How do we know it's not VK itself? It's effectively owned by the RF government. And they are not exactly known for being straight players.... VK was hacked by "volunteers"... the same ones who occupied Crimea before RF officially took it over.
They are not. Actually, Ballmer owns a 2% stake in FB and a precondition for his investment was veto rights on FB partnering with Google on anything he wishes to veto. It's also why MS doesn't compete with FB (the only software market which MS does not try to overtake... because FB plays ball with MS).
Just because a certain employee of a certain company keeps asking you to use his underage prostitutes as carriers for the drugs he keeps buying from you, doesn't mean that you have to be so paranoid as to think that he is using his company's app's ability to listen to the sounds you make (in order to cut you out as a middle man in this cocaine transaction). It simply doesn't follow. It may be true. But you don't have to be so cynical as to believe that it is true.
It is the accepted understanding that the law is only the law if its makers are not above the law. That was the inadvertent consequence of The Code of Hammurabi. But The Code of Hammurabi created a new form of social order -- the one in which a set of written rules is what determines what is acceptable behavior rather than the whims of rulers. This is what you get when you have a rule of law. When you have a rule of men, you get a dictatorship (and hope that it's benevolent towards the group of people to which you belong).
Why aren't everybody just buying cocaine and descending into their own personal heavens?
They do if they try it at some point. And they only stop once the amount of pleasure they get from it flatlines. The "hell" is the inability to feel happiness. I am not giving you solutions here. I am just saying that dopamine is what's causing the euphoria. The problem is not "stuff". It's what the "stuff" does to your brain. But, as you mentioned, it need not come from material accumulation. It could probably come from something simpler.... say posting on Slashdot or something.
In other words, it's not a rule of law, but a rule of men. The law is not the supreme authority on what is legal. Rather, it is the expression of the wishes of the men who rule. The fact that they have not codified all their wishes in laws, does not mean that they don't have other wishes.
They don't want to enable development of binaries which are large. They may want to force developers to break projects into smaller modules. MSVC will produce 64-bit executable and DLL's. So it's not like you can't use more space than that during the execution. But they want to force the design to be more modularized. So people would not do things like embedd images in their executables as text-encoded binaries, but would rather have resource files and load them at run time. The runtime of any one executable can easily exceed the 32bit binary boundary after all DLL's and resources are loaded, they just don't want people to do things like write 100MB source files and then force the compiler/editor to parse through that to generate a monolithic 10GB binary. The MSVS executable is what's 32-bits... not the runtimes that it generates.
If your source code is larger than that, you may wanna break it up into smaller modules. Just saying. MSVC will produce 64-bit binaries. It just isn't itself a 64-bit binary.
As I mentioned in the other post, it's 32 bit compiler binary... not a binary only capable of producing 32 bit binaries. MSVC will happily produce 64 bit binaries. This isn't laziness. It actually requires more discipline from their compiler team to fit the compilation process within 32-bit memory space per running compiler process.
I think their argument is that if your project is so large that it needs 64 memory space to parse and generate the binary, then it's too large and should be broken up into smaller modules (dll's, resource files, etc.) The MSVC will definitely produce 64 executables if you configure it to. It's actually more a limitation they put on themselves. Because it means that their running compiler must run as a 32 bit binary. Which requires higher level of discipline from their compiler designers.
from the article: "The best place to keep your information is Google". Even if that's true at this very moment, what happens when a new pharaoh comes (who did not know Joseph)? Without a committed legal regime which makes it dangerous for public officials to spy on private citizens without a cause, this promise is as meaningful as a politician's election promises. It's backed by nothing.
The same way "salami insurance for all" would increase wait times in the salami store. It creates a longer line in which people must stand before they can get to buy the salami and makes it impossible for people at the end of the line to get the salami even if they need it to save their lives. This is an abstraction. of course. But if you don't understand basic economics, then why do you insert yourself into this debate at all?
Claims 1 and 2 are implicitly claimed by the proponents of Obamacare. They claim that 15 million more people have health insurance. It is not a big stretch (as you insist) to take that to mean that this creates a bigger pool of patients. I don't to prove claim 3. In fact, the burden of proof that the number of doctors all of sudden increased by 5% (because the number of potential patients has increased by 5%) would have to be on the defendants of the Obamacare. The burden of proof is on them because such an occurrence would be highly unlikely. I don't need to go proving that highly unlikely events have not happened in the absence of any evidence that they have happened. Claim 4 has been proven by the gp post to follow from claims 1-3. You just refuse to accept the proof. That's on your lack of comprehension -- not on me. Ditto for claim 5.
Every one of those claims needs to be backed up with evidence.
No. Not if they necessarily follow from a different claim which was already made by the opposing side in the debate.
Conclusions based on unfounded assumptions are meaningless.
Sure. That's true. But they are not made on unfounded evidence. They are made based on claims made by the proponents of the Obamacare.
Then we'll have something to talk about.
I don't think we will. You want me to go on a wild goose chase for statistics which are not collected and to close my eyes to the logical conclusions which follow from the statistics which are collected.
Then we can have a discussion that's grounded in reality.
You are not on the of reality. Don't flatter yourself. You are on the side claiming that evidence needs to be collected for the fact that 2+2 is always 4. You are on the side of absurdity and insisting that those who point out to you the absurdity of your arguments may only collect evidence and suspend reason when making observation about the world.
That's not a claim you can just make without presenting a shred of evidence.
It's a much more credible claim than the one made by NY Times article. They claim that aging population is responsible for the rise in death rates despite the fact that the rates rose in all age groups. Basic economics will tell you that adding more patients without adding more doctors will make it more likely that people in dire need of care will be less likely to get it because the system will be too busy handling those with only minor ailments.
but that she claimed to read ALL of them but couldn't name one.
Yeah, I call bull shit on that one. Anyone who reads news on Google news would answer "I read all of them" when asked to name any one particular source of the news. The news aggregators just work that way.
We laughed for those and other reasons, but mostly because she was a joke.
Aha. And you got that from listening to 20 seconds edited from her 4-hour interview with Katie Couric? You may want to do a search on Katie Couric and creative editing before you do any more laughing. The joke is on you.
You do know that Putin didn't do anything to Ukraine, right?
You mean accept violate the treaty which Russian Federation signed giving Ukraine sovereignty over Crimea in exchange for Ukraine surrendering all of its nuclear weapons to the Russian Federation? Or violate the laws of the Russian Federation which explicitly disallowed Putin to use RF armed forces on Ukrainian territory (which at that time included Crimea)?
You know that Ukraine people were ok with the Russians for many years past?
Yeah, the statement was about Putin's imperial ambitions -- not about Ukrainian history of animosity against Russians. In fact, the lack of such history is what makes the predictions of RF's aggression and occupation of Ukrainian territory that much more prescient.
You also know about what the u.s. did to Ukraine, right?
Oh, I didn't know we were operating in the fantasy world created by the RF propaganda in which "The West" (which includes East and South of RF) are out to getch ya.
it does not change the fact that she also said she remembered seeing Russia from Alaska
But she never actually said anything of the kind. This meme comes from Tina Fey's parody of her on SNL. The actual Sarah Palin never made this statement or any paraphrasing of it.
Eloquent, but uninsightful, are dangerous. So I take issue with the "at least" part of your judgement. It should read "at most" from a rational perspective.
He was our when he was fighting our enemies. He certainly was not ours when we removed him. In fact, he stopped being our when he turned from fighting our enemies to fighting everyone around him (including our friends).
Slashdot Mirror
How do we know it's not VK itself? It's effectively owned by the RF government. And they are not exactly known for being straight players.... VK was hacked by "volunteers"... the same ones who occupied Crimea before RF officially took it over.
So is it "run" or "own"? What about all the shareholders? I would assume the CEO runs the company.
When did Sundar Pichai manage to convert to Judaism? I thought it was quite a lengthy process.
They are not. Actually, Ballmer owns a 2% stake in FB and a precondition for his investment was veto rights on FB partnering with Google on anything he wishes to veto. It's also why MS doesn't compete with FB (the only software market which MS does not try to overtake... because FB plays ball with MS).
Zuck's immortal words: "young people are just smarter."
Just because a certain employee of a certain company keeps asking you to use his underage prostitutes as carriers for the drugs he keeps buying from you, doesn't mean that you have to be so paranoid as to think that he is using his company's app's ability to listen to the sounds you make (in order to cut you out as a middle man in this cocaine transaction). It simply doesn't follow. It may be true. But you don't have to be so cynical as to believe that it is true.
It is the accepted understanding that the law is only the law if its makers are not above the law. That was the inadvertent consequence of The Code of Hammurabi. But The Code of Hammurabi created a new form of social order -- the one in which a set of written rules is what determines what is acceptable behavior rather than the whims of rulers. This is what you get when you have a rule of law. When you have a rule of men, you get a dictatorship (and hope that it's benevolent towards the group of people to which you belong).
Why aren't everybody just buying cocaine and descending into their own personal heavens?
They do if they try it at some point. And they only stop once the amount of pleasure they get from it flatlines. The "hell" is the inability to feel happiness. I am not giving you solutions here. I am just saying that dopamine is what's causing the euphoria. The problem is not "stuff". It's what the "stuff" does to your brain. But, as you mentioned, it need not come from material accumulation. It could probably come from something simpler.... say posting on Slashdot or something.
People can only want so much stuff.
People want whatever increases dopamine levels. The stimuli could be purely cognitive as long as they provide higher levels than the physical ones.
In other words, it's not a rule of law, but a rule of men. The law is not the supreme authority on what is legal. Rather, it is the expression of the wishes of the men who rule. The fact that they have not codified all their wishes in laws, does not mean that they don't have other wishes.
No, if the government controls distribution of basic necessities, that's socialist.
They don't want to enable development of binaries which are large. They may want to force developers to break projects into smaller modules. MSVC will produce 64-bit executable and DLL's. So it's not like you can't use more space than that during the execution. But they want to force the design to be more modularized. So people would not do things like embedd images in their executables as text-encoded binaries, but would rather have resource files and load them at run time. The runtime of any one executable can easily exceed the 32bit binary boundary after all DLL's and resources are loaded, they just don't want people to do things like write 100MB source files and then force the compiler/editor to parse through that to generate a monolithic 10GB binary. The MSVS executable is what's 32-bits... not the runtimes that it generates.
ultimately benefit from being 64 bit as it allows for things like better vectorized string comparisons?
At compile time? The MSVC binary itself is what stays 32-bit. It will produce 64 binaries without any issues.
If your source code is larger than that, you may wanna break it up into smaller modules. Just saying. MSVC will produce 64-bit binaries. It just isn't itself a 64-bit binary.
As I mentioned in the other post, it's 32 bit compiler binary... not a binary only capable of producing 32 bit binaries. MSVC will happily produce 64 bit binaries. This isn't laziness. It actually requires more discipline from their compiler team to fit the compilation process within 32-bit memory space per running compiler process.
I think their argument is that if your project is so large that it needs 64 memory space to parse and generate the binary, then it's too large and should be broken up into smaller modules (dll's, resource files, etc.) The MSVC will definitely produce 64 executables if you configure it to. It's actually more a limitation they put on themselves. Because it means that their running compiler must run as a 32 bit binary. Which requires higher level of discipline from their compiler designers.
from the article: "The best place to keep your information is Google". Even if that's true at this very moment, what happens when a new pharaoh comes (who did not know Joseph)? Without a committed legal regime which makes it dangerous for public officials to spy on private citizens without a cause, this promise is as meaningful as a politician's election promises. It's backed by nothing.
And how does it increase the wait times
The same way "salami insurance for all" would increase wait times in the salami store. It creates a longer line in which people must stand before they can get to buy the salami and makes it impossible for people at the end of the line to get the salami even if they need it to save their lives. This is an abstraction. of course. But if you don't understand basic economics, then why do you insert yourself into this debate at all?
Every one of those claims needs to be backed up with evidence.
No. Not if they necessarily follow from a different claim which was already made by the opposing side in the debate.
Conclusions based on unfounded assumptions are meaningless.
Sure. That's true. But they are not made on unfounded evidence. They are made based on claims made by the proponents of the Obamacare.
Then we'll have something to talk about.
I don't think we will. You want me to go on a wild goose chase for statistics which are not collected and to close my eyes to the logical conclusions which follow from the statistics which are collected.
Then we can have a discussion that's grounded in reality.
You are not on the of reality. Don't flatter yourself. You are on the side claiming that evidence needs to be collected for the fact that 2+2 is always 4. You are on the side of absurdity and insisting that those who point out to you the absurdity of your arguments may only collect evidence and suspend reason when making observation about the world.
That's not a claim you can just make without presenting a shred of evidence.
It's a much more credible claim than the one made by NY Times article. They claim that aging population is responsible for the rise in death rates despite the fact that the rates rose in all age groups. Basic economics will tell you that adding more patients without adding more doctors will make it more likely that people in dire need of care will be less likely to get it because the system will be too busy handling those with only minor ailments.
but that she claimed to read ALL of them but couldn't name one.
Yeah, I call bull shit on that one. Anyone who reads news on Google news would answer "I read all of them" when asked to name any one particular source of the news. The news aggregators just work that way.
We laughed for those and other reasons, but mostly because she was a joke.
Aha. And you got that from listening to 20 seconds edited from her 4-hour interview with Katie Couric? You may want to do a search on Katie Couric and creative editing before you do any more laughing. The joke is on you.
You do know that Putin didn't do anything to Ukraine, right?
You mean accept violate the treaty which Russian Federation signed giving Ukraine sovereignty over Crimea in exchange for Ukraine surrendering all of its nuclear weapons to the Russian Federation? Or violate the laws of the Russian Federation which explicitly disallowed Putin to use RF armed forces on Ukrainian territory (which at that time included Crimea)?
You know that Ukraine people were ok with the Russians for many years past?
Yeah, the statement was about Putin's imperial ambitions -- not about Ukrainian history of animosity against Russians. In fact, the lack of such history is what makes the predictions of RF's aggression and occupation of Ukrainian territory that much more prescient.
You also know about what the u.s. did to Ukraine, right?
Oh, I didn't know we were operating in the fantasy world created by the RF propaganda in which "The West" (which includes East and South of RF) are out to getch ya.
it does not change the fact that she also said she remembered seeing Russia from Alaska
But she never actually said anything of the kind. This meme comes from Tina Fey's parody of her on SNL. The actual Sarah Palin never made this statement or any paraphrasing of it.
Eloquent, but uninsightful, are dangerous. So I take issue with the "at least" part of your judgement. It should read "at most" from a rational perspective.
He was our when he was fighting our enemies. He certainly was not ours when we removed him. In fact, he stopped being our when he turned from fighting our enemies to fighting everyone around him (including our friends).