Its not that people turned away from the idea of Wall Street and banking reform. Its that people turned away from the Occupy Movement as the vehicle to promote such reforms.
Our friend anecdotes are not much of a rebuttal against a formal survey conducted by a reputable organization like Gallop.
"But few independents are "occupy protesters" or supporters of them."
I think you are wrong, and on-site news interviews have tended to back me up. A lot of the protesters are liberals, but a lot of them are independents, too, regardless of whether that makes them strange bedfellows.
"O implies I does not mean that I implies O."
Of course. But that doesn't imply that I am wrong, either. Most independents and libertarians I know very strongly suport the Occupy movement, even if they aren't protesting themselves. Yet.
"Not really. The historical precedent would be the remaining 1/3 are neutral and not getting involved. Now that seems about "right"."
Except that they aren't, so historical precedent does not necessarily apply.
And awful lot of the protesters are independent, and sick to their stomachs of the "Big 2" parties. Count on it.
But few independents are "occupy protesters" or supporters of them. O implies I does not mean that I implies O. Occupy started strong but got off track with the camping thing and turned off many independents.
"About 1/3 of the Colonials supported the revolution. That is a large number. That is literally about the percentage that are registered Democrats or registered Republicans according to a recent survey."
Which leaves the remaining 1/3 just about ready to revolt against the Democrats and Republicans.
Sounds about right.
Not really. The historical precedent would be the remaining 1/3 are neutral and not getting involved. Now that seems about "right".
You do know the amount of people that were for the American revolution was very small,...
No. About 1/3 of the Colonials supported the revolution. That is a large number. That is literally about the percentage that are registered Democrats or registered Republicans according to a recent survey.
The astronomer and physics professor who developed the big bang theory was also a priest.
He was a Jesuit, actually. It would help to identify the religions, as they do differ from each other.
Yes Catholic and Jesuit college-level schools are really excellent in science. I don't think that was the type of "religious school" the GP was talking about. You don't send 8 year olds there.
I grew up alongside people who went to catholic K-12 schools rather than public K-12 schools. Their education in math and science was excellent. Their education differed from mine in public schools only in that they had an additional class in religion. Well, that's not completely true, their classes may have often been more rigorous in an academic sense.
if you are so all-fired to exclude scientific thought, send your kids to church school...
Some church schools excel in science, surpassing most public schools. Some very large churches also have no problem with evolution and have publicly stated that scientific observations and finding are not in conflict with faith. The astronomer and physics professor who developed the big bang theory was also a priest.
Jefferson is still right. Separation of church and state, it's the only reasonable way to ensure our freedom.
True. However it is good for both government and church. When churches get involved in government they "lose their way". "Power corrupts" applies to churches too, not just individuals.
That includes keeping creationism in churches where it belongs and out of our schools.
Not quite. Out of "science class". Its likely a valid topic in other types of classes, history, philosophy, religion, etc.
Kentucky was a Union state. You're stuck with them either way.
Kentucky was claimed by both the Union and the Confederacy. Parts of the state actively supported the Union, other parts actively supported the Confederacy. Similar story when you get to individuals. Kentucky being considered a Union state is literally one of those instances where the victor gets to write history.
Missouri had a similar split and the results were particularly bloody guerilla raids by small local groups. Similar problems may have occurred in Kentucky, I'm not familiar with what happened there.
Virginia split in two, West Virginia exists because locals went Union.
There's a lot to be said here about the ends you're trying to achieve. Getting the news of the Boston Massacre out was more important than who makes the money selling the paper. There's also the consideration that republication happened in markets that weren't competing with the original source newspaper. In a time when horse and buggy was the primary mode of transportation, newspapers in other cities reprinting the stories was just how the story was distributed. There was no way to reach everyone, and telling how atrocious the British were being was everyone's goal.
Citing the original author would not slow the news, cause papers not to sell, etc. Plagiarism contributed nothing.
And if you can't do it with medical-grade EEG or room-sized MRI results, you can't do it with a gaming headset for the next 30 years.
That is why the "it" is likely to be targeted advertising not the extraction of evidence for use in court. Marketing doesn't need the level of accuracy that a court would.
If you thought nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide!
Its about marketing not crime. Your browser shows you A and then B, or your video game shows you A and then B, etc. The parts of your brain correlated with "wants" shows more activity during B. Targeted marketing starts delivering ads related to B.
This technology may not be accurate enough for a court of law but marketing does not need that level of accuracy.
One can do simple in C++. Some programs can be simpler in C++ than C. The problem is that programmers sometimes choose to use some advanced feature because they can, not because it is the right tool for the task at hand.
If Apple is pulling a 7.85" screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio, it's going to be significantly wider. If it doesn't fit in a damn pocket, there's really no point in getting one over a full-size iPad.
That is why I am expecting a 7.0" screen. The folks expecting 7.85" are assuming a screen with the same pixels per inch (PPI) as the original iPhone, 163 PPI. Given that the retina display tech/process lets them get to 326 on the iPhone and 264 on the iPad I expect that an iPad "mini" would use 183 PPI to get to a 7.0" 1024x768 screen. 1024x768 being key for compatibility.
Given a collection of developers that write difficult to understand, difficult to maintain and sloppy type unsafe code, going to C++ may not help. The previous problems are problems with the developers not the language. C++ just enables such developers to write even worse code. Hopefully they are also introducing new coding style guidelines, and are willing to enforce such guidelines. If so I'd be more optimistic.
I'd also be more optimistic if by using classes and templates they were really referring to using STL, not writing their own.
Or maybe they just want to use C++ style comments and won't really use classes and templates much.:-)
There are no barriers right now, and there are thousands of personal aircraft littering the airports of the nation. If it were going to happen, it would have happened by now.
It has happened. Didn't some guy fly a light aircraft into an IRS office building or something. Zero casualties thankfully.
9-11 was a fluke. Get over it already.
Take that up with the GP not me. He asked whats the difference between loading a van with explosives or an aircraft. I just pointed out the obvious.
The certification for the *operator* will almost certainly be along the lines of experimental aircraft.
Whether the aircraft is commercial or experimental the pilot needs the same license. All experimental does from the FAA's perspective is apply a bunch of additional regulations, many of which limit what the pilot can do.
Speaking from a bit of experience... There's a big difference in flying something sitting in a cockpit and sitting in a lawn chair. It's much easier actually being in the vehicle you are controlling and having all your appendages instead of just two thumbs to control with.
True, but assuming good weather and good visibility. Under instrument flight conditions the physical sensations that you feel are no longer an asset, they are a liability. Most private pilots can not fly under such conditions. For the non-pilots reading along, "can not" as in the pilots would kill themselves not that the pilots are in violation of FAA regulations.
That's a bullshit argument. Substitute the words car and drive for flying car and fly and you'll see why. A terrorist could just as easily and with as much success load up a pedophile van with explosives and drive at 90mph into a building tomorrow. What difference does flying make?
If its an "important" building the van may crash into a barrier and not get "close enough" to the building to do significant damage. There are no barriers to keep aircraft away.
They did not expect me to be a chemist but they did expect me to be scientifically and mathematically literate.
No, they expected you to be able to do your job.
This project was not within the parameters of my job at the time, nor within the scope of the company's business. We did molecular visualization and diagramming, not computational chemistry. However the general ed chem and physics classes and the several years of math classes enabled the company to unexpectedly expand the parameters of my job for that project.
Again, trade school can teach you to program just as well as a university. The point of the university is to prepare you for options beyond the typical programming roles of the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not that people turned away from the idea of Wall Street and banking reform. Its that people turned away from the Occupy Movement as the vehicle to promote such reforms.
Our friend anecdotes are not much of a rebuttal against a formal survey conducted by a reputable organization like Gallop.
"But few independents are "occupy protesters" or supporters of them."
I think you are wrong, and on-site news interviews have tended to back me up. A lot of the protesters are liberals, but a lot of them are independents, too, regardless of whether that makes them strange bedfellows.
"O implies I does not mean that I implies O."
Of course. But that doesn't imply that I am wrong, either. Most independents and libertarians I know very strongly suport the Occupy movement, even if they aren't protesting themselves. Yet.
The first thing I ran across on Google:
November 2011. 24% of independents support the movement, down from previous surveys. 17% oppose. 20% approve of the way the protest is being conducted. 26% disapprove.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150896/support-occupy-unchanged-criticize-approach.aspx
The camping and confrontations with police are turning independents away from Occupy.
"Not really. The historical precedent would be the remaining 1/3 are neutral and not getting involved. Now that seems about "right"."
Except that they aren't, so historical precedent does not necessarily apply. And awful lot of the protesters are independent, and sick to their stomachs of the "Big 2" parties. Count on it.
But few independents are "occupy protesters" or supporters of them. O implies I does not mean that I implies O. Occupy started strong but got off track with the camping thing and turned off many independents.
"About 1/3 of the Colonials supported the revolution. That is a large number. That is literally about the percentage that are registered Democrats or registered Republicans according to a recent survey."
Which leaves the remaining 1/3 just about ready to revolt against the Democrats and Republicans. Sounds about right.
Not really. The historical precedent would be the remaining 1/3 are neutral and not getting involved. Now that seems about "right".
"Right" as in accurate, not as in good.
You do know the amount of people that were for the American revolution was very small, ...
No. About 1/3 of the Colonials supported the revolution. That is a large number. That is literally about the percentage that are registered Democrats or registered Republicans according to a recent survey.
The astronomer and physics professor who developed the big bang theory was also a priest.
He was a Jesuit, actually. It would help to identify the religions, as they do differ from each other.
Yes Catholic and Jesuit college-level schools are really excellent in science. I don't think that was the type of "religious school" the GP was talking about. You don't send 8 year olds there.
I grew up alongside people who went to catholic K-12 schools rather than public K-12 schools. Their education in math and science was excellent. Their education differed from mine in public schools only in that they had an additional class in religion. Well, that's not completely true, their classes may have often been more rigorous in an academic sense.
if you are so all-fired to exclude scientific thought, send your kids to church school ...
Some church schools excel in science, surpassing most public schools. Some very large churches also have no problem with evolution and have publicly stated that scientific observations and finding are not in conflict with faith. The astronomer and physics professor who developed the big bang theory was also a priest.
Jefferson is still right. Separation of church and state, it's the only reasonable way to ensure our freedom.
True. However it is good for both government and church. When churches get involved in government they "lose their way". "Power corrupts" applies to churches too, not just individuals.
That includes keeping creationism in churches where it belongs and out of our schools.
Not quite. Out of "science class". Its likely a valid topic in other types of classes, history, philosophy, religion, etc.
Kentucky was a Union state. You're stuck with them either way.
Kentucky was claimed by both the Union and the Confederacy. Parts of the state actively supported the Union, other parts actively supported the Confederacy. Similar story when you get to individuals. Kentucky being considered a Union state is literally one of those instances where the victor gets to write history.
Missouri had a similar split and the results were particularly bloody guerilla raids by small local groups. Similar problems may have occurred in Kentucky, I'm not familiar with what happened there.
Virginia split in two, West Virginia exists because locals went Union.
There's a lot to be said here about the ends you're trying to achieve. Getting the news of the Boston Massacre out was more important than who makes the money selling the paper. There's also the consideration that republication happened in markets that weren't competing with the original source newspaper. In a time when horse and buggy was the primary mode of transportation, newspapers in other cities reprinting the stories was just how the story was distributed. There was no way to reach everyone, and telling how atrocious the British were being was everyone's goal.
Citing the original author would not slow the news, cause papers not to sell, etc. Plagiarism contributed nothing.
Newspapers of the time could have obtained the same results without any plagiarism ...
Absolutely correct.
... (e.g. by hiring field correspondents).
No. They simply needed to cite the original author.
The alleged cause-effect relationship exists only in the author's obviously underpowered mind.
Certainly the relationship only exists in the author's mind and not in reality. The personal attack diminishes your argument.
And if you can't do it with medical-grade EEG or room-sized MRI results, you can't do it with a gaming headset for the next 30 years.
That is why the "it" is likely to be targeted advertising not the extraction of evidence for use in court. Marketing doesn't need the level of accuracy that a court would.
If you thought nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide!
Its about marketing not crime. Your browser shows you A and then B, or your video game shows you A and then B, etc. The parts of your brain correlated with "wants" shows more activity during B. Targeted marketing starts delivering ads related to B.
This technology may not be accurate enough for a court of law but marketing does not need that level of accuracy.
Dremel was the guy's last name, so I'd say that there's probably some basis for it, so they MIGHT possibly get around a trademark complaint.
That possibility probably ended when someone decided to be cute and name the iteration "drill".
One can do simple in C++. Some programs can be simpler in C++ than C. The problem is that programmers sometimes choose to use some advanced feature because they can, not because it is the right tool for the task at hand.
Just speculating on what 0D might be.
If Apple is pulling a 7.85" screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio, it's going to be significantly wider. If it doesn't fit in a damn pocket, there's really no point in getting one over a full-size iPad.
That is why I am expecting a 7.0" screen. The folks expecting 7.85" are assuming a screen with the same pixels per inch (PPI) as the original iPhone, 163 PPI. Given that the retina display tech/process lets them get to 326 on the iPhone and 264 on the iPad I expect that an iPad "mini" would use 183 PPI to get to a 7.0" 1024x768 screen. 1024x768 being key for compatibility.
Given a collection of developers that write difficult to understand, difficult to maintain and sloppy type unsafe code, going to C++ may not help. The previous problems are problems with the developers not the language. C++ just enables such developers to write even worse code. Hopefully they are also introducing new coding style guidelines, and are willing to enforce such guidelines. If so I'd be more optimistic.
:-)
I'd also be more optimistic if by using classes and templates they were really referring to using STL, not writing their own.
Or maybe they just want to use C++ style comments and won't really use classes and templates much.
There are no barriers right now, and there are thousands of personal aircraft littering the airports of the nation. If it were going to happen, it would have happened by now.
It has happened. Didn't some guy fly a light aircraft into an IRS office building or something. Zero casualties thankfully.
9-11 was a fluke. Get over it already.
Take that up with the GP not me. He asked whats the difference between loading a van with explosives or an aircraft. I just pointed out the obvious.
The certification for the *operator* will almost certainly be along the lines of experimental aircraft.
Whether the aircraft is commercial or experimental the pilot needs the same license. All experimental does from the FAA's perspective is apply a bunch of additional regulations, many of which limit what the pilot can do.
Or even better, high speed chases in the air.
That is at least 170% too awesome to ever become real.
Actually its been happening for nearly a century, its called a dog fight. :-)
A line is 1D. 0D might be a black hole or the singularity that experienced the big bang. :-)
Speaking from a bit of experience... There's a big difference in flying something sitting in a cockpit and sitting in a lawn chair. It's much easier actually being in the vehicle you are controlling and having all your appendages instead of just two thumbs to control with.
True, but assuming good weather and good visibility. Under instrument flight conditions the physical sensations that you feel are no longer an asset, they are a liability. Most private pilots can not fly under such conditions. For the non-pilots reading along, "can not" as in the pilots would kill themselves not that the pilots are in violation of FAA regulations.
Flying cars will need to be heavily automated.
That's a bullshit argument. Substitute the words car and drive for flying car and fly and you'll see why. A terrorist could just as easily and with as much success load up a pedophile van with explosives and drive at 90mph into a building tomorrow. What difference does flying make?
If its an "important" building the van may crash into a barrier and not get "close enough" to the building to do significant damage. There are no barriers to keep aircraft away.
They did not expect me to be a chemist but they did expect me to be scientifically and mathematically literate.
No, they expected you to be able to do your job.
This project was not within the parameters of my job at the time, nor within the scope of the company's business. We did molecular visualization and diagramming, not computational chemistry. However the general ed chem and physics classes and the several years of math classes enabled the company to unexpectedly expand the parameters of my job for that project.
Again, trade school can teach you to program just as well as a university. The point of the university is to prepare you for options beyond the typical programming roles of the market.