Ah yes, everyone forgets those poor innocent informants that Julian Assange sacrificed. Except, it's not really a "sacrifice" as they're alive and well. They don't even need protection. At least according to the Pentagon.
So... He put their lives in danger. At least, people were worried that they'd be in danger.
Well, sort of. I mean, let's just say it like it is: The shills and apologists damn well hoped a few of them would wind up dead so they'd have something to throw at Assange.
But yeah, the guy certainly comes off as a dick. And if that were in any way comparable to the blatantly evil and illegal bullshit that he helped expose, then I might hold it against him. Seriously, have you looked this stuff up? Your US taxpayers dollars helped buy young male sex slaves. DynCorp actually has a history of this and yet we still employ them.
Except it's not a lot of money because it's not money. It's bitcoin. Putting a dollar sign in front of it makes an awfully big assumption.
If he does disappear into the night with everyone's bitcoins, how does he cash them out? Doesn't the blockchain of all the coins have his ID in it? A bitcoin ID isn't a name and address, but, geeze, don't anyone know the ID of mtgox? Wasn't this one of the big selling points of bitcoin? Stolen goods are easy to identify. Oh look, this coin went into MtgOX before that guy disappeared with everyone's coins, how did you come by this coin mister?
On 11 August 2010, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents",[55] although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."[56]
In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."[57] Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.[58][59]
You can't hold back progress just because not everyone has gotten aboard the train. That train is leaving just as soon as it can make a buck.
Po'boy can't get no youtube lickitysplit on an ol' busted DSL line, but he can still browse wikipedia. And back when he couldn't get wikipedia he could still hit up a library. And I imagine people will complain that the poor unwashed masses with their slow and broken fiber lines won't be able to access the hivemind as quickly as and as comfortably as his rich relatives.
You're bitching that the digital divide is increasing because someone is plowing ahead. The poor will always be playing catchup. It's part of what makes them poor. And sure, that sucks. But would you blame the Wright brothers for keep the poor downtrodden and earthbound while making a device that only the rich could afford? No. So please, kindly, GTFO of the way of progress. CHOO CHOO!
Uhhhhhh.... If it's unconstitutional, then it's not legal. The constitution is kind of the supreme law of the land. The law that forms the government and gives legitimacy to the things they do. Like pass other laws. It's a hierarchy. If a tin-pot mayor sets up some city ordinance that anyone going through his city shall be searched and anally probed, then that law is in conflict with the constitution. One takes priority over the other. The cops at the border may claim that the tin-pot mayor's law makes their actions legal, but they are wrong, because it's illegal per the constitution.
Figuring what is and isn't legal can sometimes be tricky and we have an entire branch of government dedicated to this.
OK, so they want to store everything passing across the lines that they deem suspicious,
No. Not really. They really do want to store everything passing across the lines. Period. The "deeming suspicious" part only comes into play once they get a warrant to go look at the data they've already collected and stored.
The up-side to this idea is that the NSA isn't holding onto the data that they promise they're not looking at without a warrant. That's about it.
The down-side to this is that we SURE AS SHIT can't trust a third party to not look in the box. This third party is also implicitly alerted to who the NSA is investigating and when. That information alone is itself sensitive and not the sort of thing to be trusted to a third party.
Of course, you know, I guess I could extrapolate my answer and cut down your sentence even further:
It's a bluff. A feint. A thinly veiled threat. It's not intended to actually come to pass. One of the things Obama proposed is to move the keys to the friggin kingdom from government controlled servers to nebulous "third parties". And in the very same damn speech he pointed out how this would be a ludicrously bad idea.
(Well, I mean, he also suggested that the telcom companies who move this data keep it until the NSA asks for it. That or third parties. I don't mean to harp on a stray comment or anything.)
But let me spell out the subtext here for anyone that can't read between the lines: If you try and keep the government from storing this data, we'll just go find someone else to hold it. And my, my, my, doesn't that sound just simply horrible? Be a REAL SHAME if someone were to try and enforce that 4th amendment 'round here.
Also, fuck beta. I have no way to tell if someone responded to me other than looking at that specific thread.
Hey, there. Just so you have a more lucid dialog than some coward throwing insults, let's touch up on this subject.
1) Of course Russia isn't behind the protests. They'd be on the other side of the fence and be the ones behind outlawing protests to keep Yanukovych, who is pro-Russia, in power and the undercut the power of the protestors and the western half of the country that isn't too friendly with Russia.
2)
Much more likely, unfortunately, is that Russia keeps a tight grip on Ukraine.
You DO realize that the USSR broke up and Ukraine is it's own nation now, right? I mean, I get your overall point. That the EU is not some holy divine savior and joining the EU might not be the best for Ukraine. You're acusing them of backing or instigating these riots. But you also don't believe that Russia has anything to do with this turmoil, and that Ukraine is simply fated to fall under Russian dominion. Let's talk more about that defeatist attitude:
3) It's been a bit over a week. ONE WEEK. And in that time:
On 28 January, 9 of the 12 anti-protest laws were repealed and Prime Minister Mykola Azarov tendered his resignation and a bill offering amnesty to arrested and charged protesters was issued.
They got: - Most of the bullshit laws repealed. - A head position in government axed. - Amnesty.
Now, Yanukovych remains, and there are still 3 bullshit laws that didn't get repealed. But do you think that all this was a pointless waste of time? Do you think they should have simply "dug in and waited"?
This is a pretty stale thread. News keeps moving forward and introspection isn't popular these days. But I'd really appreciate it if you look back at this and realize you were simply wrong, think about why you were wrong, fix that, and be a better person for it. Some things are worth fighting for.
"Unimaginable" is a word that shouldn't be thrown around lightly. Come on guys, as far as literary constructs used to convey meaning, comparing the initial dose to homeopathic values isn't crazy. And nitpicking the correction that it SEEMED like it couldn't possibly have an effect is just being an asshole. Like most of your NSA rants.
There's a group of congressmen out for James Clapper's blood. He lied to congress. Under oath. That's perjury. They're all republican too. Which means I'm a little disappointed in the democrats.
First, China has one carrier, and it is not operational, just a testing hulk used to develop the plans, procedures, and capabilities that the US developed in the 1920s
And if America and China went to war, there would be rather less of that hulk because everything would be nuked to kingdom come and back. Their testing hulk would be slag at the bottom of whatever sea it's at. Because we are both sovereign nuclear nations that have the option of ENDING THE WORLD. If we both went to war (War war, not this showboating pissing contests. An armed conflict where both sides tried to actually incapacitate the others capabilities) then EVERYONE DIES.
Who the fuck are you people that forget this basic lesson?
"If China and America get into a war"... Seriously people, get into the 21st century. Because entertaining dreams of China and America going into serious armed conflict without the nuclear option is more detrimental than dreaming about zombie invasions. Being prepared for zombie appocalypse? Good stuff, can't hurt. But believing the anyone would come out the better with hot war between super-powers just lends political power to the war-hawks who are a bigger threat to us than these puissant terrorists.
A lot of people forget the millennium challenge and if the opponent knows that turning on the radar will get them shot then they probably won't. It did a fantastic job of showcasing how completely out of touch our military is with modern warfare.
But when it comes to jamming drones, you're talking about the ability to break connectivity between them and the base they're being controlled from. Which includes every link in the chain. Most jamming is concerned with radar jamming which effectively blinds planes and more importantly missiles. Are tomorrow's missiles going to be tied to radar?
and if someone thinks that a soldier on the ground is going to have a shoulder mounted jammer,
Why not on a truck? Or a building? Or a boat? Or another plane? Or a rocket? Anywhere you can supply a sufficient amount of power to drown out the signal they want to hear is a potential place to add such things.
I dare them to just keep a laser pointer aimed at a dime on the top of a stick that is 300 yards away, because that is a lot easier than doing the same to a fighter jet in the sky.
Well that sounds fun but it's not really applicable to jamming as I'm pretty sure the beam divergence of the unit is just about whatever they can get away with. And if we're looking at someone that has plans to stand up to a drone-based air-force and effectively apply ECM against it, then just maybe, they'll have a computer to aim for them. And that's if they even care to have a directional jammer in the first place. They can always just have it pointed "up". As in all of it. Really.
If we're looking for a low-cost device wielded by dirt-farmers trying to go head to head in the field of electromagnetic warfare to thwart a first-world nation of dones, I'd bet on these babies hitting the market.
If you're not a moron, two years of C is the same as five years of C is the same as ten years of C.
Ok then, off the top of your head, describe what a variable is. How about a const variable? What's a volatile variable? Now you see a const volatile variable. What is it? There's a simple answer that comes in a single word that's bloody obvious to everyone in the game.
Every played with variadic functions?
Shout out to my ternary ops! Aww = Yeah?Bitches:!;
and it exists more as the foundation for everything interesting than being interesting itself.
No, there's actually quite a lot of interesting things you can do in C. I mean, all by itself, sure, C is just kind of a ruleset. Hammers, saws, and nails are only so interesting, but the things you can do with them CAN BE quite interesting and the end products can be beautiful. Or it can be a hideous clusterfuck that barely functions. Which way that goes appears to have a strong correlation with experience.
No, my argument is that creationism isn't in the top 5 theories of abiogenesis.
And along the way, I didn't say Judaism is not important. I pointed out that people erroneously believe it's "big". You know, when they call it one of the "big 3".
It wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that Christianity and Islam are sects or branches of Judaism (as well as other offshoots, such as Baha'i).
It's about as reasonable as trying to argue that there are more Buddhists(376 million) than there are Baptists (100 million), Lutherans (75 million), or Methodists (75 million). It also about as reasonable as calling Judaism a branch/sect/offshoot of the Cannaanite's religion. (The dudes with Yahweh)
Sometimes the definitions are updated more slowly that reality.
Yeah, that's kind of my point. The worldview of a lot of people out there doesn't jive with reality.
You uh... realize that the alternative to sideing with the EU is being eaten by Russia again? You don't think that Russia has any ability to sway politics and policy in Ukraine?
Have you been listening to nothing but Russian news? Are they still claiming it's a few thousand gay protestors?
There is literally nothing they can win,
They could kick out Yanukovitch and show the future leaders that they have to respect the rights of their citizens.
//The way someone says something is often just as important as what they said. Yo homie, der ain't no shit as fly as the motherfuckin' STYLE. When you step up you gotta step with some flair.
//It's called subtext This phenomena has been long been studied in the field of literature as a method of imparting implied meaning surrounding a character, book, movie, play, etc, without explicitly stating the intended message. See also: Subtext.
//Like whistling dixey or a fist-bump, it's a subtle political message (I can't actually think of a different tone to write this one out in, so you'll just have to make up your own. #1 Write out a statement. #2 Think of a stereotype. #3 think about how they would convey that message. )
If you have a suspected criminal that's violating copyright law via bittorrent, the judge should issue a search warrent so that the cops can get the ISP to log any bittorrent traffic from the suspect. It wouldn't include his phone traffic as that has nothing to do with sharing movies. You know, disregarding the bullshit that is copyright law.
If the suspected criminal is a radical terrorist who has shown probable cause for blowing shit up and being part of a sleeper cell, then the judge should issue a search warrent for any and all communication to or from the suspect until the time of his arrest. Or probably something even more invasive and clever. Really it's whatever the cops think they can get away with and up to the judge to deny anything that oversteps the current issue at hand.
There are people out there whom we really do want to invasively probe. I'd just rather it wasn't the entire populace.
Re:Consider your Audience when writing code
on
Code Is Not Literature
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Your audience is another human being who will be maintaining that code a few years later.
And he's a violent psychopath who knows where you sleep at night.
No no, certain parts of coding is very much like literature. The style of how you... branch based on a string, or how you implement event-driven coding, or how you distribute computing power. There are a TON of ways to skin those cats and which way you do it is a matter of stylistic preference. It's fashion. The exact sort of subjective shindig that lit major whittle away their time with. It's like the difference between writing in first person or third person. And in certain places one way is very much better than the other.
But who the hell reads code for the stylistic appreciation? We read code because it's broken, we want to steal part of it, or we need it to do something else. That's not a stylistic issue, that's a mechanic wrenching on a car. Figuring out just what the hell it's doing is a different act than bickering how it could have been done better. Doing the first part pays a lot better than the second.
This guy has noticed that most people that read things are reading restaurant menus, technical documents, text books, grocery lists, and not novels. The writers of said material are doing it to get shit done rather than fretting about how they do it.
Look around at professors at a prestigious institution --- even the new young ones --- and they're overwhelmingly...
Indian or Chinese....
You haven't been to college in a while have you?
But I was actually talking about, you know, attending academia, as in the availability of scholarships. There's still a strong afirmative action helping women and minorities in college and specifically the technical fields.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
Ah yes, everyone forgets those poor innocent informants that Julian Assange sacrificed. Except, it's not really a "sacrifice" as they're alive and well. They don't even need protection. At least according to the Pentagon.
So... He put their lives in danger. At least, people were worried that they'd be in danger.
Well, sort of. I mean, let's just say it like it is: The shills and apologists damn well hoped a few of them would wind up dead so they'd have something to throw at Assange.
But yeah, the guy certainly comes off as a dick. And if that were in any way comparable to the blatantly evil and illegal bullshit that he helped expose, then I might hold it against him. Seriously, have you looked this stuff up? Your US taxpayers dollars helped buy young male sex slaves. DynCorp actually has a history of this and yet we still employ them.
Except it's not a lot of money because it's not money. It's bitcoin. Putting a dollar sign in front of it makes an awfully big assumption.
If he does disappear into the night with everyone's bitcoins, how does he cash them out?
Doesn't the blockchain of all the coins have his ID in it? A bitcoin ID isn't a name and address, but, geeze, don't anyone know the ID of mtgox? Wasn't this one of the big selling points of bitcoin? Stolen goods are easy to identify. Oh look, this coin went into MtgOX before that guy disappeared with everyone's coins, how did you come by this coin mister?
There were Afghanis who worked secretly with the US had their names revealed
Were there now?
You'd think the Pentagon would have known about them:
On 11 August 2010, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents",[55] although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."[56]
In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."[57] Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.[58][59]
That's right you Comcast shill, switch over to damage control.
You can't hold back progress just because not everyone has gotten aboard the train. That train is leaving just as soon as it can make a buck.
Po'boy can't get no youtube lickitysplit on an ol' busted DSL line, but he can still browse wikipedia. And back when he couldn't get wikipedia he could still hit up a library. And I imagine people will complain that the poor unwashed masses with their slow and broken fiber lines won't be able to access the hivemind as quickly as and as comfortably as his rich relatives.
You're bitching that the digital divide is increasing because someone is plowing ahead. The poor will always be playing catchup. It's part of what makes them poor. And sure, that sucks. But would you blame the Wright brothers for keep the poor downtrodden and earthbound while making a device that only the rich could afford? No. So please, kindly, GTFO of the way of progress. CHOO CHOO!
Anyone whose opinion matters...
Voters?
This is a democracy, right? Right?
Uhhhhhh.... If it's unconstitutional, then it's not legal. The constitution is kind of the supreme law of the land. The law that forms the government and gives legitimacy to the things they do. Like pass other laws. It's a hierarchy. If a tin-pot mayor sets up some city ordinance that anyone going through his city shall be searched and anally probed, then that law is in conflict with the constitution. One takes priority over the other. The cops at the border may claim that the tin-pot mayor's law makes their actions legal, but they are wrong, because it's illegal per the constitution.
Figuring what is and isn't legal can sometimes be tricky and we have an entire branch of government dedicated to this.
"legalize the constitution." is a metaphor.
OK, so they want to store everything passing across the lines that they deem suspicious,
No. Not really.
They really do want to store everything passing across the lines. Period. The "deeming suspicious" part only comes into play once they get a warrant to go look at the data they've already collected and stored.
The up-side to this idea is that the NSA isn't holding onto the data that they promise they're not looking at without a warrant. That's about it.
The down-side to this is that we SURE AS SHIT can't trust a third party to not look in the box. This third party is also implicitly alerted to who the NSA is investigating and when. That information alone is itself sensitive and not the sort of thing to be trusted to a third party.
Of course, you know, I guess I could extrapolate my answer and cut down your sentence even further:
OK, so they want to store everything
It's a bluff. A feint. A thinly veiled threat. It's not intended to actually come to pass. One of the things Obama proposed is to move the keys to the friggin kingdom from government controlled servers to nebulous "third parties". And in the very same damn speech he pointed out how this would be a ludicrously bad idea.
(Well, I mean, he also suggested that the telcom companies who move this data keep it until the NSA asks for it. That or third parties. I don't mean to harp on a stray comment or anything.)
But let me spell out the subtext here for anyone that can't read between the lines: If you try and keep the government from storing this data, we'll just go find someone else to hold it. And my, my, my, doesn't that sound just simply horrible? Be a REAL SHAME if someone were to try and enforce that 4th amendment 'round here.
Also, fuck beta. I have no way to tell if someone responded to me other than looking at that specific thread.
Hey, there. Just so you have a more lucid dialog than some coward throwing insults, let's touch up on this subject.
1) Of course Russia isn't behind the protests. They'd be on the other side of the fence and be the ones behind outlawing protests to keep Yanukovych, who is pro-Russia, in power and the undercut the power of the protestors and the western half of the country that isn't too friendly with Russia.
2)
Much more likely, unfortunately, is that Russia keeps a tight grip on Ukraine.
You DO realize that the USSR broke up and Ukraine is it's own nation now, right?
I mean, I get your overall point. That the EU is not some holy divine savior and joining the EU might not be the best for Ukraine. You're acusing them of backing or instigating these riots. But you also don't believe that Russia has anything to do with this turmoil, and that Ukraine is simply fated to fall under Russian dominion. Let's talk more about that defeatist attitude:
3) It's been a bit over a week. ONE WEEK. And in that time:
On 28 January, 9 of the 12 anti-protest laws were repealed and Prime Minister Mykola Azarov tendered his resignation and a bill offering amnesty to arrested and charged protesters was issued.
They got:
- Most of the bullshit laws repealed.
- A head position in government axed.
- Amnesty.
Now, Yanukovych remains, and there are still 3 bullshit laws that didn't get repealed. But do you think that all this was a pointless waste of time? Do you think they should have simply "dug in and waited"?
This is a pretty stale thread. News keeps moving forward and introspection isn't popular these days. But I'd really appreciate it if you look back at this and realize you were simply wrong, think about why you were wrong, fix that, and be a better person for it. Some things are worth fighting for.
"Unimaginable" is a word that shouldn't be thrown around lightly.
Come on guys, as far as literary constructs used to convey meaning, comparing the initial dose to homeopathic values isn't crazy.
And nitpicking the correction that it SEEMED like it couldn't possibly have an effect is just being an asshole. Like most of your NSA rants.
There's a group of congressmen out for James Clapper's blood. He lied to congress. Under oath. That's perjury. They're all republican too. Which means I'm a little disappointed in the democrats.
First, China has one carrier, and it is not operational, just a testing hulk used to develop the plans, procedures, and capabilities that the US developed in the 1920s
And if America and China went to war, there would be rather less of that hulk because everything would be nuked to kingdom come and back. Their testing hulk would be slag at the bottom of whatever sea it's at. Because we are both sovereign nuclear nations that have the option of ENDING THE WORLD. If we both went to war (War war, not this showboating pissing contests. An armed conflict where both sides tried to actually incapacitate the others capabilities) then EVERYONE DIES.
Who the fuck are you people that forget this basic lesson?
"If China and America get into a war"... Seriously people, get into the 21st century. Because entertaining dreams of China and America going into serious armed conflict without the nuclear option is more detrimental than dreaming about zombie invasions. Being prepared for zombie appocalypse? Good stuff, can't hurt. But believing the anyone would come out the better with hot war between super-powers just lends political power to the war-hawks who are a bigger threat to us than these puissant terrorists.
A lot of people forget the millennium challenge and if the opponent knows that turning on the radar will get them shot then they probably won't. It did a fantastic job of showcasing how completely out of touch our military is with modern warfare.
But when it comes to jamming drones, you're talking about the ability to break connectivity between them and the base they're being controlled from. Which includes every link in the chain. Most jamming is concerned with radar jamming which effectively blinds planes and more importantly missiles. Are tomorrow's missiles going to be tied to radar?
and if someone thinks that a soldier on the ground is going to have a shoulder mounted jammer,
Why not on a truck? Or a building? Or a boat? Or another plane? Or a rocket?
Anywhere you can supply a sufficient amount of power to drown out the signal they want to hear is a potential place to add such things.
I dare them to just keep a laser pointer aimed at a dime on the top of a stick that is 300 yards away, because that is a lot easier than doing the same to a fighter jet in the sky.
Well that sounds fun but it's not really applicable to jamming as I'm pretty sure the beam divergence of the unit is just about whatever they can get away with. And if we're looking at someone that has plans to stand up to a drone-based air-force and effectively apply ECM against it, then just maybe, they'll have a computer to aim for them. And that's if they even care to have a directional jammer in the first place. They can always just have it pointed "up". As in all of it. Really.
If we're looking for a low-cost device wielded by dirt-farmers trying to go head to head in the field of electromagnetic warfare to thwart a first-world nation of dones, I'd bet on these babies hitting the market.
If you're not a moron, two years of C is the same as five years of C is the same as ten years of C.
Ok then, off the top of your head, describe what a variable is.
How about a const variable?
What's a volatile variable?
Now you see a const volatile variable. What is it? There's a simple answer that comes in a single word that's bloody obvious to everyone in the game.
Every played with variadic functions?
Shout out to my ternary ops! Aww = Yeah?Bitches:!;
and it exists more as the foundation for everything interesting than being interesting itself.
No, there's actually quite a lot of interesting things you can do in C. I mean, all by itself, sure, C is just kind of a ruleset. Hammers, saws, and nails are only so interesting, but the things you can do with them CAN BE quite interesting and the end products can be beautiful. Or it can be a hideous clusterfuck that barely functions. Which way that goes appears to have a strong correlation with experience.
struct father
{
struct father* next;
};
struct son
{
struct father inheritance;
char* yobro;
};
And you're absolutely right.
No, my argument is that creationism isn't in the top 5 theories of abiogenesis.
And along the way, I didn't say Judaism is not important. I pointed out that people erroneously believe it's "big". You know, when they call it one of the "big 3".
It wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that Christianity and Islam are sects or branches of Judaism (as well as other offshoots, such as Baha'i).
It's about as reasonable as trying to argue that there are more Buddhists(376 million) than there are Baptists (100 million), Lutherans (75 million), or Methodists (75 million). It also about as reasonable as calling Judaism a branch/sect/offshoot of the Cannaanite's religion. (The dudes with Yahweh)
Sometimes the definitions are updated more slowly that reality.
Yeah, that's kind of my point. The worldview of a lot of people out there doesn't jive with reality.
You uh... realize that the alternative to sideing with the EU is being eaten by Russia again?
You don't think that Russia has any ability to sway politics and policy in Ukraine?
Have you been listening to nothing but Russian news? Are they still claiming it's a few thousand gay protestors?
There is literally nothing they can win,
They could kick out Yanukovitch and show the future leaders that they have to respect the rights of their citizens.
and quite a bit they can lose.
They could die.
//The way someone says something is often just as important as what they said.
Yo homie, der ain't no shit as fly as the motherfuckin' STYLE. When you step up you gotta step with some flair.
This phenomena has been long been studied in the field of literature as a method of imparting implied meaning surrounding a character, book, movie, play, etc, without explicitly stating the intended message. See also: Subtext.
(I can't actually think of a different tone to write this one out in, so you'll just have to make up your own. #1 Write out a statement. #2 Think of a stereotype. #3 think about how they would convey that message. )
mmmmm'k, Boy?
As hard as the judge wants it to be.
If you have a suspected criminal that's violating copyright law via bittorrent, the judge should issue a search warrent so that the cops can get the ISP to log any bittorrent traffic from the suspect. It wouldn't include his phone traffic as that has nothing to do with sharing movies. You know, disregarding the bullshit that is copyright law.
If the suspected criminal is a radical terrorist who has shown probable cause for blowing shit up and being part of a sleeper cell, then the judge should issue a search warrent for any and all communication to or from the suspect until the time of his arrest. Or probably something even more invasive and clever. Really it's whatever the cops think they can get away with and up to the judge to deny anything that oversteps the current issue at hand.
There are people out there whom we really do want to invasively probe. I'd just rather it wasn't the entire populace.
Your audience is another human being who will be maintaining that code a few years later.
And he's a violent psychopath who knows where you sleep at night.
No no, certain parts of coding is very much like literature. The style of how you... branch based on a string, or how you implement event-driven coding, or how you distribute computing power.
There are a TON of ways to skin those cats and which way you do it is a matter of stylistic preference. It's fashion. The exact sort of subjective shindig that lit major whittle away their time with. It's like the difference between writing in first person or third person. And in certain places one way is very much better than the other.
But who the hell reads code for the stylistic appreciation? We read code because it's broken, we want to steal part of it, or we need it to do something else. That's not a stylistic issue, that's a mechanic wrenching on a car. Figuring out just what the hell it's doing is a different act than bickering how it could have been done better. Doing the first part pays a lot better than the second.
This guy has noticed that most people that read things are reading restaurant menus, technical documents, text books, grocery lists, and not novels. The writers of said material are doing it to get shit done rather than fretting about how they do it.
Look around at professors at a prestigious institution --- even the new young ones --- and they're overwhelmingly...
Indian or Chinese....
You haven't been to college in a while have you?
But I was actually talking about, you know, attending academia, as in the availability of scholarships. There's still a strong afirmative action helping women and minorities in college and specifically the technical fields.
ok, that got a chuckle out of me.