And that was a brilliant idea.
Floating point can have weird rounding errors if you don't understand clearly how they behave. (see here for an example).
Using an integer number of a smaller unit (pennies) is better in those cases, and "LONG" data type can still represent a big amount of pennies for your situation.

Several real-world finance software do actually use the same approach (a integer "BIGNUM" of a small unit, instead of floating point).

Mine is both near to and uphill from my well, but my well also goes through a clay cap.

Or use plain simple end-to-end encryption. (Constant encryption all they way between the two correspondents)

instead of using Skype (bascially a black box, and back befor microsoft them, their EULA mentionned that they'll collaborate with any local law enforcement agency) or analog POTS, try instead using standards like SIP or XMPP/Jabber/Jingle with proper encryption (e.g.: Jitzi is a software that implements SRTP/ZRTP encryption)

Then anyone trying to tap into that communication will only get noise.

Not that it's impossible for the NSA to do anything against this (they'll happily try to abuse any backdoor that they know of at each end-point).
At at least it will make it a bit less trivial for them to plain scan anything.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. I guess the question is, are you getting paid to tell this lie? Cosmetics are full of known toxics, just like perfumes.

It would take a lot more than that, in all likelihood. It's usually not trivial for something you spill to wind up in your well unless you've got an open well, and you spill into it.

The reason these chemicals are expensive to dispose of is that they are difficult to destroy by any means other than sweet, cleansing flame — and a whole hell of a lot of it. Throwing it in your campfire won't do it. Anything that can't be gotten out of your water by relatively simple means isn't filtered out by your municipal water department.

it eliminated all but the keywords, and got "question", "charge" and "bill". It may only be scanning for about 20 keywords at the most at any given prompt. That's a very easy job compared to natural speech recognition which actually gets all the words. You could get that on a chip 20 years ago.

Developer, programmer, and engineer all have their own meanings, and cannot be used interchangeably.

Why? Over most of history spying has saved lives more than taken them. I find it so odd that people on Slashdot sing the praises of the "Codebreakers" of WWII but are shocked and freaked out that they are still around today.

Because they spied on the enemy, the foreign entities that were trying to harm them.

The problem today is, this tech is being aimed domestically as well as on foreign enemies....without due process or proper warrants showing probably cause.

The objection is the broad dragnet of information being captured and analyzed, of presumable innocent citizens.

If this were ONLY being aimed at the enemy, not only would most folks here not have a problem with it, they'd whole heartedly support it!!

Oh. Hey. Cisco kid. Was a friend of mine. Until that beetles in the bog thing. Yeah.

A variation of it is quite prominent on Slashdot, with many users inexplicably believing that programming requires a "special mind", dividing people in to two groups: "can program" and "can never program".

Some of us just have different metrics for drawing a line between "programming" and "stumbling around in a programming language doing dangerous, stupid, and occasionally functional things."

But, hey. If you can set your digital alarm clock, or interact with your microwave in such a way as to involve more than one button push (even if you're going to destroy the comestible), you're a programmer, right?

It's like kids with crayons. They're all artists! Special butterflies! Call the Louvre!

Now get off my nursing home's lawn

From TFS:

If you could measure programming ability somehow, its curve would look like the normal distribution.

Since you can't measure programming ability "somehow" or otherwise, you don't know what the curve would look like. Which reveals the entire set of claims here as utter garbage. If you don't know what the distribution is, you don't know what the distribution is. How difficult is that to understand?

Once you get up to 10, they're bumping into each other like the 3 stooges in an elevator, so you need 100 to get anything done.

It's the very first thing I thought when I read the first-released list of fracking chemicals, years back.

The list of chemicals they have announced supports it.