If you're charging your iphone daily, you're doin it wrong. Just turn down the screen brightness and the auto-lighting-adjust feature, and it'll run for three-five days on one charge (depending on your usage levels of course).
Faith tends to mean more of a gut reasoning to believe something, but it is still a form of trust.
One has faith in beliefs or ideas; one has trust in people (and possibly expectations). There's a substantial difference in the way they're employed in common use, even if the literal meanings are pretty close.
If you can't prove they are trolling, are they really trolling?
There's nothing to prove, they're trolling by definition -- they're going as strangers into places where their ideas are unwanted and derailing whatever conversations they find, resulting in flame-wars and needless noise and other antisocial situations. It doesn't matter how sincere their motives are; the behavior is trolling, whatever the intent, and whether they defend their positions later on or not.
Even science, even though it is evidence based, does rely on a certain amount of faith (that earlier theories are correct, that scientists in fields you're not familiar with are correct).
If I were to claim that I invented a machine that produced more energy than I put in, would I get a fair hearing?
Well, you could probably get a patent.
More seriously, that's a claim that's been examined literally thousands of times, and in all cases it's been mistaken. If you had any kind of new, compelling evidence that hasn't been debunked over and over before to justify your claim, then people might listen. Until then, looking at your special snowflake of a perpetual motion machine is a waste of the grownups' time.
But in any event, the point is that there's an objective standard by which we could actually evaluate your claim. If you used this machine and started making a fortune selling cheap electricity, I'd imagine you'd get some serious attention.
The complaint isn't "noes! no creashun aloudz on teh intarwebz!" This is about taking unsuspecting third parties and using them and hijacking their communication channels for your own educational benefit.
It's a bad thing to encourage people to go where their thoughts are superfluous and unwanted, and post unsolicited, unoriginal screeds. Their interlocutors aren't participating in the discussion for credit; why make test subjects of unsuspecting strangers?
When you have someone who is: 1) Not an active or regular participant in a community, 2) posting something that's been said a million times before, that 3) nobody there wants to read, and which is 4) not terribly on topic, with the result of 5) starting a little flame-war, that person is a troll, no matter how sincere or innocuous their intentions. (If points 2-5 are significant enough, point 1 might not even matter.)
While I think this is kind of a creepy practice, I am less concerned with the impact on the students (who I agree probably agreed with the viewpoint to begin with) than I am with the impact on the level of discourse on the Internet at large.
I do not think it would be appropriate to tell a bunch of undergrads to post their theses on Hamlet or The Iliad all over the place, particularly in copypasta style; and I think making trollish behavior a part of a course's grade is, essentially, licensing harassment. Of course it would be poor form to require aspiring young biologists to post unimaginative atheistic screeds on unsuspecting interfaith websites, so this...? Witnessing isn't always welcome.
Apple understands that a sold iPhone is a sold iPhone
Nyet, tovarishch. Apple understands that a captive audience to a walled-garden content-delivery system is a continuing revenue stream that only compounds as their hardware business becomes more successful.
Obviously pressure from AT&T is a big part of all this (maybe even the major part), but Apple has skin in the game too. (Plus, that $400 iPhone subsidy from AT&T? You can bet that does not actually represent $400 in Apple's pocket.)
Or at least, if you're going to be someone she looks up to, make sure she's someone you look up to, too. Keep focusing on mutual admiration, mutual respect. If she thinks you're a champion, then she becomes just a trophy, and those are kind of cold and metallic.
You ought to be smart enough to notice that what you are being taught is highly theoretical in nature. Universities aren't tech schools, they aren't teaching you specific skills needed for specific jobs, they are institutions of higher education and research.
If you're not in NYC, you wouldn't know this, but Monroe College pretty much is a vocational school. It advertises heavily on the subway regarding its vocational training programs, such as Criminal Justice, Allied Health (nursing), and, yes, IT management, and a lot of the advertisement focuses heavily on its career placement services. I think the woman in question is being an idiot, but it's better to view this as a false-advertising suit than anything else.
Why can't everyone see that the legal system has historically, with very few exceptions, done nothing but work against the people, to benefit corporate interests? Why isn't it a crime for executives at AIG and other bailed out banks to receive huge bonuses at the expense of tax payers? Why is it a crime for some college kid to hack some game consoles? We're talking about billions vs hundreds of dollars.
FTFY.
It works this way because their billions buy Congressmen, while our hundreds pay them rent.
Speaking of the wisdom of crowds P Why not bypass the legislators directly and give the money directly to the people. If you trust crowds and democracy, why not trust each person individually with money? Why not have vouchers...?
Because vouchers can't buy things like scientific research, waterfront levees, or cleaning up polluted water sources.
Earmarks are a red herring, really a tiny fraction of our nation's expenditures. Many of them are stupid pet projects. Many of them are legitimate uses of money that could never be passed on a dedicated bill. Eliminating them would have minimal impact on the nation's budget, and definitely would not create the kind of minarchist paradise that people erroneously idealize.
nless you are a highly skilled worker, you actually take a cut in income when you move from benefits to a job! This is partly because British people who live below the poverty line still pay taxes when they work. Economically speaking, it actually isn't worth getting a job.
Sounds like an excellent case for an improved minimum-wage law and a more progressive tax system. Thanks for making it!
It was pointed out elsewhere upthread that AZ is forbidden to do this, either by constitutional amendment or by law.
But what's really troubling is that you are utterly guessing at reasons why taxes should go up, when you do not have and I do not have a comparative budget to see what these outlays actually are.
That's no less troubling than your utterly guessing at why it's okay for spending to go down, when you do not have a comparative budget either. His error is the exact same as yours. But of course, you know your bias is right, so...
I'll be glad to. Get me a site with actual detailed figures.
Better yet, tell me exactly what you were planning to cut, since you seem so intimately familiar with exactly how much it should cost to accomplish the necessary, life-improving functions of government.
Looks like the Feds should just lend the money to AZ directly, with repayment due when the recession turns around, with minor interest to cover the cost of lending.
Actually, the Feds should just give the money to AZ directly. It's what they were doing, before they cut a ton of payments to the states as a first (disastrous) reaction to the economic crisis.
Okay, I'm looking at your link--all of the following is per your own source of information (which appears to be affiliated with the National Taxpayer's Union, a radical anti-tax, anti-government advocacy group).
6 state agencies account for 91 percent of state spending: K-12 education 42 percent, Medicaid program 14 percent, universities 11 percent, corrections 10 percent, department of economic security 8 percent, department of health services 6 percent, and other 9 percent.
(In case anyone was wondering, the Department of Economic Security would be Child Welfare Services (food for starving kids), Child Protective Services (foster care), and employment/unemployment services (which is where you go when you get laid off, which I hear has been happening to a lot of people lately).)
So, which of these is some "feel-good program that doesn't work?" Were you hoping to stop educating children, quit subsidizing seniors' health care, cut off community colleges, understaff your jails...?
Keep in mind we haven't even yet talked about roads, highway maintenance, animal control, police, fire departments, water, and I suppose state parks. 9% will only go so far.
What were you planning to cut?
In 2009 the State Budget is $55 billion dollars. In 2000, the State Budget was less than half of that. Did our wages double from 2000 to 2009?
Not to my knowledge, but you'll have to blame your corporate masters for that one. The state GDP went up by 61% from 2000 to 2008 (the last year that wasn't totally consumed with the worst economic crisis in 70 years), and I doubt anybody in Arizona saw an equivalent wage increase. The budget's been creeping, but only by about 2% of state GDP over nearly a decade.
Do you have a citation for that? As I recall, C copied its string handling (or, rather, lack of string handling) directly from BCPL.
OP wondered "who thought having \0 indicate end-of-string was a good idea" -- not who did it first. I don't know that Ritchie invented it, but he certainly thought it a good enough idea to use it in the new language he was developing.
Arguments to authority are bad enough...
Okay then, how about "there must be some reason that programmers have kept using it for 40+ years?" Ah, appeal to history, can't have that either... Look, I'm not arguing that null-terminated strings are a brilliant idea that should be preserved in gold as though handed down by the gods themselves. Just that it's entirely possible that there's some reason that the idea wasn't immediately cast on a scrap-heap, and that the OP should consider that prospect before claiming that the very many programmers who have used and endorsed it were a lot of gibbering clowns.
Argument to authority or history don't prove merit, but they are strongly suggestive of the possibility of merit--that the idea deserves well-thought-out criticism rather than outright dismissal.
Who's the fscking idiot who thought having \0 indicate end-of-string was a good idea?
Dennis Ritchie, actually. Have you won a Turing award lately?
Anyway, as to the substance, you'd prefer maybe we keep the length of a string in a byte character unsigned integer... (wait, is that big enough?) instead, then update it every time we change the length of the string at all? There's trade-offs for every design decision. This wasn't a stellar one, and brilliant people make mistakes, and fail to accurately predict the future. But really, I am highly skeptical that you have the standing to go throwing "fscking idiot" around at the way that things are implemented in what's essentially the closest thing a to a lingua franca in programming.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're charging your iphone daily, you're doin it wrong. Just turn down the screen brightness and the auto-lighting-adjust feature, and it'll run for three-five days on one charge (depending on your usage levels of course).
Faith tends to mean more of a gut reasoning to believe something, but it is still a form of trust.
One has faith in beliefs or ideas; one has trust in people (and possibly expectations). There's a substantial difference in the way they're employed in common use, even if the literal meanings are pretty close.
If you can't prove they are trolling, are they really trolling?
There's nothing to prove, they're trolling by definition -- they're going as strangers into places where their ideas are unwanted and derailing whatever conversations they find, resulting in flame-wars and needless noise and other antisocial situations. It doesn't matter how sincere their motives are; the behavior is trolling, whatever the intent, and whether they defend their positions later on or not.
Even science, even though it is evidence based, does rely on a certain amount of faith (that earlier theories are correct, that scientists in fields you're not familiar with are correct).
You're confusing faith and trust.
Not the same thing at all.
If I were to claim that I invented a machine that produced more energy than I put in, would I get a fair hearing?
Well, you could probably get a patent.
More seriously, that's a claim that's been examined literally thousands of times, and in all cases it's been mistaken. If you had any kind of new, compelling evidence that hasn't been debunked over and over before to justify your claim, then people might listen. Until then, looking at your special snowflake of a perpetual motion machine is a waste of the grownups' time.
But in any event, the point is that there's an objective standard by which we could actually evaluate your claim. If you used this machine and started making a fortune selling cheap electricity, I'd imagine you'd get some serious attention.
The complaint isn't "noes! no creashun aloudz on teh intarwebz!" This is about taking unsuspecting third parties and using them and hijacking their communication channels for your own educational benefit.
It's a bad thing to encourage people to go where their thoughts are superfluous and unwanted, and post unsolicited, unoriginal screeds. Their interlocutors aren't participating in the discussion for credit; why make test subjects of unsuspecting strangers?
When you have someone who is:
1) Not an active or regular participant in a community,
2) posting something that's been said a million times before, that
3) nobody there wants to read, and which is
4) not terribly on topic, with the result of
5) starting a little flame-war,
that person is a troll, no matter how sincere or innocuous their intentions. (If points 2-5 are significant enough, point 1 might not even matter.)
While I think this is kind of a creepy practice, I am less concerned with the impact on the students (who I agree probably agreed with the viewpoint to begin with) than I am with the impact on the level of discourse on the Internet at large.
I do not think it would be appropriate to tell a bunch of undergrads to post their theses on Hamlet or The Iliad all over the place, particularly in copypasta style; and I think making trollish behavior a part of a course's grade is, essentially, licensing harassment. Of course it would be poor form to require aspiring young biologists to post unimaginative atheistic screeds on unsuspecting interfaith websites, so this...? Witnessing isn't always welcome.
Apple understands that a sold iPhone is a sold iPhone
Nyet, tovarishch. Apple understands that a captive audience to a walled-garden content-delivery system is a continuing revenue stream that only compounds as their hardware business becomes more successful.
Obviously pressure from AT&T is a big part of all this (maybe even the major part), but Apple has skin in the game too. (Plus, that $400 iPhone subsidy from AT&T? You can bet that does not actually represent $400 in Apple's pocket.)
...and does anybody think these kids don't already know all the dirty words anyway?
Right. After that, it sucks in BOTH Office and OO.o.
This looks like an excellent reason to pin OO to 3.0.
Or at least, if you're going to be someone she looks up to, make sure she's someone you look up to, too. Keep focusing on mutual admiration, mutual respect. If she thinks you're a champion, then she becomes just a trophy, and those are kind of cold and metallic.
You ought to be smart enough to notice that what you are being taught is highly theoretical in nature. Universities aren't tech schools, they aren't teaching you specific skills needed for specific jobs, they are institutions of higher education and research.
If you're not in NYC, you wouldn't know this, but Monroe College pretty much is a vocational school. It advertises heavily on the subway regarding its vocational training programs, such as Criminal Justice, Allied Health (nursing), and, yes, IT management, and a lot of the advertisement focuses heavily on its career placement services. I think the woman in question is being an idiot, but it's better to view this as a false-advertising suit than anything else.
there is the federal money which is just a giant gold sink like those of an MMO
I'm afraid I don't really understand what this means.
A kid in his basement modifies a Wii and this poses "a significant health and safety risk"???
Maybe the modification is taking off the wrist strap.
Why can't everyone see that the legal system has historically, with very few exceptions, done nothing but work against the people, to benefit corporate interests? Why isn't it a crime for executives at AIG and other bailed out banks to receive huge bonuses at the expense of tax payers? Why is it a crime for some college kid to hack some game consoles? We're talking about billions vs hundreds of dollars.
FTFY.
It works this way because their billions buy Congressmen, while our hundreds pay them rent.
Not at all! If I can bet on the other guy winning, it's a sure thing!
Personally, I like the idea of doing earmarks specifically since it would go a long way toward showing just where the federal government's money goes.
Actually, it would go a very, very short way toward showing just where the federal government's money goes, because "member-directed projects constitute 2 percent of the federal budget."
Speaking of the wisdom of crowds P Why not bypass the legislators directly and give the money directly to the people. If you trust crowds and democracy, why not trust each person individually with money?
Why not have vouchers...?
Because vouchers can't buy things like scientific research, waterfront levees, or cleaning up polluted water sources.
Earmarks are a red herring, really a tiny fraction of our nation's expenditures. Many of them are stupid pet projects. Many of them are legitimate uses of money that could never be passed on a dedicated bill. Eliminating them would have minimal impact on the nation's budget, and definitely would not create the kind of minarchist paradise that people erroneously idealize.
nless you are a highly skilled worker, you actually take a cut in income when you move from benefits to a job! This is partly because British people who live below the poverty line still pay taxes when they work. Economically speaking, it actually isn't worth getting a job.
Sounds like an excellent case for an improved minimum-wage law and a more progressive tax system. Thanks for making it!
by issuance of bonds
It was pointed out elsewhere upthread that AZ is forbidden to do this, either by constitutional amendment or by law.
But what's really troubling is that you are utterly guessing at reasons why taxes should go up, when you do not have and I do not have a comparative budget to see what these outlays actually are.
That's no less troubling than your utterly guessing at why it's okay for spending to go down, when you do not have a comparative budget either. His error is the exact same as yours. But of course, you know your bias is right, so...
I'll be glad to. Get me a site with actual detailed figures.
Better yet, tell me exactly what you were planning to cut, since you seem so intimately familiar with exactly how much it should cost to accomplish the necessary, life-improving functions of government.
Congrats. You have effectively summarized the article.
Looks like the Feds should just lend the money to AZ directly, with repayment due when the recession turns around, with minor interest to cover the cost of lending.
Actually, the Feds should just give the money to AZ directly. It's what they were doing, before they cut a ton of payments to the states as a first (disastrous) reaction to the economic crisis.
Okay, I'm looking at your link--all of the following is per your own source of information (which appears to be affiliated with the National Taxpayer's Union, a radical anti-tax, anti-government advocacy group).
6 state agencies account for 91 percent of state spending: K-12 education 42 percent, Medicaid program 14 percent, universities 11 percent, corrections 10 percent, department of economic security 8 percent, department of health services 6 percent, and other 9 percent.
(In case anyone was wondering, the Department of Economic Security would be Child Welfare Services (food for starving kids), Child Protective Services (foster care), and employment/unemployment services (which is where you go when you get laid off, which I hear has been happening to a lot of people lately).)
So, which of these is some "feel-good program that doesn't work?" Were you hoping to stop educating children, quit subsidizing seniors' health care, cut off community colleges, understaff your jails...?
Keep in mind we haven't even yet talked about roads, highway maintenance, animal control, police, fire departments, water, and I suppose state parks. 9% will only go so far.
What were you planning to cut?
In 2009 the State Budget is $55 billion dollars. In 2000, the State Budget was less than half of that. Did our wages double from 2000 to 2009?
Not to my knowledge, but you'll have to blame your corporate masters for that one. The state GDP went up by 61% from 2000 to 2008 (the last year that wasn't totally consumed with the worst economic crisis in 70 years), and I doubt anybody in Arizona saw an equivalent wage increase. The budget's been creeping, but only by about 2% of state GDP over nearly a decade.
Do you have a citation for that? As I recall, C copied its string handling (or, rather, lack of string handling) directly from BCPL.
OP wondered "who thought having \0 indicate end-of-string was a good idea" -- not who did it first. I don't know that Ritchie invented it, but he certainly thought it a good enough idea to use it in the new language he was developing.
Arguments to authority are bad enough...
Okay then, how about "there must be some reason that programmers have kept using it for 40+ years?" Ah, appeal to history, can't have that either... Look, I'm not arguing that null-terminated strings are a brilliant idea that should be preserved in gold as though handed down by the gods themselves. Just that it's entirely possible that there's some reason that the idea wasn't immediately cast on a scrap-heap, and that the OP should consider that prospect before claiming that the very many programmers who have used and endorsed it were a lot of gibbering clowns.
Argument to authority or history don't prove merit, but they are strongly suggestive of the possibility of merit--that the idea deserves well-thought-out criticism rather than outright dismissal.
Who's the fscking idiot who thought having \0 indicate end-of-string was a good idea?
Dennis Ritchie, actually. Have you won a Turing award lately?
Anyway, as to the substance, you'd prefer maybe we keep the length of a string in a byte character unsigned integer... (wait, is that big enough?) instead, then update it every time we change the length of the string at all? There's trade-offs for every design decision. This wasn't a stellar one, and brilliant people make mistakes, and fail to accurately predict the future. But really, I am highly skeptical that you have the standing to go throwing "fscking idiot" around at the way that things are implemented in what's essentially the closest thing a to a lingua franca in programming.