Failing that, I hope that one day the rest of the world decides to act upon this retarded stepchild and cut the head off - the transition would be far more traumatic, but at least it'd happen.
But I try once to apply this wisdom to my own situation, and suddenly I'm the monster!
Came here to ask this. Glad to see it asked, disappointed that there's no answer. The article does a terrible job of explaining guard, making it look like an alias for "if", but it seems there are real benefits.
It still looks like it provides some benefits, but I don't know Swift that well, so it could be that all the alternatives that come to mind aren't possible or are more cumbersome than I expect. The primary benefit I see is quick assign-and-check for Optionals.
When I said "was", I meant during the period these experiments were running. It seems they started in the 50s and ended in the late 70s. Just how ridiculous was it during that period for the military to throw a few million to "paranormal" studies?
"99% chance there's nothing there" ridiculous, or "been studied for a century with nothing to show for it" ridiculous"?
ESP and similar phenomena inhabit an interesting place in our history. There have been accounts and claims throughout history and undoubtedly prehistory as well. But as far as my 5-minute Googling tells me, these claims were never tested with scientific rigour until late 1800s.
So I wonder if there was some justification in doing these studies. Does anyone know if ESP had been scientifically ruled by the time these studies were done, or if these were the first large-scale studies with the appropriate level of rigour?
It seems foolish to us now, but at some point, we had no evidence of the null hypothesis. I'm just curious at what point in the timeline that changed.
Which story was this? I skimmed the articles, but didn't see this story described (and am far too lazy to actually read the articles in full).
Also, I don't know about whether punishment is fair, but it's certainly not fair to the student to ask them to find another advisor. An academic advisor isn't something you can change like a pair of shoes, and requiring a change can have an impact on your academic career.
If the man had serious problems with the idea of continuing working with her, that sounds like a mental problem on his part. Maybe the solution is to find the student another advisor, but to simply say "you're too sexy, out of luck" is the wrong way to frame it, even if it leads to the same outcome.
"Disgusting" is only in your mind. When was the last time you got sick from keyboard goo? 99% of the bacteria on a keyboard are benign and crowd out anything dangerous.
A millions ways to code it correctly, but only a few architectural decisions that would prevent this particular bug. The decision to give a fake value to an unknown is wrong before the first line of code has been written.
I think the sea platform was a different issue. My understanding was that they weren't authorized to try a land recovery because it's they hadn't proven the technology, and no one wanted to be the scapegoat when the rocket blew up an orphanage full of nuns.
While this summer's sea landing failed, it was still successful enough to justify letting SpaceX use a land-based landing point.
Caveat: I have no idea where my brain got this information, but it was probably from reading uninformed posters like me. I could very well be wrong.
my entire point is some contents of the leak made Hillary look bad
That's not what I asked for a citation of. You made a very specific claim, and I was legitimately curious because I hadn't heard it before. I wanted to know if it was true, and what the original source was.
It's okay to admit you were mistaken or misremembered. It doesn't make Hillary Clinton a good person, it just means one of the many claims levelled against her is false.
Second article is wikipedia. Third article is the guardian. Fourth article is the same Dick Morris quote. How much do I have to read to do your own homework for you?
And you'll have to point me to where I "admitted I didn't look", because I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt so far, reading your articles (which don't say what you think they do) and googling your search terms (which come up with nothing). The only thing I admitted to not reading was half a million pages of wikileaks, which I frankly don't have time for.
Anyway, unless you can find some meat for your next post, we're done here, and you should stop posting hyperbole as fact.
In the FOX interview with Sean Hannity below, political commentator and former White House consultant Dick Morris compares Hillary's tactics at the United Nations to what the communists do to their opponents to blackmail them.
This is just another guy comparing the spying with blackmail but not providing evidence. I couldn't find anything from leaked documents that shows blackmail was attempted or intended. And it seems you can't either. I'm quite willing to eat my words on this if you can prove your assertions, but I'm not just going to trust random-guy-on-internet without some sort of citation.
1) At some point in the past, I've handed you a password 2) I math a secret, resulting in gibberish 3) You math my gibberish with your password, resulting in my secret.
At exactly what fucking point does anyone expect the gov't to be able to do anything? No one was involved except the two communicating parties!
If you're particularly stupid or fascist, you can claim that the carriers could prevent it, but then you're saying every single bit that passes through their lines must be 100% decrypted and understood to make sure no "unpierceable" encrypted bits get through. And that's ignoring the obvious problem of steganography.
Let's assume I've read your links, read your advice, done some basic Google-fu, and still can't find a citation for "Hillary Clinton spied on diplomat's CC numbers in order to blackmail them".
Am I the only one who finds it strange that we still do DB access via SQL? How did it become normal to string together code for one language using another? Imagine every time we had to do math, it was via a weird language whose interface was entirely eval()-type operations.
Slashdot Mirror
Failing that, I hope that one day the rest of the world decides to act upon this retarded stepchild and cut the head off - the transition would be far more traumatic, but at least it'd happen.
But I try once to apply this wisdom to my own situation, and suddenly I'm the monster!
I'm reminded of Bush-Gore. Where the sole R representative in the ballot counting room had been a D 3 years earlier
You think they can't convince a simple coin to vote their way when they've already had a representative that was a d3?
Came here to ask this. Glad to see it asked, disappointed that there's no answer. The article does a terrible job of explaining guard, making it look like an alias for "if", but it seems there are real benefits.
(http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30791488/swift-2-guard-keyword).
It still looks like it provides some benefits, but I don't know Swift that well, so it could be that all the alternatives that come to mind aren't possible or are more cumbersome than I expect. The primary benefit I see is quick assign-and-check for Optionals.
When I said "was", I meant during the period these experiments were running. It seems they started in the 50s and ended in the late 70s. Just how ridiculous was it during that period for the military to throw a few million to "paranormal" studies?
"99% chance there's nothing there" ridiculous, or "been studied for a century with nothing to show for it" ridiculous"?
ESP and similar phenomena inhabit an interesting place in our history. There have been accounts and claims throughout history and undoubtedly prehistory as well. But as far as my 5-minute Googling tells me, these claims were never tested with scientific rigour until late 1800s.
So I wonder if there was some justification in doing these studies. Does anyone know if ESP had been scientifically ruled by the time these studies were done, or if these were the first large-scale studies with the appropriate level of rigour?
It seems foolish to us now, but at some point, we had no evidence of the null hypothesis. I'm just curious at what point in the timeline that changed.
I think we can agree that English isn't the best language for analogies. Where are we going with this?
Which story was this? I skimmed the articles, but didn't see this story described (and am far too lazy to actually read the articles in full).
Also, I don't know about whether punishment is fair, but it's certainly not fair to the student to ask them to find another advisor. An academic advisor isn't something you can change like a pair of shoes, and requiring a change can have an impact on your academic career.
If the man had serious problems with the idea of continuing working with her, that sounds like a mental problem on his part. Maybe the solution is to find the student another advisor, but to simply say "you're too sexy, out of luck" is the wrong way to frame it, even if it leads to the same outcome.
Heavy Vaper only says that because they've never tried fuck spice. It'll blow your mind, and more.
"Disgusting" is only in your mind. When was the last time you got sick from keyboard goo? 99% of the bacteria on a keyboard are benign and crowd out anything dangerous.
Which country doesn't have a history of genocidal land grab, ethnic cleansings, or "worst form of slavery very late"?
A millions ways to code it correctly, but only a few architectural decisions that would prevent this particular bug. The decision to give a fake value to an unknown is wrong before the first line of code has been written.
NULL should be combined with a flag. NULL gives you the fast-failure (nothing will work, because nothing should). The flag tells you why.
I don't understand people who prefer to use magic numbers over NULL, but there appear to be many.
I think the sea platform was a different issue. My understanding was that they weren't authorized to try a land recovery because it's they hadn't proven the technology, and no one wanted to be the scapegoat when the rocket blew up an orphanage full of nuns.
While this summer's sea landing failed, it was still successful enough to justify letting SpaceX use a land-based landing point.
Caveat: I have no idea where my brain got this information, but it was probably from reading uninformed posters like me. I could very well be wrong.
Mighty No. 9 looks promising.
After all, we banned child pornography, and now there are no more pedophiles!
my entire point is some contents of the leak made Hillary look bad
That's not what I asked for a citation of. You made a very specific claim, and I was legitimately curious because I hadn't heard it before. I wanted to know if it was true, and what the original source was.
It's okay to admit you were mistaken or misremembered. It doesn't make Hillary Clinton a good person, it just means one of the many claims levelled against her is false.
Second article is wikipedia. Third article is the guardian. Fourth article is the same Dick Morris quote. How much do I have to read to do your own homework for you?
And you'll have to point me to where I "admitted I didn't look", because I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt so far, reading your articles (which don't say what you think they do) and googling your search terms (which come up with nothing). The only thing I admitted to not reading was half a million pages of wikileaks, which I frankly don't have time for.
Anyway, unless you can find some meat for your next post, we're done here, and you should stop posting hyperbole as fact.
In the FOX interview with Sean Hannity below, political commentator and former White House consultant Dick Morris compares Hillary's tactics at the United Nations to what the communists do to their opponents to blackmail them.
This is just another guy comparing the spying with blackmail but not providing evidence. I couldn't find anything from leaked documents that shows blackmail was attempted or intended. And it seems you can't either. I'm quite willing to eat my words on this if you can prove your assertions, but I'm not just going to trust random-guy-on-internet without some sort of citation.
1) At some point in the past, I've handed you a password
2) I math a secret, resulting in gibberish
3) You math my gibberish with your password, resulting in my secret.
At exactly what fucking point does anyone expect the gov't to be able to do anything? No one was involved except the two communicating parties!
If you're particularly stupid or fascist, you can claim that the carriers could prevent it, but then you're saying every single bit that passes through their lines must be 100% decrypted and understood to make sure no "unpierceable" encrypted bits get through. And that's ignoring the obvious problem of steganography.
Idiots.
Man, adequacy.org. A blast from the past from a time when trolls were real trolls.
Let's assume I've read your links, read your advice, done some basic Google-fu, and still can't find a citation for "Hillary Clinton spied on diplomat's CC numbers in order to blackmail them".
What would you suggest next?
Soooo...no citation then?
Or are you seriously telling me to simply read the half-million documents released by Manning?
she wanted the credit card numbers of diplomats of allied nations so that they could be used for blackmail
Citation?
Sad that injection bugs are still so prevalent
Am I the only one who finds it strange that we still do DB access via SQL? How did it become normal to string together code for one language using another? Imagine every time we had to do math, it was via a weird language whose interface was entirely eval()-type operations.