The U.S. has about 5% of the worlds population and is separate by large amounts of water from more than 80% of the global population.
Thus, in the long term, it simply doesn't make any sense that the U.S. would be the world's internet hub, so this isn't really evidence of decay or any other silliness, it is just as easily interpreted as global progress.
There are plenty of anti-spam systems that aggregate 'This is spam' clicks from their users (I'm pretty sure that Google and Yahoo! do, I think there are systems that are more explicit about it).
The only payout is in supposedly lower spam->inbox rates though.
line = re.compile('old').sub('new',line) is equivalent to line=re.sub('old','new',line). (I don't think that the compile is your only gripe, but the second version is quite a bit closer to the perl)
I would argue that the "=~" operator is only briefer than the equivalent python code, it isn't really any clearer (another difference is that the re.sub gives someone who isn't familiar with s/// something to search for; but that isn't something that matters a whole lot, it only happens once that a reader doesn't know s///).
In python, you do have to import a module, but you don't have to compile the regex before you use it.
re.compile('blah').search('t blah t') is equivalent to re.search('blah', 't blah t'). Some small number of recently used patterns are cached by the re module, so compiling only really matters when that number of patterns (I think, around 20) are being used together.
I don't think in a given day that the difference would really add up to all that much time spent or timed saved, in either direction. The python is probably more readable for the uninitiated, but that doesn't matter all that much. I imagine the reason it isn't syntax in Python is that there is a preference for keeping the language smaller when the option presents itself.
where he gets a little crotchety is not going to help him with undecideds. If they missed anything in vetting Palin, he will get nothing out of picking her.
I don't think things are anywhere near settled, too many people are just starting to pay attention (last nights Democratic convention coverage drew huge numbers of viewers...).
One thing that needs to be more widely understood is that while people are cost conscious, they are (especially business people) a great deal more value conscious than they are cost conscious.
Put simply: If no-cost software delivers $1,000 less value than $999 software, many people will opt for the $999 software.
In the U.S., public domain doesn't quite exist for code written by anyone who isn't the Federal government. What people call releasing code under public domain is essentially disclaiming liability and repudiating copyright.
Many of the people who run for office do so to gain a disproportionate level of influence.
If one perceives that the candidates in a given race are both running primarily to gain influence, what is the problem in attempting to gain disproportionate influence over which one is chosen?
I thought it was strangely packaged, but I assumed that the submitter meant that the question of how nerds can supercharge the election this year was not inherently partisan.
For example, one can just as easily ask "What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help the Republicans win in November?" as one can ask the same thing about Democrats.
There is some chance that there would have been a heavier regulatory hand, earlier (but it wouldn't really have changed the bad loan aspect much, as that stemmed from the legislation to increase home ownership that started under Clinton). Jim Cramer leans left a bit (as far as I can tell), but that doesn't really impugn his ranting about the "laissez fair" policies of the current administration; that doesn't mean a Democratic administration would have been substantially different, but it at least seems possible. The credit bubble would probably still have happened (because it was largely a response to the Internet bubble), but the consequences may have been milder, or distributed differently.
(Another aspect that is hard to address is the impact of the Iraq war on the economy -- who knows what Gore would have done, but things would almost certainly would have played out differently (at the very least because Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were not involved)).
Better to also use reputable lawyers and such for escrow -- big media isn't necessarily going to understand what the hell your encrypted document is and so forth.
I am happy with DVD content (no, really, my TV is only 28" and 4:3). I am fine with them charging people more (or, that is, not charging me more) if they want to use a giant pile of bandwidth to watch the shiny.
Of course, now they need to start breaking it out; keeping a line connected has costs regardless of the bandwidth used, so they should be able to provide a second 250 GB of bandwidth for a whole lot less (in areas that aren't congested anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
The U.S. has about 5% of the worlds population and is separate by large amounts of water from more than 80% of the global population.
Thus, in the long term, it simply doesn't make any sense that the U.S. would be the world's internet hub, so this isn't really evidence of decay or any other silliness, it is just as easily interpreted as global progress.
It probably won't qualify as nicely, but I think the best you can do is this:
...
...
# prior to if/else/elif stuff
mo = re.search(r'(%s)\.' % release, str)
if...
elif mo:
one=mo.group(1)
The alternative is to execute the match once to check the condition and then again in the else block to capture the match object:
elif re.search(r'(%s)\.' % release, str):
mo=re.search(r'(%s)\.' % release, str)
one=mo.group(1)
Gold farming is roughly equivalent to producing any sort of shlock media.
Someone is willing to pay for it and pretty much all it takes to produce it is a bit of time.
There are plenty of anti-spam systems that aggregate 'This is spam' clicks from their users (I'm pretty sure that Google and Yahoo! do, I think there are systems that are more explicit about it).
The only payout is in supposedly lower spam->inbox rates though.
There will always be someone at the bottom, but they won't always be willing to work for peanuts.
That there are jobs that are not economic in some areas demonstrates this (because immigration laws limit the labor pool to the local barrel).
In California, it is perfectly legal to marry a dog.
Or so I heard.
line = re.compile('old').sub('new',line) is equivalent to line=re.sub('old','new',line). (I don't think that the compile is your only gripe, but the second version is quite a bit closer to the perl)
I would argue that the "=~" operator is only briefer than the equivalent python code, it isn't really any clearer (another difference is that the re.sub gives someone who isn't familiar with s/// something to search for; but that isn't something that matters a whole lot, it only happens once that a reader doesn't know s///).
In python, you do have to import a module, but you don't have to compile the regex before you use it.
re.compile('blah').search('t blah t') is equivalent to re.search('blah', 't blah t'). Some small number of recently used patterns are cached by the re module, so compiling only really matters when that number of patterns (I think, around 20) are being used together.
I don't think in a given day that the difference would really add up to all that much time spent or timed saved, in either direction. The python is probably more readable for the uninitiated, but that doesn't matter all that much. I imagine the reason it isn't syntax in Python is that there is a preference for keeping the language smaller when the option presents itself.
She's had 5 kids. I wouldn't bet on anything more than 'decent'.
So you are a McCain fan. I'm leaning towards Obama, but I get the sense that I may be generally more moderate than you are.
Anyway, McCain's manufactured vitality is going to be a huge factor. Stuff like this:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1836909,00.html
where he gets a little crotchety is not going to help him with undecideds. If they missed anything in vetting Palin, he will get nothing out of picking her.
I don't think things are anywhere near settled, too many people are just starting to pay attention (last nights Democratic convention coverage drew huge numbers of viewers...).
Good on ya.
The problem is that it is no good sending a disk anywhere if even ~5% of people will copy stuff.
Will Farrell called, he wants you to join his club.
One thing that needs to be more widely understood is that while people are cost conscious, they are (especially business people) a great deal more value conscious than they are cost conscious.
Put simply: If no-cost software delivers $1,000 less value than $999 software, many people will opt for the $999 software.
No it isn't. There are plenty of lawyers with a better public reputation than you or I will ever have.
I guess it is an easy cheap shot, but whatever.
In the U.S., public domain doesn't quite exist for code written by anyone who isn't the Federal government. What people call releasing code under public domain is essentially disclaiming liability and repudiating copyright.
Many of the people who run for office do so to gain a disproportionate level of influence.
If one perceives that the candidates in a given race are both running primarily to gain influence, what is the problem in attempting to gain disproportionate influence over which one is chosen?
This finally and completely explains Ron Paul's resounding failure!
I thought it was strangely packaged, but I assumed that the submitter meant that the question of how nerds can supercharge the election this year was not inherently partisan.
For example, one can just as easily ask "What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help the Republicans win in November?" as one can ask the same thing about Democrats.
There is some chance that there would have been a heavier regulatory hand, earlier (but it wouldn't really have changed the bad loan aspect much, as that stemmed from the legislation to increase home ownership that started under Clinton). Jim Cramer leans left a bit (as far as I can tell), but that doesn't really impugn his ranting about the "laissez fair" policies of the current administration; that doesn't mean a Democratic administration would have been substantially different, but it at least seems possible. The credit bubble would probably still have happened (because it was largely a response to the Internet bubble), but the consequences may have been milder, or distributed differently.
(Another aspect that is hard to address is the impact of the Iraq war on the economy -- who knows what Gore would have done, but things would almost certainly would have played out differently (at the very least because Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were not involved)).
Even the recently moderated platform is out of touch with practical reality.
Plenty of partisan nutjobs cast their votes for reasons less substantial than 'he looks better on TV'.
Better to also use reputable lawyers and such for escrow -- big media isn't necessarily going to understand what the hell your encrypted document is and so forth.
I am happy with DVD content (no, really, my TV is only 28" and 4:3). I am fine with them charging people more (or, that is, not charging me more) if they want to use a giant pile of bandwidth to watch the shiny.
Of course, now they need to start breaking it out; keeping a line connected has costs regardless of the bandwidth used, so they should be able to provide a second 250 GB of bandwidth for a whole lot less (in areas that aren't congested anyway).
My point is that the $130 is almost certainly the maximum for the fixed price, not the minimum.
It isn't even all that likely that they will make a similarly sized offer under an NDA, as that ship has sailed.
If people violate the NDA or regularly turn down the NDA, they will simply stop offering any money under an NDA.
The amount paid without an NDA is almost certain to be smaller.