Drivers don't have headphones on; they can hear other things. I don't even think people should run with headphones on. When I pass them while running, I can tell they don't know I'm there.
What the poster meant is that the XBoxes are sold at a loss. That is, they sell them for less than what it costs to make them. They do this because the XBox is a medium - they make money on the games for the XBox. It's similar to razors, ink for printers, and as far as I can tell, giving away cell phones.
That's the idea, anyway. I've heard people throw that "sold at a loss" notion about for several consoles, but I've yet to see it documented anywhere. It's a sound rationale, though.
What is gained from using a computer in a classroom? If you can't answer that question, then don't do it. There are plenty of good uses for computers as resources for the course (writing papers, research, email listservs, class messageboards), but having every student on a computer during class time sounds like it would take away from teaching English.
For every thing you come up with, ask yourself if that could just as easily be done outside of class - the blogging suggestion does not need to be done during class time. The computers will be a distraction. I think they will be more likely to hinder teaching than help it.
If a nation enforces right to reply in regard to media such as newspapers, radio and television, why should it not also enforce right to reply in other media?
I am unaware of any such enforcement of right of reply in newspapers, radio and television. Do European countries have that?
Today, very few people care about being elegant (a certain John Carmack being an exception, maybe) - they just throw another GB of RAM and 200 MHz more.
Back this up, please. It's really easy to make a blanket statement like that - people don't care about blah blah blah these days, they just blah blah blah. I want to know what leads you to that conclusion.
Way back in my journalism class in high school, we learned that if a libel suit is brought against you, and the person bringing the suit is a "public figure" (and this women certainly is), that they had to prove that there was malice. That is, you intended some harm to come to the person. (For non-public figures, you only have to show that the information is false.)
Has something changed? Are we rewriting the libel laws for the internet?
So, life on Mars? You bet some microbes are doing just fine there, and who knows what else.
Uh, not so fast. Until we've found evidence of life, it is reckless to declare that it exists on Mars. The truth is that we really don't know how rare or prevalent life is in the universe. Sure, people have lots of opinions, but there is very little data on the matter.
One of things that makes older more mature languages like Common Lisp (and perhaps Smalltalk) nice to work with is a feeling of both having really solid implementations and not breaking legacy code.
There's a causal relationship there. Java is a relatively new language. It's going to take a while before they stop making changes to it.
This would apply if American McGee went after them, but that's not the case. I think it should fall under fair use, but it looks like legal precedent goes the other way.
Slashdot Mirror
Either a troll or very ignorant. I hope it's a troll.
Hmm. Clever. That's vacuously true.
You should have added weight lifting of some sort. Increading your muscle mass increases the number of calories you burn when you're not active.
You could exercise regularly. Just a thought.
Drivers don't have headphones on; they can hear other things. I don't even think people should run with headphones on. When I pass them while running, I can tell they don't know I'm there.
Oh, well that excuses genocide.
What the poster meant is that the XBoxes are sold at a loss. That is, they sell them for less than what it costs to make them. They do this because the XBox is a medium - they make money on the games for the XBox. It's similar to razors, ink for printers, and as far as I can tell, giving away cell phones.
That's the idea, anyway. I've heard people throw that "sold at a loss" notion about for several consoles, but I've yet to see it documented anywhere. It's a sound rationale, though.
Why care? Because some people thought it would be fun. What's wrong with that?
What is gained from using a computer in a classroom? If you can't answer that question, then don't do it. There are plenty of good uses for computers as resources for the course (writing papers, research, email listservs, class messageboards), but having every student on a computer during class time sounds like it would take away from teaching English.
For every thing you come up with, ask yourself if that could just as easily be done outside of class - the blogging suggestion does not need to be done during class time. The computers will be a distraction. I think they will be more likely to hinder teaching than help it.
So what aspects of Java's design are deeply fucked?
If a nation enforces right to reply in regard to media such as newspapers, radio and television, why should it not also enforce right to reply in other media?
I am unaware of any such enforcement of right of reply in newspapers, radio and television. Do European countries have that?
Today, very few people care about being elegant (a certain John Carmack being an exception, maybe) - they just throw another GB of RAM and 200 MHz more.
Back this up, please. It's really easy to make a blanket statement like that - people don't care about blah blah blah these days, they just blah blah blah. I want to know what leads you to that conclusion.
Tough talk from someone who doesn't have to pony up the money or the time.
Way back in my journalism class in high school, we learned that if a libel suit is brought against you, and the person bringing the suit is a "public figure" (and this women certainly is), that they had to prove that there was malice. That is, you intended some harm to come to the person. (For non-public figures, you only have to show that the information is false.)
Has something changed? Are we rewriting the libel laws for the internet?
So, life on Mars? You bet some microbes are doing just fine there, and who knows what else.
Uh, not so fast. Until we've found evidence of life, it is reckless to declare that it exists on Mars. The truth is that we really don't know how rare or prevalent life is in the universe. Sure, people have lots of opinions, but there is very little data on the matter.
Check out FC++. It's funcitonal programming in C++. The syntax can be awkward, but it's interesting.
Who modded a troll this high?
See, what you do is define the compiler's behavior to be the correct behavior.
Redefining the language to better meet the problem is one of the hallmarks of good (artistic) programming.
Which is not the same as good programming practices in general.
One of things that makes older more mature languages like Common Lisp (and perhaps Smalltalk) nice to work with is a feeling of both having really solid implementations and not breaking legacy code.
There's a causal relationship there. Java is a relatively new language. It's going to take a while before they stop making changes to it.
You were a child. Being naive and simple comes with the package.
Then remember how that part of your childhood died when you stumbled on that dirty piece of fanart based on it?
Well, no. My sensibilities aren't that fragile. Why, did this happen to you?
My attitude was screw the AP credit, take the course at college, learn it better than you did in high school and get an A.
Please. It's not your ass on the line. Stop posturing.
This would apply if American McGee went after them, but that's not the case. I think it should fall under fair use, but it looks like legal precedent goes the other way.