Sure you did. You deliberately asserted that what you had to say was more accurate than the information presented, and proceeded to do a classic slashdot bashing of the officer that busted the operators of the fishing boat for breaking the law, saying the cop made it up.
A lie is a false statement made with the deliberate intent to deceive. While my statement was factually false, it was made based on an inaccurate reading of the articles in question, and presented in good faith. It would seem that declaring all incorrect statements to be lies is a form of hyperbole to you (in true Slashdot fashion) certainly not to be taken seriously.
Of course you can't be compelled to testify against yourself (Fifth Amendment), therefore anything you say (including your choice of plea) can't be used to lock you up.
That is my point, the constitution is obstructing to justice... there are probably some police officers and prosecutors who lament it for, "letting guilty criminals walk free".
Also, as a friendly reminder, your 5th amendment protections must be specifically invoked, and will in no way protect you from making a confession or otherwise saying something that you should not.
More accurately, here we have a case of a fisherman being accused of keeping undersized fish.
No, that's LESS accurately, because that's not what happened. A crew member testified to the fact that that captain had him chuck the evidence of their illegal fishing. The "outlandish" claim here is yours. Why lie about it? What's your point?
I had not read the other article citing the interrogation of the crew, and subsequent confession. Why lie? I didn't. Consider the day that you might be presumed guilty of something.
here we have a case of a fisherman keeping an undersize fish.
More accurately, here we have a case of a fisherman being accused of keeping undersized fish. The officer who accused him of doing so left the only evidence whatsoever of the crime with the accused. Upon discovering that the evidence indicated no crime had occurred, he made the outlandish claim that the evidence had been tampered with, having no evidence besides his testimony given as support.
Nevermind the consequences if they limit the meaning -- it will be legal to destroy most kinds of evidence in a criminal investigation. It's all A-OK if it didn't contain financial records right? Right?
The argument is whether select sentences from the, "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act", should be allowed to be used to prosecute someone for a crime unrelated in any way to accounting reform, or investor protection.
The federal government, however, argues that the law was clearly written and intended to be a broad anti-obstruction-of-justice law that would fill gaps in the criminal code that had long existed.
A strong argument could be made that not simply confessing, when someone was very obviously guilty, would be obstructing to justice.
The bag on the counter technique provides a time complexity improvement on the scale of O(1)... probably safe to ignore. Forcing people to complete the transactions faster is probably not practical, so the only way to increase throughput is to have more cashier stations.
I am using a brand new Model M to type this message. Unicomp bought the rights and machinery to manufacture many IBM and Lexmark keyboards. You can buy them from the manufacturer here: http://www.pckeyboard.com/ . It is embarrassing that/. would advertise some shill refurb site without mentioning this great resource.
Microsoft Sharepoint first came out in 2001. I think if it ran on NT at the time it could run on an Alpha, but why would any company want to have an run MS Sharepoint on unsupported architecture today? It is not that difficult to transfer the MS Sharepoint infrastructure to current X86 architecture. Of course maintaining a Sharepoint structure or even a Wiki is a totally different thing.
You just quoted 106 characters to accomplish the following simple task:
print "Hello, World\n";
That's 23 characters to accomplish the same task, but the core issue isn't even really the character count alone. It's the verbosity combined with the requirement that an object be explicitly constructed to perform something that is a fundamentally procedural task.
So all of Java is garbage, because it is not enough like a scripting language?
You liking Python better is not a good enough reason for Java to be dismissed as trash, and it hardly justifies claiming it is worse than C++, of all the verbose garbage languages.
They want the job, so in this case sehryan's time is immeasurably more important in the relationship. Perhaps when the economy changes, and there are less applicants than positions, things will need to change.
If you can not put up with a BS online job application from Target, how could you ever possibly work for Target?!? Supposedly the best way to get hired, is to answer all of the questions as if you were Ned Flanders. Hard working and honest, but not too ambitious, compliant.
Submitter should use smaller words. He's trying to swim in the deep end ("whom", "wrought") when he's barely ready for the kiddy pool.
Amazingly, even in light of this new information, nobody cares. Nobody even cares that you are an asshole. Nobody cares. Just, go back to your basement.
No need. I have this newfangled feature called "sources.list."
That file barely tells you where the repositories are. The main question still remains, where did the programs actually come from, who compiled them, and why do you trust any of the parties involved?
I trust the Ubuntu repositories much more than any app store, but the principle is similar... they could conceivably contain malicious code.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure you did. You deliberately asserted that what you had to say was more accurate than the information presented, and proceeded to do a classic slashdot bashing of the officer that busted the operators of the fishing boat for breaking the law, saying the cop made it up.
A lie is a false statement made with the deliberate intent to deceive. While my statement was factually false, it was made based on an inaccurate reading of the articles in question, and presented in good faith. It would seem that declaring all incorrect statements to be lies is a form of hyperbole to you (in true Slashdot fashion) certainly not to be taken seriously.
Of course you can't be compelled to testify against yourself (Fifth Amendment), therefore anything you say (including your choice of plea) can't be used to lock you up.
That is my point, the constitution is obstructing to justice... there are probably some police officers and prosecutors who lament it for, "letting guilty criminals walk free".
Also, as a friendly reminder, your 5th amendment protections must be specifically invoked, and will in no way protect you from making a confession or otherwise saying something that you should not.
More accurately, here we have a case of a fisherman being accused of keeping undersized fish.
No, that's LESS accurately, because that's not what happened. A crew member testified to the fact that that captain had him chuck the evidence of their illegal fishing. The "outlandish" claim here is yours. Why lie about it? What's your point?
I had not read the other article citing the interrogation of the crew, and subsequent confession. Why lie? I didn't. Consider the day that you might be presumed guilty of something.
While fishing law does not, Sarbanes–Oxley frequently affects nerds at their places of employment.
here we have a case of a fisherman keeping an undersize fish.
More accurately, here we have a case of a fisherman being accused of keeping undersized fish. The officer who accused him of doing so left the only evidence whatsoever of the crime with the accused. Upon discovering that the evidence indicated no crime had occurred, he made the outlandish claim that the evidence had been tampered with, having no evidence besides his testimony given as support.
Nevermind the consequences if they limit the meaning -- it will be legal to destroy most kinds of evidence in a criminal investigation. It's all A-OK if it didn't contain financial records right? Right?
The argument is whether select sentences from the, "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act", should be allowed to be used to prosecute someone for a crime unrelated in any way to accounting reform, or investor protection.
The federal government, however, argues that the law was clearly written and intended to be a broad anti-obstruction-of-justice law that would fill gaps in the criminal code that had long existed.
A strong argument could be made that not simply confessing, when someone was very obviously guilty, would be obstructing to justice.
Buy a Patek Philippe instead, it is probably cheaper in the long run.
The bag on the counter technique provides a time complexity improvement on the scale of O(1)... probably safe to ignore. Forcing people to complete the transactions faster is probably not practical, so the only way to increase throughput is to have more cashier stations.
The real news will be when PETA likes something.
I am using a brand new Model M to type this message. Unicomp bought the rights and machinery to manufacture many IBM and Lexmark keyboards. You can buy them from the manufacturer here: http://www.pckeyboard.com/ . It is embarrassing that /. would advertise some shill refurb site without mentioning this great resource.
Sharepoint runs on PDP-11s? VAX? Alpha?
Microsoft Sharepoint first came out in 2001. I think if it ran on NT at the time it could run on an Alpha, but why would any company want to have an run MS Sharepoint on unsupported architecture today? It is not that difficult to transfer the MS Sharepoint infrastructure to current X86 architecture. Of course maintaining a Sharepoint structure or even a Wiki is a totally different thing.
Whoooosh....
You just quoted 106 characters to accomplish the following simple task:
print "Hello, World\n";
That's 23 characters to accomplish the same task, but the core issue isn't even really the character count alone. It's the verbosity combined with the requirement that an object be explicitly constructed to perform something that is a fundamentally procedural task.
So all of Java is garbage, because it is not enough like a scripting language?
You liking Python better is not a good enough reason for Java to be dismissed as trash, and it hardly justifies claiming it is worse than C++, of all the verbose garbage languages.
Try Groovy.
public class HelloWorld { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("Hello, World"); } }
So what? It is bad for writing three line programs?
and I definitely prefer all of these languages to Java.
Probably safe to ignore everything else he said too...
My system boots considerably faster with UEFI...
Women more interested in inane social bullshit than actually learning about world history, politics, technology, industry, the arts and sciences?
Color me shocked!
More like, women more interested in using sites with good interfaces and less assholes?!? Go back to Wikipedia dickhead.
How much MORE valuable is YOUR time, to THEIRS?
They want the job, so in this case sehryan's time is immeasurably more important in the relationship. Perhaps when the economy changes, and there are less applicants than positions, things will need to change.
If you can not put up with a BS online job application from Target, how could you ever possibly work for Target?!? Supposedly the best way to get hired, is to answer all of the questions as if you were Ned Flanders. Hard working and honest, but not too ambitious, compliant.
CS students who primarily learn Java are inferior because they don't have to deal with memory management as they would if they used C.
This is snobbery at its best. Pay attention in computer architecture class, you will be fine.
I care. Language cries when you abuse it like that. It makes me sad. Think of the small words!
Criticizing grammar is a favorite pastime of the uninspired, unintelligent, or generally vapid mind. Teach an English class, or stfu.
Submitter should use smaller words. He's trying to swim in the deep end ("whom", "wrought") when he's barely ready for the kiddy pool.
Amazingly, even in light of this new information, nobody cares. Nobody even cares that you are an asshole. Nobody cares. Just, go back to your basement.
No need. I have this newfangled feature called "sources.list."
That file barely tells you where the repositories are. The main question still remains, where did the programs actually come from, who compiled them, and why do you trust any of the parties involved?
I trust the Ubuntu repositories much more than any app store, but the principle is similar... they could conceivably contain malicious code.
Even a Java plugin exploit requires some level of social engineering to convince the user to visit the attack page.
I think XP users are in trouble too, and there is not much to save them.
Have you ever actually asked where the software in repositories comes from?