Nowadays the Republicans are no different than Democrats: resorting to government heavy-handedness and reckless tax-and-spend policies to achieve their dubious agendas.
Personally, I think there's a strategy to this bill. Sort of like the one they used on the Line-item-veto.
They KNOW that the DHS provisions are unconstitutional, and will likely get thrown out.
This will act as a precedent that will have the ultimate effect of bolstering state's rights.
Remember why Clinton lost control in 96 when the R's took over the House? Because of the National ID issue that would have been the result of Hillary-care. I don't think Republicans truly want this RealID thing. Not the ideologues.
Now, if I'm wrong and the people show themselves so docile they would have thier freedoms raped...
. . . but the evul terrrists gonna git us! Why would you tie DHS's hands from doing their job? Why do you hate America? Why do you hate Freedo- um, er. . .
I imagine that Fox were probably such pricks because the BAD guys in Serenity are the Government. That's not a good theme for Fox. Same thing with the show's predecessor, Dark Angel. Good following, abused by Fox - the Government are the Bad Guys.
Now look at FoxNews. THIS rediculous show, they put on it's own channel, 24-hours. On that show, the Government are the GOOD guys. (despite ample evidence of the opposite).
The purpose of Copyright as outlined in the Constitution is NOT for "profit".
It is "to promote the useful arts and sciences".
Now, whether that promotion happens through the profit motive, or whether it happens through the creator being happy to have his name on a Patent for an idea - for mere posterity, is utterly irrelevant to how Copyright is worded in the Constitution.
That means - it's not there to guarantee profit, or a certain return on R&D invested. It's there to promote. Period.
Re:Maintainability of Perl code?
on
Perl Medic
·
· Score: 1
It's not only the TMTOWTDI that makes Perl inherently more "abuseable" than most other languages. It's the "default variable" ($_, etc) thing, where actually using the variable in syntax is optional.
These features are really, really, nice to have, when you're hacking, or writing up quick little scripts to do some administrative task. It's nice to have the option of brevity when you have a high level of comfort with the language. But these options ARE a detriment to maintaining stylistic conformity.
The point of a computer language is to provide a way to express a program's logic in a human-readable language, that can be unambiguously interpreted by both the human, and the machine - to be converted into instructions for the machine to follow. The TMTOWTDI principle of Perl, along with the inherent syntactic flexibility, means that ambiguity is more likely to happen on the human side of the equation. You're at the mercy of the habits of the coder, and the Perl expertise of whomever reviews or maintains that code. Stylistic Conformity pares down that likelihood.
it would be more like going to a Glaxo Marketing Rep's office, and having him demonstrate how HIV is spread, by bending you over his desk. Then charging you the $300 or so a day for the next ten years for AIDS meds his company makes.
As I have already said in a different discussion, this rider crap needs to stop now....which is why the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government, let the "line item veto" lapse.
THe question is, for the Michigan case, how bendable is this concrete at 20 degrees below zero, farenheit? It may be bendable at room temperature, but most of Michigan achieves room temperature for a period of about 1 week in May and late September. The rest of the year - you better know your thermal properties. . .
If a pedophile is still a danger to society, then do not release him or her from prison. Leave the fucker in jail.
If the jails are too crowded, we need to either build more, or re-examine our War on Drugs and War on FileSharing policies, and maybe send a couple million nonviolent offenders home early.
But releasing prisoners, and GPS-tracking them for the rest of their lives due to a recividism problem, well, just means that we need to examine longer sentancing for these animals.
This tiresome division is one of the reasons why "non-denominational" Evangelical churches are popping up like wildflowers all over America.
I used to agree with that - but the non-denominational churches really are not. Most of them are derivations of Pentacostals, Nazarene, or Charismatic sects. Most of them, from what I've found, are along the lines of your characterization of Baptists. Although some are very liberal in their beliefs towards scriptural inerrency. ..
This movement is here for a reason. My theory is that it's either a general backlash against modernism, or it's a millenial thing (where the armchair eschatologists, after reading Revelation, decide that since it's the year 2000, we're necessarily in the prophesied "end times" - etc.)
There was a similar phenomenon around the year 1000. I think that in about 10 years, when it becomes obvious that the "end" is not nigh, some of this shit will settle down. I hope.
There *IS* a science component of Intelligent Design. As such, I think it's very appropriate to teach parts of Intelligent Design in the science classroom, insofar as to illustrate the probing nature of the Scientific Method. There are many competing theories to explain many phenomena. Some are just demonstrably wrong outright. Some are not demonstrably wrong, but perhaps fail the test of Occam's Razor, against another, more consistent theory. All have some value in teaching Scientific Method, and Science History. Philosophically speaking, NO theory or law should be taught as indisputible fact. But some are more "valid", and more proveable than others.
I think that Creationism also is VERY IMPORTANT to be taught in a science classroom. Particularly the geological components. If for no other reason, than to discredit it as a science. There's a science component to Creationism, though the logic is wrong and the evidence is fudged. It's EXTREMELY important to teach kids about how bad theories gain ground.
....These kinds of missions are, I think, more crucial to human space exploration than launching a dude to Mars.....
When you launch a dude to Mars, you need to do the R&D to solve problems like, negative health effects of long-term exposure to zero gravity, and solar radiation, generating (or bringing with you) enough propellant on the martian surface for a return trip. That kind of R&D is pretty crucial to human space exploration, and doesn't happen when you're not doing manned spaceflight research.
On the other hand, I'm not sure we're at the stage, technology-wise, WRT launch vehicles, space propulsion, and extraterrestrial environments, where it's even a good idea to pursue manned flight. I think that some of the science of the last decade, gathered during unmanned flights, has helped a lot with these kinds of foundational technology. In short- I think NASA's generally been taking the right approach. Getting to Mars is several orders of magnatude more complicated than landing a man on the Moon. And so is Maintaining a Presence on the Moon. I don't think we're realisticly near enough to either of those two goals right now, to make it worthwhile to begin programs for them. There's much we can learn from a long phase of unmanned spaceflight. And a lot of that may be important prerequisites (space propulsion, in particular).
1. Do *not* make things worse by spinning the wheels and digging yourself *in* further. (You're not rushing so you know this already, but certainly don't spin the wheels)
Depending on the composition and such of the soil, and the light-weight of the vehicle (lighter in martian gravity) it could be to their advantage to spin the wheels. It's possible that newton's third law could even come into play. ..
2. Try to wiggle/dig *out* some clearance between your undercarriage and the sand. . ..
Probably a good idea. Maybe not possible, given the response lag between command-transmit on Earth, and execution on Mars.
4. Use your highest gear and slowly without tire spin, REVERSE!
Electric-motor propulsion. Gears?
5. If that is difficult, ROCK the house!....
Again, great, here on Earth, with 1G, and a 1-ton vehicle, and near-instant response-times between fwd/rvs shifting so that the drive wheel direction can be coupled with the momentum from the oscillation induced in the chassis. Most likely not possible in this case.
First you say you want broadband over power lines, now you say you want power over 10baseT.
What's next? Tesla's Broadcast-Power mixed with WiMax?
(actually, not a bad idea. . . "Hello, US Patent office? I'd like to patent WiMax plus Broadcast-power. It's my idea. Yes. Also, fairy dust too. Can I patent fairy dust? Yes. Thank you.")
You didn't read the sentance in my original post that proceeded directly after the one you quoted.
My whole argument is that a paying consumer has regulatory power over content at the cash register. Nothing justifies regulatory power at the legislative level. Not in America. Only in cases where the material is a threat to public safety (by either threatening the life of the President, or by inciting violence: shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater example.
This law is infact HARMFUL because the notion that it is not legal for me load in skip instructions is just STUPID.
Agreed.
The law is targeted, however, and middlemen, outfits like Blockbuster, etc. who become gatekeepers for content, not just at the title level, but at the scene level as well. I would not have a problem with this, if there were real competition in the distribution chain.
And I definately have no problem with a home viewer having the right to skip and fast forward as he or she sees fit - or even to utilize script-driven editing, in order to make material more appropriate for underage viewing. I agree that the assertion that this *could* be illegal, is stupid.
If Lucas had invited me to Skywalker Ranch for a screening, I'd be kind of tempted to write a similar review, no matter what went on in the film. Particularly if there was free beer involved.
I would like to call for an increase in CEO and computer software company supply.
We need more Computer Software companies - particularly OS and API vendors, particually Office Application Vendors. There is simply nowhere near enough variation and competition in this market.
So, you can open the floodgates on foreign workers, as soon as you rescind ALL international trade barriers on computer software, including IP law, and undo every consolidation move (corporate merger) in the software industry over the last 20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Dinosaur?
Nowadays the Republicans are no different than Democrats: resorting to government heavy-handedness and reckless tax-and-spend policies to achieve their dubious agendas.
. . . and you voted for them.
Sucker.
If you want a better metaphor, Democracy is 90 sheep and 10 wolves deciding what's for dinner.
. . . well, even though I prefer grass, let's eat these damn wolves and get it over with.
Personally, I think there's a strategy to this bill. Sort of like the one they used on the Line-item-veto.
They KNOW that the DHS provisions are unconstitutional, and will likely get thrown out.
This will act as a precedent that will have the ultimate effect of bolstering state's rights.
Remember why Clinton lost control in 96 when the R's took over the House? Because of the National ID issue that would have been the result of Hillary-care. I don't think Republicans truly want this RealID thing. Not the ideologues.
Now, if I'm wrong and the people show themselves so docile they would have thier freedoms raped...
. . . but the evul terrrists gonna git us! Why would you tie DHS's hands from doing their job? Why do you hate America? Why do you hate Freedo- um, er. . .
I imagine that Fox were probably such pricks because the BAD guys in Serenity are the Government. That's not a good theme for Fox. Same thing with the show's predecessor, Dark Angel. Good following, abused by Fox - the Government are the Bad Guys.
Now look at FoxNews. THIS rediculous show, they put on it's own channel, 24-hours. On that show, the Government are the GOOD guys. (despite ample evidence of the opposite).
The purpose of Copyright as outlined in the Constitution is NOT for "profit".
It is "to promote the useful arts and sciences".
Now, whether that promotion happens through the profit motive, or whether it happens through the creator being happy to have his name on a Patent for an idea - for mere posterity, is utterly irrelevant to how Copyright is worded in the Constitution.
That means - it's not there to guarantee profit, or a certain return on R&D invested. It's there to promote. Period.
It's not only the TMTOWTDI that makes Perl inherently more "abuseable" than most other languages. It's the "default variable" ($_, etc) thing, where actually using the variable in syntax is optional.
These features are really, really, nice to have, when you're hacking, or writing up quick little scripts to do some administrative task. It's nice to have the option of brevity when you have a high level of comfort with the language. But these options ARE a detriment to maintaining stylistic conformity.
The point of a computer language is to provide a way to express a program's logic in a human-readable language, that can be unambiguously interpreted by both the human, and the machine - to be converted into instructions for the machine to follow. The TMTOWTDI principle of Perl, along with the inherent syntactic flexibility, means that ambiguity is more likely to happen on the human side of the equation. You're at the mercy of the habits of the coder, and the Perl expertise of whomever reviews or maintains that code. Stylistic Conformity pares down that likelihood.
Reviewers on the take.
No -
Remember, this is coming from Symantec:
it would be more like going to a Glaxo Marketing Rep's office, and having him demonstrate how HIV is spread, by bending you over his desk. Then charging you the $300 or so a day for the next ten years for AIDS meds his company makes.
As I have already said in a different discussion, this rider crap needs to stop now. ...which is why the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government, let the "line item veto" lapse.
THe question is, for the Michigan case, how bendable is this concrete at 20 degrees below zero, farenheit? It may be bendable at room temperature, but most of Michigan achieves room temperature for a period of about 1 week in May and late September. The rest of the year - you better know your thermal properties. . .
Yeah - especially since the only legitimate justification left for the war has to do with a former president getting a blowjob.
If a pedophile is still a danger to society, then do not release him or her from prison. Leave the fucker in jail.
If the jails are too crowded, we need to either build more, or re-examine our War on Drugs and War on FileSharing policies, and maybe send a couple million nonviolent offenders home early.
But releasing prisoners, and GPS-tracking them for the rest of their lives due to a recividism problem, well, just means that we need to examine longer sentancing for these animals.
Let's GPS-track the white-collar criminals. The CEO's of America who fraudulently misrepresent earnings, or hide income in offshore partnerships, etc.
Longhorn?
More like LONGWAIT.
This tiresome division is one of the reasons why "non-denominational" Evangelical churches are popping up like wildflowers all over America.
.
I used to agree with that - but the non-denominational churches really are not. Most of them are derivations of Pentacostals, Nazarene, or Charismatic sects. Most of them, from what I've found, are along the lines of your characterization of Baptists. Although some are very liberal in their beliefs towards scriptural inerrency. .
This movement is here for a reason. My theory is that it's either a general backlash against modernism, or it's a millenial thing (where the armchair eschatologists, after reading Revelation, decide that since it's the year 2000, we're necessarily in the prophesied "end times" - etc.)
There was a similar phenomenon around the year 1000. I think that in about 10 years, when it becomes obvious that the "end" is not nigh, some of this shit will settle down. I hope.
There *IS* a science component of Intelligent Design. As such, I think it's very appropriate to teach parts of Intelligent Design in the science classroom, insofar as to illustrate the probing nature of the Scientific Method. There are many competing theories to explain many phenomena. Some are just demonstrably wrong outright. Some are not demonstrably wrong, but perhaps fail the test of Occam's Razor, against another, more consistent theory. All have some value in teaching Scientific Method, and Science History. Philosophically speaking, NO theory or law should be taught as indisputible fact. But some are more "valid", and more proveable than others.
I think that Creationism also is VERY IMPORTANT to be taught in a science classroom. Particularly the geological components. If for no other reason, than to discredit it as a science. There's a science component to Creationism, though the logic is wrong and the evidence is fudged. It's EXTREMELY important to teach kids about how bad theories gain ground.
....These kinds of missions are, I think, more crucial to human space exploration than launching a dude to Mars.....
When you launch a dude to Mars, you need to do the R&D to solve problems like, negative health effects of long-term exposure to zero gravity, and solar radiation, generating (or bringing with you) enough propellant on the martian surface for a return trip. That kind of R&D is pretty crucial to human space exploration, and doesn't happen when you're not doing manned spaceflight research.
On the other hand, I'm not sure we're at the stage, technology-wise, WRT launch vehicles, space propulsion, and extraterrestrial environments, where it's even a good idea to pursue manned flight. I think that some of the science of the last decade, gathered during unmanned flights, has helped a lot with these kinds of foundational technology. In short- I think NASA's generally been taking the right approach. Getting to Mars is several orders of magnatude more complicated than landing a man on the Moon. And so is Maintaining a Presence on the Moon. I don't think we're realisticly near enough to either of those two goals right now, to make it worthwhile to begin programs for them. There's much we can learn from a long phase of unmanned spaceflight. And a lot of that may be important prerequisites (space propulsion, in particular).
1. Do *not* make things worse by spinning the wheels and digging yourself *in* further.
.
.
(You're not rushing so you know this already, but certainly don't spin the wheels)
Depending on the composition and such of the soil, and the light-weight of the vehicle (lighter in martian gravity) it could be to their advantage to spin the wheels. It's possible that newton's third law could even come into play. .
2. Try to wiggle/dig *out* some clearance between your undercarriage and the sand. . .
Probably a good idea. Maybe not possible, given the response lag between command-transmit on Earth, and execution on Mars.
4. Use your highest gear and slowly without tire spin, REVERSE!
Electric-motor propulsion. Gears?
5. If that is difficult, ROCK the house!....
Again, great, here on Earth, with 1G, and a 1-ton vehicle, and near-instant response-times between fwd/rvs shifting so that the drive wheel direction can be coupled with the momentum from the oscillation induced in the chassis. Most likely not possible in this case.
First you say you want broadband over power lines, now you say you want power over 10baseT.
What's next? Tesla's Broadcast-Power mixed with WiMax?
(actually, not a bad idea. . . "Hello, US Patent office? I'd like to patent WiMax plus Broadcast-power. It's my idea. Yes. Also, fairy dust too. Can I patent fairy dust? Yes. Thank you.")
A paying customer, that's who.
You didn't read the sentance in my original post that proceeded directly after the one you quoted.
My whole argument is that a paying consumer has regulatory power over content at the cash register. Nothing justifies regulatory power at the legislative level. Not in America. Only in cases where the material is a threat to public safety (by either threatening the life of the President, or by inciting violence: shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater example.
This law is infact HARMFUL because the notion that it is not legal for me load in skip instructions is just STUPID.
Agreed.
The law is targeted, however, and middlemen, outfits like Blockbuster, etc. who become gatekeepers for content, not just at the title level, but at the scene level as well. I would not have a problem with this, if there were real competition in the distribution chain.
And I definately have no problem with a home viewer having the right to skip and fast forward as he or she sees fit - or even to utilize script-driven editing, in order to make material more appropriate for underage viewing. I agree that the assertion that this *could* be illegal, is stupid.
I'm torn.
If Lucas had invited me to Skywalker Ranch for a screening, I'd be kind of tempted to write a similar review, no matter what went on in the film. Particularly if there was free beer involved.
I would like to call for an increase in CEO and computer software company supply.
We need more Computer Software companies - particularly OS and API vendors, particually Office Application Vendors. There is simply nowhere near enough variation and competition in this market.
So, you can open the floodgates on foreign workers, as soon as you rescind ALL international trade barriers on computer software, including IP law, and undo every consolidation move (corporate merger) in the software industry over the last 20 years.