"The only reason for marriage is so that the human race can continue."
Someone else pointed out that marriage is also for helping each other (for when one person is down, or doesn't have a job, etc), which benefits society.
(assuming by continue you are referring to breeding)
In computer science, I got near the top marks for the year. I dated for 3 years a girl that also got the top marks out of the girls for the year.
I found that while she was very book smart, she lacked what I can only term IQ. I don't know what the proper term is. In a degree you can get high marks just from studying hard, and so she did.
My sample is too small though - I would be very interested in seeing any comparisons in reasoning, logic, and speed to pick up a new topic, and so on, between men and women, grouped by degree type.
"Hey, I said the story was apocryphal. It may be BS but it persists because it captures a grain of truth about the way Americans approach major technical problems."
Your second example was also discounted by another poster. (Graphite is bad as a moderator because it ignites).
Using bad examples for the "grain of truth" is just stupid. At least give a good example.
"Your professor obviously had no idea what he was talking about. "
This is what arrogance is. When you put down a professor, when you aren't even right.
Sometimes just a little rephrasing can make a world of difference. Instead of "Your professor obvious had no idea what he was talking about", how about: "How would the professor spot plagiarism if I did:..."
It's all about pre-conditions. If your pre-condition is that the data is trusted and correct, then if that data violates the pre-condition, then your program is free to do whatever it wants - from root your system to blow up the monitor.
Unfortunately it seems wikipedia doesn't have a good article on preconditions. It just says this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precondition
You use the word "leverage" quite a bit.. are you a manager?
What features does MS Exchange have that linux email clients don't support yet that you need? Just curious. I know it doesn't have forms, but I think that's being worked on. ( I forget what the proper term is).
Actually, this is being dealt with by the NSA. Look for the selinux patches. A homepage for this is at: http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/index.cfm
If you are interested in this sort of thing, you'll find the selinux stuff fascinating.
I believe the patches should be going into the kernel very soon - like in the next weeks or so. But I may be wrong - I haven't checked on the status for several months.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you need to go through recursively? just do it iteratively.
"What is the most efficient way to check single linked list for self reference (pointing to a previous item)"
Hmm. Well most _memory_ efficient would be just to recursively go to the next node.
If the program terminates, it doesn't have self references.
Course, the time efficiency sucks..
Shit! You're right!
Unlikely. The chance of guessing someone elses session id is near zero.
hmm. I'm confused by your initial statement then:
"I am sorry, but I think you are totally off the mark here."
I've read the post you replied, and read your post. I'm not sure where you disagree.
What point are you making that contradicts the post you replied to?
"The only reason for marriage is so that the human race can continue."
Someone else pointed out that marriage is also for helping each other (for when one person is down, or doesn't have a job, etc), which benefits society.
(assuming by continue you are referring to breeding)
hmm. Perhaps we should restrict marriage to only couples that have babies then.
What if the gay couple adopt?
You misread.
"themselves" being the group of gamblers, not an individual, and assuming gambling is genetic.
That sounds much better than humans.
Humans: Look at some evidence, come up with a decision that seems sort-of best.
Computer: Look at all the evidence it can, come up with the best decision under the constraints it has.
Sounds like the computer will make the better decisions.
In computer science, I got near the top marks for the year. I dated for 3 years a girl that also got the top marks out of the girls for the year.
I found that while she was very book smart, she lacked what I can only term IQ. I don't know what the proper term is. In a degree you can get high marks just from studying hard, and so she did.
My sample is too small though - I would be very interested in seeing any comparisons in reasoning, logic, and speed to pick up a new topic, and so on, between men and women, grouped by degree type.
I had written x<=1, but it stripped out my < even though I used plain old text... hmm
"Hey, I said the story was apocryphal. It may be BS but it persists because it captures a grain of truth about the way Americans approach major technical problems."
Your second example was also discounted by another poster. (Graphite is bad as a moderator because it ignites).
Using bad examples for the "grain of truth" is just stupid. At least give a good example.
time echo $(echo "define f (x) { if (x = 1) return (1); return (f(x-1) * x); } ; f(20000)" | bc -l)
;)
Takes 23seconds here.
But the answer is many pages long, so I won't paste it
hmm. Even on a reread, it doesn't sound like sarcasm.
*sigh*
Oh well.
The trouble with: ...
loop:
if(!done) goto loop;
is that it's not clear if later on in the code whether there might be another "goto loop;"
With do {} while, you don't have the possibility.
With your later point, I usually try to do: do{ if(error_happened) break; } while(...);
But then you have to set a flag or something to indicate an error, or however you are dealing with catching errors.
Or do it on a turing machine.
"Your professor obviously had no idea what he was talking about. "
..."
This is what arrogance is. When you put down a professor, when you aren't even right.
Sometimes just a little rephrasing can make a world of difference. Instead of "Your professor obvious had no idea what he was talking about", how about: "How would the professor spot plagiarism if I did:
Actually I think it is you that is confused.
It's all about pre-conditions. If your pre-condition is that the data is trusted and correct, then if that data violates the pre-condition, then your program is free to do whatever it wants - from root your system to blow up the monitor.
Unfortunately it seems wikipedia doesn't have a good article on preconditions. It just says this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precondition
You use the word "leverage" quite a bit.. are you a manager?
What features does MS Exchange have that linux email clients don't support yet that you need?
Just curious. I know it doesn't have forms, but I think that's being worked on. ( I forget what the proper term is).
I think althon MP is a bad example, but doesn't MP stand for multi-processor? I.e. that you can have 2 or more chips on the motherboard?
With a quick google, I can't confirm that MP does actually stand for Multi-processor, make it makes sense if it did.
So the license you had for the new version is wasted money, _and_ you need a license for the older version?
Actually, this is being dealt with by the NSA. Look for the selinux patches. A homepage for this is at: http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/index.cfm
If you are interested in this sort of thing, you'll find the selinux stuff fascinating.
I believe the patches should be going into the kernel very soon - like in the next weeks or so.
But I may be wrong - I haven't checked on the status for several months.
I'm not sure what you mean by "XML-derived" - it uses xml - not a derivating of it.
And like I said, it's the new OO.o format. (As opposed to the old staroffice format) And both openoffice.org and kword are switching to it.
OASIS. The new openoffice.org and kword standard.
If you sell a $12 CD for $16, that's not $4 profit, because of overheads.