And they try to give me some Wisconsin cheddar which admittedly is not awful
That's because it's not awful, it's good. The problem is that cheddar simply is a bland cheese.
It's only bland when you get one that's less than it should be. I don't know whether Wisconsin-sourced cheddar is allowed to mature properly (a proper farmhouse mature cheddar is strong enough to etch through your palate and tastes earthen. Lovely!) but I do know that a lot of what we get here in the UK is nowhere near up to scratch. You have to hunt for the good stuff. (That was ever true...)
It's just as bad in Chedder England.
Actually no, or at least not unless you're very unlucky; cheddars from Somerset are usually several grades above everyone else's (it's one of their regional specialties; often copied, rarely equalled, never bettered).
It has to do with milk pasteurization laws. It prevents a lot of cheeses from being made. Lots of them goat cheese. That's why goat cheese in the US is always the same terrible crappy stuff and why you never see the variety of cheese you have in Europe. It has really grown to be a cultural thing.
Don't lose hope! I know from personal experience that there's some great cheese being made in upstate New York. I just suspect it tend to not get exported very far; the locals are on to a good thing.
It's similar with beer in the US. You produce wonderful beers, but it's virtually always at the microbrewery level (and some places simply don't have good brews; I've yet to have anything impressive in North Carolina, for example, but I've only tried a few times.) But you produce plenty that can stand proud with the best of anywhere else.
You can't legally COPY someones work and especially you can't share it.
You can, if they give permission. There are works out there that I have written (software as it happens) that you can copy and share as much as you like. No charge. That's because I give you (and everyone else) permission to do so. (FWIW, I think that the likely benefit to me is greater by allowing free sharing than by demanding payment, but that's my choice. You get to make your own choices.)
I'm a writer and I want to get paid for copies of what I write. NO ONE has a right to take my work and share it with others or copy it without paying.
Actually, nobody has the right to share copies of your work (up until the copyright on it expires). Period. The part with "paying" just how they are persuading you to give them permission to share it, but that's not about rights. Instead, it's about how you exploit (for your benefit) the position that your rights have placed yourself in. If you want to say that persuading you to allow sharing requires a fee of "One... Hundred... BILLION DOLLARS!" (cue pinkie) then that's just fine; just don't be surprised if everyone else tells you to where to shove your work if you demand ridiculous compensation.
Can I sell the files and get the $12? If not, then I do not "have $12 worth of music", just like my PC that I paid $2000 for is no longer worth $2000. Worth is determined by how much you can get by selling it and not by how much someone else asks for it (in this case, someone might pay $12 for the retail CD, but would not pay the same $12 for the same songs on a CD-R).
That wholly discounts the benefit that the end consumer derives from the "$12-worth of music". If they do not benefit from getting it somehow, there must be no reason for the consumer to get it instead of something else. The worth of a thing is determined by the balance of how much buyers are willing to pay to acquire it and how much sellers are willing to accept in order to relinquish it (bearing in mind that in general there is a substantial pool of each, with different opinions about what value they ascribe to the good or service).
You seem to be getting confused with accounting, and especially marginal value. Where someone cannot sell on a good or service, they must gain the whole benefit of it themselves since its entire cost of acquisition must be borne "on the balance sheet". Mind you, $12-worth of recorded entertainment can go a long way.
once all ads move to HTML5 I don't think there'll be that much of a difference
unlike Flash, the browser makers can actually address HTML5 performance issues.
Don't worry! That'll just spur on advertisers to load up even more complex battery-sapping code!
Ad agencies do not care about your battery life. They just want to make you look, make you click. The collateral damage they inflict is something that they simply don't give a rat's testicle about. The only way to deal with them right now is to block Flash and crappy Javascript (I'm not opposed to ads, I just hate the blinky, CPU-intensive ones) and let the smarter ad agencies figure it out for themselves. (Clue: plain text ads delivered without butt-loads of JS and Flash are going to actually get to my eyes in the first place...)
But what does HTML5 offer? Woo! Unblockable obnoxious battery-sapping ads. <sarcasm> Thanks a whole bunch, W3C! Just what I always wanted. </sarcasm>
A matter-antimatter reaction in air might work if your eyes see gamma rays. Mine only see this lame portion of the spectrum called visible radiation.
That's because you're using antimatter that is too massive. You need to use lightweight AM so that the amount of energy liberated puts the electromagnetic emission in the visible range. (Finding a suitable collection of fundamental particles with masses that convert to visible light photons is left as an exercise for the reader.)
You also have the problem that the direction of the photons produced is totally random, so it would be like a monochromatic light hovering in space and not a hologram.
City should own the INFRASTRUCTURE and auction the lease off to the utility company for 5, 10, 15, or 25 years (depending on type) and define the proper "service level agreement" they want for their citizens.
There's no reason for the city (or any other level of government) to actually own the infrastructure provided the regulation of how that infrastructure is operated is reasonable. The biggest requirement is for neutrality of infrastructure provision, so that many different services (with competition between them) may be offered, but other regulations may also be necessary. The only real regulation of neutrality of services is to prevent a service provider from stopping alternative services from being provided by others; exclusive and exclusionary contracts between infrastructure providers and service providers are the problem.
(And if two companies decide they want to compete to provide infrastructure, why not? It's on their dime, not yours. No sense in stopping people wanting to do it...)
The language is either not Turing complete and then mostly useless for practical general computing, or it is Turing complete and then it provides no real security.
That's highly disingenuous. If a turing-complete language can't make system calls or prevent the OS from wiping it out after a certain amount of time, it can't do anything nefarious. Or much useful either. (It's more usual to expose a subset of the OS's syscalls (ideally a safe subset) so that something useful can be done before the OS kills off the program, of course, but that subset can be highly closed down.)
Unless you think that a guaranteed finite computation without syscalls is dangerous, which is an interesting metaphysical position but not one I have much time for.
Had a friend confuse bulbs of garlic with cloves of garlic.
My uncle made that mistake once. It resulted in everyone asking him for the recipe (true story).
A lot of people don't put enough garlic in their food when cooking, so his recipe was probably just how it was originally intended to be. Whether the under-use is through being afraid of garlic or just through not using fresh enough bulbs, I don't know.
The principal brittleness of shell scripts is their assumption that filenames do not contain odd characters like spaces. Most other languages don't do auto-splitting of every argument and so won't break when some user insists on creating a directory called "Documents and Settings"...
(You can write armored shell scripts that cope just fine with this - I've done that quite a bit over the years - but a lot of people don't.)
something that uses a bunch of smaller tools might have more brittleness than something that is entirely contained in code controlled by the maintainer
Not necessarily. The unix tools are very well specified by comparison with most libraries used in nearly any language you care to name (they're in the POSIX spec) so there's a substantial amount that you can rely on, and rely on long-term. They can be composed poorly, of course, but bad programmers can write bad programs in anything so it's (close to) a null argument.
Brittleness in shell scripts typically refers to assumptions of particular filesystem layouts or that nobody will be silly enough to put odd characters in filenames (if only that were true!) but piped IO is very stable and well tested.
Wrong. CS has very little to do with PROGRAMMING. Did you even ever take a computer science course?
When I did CS, all the programming bits were covered in about a semester (and that included structured, object-oriented, functional, and logical programming languages, plus an introduction to scripting and assembly). The rest of the course focussed on the interesting bits of computer systems, from chip layout to formal software verification methods to parallel databases. Programming's just what you do to make the computer do what you want.
Or is it? NPR recently ran a story reporting that "mentally stimulating lifestyles may speed up dementia once it hits in old age." It's not a long read but it's certainly relevent to the discussion. Maybe these 70-year olds are merely enjoying the delay effects described?
It's probably the case that the mental stimulation is having no effect on the disease itself, but is helping a lot with allowing the effects of the disease to be masked by the increased plasticity of the rest of the brain. In other words, you're going at the same time but you're suffering far less.
And by way, the open source JVMs are not as incomplete as you imagine, considering they are being used by the majority of Disney's internet engineering team to develop the infrastructure.
It depends on whether they're doing the GUI parts. The non-GUI parts of Java are relatively easy to keep in synch, as OSX looks enormously like other Unixes. But the GUI parts are difficult, as the OSX GUI model is quite different to that used in both classic Unix/X11 and Windows. That wouldn't be a problem for an internet engineering team - GUIs aren't needed for doing servers - but it does mean that the incompleteness is likely to be patchy; some apps will be much more heavily affected than others (and GUI apps will probably bear the brunt).
Your analogy fails to support your contention because it actually describes how Wikipedia operates: Anyone can make edits, but the edits will only stay if the support the opinion of the Wikipedia cliques and admins.
So some people keep asserting, but it's not clear whether that's actually true. (Yeah, [citation needed].) Assertions backed up with peer-reviewed research in a respectable journal should be able to stay in any WP article worthy of the name. Anything else, it's got to take its chances, though sticking to facts presented in a plain, informative way remains a good approach. (Opinion dressed up as flame... well, that's just not worth keeping no matter who says it.)
Every time that I have looked into cases of someone complaining about being suppressed on Wikipedia, it's turned out that it was because they were either being clearly an annoying asshole, or because they were promoting some dodgy snake-oil product, or it was a case where the facts on the ground looked no different from those two. I don't claim that all cases are the same, but I've yet to see one that varies from that script (even in cases where I personally knew the individual being suppressed, to be honest).
Taxes on middle income people destroy their ability to form small businesses. Let the rich pay a larger proportion of all required taxation so that the ingenuity of the people in the middle can be better unleashed!
But if you are a serious Java developer, there are plenty of reasons to drop OS X, though, foremost being the performance of Swing/SWT and the version lag. I've always felt that Apple's support for Java was grudging and second-rate.
While I'm a Java developer on OSX, I'm personally writing server software so the issues with GUIs you mention are Not A Big Deal For Me. They do matter to my colleagues though, and they're the ones with especially large amounts of Java code. (I try to keep mine small and elegant.;-)) They're also the real Mac-heads...
We have rather a lot of internally-developed applications in Java, and some of them are substantial. Since there's not a hope in hell of us porting millions of lines of Java code to Objective-C, no matter how much Apple spins things, should we be considering saying in future that Apple hardware is no longer a supported platform and that all users will have to migrate to Linux or Windows on their desktops and laptops instead? (While it is possible to use Apple hardware to run non-OSX, there's no real point in buying it specially for the purpose of running non-OSX when other hardware with a lower price premium will do a perfectly adequate job of it.)
Mind you, adequate availability of a JVM for the platform from another vendor (e.g., Oracle) could well be an acceptable solution. It's just a shame that the announcement is not clearer in this respect. But then it's not exactly like Apple are very good at providing proper support for developers who aren't targeting Jobs's latest platform du jour.
I wish Parliament published comments along with the Acts so we have an easier time judging legislative intent.
That's what you'll need to read Hansard for. Alas, it seems to be difficult to search, but I think this is relevant. Moreover, as in the US, UK courts most certainly do take into account what was said in the legislature during the legislative process when dealing with some law, though they prefer to use the letter of the law as stated and existing precedent in relation to any particular act.
As pointed out in the link, there may well be superior legislation that prevents English Heritage from successfully making the claim. I would expect the key issue to be whether the photographs in question are, in principle, commercial or private pictures, and not whether some company is making money off hosting them.
For the mundane stuff, most in our office use Office 2008 for the word processing and spreadsheet and Keynote for presentations. Most are looking to upgrade to Office 2010 to regain some macros in Excel.
Correction: they're looking to go to Office 2011; 2010 is the PC version.
And take some of that damnable corporate and farming welfare money and pour it into materials research so that you have alternatives or reasonable substitutes for the lanthanides ( or maybe just invent some really cool materials ).
There aren't really all that many good replacements there - the lanthanides are the source of the powers of many of the wonder alloys and ceramics anyway - but all the US really has to do is to reopen some of the mothballed rare earth mines in their own territory and put a ban on exporting the products of those mines to China. Let's face it, the US has superb mineral reserves.
Ozzie may be a brilliant guy, with an IQ of 100!... wrong use of brilliant or iq...
I was reading that "!" as a factorial operator. Like that, it makes some sense, not much though given that even plain old 160 is supposed to be hyper-smart...
If a candybar cost 1 penny in 1910, and now costs about a dollar for the Same candybar, it's obvious the money has been devalued to 1/100th its previous value.
Is it really all that obvious? The costs associated with producing a candy bar will have changed over that time, and the amount that people earn has also changed for sure. It's better to scale things by average salary so that you're looking at how much stuff people can afford.
Except where state laws also prohibit driving in such a way as to cause a wreck, deliberately. Even if your vehicle is not involved in the impact, if your driving can be shown to have contributed to a wreck in which someone died, you can be charged with murder.
If you're driving like a dick and cause an accident then it makes sense to charge you, whatever your position relative to the impact. It's entirely possible to be at fault even if your car is not actually in the crash, e.g., if you're switching lanes across a freeway in a crazy way in heavy traffic that causes others to stamp on their brakes.
Slashdot Mirror
And they try to give me some Wisconsin cheddar which admittedly is not awful
That's because it's not awful, it's good. The problem is that cheddar simply is a bland cheese.
It's only bland when you get one that's less than it should be. I don't know whether Wisconsin-sourced cheddar is allowed to mature properly (a proper farmhouse mature cheddar is strong enough to etch through your palate and tastes earthen. Lovely!) but I do know that a lot of what we get here in the UK is nowhere near up to scratch. You have to hunt for the good stuff. (That was ever true...)
It's just as bad in Chedder England.
Actually no, or at least not unless you're very unlucky; cheddars from Somerset are usually several grades above everyone else's (it's one of their regional specialties; often copied, rarely equalled, never bettered).
It has to do with milk pasteurization laws. It prevents a lot of cheeses from being made. Lots of them goat cheese. That's why goat cheese in the US is always the same terrible crappy stuff and why you never see the variety of cheese you have in Europe. It has really grown to be a cultural thing.
Don't lose hope! I know from personal experience that there's some great cheese being made in upstate New York. I just suspect it tend to not get exported very far; the locals are on to a good thing.
It's similar with beer in the US. You produce wonderful beers, but it's virtually always at the microbrewery level (and some places simply don't have good brews; I've yet to have anything impressive in North Carolina, for example, but I've only tried a few times.) But you produce plenty that can stand proud with the best of anywhere else.
You can't legally COPY someones work and especially you can't share it.
You can, if they give permission. There are works out there that I have written (software as it happens) that you can copy and share as much as you like. No charge. That's because I give you (and everyone else) permission to do so. (FWIW, I think that the likely benefit to me is greater by allowing free sharing than by demanding payment, but that's my choice. You get to make your own choices.)
I'm a writer and I want to get paid for copies of what I write. NO ONE has a right to take my work and share it with others or copy it without paying.
Actually, nobody has the right to share copies of your work (up until the copyright on it expires). Period. The part with "paying" just how they are persuading you to give them permission to share it, but that's not about rights. Instead, it's about how you exploit (for your benefit) the position that your rights have placed yourself in. If you want to say that persuading you to allow sharing requires a fee of "One... Hundred... BILLION DOLLARS!" (cue pinkie) then that's just fine; just don't be surprised if everyone else tells you to where to shove your work if you demand ridiculous compensation.
Can I sell the files and get the $12? If not, then I do not "have $12 worth of music", just like my PC that I paid $2000 for is no longer worth $2000. Worth is determined by how much you can get by selling it and not by how much someone else asks for it (in this case, someone might pay $12 for the retail CD, but would not pay the same $12 for the same songs on a CD-R).
That wholly discounts the benefit that the end consumer derives from the "$12-worth of music". If they do not benefit from getting it somehow, there must be no reason for the consumer to get it instead of something else. The worth of a thing is determined by the balance of how much buyers are willing to pay to acquire it and how much sellers are willing to accept in order to relinquish it (bearing in mind that in general there is a substantial pool of each, with different opinions about what value they ascribe to the good or service).
You seem to be getting confused with accounting, and especially marginal value. Where someone cannot sell on a good or service, they must gain the whole benefit of it themselves since its entire cost of acquisition must be borne "on the balance sheet". Mind you, $12-worth of recorded entertainment can go a long way.
once all ads move to HTML5 I don't think there'll be that much of a difference
unlike Flash, the browser makers can actually address HTML5 performance issues.
Don't worry! That'll just spur on advertisers to load up even more complex battery-sapping code!
Ad agencies do not care about your battery life. They just want to make you look, make you click. The collateral damage they inflict is something that they simply don't give a rat's testicle about. The only way to deal with them right now is to block Flash and crappy Javascript (I'm not opposed to ads, I just hate the blinky, CPU-intensive ones) and let the smarter ad agencies figure it out for themselves. (Clue: plain text ads delivered without butt-loads of JS and Flash are going to actually get to my eyes in the first place...)
But what does HTML5 offer? Woo! Unblockable obnoxious battery-sapping ads. <sarcasm> Thanks a whole bunch, W3C! Just what I always wanted. </sarcasm>
A matter-antimatter reaction in air might work if your eyes see gamma rays. Mine only see this lame portion of the spectrum called visible radiation.
That's because you're using antimatter that is too massive. You need to use lightweight AM so that the amount of energy liberated puts the electromagnetic emission in the visible range. (Finding a suitable collection of fundamental particles with masses that convert to visible light photons is left as an exercise for the reader.)
You also have the problem that the direction of the photons produced is totally random, so it would be like a monochromatic light hovering in space and not a hologram.
City should own the INFRASTRUCTURE and auction the lease off to the utility company for 5, 10, 15, or 25 years (depending on type) and define the proper "service level agreement" they want for their citizens.
There's no reason for the city (or any other level of government) to actually own the infrastructure provided the regulation of how that infrastructure is operated is reasonable. The biggest requirement is for neutrality of infrastructure provision, so that many different services (with competition between them) may be offered, but other regulations may also be necessary. The only real regulation of neutrality of services is to prevent a service provider from stopping alternative services from being provided by others; exclusive and exclusionary contracts between infrastructure providers and service providers are the problem.
(And if two companies decide they want to compete to provide infrastructure, why not? It's on their dime, not yours. No sense in stopping people wanting to do it...)
The language is either not Turing complete and then mostly useless for practical general computing, or it is Turing complete and then it provides no real security.
That's highly disingenuous. If a turing-complete language can't make system calls or prevent the OS from wiping it out after a certain amount of time, it can't do anything nefarious. Or much useful either. (It's more usual to expose a subset of the OS's syscalls (ideally a safe subset) so that something useful can be done before the OS kills off the program, of course, but that subset can be highly closed down.)
Unless you think that a guaranteed finite computation without syscalls is dangerous, which is an interesting metaphysical position but not one I have much time for.
Had a friend confuse bulbs of garlic with cloves of garlic.
My uncle made that mistake once. It resulted in everyone asking him for the recipe (true story).
A lot of people don't put enough garlic in their food when cooking, so his recipe was probably just how it was originally intended to be. Whether the under-use is through being afraid of garlic or just through not using fresh enough bulbs, I don't know.
How, exactly, are they brittle?
The principal brittleness of shell scripts is their assumption that filenames do not contain odd characters like spaces. Most other languages don't do auto-splitting of every argument and so won't break when some user insists on creating a directory called "Documents and Settings"...
(You can write armored shell scripts that cope just fine with this - I've done that quite a bit over the years - but a lot of people don't.)
something that uses a bunch of smaller tools might have more brittleness than something that is entirely contained in code controlled by the maintainer
Not necessarily. The unix tools are very well specified by comparison with most libraries used in nearly any language you care to name (they're in the POSIX spec) so there's a substantial amount that you can rely on, and rely on long-term. They can be composed poorly, of course, but bad programmers can write bad programs in anything so it's (close to) a null argument.
Brittleness in shell scripts typically refers to assumptions of particular filesystem layouts or that nobody will be silly enough to put odd characters in filenames (if only that were true!) but piped IO is very stable and well tested.
Wrong. CS has very little to do with PROGRAMMING. Did you even ever take a computer science course?
When I did CS, all the programming bits were covered in about a semester (and that included structured, object-oriented, functional, and logical programming languages, plus an introduction to scripting and assembly). The rest of the course focussed on the interesting bits of computer systems, from chip layout to formal software verification methods to parallel databases. Programming's just what you do to make the computer do what you want.
Or is it? NPR recently ran a story reporting that "mentally stimulating lifestyles may speed up dementia once it hits in old age." It's not a long read but it's certainly relevent to the discussion. Maybe these 70-year olds are merely enjoying the delay effects described?
It's probably the case that the mental stimulation is having no effect on the disease itself, but is helping a lot with allowing the effects of the disease to be masked by the increased plasticity of the rest of the brain. In other words, you're going at the same time but you're suffering far less.
And by way, the open source JVMs are not as incomplete as you imagine, considering they are being used by the majority of Disney's internet engineering team to develop the infrastructure.
It depends on whether they're doing the GUI parts. The non-GUI parts of Java are relatively easy to keep in synch, as OSX looks enormously like other Unixes. But the GUI parts are difficult, as the OSX GUI model is quite different to that used in both classic Unix/X11 and Windows. That wouldn't be a problem for an internet engineering team - GUIs aren't needed for doing servers - but it does mean that the incompleteness is likely to be patchy; some apps will be much more heavily affected than others (and GUI apps will probably bear the brunt).
Your analogy fails to support your contention because it actually describes how Wikipedia operates: Anyone can make edits, but the edits will only stay if the support the opinion of the Wikipedia cliques and admins.
So some people keep asserting, but it's not clear whether that's actually true. (Yeah, [citation needed].) Assertions backed up with peer-reviewed research in a respectable journal should be able to stay in any WP article worthy of the name. Anything else, it's got to take its chances, though sticking to facts presented in a plain, informative way remains a good approach. (Opinion dressed up as flame... well, that's just not worth keeping no matter who says it.)
Every time that I have looked into cases of someone complaining about being suppressed on Wikipedia, it's turned out that it was because they were either being clearly an annoying asshole, or because they were promoting some dodgy snake-oil product, or it was a case where the facts on the ground looked no different from those two. I don't claim that all cases are the same, but I've yet to see one that varies from that script (even in cases where I personally knew the individual being suppressed, to be honest).
Taxes on wealth destroy small businesses.
Taxes on middle income people destroy their ability to form small businesses. Let the rich pay a larger proportion of all required taxation so that the ingenuity of the people in the middle can be better unleashed!
But if you are a serious Java developer, there are plenty of reasons to drop OS X, though, foremost being the performance of Swing/SWT and the version lag. I've always felt that Apple's support for Java was grudging and second-rate.
While I'm a Java developer on OSX, I'm personally writing server software so the issues with GUIs you mention are Not A Big Deal For Me. They do matter to my colleagues though, and they're the ones with especially large amounts of Java code. (I try to keep mine small and elegant. ;-)) They're also the real Mac-heads...
We have rather a lot of internally-developed applications in Java, and some of them are substantial. Since there's not a hope in hell of us porting millions of lines of Java code to Objective-C, no matter how much Apple spins things, should we be considering saying in future that Apple hardware is no longer a supported platform and that all users will have to migrate to Linux or Windows on their desktops and laptops instead? (While it is possible to use Apple hardware to run non-OSX, there's no real point in buying it specially for the purpose of running non-OSX when other hardware with a lower price premium will do a perfectly adequate job of it.)
Mind you, adequate availability of a JVM for the platform from another vendor (e.g., Oracle) could well be an acceptable solution. It's just a shame that the announcement is not clearer in this respect. But then it's not exactly like Apple are very good at providing proper support for developers who aren't targeting Jobs's latest platform du jour.
I wish Parliament published comments along with the Acts so we have an easier time judging legislative intent.
That's what you'll need to read Hansard for. Alas, it seems to be difficult to search, but I think this is relevant. Moreover, as in the US, UK courts most certainly do take into account what was said in the legislature during the legislative process when dealing with some law, though they prefer to use the letter of the law as stated and existing precedent in relation to any particular act.
As pointed out in the link, there may well be superior legislation that prevents English Heritage from successfully making the claim. I would expect the key issue to be whether the photographs in question are, in principle, commercial or private pictures, and not whether some company is making money off hosting them.
For the mundane stuff, most in our office use Office 2008 for the word processing and spreadsheet and Keynote for presentations. Most are looking to upgrade to Office 2010 to regain some macros in Excel.
Correction: they're looking to go to Office 2011; 2010 is the PC version.
I am very sorry for someone who confuses nitrogen gas and nitroglycerine.
I don't think you need to be very sorry for them for a long time though. But do bring a mop to clean up the mess.
And take some of that damnable corporate and farming welfare money and pour it into materials research so that you have alternatives or reasonable substitutes for the lanthanides ( or maybe just invent some really cool materials ).
There aren't really all that many good replacements there - the lanthanides are the source of the powers of many of the wonder alloys and ceramics anyway - but all the US really has to do is to reopen some of the mothballed rare earth mines in their own territory and put a ban on exporting the products of those mines to China. Let's face it, the US has superb mineral reserves.
Ozzie may be a brilliant guy, with an IQ of 100! ... wrong use of brilliant or iq ...
I was reading that "!" as a factorial operator. Like that, it makes some sense, not much though given that even plain old 160 is supposed to be hyper-smart...
If a candybar cost 1 penny in 1910, and now costs about a dollar for the Same candybar, it's obvious the money has been devalued to 1/100th its previous value.
Is it really all that obvious? The costs associated with producing a candy bar will have changed over that time, and the amount that people earn has also changed for sure. It's better to scale things by average salary so that you're looking at how much stuff people can afford.
Yeah, but does it run Linux?
Of course not, it's a gazebo!
Except where state laws also prohibit driving in such a way as to cause a wreck, deliberately. Even if your vehicle is not involved in the impact, if your driving can be shown to have contributed to a wreck in which someone died, you can be charged with murder.
If you're driving like a dick and cause an accident then it makes sense to charge you, whatever your position relative to the impact. It's entirely possible to be at fault even if your car is not actually in the crash, e.g., if you're switching lanes across a freeway in a crazy way in heavy traffic that causes others to stamp on their brakes.
Rule 1 of driving: don't be a dick.