I know this is your first time trying to read the news and follow current events, so I'll try to be gentle and just inform you that when they have these things called "criminal investigations," they're run by this special type of lawyer called a Prosecutor, and they're actually forbidden from telling you about the investigation until after it has ended. And it hasn't ended yet. None of the steps are "over" yet.
The trials haven't happened yet, so nobody "won them." No, criminal investigations don't "move on" until after they're completed.
This is your first time. Slow down. Go easier. Try to understand one step before running forwards to the next assertion.
For "some reason" the whole "Russian collusion" thing is somehow causing you cognitive dissonance that prevents you from comprehending that Cohen was raided on suspicion of bank fraud, not "Russian blah blah" or "paying a porn star."
It doesn't give them access to Mueller's anything, it potentially will force Republicans who were involved to hand over any evidence that they were too scared to destroy; it is more about forcing them to reveal things to Mueller than getting access to what he has, and forcing them to admit that there is more to the accusations than they're admitting in public. It controls what people can talk about in public, it affects the types of strong denials that some people have been making in public; if they want to make denials, they're going to have to also sit down and answer questions about those things.
And if they want to shred stuff to avoid discovery, Mueller might be watching!
Claiming that the "super-delegates" were "bought and paid for" is just ignorant flailing nonsense. Super-delegates are people who already have power in the party, whose votes count more. These are the people already established in power, and they exercise it directly in this case; the idea that they would be "bought" by people with less power is absurd. People who spent money to gain power, now have that power, and those are the super-delegates. They are the actual party influencers already, separately from the primary process, not some sort of outside or peripheral group; their powers related to the primary is a very small part of their influence, but it is a part of it that would be exceptionally difficult to manipulate. You can't realistically punish an incumbent politician for endorsing the wrong person in the primary, you'd get run out of the room! They get to make that choice. They can only get punished politically if they choose somebody way outside the mainstream; and the process has been designed specifically to produce that result!
Also, these are real people. Where you talk about if they had "announced support for Bernie [blah blah]," you're just trying to covet other people's opinions. Notice you don't contemplate, "did these people want to support Bernie," instead you're blathering about what they announced; you don't consider that maybe they simply didn't support Bernie, and that that already explains why they didn't announce support for him.
The whole point of "super-delegates" is to prevent people like Bernie who aren't even members of the Democratic Party (he serves in Government as an Independent, he's not a Democratic lawmaker) from getting the nomination unless they have both the support of the people, and also the support of the Party. You can blather about it being "unfair," but why would you get to choose for us what system we use? Democrats get to choose what system the Democratic Party uses, that isn't unfair, it is actually fairness having been already achieved! You do know you're allowed to start a new political party whenever you want, right? If you don't feel the Democratic system is "fair," then don't be a Democrat, and now guess what? Now suddenly it is fair for you, because you're not even involved in the system that you don't like! Solved.
It makes as much sense as saying, "I'm a liberal, but if I had to choose between two Republicans I'd choose [who cares]."
If your point was that Bernie wasn't close enough to being a Democrat to get votes from enough Democrats, you missed. If you point was that he'd have better chances in a party with different voters, sure.
$3+ even on banggood.com you only save about 20 cents compared to the ESP-12.
To pay $1.50 you'd almost certainly need to first travel to China and open a Chinese bank account. And still, the way to get single quantities would be to buy samples, which isn't very repeatable.
Whiffing in that sentence would mean swinging and missing, something that makes no sense in relation to a stroke.
If you were trying to use the meaning of whiff that involves the sense of smell, you'll need to create some sort of context for it. Trying to be funny does not in any way invoke smelling something, but failure at it is often described as a miss.
Maybe it is just too complicated a word? Try with less wordsmithing next time; stick to words you know.
If you really are unable to look up what traffic engineers say about it, and you're resorting to looking things up from Texas, I guarantee you that yes, you are correct: you were trolling yourself.
No, I'm not going to try to teach you how to look up basic facts. Also, you might want to consider that you didn't look up a "transportation code" for CA. You're just some foreigner who can't find California on a map. (as evidenced by your thinking Texas would be relevant)
If a firm cheese is sticking to the knife, sure, don't be embarrassed, just use a wire. Not everybody is going to have the dexterity to maintain the optimal cutting angle throughout the stroke.
But a samurai who was that ham-handed would be expected to commit suicide before putting on training wheels.
They lose money on the enforcement side, they make money on the fees that most people pay in order to avoid the fines. Parking tickets are really small tickets! The parking meters make money, and perhaps if there was no such thing as parking tickets that would not be true. So there is a connection. But it isn't even the same employees involved in giving tickets and setting meter rates.
I don't really even want to know what the tricks are, even using my main language!
If I was using Ruby and something was hard, I'd use C. If I was using C and something was too hard, I'd use ASM. If it requires a trick in ASM, it wasn't even a trick it was a processor feature.
My advice in Ruby is, use baby-Ruby. My advice in C is, use baby-C. My advice in ASM is, don't complain, upgrade until you can do it in C.
In Perl they have ideology that prevents that from being good advice. The good news, they have enough tricks to do anything.
OTOH, many languages require knowledge of specific build tools, and often that strongly determines the required organization. If you're using a new language, expect your packaging to suck and be obviously newb.
I personally keep the API documentation open while I'm coding anything serious, even if it is stuff I use frequently. It only takes a couple seconds to glance at a function signature, and surely I'll read more if I have doubts instead of just forging ahead and waiting for failed tests to save me.
I'm not going to learn a whole API on the plane, but why would ever need to know a whole API? I'll need to know a few functions at a time, and they'll change depending on what part of the code I'm in. The real problem in a new language is that I'd botch the architecture before even implementing the code. But implementing my monstrosity shouldn't be a problem, or require a bunch of memorization.
I'm practically a cheesivor, and I disagree strongly. For firm cheeses, a chef's knife is ideal. For soft cheeses, a cheese knife or straight fruit knife.
For crusty breads with soft interior, you want a serrated knife. For non-crusty breads or breads with a firm interior, a chef's knife is much more effective.
And if you fancy yourself so well dressed that you have brioche for your bread, a serrated knife is going to send serious crumbs flying, to be sure.
A samurai's knife, or even his small sword, would be just about perfect for cutting most cheeses or breads. It is sharp enough not to need to need serration if you have good cutting technique.
I find it is generally as simple as using one (1) high-level library for that stuff per application, such as apache apr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or glib from Gtk.
In the case of embedded programming, I have to ensure security, tools that want to protect me from myself aren't even going to fit well and have access to all the IC features.
The problem with Ruby, for me personally, is that I can't fit it on small microcontrollers. It isn't enough to have an ARM with lots of features, you have to have a huge amount of RAM even for mRuby. It means requiring a system-on-chip that is probably capable of running linux.
It would be nice to have a hybrid version of Ruby where you could give up the dynamic features in return for those parts running without the interpreter, just using a C api. Then as long as I didn't try to do something dynamic, I could write Ruby code and compile it for 8 bits or something. But I'd just be using the control structures, data structures, class system, and compile-time error checking. And if I tried to do something dynamic, I'd get a nice error message. And if I really wanted it, I could upgrade to bigger hardware.
As it is, I'm using C at least part of the time. Hating C would be very limiting. One of the best things about Ruby when you need a high level language is that C integration is simple and seamless.
As far as strings go, there are always functions available to handle them either way, raw or as C strings, so splitting hairs is silly.
You're flatly wrong, I can look it up in my Driver Handbook. Oh, wait, I already made it clear I know what it says. Fuck-an-A, this idea you're repeating is just the shit your parents/friends taught you, it is a disproven old idea. Unless you're exiting the roadway, there is no benefit from knowing that the car is there. That is not the correct way to protect your life. The correct technique is to walk in the same direction as traffic, as far to the side as you can, and behave as slow-moving traffic so that people driving cars can quickly predict your movements without needing to change mental contexts. This is a known and solved problem. This is not a controversial matter of traffic engineering, it is well-established.
That some foreign countries (the story is about California, USA) have an old law that predates the existence of modern traffic engineering does not change that in any way.
In Oregon there is a rule that says, "and you have to follow all the other rules that the DMV issues" or some such thing, and so everything they put in the driver manual is also a real rule.
In California, the actual statute is not about distances, it includes discretion and so the explanation in the manual would have weight even if is more detailed than the statute and even if there isn't a default rule. You have to let the pedestrian cross unhurried, and so there is no fine line for you to push; if you're claiming to be just barely over the line of what is allowed, you're clearly over it because it isn't a line you're allowed to approach.
If slowing down would cause a collision, then in California you can't exactly claim that is legal. You clearly would need to yield to the pedestrian in that case, they have a right to cross in the crosswalk without feeling hurried. A situation where a change in speed endangers them, that isn't just a failure to yield, that is probably criminal reckless endangerment.
It is only small towns that can ticket cars on a road passing through that make money off of tickets.
Police are not a revenue source for a city, it costs a lot of money to pay cops and run traffic courts. Giving out tickets is done to manage people's behavior. If self-driving cars learn to follow the rules and drive well, that will reduce the expense of law enforcement to the city.
The story quotes some legal language, but doesn't explain exactly what the rule is in practice in California.
Also, the distance might have to be triangulated; in Oregon for example there are rules both about how far from the car the pedestrian is, but also how far from the lane the car is using that the pedestrian is. So a pedestrian could be that "far from" the car when the car "began" moving, and yet have not been nearly that far from the edge of the lane that the car was traveling in.
Is the car only looking at the distance as part of a dumb safety system, or is it connected to the navigational system and simulating its actions and their compliance? KISS is great for a bicycle, tank, or mass-produced fighter airplane intended to be flown with minimal training, but it just doesn't cut it for something as complicated as driving a car on a public road. Computers can be better at it than humans, but only if it is because they're doing more thinking than the human could do.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is your first time trying to read the news and follow current events, so I'll try to be gentle and just inform you that when they have these things called "criminal investigations," they're run by this special type of lawyer called a Prosecutor, and they're actually forbidden from telling you about the investigation until after it has ended. And it hasn't ended yet. None of the steps are "over" yet.
The trials haven't happened yet, so nobody "won them." No, criminal investigations don't "move on" until after they're completed.
This is your first time. Slow down. Go easier. Try to understand one step before running forwards to the next assertion.
For "some reason" the whole "Russian collusion" thing is somehow causing you cognitive dissonance that prevents you from comprehending that Cohen was raided on suspicion of bank fraud , not "Russian blah blah" or "paying a porn star."
It doesn't give them access to Mueller's anything, it potentially will force Republicans who were involved to hand over any evidence that they were too scared to destroy; it is more about forcing them to reveal things to Mueller than getting access to what he has, and forcing them to admit that there is more to the accusations than they're admitting in public. It controls what people can talk about in public, it affects the types of strong denials that some people have been making in public; if they want to make denials, they're going to have to also sit down and answer questions about those things.
And if they want to shred stuff to avoid discovery, Mueller might be watching!
Claiming that the "super-delegates" were "bought and paid for" is just ignorant flailing nonsense. Super-delegates are people who already have power in the party, whose votes count more. These are the people already established in power, and they exercise it directly in this case; the idea that they would be "bought" by people with less power is absurd. People who spent money to gain power, now have that power, and those are the super-delegates. They are the actual party influencers already, separately from the primary process, not some sort of outside or peripheral group; their powers related to the primary is a very small part of their influence, but it is a part of it that would be exceptionally difficult to manipulate. You can't realistically punish an incumbent politician for endorsing the wrong person in the primary, you'd get run out of the room! They get to make that choice. They can only get punished politically if they choose somebody way outside the mainstream; and the process has been designed specifically to produce that result!
Also, these are real people. Where you talk about if they had "announced support for Bernie [blah blah]," you're just trying to covet other people's opinions. Notice you don't contemplate, "did these people want to support Bernie," instead you're blathering about what they announced; you don't consider that maybe they simply didn't support Bernie, and that that already explains why they didn't announce support for him.
The whole point of "super-delegates" is to prevent people like Bernie who aren't even members of the Democratic Party (he serves in Government as an Independent, he's not a Democratic lawmaker) from getting the nomination unless they have both the support of the people, and also the support of the Party. You can blather about it being "unfair," but why would you get to choose for us what system we use? Democrats get to choose what system the Democratic Party uses, that isn't unfair, it is actually fairness having been already achieved! You do know you're allowed to start a new political party whenever you want, right? If you don't feel the Democratic system is "fair," then don't be a Democrat, and now guess what? Now suddenly it is fair for you, because you're not even involved in the system that you don't like! Solved.
rigged... All according to rules.
That's a value of "rigged" so small you could take it to the negative infinity power and it wouldn't even change size.
It makes as much sense as saying, "I'm a liberal, but if I had to choose between two Republicans I'd choose [who cares]."
If your point was that Bernie wasn't close enough to being a Democrat to get votes from enough Democrats, you missed. If you point was that he'd have better chances in a party with different voters, sure.
$3+ even on banggood.com you only save about 20 cents compared to the ESP-12.
To pay $1.50 you'd almost certainly need to first travel to China and open a Chinese bank account. And still, the way to get single quantities would be to buy samples, which isn't very repeatable.
You've got some derp on your chin, either wipe it off or get back in the pile.
If you read the white papers on HURD architecture, they're quite clear that we don't need it, and everybody knows it already. ;)
kill -9 pid
Simple.
Or if it was really you that started it,
kill -9 %1
Get you's' a *nix!
The more logical conclusion is that these things are unrelated.
Whiffing in that sentence would mean swinging and missing, something that makes no sense in relation to a stroke.
If you were trying to use the meaning of whiff that involves the sense of smell, you'll need to create some sort of context for it. Trying to be funny does not in any way invoke smelling something, but failure at it is often described as a miss.
Maybe it is just too complicated a word? Try with less wordsmithing next time; stick to words you know.
If you really are unable to look up what traffic engineers say about it, and you're resorting to looking things up from Texas, I guarantee you that yes, you are correct: you were trolling yourself.
No, I'm not going to try to teach you how to look up basic facts. Also, you might want to consider that you didn't look up a "transportation code" for CA. You're just some foreigner who can't find California on a map. (as evidenced by your thinking Texas would be relevant)
If a firm cheese is sticking to the knife, sure, don't be embarrassed, just use a wire. Not everybody is going to have the dexterity to maintain the optimal cutting angle throughout the stroke.
But a samurai who was that ham-handed would be expected to commit suicide before putting on training wheels.
They lose money on the enforcement side, they make money on the fees that most people pay in order to avoid the fines. Parking tickets are really small tickets! The parking meters make money, and perhaps if there was no such thing as parking tickets that would not be true. So there is a connection. But it isn't even the same employees involved in giving tickets and setting meter rates.
apache lets you choose between a wide variety of IO systems, and has since the 90s. That is simple sauce.
I don't really even want to know what the tricks are, even using my main language!
If I was using Ruby and something was hard, I'd use C. If I was using C and something was too hard, I'd use ASM. If it requires a trick in ASM, it wasn't even a trick it was a processor feature.
My advice in Ruby is, use baby-Ruby. My advice in C is, use baby-C. My advice in ASM is, don't complain, upgrade until you can do it in C.
In Perl they have ideology that prevents that from being good advice. The good news, they have enough tricks to do anything.
OTOH, many languages require knowledge of specific build tools, and often that strongly determines the required organization. If you're using a new language, expect your packaging to suck and be obviously newb.
I personally keep the API documentation open while I'm coding anything serious, even if it is stuff I use frequently. It only takes a couple seconds to glance at a function signature, and surely I'll read more if I have doubts instead of just forging ahead and waiting for failed tests to save me.
I'm not going to learn a whole API on the plane, but why would ever need to know a whole API? I'll need to know a few functions at a time, and they'll change depending on what part of the code I'm in. The real problem in a new language is that I'd botch the architecture before even implementing the code. But implementing my monstrosity shouldn't be a problem, or require a bunch of memorization.
I'm practically a cheesivor, and I disagree strongly. For firm cheeses, a chef's knife is ideal. For soft cheeses, a cheese knife or straight fruit knife.
For crusty breads with soft interior, you want a serrated knife. For non-crusty breads or breads with a firm interior, a chef's knife is much more effective.
And if you fancy yourself so well dressed that you have brioche for your bread, a serrated knife is going to send serious crumbs flying, to be sure.
A samurai's knife, or even his small sword, would be just about perfect for cutting most cheeses or breads. It is sharp enough not to need to need serration if you have good cutting technique.
I find it is generally as simple as using one (1) high-level library for that stuff per application, such as apache apr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or glib from Gtk.
In the case of embedded programming, I have to ensure security, tools that want to protect me from myself aren't even going to fit well and have access to all the IC features.
The problem with Ruby, for me personally, is that I can't fit it on small microcontrollers. It isn't enough to have an ARM with lots of features, you have to have a huge amount of RAM even for mRuby. It means requiring a system-on-chip that is probably capable of running linux.
It would be nice to have a hybrid version of Ruby where you could give up the dynamic features in return for those parts running without the interpreter, just using a C api. Then as long as I didn't try to do something dynamic, I could write Ruby code and compile it for 8 bits or something. But I'd just be using the control structures, data structures, class system, and compile-time error checking. And if I tried to do something dynamic, I'd get a nice error message. And if I really wanted it, I could upgrade to bigger hardware.
As it is, I'm using C at least part of the time. Hating C would be very limiting. One of the best things about Ruby when you need a high level language is that C integration is simple and seamless.
As far as strings go, there are always functions available to handle them either way, raw or as C strings, so splitting hairs is silly.
You're flatly wrong, I can look it up in my Driver Handbook. Oh, wait, I already made it clear I know what it says. Fuck-an-A, this idea you're repeating is just the shit your parents/friends taught you, it is a disproven old idea. Unless you're exiting the roadway, there is no benefit from knowing that the car is there. That is not the correct way to protect your life. The correct technique is to walk in the same direction as traffic, as far to the side as you can, and behave as slow-moving traffic so that people driving cars can quickly predict your movements without needing to change mental contexts. This is a known and solved problem. This is not a controversial matter of traffic engineering, it is well-established.
That some foreign countries (the story is about California, USA) have an old law that predates the existence of modern traffic engineering does not change that in any way.
In Oregon there is a rule that says, "and you have to follow all the other rules that the DMV issues" or some such thing, and so everything they put in the driver manual is also a real rule.
In California, the actual statute is not about distances, it includes discretion and so the explanation in the manual would have weight even if is more detailed than the statute and even if there isn't a default rule. You have to let the pedestrian cross unhurried, and so there is no fine line for you to push; if you're claiming to be just barely over the line of what is allowed, you're clearly over it because it isn't a line you're allowed to approach.
If slowing down would cause a collision, then in California you can't exactly claim that is legal. You clearly would need to yield to the pedestrian in that case, they have a right to cross in the crosswalk without feeling hurried. A situation where a change in speed endangers them, that isn't just a failure to yield, that is probably criminal reckless endangerment.
It is only small towns that can ticket cars on a road passing through that make money off of tickets.
Police are not a revenue source for a city, it costs a lot of money to pay cops and run traffic courts. Giving out tickets is done to manage people's behavior. If self-driving cars learn to follow the rules and drive well, that will reduce the expense of law enforcement to the city.
Don't expect there to be less cops, though.
The story quotes some legal language, but doesn't explain exactly what the rule is in practice in California.
Also, the distance might have to be triangulated; in Oregon for example there are rules both about how far from the car the pedestrian is, but also how far from the lane the car is using that the pedestrian is. So a pedestrian could be that "far from" the car when the car "began" moving, and yet have not been nearly that far from the edge of the lane that the car was traveling in.
Is the car only looking at the distance as part of a dumb safety system, or is it connected to the navigational system and simulating its actions and their compliance? KISS is great for a bicycle, tank, or mass-produced fighter airplane intended to be flown with minimal training, but it just doesn't cut it for something as complicated as driving a car on a public road. Computers can be better at it than humans, but only if it is because they're doing more thinking than the human could do.