If that's all the variable is used for, won't the compiler optimize it out of existence anyway? Or is that too fancy yet?
I think a lot of people don't really understand how the compiler actually works. Not even at a basic level.
Well, no, I don't. That's why I asked. It sounds like the answer to my question is yes?
But as for taking production back to Wolfsberg, last I checked there were still lots of VWs made in Mexico.
Right. Don't buy them. They specifically moved the Golf back to Wolfsberg. Be careful, though, because I think they moved it back to Mexico more recently. You can get e.g. a "VAG VIN Decoder" app for Android, or just memorize which place in the VIN to look at and a handful of plant codes. Then you'll know precisely where the vehicle was produced.
If adding a variable aids readability, add the fucking variable! Shove all the results into a meaningful, readable variable name and then shove *that* into your function argument, not some long series of nested function. It's not the 90s. You don't have to save memory! Memory is there to make your code readable. Use it!
If that's all the variable is used for, won't the compiler optimize it out of existence anyway? Or is that too fancy yet?
Ars Technica just lost my respect
Welcome to the party, it began several years ago.
Please tell me you already feel this way about Gawker.
I got my job just because the company I work for had over twenty developers that were all male, and it looked bad on their EEO report.
Not because you were the most qualified applicant? That means the company you work for hired you not because they should have, but because they were strong-armed into it. In fact, they should not have had to have hired you, they should have been able to hire the best-qualified applicant.
The reality is that society needs children.
The reality is that you are asking employers to pay for that, but making children isn't their business. If society needs children, then society should pay for children, through income redistribution. Oh wait, guess what? We already give people a tax break for having children. I've known people who made more than me but paid no taxes because of their children. Now you want employers to pay again?
Of course the rules should apply equally to both genders. You could argue that people who don't have kids should get more time off,
Or you could argue that people who do have kids don't deserve to get paid for their time off. A person who doesn't have kids is worth more to their employer. If people can't afford to survive while they have kids (they can) and we need more people (we don't) then it would be worth it to pay people to have kids. Big problem with that is there are too many humans on this planet already, at least while we operate in our current mode. You want more people made, but that's the opposite of what we need.
If I want a car assembled correctly, I buy one which was put together in Germany
You mean like all those VWs built in Mexico?
No, completely unlike those VWs built in Mexico, which are built like shit. The only thing more embarrassing to my heritage than how shit UAW puts together cars is how shit Mexico puts together cars. It's interesting that you mention Volkswagen because Mexicans are known to be particularly bad at that. When VW brought USDM Golf production to Mexico, reliability plummeted. When they took production back to Wolfsberg, it came right back up to the German standards that we know and love.
Anyone who buys a VW built in Mexico is a moron. All of my imports to date have been built in their designing nation, and came over here on a boat fully assembled. Started with imports with a 240SX, then I had an Impreza GC5, couple of 300SDs (still have one) and an A8. That last has electrical problems but the mechanicals are good, anyway. And there's the rub with VW; their electrical is a bit garbage, even out of Germany.
There are some owner operators as described, but most are beholden.
The problem with swapping drivers has to do with hours of service requirements. A bit too much detail to get into right now, unfortunately.
Tell me about it. The other day I tried really really hard and I just couldn't manage to not buy a TV.
The default is to charge you the fee whether you have a tuner in your household or not. This may be less ridiculous now that they provide a lot of other services, but it was also true back when they didn't.
What you use is noscript, and then you allow only the scripts necessary to get the portal working, and you don't run any flash or java from the portal, etc etc. And you keep your browser updated. It's not rocket surgery. It's not foolproof, but it's best to act as little like a fool as possible.
I'd be more concerned about a catastrophic software failure. Modern drone autopilots have fairly astounding limp home ability, you ought to be able to crash them in predefined locations fairly reliably. Unless, of course, something goes batshit with the electronics and/or software...
Again, the drivers are the trucking companies.
A romantic notion, but incorrect. Private fleets account for 80% of trucks and over 50% of OTR tonnage shipped.
He specifically said no fines, that they have to provide the service as the fine.
And if they don't?
Fine them enough to bring in that line from the telco, installation and service. If that means they're paying for a fiber pull so you can get a fractional T3, so be it. It makes it a simple cost decision. I'm tired of blatantly fraudulent coverage maps, too.
I guess it depends on what the fine is for not complying. For your above scenario to make sense, the fine itself would have to be more than the cost of installing the line.
Sounds good. Let's set the fine to be twice the cost of installing the line.
Also, there's no law saying how much they are allowed to charge you, and they often don't charge the same fees for everybody.
So the law says they can't charge you more because you're on a line which was installed under this program.
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.
