Meh. A simple error in the writeup, which I'm sure is not present in the scientific papers.

http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/?question=3318

The screams... it's all about the screams. And dinner. Think of it as the psychotic version of dine-in movie theaters.

Not according to HR.

I got my pitchfork right here. Let's go!

How are we going to get there, again?

And one that is generally frowned upon by religious people. The names are essentially anti-religious, not religious, in nature.

If the state of Utah is theocratic and makes funding decisions based on particle names, choosing blasphemous ones is not the path to big research bucks. Mormons take the prohibition against taking the name of deity in vain pretty seriously.

I mean, the smallpox was there, why not the plutonium?

The mistake I was referring to was smallpox's occasional error in failing to leave a few survivors.

IMHO it's far easier to logically get it right with braces and pretty-print it for proper indentation than fiddling around with whitespace.

Most, maybe. But there are a substantial number that do demand a degree, and the non-degreed will always have at least a small handicap, because given two otherwise equivalent candidates, the one with the degree is likely to get the job, and after 10 years or so the extra four years of experience aren't going to mean as much as the formal education.

In addition, if at some point in your career you want to move into another career track the degree may well become even more important -- though the choice of major may become much less important.

Well, everyone makes mistakes once in a while.

The issue being that is *always* the case. In the early python 2 days, they thought the 'early' days were over. I haven't dealt with python 3 with sufficient depth to be keenly aware of any real gotchas, but the fact they decided to add back in the explicit unicode syntax is a sign that they have at least continued to indulge in flux to fix bad design decisions. In that specific case, I don't see a downside for the increased ability to have python2/3 agnostic code so I won't declare any example of breaking 3.x series code with that. It seems clear to me that the python language can't quite exercise enough restraint in their enthusiasm for their vision of improved syntax and features to walk away confident that code won't break in a couple of 3.x generations.

It's almost like a curse, the more popular and energetic a language implementation is, the more likely it is to experience some incompatible evolution.

As the hip kids would say 'un-pythonic'. It's sort of like how perl can be perfectly readable until people go and start using all the language features in 'clever' ways. Making a dict on the fly and indexing it in the same statement is the sort of thing I could see rendering python code hard to read and follow...

Python is a language that has a fascinating tendency to break python on version upgrades. Yes, there is very clearly the python 2 to python 3, but even python 2.3 to python 2.6 can create worlds of headaches.

But then again no language is perfect. Old C code is frequently hard to build on modern compilers, perl had a very long history of not needing anything to be touched but some of the disilliusionment in prel 6 has caused even perl5 to get a bit fidgety as of late.

They do comply with OBDII. Some of the bits are different, obviously. I have an OBDII scanner I use regularly with my LEAF. It extends the spec to allow reporting on some EV-only parameters, such as the state of each of the hundreds of cells in the battery, but it also reports lots of the same data reported by an ICE.