Is anyone else skeptical that the rise seems localized to the stretch between DC and Boston, a stretch that just happens to be a major hub of population, wealth, and policy in the US? Not that I'm a Denier or anything, but sometimes I look at charts like this and have to wonder about the data...
It's like a news story about the cool kid ratting out someone for smoking behind the gym at lunch. It's playing on the supposition that Google is somehow a benevolent lover of all that is free, rather than a business being run by people trying to make a profit in all ways that are not deemed "evil" by the powers that be.
I guess I just disagree with that philosophy. I think that while it might not be critical to understand how a planetary gear system works to drive a car, I think it is not useless to understand the basic concepts that make a car work. I have certain gear ratios in my transmission, my brakes have pads pushing on a surface to slow the wheel down, my engine takes gas in, detonates it, pushing the piston down, turning a shaft that is hooked into the transmission, etc. Having a basic understanding of the concepts that let your car drive, allows you to be a more effective driver, to diagnose trouble by gathering visual and auditory input, and to better maintain your vehicle so your investment lasts longer. Far from having "absolutely no point" IMO.
If you are using a well made tool (class), then you do not need to understand how it converts your input into an output.
To make a class that is "well made" (efficient with practically no bugs) you absolutely must have in-depth understanding of ALL of the related concepts
Sooo....we're in agreement? If you're using a tool, you don't need to know how the tool works, but you do need to know what it's doing at a conceptual level. In OOP, this actually a core philosophy: you, in fact, shouldn't know the implementation details of a class, you should use it only for the behavior. But you should be well acquainted with the behavior before you use it. When you use a tool, you should understand the fundamental behaviors that tool provides and the concepts driving those behaviors. If I'm using a hammer, it doesn't matter what alloy was used for the head, but I better know that it's purpose is to apply focused, orthogonal force to a surface.
I was actually commenting on the specific sentiment expressed which is different from your analogy. Blockly abstracts away the intricacies of individual languages and leaves a person with logical tasks to be "assembled" into a working application. I don't think that's a bad thing at all. What I think is a bad thing is the idea that one need not understand a concept before applying it to solve problems. That is what I take issue with and it seems an all too common sentiment.
well...late 80's...so 20-25 years ago? That's "not that long ago" in my book. Anyway, I never meant to imply that these things (careers, books, courses) weren't done before 2010, simply that they weren't ubiquitous as they are now in say the early 90's (was actually the time frame I was thinking).
WARNING - Anecdotal, personal experience follows! Not to be taken as scientific fact! - WARNING
Maybe I simply wasn't as aware of it as I am now, but I don't remember seeing many job postings even in the mid-/late-90s for software QA/QC. Not like now where they dominate the employment boards. When I was at Dell (not that long ago), I was vaguely aware of a QC team that our dev group didn't use, my next company didn't have a QC department (though they did have tech writers), and my next two companies were just ramping them up around the early to mid-2000s...so...yeah, I guess my experience is different from yours.
It seemed to me that 20 years ago, having a QC team was done by some of the bigger companies, but now it would be unthinkable to have a software outfit without one.
I don't think he's suggesting testing didn't exist; just that it wasn't so formalized as it is now with QC teams that get hold of software before it leaves, people making their careers in QC, books written and courses given on the subject. Not that long ago, the dev'r was generally wholly responsible for testing the software vs now where the dev'r is expected to test, but the QC is there to really put software through its paces.
You could define your subnets to be 120 bits so you only have to remember the 8 bit number at the end (like now) or you could use the IPv4 in IPv6 notation (x:x:x:x:x:x:d.d.d.d) which is not so different really from using 120 bits as your subnet prefix.
Well, i couldn't very well put the entire Surah up...
I provided a wider context to the parent post. Your TLDR version seems a bit disingenuous though. It's too simplistic for you to really believe that sums up the entire Surah.
Man, abrogation must have been the Word of the Day or something. The Quran only abrogated the previous sacred texts (Bible, Torah, and there's some indication that Abraham had a lost Book), not itself. The fact is that Al Baqarah is generally considered the most all-encompassing. While some muslim scholars do preach this concept, it really doesn't make sense and is only there so they can justify cherry picking to increase their own power. There are those ("scholars") that would even say the hadith, little more than hearsay AFAIC, can supersede the Quran; which is ridiculous from a religious pov. I honestly don't see contradictions in the Quran itself (stop laughing;)) but rather clarifications. You can look at two passages and stop when you find contradiction or you can look into them and link them in a way that is not contradictory and find the synergy (to use corporate speak) between the passages. I choose the latter.
I really wrestled with whether this was worth dignifying with a response, but I guess I just can't keep my fool mouth shut.
First off, Allah is not my imaginary friend. That's Mr. Snookers. Second, obviously, I can't prove that my Sky Fairy (interesting spelling you chose btw) exists any more than you can prove he doesn't. There is simply 0 evidence one way or the other and until we can stick someone in an MRI, kill them for a few minutes or as long as it takes for the brain to settle down, then bring them back and chat with them about what they saw and match that to the hallucinations the brain produces as part of the whole death trauma thing, we won't ever know. Personally, I feel like there is a higher power, clearly you don't agree. And that's fine! It has no more impact on my life than my belief has on yours. And that's all I have to say about that. Oh! And Mr. Snookers says there's no need to be such a douche about it.
I hear this a lot, too. There is a core flaw in this statement which is that there are not "later" passages and nothing in the Quran "outweighs" anything else in the Quran.
The Quran, much like a textbook, user guide, or repair manual, not meant to be read any particular order; though each Surah should be taken as a whole. The Surahs are, in fact, generally ordered from longest (Al Baqarah) to shortest (Al Nas) with the thought that the longer Surahs offer more contextual information and philosophy than the short ones, so they should come first. Truth be known, as humans, most of us start from the back and work up to the longer ones:) The exception to this is Al Fatiha (basically, the Our Father) which is the first in the Quran and is one of the shorter Surahs.
As far as the "lying to unbelievers," that's really a cynical way to look at it. These are some of the passages I've seen sited:
16:106 - Does grant a Muslim the right to deny their faith verbally to avoid torture and what not, so long as they keep the faith in their heart. Islam is strongly based around your intention and what is in your heart more than your specific actions.
3:28 - Basically says, chose a Believer (follower of religion of Abraham) for a friend/partner/ally over a non-believer except where there is no conflict or there is some self-preservation involved.
66:2 - Says you are absolved from an oath if it prevents you from doing good, making peace, or would require evil to fulfill.
TLDR version: it's what's in your heart that matters, and don't get yourself hurt or killed for no reason.
I suspected you might be talking about 9:5 without mentioning 9:3 - 7.
"Let me esplain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up."
9:5 is talking specifically about the Pagans (i.e. people who do not follow the religions of Abraham) who have violated their treaties with you.
9:4 "the treaties are not dissolved with those pagans with whom you have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught nor aided anyone against you, so fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term"
9:6 "If one among the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it him...and them escort him to where he can be secure"
9:7 "How can there be a league before Allah and his Messenger with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them"
So you see, it's about fighting a war with those who betray you. And yeah, use a little shock and awe to use an overused phrase.
There are also explicit commands against poisoning wells, and against killing noncombatants. Women and children are defined in the Koran as noncombatants, and off limits. However, these attacks are aimed directly at female children.
This is an excellent point and I'm very glad you pointed it out! These people are not defending the faith, they're desecrating it. They are violating its tenets in almost every way possible with their actions.
Typically, i wouldn't bother responding to this, but i'm tired of hearing it.
YOU should actually study the Quran, because it actually says exactly the opposite. It demands that you educate yourself (male and female) and demands that no one be forced to convert because that is not a true conversion. There is no more colonialism in Islam than in Christianity, so just stop. You're not helping educate anyone, you're just spreading more misinformation that furthers the divide of understanding between 3 billion people. Stop it.
It's the difference between a constant flow and the natural cycle of high and low flow down the river depending on rain or drought. As I mentioned, there are spill-over mechanisms if the level of the lake behind gets too high. There are also planned, controlled releases for that allow for maintenance like dredging the lake bed and unclogging the "drain," so to speak.
http://www.ussdams.org/howdam.html
and their surfaces are sprayed by ice particles originating from the jets of water ice, water vapor and organic compounds emanating from the south polar area of the moon Enceladus
That just seems wrong for one moon to piss on another just because it's bigger.
Not quite. Dams actually meter the water out at a specific rate, but that rate is typically less than what would flow naturally. Hence, the giant wall of water being held back. When it rains, the level goes up and when it doesn't it (relatively slowly) drains out. If it rains too much, there is a mechanism to release more water in a controlled flow so it doesn't spill over the top. If the Hoover dam wasn't there the Colorado river would be much wider and deeper at that point, flooding a lot of developments that have cropped up since it was put in.
Slashdot Mirror
Is anyone else skeptical that the rise seems localized to the stretch between DC and Boston, a stretch that just happens to be a major hub of population, wealth, and policy in the US? Not that I'm a Denier or anything, but sometimes I look at charts like this and have to wonder about the data...
but... that would have required reading 10 full lines of the article. it must be nice to have all the time in the world!
It's like a news story about the cool kid ratting out someone for smoking behind the gym at lunch. It's playing on the supposition that Google is somehow a benevolent lover of all that is free, rather than a business being run by people trying to make a profit in all ways that are not deemed "evil" by the powers that be.
I guess I just disagree with that philosophy. I think that while it might not be critical to understand how a planetary gear system works to drive a car, I think it is not useless to understand the basic concepts that make a car work. I have certain gear ratios in my transmission, my brakes have pads pushing on a surface to slow the wheel down, my engine takes gas in, detonates it, pushing the piston down, turning a shaft that is hooked into the transmission, etc. Having a basic understanding of the concepts that let your car drive, allows you to be a more effective driver, to diagnose trouble by gathering visual and auditory input, and to better maintain your vehicle so your investment lasts longer. Far from having "absolutely no point" IMO.
I better know that its purpose is to apply
spell checking myself
If you are using a well made tool (class), then you do not need to understand how it converts your input into an output.
To make a class that is "well made" (efficient with practically no bugs) you absolutely must have in-depth understanding of ALL of the related concepts
Sooo....we're in agreement? If you're using a tool, you don't need to know how the tool works, but you do need to know what it's doing at a conceptual level. In OOP, this actually a core philosophy: you, in fact, shouldn't know the implementation details of a class, you should use it only for the behavior. But you should be well acquainted with the behavior before you use it. When you use a tool, you should understand the fundamental behaviors that tool provides and the concepts driving those behaviors. If I'm using a hammer, it doesn't matter what alloy was used for the head, but I better know that it's purpose is to apply focused, orthogonal force to a surface.
I was actually commenting on the specific sentiment expressed which is different from your analogy. Blockly abstracts away the intricacies of individual languages and leaves a person with logical tasks to be "assembled" into a working application. I don't think that's a bad thing at all. What I think is a bad thing is the idea that one need not understand a concept before applying it to solve problems. That is what I take issue with and it seems an all too common sentiment.
If you can accomplish what you need to, there is absolutely no point in having an understanding of the underlying process
*shudders* I hate to actually have to watch as civilization collapses...
oh for mod points :) +1 Insightful/Funny to you, poster!
well...late 80's...so 20-25 years ago? That's "not that long ago" in my book. Anyway, I never meant to imply that these things (careers, books, courses) weren't done before 2010, simply that they weren't ubiquitous as they are now in say the early 90's (was actually the time frame I was thinking).
WARNING - Anecdotal, personal experience follows! Not to be taken as scientific fact! - WARNING
Maybe I simply wasn't as aware of it as I am now, but I don't remember seeing many job postings even in the mid-/late-90s for software QA/QC. Not like now where they dominate the employment boards. When I was at Dell (not that long ago), I was vaguely aware of a QC team that our dev group didn't use, my next company didn't have a QC department (though they did have tech writers), and my next two companies were just ramping them up around the early to mid-2000s...so...yeah, I guess my experience is different from yours.
It seemed to me that 20 years ago, having a QC team was done by some of the bigger companies, but now it would be unthinkable to have a software outfit without one.
I don't think he's suggesting testing didn't exist; just that it wasn't so formalized as it is now with QC teams that get hold of software before it leaves, people making their careers in QC, books written and courses given on the subject. Not that long ago, the dev'r was generally wholly responsible for testing the software vs now where the dev'r is expected to test, but the QC is there to really put software through its paces.
You could define your subnets to be 120 bits so you only have to remember the 8 bit number at the end (like now) or you could use the IPv4 in IPv6 notation (x:x:x:x:x:x:d.d.d.d) which is not so different really from using 120 bits as your subnet prefix.
I think this deserves to be an honorary (Score:6, Funny)
be valuable in determining if the planet Venus is a witch.
FTFY.
I'll bet MBAFK's monitor(s) is (are) still on
that may be, but not many of us have 486s any more ;)
You're quoting bits out of context.
Well, i couldn't very well put the entire Surah up...
I provided a wider context to the parent post. Your TLDR version seems a bit disingenuous though. It's too simplistic for you to really believe that sums up the entire Surah.
Man, abrogation must have been the Word of the Day or something. The Quran only abrogated the previous sacred texts (Bible, Torah, and there's some indication that Abraham had a lost Book), not itself. The fact is that Al Baqarah is generally considered the most all-encompassing. While some muslim scholars do preach this concept, it really doesn't make sense and is only there so they can justify cherry picking to increase their own power. There are those ("scholars") that would even say the hadith, little more than hearsay AFAIC, can supersede the Quran; which is ridiculous from a religious pov. I honestly don't see contradictions in the Quran itself (stop laughing ;)) but rather clarifications. You can look at two passages and stop when you find contradiction or you can look into them and link them in a way that is not contradictory and find the synergy (to use corporate speak) between the passages. I choose the latter.
I really wrestled with whether this was worth dignifying with a response, but I guess I just can't keep my fool mouth shut.
First off, Allah is not my imaginary friend. That's Mr. Snookers. Second, obviously, I can't prove that my Sky Fairy (interesting spelling you chose btw) exists any more than you can prove he doesn't. There is simply 0 evidence one way or the other and until we can stick someone in an MRI, kill them for a few minutes or as long as it takes for the brain to settle down, then bring them back and chat with them about what they saw and match that to the hallucinations the brain produces as part of the whole death trauma thing, we won't ever know. Personally, I feel like there is a higher power, clearly you don't agree. And that's fine! It has no more impact on my life than my belief has on yours. And that's all I have to say about that. Oh! And Mr. Snookers says there's no need to be such a douche about it.
Wow... I even took the time to format it.
I hear this a lot, too. There is a core flaw in this statement which is that there are not "later" passages and nothing in the Quran "outweighs" anything else in the Quran.
The Quran, much like a textbook, user guide, or repair manual, not meant to be read any particular order; though each Surah should be taken as a whole. The Surahs are, in fact, generally ordered from longest (Al Baqarah) to shortest (Al Nas) with the thought that the longer Surahs offer more contextual information and philosophy than the short ones, so they should come first. Truth be known, as humans, most of us start from the back and work up to the longer ones :) The exception to this is Al Fatiha (basically, the Our Father) which is the first in the Quran and is one of the shorter Surahs.
As far as the "lying to unbelievers," that's really a cynical way to look at it. These are some of the passages I've seen sited:
16:106 - Does grant a Muslim the right to deny their faith verbally to avoid torture and what not, so long as they keep the faith in their heart. Islam is strongly based around your intention and what is in your heart more than your specific actions.
3:28 - Basically says, chose a Believer (follower of religion of Abraham) for a friend/partner/ally over a non-believer except where there is no conflict or there is some self-preservation involved.
66:2 - Says you are absolved from an oath if it prevents you from doing good, making peace, or would require evil to fulfill.
TLDR version: it's what's in your heart that matters, and don't get yourself hurt or killed for no reason.
"Let me esplain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up."
9:5 is talking specifically about the Pagans (i.e. people who do not follow the religions of Abraham) who have violated their treaties with you.
9:4 "the treaties are not dissolved with those pagans with whom you have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught nor aided anyone against you, so fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term"
9:6 "If one among the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it him...and them escort him to where he can be secure"
9:7 "How can there be a league before Allah and his Messenger with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them"
So you see, it's about fighting a war with those who betray you. And yeah, use a little shock and awe to use an overused phrase.
There are also explicit commands against poisoning wells, and against killing noncombatants. Women and children are defined in the Koran as noncombatants, and off limits. However, these attacks are aimed directly at female children.
This is an excellent point and I'm very glad you pointed it out! These people are not defending the faith, they're desecrating it. They are violating its tenets in almost every way possible with their actions.
Typically, i wouldn't bother responding to this, but i'm tired of hearing it.
YOU should actually study the Quran, because it actually says exactly the opposite. It demands that you educate yourself (male and female) and demands that no one be forced to convert because that is not a true conversion. There is no more colonialism in Islam than in Christianity, so just stop. You're not helping educate anyone, you're just spreading more misinformation that furthers the divide of understanding between 3 billion people. Stop it.
may never be able to conclusively link their illness to the meltdowns
Ah. I see. By "risk" they mean risk of a lawsuit standing up in court...
It's the difference between a constant flow and the natural cycle of high and low flow down the river depending on rain or drought. As I mentioned, there are spill-over mechanisms if the level of the lake behind gets too high. There are also planned, controlled releases for that allow for maintenance like dredging the lake bed and unclogging the "drain," so to speak. http://www.ussdams.org/howdam.html
and their surfaces are sprayed by ice particles originating from the jets of water ice, water vapor and organic compounds emanating from the south polar area of the moon Enceladus
That just seems wrong for one moon to piss on another just because it's bigger.
Not quite. Dams actually meter the water out at a specific rate, but that rate is typically less than what would flow naturally. Hence, the giant wall of water being held back. When it rains, the level goes up and when it doesn't it (relatively slowly) drains out. If it rains too much, there is a mechanism to release more water in a controlled flow so it doesn't spill over the top. If the Hoover dam wasn't there the Colorado river would be much wider and deeper at that point, flooding a lot of developments that have cropped up since it was put in.