...anybody is allowed to run. Nobody forces you to vote for the ruling party.
Yes they do. Political parties and gerrymandering, ballot access laws, and voting systems themselves (e.g. "first-past-the-post") -- among other things -- all conspire to force that.
When you're talking to someone in a professional setting, saying "hang on, I'll just check up on that" multiple times is a very good way to encourage them to leave and not participate in an exchange of goods or services.
Yes, only because that makes it blatantly obvious that you don't know what you're doing. But you say that as if "the facts" were sufficient to do the job, and they're not. Understanding how the product you're selling actually works and more importantly why the person should want it -- and using the facts only incidentally in order to explain that -- is the actual job.
When I go to fast food restaurants, I would like cashiers to be able to instantly tell me the answer to allergy questions (e.g. are your chips fried in peanut oil).
Yep, and it works a Hell of a lot better when the cashier has been cross-trained in chip frying than when he's been ordered to memorize an operations manual.
If I'm presenting to biologists about a differential expression analysis on samples they've been working on, I need to be able to tell them what a particular statistic means so that they can better understand the results.
You've got that backwards: you had to have already understood the relationships between the particular statistic and the rest of the context of your work in order to have successfully used it in the first place.
The problem, however, is that one actually needs something in your brain to "understand relationships" between. You can't "understand how stuff works" if you don't even know there is "stuff" to begin with.
On the contrary, you need to understand the relationships in order to be able to remember the "stuff" at all.
What, exactly, is useful about memorizing facts, in a world where any fact you want is at your fingertips on demand? Being usefully conversant in facts is not about memorization, it's about understanding relationships between things. Understanding how stuff works. The facts you need will be memorized along the way.
It's even more than that: understanding the relationships is how the memorization gets accomplished in the first place! In fact, attempting to memorize facts without the context of those relationships is really fucking hard and frustrating. I was watching a TED talk by Joshua Foer last night that explained all this, and talked about how the techniques everyone from Roman orators to Rain Man use to memorize stuff actually involve constructing (spatial) relationships between the items to be memorized, and then remembering the relationships. Even the idiom I used, "in the first place," comes from the idea of memorizing speech topics in a spatial framework.
TL;DR: any so-called "teacher" who wants students to perform rote memorization without context is actively doing those students a disservice!
When I was growing up, elementary school started around 9, middle school around maybe 8:15, and high school around 7:30 -- or maybe it was even earlier than that, I don't quite remember. The trouble is, it had to be that way because it was the goddamn suburbs, so everybody rode the bus, and the buses took that long to do all the routes. And yes, the routes had to be separate for elementary/middle/high because the schools weren't in the same places.
If we lived in more compact cities with neighborhood schools everybody could walk to, then they could all start at 9 AM and it would be much less of a problem. Of course, big schools have economies of scale and the opportunity for more variety of classes, so people like that, but there's a lack of appreciation for what's being given up to accomplish it.
What's with all this bullshit "I can't take time off" astroturfing? It's blatantly a lie -- the idea that someone is somehow in such high demand that he can't take a vacation yet doesn't have enough power to tell his employer to fuck off and go anyway violates basic logic -- but I'm trying to figure out the angle. What's the motivation for posting it? It's as if the poster is trying to create the public perception of a shortage in order to justify H1Bs or something, but it's too stupid to be persuasive.
At any rate, I'm a software engineer and have always worked a normal 40 hours/week and used all my vacation. If you can't do the same, that's your problem!
If the "1-3% of fuel use" metric is accurate, then a 10,000 mile service interval on a 40 MPG TDI would require a tank that could hold 2.5-7.5 gallons of urea. That's not too bad.
(Of course, I'd rather have a 5,000 mile service interval -- which you'd need anyway if you run biodiesel, since more of it makes it past the piston rings and pollutes the oil -- and a urea tank half the size.)
In part, poor people don't vote because a lot of them are disenfranchised. They were arrested on trumped-up charges and then pressured to take a plea deal by a public defender who had no time to properly defend them.
However, I assume that these vehicles still passed both EU and US regulations, right? Otherwise they wouldn't be allowed on EU roads?
My guess is that US models currently aren't allowed on EU roads (because they don't pass EU tests), but under TTIP Europe would be forced to allow them to be sold based on their passing of only the "lowest common denominator" of tests.
Don't you know? If you're a moderate, then you are like a Democrat. The Republican party is far-right extremist, and "the left" no longer exists. Even "socialist" Bernie Sanders is only about as far left as Eisenhower.
There is no fucking excuse whatsoever for Mr. "Constitutional Scholar" not to have known damn well that this was completely and utterly verboten from the beginning! This idea should never have even been entertained in the first place!
The only reasonable answer to a government official asking the President "should we try to backdoor everyone?" is "No. And you're fired for having too poor a grasp of basic goddamn civics to do your job!
3. Abuse of automatic forced updates. Make device manufacturers send government malware using their update system. Would require a court order, and doesn't appear to be any more open to abuse than current update systems. Presumably the user would lose the ability to disable these updates.
Huh. I guess the Windows 10/8/7 tracking shows they picked option 3.
I know they say VW cars detected complex heuristics to determine if they're on the rolling bed....
According to one article I read, the heuristic was "did the emissions testing technician put the car into emissions testing mode." Apparently, the cars need a separate setting for that to prevent the electronic stability control from going haywire when it starts reading the front wheels going 50 MPH while the back wheels are stationary.
Congratulations: You just created a time of check to time of use (TOCTTOU) race bug. Consider what happens if another process deletes the file between the call to isfile and the call to open.
Then open() throws an exception and you're no worse off than if you had blindly called it, "expecting" the exception, in the first place. My examples were minimal in order to show the overall pattern of execution; I never claimed they were complete or that they included all the error handling they should actually have.
exceptions should be used much more sparingly in C++ than in Python because they don't work as well in the former.
Could you explain what you mean by this? Is it that Python tends to throw (predictable) exceptions in cases where C++ has (unpredictable) undefined behavior?
You're trying to make me declare some sort of hard-and-fast rule to something that's really an issue of style, which I won't do. But here's a heuristic: if you expect to succeed in opening the file, you could probably go ahead and use the 'pythonic' 'ask forgiveness, not permission' pattern. But if you're trying to (for some reason) open only one of 50 files and expect the other 49 not to exist, then your loop should probably look more like
for name in filenames: ....if isfile(name): ........f = open(name)
instead of
for name in filenames: ....try: ........f = open(name) ....except IOError: ........#do nothing
Also, exceptions should be used much more sparingly in C++ than in Python because they don't work as well in the former.
The lesson that should be taught to the programmer is that the lack of a configuration file is a totally normal and expected condition which should be handled by the program's normal control flow.
True, which is why I qualified my statement with "slightly modified." I'd only try to run anything direct-injected (including my '98 TDI, which itself isn't even all that high-pressure compared to a common-rail) on proper biodiesel.
Even when a car is available with a variety of different wheel sizes from the factory, the tire diameter is usually the same for all of them. The larger-diameter wheels simply come with lower aspect-ratio tires to compensate.
On the literally bright side: this may truly help the acceleration (if you will) to EVs becoming the norm. IC's are neat creatures, but I think even now, most modern mass-production cars would get smoked by a Tesla (in Insane Mode) in the quarter-mile.
So what? Wake me when a Tesla can win at [24 hours of] Le Mons.
And that's why ICs aren't going away any time soon. Even the most speculative electricity-storage systems (exotic battery chemistries, hydrogen) pale in comparison to the combination of energy density, ease of handling, reliability and ubiquity of plain old liquid hydrocarbons. Even if we wanted to synthesize fuel from solar energy, using said energy to combine CO2 and H2O into hydrocarbons (perhaps by biological processes) is the most viable way to do it!
Slashdot Mirror
From rocks, possibly tied to the ends of sticks.
Yes they do. Political parties and gerrymandering, ballot access laws, and voting systems themselves (e.g. "first-past-the-post") -- among other things -- all conspire to force that.
Yes, that's what "disenfranchised" means.
Yes, only because that makes it blatantly obvious that you don't know what you're doing. But you say that as if "the facts" were sufficient to do the job, and they're not. Understanding how the product you're selling actually works and more importantly why the person should want it -- and using the facts only incidentally in order to explain that -- is the actual job.
Yep, and it works a Hell of a lot better when the cashier has been cross-trained in chip frying than when he's been ordered to memorize an operations manual.
You've got that backwards: you had to have already understood the relationships between the particular statistic and the rest of the context of your work in order to have successfully used it in the first place.
On the contrary, you need to understand the relationships in order to be able to remember the "stuff" at all.
It's even more than that: understanding the relationships is how the memorization gets accomplished in the first place! In fact, attempting to memorize facts without the context of those relationships is really fucking hard and frustrating. I was watching a TED talk by Joshua Foer last night that explained all this, and talked about how the techniques everyone from Roman orators to Rain Man use to memorize stuff actually involve constructing (spatial) relationships between the items to be memorized, and then remembering the relationships. Even the idiom I used, "in the first place," comes from the idea of memorizing speech topics in a spatial framework.
TL;DR: any so-called "teacher" who wants students to perform rote memorization without context is actively doing those students a disservice!
When I was growing up, elementary school started around 9, middle school around maybe 8:15, and high school around 7:30 -- or maybe it was even earlier than that, I don't quite remember. The trouble is, it had to be that way because it was the goddamn suburbs, so everybody rode the bus, and the buses took that long to do all the routes. And yes, the routes had to be separate for elementary/middle/high because the schools weren't in the same places.
If we lived in more compact cities with neighborhood schools everybody could walk to, then they could all start at 9 AM and it would be much less of a problem. Of course, big schools have economies of scale and the opportunity for more variety of classes, so people like that, but there's a lack of appreciation for what's being given up to accomplish it.
What's with all this bullshit "I can't take time off" astroturfing? It's blatantly a lie -- the idea that someone is somehow in such high demand that he can't take a vacation yet doesn't have enough power to tell his employer to fuck off and go anyway violates basic logic -- but I'm trying to figure out the angle. What's the motivation for posting it? It's as if the poster is trying to create the public perception of a shortage in order to justify H1Bs or something, but it's too stupid to be persuasive.
At any rate, I'm a software engineer and have always worked a normal 40 hours/week and used all my vacation. If you can't do the same, that's your problem!
If the "1-3% of fuel use" metric is accurate, then a 10,000 mile service interval on a 40 MPG TDI would require a tank that could hold 2.5-7.5 gallons of urea. That's not too bad.
(Of course, I'd rather have a 5,000 mile service interval -- which you'd need anyway if you run biodiesel, since more of it makes it past the piston rings and pollutes the oil -- and a urea tank half the size.)
The debt is caused by the Republicans. Democrats want to spend and tax, Republicans want to spend and hope somebody else pays for it later.
In part, poor people don't vote because a lot of them are disenfranchised. They were arrested on trumped-up charges and then pressured to take a plea deal by a public defender who had no time to properly defend them.
My guess is that US models currently aren't allowed on EU roads (because they don't pass EU tests), but under TTIP Europe would be forced to allow them to be sold based on their passing of only the "lowest common denominator" of tests.
On the contrary; the only real threat to America and freedom is bigoted idiotic cowards like you.
Don't you know? If you're a moderate, then you are like a Democrat. The Republican party is far-right extremist, and "the left" no longer exists. Even "socialist" Bernie Sanders is only about as far left as Eisenhower.
There is no fucking excuse whatsoever for Mr. "Constitutional Scholar" not to have known damn well that this was completely and utterly verboten from the beginning! This idea should never have even been entertained in the first place!
The only reasonable answer to a government official asking the President "should we try to backdoor everyone?" is "No. And you're fired for having too poor a grasp of basic goddamn civics to do your job!
Ridiculous. They decided not to for a terrible reason, which is that they didn't think they could get away with it.
They should have decided not to for the reason that it is both morally wrong and unconstitutional.
Make no mistake: these people are evil, and the fact that they abandoned this particular scheme makes them no less so!
Huh. I guess the Windows 10/8/7 tracking shows they picked option 3.
According to one article I read, the heuristic was "did the emissions testing technician put the car into emissions testing mode." Apparently, the cars need a separate setting for that to prevent the electronic stability control from going haywire when it starts reading the front wheels going 50 MPH while the back wheels are stationary.
Then open() throws an exception and you're no worse off than if you had blindly called it, "expecting" the exception, in the first place. My examples were minimal in order to show the overall pattern of execution; I never claimed they were complete or that they included all the error handling they should actually have.
http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/defec...
You're trying to make me declare some sort of hard-and-fast rule to something that's really an issue of style, which I won't do. But here's a heuristic: if you expect to succeed in opening the file, you could probably go ahead and use the 'pythonic' 'ask forgiveness, not permission' pattern. But if you're trying to (for some reason) open only one of 50 files and expect the other 49 not to exist, then your loop should probably look more like
instead of
Also, exceptions should be used much more sparingly in C++ than in Python because they don't work as well in the former.
The lesson that should be taught to the programmer is that the lack of a configuration file is a totally normal and expected condition which should be handled by the program's normal control flow.
True, which is why I qualified my statement with "slightly modified." I'd only try to run anything direct-injected (including my '98 TDI, which itself isn't even all that high-pressure compared to a common-rail) on proper biodiesel.
I'm a software "engineer" and an actual civil engineer (licensed by my state as an engineer-in-training, at least), and I agree with you completely.
Even when a car is available with a variety of different wheel sizes from the factory, the tire diameter is usually the same for all of them. The larger-diameter wheels simply come with lower aspect-ratio tires to compensate.
So what? Wake me when a Tesla can win at [24 hours of] Le Mons.
And that's why ICs aren't going away any time soon. Even the most speculative electricity-storage systems (exotic battery chemistries, hydrogen) pale in comparison to the combination of energy density, ease of handling, reliability and ubiquity of plain old liquid hydrocarbons. Even if we wanted to synthesize fuel from solar energy, using said energy to combine CO2 and H2O into hydrocarbons (perhaps by biological processes) is the most viable way to do it!