no tale, report, or suggestion, just a quote.
The fact that you have to resort to partisan attacks proves that you have no point. If you had simply left off the baseless attacks, then your post would have been a lot better off.
Would you be so quick to call it an attack if I called Clinton "Bubba" and quoted something about the definition of "is"? I have a sneaky feeling that I'm not the real partisan here.
Weren't you people supposed to leave America if Bush got into office?
Who is "you people"? You seem to think you know a lot about me just because I dare indulge in a bit of humor at the expense of the current slimeball-in-office.
You're right - If the post were regarding how NOT to cover up an affair with an intern, a Bubba quote probably would been quite appropriate.
But it wasn't. "Making the pie higher", is directly relevant to the point I was making - to get more pie (market), you either get a bigger piece of the pie or make the pie bigger.
And you might want to look up "slander" before using that word again. You got the usage wrong in at least two ways.
Simple. With no web browsers out there, there wouldn't be much demand for web servers, would there? In this case the strategy is not to grab market share from the competition but, in the words of Dubya, to "make the pie higher!"
The rules of the game are about the collective guesses of the team (at least one right guess and no wrong guesses), not individual guesses. And players can pass.
The correct strategy can cause all three players to guess wrong together 25% of the time, while the remaining 75% of the time one player will guess correctly and two will pass, something like this:
X=Wrong, +=Right, -=Pass
TrialNo: 1 2 3 4
Player1: X + - -
Player2: X - + -
Player3: X - - +
The number of right guesses is the same as the number of wrong guesses, but they still win 75% of the time. This is because the strategy helps tell the players when they ought to pass instead of trying to guess at all.
The rules of the game are about the collective guesses of the team (at least one right guess and no wrong guesses), not individual guesses. And players can pass.
The correct strategy can cause all three players to guess wrong together 25% of the time, while the remaining 75% of the time one player will guess correctly and two will pass, something like this:
X=Wrong, +=Right, -=Pass
Trial: 1 2 3 4
P1 X + - -
P2 X - + -
P3 X - - +
The number of right guesses is the same as the number of wrong guesses, but they still win 75% of the time. This is because the strategy helps tell the players when they ought to pass instead of trying to guess at all.
Slashdot Mirror
This project *is* of immediate practical interest to its creator.
Airport security can presumably tell the difference between innocent and not-so-innocent infractions.
Google can't do this 100% of the time, so any information they give to an offender *might* be just what that offender needs in order to slip through more effectively next time.
If the consequences of repeatedly failing the airport screening were simply that you have to go through it again and again, it would be immediately obvious that providing a complete error message would be a disaster:
"you can't carry that penknife on board"
(ditches penknife, tries again)
"you can't carry that belt-buckle-knife on board"
(ditches belt-buckle knife, tries again)...
As long as you can comfortably fit into a declarative, purely dependency-oriented structure, Ant is great. But as soon as you have to cross the "scripting divide", which has happened with every nontrivial system I have dealt with, Ant becomes really clumsy. To me, the SCons approach of providing a build and dependency management framework that you can easily invoke from a general-purpose scripting language is much more elegant.
Why? If a tool does a job exceedingly well, who cares if it requires ${INFRASTRUCTURE_I_HAVE_A_PET_PEEVE_ABOUT} ?
A: East cross North!
I would have guessed that if hackerdom had a logo it would be some derivative of this.
No - you got it sideways. It's "Don't eat the American snow" and "Don't drink yellow beer" :-)
One way to do this is spelled "Java".
(=<`$9]7<5YXz7wT.3,+O/o'K%$H"'~D|#z@b=`{^Lx8%$Xmrk pohm-kNi;gsedcba`_^]\[ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA@? >=<;:9876543s+O<oLm
Sure, sometimes software is slow because of sloppy coding. But in many cases (like this one, perhaps), performance is due to explicit design decisions that are optimizing for quality attributes other than speed.
No tale or report, just a verbatim quote and a mildly derogatory nickname.
maliciously uttered,
I didn't utter anything, I typed it.
tending to injure the reputation of another;
If quoting Bush verbatim tends to injure his reputation, I can hardly claim credit!
the malicious utterance of defamatory reports; the dissemination of malicious tales or suggestions to the injury of another.
Again, no tale, report, or suggestion, just a quote.
The fact that you have to resort to partisan attacks proves that you have no point. If you had simply left off the baseless attacks, then your post would have been a lot better off.
Would you be so quick to call it an attack if I called Clinton "Bubba" and quoted something about the definition of "is"? I have a sneaky feeling that I'm not the real partisan here.
Weren't you people supposed to leave America if Bush got into office?
Who is "you people"? You seem to think you know a lot about me just because I dare indulge in a bit of humor at the expense of the current slimeball-in-office.
You're right - If the post were regarding how NOT to cover up an affair with an intern, a Bubba quote probably would been quite appropriate.
But it wasn't. "Making the pie higher", is directly relevant to the point I was making - to get more pie (market), you either get a bigger piece of the pie or make the pie bigger.
And you might want to look up "slander" before using that word again. You got the usage wrong in at least two ways.
Simple. With no web browsers out there, there wouldn't be much demand for web servers, would there? In this case the strategy is not to grab market share from the competition but, in the words of Dubya, to "make the pie higher!"
>The only real cures are to overthrow the corrupt governments that keep these country's citizen's impoverished
Ummm.. like the US government, perhaps?
The rules of the game are about the collective guesses of the team (at least one right guess and no wrong guesses), not individual guesses. And players can pass.
The correct strategy can cause all three players to guess wrong together 25% of the time, while the remaining 75% of the time one player will guess correctly and two will pass, something like this:
X=Wrong, +=Right, -=Pass
TrialNo: 1 2 3 4
Player1: X + - -
Player2: X - + -
Player3: X - - +
The number of right guesses is the same as the number of wrong guesses, but they still win 75% of the time. This is because the strategy helps tell the players when they ought to pass instead of trying to guess at all.
The rules of the game are about the collective guesses of the team (at least one right guess and no wrong guesses), not individual guesses. And players can pass. The correct strategy can cause all three players to guess wrong together 25% of the time, while the remaining 75% of the time one player will guess correctly and two will pass, something like this: X=Wrong, +=Right, -=Pass Trial: 1 2 3 4 P1 X + - - P2 X - + - P3 X - - + The number of right guesses is the same as the number of wrong guesses, but they still win 75% of the time. This is because the strategy helps tell the players when they ought to pass instead of trying to guess at all.