If you're talking about indenting due to a long line, then most of the time Python makes it quite possible to indent as you please. For instance, this is perfectly ok:
if (a == b and
c == d):
doSomething(foo=a,
bar=b)
doSomething(foo=c, bar=d)
doSomethingElse()
This won't work in Python:
if (a == b and c == d):
doSomething(foo=a, bar=b)
doSomething(foo=c, bar=d)
doSomethingElse()
Between the two I'll take the first version every time. The only real restriction is that the beginning of a statement must match the correct indent level, but that's a part of every coding standard I've come across.
Re:You missed the point of your own story
on
Hello World!
·
· Score: 1
Having taught kids programming, I've seen kids get really fascinated by the very simple game of "computer picks a random number between 1 and 100, user gets 10 guesses and is told higher, lower, or just right".
What's particularly nifty about that game, besides being easy to develop, is that it's a remarkably short conceptual hop from playing that game to understanding binary searches and base-2 logarithms. I've explained that stuff to 10-year-olds, and while I don't expect them to nail it on a test I do think that when they start having to deal with exponents and logs in 7th grade or so they'll have a big leg up on their classmates.
I am skeptical, however, that analytical skills correlate (or at least should correlate) strongly with being fiscally liberal. There seems to be decent evidence that being fiscally liberal, particularly in a society in economic decline, is hazardous.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "fiscally liberal", but if you mean "lots of government spending", then you need to explain your conclusion in light of the effects of government policies between 1928 and 1952.
Now exactly how many TRILLIONS of gallons of water does Mr. Gates wish to cool by one degree? Assuming all you want to cool is the first 1 meter of depth of a 1 km x 1km patch of water contains 1 billion litres of water (around 264 million gallons). This would require at least 2.1 * 10^12 Joules of energy. And remember you have to deliver it in a limited time, in the path of the storm (which can change at any time - in fact is MORE LIKELY to change if you start cooling water ahead of it)? And let's not forget during the daytime you have to also account for sunlight, which will make your cooling process less efficient.
That's just an implementation detail. Right now we're talking about high-level design.
Anyway, libel, defamation and slander are illegal, so if you want to put up a stand and hand out pamphlets that tell lies about fags, it's against the law. However, it's against the law for them to put up a stand and tell lies about you... under the same laws.
Not quite right. Libel, defamation, and slander aren't illegal, they're just a cause of action in a civil suit. The police won't arrest you for saying "drinkypoo 153816 is a big fat idiot". All that can happen to you is that drinkypoo can sue you into the ground (and in the case of a public figure like Rush Limbaugh, they'll lose the lawsuit as well).
Hm. And, while we're on it, there's nothing wrong with me setting up in public and warning people about how awful homosexuals are, is there? After all, it's free speech. It's not even obscene. Oh, wait, you call that "hate" speech and have decided that "hate" is wrong, whereas "immorality" or "obscenity" is not, thus you want free obscenity and bridled hate.
That is in fact perfectly legal. The Westboro Baptist Church has become famous for doing exactly that, in contexts where it's generally considered to be in very poor taste (such as funerals for fallen soldiers). The point where it becomes illegal is when you start telling people to beat up gay people.
"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution unfortunately."
Boy, tell that to the friends of mine that recently celebrated their 60th anniversary. Did they work at it? You bet. Did their experience of each other change over time? Absolutely. Like all couples, they had their trials and tribulations. But they are also plainly madly in love with each other even today, and now in their late 80's wouldn't have had their lives turn out any way other than they did.
Really, if you think that sort of thing is a lie you need to talk to more old people.
You must be at a good company. I know of several companies which a degree in physical education is enough to secure a mid level management position.
Be reasonable: being the boss's brother-in-law is usually sufficient as well. And it's also worth mentioning that the degree in PE helps a lot more if it came from the CxO's alma mater.
I think you're mistaking any attempt at negotiation with anyone as a signal of weakness, whereas most foreign relations folks see it as a standard tool for getting things done. Remember that this is going on at the same time as Joe Biden appears to be giving the green light to Israel attacking Iran, suggesting that he's not ignoring that problem in the least.
It's nice to see that the appeasement policies of President Carter's second term haven't skipped a beat since the end of his first (there's something to be said for consistency).
(I guess you're claiming that Obama is a clone of Carter.)
You do realize that the first incarnation of this particular nuclear arms control treaty was proposed and pushed through by Ronald Reagan in 1982, right? Controlling a nuclear Russia is one of the few areas where there was bipartisan agreement since it became an issue in 1949.
Plus this sort of treaty isn't appeasement (which would be giving stuff away in the hopes that somebody stops being aggressive): it's a tit-for-tat trading down of nukes on the theory that neither side actually wants to blow up the world and both sides have a significant interest in making sure that terrorists don't get their hands on either side's nukes.
As one of the Rand Corporation's stone cold game theorists said, those would be "tragic, but distinguishable, outcomes".
General Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got 20 million people killed, and the other where you got a 150 million people killed.
President Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!
General Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.
Good luck creating a political or economic system that doesn't reward betrayal. We've spent all of recorded history trying to figure out how to prevent that, but the problem is that any system that gets set up to prevent betrayal will necessarily get betrayed by the same jerks who was focused on betraying in order to gain power in the first place.
Be fair: Goldman Sachs has way more control over government policies than a mere root password would give them. They don't just have root passwords, they have root passwords, physical access, and insider support.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're talking about indenting due to a long line, then most of the time Python makes it quite possible to indent as you please. For instance, this is perfectly ok:
if (a == b and
c == d):
doSomething(foo=a,
bar=b)
doSomething(foo=c, bar=d)
doSomethingElse()
This won't work in Python:
if (a == b and c == d):
doSomething(foo=a, bar=b)
doSomething(foo=c, bar=d)
doSomethingElse()
Between the two I'll take the first version every time. The only real restriction is that the beginning of a statement must match the correct indent level, but that's a part of every coding standard I've come across.
Having taught kids programming, I've seen kids get really fascinated by the very simple game of "computer picks a random number between 1 and 100, user gets 10 guesses and is told higher, lower, or just right".
What's particularly nifty about that game, besides being easy to develop, is that it's a remarkably short conceptual hop from playing that game to understanding binary searches and base-2 logarithms. I've explained that stuff to 10-year-olds, and while I don't expect them to nail it on a test I do think that when they start having to deal with exponents and logs in 7th grade or so they'll have a big leg up on their classmates.
In short, are you saying that 2010 could be the Year of the Linux Desktop (TM)?
I am skeptical, however, that analytical skills correlate (or at least should correlate) strongly with being fiscally liberal. There seems to be decent evidence that being fiscally liberal, particularly in a society in economic decline, is hazardous.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "fiscally liberal", but if you mean "lots of government spending", then you need to explain your conclusion in light of the effects of government policies between 1928 and 1952.
Broadway musical reference fail.
I don't think it quite compares to Frank's 2000 inch TV.
Now exactly how many TRILLIONS of gallons of water does Mr. Gates wish to cool by one degree? Assuming all you want to cool is the first 1 meter of depth of a 1 km x 1km patch of water contains 1 billion litres of water (around 264 million gallons). This would require at least 2.1 * 10^12 Joules of energy. And remember you have to deliver it in a limited time, in the path of the storm (which can change at any time - in fact is MORE LIKELY to change if you start cooling water ahead of it)? And let's not forget during the daytime you have to also account for sunlight, which will make your cooling process less efficient.
That's just an implementation detail. Right now we're talking about high-level design.
And if you try telling the young people of today that, they won't believe you.
I have to ask: Is your disclaimer that "Not all disclaimers are superfluous" superfluous?
Anyway, libel, defamation and slander are illegal, so if you want to put up a stand and hand out pamphlets that tell lies about fags, it's against the law. However, it's against the law for them to put up a stand and tell lies about you... under the same laws.
Not quite right. Libel, defamation, and slander aren't illegal, they're just a cause of action in a civil suit. The police won't arrest you for saying "drinkypoo 153816 is a big fat idiot". All that can happen to you is that drinkypoo can sue you into the ground (and in the case of a public figure like Rush Limbaugh, they'll lose the lawsuit as well).
Hm. And, while we're on it, there's nothing wrong with me setting up in public and warning people about how awful homosexuals are, is there? After all, it's free speech. It's not even obscene. Oh, wait, you call that "hate" speech and have decided that "hate" is wrong, whereas "immorality" or "obscenity" is not, thus you want free obscenity and bridled hate.
That is in fact perfectly legal. The Westboro Baptist Church has become famous for doing exactly that, in contexts where it's generally considered to be in very poor taste (such as funerals for fallen soldiers). The point where it becomes illegal is when you start telling people to beat up gay people.
How can you have ignored Clippy?
"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution unfortunately."
(at which point he launched into this jaunty tune: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pva35TFiBfI)
1. Use this cloth to take a picture that vaguely looks like the Virgin Mary.
2. Publicize the cloth.
3. Charge people to see it.
4. Profit!!!
My first thought on this was that this would be Valerie Solanas' dream come true.
Boy, tell that to the friends of mine that recently celebrated their 60th anniversary. Did they work at it? You bet. Did their experience of each other change over time? Absolutely. Like all couples, they had their trials and tribulations. But they are also plainly madly in love with each other even today, and now in their late 80's wouldn't have had their lives turn out any way other than they did.
Really, if you think that sort of thing is a lie you need to talk to more old people.
He actually meant to say "'nough said.", but he's a Lisp programmer.
You must be at a good company. I know of several companies which a degree in physical education is enough to secure a mid level management position.
Be reasonable: being the boss's brother-in-law is usually sufficient as well. And it's also worth mentioning that the degree in PE helps a lot more if it came from the CxO's alma mater.
Here you go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/us/politics/06biden.html
I think you're mistaking any attempt at negotiation with anyone as a signal of weakness, whereas most foreign relations folks see it as a standard tool for getting things done. Remember that this is going on at the same time as Joe Biden appears to be giving the green light to Israel attacking Iran, suggesting that he's not ignoring that problem in the least.
It's nice to see that the appeasement policies of President Carter's second term haven't skipped a beat since the end of his first (there's something to be said for consistency).
(I guess you're claiming that Obama is a clone of Carter.)
You do realize that the first incarnation of this particular nuclear arms control treaty was proposed and pushed through by Ronald Reagan in 1982, right? Controlling a nuclear Russia is one of the few areas where there was bipartisan agreement since it became an issue in 1949.
Plus this sort of treaty isn't appeasement (which would be giving stuff away in the hopes that somebody stops being aggressive): it's a tit-for-tat trading down of nukes on the theory that neither side actually wants to blow up the world and both sides have a significant interest in making sure that terrorists don't get their hands on either side's nukes.
As one of the Rand Corporation's stone cold game theorists said, those would be "tragic, but distinguishable, outcomes".
General Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got 20 million people killed, and the other where you got a 150 million people killed.
President Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!
General Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.
Betrayal should not systematically lead to power.
Good luck creating a political or economic system that doesn't reward betrayal. We've spent all of recorded history trying to figure out how to prevent that, but the problem is that any system that gets set up to prevent betrayal will necessarily get betrayed by the same jerks who was focused on betraying in order to gain power in the first place.
What, you didn't think to bring your own parachute either?
Be fair: Goldman Sachs has way more control over government policies than a mere root password would give them. They don't just have root passwords, they have root passwords, physical access, and insider support.