I once got a major speedup in a program by rolling up the main loops as tight as they would go. I'm not exactly sure why this helped, but I suspect it had something to do with locality.
Suppose that your work day ends at 1700. That means that, during much of the year, it actually ends at 1600, but during winter it ends at 1700. If we went to daylight saving time year-around, why do you think your work day would still end at 1600? The work schedule can change.
A forced requirement to purchase a product is slavery,
Sometimes you have to pay money to keep society going. With health insurance, there were over half a dozen vendors in my state's exchange, offering four different levels, so there was plenty of choice. My Federal taxes are what they are, and I have no choice. My health insurance money goes to keeping my family and me healthy, and my taxes go for all sorts of things, including things I find abhorrent.
Are you familiar with emacs? It's an IDE by itself, if set up to be one. (The old joke is that it's a great OS shell, but needs a new editor. Since then, vim bindings have come to emacs, so that's no longer true.)
The election was close in the electoral college, Clinton won the popular vote by a good margin, and this was after Wikileaks had published material unfavorable to her and Comey had come out with a well-timed announcement on the emails that turned out to mean nothing but affected the polls significantly. Trump's supporters tended to be blind to all of Trump's issues, and it's not clear to me what would have changed their votes. They appeared to believe the malicious lies about Clinton that the Republicans have been throwing around for decades.
One might also ask what the Republicans did wrong to wind up with him as candidate. Blaming Trump on people who didn't support him is stupid. Look at the people who did.
This was relevant because other interns had accused him of non-consensual acts that were a part of that sexual harassment lawsuit.
No, it's irrelevant. Just because a man screws around with women doesn't mean he'll do anything nonconsensual. That's a line lots of people won't cross. (There is some evidence that Clinton crossed it, although not enough to convict, but Lewinski wasn't it.)
The Jones case was dropped when those involved realized that the prosecution claims, if true, indicated that Clinton was an asshole but didn't quite amount to illegal sexual harassment. The questioning about consensual sex had nothing to do with the case (it was already pretty well established that Clinton propositioned Jones). It looks like a setup to me.
Since most of this is futile, I'll just address Crimean and aggressive war.
Putin annexed the Crimea and held a faked plebiscite to support it. There is no way that was an honest vote. Regardless of how many Crimeans wanted what government arrangement, it was flat-out annexation in an aggressive war. This is the sort of thing we want to discourage.
Unfortunately, media coverage is hardly representative of what's going on.
The pay gap is real. Women make less than men, for assorted reasons, and we may want to do something about some of them. With Western birth rates well below replacement level, we might want to remove financial disincentives to bearing and raising children in any case.
It looked like the "blame everything on Clinton" to "blame everything on Obama" transition point was in December 2008. This behavior is not characteristic of just one party.
China's wall was to keep outsiders in. Mongolian raiders could cross the wall going south, sure, but with a strong army unit at the breach the Chinese more mobile forces could pin the raiders against the wall, where they could either be wiped out or desperately scale the wall with no loot.
Was any actual crime committed? They had a method that, for one reason or another, flagged more right-wing than left-wing groups for further examination. It may well have been a mistake, and possibly illegal (although I haven't seen anything convincing on that). That doesn't mean a crime was committed, and it didn't mean there were any grounds to file charges.
Too many people think anything the government does that they dislike must be criminal.
Any illegal immigrant is by definition a lawbreaker. "Criminal" has a more specific meaning, specifically someone who violates criminal law, and I don't know if it applies. The fact that illegal immigrants are deported rather than imprisoned suggests that they aren't criminals. While some illegal immigrants do commit other crimes, what I've seen suggests that they tend to commit fewer violent crimes than people here legally. You sound awful sure of yourself, without bringing up massive arrays of cites to support "cannot be refuted".
I'm unclear on what you mean by "our government". Some government agencies have said there is evidence of some sort of collusion. You may mean "Trump and his representatives", and they're much better known for lying than for telling the truth. This isn't the UK, where there's a fairly small group of ministers that is generally referred to as the "government".
Immigration law and border control are functions of the Federal government, not the State governments. In this context, it's reasonable to refer only to US immigration law rather than that of South Africa or Nepal.
Two US Presidents have been impeached, neither convicted. (Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House, and leads to a trial in the Senate, which can remove the President or other official from office on a two-thirds vote.) The question about the travel ban is not whether issuing that executive order is legal, but whether the executive order itself is legal. Similarly, legislatures pass and governors sign laws that are held to be unconstitutional, but neither the legislators nor governors have committed crimes in doing so.
I'm pretty sure Trump has already violated one of the Constitutional emoluments clauses, and that's perfectly good legal justification for impeachment. However, impeachment is a largely political process rather than a legal one.
The US liberals and leftists I'm aware of are typically not anti-American, and are not against the Constitution. They have different ideas of what the country should be like, and how to get there, than you do. There are radical idiots all over the political spectr[(um)|a that say wild things.
By any reasonable definition, it's a democracy. Specifically, a representative democracy, not a direct democracy (although some states have governments with some degree of that).
Similarly, the Franco-Prussian war was started by a deliberately slanted translation of a diplomatic message. In all these cases, there were underlying causes, but they needed a trigger. It's entirely possible that, had Franz-Ferdinand not been assassinated, Europe would have found a more peaceful way to defuse tensions (Austro-Hungarian Emperor-King Franz-Josef died after a very long reign in 1916, and it's easy Austria-Hungary falling into pieces afterwards, which would have altered the situation thoroughly). There's a lot of tension in the modern world, and I don't know what would precipitate a war.
What we've done about accountability in the past is to have the voters interested enough to matter. Trump's voters, in general, did not care about constant lying, or his not releasing tax returns, or anything else related to accountability. The Republican Congress is busy passing bills that won't stand up to public scrutiny while allowing Trump to attract all the attention. Trump is very nearly the Platonic ideal of the Zaphod Beeblebrox theory of the Presidency.
We've had lots of stories arriving late on Slashdot, but this might be a record. Considering that memory palaces were known to ancient Greece, and the knowledge never has been lost, this story is millennia late.
In non-literate societies, storytellers don't repeat stories anywhere near verbatim, and even how long the telling takes varies. You don't need special memory techniques to remember a story if you don't have to remember all the details all the time.
I'm maintaining that there are grounds for investigation, and noting that the Trump administration is being secretive about anything that might shine light on Russian connections. Trump isn't a Russian agent, but there is legitimate reason to suspect that Russia may have influence over him. We need to know that.
Russia invaded the Ukraine, annexed part of it with a vote as phony as the Austrian annexation vote in 1938, and has military forces operating in East Ukraine. Disapproving of this behavior, and imposing sanctions, is not being anti-Russia. Someone supporting Russia in aggressive warfare is being pro-Russian, or possibly wanting a return to the bad old days. Neutrality involves condemning the Russian actions that deserve condemnation, and acting accordingly.
I am unaware of good evidence of dancing pink elephants. I am aware that Russia has good hackers, that Putin would like to mess with US support for NATO, and that Putin has no scruples. From this, it's very reasonable to expect Putin to try to influence the US election, and Putin's not the type of guy to keep strict distinctions between government and non-government activity. Which of these statements do you specifically disagree with?
Slashdot Mirror
I once got a major speedup in a program by rolling up the main loops as tight as they would go. I'm not exactly sure why this helped, but I suspect it had something to do with locality.
Suppose that your work day ends at 1700. That means that, during much of the year, it actually ends at 1600, but during winter it ends at 1700. If we went to daylight saving time year-around, why do you think your work day would still end at 1600? The work schedule can change.
But doesn't that bright circle in the blue ceiling burn?
Sometimes you have to pay money to keep society going. With health insurance, there were over half a dozen vendors in my state's exchange, offering four different levels, so there was plenty of choice. My Federal taxes are what they are, and I have no choice. My health insurance money goes to keeping my family and me healthy, and my taxes go for all sorts of things, including things I find abhorrent.
He may have foregone the salary. He says he did, but he lies incessantly. There's no evidence that he has.
Are you familiar with emacs? It's an IDE by itself, if set up to be one. (The old joke is that it's a great OS shell, but needs a new editor. Since then, vim bindings have come to emacs, so that's no longer true.)
The election was close in the electoral college, Clinton won the popular vote by a good margin, and this was after Wikileaks had published material unfavorable to her and Comey had come out with a well-timed announcement on the emails that turned out to mean nothing but affected the polls significantly. Trump's supporters tended to be blind to all of Trump's issues, and it's not clear to me what would have changed their votes. They appeared to believe the malicious lies about Clinton that the Republicans have been throwing around for decades.
One might also ask what the Republicans did wrong to wind up with him as candidate. Blaming Trump on people who didn't support him is stupid. Look at the people who did.
No, it's irrelevant. Just because a man screws around with women doesn't mean he'll do anything nonconsensual. That's a line lots of people won't cross. (There is some evidence that Clinton crossed it, although not enough to convict, but Lewinski wasn't it.)
The Jones case was dropped when those involved realized that the prosecution claims, if true, indicated that Clinton was an asshole but didn't quite amount to illegal sexual harassment. The questioning about consensual sex had nothing to do with the case (it was already pretty well established that Clinton propositioned Jones). It looks like a setup to me.
Since most of this is futile, I'll just address Crimean and aggressive war.
Putin annexed the Crimea and held a faked plebiscite to support it. There is no way that was an honest vote. Regardless of how many Crimeans wanted what government arrangement, it was flat-out annexation in an aggressive war. This is the sort of thing we want to discourage.
Unfortunately, media coverage is hardly representative of what's going on.
The pay gap is real. Women make less than men, for assorted reasons, and we may want to do something about some of them. With Western birth rates well below replacement level, we might want to remove financial disincentives to bearing and raising children in any case.
It looked like the "blame everything on Clinton" to "blame everything on Obama" transition point was in December 2008. This behavior is not characteristic of just one party.
China's wall was to keep outsiders in. Mongolian raiders could cross the wall going south, sure, but with a strong army unit at the breach the Chinese more mobile forces could pin the raiders against the wall, where they could either be wiped out or desperately scale the wall with no loot.
Was any actual crime committed? They had a method that, for one reason or another, flagged more right-wing than left-wing groups for further examination. It may well have been a mistake, and possibly illegal (although I haven't seen anything convincing on that). That doesn't mean a crime was committed, and it didn't mean there were any grounds to file charges.
Too many people think anything the government does that they dislike must be criminal.
Trump and associates also had dealings with foreign officials, and it's very likely that some of their conversations were tapped on that basis.
Any illegal immigrant is by definition a lawbreaker. "Criminal" has a more specific meaning, specifically someone who violates criminal law, and I don't know if it applies. The fact that illegal immigrants are deported rather than imprisoned suggests that they aren't criminals. While some illegal immigrants do commit other crimes, what I've seen suggests that they tend to commit fewer violent crimes than people here legally. You sound awful sure of yourself, without bringing up massive arrays of cites to support "cannot be refuted".
I'm unclear on what you mean by "our government". Some government agencies have said there is evidence of some sort of collusion. You may mean "Trump and his representatives", and they're much better known for lying than for telling the truth. This isn't the UK, where there's a fairly small group of ministers that is generally referred to as the "government".
Immigration law and border control are functions of the Federal government, not the State governments. In this context, it's reasonable to refer only to US immigration law rather than that of South Africa or Nepal.
Two US Presidents have been impeached, neither convicted. (Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House, and leads to a trial in the Senate, which can remove the President or other official from office on a two-thirds vote.) The question about the travel ban is not whether issuing that executive order is legal, but whether the executive order itself is legal. Similarly, legislatures pass and governors sign laws that are held to be unconstitutional, but neither the legislators nor governors have committed crimes in doing so.
I'm pretty sure Trump has already violated one of the Constitutional emoluments clauses, and that's perfectly good legal justification for impeachment. However, impeachment is a largely political process rather than a legal one.
The US liberals and leftists I'm aware of are typically not anti-American, and are not against the Constitution. They have different ideas of what the country should be like, and how to get there, than you do. There are radical idiots all over the political spectr[(um)|a that say wild things.
By any reasonable definition, it's a democracy. Specifically, a representative democracy, not a direct democracy (although some states have governments with some degree of that).
Churchill said that you can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing, once they have exhausted the alternatives.
Similarly, the Franco-Prussian war was started by a deliberately slanted translation of a diplomatic message. In all these cases, there were underlying causes, but they needed a trigger. It's entirely possible that, had Franz-Ferdinand not been assassinated, Europe would have found a more peaceful way to defuse tensions (Austro-Hungarian Emperor-King Franz-Josef died after a very long reign in 1916, and it's easy Austria-Hungary falling into pieces afterwards, which would have altered the situation thoroughly). There's a lot of tension in the modern world, and I don't know what would precipitate a war.
What we've done about accountability in the past is to have the voters interested enough to matter. Trump's voters, in general, did not care about constant lying, or his not releasing tax returns, or anything else related to accountability. The Republican Congress is busy passing bills that won't stand up to public scrutiny while allowing Trump to attract all the attention. Trump is very nearly the Platonic ideal of the Zaphod Beeblebrox theory of the Presidency.
We've had lots of stories arriving late on Slashdot, but this might be a record. Considering that memory palaces were known to ancient Greece, and the knowledge never has been lost, this story is millennia late.
In non-literate societies, storytellers don't repeat stories anywhere near verbatim, and even how long the telling takes varies. You don't need special memory techniques to remember a story if you don't have to remember all the details all the time.
This is getting ridiculous, but....
I'm maintaining that there are grounds for investigation, and noting that the Trump administration is being secretive about anything that might shine light on Russian connections. Trump isn't a Russian agent, but there is legitimate reason to suspect that Russia may have influence over him. We need to know that.
Russia invaded the Ukraine, annexed part of it with a vote as phony as the Austrian annexation vote in 1938, and has military forces operating in East Ukraine. Disapproving of this behavior, and imposing sanctions, is not being anti-Russia. Someone supporting Russia in aggressive warfare is being pro-Russian, or possibly wanting a return to the bad old days. Neutrality involves condemning the Russian actions that deserve condemnation, and acting accordingly.
I am unaware of good evidence of dancing pink elephants. I am aware that Russia has good hackers, that Putin would like to mess with US support for NATO, and that Putin has no scruples. From this, it's very reasonable to expect Putin to try to influence the US election, and Putin's not the type of guy to keep strict distinctions between government and non-government activity. Which of these statements do you specifically disagree with?