Ok, ya got lucky with PayPal, you're even somewhat smart. But you're not the second coming of Jesus, and the world does not need to hear about every little thought you fart out.
(though I still like you better than the Orange Menace.)
It is certainly true that consumers, particularly low-income consumers, like getting free or subsidized data plans. There is no doubt about that. But when the subsidies are coming from the big tech companies, who can easily pay them, to buy competitive advantage over that nimble startup that is scaring them, well we know how that movie ends.
I really object to this person's writing style, which repeatedly seeks to put words in others' mouths rather than proposing facts and backing them up with cites as appropriate. "We all know" that that's the writing style of someone who may well be running a spin game rather than an information dissemination game. I want to be informed, not pushed into going along for the ride.
And they obviously won't improve their chances of survival with cannibalism.
It's tempting to accept this statement at face value, but an instance of cannibalism involves the death of an individual, not the death of a species. Cannibalism is just another variant of natural selection, and it's fairly easy to construct a scenario where it in fact leads to better overall survival rates (e.g. only the sick are eaten, or the challenge of evading being eaten leads to the accelerated development of intelligence/swiftness/whatever). Whether it turns out that way in this case remains to be seen.
The idea is to limit the processing power that background tabs get.
Got it. Simple, succinct, perfect.
(1) Each WebView has a budget (in seconds) for running timers in background. (2) A timer task is only allowed to run when the budget is non-negative. (3) After a timer has executed, its run time is subtracted from the budget. (4) The budget regenerates with time (at rate of 0.01 seconds per second).
Of what interest is it to anybody that the pseudo-code for this is the above, vs some other slightly different variant of how to restrict allocated processing time? Users aren't going to care. And if developers try to somehow design around this level of detail, they'll break if the algorithm ever changes.
When I tell a friend I'll show up for dinner, I don't then explain that I'm going to do so by walking one foot at a time until I get to the dinner place, at which point I'll commence chewing and swallowing.
Damn, you have a lower UID than me. Hey, on Slashdot, that's a pretty good test of credibility!
Seriously, I get bothered a lot by mixed model software, as it's very hard to keep straight what the programmer intends (and worse for the compiler, the nonsense that compilers magically work it all out is just that, stacks don't manage themselves and optimization - which has always been one of the black arts - isn't simplified by ad-hoc paradigm mixes).
When it comes to using a single paradigm, always choose the one that makes robust code the easiest to write. Forth is still used because there's a lot of hardware programming that is far, far easier with stack operations than procedures or objects. No matter what the current generation of whippersnappers think.
So, the question reduces to this. Is there a class of problem that is better done with aspects? If so, you need it the same way you need Forth. And even Ada.
I want him to roll in the additions from Cilk++, Aspect-Oriented C++ and FeatureC++, the mobility and personalisation capabilities of Occam Pi, the networking extensions provided by rtnet and GridRPC, full encryption and error correction code facilities, everything in Boost, and a pointless subset of features from PL/1.
If you're going to do it all, might as well do it in style.
Seriously, though, Aspects would be nice.
If this bill's author has had the temerity to claim to be in favor of 'freedom' or 'free markets'; and then pushes this nonsense, somebody needs to feed him to a wood chipper.
Should that chipper be wind-powered or gas-powered? Wind would be good for the planet, but gas would have a sweet and irreplaceable irony to it...
Elkins-Tanton calculates that the iron in 16 Psyche would be worth $10,000 quadrillion ($10 quintillion).
Yes, the ten pounds of iron they'll be able to transport back will cost that because of the enormous cost of the space mission to retrieve it. But it will be worth it because of the awful iron shortage we're suffering through.
Ok, I missed that option and probably others off my list. Gets complicated fast and only a full time research assistant has a hope of mapping it all out.
Yes there is. It's not a right-left test, but there's a near-perfect match between gender and specific neurological features. In a higher than expected number by chance, people who think they are mentally female are female in structural and functional studies. Likewise, people who believe themselves male have a male brain.
I try not to get too annoyed at dogmatic statements, but unless I specifically defer, I have a comprehensive archive of published literature from high-standing sources. Don't rip on me unless you know either my interpretation is wrong (it happens) or you plan on publishing a peer-reviewed rebuttal on each particular of relevance.
The first of those has happened a few times. Let's see if you can bring it up into double digits. Feel free, but remember that you're dealing solely with article facts and my interpretation. Where I used other sources, pick any peer-reviewed paper that covers the same basic aspect of brain development concerned (i.e. neuron type is indicated by chemical transmitter, it is not hardwired into the genome. Doesn't matter if it is the one I used or not. Falsify it. Better yet, falsify it and get the scientist or magazine to retract it for further work.
Ok, you should now be at the point where you accept the data sets I used. That just leaves two options. If the seat of the mind is in the brain, then a female brain must have a female mind, regardless of Y chromosomes, appendages and birty certificate.
The only other option is to falsify that, to argue that the mind is independent of brain. If you choose this, please choose to announce it at a medical school outside the brain surgery department after a very taxing practical, shortly before exams. Contrary views are nothing to worry about.
Finally,You can just let the basis be, the chain of reasoning be, but then you have to accept the conclusion.
Let me know your preference.
I don't understand the logic behind pardoning Manning but not Snowden.
Amen. Heck, I don't understand pardoning Nixon and not Manning, Snowden, and a whole bunch of other people.
Yes, I'll pay for a movie in one of the common streaming services for $10-$20 per movie.
Assuming you mean "purchase the ability to stream whenever I like on an ongoing basis". Whereas my willingness to pay for a rental (streamable for 48 hours) tops out at maybe $3.
This quote is a case of somebody writing something to just fit a grammatical template, rather than thinking about what they're writing. Substantiate that wild speculation, ZDNet, or turn in your beard-stroking license asap.
You can bring any calculator you like to the midterm, as long as it doesn't dim the lights when you turn it on. -- Hepler, Systems Design 182