Then become a Sikh, and stop boring us with this nonsense.
I happen to think dogs are great too, but that doesn't mean I should want to become a dog.
MechaStreisand, you are an unpleasant person. Your comments almost always refer to other people as "retards", "idiots" or "morons". It's a little bit unseemly for such a stupid sonofabitch to be doing that. It's really no way to go through life.
Global warming is a sloooooooooooooooooow process
Not necessarily. Greenland ice core records show that in the past the planet has seen temperature shifts of up to 7 C in as little as 30 years. 7 C is huge. It's like transporting Moscow to Rome. Of course, we have no idea what caused such rapid changes in the past. It wasn't CO2 levels, or particulates.
i would not be surprised if humans died off within a couple centuries after that.
I would. If one or more isolated populations managed to survive more than a couple of generations after the event, I think it's highly likely that they'd continue to survive indefinitely. The worst of the changes would be past, and they'd clearly have learned how to survive in the new environment, else they'd have died sooner.
Human intelligence makes us highly adaptable, as evidenced by the extraordinary diversity of environments in which we live, and lived even before the advent of modern technology. Humans who lack the necessary knowledge of how to survive in a particular environment are at severe risk of death any place on the planet, but if they manage to survive for even a year or two, odds are that they'll have learned enough to be able to extend that time almost indefinitely.
Then become a Sikh, and stop boring us with this nonsense.
Here is your commenting history on Slashdot.
http://slashdot.org/~MechaStre...
You might not be the best person to be telling others not to be boring.
The search results thing is not the right to be forgotten. Some stupid journalists got confused and called it that
Those "stupid journalists" appear to be in good company, starting with official press releases from both the European Commission and indeed the European Court of Justice itself about the 2010 Spanish newspaper case.
I would be the first to agree that moves towards a more powerful right to be forgotten such as you describe would be a good idea, but as of today, these are mostly just proposals. For example, while there is already a right under some limited circumstances to request deletion of personal data, the UK's data protection regulator has written guidance for data controllers that makes clear that the right is quite tightly constrained for the time being.
In this case, "filter" means select only those items that match the criteria, i.e., where the given predicate is true.
This usage is about as consistent as anything you'll find in the programming world: languages using it this way include Python, PHP, JavaScript, Java, D, and many well-known functional programming languages including Haskell, several of the ML family, Erlang, Scala and Clojure. Some other well-known languages have related algorithms under other name, but I know of no counter-examples that use "filter" in the opposite sense.
Would you be more worried about what atheists thought, or what Sikhs would think if they knew you didn't belong to their religion?
Atheists think a lot of different things, and I'd like to think that most atheists aren't actually offended by the fact that religious people exist. That would be a pretty horrible way to go through life.
If there is a specific religious significance to the headwear, I wouldn't want believers to think I was denigrating their beliefs.
I'm old school in that I don't believe in being offensive without good reason.
American Justice is about having a penalty so severe that the risk/reward ratio makes doing the crime a bad idea. Unfortunately, many, many people today have a problem with thinking very far in the future.
No, American Justice is about keeping enough poor people incarcerated that revolution can be avoided.
The ridiculous percentage of Americans that are incarcerated has more to do with politics than it does crime.
He's a Sikh not a Muslim you idiot
The Sikh people I've met are some of the best people on the planet. They're the opposite of whatever Fox News muslim stereotype that AC was talking about.
Plus, as musicians, they rock: https://youtu.be/Wfzp4cdcuYc
Or are you suggesting that turbans are only for "brown" people?
Nah, I'm just concerned that there is a religious significance to the turban that would offend people if I wore one. Like the time grew payot and wore a shtreimel while I was front man for a Christian death metal band, The Fifth Horseman.
I hope this isn't taken the wrong way or offends anyone, but I think turbans are extremely cool. I play music with a Sikh dude and always envy his headgear. If you think about all the cultural & religious headwear for men in the world, why are white American men so badly shortchanged? I can either wear a Carhartt mesh back trucker cap and look like someone who pimps out his little sister for meth or a flat-brim baseball cap and look like a gangbanger. Or, I can wear a fedora and look like some skeevy YouTube PUA or a knit skully and look like a hipster. Bowler hats or top hats are not really me, you know? What's left? A North African kufi hat is kind of slick, but what I really want to wear is a turban. I've dug them since I was a kid and saw stuff like this:
https://youtu.be/uE_MpQhgtQ8?t...
or this...
or this...
There's a rich history of cool musicians wearing turbans. Dr Lonnie Smith, Screamin' Jay Hawkins, even Professor Longhair was known to show up in a turban. I once saw the Fabulous Thunderbirds live and harmonica player extraordinaire Kim Wilson came out in a pair of RayBans and an electric blue turban. Dammit, I want to wear a turban too.
[I hope I didn't offend anyone with this comment, because I sincerely didn't mean to. If someone can offer better headwear alternatives for a white American guy, please do. ]
if you took someone that never read or wrote code before and showed them 100 line, idiomatic programs in Java, Javascript, Python, Ruby, PHP, Perl, Lisp, Haskell, C, Fortran, COBOL, Basic, and a few other languages that Java would not top the list for readability. My guess is that the winners would be Basic, COBOL, and Python.
Depends. My bet is that it entirely depends on the background of the "someone" you've taken.
- english speaker ? mostly used to litterature and philosophical logic ? yes, maybe as you list them.
- background in mathematics ? The order will probably be reversed, with probably Haskell, C and Fortran near the top. And probably APL topping them all. And the guy complaining that most of them still miss support for greek alphabet.
some people are used to see things written down in plain text, other are better used to see things written with symbols.
plain text has the advantage of being a little bit clearer for a person who happens to be fluent in the language which was used to create the language (say hello to dialects of Logo and Excel macros translated into various languages). Otherwise it's completely useless (most of the language you mention are based around english. useless non-english speakers. when I was a kid, I started learning to code in basic before I knew english).
symbolic notation has the advantage of being more compact (requires less typing, quicker to read)
cf. the well know geeky joke of "add 1 to cobol giving cobol" vs "C++"
And well, Perl, let's forget about Perl. It's a write-only language.
The only language your cat can write legal code in just by walking across the keyboard.
(Disclaimer: I used to code a lot in Basic as a you kid. Started C a bit later, and learned english about this time. I code also regularily in Perl, C++, awk, php, 386 assembler, etc. I know bits of R, javascript, python, FORTRAN, did some Logo in french in school as a kid, etc.)
Motherboard replacements and case replacements will gain traction just like in the assemble your own PC era.
Well not very likely.
That did work for the openmoko because the neo 1973 and neo freerunner (i have one!) have been designed from the gound up with an open hardware approach.
They have been designed to be easy to open, easy to hack, easy to replace parts.
Thus upgrade kits like gta04 were likely.
That does work now for the N900, because they are a little bit older generation, back at a time when case were a bit bulkier, battery was replaceable, etc.
There are also a lot of them out in the wild. (Basically, for a long time the Maemo where *THE* definite platforms for geeks to go, N900 was the most popular, and there were only 2 others before).
You could make a Neo900 upgrade kit that is more or less practical.
That won't work with modern smartphones:
- first they are absurdly compact and small (just to have a "better number" on the check list. not that it's actually usefull, specially when the end users will enclose them in an over-priced after-market case anyway).
- they are often very hard to dissassamble (both because of the previous point, but also because it makes them more resistant to moisture etc. if they are in an enclosing never designed to be opened)
- some don't even have removable batteries.
- to make quick buck these companies tend to launch one new model every 6 months (yeah, imagine a replacement borad for iPhone. iPhones are popular, isn't it ? except that there are a dozen of them by now)
- also most of these companies aren't targetting geeks in the first place (unlike nokia maemo platform) and thus aren't likely to be held by users actually able to use an upgrade kit.
I suspect that the Jolla's sailfish phone is the only probable next target for an upgrade kit.
But in general, the case is the least problematice in smart phones.
It makes more sense to 3D print a new case around an existing board, rather than try to fit a new board inside an existing phone.
Usually, the screen is the most complex, instead.
There is no way to differentiate since the end results are the same.
No, they really aren't. Well, even a completely sign-less intersection should have people 'assume' yield signs, but you should never just blow through an intersection.
As for signalling, well, last night I had a bit of an issue with people in cars not signalling, so it's definitely not restricted to bicycle riders.
Oh, please. You can't imagine how a bicyclist who runs down a pedestrian could do significant physical harm to them? A twenty MPH piece of steel/carbon fiber/whatever with an attached human mass would just what, bounce off a pedestrian?
Sure, it could cause injury. But a car causes death at the same speeds, having orders of magnitude more mass. Personally, I just go for real-world statistics. The number of pedestrians injured in bicycle accidents are insignificant compared to the number and magnitude of car strikes.
You keep ignoring the fact that vehicle law is not created just to protect the automobile driver from death by bike accident. It's there to protect YOU, too. And the pedestrians who you are a serious threat to.
Actually, you're simply assuming that, I suggest you stop with that assumption. Also, talk about blowing it out of proportion. I'd be insane to assume that. Yes - vehicle laws are made, for the most part, to try to keep everybody safe. What you're ignoring is that the law can always be adjusted to increase safety, efficiency, or whatever. So I'm free to talk about a hypothetical law that allows bicyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign.
Also, 'almost ran over' isn't 'run over'. I'm starting to wonder if you have an excessively wide definition of 'almost' given how often you use it.
You question the fact that when vehicle laws are obeyed the people involved are safer?
No, I question the effectiveness of a law that nobody obeys. Whether following it or not would be safer is irrelevant when it's not obeyed by default. That's where you have to go back and assess what the law was trying to do, consider human nature, and try something different.
Other than that, it seems you're determined to read everything I write in the stupidest way possible. When I talk about cops 'enforce not being stupid', that roughly meant 'hand out tickets for particularly stupid/dangerous acts(that are also illegal for good reason)'. That means handing out tickets for violating the stop sign, but concentrating on those that violate the stop sign in a dangerous manner. By doing so you avoid pissing off the community too much.
So I suggest going back, rolling back your conclusions that lead to anger and such, reread my posts in a reasonable light, then come back.
You can stop arguing that the existing laws shouldn't apply to them. That's a start. I remember the idiots because they are both so common and do memorably stupid things.
Such as this. I proposed a change to the law, not that existing law shouldn't apply. For that matter, I even explained why the change would be irrelevant to the idiots, because they'd still be violating even my proposed changed law. It's all a balancing act anyways. Hell, maybe the law change combined with a media campaign advertising it would catch a the attentions of a few of them and get them to change their behavior.
I don't care how greatly exaggerated the risk. If it happens, it'll probably happen to me.
It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.
