The insinuation isn't that McCain is an axe murderer.
Axe murderers are inherently bad things. There is little to no chance of having anything good to say about them. So most stories about axe murderers are negative. However, this isn't because of a "negative axe murderer bias". There are no positive stories reported because there is nothing positive to say. This is an example of a story that only has one side.
Like stories about axe murderers, maybe there was nothing positive to report on in the McCain campaign.
Re:LINQ does not sound like craziness
on
Programming .NET 3.5
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Positive reinforcement is the increasing of a behavior due to the addition of a stimulus, and negative reinforcement is the increasing of a behavior due to the subtraction of a stimulus.
It is not good/bad thing. Punishment can be positive reinforcement and reward can be negative reinforcement.
You aren't paying for the box/physical media, you are paying for the effort it took to create the game in the first place. You are telling Blizzard that their years of hard work and dedication are worth $X to you.
Now, they probably see more of that money if you purchase through digital distribution rather than traditional channels. So if you truly love their products and support the company, buy it online so they have more money to dedicate to future development.
What if you can't even trust your compiler? At some point, even with fully open, GPL-compliant software, there is some point you just have to trust someone else to not jack you.
so you find the one item that doesn't follow. Not to mention you are looking at the basic bulk packages and not a playset. The playsets (99.9% of sales) are about 10 cents an element. Of course you get all sizes and minifigs and special molds.
Lego bricks currently clock in at an average of 10 cents a piece (i.e. an 800 piece set will run you around $80, a 5000 piece set will run you around $500 dollars.)
It makes more sense as humor. Hence the question mark, as if I were proposing a new phrase. Thank you, I now have explained the joke and thus ruined it.
Honest Reply: "Argument does not follow" (except I misspelled sequitur). I followed it with a question mark as I was proposing a new phrase to describe your argument. It doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with the question at hand.
Yes, you should. Exceptions should be for the truly exceptional, not because you forgot to check before you divided by zero, or assumed you would have a database connection.
Just because the night sky looks different from here and on Polaris, doesn't make them wrong. Plus, if they are being firm about an opinion, chances are you are being equally firm, so this argument works the same when turned around on you.
Also, what you are seeing _is_ real. That's real light you are seeing from real stars. It's almost like saying Jimmy lives 50 miles away and Jerry lives 20 miles away. They both cross Elm St. on the way to the mall, which is 10 miles away in the opposite direction. They both crossed Elm St. at different times, therefore Jimmy and Jerry aren't real. (Reductio ad absurdum)
Here's a better question that doesn't involve a multi-stage question that is fundamentally flawed in premise (not to mention that the fact that you are resorting to this is flawed in the first place): "Did you ever believe in Santa Claus?"
The best thing to do is to provide someone with indisputable facts of the matter. If they still hold on to their beliefs after that, then you are discussing either politics or religion. In that case, you just need to leave. No one ever changes their mind on those subjects so debating on those subjects is debating for its own sake.
Yeah, but all of those people betting on their horse to win don't get to choose the winning horse either. In an election, I can see how a betting market could predict the next president.
Yes, you would be racist. No to the rest. Nice try on trying to confuse the issue by overloading definitions.
Let's go over the definitions. Again. Racism - discrimination based on race. Discrimination - the prejudicial treatment of different groups of people based on certain characteristics.
There is no antagonism in these definitions. It simply is what the words mean. When you say "I only vote for white people", you are being racist without necessarily hating black people.
If you favor a candidate because that candidate is of a certain race, that's discrimination based on race. That's the very definition of racism. Racism does not mean "you hate blacks". If you favor a candidate because of religion, then that's religious discrimination. Unfortunately, there's not a single word for it like there is for racial discrimination.
Discrimination is not just exclusive, it can also be inclusive. We are all going to discriminate come November. Except some of our discrimination will be narrow-minded and bigoted (such as choosing a candidate based on race, religion, or political affiliation), and some will vote for Nader (that's a joke, you can read it as "some will vote based on the candidates' stances on key issues.").
Look up what discrimination means. It basically means selection based upon differences. If you are selecting someone based on race, you are discriminating based on race regardless if you are voting for a guy just because he shares a skin tone or voting against him based on the same criteria.
No, local admins can't change domain users passwords. You need access to the DC and Active Directory Users and Computers. A local machine admin is just that, a local _machine_ admin. The only way this hack could be devastating were it used on a server. And then, if someone can do this to your server, you've lost ages ago.
This "hack" is akin to taking the hard drive out, slipping it in an external drive enclosure, mounting it on an existing Windows or Linux box, changing the files, and then putting everything in place. You've defeated the security before you have even reached step one, anything you do after is just mental masturbation.
This is only useful if you have physical access to the machine and can remove the case (in case of BIOS passwords and boot order priority favoring the hard drive before anything else). So it can only be used in the case where you have a) forgotten all the passwords relative to that machine or b) don't have passwords to that machine.
Even in a networked environment, this access gets you very little, as a local machine admin still has no privileges on the network. So the best you can hope for here, is that the user keeps sensitive data on their local machine.
Of course you are right. I can go out right now and collect all the gear I need to be able to paint the Mona Lisa, win the Tour de France, and run a successful video game company. There is no challenge in acquisition of these materials (canvas, paint, brushes, bike, helmet, computer, compiler, etc.)
However, painting the Mona Lisa is a challenge. Winning the Tour de France is a challenge. Running a successful company of any stripe is a challenge. Right clicking is not a challenge.
You start out with the basic assumption that God is self-awareness, then go on to define self-awareness as basically existence.
But you also claim that rocks, sand, etc are not self-aware and cannot exist independently of conscious thought. So unobserved erosion cannot happen. Because rocks and sand can't exist or interact without something to watch it happen. Therefore, the Grand Canyon does not exist.
Do you see the problem with that logic now. Far from proving that God exists, you instead prove that something tangible we can now see couldn't have happened.
Slashdot Mirror
The insinuation isn't that McCain is an axe murderer.
Axe murderers are inherently bad things. There is little to no chance of having anything good to say about them. So most stories about axe murderers are negative. However, this isn't because of a "negative axe murderer bias". There are no positive stories reported because there is nothing positive to say. This is an example of a story that only has one side.
Like stories about axe murderers, maybe there was nothing positive to report on in the McCain campaign.
Linq TO SQL is dead. Not Linq.
Now people will be using Linq to Entities instead of Linq to SQL.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/products/cc533447.aspx
The ability to use Linq on other random collections will not be affected.
It's a common enough mistake that I doubt most people notice it. I almost consider it trivia at this point.
Positive reinforcement is the increasing of a behavior due to the addition of a stimulus, and negative reinforcement is the increasing of a behavior due to the subtraction of a stimulus.
It is not good/bad thing. Punishment can be positive reinforcement and reward can be negative reinforcement.
Or, you know, vote third party. The choice isn't D, R, or nothing. Never has been.
You aren't paying for the box/physical media, you are paying for the effort it took to create the game in the first place. You are telling Blizzard that their years of hard work and dedication are worth $X to you.
Now, they probably see more of that money if you purchase through digital distribution rather than traditional channels. So if you truly love their products and support the company, buy it online so they have more money to dedicate to future development.
http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf
What if you can't even trust your compiler? At some point, even with fully open, GPL-compliant software, there is some point you just have to trust someone else to not jack you.
so you find the one item that doesn't follow. Not to mention you are looking at the basic bulk packages and not a playset. The playsets (99.9% of sales) are about 10 cents an element. Of course you get all sizes and minifigs and special molds.
Lego bricks currently clock in at an average of 10 cents a piece (i.e. an 800 piece set will run you around $80, a 5000 piece set will run you around $500 dollars.)
You are talking about distance (even if it is a metaphorical and not physical distance), not whether or not something is with you.
It makes more sense as humor. Hence the question mark, as if I were proposing a new phrase.
Thank you, I now have explained the joke and thus ruined it.
Honest Reply:
"Argument does not follow" (except I misspelled sequitur). I followed it with a question mark as I was proposing a new phrase to describe your argument. It doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with the question at hand.
Pithy Reply:
Just like your argument.
Yes, you should. Exceptions should be for the truly exceptional, not because you forgot to check before you divided by zero, or assumed you would have a database connection.
Ah, exception handling. GOTO in fancy new clothes. Consider rewriting your code before you think about adding in that first GOTO.
I consider a GOTO a failing in the understanding of the problem
Argumentum non sequitor?
Just because the night sky looks different from here and on Polaris, doesn't make them wrong. Plus, if they are being firm about an opinion, chances are you are being equally firm, so this argument works the same when turned around on you.
Also, what you are seeing _is_ real. That's real light you are seeing from real stars. It's almost like saying Jimmy lives 50 miles away and Jerry lives 20 miles away. They both cross Elm St. on the way to the mall, which is 10 miles away in the opposite direction. They both crossed Elm St. at different times, therefore Jimmy and Jerry aren't real. (Reductio ad absurdum)
Here's a better question that doesn't involve a multi-stage question that is fundamentally flawed in premise (not to mention that the fact that you are resorting to this is flawed in the first place): "Did you ever believe in Santa Claus?"
The best thing to do is to provide someone with indisputable facts of the matter. If they still hold on to their beliefs after that, then you are discussing either politics or religion. In that case, you just need to leave. No one ever changes their mind on those subjects so debating on those subjects is debating for its own sake.
Hey, modded down for essentially the same comment as the GP. Go Ron Paul, making a difference in Slashdot's moderation system.
So, when you can't win, redefine success?
Yeah, but all of those people betting on their horse to win don't get to choose the winning horse either.
In an election, I can see how a betting market could predict the next president.
Yes, you would be racist. No to the rest. Nice try on trying to confuse the issue by overloading definitions.
Let's go over the definitions. Again.
Racism - discrimination based on race.
Discrimination - the prejudicial treatment of different groups of people based on certain characteristics.
There is no antagonism in these definitions. It simply is what the words mean. When you say "I only vote for white people", you are being racist without necessarily hating black people.
If you favor a candidate because that candidate is of a certain race, that's discrimination based on race. That's the very definition of racism. Racism does not mean "you hate blacks".
If you favor a candidate because of religion, then that's religious discrimination. Unfortunately, there's not a single word for it like there is for racial discrimination.
Discrimination is not just exclusive, it can also be inclusive. We are all going to discriminate come November. Except some of our discrimination will be narrow-minded and bigoted (such as choosing a candidate based on race, religion, or political affiliation), and some will vote for Nader (that's a joke, you can read it as "some will vote based on the candidates' stances on key issues.").
Look up what discrimination means. It basically means selection based upon differences. If you are selecting someone based on race, you are discriminating based on race regardless if you are voting for a guy just because he shares a skin tone or voting against him based on the same criteria.
No, local admins can't change domain users passwords. You need access to the DC and Active Directory Users and Computers. A local machine admin is just that, a local _machine_ admin. The only way this hack could be devastating were it used on a server. And then, if someone can do this to your server, you've lost ages ago.
This "hack" is akin to taking the hard drive out, slipping it in an external drive enclosure, mounting it on an existing Windows or Linux box, changing the files, and then putting everything in place. You've defeated the security before you have even reached step one, anything you do after is just mental masturbation.
This is only useful if you have physical access to the machine and can remove the case (in case of BIOS passwords and boot order priority favoring the hard drive before anything else). So it can only be used in the case where you have a) forgotten all the passwords relative to that machine or b) don't have passwords to that machine.
Even in a networked environment, this access gets you very little, as a local machine admin still has no privileges on the network. So the best you can hope for here, is that the user keeps sensitive data on their local machine.
Of course you are right. I can go out right now and collect all the gear I need to be able to paint the Mona Lisa, win the Tour de France, and run a successful video game company. There is no challenge in acquisition of these materials (canvas, paint, brushes, bike, helmet, computer, compiler, etc.)
However, painting the Mona Lisa is a challenge. Winning the Tour de France is a challenge. Running a successful company of any stripe is a challenge. Right clicking is not a challenge.
You start out with the basic assumption that God is self-awareness, then go on to define self-awareness as basically existence.
But you also claim that rocks, sand, etc are not self-aware and cannot exist independently of conscious thought. So unobserved erosion cannot happen. Because rocks and sand can't exist or interact without something to watch it happen. Therefore, the Grand Canyon does not exist.
Do you see the problem with that logic now. Far from proving that God exists, you instead prove that something tangible we can now see couldn't have happened.
Because browsers are extremely tolerant of broken markup. Try running your pages through a validator and see what you get.