If I correctly recall, obscenity is not protected speech. So I disagree with your sentiment, but I agree that, per the constitution, some offensive speech can be regulated by the government. However, given the slippery slope, it will be impossible to do so effectively, and the government will be relegated to regulating only speech leading to hate crimes, etc. (Why a slippery slope? Fuck! is used as an emphatic Shit! is used as an emphatic Hell! is used as an emphatic Heck! is used as an emphatic Shucks! is used as an emphatic Phooey! is used as an emphatic "I am displeased." Which of these are acceptable, which are not, and why?)
^ Unless she actually has a psychiatric problem. One problem with the "definition" of fibromyalgia is that it is extraordinarily broad. Some people undoubtedly have a physical/neurological/etc problem; others quite likely have a psychiatric problem.
Sure, h pylori is a big deal, but let's not forget about ulcers secondary to Zollinger-Ellison!
Also, "crazy" isn't really the word I'd use to refer to people who are experiencing extraordinary discomfort. Some have physical problems; some have psychiatric problems. The problem is in the breadth of the diagnosis, not in the truth of the patients' claims.
I didn't use the term "scripting languages," and I can't answer for the GP since we clearly don't see eye to eye. I have no problem with run-time compiled languages; I use them.
Just as nothing needs to be precompiled, nothing needs to be compiled at runtime, either. That said, some things are more amenable to one or the other.
Unless you believe there is something going on in the brain that is not subject to the laws of physics, it is hard to make sense of that distinction.
Physicians make this distinction all the time. If you abstract only to the useful limit, as opposed to ad infinitum, as you have done, then the concept is easy to grasp.
Scripting languages are for those of a weak mind and poor technical skills and the singular lack of the ability to plan a system out before you write one line of code.
Or for projects that need to be compiled at runtime. But, nice magnanimity.
The only time it is ethical to conduct a randomized controlled trial is when the outcome's risk or benefit is so unclear as to merit randomization.
To even run such a trial on cataract surgery vs placebo would be impossible due to the immediate and enormous differences between actual treatment and placebo; it may well be unethical, too.
That would be interesting, particularly since the person who discovered and named the entity known as 'fibromyalgia' now believes it's not a real diagnosis.
It's necessary for extracting probability from a probability density function. I know it sounds abstract, but this is the underpinning of quantum physics, and, consequently, modern chemistry.
On a more Slashdot-friendly level, I also run a website that couldn't function without a class that performs numerical integration. I'm only in my mid-20s and don't program computers for a living, though, so my focus may well be different from yours.
2005 survey: The majority of all doctors (78%) accept evolution rather than reject it.
Half of the doctors (50%) believe that schools should be allowed (but not required) to teach intelligent design.
That doesn't look like a majority supporting ID to me. And the question doesn't even provide context for interpreting the answer (i.e., it wasn't phrased as "should ID be taught as science", so presumably some of these people are thinking it could be taught as religion, etc.).
Yes, and had the prior poster specified that when he said "government" he meant "the legislative and executive branches," I wouldn't have bothered posting. It was an implicit assumption, apparently, that I'm not familiar with. Like Madison, I assume that when someone is referring to the government, they are referring to the greater entity, consisting of 3 branches.
Yes, Apple has been doing well running "exclusive." They have also been the only game in the market, particularly since RIM has, up until now, not been focused on toys, and the Android isn't out yet.
Now that Apple has created a successful device with a successful marketplace, others are apt to clone it. No doubt, Google will have a similar marketplace for the Android, and 'marketplaces' will be developed for smart phones. This is a rapidly growing market.
In the environment that I've just described (that is, an environment where competition is nascent), developers may well shift their energies to other "big platforms" (Android being the most obvious example) if, say, Google can convince them that Apple is untrustworthy. Google or another platform will get the apps first, and the apps' features will be targeted at users of those platforms. Apple will start getting some apps 'second'. I'm not saying that everyone will jump ship from Apple, but even if just a few big app developers do, it would be a loss that consumers would recognize. This would leading to a weakening of the iPhone as the "it" brand with the "it" apps, and consequently would lead to a reduced market share. But how much market share would they have to lose for it to matter? Any loss of market share, even 0.01%, because their gain by restricting their platform is that they have one less app to compete with their free product, iTunes. So there is no manifest financial upside to doing this.
On the other hand, if Apple stops stifling competition on their platform, they will continue to be the most desirable market for the visible future, and will continue to be #1 in the eyes of developers, who will continue building the iPhone apps that consumers crave.
No, see, you want someone NOT hired by any governmental body so it has a chance of being less bias and corrupt.
The judge should appoint someone not involved any way in the case to inspect the code.
If the judge appoints someone to inspect the code, then the government (via the judiciary) has hired someone (the engineer). Your request is paradoxical.
Civil servants, to use more charitable language, could hire engineers to inspect this code, thus providing another job for an engineer while at the same time striving to protect civil liberties.
Re:Hey everyone they're GREEN!
on
The Google Navy
·
· Score: 1
I think he means to defend the ship vs actual ocean pirates, not sovereign powers.
Slashdot Mirror
If I correctly recall, obscenity is not protected speech. So I disagree with your sentiment, but I agree that, per the constitution, some offensive speech can be regulated by the government. However, given the slippery slope, it will be impossible to do so effectively, and the government will be relegated to regulating only speech leading to hate crimes, etc. (Why a slippery slope? Fuck! is used as an emphatic Shit! is used as an emphatic Hell! is used as an emphatic Heck! is used as an emphatic Shucks! is used as an emphatic Phooey! is used as an emphatic "I am displeased." Which of these are acceptable, which are not, and why?)
Those are the South Carolina's Senators (of the United States). Ford is a member of the state senate of South Carolina.
+1 for correct usage of iff
You never push off of air with a rocket engine. You push off of your exhaust.
n/t means "no text," and is commonly used in subject lines when there is no message in the body.
"but you don't send her to a psychiatrist either"
^ Unless she actually has a psychiatric problem. One problem with the "definition" of fibromyalgia is that it is extraordinarily broad. Some people undoubtedly have a physical/neurological/etc problem; others quite likely have a psychiatric problem.
Sure, h pylori is a big deal, but let's not forget about ulcers secondary to Zollinger-Ellison!
Also, "crazy" isn't really the word I'd use to refer to people who are experiencing extraordinary discomfort. Some have physical problems; some have psychiatric problems. The problem is in the breadth of the diagnosis, not in the truth of the patients' claims.
I didn't use the term "scripting languages," and I can't answer for the GP since we clearly don't see eye to eye. I have no problem with run-time compiled languages; I use them.
Just as nothing needs to be precompiled, nothing needs to be compiled at runtime, either. That said, some things are more amenable to one or the other.
Unless you believe there is something going on in the brain that is not subject to the laws of physics, it is hard to make sense of that distinction.
Physicians make this distinction all the time. If you abstract only to the useful limit, as opposed to ad infinitum, as you have done, then the concept is easy to grasp.
Scripting languages are for those of a weak mind and poor technical skills and the singular lack of the ability to plan a system out before you write one line of code.
Or for projects that need to be compiled at runtime. But, nice magnanimity.
I.e., the following question is still open: is there a physical cause, or is the cause psychosomatic?
TITCR
Have you ever seen a doctor laughing?
The only time it is ethical to conduct a randomized controlled trial is when the outcome's risk or benefit is so unclear as to merit randomization.
To even run such a trial on cataract surgery vs placebo would be impossible due to the immediate and enormous differences between actual treatment and placebo; it may well be unethical, too.
That would be interesting, particularly since the person who discovered and named the entity known as 'fibromyalgia' now believes it's not a real diagnosis.
Key word being "most."
It's necessary for extracting probability from a probability density function. I know it sounds abstract, but this is the underpinning of quantum physics, and, consequently, modern chemistry.
On a more Slashdot-friendly level, I also run a website that couldn't function without a class that performs numerical integration. I'm only in my mid-20s and don't program computers for a living, though, so my focus may well be different from yours.
2005 survey:
The majority of all doctors (78%) accept evolution rather than reject it.
Half of the doctors (50%) believe that schools should be allowed (but not required) to teach intelligent design.
That doesn't look like a majority supporting ID to me. And the question doesn't even provide context for interpreting the answer (i.e., it wasn't phrased as "should ID be taught as science", so presumably some of these people are thinking it could be taught as religion, etc.).
Yes, and had the prior poster specified that when he said "government" he meant "the legislative and executive branches," I wouldn't have bothered posting. It was an implicit assumption, apparently, that I'm not familiar with. Like Madison, I assume that when someone is referring to the government, they are referring to the greater entity, consisting of 3 branches.
(Not the Greater Entity, of course.)
Yes, Apple has been doing well running "exclusive." They have also been the only game in the market, particularly since RIM has, up until now, not been focused on toys, and the Android isn't out yet.
Now that Apple has created a successful device with a successful marketplace, others are apt to clone it. No doubt, Google will have a similar marketplace for the Android, and 'marketplaces' will be developed for smart phones. This is a rapidly growing market.
In the environment that I've just described (that is, an environment where competition is nascent), developers may well shift their energies to other "big platforms" (Android being the most obvious example) if, say, Google can convince them that Apple is untrustworthy. Google or another platform will get the apps first, and the apps' features will be targeted at users of those platforms. Apple will start getting some apps 'second'. I'm not saying that everyone will jump ship from Apple, but even if just a few big app developers do, it would be a loss that consumers would recognize. This would leading to a weakening of the iPhone as the "it" brand with the "it" apps, and consequently would lead to a reduced market share. But how much market share would they have to lose for it to matter? Any loss of market share, even 0.01%, because their gain by restricting their platform is that they have one less app to compete with their free product, iTunes. So there is no manifest financial upside to doing this.
On the other hand, if Apple stops stifling competition on their platform, they will continue to be the most desirable market for the visible future, and will continue to be #1 in the eyes of developers, who will continue building the iPhone apps that consumers crave.
To ensure that developers keep using their platform?
To make sure that the Latest and Greatest apps are developed, first and foremost, for the iPhone and not for the Android or another platform?
No, see, you want someone NOT hired by any governmental body so it has a chance of being less bias and corrupt.
The judge should appoint someone not involved any way in the case to inspect the code.
If the judge appoints someone to inspect the code, then the government (via the judiciary) has hired someone (the engineer). Your request is paradoxical.
Civil servants, to use more charitable language, could hire engineers to inspect this code, thus providing another job for an engineer while at the same time striving to protect civil liberties.
I think he means to defend the ship vs actual ocean pirates, not sovereign powers.