FYI, the War Between States initially was a bloodless secession over States Rights and taxation, not slavery.
Particularly, the "right" of a State to institute slavery. And don't forget who fired the first shots of that war.
Slavery was already dying out internationally due to the Industrial Revolution.
However, the Southern states were particularly concerned about agricultural labor. Advances in mechanized harvesting were slower than those in factory settings. Slavery would have remained more profitable than mechanization for producing cotton and other crops until well into the 20th century.
Lincoln hated blacks with a passion (he wrote the Illinois law barring blacks),
Nevertheless, he didn't think that they should be enslaved, and everybody knew it. That's why so many Southerners went apeshit as soon as he was elected and immediately started the secession process.
but he wanted to tax the South to build in the North, handing "Lincoln's Haliburton" some tasty contracts.
Even if your claim were true, wouldn't high taxes be appropriate since the South was getting the benefits of so much forced labor without paying for it? Call it a tax on inexcusable immorality.
That sounds cool, but IMO the batteries would end up being more trouble than they're worth. Consumer gear would likely come with el-cheapo batteries that fail every couple of years, so you'd frequently be heading down to the local computer mart to plop down another $70 on fresh batteries.
I need to do just that with my lawn tractor battery. After only 3 seasons of use, it's now as dead as a doornail. I saw a Consumer Reports article a while back that rated lawn tractor batteries, and their conclusion was that they all sucked. Hypothetical consumer-grade power supply batteries would likely be similar.
They have no choice now but to include support for Windows within a year. Otherwise Microsoft and others could point to this letter as being a work of deception.
Now that would be friggin' hilarious. Microsoft accusing others of "deception" for announcing vaporware and then failing to ship it on time. That tactic would not likely fly for the company that's bringing us WinFS after a decade of slips, that will finish Vista years late and without most of its promised key features, that routinely announces vaporware to squelch new markets for potential new competitors, and that manages to sell expensive software "subscriptions" based on promised upgrades that fail to materialize before the end of the term.
Throughout its history, Microsoft had let thousands of programmers each produce their own piece of computer code, then stitched it together into one sprawling program.
Microsoft's new approach: Ultra-Extreme Programming.
Now they have taken the pair coding concept well beyond the next level. They put over 5000 developers in one auditorium, and they now write Vista together as a group. The shared display is up on the movie screen, and every coder has a wireless keyboard and mouse.
They're going to use thousands of minds working as one to produce a single, cohesive body of code. With so much manpower on the problem, development moves at a lightning pace: once a function has been typed in, it gets refactored dozens times within a matter of seconds.
Nuclear fission power as the world's primary energy source is not feasible due to the security problems. To achieve that goal, every country on the planet would be peppered with breeder reactors. Not only are those trickier to run than current non-breeder reactors, but they also involve much more handling of weaponizable material.
It would be no longer possible to even attempt to argue with any country that they should stop their nuclear research, no matter what Axis they are a member of. Basically, any country that wanted nuclear weapons could have them on short order. That would completely upset the current world balance of power, so it will never be allowed to happen.
Lots of folks will brandish the issue as a talking point to jab at environmentalists, but at the end of the day, they'll also come out against any major increase in worldwide fission energy use.
Then the current administration would certainly welcome experts from foreign nations coming here on tours of duty to educate our leaders about their legal obligations with respect to treatment of prisoners. No?
So when are the Fedora update directories going to see 1.0.7
From the linked article, it appears that this exploit uses the CAN-2005-2871 bug. That bug was patched in the Fedora 1.0.6-1.2.fc4 update issued back on Sept. 9, so unless I'm mistaken, it's not critical to upgrade to 1.0.7 if you've already installed the 1.2.fc4 patch.
The advantage to this design is that the SSMEs firing in the first stage help improve the overall efficiency (Isp) of the rocket.
It has a downside as well: you carry the mass of the fuel tanks for all of the SSME fuel all the way to orbit, including the fuel that gets burned early on.
Also, Isp isn't everything: you also have to consider the weight and aerodynamics of the larger fuel tanks required by bulky hydrogen. That's one reason why hydrogen has often been used only on the upper stages where larger fuel tanks have less overall significance.
So because the function says it takes an integer, and I fed it some integer, everything is going to be fine by definition? I think not. You are still going to need to exercise every line of code in runtime tests.
Static typing finds maybe 10% of the possible potential errors in your program at the expense of doubling the effort to write and understand it. In some cases static typing may be a necessary evil to attain the required execution speed, but as a "safety" feature any benefits it provides are outweighed by the complexity it adds to your code.
If I don't wear a seatbelt in my car I find that I can get in and out quicker 9,999 times out of 10,000. The thought of this saved time gives me a warm fuzzy feeling on the other occasion when I end up flying head first through the windscreen.
You'd have a point if static typing were as useful as seatbelts. Unfortunately, it's actually more like filling your car with Silly String. It won't actually save you from many hazards, and it gets in your way so you can't see what you're trying to do.
The difference is that with C# (and Java), the compiler can prevent all sorts of bugs that in Ruby and Python you will only encounter at run time.
Yeah, and 9 times out of 10 I will have run my program, got the runtime exception, seen the stack trace, spotted the error and fixed it by the time your compiler has finished spitting out its litany of obscure type errors for you to work through.
Consider that I could take every single Lisp program ever written, remove all newlines and nonrelevant whitespace (ie, stuff outside of quotes), and a simple converter could make every bit of it entirely consistent in whatever format I wanted.
Likewise, a simple mechanical converter could transform any working Python program into compliance with your particular Python indentation standard. How is it any different?
Can you read? He said the farmer receives revenue equivalent to 5 cents per loaf, and that's what I based my statement on. A quick Google check shows wheat somewhere around $3/bushel, which is about 15 cents/loaf, so the 5 cent figure is believable.
Because rural phone service is already subsidized. It doesn't make sense to invest in new technology if people are getting a crappy old technology far below actual costs.
Seems to me that since a farmer's net on a loaf of bread is only about 5 cents, that combine oughta cost a good deal less than the car you use to commute to your $30/hour job.
Your powers of logic are breathtaking.
BTW, there was just a "big machines" documentary on the History channel that featured a kickass new combine. From the specs they described, it could spit out wheat for hundreds of loaves of bread per second. Even at 5 cents per loaf, it doesn't take too long to add up to that kind of money.
Farming is a business like everything else. (Well, except for the fact that in the US it's heavily subsidized with socialist programs.). If the government stays out of the picture, then prices will rise to adequately cover production costs (which include communications and harvesting equipment).
So pretty soon you're paying $300 for a loaf of bread.
Give me a fscking break. Using modern technology alternatives (including satellite, microwave etc.), unsubsidized phone service could certainly be provided to every boondocks location in the United States for $300/month or less. Surely each farmer produces more than one loaf of bread per month.
Next you'll be arguing that farmers need to be given free tractors because they're expensive and citydwellers don't have to buy tractors either.
Great! All the farmers move to town, cuz otherwise they can't get basic phone service.
If they pay enough, phone service will be built.
NOW what are you going to eat?
The price of bread will rise just enough to cover the farmers' higher communications costs.
Everything naturally works out in the end without the need for extra government bureaucracy or fraudulent misrepresentations in phone company advertisements about monthly costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, whatever.
Particularly, the "right" of a State to institute slavery. And don't forget who fired the first shots of that war.
Slavery was already dying out internationally due to the Industrial Revolution.
However, the Southern states were particularly concerned about agricultural labor. Advances in mechanized harvesting were slower than those in factory settings. Slavery would have remained more profitable than mechanization for producing cotton and other crops until well into the 20th century.
Lincoln hated blacks with a passion (he wrote the Illinois law barring blacks),
Nevertheless, he didn't think that they should be enslaved, and everybody knew it. That's why so many Southerners went apeshit as soon as he was elected and immediately started the secession process.
but he wanted to tax the South to build in the North, handing "Lincoln's Haliburton" some tasty contracts.
Even if your claim were true, wouldn't high taxes be appropriate since the South was getting the benefits of so much forced labor without paying for it? Call it a tax on inexcusable immorality.
I need to do just that with my lawn tractor battery. After only 3 seasons of use, it's now as dead as a doornail. I saw a Consumer Reports article a while back that rated lawn tractor batteries, and their conclusion was that they all sucked. Hypothetical consumer-grade power supply batteries would likely be similar.
Now that would be friggin' hilarious. Microsoft accusing others of "deception" for announcing vaporware and then failing to ship it on time. That tactic would not likely fly for the company that's bringing us WinFS after a decade of slips, that will finish Vista years late and without most of its promised key features, that routinely announces vaporware to squelch new markets for potential new competitors, and that manages to sell expensive software "subscriptions" based on promised upgrades that fail to materialize before the end of the term.
Microsoft's new approach: Ultra-Extreme Programming.
Now they have taken the pair coding concept well beyond the next level. They put over 5000 developers in one auditorium, and they now write Vista together as a group. The shared display is up on the movie screen, and every coder has a wireless keyboard and mouse.
They're going to use thousands of minds working as one to produce a single, cohesive body of code. With so much manpower on the problem, development moves at a lightning pace: once a function has been typed in, it gets refactored dozens times within a matter of seconds.
It would be no longer possible to even attempt to argue with any country that they should stop their nuclear research, no matter what Axis they are a member of. Basically, any country that wanted nuclear weapons could have them on short order. That would completely upset the current world balance of power, so it will never be allowed to happen.
Lots of folks will brandish the issue as a talking point to jab at environmentalists, but at the end of the day, they'll also come out against any major increase in worldwide fission energy use.
Then the current administration would certainly welcome experts from foreign nations coming here on tours of duty to educate our leaders about their legal obligations with respect to treatment of prisoners. No?
From the linked article, it appears that this exploit uses the CAN-2005-2871 bug. That bug was patched in the Fedora 1.0.6-1.2.fc4 update issued back on Sept. 9, so unless I'm mistaken, it's not critical to upgrade to 1.0.7 if you've already installed the 1.2.fc4 patch.
You forgot a step:
1. Personally read, understand and audit multiple megabytes of source code.
2. Build from source.
They've already prepared a meeting room in Redmond. It's soundproofed, windowless, and its sole contents is two dozen chairs.
It has a downside as well: you carry the mass of the fuel tanks for all of the SSME fuel all the way to orbit, including the fuel that gets burned early on.
Also, Isp isn't everything: you also have to consider the weight and aerodynamics of the larger fuel tanks required by bulky hydrogen. That's one reason why hydrogen has often been used only on the upper stages where larger fuel tanks have less overall significance.
If you think that "It compiled without errors" == "It's ready to deploy", then you shouldn't be involved with writing critical systems.
Static typing finds maybe 10% of the possible potential errors in your program at the expense of doubling the effort to write and understand it. In some cases static typing may be a necessary evil to attain the required execution speed, but as a "safety" feature any benefits it provides are outweighed by the complexity it adds to your code.
You'd have a point if static typing were as useful as seatbelts. Unfortunately, it's actually more like filling your car with Silly String. It won't actually save you from many hazards, and it gets in your way so you can't see what you're trying to do.
Yeah, and 9 times out of 10 I will have run my program, got the runtime exception, seen the stack trace, spotted the error and fixed it by the time your compiler has finished spitting out its litany of obscure type errors for you to work through.
I've done extensive programming in scheme, other lisps, and python
Then you probably should realize that you could save a lot of typing with:
def isLeapYear(year):
"""Return true if 'year' is a lear year, false otherwise."""
return not (year % 4 or (not year % 100 and year % 400))
Likewise, a simple mechanical converter could transform any working Python program into compliance with your particular Python indentation standard. How is it any different?
That works great, until you want to use somebody else's library.
Haha. And how many dozens of incompatible dialects of Lisp are out there? How many object models? How many macro systems?
The worst job I've had was Frozen Uncarbonated Beverage Analysis Researcher.
Can you read? He said the farmer receives revenue equivalent to 5 cents per loaf, and that's what I based my statement on. A quick Google check shows wheat somewhere around $3/bushel, which is about 15 cents/loaf, so the 5 cent figure is believable.
What a very liberal viewpoint: "The government taxes you and gives the money to me."
Liberalism is a brain disorder.
Apparently, this disorder leads to extreme hypocrisy.
Because rural phone service is already subsidized. It doesn't make sense to invest in new technology if people are getting a crappy old technology far below actual costs.
Seems to me that since a farmer's net on a loaf of bread is only about 5 cents, that combine oughta cost a good deal less than the car you use to commute to your $30/hour job.
Your powers of logic are breathtaking.
BTW, there was just a "big machines" documentary on the History channel that featured a kickass new combine. From the specs they described, it could spit out wheat for hundreds of loaves of bread per second. Even at 5 cents per loaf, it doesn't take too long to add up to that kind of money.
Farming is a business like everything else. (Well, except for the fact that in the US it's heavily subsidized with socialist programs.). If the government stays out of the picture, then prices will rise to adequately cover production costs (which include communications and harvesting equipment).
Give me a fscking break. Using modern technology alternatives (including satellite, microwave etc.), unsubsidized phone service could certainly be provided to every boondocks location in the United States for $300/month or less. Surely each farmer produces more than one loaf of bread per month.
Next you'll be arguing that farmers need to be given free tractors because they're expensive and citydwellers don't have to buy tractors either.
If they pay enough, phone service will be built.
NOW what are you going to eat?
The price of bread will rise just enough to cover the farmers' higher communications costs. Everything naturally works out in the end without the need for extra government bureaucracy or fraudulent misrepresentations in phone company advertisements about monthly costs.