Let's face it, we're dealing with two sticks... and a ball. The only real way I would think it could "revolutionized" is instead of having on a 2d playing field, have it be more 3d oriented inside of a sphere. Again, though... it'll still be 2 sticks and a ball.
You don't need open source software to make a brew. Brewing requires but a few simple things, believe it or not:
Deionized water
Sugar of some kind (Molasses, honey, brown sugar, white sugar, powdered sugar, etc)
Yeast (for higher concentrations, use champagne yeast, for lower concentrations, any old yeast will do)
Flavoring (hops, fruit rinds, fruit pulp, spices, herbs, etc)
Sterilized fermentation containers
But more importantly, one doesn't really need a reason to drink.
I didn't say that flashlights are a proper replacement for sunlight. I merely stated that flashlights will placate those who have an irrational fear of the dark. May the bloodthirsty shadows consume you, vile heathen.
Is that the powers that be are still scared of the dark. Seriously though, we live in a time where we have electricity and light bulbs. If you're that uncomfortable with "losing daylight", grab a goddamn flashlight. It isn't fucking sorcery.
I wouldn't work for him either. Hell, if a manager isn't willing to give the development team a clear picture of everything that is needed, then they don't need to be a manager in the first place. Instead, they should be sending faxes and remedial officework. Unfortunately, in any industry, people tend to rise to level of their own incompetence.
"Focusing on style before functionality detracts the overall effectiveness of a program." "Let's just say, I would never hire you. Functionality should be completely mapped out before you even sit down to code."
So you're saying that you wouldn't hire me based on the "counterargument" that functionality should indeed come first, which is what I said to begin with. Reasoning like that only comes from someone who happens to be a complete retard. You speak briefly of management and years of experience, yet fail to even begin your post in a cohesive, non-contradictory manner. That alone invalidates whatever point(s) you're trying to make. As such, I would either find a different company to work for, or I would go about finding a way to replace you before your apparent incompetence ruins the actual development process.
My point is, functionality comes first. If the code doesn't work, you can go ahead and comment/document it all you want, but that's not going to magically make it functional. Feel free to prove me wrong in that, but I doubt I'll be hearing from you again.
Don't get pissed with me because you don't completely understand code that someone else writes. Like I said, for me, functionality comes first, and documentation comes second. And yes, I have worked in a team environment. My biggest pet peeve is inefficient code. Really, it's not that difficult of a concept to understand.
I couldn't care less about the "style" of coding (aka comments), as long as it works. More importantly, that the code is efficient as possible. Focusing on style before functionality detracts the overall effectiveness of a program, imho.
The only way to teach your students is by subjecting them to routine beatings and starvation. Any uranium-harvesting overlord knows this fundamental principle of teaching.
Sounds like they got a letter in the mail. In all seriousness, there are literally hundreds of torrent sites on the internet, with many of them being outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. I don't see what the fuss is about, honestly.
Fanboys argue amongst each other about which browser is the best. This quickly snowballs into a heated debate about which OS is more secure, and which browser is most secure on what operating system. In the end, after the thread is left in a smoldering heap of baseless accusations, groundless conjecture and a little bit of superstition, we all end up looking like basement dwellers to the casual observer.
If you must know, my browser is made from alien technology and does some of them there fancy things.
Well, excuse me for hitting the "end" button when I loaded the page. In the meantime, why don't you read something relevant to the laws of the universe AND the discussion instead of arguing with fallacy and half-baked theoretical conjecture. Incidentally, physical concepts are ENTIRELY mathematical, in case you haven't been paying attention in class.
If the object itself is three dimensional, it's a physical impossibility for the structure to also be two dimensional. A two dimensional structure has NO THICKNESS WHATSOEVER. What you're describing is the mollecular bond of the crystalline structure running along the same plane. That's not a two dimensional object, there, buddy, that's a FLAT SURFACE. Big difference. Am I going senila or are the basic laws that govern our universe really that difficult to grasp? Fuck, if this is our future...
It isn't two dimensional. Period. In fact, anything with mass in the universe (and I'm willing to bet money on it) is three dimensional. The only exception to this are the members of Westboro Baptist Church, but that kinda goes without saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's face it, we're dealing with two sticks... and a ball. The only real way I would think it could "revolutionized" is instead of having on a 2d playing field, have it be more 3d oriented inside of a sphere. Again, though... it'll still be 2 sticks and a ball.
The manned moon has its sights on landing in Russia by 2030.
If it comes with dinner and a complimentary full body cavity search.
This isn't the middle ages.
I wonder if they'll teach him to shake?
You don't need open source software to make a brew. Brewing requires but a few simple things, believe it or not:
Deionized water
Sugar of some kind (Molasses, honey, brown sugar, white sugar, powdered sugar, etc)
Yeast (for higher concentrations, use champagne yeast, for lower concentrations, any old yeast will do)
Flavoring (hops, fruit rinds, fruit pulp, spices, herbs, etc)
Sterilized fermentation containers
But more importantly, one doesn't really need a reason to drink.
That's the point.
I didn't say that flashlights are a proper replacement for sunlight. I merely stated that flashlights will placate those who have an irrational fear of the dark. May the bloodthirsty shadows consume you, vile heathen.
Is that the powers that be are still scared of the dark. Seriously though, we live in a time where we have electricity and light bulbs. If you're that uncomfortable with "losing daylight", grab a goddamn flashlight. It isn't fucking sorcery.
But has anyone else noticed the /src folder is empty?
Is that you'll have to buy another elite pc after the chip expires.
I wouldn't work for him either. Hell, if a manager isn't willing to give the development team a clear picture of everything that is needed, then they don't need to be a manager in the first place. Instead, they should be sending faxes and remedial officework. Unfortunately, in any industry, people tend to rise to level of their own incompetence.
That's quite the lovely shade of bitch you're wearing today. Did you get your degree at Assmad University?
"Focusing on style before functionality detracts the overall effectiveness of a program."
"Let's just say, I would never hire you. Functionality should be completely mapped out before you even sit down to code."
So you're saying that you wouldn't hire me based on the "counterargument" that functionality should indeed come first, which is what I said to begin with. Reasoning like that only comes from someone who happens to be a complete retard. You speak briefly of management and years of experience, yet fail to even begin your post in a cohesive, non-contradictory manner. That alone invalidates whatever point(s) you're trying to make. As such, I would either find a different company to work for, or I would go about finding a way to replace you before your apparent incompetence ruins the actual development process.
My point is, functionality comes first. If the code doesn't work, you can go ahead and comment/document it all you want, but that's not going to magically make it functional. Feel free to prove me wrong in that, but I doubt I'll be hearing from you again.
Don't get pissed with me because you don't completely understand code that someone else writes. Like I said, for me, functionality comes first, and documentation comes second. And yes, I have worked in a team environment. My biggest pet peeve is inefficient code. Really, it's not that difficult of a concept to understand.
I couldn't care less about the "style" of coding (aka comments), as long as it works. More importantly, that the code is efficient as possible. Focusing on style before functionality detracts the overall effectiveness of a program, imho.
The only way to teach your students is by subjecting them to routine beatings and starvation. Any uranium-harvesting overlord knows this fundamental principle of teaching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV1zul2aCM8
Obviously, they've bitten off a little more than they can chew with their threat to drop GoDaddy.
Pfffffft. You silly scientists... it's lasers all the way down!
But if the consoles were wholly upgradable, wouldn't you just be buying another PC anyways?
Sounds like they got a letter in the mail. In all seriousness, there are literally hundreds of torrent sites on the internet, with many of them being outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. I don't see what the fuss is about, honestly.
Fanboys argue amongst each other about which browser is the best. This quickly snowballs into a heated debate about which OS is more secure, and which browser is most secure on what operating system. In the end, after the thread is left in a smoldering heap of baseless accusations, groundless conjecture and a little bit of superstition, we all end up looking like basement dwellers to the casual observer.
If you must know, my browser is made from alien technology and does some of them there fancy things.
Well, excuse me for hitting the "end" button when I loaded the page. In the meantime, why don't you read something relevant to the laws of the universe AND the discussion instead of arguing with fallacy and half-baked theoretical conjecture. Incidentally, physical concepts are ENTIRELY mathematical, in case you haven't been paying attention in class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension#In_physics
Enjoy.
If the object itself is three dimensional, it's a physical impossibility for the structure to also be two dimensional. A two dimensional structure has NO THICKNESS WHATSOEVER. What you're describing is the mollecular bond of the crystalline structure running along the same plane. That's not a two dimensional object, there, buddy, that's a FLAT SURFACE. Big difference. Am I going senila or are the basic laws that govern our universe really that difficult to grasp? Fuck, if this is our future...
It isn't two dimensional. Period. In fact, anything with mass in the universe (and I'm willing to bet money on it) is three dimensional. The only exception to this are the members of Westboro Baptist Church, but that kinda goes without saying.