Yingluck Shinawatra is not just a woman, but a really attractive one. She's an even bigger PMILF than Yulia Tymoshenko was, but lets face it, the bar fine for a head of government is way out of my pricerange.
260 people maintaining 420,000 lines of code, written to precise externally provided specifications that change once every few years.
This is fine for NASA, but if you want something that does roughly what you need before your competitors come up with something better, you'd better find some brogrammers.
The reason C++ does not implement format strings is that C libraries work just fine in it.
There are no prizes for most pure usage of <iostream> or any rule saying C++ programmers must use it at all, it is simply a nifty library that exists that you may use when it suits you. If the code you're writing will be simpler, faster and or more comprehensible to later maintainers if you use <cstdio>, then you should use it. If it can be written better with <iostream> then use that.
If you get a chance to do some hardcore IO in C++, you will find two functions at the core of your code: select (or epoll on Linux) and mmap. Neither are in either of those two headers and both work on integer file descriptors, rather than FILE or ostream/istream objects. They are about as un-c++ as you can get, they are kernel syscalls, but you can build some truly excellent C++ around them which looks simple, does a lot and runs more efficiently than <fstream> allows.
C++ is not about purity, Bjarne Stroustrup designed it to allow multiple unrelated paradigms to be used together to allow programmers maximum efficiency and flexibility to write great code, it was never meant to be deconstructivist. Good C++ is not just knowing when to pass by reference, what to declare const, which members to make pure virtual, which STL type to use, which functions and classes should be templates and which shouldn't, etc. Good C++ is also knowing when to use stringstream and when to use strnprintf. And good friend malloc is still there, believe it or not, great C++ programmers know how to use it well in C++ too.
Mbeki is great by ANC standards, the new guy, Zuma banged a girl he knew had HIV without a condom, but confidently re-assured the nation that he showered well afterwards.
Assholes is a very subjective term. I know plenty of guys who are frequently labelled "assholes" who write brilliantly clear, extensible code to deadline, mentor others and drive groups of people forward as a team. They are labelled assholes by the people who don't complete tasks, push both work and blame onto others and shirk responsibility. Brilliant and hard working people have very high standards and very rarely afford civility to those who willingly fall short and thus are perceived as assholes by them.
I worked in a company where people would regularly curse a guy who resigned a year before I arrived, saying he's a giant asshole, he wrote unmaintainable code, he used perverted coding conventions, blah blah blah. I thought it was strange since I noticed his name all though the commit log with more than double the work output of everyone else and more or less the same quality code. I met him afterwards and the guy was clever, articulate, polite and we discussed his code. He humbly acknowledged that he had written that code in a rush under pressure and was very surprised that it was still there in its entirety and nobody had bothered to revise it with something more permanent. He also explained to me his slightly unorthodox coding conventions (antonyms having the same number of letters to make definitions line up) and they made a bit of sense too, as much as anyone else's conventions. You see, people didn't like him, not because he was selfish or abusive or whatever, just because he was better than them and he wouldn't waste his time mentally masturbating with them when there was a deadline looming.
Of course since Windows is "out of favor" here, one does not necessarily mention that Microsoft's "Security Essentials" is easily as good as most commercial Windows anti-malware packages, and much more "light weight". And free. And yes, everyone knows that Microsoft purchased the original technology (so what?)...
MSE is good for what it is and what it does, I first tried it after reading unanimous praise of it here on Slashdot. It's the only AV I've ever seen that does not conspicuously cause the system to become slow, unstable and/or quirky.
I am feeling smug about this and is not about Microsoft or Windows itself, I just simply could not understand how a professional sysadmin could ever be in a position where they must run anti-virus on a server, which seems to be common practice amongst Windows admins.
Antivirus is for checking that executables and libraries are free of malicious code. I just cannot possibly fathom why an executable or library could be running on a server if nobody had checked it beforehand. A good admin should scan and monitor tools that come from untrusted sources before putting it on a live server. A great admin should scan and monitor tools, even if they're from trusted sources before putting it on a live server. This is basic stuff and is why almost all servers are infected through network bugs, which can be easily prevented by keeping services up to date and non-essential services shut down or at least firewalled off.
Why then do you need an Anti-Virus? It won't protect your services from buffer overflows or other infection vectors, it won't protect you from new rootkits unless it has wicked-sick heuristic analysis and you get lucky. So what does it guard against? Maybe someone using a zero-day attack vector and installing an old rootkit?
So for a sense of security against unknown threats, you give an autonomous, externally controlled process, that is by design almost impossible to analyse, unfettered administrator access to your entire system. Now this happens, I feel smug.
Sarah Kerrigan is from Starcraft, from 15 years ago, she's a terran ghost that becomes Zerg. Booker DeWitt is the protagonist from Bioshock Infinite, which came out three weeks ago and is fantastic.
Actually, strictly speaking you could almost buy two. The average cost per unit of $2.1 billion is mostly born by one time, already sunk development costs, the flyaway cost is a "mere" $0.7 billion.
The reason they're so damn expensive is that the Cold War ended when they were almost finished and most of the money had been spent, meaning instead of building hundreds of the things, they only built 21. A weapon like the B2 is only needed against a well armed and geographically huge opponent, such as the Russia, China or the United States itself, none of which America has the pressing need to bomb in the near future. So they just built a few, made them public as some sort of national prestige stunt for scaring "rogue states" with the threat that a heavy bomber could be flying over their territory without anyone knowing, rather than building en masse to become a credible attack force towards large powers as they were intended.
In contrast fhe F-22 project cost 66 Billion compared to the B-2's 44 Billion, the difference is, they built hundreds of those, so the cost looks lower.
It would be near Toronto before it got noticed if it was missed by radar in northern Alaska.
It would come in from the same direction as a nuclear strike coming from the former Soviet Union, i.e. exactly the direction that NORAD have all of their radars pointing.
Plutonium is a strange metal. It has 6 allotropes and is denser when melted than when solid, it is brittle and doesn't conduct heat or electricity. You take this horrid, unworkable metal that an experienced machinist or blacksmith would have trouble making a simple screwdriver or chisel out of and have to make a perfect, hollow, evacuated sphere out of it, surround it with precision trinitrotoluene shaped charges with multiple detonation points and then boom.
We're talking about the sixth day here. According to Genesis 1 God created terrestrial animals and man, male and female. Then according to Genesis 2 God creates Man (male), creates animals to keep him company and finally makes a female. This is the potentially paradoxical bit here, not about the first, second, etc day, which at least is qualitatively congruent with evolution. if not quantitatively (maybe off by a few million to billion days at most).
Anyway, the issue is, if you bothered to read your bible (which, whether you believe it is true and/or like it or not, still shaped western society for 1700 years and incidently you should read the Koran for similar reasons, even if you are a Christian/atheist), Genesis 1 in all English translations seems to pretty blatantly contradicts Genesis 2 in the order of creation between animals, male humans and female humans.
My point is that Genesis 1 apparently does not specify order and time delay between animals, man and woman, even though it looks like that in the NIV, NRSV and KGV and anything else written in English. However, if you're just looking at the days, when is evening and when is morning of the X day, then there is no contradiction to explain at all, 6th day is 6th day and if the work's done when you clock off to go home, nobody much cares in what order you did it. When I was a consultant, I used to write timesheets with work orders that were wildly inaccurate, the guy managing that was Israeli, a native Hebrew speaker and he only cared if the billable time was correct. Sapier-Worf hypothesis in action maybe? Who knows, I personally higly doubt it, but its nice conjecture and Sapier-Worf hypothesis sounds like it's about a Klingon who grew up in Belarus, presumably speaking Russian and turned out weird.
I was incorrect in that the other females of the time merely would have had their unbroken female line die out, rather than strictly mothering any daughters.
Anyway, I was trying to be clever in the context of a silly proposition, I'm not really asserting that there being a single human female at some time in history is a scientifically proven fact.
I cannot read Hebrew myself, but those who can that I have asked have all answered that there is no order implied in Genesis one, it just comes through that way in English.
As for the usage of the word elohim vs adonai vs YHWH, this is common right through the bible, being translated to God, Lord and Yahweh/Jehovah in English respectively. Its roughly interchangeable.
Personally, I think the scientific evidence for natural selection is pretty solid. But I have discovered that creationists have most likely had that particular book in its written form for well over three millenia and generally have had time to think over most of its issues much more than you or I have.
Well, it is generally accepted that we are all matrilinearly decended from the same woman, Mitochondrial Eve, I think this pretty much scientifically disproves there being two women at creation, unless one mothered no daughters.
Lilith only features as Adam's wife in certain Jewish apocryphal texts, nowhere in the Tanakh, meaning that Christian fundimentalists, being by the very definition of the word "fundimentalist" are not likely to consider her to be part of creation. Fundimentalism is about literally interpreting and living by canon (or at least the attempt thereof) and has nothing to do with blowing up things and is only considered a perjoritive by various modernists, liberals and those caught up in the propaganda relating to "Teh War on Terror".
I am a male lead programmer in China, I hire a lot of female programmers and extol the virtues of hiring female programmers to my Chinese peers who lead other projects, who have started hiring female programmers also, seeing my success in using female programmers to achieve good results. I think they are more consistent and reliable, about 10-30% cheaper then men and have better company loyalty than men. There is a surprising amount of coding that could do with a woman's touch. I like to have over 30% of my team to be women since in my experience if a woman has done something before, she's much less likely to make a mess of it than a man is, since men of above average IQ tend to get bored, lazy and arrogant the second time around. Women also don't like being assigned repetitive work, but even if they get angry with me, they generally still don't screw it up, though they will quit eventually if one exploits this too much.
My little sister and cousin are both female programmers in Australia. They are both excellent, consistent and make very few mistakes, my cousin even has some of the problem solving creativity that the women I've managed seem to lack and I'm optimistic about my sister developing that skill too with time. This high profile firing stuff makes me somewhat concerned for the careers of these two dear young ladies.
The thing is, in China, sexism is a non-issue, by which I mean, it exists in a huge way, but nobody talks about it. In the west, it's a big issue with big consequences, so I realised, if a manager was considering hiring a woman in Australia into an all male team, they would quite likely first measure up the probability and possible severity of a sexual harassment issue and offset that against her utility as an employee. For large companies who have various HR policies supporting diversity and for whom maintaining a completely male workforce would be utterly impractical anyway, this is a non issue, the risk is lower and the reward is higher. For smaller, up-coming companies with higher potential for growth but larger exposure to risk, this is going to really going to work against female candidates. This is somewhat irrelevant anyway, because these two young ladies both work for absolutely enormous multinationals, but for others, or in the future, who knows.
I completely agree that inappropriate behaviour in the workplace is bad and should be stopped. But for a manager, being forced to fire potentially crucial people for something unrelated to performance is extremely scary. If a manager looks at a candidate and has any niggling doubt that "HR has a remote chance of making me fire some people I need if I hire this person and something goes wrong" then it really doesn't help the candidate. I really do not think this helps women in the industry.
The license for the runtime is here, and yes, binaries compiled with gcc can be distributed under any license the author chooses, even after linking with the gcc runtime.
Interestingly, the exception only is valid if you use GCC or another GPL licensed compiler to link it, to prevent the runtime being shanghaied in its GPL compliant entirety by another compiler.
Finally, you cannot accidentally license your software under the GPL through linking. Only the copyright holder may assign a license and copyright comes through authorship. If you link your software with GPL software but do not license your software under compatible terms you merely violate the GPL and are liable for whatever penalties come from distributing unlicensed software. This probably will be relatively low if it is accidental and one agrees to remove it, since actual damages are most likely to be zero, only statutory damages and punitive damages (impossible if not deliberate) apply.
I know this site has an international audience, but did anyone really think that this thing ran on some non-specific, presumably flammable "gas"?
If you want to say something like "I just have half a tank of gas" or "step on the gas", this would be inferred by most English speakers anywhere to refer to whatever fuel the vehicle runs on, probably "gasoline", "petrol" or whatever you want to call it, even though its not widely used outside of America. In British and British-like English dialects, gas-powered unambiguously means LPG or Natural Gas, but I think it's common knowledge when an American says "gas" they don't really mean it, so this won't cause much confusion.
But when you're talking about what fuel an exotic engine runs on, then using "gas" to mean "gasoline" is just as completely wrong in American English as it is in any other dialect. The reason for this is that in contexts of other common engines types such as "gas turbine", "COGAS" or "gas powered semi-automatic" (a simple piston engine) all run on different fuels.
The point is, this Ferrari does not have a simple off-the-shelf engine and we should not have to make assumptions about what it runs on. If the author wants to say "gasoline" they should type that, "gas" being a phase, not a type of fuel.
They're not worth even that, after Obama got his for sustaining war, torture and murdering own citizens.
Well, he got it for being elected, if they want to give him a prize for sustaining war, torture and murdering own citizens then they're going to have to give him another.
Tom Lehrer famously said that political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I think it's been more or less a joke since well before that.
Though it is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee which has different standards and values to Karolinska Institutet or Swedish Academy of Science.
Autism is a real condition with real people and families who need real help in dealing with it.
The way it's been trivialised into a mild personality quirk by self-diagnosed "autistics" and over-eager pediatritians is doing nothing but interfering with help getting where it is needed.
Being the most popular guy in the school is not normal, it's a profound gift. For most of us on this site, myself included, learning to make friends, fit in, use body language was one of the hardest parts of our lives. That does not make you autistic, that just means it's not your strongest skill. Calling youself autistic when you are capable of slowly learning these things is not helping yourself and is certainly not helping those who really have a serious disability that needs specialist help to overcome.
For evaluating sales people, my maxim would be: "if you think this guy is an unbearable arsehole, then your customers will too". While people can get a lot of quick deal with guts, moxie and shamelessness, the best thing for your brand and product is always to make people glad that they bought it.
Marketing involves much more analysis and less face to face time, however, it is essentially communication on a brand level and that requires an in-tune people person. This person knows what other people are saying and can make their point clearly and succinctly.
If someone doesn't know what you want, they won't know what the customer wants. If someone can't tell you what you need to know in a convincing way, then they won't be able to tell the customers they want to buy your product.
Slashdot Mirror
Yingluck Shinawatra is not just a woman, but a really attractive one. She's an even bigger PMILF than Yulia Tymoshenko was, but lets face it, the bar fine for a head of government is way out of my pricerange.
260 people maintaining 420,000 lines of code, written to precise externally provided specifications that change once every few years.
This is fine for NASA, but if you want something that does roughly what you need before your competitors come up with something better, you'd better find some brogrammers.
Australia's balance of trade with China is extremely positive at the moment. China buys almost twice as much Australian stuff as Australia buys Chinese stuff, as opposed to trade with the US which is 3-1 in the red. So, hao hao xuexi ba.
The reason C++ does not implement format strings is that C libraries work just fine in it.
There are no prizes for most pure usage of <iostream> or any rule saying C++ programmers must use it at all, it is simply a nifty library that exists that you may use when it suits you. If the code you're writing will be simpler, faster and or more comprehensible to later maintainers if you use <cstdio>, then you should use it. If it can be written better with <iostream> then use that.
If you get a chance to do some hardcore IO in C++, you will find two functions at the core of your code: select (or epoll on Linux) and mmap. Neither are in either of those two headers and both work on integer file descriptors, rather than FILE or ostream/istream objects. They are about as un-c++ as you can get, they are kernel syscalls, but you can build some truly excellent C++ around them which looks simple, does a lot and runs more efficiently than <fstream> allows.
C++ is not about purity, Bjarne Stroustrup designed it to allow multiple unrelated paradigms to be used together to allow programmers maximum efficiency and flexibility to write great code, it was never meant to be deconstructivist. Good C++ is not just knowing when to pass by reference, what to declare const, which members to make pure virtual, which STL type to use, which functions and classes should be templates and which shouldn't, etc. Good C++ is also knowing when to use stringstream and when to use strnprintf. And good friend malloc is still there, believe it or not, great C++ programmers know how to use it well in C++ too.
How is this not an act of war?
Same reason nothing the Soviets ever did was an act of war: because retaliation would be too costly.
Mbeki is great by ANC standards, the new guy, Zuma banged a girl he knew had HIV without a condom, but confidently re-assured the nation that he showered well afterwards.
Assholes is a very subjective term. I know plenty of guys who are frequently labelled "assholes" who write brilliantly clear, extensible code to deadline, mentor others and drive groups of people forward as a team. They are labelled assholes by the people who don't complete tasks, push both work and blame onto others and shirk responsibility. Brilliant and hard working people have very high standards and very rarely afford civility to those who willingly fall short and thus are perceived as assholes by them.
I worked in a company where people would regularly curse a guy who resigned a year before I arrived, saying he's a giant asshole, he wrote unmaintainable code, he used perverted coding conventions, blah blah blah. I thought it was strange since I noticed his name all though the commit log with more than double the work output of everyone else and more or less the same quality code. I met him afterwards and the guy was clever, articulate, polite and we discussed his code. He humbly acknowledged that he had written that code in a rush under pressure and was very surprised that it was still there in its entirety and nobody had bothered to revise it with something more permanent. He also explained to me his slightly unorthodox coding conventions (antonyms having the same number of letters to make definitions line up) and they made a bit of sense too, as much as anyone else's conventions. You see, people didn't like him, not because he was selfish or abusive or whatever, just because he was better than them and he wouldn't waste his time mentally masturbating with them when there was a deadline looming.
I realise now, "asshole" tends to work both ways.
...is all I use these days.
Of course since Windows is "out of favor" here, one does not necessarily mention that Microsoft's "Security Essentials" is easily as good as most commercial Windows anti-malware packages, and much more "light weight". And free. And yes, everyone knows that Microsoft purchased the original technology (so what?) ...
MSE is good for what it is and what it does, I first tried it after reading unanimous praise of it here on Slashdot. It's the only AV I've ever seen that does not conspicuously cause the system to become slow, unstable and/or quirky.
I am feeling smug about this and is not about Microsoft or Windows itself, I just simply could not understand how a professional sysadmin could ever be in a position where they must run anti-virus on a server, which seems to be common practice amongst Windows admins.
Antivirus is for checking that executables and libraries are free of malicious code. I just cannot possibly fathom why an executable or library could be running on a server if nobody had checked it beforehand. A good admin should scan and monitor tools that come from untrusted sources before putting it on a live server. A great admin should scan and monitor tools, even if they're from trusted sources before putting it on a live server. This is basic stuff and is why almost all servers are infected through network bugs, which can be easily prevented by keeping services up to date and non-essential services shut down or at least firewalled off.
Why then do you need an Anti-Virus? It won't protect your services from buffer overflows or other infection vectors, it won't protect you from new rootkits unless it has wicked-sick heuristic analysis and you get lucky. So what does it guard against? Maybe someone using a zero-day attack vector and installing an old rootkit?
So for a sense of security against unknown threats, you give an autonomous, externally controlled process, that is by design almost impossible to analyse, unfettered administrator access to your entire system. Now this happens, I feel smug.
Sarah Kerrigan is from Starcraft, from 15 years ago, she's a terran ghost that becomes Zerg. Booker DeWitt is the protagonist from Bioshock Infinite, which came out three weeks ago and is fantastic.
Actually, strictly speaking you could almost buy two. The average cost per unit of $2.1 billion is mostly born by one time, already sunk development costs, the flyaway cost is a "mere" $0.7 billion.
The reason they're so damn expensive is that the Cold War ended when they were almost finished and most of the money had been spent, meaning instead of building hundreds of the things, they only built 21. A weapon like the B2 is only needed against a well armed and geographically huge opponent, such as the Russia, China or the United States itself, none of which America has the pressing need to bomb in the near future. So they just built a few, made them public as some sort of national prestige stunt for scaring "rogue states" with the threat that a heavy bomber could be flying over their territory without anyone knowing, rather than building en masse to become a credible attack force towards large powers as they were intended.
In contrast fhe F-22 project cost 66 Billion compared to the B-2's 44 Billion, the difference is, they built hundreds of those, so the cost looks lower.
It would come in from the same direction as a nuclear strike coming from the former Soviet Union, i.e. exactly the direction that NORAD have all of their radars pointing.
Plutonium is a strange metal. It has 6 allotropes and is denser when melted than when solid, it is brittle and doesn't conduct heat or electricity. You take this horrid, unworkable metal that an experienced machinist or blacksmith would have trouble making a simple screwdriver or chisel out of and have to make a perfect, hollow, evacuated sphere out of it, surround it with precision trinitrotoluene shaped charges with multiple detonation points and then boom.
Is there some tradition in some parts of the world to make an ass of oneself on the second of April too?
We're talking about the sixth day here. According to Genesis 1 God created terrestrial animals and man, male and female. Then according to Genesis 2 God creates Man (male), creates animals to keep him company and finally makes a female. This is the potentially paradoxical bit here, not about the first, second, etc day, which at least is qualitatively congruent with evolution. if not quantitatively (maybe off by a few million to billion days at most).
Anyway, the issue is, if you bothered to read your bible (which, whether you believe it is true and/or like it or not, still shaped western society for 1700 years and incidently you should read the Koran for similar reasons, even if you are a Christian/atheist), Genesis 1 in all English translations seems to pretty blatantly contradicts Genesis 2 in the order of creation between animals, male humans and female humans.
My point is that Genesis 1 apparently does not specify order and time delay between animals, man and woman, even though it looks like that in the NIV, NRSV and KGV and anything else written in English. However, if you're just looking at the days, when is evening and when is morning of the X day, then there is no contradiction to explain at all, 6th day is 6th day and if the work's done when you clock off to go home, nobody much cares in what order you did it. When I was a consultant, I used to write timesheets with work orders that were wildly inaccurate, the guy managing that was Israeli, a native Hebrew speaker and he only cared if the billable time was correct. Sapier-Worf hypothesis in action maybe? Who knows, I personally higly doubt it, but its nice conjecture and Sapier-Worf hypothesis sounds like it's about a Klingon who grew up in Belarus, presumably speaking Russian and turned out weird.
Do you know what "matrilinearly decended" means?
I was incorrect in that the other females of the time merely would have had their unbroken female line die out, rather than strictly mothering any daughters.
Anyway, I was trying to be clever in the context of a silly proposition, I'm not really asserting that there being a single human female at some time in history is a scientifically proven fact.
I cannot read Hebrew myself, but those who can that I have asked have all answered that there is no order implied in Genesis one, it just comes through that way in English.
As for the usage of the word elohim vs adonai vs YHWH, this is common right through the bible, being translated to God, Lord and Yahweh/Jehovah in English respectively. Its roughly interchangeable.
Personally, I think the scientific evidence for natural selection is pretty solid. But I have discovered that creationists have most likely had that particular book in its written form for well over three millenia and generally have had time to think over most of its issues much more than you or I have.
Well, it is generally accepted that we are all matrilinearly decended from the same woman, Mitochondrial Eve, I think this pretty much scientifically disproves there being two women at creation, unless one mothered no daughters.
Lilith only features as Adam's wife in certain Jewish apocryphal texts, nowhere in the Tanakh, meaning that Christian fundimentalists, being by the very definition of the word "fundimentalist" are not likely to consider her to be part of creation. Fundimentalism is about literally interpreting and living by canon (or at least the attempt thereof) and has nothing to do with blowing up things and is only considered a perjoritive by various modernists, liberals and those caught up in the propaganda relating to "Teh War on Terror".
Yes.
Sometimes I really forget how blessed I am.
The whole thing is worrying.
I am a male lead programmer in China, I hire a lot of female programmers and extol the virtues of hiring female programmers to my Chinese peers who lead other projects, who have started hiring female programmers also, seeing my success in using female programmers to achieve good results. I think they are more consistent and reliable, about 10-30% cheaper then men and have better company loyalty than men. There is a surprising amount of coding that could do with a woman's touch. I like to have over 30% of my team to be women since in my experience if a woman has done something before, she's much less likely to make a mess of it than a man is, since men of above average IQ tend to get bored, lazy and arrogant the second time around. Women also don't like being assigned repetitive work, but even if they get angry with me, they generally still don't screw it up, though they will quit eventually if one exploits this too much.
My little sister and cousin are both female programmers in Australia. They are both excellent, consistent and make very few mistakes, my cousin even has some of the problem solving creativity that the women I've managed seem to lack and I'm optimistic about my sister developing that skill too with time. This high profile firing stuff makes me somewhat concerned for the careers of these two dear young ladies.
The thing is, in China, sexism is a non-issue, by which I mean, it exists in a huge way, but nobody talks about it. In the west, it's a big issue with big consequences, so I realised, if a manager was considering hiring a woman in Australia into an all male team, they would quite likely first measure up the probability and possible severity of a sexual harassment issue and offset that against her utility as an employee. For large companies who have various HR policies supporting diversity and for whom maintaining a completely male workforce would be utterly impractical anyway, this is a non issue, the risk is lower and the reward is higher. For smaller, up-coming companies with higher potential for growth but larger exposure to risk, this is going to really going to work against female candidates. This is somewhat irrelevant anyway, because these two young ladies both work for absolutely enormous multinationals, but for others, or in the future, who knows.
I completely agree that inappropriate behaviour in the workplace is bad and should be stopped. But for a manager, being forced to fire potentially crucial people for something unrelated to performance is extremely scary. If a manager looks at a candidate and has any niggling doubt that "HR has a remote chance of making me fire some people I need if I hire this person and something goes wrong" then it really doesn't help the candidate. I really do not think this helps women in the industry.
Interestingly, the exception only is valid if you use GCC or another GPL licensed compiler to link it, to prevent the runtime being shanghaied in its GPL compliant entirety by another compiler.
Finally, you cannot accidentally license your software under the GPL through linking. Only the copyright holder may assign a license and copyright comes through authorship. If you link your software with GPL software but do not license your software under compatible terms you merely violate the GPL and are liable for whatever penalties come from distributing unlicensed software. This probably will be relatively low if it is accidental and one agrees to remove it, since actual damages are most likely to be zero, only statutory damages and punitive damages (impossible if not deliberate) apply.
If you want to say something like "I just have half a tank of gas" or "step on the gas", this would be inferred by most English speakers anywhere to refer to whatever fuel the vehicle runs on, probably "gasoline", "petrol" or whatever you want to call it, even though its not widely used outside of America. In British and British-like English dialects, gas-powered unambiguously means LPG or Natural Gas, but I think it's common knowledge when an American says "gas" they don't really mean it, so this won't cause much confusion.
But when you're talking about what fuel an exotic engine runs on, then using "gas" to mean "gasoline" is just as completely wrong in American English as it is in any other dialect. The reason for this is that in contexts of other common engines types such as "gas turbine", "COGAS" or "gas powered semi-automatic" (a simple piston engine) all run on different fuels.
The point is, this Ferrari does not have a simple off-the-shelf engine and we should not have to make assumptions about what it runs on. If the author wants to say "gasoline" they should type that, "gas" being a phase, not a type of fuel.
They're not worth even that, after Obama got his for sustaining war, torture and murdering own citizens.
Well, he got it for being elected, if they want to give him a prize for sustaining war, torture and murdering own citizens then they're going to have to give him another.
Tom Lehrer famously said that political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I think it's been more or less a joke since well before that.
Though it is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee which has different standards and values to Karolinska Institutet or Swedish Academy of Science.
The pelts of those 7 puppies aren't enough for you?
Man, neolithic ruling elite sure are greedy.
Autism is a real condition with real people and families who need real help in dealing with it.
The way it's been trivialised into a mild personality quirk by self-diagnosed "autistics" and over-eager pediatritians is doing nothing but interfering with help getting where it is needed.
Being the most popular guy in the school is not normal, it's a profound gift. For most of us on this site, myself included, learning to make friends, fit in, use body language was one of the hardest parts of our lives. That does not make you autistic, that just means it's not your strongest skill. Calling youself autistic when you are capable of slowly learning these things is not helping yourself and is certainly not helping those who really have a serious disability that needs specialist help to overcome.
For evaluating sales people, my maxim would be: "if you think this guy is an unbearable arsehole, then your customers will too". While people can get a lot of quick deal with guts, moxie and shamelessness, the best thing for your brand and product is always to make people glad that they bought it.
Marketing involves much more analysis and less face to face time, however, it is essentially communication on a brand level and that requires an in-tune people person. This person knows what other people are saying and can make their point clearly and succinctly.
If someone doesn't know what you want, they won't know what the customer wants. If someone can't tell you what you need to know in a convincing way, then they won't be able to tell the customers they want to buy your product.