They did the same thing with poms, as in prisoners of his or her majesty (you don't write the H but you sound it) become some bullshit about pomegranates.
What's with the anti-science on Slashdot? You do know that there are people who specialize in words and languages? They're called linguists. Some of them do stuff like research etymologies. That's how we know that the Prisoner of Her Majesty's Service explanation is bullshit—sorry—a folk etymology.
Scientific study. The opposite of just believing what your parents told you.
even Bart Simpson knows that "frog" is a derogatory term for a Frenchman.
So your argument for "frog" in "frog dog" being a reference to the French is that you know it, so it must be true? And your proof is that someone else used "frog" to mean "French" in some other context?
Look, I'm not saying it's not true. I'm not saying the other etymology is correct. But your argument isn't solid. Cite your sources, and make sure they're reputable.
Nitpick: B was created by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie, and then further developed by Stephen C. Johnson. Brian Kernighan was not particularly involved in its creation, although he wrote a tutorial on it.
"Lewis' Law" is what is called a Kafkatrap. If you claim that negative responses to your idea validate it, then you have rendered it non-falsifiable; you have essentially quit the field of argument telling yourself you have won - when nothing could be further from the truth.
It's not a claim that all negative responses to any idea validate it. It's a claim that in the (negative) responses to pro-feminism articles lies evidence of the problem that feminism tries to solve. Write something positive about feminism, or negative about misogyny, and you will be told to get back to the stove, or even threatened with rape and murder – or, if you are a man, that you are a woman, or gay.
Even if you don't subscribe to the historical meaning of "decimate", namely "reduce by one tenth (through killing)", that sentence still doesn't make sense because "decimate" never means simply "kill".
This reminds me of the Anchorman quote "60 percent of the time, it works every time."
now my name is unusual so I doubt someone picked my email at random.
Because if I take a long list of names and pick one at random the name I pick will be a common one?
Good point. If we make a list of all possible names and randomly pick an index, uncommon names will be picked more often than common names.
But just like pink noise is random, even though (unlike white noise) it's biased towards previous values, picking names off the top of one's head is random (i.e. non-determinative), but heavily biased towards common names (in one's culture/experience). In fact, from a signal processing point of view, it can be seen as a non-ergodic process, since one person's random sequence of names will differ from another person's.
Itzly wrote: "I can't recall many protests or people getting killed for it". Your reply implies that that I shouldn't have reacted to the word "protests", only to the much stronger "killed". Yet, the fact that Itzly wrote it implies that I should have read it and registered the impression that even protests are almost unheard of. This is a way of sneaking poor arguments into a discussion by attaching a much harder-to-dispute statement to it.
A 2,000-strong battalion of police in riot gear cordoned off streets around the cultural center to prevent an outbreak of violence as thousands took to the streets to blast the portrayal of Jesus and his disciples as gay.
Ten times fainter? "One tenth as bright" reads better and makes more sense.
In electrical engineering, there is something called admittance, which is the inverse of impedance. Are there similar inverse terms for radiometry? If so, then "ten times fainter" makes sense, because it would be using a "faintness" scale that is established.
I'll bite; why is a love interest not an actual character?
It's not an actual character if it's the ONLY character that women get to play.
If you apply both the Bechdel test and the "gender reversed Bechdel test" to movies, you will see that this is more than a curiosity. The results are overwhelming. If you're a male actor, you get to play someone who has conversations with other male characters about lots of topics. If you're a female actor, you get to play the love interest, whose only conversations with other women is about men. The result is that women are portrayed as being only there for (the pleasure of) men.
The results will vary depending on which films you count. Independent films are perhaps (but not necessarily) better than mainstream blockbusters, but far fewer people see them, so they have a much lower impact anyway.
But perhaps you mean a goto that skips over function boarders? Not sure if you can do that in C and C++, if you can do that ofc. the stack is in your hands:) and you are at mercy of its limits.
It's called setjmp and longjmp and has been a part of the C standard since C89. However, you can still only jump UP through the stack, i.e. to a calling function, to code that has already been run.
#include <setjmp.h>/* C */
#include <csetjmp>// C++
Anyway, I enjoyed the first three episodes. They capture the mood and cheese of the original series quite well. I've donated a few dollars to the second run as well now.
nonsense, cattle only make up 1% of all manmade greenhouse gas emissions.
You can get quite philosophical with that statement. Are cow burps "man-made"?
On the other hand, the UN estimates that the whole livestock commodity chain contributes 18 % of all green house gas emissions, which is more than transport. This is an orange to your 1% apple, and the numbers should not be compared. It does however tell us what would happen to green house gas emissions if we stopped (or seriously cut down on) keeping livestock (primarily for meat, dairy, eggs and wool).
Also, you might want to consider that there is more cattle than humans on this planet, and most cows don't eat just grass. They are fed corn, soy, grains, and antibiotics.
I mention this because what if we went to another planet in search of intelligent life and found something like an octopus? How would we communicate with them? My guess is by cooking them, and then eating them.
this is natures way of making sure the world doesn't get overcrowded. It's a sad fact but people NEED to die.
Then how do you explain the fact that some of the countries with the highest life expectancies, and almost no severe endemic diseases, are also the ones with the slowest-growing (or even shrinking) populations?
Because they don't spit out 5-10 kids each?
Because their 1.9 children will survive long enough to support them after retirement, and since life is not just a struggle to survive, they are productive enough that they can afford to support their parents.
If one wants to put emphasis on a non-established term, then maybe the <em> tag is more suitable than quotes. One might even link to an explanation of the word.
Notability is important for preventing a potentially slippery slope towards Wikipedia being expected to have an article on every shop, every street, every apartment complex, every popular teacher, and every creative work ever appreciated by more than 10 people.
What is wrong with that?
Sources. There are no secondary, independent sources about every shop, street, apartment complex, popular teacher, creative work, or the fact that there is a pencil lying on my desk right now. No matter how true it is, it is not verifiable in any reasonable sense of the word.
This is what people don't understand when they complain that things are deleted from Wikipedia. If Wikipedia's ambition is to create a credible encyclopaedia of all human knowledge, then it cannot be filled with speculation and half-truths. Even primary sources are suspect. I could easily create a blog or web site that claims something, then create a Wikipedia article that uses my web page as the main source. THAT is the slippery slope that is so often talked about.
Slashdot Mirror
He has done this since he took the oath of office.
Wrong.
He started even before he took the oath.
They did the same thing with poms, as in prisoners of his or her majesty (you don't write the H but you sound it) become some bullshit about pomegranates.
What's with the anti-science on Slashdot? You do know that there are people who specialize in words and languages? They're called linguists. Some of them do stuff like research etymologies. That's how we know that the Prisoner of Her Majesty's Service explanation is bullshit—sorry—a folk etymology.
Scientific study. The opposite of just believing what your parents told you.
even Bart Simpson knows that "frog" is a derogatory term for a Frenchman.
So your argument for "frog" in "frog dog" being a reference to the French is that you know it, so it must be true? And your proof is that someone else used "frog" to mean "French" in some other context?
Look, I'm not saying it's not true. I'm not saying the other etymology is correct. But your argument isn't solid. Cite your sources, and make sure they're reputable.
Just because you think you know something doesn't make it true. Science is not about skipping topics where people think they already know the answer.
I'm getting tired of all the anti-science on Slashdot.
The only thing that matters is solid implementation, ...
... which is exactly what these developers did!
Twenty-three years ago, development started on the first version of the Turbo Pascal and later also Delphi-compatible Free Pascal Compiler
Parsed that for you.
When creating B K&R seem to [...]
Nitpick: B was created by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie, and then further developed by Stephen C. Johnson. Brian Kernighan was not particularly involved in its creation, although he wrote a tutorial on it.
"Lewis' Law" is what is called a Kafkatrap. If you claim that negative responses to your idea validate it, then you have rendered it non-falsifiable; you have essentially quit the field of argument telling yourself you have won - when nothing could be further from the truth.
It's not a claim that all negative responses to any idea validate it. It's a claim that in the (negative) responses to pro-feminism articles lies evidence of the problem that feminism tries to solve. Write something positive about feminism, or negative about misogyny, and you will be told to get back to the stove, or even threatened with rape and murder – or, if you are a man, that you are a woman, or gay.
Even if you don't subscribe to the historical meaning of "decimate", namely "reduce by one tenth (through killing)", that sentence still doesn't make sense because "decimate" never means simply "kill".
This reminds me of the Anchorman quote "60 percent of the time, it works every time."
Wasn't this addressed by the Scrubs TV show years ago?
Yes, this is how science works. If some TV show jokes about it, then it doesn't need to be measured and studied in real life.
And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged into when faking harassment again! Oops!
Sarcasm in text. It's hard. And some people just don't want to understand, which makes it harder.
The Russians have done it better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Nyet. He's American. FPS Russia is filmed in Georgia – the one with the swamps and the Coca-Cola.
now my name is unusual so I doubt someone picked my email at random.
Because if I take a long list of names and pick one at random the name I pick will be a common one?
Good point. If we make a list of all possible names and randomly pick an index, uncommon names will be picked more often than common names.
But just like pink noise is random, even though (unlike white noise) it's biased towards previous values, picking names off the top of one's head is random (i.e. non-determinative), but heavily biased towards common names (in one's culture/experience). In fact, from a signal processing point of view, it can be seen as a non-ergodic process, since one person's random sequence of names will differ from another person's.
A protest isn't the same as murder.
Itzly wrote: "I can't recall many protests or people getting killed for it". Your reply implies that that I shouldn't have reacted to the word "protests", only to the much stronger "killed". Yet, the fact that Itzly wrote it implies that I should have read it and registered the impression that even protests are almost unheard of. This is a way of sneaking poor arguments into a discussion by attaching a much harder-to-dispute statement to it.
Oh, it happens. Protests, at least. http://www.praguepost.com/news/14559-region-photo-show-sparks-religious-uproar-in-serbian-capital.html:
Ten times fainter? "One tenth as bright" reads better and makes more sense.
In electrical engineering, there is something called admittance, which is the inverse of impedance. Are there similar inverse terms for radiometry? If so, then "ten times fainter" makes sense, because it would be using a "faintness" scale that is established.
I'll bite; why is a love interest not an actual character?
It's not an actual character if it's the ONLY character that women get to play.
If you apply both the Bechdel test and the "gender reversed Bechdel test" to movies, you will see that this is more than a curiosity. The results are overwhelming. If you're a male actor, you get to play someone who has conversations with other male characters about lots of topics. If you're a female actor, you get to play the love interest, whose only conversations with other women is about men. The result is that women are portrayed as being only there for (the pleasure of) men.
The results will vary depending on which films you count. Independent films are perhaps (but not necessarily) better than mainstream blockbusters, but far fewer people see them, so they have a much lower impact anyway.
But perhaps you mean a goto that skips over function boarders? Not sure if you can do that in C and C++, if you can do that ofc. the stack is in your hands :) and you are at mercy of its limits.
It's called setjmp and longjmp and has been a part of the C standard since C89. However, you can still only jump UP through the stack, i.e. to a calling function, to code that has already been run.
#include <setjmp.h> /* C */ // C++
#include <csetjmp>
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setjmp.h for more information.
Submitter totally missed the "Kirk-starter" pun.
Anyway, I enjoyed the first three episodes. They capture the mood and cheese of the original series quite well. I've donated a few dollars to the second run as well now.
nonsense, cattle only make up 1% of all manmade greenhouse gas emissions.
You can get quite philosophical with that statement. Are cow burps "man-made"?
On the other hand, the UN estimates that the whole livestock commodity chain contributes 18 % of all green house gas emissions, which is more than transport. This is an orange to your 1% apple, and the numbers should not be compared. It does however tell us what would happen to green house gas emissions if we stopped (or seriously cut down on) keeping livestock (primarily for meat, dairy, eggs and wool).
Also, you might want to consider that there is more cattle than humans on this planet, and most cows don't eat just grass. They are fed corn, soy, grains, and antibiotics.
I mention this because what if we went to another planet in search of intelligent life and found something like an octopus? How would we communicate with them? My guess is by cooking them, and then eating them.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1733
this is natures way of making sure the world doesn't get overcrowded. It's a sad fact but people NEED to die.
Then how do you explain the fact that some of the countries with the highest life expectancies, and almost no severe endemic diseases, are also the ones with the slowest-growing (or even shrinking) populations?
Because they don't spit out 5-10 kids each?
Because their 1.9 children will survive long enough to support them after retirement, and since life is not just a struggle to survive, they are productive enough that they can afford to support their parents.
If one wants to put emphasis on a non-established term, then maybe the <em> tag is more suitable than quotes. One might even link to an explanation of the word.
Not only Germans. Have you seen the function named after Englishman Oliver Heaviside, which has one light and one heavy side?
Notability is important for preventing a potentially slippery slope towards Wikipedia being expected to have an article on every shop, every street, every apartment complex, every popular teacher, and every creative work ever appreciated by more than 10 people.
What is wrong with that?
Sources. There are no secondary, independent sources about every shop, street, apartment complex, popular teacher, creative work, or the fact that there is a pencil lying on my desk right now. No matter how true it is, it is not verifiable in any reasonable sense of the word.
This is what people don't understand when they complain that things are deleted from Wikipedia. If Wikipedia's ambition is to create a credible encyclopaedia of all human knowledge, then it cannot be filled with speculation and half-truths. Even primary sources are suspect. I could easily create a blog or web site that claims something, then create a Wikipedia article that uses my web page as the main source. THAT is the slippery slope that is so often talked about.