I've already discussed what is going on. Links attesting to all this abound, but somehow I doubt they will convince you. You seem hell-bent on blaming the POTUS for the effect of the opposite party's calculated and coordinated intransegence, so I seriously doubt there's some magical fact I can find on the internet that will convine you otherwise. So be it.
I will say that this is preciesly why the Republican party has gotten this bad. In sane times folks would have seen what the bad actors were doing years ago and voted all those schmucks out of office. Instead, people like you are perfectly willing to blame other people for not stopping them rather than the culprits themselves. So about a quarter of the country won't vote them out because they buy into the party line no matter what it is today, and about half the rest won't vote them out because their opponents aren't perfect either. That gives them a majority.
This just allows them to get worse and worse, every cycle. But bah. I give up. You don't care.
A weird sentiment. If you'd been paying attention at all for the last 7 years, one thinks you would have noticed that the Republicans in Congress feel that constituents that don't believe the same as they do don't count. Their job is to help their national party, not pay attention to petty local concerns. Otherwise they wouldn't be voting unanimously for everything. Obama complaining about it would just make things worse, as he's the enemy, and thus anything he wants is automatically wrong.
There really is no way out of this situation as long as the current Republican party has control of a significant amount of Congress. For this situation to end, either the party has to change a lot, or there needs to be a lot less of it.
We have one party that is willing to say publicly that water boarding isn't torture. And on the other side, one that says Guantanamo Bay is wrong and should be closed, yet is unwilling to actually close it.
This is a bit of a myth, designed to make the Dems look almost as bad as the Reps.
The truth is that Congress, with unanimous Republican support and only a few Dems, passed a law to make it impossible to close it. The vast majority of Democrats want it closed, but that isn't enough in an age when Republicans have comparable numbers in the legislature (when they don't have more) and vote as a single unblinking unit on every issue.
Yes, but to perform a good study I suspect they'd need multiple examples of writing in the language in question each year for a couple of hundred years. I'm no expert, but I don't think we have that volume of precisely dated material for any language that's been "dead" for a millenium.
Also, they'd really need originals to not have to worry about the language corruption that copyist "corrections" can introduce. Almost nothing left over from that vintage is an original. Most of copies of copies of copies (or worse).
So basically, you need stuff from the era of the printing press.
Arabic is probably a good choice, but I don't think Sanscrit would be a very good subject for this kind of study. They need something with at least a couple hundred years of intensive literary activity, so they can compare word frequencies year to year over multiple decades.
I'd suggest Chinese like the GP, but the use of the Chinese writing system for what are effectively multiple different languages could muddy things a bit.
What I'd really like to see included would be Cherokee, which has been in print since the early 1800's. I think finding enough written material might be a problem though. Japaneese might be a really good choice.
Gotta disagree with this. There's a huge difference between everyone being afraid of random crime, and a certian group of people being terrorized specifically to stay away from certian resources, locations, activites, etc. It makes perfect sense for the first to be just one crime for the act in question, while the second is also a crime for the attempt to terrorize other people.
(Note. I had mod points, but posted a disagreement rather than modding the poster down. This is a common belief, and needs to be refuted, not ignored).
No. C is a much lower-level language than Pascal. It wasn't until C++ came along that you can really say that.
C's huge advantage was that you could do real work with it (unlike a standards-compliant Pascal compiler), it was simple enough that compilers could run on the small 8 and 16-bit machines that were popular at the time.
Pascal's problem was cheifly that the language spec didn't allow for things like I/O, modular programming and type conversions. Basically all the stuff a professional programmer needs to do real work. Some compiler writers got around this by greatly extending the language (DEC's Pascal compiler was great, and lots of people love Delphi to this day), but really it's better to just make a language that is more useful.
Ada is one of those more useful languages. Its chief problem with adoption really was the the world was not ready for strong typing in 1983 when it was introduced. 8-bit computers aren't powerful enough to run a compiler that has to check types, so back then it required a mainframe to run a compiler. To make matters worse, 70's Coders dropped into the language cold absolutely hated the compiler suddenly making them stop and think about the design of their data objects before pounding out code.
These days any little home PC can easily handle a such a compiler, and OO design is almost universally accepted. But sadly in the meantime the world has moved on...
Maybe some companies and developers can live on giving support, but for the vast majority of software developers, thats not possible when anyone out there can take your code and build their own
You got some numbers showing this? I'd always heard that the "vast majority of software developers" are working on internal company software that is never used outside their company. For these folks, Free Software is a great boon, as it allows them to use anything they can get their hands on, and it doesn't really apply to their own work since they don't redistribute anything.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'll need some references if you are going to make such a novel assertion.
I took public transit in Phily (where TFA is set) for years. Some doctors may take the trains out to the main line (if they aren't on call), but no, doctors are not riding the busses there.
I'm guessing the OP really meant "immigrants". Either way, this post exhibits better English than 99.9% of native English speakers are capable of. I'm not exagerating in the slightest. Color me impressed.
Incidentally, I think they have hit on the reason why Americans, famous for being "sarcasm imparied", are that way. We just have way more nutjobs over here. So when someone says something completely assenine, sarcasm isn't nearly as safe a bet as it might be in other places.
Ummm...he was talking about the USA when he said that. Pretty much all Tocqueville quotes in existence come from his book Democracy in America.
Also, he was pretty clearly full of shit. History is full of kings deciding to tax other people besides themselves. Tocqueville wrote a lot of stuff like this, as the audience he was writing for were mostly people living under monarchies (including his own home country, which he'd like to live in himself without getting tossed in the royal dungeons).
It is debatable how common water is outside Earth, and everywhere on Earth water is found, life is found, no matter how harsh the conditions. So it is generally a huge deal when the possibility of water is discovered on another planet.
I think you just inadvertantly explained to everyone why this is in fact a big deal.
No. The effect scheming Democrats had on the outcome has been calculated in the single digits of percentage votes cast. Romney beat Ron Paul by almost 30%. 3% more here or there would have had almost no impact. However, throwing that 3% at Santorum was almost enough to get him an overall victory, and in fact was enough in several places to net him delegates.
When I was a kid in the '70's, it was quite common to insert the phrase "screw you J. Edgar Hoover" into any telephone conversation when odd noises were heard over the line. Most adults I knew did it. People my parent's age still say it on occasion. It seems pretty clear their assumtion was that the FBI was listening in on personal phone calls with impunity.
Slashdot Mirror
I've already discussed what is going on. Links attesting to all this abound, but somehow I doubt they will convince you. You seem hell-bent on blaming the POTUS for the effect of the opposite party's calculated and coordinated intransegence, so I seriously doubt there's some magical fact I can find on the internet that will convine you otherwise. So be it.
I will say that this is preciesly why the Republican party has gotten this bad. In sane times folks would have seen what the bad actors were doing years ago and voted all those schmucks out of office. Instead, people like you are perfectly willing to blame other people for not stopping them rather than the culprits themselves. So about a quarter of the country won't vote them out because they buy into the party line no matter what it is today, and about half the rest won't vote them out because their opponents aren't perfect either. That gives them a majority.
This just allows them to get worse and worse, every cycle. But bah. I give up. You don't care.
A weird sentiment. If you'd been paying attention at all for the last 7 years, one thinks you would have noticed that the Republicans in Congress feel that constituents that don't believe the same as they do don't count. Their job is to help their national party, not pay attention to petty local concerns. Otherwise they wouldn't be voting unanimously for everything. Obama complaining about it would just make things worse, as he's the enemy, and thus anything he wants is automatically wrong.
There really is no way out of this situation as long as the current Republican party has control of a significant amount of Congress. For this situation to end, either the party has to change a lot, or there needs to be a lot less of it.
We have one party that is willing to say publicly that water boarding isn't torture. And on the other side, one that says Guantanamo Bay is wrong and should be closed, yet is unwilling to actually close it.
This is a bit of a myth, designed to make the Dems look almost as bad as the Reps.
The truth is that Congress, with unanimous Republican support and only a few Dems, passed a law to make it impossible to close it. The vast majority of Democrats want it closed, but that isn't enough in an age when Republicans have comparable numbers in the legislature (when they don't have more) and vote as a single unblinking unit on every issue.
Actually, assuming it does happen to someone else, it would be next to impossible for it to not happen to a nicer person.
It is, if you spell it "L O B B Y I N G"
More likely they are combining their losers in preparation of either selling them to someone, or spinning them off into their own company.
Putting them together makes jettisoning them at some point easier.
Please let me assume you are also railing just as hard against all the subsidies oil companies are also receiving for oil exploration right now.
Yes, but to perform a good study I suspect they'd need multiple examples of writing in the language in question each year for a couple of hundred years. I'm no expert, but I don't think we have that volume of precisely dated material for any language that's been "dead" for a millenium.
Also, they'd really need originals to not have to worry about the language corruption that copyist "corrections" can introduce. Almost nothing left over from that vintage is an original. Most of copies of copies of copies (or worse).
So basically, you need stuff from the era of the printing press.
Arabic is probably a good choice, but I don't think Sanscrit would be a very good subject for this kind of study. They need something with at least a couple hundred years of intensive literary activity, so they can compare word frequencies year to year over multiple decades. I'd suggest Chinese like the GP, but the use of the Chinese writing system for what are effectively multiple different languages could muddy things a bit. What I'd really like to see included would be Cherokee, which has been in print since the early 1800's. I think finding enough written material might be a problem though. Japaneese might be a really good choice.
Gotta disagree with this. There's a huge difference between everyone being afraid of random crime, and a certian group of people being terrorized specifically to stay away from certian resources, locations, activites, etc. It makes perfect sense for the first to be just one crime for the act in question, while the second is also a crime for the attempt to terrorize other people.
(Note. I had mod points, but posted a disagreement rather than modding the poster down. This is a common belief, and needs to be refuted, not ignored).
Right. See The Mythical Man month. Executive Summary: Most tasks aren't like perfect Business School widgets. 9 women can't have a baby in 1 month.
The only real advantage C++ has over Ada is that more people use C++.
That's a huge advantage though, with all kinds of important implications.
No. C is a much lower-level language than Pascal. It wasn't until C++ came along that you can really say that.
C's huge advantage was that you could do real work with it (unlike a standards-compliant Pascal compiler), it was simple enough that compilers could run on the small 8 and 16-bit machines that were popular at the time.
Pascal's problem was cheifly that the language spec didn't allow for things like I/O, modular programming and type conversions. Basically all the stuff a professional programmer needs to do real work. Some compiler writers got around this by greatly extending the language (DEC's Pascal compiler was great, and lots of people love Delphi to this day), but really it's better to just make a language that is more useful.
Ada is one of those more useful languages. Its chief problem with adoption really was the the world was not ready for strong typing in 1983 when it was introduced. 8-bit computers aren't powerful enough to run a compiler that has to check types, so back then it required a mainframe to run a compiler. To make matters worse, 70's Coders dropped into the language cold absolutely hated the compiler suddenly making them stop and think about the design of their data objects before pounding out code.
These days any little home PC can easily handle a such a compiler, and OO design is almost universally accepted. But sadly in the meantime the world has moved on...
Quite. In fact, porting working debugged code to another programming language is almost always a moronic thing to do.
The only real exception is when you need a program ported to a platform that does not have a compiler for its programming language.
Speaking of BS...
Maybe some companies and developers can live on giving support, but for the vast majority of software developers, thats not possible when anyone out there can take your code and build their own
You got some numbers showing this? I'd always heard that the "vast majority of software developers" are working on internal company software that is never used outside their company. For these folks, Free Software is a great boon, as it allows them to use anything they can get their hands on, and it doesn't really apply to their own work since they don't redistribute anything.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'll need some references if you are going to make such a novel assertion.
I took public transit in Phily (where TFA is set) for years. Some doctors may take the trains out to the main line (if they aren't on call), but no, doctors are not riding the busses there.
You're also jamming the receipt of said important calls, which the jammer has no knowledge of.
OK...good argument start...
For instance, what if there's a doctor on the bus who ...
Raaaazzz! Thanks for playing...
I'm guessing the OP really meant "immigrants". Either way, this post exhibits better English than 99.9% of native English speakers are capable of. I'm not exagerating in the slightest. Color me impressed.
Incidentally, I think they have hit on the reason why Americans, famous for being "sarcasm imparied", are that way. We just have way more nutjobs over here. So when someone says something completely assenine, sarcasm isn't nearly as safe a bet as it might be in other places.
Ummm...he was talking about the USA when he said that. Pretty much all Tocqueville quotes in existence come from his book Democracy in America.
Also, he was pretty clearly full of shit. History is full of kings deciding to tax other people besides themselves. Tocqueville wrote a lot of stuff like this, as the audience he was writing for were mostly people living under monarchies (including his own home country, which he'd like to live in himself without getting tossed in the royal dungeons).
It is debatable how common water is outside Earth, and everywhere on Earth water is found, life is found, no matter how harsh the conditions. So it is generally a huge deal when the possibility of water is discovered on another planet.
I think you just inadvertantly explained to everyone why this is in fact a big deal.
but did you know that Javascript is actually used to route the majority of phone calls placed through cell networks?
No, but that explains a lot...
No. The effect scheming Democrats had on the outcome has been calculated in the single digits of percentage votes cast. Romney beat Ron Paul by almost 30%. 3% more here or there would have had almost no impact. However, throwing that 3% at Santorum was almost enough to get him an overall victory, and in fact was enough in several places to net him delegates.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
That must be one really tough coffee table.
How old are you, 103?
When I was a kid in the '70's, it was quite common to insert the phrase "screw you J. Edgar Hoover" into any telephone conversation when odd noises were heard over the line. Most adults I knew did it. People my parent's age still say it on occasion. It seems pretty clear their assumtion was that the FBI was listening in on personal phone calls with impunity.