If you did not apply the inverse hologram to the target, nothing would happen at all. The hologram created at the destination only provides a recepticle for the probability functions that describe the subatomic makeup of the target, it does not actually create any coherent matter that resembles the target.
If you only applied the inverse hologram without giving the target a specific place to go, the result would be similarly uneventful. About on par with pulling a toilet flush handle when there is no water in the tank.
The star trek transporter works by measuring a target's impression on spacetime at a subatomic level, and then creating a 4-dimensional hologram of that impression at the destination point. The inverse of that hologram is then applied to the source point, cancelling out the probability of the target being at the source location, while the probability of it being at the destination rises to certainty.
Why would you expect that people who take stances *similar* to that of a person would ever dislike him?
If you don't, then why is it somehow suddenly more apparent to you that people who take stances that are in stark contrast to a person would not like that person?
Well, you just had every opportunity to enlighten me, and decided to be vague enough about it that unless I already knew specifically what you were talking about (which by your own admission, you were clearly aware of since you explicitly suggested that I may not have been paying attention), I wouldn't be able to do any kind of search to find out more about it and educate myself on the matter. So from where I'm sitting it looks like you are either making stuff up, or else you're the kind of person who wants to actively promote ignorance just so you can feel smarter than people around you. I'm further assuming that you don't care enough about what other people think to care about this to be particularly offended by this observation.
Presumably, the coding standard reflects whatever a majority of the programmers that work there determined it would be in the first place, and a condition of you working there in the first place is that you would abide by the coding standards chosen by the company.
Tends to quell arguments pretty quickly.
You can try and get the coding standards changed, but this would generally require convincing the CTO that such a change would result in more productivity, so you'd need to have an overwhelming amount of support for it from other developers.
.... this is the 2nd time in about as many weeks as I've seen the US president invoke an argument of "national security" on a matter that impacts commercial enterprise, and using that argument as a basis for immediate action that bypassed any of the ordinary measures which might otherwise be required.
It has become apparent to me that the man uses the expression to mean whatever he thinks it ought to mean, and has no bearing on the actual definition of the term.
With for(int i=0; i < n; i++), you can tell that 'i' is some sort of counter in the for loop, but what is it actually *USED* for? Its purpose might be obvious on the same line as the for loop, but when the variable is used for something in the body of the loop, it may not not be. Compare it to:
Naming the variable something representative of what that variable is actually going to be used for ensures that any time that variable is used, it is obvious what is being done... you don't have to hunt around the code looking to see what some single letter variable named 'i' happens to be.
Even better, you could do away with the indexes entirely:
On the excuse of "Everybody Does it", consider point #1 from ethicsalarms:
This rationalization has been used to excuse ethical misconduct since the beginning of civilization. It is based on the flawed assumption that the ethical nature of an act is somehow improved by the number of people who do it, and if "everybody does it," then it is implicitly all right for you to do it as well: cheat on tests, commit adultery, lie under oath, use illegal drugs, persecute Jews, lynch blacks. Of course, people who use this "reasoning" usually don't believe that what they are doing is right because "everybody does it." They usually are arguing that they shouldn't be singled out for condemnation if "everybody else" isn't.
Since most people will admit that principles of right and wrong are not determined by polls, those who try to use this fallacy are really admitting misconduct. The simple answer to them is that even assuming they are correct, when more people engage in an action that is admittedly unethical, more harm results. An individual is still responsible for his or her part of the harm.
My point is not to compare bad variable naming practices to some of the objectively far more serious things mentioned above, but to simply note that commenting on how common something might be should not be a defense for doing it, when it is a bad practice in the first place.
It's 2018... coding editors are smart these days, and can easily complete longer variable names so longer names does not translate to an increase in typographical errors. In the end, a more legible name doesn't hurt anyone, and is no harder to read, with the benefit of being legible even to people who might not yet understand the full context of how the code is being used.
You grossly overestimate how much money most companies are willing to spend on their employees.
I have *never* worked for a company that was willing to pay for a laptop for me to work from home, and that's including the one job that I had where telecommuting was even possible.
In reality, far less work gets done, because people are distracted and can't get into a groove because George over there is eating potato chips, Deepak is slurping a soda, Susan is yapping about her ovarian cysts on speakerphone, and Jimmy and Jack are heatedly arguing about ++i or i++ as the proper syntax for incrementing a variable.
I currently work in an open floor plan office, and find that this is rarely a problem.
People engaging in a discussion related to work that is disturbing others are encouraged to take their discussion into the board room, which is separate from our main working area. If what you are doing is bothering anyone else, in general you will be told about it, PDQ. I know all too well that it is easy to disturb people without meaning to, but most people where I work are mature enough to respect that they are in a place of work and to be considerate of their volume when they are made aware that it is a problem.
Although one of my coworkers did mention to me that the place where we work has the quietest open floor plan he's ever been in, so maybe we're just lucky.
p.
Oh, and neither is the proper syntax for incrementing a variable, because 'i' is not a proper variable name in the first place.
Most jobs are not amenable to employees working remotely. Only one of mine has ever been. There are numerous practical considerations to make when permitting it, most chief among them being how the company will mitigate damages if the employee's home computer happens to be compromised in some way.
This is just what I was thinking, actually... the novelty of it is liable to cause some people to look at the screen for longer periods than a typical glance that might otherwise be done during normal navigation.
I can't remember what the real name for it is, but it's basically a form fitting transparent sleeve that completely covers the keyboard and is easy to remove for cleaning and replace.
If someone forgets their encryption key, that's on them. We keep hearing about how people need to be held strictly responsible for any slight misuse of firearms, so I think that applies in spades also to encryption. If you use it and cannot remember the key to allow the state to execute a valid warrant, sucks to be you unless you can prove that you are not defying the court.
Are you suggesting that it entirely justified to throw people in jail for what they happen to *think*, regardless of what they may actually do, if what they happen to think does not happen to agree with what the law defines as acceptable?
Spain is south of 45 degrees, where the problems of a late rising sun in the winter are not as keenly felt.
I suppose you could use standard time for everything north of about 45 and then offset everything by an hour for everything closer to the equator, but I suspect that would have a lot of logistical problems.
Of course, one could also offset the problems of a later sunrise by starting work later in the winter, but that would entirely offset the benefits of a later sunset, so in the end, the simplest solution is probably the best one: leave the clocks fixed to reflect solar time.
Sounds all wonderful until you realize that the sun isn't up until after 10am in the winter in a lot of places by pushing that clock ahead like that. That lack of daylight in the morning disrupts your body's natural sleep cycle,causing you to be more tired, and has pronounced negative effects on one's mood and oversell health. There's a reason we should be keeping our clocks synchronized with solar time.
If online distributors of sexual content do not comply with the filter, the attorney general or a consumer could file a civil suit of up to $500 for each piece of content reported
Slashdot Mirror
"swears the credit card information won't be stored"???
Please.... if it weren't going to be stored, it wouldn't be required in the first place.
If you did not apply the inverse hologram to the target, nothing would happen at all. The hologram created at the destination only provides a recepticle for the probability functions that describe the subatomic makeup of the target, it does not actually create any coherent matter that resembles the target.
If you only applied the inverse hologram without giving the target a specific place to go, the result would be similarly uneventful. About on par with pulling a toilet flush handle when there is no water in the tank.
Not at all.... it essentially amounts to quantum tunnelling on a macroscopic level.
The star trek transporter works by measuring a target's impression on spacetime at a subatomic level, and then creating a 4-dimensional hologram of that impression at the destination point. The inverse of that hologram is then applied to the source point, cancelling out the probability of the target being at the source location, while the probability of it being at the destination rises to certainty.
No disintegration required.
Why would you expect that people who take stances *similar* to that of a person would ever dislike him?
If you don't, then why is it somehow suddenly more apparent to you that people who take stances that are in stark contrast to a person would not like that person?
My political leanings are closer to Green, actually... but I understand that it's far easier to make generalizations than to bother to know someone.
Interesting. I shall read up on that further.
Well, you just had every opportunity to enlighten me, and decided to be vague enough about it that unless I already knew specifically what you were talking about (which by your own admission, you were clearly aware of since you explicitly suggested that I may not have been paying attention), I wouldn't be able to do any kind of search to find out more about it and educate myself on the matter. So from where I'm sitting it looks like you are either making stuff up, or else you're the kind of person who wants to actively promote ignorance just so you can feel smarter than people around you. I'm further assuming that you don't care enough about what other people think to care about this to be particularly offended by this observation.
Uhm... On matters of *commercial* enterprise? I can't think of any Obama did, or Bush or Clinton for that matter.
Presumably, the coding standard reflects whatever a majority of the programmers that work there determined it would be in the first place, and a condition of you working there in the first place is that you would abide by the coding standards chosen by the company.
Tends to quell arguments pretty quickly.
You can try and get the coding standards changed, but this would generally require convincing the CTO that such a change would result in more productivity, so you'd need to have an overwhelming amount of support for it from other developers.
It has become apparent to me that the man uses the expression to mean whatever he thinks it ought to mean, and has no bearing on the actual definition of the term.
With for(int i=0; i < n; i++), you can tell that 'i' is some sort of counter in the for loop, but what is it actually *USED* for? Its purpose might be obvious on the same line as the for loop, but when the variable is used for something in the body of the loop, it may not not be. Compare it to:
for(int employeenum = 0;employeenum < employee_count; employeenum++)
Naming the variable something representative of what that variable is actually going to be used for ensures that any time that variable is used, it is obvious what is being done... you don't have to hunt around the code looking to see what some single letter variable named 'i' happens to be.
Even better, you could do away with the indexes entirely:
for(auto &employee: employees)
So you can't even throw an a paper plane legally near an airport?
On the excuse of "Everybody Does it", consider point #1 from ethicsalarms:
My point is not to compare bad variable naming practices to some of the objectively far more serious things mentioned above, but to simply note that commenting on how common something might be should not be a defense for doing it, when it is a bad practice in the first place.
It's 2018... coding editors are smart these days, and can easily complete longer variable names so longer names does not translate to an increase in typographical errors. In the end, a more legible name doesn't hurt anyone, and is no harder to read, with the benefit of being legible even to people who might not yet understand the full context of how the code is being used.
You grossly overestimate how much money most companies are willing to spend on their employees.
I have *never* worked for a company that was willing to pay for a laptop for me to work from home, and that's including the one job that I had where telecommuting was even possible.
I currently work in an open floor plan office, and find that this is rarely a problem.
People engaging in a discussion related to work that is disturbing others are encouraged to take their discussion into the board room, which is separate from our main working area. If what you are doing is bothering anyone else, in general you will be told about it, PDQ. I know all too well that it is easy to disturb people without meaning to, but most people where I work are mature enough to respect that they are in a place of work and to be considerate of their volume when they are made aware that it is a problem.
Although one of my coworkers did mention to me that the place where we work has the quietest open floor plan he's ever been in, so maybe we're just lucky. p. Oh, and neither is the proper syntax for incrementing a variable, because 'i' is not a proper variable name in the first place.
Most jobs are not amenable to employees working remotely. Only one of mine has ever been. There are numerous practical considerations to make when permitting it, most chief among them being how the company will mitigate damages if the employee's home computer happens to be compromised in some way.
This is just what I was thinking, actually... the novelty of it is liable to cause some people to look at the screen for longer periods than a typical glance that might otherwise be done during normal navigation.
I can't remember what the real name for it is, but it's basically a form fitting transparent sleeve that completely covers the keyboard and is easy to remove for cleaning and replace.
Are you suggesting that it entirely justified to throw people in jail for what they happen to *think*, regardless of what they may actually do, if what they happen to think does not happen to agree with what the law defines as acceptable?
I suppose you could use standard time for everything north of about 45 and then offset everything by an hour for everything closer to the equator, but I suspect that would have a lot of logistical problems.
Of course, one could also offset the problems of a later sunrise by starting work later in the winter, but that would entirely offset the benefits of a later sunset, so in the end, the simplest solution is probably the best one: leave the clocks fixed to reflect solar time.
Sounds all wonderful until you realize that the sun isn't up until after 10am in the winter in a lot of places by pushing that clock ahead like that. That lack of daylight in the morning disrupts your body's natural sleep cycle,causing you to be more tired, and has pronounced negative effects on one's mood and oversell health. There's a reason we should be keeping our clocks synchronized with solar time.
I imagine they think it will annoy the owner enough to not want to deal with the hassle of owning such a vehicle.
I'm asking because I wonder if in-game gold or other items in multiplayer games would count as digital currency?