So to ride a bike, you must walk it across intersections? Note, that's not how the instructions for using bikes on the street work. The official instructions for Texas are for the rider to safely leave the bike lane, merging into regular traffic, then change lanes to the regular car left turn lane, turn left when safe and legal to do so, then return to the right side of the roadway.
Maybe the anti-bike nuts hate bikes because they don't even know the bike rules.
That, and most bike lanes don't consider bikes that turn. How do you turn left from a bike lane? How safe are you going straight through a green on a bike in a bike lane if a car wants to turn right? I don't think bike lanes solve much.
How often is that? I know an epileptic who was 20 years without a seizure, but still couldn't get her license back. Are they letting epileptics drive these days?
And what do you avoid? 8-70 Hz? More? Less? There isn't a single perfect flash to trigger it (the most reliable triggers are multi-color, which this is not, and the studies indicate that color of the monochromatic flashes matters, so red may not have the same "optimal" frequency as white, or other colors.
fooj and bark are not the variables you intended. And that could cause problems.
Makes me think of Chinese. In Pinyin, you "mesh" the phonetic representation of the characters together. So you end up with a "word" like "Diànhuà" Going the other way, you have two "variables" combined. You have to separate them. A compiler (for Chinese, the human brain) will recognize foo and j as separate variables because any other separation would be invalid. Unless it's not, in which case the programmer made an error. Ambiguity is only allowed when ambiguity is not allowed. I can't think of a good example in Chinese, I don't know Chinese, but I remember seeing cases where the first N and N+1 characters were both valid "words" but the second character wasn't valid for both cases. At least Chinese is moderately proscriptive, so it'll be checked for ambiguity as new words are added. Nobody checks the programmers variables to ensure it isn't fooj barked all up.
I thought assembly might be compared to a math style language, maybe it is. Maybe that's what we need more of- clear, simple, exactly defined instructions. Its when we start to build on that and make routines and "ease of use features that things start to get fuzzy.
Assembly is grouping of machine code, transliterated into English sounding commands. The most common I can think of (I haven't used it in a while) are 1:1 with machine code, not like a "for" loop in a high level language that could have multiple instructions under it, and depending on the language, the same command might map to different machine code. In machine code, there's nothing that can be said that you can't say. As you move up, there are more things you can't say.
Or how about small libraries.
How about large libraries. Using large libraries and a "low" language lets you do more. The problem was that with C, there wasn't a single benevolent dictator like there was with Linux, of less-benevolent dictator with Windows to guide and steer the community to effective libraries. There are basic libraries, but not piles of advanced libraries. If the libraries were expanded and updated as the use of the language changed, the language would have evolved without changing, like Modern English. Lest ye be confused, word use has changed, but grammar hasn't and word use was mainly a 1:1.
I think that if C had a benevolent dictator, and was "updated" with libraries that reflected usage, we'd have half the number of languages we have now.
Nobody ever made a joke in Esperanto for example, yet the very internally inconsistent English gives us the greatest literature and humour there ever was.
Says someone who has never heard Shakespeare in the original Klingon.
It would have to based on mathematics to be exact, and then.. everyone would complain that it was too difficult to code in.
You can always code in machine code, or if that's too annoying Assembly. But that's not very portable, so higher languages were made to abstract the source code from the machine code.
Maybe the problem lies with us then, to express ourselves in ways that are clear and unambiguous when needed (which is certainly possible) without turning ourselves into robots.
Every language has jokes. Even the proscriptive ones. It can be hard to be unambiguous in English. It's too easy for something to have an unintended meaning, when the meaning is in the eye of the beholder.
The Queen has infinite power, so long as she chooses to not wield it. Of course, I live in a commonwealth country, and saying that could get me into a fight, but nobody has actually argued it, other than being offended I'd say something that diminishes the Queen's Divine Right.
The only effect of the officer refusing to accept a $20 was that your friend remains in jail until you bring $15.
The law you quoted indicated the cost should be $15. It doesn't require that they be held until it's paid, or that $20 would be refused, and exact change is required. That's all done by the local cops trying to punish people beyond the scope of the law.
The SCOTUS makes decisions based on the US constitution, not on a bunch of treaties between member states.
The US Constitution is a treaty between 13 original sovereign states. The members of the EU are called "member States" and the members of the USA are called states.
Also note that the US Supreme Court isn't the supreme court over every legal matter in the USA. A state or local matter that doesn't invoke Constitutional protections will end up in the state high court, and isn't appealable to the federal level or Supreme Court without invoking a new Constitutional claim.
The best walls (for the cost) are thin shells on the outside and inside, with a gap in the middle filled with cheap insulation, rather than solid walls. Supports needed between them, depending on materials. The new process lets you get that pretty quickly and uniformly. The "next best" I've seen was pre-fab styrofoam block system you assemble like Legos on site and pour the concrete into.
There's a lot of labor and expertise to get 2x4s and plywood to make strong, straight walls from dumped concrete.
The ECHR only takes on cases involving human rights (i.e., no patent cases) and is limited to the interpretation of European Convention on Human Rights.
"The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has reinforced the right of individuals to access the internet," (from a page describing some of the rights one has, as determined by the ECHR)
The ECJ is not a Supreme Court, as national cases cannot be appealed to the ECJ.
This is a language problem. The ECJ is a "higher" court, right? If the ECJ rules something, the EU Member State must abide by that ruling, even if a more local court has already ruled differently? If so, then the ECJ is a superior court. If there is no court above which can be petitioned to hear the matter, they they are the supreme court. That the US has the system aligned to filter nearly all applications to the Supreme Court through lower court, doesn't mean that the Supreme Court is restricted to hearing cases that have been decided by a lower court and appealed.
So no, the ECJ or ECHR are NOT an equivalent of the United States Supreme Court.
If their findings are binding against member states and the courts thereof, and there is no higher court, then I'd disagree. So what court is higher than the ECJ/ECHR?
But if he's not oversubscribing, then he's billing right. Are you saying that he's oversubscribing the lines, but billing like he's not? That's fraud. Why haven't you called the FCC on him?
The code documents what, the comments document why. Why does i=i+1? "loop counter" isn't a long comment, but makes it clear what i is or what the equation is doing. And yes, is more characters than the code.
There are some statements for which the ; is redundant. Function(something,somethingelse); there's nothing valid that can come at the end, other than the;. So, why require it? Some compilers don't. But only for things which are ambiguous. i=i+1;j=j+2;k=k+3 would become problematic without the semicolons and whitespace.
C isn't expressive? If I like to code with recursion, in what looks like infinite recursion, with "hidden" termination events, how many of those will let me code in something that the compiler will take as an infinite recursion? I've not programmed in most, but I've done infinite recursion in C. It works fine, even if you have actual infinite recursion and some interesting error handling or have a termination that is not recognized by the compiler.
No, he's not. He's confusing ambiguity and obscenity. A good spoken language is like French. Being proscriptive, rather than descriptive, there is much less ambiguity, compared to a mongrel descriptive language like English, where "bad" and "bad" are antonyms, and "hot" and "cold (or cool)" can be synonyms.
A good language would eliminate such ambiguity/conflict, and have the meaning clear for all.
Though French fails for its pronunciation rules, and Russian and Spanish are better for "spoken language" even if French may be a better written spoken language. Though accents manage to screw up Spanish and Russian as well. "y" and "ll" are pronounced the same in Argentina, but not Spain. And "o" sounds like "a" in Moscow, but only when it leads a word that isn't a name (mostly).
Give me a number for how many cases it would take. I don't think there's any number I could give you that could satisfy you. One proves at least one. There could be millions, and you'd still dismiss them. Why?
I was thinking about trial/appeal for the thing he was arrested for, not prosecution for refusal to take cash. "I tried to pay the fee in full, and they refused. At that point, he was being held unlawfully."
Never met a cop who would blow away grandma for no reason.
Then you never met a cop.
Even if it played out as they describe, they weren't justified.
Come again? I think these kinds of statements are why the [citation needed] tag was invented.
The police admitted it was an illegal raid, and the participants in it were convicted of criminal charges. That was cited previously in this thread. What are you unclear about?
Spoken like someone who's never been in a firefight.
[citation needed]
You assert a firefight. There is no "evidence" that happened. At most she fired one shot before they entered (possibly not even in their direction, hoping to scare off invaders), and they came in on a person who was, at that point, not resisting. Firing blindly until you empty a clip is what panicked idiots do. I'd hope police would have had better (or any, please) training.
I'd suggest you learn what paragraphs are, but then your rants would be longer to read, even if more readable.
Housing was always a scam. Serfs got "free" housing in exchange for being a slave. Housing was often more than the "average" income of the area, and would cause a de-facto slavery.
Company dorms were used in the Old West and in China. Funny how you are supporting them in the Old West, but so many condemn them in China.
Land is finite. It will only ever go up in value. Buy all you can. I made more money in the past 10 years watching my house appreciate than working in a top 10% income job.
Slashdot Mirror
So to ride a bike, you must walk it across intersections? Note, that's not how the instructions for using bikes on the street work. The official instructions for Texas are for the rider to safely leave the bike lane, merging into regular traffic, then change lanes to the regular car left turn lane, turn left when safe and legal to do so, then return to the right side of the roadway.
Maybe the anti-bike nuts hate bikes because they don't even know the bike rules.
That, and most bike lanes don't consider bikes that turn. How do you turn left from a bike lane? How safe are you going straight through a green on a bike in a bike lane if a car wants to turn right? I don't think bike lanes solve much.
How often is that? I know an epileptic who was 20 years without a seizure, but still couldn't get her license back. Are they letting epileptics drive these days?
And what do you avoid? 8-70 Hz? More? Less? There isn't a single perfect flash to trigger it (the most reliable triggers are multi-color, which this is not, and the studies indicate that color of the monochromatic flashes matters, so red may not have the same "optimal" frequency as white, or other colors.
Federal Canine Commission?
fooj and bark are not the variables you intended. And that could cause problems.
Makes me think of Chinese. In Pinyin, you "mesh" the phonetic representation of the characters together. So you end up with a "word" like "Diànhuà" Going the other way, you have two "variables" combined. You have to separate them. A compiler (for Chinese, the human brain) will recognize foo and j as separate variables because any other separation would be invalid. Unless it's not, in which case the programmer made an error. Ambiguity is only allowed when ambiguity is not allowed. I can't think of a good example in Chinese, I don't know Chinese, but I remember seeing cases where the first N and N+1 characters were both valid "words" but the second character wasn't valid for both cases. At least Chinese is moderately proscriptive, so it'll be checked for ambiguity as new words are added. Nobody checks the programmers variables to ensure it isn't fooj barked all up.
I thought assembly might be compared to a math style language, maybe it is. Maybe that's what we need more of- clear, simple, exactly defined instructions. Its when we start to build on that and make routines and "ease of use features that things start to get fuzzy.
Assembly is grouping of machine code, transliterated into English sounding commands. The most common I can think of (I haven't used it in a while) are 1:1 with machine code, not like a "for" loop in a high level language that could have multiple instructions under it, and depending on the language, the same command might map to different machine code. In machine code, there's nothing that can be said that you can't say. As you move up, there are more things you can't say.
Or how about small libraries.
How about large libraries. Using large libraries and a "low" language lets you do more. The problem was that with C, there wasn't a single benevolent dictator like there was with Linux, of less-benevolent dictator with Windows to guide and steer the community to effective libraries. There are basic libraries, but not piles of advanced libraries. If the libraries were expanded and updated as the use of the language changed, the language would have evolved without changing, like Modern English. Lest ye be confused, word use has changed, but grammar hasn't and word use was mainly a 1:1.
I think that if C had a benevolent dictator, and was "updated" with libraries that reflected usage, we'd have half the number of languages we have now.
Nobody ever made a joke in Esperanto for example, yet the very internally inconsistent English gives us the greatest literature and humour there ever was.
Says someone who has never heard Shakespeare in the original Klingon.
It would have to based on mathematics to be exact, and then.. everyone would complain that it was too difficult to code in.
You can always code in machine code, or if that's too annoying Assembly. But that's not very portable, so higher languages were made to abstract the source code from the machine code.
Maybe the problem lies with us then, to express ourselves in ways that are clear and unambiguous when needed (which is certainly possible) without turning ourselves into robots.
Every language has jokes. Even the proscriptive ones. It can be hard to be unambiguous in English. It's too easy for something to have an unintended meaning, when the meaning is in the eye of the beholder.
As the Queen of England has no real power,
The Queen has infinite power, so long as she chooses to not wield it. Of course, I live in a commonwealth country, and saying that could get me into a fight, but nobody has actually argued it, other than being offended I'd say something that diminishes the Queen's Divine Right.
Take a couple Prozac and try again.
The only effect of the officer refusing to accept a $20 was that your friend remains in jail until you bring $15.
The law you quoted indicated the cost should be $15. It doesn't require that they be held until it's paid, or that $20 would be refused, and exact change is required. That's all done by the local cops trying to punish people beyond the scope of the law.
They do. With a process that hints at being cheaper/faster than traditional concrete molds. That was the point of the article.
The SCOTUS makes decisions based on the US constitution, not on a bunch of treaties between member states.
The US Constitution is a treaty between 13 original sovereign states. The members of the EU are called "member States" and the members of the USA are called states.
Also note that the US Supreme Court isn't the supreme court over every legal matter in the USA. A state or local matter that doesn't invoke Constitutional protections will end up in the state high court, and isn't appealable to the federal level or Supreme Court without invoking a new Constitutional claim.
This is a process for pre-fab walls. Not on-site pouring.
Are they using cheap plastic cement?
The best walls (for the cost) are thin shells on the outside and inside, with a gap in the middle filled with cheap insulation, rather than solid walls. Supports needed between them, depending on materials. The new process lets you get that pretty quickly and uniformly. The "next best" I've seen was pre-fab styrofoam block system you assemble like Legos on site and pour the concrete into.
There's a lot of labor and expertise to get 2x4s and plywood to make strong, straight walls from dumped concrete.
The ECHR only takes on cases involving human rights (i.e., no patent cases) and is limited to the interpretation of European Convention on Human Rights.
"The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has reinforced the right of individuals to access the internet," (from a page describing some of the rights one has, as determined by the ECHR)
The ECJ is not a Supreme Court, as national cases cannot be appealed to the ECJ.
This is a language problem. The ECJ is a "higher" court, right? If the ECJ rules something, the EU Member State must abide by that ruling, even if a more local court has already ruled differently? If so, then the ECJ is a superior court. If there is no court above which can be petitioned to hear the matter, they they are the supreme court. That the US has the system aligned to filter nearly all applications to the Supreme Court through lower court, doesn't mean that the Supreme Court is restricted to hearing cases that have been decided by a lower court and appealed.
So no, the ECJ or ECHR are NOT an equivalent of the United States Supreme Court.
If their findings are binding against member states and the courts thereof, and there is no higher court, then I'd disagree. So what court is higher than the ECJ/ECHR?
But if he's not oversubscribing, then he's billing right. Are you saying that he's oversubscribing the lines, but billing like he's not? That's fraud. Why haven't you called the FCC on him?
The code documents what, the comments document why. Why does i=i+1? "loop counter" isn't a long comment, but makes it clear what i is or what the equation is doing. And yes, is more characters than the code.
There are some statements for which the ; is redundant. Function(something,somethingelse); there's nothing valid that can come at the end, other than the ;. So, why require it? Some compilers don't. But only for things which are ambiguous. i=i+1;j=j+2;k=k+3 would become problematic without the semicolons and whitespace.
C isn't expressive? If I like to code with recursion, in what looks like infinite recursion, with "hidden" termination events, how many of those will let me code in something that the compiler will take as an infinite recursion? I've not programmed in most, but I've done infinite recursion in C. It works fine, even if you have actual infinite recursion and some interesting error handling or have a termination that is not recognized by the compiler.
No, he's not. He's confusing ambiguity and obscenity. A good spoken language is like French. Being proscriptive, rather than descriptive, there is much less ambiguity, compared to a mongrel descriptive language like English, where "bad" and "bad" are antonyms, and "hot" and "cold (or cool)" can be synonyms.
A good language would eliminate such ambiguity/conflict, and have the meaning clear for all.
Though French fails for its pronunciation rules, and Russian and Spanish are better for "spoken language" even if French may be a better written spoken language. Though accents manage to screw up Spanish and Russian as well. "y" and "ll" are pronounced the same in Argentina, but not Spain. And "o" sounds like "a" in Moscow, but only when it leads a word that isn't a name (mostly).
Give me a number for how many cases it would take. I don't think there's any number I could give you that could satisfy you. One proves at least one. There could be millions, and you'd still dismiss them. Why?
I was thinking about trial/appeal for the thing he was arrested for, not prosecution for refusal to take cash. "I tried to pay the fee in full, and they refused. At that point, he was being held unlawfully."
Never met a cop who would blow away grandma for no reason.
Then you never met a cop.
Even if it played out as they describe, they weren't justified.
Come again? I think these kinds of statements are why the [citation needed] tag was invented.
The police admitted it was an illegal raid, and the participants in it were convicted of criminal charges. That was cited previously in this thread. What are you unclear about?
Spoken like someone who's never been in a firefight.
[citation needed]
You assert a firefight. There is no "evidence" that happened. At most she fired one shot before they entered (possibly not even in their direction, hoping to scare off invaders), and they came in on a person who was, at that point, not resisting. Firing blindly until you empty a clip is what panicked idiots do. I'd hope police would have had better (or any, please) training.
I'd suggest you learn what paragraphs are, but then your rants would be longer to read, even if more readable.
Housing was always a scam. Serfs got "free" housing in exchange for being a slave. Housing was often more than the "average" income of the area, and would cause a de-facto slavery.
Company dorms were used in the Old West and in China. Funny how you are supporting them in the Old West, but so many condemn them in China.
Land is finite. It will only ever go up in value. Buy all you can. I made more money in the past 10 years watching my house appreciate than working in a top 10% income job.