Not Michael Jackson. He means Mick Jagger.

Not to mention that if you don't specify a CPU time limit, and you get an (apparently) infinitely running process you have no way of determining a winner short of solving the halting problem -- which may be a little too much effort if you're just looking to have a kids' programming competition.

Could you explain to me how this is a Catch 22 situation? To me it just looks like a difficult moral choice.

Just don't send the scientists, or we'll get a wonderful Ayn-Randist theme park at the bottom of the ocean :P

Put them above/below you, and turn on keystone correction. Hell, you can put all six on the floor and point them up if you can't afford to hang them from the ceiling (although if you can afford six projectors, you probably can...)

The root of the problem is that a computer has different (and/or no) "taste" in music. Now, I don't know where humans get their taste in music (I'm hardly an expert in the area) and it brings up the old nature vs nurture argument, but at the end of the day, you can't expect a computer to develop new musical styles that humans like without some way of evaluating what styles humans like.

Actually, I was visiting Romania recently, and I saw a store which (translated) was called "Clothes for fat people".

It made my day.

I believe the point is that with Flatter^H^Hr you pay a fixed monthly fee, which is divided between the recipients. It means that you don't need to decide how much to give, and you can Flattr an artist without worrying whether you can afford to donate any more money.

Personally, I think it's a good idea, and not a duplicate of Paypal, although 10% does seem a bit steep...

Nononono, that's all wrong. There should be a Message class, with a deleteIfSpam method that takes an instance of SpamDefinition as a parameter.

I agree with sibling poster. The start is the most hideously dull thing ever, but once you're past the first temple it starts getting more interesting, and it's actually pretty awesome by the end. Well, if you liked OoT, anyway.

Firstly, let me admit that I learned English post-1980.

Secondly, IANAL[inguist], the second sentence, "Sarah is acting foolish.", doesn't seem incorrect to me as I read "is acting" in a similar way to "smells". That is, to me the sentence reads "Sarah is acting [as if she were] foolish.". Should one then say "Sarah is acting oldly.", or whatever the adverbial form of "old" is?

Just my $x cents

I think the issue is more that tab and space are visually indistinguishable.
A good guideline is that you should be able to glean all the semantically meaningful data from the source code even on a hard-copy. I can certainly see a newline in hard-copy (although I can't tell whether it's \n, \r\n, \r or whatever). Similarly, I can see tabs in hard-copy, but I can't tell them apart from spaces, so in that sense it's wrong for them to be any more semantically meaningful.

I thought they were on ships?

If they are just slightly-lower-power laptops (I don't really follow the whole "netbook" fad thingamajiggy), it seems that there's little point in having a separate term for them. Why not just call them laptops?

Oh, and gerroff my lawn.