What a typical passive-aggressive red herring. If you don't even know which god they're talking about, how can you possibly trust him/her/it?
You most certainly *do* know which god they're talking about, and so does everybody else.
So the question is, does it really matter? Seriously, why does everyone get their panties in a bunch over stupid crap like this.
I don't know. Let's imagine the reaction if someone were to actually to enforce the Constitution and remove it. The din of twisting panties across this great nation would be deafening.
I clicked on this topic because I wanted to read multiple long flamewars about indentation, whitespace and programming syntax. But no: Instead, all I see is a bunch of arguments about pronoun gender.
I would not, could not in a car. I could not, would not on a bus. I will not eat them on a train. I do not eat green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
Please spare us the silly technicalities. We're not talking about crossbreeding an orange and a grapefruit here.
We're talking about crossbreeding our food with toxic microbes. That has never been remotely possible in agriculture until they started directly fiddling with DNA.
I guess Van Gogh shouldn't have been eating paint, but I'm getting a bit of so much scaremongering over small exposures to things.
The problem is that if a kid swallows it (which is not uncommon), it's not a small exposure. For example:
Three flip flop bracelet charms sold at Walmart contained between 84 and 86 percent cadmium. The charms fared the worst of any item on the stomach acid test; one shed more cadmium in 24 hours than what World Health Organization guidelines deem a safe exposure over 60 weeks for a 33-pound child.
But if your reasoning abilities lead you to conclude that since both salt and cadmium can be harmful, therefore salt and cadmium are equally harmful, then by all means feel free to munch down some of these trinkets.
Well, one would expect that if they shelled out the equivalent of well over 100 2010 dollars (adjusting for inflation), they'd be getting more than just 720 kilobytes of magnetic data.
However, the software manuals of that era were rarely as big as they looked. They took up a lot of space because they often used fat ring binders inside a rigid cardboard outer box. The actual pages often used only a small portion of the ring binder and were printed in a huge font.
or are they going to make excuses about how this is okay because it's going after Apple
It may not be ok, but it sure is ironic. So Ha Ha Ha Ha.
However what I just said is irrelevant. At the end of the day, these two companies will undoubtedly just do a broad ranging cross-licensing agreement like most big tech players. That will further serve to stifle any potential future competition from people who are not in the cabal of giants protected by their mutual patent moats.
I must be the only guy in the world that actually thought those were kinda funny.
If you pay millions of dollars to hire the guy behind what is often hailed as the best situation comedy in the history of TV, then people will expect that the result to be more than just "kinda funny".
If they had done these ads with some unknown comic, then the expectations bar would have been much lower, and the ads might have worked for what they were.
It doesn't seem like a great idea to me. There are a lot of different ECC algorithms and implementations. It seems to me that it would be better to let the hard drive manufacturer select one that closely matches the expected signal and noise characteristics of a particular disk drive rather than some generic algorithm in the filesystem.
Ok, now that you finally admit that a solar cell is more than just a simple mineral crystal, you can begin to understand that they have a limited lifetime (this all started when you asserted that "durability" has no meaning for solar cells), typically due to UV damage over the long term.
Solar cells are doped. They're basically LED diodes run in reverse. Look at the crystalline silicon diagram on Wikipedia for example. It has lots of delicate thin layers on the top. It wouldn't work without the n-doped and p-doped areas. Dicing it into glitter doesn't change the physics.
Oil isn't as dangerous to store indoors as gasoline (just like less high-string battery technologies might be safer in a house).
If people have propane tanks in basements, that's news to me. I've always seen them outside a good distance away from any buildings. A quick Google search didn't change my impression.
They are f*ing silicon based things where the oxidised surface layer is the same stuff that is f*ing quartz - you don't get much more durable than that.
Ok, dude. Why don't you pull the passivation layer off of your silicon-based CPU and see how long it lasts when exposed to the air and UV radiation.
Hint: the problem isn't the bulk semiconductor. It's things like the delicate layer of transparent conductor over the top, or doping regions that are sensitive to parts-per-billion levels of additives.
Dude, most hybrids out there use NiMH batteries. Sorry to give you cognitive dissonance.
Well, most regular cars out there are filled up with gasoline. However, very few people would recommend storing enough gasoline in your basement to run your household for a week.
It seems that the thought of writing even a simple container or string class scares the crap out of people nowadays.
It should, because a bunch of incompatible framework classes sucks ass. A long time ago I was involved with a project that over time accumulated a combination of MFC stuff, COM wrappers, STL and our own custom strings and containers. Huge chunks of code did nothing but convert between the various formats. Never again will I get involved with reinventing wheels like that. I'll take the performance hit.
The reason why is that statically typed language compilers catch hundreds of problems at compile time that dynamic languages typically cannot catch until run time
That's the good news. The bad news is that the vast majority of those "problems" are issues created by the static type system itself.
Even the absolute worst-case scenarios were well over 10:1.
Web apps are usually mostly string manipulation. Scripting languages have high-level primitives for string manipulation that are themselves written in C. So the difference may not be that much at all.
I've done quite a bit of benchmarking on string operations and container frameworks. You can make C go ultra fast if you write custom containers, dangerous memory strategies and string handling code for the target problem. However, a site like Facebook wouldn't exist if it had to wait while people laboriously write and debug that kind of code. You might as well use assembly language.
In the real world, people will use C++/STL as the default "high performance" implementation. For string and container operations, the STL usually doesn't really end up being any faster than Java or similar languages, and even scripting languages are competitive in some cases. (If they have to stick with C, they'd use something like glib to keep their sanity. That's even slower.)
Slashdot Mirror
It makes no mention of which god
What a typical passive-aggressive red herring. If you don't even know which god they're talking about, how can you possibly trust him/her/it?
You most certainly *do* know which god they're talking about, and so does everybody else.
So the question is, does it really matter? Seriously, why does everyone get their panties in a bunch over stupid crap like this.
I don't know. Let's imagine the reaction if someone were to actually to enforce the Constitution and remove it. The din of twisting panties across this great nation would be deafening.
If US dollars were signed with "In God We Trust", why US weapons cannot contain Bible citations?
Because it is wrong, insulting and unconstitutional to sign US dollars with "In God We Trust". The same goes for government-issued weapons.
What's going on here?
I clicked on this topic because I wanted to read multiple long flamewars about indentation, whitespace and programming syntax. But no: Instead, all I see is a bunch of arguments about pronoun gender.
I would not, could not in a car.
I could not, would not on a bus.
I will not eat them on a train.
I do not eat green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
Anybody can generate $1 million in revenue, if they are given a $2 million marketing budget to do it with
True... unless you happen to spend your $2M on something like cat-shaped barcode scanners.
Because I learned how to type on an actual manual typewriter, I've learned to use the shift key for such tasks.
The 100% mechanical, non-electric typewriter that I learned to type on had a caps-lock key. It worked like a car's parking brake pedal.
And the weirdest thing is that on closer observation it seems to be a dark, perfectly rectangular prism.
Please spare us the silly technicalities. We're not talking about crossbreeding an orange and a grapefruit here.
We're talking about crossbreeding our food with toxic microbes. That has never been remotely possible in agriculture until they started directly fiddling with DNA.
I guess Van Gogh shouldn't have been eating paint, but I'm getting a bit of so much scaremongering over small exposures to things.
The problem is that if a kid swallows it (which is not uncommon), it's not a small exposure. For example:
Three flip flop bracelet charms sold at Walmart contained between 84 and 86 percent cadmium. The charms fared the worst of any item on the stomach acid test; one shed more cadmium in 24 hours than what World Health Organization guidelines deem a safe exposure over 60 weeks for a 33-pound child.
But if your reasoning abilities lead you to conclude that since both salt and cadmium can be harmful, therefore salt and cadmium are equally harmful, then by all means feel free to munch down some of these trinkets.
Well, one would expect that if they shelled out the equivalent of well over 100 2010 dollars (adjusting for inflation), they'd be getting more than just 720 kilobytes of magnetic data.
However, the software manuals of that era were rarely as big as they looked. They took up a lot of space because they often used fat ring binders inside a rigid cardboard outer box. The actual pages often used only a small portion of the ring binder and were printed in a huge font.
or are they going to make excuses about how this is okay because it's going after Apple
It may not be ok, but it sure is ironic. So Ha Ha Ha Ha.
However what I just said is irrelevant. At the end of the day, these two companies will undoubtedly just do a broad ranging cross-licensing agreement like most big tech players. That will further serve to stifle any potential future competition from people who are not in the cabal of giants protected by their mutual patent moats.
I must be the only guy in the world that actually thought those were kinda funny.
If you pay millions of dollars to hire the guy behind what is often hailed as the best situation comedy in the history of TV, then people will expect that the result to be more than just "kinda funny".
If they had done these ads with some unknown comic, then the expectations bar would have been much lower, and the ads might have worked for what they were.
It doesn't seem like a great idea to me. There are a lot of different ECC algorithms and implementations. It seems to me that it would be better to let the hard drive manufacturer select one that closely matches the expected signal and noise characteristics of a particular disk drive rather than some generic algorithm in the filesystem.
Ok, now that you finally admit that a solar cell is more than just a simple mineral crystal, you can begin to understand that they have a limited lifetime (this all started when you asserted that "durability" has no meaning for solar cells), typically due to UV damage over the long term.
Solar cells are doped. They're basically LED diodes run in reverse. Look at the crystalline silicon diagram on Wikipedia for example. It has lots of delicate thin layers on the top. It wouldn't work without the n-doped and p-doped areas. Dicing it into glitter doesn't change the physics.
I mean, come on, where's WPF? Where's WCF? Where's LINQ to SQL?
One place to look for those things would be on the desk of an examiner at the US Patent Office.
Oil isn't as dangerous to store indoors as gasoline (just like less high-string battery technologies might be safer in a house).
If people have propane tanks in basements, that's news to me. I've always seen them outside a good distance away from any buildings. A quick Google search didn't change my impression.
which ever technology makes the most profit and has the best ROI is the one any real free market company will use.
The free market is good at finding local maxima, not global ones. It's unlikely to nudge itself out of its current fossil fuel rut any time soon.
That's where government "interference" can be useful.
They are f*ing silicon based things where the oxidised surface layer is the same stuff that is f*ing quartz - you don't get much more durable than that.
Ok, dude. Why don't you pull the passivation layer off of your silicon-based CPU and see how long it lasts when exposed to the air and UV radiation.
Hint: the problem isn't the bulk semiconductor. It's things like the delicate layer of transparent conductor over the top, or doping regions that are sensitive to parts-per-billion levels of additives.
Hmm... I always thought that a "metric buttload" was bigger, because people I've known tend to use it as a superlative over an unadorned buttload.
Dude, most hybrids out there use NiMH batteries. Sorry to give you cognitive dissonance.
Well, most regular cars out there are filled up with gasoline. However, very few people would recommend storing enough gasoline in your basement to run your household for a week.
(there are differences between the Diesel cycle [wikipedia.org] and the Otto cycle [wikipedia.org] other than what fuel they use.)
Unless you worked for Oldsmobile.
It seems that the thought of writing even a simple container or string class scares the crap out of people nowadays.
It should, because a bunch of incompatible framework classes sucks ass. A long time ago I was involved with a project that over time accumulated a combination of MFC stuff, COM wrappers, STL and our own custom strings and containers. Huge chunks of code did nothing but convert between the various formats. Never again will I get involved with reinventing wheels like that. I'll take the performance hit.
The reason why is that statically typed language compilers catch hundreds of problems at compile time that dynamic languages typically cannot catch until run time
That's the good news. The bad news is that the vast majority of those "problems" are issues created by the static type system itself.
Even the absolute worst-case scenarios were well over 10:1.
Web apps are usually mostly string manipulation. Scripting languages have high-level primitives for string manipulation that are themselves written in C. So the difference may not be that much at all.
I've done quite a bit of benchmarking on string operations and container frameworks. You can make C go ultra fast if you write custom containers, dangerous memory strategies and string handling code for the target problem. However, a site like Facebook wouldn't exist if it had to wait while people laboriously write and debug that kind of code. You might as well use assembly language.
In the real world, people will use C++/STL as the default "high performance" implementation. For string and container operations, the STL usually doesn't really end up being any faster than Java or similar languages, and even scripting languages are competitive in some cases. (If they have to stick with C, they'd use something like glib to keep their sanity. That's even slower.)