I've been to Stonehenge 3 times. The first time, my brothers and I could climb on the rocks and you could picnic inside the circle (I have pictures). The second time, they had velvet ropes that kept the tourists away from the rocks. The third time, they had plexiglass all the way around.
I don't want to ever go back because I'm afraid there will be a Hard Rock cafe and a bunch of other touristy bunk.
I think most Americans will be stunned to learn that there is something they learned in school that the rest of the world didn't learn and at a much younger age.
BTW, if you haven't seen Woody Allen's Bannannas, you should. It's a decent movie from his funny and interesting period.
I've used C++ since before it was a standard, before there was even the idea of an STL and I've never come across any project that would require C++, except perhaps some old MFC stuff. C++ seems to be going in the opposite direction of every other language, becoming more arcane, requiring more, as you put it, black arts. I thought it gave developers too much rope when it first came out and the rope has only gotten longer.
I've never been a big fan of the STL and when I have used it, I usually only use the STL as a place holder until I can write a custom container without all of the STL overhead. If you want to compare LOC, compare an email client written in Java versus one written in C++ --or-- compare an html push app written in Perl versus one written in C++. C++ won't even come close, because, that's not what it was designed for.
Personally, I really like PHP. It's a lot like C, with the huge exception that you don't need to compile anything. Just edit the php and refresh the browser. Which is another thing that makes it great, it integrates very well with Apache and MySql.
You should get modded up just for mentioning that all of this is theoretical and that all of these "Theories" are based on incomplete data. Math is great, but math alone can not prove anything. If the math doesn't match the data then the math is wrong. I am suspicious of theories that shrug off new data.
In my day, the universe was composed of matter and energy, and we liked it that way.
The liberal lawyers of America have done their job well. They have seeded a whole portion of the population to believe that the victims are responsible for the crime.
This women organized and perpetuated a fraud. If she had scammed Megan out of $500 dollars, posing as a fictional character, it would be a clear cut case and no one would be defending her or trying to pass the blame on Megans Mom. This women is not being charged with manslaughter or reckless endangerment, she is being charged for the crime that she committed.
A good use would be to put it into a car. You could seperate the screen from the body, add keyboard, trackball, speakers, usb extension cable, maybe embed the screen in the back of one of the front seats or have it fold down like on an airplane. Add some wifi detection tools if you want to stay connected. Add some web cams for security, or tom foolery. You can probably wire it thru the fuse box, although YMMV, literally.
I have a couple of laptops that are either missing the keyboard, in whole or in part, and this would be a good project. Now I just have to convince the wife that I'm not destroying her mini-van.
Another question is whether changes to 'shared source' code needs to be given back to Microsoft. IANALL, but that's one of those terms I like to publicly scoff at. Another good question is whether you have to give your SSC changes to customers. Again, much scoffing will ensue if it does.
I'm much more excited about nasa going to an asteroid then going to Mars. We're decades, if not centuries away from being able to do anything useful with Mars except deny/confirm that it was once much, much nicer. Currently, it is a frozen sand trap that just happens to occupy an orbit between the Earth and the belt.
That nasa is even asking for plans made my whole day. Sam Gunn would be proud.
I'm terribly sorry, but of what pet prejudice do you refer. I'm merely pointing out that if you put 'free speech' up on a pedestal and say that only that is free speech, then you are going to go thru life seeing censorship where there is none. Freedom of speech doesn't come with a soap box and crying about it on an open forum is pretty funny.
I see this tactic a lot these days. Putting things up on pedestals to actually tear the things down. I'm in a debate with a person who thinks 'free will' should be defined as actions performed solely on the basis of a persons will. That would be okay, but he uses his definition to make the case that there is no such thing as free will.
It's a very similar argument to the one in this discussion. My free will means that I can attempt to impose my will on others. These other people have the free will to ignore my will. Similarly, your right to free speech doesn't negate my right to free speech or my right to ridicule or ignore your speech.
Then, for you, it doesn't exist at all. Sucks to be you.
Everything has limits. Absolute freedom of speech is like having a microphone in an auditorium. It's great for the guy holding the mike, but for everyone else, they are forced to listen. Sure, they can talk to those around them during lulls, but the guy with the mike is just going to interrupt and talk over them. Even if he shares the mike, it will only be for a few questions or -zzzztttt- tazed bro.
If 1 person has absolute freedom of speech, it would naturally trump the non-absolute freedom of speech of everyone else. 2 people with absolute freedom of speech is a contradiction (or maybe a duet).
Just wondering how much energy a square mile (cubed mile?) of mice on treadmills would generate. This would work well for large cities like NY, LA and Houston where the mice are decidely bigger and in greater supply.
Exactly. Governments would do better by their citizens requiring everything to be in HTML format then either ODF or OOXML. Neither ODF nor OOXML has any current market share (unless you want to admit that word is OOXML compliant), where as everyone has a browser, if not more then one.
And HTML is the most widely used XML schema so really it's a twofer.
Right after 'constitution' it says 'of the United States of America'. The document would have been ludacris if the writers had tried to apply it to the whole world.
Of course, a Neo-Con might agree with you, since they are perfectly fine with the US being the World Police.
Slashdot is in desperate need of a (-1, Misinformed) or (-1, Incorrect) or (-1, Complete BS) mod option, and has been for a little while. Forever is inaccurate considering Slashdot has only been around for 29 years, other then that I completely agree.
Maybe we could add (+1, Needed fixing but still salient) to the mod options.
The Web in general could be a place for really smart discussion, but most of the time it isn't. The majority of sites are heavily biased and the majority of people on both sides of the spectrum spend the majority of their time participating in self-congratulatory non-debate.
Mod systems, which were invented to raise the best comments to the top, are instead used to skew the discussion. It happens here as well. I've had and have seen completely factual statements modded into oblivion. Try reading a thread on slashdot using 1 or greater as a filter and you'll see what I mean.
Skewz is just a tool. Just like Digg is just a tool or Slashdot's comments section is just a tool. You can't blame the tool or even the tool inventor if the tool doesn't live up to your expectations. Move on or make your own tools.
The obvious defense for such a patent is to tell the jury the theory of Intelligent Falling. At least in the good ole US of A you have a chance that 90% of the jury will believe you.
He goes farther than that and he does so in a decidedly unscientific way. It's one thing to say belief in God is a delusion and another to say that the world would be a better place without religion. While there is some evidence for the former, there is no evidence for the latter. I could be wrong, but only if there is some uber-society I've never heard of founded on atheism.
I also find it funny that Dawkins doesn't pratice what he preaches, as in, he's for universal health care, against euthanasia (why Richard?) and against capital punishment. I could see some 'religious' person supporting these positions, but not a rationalist.
It's very easy to point to a belief and call it delusional. But 'delusional' and 'without worth' are two seperate things. The idea that 'All men are created equal' is absolutely delusional, and yet, it is one of the most powerful memes on the planet.
Because if they won the nationwide C block, they could enact "open applications" and "open handsets" rules themselves. The government wasn't going to stop them from using their shiny new nationwide C block if their lower bid was the final bid.
All this means is that ODF will have to compete on the merits. Since we all know how wonderful ODF is, it shouldn't even be a contest. Also, I've heard that OOXML is unimplementable, so again, it's going to be a hard sell for Microsoft. They've just committed one of the classic blunders, "Never base your product on a standard from Microsoft".
Also, I would like to point out that there is a difference between pointing out a difference and making a definition. A cult doesn't allow it's members to leave, unlike a religion.
I can come up with some other differences between what I consider a religion and what I consider a cult: A religion doesn't hide its teachings from non-believers, unlike a cult. A religion doesn't brainwash its followers, unlike a cult. A religion doesn't kill missionaries of other religions, unlike a cult.
All cults do these things and institutions that exhibit these behaviours are generally cults. It's not a fine line and it's not about how many 'believers' there are. Many modern 'religions' have acted as 'cults' in the past. That doesn't mean that all 'cults' are now 'religions'.
Anyone claiming to have the 'word' of 'God' should be content in that knowledge, not out to kill everyone that doesn't believe them or even those who chose to openly mock them.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been to Stonehenge 3 times. The first time, my brothers and I could climb on the rocks and you could picnic inside the circle (I have pictures). The second time, they had velvet ropes that kept the tourists away from the rocks. The third time, they had plexiglass all the way around.
I don't want to ever go back because I'm afraid there will be a Hard Rock cafe and a bunch of other touristy bunk.
I think most Americans will be stunned to learn that there is something they learned in school that the rest of the world didn't learn and at a much younger age.
BTW, if you haven't seen Woody Allen's Bannannas, you should. It's a decent movie from his funny and interesting period.
I've used C++ since before it was a standard, before there was even the idea of an STL and I've never come across any project that would require C++, except perhaps some old MFC stuff. C++ seems to be going in the opposite direction of every other language, becoming more arcane, requiring more, as you put it, black arts. I thought it gave developers too much rope when it first came out and the rope has only gotten longer.
I've never been a big fan of the STL and when I have used it, I usually only use the STL as a place holder until I can write a custom container without all of the STL overhead. If you want to compare LOC, compare an email client written in Java versus one written in C++ --or-- compare an html push app written in Perl versus one written in C++. C++ won't even come close, because, that's not what it was designed for.
Personally, I really like PHP. It's a lot like C, with the huge exception that you don't need to compile anything. Just edit the php and refresh the browser. Which is another thing that makes it great, it integrates very well with Apache and MySql.
You should get modded up just for mentioning that all of this is theoretical and that all of these "Theories" are based on incomplete data. Math is great, but math alone can not prove anything. If the math doesn't match the data then the math is wrong. I am suspicious of theories that shrug off new data.
In my day, the universe was composed of matter and energy, and we liked it that way.
The liberal lawyers of America have done their job well. They have seeded a whole portion of the population to believe that the victims are responsible for the crime. This women organized and perpetuated a fraud. If she had scammed Megan out of $500 dollars, posing as a fictional character, it would be a clear cut case and no one would be defending her or trying to pass the blame on Megans Mom. This women is not being charged with manslaughter or reckless endangerment, she is being charged for the crime that she committed.
A good use would be to put it into a car. You could seperate the screen from the body, add keyboard, trackball, speakers, usb extension cable, maybe embed the screen in the back of one of the front seats or have it fold down like on an airplane. Add some wifi detection tools if you want to stay connected. Add some web cams for security, or tom foolery. You can probably wire it thru the fuse box, although YMMV, literally.
I have a couple of laptops that are either missing the keyboard, in whole or in part, and this would be a good project. Now I just have to convince the wife that I'm not destroying her mini-van.
Another question is whether changes to 'shared source' code needs to be given back to Microsoft. IANALL, but that's one of those terms I like to publicly scoff at. Another good question is whether you have to give your SSC changes to customers. Again, much scoffing will ensue if it does.
There are asteroids between the Earth and Mars, but you're still correct. If we do get off this rock, the belt will be a good destination.
I'm much more excited about nasa going to an asteroid then going to Mars. We're decades, if not centuries away from being able to do anything useful with Mars except deny/confirm that it was once much, much nicer. Currently, it is a frozen sand trap that just happens to occupy an orbit between the Earth and the belt.
That nasa is even asking for plans made my whole day. Sam Gunn would be proud.
I'm terribly sorry, but of what pet prejudice do you refer. I'm merely pointing out that if you put 'free speech' up on a pedestal and say that only that is free speech, then you are going to go thru life seeing censorship where there is none. Freedom of speech doesn't come with a soap box and crying about it on an open forum is pretty funny.
I see this tactic a lot these days. Putting things up on pedestals to actually tear the things down. I'm in a debate with a person who thinks 'free will' should be defined as actions performed solely on the basis of a persons will. That would be okay, but he uses his definition to make the case that there is no such thing as free will.
It's a very similar argument to the one in this discussion. My free will means that I can attempt to impose my will on others. These other people have the free will to ignore my will. Similarly, your right to free speech doesn't negate my right to free speech or my right to ridicule or ignore your speech.
Then, for you, it doesn't exist at all. Sucks to be you.
Everything has limits. Absolute freedom of speech is like having a microphone in an auditorium. It's great for the guy holding the mike, but for everyone else, they are forced to listen. Sure, they can talk to those around them during lulls, but the guy with the mike is just going to interrupt and talk over them. Even if he shares the mike, it will only be for a few questions or -zzzztttt- tazed bro.
If 1 person has absolute freedom of speech, it would naturally trump the non-absolute freedom of speech of everyone else. 2 people with absolute freedom of speech is a contradiction (or maybe a duet).
Hopefully the judge will be equally pissed about this complete waste of time. I'd say more, but that would be perpetuating the effect.
That would be a major headline. Even when hints of life on Mars are announced there is a story.
Just wondering how much energy a square mile (cubed mile?) of mice on treadmills would generate. This would work well for large cities like NY, LA and Houston where the mice are decidely bigger and in greater supply.
It's not well formed XML, but it is an extensible mark up language none the less.
Exactly. Governments would do better by their citizens requiring everything to be in HTML format then either ODF or OOXML. Neither ODF nor OOXML has any current market share (unless you want to admit that word is OOXML compliant), where as everyone has a browser, if not more then one.
And HTML is the most widely used XML schema so really it's a twofer.
Right after 'constitution' it says 'of the United States of America'. The document would have been ludacris if the writers had tried to apply it to the whole world.
Of course, a Neo-Con might agree with you, since they are perfectly fine with the US being the World Police.
Maybe we could add (+1, Needed fixing but still salient) to the mod options.
The Web in general could be a place for really smart discussion, but most of the time it isn't. The majority of sites are heavily biased and the majority of people on both sides of the spectrum spend the majority of their time participating in self-congratulatory non-debate.
Mod systems, which were invented to raise the best comments to the top, are instead used to skew the discussion. It happens here as well. I've had and have seen completely factual statements modded into oblivion. Try reading a thread on slashdot using 1 or greater as a filter and you'll see what I mean.
Skewz is just a tool. Just like Digg is just a tool or Slashdot's comments section is just a tool. You can't blame the tool or even the tool inventor if the tool doesn't live up to your expectations. Move on or make your own tools.
That would only patent landing the plane.
The obvious defense for such a patent is to tell the jury the theory of Intelligent Falling. At least in the good ole US of A you have a chance that 90% of the jury will believe you.
He goes farther than that and he does so in a decidedly unscientific way. It's one thing to say belief in God is a delusion and another to say that the world would be a better place without religion. While there is some evidence for the former, there is no evidence for the latter. I could be wrong, but only if there is some uber-society I've never heard of founded on atheism.
I also find it funny that Dawkins doesn't pratice what he preaches, as in, he's for universal health care, against euthanasia (why Richard?) and against capital punishment. I could see some 'religious' person supporting these positions, but not a rationalist.
It's very easy to point to a belief and call it delusional. But 'delusional' and 'without worth' are two seperate things. The idea that 'All men are created equal' is absolutely delusional, and yet, it is one of the most powerful memes on the planet.
Because if they won the nationwide C block, they could enact "open applications" and "open handsets" rules themselves. The government wasn't going to stop them from using their shiny new nationwide C block if their lower bid was the final bid.
All this means is that ODF will have to compete on the merits. Since we all know how wonderful ODF is, it shouldn't even be a contest. Also, I've heard that OOXML is unimplementable, so again, it's going to be a hard sell for Microsoft. They've just committed one of the classic blunders, "Never base your product on a standard from Microsoft".
Also, I would like to point out that there is a difference between pointing out a difference and making a definition. A cult doesn't allow it's members to leave, unlike a religion.
I can come up with some other differences between what I consider a religion and what I consider a cult:
A religion doesn't hide its teachings from non-believers, unlike a cult.
A religion doesn't brainwash its followers, unlike a cult.
A religion doesn't kill missionaries of other religions, unlike a cult.
All cults do these things and institutions that exhibit these behaviours are generally cults. It's not a fine line and it's not about how many 'believers' there are. Many modern 'religions' have acted as 'cults' in the past. That doesn't mean that all 'cults' are now 'religions'.
Anyone claiming to have the 'word' of 'God' should be content in that knowledge, not out to kill everyone that doesn't believe them or even those who chose to openly mock them.
Hardly private... unless you define private as 'posted on slashdot'.