In Common Lisp, the code is actually (format t "Hello, world%"). That's it. The % does the line feed. If you want to be really paranoid, you put an "&" as the first character of the format string. This tells the system to output a line feed if it's not already at the beginning of the line. The days of (terpri) (though it is still provided) are long gone.
And I'm sure if the US did that, the EU would respond tit-for-tat. Do you really think the US will go to the mat for one company's IP rights given the potential loss of all American IP rights in the EU? Do you think that the EU would lose more from the loss of their IP protection in the US than the US would lose if it lost IP protection in the EU? Think of all the movies, music, etc. that we export. Do you think that the US government would risk that because Bill Gates was a whiny bitch?
On one hand it's hyperprotective about ludicrous bullshit and on the other hand it won't even provide decent free lunches to poor kids. It's sort of baffling
Well, duhhhh... One of them looks like it's protecting children and the other would cost us money. Still baffled?
... terrorists have the means and the motivation to kill millions of us...
Motivation, maybe. Means? To get millions, one would have to assume terrorist organizations had either nukes or hella better CBWs than even we have. And, if they did, given the facts about American (in)security, I'm pretty sure that someone's ass would be glowing by now.
So, I think your statement about millions engages in a wee bit (and by that, for the sarcasm impaired, I mean a whole bunch) of hyperbole. I don't want terrorists to hurt innocent people any more than anyone else does, but the thing that is going to stop them is action driven by rational thought, not action driven by fear and hyperbole. In short, stop being such an fscking coward and learn to model situations rationally.
This is either harrassment or just the US thinking it has rights to push the rest of the world around.
Nah, it's just an election year and the party of the current administration is trying to run as moderates on some of issues that the moralists are hot on (e.g., stem-cell research, choice, etc.), so they have to throw 'em a bone in other areas (such as in pursuing vices like gambling). I expect anti-"gay marriage" speeches in... three..., two..., one...
This is a problem with today's news - there is no follow-up (uless it's about a murdered child ten years after the fact). As such, all issues die after about five days because they aren't "news". Plus, I truly believe that this White House manufactures a continuous series of mini-controversies that keep the media'a attention shifting so quickly that they couldn't find any sort of stable base to report from, anyhow. When the media is stupid or are complicit, in a media-driven society such as ours, you truly are lost.
In case you didn;t know, these reserves will bring in at most two additional years worth of US consumption. They are also rather deep deposits at 28,000 feet, making them more expensive to extract than most current deposits. So congrats, you just found a two year supply of $100/bbl. oil. I'm sure that'll help for about a year and a half by the time it's up and producing. Good luck in getting past the next hundred years or so on that...
If we simply were to allow the market economy to work...
Markets tend to optimize for short-term outcomes over long-term outcomes and tend to do better with small incremental changes rather than wholsale phase shifts. Given that the change in question is both long-term and world-changing, I believe that some management would be better than letting the invisible hand work its magic where billions might be dislocated/ impoverished before the market reaches an equilibrium (which may not be a global optimum). Unless, of course, you're one of those who say that because the market has decided it, it must be optimal, in which case, you're an idiot.
Well, and of course, there's the inconvenient fact that in order to get the yields one needs to support a ethanol-based economy, the corn fields in question need a large amount of artificial fertilizers which come from (you guessed it) fossil fuels (And, yes, I grew up in an Illinois farming community, so I do know a thing or two about growing corn and where fertilizers come from). In reality, it's not clear that switching to an ethanol-based economy would decrease our dependence on fossil fuels (it might switch us to greater use of natural gas over crude, but we're starting to have depletion issues in that supply department, as well). In reality, the sooner we can switch over to fully electric vehicles that get their initial energy supply from wind, hydro, or nuclear power, the better off we're going to be. The hydrocarbons remaining underground are far too precious as materials feedstocks to be wasted burning them in our cars.
They almost certainly don't jive, but more importantly, they dont jibe (look at definition 3). Could you people finally get this right?
Jesus, I'm getting tired of ostensibly intelligent people doing this. Other words like this: tact and tack. One does not take a tact, one uses tact. One may take a tack, but this can be done in both a tactful or tactless manner. And, no, I'm not going to give you the link for the other two. Look it up yourself. A pirate would know this (these being nautical terms and all), so if you don't stop, the FSM will curse you. Consider yourself warned...
OK. It's not really like a ship, it''s more like a truck... No scratch that. It's like a pipe. A big stinking sewer pipe. And when they get clogged!?! Well, you just don't wanna know.
OK. I see you're a slow learner. In 1960, one could have said that only BIIIIIIG COMPANIES with R&D staffs and PhDs and millions of dollars (and, if you consider inflation, that was a lot of money back then) could ever afford to have computer controlled milling machines. Fast forward to today - you can buy a PC and a desktop milling machine setup for less than $5K. Today, the OP said that nobody except big companies will ever do nanotech because it's so complex and costs so much. That statement is just as short-sighted today (vis a vis technological progress and price drops) as the statement that could have been made about CNC setups in 1960. In about thirty years anyone with $5K in their pocked will be able to buy Dr. Blood's Computer-controlled Home Genetic Engineering Kit and the refils for the amino acids won't cost much more.
Slashdot Mirror
Can I have an AMEN!?!
What a bunch of Nancies! In my day...
In Common Lisp, the code is actually (format t "Hello, world%"). That's it. The % does the line feed. If you want to be really paranoid, you put an "&" as the first character of the format string. This tells the system to output a line feed if it's not already at the beginning of the line. The days of (terpri) (though it is still provided) are long gone.
And I'm sure if the US did that, the EU would respond tit-for-tat. Do you really think the US will go to the mat for one company's IP rights given the potential loss of all American IP rights in the EU? Do you think that the EU would lose more from the loss of their IP protection in the US than the US would lose if it lost IP protection in the EU? Think of all the movies, music, etc. that we export. Do you think that the US government would risk that because Bill Gates was a whiny bitch?
Yes! And then he says he's going to f**king kill that other school! And you'll know he's right because, as he says, he's done it before!
Well, duhhhh... One of them looks like it's protecting children and the other would cost us money. Still baffled?
Motivation, maybe. Means? To get millions, one would have to assume terrorist organizations had either nukes or hella better CBWs than even we have. And, if they did, given the facts about American (in)security, I'm pretty sure that someone's ass would be glowing by now.
So, I think your statement about millions engages in a wee bit (and by that, for the sarcasm impaired, I mean a whole bunch) of hyperbole. I don't want terrorists to hurt innocent people any more than anyone else does, but the thing that is going to stop them is action driven by rational thought, not action driven by fear and hyperbole. In short, stop being such an fscking coward and learn to model situations rationally.
Nah, it's just an election year and the party of the current administration is trying to run as moderates on some of issues that the moralists are hot on (e.g., stem-cell research, choice, etc.), so they have to throw 'em a bone in other areas (such as in pursuing vices like gambling). I expect anti-"gay marriage" speeches in... three..., two..., one...
This is a problem with today's news - there is no follow-up (uless it's about a murdered child ten years after the fact). As such, all issues die after about five days because they aren't "news". Plus, I truly believe that this White House manufactures a continuous series of mini-controversies that keep the media'a attention shifting so quickly that they couldn't find any sort of stable base to report from, anyhow. When the media is stupid or are complicit, in a media-driven society such as ours, you truly are lost.
When they started posting every piece of crap that came along from Roland Piquepaille.
In case you didn;t know, these reserves will bring in at most two additional years worth of US consumption. They are also rather deep deposits at 28,000 feet, making them more expensive to extract than most current deposits. So congrats, you just found a two year supply of $100/bbl. oil. I'm sure that'll help for about a year and a half by the time it's up and producing. Good luck in getting past the next hundred years or so on that...
Markets tend to optimize for short-term outcomes over long-term outcomes and tend to do better with small incremental changes rather than wholsale phase shifts. Given that the change in question is both long-term and world-changing, I believe that some management would be better than letting the invisible hand work its magic where billions might be dislocated/ impoverished before the market reaches an equilibrium (which may not be a global optimum). Unless, of course, you're one of those who say that because the market has decided it, it must be optimal, in which case, you're an idiot.
Well, and of course, there's the inconvenient fact that in order to get the yields one needs to support a ethanol-based economy, the corn fields in question need a large amount of artificial fertilizers which come from (you guessed it) fossil fuels (And, yes, I grew up in an Illinois farming community, so I do know a thing or two about growing corn and where fertilizers come from). In reality, it's not clear that switching to an ethanol-based economy would decrease our dependence on fossil fuels (it might switch us to greater use of natural gas over crude, but we're starting to have depletion issues in that supply department, as well). In reality, the sooner we can switch over to fully electric vehicles that get their initial energy supply from wind, hydro, or nuclear power, the better off we're going to be. The hydrocarbons remaining underground are far too precious as materials feedstocks to be wasted burning them in our cars.
... is in full steeeereo!
Dude, we had to build them out of uncompacted strings...
What are these girls of which you speak?
They almost certainly don't jive, but more importantly, they dont jibe (look at definition 3). Could you people finally get this right?
Jesus, I'm getting tired of ostensibly intelligent people doing this. Other words like this: tact and tack. One does not take a tact, one uses tact. One may take a tack, but this can be done in both a tactful or tactless manner. And, no, I'm not going to give you the link for the other two. Look it up yourself. A pirate would know this (these being nautical terms and all), so if you don't stop, the FSM will curse you. Consider yourself warned...
OK. It's not really like a ship, it''s more like a truck... No scratch that. It's like a pipe. A big stinking sewer pipe. And when they get clogged!?! Well, you just don't wanna know.
Smootchies...
Sen. Ted Stevens
OK. I see you're a slow learner. In 1960, one could have said that only BIIIIIIG COMPANIES with R&D staffs and PhDs and millions of dollars (and, if you consider inflation, that was a lot of money back then) could ever afford to have computer controlled milling machines. Fast forward to today - you can buy a PC and a desktop milling machine setup for less than $5K. Today, the OP said that nobody except big companies will ever do nanotech because it's so complex and costs so much. That statement is just as short-sighted today (vis a vis technological progress and price drops) as the statement that could have been made about CNC setups in 1960. In about thirty years anyone with $5K in their pocked will be able to buy Dr. Blood's Computer-controlled Home Genetic Engineering Kit and the refils for the amino acids won't cost much more.
Tell me when they bring back TurboProlog...
That is fine. I do not have one.
No, Republican governance just sucks so much it seems that long.
Last I heard, leopards had quite different patterns than tigers. Maybe things have changed...
If you're not part of the flock, they aren't interested in you.
1960: The complex process of computer-guided milling of precision components is complex enough for corporations with millions in R&D funds...