Not when they're (a) optional and (b) used to obscure the point, they're not! It is goddamn dishonest to pretend that Silicon Valley tech-worker take-home pay, with gold-plated health care, a maxed out 401k (and maybe exercised stock options), and a metric ass-ton of other fringe benefits is in any way comparable to normal-person take-home pay that includes taxes, basically zero retirement savings (outside of social security) and fuck-all else.
This is life for the majority of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck.
And your point is...? I'm well aware that the majority of Americans are dumbasses who don't know how to manage their money. In fact, one of my hobbies is hanging out on personal finance web forums and trying to help them...
Indeed I haven't, because I'm not a dumbass and know how to manage my money. Instead, I work as a software engineer in Atlanta, and get paid a lot less but have a much higher standard of living anyway.
Dont diss the bay area money complaints.
LOL, fuck that. I'll dis what I want, because the remedy for whining is simple: fucking move.
If getting paid slightly late forces you to take out a loan, you're a dumbass who doesn't know how to manage his money. This is true regardless of how much or how little money you make. Rule #1 of personal finance is "live below your means."
We can hope, but I'm not counting on it. I think it's just as likely that by the time that happens, having the computer locked down so that only OS maker-"approved" apps can run might be mandated by law because "only hackers would run un-'approved' software" or some other such BS.
You just accept them because you are affiliated with the same party.
THAT'S A GODDAMNED LIE.
See, that's exactly the short of fucked-up false-dichotomy thinking I was complaining about in the first place! I'm a LIBERTARIAN, not a Democrat.
The Clintons, both of them, are every bit as horrible as Trump.
That's the thing, THEY'RE REALLY NOT. The Clinton's are horrible in a "normal" corrupt-big-government sort of way, but they PALE IN COMPARSION to the damage to civil liberties and democracy itself that Trump is doing! The Clintons never (a) kicked the media out of white house briefings, (b) stuffed their administration full of LITERAL WHITE SUPREMACISTS, attempted to normalize lying to the public in a strategy straight out of 1984 or Mein Kampf, or done any of a hundred other ACTUALLY, LITERALLY, AND WITHOUT EXAGGERATION FASCIST things!
Compilers aren't AI, they can do any 'trick' the compiler writer knows
There is an entire class of optimizations that the programmer can make but the compiler can't because the programmer understands things about the program that aren't expressed in the source code. For example, maybe the programmer knows that in his case the shift really is equivalent to the divide because he knows the range of the possible inputs, but he can't tell the compiler that unless he's programming in Ada.
ordinary Democrats generally preferred her. If you can't get the left of American center voters to support a so-called socialist
That is an idiotic argument, and here's why: there is almost certainly not a single, solitary "ordinary Democrat" who would have voted for Trump over Sanders. On the other hand, there were many people for whom Clinton's out-of-touch elitist platform (e.g. support for the TPP) made her unacceptable. This includes, crucially, historically-Democratic union workers in exactly the few Midwestern states that handed Trump the victory. Sanders would have swung those people easily.
Bernie was an outsider not a lifelong member of the party.
Who gives a shit?
The Democrats (the party not the people who vote democrat - annoying how I have to spell everything out) would see any win by him as a loss.
More of a loss than electing FUCKING TRUMP?
Let me spell this out very clearly, since Democratic partisans are apparently utter morons: even though Sanders wasn't a loyal apparatchik of the DNC political machine, they would have still been a fuck-ton better off having Sanders sit there vetoing all the alt-right bullshit the Republican-supermajority Congress will be shoving through for the next four years, instead of having Trump sit there signing it into goddamn motherfucking LAW!
Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?
Hillary lost for several reasons (such as support for the TPP at the expense of the middle class), not just the emails. The DNC screwed themselves by picking her as the candidate; Bernie would have won.
On a related note, the White House FOIA page is currently unavailable. So much for requesting transcripts of all Trump Administration business done over Confide (just for shits and giggles since there's no chance they'd, you know, comply with the law or anything).
Well, they are secrets, which are only valuable if not shared.
One can make a similar argument about the commercial value of copyrighted material.
On the contrary, one can make the opposite argument about copyrighted material: I say it becomes more valuable to society as a whole (as opposed to any particular entity in it) the more it gets shared.
Mrs. Clinton did as 2 of her predecessors in her job did with a personal email server, but I don't see anyone demanding the arrest of Secretary Powell or Rice.
If that's true, it's only because you were deliberately avoiding looking.
I mean, what exactly is wrong with our elected American leaders saying they are going to put forth and defend American interests first and foremost when dealing with the rest of the world?
If that's all it meant, it wouldn't be a problem. But it's actually a dog-whistle for fascism, and you fucking know it.
Was it about the same time it seems it became just plain wrong to be born a white male?
From one white male to another: fuck off with your bullshit feigned victimhood. It's not helping anything, least of all other white males!
Remember, the Constitution affirms the right to assemble, but it does not affirm some imaginary right to do so and then demand special legal treatment to limit liability!
Slashdot Mirror
Not when they're (a) optional and (b) used to obscure the point, they're not! It is goddamn dishonest to pretend that Silicon Valley tech-worker take-home pay, with gold-plated health care, a maxed out 401k (and maybe exercised stock options), and a metric ass-ton of other fringe benefits is in any way comparable to normal-person take-home pay that includes taxes, basically zero retirement savings (outside of social security) and fuck-all else.
My shit-giving is on a sliding scale based on income, and zeros out at at a level way fucking below Silicon Valley whiners.
A.K.A. more than people in other places start with before paying for their taxes or housing. You do realize you're a whining asshole, right?
That's a fucking lie. Not even CA has >50% effective rate (not marginal rate) income taxes.
In order for take-home pay to be that low, there have to be a bunch of other deductions included: 401k, health insurance, etc.
LOL, only in Silicon Valley bizarro-world (or NYC, or DC). In sane parts of the country, the normal recommendation is three years' salary.
And your point is...? I'm well aware that the majority of Americans are dumbasses who don't know how to manage their money. In fact, one of my hobbies is hanging out on personal finance web forums and trying to help them...
Indeed I haven't, because I'm not a dumbass and know how to manage my money. Instead, I work as a software engineer in Atlanta, and get paid a lot less but have a much higher standard of living anyway.
LOL, fuck that. I'll dis what I want, because the remedy for whining is simple: fucking move.
If getting paid slightly late forces you to take out a loan, you're a dumbass who doesn't know how to manage his money. This is true regardless of how much or how little money you make. Rule #1 of personal finance is "live below your means."
Google also buys traffic data from INRIX.
We can hope, but I'm not counting on it. I think it's just as likely that by the time that happens, having the computer locked down so that only OS maker-"approved" apps can run might be mandated by law because "only hackers would run un-'approved' software" or some other such BS.
THAT'S A GODDAMNED LIE.
See, that's exactly the short of fucked-up false-dichotomy thinking I was complaining about in the first place! I'm a LIBERTARIAN , not a Democrat.
That's the thing, THEY'RE REALLY NOT. The Clinton's are horrible in a "normal" corrupt-big-government sort of way, but they PALE IN COMPARSION to the damage to civil liberties and democracy itself that Trump is doing! The Clintons never (a) kicked the media out of white house briefings, (b) stuffed their administration full of LITERAL WHITE SUPREMACISTS, attempted to normalize lying to the public in a strategy straight out of 1984 or Mein Kampf, or done any of a hundred other ACTUALLY, LITERALLY, AND WITHOUT EXAGGERATION FASCIST things!
Holy shit, you're right. Even the next day, the troll I replied to is +4 and I'm at 0, flamebait. The alt-right asshats have taken over.
Well, the copyright holder first has to determine whether the content is actually infr-- (snicker, choke, guffaw)
Sorry, I just couldn't get that whole sentence out while keeping a straight face.
No. Fuck off with the moral relativism strawman argument, you disingenuous piece of shit.
The article says "I DuckDuckGo'd for keywords like GPG..."
I feel like the idiom should be "I DuckDuckWent" instead.
There is an entire class of optimizations that the programmer can make but the compiler can't because the programmer understands things about the program that aren't expressed in the source code. For example, maybe the programmer knows that in his case the shift really is equivalent to the divide because he knows the range of the possible inputs, but he can't tell the compiler that unless he's programming in Ada.
That is an idiotic argument, and here's why: there is almost certainly not a single, solitary "ordinary Democrat" who would have voted for Trump over Sanders. On the other hand, there were many people for whom Clinton's out-of-touch elitist platform (e.g. support for the TPP) made her unacceptable. This includes, crucially, historically-Democratic union workers in exactly the few Midwestern states that handed Trump the victory. Sanders would have swung those people easily.
Who gives a shit?
More of a loss than electing FUCKING TRUMP?
Let me spell this out very clearly, since Democratic partisans are apparently utter morons: even though Sanders wasn't a loyal apparatchik of the DNC political machine, they would have still been a fuck-ton better off having Sanders sit there vetoing all the alt-right bullshit the Republican-supermajority Congress will be shoving through for the next four years, instead of having Trump sit there signing it into goddamn motherfucking LAW!
Hillary lost for several reasons (such as support for the TPP at the expense of the middle class), not just the emails. The DNC screwed themselves by picking her as the candidate; Bernie would have won.
On a related note, the White House FOIA page is currently unavailable. So much for requesting transcripts of all Trump Administration business done over Confide (just for shits and giggles since there's no chance they'd, you know, comply with the law or anything).
On the contrary, one can make the opposite argument about copyrighted material: I say it becomes more valuable to society as a whole (as opposed to any particular entity in it) the more it gets shared.
If that's true, it's only because you were deliberately avoiding looking.
If that's all it meant, it wouldn't be a problem. But it's actually a dog-whistle for fascism, and you fucking know it.
From one white male to another: fuck off with your bullshit feigned victimhood. It's not helping anything, least of all other white males!
How did you find out about those?
Corporations should act in the public interest. Otherwise there is literally no reason for them to exist.
Remember, the Constitution affirms the right to assemble, but it does not affirm some imaginary right to do so and then demand special legal treatment to limit liability!