The most sane choice was John Huntsman, unfortunately nobody could get excited about him because he's intelligent, competent, and not a frothing-at-the-mouth ideologue.
The rest were a bunch of fucking clowns, and Romney just managed to be the last man standing by not screwing up too badly and not being too insane.
Well, I like both, so I won't really argue with you on which is "better."
I'm just not bothered by the whitespace. All languages have their quirks and at least the whitespace one is done for a good reason and doesn't get in my way.
The Python module library (which is included, like PHP's) is set up in something resembling a sane, logical system.
PHP just imports every goddamn thing into the default namespace, and tends to have 5 ways to do everything (none of which work similarly, none of which are compatible, none of which do what you want.)
Python typically provides one sane way to do things. I'll grant you that the standard library doesn't include everything PHP does, but there are modules for just about everything and they tend to be painless to install and use.
Not to mention, Python is inherently object-oriented, and PHP is not--PHP's OO is bolted-on and wonky.
The enforced whitespace is really not that big a deal, especially if you are using a decent editor. I never even have to think about it.
Python is quite a well-structured and thought-out language, especially compared to the existential disaster that PHP is.
You incorrectly assume that there is only one gaming market. This is like assuming there is only one car market.
The gaming tastes of the Xbox/PlayStation audience can't easily be stripped down to work on iPhones and Nooks.
What will likely happen is that portable gaming consoles will die off for all but the most demanding gamers. Portable gaming in general will move to general purpose mobile devices (smartphones, tablets.) Home consoles will stick around because there's a substantial market that wants them. Gaming on PCs will likely consist of two main markets: console ports and indie titles, with frequent overlap between them (indie PC games being ported to consoles, vice versa, etc.)
This is actually a great time for "homebrew" development, if by "homebrew" we mean "people with ideas making them into reality without the financial backing of a corporation." The barriers to entry in game development have come down quite a bit in the past few years, as people realize you don't need to spend tens of millions of dollars to make a good game.
In the US, there are very, very few restrictions in this area, and you can legally waive your rights to damn near anything, as consumer protection laws are all but nonexistent.
So you should just be entitled to other people's work for free, because you can't be bothered to write it yourself? Talk about an entitlement mentality.
If you want to take from the community, then you should give back to the community. That's the basic philosophy of the GPL. Take it or leave it.
Well said. There is too little discussion of just how much freedom is enough, what the proper "balance of freedom" should be. Most people are intellectually lazy and think they either "have freedom" or they don't, when it's very much a matter of degree.
Most people would be hopeless and helpless in a state of pure "freedom"--the "state of nature" in social contract theories.
You can't be serious. The GPL is quite free as in "freedom." You can:
* Modify the software for your own purposes, and not have to share it with anyone. * Modify the software and share it with others, with the only caveat being that you license those modifications under the GPL (and thus share them.) * Don't change it at all and just use it as-is. No special action is required on your part.
Given that commercial licenses often try to restrict how (and whether) you can even use the software, it's a pretty laughable argument to claim the GPL isn't "free."
It's truly bizarre that someone would sell their Apple stock (which is what a lower share price really means--people are trying to offload) it just because profits weren't high enough, especially considering that Apple has only recently decided to start paying dividends.
With so many companies struggling just to break even, dumping a profitable stock just because it's become slightly less profitable doesn't strike me as the least bit intelligent or wise, and instead points right back to our dysfunctional business culture, in which nothing matters but short-term profits, regardless of the company's long-term prospects and potential.
(I say this as someone who is no fan of Apple, but damn if they aren't great at making money.)
He also advocated publicly for it, which went a bit beyond just putting his name on a Senate bill. He really believed in its potential and tried to make others aware of it. He deserves more credit than he gets, in any case.
Because people who deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change believe that asking anyone to change their behavior in any way in order to mitigate it is a bridge too far, an affront to freedom, the destruction of democracy, blah blah blah.
In reality, the developed world will have to make a lot of adjustments--most modest, some probably severe--in order to survive. Less developed and prosperous countries, however, will suffer the brunt of the effects.
And that's just the best case. The worst case is, we do nothing and ruin this planet for human life. It's unclear just how bad things have to get for that to happen, but I'm not particularly interested in trying to find out, either.
Mainly, your belief that guns solve more problems than they cause.
I don't believe you made up the incidents you described, but that those incidents happen doesn't mean the solution is more armed people.
In this particular case, a man in a bulletproof vest opened fire in a darkened theater. Please tell me how people there being armed would've made any positive difference.
And then, of course, you closed with a veiled threat, and an inaccurate one, to boot. Running or ducking may be appropriate depending on the environment and proximity to the shooter. Obviously, running straight away from a shooter is a recipe for getting shot in the back.
This comes up every time there's a mass shooting in the US. The solution to gun violence is not ensuring that everyone is equally armed.
First, if someone opens fire around you or at you, your first reaction is not going to be to reach for your own gun, but to get the fuck out of there. That's instinct. You run.
Second, a gun is most effective with proper training and practice. Not everybody wants to own a gun or accept the responsibility that goes with it.
Third, the last thing we want in a shooting situation is six other people drawing guns and firing. That has a better chance of just adding to the body count rather than stopping the shooting.
I've seen the same thing. There's a "controversy" over evolution. There's "debate" over same-sex marriage. There's "no consensus" on anthropogenic climate change. In every case, the right-wing side of those issues has no rational argumentation nor credible evidence to back up their positions. On the first two points, their "reasoning" is little more nuanced than, "because the Bible!" In the case of the last point, they simply don't want to believe it, because any threat to eternal, exponential growth and consumption must be a fraud.
Yep. I've got one of those, myself, but it's a Compaq "Ultra Portable." Similar design, although the screen is on the left side rather than in the middle.
That's exactly what I've heard from articles about The Hobbit: that you can tell just how fake and orchestrated things are, because the image is too clear and perfect.
I assume they mean "fitness" in its most basic sense: the ability to survive and thrive across multiple generations.
If Strain A reproduces slowly and dies easily, then it's not as fit as Strain B, which reproduces twice and fast and survives harsher conditions.
In the end, that's all "survival of the fittest" really means: those better-equipped to survive are more fit, by virtue of having survived where others did not.
The problem I see with the above is that, if this hypothetical IT worker does the necessary ass-covering and the executive gets to use whatever devices he wants, and then there's a breach, on whom is the axe going to fall? The IT guy. Shit rolls downhill, always.
"I want to use this device." "That device isn't secure. You should use this other one instead, which complies with our security policies." "Nah, I'll use the one I've already got." "Okay, but I'm going to note in our records that you were warned."
Three months later...
"Help! My phone's been compromised!" "Hah! I have it written right here that I warned you something like this might happen! My ass is safe." "That's what you think. You're fired for not preventing this!" "But..." "SECURITY!!!!"
Slashdot Mirror
If we use the Star Trek precedent, this one's Lore, so the next one will have no emotions at all.
The most sane choice was John Huntsman, unfortunately nobody could get excited about him because he's intelligent, competent, and not a frothing-at-the-mouth ideologue.
The rest were a bunch of fucking clowns, and Romney just managed to be the last man standing by not screwing up too badly and not being too insane.
I'm sure the GOP's got the blueprints to build another Romney.
Well, I like both, so I won't really argue with you on which is "better."
I'm just not bothered by the whitespace. All languages have their quirks and at least the whitespace one is done for a good reason and doesn't get in my way.
The Python module library (which is included, like PHP's) is set up in something resembling a sane, logical system.
PHP just imports every goddamn thing into the default namespace, and tends to have 5 ways to do everything (none of which work similarly, none of which are compatible, none of which do what you want.)
Python typically provides one sane way to do things. I'll grant you that the standard library doesn't include everything PHP does, but there are modules for just about everything and they tend to be painless to install and use.
Not to mention, Python is inherently object-oriented, and PHP is not--PHP's OO is bolted-on and wonky.
The enforced whitespace is really not that big a deal, especially if you are using a decent editor. I never even have to think about it.
Python is quite a well-structured and thought-out language, especially compared to the existential disaster that PHP is.
You incorrectly assume that there is only one gaming market. This is like assuming there is only one car market.
The gaming tastes of the Xbox/PlayStation audience can't easily be stripped down to work on iPhones and Nooks.
What will likely happen is that portable gaming consoles will die off for all but the most demanding gamers. Portable gaming in general will move to general purpose mobile devices (smartphones, tablets.) Home consoles will stick around because there's a substantial market that wants them. Gaming on PCs will likely consist of two main markets: console ports and indie titles, with frequent overlap between them (indie PC games being ported to consoles, vice versa, etc.)
This is actually a great time for "homebrew" development, if by "homebrew" we mean "people with ideas making them into reality without the financial backing of a corporation." The barriers to entry in game development have come down quite a bit in the past few years, as people realize you don't need to spend tens of millions of dollars to make a good game.
Yeah, I know the situation is much different in Europe (better, in my opinion.)
In the US, there are very, very few restrictions in this area, and you can legally waive your rights to damn near anything, as consumer protection laws are all but nonexistent.
So you should just be entitled to other people's work for free, because you can't be bothered to write it yourself? Talk about an entitlement mentality.
If you want to take from the community, then you should give back to the community. That's the basic philosophy of the GPL. Take it or leave it.
Well said. There is too little discussion of just how much freedom is enough, what the proper "balance of freedom" should be. Most people are intellectually lazy and think they either "have freedom" or they don't, when it's very much a matter of degree.
Most people would be hopeless and helpless in a state of pure "freedom"--the "state of nature" in social contract theories.
You can't be serious. The GPL is quite free as in "freedom." You can:
* Modify the software for your own purposes, and not have to share it with anyone.
* Modify the software and share it with others, with the only caveat being that you license those modifications under the GPL (and thus share them.)
* Don't change it at all and just use it as-is. No special action is required on your part.
Given that commercial licenses often try to restrict how (and whether) you can even use the software, it's a pretty laughable argument to claim the GPL isn't "free."
It's truly bizarre that someone would sell their Apple stock (which is what a lower share price really means--people are trying to offload) it just because profits weren't high enough, especially considering that Apple has only recently decided to start paying dividends.
With so many companies struggling just to break even, dumping a profitable stock just because it's become slightly less profitable doesn't strike me as the least bit intelligent or wise, and instead points right back to our dysfunctional business culture, in which nothing matters but short-term profits, regardless of the company's long-term prospects and potential.
(I say this as someone who is no fan of Apple, but damn if they aren't great at making money.)
He also advocated publicly for it, which went a bit beyond just putting his name on a Senate bill. He really believed in its potential and tried to make others aware of it. He deserves more credit than he gets, in any case.
Because people who deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change believe that asking anyone to change their behavior in any way in order to mitigate it is a bridge too far, an affront to freedom, the destruction of democracy, blah blah blah.
In reality, the developed world will have to make a lot of adjustments--most modest, some probably severe--in order to survive. Less developed and prosperous countries, however, will suffer the brunt of the effects.
And that's just the best case. The worst case is, we do nothing and ruin this planet for human life. It's unclear just how bad things have to get for that to happen, but I'm not particularly interested in trying to find out, either.
Mainly, your belief that guns solve more problems than they cause.
I don't believe you made up the incidents you described, but that those incidents happen doesn't mean the solution is more armed people.
In this particular case, a man in a bulletproof vest opened fire in a darkened theater. Please tell me how people there being armed would've made any positive difference.
And then, of course, you closed with a veiled threat, and an inaccurate one, to boot. Running or ducking may be appropriate depending on the environment and proximity to the shooter. Obviously, running straight away from a shooter is a recipe for getting shot in the back.
Just based on the tone of your post, it's obvious you have an unhealthy bloodlust and thirst for violence. Good luck with that.
All of which is really easy to say right up to the moment that you're in the midst of a shooting.
This comes up every time there's a mass shooting in the US. The solution to gun violence is not ensuring that everyone is equally armed.
First, if someone opens fire around you or at you, your first reaction is not going to be to reach for your own gun, but to get the fuck out of there. That's instinct. You run.
Second, a gun is most effective with proper training and practice. Not everybody wants to own a gun or accept the responsibility that goes with it.
Third, the last thing we want in a shooting situation is six other people drawing guns and firing. That has a better chance of just adding to the body count rather than stopping the shooting.
I've seen the same thing. There's a "controversy" over evolution. There's "debate" over same-sex marriage. There's "no consensus" on anthropogenic climate change. In every case, the right-wing side of those issues has no rational argumentation nor credible evidence to back up their positions. On the first two points, their "reasoning" is little more nuanced than, "because the Bible!" In the case of the last point, they simply don't want to believe it, because any threat to eternal, exponential growth and consumption must be a fraud.
Wouldn't that just be a floor()?
The problem is that "race" was typically associated with skin color, and even now that idea tends to persist.
If we really must categorize people based on their genetic origins, let's use haplogroups or something.
Yep. I've got one of those, myself, but it's a Compaq "Ultra Portable." Similar design, although the screen is on the left side rather than in the middle.
That's exactly what I've heard from articles about The Hobbit: that you can tell just how fake and orchestrated things are, because the image is too clear and perfect.
I assume they mean "fitness" in its most basic sense: the ability to survive and thrive across multiple generations.
If Strain A reproduces slowly and dies easily, then it's not as fit as Strain B, which reproduces twice and fast and survives harsher conditions.
In the end, that's all "survival of the fittest" really means: those better-equipped to survive are more fit, by virtue of having survived where others did not.
The problem I see with the above is that, if this hypothetical IT worker does the necessary ass-covering and the executive gets to use whatever devices he wants, and then there's a breach, on whom is the axe going to fall? The IT guy. Shit rolls downhill, always.
"I want to use this device."
"That device isn't secure. You should use this other one instead, which complies with our security policies."
"Nah, I'll use the one I've already got."
"Okay, but I'm going to note in our records that you were warned."
Three months later...
"Help! My phone's been compromised!"
"Hah! I have it written right here that I warned you something like this might happen! My ass is safe."
"That's what you think. You're fired for not preventing this!"
"But..."
"SECURITY!!!!"