There would be plenty of money to be had. Short their stock before forcing a product recall.

Being unable to undo single moderations still sucks. Especially when overrated is next to funny in the dropdown.

I know many will rush to disagree with me but Flash cannot die soon enough...

But.. but... he saved every one of us!

So just a seven character file with File:/// then? :)

On slashdot "most of the world" is a synonym for America. It's like, in the faqs and stuff dude.

Why do you think that source control should be an audit of what each person did, rather than a view of how the software got to its current state?

Yes - posts written in the middle of the night are not entirely coherent :)

Maybe it is not as simple as pick zero / one / two. The purposes of writing software for research and engineering software for reuse are so different that it doesn't make sense to try and compare them. Going back to the summary:

What many academic researchers fail to understand is that this specialization problem is not unique to research projects. Most software developers will seek to provide an adequate solution to their specific problem, as quickly as possible. They don't seek to build a perfect, all-purpose, tool set that can be reused in every conceivable circumstance.

No. What the author of the article fails to understand is that software is not the point of research - it is a side-effect, and I say that as someone whose field is CS. We do not write software in academia because we want the software - we simply want the data about its behaviour that we can get from it. It doesn't matter if business / hobbyists / academics have in common an approach that builds software for the least effort. In the first two cases the software is being written because there is a need for it to be used. In the latter case it simply needs to exist in some form long enough for some data to be collected and then it is obsolete. This difference is purpose is so vast that it renders the rest of the argument in the article as not even wrong.

The period is directly proportional to the loveliness of a summer's day, perchance?

This system creates the illusion of intelligence. We know from fMRI that "free will" does not exist and that "thoughts" are the brain's mechanism for justifying past actions whilst modifying the logic to reduce errors in future - a variant on back-propagation. Real-time intelligence (thinking before acting) doesn't exist in humans or any other known creature, so you won't build it by mimicking humans.

So how do you account for effortful thought or planning? It is true to say that there is no thinking before reacting, but to claim that there is no thought before action is absurd - how do you explain extended endeavours such as writing a book over the course of a year? That must be one hell of a chain of unlikely events that caused that number of reactions, which were combined without thought to produce a coherent written narrative.

Your other claims that memories do not exist and are synthesised on demand are interesting - do you have any references?

Very apt - the ambiguity is delicious.

The atmosphere (which the smog is within) is part of the earth so by the time the sunlight reaches the smog it has already arrived. The real question would be if the particles in the smog reflect the light or absorb it as heat.

You haven't actually represented it as a switch-case. As the other commenter points out you have tacked a redundant switch-case onto the code:

  sides[i] = dot < -LIGHT_CLIP_EPSILON ? SIDE_BACK : dot > LIGHT_CLIP_EPSILSON ? SIDE_FRONT : SIDE_ON;

CS instructor eh?, wouldn't let you cover my class for me... :)

Thank you. That is exactly what I was looking for, and so with a straight face I must admit that your googling skills are somewhat superior to mine. Cheers for the link.

I have used google. I've looked at the results. Hence the list of criteria that they don't match. Feel free to try and prove me wrong by posting a link to something that does match what I listed...