1. Kleiner Perkins freed of all charges. This highlights just how male-dominated and sexist the tech industry is.
2. Kleiner Perkins guilty of all charges. This highlights just how male-dominated and sexist the tech industry is.

It's kinda like "global warming," where any change in the weather (or any lack of change in the weather) is cited as proof. A Venn diagram of SJWs vs. warmistas would, I suspect, have a very high degree of overlap.

That's a pretty broad exclusion to be enforceable.

Sigh. What a difference a few years make. I am a late gen x. And I would say the same thing but with DOS, and not having a hard disk drive and a CGA 4 color monitor.
By the time windows 95 came out, I have already been hooked on Linux.

The problems with such rules, means the are plenty of work arounds,

In general booth babes are hired, because they know there are plenty of ongoers who still sexually are teenagers. And use them to attract people to their booth.

However what will happen they will have people dressed to fit the rules. However still be sexy, and they will flirt with the potentional customer anyways.

The spine was design to stay at an ideal location, with enough flexibility to accommodate movement. Our hands on the otherwise have joints and muscles designed for more purpose. However some activities, usually in the terms of fine movement, may put more strain than larger movements and grips.

I think BBC may take the opportunity to just clean house and bring in a new set of 3 hosts. The chemistry that those 3 had was great, so just lugging in a new replacement with the 2 remaining would be a disaster. But it could work with a set of 3 completely new hosts.

Not likely. Consider The Man Show as precedent; it pretty much jumped the shark when they tried to replace Adam Carolla & Jimmy Kimmel.

Insightful? More like hippy liberal corporation bashing.
Now this isn't some conservative rant. The FAA should be taking such things carefully, so not to cause problems. However, some of the rules are not focused on more agile aircraft development, where drones are involved there is less needs to verify personal safety, and changes to the drone technology shouldn't need as much screwenty. So unlike a Jet where they decided to change a component, as the safety of the pilot is a major concern, and such change should be completely reviewed. For a drone, just as long it fits in the recommended size and flight area it should be allowed more flexibility in changes without as much FAA review. Being that the overall risk of such changes is so small.

Or they will find some way the guy is linked to islamic terrorists. Or maybe he had stated an unpopular political view.

Or perhaps he just snapped. Often people with suicidal depression is really good at hiding it so other people don't realize it.

Maybe he shoulda talked to the people he bought the house from instead of level 1 sales drone. Hell, even looking at the house he should have seen if there was coax in place or not.

That's their entire point.

THATS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS PAPER.

It is easy to explain the results: In high-level languages such as Java and Python, a seemingly benign
statement such as concatString += addString may actually involve executing many extra cycles behind
the scenes. To concatenate two strings in a language such as C, if there is not enough space to expand
the concatString to the size it needs to be to hold the additional bytes from addString, then the
developer has to explicitly allocate new space with enough storage for the sum of the sizes of the two
strings and copy concatString to the new location, and then finally perform the concatenation. In Java
and Python strings are immutable, and any assignment will result in the creation of a new object and
possibly copy operations, hence the overhead of the string operations. The disk-only code, although
apparently writing to the disk excessively, is only triggering an actual write when operating system
buffers are full. In other words, the operating system already lessons disk access times. A developer
familiar with the language and system internals readily notices the causes of this observed behaviour,
but this behaviour may be easily missed, as indicated by examining similar cases in production code.

In general writing to RAM is faster than writing to the disk. However there are things that get in the way of both.
1. OS Memory Management: So you making a small memory string to a big one. So will the os fragment the string, when it comes up to an other systems reserved memory spot. Will it overwrite it (Buffer overflow), will it find a contiguous larger memory block and copy the data there. Will it copy and move the memory slots to a new location away from the memory. Will this be happening preemptively, or when the error condition occurs, will all this stuff happen with a cpu cycle that is not sharing with your app. Also if you are low on memory the system may dump it to the disk anyways.

2. OS Disk management: A lot of the same concerns that memory management has. However a bunch of small request is easier to find free space, then asking for a larger spot. So they may be more seek time.

3. Disk Caching: You tell the program to append to the disk. The OS sends the data to the drive, the drive responds back Yea I got it. then the OS goes back to handling your app, in the mean time your drive is actually spinning to save the data on the disk.

4. How your compiler handles the memory. Data = Data + "STRING" vs. Data+="STRING" vs Data.Append("STRING") vs { DataVal2=malloc(6); DataVal2="STRING"; DataRec->Next = *DataVal2; } You could be spending O(n) time saving your memory where you can be doing in in O(1)

Now sometime I do change my algorithm to write to the disk vs. handling it in memory. Mostly because the data I am processing is huge, and I much rather sacrifice speed, in order to insure that the data gets written.