Not really - we only ever hear about the efficient ones here. Head on over to Fark (or even Youtube:) to get some examples of bad guys working....inefficiently.
I can't speak for Germany, but I believe they're similar to the system we have here in Canada. We don't have a Presidential ("Prime-ministerial"?) election either, but the results are the same. We're well aware of who the leader of the country will be when we vote, and the PM simply doesn't change between elections barring extraordinary circumstances.
Theoretically, the party could switch leaders immediately after the election, but it simply doesn't happen - any more than US state electors cast their presidential vote against the will of their own state.
Assuming this is in any way similar to Germany, I think it's disingenuous to claim that "they don't elect their president" based on the fact that their underlying mechanisms are a bit different from yours.
Save for the fact that Germans don't elect their President (their representatives do)
Ummmm...neither do you guys? Or have you forgotten a little thing called the electoral college?
The Electoral College consists of the popularly elected representatives who formally select the President
Re:C# is not the most widely used comp language
on
C# In-Depth
·
· Score: 1
I took a look at the chart - it's on decline in the standings, but that's only because Python shot up by a huge margin. C# actually increased its mindshare by.75%, which was a pretty big step compared to other languages on the list.
Boycotting is only effective if the companies know they're being boycotted. The only way it can work is if everyone who doesn't buy a game *because of the boycott* notify the company. Preferably by form letter, so they can see how much they're affected by an organized boycott.
The biggest problem is the naming of bills. PATRIOT ACT for example. You can't vote against it, if you vote against it you are not a patriot and you support terrorists. Or the Child Online Protection Act...can't vote against it unless you support pedophiles. Doesn't matter how aweful the language in the bill is, the name is what people here and form their own warped ideas of what the bill ACTUALLY does.
See, what needs to happen here is to have someone introduce the "Loves America and is totally Heterosexual Act" which states that Hitler was the awesomest guy in history. Then attack them for hating America (and if they're (R), being gay) or loving Hitler, depending. And do it again and again until *everyone* realizes that election ads based on names of legislation are bullshit.
That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard - particularly the last paragraph taking umbrage, and assuming that an intent to be semantically correct is a "juvenile attempt at belittling citizens".
"American" has multiple meanings, and can refer to a citizen of the US, or a citizen of any country in one of the Americas (North or South). No one (except maybe you) denies these are both valid meanings. Sometimes I want to be more precise, so unless you come up with an unambiguous word for your countrymen, I'm going to have to use the only one I know, whether it pisses you off or not.
We. We hear about planting trees to sequester CO2 yet the current plan means the land will hold less carbon that it did 100 years ago yet this is somehow a carbon credit./i
Wait, what?
Trees get their carbon from the air (CO2) and release the resulting oxygen. The land holds exactly the same amount of carbon - or even more, as leaves fall and trees die. And the trees take the CO2 from the air and turn it into...um...tree.
Hmmm - that's a good point. Although is a similar situation, I think we would, for all intents and purposes, enforce the death penalty.
Imagine the only way someone could live was to be attached to my bloodstream 24 hours a day, and I'd have to cart him around in a wheelchair. And for this service, he's paying $10k/day. In this extremely contrived example, if he stops paying, his breach of contract will, in fact, kill him.
assuming that the fetus has no rights to personal freedom
My argument here is that even if the fetus does have rights, no one has the right to siphon nutrients off someone without their consent, while causing ill health effects and a great deal of pain. (don't even try to mention "implied consent" - could broken condom then be considered "breach of contract"?)
Bear in mind that this is just one isolated argument. There are others, but the "rights" issue is a non-starter.
The difference here being that there is very clear semantic meaning to CCL, and none at all to asewvoi. Or, if there is a semantic meaning to "asewvoi", it's buried in history such that most people are unaware of it.
It's not a big point, or an important point, but I do get slightly annoyed (I could care less, but not much) when people say something that means the opposite of what they mean to say, and seem to be completely unaware of it. You've taken something that has a clear meaning that can be understood by anyone with the fundamentals of the language, and turned it into something that is an idiom that must be learned as a quirk of the language.
Be that as it may, when parsed into actual meaning, only "couldn't care less" conveys the meaning intended. "Could care less" says absolutely nothing about your state of caring, except that you're not sitting at the 0 Kelvin of the Care-scale - besides that, you could be anywhere from zero to a million care units ("tenderHearts"). "Couldn't care less" says that you are sitting precisely at 0tH.
Now, I'll give a pass for phrases like "toe the line"/"tow the line", as their actual meaning is historical in nature and not immediately apparent. But "couldn't care less" is a boolean phrase: if (caring == CareScale.MINIMUM) - one that is easily understood purely from the meaning of its words. There is no reason to not give it a second of thought and say exactly what you mean when using the phrase.
Slashdot Mirror
how efficiently the bad guys always work.
Not really - we only ever hear about the efficient ones here. Head on over to Fark (or even Youtube:) to get some examples of bad guys working....inefficiently.
Never fails - I never have mod points when I see posts worthy of them.
Okay, have you ever seen what happens to an egg left outside for a week?
2 weeks?
12 thousand years?
There's your problem.
For what it's worth, I'm right there with you, and have had similar conversations myself.
I can't speak for Germany, but I believe they're similar to the system we have here in Canada. We don't have a Presidential ("Prime-ministerial"?) election either, but the results are the same. We're well aware of who the leader of the country will be when we vote, and the PM simply doesn't change between elections barring extraordinary circumstances.
Theoretically, the party could switch leaders immediately after the election, but it simply doesn't happen - any more than US state electors cast their presidential vote against the will of their own state.
Assuming this is in any way similar to Germany, I think it's disingenuous to claim that "they don't elect their president" based on the fact that their underlying mechanisms are a bit different from yours.
Save for the fact that Germans don't elect their President (their representatives do)
Ummmm...neither do you guys? Or have you forgotten a little thing called the electoral college?
The Electoral College consists of the popularly elected representatives who formally select the President
I took a look at the chart - it's on decline in the standings, but that's only because Python shot up by a huge margin. C# actually increased its mindshare by .75%, which was a pretty big step compared to other languages on the list.
Boycotting is only effective if the companies know they're being boycotted. The only way it can work is if everyone who doesn't buy a game *because of the boycott* notify the company. Preferably by form letter, so they can see how much they're affected by an organized boycott.
The biggest problem is the naming of bills. PATRIOT ACT for example. You can't vote against it, if you vote against it you are not a patriot and you support terrorists. Or the Child Online Protection Act...can't vote against it unless you support pedophiles. Doesn't matter how aweful the language in the bill is, the name is what people here and form their own warped ideas of what the bill ACTUALLY does.
See, what needs to happen here is to have someone introduce the "Loves America and is totally Heterosexual Act" which states that Hitler was the awesomest guy in history. Then attack them for hating America (and if they're (R), being gay) or loving Hitler, depending. And do it again and again until *everyone* realizes that election ads based on names of legislation are bullshit.
That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard - particularly the last paragraph taking umbrage, and assuming that an intent to be semantically correct is a "juvenile attempt at belittling citizens".
"American" has multiple meanings, and can refer to a citizen of the US, or a citizen of any country in one of the Americas (North or South). No one (except maybe you) denies these are both valid meanings. Sometimes I want to be more precise, so unless you come up with an unambiguous word for your countrymen, I'm going to have to use the only one I know, whether it pisses you off or not.
Welcome to my friend list.
It's nothing more than a half-assed lie-detector.
And since lie-detectors themselves are no more than a half-assed lie-detectors, I'm curious as to exactly what fraction of an ass an e-meter has...
You know, over the past few years, it's gotten harder and harder around here to tell the dumbassed crazies from the legitimate trolls.
We. We hear about planting trees to sequester CO2 yet the current plan means the land will hold less carbon that it did 100 years ago yet this is somehow a carbon credit./i
Wait, what?
Trees get their carbon from the air (CO2) and release the resulting oxygen. The land holds exactly the same amount of carbon - or even more, as leaves fall and trees die. And the trees take the CO2 from the air and turn it into...um...tree.
Did I misinterpret your statement?
The minute you have forced consensus you no longer have science.
Yeah, like gravity, evolution, and heliocentrism. Why don't we see more devil's advocates constantly challenging these theories?
Hmmm - that's a good point. Although is a similar situation, I think we would, for all intents and purposes, enforce the death penalty.
Imagine the only way someone could live was to be attached to my bloodstream 24 hours a day, and I'd have to cart him around in a wheelchair. And for this service, he's paying $10k/day. In this extremely contrived example, if he stops paying, his breach of contract will, in fact, kill him.
assuming that the fetus has no rights to personal freedom
My argument here is that even if the fetus does have rights, no one has the right to siphon nutrients off someone without their consent, while causing ill health effects and a great deal of pain. (don't even try to mention "implied consent" - could broken condom then be considered "breach of contract"?)
Bear in mind that this is just one isolated argument. There are others, but the "rights" issue is a non-starter.
Bah, just go to the pirate bay and get it off torrent.
I AM RICH SLASHDOTTER
Name one that will do this with software that you tried.
Fog Creek (#7 in the list)
I'm not so impressed by him - even I could lose to this computer.
The difference here being that there is very clear semantic meaning to CCL, and none at all to asewvoi. Or, if there is a semantic meaning to "asewvoi", it's buried in history such that most people are unaware of it.
It's not a big point, or an important point, but I do get slightly annoyed (I could care less, but not much) when people say something that means the opposite of what they mean to say, and seem to be completely unaware of it. You've taken something that has a clear meaning that can be understood by anyone with the fundamentals of the language, and turned it into something that is an idiom that must be learned as a quirk of the language.
Be that as it may, when parsed into actual meaning, only "couldn't care less" conveys the meaning intended. "Could care less" says absolutely nothing about your state of caring, except that you're not sitting at the 0 Kelvin of the Care-scale - besides that, you could be anywhere from zero to a million care units ("tenderHearts"). "Couldn't care less" says that you are sitting precisely at 0tH.
Now, I'll give a pass for phrases like "toe the line"/"tow the line", as their actual meaning is historical in nature and not immediately apparent. But "couldn't care less" is a boolean phrase: if (caring == CareScale.MINIMUM) - one that is easily understood purely from the meaning of its words. There is no reason to not give it a second of thought and say exactly what you mean when using the phrase.
Maybe he thinks he won't be caught - maybe he's skipped the country already.
Ummmm, unless you're using a vastly different emacs than me, a ^w is going to delete the currently region...
Oh! You've probably got
(global-set-key (kbd "C-w") 'backward-kill-word)
in your custom.el. My apologies.
Although, I notice that even then, the ^W delete word behaviour is the same. Can you send me the Lisp you're using? - I'd like to see your setup!
Weird, but I sorta want to know what the hell that was...