You are right, but this underlines the idiocy of the blog post. The connection that FAA "... rules illustrate why we shouldn't let the government regulate the internet" is bullshit. The internet is incredibly important, but there are alternative modes of communication. As a general rule, it does not carry hundreds of people through the sky, and does not kill all those people if the slightest thing goes wrong.

You trollin'. It is not trivial to convert any program into C. It is trivial to remove all newlines.

With compound statements of various sorts, that is fair; in the case of perl scripts, they are called one line. When you simply /s/\n//, that is idiotic or done as a joke. Pray tell, what is the point of referring to a program as a one liner, when in a vast majority of languages, ALL programs are one liners after applying the above substitution? Is every minified Javascript application a one liner?

On reconsideration... I suppose it is still meaningful so long as the line is reasonably short. You win.

Why, then, would the creator of basic (along with just about everyone else to follow) refer to the numbers as line numbers?

No, it isn't. Per the Dartmouth BASIC v2 Manual, page 4:

Clearly, in BASIC terminology, line and statement are synonymous. Originally, the semicolon statement terminator did not even exist.
Later adaptations of BASIC allow you to put multiple statements in a single physical line, but the numbers are line numbers and not statement numbers. In BASIC terminology this would be a multi-line program.

Furthermore, if the above technical reasoning were not true, it would still be pedantic and borderline-incorrect to refer to this as a one liner, just would refer to a multi-statement C program or Perl program as such.

Where are the mod points!? Sad that spot-on comments like this get no points and only get troll replies.

Anyways... they aren't just there to keep people fighting and distracted, but also to exploit basic human nature. Sectarianism is always a powerful tool - you can't get a leg up by telling people to vote for the other guy, or to be unified.

The operators probably have enough harmful radiation coming their way. Otherwise, they would be allowed to were dosimeters to actually check.

I'm sure you could damage the machines somehow through this approach, but then you'd have to be standing inside of a malfunctioning backscatter machine afterwards. I'd be afraid of the possibility of a resonance cascade.

We eliminated several hypotheses that oppose ours, now we will see how far vulgarizations will go to claim that we proved our own hypothesis!

Cool story. What you are talking about isn't even an OPTION. Furthermore, it sounds like you plan on listening to 7k songs each month, so I don't know why you would be worrying about money at all when you can hang around and listen to multiple songs at once all day every day. $5 a month is very little to pay, especially when you consider that if you aren't a fucking sap you can still download songs you plan on keeping.

Maybe because $10 is twice $5, and you don't have the right to share?

+5 Insightful.

Over a hundred hours... wandering a beautiful sprawling wasteland with little actual content! I joke...

Insightful post? What the hell kind of evidence did you give?
A fire is evidence that Sealand isn't sovreign? Or the fact that someone counterfeited their passports?
The fact of the matter is that two established countries (The UK and Germany) have both recognized Sealand's sovereignty. You might as well use the DCR as an example, look at all the (completely unrelated) problems they have!

You don't only have to worry about the number of participants tested in this type of experiment. If are making statements about stories in general; perhaps most/all of the 12 stories used where not particularly susceptible to enjoyment-spoilage.

What I don't get is why everyone is surprised that every Republocrat to get into office continues the agendas of the Republocrat party. Every president since Lincoln has been one. The senate is currently 98% Republocrat, with the 2 other members caucusing with the Republocrats. The House of Representatives is 100% Republocrat.

Republocrats favor bigger government, more federal concentration of power, a bigger military industrial complex, and the strengthening and extension of property rights.