When your IP is 192.168.1.100, it's not exactly challenging to find the gateway...
Perhaps a firewall between the device and the network that won't let the device anywhere BUT the NAS. Might require a secondary WiFi network, if WiFi is involved.
Of course, then you might see something like the following on the display:
"Sorry, presently unable to establish a connection to the net. Please correct the problem in order to continue using this device. Click here to retry connecting."
Secondly, the specific concern alluded to in TFS is why one of the most important things the tech community today could accomplish is to achieve a solid voice-input capability that runs entirely locally (and is not user specific or require particular training out of the box or out of the compiler.)
Alexa, Amazon's commercial voice savant, sends very word you speak "to the cloud" which is, of course a "third party" (and potentially, a 4th, 5th... Nth party.)
Mycroft, the "open" voice savant, holding so much promise because it doesn't use Amazon's excreble model of "you must provide anticipated result phrases for everything you want to do, and set up and maintain (and probably buy) a secure server", wraps that promise in... you guessed it. Sends everything you say to "the cloud."
Both suffer from "if the net is down, I become a deaf idiot" syndrome as a side effect of the cloudy thinking that went into their design.
The day I get a real "can listen and produce cleartext locally" application (or device) is the day my home (and car, and boat) gain significant automation.
I know this issue doesn't concern a lot of people, particularly young people. The net is "always there" and privacy "WTF is privacy?"... but I think that's a function of them being young and not really understanding either the depths that some people will sink to, or the relative fragility of the network. After they've been stepped on enough, and lost their connections enough, I suspect they'll modify their stances somewhat.
I do have a 12v charger that's meant to charge this phone in a vehicle. However, with the larger battery in the phone, the car charger doesn't get the job done. I've not found a charger for the car that can handle the phone's aftermarket battery. Keep hoping to find one, though. Know of any?
They are. I have a 15000 mAh unit; two, 2.4 ampere outputs. Wouldn't be without it, can't really, at least unless the companies making the cellphones stop putting too-small batteries in them. last weekend I drove five hours, during about 3 of which we were either completely out of contact or only in distant contact with a cell tower (Montana... lots and lots of empty space.) When we left the city, my phone was at 25%. I kept the phone (a Galaxy Note III with an aftermarket "big" battery that's good for about 48 hours here, where we're within about 4 miles of a cell tower) plugged into the external unit for the entire trip, and when we got home, the phone was at 100% and the external unit at 45%, which allowed for both charging it and running it.
Really, won't even consider being without that external unit. As for a pager... no. Just no.
I actively try not to, as opposed to wallowing in it the way the superstitious and religious do, which I find at turns amusing and sad, not that it matters.
And why do you think you need to help?
I don't. Not sure what you're talking about there. You might want to elaborate.
and who are you to "improve"?
Hmmm. I pointed out a cause and a consequence, along with one possible factor that can reduce the cause, and thus, perhaps, the consequence. I have no idea how you got from that to where you seem to be now.
If someone feels happy because he/she believes one plus one is three, who are you to say it's wrong?
Oh, it's not me that says its wrong. It's the universe that says it's wrong. If you think one plus one is three, that's perfectly fine with me. I don't require that anyone in particular try to actually grasp objective reality other than myself. I didn't even require that of my kids.
If pursuit of happiness is the goal, there is nothing that states that one must follow the path of science.
I completely agree. If jumping off a cliff makes you happy, or self flagellation does, or maintaining that one plus one is three does... awesome. You go, fella.:)
It's all about personal choice. The way I see it, you, and anyone else for that matter, should be perfectly free to make any choice you like as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberties of others, or otherwise cause harm to a non-consenting, and/or uninformed person or persons. That's my entire metric, right there, aside from animal cruelty issues, which I regard similarly.
It doesn't change anything I said, though. Doing what you want in pursuit of whatever it is you want to pursue is a whole 'nuther thing than having a clue about what you're doing.
Then why is the CEO still there? Clearly, mistakes that cost karge amounts of money do not cause dismissal at Yahoo. They do, of course, often cause weaker performance, as we have seen in Yahoo's recent scramble to unload the various enterprises they have royally screwed up.
Like, why is the universe the way it is and science won't answer that.
Science doesn't answer "Why did Santa Claus bring me a sweater instead of a choo-choo train?", either. Because the question is formulated such that it isn't a valid question. Just as the questions that philosophy (and its retarded offspring, religion) likes to say "science can't answer" (as opposed to science hasn't answered yet) are.
"Why is the universe here" is no more meaningful than "why did santa (do anything)." Both assume facts not in evidence: For the former, that there is a why (no evidence for this whatsoever); while for the latter, it assumes there is a santa (no evidence for this whatsoever, either.) In the scientific sense, neither one is a meaningful question. In the philosophical sense, all those questions do is reveal large domains of "philosophical thinking" as intellectually bankrupt.
Even very intelligent people are often variously naive, gullible, uninformed, misinformed, fearful, or simply lack critical thinking skills (as opposed to potental ability.) Or various combinations thereof. Less intelligent people, more so, and more often. All of these people are vulnerable to failing to spot the invalid posits in many "philosophical" questions without a significant amount of help. And that help is often rejected, as it is a common human failing to not be at all willing to change anything that might affect one's perception of one's self in relation to everything else.
Until or unless something can be done to improve both the overall level of human intelligence, along with considerably better education, we're going to be stuck with these kinds of invalid questions and the people that disadvantage others by inserting them into the public mindset as if they were valid.
There are myriad examples of this stuff out there. Taken from the net just now, located in only a few seconds:
"Crystal Healing Stones Bring Healing Energy To Your Health, Wealth, Spirit, Emotions and Soul."
"Jesus loves you."
"One day we will meet again on the rainbow bridge."
"God created the world for His pleasure and our good."
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"The beauty of the principle of similars is that it not only initiates a healing response, but it encourages a respect for the body's wisdom."
...just because someone can (or did) phrase something in the form of a question (or an answer), doesn't mean something worthwhile has been accomplished. Quite often all it does is waste resources and screw people up. Religion being the front-and-center poster child for exactly that.
tl;dr: Much of philosophy is nonsense; all of religion is nonsense; the general intellectual level is low; people resist change.
The enterprise linked in TFS is clearly for beginners. Beginners tend to be younger. Video is pretty much the preferred information delivery method (on the receiving end) for recent generations. The majority does not gravitate towards reading (and perhaps that accounts for why the writing problem is so prevalent as well.)
If you're working at a professional level, you can already prepare good documentation, and will, whenever it's called for. You may even have developed your own toolchain for doing so.
If you can't prepare good documentation when it is needed, or won't, but think you're working at a professional level... you're wrong.:)
What exactly would another CEO have done differently?
From the perspective of a long-time and fairly active flickr user, one thing they could have done was given the users the features they have constantly been asking for, instead of constant "UX" changes that (a) no one wanted and (b) removed useful features.
From the perspective of a groups user, bringing the groups up to, oh, say, the 2005 level of message display and convenience might have done something for them. It would have been nice not to have to wade through pages-long dumps of people's CSS, and to have some kind of rational quoting mechanism, too.
Their email system is junk. They could simply have had someone write them a decent email client. Although I have to say, Google hasn't got one either, so that appears to be a more general failure of vision than just a Yahoo-centric problem.
I'm not sure how others feel about this, but when Yahoo tossed out the curated tree of sites and replaced it with just another clumsy search along the lines of Google's, I stopped using them to find anything. Google, which has the best search I've found so far, is awful compared to a decently curated list, which, for a while anyway, was a reasonable description of Yahoo's offering. Yahoo failed to give that effort the resources it needed, and consequently fell so far behind in keeping it up to date it became fossilized, while also attempting to monetize it in a way that was both inherently offensive and reduced its value via link-buying (much as Google has done with search)
I still go to DMOZ for many things instead of Google, because Google is nothing less than inundated with irrelevance. The problem with Google's search is that "popularity" is the underlying metric, whereas what I'm typically looking for is quality -- whereas "popularity" is the metric that reliably retrieves mediocrity. Once you get through the advertising spam, of course.
Speaking of popular, Yahoo's early bought-it property Geocities was a hive of... well, you know. But it was also 10+ million web pages that they just tossed in the garbage. I doubt that earned them any friends. At all. The stats had Geocities as the 3rd most-visited place on the web originally; good job wasting that opportunity.
And that's just what I know about. With all of the services Yahoo has offered over the years, I'm sure there were (and are) other visible points of weakness that could have been addressed. For the services I have used, not one of them was ever given the time and resources they needed to extend their potential in even the most obvious ways.
What I see here is a company that really doesn't know what its doing and doesn't pay attention to its customer input. All they do is in the crudest and ham-handed way possible, take whatever they have and try to monetize it no matter what that does to the user's experience, resources, and data. Of course you want to monetize things, but you have to monetize things that have value to the user, and if you don't pay attention to the latter, why, you could end up having to "spin off" your stuff because with all your user-abusive monetizing in place, you don't end up with, you know, users.
If the USA joins the other countries in the universe, to become a gun-free society
Right now, there are more firearms (and also, more weapons of other types, such as knives and bats) in the USA than there are people. The idea that the US would become a "gun free society" is completely without any hope of bearing fruit at our current level of technology.
Can I see you out walking with your child and a gun strapped to your body, when a terrorist attacks?
It isn't in any way an abhorrent idea to me. But I no more worry about being a victim of a terrorist attack or gun violence in general than I do of being struck by lightning. However, I do worry about my fellow citizens becoming overly and immediately paranoid at the sight of a firearm due to the constant droning of the hysterics in their ears, so I don't carry, although I could, legally speaking.
Are you going to be a first responder?
No. Not to lightning strikes or car accidents or heart attacks, either. But if I'm there during the incident, yes, certainly I'd do what I could.
The appropriate responses are those made by the people at the scene, and the government's subsequent actions, presuming they are constitutionally authorized. I am all for immediate, extremely harsh and highly escalated direct response(s) by any injured or threatened party. Someone brandishes a weapon at me or my family and I manage to gain control of the situation, they will have completely obviated any inclination on my part to treat them as human beings.
And what will you do if you kill the innocent bystander?
If I was carrying a firearm (I don't, I'm simply not worried, because I can do math and recognize hysteria when I hear it), and if I was present at a terrorist attack (highly, highly unlikely), and I killed a bystander (also unlikely, highly unlikely in fact as I am an expert with a pistol, but...) I'd regret it, of course. It would certainly be accidental, as opposed to the (presumably) mass killing that inspired me to draw in the first place, so in terms of should I or should I not draw and fire if carrying and present at a terrorist attack, clearly, I should, and just as clearly, the responsibility for the accident lies with those who created the incident in the first place, so I'd be able to sleep all right. As it happens, I have some related experience, just not with firearms, so I know what my actual reactions are in such a matter.
At the time of the constitution, there was a fear of a violent overthrow of the government by government militia.
No. The militia was the people. The government was the government. Two entirely separate entities. And there wasn't so much a fear of violent overthrow of government by the people (who were, and remain today, the militia), there was intent and legally sanctioned capability in the very paperwork that authorized the government to do so if it got out of hand. And, in fact, that is basically what happened to ol' king George III.
Today the militia has tanks, drones planes, bombs and missiles.
No, the military, which is to say, the government's standing armed forces, has those things. The militia (us, the citizens) variously have knives, small firearms, marital arts training, the ability to cobble up IEDs and so forth.
Can you protect yourself from your own army with a paltry hand gun or rifle?
One on one, clearly not. However, that's not the issue and has never been the issue. People die in armed conflicts. Generally everyone who dies in a conflict of any nature on either side has been overwhelmed by either the opposition's firepower, strategy, tactics, or numbers, most often a combination of these.
The only issue actually related to your question is, can a
It was assembler first. Then FORTRAN and BASIC and assembler. Then assembler and C. Then C and Perl. Then C and Python.
It's been C and Python ever since.
The shift from assembler was forced on me because the underlying platforms began to diverge; C took care of that, while remaining low level enough not to suffer the slings and arrows of clunk, lethargy, and various types of safety nets of a hoop-jumping nature.
Perl put a moderate amount of readily accessible speed and a great deal of power on the table. That was a huge step forward and renewed my interest in interpreted languages.
Python took that speed and power and added after-the-fact comprehensibility, a much better syntax, and a brace-free indented coding style that I found very attractive and readable, which in turn enhanced the power I was able to effectively leverage considerably.
Since about 2002, when I first began seriously developing in Python 2, I have been watching for a similar gain in comprehensibility, convenience and so on as was brought to me by Python, over Perl. Nothing I've seen thus far has come even close.
As for c, it's been flat-out unbeatable at the low-level for me in my post-assembler phase. I can't imagine something that would be both as close to the metal, and yet as amenable to high level concept implementation. I'd love to see something like that, but so far, the closest attempt, C++, has not come all that close for me. Objects with built-in methods are very easily (and much more efficiently) done in c. Classes themselves are nice-ish, but certainly they are not required. Organization of functionality is what they really do for most people, but I am already pretty organized, so C++ classes don't offer me much there (in fact, sometimes C++ classes get in my way.) Most of the rest of C++ is of little interest to me.
I'm always curious. C++, Objective C, C#, Go, Swift, Java... these kind of things attract my attention like a bee to pollen. But so far... Python 2 and C remain -- by far -- the most attractive and certainly the only ones in daily use.
I understand the urge to make a new language. I've felt it and succumbed to it myself. Not once, but several times. No general purpose languages, but specialized things like macro languages and KB languages and ray tracing languages and PCB layout languages. I really, truly appreciate that so many people have actually gone ahead and created general purpose languages and made them widely and freely available. Lots of people have different tastes and interests as compared to mine, and all of those languages being out there keeps everyone thinking and the underlying tech churning in such a way as to produce lots and lots of useful things.
Personally speaking, though, it's been about 13 years since anything in this area caught my interest to the point where I actually wanted to use it in production. I would like that to happen. But honestly, barring something that writes good code for me (not in the cards quite yet), I have a lot of trouble with the idea that with all these people thinking about computer language concepts over those years, that there are many (or any!) concepts left that would result in such an advance.
C (in my case) has an advantage in that for the various concepts I've really liked in other languages, I've built those facilities in C so I have ultra fast and lean instances of those particular functionalities. List handling; dictionaries; threading; regular expression handling; PostgreSQL and SQLite interfaces; memory management; input sanitization; etc. At this point, if I like a language concept, I'm more likely to implement it so I can have it available in C than I am to adopt the language that carries it.
Python... I really, really like Python 2. The only thing I don't like about it is the inability to extend a built-in class, for instance string handling. Sub-classing doesn't help when every instance of a subclassed-string utilizes the built-in class, because inevitably, the bui
If having things stuck in orifices is your particular phobia, then either see to it that things aren't stuck in your orifices, or don't stick anything in anyone else's orifices, or hey, go for the gold and don't do either one. Hopefully, you'll be fortunate enough that no evil person will force you not to be able to make these choices for yourself, the way moralizing morons try to make other people's personal and consensual choices for them.
As for leaving body fluids, protip: Don't kiss anyone. Ever. Also, sneezing... you're going to need a mask, I'm afraid. Also, doctors. They're quite prone to sticking things in orifices. Sometimes leaving things there, too. Sometimes they make their own holes in people and leave things there. Sometimes they take things away! In fact, I haven't been anywhere near my gall bladder since the 1990's... However, it was consensual, so there's that. And they gave me the stones, so at least I have a memento.
Seriously. It's none of my, or your, business what choices some random person X makes in regard to what they do with, or to, or allow to be done to, their own body, and/or that of (a) consenting partner(s.) As soon as you or I or anyone else decides that what we think about something is to be the defining element for other people's personal and consensual choices, we've become oppressive tyrants deserving of nothing but being roundly ignored.
Body cavity searches: A body cavity search is not consensual. You should roll that around in your head a few times, see if you can work out why coercively intruding into a body cavity without someone actually inviting you to do so is different than agreeing with someone that in return for (love, marriage, money, goods, services, shelter, offspring, just plain fun, or any combination of the foregoing), you're up for it.
We should be free, of course, to make decisions about these things for ourselves. And to say what we think about anything and everything. But that in no way entitles anyone else to invade our actual decision making processes, or vice-versa.
Slashdot Mirror
When your IP is 192.168.1.100, it's not exactly challenging to find the gateway...
Perhaps a firewall between the device and the network that won't let the device anywhere BUT the NAS. Might require a secondary WiFi network, if WiFi is involved.
Of course, then you might see something like the following on the display:
"Sorry, presently unable to establish a connection to the net. Please correct the problem in order to continue using this device. Click here to retry connecting."
Two things:
First Orwell was an optimist
Secondly, the specific concern alluded to in TFS is why one of the most important things the tech community today could accomplish is to achieve a solid voice-input capability that runs entirely locally (and is not user specific or require particular training out of the box or out of the compiler.)
Alexa, Amazon's commercial voice savant, sends very word you speak "to the cloud" which is, of course a "third party" (and potentially, a 4th, 5th... Nth party.)
Mycroft, the "open" voice savant, holding so much promise because it doesn't use Amazon's excreble model of "you must provide anticipated result phrases for everything you want to do, and set up and maintain (and probably buy) a secure server", wraps that promise in... you guessed it. Sends everything you say to "the cloud."
Both suffer from "if the net is down, I become a deaf idiot" syndrome as a side effect of the cloudy thinking that went into their design.
The day I get a real "can listen and produce cleartext locally" application (or device) is the day my home (and car, and boat) gain significant automation.
I know this issue doesn't concern a lot of people, particularly young people. The net is "always there" and privacy "WTF is privacy?"... but I think that's a function of them being young and not really understanding either the depths that some people will sink to, or the relative fragility of the network. After they've been stepped on enough, and lost their connections enough, I suspect they'll modify their stances somewhat.
Democracy:
A system where any two uninformed voters outvote an informed voter, in an environment where informed voters are rare.
I do have a 12v charger that's meant to charge this phone in a vehicle. However, with the larger battery in the phone, the car charger doesn't get the job done. I've not found a charger for the car that can handle the phone's aftermarket battery. Keep hoping to find one, though. Know of any?
They are. I have a 15000 mAh unit; two, 2.4 ampere outputs. Wouldn't be without it, can't really, at least unless the companies making the cellphones stop putting too-small batteries in them. last weekend I drove five hours, during about 3 of which we were either completely out of contact or only in distant contact with a cell tower (Montana... lots and lots of empty space.) When we left the city, my phone was at 25%. I kept the phone (a Galaxy Note III with an aftermarket "big" battery that's good for about 48 hours here, where we're within about 4 miles of a cell tower) plugged into the external unit for the entire trip, and when we got home, the phone was at 100% and the external unit at 45%, which allowed for both charging it and running it.
Really, won't even consider being without that external unit. As for a pager... no. Just no.
Precisely.
Underrated even if it got to +100
Always ready to raise a flap, eh? I heard they just wing it.
I'm not quite dead.
I think I'll go for a walk.
Kelly and the baby... they'll have something to look at now!
I actively try not to, as opposed to wallowing in it the way the superstitious and religious do, which I find at turns amusing and sad, not that it matters.
I don't. Not sure what you're talking about there. You might want to elaborate.
Hmmm. I pointed out a cause and a consequence, along with one possible factor that can reduce the cause, and thus, perhaps, the consequence. I have no idea how you got from that to where you seem to be now.
Oh, it's not me that says its wrong. It's the universe that says it's wrong. If you think one plus one is three, that's perfectly fine with me. I don't require that anyone in particular try to actually grasp objective reality other than myself. I didn't even require that of my kids.
I completely agree. If jumping off a cliff makes you happy, or self flagellation does, or maintaining that one plus one is three does... awesome. You go, fella. :)
It's all about personal choice. The way I see it, you, and anyone else for that matter, should be perfectly free to make any choice you like as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberties of others, or otherwise cause harm to a non-consenting, and/or uninformed person or persons. That's my entire metric, right there, aside from animal cruelty issues, which I regard similarly.
It doesn't change anything I said, though. Doing what you want in pursuit of whatever it is you want to pursue is a whole 'nuther thing than having a clue about what you're doing.
Clear now?
Then why is the CEO still there? Clearly, mistakes that cost karge amounts of money do not cause dismissal at Yahoo. They do, of course, often cause weaker performance, as we have seen in Yahoo's recent scramble to unload the various enterprises they have royally screwed up.
Science doesn't answer "Why did Santa Claus bring me a sweater instead of a choo-choo train?", either. Because the question is formulated such that it isn't a valid question. Just as the questions that philosophy (and its retarded offspring, religion) likes to say "science can't answer" (as opposed to science hasn't answered yet) are.
"Why is the universe here" is no more meaningful than "why did santa (do anything)." Both assume facts not in evidence: For the former, that there is a why (no evidence for this whatsoever); while for the latter, it assumes there is a santa (no evidence for this whatsoever, either.) In the scientific sense, neither one is a meaningful question. In the philosophical sense, all those questions do is reveal large domains of "philosophical thinking" as intellectually bankrupt.
Even very intelligent people are often variously naive, gullible, uninformed, misinformed, fearful, or simply lack critical thinking skills (as opposed to potental ability.) Or various combinations thereof. Less intelligent people, more so, and more often. All of these people are vulnerable to failing to spot the invalid posits in many "philosophical" questions without a significant amount of help. And that help is often rejected, as it is a common human failing to not be at all willing to change anything that might affect one's perception of one's self in relation to everything else.
Until or unless something can be done to improve both the overall level of human intelligence, along with considerably better education, we're going to be stuck with these kinds of invalid questions and the people that disadvantage others by inserting them into the public mindset as if they were valid.
There are myriad examples of this stuff out there. Taken from the net just now, located in only a few seconds:
"Crystal Healing Stones Bring Healing Energy To Your Health, Wealth, Spirit, Emotions and Soul."
"Jesus loves you."
"One day we will meet again on the rainbow bridge."
"God created the world for His pleasure and our good."
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"The beauty of the principle of similars is that it not only initiates a healing response, but it encourages a respect for the body's wisdom."
...just because someone can (or did) phrase something in the form of a question (or an answer), doesn't mean something worthwhile has been accomplished. Quite often all it does is waste resources and screw people up. Religion being the front-and-center poster child for exactly that.
tl;dr: Much of philosophy is nonsense; all of religion is nonsense; the general intellectual level is low; people resist change.
Also, FYI, I just credited you for it, too.
I think the idea was to make video to encourage them to write more. Said encouragement is present. Compliance, well... :)
I don't know, but I just renamed my custom documentation system to "wtfm", because genius. :)
The enterprise linked in TFS is clearly for beginners. Beginners tend to be younger. Video is pretty much the preferred information delivery method (on the receiving end) for recent generations. The majority does not gravitate towards reading (and perhaps that accounts for why the writing problem is so prevalent as well.)
If you're working at a professional level, you can already prepare good documentation, and will, whenever it's called for. You may even have developed your own toolchain for doing so.
If you can't prepare good documentation when it is needed, or won't, but think you're working at a professional level... you're wrong. :)
From the perspective of a long-time and fairly active flickr user, one thing they could have done was given the users the features they have constantly been asking for, instead of constant "UX" changes that (a) no one wanted and (b) removed useful features.
From the perspective of a groups user, bringing the groups up to, oh, say, the 2005 level of message display and convenience might have done something for them. It would have been nice not to have to wade through pages-long dumps of people's CSS, and to have some kind of rational quoting mechanism, too.
Their email system is junk. They could simply have had someone write them a decent email client. Although I have to say, Google hasn't got one either, so that appears to be a more general failure of vision than just a Yahoo-centric problem.
I'm not sure how others feel about this, but when Yahoo tossed out the curated tree of sites and replaced it with just another clumsy search along the lines of Google's, I stopped using them to find anything. Google, which has the best search I've found so far, is awful compared to a decently curated list, which, for a while anyway, was a reasonable description of Yahoo's offering. Yahoo failed to give that effort the resources it needed, and consequently fell so far behind in keeping it up to date it became fossilized, while also attempting to monetize it in a way that was both inherently offensive and reduced its value via link-buying (much as Google has done with search)
I still go to DMOZ for many things instead of Google, because Google is nothing less than inundated with irrelevance. The problem with Google's search is that "popularity" is the underlying metric, whereas what I'm typically looking for is quality -- whereas "popularity" is the metric that reliably retrieves mediocrity. Once you get through the advertising spam, of course.
Speaking of popular, Yahoo's early bought-it property Geocities was a hive of... well, you know. But it was also 10+ million web pages that they just tossed in the garbage. I doubt that earned them any friends. At all. The stats had Geocities as the 3rd most-visited place on the web originally; good job wasting that opportunity.
And that's just what I know about. With all of the services Yahoo has offered over the years, I'm sure there were (and are) other visible points of weakness that could have been addressed. For the services I have used, not one of them was ever given the time and resources they needed to extend their potential in even the most obvious ways.
What I see here is a company that really doesn't know what its doing and doesn't pay attention to its customer input. All they do is in the crudest and ham-handed way possible, take whatever they have and try to monetize it no matter what that does to the user's experience, resources, and data. Of course you want to monetize things, but you have to monetize things that have value to the user, and if you don't pay attention to the latter, why, you could end up having to "spin off" your stuff because with all your user-abusive monetizing in place, you don't end up with, you know, users.
One word: Parallelism. Just the way your brain does it.
No doubt. However, I run my own enterprises, so I don't face any issues about what other companies require. Which, I assure you, was not an accident.
"Is that a zit on your cheek?"
"No, I'm growing a database."
Right now, there are more firearms (and also, more weapons of other types, such as knives and bats) in the USA than there are people. The idea that the US would become a "gun free society" is completely without any hope of bearing fruit at our current level of technology.
It isn't in any way an abhorrent idea to me. But I no more worry about being a victim of a terrorist attack or gun violence in general than I do of being struck by lightning. However, I do worry about my fellow citizens becoming overly and immediately paranoid at the sight of a firearm due to the constant droning of the hysterics in their ears, so I don't carry, although I could, legally speaking.
No. Not to lightning strikes or car accidents or heart attacks, either. But if I'm there during the incident, yes, certainly I'd do what I could.
The appropriate responses are those made by the people at the scene, and the government's subsequent actions, presuming they are constitutionally authorized. I am all for immediate, extremely harsh and highly escalated direct response(s) by any injured or threatened party. Someone brandishes a weapon at me or my family and I manage to gain control of the situation, they will have completely obviated any inclination on my part to treat them as human beings.
If I was carrying a firearm (I don't, I'm simply not worried, because I can do math and recognize hysteria when I hear it), and if I was present at a terrorist attack (highly, highly unlikely), and I killed a bystander (also unlikely, highly unlikely in fact as I am an expert with a pistol, but...) I'd regret it, of course. It would certainly be accidental, as opposed to the (presumably) mass killing that inspired me to draw in the first place, so in terms of should I or should I not draw and fire if carrying and present at a terrorist attack, clearly, I should, and just as clearly, the responsibility for the accident lies with those who created the incident in the first place, so I'd be able to sleep all right. As it happens, I have some related experience, just not with firearms, so I know what my actual reactions are in such a matter.
No. The militia was the people. The government was the government. Two entirely separate entities. And there wasn't so much a fear of violent overthrow of government by the people (who were, and remain today, the militia), there was intent and legally sanctioned capability in the very paperwork that authorized the government to do so if it got out of hand. And, in fact, that is basically what happened to ol' king George III.
No, the military, which is to say, the government's standing armed forces, has those things. The militia (us, the citizens) variously have knives, small firearms, marital arts training, the ability to cobble up IEDs and so forth.
One on one, clearly not. However, that's not the issue and has never been the issue. People die in armed conflicts. Generally everyone who dies in a conflict of any nature on either side has been overwhelmed by either the opposition's firepower, strategy, tactics, or numbers, most often a combination of these.
The only issue actually related to your question is, can a
It was assembler first. Then FORTRAN and BASIC and assembler. Then assembler and C. Then C and Perl. Then C and Python.
It's been C and Python ever since.
The shift from assembler was forced on me because the underlying platforms began to diverge; C took care of that, while remaining low level enough not to suffer the slings and arrows of clunk, lethargy, and various types of safety nets of a hoop-jumping nature.
Perl put a moderate amount of readily accessible speed and a great deal of power on the table. That was a huge step forward and renewed my interest in interpreted languages.
Python took that speed and power and added after-the-fact comprehensibility, a much better syntax, and a brace-free indented coding style that I found very attractive and readable, which in turn enhanced the power I was able to effectively leverage considerably.
Since about 2002, when I first began seriously developing in Python 2, I have been watching for a similar gain in comprehensibility, convenience and so on as was brought to me by Python, over Perl. Nothing I've seen thus far has come even close.
As for c, it's been flat-out unbeatable at the low-level for me in my post-assembler phase. I can't imagine something that would be both as close to the metal, and yet as amenable to high level concept implementation. I'd love to see something like that, but so far, the closest attempt, C++, has not come all that close for me. Objects with built-in methods are very easily (and much more efficiently) done in c. Classes themselves are nice-ish, but certainly they are not required. Organization of functionality is what they really do for most people, but I am already pretty organized, so C++ classes don't offer me much there (in fact, sometimes C++ classes get in my way.) Most of the rest of C++ is of little interest to me.
I'm always curious. C++, Objective C, C#, Go, Swift, Java... these kind of things attract my attention like a bee to pollen. But so far... Python 2 and C remain -- by far -- the most attractive and certainly the only ones in daily use.
I understand the urge to make a new language. I've felt it and succumbed to it myself. Not once, but several times. No general purpose languages, but specialized things like macro languages and KB languages and ray tracing languages and PCB layout languages. I really, truly appreciate that so many people have actually gone ahead and created general purpose languages and made them widely and freely available. Lots of people have different tastes and interests as compared to mine, and all of those languages being out there keeps everyone thinking and the underlying tech churning in such a way as to produce lots and lots of useful things.
Personally speaking, though, it's been about 13 years since anything in this area caught my interest to the point where I actually wanted to use it in production. I would like that to happen. But honestly, barring something that writes good code for me (not in the cards quite yet), I have a lot of trouble with the idea that with all these people thinking about computer language concepts over those years, that there are many (or any!) concepts left that would result in such an advance.
C (in my case) has an advantage in that for the various concepts I've really liked in other languages, I've built those facilities in C so I have ultra fast and lean instances of those particular functionalities. List handling; dictionaries; threading; regular expression handling; PostgreSQL and SQLite interfaces; memory management; input sanitization; etc. At this point, if I like a language concept, I'm more likely to implement it so I can have it available in C than I am to adopt the language that carries it.
Python... I really, really like Python 2. The only thing I don't like about it is the inability to extend a built-in class, for instance string handling. Sub-classing doesn't help when every instance of a subclassed-string utilizes the built-in class, because inevitably, the bui
If having things stuck in orifices is your particular phobia, then either see to it that things aren't stuck in your orifices, or don't stick anything in anyone else's orifices, or hey, go for the gold and don't do either one. Hopefully, you'll be fortunate enough that no evil person will force you not to be able to make these choices for yourself, the way moralizing morons try to make other people's personal and consensual choices for them.
As for leaving body fluids, protip: Don't kiss anyone. Ever. Also, sneezing... you're going to need a mask, I'm afraid. Also, doctors. They're quite prone to sticking things in orifices. Sometimes leaving things there, too. Sometimes they make their own holes in people and leave things there. Sometimes they take things away! In fact, I haven't been anywhere near my gall bladder since the 1990's... However, it was consensual, so there's that. And they gave me the stones, so at least I have a memento.
Seriously. It's none of my, or your, business what choices some random person X makes in regard to what they do with, or to, or allow to be done to, their own body, and/or that of (a) consenting partner(s.) As soon as you or I or anyone else decides that what we think about something is to be the defining element for other people's personal and consensual choices, we've become oppressive tyrants deserving of nothing but being roundly ignored.
Body cavity searches: A body cavity search is not consensual. You should roll that around in your head a few times, see if you can work out why coercively intruding into a body cavity without someone actually inviting you to do so is different than agreeing with someone that in return for (love, marriage, money, goods, services, shelter, offspring, just plain fun, or any combination of the foregoing), you're up for it.
We should be free, of course, to make decisions about these things for ourselves. And to say what we think about anything and everything. But that in no way entitles anyone else to invade our actual decision making processes, or vice-versa.
I don't understand the hysteria of disarming your people to prevent terrorists attacks by people who will always be able to get weapons.
FTFY