It's sad that after NSA, IRS etc. we're all so jaded we can't just enjoy this as something cool. A remote control plane that's an F-16. That's pretty badass.
Now back to your regularly scheduled realism about the government.
If you have $25 million to spare, you can probably buy one that was previously exported.
You think F-4 is old? What about B-52s! New in 1952, those haven't been used in combat since
It sounds like you've chosen to completely ignore the design documents on the wiki I referred you to. Okay.
Same here. Margaritas also played a key role.
Had I been smarter, I would have made my own fertility app that said "its time" whenever _I_ wanted to have some romance .
That's exactly when the FDA should step in, and when they have, historically. It doesn't make any sense to try to cure diabetes with lizard tails. If you sell lizard tails as a diabetes cure, the FDA may come knocking. If you sell a magnet hat as brain cancer protection, the FDA may want to talk to you. If you sell a strobe light app as a cure for emphysema, same thing.
Really this is just another case of "on a computer doesn't change anything". If you sell a "cure" for a disease, the FDA may want to have a look.
The post you linked to said they aren't ONLY planning to remove middle-click paste.
The design document on the Gnome wiki goes into further detail about what they are thinking of doing with middle-click instead.
Another developer in the same thread said this IS the right time to voice objections to removing middle-click yank. It's not out of thin air. Middle-click was already removed, then it was decided to wait on removing it until the new middle click replaces it. The new middle click menu is still being designed.
Where might one find these tight ones?
Apologies to any sensitive women for encouraging this.
LOL. I figured he is fishy because his "12 Rules" is a list of 13 rules.
The decision is being made on the mailing list at desktop-devel-list@gnome.org .
You can read or subscribe at:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Exactly. The user-to-user interface, such as English, is so complex that no-one can ever learn 100% of a language, and the benefit of that is that it enormously powerful.
If we wanted interfaces that were so simple you could learn the whole thing in two weeks, we'd all be speaking in baby talk. What people want is an interface where you can learn the BASICS quickly, then keep learning more forever.
When you dumb down the interface, you're choosing to make the first two months of use easier, at the expense of making the next 20 years of use more difficult.
That's dumb X 120.
TFA says:
> [Companies pay their taxes] inEuropean countries which have lower corporate tax rates, such as Ireland whereGoogle has its European headquarters.
They put their headquarters in Ireland so they can pay their taxes in Ireland because Ireland has low taxes.
If you want them to locate (and pay taxes) in your country, you should
That would result in workplace violence.
> That is like saying "why would you use math to figure out the area of that rectangle when you can just guess randomly until you find a fitting number".
> Both solutions work but one is intelligent.
That's the same distinction between an old-school program that tells the machine exact instructions "go forward 3 meters, turn left, go 1 meter", vs. artificial intelligence - building a robot that can adapt to it's environment. Why make it adaptable when you can program in precise instructions to begin with?
The entire field of AI is based on the idea that adaptable is better. We know of about 8.7 million species, from ones that live in boiling acid to blue whales and humans. If you wanted to make million variations on something, is it smarter to explicitly design one, then the next, then another, nine million times, or is it more intelligent to design one or ten which have the ability to morph into whatever variation is required?
You're assuming hard-coding specific values is the smart way. In almost al cases, hard-coding is the dumb way to do things.
The author has a point, maybe. I did notice that he was ten years old in the nineties and learned to program after college, meaning he has maybe five years of experience. He may be missing the REASON you name it "XMLReader", not "SusieQ" or whatever he said. If he ever has to grok a medium sized project full of classes with "whimsical" names he may wish for clear, intuitive names.
My predecessor at work was whimsical - every script or class has a variable named "bob", which sometimes is important, sometimes does nothing. Occasionally, he forgot what he was using bob for in a particular function and tried to have it represent two different things. One of our tasks is to slowly replace all of his whimsical code with proper code that is reliable and self documenting
fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.
