Does anybody have any idea outside of a hidden agenda that is *NOT* in the general public's best interests why they would wait to reveal this information if they have already found out what was causing it?
As near or far as I can figure, if they know the cause already, they should publicly release a statement right away which explains it, apologize profusely for what happened, and clarify that they are taking measures to ensure that it doesn't happen in the future. Full stop. Move on, instead of dwelling on it or keeping the issue as an ongoing one for even one hour longer than it could otherwise take to be over.
Honestly, all waiting does is unnecessarily heighten the drama of the situation. Or do they think that this is some sort of reality TV show and adding suspense will be good for the ratings?
You can probably ban all forms of technological communication between employer and employee after work, but can you prohibit absolutely all forms of contact outside of work hours if the purpose happens to be work-related?
Generally speaking, it is not illegal to require employees that are not telecommuting to live in a certain geographical area, so it may often be entirely possible for an employer to bypass this prohibition on emails by just physically showing up at the employee's door and talking to him in person.
When you make an allegation that can't be substantiated, it's not real news... whether or not the thing actually happened is entirely irrelevant. The most outlandish thing possible can be alleged, but regardless of the magnitude of what was being described, it doesn't become *real* news until the allegation can be substantiated by something beyond speculation and subjective interpretation of particular events or statements.
It may not be, that much is true.... that is for the courts to determine. However, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
And one can only act on what they can reasonably presume to be true from observation.... if they spent forever second guessing themselves on every little thing ("oh that might not be such-and-such, it may be something entirely innocent"), nothing would *ever* get done.
If you are seriously trying to justify the motives and actions of people who engage in human trafficking, there is clearly not enough of a common denominator between us in our values and standards to engage in any kind of useful discussion
Exactly. Seriousness of the *charge*, not just an allegation. If there isn't enough evidence to warrant a charge, then it's just fake news unless more evidence turns up, You can allege something *very* serious, but if you have no real evidence to substantiate it beyond speculation, it's not real news.
It's "tech news" because it involves Uber. It's news because a person who is basically nobody special helped to rescue this girl from a horrifying situation.
The allegations may not be "fake", but the news is, because there was no material evidence that what was being alleged actually ever occurred. It may have, but the evidence that is alleged to exist is too tenuous and speculative to justify actual legal action, and without at least enough evidence to warrant a real court case, it isn't really news.
Learning *ANY* programming language can make someone a better programmer... offer them a new way of looking at how to solve certain types of problems and innovate new and elegant solutions that hadn't occurred to them previously as they learn the idioms of a new programming language.
But like any other programming language, learning it will *NOT* necessarily make you a better programmer, and there's certainly not anything unique to Smalltalk that might make becoming a better programmer after learning it especially likely.
Indentation is visible, but the actual characters are not... ironically, the very thing that python advocates claim improves readability is, without using a custom font, invisible.
Also, the actual amount of whitespace will mean dick-all to a programmer that is visually handicapped, rather than improving any legibility, it will only amount to a whole lot of extra noise to its syntax, possibly literally as well as figuratively.
The legibility of any program written in a language that uses explicit block start and block end indicators but is not nicely indented can be improved by passing the program through a pretty-printer algorithm anyways, so python forces programmers using it to do something that computers are generally far more adept at and can perform much more reliably.
Given the fact that Trump won the election anyways, I'm not sure how the number more votes that Clinton received is relevant. If indeed they *did* hack it, then it appears that their mission was accomplished... why bother doing something else that could potentially make it more conspicuous?
IIUC, there is a rule against mixing tabs and spaces at the beginning of lines. I think that's a syntax error.
Be that as it may, it is still not possible to distinguish between them when simply looking at source code. Counting characters and telling the difference between characters that are not visibly distinguishable in how they are rendered on screen is something that a computer is good at, but humans aren't. Ironically, because most people don't ordinarily actually even *read* whitespace, the indentation that Python advocates claim improves readability amounts to differences that are ordinarily invisible to people anyways, and only a computer can actually tell the difference unless a person is paying especially close attention.
It is, I'm afraid, somewhat reminiscent of the bygone days when COBOL was king. and programmers had to have certain things in certain columns in their code or else it would not compile.
because of a line that had a tab character in it instead of spaces,
This is exactly why you should configure the editor to visibly show tab characters (in colour for example) and to replace tabs with spaces. If it can't do that then get a better editor.
Sure, but you seem to have ignored the point I was actually driving at that a modern programming language should not constrain what editing environment(s) a programmer can or should choose from. "Better" is inherently a subjective term that has no discernable meaning in this context beyond whatever editor one is most accustomed to.
Indentation improves readability. but the problem with using it to directly delimit logical blocks is that humans don't actually directly read whitespace, there can be something syntactically wrong with a program that is not visible to humans reading it because of a line that had a tab character in it instead of spaces, or vice versa, for example. While you can always convert tabs to spaces or vice versa in certain editors, this constrains what editing environments one should develop in, and ideally, languages should be designed to be agnostic to what features should necessarily exist in the editing environment that the programmer chooses.
And related to this, doing python development, I cannot count the number of times I have accidentally had the wrong number of spaces on a line following an indented block, and at best the python environment complains about indentation levels right away, and at worst the mistake is not realized until I find that the program is not behaving as I intended it to behave.
And while I do maintain that practical programming language should not depend on the features of the editing environment to be practical, at least it is *FEASIBLE* for an editing environment to enforce strict indentation policies when the programmer has explicitly specified where each logical block begins and ends, so the claimed advantage that python has of having whitespace be significant to the syntax of the program somehow actually improving legibility is not that important in the long run, since source code that uses explicit delimiters on blocks can easily be run through a pretty-print filter, so python mandates that programmers do something for themselves that a computer is far more capable of doing reliably and consistently. Even at best this is a waste of a programmer's time.
While the intent behind it was laudable, in practice it's just not a very good idea in a modern language. It kinda reminds me of COBOL, to be perfectly honest.
I would think that A=B, in that case.... while most management may be replaced by the machines, it is highly unlikely that a suddenly much larger amount going to salary payouts would be unnoticed by the people who pay attention to the bottom line margins for very long. A smarter programmer would arrange for the program to give himself a smaller raise, one that it is less likely to be noticed by someone else. If, for example, the team designs the software such that it never recommends anyone currently on the programming team for being fired, and gives them all annual raises at suitable times during the year that is only very modestly ahead of the cost-of-living increase, then that team has a) job security, and b) a perpetually improving standard of living that is unlikely to draw attention to their practices.
Of course, that all carries the caveat that the code is not subject to review by anyone outside of the programming team that the software is being designed to favor.
I'm not sure what it says about my own ethics that I was even able to imagine how one would go about getting away with this.
Perhaps, but you are still talking about a difference that is over an order of magnitude in size. Half an hour fits into two days 48 times.... I would be skeptical that their profit margins this weekend are *that* much higher than they are typically over an average 2-day period.
Gaming may not be a right, but under the Australia Consumer Law, refunds on products that fail to meet reasonable expectations are. Valve was being stupid.
I didn't say when the sun has depleted its fuel, I said when it STARTS to run out. While the sun is technically running out of fuel all the time, the only real significance this has for earth and its habitability is how that depletion affects the habitable zone around the sun. In about a billion years, as you said, the sun will be burning hotter enough than it is now that Earth will no longer be in the habitable zone and the oceans will indeed start to boil away.
Raised sea levels? Sure... Extinction-level scenario? Possibly... Unliveable in certain parts of the world due to heat? Maybe. But boiling away the oceans of the world is not going to happen anytime before the sun starts to run out of its fuel.
They can take pretty much any concept and turn it into a hopelessly indecipherable mess that nobody else would ever be able to understand without guidance from the writer.... so I'm thinking they must be onto some pretty sophisticated encryption techniques right there.
Did you even *TRY* to look up any of that info before you posted? I'm guessing not... either that, or you have research skills about on pair with someone who has not yet even learned to read, or else you know that the evidence is out there and are just stubbornly committed to believing in something that cannot withstand even a modicum of scrutiny,
Answers to most of those questions are readily available, including even why the exact location of the corpses were largely unknown, or at least until quite recently. Of course, it may be a whole lot easier to think that those answers are part of a conspiracy than to admit that you were wrong, and given your current apparent beliefs I wouldn't be terribly surprised if you chose to disbelieve the recent archaeological excavations either.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anybody have any idea outside of a hidden agenda that is *NOT* in the general public's best interests why they would wait to reveal this information if they have already found out what was causing it?
As near or far as I can figure, if they know the cause already, they should publicly release a statement right away which explains it, apologize profusely for what happened, and clarify that they are taking measures to ensure that it doesn't happen in the future. Full stop. Move on, instead of dwelling on it or keeping the issue as an ongoing one for even one hour longer than it could otherwise take to be over.
Honestly, all waiting does is unnecessarily heighten the drama of the situation. Or do they think that this is some sort of reality TV show and adding suspense will be good for the ratings?
You can probably ban all forms of technological communication between employer and employee after work, but can you prohibit absolutely all forms of contact outside of work hours if the purpose happens to be work-related?
Generally speaking, it is not illegal to require employees that are not telecommuting to live in a certain geographical area, so it may often be entirely possible for an employer to bypass this prohibition on emails by just physically showing up at the employee's door and talking to him in person.
When you make an allegation that can't be substantiated, it's not real news... whether or not the thing actually happened is entirely irrelevant. The most outlandish thing possible can be alleged, but regardless of the magnitude of what was being described, it doesn't become *real* news until the allegation can be substantiated by something beyond speculation and subjective interpretation of particular events or statements.
It may not be, that much is true.... that is for the courts to determine. However, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
And one can only act on what they can reasonably presume to be true from observation.... if they spent forever second guessing themselves on every little thing ("oh that might not be such-and-such, it may be something entirely innocent"), nothing would *ever* get done.
Not if you don't have any actual victims .
If you are seriously trying to justify the motives and actions of people who engage in human trafficking, there is clearly not enough of a common denominator between us in our values and standards to engage in any kind of useful discussion
Exactly. Seriousness of the *charge*, not just an allegation. If there isn't enough evidence to warrant a charge, then it's just fake news unless more evidence turns up, You can allege something *very* serious, but if you have no real evidence to substantiate it beyond speculation, it's not real news.
It's "tech news" because it involves Uber. It's news because a person who is basically nobody special helped to rescue this girl from a horrifying situation.
The allegations may not be "fake", but the news is, because there was no material evidence that what was being alleged actually ever occurred. It may have, but the evidence that is alleged to exist is too tenuous and speculative to justify actual legal action, and without at least enough evidence to warrant a real court case, it isn't really news.
Learning *ANY* programming language can make someone a better programmer... offer them a new way of looking at how to solve certain types of problems and innovate new and elegant solutions that hadn't occurred to them previously as they learn the idioms of a new programming language.
But like any other programming language, learning it will *NOT* necessarily make you a better programmer, and there's certainly not anything unique to Smalltalk that might make becoming a better programmer after learning it especially likely.
Indentation is visible, but the actual characters are not... ironically, the very thing that python advocates claim improves readability is, without using a custom font, invisible.
Also, the actual amount of whitespace will mean dick-all to a programmer that is visually handicapped, rather than improving any legibility, it will only amount to a whole lot of extra noise to its syntax, possibly literally as well as figuratively.
The legibility of any program written in a language that uses explicit block start and block end indicators but is not nicely indented can be improved by passing the program through a pretty-printer algorithm anyways, so python forces programmers using it to do something that computers are generally far more adept at and can perform much more reliably.
Ah, name calling... clearly the classiest way to show that someone else is wrong.
Given the fact that Trump won the election anyways, I'm not sure how the number more votes that Clinton received is relevant. If indeed they *did* hack it, then it appears that their mission was accomplished... why bother doing something else that could potentially make it more conspicuous?
Be that as it may, it is still not possible to distinguish between them when simply looking at source code. Counting characters and telling the difference between characters that are not visibly distinguishable in how they are rendered on screen is something that a computer is good at, but humans aren't. Ironically, because most people don't ordinarily actually even *read* whitespace, the indentation that Python advocates claim improves readability amounts to differences that are ordinarily invisible to people anyways, and only a computer can actually tell the difference unless a person is paying especially close attention.
It is, I'm afraid, somewhat reminiscent of the bygone days when COBOL was king. and programmers had to have certain things in certain columns in their code or else it would not compile.
Sure, but you seem to have ignored the point I was actually driving at that a modern programming language should not constrain what editing environment(s) a programmer can or should choose from. "Better" is inherently a subjective term that has no discernable meaning in this context beyond whatever editor one is most accustomed to.
Indentation improves readability. but the problem with using it to directly delimit logical blocks is that humans don't actually directly read whitespace, there can be something syntactically wrong with a program that is not visible to humans reading it because of a line that had a tab character in it instead of spaces, or vice versa, for example. While you can always convert tabs to spaces or vice versa in certain editors, this constrains what editing environments one should develop in, and ideally, languages should be designed to be agnostic to what features should necessarily exist in the editing environment that the programmer chooses.
And related to this, doing python development, I cannot count the number of times I have accidentally had the wrong number of spaces on a line following an indented block, and at best the python environment complains about indentation levels right away, and at worst the mistake is not realized until I find that the program is not behaving as I intended it to behave.
And while I do maintain that practical programming language should not depend on the features of the editing environment to be practical, at least it is *FEASIBLE* for an editing environment to enforce strict indentation policies when the programmer has explicitly specified where each logical block begins and ends, so the claimed advantage that python has of having whitespace be significant to the syntax of the program somehow actually improving legibility is not that important in the long run, since source code that uses explicit delimiters on blocks can easily be run through a pretty-print filter, so python mandates that programmers do something for themselves that a computer is far more capable of doing reliably and consistently. Even at best this is a waste of a programmer's time.
While the intent behind it was laudable, in practice it's just not a very good idea in a modern language. It kinda reminds me of COBOL, to be perfectly honest.
I would think that A=B, in that case.... while most management may be replaced by the machines, it is highly unlikely that a suddenly much larger amount going to salary payouts would be unnoticed by the people who pay attention to the bottom line margins for very long. A smarter programmer would arrange for the program to give himself a smaller raise, one that it is less likely to be noticed by someone else. If, for example, the team designs the software such that it never recommends anyone currently on the programming team for being fired, and gives them all annual raises at suitable times during the year that is only very modestly ahead of the cost-of-living increase, then that team has a) job security, and b) a perpetually improving standard of living that is unlikely to draw attention to their practices.
Of course, that all carries the caveat that the code is not subject to review by anyone outside of the programming team that the software is being designed to favor.
I'm not sure what it says about my own ethics that I was even able to imagine how one would go about getting away with this.
D'oh! math fail. 96 times.
Realized it just as I was clicking "submit".
Perhaps, but you are still talking about a difference that is over an order of magnitude in size. Half an hour fits into two days 48 times.... I would be skeptical that their profit margins this weekend are *that* much higher than they are typically over an average 2-day period.
Not quite... closer to about 2 days, actually, so still making it back over a weekend, but not in just half an hour.
Gaming may not be a right, but under the Australia Consumer Law, refunds on products that fail to meet reasonable expectations are. Valve was being stupid.
I didn't say when the sun has depleted its fuel, I said when it STARTS to run out. While the sun is technically running out of fuel all the time, the only real significance this has for earth and its habitability is how that depletion affects the habitable zone around the sun. In about a billion years, as you said, the sun will be burning hotter enough than it is now that Earth will no longer be in the habitable zone and the oceans will indeed start to boil away.
Raised sea levels? Sure... Extinction-level scenario? Possibly... Unliveable in certain parts of the world due to heat? Maybe. But boiling away the oceans of the world is not going to happen anytime before the sun starts to run out of its fuel.
They can take pretty much any concept and turn it into a hopelessly indecipherable mess that nobody else would ever be able to understand without guidance from the writer.... so I'm thinking they must be onto some pretty sophisticated encryption techniques right there.
Did you even *TRY* to look up any of that info before you posted? I'm guessing not... either that, or you have research skills about on pair with someone who has not yet even learned to read, or else you know that the evidence is out there and are just stubbornly committed to believing in something that cannot withstand even a modicum of scrutiny,
Answers to most of those questions are readily available, including even why the exact location of the corpses were largely unknown, or at least until quite recently. Of course, it may be a whole lot easier to think that those answers are part of a conspiracy than to admit that you were wrong, and given your current apparent beliefs I wouldn't be terribly surprised if you chose to disbelieve the recent archaeological excavations either.