A great number of people in the U.S. equate success and wealth. It's pretty sad...
And, also sadly, equate success/wealth with happiness. (As for me, I'm fairly successful and well-off, but my wife of 20 years died in 2006 and I'd happily be a penniless failure to have her back.)
and while most things can be more easily done in higher languages (you'll have to pry Perl from my dead, cold hands), many things can only be done in languages like C or its derivatives.
C is a really lousy choice in a lot of application domains.
Sure, if you're writing OS kernels or device drivers or something else where C's advantages outweigh the significant disadvantages, go for it. But in many application domains, C is entirely, utterly inappropriate.
Hmm.. First you disagree then agree with me. Either you don't understand the meaning of most and many or you do. Either way, I'm still correct.:-)
All consumer internet packages from any of the major carriers include a "gateway" device instead of a simple modem...
I'm a CS professional and only a minor geek, but I purchased not only my own router but cable modem rather than renting or obtaining one "free" from my ISP (Cox). I recommend this approach to friends that ask - and help them with setup if asked. I also don't (and won't) do wireless here at home and have wired my own coax and CAT5 to the TV and to each bedroom - though I only have one TV in the house, I have multiple computers w/Windows, Ubuntu and MythTV....
Though beloved to some, C is a language that many choose to hate. The mass opinion is indeed so negative it's hard to believe that anybody would program anything in C.
The masses to which you refer are idiots. C is great. It lets you do what you want, how you want. True, you're afforded enough programming rope to easily hang yourself, but you learn not to, and while most things can be more easily done in higher languages (you'll have to pry Perl from my dead, cold hands), many things can only be done in languages like C or its derivatives. C is one of those languages that separates the adults from the kids, so put on your big-boy pants, stop whinging about it and step up.
(not directed at you fahrbot-bot just all the people that think no taxes are a good thing)
Cool. Personally, I don't mind spending money (or paying taxes), I just don't like to waste money. In addition, I'm fairly liberal on what constitutes spending and not wasting as I'm not an expert on all things and try to keep an open mind. Unfortunately, that cannot be said for others, even in my own family.
For example, my mother - who used to be a liberal Democrat when she was young and struggling Nurse, but is now a retired narrow-minded conservative, Fox "News" watching (seriously, on all the time), Tea Party Republican (enjoying her Medicare) [sigh] - was bitching about someone wanting to "waste" tax dollars studying algae in the ocean even after I reminded her that algaeprovides 70-80% of the Earth's atmospheric oxygen for us to, you know, breathe.
Or that some of the taxes she no longer wants to pay go to police, firefighters, the paramedics that rescued her mother, and fixing our roads, etc... or helping those less fortunate, like she/we used to be, or people that want to, but cannot work - who are not "free loaders". The subject line describes what her feelings seem to be.
Fuck me. Sometimes, I can't believe I'm related to her any more.
The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to spend your premium dollars primarily on health care.
The new law limits how much of your premium dollar your insurer can spend on things other than providing health care and improving its quality. If your insurance company exceeds that limit, it must provide a rebate of the portion of premium dollars that exceeded this limit.
The law requires insurers selling policies to individuals or small groups to spend at least 80% of premiums on direct medical care and efforts to improve the quality of care. Insurers selling to large groups (usually 50 or more employees) must spend 85% of premiums on care and quality improvement.
You should be free to live and behave as you wish...that is a part of freedom and the govt should play no part in trying to coerce you in any way...
Cool. Ditch the obligation for hospitals to treat you anyway if you show up w/o health insurance and/or cannot otherwise pay and let you die in the street and I'm with you. Being free to live and behave as you wish is fine as long as it doesn't infringe on others. One cannot yell movie in a crowded fire station.:-)
The papers — contained in more than 800 filing-cabinet drawers — include correspondence with other scientists, drafts of Sagan's academic articles and screenplay drafts for the movie "Contact,"... (emphasis mine)
The cost of donating them might include sorting, collating and preparing the documents to actually be viewable and or some preservation. Often charitable recipients can't or don't want to handle this for private donations. Yes the LOC could probably pay for this, if they're allowed to, which I don't know if they are. (Imagine some idiot right-wing Congress critter, who doesn't believe the Universe exists, complaining about the LOC wasting the taxpayer's money, blah, blah, blah...)
I stopped watching after the episode where Stewie was seriously hurt, and instead of getting him to a hospital they kept on trying to cover it up until the whole thing turned into a dead baby sick-and-twisted animation.
On other words, you threw the bathwater out with the baby.
Now with regard to the passing of consciousness and then life, Stephen Jay Gould wrote about how Lavoisier, if I have this right, was condemned to the guillotine during the Terror of the French Revolution for being a stinkin' aristocrat (Gould suggested that Lavoisier was a stinkin' "tax farmer", i.e., a middle class person who set up shop as a tax collector, where under the King, the tax collector would get a percentage of receipts -- kind of like the hated tax collectors in the Bible). Anyway, Lavoisier was curious how long a person could stay conscious/alive after having their head sliced at the neck, and we worked out some kind of eye-blink code for his last seconds of consciousness, for the good of science as they say.
Can we test this on a few Wall Street bankers? You know, in the name of Science... (Blink once for Credit Default Swap...)
More to the point, as another poster pointed out, is that God could have done all His work through Evolution - end of story.
So why doesn't the Bible say so then?
It seems like a fairly basic error not to have explained this, but instead made up the frankly laughable Genesis account of the creation of the universe and of life on Earth.
Hey, I'm with you, but was just offering some alternative explanations. Though... explaining evolution way-back-when would have been challenging. Cells were discovered in the 1600s and germs/viruses in the 1800s. Seriously, some people *today* don't believe in Evolution - though, for them, having it in The Bible would probably help.
(It boggles my mind to no end how people will put unwavering belief in a work of fiction, with no (or very, very few) references or verifiable facts, seriously edited and manipulated by Men and The Church over time, and completely discount rigorous, verifiable, reproducible scientific works by biologists, archeologists, geologists, bacteriologists, etc...) Unless, of course, it's convenient to believe in Evolution... Doonesbury
don't lump all Christians in with this lot. the way I see it, scientists cannot disprove the existence of God and Christians cannot disprove evolution, or even natural selection.
I think, more rationally, is that God is not required to explain life as we know it. That doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Furthermore, as another poster wrote, God could have done all His work through Evolution. The concepts of God and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, and neither is required for the other to be true or even possible.
Religion is a product of Man separate from the pure concepts of God and the Universe. One can believe that they are intertwined, but Religion is, and has always been, filtered through the thoughts and desires of the followers and, therefore, is, and will always be, suspect with respect to any higher, actual truth. It's possible that some truths may never be known, but sheer belief does not equal truth. That goes for both Religion ans Science. The difference is that Science has a process for progress toward greater understanding of actual truths; Religion does not, just beliefs.
... the Biblical account of Noah and The Flood is correct and evolution is wrong because "God did it".
More to the point, as another poster pointed out, is that God could have done all His work through Evolution - end of story. The problem with Religion and the followers is believing that God has nothing better to do than constantly watch over our immature asses? For example, does anyone seriously believe that, if God exists, God cares one whit about who wins the Superbowl, etc...
For all we know, we could simply be an experiment to see how things turn out. God has eternity to play dice.
Whats wrong with sexy female scientists - they have them in movies.
Or, applying the term "scientist" more liberally, on the Mythbusters - Kari Byron - though technically, she's an artist. (Women, take your pick from the other hosts, I'm sticking with Kari.)
More seriously, I know a few women scientists and I can confirm that in many, many cases, the old adage "Beauty * Brains = Constant" is false. Personally, I think smart girls are sexy - end of story.
That may be true, but unless and until there is a law protecting your privacy in a meaningful way, your opinion on what is and is not any of your employer's business is irrelevant. They can get the data, so all they need is a motive.
You make an interesting point, but should I ever be supplied with a company phone with this type of tracking enabled, my employer will only ever find that I apparently spend a lot of time in my desk drawer:-) If they don't like it, I'm happy go work somewhere else... (I'm also in the financial position where I don't need a job anymore.)
Slashdot Mirror
A great number of people in the U.S. equate success and wealth. It's pretty sad...
And, also sadly, equate success/wealth with happiness. (As for me, I'm fairly successful and well-off, but my wife of 20 years died in 2006 and I'd happily be a penniless failure to have her back.)
Utilities don't have enough staff to handle severe-storm outages – the expense would send rates soaring ...
Or profits plummeting.
... like Facebook not constantly messing with privacy and email settings without users' knowledge or consent. Will there be buttons for those.
and while most things can be more easily done in higher languages (you'll have to pry Perl from my dead, cold hands), many things can only be done in languages like C or its derivatives.
C is a really lousy choice in a lot of application domains.
Sure, if you're writing OS kernels or device drivers or something else where C's advantages outweigh the significant disadvantages, go for it. But in many application domains, C is entirely, utterly inappropriate.
Hmm.. First you disagree then agree with me. Either you don't understand the meaning of most and many or you do. Either way, I'm still correct. :-)
All consumer internet packages from any of the major carriers include a "gateway" device instead of a simple modem...
I'm a CS professional and only a minor geek, but I purchased not only my own router but cable modem rather than renting or obtaining one "free" from my ISP (Cox). I recommend this approach to friends that ask - and help them with setup if asked. I also don't (and won't) do wireless here at home and have wired my own coax and CAT5 to the TV and to each bedroom - though I only have one TV in the house, I have multiple computers w/Windows, Ubuntu and MythTV....
...some updates may still be automatically applied, regardless of the auto-update setting.
Which means they're monitoring your router no matter the local settings.
Please place your hands in the yellow circles and await a police action.
I don't have hands you clod, I'm a meat Popsicle.
When the Java guy messes up a C application, a brushless motor goes berserk and burns itself out.
So, they write controller code for Iranian centrifuges? :-)
Though beloved to some, C is a language that many choose to hate. The mass opinion is indeed so negative it's hard to believe that anybody would program anything in C.
The masses to which you refer are idiots. C is great. It lets you do what you want, how you want. True, you're afforded enough programming rope to easily hang yourself, but you learn not to, and while most things can be more easily done in higher languages (you'll have to pry Perl from my dead, cold hands), many things can only be done in languages like C or its derivatives. C is one of those languages that separates the adults from the kids, so put on your big-boy pants, stop whinging about it and step up.
I'm going to save a ton of cash and outsource mine to India.
Pray tell.. where did all the thinkers come from then?
Berkeley, Stanford, Princeton, Cornell, MIT, etc... ?
(not directed at you fahrbot-bot just all the people that think no taxes are a good thing)
Cool. Personally, I don't mind spending money (or paying taxes), I just don't like to waste money. In addition, I'm fairly liberal on what constitutes spending and not wasting as I'm not an expert on all things and try to keep an open mind. Unfortunately, that cannot be said for others, even in my own family.
For example, my mother - who used to be a liberal Democrat when she was young and struggling Nurse, but is now a retired narrow-minded conservative, Fox "News" watching (seriously, on all the time), Tea Party Republican (enjoying her Medicare) [sigh] - was bitching about someone wanting to "waste" tax dollars studying algae in the ocean even after I reminded her that algae provides 70-80% of the Earth's atmospheric oxygen for us to, you know, breathe.
Or that some of the taxes she no longer wants to pay go to police, firefighters, the paramedics that rescued her mother, and fixing our roads, etc... or helping those less fortunate, like she/we used to be, or people that want to, but cannot work - who are not "free loaders". The subject line describes what her feelings seem to be.
Fuck me. Sometimes, I can't believe I'm related to her any more.
Perhaps you think soldiers should just point their guns at people and demand food and shelter... .
Of course, that is specifically prohibited by the Third Amendment.
Whether insurers pass these cost savings to individuals is a craps shoot.
From Value for Premiums:
The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to spend your premium dollars primarily on health care.
The new law limits how much of your premium dollar your insurer can spend on things other than providing health care and improving its quality. If your insurance company exceeds that limit, it must provide a rebate of the portion of premium dollars that exceeded this limit.
The law requires insurers selling policies to individuals or small groups to spend at least 80% of premiums on direct medical care and efforts to improve the quality of care. Insurers selling to large groups (usually 50 or more employees) must spend 85% of premiums on care and quality improvement.
You should be free to live and behave as you wish...that is a part of freedom and the govt should play no part in trying to coerce you in any way...
Cool. Ditch the obligation for hospitals to treat you anyway if you show up w/o health insurance and/or cannot otherwise pay and let you die in the street and I'm with you. Being free to live and behave as you wish is fine as long as it doesn't infringe on others. One cannot yell movie in a crowded fire station. :-)
... Philip Glass' less musically-talented younger brother.
The papers — contained in more than 800 filing-cabinet drawers — include correspondence with other scientists, drafts of Sagan's academic articles and screenplay drafts for the movie "Contact," ... (emphasis mine)
The cost of donating them might include sorting, collating and preparing the documents to actually be viewable and or some preservation. Often charitable recipients can't or don't want to handle this for private donations. Yes the LOC could probably pay for this, if they're allowed to, which I don't know if they are. (Imagine some idiot right-wing Congress critter, who doesn't believe the Universe exists, complaining about the LOC wasting the taxpayer's money, blah, blah, blah...)
I stopped watching after the episode where Stewie was seriously hurt, and instead of getting him to a hospital they kept on trying to cover it up until the whole thing turned into a dead baby sick-and-twisted animation.
On other words, you threw the bathwater out with the baby.
Now with regard to the passing of consciousness and then life, Stephen Jay Gould wrote about how Lavoisier, if I have this right, was condemned to the guillotine during the Terror of the French Revolution for being a stinkin' aristocrat (Gould suggested that Lavoisier was a stinkin' "tax farmer", i.e., a middle class person who set up shop as a tax collector, where under the King, the tax collector would get a percentage of receipts -- kind of like the hated tax collectors in the Bible). Anyway, Lavoisier was curious how long a person could stay conscious/alive after having their head sliced at the neck, and we worked out some kind of eye-blink code for his last seconds of consciousness, for the good of science as they say.
Can we test this on a few Wall Street bankers? You know, in the name of Science... (Blink once for Credit Default Swap...)
More to the point, as another poster pointed out, is that God could have done all His work through Evolution - end of story.
So why doesn't the Bible say so then?
It seems like a fairly basic error not to have explained this, but instead made up the frankly laughable Genesis account of the creation of the universe and of life on Earth.
Hey, I'm with you, but was just offering some alternative explanations. Though... explaining evolution way-back-when would have been challenging. Cells were discovered in the 1600s and germs/viruses in the 1800s. Seriously, some people *today* don't believe in Evolution - though, for them, having it in The Bible would probably help.
(It boggles my mind to no end how people will put unwavering belief in a work of fiction, with no (or very, very few) references or verifiable facts, seriously edited and manipulated by Men and The Church over time, and completely discount rigorous, verifiable, reproducible scientific works by biologists, archeologists, geologists, bacteriologists, etc...) Unless, of course, it's convenient to believe in Evolution... Doonesbury
don't lump all Christians in with this lot. the way I see it, scientists cannot disprove the existence of God and Christians cannot disprove evolution, or even natural selection.
I think, more rationally, is that God is not required to explain life as we know it. That doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Furthermore, as another poster wrote, God could have done all His work through Evolution. The concepts of God and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, and neither is required for the other to be true or even possible.
Religion is a product of Man separate from the pure concepts of God and the Universe. One can believe that they are intertwined, but Religion is, and has always been, filtered through the thoughts and desires of the followers and, therefore, is, and will always be, suspect with respect to any higher, actual truth. It's possible that some truths may never be known, but sheer belief does not equal truth. That goes for both Religion ans Science. The difference is that Science has a process for progress toward greater understanding of actual truths; Religion does not, just beliefs.
... the Biblical account of Noah and The Flood is correct and evolution is wrong because "God did it".
More to the point, as another poster pointed out, is that God could have done all His work through Evolution - end of story. The problem with Religion and the followers is believing that God has nothing better to do than constantly watch over our immature asses? For example, does anyone seriously believe that, if God exists, God cares one whit about who wins the Superbowl, etc...
For all we know, we could simply be an experiment to see how things turn out. God has eternity to play dice.
At work we are not allowed to install anything except company approved software.
That's adorable.
Whats wrong with sexy female scientists - they have them in movies.
Or, applying the term "scientist" more liberally, on the Mythbusters - Kari Byron - though technically, she's an artist. (Women, take your pick from the other hosts, I'm sticking with Kari.)
More seriously, I know a few women scientists and I can confirm that in many, many cases, the old adage "Beauty * Brains = Constant" is false. Personally, I think smart girls are sexy - end of story.
That may be true, but unless and until there is a law protecting your privacy in a meaningful way, your opinion on what is and is not any of your employer's business is irrelevant. They can get the data, so all they need is a motive.
You make an interesting point, but should I ever be supplied with a company phone with this type of tracking enabled, my employer will only ever find that I apparently spend a lot of time in my desk drawer :-) If they don't like it, I'm happy go work somewhere else... (I'm also in the financial position where I don't need a job anymore.)