So, aluminum walls, alluminum floors, copper pole in the middle -- I do believe that's actually a battery, using the air as the electrolyte. I think I might be staying out of that room.
Calling someone stupid for being stupid isn't sexist. Not calling her stupid just because she's a woman, that would be sexist.
I don't treat stupid women like princesses. That isn't a requirement. I'm also well-within-reasonable-ethics to treat her like shit because she chose to complain about a scenario in which she chose to remain.
Allow me to sum up: 1. woman goes to work at a new company. 2. woman immediately gets treated like shit by manager. 3. woman complains to HR (I assume appropriately) 4. woman gets treated like shit my HR 5. woman learns that many women are treated like shit by managers and HR at this company 6. woman keeps working at this company for how long?!
A lot of women like to cause trouble, instead of being trouble. Stop complaining to HR. Just walk out the door. Complain to media. Complain to friends. Complain to senators. Complain to police. HR isn't obligated to enforce anything. HR isn't on your side. Police are. If treating women like shit isn't illegal, then you've nothing to complain about. If it is illegal, then you need to complain to those who made the laws. HR doesn't do either. Company policies aren't enforced. Welcome to companies.
Start your own company. Join a company with more than 3% women. If you're treated like shit on the first day, don't be surprised when you're treated like shit a year later.
Honestly, what do you think the odds were that you'd be treated like shit on your first day, and it was a random coincidence?
There are bad people in this world. I'm not one of them. And yet, I have a hard time hiring people -- because they look for big companies.
You're talking to slahdotters here. I've spent 30 years programming. I'm happy to say that male programmers, of almost all ages and demographics, treat women like princesses. And yet, in all of my years, I've encountered very few female programmers in any office, venue, bar, or school.
You're complaining that other places treat you like shit. I don't. Come here. I can't do anything more from afar.
Indirect metrics follow the same cycle for decades. If it isn't the advertiser's actual BOTTOM line -- and it never is -- then the metric is indirect. And indirect metrics simply follow the very basic fad system: if it's common to see big numbers, the new way shows small numbers, and vice versa.
Views - 1 per viewing of an ad Viewers - 1 per person per ad Eyeballs - 2 per person per ad Hits - 1 per object on the page Pageviews - 1 per page Impression Time - seconds per page read Clicks - 1 per click of an ad Click through rate - clicks per minute, per day, per month, per year, per thousand impressions Conversions - per interaction Walk-ins - warm lead Buyer - actual money, top line Profitable buyer - actual money, bottom line
The game is always to market your number as smaller, and hence more accurate and more meaningful than others, or to make people prefer your numbers because they are proportionately higher than other metrics. Big whoop.
My favourite example has got to be the groupon model. We'll bring more paying customers into your business. Good. They'll pay so much less that you'll actually lose money, but you'll have a new customer! Yeah, one who will never pay full price for anything, and will hop around from one loss-leader discount to another. Who makes money off of these customers? Oh yeah, groupon does, and no one else.
Let's do it again.
100 customers spend 100 seconds reading 90% of your article! No they didn't. They scrolled to it, took a phone call for a minute, and left it open. And they didn't understand what they read, so it really doesn't matter. And then, they didn't buy anything. Watch me care.
*sigh*, I didn't punctuate, and you chose to interpret that I made a mistake, instead of interpreting that I didn't.
I've been upset with RAID 5, in particular, for exactly that reason -- it has the ability to notice a single bit-flip, but it specifically does not check. I've even built a working prototype of a RAID 5 implementation that does check on read, notices that the parity is amiss, and screams. I've built another (in software), that chains the parities so it can actually repair a single bit-flip 80% of the time.
When I typed "RAID." I was continuing my complaint that even in electronic data, no one co-roberates anything -- the thesis statement of my post.
I was ambiguous, you could have decided that I was correct.
So, *sigh* another person who chooses the inference that makes the implication incorrect, instead of the inference that would make the implication correct.
Is anyone surprised that if you store things once, and reference the one place alone, that you get screwed on occasion?
Is the word "co-roberation" new? How about "validation", "authentication", "verification", and, oh, I don't know, "paper-trail"?
It's electronic information, not magic. The benefit of not carving into stone is that you can readily duplicate information into multiple places. Use it.
The first movie I ever watched on netflix was Inside Out. At the end, Netflix's first recommendation was that if I liked Inside Out, I should watched Inside Out in french.
Great algorithm there. Oh the complexity. What's next? The spanish version?
Probably the worst suggestion any person could have ever made to anyone outside of a french class.
The algorithm must have been so happy. Think about it. It found a movie, where every word spoken is totally different, but there's a 100% match on the title! Woohoo! A perfect match! What a perfect recommendation!
Years of netflix recommendation engine contests. Well done.
Yeah, I don't think any modern IoT device has any programmer "counting the bytes". I used to count bytes, back when I had 4KB of memory, or 8MB of memory, or 20MB of disk space. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any IoT device with less than a gig of virtual memory. Considering zero or near-zero graphics output, I think you'll be just fine with any language ever inventing.
My vote goes to turing, which I haven't seen in twe decades, but for which I have a school-age nostalgia -- I made a street-fighter-style game for high school, with stick-figure graphics!
So, you live to work. Enjoy your life -- err, enjoy your work. Enjoy your public transit, working on the way in to work, enjoy your tiny apartment in the big city, enjoy your nutrition-poor food that's never seen soil, enjoy your high mortgage, enjoy your small space, enjoy your virtual vacations -- and your psych bill.
Meanwhile, I'll take my suburban huge house, my fun-to-drive car, my pasture-raised cows, my farm-fresh food, my low mortgage, and, oh yeah, my friends.
alternatively: humans only need to communicate at 10 bits, we don't need a trillion bits per second to enjoy life.
But really, isn't the trick to do less, not more? I ain't no worker-bee. I'm jealous of my pet dog sitting on the couch all day while I work at a desk. I want his life -- it's called retirement.
Productivity is the goal of business. Laziness is the goal of life. I've worked hard to be this lazy.
I'm sorry that your screw driver isn't a ratchet, and that your ratchet isn't a hammer.
But have you tried to actually lace up your shoes? They'll work better that way.
Read, learn, and re-configure your browser, your operating system, and your network to actually do whatever it is that you want it to do. Most browsers can easily be configured to limit the number of simultaneous connections. It's a number somewhere -- think registry, about::config, etc. Did you try? No.
You're on something that's both atypical and inferior. So configure it to your preferences.
Also, you could configure your router to limit connection counts. You could configure your browser to access only one domain at a time. You could load your hsts file to block ad servers.
You could choose to block most typical third-party sites when you aren't interested in them -- like blocking facebook would block like buttons everywhere. Unblock it when you want them. Block them when you don't.
You seem to be surprised that the default out-of-the-box isn't for you. Big surprise -- it isn't for anybody. It takes me three days to configure a new machine. There are about ten thousand settings to look configure to my liking. I remap keys on the keyboard, configure macros on the mouse, firewalls and hosts files. Does my browser show image placeholders for still-loading images? Security settings, privacy settings, themes, colours, mouse cursor sizes, the list goes on. Toolbars, a dozen little UI tools, notes and reminders, icons a'plenty, work drive, play drive, system drive, memory limits, processor limits, user permissions.
Your car has another 100 -- radio stations, temperatures, seat positions, steering wheel positions, tire pressures, cargo nets, folding seats, et cetera.
Geez, do you buy photographs that come pre-hung on your walls?
Make a decision on your own for a change.
I've changed my mind. Call me. I'll run through the whole thing with you. You can pay me to configure everything with your usage-scenarios in-mind. I'll happily take your money. And nearly all of it can be done remotely -- I'll need your help for a few boot-time (e.g. BIOS) settings, like boot disks, power management, and power failure recovery settings.
See, I went the other way. I chose Perl over everything else because I want it to work my way, not someone else's way. I code everything from scratch, and avoid any class/module/api for any logic/application/business efforts. But, I've been programming for 30 years now, 20 with perl, and 10 with my own platform built over perl, so I'm not exactly the norm.
You beat me to it, and not by much. You need a goal.
Essentially, you really can't pick a language without a goal. Most languages are designed to make certain goals much easier, by making huge sacrifices elsewhere. If you get caught in one of those sacrifices, you (as a novice) will never learn anything except that programming is stupid.
Regarding your travel inbox, python packes and learning to program aside, you could have achieved a similar result with a non-programming solution of cutting-n-pasting huge amounts of e-mail text, and searching with simple regular expressions. Less of a tool, more of a technique, but if your mind goes that way, there's virtually nothing that can go wrong with a technique. Of course, you wouldn't have learned any programming at all, so if that was your goal, it wouldn't have worked.
You have seen this before. If you speak (and read) english. My numerals were not numbers, they were spoken words. In the english language, an apostrophe stands for unspoken words.
One million, three-hundred thousand, fifteen dollars, is written as $1'300'015 because the first apostrophe stands for the word "million" and the second stands for the word "thousand".
To be clear, the apostrophe can stand for individual letters (e.g. the "o" that is not in "don't") or even for multiple words, (e.g. "n the" removed from 4 o'clock).
Your comma, as in $1,000 is erroneous within any international forum as it is a decimal indicator in most french-speaking languages -- as in $2,99 for two dollars and ninety-nine cents. Obviously a period is equally erroneous in the reverse scenario. Of course, a space is ambiguous where one number may be seen as a list.
So, as usual, where there is no formally enforced formatting structure (as is the case across international boundaries, such as this one) especially across disciplines (such as this one), and especially wherein the very nature of the discourse varies from moment to moment (again, such as this one), written language must always serve its most essential role -- to document the spoken word: speech.
When spoken, such as these conversations would be if they were done in-person, "$1'000.00" would be spoken aloud as "one thousand dollars and zero cents". As such, the apostrophe is required, in order to replace the spoken word "thousand".
If, on the other hand, you were to speak "one three zeroes dollars", then you might transcribe that as "$1,000". Perhaps "$1.000" would be transcribed as "one point zeros". I'm not really sure.
So, in short, you absolutely have seen the apostrophe used before, and I am using it in precisely that manner, and for that very same purpose.
Also, in short, as a discussion forum, we utilize the written word as a mere transcription of the spoken word, for in the absense of any agreed-upon formal structure, numbers would have no direct meaning (just as numbers alone never do). As such, these transcriptions are merely a substitute for spoken word, and as spoken word, the apostrophe is the only correct punctuation.
Alternatively, of course, one could transcribe "$1'000" as 1 thousand dollars, though that would be as obscene, perhaps as $1 thousand, for obvious reasons.
Interestingly, as is obvious from my initial discourse, my use of numbers was purely conversational, as not a single one related to anything, and hence could have been replaced with any other number of similar magnitude.
I'm also stunned to see recursion in the list, but I can certainly agree that I almost-completely stopped using it about a decade ago.
Now that we're discussing it, I can see why. Adding new functionality or debugging or even tracing recursive code is annoying. Like any really magical regular expression (which often gets executed recursively!) good recursion is tight-code that really blocks out a lot of diagnostics. For example, it's really annoying to dump your structure mid-recursion and understand what's happened and what's still to happen.
It would seem that I replaced most of my recursion with task queues -- which basically just flattens recursion into iteration -- so each subtask can be done incrementally, making tracing and adding subtasks natural efforts.
I'm in the business-application world, business-logic is rarely recursive because human tasks are rarely recursive. I'm sure it's different in a more science-application world.
If you want a bonus of $1'000 from your employer, and your employer pays you $1'000, the first thing that happens is your employer then gets to pay another ~25% of employer taxes on salaries. The second thing that happens is you get to pay another ~40% of income tax.
So, that $1'000 costs your employer $1'250, and you only get to keep $600.
On the other hand, if you employer spends that $1'000 to send you to vegas, your employer gets to write it all off as an expense, so it's tax free to him. You don't pay any tax on it at all. The conference organizers get the $1'000, and they pay the tax on it -- in theory, in practice every conference loses money on paper.
So the real question is this: why do you want tho $1'000 bonus? If you want to brag that you got $1'000, then you want the money. But if you plan to spend that money on something, then you'll always be better off having your employer purchase it for you -- simply so that cash doesn't trade hands, triggering taxes to be incurred.
So let's close the loop here. You want more money so you can afford to take your family on a vacation to las vegas. You find a conference to attend, your employer sends you, pays for the hotel room, and a first-class flight, and the conference ticket. You trade the first-class ticket for four couch tickets, you take your family to the same hotel room, you attend a few hours of a conference, your family vacations for free.
And we can add another few "win"s to the pile. The conference organizers make money, and the sponsors get to advertize to you, las vegas tourism now gets your whole family.
And even the government tax department wins in the end. If you'd received the cash, you'd have saved it, not spent it immediately. Instead, the $1'000 got spent instantly, and increased tourism, and three businesses (countless if you multiply every business in the conference). And your family's on vacation, undoutedly spending money at every turn.
The government wants you to spend your money instantly. That's what runs economies.
So, the next time you sit down to negotiate terms with your employer, do whatever you can to avoid asking for money. Ask for the things that you'll do with that money. For example:
You don't want $500. You want a company-purchased phone, that they'll "own" but never touch, never see, and write-off six-months later as being obsolete.
You don't want $15'000 either. You want a budget to renovate your home office, as a home office, with a nice desk, bookshelves, flooring, paint, artwork. You certainly do work at home some reasonable amount of time, and during emergencies, and when you're on-call.
You don't want $1'500 either. You want your employer to cover your gas/car expenses to commute in to the office.
You don't want $250 either. You want a company-billed meal at the keg when you spend five hours over drinks with your friends (also colleagues).
You pay tax on things that you get to call "yours". But if you don't care about what it's called, and you don't mind using things that are, in every sense of the words, owned by your employer, then you'll get to use a lot more.
Think about it this way -- going to the keg for a great meal, twice a week, with the colleagues that you like, often with families included, sounds like a great life. Add some shop-talk to it, and it becomes a business conference. Include families, and it becomes a longer business conference.
Tell your employer that he can deduct the cost of those keg meals from your salary, and everybody wins -- assuming you enjoy the keg.
To be clear, different cities/provinces/states/countries have different percentages and different rules about what can and cannot be fully written off (my geography only allows 50% of meals, for example). So you get to navigate what is and what is not profitable.
Again, to be crystal clear, the idea here is not to illegally get away with not paying taxes. The idea here is to choose the lifestyle to which fewer taxes
I guess I just don't get it. I have a password. It's a password. Is it somehow difficult to remember my password? So difficult that I need Facebook to store something for me?
Riddle me this: what's wrong with the sticky note on my desk? Or the piece of paper in my drawer? Or the notepad in my safe-deposit box?
Is this for people who have zero experience being responsible for anything? Can't store your own shit, need someone else to store it for you?
Sounds like this is absolutely nothing more than two passwords -- the one that I use every day remains the same, and then there's this alternate, much bigger one, that we'll call a "token" that's stored by facebook. Why can't I write down this very long token, and store it in my basement for ten years?
Why is life so hard for so many people?
This is also a principle thing. Forget privacy and governments and sharing. The best technology for the job of remembering a password isn't yet another provider. This is a backup-password, it's redundant anyway. Write it down, put it into a box, and leave it the hell alone next to your great grandfather's watch and your marriage licence and your incorporation documents and your mortgage agreement, and your insurance policy, and the warranty for your dishwasher and the certificate of authenticity for your bronze anubis statue.
Wanna-be-really-clever? Write it onto a card and stick it behind one of the dozen pictures you have hanging on your walls.
You know, bullshit's good for a lot of things. I couldn't care less about any of this carp, but I despise the containment of the placebo effect.
The placebo effect is real. Every scientist believes it's real. Every scientific experiment is based on ruling out the placebo effect -- often that's the only purpose of the experiment in the first place.
So, for ailments that don't require treatment of the problem (we're not talking about transplant rejection here), like sniffles and minor pain, why not treat the person without treating the human?!
I'm fine with bottling the placebo effect. Here, take these two placebos and call me in the morning. Alternatively, you can train with the monks and learn to ignore the pain.
Can you imagine what would happen if science actually dedicated real experimental research into developing truly effective placebos? How cool would that be?
How big a panel? How big a battery? How many hours of sunshine? How many hours of charging?
You're too imaginative. Imagination will take you on an endless path to failure, far more often than success.
In practical terms, in most of the world, for most of the cars, on most of the trips, it doesn't work.
Sure, in a desert, on a hill, at the equator, for one car, with a week of sunshine and a day of charging. But that's not where we are. On a mountain, at the arctic circle, in the rain, with an hour of sunshine, and an hour of charging, not a chance.
It needs to be worth getting from here to there. I'm telling you that your there, imaginative as it may be, is not worth the expense of the transition.
That a business can use google's services for free, isn't a loop-hole. That's google's business model.
That google offers free hosting for your business's private web-site isn't a loop-hole. Again, that's google's business model.
That google doesn't ID or take down private-yet-infringing content isn't a loop-hole. Again, that's google's business model.
Looks like we've found the loop-hole after-all: google is allowed to provide free hosting of illegal content. I guess that's in-line with most pimps -- pay the girl.
Infrastructure, buliding it, maintaining it, ensuring it. Electricity's great, like most things, once everything before and after it is perfect. It SUCKS until then.
You can't have a transmission cable running along someone's property, without years of legal. You can't have someone maintain that cable without territories and depots and service contracts and safety legislations.
Forget about the existing everything in a city. Start with the 500 miles between cities. There's already a road. That's a given only because without that road, we don't need any fuel to drive it. So we have a road, 500 miles long, between two cities.
A gas station is very easy. It's easy because it's in one place. It gets serviced occasionally (re-filled, let's say weekly). That's it.
A charging station is psychotic. You need to tear apart bridges and sewers and overpasses and crossings and railways to install that cable. You now need 500 miles of LEGISLATION!
Slashdot Mirror
So, aluminum walls, alluminum floors, copper pole in the middle -- I do believe that's actually a battery, using the air as the electrolyte. I think I might be staying out of that room.
Calling someone stupid for being stupid isn't sexist. Not calling her stupid just because she's a woman, that would be sexist.
I don't treat stupid women like princesses. That isn't a requirement. I'm also well-within-reasonable-ethics to treat her like shit because she chose to complain about a scenario in which she chose to remain.
Allow me to sum up:
1. woman goes to work at a new company.
2. woman immediately gets treated like shit by manager.
3. woman complains to HR (I assume appropriately)
4. woman gets treated like shit my HR
5. woman learns that many women are treated like shit by managers and HR at this company
6. woman keeps working at this company for how long?!
A lot of women like to cause trouble, instead of being trouble. Stop complaining to HR. Just walk out the door. Complain to media. Complain to friends. Complain to senators. Complain to police. HR isn't obligated to enforce anything. HR isn't on your side. Police are. If treating women like shit isn't illegal, then you've nothing to complain about. If it is illegal, then you need to complain to those who made the laws. HR doesn't do either. Company policies aren't enforced. Welcome to companies.
Start your own company. Join a company with more than 3% women. If you're treated like shit on the first day, don't be surprised when you're treated like shit a year later.
Honestly, what do you think the odds were that you'd be treated like shit on your first day, and it was a random coincidence?
There are bad people in this world. I'm not one of them. And yet, I have a hard time hiring people -- because they look for big companies.
You're talking to slahdotters here. I've spent 30 years programming. I'm happy to say that male programmers, of almost all ages and demographics, treat women like princesses. And yet, in all of my years, I've encountered very few female programmers in any office, venue, bar, or school.
You're complaining that other places treat you like shit. I don't. Come here. I can't do anything more from afar.
Indirect metrics follow the same cycle for decades. If it isn't the advertiser's actual BOTTOM line -- and it never is -- then the metric is indirect. And indirect metrics simply follow the very basic fad system: if it's common to see big numbers, the new way shows small numbers, and vice versa.
Views - 1 per viewing of an ad
Viewers - 1 per person per ad
Eyeballs - 2 per person per ad
Hits - 1 per object on the page
Pageviews - 1 per page
Impression Time - seconds per page read
Clicks - 1 per click of an ad
Click through rate - clicks per minute, per day, per month, per year, per thousand impressions
Conversions - per interaction
Walk-ins - warm lead
Buyer - actual money, top line
Profitable buyer - actual money, bottom line
The game is always to market your number as smaller, and hence more accurate and more meaningful than others, or to make people prefer your numbers because they are proportionately higher than other metrics. Big whoop.
My favourite example has got to be the groupon model. We'll bring more paying customers into your business. Good. They'll pay so much less that you'll actually lose money, but you'll have a new customer! Yeah, one who will never pay full price for anything, and will hop around from one loss-leader discount to another. Who makes money off of these customers? Oh yeah, groupon does, and no one else.
Let's do it again.
100 customers spend 100 seconds reading 90% of your article! No they didn't. They scrolled to it, took a phone call for a minute, and left it open. And they didn't understand what they read, so it really doesn't matter. And then, they didn't buy anything. Watch me care.
*sigh*, I didn't punctuate, and you chose to interpret that I made a mistake, instead of interpreting that I didn't.
I've been upset with RAID 5, in particular, for exactly that reason -- it has the ability to notice a single bit-flip, but it specifically does not check. I've even built a working prototype of a RAID 5 implementation that does check on read, notices that the parity is amiss, and screams. I've built another (in software), that chains the parities so it can actually repair a single bit-flip 80% of the time.
When I typed "RAID." I was continuing my complaint that even in electronic data, no one co-roberates anything -- the thesis statement of my post.
I was ambiguous, you could have decided that I was correct.
So, *sigh* another person who chooses the inference that makes the implication incorrect, instead of the inference that would make the implication correct.
Is anyone surprised that if you store things once, and reference the one place alone, that you get screwed on occasion?
Is the word "co-roberation" new? How about "validation", "authentication", "verification", and, oh, I don't know, "paper-trail"?
It's electronic information, not magic. The benefit of not carving into stone is that you can readily duplicate information into multiple places. Use it.
RAID.
The first movie I ever watched on netflix was Inside Out. At the end, Netflix's first recommendation was that if I liked Inside Out, I should watched Inside Out in french.
Great algorithm there. Oh the complexity. What's next? The spanish version?
Probably the worst suggestion any person could have ever made to anyone outside of a french class.
The algorithm must have been so happy. Think about it. It found a movie, where every word spoken is totally different, but there's a 100% match on the title! Woohoo! A perfect match! What a perfect recommendation!
Years of netflix recommendation engine contests. Well done.
Yeah, I don't think any modern IoT device has any programmer "counting the bytes". I used to count bytes, back when I had 4KB of memory, or 8MB of memory, or 20MB of disk space. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any IoT device with less than a gig of virtual memory. Considering zero or near-zero graphics output, I think you'll be just fine with any language ever inventing.
My vote goes to turing, which I haven't seen in twe decades, but for which I have a school-age nostalgia -- I made a street-fighter-style game for high school, with stick-figure graphics!
Your assumption that I'm in your country is pretty ignorant of you.
So, you live to work. Enjoy your life -- err, enjoy your work. Enjoy your public transit, working on the way in to work, enjoy your tiny apartment in the big city, enjoy your nutrition-poor food that's never seen soil, enjoy your high mortgage, enjoy your small space, enjoy your virtual vacations -- and your psych bill.
Meanwhile, I'll take my suburban huge house, my fun-to-drive car, my pasture-raised cows, my farm-fresh food, my low mortgage, and, oh yeah, my friends.
alternatively: humans only need to communicate at 10 bits, we don't need a trillion bits per second to enjoy life.
But really, isn't the trick to do less, not more? I ain't no worker-bee. I'm jealous of my pet dog sitting on the couch all day while I work at a desk. I want his life -- it's called retirement.
Productivity is the goal of business. Laziness is the goal of life. I've worked hard to be this lazy.
I'm sorry that your screw driver isn't a ratchet, and that your ratchet isn't a hammer.
But have you tried to actually lace up your shoes? They'll work better that way.
Read, learn, and re-configure your browser, your operating system, and your network to actually do whatever it is that you want it to do. Most browsers can easily be configured to limit the number of simultaneous connections. It's a number somewhere -- think registry, about::config, etc. Did you try? No.
You're on something that's both atypical and inferior. So configure it to your preferences.
Also, you could configure your router to limit connection counts. You could configure your browser to access only one domain at a time. You could load your hsts file to block ad servers.
You could choose to block most typical third-party sites when you aren't interested in them -- like blocking facebook would block like buttons everywhere. Unblock it when you want them. Block them when you don't.
You seem to be surprised that the default out-of-the-box isn't for you. Big surprise -- it isn't for anybody. It takes me three days to configure a new machine. There are about ten thousand settings to look configure to my liking. I remap keys on the keyboard, configure macros on the mouse, firewalls and hosts files. Does my browser show image placeholders for still-loading images? Security settings, privacy settings, themes, colours, mouse cursor sizes, the list goes on. Toolbars, a dozen little UI tools, notes and reminders, icons a'plenty, work drive, play drive, system drive, memory limits, processor limits, user permissions.
Your car has another 100 -- radio stations, temperatures, seat positions, steering wheel positions, tire pressures, cargo nets, folding seats, et cetera.
Geez, do you buy photographs that come pre-hung on your walls?
Make a decision on your own for a change.
I've changed my mind. Call me. I'll run through the whole thing with you. You can pay me to configure everything with your usage-scenarios in-mind. I'll happily take your money. And nearly all of it can be done remotely -- I'll need your help for a few boot-time (e.g. BIOS) settings, like boot disks, power management, and power failure recovery settings.
See, I went the other way. I chose Perl over everything else because I want it to work my way, not someone else's way. I code everything from scratch, and avoid any class/module/api for any logic/application/business efforts. But, I've been programming for 30 years now, 20 with perl, and 10 with my own platform built over perl, so I'm not exactly the norm.
You beat me to it, and not by much. You need a goal.
Essentially, you really can't pick a language without a goal. Most languages are designed to make certain goals much easier, by making huge sacrifices elsewhere. If you get caught in one of those sacrifices, you (as a novice) will never learn anything except that programming is stupid.
Regarding your travel inbox, python packes and learning to program aside, you could have achieved a similar result with a non-programming solution of cutting-n-pasting huge amounts of e-mail text, and searching with simple regular expressions. Less of a tool, more of a technique, but if your mind goes that way, there's virtually nothing that can go wrong with a technique. Of course, you wouldn't have learned any programming at all, so if that was your goal, it wouldn't have worked.
Heh, I guess I mean a first-class seat on a commercial flight. Although, there used to be a business-class seat, though I haven't seen one in a while.
Alternatively: if you have to ask, you can't afford it.
You have seen this before. If you speak (and read) english. My numerals were not numbers, they were spoken words. In the english language, an apostrophe stands for unspoken words.
One million, three-hundred thousand, fifteen dollars, is written as $1'300'015 because the first apostrophe stands for the word "million" and the second stands for the word "thousand".
To be clear, the apostrophe can stand for individual letters (e.g. the "o" that is not in "don't") or even for multiple words, (e.g. "n the" removed from 4 o'clock).
Your comma, as in $1,000 is erroneous within any international forum as it is a decimal indicator in most french-speaking languages -- as in $2,99 for two dollars and ninety-nine cents. Obviously a period is equally erroneous in the reverse scenario. Of course, a space is ambiguous where one number may be seen as a list.
So, as usual, where there is no formally enforced formatting structure (as is the case across international boundaries, such as this one) especially across disciplines (such as this one), and especially wherein the very nature of the discourse varies from moment to moment (again, such as this one), written language must always serve its most essential role -- to document the spoken word: speech.
When spoken, such as these conversations would be if they were done in-person, "$1'000.00" would be spoken aloud as "one thousand dollars and zero cents". As such, the apostrophe is required, in order to replace the spoken word "thousand".
If, on the other hand, you were to speak "one three zeroes dollars", then you might transcribe that as "$1,000". Perhaps "$1.000" would be transcribed as "one point zeros". I'm not really sure.
So, in short, you absolutely have seen the apostrophe used before, and I am using it in precisely that manner, and for that very same purpose.
Also, in short, as a discussion forum, we utilize the written word as a mere transcription of the spoken word, for in the absense of any agreed-upon formal structure, numbers would have no direct meaning (just as numbers alone never do). As such, these transcriptions are merely a substitute for spoken word, and as spoken word, the apostrophe is the only correct punctuation.
Alternatively, of course, one could transcribe "$1'000" as 1 thousand dollars, though that would be as obscene, perhaps as $1 thousand, for obvious reasons.
Interestingly, as is obvious from my initial discourse, my use of numbers was purely conversational, as not a single one related to anything, and hence could have been replaced with any other number of similar magnitude.
I'm also stunned to see recursion in the list, but I can certainly agree that I almost-completely stopped using it about a decade ago.
Now that we're discussing it, I can see why. Adding new functionality or debugging or even tracing recursive code is annoying. Like any really magical regular expression (which often gets executed recursively!) good recursion is tight-code that really blocks out a lot of diagnostics. For example, it's really annoying to dump your structure mid-recursion and understand what's happened and what's still to happen.
It would seem that I replaced most of my recursion with task queues -- which basically just flattens recursion into iteration -- so each subtask can be done incrementally, making tracing and adding subtasks natural efforts.
I'm in the business-application world, business-logic is rarely recursive because human tasks are rarely recursive. I'm sure it's different in a more science-application world.
If you want a bonus of $1'000 from your employer, and your employer pays you $1'000, the first thing that happens is your employer then gets to pay another ~25% of employer taxes on salaries. The second thing that happens is you get to pay another ~40% of income tax.
So, that $1'000 costs your employer $1'250, and you only get to keep $600.
On the other hand, if you employer spends that $1'000 to send you to vegas, your employer gets to write it all off as an expense, so it's tax free to him. You don't pay any tax on it at all. The conference organizers get the $1'000, and they pay the tax on it -- in theory, in practice every conference loses money on paper.
So the real question is this: why do you want tho $1'000 bonus? If you want to brag that you got $1'000, then you want the money. But if you plan to spend that money on something, then you'll always be better off having your employer purchase it for you -- simply so that cash doesn't trade hands, triggering taxes to be incurred.
So let's close the loop here. You want more money so you can afford to take your family on a vacation to las vegas. You find a conference to attend, your employer sends you, pays for the hotel room, and a first-class flight, and the conference ticket. You trade the first-class ticket for four couch tickets, you take your family to the same hotel room, you attend a few hours of a conference, your family vacations for free.
And we can add another few "win"s to the pile. The conference organizers make money, and the sponsors get to advertize to you, las vegas tourism now gets your whole family.
And even the government tax department wins in the end. If you'd received the cash, you'd have saved it, not spent it immediately. Instead, the $1'000 got spent instantly, and increased tourism, and three businesses (countless if you multiply every business in the conference). And your family's on vacation, undoutedly spending money at every turn.
The government wants you to spend your money instantly. That's what runs economies.
So, the next time you sit down to negotiate terms with your employer, do whatever you can to avoid asking for money. Ask for the things that you'll do with that money. For example:
You don't want $500. You want a company-purchased phone, that they'll "own" but never touch, never see, and write-off six-months later as being obsolete.
You don't want $15'000 either. You want a budget to renovate your home office, as a home office, with a nice desk, bookshelves, flooring, paint, artwork. You certainly do work at home some reasonable amount of time, and during emergencies, and when you're on-call.
You don't want $1'500 either. You want your employer to cover your gas/car expenses to commute in to the office.
You don't want $250 either. You want a company-billed meal at the keg when you spend five hours over drinks with your friends (also colleagues).
You pay tax on things that you get to call "yours". But if you don't care about what it's called, and you don't mind using things that are, in every sense of the words, owned by your employer, then you'll get to use a lot more.
Think about it this way -- going to the keg for a great meal, twice a week, with the colleagues that you like, often with families included, sounds like a great life. Add some shop-talk to it, and it becomes a business conference. Include families, and it becomes a longer business conference.
Tell your employer that he can deduct the cost of those keg meals from your salary, and everybody wins -- assuming you enjoy the keg.
To be clear, different cities/provinces/states/countries have different percentages and different rules about what can and cannot be fully written off (my geography only allows 50% of meals, for example). So you get to navigate what is and what is not profitable.
Again, to be crystal clear, the idea here is not to illegally get away with not paying taxes. The idea here is to choose the lifestyle to which fewer taxes
I guess I just don't get it. I have a password. It's a password. Is it somehow difficult to remember my password? So difficult that I need Facebook to store something for me?
Riddle me this: what's wrong with the sticky note on my desk? Or the piece of paper in my drawer? Or the notepad in my safe-deposit box?
Is this for people who have zero experience being responsible for anything? Can't store your own shit, need someone else to store it for you?
Sounds like this is absolutely nothing more than two passwords -- the one that I use every day remains the same, and then there's this alternate, much bigger one, that we'll call a "token" that's stored by facebook. Why can't I write down this very long token, and store it in my basement for ten years?
Why is life so hard for so many people?
This is also a principle thing. Forget privacy and governments and sharing. The best technology for the job of remembering a password isn't yet another provider. This is a backup-password, it's redundant anyway. Write it down, put it into a box, and leave it the hell alone next to your great grandfather's watch and your marriage licence and your incorporation documents and your mortgage agreement, and your insurance policy, and the warranty for your dishwasher and the certificate of authenticity for your bronze anubis statue.
Wanna-be-really-clever? Write it onto a card and stick it behind one of the dozen pictures you have hanging on your walls.
You know, bullshit's good for a lot of things. I couldn't care less about any of this carp, but I despise the containment of the placebo effect.
The placebo effect is real. Every scientist believes it's real. Every scientific experiment is based on ruling out the placebo effect -- often that's the only purpose of the experiment in the first place.
So, for ailments that don't require treatment of the problem (we're not talking about transplant rejection here), like sniffles and minor pain, why not treat the person without treating the human?!
I'm fine with bottling the placebo effect. Here, take these two placebos and call me in the morning. Alternatively, you can train with the monks and learn to ignore the pain.
Can you imagine what would happen if science actually dedicated real experimental research into developing truly effective placebos? How cool would that be?
How big a panel? How big a battery? How many hours of sunshine? How many hours of charging?
You're too imaginative. Imagination will take you on an endless path to failure, far more often than success.
In practical terms, in most of the world, for most of the cars, on most of the trips, it doesn't work.
Sure, in a desert, on a hill, at the equator, for one car, with a week of sunshine and a day of charging. But that's not where we are. On a mountain, at the arctic circle, in the rain, with an hour of sunshine, and an hour of charging, not a chance.
It needs to be worth getting from here to there. I'm telling you that your there, imaginative as it may be, is not worth the expense of the transition.
That a business can use google's services for free, isn't a loop-hole. That's google's business model.
That google offers free hosting for your business's private web-site isn't a loop-hole. Again, that's google's business model.
That google doesn't ID or take down private-yet-infringing content isn't a loop-hole. Again, that's google's business model.
Looks like we've found the loop-hole after-all: google is allowed to provide free hosting of illegal content. I guess that's in-line with most pimps -- pay the girl.
Infrastructure, buliding it, maintaining it, ensuring it. Electricity's great, like most things, once everything before and after it is perfect. It SUCKS until then.
You can't have a transmission cable running along someone's property, without years of legal. You can't have someone maintain that cable without territories and depots and service contracts and safety legislations.
Forget about the existing everything in a city. Start with the 500 miles between cities. There's already a road. That's a given only because without that road, we don't need any fuel to drive it. So we have a road, 500 miles long, between two cities.
A gas station is very easy. It's easy because it's in one place. It gets serviced occasionally (re-filled, let's say weekly). That's it.
A charging station is psychotic. You need to tear apart bridges and sewers and overpasses and crossings and railways to install that cable. You now need 500 miles of LEGISLATION!
You are clearly not someone who understands what it's like to actually own something.
You've listed consumables. Those are a given.
Now rent a car for a year, then lease a car for a year, then own a car. That last car payment, that last house payment. Owning is dreaming.
Didn't say volatile liquid. Said fuel. I'm not a proponent of gasolene as the best possible fuel.