Both sides need to chill out. We all live in the same society, we have to put up with one another.
Well phrased.:) If the world were a completely logical place, we'd be following your words already. *sigh* oh well... best I can do is my part in working towards a more tolerant world.
No, but since you pestered me, I actually looked it up. It's in Romans 14:
1 As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions.
2 One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables.
3 Let not him who eats despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains pass judgment on him who eats; for God has welcomed him.
4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind.
As with everything in the Bible, there's a meaning deeper than just the words on the page saying not to be mad at another man because he eats more than vegetables only.
The story here is that there are people who are strong of faith, and don't need silly rules to keep their faith. Other people need these "silly" rules to keep them on the straight and narrow, and so neither should feel contempt for the other, as every man is different, and God knows this.
Good point. Take the message Jesus gave to his Apostles... if any house should refuse you, leave and shake the dust from your feet.
If you're upset with the way the movie industry is handling things then leave it. Don't even support them in the slightest. Take off, never look back, and let them know why you're never coming back.
Of course, even the people who have these strong fundamentalist ideologies have this feeling that they're naturally "entitled" to motion picture entertainment, and it's the responsibility of the movie industry to contort to their desires, and their morals.
The guy gets about 8 responses to his sig everytime he posts something.
He'd honestly have to be a total idiot to not realize what's wrong with his sig now... yet it remains the way it was when I first commented on it a few weeks ago.
I can only imagine that he gets a rise or something out of people yelling at him that his sig is wrong... of course from the stuff he posts, I get the indication that he doesn't give a crap what reality is, as he's going to hold his own beliefs against all contrary evidence.
Re:There are many Christians like us.
on
The ESRB Gets An 'F'
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Another good response is usually, "Hey dude, God saved my sorry ass... now what did you do that's so bad that God can't forgive you for it?"
Living a lifestyle where people know that you're a Christian but that God saves even the most imperfect is sometimes the strongest witness you can give anyone.
I once had a girl tell me, "You're Christian? But you cuss!" I'm just like, "Uh... yeah... what about being a Christian says that I'm perfect... my religious beliefs in fact tell me I'm not."
The point is that is shouldn't be a criminal offense punishable by fines and jail time, when it's not for a movie theater.
These people try and drive the point of "interactivity" with the violence to be the reason that justifies why violent video games are so much more worse than violent movies that it deserves to be a criminal offense.
Should these companies be carding? Yeah, they should. But they shouldn't be held at knife point to do it.
You know... there's a part of the bible that speaks about eating non-kosher food. Because, remember, for a long time Christians had to be Jews first.
Then they started picking up Gentiles, and even Jewish Christians started picking up eating non-kosher foods.
I believe the essense of it says that you may feel that it's fine for you to eat non-kosher foods, but when you're in the house of a family that has remained kosher that you should follow the kosher rules in order to not tempt them, because they feel that being kosher is important for them.
In short, you may feel that as a Christian you're sick of all this "immorality" running around everywhere, but just think... at one point, for a Christian it was immoral to eat pork. It was immoral to eat dairy with meat. It was immoral for us to do a lot of things that we now do without a second thought as to if it might be Sin or not.
So, just because the morality of your culture is shifting doesn't mean you should be standing steadfast against it trying to hold on to your potentially out-dated moralities. In exchange, I as a Christian will continue to not tempt you by rubbing my "immorality" in your face.
As for non-Christians... guess what? Life sucks, and we can't control them. There's this thing called Temptation, and law-following Jews have managed to avoid eating pork for thousands of years surrounded by the temptation that every other culture on earth has been showing them.
So, wtf is your problem? You're saying that even though Jesus died to forgive yourself from being perfect, you're not capable of controlling yourself as well as a Jew can avoid eating pork? because that's just stupid to be saying, they're not any different than us.
Don't you realize that I would never have been able to develop the programming skills that I have now if I hadn't had access to free, or mostly free compilers at a young age?
FUCK DUDE... if this post is meant in earnest, then you need to just go and shoot yourself before you encourage some lobbying agency to take up your cause and make the world suck.
Penn and Teller in their Bullshit episode on hygiene hysteria, actually looked into this. They found that the butt crack (is there a medical term for this piece of anatomy?) had significantly fewer bacteria than hands.
It is in fact, quite accurate that the hands are more likely to make the genitals dirty rather than vice versa.
I do believe that at one time there was, and in fact would remain to be, rational for this though. In the early days, the chances for the spread of fecal-oral diseases increases dramatically if you do not treat your hands as dirty once you wipe after cleaning yourself after a defecation. In a natural tendancy of humans to bring things that are somewhat related and group them up into a singular logical group (generalization) we came to think of urine the same way we do fecal matter. Despite the situation that they are in fact hygenically different.
It's likely similar to the same reasons why western culture, and indead many developed countries approach the female developed breast. Honestly, there's nothing about these mammory glands that is sexual in nature... just through generalization (women have them, and men don't, and women also have a vagina which men generally like, and men don't) it became associated as a sexual characteristic of women.
Yeah, you make some good points. And the soap is fine to clean off those dangerous germs.
But to place the specific complaint: "they need to wash their hands with soap, because they just urinated!" Is less than rationally based.
Your assertions make much more sense than "OMG, urine is dirty! Wash your hands with soap!"
Because if you start dictating unrational concerns such as that, you quickly end up in the sort of situations like: "That dress shows your ankles, young woman. What are you a slut?" or, "Masterbation will make you go blind," and "Sex in anything but the missionary position is evil, and don't you even dare think about enjoying it!"
If this were to be a internal tool, and not an external tool for market, then the non-localization can be overlooked.
Also, for very simple and limited input/output programs the costs of localization might cause more harm and danger to the code than would simply doing it in English.
All these things need to be weighed individually, and realistic and balanced choices need to be made.
The stuff I pointed out are a matter implicit in the language that it was written, and therefore impact the entire stability of the program, and not just the program from a usability standpoint.
This is even granting time for the customary pro forma soapless hand rinse to acknowledge any possible witnesses to his hygeine who are in the restroom with him and who forced him to flush the urinal in the first place.
Although urine is commonly believed to be 'dirty' this is not actually the case. In cases of kidney or urinary tract infection (UTI) the urine will contain bacteria, but otherwise urine is virtually sterile and nearly odorless when it leaves the body. However, after that, bacteria that contaminate the urine will convert chemicals in the urine into smelling chemicals that are responsible for the distinctive odor of stale urine; in particular, ammonia is produced from urea.
Maybe, they wash their hands without soap, because it's not essentially necessary to wash their hands at all after contact with urine, because at the time it leaves the body, it's essentially sterile, and in fact, urine sanitizes what it gets on.
So, I have a question for you Mr. Pedantic-Hygenist: If one were to piss an anti-bacterial fluid from their body, would you still expect them to wash their hands with soap? Would you expect them to wash their hands at all?
I wash my hands after a piss because it is a distinct habit, and a social expectation of behaviour. I wash my hands after defecating, because it's particularly good hygene.
I laugh at the same people who use paper towels to open the restroom doors. It's like magically once you're out of the restroom, everyone's hands have spontaneously gotten "cleaner". I mean, ok, take two people Mr. A, and Mr. B. Mr. A uses the restroom first, then doesn't wash his hands, then gets a coke from the coke machine. Mr B then uses the bathroom, but since he's hygenically superior, he washes his hands with soap, then uses a paper towel to open the doors so as not to get any of Mr A's nasty germs on his hands... Then he walks over and gets a coke from the same coke machine that Mr A touched 5 seconds after touching the restroom door, but without a paper towel.
It's god damn stupidity... like using paper toilet seat covers, and other crap like that. Fact is that toilet paper, indoor plumbing, and a simple (soapless) hand wash is sufficient for maintaining sufficient (99.999 some percent) hygiene. Everything else is just extra... and in the case of anti-bacterial soaps actually potentially HARMFUL, as it's generally just making Bacteria more resistant.
It was actually one of the 3rd party components that required the GLIBC upgrade and not MySQL.
Why were the SLES admins not allow to say basically that this 3rd party component is sufficiently incapable of working with their systems as is. Then, either go to the company that makes the 3rd party component, or "we'll take our business elsewhere."
Was this something you would have possibly allowed them to do? Because if you were to run into this same sort of problem with Windows, one would have only the choice to upgrade the OS, or pick another product.
Namely, if this same situation were to occur on Windows (they're using say, Windows 2003, and the SP1 comes out, and the 3rd party component won't work unless one has SP1) there would be no choice but to either upgrade to the newer version of Windows, pick another component supplier, or badger the component supplier for a compatible version.
I don't think it fair to say that the Linux people had a hassle because they were able to take the option of getting it working on the older version. If anything this shows a greater flexibility of Linux at the cost of hassle, than Windows. And to force Linux to use this flexibility at the cost of easy of administration could be said to be entirely contrary to the entire purpose of the study.
(Trivia question for C programmers: What's the bug?)
Well, your printf() isn't prototyped, while this is now generally an internalized function, and doesn't normally need prototyping, this is still by strict definitions required.
Next, you don't declare a return type for main(), which should be int, most compilers default to this return type anyways, but really, one should put it there.
Next, you don't explicitly state the arguments that you're accepting into main. While this isn't strictly necessary, it still leads to sloppy code.
Coding Standard violation, generally the beginning { of a function is put on the line following the function, and not on the end of the same line.
Practical English Usage, "Hello, world!" should not have a comma in it.
Last, main() is not returning a value even though its return type is implicitly int as stated above. Many people believe this doesn't cause problems, but in fact, it does, as this can allow for a calling function to receive an invalid value for the return code of main() and have wildly unpredictable results.
In short, your entire problem given relies on undefined behavior, and you deserve a D- for effort... and the fact that on some compilers, it would possibly compile, and do what is expected.
I sometimes use Commonwealth spellings to upset American Spelling Nazis when the spelling isn't something that someone would immediately recognize. "Honour" and "colour" they're likely to spot right away as a Commonwealth spelling, but "spelt" will usually drive them mad.
You know... on MacSlash someone posted a scathing comment in the body complaining about the usage: "Apple are..." instead of "Apple is..."
It turns out that this was an American unintentionally complaining about proper British grammar.
People generally have stopped complaining about grammatical errors in the submitted texts on MacSlash now, because there's a realization that spelling and grammar rules can vary slightly between American English and British/ International/ Commonwealth English.
Seriously, it's not worth harping to the Editors about simple grammatical errors, unless you're certain that it's neither valid American nor Commonwealth usage.
As pointed out by the sibling post. They were 2nd only in the US. I'd not be surprised if there were more specialty (single game) consoles sold in Japan than the X-Box.
They had a really good showing here, and a decent run in Europe, but in Japan... let's say, there was almost no X-Box market at all.
Kind of like the Dreamcast with Japan and the US reversed. Did you really see a big craze around the Dreamcast? Yeah, neither did I in the US, but it was a big hit in Japan, and did fairly well. But a game console cannot live exclusively in one market.
The alarm company business does the same thing. That alarm system in your house costs either $150 (wireless) or $100 (hardwired) dollars total for the basic system. Extra doors, and windows are less than a buck a piece if they're hardwired, and about $10 if they're wireless, that's why they cost $25 extra per point to the person you're installing it for. And as for the cost of installation, that's about $80 for wireless, and $120 for a hardwire system. (This is direct pay to the installer; if you do the math, a guy who can install 3 systems a day doesn't have too bad a job.)
Now, find me an alarm company that isn't willing to give you free alarm equipment as long as you go for a 3 year or so service agreement. (If you did pay for your alarm system, and you don't own the hardware, then I'm sorry for you.) The usual person pays about $150~$200 a month for the service, that means even if the alarm company subsidizes its installing companies for the install, that the alarm company makes back its money almost immediately. Then the rest is residual income.
Now, if you were to go and buy these parts on your own, it would be hard to get the system for anything less than $1,000. And that's something around the price point I think they say that the system is worth. (I wasn't a sales guy, just installed them.) So, basically they come at you saying that they'll install this security system worth $1,000 free for you, all you have to do is sign up for 3 years of service at just $200 a month!
Except, that the cost of the system is negligable, and $200 isn't the lowest price that you can get the system for. They can sell you the service for any price from about $250 max, to I think about $100 minimum. The higher the sale, the better the commission for him. So, don't expect him to just roll over and give you the better price.
All told there's really no reason why you can't get a good deal on your security system, but don't just take what they offer you, because they have a MASSIVE profit margin to work with.
HAH! I never thought about glass like that... I just always figured that it were a reasonably recyclable material like aluminium. They didn't pay for it (I knew deposits weren't actually the same) but it were probably the closest to a break-even recycling that could exist.
But now that you put it in perspective, it is like... wait, wtf?
Growing worldwide demand for wood to be used for fire wood or in construction, paper and furniture - as well as clearing land for commercial and industrial development (including road construction) have combined with growing local populations and their demands for agricultural expansion and wood fuel to endanger ever larger forest areas.
Don't forget, it's not just us saying "Gimme more wood!" but it's also those poor farmers in the tropics who are slash and burning acres and acres in order to cut out enough land that they can grow a living on.
Deforestation is not driven by paper! That pulp that would not be coming from trees for pulp would be the very wood that you're asking people to recycle and reuse.
They couldn't use that wood for lumber, so they gave it to the paper makers so that at least it wouldn't go to waste.
But if the paper companies stopped buying those byproduced, and it became pure waste, it wouldn't mean that the lumber makers would make *less* of it. It's a necessary waste/byproduct. (If the lumber people could avoid the creation of this and actually make lumber out of it, you better believe that they would have... more lumber == more profit!!!)
The substantial amount of wood used for paper is from trees grown for paper, and assuming that they did use waste wood from lumber mills... so what?! this is exactly what you wanted people to do in the first place, reuse stuff! Only in this case, the paper companies WANT that stuff, and likely actually pay for it, meaning that it's worth something.
This is exactly what I was trying to point out in my first post though. People get these crazy notions stuck in their head because it's a meme that's been so pervasively spread, that people will believe it so whole heartedly that they will question and attack anyone who brings any doubt to the table.
The purpose of recycling is not having to rip more material out of the ground in a destructive process just to make another Coke or Pepsi can. We recycle the old cans.
I already said in my post, when companies start paying you for it, that I'll agree with it. THEY ALREADY DO THAT FOR COKE AND PEPSI CANS. What does not make sense, is paper recycling, and plastic recycling.
Paper recycling: We cut down trees planted, and grown specifically for paper. Saying that you're saving trees by using less paper, is like saying you're saving potatoes by eating less french fries.
Plastic recycling: We waste more time and energy making stuff out of recycled plastic, than we do just making new plastic. And we're not running out of landfill space (as you already seem to agree.) So, if it's not doing us any good, because we're wasting energy to reduce our plastic waste, which we don't need to reduce anyways, then what good is it?
Smoking in public is obnoxious.
So is singing happy birthday in restaraunts, so it talking during a movie, so is having one's cell phone ring during a movie. This doesn't mean it should be illegal.
If it is causing any kind of lung damage (not even cancer) in non-smokers, then it should not be allowed in public.
Cancer is the best thing cigarettes having for them for causing disease in non-smokers, and it's a fraud.
Even if I never get cancer from a smoker, I also don't want to be breathing in even a cut down version of the stuff that is rotting their lungs out to clog mine as well.
Look, you are exposed to much more in your life that is dangerous and potentially harmfull. Wait, let me guess, you're one of those hypochondriacs that puts the little toilet tissues on the seat before you sit down, right? And you use anti-bacterial soap on everything. There's such a thing as statistically insignificant risk, and that's what second hand smoke is to you.
You said it before; you think smoking in public is obnoxious. That's fine, you don't have to qualify that and say that it's hurting you, because there has never been a study that has proven any link to second hand smoke and ANY disease.
"Secondhand tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer."
I already told you that the only reasonably valid study out there found no statistically significant risk of cancer from secondhand tobacco smoke. Hell, *WE* contain over 4,000 chemical compounds... so does beef, so does chicken, so do FRUITS AND VEGETABLES.
Sacchrin was shown to cause cancer in lab mice, but yet Sweet-and-Low still sells it in their sweetening packets. But it has never been shown to cause a significant risk of cancer in humans. So, it's not dangerous.
I find it hard to believe you think people should be able to spew that stuff into the air for all to breath...
Yeah, I find it hard to believe that you're not being exposed to worse without tobacco smoke.
I'm not saying smoking is good, or anything like that, but there is no evidence that it does any harm to the people around the smoker.
I thought this was the land of the free, where you need evidence to condemn someone... oh wait, no you just need a flashy media campaign to drive your point. and hey! guess what, all those ex-smokers don't want to see people smoking, because it reminds them of smoking and makes it harder on them (a good reason), and people who have never smoked hate tabacco smoke, so over all, it's really easy to win people over, by just telling them that there are cancerous agents in it, and OOOoooOOO! The boogieman's gonna get you!
How hard is it really to convince people that already don't like something that it's bad for them? You don't even need real evidence, this whole second hand smoke thing PROVES that. Because the only evidence out there is that there is no significant risk from secondhand smoke.
effect: tr.v. effected, effecting, effects 1. To bring into existence. 2. To produce as a result. 3. To bring about. (*See Usage Note at affect*).
Usage Note: Affect and effect have no senses in common. As a verb affect is most commonly used in the sense of "to influence" (how smoking affects health). Effect means "to bring about or execute": layoffs designed to effect savings. Thus the sentence These measures may affect savings could imply that the measures may reduce savings that have already been realized, whereas These measures may effect savings implies that the measures will cause new savings to come about.
Either way, it's wrong to say that "effect" is not a verb... in fact, it is.
This is besides the whole point that the sibling post made, that it's Grammar, not Grammer.
Because as with any company, they want people to just insert a CD and have it just installl; so they go with redistribution.
In a lot of ways, I've found providing source code much easier than providing executables for distribution. If I go for executables, then I have to package it up and get it working for blah blah system.
If I distribute the source code, then I just have to give out the source code, and how I compile it. If it doesn't work on someone else's system, then they can either adjust the source code, or they can just not use it.
Life's a hell of a lot easier when you're not driving by comptetitive ambitions.
Slashdot Mirror
Both sides need to chill out. We all live in the same society, we have to put up with one another.
:) If the world were a completely logical place, we'd be following your words already. *sigh* oh well... best I can do is my part in working towards a more tolerant world.
Well phrased.
As with everything in the Bible, there's a meaning deeper than just the words on the page saying not to be mad at another man because he eats more than vegetables only.
The story here is that there are people who are strong of faith, and don't need silly rules to keep their faith. Other people need these "silly" rules to keep them on the straight and narrow, and so neither should feel contempt for the other, as every man is different, and God knows this.
Good point. Take the message Jesus gave to his Apostles... if any house should refuse you, leave and shake the dust from your feet.
If you're upset with the way the movie industry is handling things then leave it. Don't even support them in the slightest. Take off, never look back, and let them know why you're never coming back.
Of course, even the people who have these strong fundamentalist ideologies have this feeling that they're naturally "entitled" to motion picture entertainment, and it's the responsibility of the movie industry to contort to their desires, and their morals.
The guy gets about 8 responses to his sig everytime he posts something.
He'd honestly have to be a total idiot to not realize what's wrong with his sig now... yet it remains the way it was when I first commented on it a few weeks ago.
I can only imagine that he gets a rise or something out of people yelling at him that his sig is wrong... of course from the stuff he posts, I get the indication that he doesn't give a crap what reality is, as he's going to hold his own beliefs against all contrary evidence.
Another good response is usually, "Hey dude, God saved my sorry ass... now what did you do that's so bad that God can't forgive you for it?"
Living a lifestyle where people know that you're a Christian but that God saves even the most imperfect is sometimes the strongest witness you can give anyone.
I once had a girl tell me, "You're Christian? But you cuss!" I'm just like, "Uh... yeah... what about being a Christian says that I'm perfect... my religious beliefs in fact tell me I'm not."
The point is that is shouldn't be a criminal offense punishable by fines and jail time, when it's not for a movie theater.
These people try and drive the point of "interactivity" with the violence to be the reason that justifies why violent video games are so much more worse than violent movies that it deserves to be a criminal offense.
Should these companies be carding? Yeah, they should. But they shouldn't be held at knife point to do it.
You know... there's a part of the bible that speaks about eating non-kosher food. Because, remember, for a long time Christians had to be Jews first.
Then they started picking up Gentiles, and even Jewish Christians started picking up eating non-kosher foods.
I believe the essense of it says that you may feel that it's fine for you to eat non-kosher foods, but when you're in the house of a family that has remained kosher that you should follow the kosher rules in order to not tempt them, because they feel that being kosher is important for them.
In short, you may feel that as a Christian you're sick of all this "immorality" running around everywhere, but just think... at one point, for a Christian it was immoral to eat pork. It was immoral to eat dairy with meat. It was immoral for us to do a lot of things that we now do without a second thought as to if it might be Sin or not.
So, just because the morality of your culture is shifting doesn't mean you should be standing steadfast against it trying to hold on to your potentially out-dated moralities. In exchange, I as a Christian will continue to not tempt you by rubbing my "immorality" in your face.
As for non-Christians... guess what? Life sucks, and we can't control them. There's this thing called Temptation, and law-following Jews have managed to avoid eating pork for thousands of years surrounded by the temptation that every other culture on earth has been showing them.
So, wtf is your problem? You're saying that even though Jesus died to forgive yourself from being perfect, you're not capable of controlling yourself as well as a Jew can avoid eating pork? because that's just stupid to be saying, they're not any different than us.
Dude, seriously... wtf?
Don't you realize that I would never have been able to develop the programming skills that I have now if I hadn't had access to free, or mostly free compilers at a young age?
FUCK DUDE... if this post is meant in earnest, then you need to just go and shoot yourself before you encourage some lobbying agency to take up your cause and make the world suck.
Penn and Teller in their Bullshit episode on hygiene hysteria, actually looked into this. They found that the butt crack (is there a medical term for this piece of anatomy?) had significantly fewer bacteria than hands.
It is in fact, quite accurate that the hands are more likely to make the genitals dirty rather than vice versa.
I do believe that at one time there was, and in fact would remain to be, rational for this though. In the early days, the chances for the spread of fecal-oral diseases increases dramatically if you do not treat your hands as dirty once you wipe after cleaning yourself after a defecation. In a natural tendancy of humans to bring things that are somewhat related and group them up into a singular logical group (generalization) we came to think of urine the same way we do fecal matter. Despite the situation that they are in fact hygenically different.
It's likely similar to the same reasons why western culture, and indead many developed countries approach the female developed breast. Honestly, there's nothing about these mammory glands that is sexual in nature... just through generalization (women have them, and men don't, and women also have a vagina which men generally like, and men don't) it became associated as a sexual characteristic of women.
Yeah, you make some good points. And the soap is fine to clean off those dangerous germs.
But to place the specific complaint: "they need to wash their hands with soap, because they just urinated!" Is less than rationally based.
Your assertions make much more sense than "OMG, urine is dirty! Wash your hands with soap!"
Because if you start dictating unrational concerns such as that, you quickly end up in the sort of situations like: "That dress shows your ankles, young woman. What are you a slut?" or, "Masterbation will make you go blind," and "Sex in anything but the missionary position is evil, and don't you even dare think about enjoying it!"
Eventually, it all just becomes stupid hysteria.
If this were to be a internal tool, and not an external tool for market, then the non-localization can be overlooked.
Also, for very simple and limited input/output programs the costs of localization might cause more harm and danger to the code than would simply doing it in English.
All these things need to be weighed individually, and realistic and balanced choices need to be made.
The stuff I pointed out are a matter implicit in the language that it was written, and therefore impact the entire stability of the program, and not just the program from a usability standpoint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine
Maybe, they wash their hands without soap, because it's not essentially necessary to wash their hands at all after contact with urine, because at the time it leaves the body, it's essentially sterile, and in fact, urine sanitizes what it gets on.
So, I have a question for you Mr. Pedantic-Hygenist: If one were to piss an anti-bacterial fluid from their body, would you still expect them to wash their hands with soap? Would you expect them to wash their hands at all?
I wash my hands after a piss because it is a distinct habit, and a social expectation of behaviour. I wash my hands after defecating, because it's particularly good hygene.
I laugh at the same people who use paper towels to open the restroom doors. It's like magically once you're out of the restroom, everyone's hands have spontaneously gotten "cleaner". I mean, ok, take two people Mr. A, and Mr. B. Mr. A uses the restroom first, then doesn't wash his hands, then gets a coke from the coke machine. Mr B then uses the bathroom, but since he's hygenically superior, he washes his hands with soap, then uses a paper towel to open the doors so as not to get any of Mr A's nasty germs on his hands... Then he walks over and gets a coke from the same coke machine that Mr A touched 5 seconds after touching the restroom door, but without a paper towel.
It's god damn stupidity... like using paper toilet seat covers, and other crap like that. Fact is that toilet paper, indoor plumbing, and a simple (soapless) hand wash is sufficient for maintaining sufficient (99.999 some percent) hygiene. Everything else is just extra... and in the case of anti-bacterial soaps actually potentially HARMFUL, as it's generally just making Bacteria more resistant.
It was actually one of the 3rd party components that required the GLIBC upgrade and not MySQL.
Why were the SLES admins not allow to say basically that this 3rd party component is sufficiently incapable of working with their systems as is. Then, either go to the company that makes the 3rd party component, or "we'll take our business elsewhere."
Was this something you would have possibly allowed them to do? Because if you were to run into this same sort of problem with Windows, one would have only the choice to upgrade the OS, or pick another product.
Namely, if this same situation were to occur on Windows (they're using say, Windows 2003, and the SP1 comes out, and the 3rd party component won't work unless one has SP1) there would be no choice but to either upgrade to the newer version of Windows, pick another component supplier, or badger the component supplier for a compatible version.
I don't think it fair to say that the Linux people had a hassle because they were able to take the option of getting it working on the older version. If anything this shows a greater flexibility of Linux at the cost of hassle, than Windows. And to force Linux to use this flexibility at the cost of easy of administration could be said to be entirely contrary to the entire purpose of the study.
Well, your printf() isn't prototyped, while this is now generally an internalized function, and doesn't normally need prototyping, this is still by strict definitions required.
Next, you don't declare a return type for main(), which should be int, most compilers default to this return type anyways, but really, one should put it there.
Next, you don't explicitly state the arguments that you're accepting into main. While this isn't strictly necessary, it still leads to sloppy code.
Coding Standard violation, generally the beginning { of a function is put on the line following the function, and not on the end of the same line.
Practical English Usage, "Hello, world!" should not have a comma in it.
Last, main() is not returning a value even though its return type is implicitly int as stated above. Many people believe this doesn't cause problems, but in fact, it does, as this can allow for a calling function to receive an invalid value for the return code of main() and have wildly unpredictable results.
In short, your entire problem given relies on undefined behavior, and you deserve a D- for effort... and the fact that on some compilers, it would possibly compile, and do what is expected.
Yeah, I hear how that goes.
I sometimes use Commonwealth spellings to upset American Spelling Nazis when the spelling isn't something that someone would immediately recognize. "Honour" and "colour" they're likely to spot right away as a Commonwealth spelling, but "spelt" will usually drive them mad.
You know... on MacSlash someone posted a scathing comment in the body complaining about the usage: "Apple are..." instead of "Apple is..."
It turns out that this was an American unintentionally complaining about proper British grammar.
People generally have stopped complaining about grammatical errors in the submitted texts on MacSlash now, because there's a realization that spelling and grammar rules can vary slightly between American English and British/ International/ Commonwealth English.
Seriously, it's not worth harping to the Editors about simple grammatical errors, unless you're certain that it's neither valid American nor Commonwealth usage.
As pointed out by the sibling post. They were 2nd only in the US. I'd not be surprised if there were more specialty (single game) consoles sold in Japan than the X-Box.
They had a really good showing here, and a decent run in Europe, but in Japan... let's say, there was almost no X-Box market at all.
Kind of like the Dreamcast with Japan and the US reversed. Did you really see a big craze around the Dreamcast? Yeah, neither did I in the US, but it was a big hit in Japan, and did fairly well. But a game console cannot live exclusively in one market.
The alarm company business does the same thing. That alarm system in your house costs either $150 (wireless) or $100 (hardwired) dollars total for the basic system. Extra doors, and windows are less than a buck a piece if they're hardwired, and about $10 if they're wireless, that's why they cost $25 extra per point to the person you're installing it for. And as for the cost of installation, that's about $80 for wireless, and $120 for a hardwire system. (This is direct pay to the installer; if you do the math, a guy who can install 3 systems a day doesn't have too bad a job.)
Now, find me an alarm company that isn't willing to give you free alarm equipment as long as you go for a 3 year or so service agreement. (If you did pay for your alarm system, and you don't own the hardware, then I'm sorry for you.) The usual person pays about $150~$200 a month for the service, that means even if the alarm company subsidizes its installing companies for the install, that the alarm company makes back its money almost immediately. Then the rest is residual income.
Now, if you were to go and buy these parts on your own, it would be hard to get the system for anything less than $1,000. And that's something around the price point I think they say that the system is worth. (I wasn't a sales guy, just installed them.) So, basically they come at you saying that they'll install this security system worth $1,000 free for you, all you have to do is sign up for 3 years of service at just $200 a month!
Except, that the cost of the system is negligable, and $200 isn't the lowest price that you can get the system for. They can sell you the service for any price from about $250 max, to I think about $100 minimum. The higher the sale, the better the commission for him. So, don't expect him to just roll over and give you the better price.
All told there's really no reason why you can't get a good deal on your security system, but don't just take what they offer you, because they have a MASSIVE profit margin to work with.
If you don't have a desk to put it on, put a hard-back book between it and the floor.
I actually have a spare hardback book that I keep around mostly just for this purpose.
Why don't you people just try explaining the problems to your wife and get over it?
HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!! funniest thing I've read all day... explain it to the wife...
*sigh* damn, that's why I'm still single.
HAH! I never thought about glass like that... I just always figured that it were a reasonably recyclable material like aluminium. They didn't pay for it (I knew deposits weren't actually the same) but it were probably the closest to a break-even recycling that could exist.
But now that you put it in perspective, it is like... wait, wtf?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
Growing worldwide demand for wood to be used for fire wood or in construction, paper and furniture - as well as clearing land for commercial and industrial development (including road construction) have combined with growing local populations and their demands for agricultural expansion and wood fuel to endanger ever larger forest areas.
Don't forget, it's not just us saying "Gimme more wood!" but it's also those poor farmers in the tropics who are slash and burning acres and acres in order to cut out enough land that they can grow a living on.
Deforestation is not driven by paper! That pulp that would not be coming from trees for pulp would be the very wood that you're asking people to recycle and reuse.
They couldn't use that wood for lumber, so they gave it to the paper makers so that at least it wouldn't go to waste.
But if the paper companies stopped buying those byproduced, and it became pure waste, it wouldn't mean that the lumber makers would make *less* of it. It's a necessary waste/byproduct. (If the lumber people could avoid the creation of this and actually make lumber out of it, you better believe that they would have... more lumber == more profit!!!)
The substantial amount of wood used for paper is from trees grown for paper, and assuming that they did use waste wood from lumber mills... so what?! this is exactly what you wanted people to do in the first place, reuse stuff! Only in this case, the paper companies WANT that stuff, and likely actually pay for it, meaning that it's worth something.
This is exactly what I was trying to point out in my first post though. People get these crazy notions stuck in their head because it's a meme that's been so pervasively spread, that people will believe it so whole heartedly that they will question and attack anyone who brings any doubt to the table.
The purpose of recycling is not having to rip more material out of the ground in a destructive process just to make another Coke or Pepsi can. We recycle the old cans.
I already said in my post, when companies start paying you for it, that I'll agree with it. THEY ALREADY DO THAT FOR COKE AND PEPSI CANS. What does not make sense, is paper recycling, and plastic recycling.
Paper recycling: We cut down trees planted, and grown specifically for paper. Saying that you're saving trees by using less paper, is like saying you're saving potatoes by eating less french fries.
Plastic recycling: We waste more time and energy making stuff out of recycled plastic, than we do just making new plastic. And we're not running out of landfill space (as you already seem to agree.) So, if it's not doing us any good, because we're wasting energy to reduce our plastic waste, which we don't need to reduce anyways, then what good is it?
Smoking in public is obnoxious.
So is singing happy birthday in restaraunts, so it talking during a movie, so is having one's cell phone ring during a movie. This doesn't mean it should be illegal.
If it is causing any kind of lung damage (not even cancer) in non-smokers, then it should not be allowed in public.
Cancer is the best thing cigarettes having for them for causing disease in non-smokers, and it's a fraud.
Even if I never get cancer from a smoker, I also don't want to be breathing in even a cut down version of the stuff that is rotting their lungs out to clog mine as well.
Look, you are exposed to much more in your life that is dangerous and potentially harmfull. Wait, let me guess, you're one of those hypochondriacs that puts the little toilet tissues on the seat before you sit down, right? And you use anti-bacterial soap on everything. There's such a thing as statistically insignificant risk, and that's what second hand smoke is to you.
You said it before; you think smoking in public is obnoxious. That's fine, you don't have to qualify that and say that it's hurting you, because there has never been a study that has proven any link to second hand smoke and ANY disease.
"Secondhand tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer."
I already told you that the only reasonably valid study out there found no statistically significant risk of cancer from secondhand tobacco smoke. Hell, *WE* contain over 4,000 chemical compounds... so does beef, so does chicken, so do FRUITS AND VEGETABLES.
Sacchrin was shown to cause cancer in lab mice, but yet Sweet-and-Low still sells it in their sweetening packets. But it has never been shown to cause a significant risk of cancer in humans. So, it's not dangerous.
I find it hard to believe you think people should be able to spew that stuff into the air for all to breath...
Yeah, I find it hard to believe that you're not being exposed to worse without tobacco smoke.
I'm not saying smoking is good, or anything like that, but there is no evidence that it does any harm to the people around the smoker.
I thought this was the land of the free, where you need evidence to condemn someone... oh wait, no you just need a flashy media campaign to drive your point. and hey! guess what, all those ex-smokers don't want to see people smoking, because it reminds them of smoking and makes it harder on them (a good reason), and people who have never smoked hate tabacco smoke, so over all, it's really easy to win people over, by just telling them that there are cancerous agents in it, and OOOoooOOO! The boogieman's gonna get you!
How hard is it really to convince people that already don't like something that it's bad for them? You don't even need real evidence, this whole second hand smoke thing PROVES that. Because the only evidence out there is that there is no significant risk from secondhand smoke.
Do I want smokers all around me? N
tr.v. effected, effecting, effects
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about. (*See Usage Note at affect*).
Either way, it's wrong to say that "effect" is not a verb... in fact, it is.
This is besides the whole point that the sibling post made, that it's Grammar, not Grammer.
Because as with any company, they want people to just insert a CD and have it just installl; so they go with redistribution.
In a lot of ways, I've found providing source code much easier than providing executables for distribution. If I go for executables, then I have to package it up and get it working for blah blah system.
If I distribute the source code, then I just have to give out the source code, and how I compile it. If it doesn't work on someone else's system, then they can either adjust the source code, or they can just not use it.
Life's a hell of a lot easier when you're not driving by comptetitive ambitions.