Where's the rule that says a language has to be Turing Complete to be a "programming" language?
and has been for millions of years: a swift kick to the [bleep]
Recode.net quipped that for an extra million, Alexander would show them the back door (state-installed spyware mechanisms) that the NSA put in consumer routers.
Only ONE of them?
What does this story have to do with Linux?
I assume you were going for "funny".
But on the off chance you (or some reader) is asking this seriously...
Slashdot is about things that are of interest to nerds. The approval process for new drugs (which might save, enhance, damage, or end their lives) is one of those subjects.
Sounds like a bug in the Matrix to me. It will probably be fixed in the next release.
No, the Matrix learned from Microsoft: you don't have to fix anything if you have no competition.
Agreed - every complaint about self-driving cars has been for the migration time when there are both autonomous and human-driven vehicles on the roads.
When you take human drivers out of the equation, and autonomous vehicles are the norm, utilizing things like mesh networks to keep other nearby vehicles informed, all of the complaints suddenly disappear.
Autonomous cars might wait at lights longer, and stop for more yellow lights, but imagine a line of vehicles stopped at a light all accelerating at the exact same moment and rate. Imagine vehicles re-routing around an accident with correct ratios going to alternate routes so no one alternate route gets slammed, leaving other routes empty.
They probably used "heavenly body" at first, but editors realized that would generate too many tasteless jokes, and changed it to "planet".
Does that mean Hamas will start rocketing China also?
At 42 he'll only do it 24 times. Slowin' down.
The point as I see it is the distinction between version 4 and 5. The poster suggests that they want "the latest" rather than 4, which they CAN find docs for. They are both obsolete, dead even, such that focusing on "the latest" strikes me as odd. Perhaps I came off too sarcastic, but the "logic" is bugging me.
I worked retail for a long time, including an Apple Store. I cannot remember the policies at Apple when I was working there, but most places will not take a verbal approval code.
If the person on the other end of the phone (generally you get to them by calling the 800 number on the back of the card) has the ability to run the transaction, they have the ability to clear whatever prevented the card from going through the first time. They would have to - they have to clear the hurdle before they can run the transaction themselves.
So policy at most places is that the telephone operator clears the issue (usually it is a daily spending limit that card issuers never mention) and then the store runs the card again. There was no procedure for manually entering a verbal approval code.
My memory of Apple Retail (this was '04-'06), however, is that they had almost every contingency covered. The POS machines all had USB modems attached so that in case the Internet went down at the store, credit cards could still be processed. We even had the old CH-CHUNK imprint devices when everything went pear-shaped. I do seem to remember having the ability to enter a manual authorization code for a credit card transaction. It is Apple Retail - there are supposed to be no hurdles keeping a Specialist from keeping a customer happy.
I don't see it. I see the article as saying more that Hitler was horrible, and Bush is even worse than that.
The reason why Bush is worse is because Hitler meant well. That's what it says. That's what I am talking about.
It's a false dilemma to assume this means the writer thinks Hitler's dishonorable acts were ok
I never said that. I said that in comparison to Bush, he's not as bad, which is what you agree he said.
Of course, as pointed out by both smitty and I, the writer is factually wrong that Hitler meant well.
And I agree with that.
I find your mockery wanting
I find your understanding of it to be wanting.
and it is more likely to backfire and make the left stronger.
No, it's not.
Taking weak and cheap shots makes your side appear petty and unable to field a better argument.
Mocking the left for taking cheap shots, by pretending to take a cheap shot, is an actual cheap shot?
Now, I realize Palm OS 4 software can be run on Palm OS 5, but I'm looking to use some of the 'newer' APIs.
Come on, if they do the job, who cares. It's like wanting Mozart over Bach because Mozart is "newer". They are both dead worm food. (Please, no music "decomposing" jokes.)
I've been saying for years, leftists generally hate the rule of law. They just do. The rule of law means they are restrained from doing what they think is best. Therefore, they hate it. There is infinite evidence of this. They openly question whether we should follow the law at every turn, from the top (Justice Breyer and President Obama) to the bottom (pretty much every "occupy" protestor).
We actually had a majority of the federal legislature decry a Supreme Court decision that merely said -- in reference to Lily Ledbetter -- that you cannot punish a company under the law, unless it actually breaks the law. Not to mention the case that said the federal legislature cannot restrict political speech by a person or group of persons, just because they are organized a certain way under the law, that also got massive opposition from liberals.
Time and again, the left just demonstrates a very clear and palpable hatred for the rule of law. They would have us ruled by enlightened people who would be free to make up rules as they went along.
Impeachment is a stupid idea. It will likely give the country little benefit to shave a mere year or so off his presidency, and generate massive animosity that will increase the liklihood of another law-hater being elected.