So, if the syllabus says there will be a test on 2/6, and snow prevents the test from happening, the teacher is in violation of her contract with the students?
Sounds like your wife's university should get different lawyers.
it was on the anon-a-blog. ravar@nixonvan.com Bob Vanderhye, 703-442-0422.
I think TurnItIn's strategy is to make the schools make the students submit the papers (and agree to the terms). Many students have successfully challenged their teachers and their schools, saying that this requirement to submit to a PERMANENT ARCHIVE is wrong.
Either way, they'd have to borrow at least half of the purchase price.
Umm... in their last offer, they were not borrowing ANY. Did you miss that?
Half was cash, half was a stock swap.
Don't forget, at time of purchase, they'd have access to Yahoo's cash reserves too.
...the press in "the free world"...isn't free or impartial by a long shot, because most media outfits are owned by corporations.
Um, but you are free to start your own press, and say whatever you want.
Of course, you may want to incorporate for your protection. It seems that you feel the act of incorporation adds evilness and bias to your reporting. But bias is there prior to incorporation.
My opinion is that your "Score:5 Insightful" post is a load of crap, and that's the beauty of a free society. I can state my opinion, whether I am a corporation or not. And you can say yours. I can say it in print, on TV, or right here on the Internet.
Sure, the internet has a lower cost of entry, but high costs of other mediums of communication do not equate to less freedom. You are free to start your own radio station or newspaper! Go for it.
Here in Erie, PA, recently a cop was filmed off duty in a bar apparently mocking a homicide victim and his family in a rather obnoxious manner. Somebody put it on YouTube, and now the papers are reporting that the police are launching a "probe" to find the naughty poster. Meanwhile the cop is on TV crying. No joke. Cops love it as long as it doesn't cut the other way.
Ya probably don't want to link to it either, or you could get into big trouble.
I vaguely recall something about "...and to the Republic for..."
The quote that you are only vaguely recalling comes from the Pledge of Allegiance, which is taught to first graders, so it must be important.
The exact statement that I said as a first grader was "...and to the Republic, for Richard Stands, one nation under God, Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".
Richard Stands was a very important political figure when the pledge of allegiance was written, who believed in Democracy as well as Republics.
Check wikipedia if you don't believe me. Always good to have the facts, don't you think?
Geesh, what's wrong with these school systems. Don't people learn this stuff?
Not sure, but I think Richard Stands might be an ancestor of Bobby Tables.
I think if it were all predictable, people would be able to point to other 1999 predictions that said the same thing.
It's easy now to look at "today" and say "it was obvious 10 years ago", but it really isn't. Can you perform other "obvious" predictions of 2019?
My lame "proof" that it was Not all predictable is that no one has come forth with another author's similar predictions.
Not to mention, wasn't Kurzweil's 1999 book a best seller? (I know the 2005 book was.) I doubt that a book of obvious stuff would become a best seller. I think it was somewhat revolutionary and he was out on a limb on some of this stuff.
I have read what Kurzweil predicts for the coming decade, and I am blown away. It is NOT obvious, and is actually quite controversial (meaning that other futurists disagree vehemently.) So using his current predictions as a way of trying to gauge and recall what it felt like in 1999 - I'd say Ray tends to go out on a limb.
The article says $1000 in 1999 dollars. So that'd be nearly $1500 today. I think he nailed this one.
Not sure what article the GP post read, but I thought it was pretty much spot on, and it was NOT all predictable. I challenge people to find a similar article that was anywhere near this close.
Then again, it doesn't surprise me. Kurzweil is very methodical in his predictions. He works the math.
You're looking at it all wrong! I mean, you may be right (that they are all lying, thieving, immoral, unethical, and greedy f'ing bastards), but there's opportunity in that!
Had you BET on that, you'd be rich right now. You can invest in the potential downfall of many securities. Which, by the way, was what many of the financial companies and hedge funds did.
And I really don't think this is a "if you can't beat them, join them" situation. It's recognition of human nature, and investing with that recognition in mind. You aren't necessarily doing anything illegal or immoral by betting on the downfall of companies. You are wisely investing.
Looking at it that way, many moral, ethical Wall-streeters may have made lots of money on the downside fluctuations in the market, and so your premise that they are *all* thieves must be incorrect.
OK, so it again sounds like Guido is doing what you want. He kept it in there, and is "Then, very carefully, remov[ing] the old features that nobody uses anymore." for significantly large values of "nobody".
By deprecating it, he still leaves the functionality in the language, encouraging people to quit using it. By the time it's removed, I doubt that very many people will be using it.
Personally, I think this issue was handled perfectly. It might be removed in 3.6 or 4.0 or something, when enough people have adapted to the new method. If it's removed in 3.1, I'll agree with you, but it doesn't look like it will be.
And if you, or others, don't like it, you can fork the project, or simply write a function that emulates the current functionality (or stay on an older version).
Probably makes sense to agree to disagree though. I think Python 3.0 was handled as perfectly as can be expected, and I have never seen such attention to detail, perfection, and community in any other language.
ok, maybe I should re-word my comment. It wasn't Killed, it was supplemented with an alternative.
Did you see this part:
"(Both the % operator and the string.Template module are retained in version 3.)"
My intended point was that the old way still works, which is contrary to your original post. I thought you were advocating that, rather than removing a key function, they should (your words...) "*add* as many new features you want, but keep the old ones intact." which appears to be what they did.
Is that clearer? I am not trying to advocate that one is better than the other. I am trying to say that they did precisely what you wanted them to do!
The FIRST committee(which stands for "For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology") has a sub-committee "Parents Of Scientists / Technologists" that I keep reading about.
Surely you've seen their ads, appearing at the top of every discussion forum. FIRST POST this, FIRST POST that...
There's the distinct possibility that I don't know what I am talking about, but one quick Google search tells me that % format wasn't killed, just replaced with something better.
From the link:
Many Python programmers felt that the built-in % operator for formatting strings was too constrained, because:
It is a binary operator and can take at most two arguments.
Exempting the format string argument, all other arguments must be squeezed in with either a tuple or a dictionary.
This style is somewhat inflexible, so Python 3 introduces a new way of doing string formatting. (Both the % operator and the string.Template module are retained in version 3.)
What are the odds that a computer system that some Slashdot user manages would HAPPEN to crash on New Years Eve?
Say there are 100,000 slashdot readers, and 30% of them manage servers, ranging from 1 to 100 servers, with the average being 3.3 Servers. So the slashdot reader population manages 100,000 servers. (Adjust numbers to suit your beliefs.)
Even with the submitter's "great stats" of 1-2 failures in 2237 days, you're talking about a server failing every 1500 days (4 years), or 25,000 readers' servers failing every year. So nearly 70 servers fail a day, and the odds of one of those failing near midnight (in some time zone or UTC) seem like near certainty.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if the syllabus says there will be a test on 2/6, and snow prevents the test from happening, the teacher is in violation of her contract with the students?
Sounds like your wife's university should get different lawyers.
it was on the anon-a-blog. ravar@nixonvan.com Bob Vanderhye, 703-442-0422.
I think TurnItIn's strategy is to make the schools make the students submit the papers (and agree to the terms). Many students have successfully challenged their teachers and their schools, saying that this requirement to submit to a PERMANENT ARCHIVE is wrong.
Then I clicked around the Marvell site to try to find out how to buy it.
At $100, they should have a "BUY IT NOW" button on their site. They missed at least one quick sale from an impulse buyer here.
He was only 007.
Umm... in their last offer, they were not borrowing ANY. Did you miss that?
Half was cash, half was a stock swap.
Don't forget, at time of purchase, they'd have access to Yahoo's cash reserves too.
So maybe a partnership / purchase of RIM (Blackberry)?
Um, but you are free to start your own press, and say whatever you want.
Of course, you may want to incorporate for your protection. It seems that you feel the act of incorporation adds evilness and bias to your reporting. But bias is there prior to incorporation.
My opinion is that your "Score:5 Insightful" post is a load of crap, and that's the beauty of a free society. I can state my opinion, whether I am a corporation or not. And you can say yours. I can say it in print, on TV, or right here on the Internet.
Sure, the internet has a lower cost of entry, but high costs of other mediums of communication do not equate to less freedom. You are free to start your own radio station or newspaper! Go for it.
So wait... I can scroll down to the bottom of the page to get my sex change?
Here in Erie, PA, recently a cop was filmed off duty in a bar apparently mocking a homicide victim and his family in a rather obnoxious manner. Somebody put it on YouTube, and now the papers are reporting that the police are launching a "probe" to find the naughty poster. Meanwhile the cop is on TV crying. No joke. Cops love it as long as it doesn't cut the other way.
Ya probably don't want to link to it either, or you could get into big trouble.
I finally have a server that I can store all my snuff films on!
The quote that you are only vaguely recalling comes from the Pledge of Allegiance, which is taught to first graders, so it must be important.
The exact statement that I said as a first grader was "...and to the Republic, for Richard Stands, one nation under God, Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". Richard Stands was a very important political figure when the pledge of allegiance was written, who believed in Democracy as well as Republics.
Check wikipedia if you don't believe me. Always good to have the facts, don't you think? Geesh, what's wrong with these school systems. Don't people learn this stuff?
Not sure, but I think Richard Stands might be an ancestor of Bobby Tables.
I think if it were all predictable, people would be able to point to other 1999 predictions that said the same thing.
It's easy now to look at "today" and say "it was obvious 10 years ago", but it really isn't. Can you perform other "obvious" predictions of 2019?
My lame "proof" that it was Not all predictable is that no one has come forth with another author's similar predictions.
Not to mention, wasn't Kurzweil's 1999 book a best seller? (I know the 2005 book was.) I doubt that a book of obvious stuff would become a best seller. I think it was somewhat revolutionary and he was out on a limb on some of this stuff.
I have read what Kurzweil predicts for the coming decade, and I am blown away. It is NOT obvious, and is actually quite controversial (meaning that other futurists disagree vehemently.) So using his current predictions as a way of trying to gauge and recall what it felt like in 1999 - I'd say Ray tends to go out on a limb.
The "average" stock dropped 40% or so. Many of those large, regular, average companies remain short-able.
Someone else's 40% drop could have been your 67% gain. (calculating: 40% drop = 1-0.4 = 0.6. 1/0.6 = 1.67.)
I'm not greedy; I'll take a 67% gain when everyone else is losing money. Of course, I lost a ton, just like everyone else. I'm just rationalizing...
The article says $1000 in 1999 dollars. So that'd be nearly $1500 today. I think he nailed this one.
Not sure what article the GP post read, but I thought it was pretty much spot on, and it was NOT all predictable. I challenge people to find a similar article that was anywhere near this close.
Then again, it doesn't surprise me. Kurzweil is very methodical in his predictions. He works the math.
dang... foiled again.
loose indeed is a verb. And an adjective.
in my haste to tell a bad joke, I screwed up and mentioned verbizing nouns. I should have mentioned verbizing adjectives.
Is loose even a verb? I hate when people verbize nouns!
You're looking at it all wrong! I mean, you may be right (that they are all lying, thieving, immoral, unethical, and greedy f'ing bastards), but there's opportunity in that!
Had you BET on that, you'd be rich right now. You can invest in the potential downfall of many securities. Which, by the way, was what many of the financial companies and hedge funds did.
And I really don't think this is a "if you can't beat them, join them" situation. It's recognition of human nature, and investing with that recognition in mind. You aren't necessarily doing anything illegal or immoral by betting on the downfall of companies. You are wisely investing.
Looking at it that way, many moral, ethical Wall-streeters may have made lots of money on the downside fluctuations in the market, and so your premise that they are *all* thieves must be incorrect.
OK, so it again sounds like Guido is doing what you want. He kept it in there, and is "Then, very carefully, remov[ing] the old features that nobody uses anymore." for significantly large values of "nobody".
By deprecating it, he still leaves the functionality in the language, encouraging people to quit using it. By the time it's removed, I doubt that very many people will be using it.
Personally, I think this issue was handled perfectly. It might be removed in 3.6 or 4.0 or something, when enough people have adapted to the new method. If it's removed in 3.1, I'll agree with you, but it doesn't look like it will be.
And if you, or others, don't like it, you can fork the project, or simply write a function that emulates the current functionality (or stay on an older version).
Probably makes sense to agree to disagree though. I think Python 3.0 was handled as perfectly as can be expected, and I have never seen such attention to detail, perfection, and community in any other language.
-Guido's cousin
ok, maybe I should re-word my comment. It wasn't Killed, it was supplemented with an alternative.
Did you see this part: "(Both the % operator and the string.Template module are retained in version 3.)"
My intended point was that the old way still works, which is contrary to your original post. I thought you were advocating that, rather than removing a key function, they should (your words...) "*add* as many new features you want, but keep the old ones intact." which appears to be what they did.
Is that clearer? I am not trying to advocate that one is better than the other. I am trying to say that they did precisely what you wanted them to do!
The FIRST committee(which stands for "For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology") has a sub-committee "Parents Of Scientists / Technologists" that I keep reading about.
Surely you've seen their ads, appearing at the top of every discussion forum. FIRST POST this, FIRST POST that...
There's the distinct possibility that I don't know what I am talking about, but one quick Google search tells me that % format wasn't killed, just replaced with something better.
From the link:
What are the odds that a computer system that some Slashdot user manages would HAPPEN to crash on New Years Eve?
Say there are 100,000 slashdot readers, and 30% of them manage servers, ranging from 1 to 100 servers, with the average being 3.3 Servers. So the slashdot reader population manages 100,000 servers. (Adjust numbers to suit your beliefs.)
Even with the submitter's "great stats" of 1-2 failures in 2237 days, you're talking about a server failing every 1500 days (4 years), or 25,000 readers' servers failing every year. So nearly 70 servers fail a day, and the odds of one of those failing near midnight (in some time zone or UTC) seem like near certainty.
So, nothing to see here, move along...
I already thought of that next year.
First slash-dot-laugh-out-loud in quite a while.
But if a consultant falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear his recommendations, does he make a sound?
Thank you, I'm here all week.