Studies have shown a negative correlation between the availability of porn and rape cases.
Citation please. And not because I doubt you. I've heard about this before, even remember reading it somewhere once. But googling "rape" and "porn" mysteriously doesn't seem to get me to any of those studies...
Heinlein is a bit of a perv, but I like some of his stuff. The biggest problem I have with Clarke is how utterly clueless he was once you stepped outside of his discipline, especially with just about anything computer related. Stephenson can get annoying at times, but his biggest problem is winding down a plot.
Forgot to mention Zelazny in the original. Love Zelazny.
Eddings was okay when I had only read a little bit of his stuff, but the more I read the more I found the plots and characters to be copies of plots and characters from his earlier works. He (or is it technically they? His wife is credited as a co-author now IIRC) really just kept telling the same story over and over again.
It'd be nice if I could make it re-list by weighting the votes.
I like Vernor Vinge, Neil Gaiman, Bujold, George RR Martin, and Neal Stephenson.
I don't like Kim Stanley Robinson, Anne McCaffrey, David Eddings, Dan Simmons, or Arthur C. Clarke (blasphemy! I know!)
If you feel the opposite, kudos to you, but don't complain, my idea will work for you too.
I'd love to be able to have it weigh the votes of the people who liked the same stuff as me more heavily and the people who like the stuff I don't like less heavily and then see what the new top 100 looks like, and maybe pick out the highest placed book/series that I haven't already read from the new list.
This is completely out of touch with the real world. Almost nobody Googles such things and most people don't have friends who they can ask about such things. When people have a problem with their mobile device, they call their operator.
So... since you work at a help desk, you're basing this off of the fact that nobody calls you saying "Hey, just wanted to let you know I had this problem but I found the answer on Google!" ?
You are the first person I ever run into that just does not care.
I'm in that category (ish). I have flashblock installed, and that's about it. It doesn't remove all the ads, but it tends to stop the most irritating ones. The rest... I just don't care about.
No, there's not. There is no "interpretation" of the constitution.
Of course there is. One person reads it, and understands it to mean one thing. Another person reads it, and understands it to mean something different and incompatible with the first person's understanding. Clearly one of them is wrong. No matter how direct and literal you strive to be in writing a document, there are always going to be corner cases where the intent is not obvious nor universally seen as one and only one way.
Tell your current company about the offer, and see if you get a counter-offer.
(and if they don't counter, you know how you're valued. Leave.)
My own policy for that is unless the guy is one of a handful of people in the world who can do the job, don't make counter offers. Money can be a factor, but it's rarely the sole reason someone is looking to leave, and for the ones who it IS the sole reason, they'll usually approach you about the situation before looking elsewhere. For everyone else, it's a combination of things like travel time, office politics, what they get to work on, etc. in addition to money. The money is the only easily fixable item on the list, and if they're not happy with the rest, giving them more money isn't going to fix it.
There will always be exceptions and you handle each case as it comes to you, but the situations where making a counter offer is a good idea are few and far between.
If someone who is offended can require a correction be made without comment, then surely anyone else can be offended by the correction and have it reverted - without comment.
Not quite that simple to get around. It has to be something about you that you find offensive. It doesn't matter if you find something written about someone else offensive (at least as far as this law is concerned anyway).
It's not that anyone thinks its impossible for life to from under other conditions, but that we do know of one set of conditions that worked. Plus, I always thought habitable meant habitable for humans.
For another, if your favorite NFL team is playing in this week's Monday Night Football, then this week's game is off limits to you unless you have ESPN and all the other channels bundled with it.
If it's a local team, it'll be broadcast on a free channel in addition to ESPN. If it's not a local team, then unless they're playing in the Sunday night game it's a crapshoot as to whether or not you'll see that team anyway without some kind of sports package.
I can't remember anymore whether I could just spot it because I've seen it before or because I've done enough C in my life that I can translate it instantly. The problems I see with it are: 1. The '=' you mentioned. Every class I ever took that involved C made a point of stressing the most common C bugs, of which using '=' when you should have used '==' in a if or while is usually one of the big ones. 2. It does everything at once. I know it's concise, and I know that a veteran should be able to spot it trivially. But it still looks icky to me. 3. The while loop is empty. The ';' at the end of the loop means it has no body, it's doing all the work in the condition. That's rare enough to throw people off. I used to make sure I put empty { } and/or a comment to point out the empty body, lest one of my less capable colleagues try to "fix" it. 4. What the AC pointed out, that having src = dst is backwards from what those names imply. Of course that's just because the original poster transposed them and isn't really a problem with the concept itself.
None of these things make it wrong, but they do make it tougher for some coders to read what's going on. The maintainability of your code isn't just about what you can see and understand, but what everyone on your team can see and understand.
Was William B. Jones's "Assembly Language for the IBM PC family"
While I don't do assembly at all professionally, after reading through this one it made me wish the author had written stuff on some other languages too.
And also, my manager very clearly ENCOURAGED ME TO BREAK THE LAW as a driver. There was nothing subtle about it. He pointed out streets that were known to have low or no traffic enforcement, and of course again I'd like to point out that 30 minutes or free meant that I the driver would pay $10 or $20 out of my own pocket if I couldn't get it there on time.
Dominos had to stop offering the 30 minute guarantee because they kept getting sued by people who were injured by their delivery guys trying to make the 30 minute window.
You may not be aware that Sprint was set to buy T-Mobile for $10B less than AT&T. How could T-Mobile be worth more to AT&T unless they intended to engage in anticompetitive behavior?
Maybe AT&T thought that Sprint was getting T-Mobile at a bargain? Not saying that's the case, but the fact that AT&T was willing to pay more than Sprint to acquire T-Mobile doesn't really imply anything by itself.
Slashdot Mirror
so please Hammer, don't hurt them.
Studies have shown a negative correlation between the availability of porn and rape cases.
Citation please. And not because I doubt you. I've heard about this before, even remember reading it somewhere once. But googling "rape" and "porn" mysteriously doesn't seem to get me to any of those studies...
Heinlein is a bit of a perv, but I like some of his stuff. The biggest problem I have with Clarke is how utterly clueless he was once you stepped outside of his discipline, especially with just about anything computer related. Stephenson can get annoying at times, but his biggest problem is winding down a plot.
Forgot to mention Zelazny in the original. Love Zelazny.
Eddings was okay when I had only read a little bit of his stuff, but the more I read the more I found the plots and characters to be copies of plots and characters from his earlier works. He (or is it technically they? His wife is credited as a co-author now IIRC) really just kept telling the same story over and over again.
It'd be nice if I could make it re-list by weighting the votes.
I like Vernor Vinge, Neil Gaiman, Bujold, George RR Martin, and Neal Stephenson.
I don't like Kim Stanley Robinson, Anne McCaffrey, David Eddings, Dan Simmons, or Arthur C. Clarke (blasphemy! I know!)
If you feel the opposite, kudos to you, but don't complain, my idea will work for you too.
I'd love to be able to have it weigh the votes of the people who liked the same stuff as me more heavily and the people who like the stuff I don't like less heavily and then see what the new top 100 looks like, and maybe pick out the highest placed book/series that I haven't already read from the new list.
Probably a reference to the decidedly soporific nature of their music.
This is completely out of touch with the real world. Almost nobody Googles such things and most people don't have friends who they can ask about such things. When people have a problem with their mobile device, they call their operator.
So... since you work at a help desk, you're basing this off of the fact that nobody calls you saying "Hey, just wanted to let you know I had this problem but I found the answer on Google!" ?
You are the first person I ever run into that just does not care.
I'm in that category (ish). I have flashblock installed, and that's about it. It doesn't remove all the ads, but it tends to stop the most irritating ones. The rest... I just don't care about.
No, there's not. There is no "interpretation" of the constitution.
Of course there is. One person reads it, and understands it to mean one thing. Another person reads it, and understands it to mean something different and incompatible with the first person's understanding. Clearly one of them is wrong. No matter how direct and literal you strive to be in writing a document, there are always going to be corner cases where the intent is not obvious nor universally seen as one and only one way.
Tell your current company about the offer, and see if you get a counter-offer.
(and if they don't counter, you know how you're valued. Leave.)
My own policy for that is unless the guy is one of a handful of people in the world who can do the job, don't make counter offers. Money can be a factor, but it's rarely the sole reason someone is looking to leave, and for the ones who it IS the sole reason, they'll usually approach you about the situation before looking elsewhere. For everyone else, it's a combination of things like travel time, office politics, what they get to work on, etc. in addition to money. The money is the only easily fixable item on the list, and if they're not happy with the rest, giving them more money isn't going to fix it.
There will always be exceptions and you handle each case as it comes to you, but the situations where making a counter offer is a good idea are few and far between.
If someone who is offended can require a correction be made without comment, then surely anyone else can be offended by the correction and have it reverted - without comment.
Not quite that simple to get around. It has to be something about you that you find offensive. It doesn't matter if you find something written about someone else offensive (at least as far as this law is concerned anyway).
After seeing Qaddafi spelled 20 different ways in the news, I checked the wikipedia page for him and found this section
I then wrote this dinky perl script. It generates a few illegal combinations, but it's still fun.
my @p1 = qw(Q G Gh K Kh);
my @p2 = qw(a e u);
my @p3 = qw(d dh dd ddh dhdh dth th zz);
my @p4 = qw(a);
my @p5 = qw(f ff);
my @p6 = qw(i y);
my @p = (\@p1,\@p2,\@p3,\@p4,\@p5,\@p6);
my $name = ""; .= $phen;
foreach my $arr (@p) {
my @a = @{$arr};
my $num = int(rand(scalar(@a)));
my $phen = $a[$num];
$name
}
print $name . "\n";
That's the whole "as we know it" part.
It's not that anyone thinks its impossible for life to from under other conditions, but that we do know of one set of conditions that worked. Plus, I always thought habitable meant habitable for humans.
It's okay to be a little dufferent sometimes.
For another, if your favorite NFL team is playing in this week's Monday Night Football, then this week's game is off limits to you unless you have ESPN and all the other channels bundled with it.
If it's a local team, it'll be broadcast on a free channel in addition to ESPN. If it's not a local team, then unless they're playing in the Sunday night game it's a crapshoot as to whether or not you'll see that team anyway without some kind of sports package.
The quantum summary quantumly mentions many quantum uses of the word quantum.
And for some filler, maybe they'll make a quantum grill to quantum barbecue quantum burgers and quantum hot dogs.
All glory to the hypnoribbon!
Weirdly it seems to be included in every single random sampling of earths, which might be skewing your averages.
FWIW, the difference between the 1.8 and 1.9 versions is effectively a major version change despite not being numbered that way.
I can't remember anymore whether I could just spot it because I've seen it before or because I've done enough C in my life that I can translate it instantly. The problems I see with it are:
1. The '=' you mentioned. Every class I ever took that involved C made a point of stressing the most common C bugs, of which using '=' when you should have used '==' in a if or while is usually one of the big ones.
2. It does everything at once. I know it's concise, and I know that a veteran should be able to spot it trivially. But it still looks icky to me.
3. The while loop is empty. The ';' at the end of the loop means it has no body, it's doing all the work in the condition. That's rare enough to throw people off. I used to make sure I put empty { } and/or a comment to point out the empty body, lest one of my less capable colleagues try to "fix" it.
4. What the AC pointed out, that having src = dst is backwards from what those names imply. Of course that's just because the original poster transposed them and isn't really a problem with the concept itself.
None of these things make it wrong, but they do make it tougher for some coders to read what's going on. The maintainability of your code isn't just about what you can see and understand, but what everyone on your team can see and understand.
Hah!
Amendment:
It's a confusing (in several ways) to implement strcpy().
Was William B. Jones's "Assembly Language for the IBM PC family"
While I don't do assembly at all professionally, after reading through this one it made me wish the author had written stuff on some other languages too.
"while (*src++ = *dst++) ;" is also missing an "=".
It has exactly as many "=" as it needs.
It's a way to code strcpy().
And also, my manager very clearly ENCOURAGED ME TO BREAK THE LAW as a driver. There was nothing subtle about it. He pointed out streets that were known to have low or no traffic enforcement, and of course again I'd like to point out that 30 minutes or free meant that I the driver would pay $10 or $20 out of my own pocket if I couldn't get it there on time.
Dominos had to stop offering the 30 minute guarantee because they kept getting sued by people who were injured by their delivery guys trying to make the 30 minute window.
Seriously. He's only got beer in there once.
You may not be aware that Sprint was set to buy T-Mobile for $10B less than AT&T. How could T-Mobile be worth more to AT&T unless they intended to engage in anticompetitive behavior?
Maybe AT&T thought that Sprint was getting T-Mobile at a bargain? Not saying that's the case, but the fact that AT&T was willing to pay more than Sprint to acquire T-Mobile doesn't really imply anything by itself.