the "necessary basics" of the profession require 4 years of schooling to get the degree required to START LEARNING THE BASICS OF LAW
And yet, we're all supposed to obey the law. How can we when it takes post-graduate training to even understand a small part of the law? The problem here is not non-lawyers in the Supreme Court. The problem is an absurdly complex legal system.
Well said. As long as the laws are meant to be obeyed by non-lawyers, they should be comprehensible by non-lawyers. Therefore it makes perfect sense to have non-lawyers determine what the law means.
Real rights are universal, meaning there is on logical contradiction if all people exercise the right.
Like, oh, the right to universal health care? The right of workers to organize? The right to not be defrauded by our financial institutions? None of these bear any contradictions if everyone exercises these rights. In fact, if everyone demanded these rights they would be much stronger.
Yes actually... I have a right to get healthcare, if I want it. Mandatory takes away that right of choice. I can choose to not have healthcare and die in a ditch if I want. Mandatory is the opposite of personal freedom.
You can still go die in a ditch. In fact, I encourage you to. There are a vanishingly small amount of people who choose to exercise their freedom to die in a ditch. There are millions of Americans who have gained the freedom to buy healthcare. This is a net win for freedom.
I don't know about you, but I can leave my employer at any time and go to another one. Nobody is forcing me to take their money for my work.
Good for you. There are millions of Americans who are not as lucky as you. When the economy shrinks, there's just no work for some people, no matter how qualified.
Why should we (as taxpayers) have to bailout companies that don't know how to run their own operations efficiently?
We should not. This is exactly why we need financial reform. To prevent the crashes that force us to do bail outs. The financial crisis is a great example of how too little regulation reduces all of our freedom.
That's hard to deny. Bin Laden's express purpose in attacking the US was to goad the US into a counterattack that would precipitate a holy war. GWB did exactly that. He gave Bin Laden everything he wanted.
<NES> lol <NES> I download something from Napster <NES> And the same guy I downloaded it from starts downloading it from me when I'm done <NES> I message him and say "What are you doing? I just got that from you" <NES> "getting my song back fucker"
What progressive cause reduces personal rights? Mandatory health care? Not being beholden to your employer, or an insurance company that can drop you on a whim greatly increases personal freedom. Financial reform? A stable economy increases personal freedom. Alternative energy? I'd certainly like to have the personal freedom to choose sustainable energy sources and not support oppressive regimes.
Seriously, what progressive cause are you thinking of? Or did Glenn Beck just tell you progressives were bad?
Oh I agree. I've done some computer recycling for charity, and it's definitely a great thing for a community. The problem is that you don't reach everyone. The parents who are involved enough with their kids are going to be fine. But then there's the group who would just as soon use a free computer for target practice than let their kids do homework on it.
Unfortunately, there are still plenty of kids out there who haven't had the advantage of growing up with a computer. If you're born to poor parents who have never used a computer, you're just not going to have a computer in the house. Give these families a free computer and they won't know what to do with it. The "digital divide" is still here.
The best thing you could do to really educate kids about computing, and not just train them on windows apps is to get them started with 8-bit computers. Yes, BASIC is awful for real development, but it was designed for education and it does this quite well. Removing all the layers of abstraction from modern PCs forces you to really understand what the computer is doing. While the skills aren't directly transferable to modern PCs, the concepts are, and that's what education is all about.
I don't see how they're going to move the ram feet away from the CPU even with fully optical interconnects. Google tells me that c is 983,571,056 feet per second. At 3,000,000,000 cycles per second, that's.3 feet per cycle. At 1 foot it would take 6 cycles to get fetch data from RAM, round trip. That seems like a lot.
PCI-E was released in 2004, 6 years from now would give it a 12 year lifespan. PCI was released in 1993, and it's still commonly found on motherboards 17 years later. ISA was released in 1981, was superseded by PCI 12 years later, and was commonly found on motherboards for several years after that.
A 12 year lifetime for expansion slots is pretty standard, if something better does come along nothing's stopping anyone from supplying motherboards with both slots, just like PCI-E/PCI motherboards today, and PCI/ISA motherboards from 15 years ago.
That's a nice story, but let's look at reality: when government fails, the people responsible aren't fired and the budget isn't cut -- most often they are rewarded with even more power and revenue.
Since periods that end sentences are more common than periods that do not, it requires less effort to mark up the periods that do not end sentences. As a beneficial side effect, it doesn't matter how many spaces you end your sentences with.
This is probably the best solution possible, as asking LaTeX to decide which periods end sentences would require an English comprehending AI.
Two spaces makes it easier to parse with a regexp. Any period followed by two spaces is the end of a sentence. If you use one space, you might pick up sentence fragments with titles (Mr. Mrs., etc.)
Of course, the question is really moot. LaTeX ignores whitespace and just does what it thinks is right. I am willing to trust LaTeX.
Slashdot Mirror
The Democrat is Ben Nelson (D-NE)
God damnit, I've got to give that mother fucker another call.
the "necessary basics" of the profession require 4 years of schooling to get the degree required to START LEARNING THE BASICS OF LAW
And yet, we're all supposed to obey the law. How can we when it takes post-graduate training to even understand a small part of the law? The problem here is not non-lawyers in the Supreme Court. The problem is an absurdly complex legal system.
Well said. As long as the laws are meant to be obeyed by non-lawyers, they should be comprehensible by non-lawyers. Therefore it makes perfect sense to have non-lawyers determine what the law means.
Real rights are universal, meaning there is on logical contradiction if all people exercise the right.
Like, oh, the right to universal health care? The right of workers to organize? The right to not be defrauded by our financial institutions? None of these bear any contradictions if everyone exercises these rights. In fact, if everyone demanded these rights they would be much stronger.
Yes actually... I have a right to get healthcare, if I want it. Mandatory takes away that right of choice. I can choose to not have healthcare and die in a ditch if I want. Mandatory is the opposite of personal freedom.
You can still go die in a ditch. In fact, I encourage you to. There are a vanishingly small amount of people who choose to exercise their freedom to die in a ditch. There are millions of Americans who have gained the freedom to buy healthcare. This is a net win for freedom.
I don't know about you, but I can leave my employer at any time and go to another one. Nobody is forcing me to take their money for my work.
Good for you. There are millions of Americans who are not as lucky as you. When the economy shrinks, there's just no work for some people, no matter how qualified.
Why should we (as taxpayers) have to bailout companies that don't know how to run their own operations efficiently?
We should not. This is exactly why we need financial reform. To prevent the crashes that force us to do bail outs. The financial crisis is a great example of how too little regulation reduces all of our freedom.
That's hard to deny. Bin Laden's express purpose in attacking the US was to goad the US into a counterattack that would precipitate a holy war. GWB did exactly that. He gave Bin Laden everything he wanted.
Haven't you figured it out yet? There is no justice in the world.
Obligatory bash.org:
Admittedly one of them was a dank dark hole of a joint and I wasn't sad to see that one go
Those are the best arcades.
What progressive cause reduces personal rights? Mandatory health care? Not being beholden to your employer, or an insurance company that can drop you on a whim greatly increases personal freedom. Financial reform? A stable economy increases personal freedom. Alternative energy? I'd certainly like to have the personal freedom to choose sustainable energy sources and not support oppressive regimes.
Seriously, what progressive cause are you thinking of? Or did Glenn Beck just tell you progressives were bad?
Oh I agree. I've done some computer recycling for charity, and it's definitely a great thing for a community. The problem is that you don't reach everyone. The parents who are involved enough with their kids are going to be fine. But then there's the group who would just as soon use a free computer for target practice than let their kids do homework on it.
Unfortunately, there are still plenty of kids out there who haven't had the advantage of growing up with a computer. If you're born to poor parents who have never used a computer, you're just not going to have a computer in the house. Give these families a free computer and they won't know what to do with it. The "digital divide" is still here.
When programming, you should spend a lot more time thinking than typing. So good typing skills are not necessary at all.
If the government forces you to install a rootkit as a requirement for internet access all the encryption in the world won't help you.
The best thing you could do to really educate kids about computing, and not just train them on windows apps is to get them started with 8-bit computers. Yes, BASIC is awful for real development, but it was designed for education and it does this quite well. Removing all the layers of abstraction from modern PCs forces you to really understand what the computer is doing. While the skills aren't directly transferable to modern PCs, the concepts are, and that's what education is all about.
What are they going to do? Fucking outlaw Mac OS X, Linux and all the other non-Microsoft operating systems?
Yes, probably. Why wouldn't they?
If there's enough junk flying around up there to damage satellites, wouldn't it also pop a giant balloon?
I don't see how they're going to move the ram feet away from the CPU even with fully optical interconnects. Google tells me that c is 983,571,056 feet per second. At 3,000,000,000 cycles per second, that's .3 feet per cycle. At 1 foot it would take 6 cycles to get fetch data from RAM, round trip. That seems like a lot.
PCI-E was released in 2004, 6 years from now would give it a 12 year lifespan. PCI was released in 1993, and it's still commonly found on motherboards 17 years later. ISA was released in 1981, was superseded by PCI 12 years later, and was commonly found on motherboards for several years after that.
A 12 year lifetime for expansion slots is pretty standard, if something better does come along nothing's stopping anyone from supplying motherboards with both slots, just like PCI-E/PCI motherboards today, and PCI/ISA motherboards from 15 years ago.
Like I said, sounds like corporate America.
Somehow Goldman Sachs is still in business.
Grapes?
That's a nice story, but let's look at reality: when government fails, the people responsible aren't fired and the budget isn't cut -- most often they are rewarded with even more power and revenue.
Sounds just like corporate america.
Since periods that end sentences are more common than periods that do not, it requires less effort to mark up the periods that do not end sentences. As a beneficial side effect, it doesn't matter how many spaces you end your sentences with.
This is probably the best solution possible, as asking LaTeX to decide which periods end sentences would require an English comprehending AI.
Two spaces makes it easier to parse with a regexp. Any period followed by two spaces is the end of a sentence. If you use one space, you might pick up sentence fragments with titles (Mr. Mrs., etc.)
Of course, the question is really moot. LaTeX ignores whitespace and just does what it thinks is right. I am willing to trust LaTeX.