What's even funnier is how completely false it is. I love a good pedanticism, but this one falls on its face.
The term "prime symbol" or "prime character" only even dates to the 1960s or so. And typewriters already existed, and often had apostrophe and quotation symbols. Any other symbols are typographical or related to accounting. The idea that they would have a special key on a typewriter for writing distances, which is the work ' is doing when it is denoting "prime" (meaning only first, " being being second) but that they would omit an apostrophe, which is a basic symbol necessary for grammatically correct English, it is just completely absurd.
Once you're inside the distortion field, you can just invent your own history on a whim, no problem.
Even funnier, there is a standard convention in computers that when you need a prime symbol but the character set doesn't include it, you use a italicized apostrophe!
I can't understand why he wouldn't see the problem when looking at the offer, why would a CPA have to actually do it to themselves to find the problem?
Actually (at least in the USA) nobody can tell you that you cannot use your car to
Driving is a privilege, not a right. In the USA, nobody can tell you that you can't carry your friend or family member to the airport, that much would be true. And you certainly have a right to push their personal mobility device there.
But you don't have a right to drive, or to operate a motor vehicle. And your State is permitted to regulate it in whatever ways they want, including defining the exact conditions when you're required to have some sort of extra license.
Waving your hands in the air doesn't create a legal principle, and simply accusing a law of limiting your "freedom of association" doesn't create any Constitutional crisis. And certainly, laws that require you to have a license in order to carry people to the airport, that is about driving a car, it has nothing to do with restricting who you associate with; that isn't even the correct type of situation to be raising that complaint. It is just cluelessly throwing legal jargon at a wall and calling it a Constitution.
You should actually be able to predict that already by the fact that driving a taxi is a very low wage job, and Uber claims to both be cheaper, and also to use more technology. But it still involves a driver. So. Obviously.
Yeah, I would be very wary about jumping straight from "MIT agreed to double-check their methods" to "MIT duffuses don't know the maths."
If the numbers change after review, it is likely to be very very small adjustments. We won't know until they finish checking. But it seems highly unlikely that $3.37 will turn into $15.68. Between the two, "highly regarded institution" or "unethical company that violated my local community's laws in an unethical way and lied to the public about it in statements to the media," I'm just going to tend to lean rather heavily towards believing MIT right up until MIT tells me they were wrong.
the first presidential candidate to talk about the negative consequences of globalisation
I hope nothing but the best for you, I hope even some day that you make it all the way the way to the start of the cul-de-sac and see what the local street looks like.
You're really this dull? I guess you didn't hear like, almost everybody on the "left" talking about it, because you don't listen to anything but AM radio and cable newsvertainment.
lol if you don't think you can have a race condition in single-threaded code, wow... that's what I call "sheltered."
Doing consulting work it isn't even surprising or uncommon.
Race conditions are any time the algorithm relies on things happening in a certain order without checking. So any type of non-blocking read, for example. Or you might have to set some system register, and then wait for some other register flag to show up before doing the next step. Screw it up and you've got a race condition.
I had one a few weeks ago where an interrupt service routine simply made a faulty assumption about the maximum number of cycles it could take to start, and created a race condition!
It is hard enough to teach people that race conditions are always bad, even if you think you'll always win the race. But then when you add in that people can't even remember what the words mean, how could you hope to "teach" anything? They either learned it independently, or they simply don't know it. Measuring if they understand race conditions is probably a lot easier than teaching anything about anything.
Half-day workshop on Thinking Like a Pimp, targeted for theater beginners.
1 hour vocabulary study with dialog practice. 1 hour study of misogynistic tropes with role-playing exercises. [break] 1 hour of gait study and exercises 1 hour of costume study
Instead of getting hand-wavy and dismissing the idea that good composers can't be reliably taught, consider first the ways in which it is true. Then you can understand the points being made, and when you go to argue with them, you'll succeed at finding them! Instead of just talking past them and arguing from ignorance.
Hint: that a competent musician might not be able to write anything that sounds good even on that one instrument, is a truism of music composition. Another one is that if you're the one who wrote it, you might not be able to tell if it stinks or not. And if you doubt that: Mussorgsky!
I remember in `99 printing out all the C headers for Gtk+, because it was better documentation than whatever existed for the Perl bindings I was using.
Yes, when the code is well written enough, like Gtk+ 1.0 was, then that is all the library user should need.
Architecture is the combination of known design elements to meet a particular use case.
Engineering is design based on mathematical calculation of all the strengths of the necessary materials.
Software can be created using either of those systems, or using almost any other creative pattern or procedure.
Code is normally designed as in architecture, but sometimes (spaceships and traffic controls) it is engineered.
You don't actually need to learn how to "do" math in the sense that they mean it in math classes, which is to memorize the steps to solve each type of formula. Instead, you have to have an internalized understanding of the use cases for different types of formula, so that you know when to use them. That's it. Many people lack that understanding even after having taken and passed advanced math classes, too. But something like trigonometry is totally useless to a programmer; you're never in your career going to want to write a function that computes a sine, you're always going to use some sort of library function or lookup table for that. And you don't need to memorize how to use the functions, either, you just need to have the API documentation available while you work. You just have to know the use cases well enough to recognize how to get from A to B well enough to look up the algorithm. If you never learned any trig you might not realize the possibilities to calculate various positions or angles based on what you already have; but also there is very little utility in actually remembering the details.
The problem with all these stupid questions about "best practices" is that programmers haven't agreed what the best practices are. Lots of people want to know how to brainwash new programmers so they'll be less wrong about it, but that doesn't actually move us towards agreement. It becomes critically important to be able to compartmentalize determinations about best practices at the project level; local consistency in practices is important, and we can't agree what is really best, so treat any local idiocy as a best practice. Now, why the hell would we want to teach any of that to new people?! Let them learn it on their own and be horrified, maybe they'll solve it.
And even if they did, the size requirements are generally per airline, not per aircraft model, and they don't all have the same size overhead compartments. There would have to be an international standard size that all the airlines agreed to for it to work, and it would still be another 10-15 years before the luggage sizes had standardized to match and the average traveler had compliant bags.
But nobody would even agree to the standard, all the airlines value their ability to endlessly twiddle these policies back and forth.
According to this, nobody cares, you're only giving them free advertising. You're basically saying, "Hey, I was already here but lots of people went out of their way to choose these other apps that are similar!" You're using attention directed at your app, to call attention to other apps.
If you want to say you're the original, that might be fine, but it isn't some sort of powerful magic that makes it OK to talk about the competitors. The only time you should talk about a competitor is when you're the clone, and the thing you're copying is a household name. Then it can help to say, "we're just as good as BigNameExpensiveBrand!" But you never here BigNameExpensiveBrand saying, "We're just as good as Acme." Instead they'll insist that, "BigNameExpensiveBrand is much better than the rest, people virtuous enough to want the best choose BigNameExpensiveBrand!" They don't actually name what the choices are.
In the United States contingency is almost exclusively for personal injury cases. It is not something you can just plan for and assume you'll have access to. That is idiotic.
What makes you think you get to be a tiny startup and be competing with giant multinationals who own their own factories?
That is like when an undergrad asks you, as a serious question, "How do I compete with Einstein?" or "How do I compete with Famous Guy Who the Publishers Love and get more papers published in big journals?"
The question is not well answered with information that the person asking desires. The question is based on false and absurd assumptions. The existence of the question implies that the person asking it is not even likely to succeed as a physics teacher, they're not in the category of competitor they imagine, they're not even in the group below that, or the group below that one.
A small startup shouldn't even be competing, it should be offering a product or service that has less supply than demand, or that they believe has latent demand. And they should expect competition, and they should expect not to be able to compete with the big copiers. If you don't already have a giant factory, or your own office building full of Oompa Loompas, then you're not going to compete successfully on price. You have to compete on some other basis, like having the most total value added. (eg, having the highest price, not the lowest!)
Slashdot Mirror
By my thinking, a botnet holding a fig leaf is still a botnet.
With a bat'leth.
What's even funnier is how completely false it is. I love a good pedanticism, but this one falls on its face.
The term "prime symbol" or "prime character" only even dates to the 1960s or so. And typewriters already existed, and often had apostrophe and quotation symbols. Any other symbols are typographical or related to accounting. The idea that they would have a special key on a typewriter for writing distances, which is the work ' is doing when it is denoting "prime" (meaning only first, " being being second) but that they would omit an apostrophe, which is a basic symbol necessary for grammatically correct English, it is just completely absurd.
Once you're inside the distortion field, you can just invent your own history on a whim, no problem.
Even funnier, there is a standard convention in computers that when you need a prime symbol but the character set doesn't include it, you use a italicized apostrophe!
and retired CPA.
I can't understand why he wouldn't see the problem when looking at the offer, why would a CPA have to actually do it to themselves to find the problem?
Actually (at least in the USA) nobody can tell you that you cannot use your car to
Driving is a privilege, not a right. In the USA, nobody can tell you that you can't carry your friend or family member to the airport, that much would be true. And you certainly have a right to push their personal mobility device there.
But you don't have a right to drive, or to operate a motor vehicle. And your State is permitted to regulate it in whatever ways they want, including defining the exact conditions when you're required to have some sort of extra license.
Waving your hands in the air doesn't create a legal principle, and simply accusing a law of limiting your "freedom of association" doesn't create any Constitutional crisis. And certainly, laws that require you to have a license in order to carry people to the airport, that is about driving a car, it has nothing to do with restricting who you associate with; that isn't even the correct type of situation to be raising that complaint. It is just cluelessly throwing legal jargon at a wall and calling it a Constitution.
You should actually be able to predict that already by the fact that driving a taxi is a very low wage job, and Uber claims to both be cheaper, and also to use more technology. But it still involves a driver. So. Obviously.
You're not agreeing, you just haven't begun to consider attempting an understanding yet.
Some Blargs are Blue. Some Blorgs are also Blargs. All Blargs are Blue. T/F
Yeah, I would be very wary about jumping straight from "MIT agreed to double-check their methods" to "MIT duffuses don't know the maths."
If the numbers change after review, it is likely to be very very small adjustments. We won't know until they finish checking. But it seems highly unlikely that $3.37 will turn into $15.68. Between the two, "highly regarded institution" or "unethical company that violated my local community's laws in an unethical way and lied to the public about it in statements to the media," I'm just going to tend to lean rather heavily towards believing MIT right up until MIT tells me they were wrong.
the first presidential candidate to talk about the negative consequences of globalisation
I hope nothing but the best for you, I hope even some day that you make it all the way the way to the start of the cul-de-sac and see what the local street looks like.
You're really this dull? I guess you didn't hear like, almost everybody on the "left" talking about it, because you don't listen to anything but AM radio and cable newsvertainment.
They're doing it in China already.
Get back in the pile. They tuk yer jerbs!!!!
He said SJW, hurrrrrrr
They're trying to force us to upgrade to a better service, because we've been using this one too long. They're just trying to learn from Apple.
lol if you don't think you can have a race condition in single-threaded code, wow... that's what I call "sheltered."
Doing consulting work it isn't even surprising or uncommon.
Race conditions are any time the algorithm relies on things happening in a certain order without checking. So any type of non-blocking read, for example. Or you might have to set some system register, and then wait for some other register flag to show up before doing the next step. Screw it up and you've got a race condition.
I had one a few weeks ago where an interrupt service routine simply made a faulty assumption about the maximum number of cycles it could take to start, and created a race condition!
It is hard enough to teach people that race conditions are always bad, even if you think you'll always win the race. But then when you add in that people can't even remember what the words mean, how could you hope to "teach" anything? They either learned it independently, or they simply don't know it. Measuring if they understand race conditions is probably a lot easier than teaching anything about anything.
Half-day workshop on Thinking Like a Pimp, targeted for theater beginners.
1 hour vocabulary study with dialog practice.
1 hour study of misogynistic tropes with role-playing exercises.
[break]
1 hour of gait study and exercises
1 hour of costume study
Method study not recommended.
You wanted to disagree with it, you really did!
But you don't seem to have understood the point.
Instead of getting hand-wavy and dismissing the idea that good composers can't be reliably taught, consider first the ways in which it is true. Then you can understand the points being made, and when you go to argue with them, you'll succeed at finding them! Instead of just talking past them and arguing from ignorance.
Hint: that a competent musician might not be able to write anything that sounds good even on that one instrument, is a truism of music composition. Another one is that if you're the one who wrote it, you might not be able to tell if it stinks or not. And if you doubt that: Mussorgsky!
I remember in `99 printing out all the C headers for Gtk+, because it was better documentation than whatever existed for the Perl bindings I was using.
Yes, when the code is well written enough, like Gtk+ 1.0 was, then that is all the library user should need.
Comprehension fail.
"document the data" with comments != no comments.
Unless you have no data. In which case you're very lucky, because you also have no bugs or misfeatures.
Architecture is the combination of known design elements to meet a particular use case.
Engineering is design based on mathematical calculation of all the strengths of the necessary materials.
Software can be created using either of those systems, or using almost any other creative pattern or procedure.
Code is normally designed as in architecture, but sometimes (spaceships and traffic controls) it is engineered.
You don't actually need to learn how to "do" math in the sense that they mean it in math classes, which is to memorize the steps to solve each type of formula. Instead, you have to have an internalized understanding of the use cases for different types of formula, so that you know when to use them. That's it. Many people lack that understanding even after having taken and passed advanced math classes, too. But something like trigonometry is totally useless to a programmer; you're never in your career going to want to write a function that computes a sine, you're always going to use some sort of library function or lookup table for that. And you don't need to memorize how to use the functions, either, you just need to have the API documentation available while you work. You just have to know the use cases well enough to recognize how to get from A to B well enough to look up the algorithm. If you never learned any trig you might not realize the possibilities to calculate various positions or angles based on what you already have; but also there is very little utility in actually remembering the details.
The problem with all these stupid questions about "best practices" is that programmers haven't agreed what the best practices are. Lots of people want to know how to brainwash new programmers so they'll be less wrong about it, but that doesn't actually move us towards agreement. It becomes critically important to be able to compartmentalize determinations about best practices at the project level; local consistency in practices is important, and we can't agree what is really best, so treat any local idiocy as a best practice. Now, why the hell would we want to teach any of that to new people?! Let them learn it on their own and be horrified, maybe they'll solve it.
And even if they did, the size requirements are generally per airline, not per aircraft model, and they don't all have the same size overhead compartments. There would have to be an international standard size that all the airlines agreed to for it to work, and it would still be another 10-15 years before the luggage sizes had standardized to match and the average traveler had compliant bags.
But nobody would even agree to the standard, all the airlines value their ability to endlessly twiddle these policies back and forth.
According to this, nobody cares, you're only giving them free advertising. You're basically saying, "Hey, I was already here but lots of people went out of their way to choose these other apps that are similar!" You're using attention directed at your app, to call attention to other apps.
If you want to say you're the original, that might be fine, but it isn't some sort of powerful magic that makes it OK to talk about the competitors. The only time you should talk about a competitor is when you're the clone, and the thing you're copying is a household name. Then it can help to say, "we're just as good as BigNameExpensiveBrand!" But you never here BigNameExpensiveBrand saying, "We're just as good as Acme." Instead they'll insist that, "BigNameExpensiveBrand is much better than the rest, people virtuous enough to want the best choose BigNameExpensiveBrand!" They don't actually name what the choices are.
In the United States contingency is almost exclusively for personal injury cases. It is not something you can just plan for and assume you'll have access to. That is idiotic.
I bet large corporations would love to see patents go away, that way they can copy something for a million dollars vs having to buy out the startup.
Growth through acquisition is a corporate goal, it is not something they're reluctantly forced to do.
What could be more appy than a new app that apps just like the old app, but with a different, appier name?
What are you, some sort of LUDDITE using the Original software?! App an app, apper, if it is an appalike then it is just appier.
What makes you think you get to be a tiny startup and be competing with giant multinationals who own their own factories?
That is like when an undergrad asks you, as a serious question, "How do I compete with Einstein?" or "How do I compete with Famous Guy Who the Publishers Love and get more papers published in big journals?"
The question is not well answered with information that the person asking desires. The question is based on false and absurd assumptions. The existence of the question implies that the person asking it is not even likely to succeed as a physics teacher, they're not in the category of competitor they imagine, they're not even in the group below that, or the group below that one.
A small startup shouldn't even be competing, it should be offering a product or service that has less supply than demand, or that they believe has latent demand. And they should expect competition, and they should expect not to be able to compete with the big copiers. If you don't already have a giant factory, or your own office building full of Oompa Loompas, then you're not going to compete successfully on price. You have to compete on some other basis, like having the most total value added. (eg, having the highest price, not the lowest!)