In contrary, smiles in Russia ("foreign" passports) are not prohibited, but, oh, how I wish I did not. Now every time I enter this blessed country, every single board guard that checks my passport thinks it is funny to tell me that I do not look like the picture and waits until I show them all my 28 teeth in "American" smile, greeting me back with a smug smile of their own.
In Russia, to be concise, nobody smiles. Smiling is suspicious, it could mean that you are making fun of the person you are conversing with.
Exactly. Non-writers should write and they should write shooting for published work, but, quoting Fight Club, "but they won't", meaning that after coders wrote the code it has to go through the scrutiny of testing, QA, code review, JIRA tickets, universal derision, the same scrutiny that coders go through, just longer, because they non-coders, sowpwise, sowpwise, don't know squat about coding
The idea behind this brilliant managebit is to make a magical shortcut between user problem and coder solution: "user knows exactly what he needs! so let him code! Eureka!"...,,, not. More like "Bazinga!"
Take the premise: "user knows exactly what he needs!" That's utterly ridiculous. User does not even know the reasonable scope of the needs.
That actually the main purpose of having a back-end coder guy in this, not to code (though he will), but to shape user's ideas into reasonable form that fits current paradigm and architecture of the software.
spent most of the past 5 weeks running instrument and system checks
Curiosity is almost the worst mean of transportation! Almost, because the difference between traveling on Curiosity and airplane is that you won't have to get a prostate check before boarding Curiosity.
The title so brings the nostalgic memories of 80s, when the first thing you do as a freshman is join glorious rows of collective farmers for two three weeks at the border between Moscow and Tula regions.
The farm was actually set up this way. They had only managers and the role of measly workers were always performed by Moscow students.
Jokes aside, usually God gives His creatures either very good protection (high birth rate - rabbits, mimicry - chameleons, tough exoskeleton - turtles) or very good weapons (speed, claws, teeth, muscles)
So nothing will possibly go wrong. We will have small tough animals locked up in their ecological niche.
In principal, chemically, all of oil could be processed, with potential release/consumption of water and carbon dioxide.
In terms of elements, chemically, oil actually is pretty clean, it's just basic organic elements of life, as every one of you knows. Oil pollution problem is a result it's physical properties: viscosity, density, etc. Which results from oil being bunch of rather long polymers.
Theoretically, it does not make sense for bacteria that consumes oil to produce polymers longer than oil polymers, most likely, it couldn't exert nothing but carbon dioxide, water, methane - smaller molecular compounds.
That's the bacterial waste directly from oil metabolism. Theoretically there could be toxins from other aspects of bacteria's life.
I grew up in a small provincial town in 70s. My father used every single business trip to Moscow to bring home 20-30 kilos of beef (20 hours train)
Beef was available in Moscow state shops at 2R/kg, while in my town it was available only on local farmers market at 6-7R/kg My parents had a combined salary of ~250R. If one assumes that a typical programmer of my age gets $10K a month, the price of beef in 70s in my town will translate into nowadays $100/kg=$250/lb. Butter was available only over acquaintances in local food distribution systems.We lived on bread, milk, potatoes and rice. My parents, college professors, had to grow fruits and vegetables in our local garden: that was the only source.
Moscow and St-Petersburg fared much better than that.When I met a group of Moscovites for the first time in my life in 1980, it was an international "pioneer camp" and I mistook them for foreigners: because their physical appearance was much healthier than appearance of other provinicial folks in my group: Chita, Kabardino-Balkaria, Rostov, Omsk. I walked to one of the fat tall guys in expensive glasses and applied my school English for the first time in my life: "Are you from Finland?", I said (one of the countries presented in my camp was Finland). He replied in Russian: "No, I am from Moscow".
As a Muslim, I am not a fan of Putin. In my view, if his bloody corpse will be found hung one day at Lobnoye Mesto (like Najib's corpse in Kabul in 1996) that would make it one happy day for me.
But your view of Putin is overly simplistic. In the beginning this bloody butcher of my brothers in Chechnya did quite well for Russia. He eliminated cannibalistic influence of Semiboyarschina on Russian politics, he straightened up street crime and criminal gangs, he used rather successfully oil price surge to move Russia forward.
I visit yearly both Moscow and the small provincial town I was born. Over the 2000s, the progress was remarkable.
The problem with Putin is not that he maintained Pinochettian regime in the country, the problem is that he evolved from successful Pinochet to unsuccessful one. It was easy for him to fix disastrous Eltsyn economy, because, frankly, almost anything was better than those wild anarchic capitalism years, but the global economic crisis that happened gradually since the day my enemies commemorate today presented him with insurmountable challenge, that he failed to address properly.
That is a problem. He became an economic failure. That is opinion of the vast majority of business people, who do not give a flying over political rights.
Your view (on political rights) is the view of the tiniest minority of disgruntled opposition, the losers of Russian politics, like Nemtsov, and chess, like Kasparov, the hasbeens that cannot invent a pasta sauce, not speaking of a role in Russian politics.
Neither Putin or opposition present any good Russia-specific solution for current times.
Government increasing a grip on our habits, whereabouts, manners, thoughts, etc. which results ideally in absence of successful acts of terrorism, that being the measure of some kind of synthetic success of the society. This is in a striking contrast with other crimes: theft, for example, where the rights of thieves are protected.
Granted, destruction of twin towers which led to deaths of 3000 people are not comparable to typical home invasion/exceeding defense limits scenario, but they might be comparable to the massive billion-dollar scams that deprived thousands and thousands of people of their earnings.
When some intellectuals defend the "freedoms" of a gangster terrorizing poor ethnic neighborhoods, when they defend "freedoms" of a home invader who met a bullet in the face, the society sees this a healthy sign of a liberal society. Some intellectuals consider existence of some sort of crimes as a healthy sign of freedoms in society: drunk driving, for example, would not be possible in a Shariah country.
I propose to similarly consider the incidents of successful terror acts as a measure of "healthy liberalism" in society:
If in some Western country X, terrorists are able to carry their acts - good for X, liberties, privacy of ordinary citizens are preserved. If a president of the country Y is killed - good for Y, liberties are preserved.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't do wrong, especially to bad people, since in the latter case you have to apologize to bad people, and it sucks.
>look more modern and stylish
Yep. That's always a winner approach in safety.
sophose went auto-immune
It's amazing how far the "life" analogy goes in anti-malware world
In contrary, smiles in Russia ("foreign" passports) are not prohibited, but, oh, how I wish I did not. Now every time I enter this blessed country, every single board guard that checks my passport thinks it is funny to tell me that I do not look like the picture and waits until I show them all my 28 teeth in "American" smile, greeting me back with a smug smile of their own.
In Russia, to be concise, nobody smiles. Smiling is suspicious, it could mean that you are making fun of the person you are conversing with.
Exactly. Non-writers should write and they should write shooting for published work, but, quoting Fight Club, "but they won't", meaning that after coders wrote the code it has to go through the scrutiny of testing, QA, code review, JIRA tickets, universal derision, the same scrutiny that coders go through, just longer, because they non-coders, sowpwise, sowpwise, don't know squat about coding
The idea behind this brilliant managebit is to make a magical shortcut between user problem and coder solution: "user knows exactly what he needs! so let him code! Eureka!" ... ,,, not. More like "Bazinga!"
Take the premise: "user knows exactly what he needs!" That's utterly ridiculous. User does not even know the reasonable scope of the needs.
That actually the main purpose of having a back-end coder guy in this, not to code (though he will), but to shape user's ideas into reasonable form that fits current paradigm and architecture of the software.
one would expect from /. at least to put the stuff that matters the most in the summary. But no... Instead, the price. Who cares?
"The rock, which weighs in at 4 pounds"
>The industry can't ever truly win this war
That's never the purpose of law enforcement. Purpose of law enforcement is to minimize to a reasonable level.
Curiosity
is almost the worst mean of transportation! Almost, because the difference between traveling on Curiosity and
airplane is that you won't have to get a prostate check before boarding Curiosity.
I agree. The original post also omits relevant number of Lego blocks used for construction of the cluster.
The title so brings the nostalgic memories of 80s, when the first thing you do as a freshman is join glorious rows of collective farmers for two three weeks at the border between Moscow and Tula regions.
The farm was actually set up this way. They had only managers and the role of measly workers were always performed by Moscow students.
In Soviet Russia we used to call such activities "administrative itch".
Jokes aside, usually God gives His creatures either very good protection (high birth rate - rabbits, mimicry - chameleons, tough exoskeleton - turtles) or very good weapons (speed, claws, teeth, muscles)
So nothing will possibly go wrong. We will have small tough animals locked up in their ecological niche.
In principal, chemically, all of oil could be processed, with potential release/consumption of water and carbon dioxide.
In terms of elements, chemically, oil actually is pretty clean, it's just basic organic elements of life, as every one of you knows. Oil pollution problem is a result it's physical properties: viscosity, density, etc. Which results from oil being bunch of rather long polymers.
Theoretically, it does not make sense for bacteria that consumes oil to produce polymers longer than oil polymers, most likely, it couldn't exert nothing but carbon dioxide, water, methane - smaller molecular compounds.
That's the bacterial waste directly from oil metabolism. Theoretically there could be toxins from other aspects of bacteria's life.
Theoretically.
Hangs on the wall, reeks of herring
long green sausage
link
François Furet estimated there were 5 million deaths in the famine;
>Ukraine between 1928 and 1933
Why people in the West always forget
? It had the same scale
Like Ptolemy explained planet movements?
I grew up in a small provincial town in 70s. My father used every single business trip to Moscow to bring home 20-30 kilos of beef (20 hours train)
Beef was available in Moscow state shops at 2R/kg, while in my town it was available only on local farmers market at 6-7R/kg My parents had a combined salary of ~250R. If one assumes that a typical programmer of my age gets $10K a month, the price of beef in 70s in my town will translate into nowadays $100/kg=$250/lb. Butter was available only over acquaintances in local food distribution systems.We lived on bread, milk, potatoes and rice. My parents, college professors, had to grow fruits and vegetables in our local garden: that was the only source.
Moscow and St-Petersburg fared much better than that.When I met a group of Moscovites for the first time in my life in 1980, it was an international "pioneer camp" and I mistook them for foreigners: because their physical appearance was much healthier than appearance of other provinicial folks in my group: Chita, Kabardino-Balkaria, Rostov, Omsk. I walked to one of the fat tall guys in expensive glasses and applied my school English for the first time in my life: "Are you from Finland?", I said (one of the countries presented in my camp was Finland). He replied in Russian: "No, I am from Moscow".
As a Muslim, I am not a fan of Putin. In my view, if his bloody corpse will be found hung one day at Lobnoye Mesto (like Najib's corpse in Kabul in 1996) that would make it one happy day for me.
But your view of Putin is overly simplistic. In the beginning this bloody butcher of my brothers in Chechnya did quite well for Russia. He eliminated cannibalistic influence of Semiboyarschina on Russian politics, he straightened up street crime and criminal gangs, he used rather successfully oil price surge to move Russia forward.
I visit yearly both Moscow and the small provincial town I was born. Over the 2000s, the progress was remarkable.
The problem with Putin is not that he maintained Pinochettian regime in the country, the problem is that he evolved from successful Pinochet to unsuccessful one. It was easy for him to fix disastrous Eltsyn economy, because, frankly, almost anything was better than those wild anarchic capitalism years, but the global economic crisis that happened gradually since the day my enemies commemorate today presented him with insurmountable challenge, that he failed to address properly.
That is a problem. He became an economic failure. That is opinion of the vast majority of business people, who do not give a flying over political rights.
Your view (on political rights) is the view of the tiniest minority of disgruntled opposition, the losers of Russian politics, like Nemtsov, and chess, like Kasparov, the hasbeens that cannot invent a pasta sauce, not speaking of a role in Russian politics.
Neither Putin or opposition present any good Russia-specific solution for current times.
Government increasing a grip on our habits, whereabouts, manners, thoughts, etc. which results ideally in absence of successful acts of terrorism, that being the measure of some kind of synthetic success of the society. This is in a striking contrast with other crimes: theft, for example, where the rights of thieves are protected.
Granted, destruction of twin towers which led to deaths of 3000 people are not comparable to typical home invasion/exceeding defense limits scenario, but they might be comparable to the massive billion-dollar scams that deprived thousands and thousands of people of their earnings.
When some intellectuals defend the "freedoms" of a gangster terrorizing poor ethnic neighborhoods, when they defend "freedoms" of a home invader who met a bullet in the face, the society sees this a healthy sign of a liberal society. Some intellectuals consider existence of some sort of crimes as a healthy sign of freedoms in society: drunk driving, for example, would not be possible in a Shariah country.
I propose to similarly consider the incidents of successful terror acts as a measure of "healthy liberalism" in society:
If in some Western country X, terrorists are able to carry their acts - good for X, liberties, privacy of ordinary citizens are preserved.
If a president of the country Y is killed - good for Y, liberties are preserved.
How do you like them apples now, slashdot?
I have heard that at least some copiers had built in block for reproduction of banknotes. If this is true, it is probably result of some regulation.
I wonder if something similar will be done for the 3D printers.
>Won't be long before lazy fat people are using these just because they don't feel like using their own muscles to move their limbs.
As one of those, I testify that it cannot happen soon enough.
I think that was a joke by the submitter.
"tiny bit of XSLT" that's the funniest short joke of today.