You may not want to tap your own conversations, but you might want to tap your home phone to catch your spouse arranging for a tryst with someone else.
No, they voted for him Thrice: First in the 2000 Republican primary (against John McCain), then in the 2000 general election, then in the 2004 general election.
Seriously, this isn't news. I don't care what context you're talking about, programmers often skip over documenting their work. That's largely due to the pressures of how much time they have to work on something (either imposed by The Boss or other time commitments).
When Britain really ruled the waves, In good Queen Bess's day, The House of Peers made no pretense, to intellectual eminence, or scholarship sublime. Yet Britain won its proudest bays, in good Queen Bess's days.
When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte, as every child can tell, the House of Peers throughout the war, did nothing in par-tic-ular, and did it very well. Yet Britain set the world ablaze, in Good King George's glorious days.
And while the House of Peers withholds, its legislative hand, And noble statement do not itch, to interfere in matters which, They do not understand, As bright will shine Great Britains rays, as in King George's glorious days!
Hence the "arguably": Some people think it was, some people think it wasn't. There are legal experts on both sides of that one, and hence it was an example of the sort of controversial decision this case shouldn't have been.
And that one of the dissenters (the Chief Justice) had the gall to call upholding a fundamental constitutional right "judicial activism" and "overreaching" bothers me quite a bit as well. It's one thing to call Roe v Wade judicial activism (because that was arguably a stretch), but this is such an open-and-shut case that the dissenters are now arguing for ignoring the plain language of the Constitution.
The more traditional version of that is "If the facts are against you, pound the law. If the law is against you, pound the facts. If both are against you, pound your desk."
"I do have a cause however: obscenity.... I'm for it. Unfortunately, those who are fighting for this have to do it on the basis of free speech, but we all know what's really involved - dirty books are fun, that's all there is to it."
The point of learning arithmetic (and math in general if you're not going into a math-intensive field) is to study deductive and inductive reasoning. Teaching "punch the numbers into a calculator" does not teach any sort of reasoning, it teaches blind faith in a machine.
For example, to teach addition correctly, a teacher will usually teach counting, and once the students can count to 10 easily enough they can take the next step of figuring out what happens when you take 5 apples and 3 apples and put them together. They start seeing math as the art of creating shortcuts to solve problems. That's an important skill for them to have long-term.
He also said "Look at the people who've been president of the United States. Could I do any worse? If I didn't know shit from shinola, could I do any worse?"
Of course, now it would have to be Dweezil or Moon Unit instead of Frank, but the principle's the same.
I think he would make a far better president than anyone running. He did run. It's just that he's been dismissed as a crackpot for so long no one took him seriously.
Actually, there's a very important reason why math teachers fret over the use of calculators: A lot of students are using calculators as a replacement for knowing how to do basic arithmetic. A lot of researchers have pointed out that the algorithms that get learned with basic arithmetic teach some really important principles that get used later on.
Any method by which a voter can verify his vote when he gets home necessarily allows vote buying and/or coerced votes (e.g. "if you want to continue working here, show me that you voted for Smith, not Jones").
So far the most interesting idea along those lines that I've heard of is to have your job as a citizen is to vote, and verify that somebody else's vote was counted.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not show the video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=CHc8qIR_e9I
The only real reason they can possibly have made this decision is to get the really large pile of cash from selling these domains.
Maybe they're just sick of GoDaddy, Network Solutions, etc taking away all the fun of selling an infinite resource.
Anyone who knew George Carlin's comedy would realize that he didn't die: He passed on, or expired. Or maybe he experienced a terminal episode.
(This is from a bit he did where he pointed out that "shellshocked" became "PTSD")
I was surprised by that one too. But at least my congresscritter (Kucinich) voted the correct way on this one.
Don't you mean "Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow"?
You may not want to tap your own conversations, but you might want to tap your home phone to catch your spouse arranging for a tryst with someone else.
No, they voted for him Thrice: First in the 2000 Republican primary (against John McCain), then in the 2000 general election, then in the 2004 general election.
Film at 11.
Seriously, this isn't news. I don't care what context you're talking about, programmers often skip over documenting their work. That's largely due to the pressures of how much time they have to work on something (either imposed by The Boss or other time commitments).
A couple of corrections:
When Britain really ruled the waves,
In good Queen Bess's day,
The House of Peers made no pretense,
to intellectual eminence,
or scholarship sublime.
Yet Britain won its proudest bays,
in good Queen Bess's days.
When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte,
as every child can tell,
the House of Peers throughout the war,
did nothing in par-tic-ular,
and did it very well.
Yet Britain set the world ablaze,
in Good King George's glorious days.
And while the House of Peers withholds,
its legislative hand,
And noble statement do not itch,
to interfere in matters which,
They do not understand,
As bright will shine Great Britains rays,
as in King George's glorious days!
Hence the "arguably": Some people think it was, some people think it wasn't. There are legal experts on both sides of that one, and hence it was an example of the sort of controversial decision this case shouldn't have been.
And that one of the dissenters (the Chief Justice) had the gall to call upholding a fundamental constitutional right "judicial activism" and "overreaching" bothers me quite a bit as well. It's one thing to call Roe v Wade judicial activism (because that was arguably a stretch), but this is such an open-and-shut case that the dissenters are now arguing for ignoring the plain language of the Constitution.
The more traditional version of that is "If the facts are against you, pound the law. If the law is against you, pound the facts. If both are against you, pound your desk."
There ain't no whales so we tell tall tales and sing our whaling tune.
"I do have a cause however: obscenity. ... I'm for it. Unfortunately, those who are fighting for this have to do it on the basis of free speech, but we all know what's really involved - dirty books are fun, that's all there is to it."
The point of learning arithmetic (and math in general if you're not going into a math-intensive field) is to study deductive and inductive reasoning. Teaching "punch the numbers into a calculator" does not teach any sort of reasoning, it teaches blind faith in a machine.
For example, to teach addition correctly, a teacher will usually teach counting, and once the students can count to 10 easily enough they can take the next step of figuring out what happens when you take 5 apples and 3 apples and put them together. They start seeing math as the art of creating shortcuts to solve problems. That's an important skill for them to have long-term.
He also said "Look at the people who've been president of the United States. Could I do any worse? If I didn't know shit from shinola, could I do any worse?"
Of course, now it would have to be Dweezil or Moon Unit instead of Frank, but the principle's the same.
Elizabeth Kucinich is smart too, or at least faked it really well when I met her.
Actually, there's a very important reason why math teachers fret over the use of calculators: A lot of students are using calculators as a replacement for knowing how to do basic arithmetic. A lot of researchers have pointed out that the algorithms that get learned with basic arithmetic teach some really important principles that get used later on.
Actually, Microsoft beat you to something even more fundamental:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130
(hint for the humor-impaired: consider the source)
Any method by which a voter can verify his vote when he gets home necessarily allows vote buying and/or coerced votes (e.g. "if you want to continue working here, show me that you voted for Smith, not Jones").
So far the most interesting idea along those lines that I've heard of is to have your job as a citizen is to vote, and verify that somebody else's vote was counted.
No, it's much worse: it's an encyclopedia salesman.
You're in a maze of twisty little comments, all alike.
I see you know the fundamental law of DRM: If you can listen to it, or view it, you can record it.
What about Eddie Murphy from The Distinguished Gentleman?