This is exactly how modern movies are funded. No executive can predict the success of a movie. But if the studio invests in enough movies, there's almost a guaranteed return.

Then perhaps you missed the one two verses before that: "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

Perhaps even a little of: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 16:28.

Or: "After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." I Thessalonians 4:17.

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour." I John 2:18

"This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none..." I Corinthians 7:29.

"They said to you, 'In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.' These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit." Jude 18-19.

I don't think Harold Camping was the first kook by a looong shot.

Oh? Who is the head of atheism? What dietary restrictions do we have? Special days of the week? Buildings we meet in? Perhaps you can name any facts we're conveniently ignoring because we simply want to believe what we believe?

Ain't pretending. There is no leap of faith to assume there is no god. You need suppose nothing else than what you see.

The problem is with assumptions. I assume there is no god. That's a valid assumption-- there's nothing to contradict it. The Christian assumes there is a god. That's an invalid assumption: there is plenty to contradict his definition of "god."

Neither of us can claim absolute certainty-- in that sense, you're right. But only one of us can claim validity.

Shouldn't you apply your own logic to atheists and "windows fanboys"? You seem to think Mac users are more mature than these groups. Why do they deserve respect, but "windows fanboys" don't in the same post?

How about Slashdot, which is still going despite showing the same fortune cookie at the bottom for a week now?

Wait-- are you honestly saying "let's not actually use free speech and free press because that will stop other countries from giving their citizens these vitally... important rights... that we don't use?"

Yeah, yeah. Sorry about that. I red the summary this time.

Bet their faces are red about this one.

Except that either the kernel patch or the .bashrc hack (and possibly a better version of that hack) will eventually be the default in your distro's setup. *Either way*, you won't care how it gets to you. It sounds like the .bashrc hack or other, similar tricks have the advantage of (a) working now, with current kernels, and (b) letting the distros decide the heuristics of grouping processes, instead of the kernel.

I have a saying: If you're scared of typing, you shouldn't be a programmer. And how is it easier to have to consult the local printf documentation whenever you want to decipher your coworker's code? In most cases, my format strings merely contain {0}, {1}, {2}, and so on.

It's not new. C# had it years ago, and probably other languages before that. And do you really spend a lot of time converting printf statements into Python? That sounds like a royal pain with all of the type differences.

It's still around, for anyone who wants to keep writing inscrutable code to save keystrokes.

I expect they're afraid of Python programmers writing code that looks like Perl.

You've completely ignored what I said, or failed to read the documentation. shell=True allows you to run full shell commands, including the piping you want to do. If you want to make it shorter, you can write a function:

def p(a):
        subprocess.Popen(a, shell=True)

And then just tell anyone that reads your code that p() obviously stands for process. Or you can use s() for shell.

Or you can just stick to an older version of Python. No one's forcing you to upgrade.

I disagree completely. Warlock's printf("0x%08xn", x) becomes print('0x{0:08x}'.format(x)) in Python 3. It's cleaner and easier to read, and has the advantage of positional formatting.

Call me crazy-- I don't use popen-- but isn't that the purpose of the shell=True argument? (http://docs.python.org/library/subprocess.html) Their example is probably intended to work across as many platforms as possible.

But of the three, the televangelist is doing it under false pretenses.

Except that that leaves the deity with nothing to do but supply this process with entropy.

"Survival of the fittest" requires diversity. If you're saying nobody should even attempt to replace X, then you have no diversity, and you have no "survival of the fittest," merely "survival of the incumbent."

Let Ubuntu develop Wayland. If it's a good idea, people will pick it up. If it's not, people will stick to X. THAT is survival of the fittest.