Or better yet, they should be made to appoint attorneys like some jurisdictions do already. That makes any difference between real attorneys and public defenders moot.
None whatsoever. What does that have to do with anything? Quite a non-sequiter [sic] you have there.
It came from you, though. You quoted his earlier statement and contrasted it with what he said about the EU, like one somehow contradicted the other. And they don't.
Do you seriously believe there's any sort of equivalence between suggesting that the EU be run differently and thinking that the government has any business in people's bedrooms or marriages? Both views he expressed are consistent: central governments should have less control over people's lives, and people should have more ability to get the government out of their lives.
What kind of vehicle do you have that doesn't have power-assist brakes? How would you describe its braking ability as compared to cars with power brakes?
That is true, but you should keep in mind that turning the key from on to lock is such an automatic action with most people that it will easily happen by mistake.
You asked for an example of how environmental laws can be bad for the economy and he gave you one. The holier-than-thou attitude isn't necessary, and shows that you don't get it: these laws have a cost. If laws shut down businesses that were operating fine before, that's a bad thing for the economy.
You are an idiot. Both fascism and communism involve an overwhelmingly powerful central government, and that commonality makes their differences basically irrelevant. Politics 102 covers this in depth: should have stuck with the program.
Who would possibly enforce that, though? There is absolutely nothing to stop China from simply putting Hong Kong under their heel like the rest of the country. Nobody would do anything: they all care too much about trade with China to give a shit about the people who suffer as a result.
Antiship missiles that fly to their targets are also known as cruise missiles: they're usually specified in literature as antiship cruise missiles. Long range is *not* a requirement of cruise missiles: see the V-1, which had a shorter range than the V-2 and pretty much all other ballistic missiles. But I think we're entering nit-picking territory here.
No, cruise missiles are cruise missiles because of their flight profile. Ballistic missiles travel in a ballistic arc, like rocket artillery, and don't fly like airplanes. Cruise missile, however, do: they fly through the atmosphere like airplanes do, with wings, with a most of their journey being level flight as they cruise to their targets. They are airplanes, in fact, just expendable ones.
And yet djbdns: 3497 lines of code. And it's more secure. The half a million lines of C code for something less secure and more buggy would tend to suggest you're doing it wrong.
*all* modern cars are drive by wire, as the fuel injection system determines how much fuel to add. Long past are the days that a cable rotated the air intake baffle on the carburetor.
Utter lies! Most cars still have a mechanical throttle, and that controls the airflow. Just because the computer controls the fuel injection on all cars made in the past 20 years doesn't take away the driver's total control over the airflow, and thus it is not drive-by-wire by any sensible definition.
Except that drive-by-wire systems have absolutely no possibility of making the operation of the car safer (more efficient, sure, but that's it) and many many ways in which to make it less safe, so you're wrong about it making more sense to use drive-by-wire. I can't figure out what you're thinking with that statement.
It sounds like in every case where there is a good program manager who's helping you do your job, there's utterly incompetent management above him. What actual good does the higher level management even do, if you need a person just to shield you from them? How are they not a net drain on the company? Do you think the program manager could in theory run everything without the company suffering?
Is there a way of recalling politicians in Canada if a supermajority of the population they govern opposes them? Or is the only way to get rid of them before they can do their damage to kill them? Maybe we need more of THAT in Canada.
Most of the people responding to you are definitely too stupid to have thought through the implications of the halting problem, and it is definitely true that you can prove that a subset of Turing machines can halt. However, the fundamental problem in actually verifying software is that if you specify the program's operation in sufficient detail that it completely specifies what the program must do, then the specification is itself executable, just without a compiler or interpreter to run it. Because of that, you're never actually verifying that a program is correct, only that it is equivalent to some other program. But you can't prove that that program does what you want it to do because you have no way of expressing "what we want it to do" as opposed to "what we wrote it to do". Testing is the only way you can become convinced of that.
It could still be useful to write programs in that specification language instead of using software engineers as hideously expensive compilers, which is essentially all they are in these situations. And it could also be useful to prove certain properties of a program.
The summary is horribly misleading. It makes you think that people were just drinking methanol before the government started adding poisons, even though the methanol would kill anyone who drank it in similar quantities to ethanol. In the article, though, it states that methanol IS the poison that they were adding to ethanol. I was about to reply to you that adding things to make the methanol taste bad would save lives, but it made so little sense that I actually read the article and was enlightened. Whatever editor allowed that summary for that article should be fired, but I know that won't happen.
Neither direct injection nor knock detection require drive by wire: direct injection existed back in World War II in German (and some Japanese and Soviet) aero engines, and knock detection has existed for a while and been in every car I've owned (none of which are DBW). Drive by wire is required for the trick of doing away with the throttle entirely and regulating airflow by varying the lift of the valves, which has some big advantages, but that's about the only feature which isn't possible without it. Even with non DBW engines, the fuel system is typically completely computer controlled: it's just the airflow that is mechanically controlled, which has the advantage that no computer fault can possibly make the engine rev uncontrollably. It's failsafe.
I too am not going to buy any DBW car, and there are many, many good ones that aren't, so I won't have to.
There is another possibility. When they were trying to bootstrap that sequence, they could have first written an interpreter. Then they could write the first compiler in a high(er) level language and interpret it, giving it itself as input, and after a while (interpreters back then must have been glacially slow) producing a working compiler, with less work done overall.
I've used Firefox for a long time, since it was Phoenix, in fact, and it seems that until not long ago, whenever it scaled an image down it was horribly aliased. I'm on 3.5.8 now and its scaling seems to be improved (maybe it's bilinear now - not great), but I am quite sure that fairly recently it was nearest neighbor, either in the 3.0 branch or 2.0. As far as Safari goes, I have no idea.
The scaling algorithm in browsers has never worked right. Until very recently, they all did nearest neighbor scaling. I don't expect anything remotely accurate from web browser image scaling and I'm surprised that anyone ever would.
The explanation I've heard is that from the viewpoint of the outside universe, the matter falling into the black hole will stop radiating visibly at all, due to being red-shifted into nothingness, so it becomes indistinguishable from the black hole from both an emissions standpoint and a gravity standpoint.
I didn't mean to come down from my high horse: I'll stay up there next time. I was just wondering why you did that. I know that it doesn't make you stupid to do something suboptimal when you're young and under a sudden stress.
Slashdot Mirror
Or better yet, they should be made to appoint attorneys like some jurisdictions do already. That makes any difference between real attorneys and public defenders moot.
None whatsoever. What does that have to do with anything? Quite a non-sequiter [sic] you have there.
It came from you, though. You quoted his earlier statement and contrasted it with what he said about the EU, like one somehow contradicted the other. And they don't.
Do you seriously believe there's any sort of equivalence between suggesting that the EU be run differently and thinking that the government has any business in people's bedrooms or marriages? Both views he expressed are consistent: central governments should have less control over people's lives, and people should have more ability to get the government out of their lives.
What kind of vehicle do you have that doesn't have power-assist brakes? How would you describe its braking ability as compared to cars with power brakes?
That is true, but you should keep in mind that turning the key from on to lock is such an automatic action with most people that it will easily happen by mistake.
You asked for an example of how environmental laws can be bad for the economy and he gave you one. The holier-than-thou attitude isn't necessary, and shows that you don't get it: these laws have a cost. If laws shut down businesses that were operating fine before, that's a bad thing for the economy.
You are an idiot. Both fascism and communism involve an overwhelmingly powerful central government, and that commonality makes their differences basically irrelevant. Politics 102 covers this in depth: should have stuck with the program.
Who would possibly enforce that, though? There is absolutely nothing to stop China from simply putting Hong Kong under their heel like the rest of the country. Nobody would do anything: they all care too much about trade with China to give a shit about the people who suffer as a result.
Antiship missiles that fly to their targets are also known as cruise missiles: they're usually specified in literature as antiship cruise missiles. Long range is *not* a requirement of cruise missiles: see the V-1, which had a shorter range than the V-2 and pretty much all other ballistic missiles. But I think we're entering nit-picking territory here.
No, cruise missiles are cruise missiles because of their flight profile. Ballistic missiles travel in a ballistic arc, like rocket artillery, and don't fly like airplanes. Cruise missile, however, do: they fly through the atmosphere like airplanes do, with wings, with a most of their journey being level flight as they cruise to their targets. They are airplanes, in fact, just expendable ones.
And yet djbdns: 3497 lines of code. And it's more secure. The half a million lines of C code for something less secure and more buggy would tend to suggest you're doing it wrong.
*all* modern cars are drive by wire, as the fuel injection system determines how much fuel to add. Long past are the days that a cable rotated the air intake baffle on the carburetor.
Utter lies! Most cars still have a mechanical throttle, and that controls the airflow. Just because the computer controls the fuel injection on all cars made in the past 20 years doesn't take away the driver's total control over the airflow, and thus it is not drive-by-wire by any sensible definition.
Except that drive-by-wire systems have absolutely no possibility of making the operation of the car safer (more efficient, sure, but that's it) and many many ways in which to make it less safe, so you're wrong about it making more sense to use drive-by-wire. I can't figure out what you're thinking with that statement.
It sounds like in every case where there is a good program manager who's helping you do your job, there's utterly incompetent management above him. What actual good does the higher level management even do, if you need a person just to shield you from them? How are they not a net drain on the company? Do you think the program manager could in theory run everything without the company suffering?
Is there a way of recalling politicians in Canada if a supermajority of the population they govern opposes them? Or is the only way to get rid of them before they can do their damage to kill them? Maybe we need more of THAT in Canada.
Most of the people responding to you are definitely too stupid to have thought through the implications of the halting problem, and it is definitely true that you can prove that a subset of Turing machines can halt. However, the fundamental problem in actually verifying software is that if you specify the program's operation in sufficient detail that it completely specifies what the program must do, then the specification is itself executable, just without a compiler or interpreter to run it. Because of that, you're never actually verifying that a program is correct, only that it is equivalent to some other program. But you can't prove that that program does what you want it to do because you have no way of expressing "what we want it to do" as opposed to "what we wrote it to do". Testing is the only way you can become convinced of that.
It could still be useful to write programs in that specification language instead of using software engineers as hideously expensive compilers, which is essentially all they are in these situations. And it could also be useful to prove certain properties of a program.
The summary is horribly misleading. It makes you think that people were just drinking methanol before the government started adding poisons, even though the methanol would kill anyone who drank it in similar quantities to ethanol. In the article, though, it states that methanol IS the poison that they were adding to ethanol. I was about to reply to you that adding things to make the methanol taste bad would save lives, but it made so little sense that I actually read the article and was enlightened. Whatever editor allowed that summary for that article should be fired, but I know that won't happen.
Neither direct injection nor knock detection require drive by wire: direct injection existed back in World War II in German (and some Japanese and Soviet) aero engines, and knock detection has existed for a while and been in every car I've owned (none of which are DBW). Drive by wire is required for the trick of doing away with the throttle entirely and regulating airflow by varying the lift of the valves, which has some big advantages, but that's about the only feature which isn't possible without it. Even with non DBW engines, the fuel system is typically completely computer controlled: it's just the airflow that is mechanically controlled, which has the advantage that no computer fault can possibly make the engine rev uncontrollably. It's failsafe.
I too am not going to buy any DBW car, and there are many, many good ones that aren't, so I won't have to.
There is another possibility. When they were trying to bootstrap that sequence, they could have first written an interpreter. Then they could write the first compiler in a high(er) level language and interpret it, giving it itself as input, and after a while (interpreters back then must have been glacially slow) producing a working compiler, with less work done overall.
I've used Firefox for a long time, since it was Phoenix, in fact, and it seems that until not long ago, whenever it scaled an image down it was horribly aliased. I'm on 3.5.8 now and its scaling seems to be improved (maybe it's bilinear now - not great), but I am quite sure that fairly recently it was nearest neighbor, either in the 3.0 branch or 2.0. As far as Safari goes, I have no idea.
The scaling algorithm in browsers has never worked right. Until very recently, they all did nearest neighbor scaling. I don't expect anything remotely accurate from web browser image scaling and I'm surprised that anyone ever would.
The explanation I've heard is that from the viewpoint of the outside universe, the matter falling into the black hole will stop radiating visibly at all, due to being red-shifted into nothingness, so it becomes indistinguishable from the black hole from both an emissions standpoint and a gravity standpoint.
I found that explanation vaguely unsatisfying.
You can tell google to define things for you by telling it "define: thing"? Neat, I didn't know that.
And the answer is yes.
I didn't mean to come down from my high horse: I'll stay up there next time. I was just wondering why you did that. I know that it doesn't make you stupid to do something suboptimal when you're young and under a sudden stress.