RE: Cosmetics. Some mascaras (the gunk used to enhance/thicken/lengthen eyelashes to you guys) can go moldy. It's pretty rare, but if you develop pink eye, it may be the source of some nasty bacteria or mold, and even if it isn't throw it out because you've cross-contaminated it if you've used it recently. That's one reason never to share mascara or eye liner. Even lipstick can be risky if the other person has a cold sore, etc. If someone wants to borrow it, just gift it to them.
Then there are things like allergies and contact dermatitis, and environmental damage caused by using nanobeads in cosmetics, and all the dangerous chemicals listed here that are allowed because cosmetics don't undergo as rigorous testing and approval as, say, food or medicines (or gasoline).
But you generally still don't listen. Until they're literally falling apart (and sometimes even after) you won't throw them out or donate them "because". Like the underwear you won't throw out because when you were single you needed that ratty pair of underwear for "laundry day." (Mind you, women aren't completely immune to that last one - I knew one woman who actually stapled together one pair of panties that had split on one side so she had something to wear for laundry day. Seriously boys and girls, how hard is it to buy a dozen at a time and rotate them? "But I keep forgetting when I go to the store." You probably won't forget if you go shopping while wearing those stapled underwear. Not when you end up like a playboy centerfold pic, with a staple in your bellybutton:-) )
Washing? Save energy and make it less complicated. Do both at the same time. After all, if the clothes are sweaty, so is the guy.
I worked with one geek who didn't wash his new jeans for more than a month - he said he didn't want to lose that "new jeans" finish. Even though they were so disgusting-looking and out of shape it looked like he had a couple of potatoes in the ass of his pants. And this guy is a germaphobe! His best-before date expired some time in childhood.
Depends on your fridge. I've found yogourt buried in the back of the fridge that was supposedly expired 90 days before, and it was just fine. Milk and eggs? Good for a month after the date. Just gotta keep your fridge cold enough.
Drugs? They found a stash of medications that had been overlooked for between 30 and 40 years, so they were decades beyond their expiry dates. All were still within 90% of their original potency, and some were at 100%. The ones you have to be most careful of are some antibiotics such as tetracycline - it can become lethal. But even drugs like insulin still work just fine a year after the date if stored properly - and even when stored at room temperature work just fine well past the 1-month recommended "use after opening" date. With the elimination of cow and bovine insulin, and the extreme purity of GMO insulin, the stuff just doesn't deteriorate all that fast. Same like many foods, where modern quality control means you're far less likely to get something that will be bad by the best-before date.
Peanut butter? About 5 years after the date before it goes rancid. Spare rib sauce? A decade - at least. I've got some from the turn of the century that made fantastic ribs this past spring. Stored in a cool, dark place, it just doesn't go bad.
Stuff in the freezer? Frost-free fridges and freezers work by reversing the cooling cycle, heating up the internal coils to melt accumulated ice. It's the repeated heating and cooling and the corresponding changes in relative humidity that causes "freezer burn". Seal your stuff in plastic containers, because plastic wrap just isn't good enough, and allows the temperature fluctuations to come in direct contact with the food. Same as your ice cubes will sublimate - unless you put them in a sealed plastic container instead of leaving them in the ice cube trays.
Then again, US milk is generally adulterated, which is why other countries limit imports of US dairy.
Where do I start? I guess the beginning is as good a place as any...
Spelling, the ability of it or the lack thereof does not work like that.
Try to argue that your typo-ridden grammar-deficient job application deserves equal consideration. Also, in code, both spelling and punctuation need to be accurate. Variable names with typos may compile if there are valid variables that just so happen to match the typo in question so the compiler doesn't freak out, but your code is broken. Same with languages that auto-vivify any variable that hasn't been encountered before. Have you never debugged any code? Sure sounds like you haven't.
I for my part are what I would call 'a superiour reader'.
But shit at grammar AND spelling. 2 mistakes in a short sentence bragging about your superior skills. What a fucking joke.
And the grammar failure in the next sentence. Try... you might be able to find it if you look long enough.
But this:
Just because I have a typo somewhere does not mean I don't know how the word should be spelled.
So you're just lazy. Or incompetent. Or both. Let's look at the rest of the sentence to help decide which:
OTOH, there are plenty of words, where I don't know how they are spelled, so the spelling correction hopefully underlines them red;)
Another couple of mistakes. I'll take the most obvious - you're the guy who is always screwing up brake|break, rain|rein|reign, ant they're|their|there, but because it passes spell check, you don't know you sound like an idiot.
In ancient times there was no agreed 'we spell like this' way of writing. It was more important WHAT you wrote than HOW you spelled it.
We're not living in "ancient times" where the majority of people couldn't read. Also, most of them couldn't write anything, important or otherwise, so your point is kind of pointless on both grounds.
And then there's this:
I still adhere to that idea. And luckily there are countries, like France, where it is widely accepted that spelling is dam difficult in some languages.
You show your ignorance. France has an official way of spelling, as decided by the Académie Français, and your spell-check screwed you over yet again - it's damn - dam is something built to restrict a river.
The french are VERY fussy about their spelling. Obviously you've never dealt with them. I have - many times. Even a missing accent will often get a nasty reply that deals ONLY with the missing accent, not the original topic, because if you can't spell, they dismiss anything you have to say as irrelevant..
You are an example of what I mean - you can't even understand simple sentences. I never said that the language used matters - but knowing more than one human language has many benefits to the individual over the course of their lifetime, whereas knowing 20 computer languages just means that 18 will be obsolete and the other two on their way out - same as always.
White unilingual english speakers will be the minority in the US in 2043 - when those 8-year-olds will be 34. They won't be fit for management in most positions if they don't learn at least one other language - spanish is a good start. And they also won't be fit for any customer-facing jobs (forget about being commercial or industrial account managers). Plus it protects against dementia. Knowing a couple of computer languages doesn't.
Contrary to your supposition, nobody is threatened by children leaning programming. We just think it demonstrates fucked-up priorities. Most of those children will never need to code in their life - same as today. All of them will benefit from a well-rounded education that teaches the basics, you know, stuff like reading, writing, and arithmetic. History, so they recognize the bs politicians are pushing out for what it is, and the consequences of being complacent. Geography and geology, so that they don't point to Australia when someone asks them to point out the USA on an unmarked globe, and they can understand the consequences of global warming, as well as not being so stupid as to dismiss it.
Whether most of the people on this site learned programming at the age of 8 is neither relevant nor proven. Most of the people don't use this site. Just as most people will never need to code - and this will become even more true in the future.
This is just the whole "get computers and the internet into schools to make our kids more educated" over again. It didn't work then either. Otherwise, with the prevalence of smartphones, the average 12-year-old should be an Einstein by now, instead of not knowing how to spell or make change or understand percentages even after finishing high school. Instead, we have Facebook making people mentally ill.
Children in the target group (up to 12) can also learn logic and processes from learning the basics of chemistry, biology, physics, even history and human languages - though this should be continued to graduation from high school at the very least. This will give them the well-rounded background needed to survive in the coming world, where nobody gives a fuck if you can code, because the simple stuff is automated away or already done well enough that an off-the-shelf solution is not just good enough, but the standard, and the hard stuff is done by a very small minority - who also need to be well-rounded even to begin to define the problem adequately.
Let them learn about the world before trying to shove skills that will be useless without the most basic background knowledge. Anyone who has an aptitude for coding can pick it up - but most people won't. Most people are, by definition, stupid, or at best, just average. If you've ever managed people, you know that most people are lacking initiative, insight, and ingenuity. Sure, they can learn the stuff you spoon-feed them, but they really won't be able to extrapolate from that unless you continue to hand-hold them and give them ever more gold stars. And those who won't need hand-holding will learn it without the pablum.
That's pretty damn short-sighted. Let them learn how natural processes work (science) before they try to create their own. 8-to-12 year olds (the target group) are better served getting the basics right first. If they don't understand how the world works, how do you expect them to design programs that are at all relevant?
The earlier you learn multiple languages the easier it will be in the future to pick up new ones.
This is the reason for teaching new languages to the target group (8 to 12 year old kids) such as French or Spanish at a young age. Plus, of course, that people who speak more than one language have lower rates of dementia.
No computer language has been proven to offer both the immediate and long-term benefits that learning a second human language does. And knowing a second language opens far more doors than knowing a computer language ever will, both socially and economically. And this will only become more true as white unilingual Americans lose their majority status.
Those kids will need to know Spanish if they want to advance in their careers. Knowing python or matlab or javascript is a lot easier to pick up, and can be done at any age, if they need it (but most people won't, just as today most people don't need to know how to code).
Here's the thing - nerds/geeks are not special, just as being a coder isn't special. It's become more a door to a crappy career with crappy working conditions, crappy bosses, crappy projects, and a crappy end-game where you have to start over from scratch in another field well before retirement age.To use a comic book analogy (since geeks and nerds should understand that) the golden age is long gone, and so is the silver age. The reality is that if you're reading this, you're more likely to be closer to the end of your career than your beginning. Welcome to the realities of ageism, where Jack Weinberg's "never trust anyone over 30" has become "never hire anyone over 30."
We never thought that the 21st century would turn out like this... but it is what it is.
And how does any of that relate to the stated goal of teaching an 8-year-old how to program, as per the original question? It doesn't. They have a lot more things to learn before they ever get to that point in their lives. Teaching them programming would be a bit more useless than teaching them welding at that age (but I admit that the 12-year-olds would have a blast with an arc welder or a set of oxyacetylene torches, and learning important safety lessons and discipline and respect for their tools that will serve them well in later life no matter what they get into is always a good thing). And they'd have a useful skill, because we're still not at the point where robots can do a good one-off welding job.
But neither course of action is advisable for 8 to 12-year olds - they have many more gaps in basic knowledge that need to be filled in first. If they want to learn to program, they can certainly learn on their own, same as music, same as art, same as rock hunting, same as lots of things that people still learn outside of school because they want to, and can find others to help them if and when needed, but don't end up expecting to be spoon-fed all the answers.
You obviously didn't read the question. This has nothing whatsoever to do with high school - we're talking specifically about an 8 year old and a 12 year old. When's the last time you saw an 8-year-old attending high school? To that age group, the most important events of the school day are the recess bell, the lunch bell, and the end of school bell.
Also, a lot depends on the teacher - and most teachers are shit when it comes to inspiring students on subjects that are generally considered boring, like history. When I was 10, I loved reading historic biographies - Madame Curie, Best and Banting, Eisenhower - but I was always on the edge of failing history because it was not really about people, just dates and events. Reading books like "Pillars of the Earth" (no, I didn't watch the subsequent movie - there is no way that it could do the book justice any more than the Time Machine or War of the Worlds movies could properly portray the books) brought the period to life.
And I certainly didn't learn to play the guitar, synthesizer, etc because of boring music classes that we all couldn't wait to get out of.
Why bother? Get them grounded in something that won't be obsolete with the next language fad. You know, real science, real knowledge, something that will help them build their analytical and judgement skills. (No, most coding doesn't build analytical skills - most of it is boring boilerplate, which is why there are so many "code-by-cut-n-paste-from-the-net" "experts.") Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology...
Throw in various maths, as well as language (judging by the way so many slashdotters don't know the difference between brake and break, or rain, rein, and reign, if they can spell in 10 years time they'll be seen as brainiacs). And history - so they recognize past mistakes when they repeat them and don't over-commit to a bad course of action.
But forget computers. That they can pick up on their own if they're interested. And if you try to teach them you'll kill their interest by making i seem like school work instead of a possible fun hobby that might, at some future date, come in handy.
Snowden had value to Putin as a embarrassment alone - perhaps you should consider being less naive about world politics before you start accusing others of being insane.
Finally, something that Snowden and Trump have in common. Except that Snowden has done less harm to the country's reputation than the president has.:-)
In a swimsuit in September's issue of Vogue. Hardly looks "mutilated". And certainly not like a dude. Get over it - people change sex. It's a legally recognized fact (including by the military tribunal that tried her, as well as the current chiefs of staff running the military).
Well, since everyone is slagging on Chelsea Manning, why not take look at September's issue of Vogue and see what she looks like now in a swim suit. You'll be disappointed that she doesn't look like a guy, but one of the effects of estrogen is to redistribute fat in the body, and that includes the face, giving a more rounded, female look..
And your "point" was bogus. Breathing is something that comes naturally to humans. Using exogenous estrogen is not - it's artificial. If you can't tell the difference between natural and artificial, it's no wonder you post anonymously.
Perhaps YOU should read the article. Higher doses and more exercise promotes much more muscle gain. That they studied skeletal muscle doesn't mean that it doesn't affect other muscles. And logically, how could it affect one without the other?
Then there's personal experience. I'm 51 and I'm as strong as I was decades ago despite having less testosterone than 3/4 or more of all women. HRT works, and if you go for doses that put your estrogen level to that of a woman in her 20s (much higher than just relief from menopause - 3 to 8 times higher) and your job involves lots of heavy labour (like volunteering during flood relief) not only do you feel half your age, but the muscle gain is embarrassing. Visible changes in just 3 days - changes that wouldn't be anywhere near as pronounced with estrogen alone. And it continues increasing until the exercise level drops (like after the flood is over).
I never said that estrogen use was on the rise to increase muscle mass. Don't even imply it. It's an undesirable side effect if you get too much exercise. The only lie here is yours - that the muscle gain is only skeletal muscle. The article does not say that anywhere. It used to be that 2/3 of all women were on HRT, but they got scared off it because of the bogus Women's Health Initiative studies, which were based exclusively on horse hormones such as Premarin, not human estrogen. The increase in risk of stroke that they found is non-existent when using estrogen (eg. Estrace), so it's bottomed out at 12% of all women, and it's a real battle to get doctors and patients back on track.
Just because you can't modify a binary doesn't give you an excuse to hate on those of us who have. Maybe you're the one who should consider drinking bleach.
And what does that have to do with the fact that the BSD license is, in absolute terms, freer? There's nothing in it that restricts developers from releasing their source code, same as the GPL. The freedom to choose the license should be up to the developer. The freedom to use the product should be up to the user.
The GPL imposes requirements on both the developer and the user that don't exist with the BSD license. Developers must be able to supply source for any program they distribute, and users who want to distribute copies of the "free GPL" license are similarly required to distribute source on demand to anyone they distribute to.
So what happens when the gpl app you distributed when the source is lost or otherwise not available (web site goes dark, developer dies, etc)? You're still on the hook to distribute the source, even though you were assuming it would always be available for download from the developer. All of a sudden you're legally liable for breech of contract and breech of license. If the recipient had used it because they understood that the source would be available if required (say, for customization or bug fixes) and now they can't, you're legally on the hook for all their losses.
You missed the point with your analogy. We're talking about a muscle mass and strength increase (with exercise), not just maintenance of existing muscle.
That's why so many transexual are so fucking ugly too. They were a fat ugly weirdo before "taking estrogen" and then they get even more rounded and sloppy looking. Really does it matter if you skin looks younger if you already look like a fat neanderthal
Slashdot Mirror
RE: Cosmetics. Some mascaras (the gunk used to enhance/thicken/lengthen eyelashes to you guys) can go moldy. It's pretty rare, but if you develop pink eye, it may be the source of some nasty bacteria or mold, and even if it isn't throw it out because you've cross-contaminated it if you've used it recently. That's one reason never to share mascara or eye liner. Even lipstick can be risky if the other person has a cold sore, etc. If someone wants to borrow it, just gift it to them.
Then there are things like allergies and contact dermatitis, and environmental damage caused by using nanobeads in cosmetics, and all the dangerous chemicals listed here that are allowed because cosmetics don't undergo as rigorous testing and approval as, say, food or medicines (or gasoline).
But you generally still don't listen. Until they're literally falling apart (and sometimes even after) you won't throw them out or donate them "because". Like the underwear you won't throw out because when you were single you needed that ratty pair of underwear for "laundry day." (Mind you, women aren't completely immune to that last one - I knew one woman who actually stapled together one pair of panties that had split on one side so she had something to wear for laundry day. Seriously boys and girls, how hard is it to buy a dozen at a time and rotate them? "But I keep forgetting when I go to the store." You probably won't forget if you go shopping while wearing those stapled underwear. Not when you end up like a playboy centerfold pic, with a staple in your bellybutton :-) )
Washing? Save energy and make it less complicated. Do both at the same time. After all, if the clothes are sweaty, so is the guy.
I worked with one geek who didn't wash his new jeans for more than a month - he said he didn't want to lose that "new jeans" finish. Even though they were so disgusting-looking and out of shape it looked like he had a couple of potatoes in the ass of his pants. And this guy is a germaphobe! His best-before date expired some time in childhood.
Depends on your fridge. I've found yogourt buried in the back of the fridge that was supposedly expired 90 days before, and it was just fine. Milk and eggs? Good for a month after the date. Just gotta keep your fridge cold enough.
Drugs? They found a stash of medications that had been overlooked for between 30 and 40 years, so they were decades beyond their expiry dates. All were still within 90% of their original potency, and some were at 100%. The ones you have to be most careful of are some antibiotics such as tetracycline - it can become lethal. But even drugs like insulin still work just fine a year after the date if stored properly - and even when stored at room temperature work just fine well past the 1-month recommended "use after opening" date. With the elimination of cow and bovine insulin, and the extreme purity of GMO insulin, the stuff just doesn't deteriorate all that fast. Same like many foods, where modern quality control means you're far less likely to get something that will be bad by the best-before date.
Peanut butter? About 5 years after the date before it goes rancid. Spare rib sauce? A decade - at least. I've got some from the turn of the century that made fantastic ribs this past spring. Stored in a cool, dark place, it just doesn't go bad.
Stuff in the freezer? Frost-free fridges and freezers work by reversing the cooling cycle, heating up the internal coils to melt accumulated ice. It's the repeated heating and cooling and the corresponding changes in relative humidity that causes "freezer burn". Seal your stuff in plastic containers, because plastic wrap just isn't good enough, and allows the temperature fluctuations to come in direct contact with the food. Same as your ice cubes will sublimate - unless you put them in a sealed plastic container instead of leaving them in the ice cube trays.
Then again, US milk is generally adulterated, which is why other countries limit imports of US dairy.
Where do I start? I guess the beginning is as good a place as any ...
Spelling, the ability of it or the lack thereof does not work like that.
Try to argue that your typo-ridden grammar-deficient job application deserves equal consideration. Also, in code, both spelling and punctuation need to be accurate. Variable names with typos may compile if there are valid variables that just so happen to match the typo in question so the compiler doesn't freak out, but your code is broken. Same with languages that auto-vivify any variable that hasn't been encountered before. Have you never debugged any code? Sure sounds like you haven't.
I for my part are what I would call 'a superiour reader'.
But shit at grammar AND spelling. 2 mistakes in a short sentence bragging about your superior skills. What a fucking joke.
And the grammar failure in the next sentence. Try ... you might be able to find it if you look long enough.
But this:
Just because I have a typo somewhere does not mean I don't know how the word should be spelled.
So you're just lazy. Or incompetent. Or both. Let's look at the rest of the sentence to help decide which:
OTOH, there are plenty of words, where I don't know how they are spelled, so the spelling correction hopefully underlines them red ;)
Another couple of mistakes. I'll take the most obvious - you're the guy who is always screwing up brake|break, rain|rein|reign, ant they're|their|there, but because it passes spell check, you don't know you sound like an idiot.
In ancient times there was no agreed 'we spell like this' way of writing. It was more important WHAT you wrote than HOW you spelled it.
We're not living in "ancient times" where the majority of people couldn't read. Also, most of them couldn't write anything, important or otherwise, so your point is kind of pointless on both grounds.
And then there's this:
I still adhere to that idea. And luckily there are countries, like France, where it is widely accepted that spelling is dam difficult in some languages.
You show your ignorance. France has an official way of spelling, as decided by the Académie Français, and your spell-check screwed you over yet again - it's damn - dam is something built to restrict a river.
The french are VERY fussy about their spelling. Obviously you've never dealt with them. I have - many times. Even a missing accent will often get a nasty reply that deals ONLY with the missing accent, not the original topic, because if you can't spell, they dismiss anything you have to say as irrelevant..
You are an example of what I mean - you can't even understand simple sentences. I never said that the language used matters - but knowing more than one human language has many benefits to the individual over the course of their lifetime, whereas knowing 20 computer languages just means that 18 will be obsolete and the other two on their way out - same as always.
White unilingual english speakers will be the minority in the US in 2043 - when those 8-year-olds will be 34. They won't be fit for management in most positions if they don't learn at least one other language - spanish is a good start. And they also won't be fit for any customer-facing jobs (forget about being commercial or industrial account managers). Plus it protects against dementia. Knowing a couple of computer languages doesn't.
Contrary to your supposition, nobody is threatened by children leaning programming. We just think it demonstrates fucked-up priorities. Most of those children will never need to code in their life - same as today. All of them will benefit from a well-rounded education that teaches the basics, you know, stuff like reading, writing, and arithmetic. History, so they recognize the bs politicians are pushing out for what it is, and the consequences of being complacent. Geography and geology, so that they don't point to Australia when someone asks them to point out the USA on an unmarked globe, and they can understand the consequences of global warming, as well as not being so stupid as to dismiss it.
Whether most of the people on this site learned programming at the age of 8 is neither relevant nor proven. Most of the people don't use this site. Just as most people will never need to code - and this will become even more true in the future.
This is just the whole "get computers and the internet into schools to make our kids more educated" over again. It didn't work then either. Otherwise, with the prevalence of smartphones, the average 12-year-old should be an Einstein by now, instead of not knowing how to spell or make change or understand percentages even after finishing high school. Instead, we have Facebook making people mentally ill.
Children in the target group (up to 12) can also learn logic and processes from learning the basics of chemistry, biology, physics, even history and human languages - though this should be continued to graduation from high school at the very least. This will give them the well-rounded background needed to survive in the coming world, where nobody gives a fuck if you can code, because the simple stuff is automated away or already done well enough that an off-the-shelf solution is not just good enough, but the standard, and the hard stuff is done by a very small minority - who also need to be well-rounded even to begin to define the problem adequately.
Let them learn about the world before trying to shove skills that will be useless without the most basic background knowledge. Anyone who has an aptitude for coding can pick it up - but most people won't. Most people are, by definition, stupid, or at best, just average. If you've ever managed people, you know that most people are lacking initiative, insight, and ingenuity. Sure, they can learn the stuff you spoon-feed them, but they really won't be able to extrapolate from that unless you continue to hand-hold them and give them ever more gold stars. And those who won't need hand-holding will learn it without the pablum.
That's pretty damn short-sighted. Let them learn how natural processes work (science) before they try to create their own. 8-to-12 year olds (the target group) are better served getting the basics right first. If they don't understand how the world works, how do you expect them to design programs that are at all relevant?
The earlier you learn multiple languages the easier it will be in the future to pick up new ones.
This is the reason for teaching new languages to the target group (8 to 12 year old kids) such as French or Spanish at a young age. Plus, of course, that people who speak more than one language have lower rates of dementia.
No computer language has been proven to offer both the immediate and long-term benefits that learning a second human language does. And knowing a second language opens far more doors than knowing a computer language ever will, both socially and economically. And this will only become more true as white unilingual Americans lose their majority status.
Those kids will need to know Spanish if they want to advance in their careers. Knowing python or matlab or javascript is a lot easier to pick up, and can be done at any age, if they need it (but most people won't, just as today most people don't need to know how to code).
Here's the thing - nerds/geeks are not special, just as being a coder isn't special. It's become more a door to a crappy career with crappy working conditions, crappy bosses, crappy projects, and a crappy end-game where you have to start over from scratch in another field well before retirement age.To use a comic book analogy (since geeks and nerds should understand that) the golden age is long gone, and so is the silver age. The reality is that if you're reading this, you're more likely to be closer to the end of your career than your beginning. Welcome to the realities of ageism, where Jack Weinberg's "never trust anyone over 30" has become "never hire anyone over 30."
We never thought that the 21st century would turn out like this ... but it is what it is.
And how does any of that relate to the stated goal of teaching an 8-year-old how to program, as per the original question? It doesn't. They have a lot more things to learn before they ever get to that point in their lives. Teaching them programming would be a bit more useless than teaching them welding at that age (but I admit that the 12-year-olds would have a blast with an arc welder or a set of oxyacetylene torches, and learning important safety lessons and discipline and respect for their tools that will serve them well in later life no matter what they get into is always a good thing). And they'd have a useful skill, because we're still not at the point where robots can do a good one-off welding job.
But neither course of action is advisable for 8 to 12-year olds - they have many more gaps in basic knowledge that need to be filled in first. If they want to learn to program, they can certainly learn on their own, same as music, same as art, same as rock hunting, same as lots of things that people still learn outside of school because they want to, and can find others to help them if and when needed, but don't end up expecting to be spoon-fed all the answers.
Hell, no, it's (x86 assembler) certainly not obsolete. I agree 100%. Always better to know what's going on under the hood. :-)
And as has been pointed out many times in the past, ALL of these change orders are on file. What's your problem?
You obviously didn't read the question. This has nothing whatsoever to do with high school - we're talking specifically about an 8 year old and a 12 year old. When's the last time you saw an 8-year-old attending high school? To that age group, the most important events of the school day are the recess bell, the lunch bell, and the end of school bell.
Also, a lot depends on the teacher - and most teachers are shit when it comes to inspiring students on subjects that are generally considered boring, like history. When I was 10, I loved reading historic biographies - Madame Curie, Best and Banting, Eisenhower - but I was always on the edge of failing history because it was not really about people, just dates and events. Reading books like "Pillars of the Earth" (no, I didn't watch the subsequent movie - there is no way that it could do the book justice any more than the Time Machine or War of the Worlds movies could properly portray the books) brought the period to life.
And I certainly didn't learn to play the guitar, synthesizer, etc because of boring music classes that we all couldn't wait to get out of.
Why bother? Get them grounded in something that won't be obsolete with the next language fad. You know, real science, real knowledge, something that will help them build their analytical and judgement skills. (No, most coding doesn't build analytical skills - most of it is boring boilerplate, which is why there are so many "code-by-cut-n-paste-from-the-net" "experts.") Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology ...
Throw in various maths, as well as language (judging by the way so many slashdotters don't know the difference between brake and break, or rain, rein, and reign, if they can spell in 10 years time they'll be seen as brainiacs). And history - so they recognize past mistakes when they repeat them and don't over-commit to a bad course of action.
But forget computers. That they can pick up on their own if they're interested. And if you try to teach them you'll kill their interest by making i seem like school work instead of a possible fun hobby that might, at some future date, come in handy.
Well, if you look at her now, I'd say you got your money's worth.
Snowden had value to Putin as a embarrassment alone - perhaps you should consider being less naive about world politics before you start accusing others of being insane.
Finally, something that Snowden and Trump have in common. Except that Snowden has done less harm to the country's reputation than the president has. :-)
In a swimsuit in September's issue of Vogue. Hardly looks "mutilated". And certainly not like a dude. Get over it - people change sex. It's a legally recognized fact (including by the military tribunal that tried her, as well as the current chiefs of staff running the military).
Chelsea Manning was never convicted of treason. So much for being a traitor.
Try this on for size - everyone in this post should quit pointing fingers at Chelsea Manning for being convicted of treason because she wasn't.
You fucktards still won't admit that Chelsea Manning was never convicted of treason, or more specifically, not convicted of aiding the enemy.
There definitely is a right way to do things - and the right way includes getting your facts straight.
Well, since everyone is slagging on Chelsea Manning, why not take look at September's issue of Vogue and see what she looks like now in a swim suit. You'll be disappointed that she doesn't look like a guy, but one of the effects of estrogen is to redistribute fat in the body, and that includes the face, giving a more rounded, female look..
And your "point" was bogus. Breathing is something that comes naturally to humans. Using exogenous estrogen is not - it's artificial. If you can't tell the difference between natural and artificial, it's no wonder you post anonymously.
Perhaps YOU should read the article. Higher doses and more exercise promotes much more muscle gain. That they studied skeletal muscle doesn't mean that it doesn't affect other muscles. And logically, how could it affect one without the other?
Then there's personal experience. I'm 51 and I'm as strong as I was decades ago despite having less testosterone than 3/4 or more of all women. HRT works, and if you go for doses that put your estrogen level to that of a woman in her 20s (much higher than just relief from menopause - 3 to 8 times higher) and your job involves lots of heavy labour (like volunteering during flood relief) not only do you feel half your age, but the muscle gain is embarrassing. Visible changes in just 3 days - changes that wouldn't be anywhere near as pronounced with estrogen alone. And it continues increasing until the exercise level drops (like after the flood is over).
I never said that estrogen use was on the rise to increase muscle mass. Don't even imply it. It's an undesirable side effect if you get too much exercise. The only lie here is yours - that the muscle gain is only skeletal muscle. The article does not say that anywhere. It used to be that 2/3 of all women were on HRT, but they got scared off it because of the bogus Women's Health Initiative studies, which were based exclusively on horse hormones such as Premarin, not human estrogen. The increase in risk of stroke that they found is non-existent when using estrogen (eg. Estrace), so it's bottomed out at 12% of all women, and it's a real battle to get doctors and patients back on track.
Just because you can't modify a binary doesn't give you an excuse to hate on those of us who have. Maybe you're the one who should consider drinking bleach.
And what does that have to do with the fact that the BSD license is, in absolute terms, freer? There's nothing in it that restricts developers from releasing their source code, same as the GPL. The freedom to choose the license should be up to the developer. The freedom to use the product should be up to the user.
The GPL imposes requirements on both the developer and the user that don't exist with the BSD license. Developers must be able to supply source for any program they distribute, and users who want to distribute copies of the "free GPL" license are similarly required to distribute source on demand to anyone they distribute to.
So what happens when the gpl app you distributed when the source is lost or otherwise not available (web site goes dark, developer dies, etc)? You're still on the hook to distribute the source, even though you were assuming it would always be available for download from the developer. All of a sudden you're legally liable for breech of contract and breech of license. If the recipient had used it because they understood that the source would be available if required (say, for customization or bug fixes) and now they can't, you're legally on the hook for all their losses.
You missed the point with your analogy. We're talking about a muscle mass and strength increase (with exercise), not just maintenance of existing muscle.
That's why so many transexual are so fucking ugly too. They were a fat ugly weirdo before "taking estrogen" and then they get even more rounded and sloppy looking. Really does it matter if you skin looks younger if you already look like a fat neanderthal
I think you misspelled "fat American".