To take what is probably the strongest example of an observed phenomenon that can be explained as a black hole and not much else. Even Hawking gave in and paid off his bet with Kip Thorne.
Poorly done, cryptic succinctness can indeed make code impenetrable. Yet overdone verbosity can destroy readability just as thoroughly. When the language is naturally succinct, it's easy to ensure that it contains enough context to be readable. When the language is overly verbose, you generally can't slim it back down to readable conciseness.
"It's just the pursuit of truth, which math, peer review, and jargon have no bearing on!"
The guy is a little skewed, but you're putting up a strawman here. He's not saying "have no bearing on" but rather "are not the core of what makes science science, and cannot by themselves make what you are doing science." And that is absolutely correct.
I never got the reaction of the start screen. It's basically a full screen Start Menu.
Which is at least part of the problem. A Start Menu doesn't *need* a full screen, and it's incredibly wasteful and inconvenient to make it take up a full screen.
Similarly, 99% of the problem could be stopped if they cancelled the Equitable Sharing program and instead insisted that all such seizures to go to the federal government, not to any local fund.
Hmmm...possibly. How much of local cops' seizures actually belong to the feds and are "shared" back by this program, and how much are seizures under local authority--or could be made so if the local cops think they won't get federal seizures back? The latter can't be constitutionally claimed by the feds, although it would be possible to insist it all go to the state government.
They looked at reanalyses that had already been done for other reasons, rather than doing their own reanalyses on randomly selected trials. It occurs to me that these trials may have been subjected to reanalysis precisely *because* there were doubts about the initial analysis.
Automated driving systems DO NOT need to be foolproof.
They need to be very close to foolproof at the very least. Your point is logically unassailable, but alas, logic doesn't enter into it. It'll be assailed in courts of law, and in public opinion. Every accident that happens will be the fault of the autpilot, and the fact that the autopiloted cars have less accidents will be irrelevant.
Now *there's* a phrase to fill you with confidence. "Works right up to the point where you need to be paying attention, except you won't be because the car is driving itself."
I'm afraid the one who can't read a dictionary is you. The definition you quote does not state that tolerance implies disapproval. It states that tolerance does not imply approval. That's not at all the same thing.
The geography I was taught was that the Ural Mountains is the boundary between Europe and Asia, meaning that western Russia is indeed part of Europe, though the eastern part is not.
Slashdot Mirror
And List::Util isn't in my installation of perl. sort -R works, though.
What do mean? Obama's government is incredibly transparent! You can't see anything at all!
To take what is probably the strongest example of an observed phenomenon that can be explained as a black hole and not much else. Even Hawking gave in and paid off his bet with Kip Thorne.
Poorly done, cryptic succinctness can indeed make code impenetrable. Yet overdone verbosity can destroy readability just as thoroughly. When the language is naturally succinct, it's easy to ensure that it contains enough context to be readable. When the language is overly verbose, you generally can't slim it back down to readable conciseness.
No, it destroys the crops very effectively too.
The guy is a little skewed, but you're putting up a strawman here. He's not saying "have no bearing on" but rather "are not the core of what makes science science, and cannot by themselves make what you are doing science." And that is absolutely correct.
But I was always told it was okay to leave nothing but footprints!
And asking for a subsidy doesn't make that cost go away--in fact, it'll make it higher. You're just making somebody else pay the cost for you.
In fact, you have *two* programs to read all logs. More and less.
You think Doom and Quake aren't cartoony?
Which is at least part of the problem. A Start Menu doesn't *need* a full screen, and it's incredibly wasteful and inconvenient to make it take up a full screen.
More importantly, not only did you know why it was happening, whether or not it happened was *your choice*.
Awwww, I wanted to do that one...
Minecraft: The Flamethrower! The kids love that one.
But hopefully without the disco this time.
Hmmm...possibly. How much of local cops' seizures actually belong to the feds and are "shared" back by this program, and how much are seizures under local authority--or could be made so if the local cops think they won't get federal seizures back? The latter can't be constitutionally claimed by the feds, although it would be possible to insist it all go to the state government.
Fixed that for you.
They looked at reanalyses that had already been done for other reasons, rather than doing their own reanalyses on randomly selected trials. It occurs to me that these trials may have been subjected to reanalysis precisely *because* there were doubts about the initial analysis.
Now all my MP3s sound like the Chipmunks!
They need to be very close to foolproof at the very least. Your point is logically unassailable, but alas, logic doesn't enter into it. It'll be assailed in courts of law, and in public opinion. Every accident that happens will be the fault of the autpilot, and the fact that the autopiloted cars have less accidents will be irrelevant.
We don't need that felgercarb herre.
Now *there's* a phrase to fill you with confidence. "Works right up to the point where you need to be paying attention, except you won't be because the car is driving itself."
We can't even get TCP/IP v6 off the ground, and they want to try this?
I'm afraid the one who can't read a dictionary is you. The definition you quote does not state that tolerance implies disapproval. It states that tolerance does not imply approval. That's not at all the same thing.
The geography I was taught was that the Ural Mountains is the boundary between Europe and Asia, meaning that western Russia is indeed part of Europe, though the eastern part is not.