You know what worries me? Take a look at Python 3, they have deprecated the *excellent* C standard formatting method for a new way that's about as complicated and absurd as the C++ way.
I disagree completely. Warlock's printf("0x%08xn", x) becomes print('0x{0:08x}'.format(x)) in Python 3. It's cleaner and easier to read, and has the advantage of positional formatting.
Another Python "improvement": deprecated popen. This means that the nice, clean, easy to understand Unix command
Call me crazy-- I don't use popen-- but isn't that the purpose of the shell=True argument? (http://docs.python.org/library/subprocess.html) Their example is probably intended to work across as many platforms as possible.
"Survival of the fittest" requires diversity. If you're saying nobody should even attempt to replace X, then you have no diversity, and you have no "survival of the fittest," merely "survival of the incumbent."
Let Ubuntu develop Wayland. If it's a good idea, people will pick it up. If it's not, people will stick to X. THAT is survival of the fittest.
What I don't get-- and maybe you can explain this to me-- is if Christians aren't under the Mosaic Law (and I'm not so sure they aren't, Jesus made it clear he wasn't abolishing the law at all), then what moral code *are* they under? If the Mosaic Law, uttered by God Himself, isn't reflective of His Most Excellent Moral Code, then what is?
This. It kills me that Christian radio stations have commercials for *plastic surgery* and *investment classes*-- investment classes taught by preachers, no less!-- and Christians themselves don't catch the hypocrisy.
Does anyone else find the phrasing "X, anyone?" REALLY REALLY annoying? It sounds like a smarmy game show host. "Hint hint, wink wink," that sort of thing.
Even stranger is that leap seconds are already implemented in most system libraries. If programmers were less eager to roll their own solutions to already-solved problems, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.
Re:I look just like Buddy Holly
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
We got a kick out of the networked "Microsoft Hover" game: http://www.johnlamansky.com/blog/the-legend-of-microsoft-hover/
One of the "species" definitions that biologists fall back on when running into this difficulty is whether two individuals can mate and produce offspring. This makes "species" refer to broader groups than usual (since we like to separate species by shape or functionality) but gives clear lines when one species has separated into two, for example, human beings with their 46 chromosomes and monkeys with the original 48.
Working with either definition confirms evolution, but you can use the more conservative one if you're having trouble.
Remember that the Creation Event described in the Bible supposedly occurred around 6,000 years ago. In it, God created all the lifeforms on the planet as they are (including the dinosaurs). So creationism is directly opposed to both astrology *and* evolution.
So keep creationism out of science, but do offer religious beliefs as a class outside of science.
As an atheist, I 100% wholeheartedly agree with this. Religion is part of art, history, philosophy, literature-- all kinds of other subjects. It can be taught in those classes. Religion is not science.
From inside the system it would appear to us that such small tweaks and experiments were random mutation.
Since it's hard to really pin down "Intelligent Design," you will have some IDers who claim that that's exactly what happens. The Designer will reach in every now and then and tweak a gene for their purposes.
Then the questions naturally lean toward "How does he do it?" and "How often does it happen? Every ten years?" and more unanswerable questions, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You know what worries me? Take a look at Python 3, they have deprecated the *excellent* C standard formatting method for a new way that's about as complicated and absurd as the C++ way.
I disagree completely. Warlock's printf("0x%08xn", x) becomes print('0x{0:08x}'.format(x)) in Python 3. It's cleaner and easier to read, and has the advantage of positional formatting.
Another Python "improvement": deprecated popen. This means that the nice, clean, easy to understand Unix command
output=`dmesg | grep hda`
has been replaced by:
p1 = Popen(["dmesg"], stdout=PIPE)
p2 = Popen(["grep", "hda"], stdin=p1.stdout, stdout=PIPE)
output = p2.communicate()[0]
WTF???
Call me crazy-- I don't use popen-- but isn't that the purpose of the shell=True argument? (http://docs.python.org/library/subprocess.html) Their example is probably intended to work across as many platforms as possible.
But of the three, the televangelist is doing it under false pretenses.
Except that that leaves the deity with nothing to do but supply this process with entropy.
"Survival of the fittest" requires diversity. If you're saying nobody should even attempt to replace X, then you have no diversity, and you have no "survival of the fittest," merely "survival of the incumbent."
Let Ubuntu develop Wayland. If it's a good idea, people will pick it up. If it's not, people will stick to X. THAT is survival of the fittest.
Yeah, sure, go after Intel instead.
...by following the man-made precepts of an imaginary deity who promises to send all peoples who don't follow it to certain doom.
It's possible to get people to help others without lying to them.
Probably not. They won't recognize it.
What I don't get-- and maybe you can explain this to me-- is if Christians aren't under the Mosaic Law (and I'm not so sure they aren't, Jesus made it clear he wasn't abolishing the law at all), then what moral code *are* they under? If the Mosaic Law, uttered by God Himself, isn't reflective of His Most Excellent Moral Code, then what is?
...we the voters shouldn't get our opinions from people who are paid to make us laugh, not make us see truth.
I wasn't aware there was a difference.
That's it! He meant "open means incomplete"!
This. It kills me that Christian radio stations have commercials for *plastic surgery* and *investment classes*-- investment classes taught by preachers, no less!-- and Christians themselves don't catch the hypocrisy.
Does anyone else find the phrasing "X, anyone?" REALLY REALLY annoying? It sounds like a smarmy game show host. "Hint hint, wink wink," that sort of thing.
I normally pronounce "oil" as "oy-yul," making it that much harder.
And who the hell thinks the extended cut of "Terminator 2" was any good?
If they want a steady clock, they should be using CLOCK_MONOTONIC on the system.
If they're parsing date/times, they should be using their system libraries, which already account for leap seconds.
Really, I don't know what Oracle was trying to do here.
Even stranger is that leap seconds are already implemented in most system libraries. If programmers were less eager to roll their own solutions to already-solved problems, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.
We got a kick out of the networked "Microsoft Hover" game: http://www.johnlamansky.com/blog/the-legend-of-microsoft-hover/
One of the "species" definitions that biologists fall back on when running into this difficulty is whether two individuals can mate and produce offspring. This makes "species" refer to broader groups than usual (since we like to separate species by shape or functionality) but gives clear lines when one species has separated into two, for example, human beings with their 46 chromosomes and monkeys with the original 48.
Working with either definition confirms evolution, but you can use the more conservative one if you're having trouble.
Remember that the Creation Event described in the Bible supposedly occurred around 6,000 years ago. In it, God created all the lifeforms on the planet as they are (including the dinosaurs). So creationism is directly opposed to both astrology *and* evolution.
So keep creationism out of science, but do offer religious beliefs as a class outside of science.
As an atheist, I 100% wholeheartedly agree with this. Religion is part of art, history, philosophy, literature-- all kinds of other subjects. It can be taught in those classes. Religion is not science.
I've heard nuclear (fission) power is not the ultimate solution either, because of the scarcity of the fuel.
Anyone care to comment on this?
Mickey Mouse!
I didn't think I was a grammar nazi until I nearly had a heart attack reading your post.
From inside the system it would appear to us that such small tweaks and experiments were random mutation.
Since it's hard to really pin down "Intelligent Design," you will have some IDers who claim that that's exactly what happens. The Designer will reach in every now and then and tweak a gene for their purposes.
Then the questions naturally lean toward "How does he do it?" and "How often does it happen? Every ten years?" and more unanswerable questions, etc.
Guilty as charged.