Yes there is, and here's how: 1. Make sure no company makes new keyboards and mice. 2. Render the old keyboards and mice unusable by making your new computing devices have no place to hook up your old keyboards and mice.
Are you right that this plan is taking away consumer choice? Hell yes. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.
Why are you worried about stopping the Bolsheviks? The US still has thousands of troops ready to bravely defend West Germany from the Soviets!
However, I think those units are missing critical weapons: Modern US troops in Germany has far fewer pikes, muskets, and sabres available to them than were used centuries ago.
Here's how I deal with really badly written legacy code: 1. Pick out a particularly bad chunk of legacy. 2. Add a complete set of unit tests. "Complete" means that each potential execution path of whatever you're testing is covered. 3. Refactor it to your heart's content, until it doesn't suck quite so much anymore. 4. Your tests still pass, right? 5. Move on to the next-worst chunk of legacy.
If you are required to make a modification to horrific legacy code, try this: 1. Add the complete set of unit tests again. 2. Create a simple hook in the bad legacy code to call your awesome new code when appropriate. That way, you aren't adding much to the mess. 3. Add your new feature, with appropriate tests. 4. Refactor the horrific legacy code so it doesn't suck anymore, and incorporate your new feature. 5. You're tests still pass, right?
Thanks for identifying the real problem with major concerts, namely Ticketbastard: Their totally bogus processing fees not infrequently account for 30% of the total ticket price. As much as I find scalpers annoying, they at least operate in a market that isn't monopolistic.
Nah: as someone quite familiar with Discordianism, I chose to form my own sect, which just has one member, me. See, that ban on hot dog buns was just totally not cool.
Over 3500 people die each year from fires. And yet, in thousands of stores across the country, you can buy tools useful for starting fires. Some bars even give them away for free! And Congress does nothing about it.
Now, some of you will claim that most municipalities have teams of people who are specially trained to ensure that fires don't get out of control, but if we really want to be safe, we need to ban all use of fire in homes. Also, because electrical problems can cause fires too, we should ban all use of home wiring immediately. Anything else is an obvious deriliction of duty.
This message brought to you by the National Raw Food Association and Sweater Manufacturers of America.
Even if the kid was bragging about breaking into houses, and even if Zimmerman was aware that Martin broke into houses, that doesn't clear Zimmerman: A citizen with evidence of somebody else's criminal behavior that isn't in immediate danger is supposed to notify the police, not shoot the alleged criminal.
What I'm assuming they're claiming they're after is evidence that Martin was a violent person who was likely to have responded to Zimmerman by assaulting him. What they're actually almost definitely after is information that they can use to drag Martin's name through the mud to try to convince the jury that Martin's life was not worth protecting under the law.
I watched a defense attorney try this exact move while I was sitting on a jury. The defendant had been accused of smashing a brick over the victim's head, making her smoke crack, dragging her into a house, and then cutting up her face with a knife. The defense counsel offered no defense except to insinuate as much as he could get away with that the victim had entered the house voluntarily and traded the use of her car for the drugs. The jury realized very quickly that this didn't matter at all, because the available evidence made it quite clear that defendant had still taken a knife to the victim, and we were only asked to decide whether an assault with a deadly weapon had occurred. It was plain to me that the point of the "defense" was not to suggest that the defendant was innocent, but to suggest that the victim was a worthless human being so we wouldn't care what the defendant had done.
Look for smart and motivated people who do brilliant and interesting stuff instead. You won't always know who those are at age 9, and who qualifies will change over time as some really bright kids decide to spend their time killing their brain cells while some not-quite-as-bright kids choose to hit the books.
Slapping the label "genius" on a kid doesn't help them, and arguably stunts their social development. Taking any kid that wants to do something awesome (and reasonably safe) and giving them the help they need to do it helps any kid whether they're a genius or not. If the kid wants to do some science, great! If the kid wants to compete in a chess tournament, great! If the kid wants to play the violin, great! Find a way to make that happen.
Not quite correct: The police are allowed to kill somebody who is resisting arrest with deadly force, for instance. The key is that there was no indictment, and no chance for the American citizens in question (Anwar Al-Awlaki's son was killed a couple of weeks later, also by a drone strike, and there's no evidence publicly available linking him to any crime other than being the wrong guy's son) to surrender himself peacefully to stand trial.
Not that the courts have been helping on this: Al-Awlaki's father sued to prevent the drone strike, arguing that they had to show probable cause before a grand jury, obtain an indictment, etc. The courts threw it out, claiming that Al-Awlaki had to return to the US to file suit himself, even though it acknowledged that there was a standing order to kill him if he attempted to enter the United States.
It seems equally likely that the goal is to create an implicit deal between the 2 US ruling parties: We won't prosecute your past crimes if you don't prosecute ours.
I blame Gerald Ford, although it's quite possible it started earlier than that.
Given that this is a national election, it's politic to pander to the undecided voters, not the base. Didn't you get the memo?
The alternate theory is that the election turns on getting your base to show up and vote while actively discouraging the other guy's base from voting. So in that kind of environment, you'd pander to the frothing morons in your party, and disenfranchise the other party's voters by: - passing laws requiring them to travel hundreds of miles and pay a fee to get an ID needed to vote, - putting up billboards in neighborhoods that tend to vote for the other guy reminding them that attempted voter fraud will result in 3 years of jail time, or - organizing groups of volunteers to stand around the precincts where these voters (who all seem to be a particular color, for some reason) are likely to be and challenge anyone they think is fraudulent.
Of course, to actually do any of those things would be un-American, so I'm sure no major political group would do that.
The interesting thing about all that is that this argument has not once come up in the presidential debates. Why? Because it's safe to say that Mitt Romney and the Republican political establishment agrees wholeheartedly with all of those decisions.
And people wonder why I'm voting for a minor party this year in what everyone thinks is a critical swing state.
Actually, what's happening is that the Bavarian Illuminati are using their control of Barack Obama, the NRA, the Ice-Capades, Mel Gibson, and the TSA to seize control of the Moral Majority from the opposing Adepts of Hermes.
Incidentally, the choice of pretending to be affiliated with the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople (here's a photo of the USND-Hoople campus) should have been a giant hint to any reviewer with access to Google.
Yup, we're in agreement. It's an agreement-fest over here.
The point is that the earlier argument that Europe's problems were caused entirely by irresponsible government spending is in fact false, and Spain's 25% unemployment (and climbing rapidly) is first and foremost in proving that point.
I mean, we need to stop all those silly liberals from coming in here with those crazy notions of evolution, homosexuality being basically immutable, and Christianity not being the established religion in this country.
So far what they've done is set up a web site that allows people to send in complaints in approximately 2 minutes: You need the number called, when the call happened, whether it was a robocall or a human violating the Do Not Call registry, and as much related information as you can come up with.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes there is, and here's how:
1. Make sure no company makes new keyboards and mice.
2. Render the old keyboards and mice unusable by making your new computing devices have no place to hook up your old keyboards and mice.
Are you right that this plan is taking away consumer choice? Hell yes. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.
No, that's not a valid defense. All that does is argue that Apple is committing the same crimes as Microsoft.
Another way of thinking about it: If I steal $1000, and you steal $2000, does that make me not guilty?
Why are you worried about stopping the Bolsheviks? The US still has thousands of troops ready to bravely defend West Germany from the Soviets!
However, I think those units are missing critical weapons: Modern US troops in Germany has far fewer pikes, muskets, and sabres available to them than were used centuries ago.
That's a very very good point.
Here's how I deal with really badly written legacy code:
1. Pick out a particularly bad chunk of legacy.
2. Add a complete set of unit tests. "Complete" means that each potential execution path of whatever you're testing is covered.
3. Refactor it to your heart's content, until it doesn't suck quite so much anymore.
4. Your tests still pass, right?
5. Move on to the next-worst chunk of legacy.
If you are required to make a modification to horrific legacy code, try this:
1. Add the complete set of unit tests again.
2. Create a simple hook in the bad legacy code to call your awesome new code when appropriate. That way, you aren't adding much to the mess.
3. Add your new feature, with appropriate tests.
4. Refactor the horrific legacy code so it doesn't suck anymore, and incorporate your new feature.
5. You're tests still pass, right?
Maybe because he'll only pose with other actors? *ducks*
Thanks for identifying the real problem with major concerts, namely Ticketbastard: Their totally bogus processing fees not infrequently account for 30% of the total ticket price. As much as I find scalpers annoying, they at least operate in a market that isn't monopolistic.
Obligatory Groucho Marx:
Why, this is so simple a five-year-old child could understand it! Go find me a five-year-old child; I can't make heads or tails of it.
Nah: as someone quite familiar with Discordianism, I chose to form my own sect, which just has one member, me. See, that ban on hot dog buns was just totally not cool.
Over 3500 people die each year from fires. And yet, in thousands of stores across the country, you can buy tools useful for starting fires. Some bars even give them away for free! And Congress does nothing about it.
Now, some of you will claim that most municipalities have teams of people who are specially trained to ensure that fires don't get out of control, but if we really want to be safe, we need to ban all use of fire in homes. Also, because electrical problems can cause fires too, we should ban all use of home wiring immediately. Anything else is an obvious deriliction of duty.
This message brought to you by the National Raw Food Association and Sweater Manufacturers of America.
Even if the kid was bragging about breaking into houses, and even if Zimmerman was aware that Martin broke into houses, that doesn't clear Zimmerman: A citizen with evidence of somebody else's criminal behavior that isn't in immediate danger is supposed to notify the police, not shoot the alleged criminal.
What I'm assuming they're claiming they're after is evidence that Martin was a violent person who was likely to have responded to Zimmerman by assaulting him. What they're actually almost definitely after is information that they can use to drag Martin's name through the mud to try to convince the jury that Martin's life was not worth protecting under the law.
I watched a defense attorney try this exact move while I was sitting on a jury. The defendant had been accused of smashing a brick over the victim's head, making her smoke crack, dragging her into a house, and then cutting up her face with a knife. The defense counsel offered no defense except to insinuate as much as he could get away with that the victim had entered the house voluntarily and traded the use of her car for the drugs. The jury realized very quickly that this didn't matter at all, because the available evidence made it quite clear that defendant had still taken a knife to the victim, and we were only asked to decide whether an assault with a deadly weapon had occurred. It was plain to me that the point of the "defense" was not to suggest that the defendant was innocent, but to suggest that the victim was a worthless human being so we wouldn't care what the defendant had done.
Look for smart and motivated people who do brilliant and interesting stuff instead. You won't always know who those are at age 9, and who qualifies will change over time as some really bright kids decide to spend their time killing their brain cells while some not-quite-as-bright kids choose to hit the books.
Slapping the label "genius" on a kid doesn't help them, and arguably stunts their social development. Taking any kid that wants to do something awesome (and reasonably safe) and giving them the help they need to do it helps any kid whether they're a genius or not. If the kid wants to do some science, great! If the kid wants to compete in a chess tournament, great! If the kid wants to play the violin, great! Find a way to make that happen.
Robert E Lee was never president of the United States. He wasn't even president of the Confederacy.
What about the newer saying: Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The "without trial" part is illegal on its face.
Not quite correct: The police are allowed to kill somebody who is resisting arrest with deadly force, for instance. The key is that there was no indictment, and no chance for the American citizens in question (Anwar Al-Awlaki's son was killed a couple of weeks later, also by a drone strike, and there's no evidence publicly available linking him to any crime other than being the wrong guy's son) to surrender himself peacefully to stand trial.
Not that the courts have been helping on this: Al-Awlaki's father sued to prevent the drone strike, arguing that they had to show probable cause before a grand jury, obtain an indictment, etc. The courts threw it out, claiming that Al-Awlaki had to return to the US to file suit himself, even though it acknowledged that there was a standing order to kill him if he attempted to enter the United States.
It seems equally likely that the goal is to create an implicit deal between the 2 US ruling parties: We won't prosecute your past crimes if you don't prosecute ours.
I blame Gerald Ford, although it's quite possible it started earlier than that.
Given that this is a national election, it's politic to pander to the undecided voters, not the base. Didn't you get the memo?
The alternate theory is that the election turns on getting your base to show up and vote while actively discouraging the other guy's base from voting. So in that kind of environment, you'd pander to the frothing morons in your party, and disenfranchise the other party's voters by:
- passing laws requiring them to travel hundreds of miles and pay a fee to get an ID needed to vote,
- putting up billboards in neighborhoods that tend to vote for the other guy reminding them that attempted voter fraud will result in 3 years of jail time, or
- organizing groups of volunteers to stand around the precincts where these voters (who all seem to be a particular color, for some reason) are likely to be and challenge anyone they think is fraudulent.
Of course, to actually do any of those things would be un-American, so I'm sure no major political group would do that.
The interesting thing about all that is that this argument has not once come up in the presidential debates. Why? Because it's safe to say that Mitt Romney and the Republican political establishment agrees wholeheartedly with all of those decisions.
And people wonder why I'm voting for a minor party this year in what everyone thinks is a critical swing state.
Actually, what's happening is that the Bavarian Illuminati are using their control of Barack Obama, the NRA, the Ice-Capades, Mel Gibson, and the TSA to seize control of the Moral Majority from the opposing Adepts of Hermes.
Of course, everything I needed to learn about politics, I gleaned from playing Illuminati: New World Order.
Political robocalling is legal. Commercial robocalling is not legal.
Incidentally, the choice of pretending to be affiliated with the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople (here's a photo of the USND-Hoople campus) should have been a giant hint to any reviewer with access to Google.
Sorry, other way around: The ideas were true, Michele Bachmann believes otherwise.
Yup, we're in agreement. It's an agreement-fest over here.
The point is that the earlier argument that Europe's problems were caused entirely by irresponsible government spending is in fact false, and Spain's 25% unemployment (and climbing rapidly) is first and foremost in proving that point.
No, because the other 2 things I pointed out were completely false ideas that Michele Bachmann is quite proud of believing.
I mean, we need to stop all those silly liberals from coming in here with those crazy notions of evolution, homosexuality being basically immutable, and Christianity not being the established religion in this country.
So far what they've done is set up a web site that allows people to send in complaints in approximately 2 minutes: You need the number called, when the call happened, whether it was a robocall or a human violating the Do Not Call registry, and as much related information as you can come up with.