He wasn't celebrated for being "bright," he was celebrated for being a nerd, and also being creative.
Try getting half the neckbeards around here to do something creative. They'd sooner walk outdoors in daylight when the SJWs are prowling the streets than actually try to make their project case look nice. If they showed enough artistic talent to stuff some electronics in a less-ugly box, their imaginary friend would start calling them a hippie.
Luckily in this case we're only talking about conventions and recommendations, not rules. And they're not even bad ones, they just had context that was omitted. I certainly agree if you don't know the context of an engineering convention, it may not apply to you; you're better off trying to understand what the consideration teaches than to follow the recommendation directly. But keep it in mind later when things aren't going as smooth as expected, and maybe try it both ways. That is the beauty of software, compared to other types of engineering; it is easier to refactor a software function than a steel bridge.
And bad habits wouldn't even be habits if the people doing it that way didn't like it better. It is a bad habit precisely because we'd rather do it that way, at least in the short term. Implied is that there is some other reason it doesn't work out later, so we refrain; and hopefully keep the love secret on account of having not actually written the code in the way that is predicted to suck later.
I was in the Sunnyside neighborhood, just south of Twin Peaks, so a nice neighborhood inside the city, but not near downtown. The house was worth over $1m, and the rent was about $2200. The same house in Portland at a similar distance from downtown and in a neighborhood with the same types of cars in driveways would rent for about $1500. Pay would likely be 50% lower.
OTOH, a 1 bedroom apartment in a rundown building in the Tenderloin was renting for the same price. People want to be downtown. Russian Hill does not realistically represent the SF housing market. Very few people living inside the City are living up there. Half that neighborhood is vacation condos for the super-rich from around the world, that don't even have any residents. None of those people would have rented in Upper Haight if they hadn't found something on Russian Hill. They're not actually in the City's broader housing market. So it is a meaningless bubble that distorts the numbers.
The thing is, for these comparisons to have meaning you have to have the context of the person's lifestyle. Then you can compare cost of living. If you have a low non-rent cost of living, then the difference in pay will vastly more than make up for the difference in rent. If you spend a lot of money on entertainment and the type of social events that cost money, then the overall cost of living in SF will be much higher than Portland, as compared to income, because Portland has lower priced food and cultural events.
As to the nonsense about not having a bathroom... I know people who live in converted vehicles. About 50% of the ones without regular jobs have bathrooms in their vehicle. 100% of the ones with jobs have that. This guy made a first effort at this, didn't think it through, didn't google how to do it right, and came out with a result below the living standards of the "working homeless." I know a guy who bought on old fullsize pickup truck with a flatbed and converted it into an RV that fits in a regular size parking spot for under $5k total. Of course, he wasn't trying to save money, he was trying to create a comfortable home on wheels that wasn't made of plastic. For 10k he could have paid somebody to do the work, even including the vehicle cost. For 10k he could have bought a pickup truck and a commercial camper unit that includes a full bathroom.
The guy with the converted flatbed? He's a homebuilder by trade. And far from social suicide, his ingenuity and out-of-the-box thinking attracts like-minded people. He has the vast social network and popularity you might expect a gregarious person with a nice house to have. Everybody wants to visit him, they're not trying to get him to have dinner at their house. Social suicide is living in a place with no bathroom.
I suspect this guy has bad credit, or a past eviction, or something like that, that is interfering with his participation in the market.
existing zircons knocked about by an impact rather than formed in that impact
Which makes obvious sense, because much of the moon used to be part of the Earth, and was squashed pretty good in the impact. That would obviously confuse the process of extracting additional impact data from the same material. These numbers should always have been suspect. This is why it is important to be aware of what assumptions are being made, and to continually reconsider if existing assumptions still apply.
I met one of the hottest women I ever dated at a chess club. Heck, I know of married couples that met on internet chess servers.
Going to places specifically for the purpose of trying to meet a woman is a really bad idea. I'm not convinced there is science behind that. It is kinda creepy in general, unless you're exceptionally charismatic. Slashdot users should usually not attempt it. A better idea is to genuinely engage in activities that are not gender segregated. Then, regardless of the actual gender distribution of the activity, you have a chance at meeting somebody with a common interest. If you go to a model railroading convention and see a woman, do you say something crude to your bro, or do you ditch him and engage her in polite conversation? Slashdot losers can find like-minded losers to marry. They just have to lose the false macho effeminate whiny abrasive judgmental gamergate victimhood, and show some human decency to another lonely person.
There wasn't a treaty. It was just a joint statement. Reportedly, the US was starting to threaten the public discussion of sanctions, and China hastily came up with the idea of voluntarily agreeing to terms regarding what is and isn't legal espionage.
China would be making announcements if they had intelligence regarding US attacks. It would benefit them very much to have something solid, a named event, in the discussion. The reality is though that the US methods are very different. The US government doesn't employ teams of script kiddies to do that work, they employ a ginormous signals intelligence infrastructure that is undetectable when data is not leaked.
If the Chinese didn't take action after this to smack some people down, I'd expect the backroom diplomatic discussions to heat up a notch. The details of that aren't likely to become public until a future stage of the process.
If the news cycle has these stories next year during the Presidential Debates, then anti-China sentiment could really gain traction. I don't think the Chinese want this fight. I think they execute the two or three most decadent of their script kiddies, stop attacking US corporations (temporarily), and focus on non-US installations of international corporations with headquarters outside the US. At least until after the election. And on a continuing basis if there is anti-China sentiment in the US.
It may have been given but it was not free. It had a cost albeit paid by the mother. Nothing in life is free and if you think it is then you are the one being foolish.
Exactly, to stretch far enough to make the statement seem true, you have to undefine other words so that they never can be used. Once you've redefined "free" so that nothing can be called free, even the supposedly free stuff that triggers recital of the cliche, then you can pretend it is true.
Except, it is a load of crap. Things can be free, that is why we have the word. The word describes real situations, it is not a word like "Utopia" that describes imaginary or "prefect" forms of things. Free stuff exists, just check popular writing to see that the word is used that way and therefore contains all those meanings.
If you're politically opposed to all things free, just be that. You don't have to believe that people are incapable of giving just because you decided that giving is bad.
Like it or not, you just got some free advice. Take it or leave it. But if you claim it cost something, I won't believe you.
Sorry kiddo, thanks for playing! But no, your pedanticism falls on its face. The differentiation you're saying "no" to is that everything that isn't hydrogen is star dust. Pointing out that that means that star dust is processed hydrogen is a "yes," not a "no." That was actually the point. It is that act of "processing" that creates "star dust." *whoosh*
What he said was we're "all" star dust. I was pointing out that the portions of me that are still hydrogen are not star dust. It was a play on the word "all," primarily. Attempting to label the star dust as still being hydrogen, which seems to actually dispute that the periodic elements are different substances, combined with the word "no" attempts to offer a correction, but is actually not even hitting the point. Even if it were so, it would in no way change the prior exchange. The helium is no longer hydrogen, but the H2O still has some. Even though the helium was made "from" hydrogen.
The part I thought was funniest is the idea that public safety workers need to be fit. Yeah, you really have to be fit to shoot people and drop weapons at their feet. Or stand in the street and direct traffic. Or drive fast. Or operate a radio. Or get offended by #blacklivesmatter
I have no idea if the other guy is a racist asshole or not, but I know you're ignorant of history.
In my own State, only a small percent of the land was claimed by locals inhabitants. For the most part, settlers settled anywhere that didn't already somebody living there, and the people living next door usually agreed they had every right to settle on unused land.
This obviously doesn't apply everywhere, but in the majority of cases it does. And there were brand new cultures that were recently founded after the Spanish brought a bunch horses over. Those are the groups that actually had the most military conflict with Americans.
I'm part Cherokee and we lost our lands, but that isn't what happened in most places. In most places they were simply outnumbered by the newcomers, and so lost administrative power over areas. And then were given "reservations" in order to have an area of administrative control. In many cases, control that they didn't have over their neighbors culturally prior to the creation of the reservations!
Sorry kiddo, but I was there. Maybe your neighborhood was just behind the times? MC Hammer had his parachute pants, and people wanted to copy him but they didn't want the weird pants that nobody sold so they compromised with baggy cargo pants. I still have mine. I could fit a pack of 10 5.25" floppies in the big pocket.
In almost all cases, definitely including this one, the maximum possible sentence is entirely irrelevant to the sentence that will be actually imposed.
Thanks for giving some deeper insight into this story. The real headline is not what the Reuters guy did, but how out-of-control the federal prosecutors have become.
At worst, what this guy did was vandalism.
If you break into some place in order to vandalize it, expect to be sentenced the same as any burglar. If you want to be sentenced as a vandal, vandalize something you can reach from the sidewalk.
That said, I'm not convinced the true damages were over the $5000 needed to be federal. In my State I would expect a class C felony though. Except that local prosecutors would be scared to charge a media guy.
They're called "grandma jeans." There is no such thing as "grandpa jeans." Grandpas wear normal jeans. Don't let homophobia destroy your communication ability. It is OK to wear grandma jeans.
You probably have metal pocket buttons that are sabotaging you. A capacitive touch screen should have minimum opportunity for this problem if alone in the pocket, so I'm assuming there is some metal getting in there. Maybe you just have too much pocket fluff buildup, and it is holding a charge.
Odd that you go so crazy in trying to create a situation where it is morally justified to swerve you had to presume that the person swerving is such an immoral asshole that if he hits a pedestrian who dove in front of his vehicle, he'll just drive off.
If you had time to swerve, you had time to stop. There are not rows of parked cars on the freeway. Streets that have lane-side parking have speed limits such that if you have time to turn the wheel to swerve, you'd have time to stop too. And if children are just popping randomly out from behind parked cars, and you can't see that kids are playing by the road as you approach, how the hell are you going to know if a bicycle just pulled out into the other lane and you didn't notice yet?
There is a lot more going on in this scenario than just an unseen kid. There is a speeding asshole who thinks he's smarter than an engineer, and a child whose parents' fault the accident would be, and the bicyclist who you killed who was the only innocent party in the scenario.
No, your duty is to drive a safe speed and pay attention. And yes, to continue following the safety rules. What you don't seem to get is that in reality swerving kills somebody that should have lived, and doesn't save anybody because stopping is more effective. It isn't "save a child" vs "dent a fender," it is "do what you're supposed to do that is known to reduce fatalities" vs "do something you don't have time to measure the effects of, in a situation where you don't know what is going to happen." And no, if you could "see and keep track of vehicles coming my way in the other lane" you would have "seen and kept track of" the child and slowed down before creating this totally absurd false choice. Any time that you have time to "swerve" safely, you would have time instead to make a legal lane change if that will solve the problem, or simply stop if not. You're not allowed to drive faster than you can react to things in your lane, and in your scenario you're potentially killing a child by driving too fast when there is not enough lane clearance.
What will happen is, you'll swerve and hit a vehicle, cause a multiple car crash, kill a whole family, and the child will have jumped back out of the way anyways. So you'll have killed a whole family for nothing, just because you can't comprehend that traffic engineers are correct when they say NEVER SWERVE, STAY IN YOUR LANE AND STOP
Slashdot Mirror
He wasn't celebrated for being "bright," he was celebrated for being a nerd, and also being creative.
Try getting half the neckbeards around here to do something creative. They'd sooner walk outdoors in daylight when the SJWs are prowling the streets than actually try to make their project case look nice. If they showed enough artistic talent to stuff some electronics in a less-ugly box, their imaginary friend would start calling them a hippie.
Luckily in this case we're only talking about conventions and recommendations, not rules. And they're not even bad ones, they just had context that was omitted. I certainly agree if you don't know the context of an engineering convention, it may not apply to you; you're better off trying to understand what the consideration teaches than to follow the recommendation directly. But keep it in mind later when things aren't going as smooth as expected, and maybe try it both ways. That is the beauty of software, compared to other types of engineering; it is easier to refactor a software function than a steel bridge.
And bad habits wouldn't even be habits if the people doing it that way didn't like it better. It is a bad habit precisely because we'd rather do it that way, at least in the short term. Implied is that there is some other reason it doesn't work out later, so we refrain; and hopefully keep the love secret on account of having not actually written the code in the way that is predicted to suck later.
In the real world, the term POSIX doesn't imply "certified," only "compliant."
I was in the Sunnyside neighborhood, just south of Twin Peaks, so a nice neighborhood inside the city, but not near downtown. The house was worth over $1m, and the rent was about $2200. The same house in Portland at a similar distance from downtown and in a neighborhood with the same types of cars in driveways would rent for about $1500. Pay would likely be 50% lower.
OTOH, a 1 bedroom apartment in a rundown building in the Tenderloin was renting for the same price. People want to be downtown. Russian Hill does not realistically represent the SF housing market. Very few people living inside the City are living up there. Half that neighborhood is vacation condos for the super-rich from around the world, that don't even have any residents. None of those people would have rented in Upper Haight if they hadn't found something on Russian Hill. They're not actually in the City's broader housing market. So it is a meaningless bubble that distorts the numbers.
The thing is, for these comparisons to have meaning you have to have the context of the person's lifestyle. Then you can compare cost of living. If you have a low non-rent cost of living, then the difference in pay will vastly more than make up for the difference in rent. If you spend a lot of money on entertainment and the type of social events that cost money, then the overall cost of living in SF will be much higher than Portland, as compared to income, because Portland has lower priced food and cultural events.
As to the nonsense about not having a bathroom... I know people who live in converted vehicles. About 50% of the ones without regular jobs have bathrooms in their vehicle. 100% of the ones with jobs have that. This guy made a first effort at this, didn't think it through, didn't google how to do it right, and came out with a result below the living standards of the "working homeless." I know a guy who bought on old fullsize pickup truck with a flatbed and converted it into an RV that fits in a regular size parking spot for under $5k total. Of course, he wasn't trying to save money, he was trying to create a comfortable home on wheels that wasn't made of plastic. For 10k he could have paid somebody to do the work, even including the vehicle cost. For 10k he could have bought a pickup truck and a commercial camper unit that includes a full bathroom.
The guy with the converted flatbed? He's a homebuilder by trade. And far from social suicide, his ingenuity and out-of-the-box thinking attracts like-minded people. He has the vast social network and popularity you might expect a gregarious person with a nice house to have. Everybody wants to visit him, they're not trying to get him to have dinner at their house. Social suicide is living in a place with no bathroom.
I suspect this guy has bad credit, or a past eviction, or something like that, that is interfering with his participation in the market.
Dude. Almost nobody could actually afford a cave. That is premium Cave Bear territory. We had religion before we managed to displace the Cave Bear.
http://viewsourcecode.org/why/...
Life was brutal back then. If you were lucky you had a good animal carcass to cower under at night.
existing zircons knocked about by an impact rather than formed in that impact
Which makes obvious sense, because much of the moon used to be part of the Earth, and was squashed pretty good in the impact. That would obviously confuse the process of extracting additional impact data from the same material. These numbers should always have been suspect. This is why it is important to be aware of what assumptions are being made, and to continually reconsider if existing assumptions still apply.
I met one of the hottest women I ever dated at a chess club. Heck, I know of married couples that met on internet chess servers.
Going to places specifically for the purpose of trying to meet a woman is a really bad idea. I'm not convinced there is science behind that. It is kinda creepy in general, unless you're exceptionally charismatic. Slashdot users should usually not attempt it. A better idea is to genuinely engage in activities that are not gender segregated. Then, regardless of the actual gender distribution of the activity, you have a chance at meeting somebody with a common interest. If you go to a model railroading convention and see a woman, do you say something crude to your bro, or do you ditch him and engage her in polite conversation? Slashdot losers can find like-minded losers to marry. They just have to lose the false macho effeminate whiny abrasive judgmental gamergate victimhood, and show some human decency to another lonely person.
There wasn't a treaty. It was just a joint statement. Reportedly, the US was starting to threaten the public discussion of sanctions, and China hastily came up with the idea of voluntarily agreeing to terms regarding what is and isn't legal espionage.
China would be making announcements if they had intelligence regarding US attacks. It would benefit them very much to have something solid, a named event, in the discussion. The reality is though that the US methods are very different. The US government doesn't employ teams of script kiddies to do that work, they employ a ginormous signals intelligence infrastructure that is undetectable when data is not leaked.
If the Chinese didn't take action after this to smack some people down, I'd expect the backroom diplomatic discussions to heat up a notch. The details of that aren't likely to become public until a future stage of the process.
If the news cycle has these stories next year during the Presidential Debates, then anti-China sentiment could really gain traction. I don't think the Chinese want this fight. I think they execute the two or three most decadent of their script kiddies, stop attacking US corporations (temporarily), and focus on non-US installations of international corporations with headquarters outside the US. At least until after the election. And on a continuing basis if there is anti-China sentiment in the US.
So, let's see, now if post a review on Amazon, they might sue me? I knew it was pointless to post those reviews, but now it's clearly stupid, as well.
I always knew you were a paid shill, Mr. Coward! Now you've outed yourself.
It may have been given but it was not free. It had a cost albeit paid by the mother. Nothing in life is free and if you think it is then you are the one being foolish.
Exactly, to stretch far enough to make the statement seem true, you have to undefine other words so that they never can be used. Once you've redefined "free" so that nothing can be called free, even the supposedly free stuff that triggers recital of the cliche, then you can pretend it is true.
Except, it is a load of crap. Things can be free, that is why we have the word. The word describes real situations, it is not a word like "Utopia" that describes imaginary or "prefect" forms of things. Free stuff exists, just check popular writing to see that the word is used that way and therefore contains all those meanings.
If you're politically opposed to all things free, just be that. You don't have to believe that people are incapable of giving just because you decided that giving is bad.
Like it or not, you just got some free advice. Take it or leave it. But if you claim it cost something, I won't believe you.
Sorry kiddo, thanks for playing! But no, your pedanticism falls on its face. The differentiation you're saying "no" to is that everything that isn't hydrogen is star dust. Pointing out that that means that star dust is processed hydrogen is a "yes," not a "no." That was actually the point. It is that act of "processing" that creates "star dust." *whoosh*
What he said was we're "all" star dust. I was pointing out that the portions of me that are still hydrogen are not star dust. It was a play on the word "all," primarily. Attempting to label the star dust as still being hydrogen, which seems to actually dispute that the periodic elements are different substances, combined with the word "no" attempts to offer a correction, but is actually not even hitting the point. Even if it were so, it would in no way change the prior exchange. The helium is no longer hydrogen, but the H2O still has some. Even though the helium was made "from" hydrogen.
I spend a lot of time reading computer-generated API documentation already.
If the spammers catch up with the 90s, I'll be impressed. Well, not really, because I run ad blockers and won't know. But if I did!
The part I thought was funniest is the idea that public safety workers need to be fit. Yeah, you really have to be fit to shoot people and drop weapons at their feet. Or stand in the street and direct traffic. Or drive fast. Or operate a radio. Or get offended by #blacklivesmatter
Like she said during her Presidential campaign, "If you're going to put lipstick on a pig, make sure that shiz matches her skin tone."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Time to break out the PASCAL and write an extension module
Technically we're all star dust.
I'm part hydrogen you insensitive clod!
"Do you own this land?"
"No. How can you own land?"
I have no idea if the other guy is a racist asshole or not, but I know you're ignorant of history.
In my own State, only a small percent of the land was claimed by locals inhabitants. For the most part, settlers settled anywhere that didn't already somebody living there, and the people living next door usually agreed they had every right to settle on unused land.
This obviously doesn't apply everywhere, but in the majority of cases it does. And there were brand new cultures that were recently founded after the Spanish brought a bunch horses over. Those are the groups that actually had the most military conflict with Americans.
I'm part Cherokee and we lost our lands, but that isn't what happened in most places. In most places they were simply outnumbered by the newcomers, and so lost administrative power over areas. And then were given "reservations" in order to have an area of administrative control. In many cases, control that they didn't have over their neighbors culturally prior to the creation of the reservations!
Sorry kiddo, but I was there. Maybe your neighborhood was just behind the times? MC Hammer had his parachute pants, and people wanted to copy him but they didn't want the weird pants that nobody sold so they compromised with baggy cargo pants. I still have mine. I could fit a pack of 10 5.25" floppies in the big pocket.
Thanks for giving some deeper insight into this story. The real headline is not what the Reuters guy did, but how out-of-control the federal prosecutors have become.
At worst, what this guy did was vandalism.
If you break into some place in order to vandalize it, expect to be sentenced the same as any burglar. If you want to be sentenced as a vandal, vandalize something you can reach from the sidewalk.
That said, I'm not convinced the true damages were over the $5000 needed to be federal. In my State I would expect a class C felony though. Except that local prosecutors would be scared to charge a media guy.
They're called "grandma jeans." There is no such thing as "grandpa jeans." Grandpas wear normal jeans. Don't let homophobia destroy your communication ability. It is OK to wear grandma jeans.
I find it works better to revert to an 80s wardrobe. With cargo pants I always can choose a decent pocket for each device.
You probably have metal pocket buttons that are sabotaging you. A capacitive touch screen should have minimum opportunity for this problem if alone in the pocket, so I'm assuming there is some metal getting in there. Maybe you just have too much pocket fluff buildup, and it is holding a charge.
Odd that you go so crazy in trying to create a situation where it is morally justified to swerve you had to presume that the person swerving is such an immoral asshole that if he hits a pedestrian who dove in front of his vehicle, he'll just drive off.
If you had time to swerve, you had time to stop. There are not rows of parked cars on the freeway. Streets that have lane-side parking have speed limits such that if you have time to turn the wheel to swerve, you'd have time to stop too. And if children are just popping randomly out from behind parked cars, and you can't see that kids are playing by the road as you approach, how the hell are you going to know if a bicycle just pulled out into the other lane and you didn't notice yet?
There is a lot more going on in this scenario than just an unseen kid. There is a speeding asshole who thinks he's smarter than an engineer, and a child whose parents' fault the accident would be, and the bicyclist who you killed who was the only innocent party in the scenario.
LOL, you're pretty deep into justifying awful driving when you're trying to convince yourself, and others, that swerving counts as defensive driving.
No, your duty is to drive a safe speed and pay attention. And yes, to continue following the safety rules. What you don't seem to get is that in reality swerving kills somebody that should have lived, and doesn't save anybody because stopping is more effective. It isn't "save a child" vs "dent a fender," it is "do what you're supposed to do that is known to reduce fatalities" vs "do something you don't have time to measure the effects of, in a situation where you don't know what is going to happen." And no, if you could "see and keep track of vehicles coming my way in the other lane" you would have "seen and kept track of" the child and slowed down before creating this totally absurd false choice. Any time that you have time to "swerve" safely, you would have time instead to make a legal lane change if that will solve the problem, or simply stop if not. You're not allowed to drive faster than you can react to things in your lane, and in your scenario you're potentially killing a child by driving too fast when there is not enough lane clearance.
What will happen is, you'll swerve and hit a vehicle, cause a multiple car crash, kill a whole family, and the child will have jumped back out of the way anyways. So you'll have killed a whole family for nothing, just because you can't comprehend that traffic engineers are correct when they say NEVER SWERVE, STAY IN YOUR LANE AND STOP