So based on the above, it seems clear that you are 100% behind the concept that man evolved like all other organisms. There is nothing special about man, evolutionarily speaking. Yes, we have evolved and through that process have obtained language, arts, intelligence, etc. However, there is nothing to suggest that we are the end-product of evolution. Nothing to suggest that man is 'above' all other species, or precepts like he alone of all the things to evolve on earth has a soul.

"pull requests" heh.

Posted intentionally to lampoon typical responses.

I am not surprised that requests are not followed up on when a female calls for them, nor am I surprised that their responses are more often responded to when the gender is hidden/neutral. What I am surprised is that female pull requests are "larger and less likely to serve an immediate project need". Does this mean that female developers are concentrating on "big picture features" more often ?

In high school (early 80's) , when monitors were green only and the punch-card machine was still in the classroom, we used a variant of BASIC called Waterloo Structured Basic, which was basic but with proper looping and control structures. Never used it at home (I used Turbo Pascal, there) though.

My son is 12. He is teaching himself Python. So far, he's figured out how to replicate a board game in Python. I'm not sure how useful Python will be for him, but its the concept of programming that I think will be the of most use for him

I do not agree with your statement's overall claim.

However, in order to make you feel better, you can think of these space ventures simply as income redistribution. The "rich guys with a fantasy for space" and "wealthy people" you refer too spend money doing this. Lots of money. This money goes to high-tech jobs that pay well, that in themselves allow money to be distributed. If more of the 1% spent their money this way, there would be even more money distributed around, driving the economy that you and I derive our incomes from.

So rather than being negative on this, you should be banging the drum to make more and more of the 1% interested in this. Make those 1%ers prefer to spend their resources acquiring expensive services that feed the highest paying technical staff, We don't want those folks spending their money on things or on low-value services, we want them to spend them on services that can only be provided at great cost by technical people. Get those bank accounts spending money on high tech services provided by your neighbours !

Hopefully, they bring the house robots back, as they provided a lot of character to the show

Yup. Of course, the traditional part is having the wife get her tubes tied during the 2nd birth procedure. That way you even get to avoid the "relatively painless" procedure.

Mind you, monogamy is still required. If that's not in your cards, then by all means, have your nipper nicked. I'll make a vast difference

Uber does not represent progress. Say it with me, Uber does not represent progress. Uber is regressive for drivers. Repeating the drivel that Uber is progressive or or represents progress is deceiving. Are they a disruptive technology? YES. we can agree on that. Does it better the world ? On the assumption that Uber is always cheaper, the drive to shot term cost savings for long term pain, transfer of risk, lowering of quality of both service and life for the service providers has never worked well. Look at many department stores and small city downtown cores since Wal-mart started its march across north america. Are you better served? Are the staff? Are you the prices you are paying actually lower, or are they lower only until any competition has been driven away ? Driving labour rates down to export profit from the country does nothing positive. The transfer of insurance and health risk onto the driver instead of the taxi company is insane.

While I will agree that taxi drivers decades are diminishing, it won't be Uber that takes them out, it will be driverless cars.

The author only died in 2009, so yes, the copyright is still valid. It seems a relatively simple case that CBS obtained rights from the a company that published the songbook. The case revolves around whether or not that music company had the legal authority to grant those rights to CBS. The copyright holder of the lyrics has stated that the music company did not have the right to do so.

As for what is the appropriate duration of copyright, I will gladly agree that the duration is too long.

Just, no.

Nope.

This post has absolutely *nothing* to do with the topic.

I'm sure this has never happened before.

Not the same damn thing. No one is stopping scientific progress here. Its simply a choice between sites. This site is NOT the only one. It may be optimal from a purely technical point of view, but when you take in all considerations it may not be the optional solution. I'm sorry, putting your nuclear research centre downtown isn't a good idea. Find another location, and get on with your work.

Obviously you've never been involved in an Environmental Assessment Process. Cultural considerations, as well as aesthetic considerations can be show stoppers.

I don't know exactly what is going on there. I am not an archaeologist, nor an anthropologist specializing in Hawaiian culture. But to discount the beliefs (which MAY be genuine) out of hand is 100% the same as blowing up idols because you believe they are not necessary. What is being destroyed ? Well, the locals, who are better informed that you or I, seem to feel that the construction would constitute a negative impact. The implicit assumption of "I know best" is the same. damn. logic. You don't care about their beliefs. Fine. Learn to respect the fact that others may not feel the way you do. You do not believe there is anything special, but I'm ok with you having that opinion. Let's check with the experts, and if they agree that the location is not suitable for the proposed usage, then you change locations.

I'm tired of people trying to trample valuable research because of their mythology.

Take a deep breath. Cultural or historic factors need to be taken in to consideration. If we simply discount our rich history, then we are no better than the fanatics destroying ancient monuments and statues in the desert.

the TMT should be place in the most advantageous location that it is permitted to be placed. If Maunakea is not available, find the next best location. Fixation on a single optimal solution (from a technical position) does not usually result in the "best" solution. Environmental impacts need to be considered for any such project, including potential impacts to the social and economic environment of the local residents, to the cultural and historical environs, to the political situation, to the flora and fauna, and to also the overall economic validity of the project. A project may "score" very highly, but if it encounters a "show stopper" then the particular solution needs to be dropped, or modified to not run up against a show stopper.

It sounds very much like certain cultural and/or historic factors were either overlooked or downplayed.