The problem is, Anon, that you don't have to follow coding standards. The number of ways one can write a single statement in perl is multitudinous.
Yes, I know you can do this for C, python, Java and etc. But the number of ways to do so in perl is mind boggling. I would say its an order of magnitude greater than the competition.
Apparently this code does something. I have no clue what it does and would rather just modify the assembly at this point.
A great reason to use perl is you can publish your code GPL and still keep your code secret!
Perl gives one the ability to write very very obsfucated code. In fact I love perl. Looking at someone else's perl code is even more fun/challenging than solving suduku puzzles!
Use perl if you don't want anyone, ever, maintaing your code.
Why bother buidling spaceships when they are space ships?
Panspermia <- All about extremophiles... well some about extremeophiles.
Although, considering the recent slashdot article relating to the use of plastics for spaceships, chiton may be a great hull due to the low chance of becoming a hull of heavy unstable isotopes after being exposed to cosmic radiation.
I suppose you could coax bacteria to deposit chiton onto the interior of an inflated space baloon, strap on some propulsion, avionics and life support and voila - spaceship! You could even engineer something that likes to build vigorously near high pressure gradients - micrometerite damage control.
Too bad there are no examples of biological space propulsion to copy. I guess that life support made out of life wouldn't be to far around the corner. Avionics would be another matter, space travel seems to require really, really precise navigation and control.
It is a shame that no one has posted what the acutal lie was. Or was it a changing story?
1st interview:
cops - what did you do?
guy - I looked around the site to see if it was legit
2nd interview:
cops - what did you do?
guy - Well I fired up my Ultra 60 running Solaris, not that it had ZFS, but I started her up anyway. I was going to use mozilla/mozilla, but I forgot that I had acidentally removed an X lib earlier that year when I was testing a buffer exploit. So I dug up an old copy of lynx that I had cobbled together with color-xterm support. I remembered that I had not compiled it with SSL, so I had to rebuild it with with and openSSL library. I then typed "../" on the end of the URL.
Judge - you changed your story! Liar liar pants on fire.
Wow, its been years since I have heard of Periannan. I read the book("Independant Birth of Organisms"?) and tend to believe the mangrove of life hypothesis more than the tree of life one.
I asked a few biology profs here at gatech about it and they seemed not to know about him. What is the current status of his hypothesis? Anyone know?
Also, has anyone mentioned the pseudoscience/quack lable that plate tectonics once held? The poor guy who put forth the hypothesis was only vindicated for his ridicule when sea floor spreading was discovered by magnetometers readings across the mid atlantic range.
White culture steeped in racism?
Get a clue. Its not white guys who rap about their hos and their uber pimpness.
Racism is a black thing. Racism is the inherent belief that one race is above another. Who keeps demanding special treatment because of their inferior[sic] race?/There is no race, only culture.
I support your call on RACIST. IMHO racism is not only the inherent belief that one or more races is superior than another, but that one or more races has a special perspective than another doesn't have.
A lot of new world explorers maintained their racial concept of superiority by claiming that whites had a special perspective on God that indigenous natives "couldn't understand unless they were white".
You who wished rat poison upon another, are doing no good for your race, by maintaining your special perspective; destroy it already!
There is no race! There is only culture. But you keep dividing. Ahole.
To clear it up once and for all. Its called microgravity, because of the tides.
If the shuttle iis orbiting with its cargo bay doors pointed towards the earth, then objects towards the top of the shuttle will slowly drift towards the doors. Conversly objects near the floor, will drift towards the floor.
This drift is microgravity. It you look at the force diagrams, you will see that the middle of the shuttle is in perfect balance bewteen gravatiotional attraction from the earth and the centrifugal force due to rotational motion.
Anything off of this center will have a slight excess in either direction. Now, if the shuttle were orbiting 160 miles above a neutron star, these differences will be a lot more noticable.
On the kidnappings and privatized police in Mexico, I don't think it is comparable.
First, kidnapping seems to be a thing south of the border, from the Rio Grande to Tierra Del Feugo.
Second, forgetting my large ignorance on Mexico, overt, naked corruption seems to be the standard across the this entire region. So it wouldn't surprise me that the thing called "privatization" in Mexico, is really a thing connected to a politician.
Third, did you say "There tends to be minor differences between magnet schools (small targeted public schools) and private schools in the quality of students and education but their are huge differences in the cost of those programs."? What is the difference? What costs more? There are some really crappy public schools in Boston that spend a Harvard education on their dropouts. I wonder if the same happens in Mexico.
If I offend any Mexicans, please remember that a lot of things in the U.S. passed off as "privatized" are really things connected to a politician. And our corruption is probably "naked" from your perspective.:)
While the "private accounts" for SS idea(speculative future tense), does nothing to support your assertion that "Privatization rarely works(past/present tense) when you compare the overall level of services and the net costs of using private company's to do public services", I will bite.
How is your example, functionally, any different in effect than what we have now? In the end the government is controlling the money as usual, with the exception of your X% idea. But they decide the 5 - 20 part, right?. Of course now the money goes into whatever stuff the government whims upon, and in your example, the whims will have to be instrumented in funds(that would be progress). But we still have to trust them to make good decisions.
"Or we can have 10,000 fund managers calling people and saying "Hey, we want you to invest with confidence and invest with us..." Which would do nothing to help SS and be a huge drain on the system."
God forbid we would have to learn how to use our capital in your EXTREME example. If you are saying that this idea is bad, because it will be hard to manage one's own stuff, I would have to whole heartedly disagree with your conclusions.
As far as I am aware, there is no power specifically granted to the federal government, that instructs, mush less allows, them to run my personal finances, plan my retirement and provide me with food, water and shelter.
Why bring up the compentency of security guards if it doesn't apply to the lot of them? I'll go out on a limb and then assume that, you must have been saying that since a few security guards are "stoopid"(my words), that the lot couldn't provide at least the same level of service.
However, policing is one of those things government is given the priviledge of doing, so its not a very good libertarian stance.
You must be right, I am crazy to make counterarguments. You have touched my crazy nutbag nerve. If you would like understanding why you touched it, it is because of your weaks arguments against privitization, the air of certainty you cloaked your posts in and your adhomenim(yeah you didn't directly call me names) but readers would infer it.
Also, as far as I can tell, limiting govt to its oriiginal trust(the constitution) doesn't seem to radical from a libertarian viewpoint. But who knows, you could be correct with the label. Libertarianism has under gone alot of splintering over the last 200 years. Perhaps my viewpoint is correctly labled "radical". But I tend to think of it as a perojative term used too convince the ignorant that libertarians are bad.
Have fun reading my reply. Have yourself a chuckle and I don't look forward to you posting a reply.
I would be interested in reading that book. You said that "in the end Congress nearly always found the Jefersonians arguments lacking".
Does this mean the book supports Hamiltonian philosophy. Specifically, does it conclude that the Jefersonian arguments were indeed lacking or that Congress thought they were lacking?
I have read view that these arguments were not lacking, and would be very interested in reading an modern argument for the counter point, in order to avoid discover errors in that logic. (must keep open mind)
Please also remember that while the FP were an apologia from the viewpoint on the Federalists(just one portion of the founding fathers), the counter arguments to it are called the AntiFP and represented the viewpoint of the Founding Fathers who were not Federalists; actually the Jeffersonians were "federalists"(small letter), but the Hamiltonians took the big letter name first.
So in order to "understand the founding father's intent" as you put it by digging a little deeper, one must read the AFP as well. When congress convened, many of those counter arguments in the AFP, predicted the "real power of the national government" before it was "revealed". To do otherwise would be too maintain a selective understanding of the founding father's intent.
Of course, the congressional records, should further elaborate the original intent.
Well guess who has a monopoly on local police services? Perhaps this is one of the few privileges US govt is actually awarded by the constitution. And yeah, all security guards are stoopid; all. Do you have any data that shows how many crimes your local police have prevented -vs- those that actually occurred? Or does it just take one or two instances to highlight the great ability of your cops?
As for your party affiliation, I don't know. But you sure as hell seem to be scared of libertarianism. So I conclude that you must have a previous attachment to something.
So any libertarian idea is automatically a, "nutbag of ideas" and libertarians, who are by their nature conservative, all of a sudden become "radical"? And libertarian agendas are automatically B.S. Also that a libertarian program has to be "foisted" on the public, implies that it is insidious, before it is actually discussed.
Again, the public doesn't know libertarian philosophy, because people like you continuously dismiss it all as bunk, along with the implication that if you think seriously on these things you are a "radical" "nutbag".
Thanks for keeping an open mind to different ideas, and with holding apriori judgment until you have heard all the arguments.
BTW : FD is a typo which I amended to be FUD. Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.
I once worked as in inventory manager at a computer store.
The owner's wife, being cheap, hires this illegal from Papua New Guinne(sp?). I tried the imitation game with him to get him to stack boxes, not just properly, but just to stack them.
This robot, while small, appears to be better at imitation than he was. Usually after showing him something, he would nod as if he got it, then come back five minutes later and say, "Box, box, box! Box?"
The reason people don't take libertarians seriously is people like you. You must have a mighty unrational attachment to you party.
Libertarians say that privitization works, and has worked. Folks like you come along with your strawman arguments which proove it will not work. You say things like, "While its a great idea, if you take it to extremes it won't work. Oh and you don't have any credibility."
If I argue that the hospital would probably ensure that its customers could reach the hospital and not build somewhere where some one has the ability to buy all the land around them and choke them off, you will come up with another desparate attempt to blow the idea out of the water and dismiss it entirely.
Come on I dare you to argue about police services. Please provide me with examples of how responsive the govt. police are. We all know how they do such a great job of preventing crime. Unlinke, Brinks, who knows when your alarm has been set off and initiates a response. Oh, wait, the police are not responsive, they just show up after the fact and fill out paperwork.
And we also need the government to run services for auto emergencies. Because we all know ineffective the Onstar service is. That should be a government function. I mean if someone has a daughter, would you trust a company like Onstar no to make thier service so pricy that only the rich can afford it.
On the subject as to whether or not we can determine the founders original intent.
Have your read the federalist and antiferderalist papers? Its all in there.
The founding fathers had a "flame war" in the newspapers. One side's "posts" are now know as the "Federalist Papers". This is the book most get in college and sometimes in primaryschool.
Another side, and a side much more akin to some slashdotters, has thier posts in the "Antifederalist Papers". I never got this in college and it took about 10 years after that for it to even register on my radar.
I am not going to even adress your "educate yourself on basic Constitutional Law and History", statement, because, if you are making an argument for something, then you must do the educating. It is lazy to tell your oponent, that "you need to read". You should say, "Hamilton said, 'blah blah and blah.' Therefore i think the founding fathers wanted Y".
Probably because your glorious regulator had destroyed all previous competition. Just wait, in 5 years, if the deregulation holds, you will be watching 3D porn on your cheap cable.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, Anon, that you don't have to follow coding standards. The number of ways one can write a single statement in perl is multitudinous.
Yes, I know you can do this for C, python, Java and etc. But the number of ways to do so in perl is mind boggling. I would say its an order of magnitude greater than the competition.
Apparently this code does something. I have no clue what it does and would rather just modify the assembly at this point.
Perl: "+87aZ{{skZixmZRJ+tbeatBY[:%?F&6&*;11))!!kccZRR {{kkscc1î{cRRasmMRMJCACD ?IE)W\7;.-4%&/,51($$(6So I am a troll for being sarcastic. Well thanks very much. Someone pray tell me that what I said above is not true.
Perl gives one the ability to write very very obsfucated code. In fact I love perl. Looking at someone else's perl code is even more fun/challenging than solving suduku puzzles!
Use perl if you don't want anyone, ever, maintaing your code.
That scene of Fry moving in quicktime was the bestest. I wish slashdot would allow image posting.
"... bacteria should be building spaceships now."
Why bother buidling spaceships when they are space ships?
Panspermia <- All about extremophiles... well some about extremeophiles.
Although, considering the recent slashdot article relating to the use of plastics for spaceships, chiton may be a great hull due to the low chance of becoming a hull of heavy unstable isotopes after being exposed to cosmic radiation.
I suppose you could coax bacteria to deposit chiton onto the interior of an inflated space baloon, strap on some propulsion, avionics and life support and voila - spaceship! You could even engineer something that likes to build vigorously near high pressure gradients - micrometerite damage control.
Too bad there are no examples of biological space propulsion to copy. I guess that life support made out of life wouldn't be to far around the corner. Avionics would be another matter, space travel seems to require really, really precise navigation and control.
Gotta love biomimetics, and the great Wiki.
With out looking things up, didn't he come up with several methods using infinite series to calculate pi among other non rational constants?
Were not his methods very close to what Leibnitz used in integral calculus?
It is a shame that no one has posted what the acutal lie was. Or was it a changing story?
1st interview:
cops - what did you do?
guy - I looked around the site to see if it was legit
2nd interview:
cops - what did you do?
guy - Well I fired up my Ultra 60 running Solaris, not that it had ZFS, but I started her up anyway. I was going to use mozilla/mozilla, but I forgot that I had acidentally removed an X lib earlier that year when I was testing a buffer exploit. So I dug up an old copy of lynx that I had cobbled together with color-xterm support. I remembered that I had not compiled it with SSL, so I had to rebuild it with with and openSSL library. I then typed "../" on the end of the URL.
Judge - you changed your story! Liar liar pants on fire.
Boss - your fired!
I asked a few biology profs here at gatech about it and they seemed not to know about him. What is the current status of his hypothesis? Anyone know?
Also, has anyone mentioned the pseudoscience/quack lable that plate tectonics once held? The poor guy who put forth the hypothesis was only vindicated for his ridicule when sea floor spreading was discovered by magnetometers readings across the mid atlantic range.
White culture steeped in racism? Get a clue. Its not white guys who rap about their hos and their uber pimpness. Racism is a black thing. Racism is the inherent belief that one race is above another. Who keeps demanding special treatment because of their inferior[sic] race? /There is no race, only culture.
Ditto Belial6
I support your call on RACIST. IMHO racism is not only the inherent belief that one or more races is superior than another, but that one or more races has a special perspective than another doesn't have.
A lot of new world explorers maintained their racial concept of superiority by claiming that whites had a special perspective on God that indigenous natives "couldn't understand unless they were white".
You who wished rat poison upon another, are doing no good for your race, by maintaining your special perspective; destroy it already!
There is no race! There is only culture. But you keep dividing. Ahole.
How about that old belligerant issue Wilson goaded to get us in WWI? Anyone?
Er, um , the parent's parent.
Carl Sagan, did not like the idea of promoting man exploration because of the spin off arguments. I don't like the idea either.
Velcro is not a NASA spinoff.
http://www.velcro.com/kidzone.html
To clear it up once and for all. Its called microgravity, because of the tides. If the shuttle iis orbiting with its cargo bay doors pointed towards the earth, then objects towards the top of the shuttle will slowly drift towards the doors. Conversly objects near the floor, will drift towards the floor. This drift is microgravity. It you look at the force diagrams, you will see that the middle of the shuttle is in perfect balance bewteen gravatiotional attraction from the earth and the centrifugal force due to rotational motion. Anything off of this center will have a slight excess in either direction. Now, if the shuttle were orbiting 160 miles above a neutron star, these differences will be a lot more noticable.
On the kidnappings and privatized police in Mexico, I don't think it is comparable.
First, kidnapping seems to be a thing south of the border, from the Rio Grande to Tierra Del Feugo.
Second, forgetting my large ignorance on Mexico, overt, naked corruption seems to be the standard across the this entire region. So it wouldn't surprise me that the thing called "privatization" in Mexico, is really a thing connected to a politician.
Third, did you say "There tends to be minor differences between magnet schools (small targeted public schools) and private schools in the quality of students and education but their are huge differences in the cost of those programs."? What is the difference? What costs more? There are some really crappy public schools in Boston that spend a Harvard education on their dropouts. I wonder if the same happens in Mexico.
If I offend any Mexicans, please remember that a lot of things in the U.S. passed off as "privatized" are really things connected to a politician. And our corruption is probably "naked" from your perspective. :)
While the "private accounts" for SS idea(speculative future tense), does nothing to support your assertion that "Privatization rarely works(past/present tense) when you compare the overall level of services and the net costs of using private company's to do public services", I will bite.
How is your example, functionally, any different in effect than what we have now? In the end the government is controlling the money as usual, with the exception of your X% idea. But they decide the 5 - 20 part, right?. Of course now the money goes into whatever stuff the government whims upon, and in your example, the whims will have to be instrumented in funds(that would be progress). But we still have to trust them to make good decisions.
"Or we can have 10,000 fund managers calling people and saying "Hey, we want you to invest with confidence and invest with us..." Which would do nothing to help SS and be a huge drain on the system."
God forbid we would have to learn how to use our capital in your EXTREME example. If you are saying that this idea is bad, because it will be hard to manage one's own stuff, I would have to whole heartedly disagree with your conclusions.
As far as I am aware, there is no power specifically granted to the federal government, that instructs, mush less allows, them to run my personal finances, plan my retirement and provide me with food, water and shelter.
Why bring up the compentency of security guards if it doesn't apply to the lot of them? I'll go out on a limb and then assume that, you must have been saying that since a few security guards are "stoopid"(my words), that the lot couldn't provide at least the same level of service.
However, policing is one of those things government is given the priviledge of doing, so its not a very good libertarian stance.
You must be right, I am crazy to make counterarguments. You have touched my crazy nutbag nerve. If you would like understanding why you touched it, it is because of your weaks arguments against privitization, the air of certainty you cloaked your posts in and your adhomenim(yeah you didn't directly call me names) but readers would infer it.
Also, as far as I can tell, limiting govt to its oriiginal trust(the constitution) doesn't seem to radical from a libertarian viewpoint. But who knows, you could be correct with the label. Libertarianism has under gone alot of splintering over the last 200 years. Perhaps my viewpoint is correctly labled "radical". But I tend to think of it as a perojative term used too convince the ignorant that libertarians are bad.
Have fun reading my reply. Have yourself a chuckle and I don't look forward to you posting a reply.
Does this mean the book supports Hamiltonian philosophy. Specifically, does it conclude that the Jefersonian arguments were indeed lacking or that Congress thought they were lacking?
I have read view that these arguments were not lacking, and would be very interested in reading an modern argument for the counter point, in order to avoid discover errors in that logic. (must keep open mind)
Please also remember that while the FP were an apologia from the viewpoint on the Federalists(just one portion of the founding fathers), the counter arguments to it are called the AntiFP and represented the viewpoint of the Founding Fathers who were not Federalists; actually the Jeffersonians were "federalists"(small letter), but the Hamiltonians took the big letter name first.
So in order to "understand the founding father's intent" as you put it by digging a little deeper, one must read the AFP as well. When congress convened, many of those counter arguments in the AFP, predicted the "real power of the national government" before it was "revealed". To do otherwise would be too maintain a selective understanding of the founding father's intent.
Of course, the congressional records, should further elaborate the original intent.
As for your party affiliation, I don't know. But you sure as hell seem to be scared of libertarianism. So I conclude that you must have a previous attachment to something.
So any libertarian idea is automatically a, "nutbag of ideas" and libertarians, who are by their nature conservative, all of a sudden become "radical"? And libertarian agendas are automatically B.S. Also that a libertarian program has to be "foisted" on the public, implies that it is insidious, before it is actually discussed.
Again, the public doesn't know libertarian philosophy, because people like you continuously dismiss it all as bunk, along with the implication that if you think seriously on these things you are a "radical" "nutbag".
Thanks for keeping an open mind to different ideas, and with holding apriori judgment until you have heard all the arguments.
BTW : FD is a typo which I amended to be FUD. Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.
The owner's wife, being cheap, hires this illegal from Papua New Guinne(sp?). I tried the imitation game with him to get him to stack boxes, not just properly, but just to stack them.
This robot, while small, appears to be better at imitation than he was. Usually after showing him something, he would nod as if he got it, then come back five minutes later and say, "Box, box, box! Box?"
This robot kicks ass and stacks boxes.
/Sorry, i misspel things. Attack my logic,not the speling.
Libertarians say that privitization works, and has worked. Folks like you come along with your strawman arguments which proove it will not work. You say things like, "While its a great idea, if you take it to extremes it won't work. Oh and you don't have any credibility."
If I argue that the hospital would probably ensure that its customers could reach the hospital and not build somewhere where some one has the ability to buy all the land around them and choke them off, you will come up with another desparate attempt to blow the idea out of the water and dismiss it entirely.
Come on I dare you to argue about police services. Please provide me with examples of how responsive the govt. police are. We all know how they do such a great job of preventing crime. Unlinke, Brinks, who knows when your alarm has been set off and initiates a response. Oh, wait, the police are not responsive, they just show up after the fact and fill out paperwork.
And we also need the government to run services for auto emergencies. Because we all know ineffective the Onstar service is. That should be a government function. I mean if someone has a daughter, would you trust a company like Onstar no to make thier service so pricy that only the rich can afford it.
You sir are a FD monger.
STD Oil, was naturally splintering, when it was "broken up". Then the govt took credit.
On the subject as to whether or not we can determine the founders original intent.
Have your read the federalist and antiferderalist papers? Its all in there.
The founding fathers had a "flame war" in the newspapers. One side's "posts" are now know as the "Federalist Papers". This is the book most get in college and sometimes in primaryschool.
Another side, and a side much more akin to some slashdotters, has thier posts in the "Antifederalist Papers". I never got this in college and it took about 10 years after that for it to even register on my radar.
I googled, to provide source.... not a very pretty site but here ya go; http://www.iahushua.com/hist/AntiFED.html
I am not going to even adress your "educate yourself on basic Constitutional Law and History", statement, because, if you are making an argument for something, then you must do the educating. It is lazy to tell your oponent, that "you need to read". You should say, "Hamilton said, 'blah blah and blah.' Therefore i think the founding fathers wanted Y".
They also get votes from little stupid voters, who vote based on FUD.
Probably because your glorious regulator had destroyed all previous competition. Just wait, in 5 years, if the deregulation holds, you will be watching 3D porn on your cheap cable.