If you're ugly, broke, and can write quicksort in at least two languages, you can get laid all the time.
Does your quicksort/conversation formula works for people who are into midget pegging, shemale femdom and public Asian groping? If not I'll stick with pornhub for now.
Geez, I actually use my MBP as my desktop for about 98% of the time
You're doing it wrong.
You're supposed to have an iMac for your desktop, a Macbook for Starbucks and/or shared startup workspace, an iPhone to order Ubers and Airbnbs, and an iPad to read Salon in the bathroom.
Use the Apple ecosystem as it was designed (which includes not complaining). If you can't afford it, your life priorities are wrong; surrender your iDevice and join the barbarians who don't "get" it.
It's always funny when Clinton apologists insist on talking more about the Clintons corruption.
If you read again my statement, it's about pardons signed in his last day in office. A total of 176 in his last few hours in the Oval Office. Done at the last minute to, according to the House Government Reform Committee, bypass "almost every applicable standard governing the exercise of the clemency powers". Google their report, it makes for fascinating reading. Of course you'll call them shills too.
So here's a few more things that are public record: -Bill's brother was paid $300,000 to "get access" to Clinton for pardons signed in his last few hours in office -Hilary's broher was cheaper, a mere $200,000 -Clinton pardoned drug dealers, terrorists, and of course white collar criminals; in other words, people who could afford it. No John Q types in the list. -Clinton even pardoned Marc Rich, a crook that was doing business with Iran during the hostage crisis, just after Rich's wife gave $450,000 to the Clinton Foundation and bought new furniture for the Clintons personal residence.
So yeah. Bill Clinton sold the Presidency powers in exchange for cash and furniture (a dining room set worth exactly $7,375). I guess it wasn't enough that they left the White House with $360,000 worth of things that didn't belong to them - and not just diplomatic gifts from foreign dignitiaries, but also furniture gifted to the White House by American citizens who went on record to say it was wrong. The Clintons later "graciously" returned $28,000 worth of furniture to the White House, including a $3,650 kitchen table that was probably not needed since the dining room set received to pardon Marc Rich was worth more.
Those Clintons are not even subtle. They literally took anything that wasn't bolted to the floor in the White House, after having squeezed the presidency for all its commercial value. Amazing.
He can wait. If Clinton is elected, on her last day in office she'll probably do like her husband and sell pardons (Clinton pardoned more people on his last day than all other presidents combined). Not only would she be the first female president, she could also try to beat him at the corruption game. Now THAT would be a big win for gender equality.
That paper and many others like it have been debunked extensively. Apart from the correlation being weak, they don't account for historical disadvantages like poverty, broken homes and oppression.
You confuse "correlation" and "cause"; that was obvious in your first reply but even more now that you say that a study does not "take into account" various factors like poverty and oppression when they identify a correlation between skin color and crime. Oppression, really?
Because you confuse those two things, you let your emotions take over and lose objectivity, and you jump to conclusion. As an example, you say that this study from a Canadian university is racist and has been debunked extensively, which is clearly total bullshit. And the only link you provide to support your self-righteous diatribe is the part 2 of some random blog post series on a broken wordpress site which has nothing to do with nothing except it has the words "debunking" and "race" in the title.
So please take a deep breath and think about this objectively. If you maintain that the study I linked has been "debunked" or is racist, please post relevant links to support your point because as it stands it just looks like you googled "debunking racist study" or somehing like that and posted one of the results, which has no relation whatsoever with the study.
Skin colour doesn't correlate with crime, poverty does.
This is wrong. Skin color does correlate with crime in the USA, a lot more than poverty.
The correlation with a composite of total violent crime was higher with skin color (r=.55), a more biologically influenced variable than with GDP (r=.17), a more culturally influenced variable. These results corroborate and extend those found at the international level using INTERPOL crime statistics and at the county, provincial, and state levels within countries using local statistics.
If they don't replace it with a proprietary wireless product right now, how could they switch to an incompatible other wireless product that is "better" two phone generations down the road? This planned obsolescence won't appear by itself, someone has to get the ball rolling.
When you talk about politicians as if they were all the same, you're reducing them to a function; you're removing the human factor from the equation. Usually that's a sign of a flawed perception and lack of empathy (like when feminazis say that all men are rapists) and can lead to radical positions.
There are politicians that will gladly rig the vote not because they think they need to impose their will on the little monsters but simply because they want power for the sake of power. You can usually spot them because they surf on vague agendas and ideas, and once they do get elected they have no idea what to do. For example, look at how Obama used to get elected (before he became president); instead of campaigning and promoting his ideas, he systematically got strong opponents kicked from the ballot on technicalities or other similar strategies. And look at his voting record in office (again before he became president); he essentially abstained or voted with the majority, like someone who walks between the raindrops. Was it all a master plan to get to the higher office to implement his lifetime priority (although he never talked about healhcare before the race) or was it just opportunism?
Now compare this with another Democrat President: LBJ. Not only did LBJ took decisive action after decisive action in terms of social progress, he also supported social programs created by Republicans, like Medicare (which was a pet project of Eisenhower), and initiated covert war in Southeast Asia (aka the Vietnam war). One may of may not agree with his decisions, but unless one subscribes to the theory that he was behind the assassination of JFK this isn't a politician that rigged the vote or walked between raindrops.
Recent history is full of examples of complex politicians. Like Sarkozy who tried to take down the fat cats of the French public administration (he even asked the lady who was running a "cost cutting" department to cut her own expenses) but who got caught in an electoral and financial corruption scandal. Or Calderone who was elected the same way Bush was (by a court decision) and tried to end the Mexican Drug War by sending the army, only to make it a hundred times worse.
From Reagan (last US president who wrote his own speeches) to Berlusconi, who despite countless accusations of fraud, corruption, sexual misconduct and other scandals managed to be the longest serving prime minister of Italy in the last 50 years, there's a wide variety of politicians with or without political agendas, with or without personal agendas.
You can't put all those people in the same bucket.
Being cynical culminated with the grunge fad, and it stopped being cool a long time ago. Unless you're a teenager or a defeated Democrat, saying that no governments have any interest in trustworthy elections is just lame.
There's a trend in North America (including Mexico and Canada) to have entertainers/rockstar types instead of "serious" people elected in higher office but that doesn't mean the process is rigged or that nobody cares.
The presidential candidates could be Bernie Maddoff and Jeffrey Skilling, and the US election process would still be more trustworthy than the Russian one.
I think IBM are keeping Watson away from actual AI stuff
Who cares? The real danger here is that they let the most advanced AI machine on Earth watch tons of horror movies. Am I he only one who finds that a bad idea?
Slapping together a trailer of scenes from a movie isn't that different from slapping together a quick little program combining libraries someone else already wrote.
What exactly would you like to achieve with this? A stream reader that converts ASCII to EBCDIC on the fly? A XMLReader that takes an EDI payload as a parameter?
Please give some details. Unless you're trying to show off like a Radio Shack employee complaining that iPads have no serial ports.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also pretty good for PHP, js and python. Plus anything that uses yaml like Ansible. I've tried other IDE and always get back to Netbeans.
Nobody gets raises for being a cunt. Come up with a plan to fix this in a cost-effective manner, and maybe next time they'll pay attention.
If you're ugly, broke, and can write quicksort in at least two languages, you can get laid all the time.
Does your quicksort/conversation formula works for people who are into midget pegging, shemale femdom and public Asian groping? If not I'll stick with pornhub for now.
I'm married, happy, and watch porn with my SO.
Wow, I haven't been on StackOverflow for awhile, looks like it has changed a lot.
You're confusing it with The Snowden Sleeper Cell plan.
Geez, I actually use my MBP as my desktop for about 98% of the time
You're doing it wrong.
You're supposed to have an iMac for your desktop, a Macbook for Starbucks and/or shared startup workspace, an iPhone to order Ubers and Airbnbs, and an iPad to read Salon in the bathroom.
Use the Apple ecosystem as it was designed (which includes not complaining). If you can't afford it, your life priorities are wrong; surrender your iDevice and join the barbarians who don't "get" it.
It's always funny when Clinton apologists insist on talking more about the Clintons corruption.
If you read again my statement, it's about pardons signed in his last day in office. A total of 176 in his last few hours in the Oval Office. Done at the last minute to, according to the House Government Reform Committee, bypass "almost every applicable standard governing the exercise of the clemency powers". Google their report, it makes for fascinating reading. Of course you'll call them shills too.
So here's a few more things that are public record:
-Bill's brother was paid $300,000 to "get access" to Clinton for pardons signed in his last few hours in office
-Hilary's broher was cheaper, a mere $200,000
-Clinton pardoned drug dealers, terrorists, and of course white collar criminals; in other words, people who could afford it. No John Q types in the list.
-Clinton even pardoned Marc Rich, a crook that was doing business with Iran during the hostage crisis, just after Rich's wife gave $450,000 to the Clinton Foundation and bought new furniture for the Clintons personal residence.
So yeah. Bill Clinton sold the Presidency powers in exchange for cash and furniture (a dining room set worth exactly $7,375). I guess it wasn't enough that they left the White House with $360,000 worth of things that didn't belong to them - and not just diplomatic gifts from foreign dignitiaries, but also furniture gifted to the White House by American citizens who went on record to say it was wrong. The Clintons later "graciously" returned $28,000 worth of furniture to the White House, including a $3,650 kitchen table that was probably not needed since the dining room set received to pardon Marc Rich was worth more.
Those Clintons are not even subtle. They literally took anything that wasn't bolted to the floor in the White House, after having squeezed the presidency for all its commercial value. Amazing.
He can wait. If Clinton is elected, on her last day in office she'll probably do like her husband and sell pardons (Clinton pardoned more people on his last day than all other presidents combined). Not only would she be the first female president, she could also try to beat him at the corruption game. Now THAT would be a big win for gender equality.
How do you explain that this "debunking" document you provide has been published 10 years before the study I linked?
Oh I know: precog debunking.
That paper and many others like it have been debunked extensively. Apart from the correlation being weak, they don't account for historical disadvantages like poverty, broken homes and oppression.
You confuse "correlation" and "cause"; that was obvious in your first reply but even more now that you say that a study does not "take into account" various factors like poverty and oppression when they identify a correlation between skin color and crime. Oppression, really?
Because you confuse those two things, you let your emotions take over and lose objectivity, and you jump to conclusion. As an example, you say that this study from a Canadian university is racist and has been debunked extensively, which is clearly total bullshit. And the only link you provide to support your self-righteous diatribe is the part 2 of some random blog post series on a broken wordpress site which has nothing to do with nothing except it has the words "debunking" and "race" in the title.
So please take a deep breath and think about this objectively. If you maintain that the study I linked has been "debunked" or is racist, please post relevant links to support your point because as it stands it just looks like you googled "debunking racist study" or somehing like that and posted one of the results, which has no relation whatsoever with the study.
Skin colour doesn't correlate with crime, poverty does.
This is wrong. Skin color does correlate with crime in the USA, a lot more than poverty.
The correlation with a composite of total violent crime was higher with skin color (r=.55), a more biologically influenced variable than with GDP (r=.17), a more culturally influenced variable. These results corroborate and extend those found at the international level using INTERPOL crime statistics and at the county, provincial, and state levels within countries using local statistics.
http://philipperushton.net/wp-...
Of course that was in 2011, I'm sure all those diversity programs in Silicon Valley companies changed everything.
First, you don't have a house. Second, if you had one, nobody would want to rent it anyways.
If they don't replace it with a proprietary wireless product right now, how could they switch to an incompatible other wireless product that is "better" two phone generations down the road? This planned obsolescence won't appear by itself, someone has to get the ball rolling.
I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more bokeh
No, we're embracing a reliable standard that works across a huge variety of technologies.
Are you talking about systemd?
Apple bends physics on a regular basis by selling new phones that are identical to their previous ones but are at the same time "better".
When you talk about politicians as if they were all the same, you're reducing them to a function; you're removing the human factor from the equation. Usually that's a sign of a flawed perception and lack of empathy (like when feminazis say that all men are rapists) and can lead to radical positions.
There are politicians that will gladly rig the vote not because they think they need to impose their will on the little monsters but simply because they want power for the sake of power. You can usually spot them because they surf on vague agendas and ideas, and once they do get elected they have no idea what to do. For example, look at how Obama used to get elected (before he became president); instead of campaigning and promoting his ideas, he systematically got strong opponents kicked from the ballot on technicalities or other similar strategies. And look at his voting record in office (again before he became president); he essentially abstained or voted with the majority, like someone who walks between the raindrops. Was it all a master plan to get to the higher office to implement his lifetime priority (although he never talked about healhcare before the race) or was it just opportunism?
Now compare this with another Democrat President: LBJ. Not only did LBJ took decisive action after decisive action in terms of social progress, he also supported social programs created by Republicans, like Medicare (which was a pet project of Eisenhower), and initiated covert war in Southeast Asia (aka the Vietnam war). One may of may not agree with his decisions, but unless one subscribes to the theory that he was behind the assassination of JFK this isn't a politician that rigged the vote or walked between raindrops.
Recent history is full of examples of complex politicians. Like Sarkozy who tried to take down the fat cats of the French public administration (he even asked the lady who was running a "cost cutting" department to cut her own expenses) but who got caught in an electoral and financial corruption scandal. Or Calderone who was elected the same way Bush was (by a court decision) and tried to end the Mexican Drug War by sending the army, only to make it a hundred times worse.
From Reagan (last US president who wrote his own speeches) to Berlusconi, who despite countless accusations of fraud, corruption, sexual misconduct and other scandals managed to be the longest serving prime minister of Italy in the last 50 years, there's a wide variety of politicians with or without political agendas, with or without personal agendas.
You can't put all those people in the same bucket.
Being cynical culminated with the grunge fad, and it stopped being cool a long time ago. Unless you're a teenager or a defeated Democrat, saying that no governments have any interest in trustworthy elections is just lame.
There's a trend in North America (including Mexico and Canada) to have entertainers/rockstar types instead of "serious" people elected in higher office but that doesn't mean the process is rigged or that nobody cares.
The presidential candidates could be Bernie Maddoff and Jeffrey Skilling, and the US election process would still be more trustworthy than the Russian one.
One would assume that people at that level can cheat better. Voters should be offended not by he fraud but by their incompetence and shameless lies.
Samsung also makes automated gun turrets. That makes them the coolest company ever, no matter what their value is on paper.
I think IBM are keeping Watson away from actual AI stuff
Who cares? The real danger here is that they let the most advanced AI machine on Earth watch tons of horror movies. Am I he only one who finds that a bad idea?
Slapping together a trailer of scenes from a movie isn't that different from slapping together a quick little program combining libraries someone else already wrote.
npm install scene --save-trailer
bitwise access to char buffers
What exactly would you like to achieve with this? A stream reader that converts ASCII to EBCDIC on the fly? A XMLReader that takes an EDI payload as a parameter?
Please give some details. Unless you're trying to show off like a Radio Shack employee complaining that iPads have no serial ports.
For a great many years, anything that involved Windows.
The Microsoft support handbook:
-small problem -> reboot
-medium problem -> reinstall
-big problem -> upgrade
This solves 85% of the problems. For the remaining 15%, blame the antivirus and/or the user.