Re: Dirty Toilets
Is this for real!
13699 posts • joined 3 Jun 2008
Is this for real!
It's another episode of "Obama West - Reanimator"
Kerry has been spotted sound at safe at the UN, so everything's cool.
The link actually says otherwise.
It also talks about unethical behaviour of "news" emitters that would warrant a few lives of porridge and no messing in my book, but that's another problem.
Really? A calendar as per your example? What's on the calendar?
Still an inconvenience. Your interpretations may differ from somebody else's interpretation.
Company officers actually have a legal duty to operate the company in a financially responsible manner.
Oh really? And this is written where exactly?
The only one to complain will be the shareholder in any case...
Besides, the "financially responsible manner" is open to interpretation and risk management.
Possible. But not likely.
Yeah, but the "5-sigma" does not really apply here. You need it when you pretend to have found a new unicorn and run repeated experiments to make sure that the unicorn does indeed appear in your setup.
Here, you just check whether the unique greyness is indeed rather uniformly grey. Then you can state "yep, it's uniformly grey" with pretty good assurance.
It's like cold curry in that respect.
Raising the pedantry level a bit, there are also entropic explosives (like TATP) which release little if any energy when they go bang. It's the massive increase in entropy that drives the explosion.
I don't understand this.
The above statement applies to little kids but rather less to TATP. If you blow tops off buses, there sure is energy being released.
"...come back around on yourself?"
The standard FLRW solution for a matter-gas filled isotropic expanding Einstein Gravity universe says:
... yes if it's "closed" (akin to a sphere surface everywhere)
... no if it's "open" (aking to the centre of a saddle surface everywhere), then you just keep going
But it may have more complicated shapes, too. You may even hit a "domain wall" if it's divided into various areas of distinct physics (or not, you will probably never reach the wall due to worsening expansion)
I remeber. It was FIRE EVERYWHERE AT EVERY POINT IN SPACE.
"The simplest solution that there is" .... but in which solution space?
Nice study, though as the authors say, it's difficult to conclude much.
OTOH, would you eschew static type checking if there is a certain risk of missing a devastating security or safety bug? In some domains, you may not care. In some domains, you may care very much. Saying that "typing doesn't seem to add much value" may be true. But it depends on the application domain. Remember the Ariane 5 failure? To me that sounds like a costly typing problem. Bertrand Meyer considered it a problem solvable by "contracts" but these are just types in disguise, really.
Insurers are not going to give you the green light if you want to develop a safety-relevant system using a language where the compiler can't ascertain basic constraints on program correctness (today sometimes going so far as to prove that requirements are indeed being fulfilled using a theorem prover, there was an article on this at Quanta Magazine).
So there is that.
Well, IEEE Xplore is bit on the fritz right now. "Something went wrong in getting results, please try again later."
This is called message-passing with type-casting at point-of-use (which may or may not fail)
Actually, you could dynamically select the function able to process your object based on the type of the object, aka "polymorphism".
But this is not what typing is entirely about.
So are there any studies or metrics that back up this assertion that strongly typed languages produce better apps, or is it just "common sense"?
There must be tons.
A quick shufti to the IEEE Xplore Library shows this beyond the Dread Big Paywall:
▶ "A controlled experiment to assess the benefits of procedure argument type checking"
Published in: IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering ( Volume: 24, Issue: 4, Apr 1998 )
Abstract: Type checking is considered an important mechanism for detecting programming errors, especially interface errors. This report describes an experiment to assess the defect-detection capabilities of static, intermodule type checking. The experiment uses ANSI C and Kernighan & Ritchie (K&R) C. The relevant difference is that the ANSI C compiler checks module interfaces (i.e., the parameter lists calls to external functions), whereas K&R C does not. The experiment employs a counterbalanced design in which each of the 40 subjects, most of them CS PhD students, writes two nontrivial programs that interface with a complex library (Motif). Each subject writes one program in ANSI C and one in K&R C. The input to each compiler run is saved and manually analyzed for defects. Results indicate that delivered ANSI C programs contain significantly fewer interface defects than delivered K&R C programs. Furthermore, after subjects have gained some familiarity with the interface they are using, ANSI C programmers remove defects faster and are more productive (measured in both delivery time and functionality implemented).
I will see if my search-fu is good enough to find more before the 10 minutes are up.
That "Red Pill" thing is pretty hypothetical. Like a "black oil" payload, it excites the Fox Mulders mainly.
Hackers strongly believed to be state-sponsored
What does that even mean!
I strongly believe Hillary will take the mic soon, having strongly detected an unholy alliance of Pepe the Sadfrog and the ever elusive all-powerful P.U.T.I.N. organization to ravage the purple yodeling cowboy, a strong symbol of Yankee Americanism, so as to have his star-spangled arse transformed into Cordon Bleu.
This comes after a miscreant calling themselves Peace was touting copies of the Yahoo! account database this summer.
Did you mean "corpses of the Yahoo! account database"?
The great thing is you actually forget about the most important thing:
A language adapted to the problem sapce.
> since at least the 70s
Yeah no oldsy. Try debugging today's applications in 64 KB mainframe RAM.
Implementing functions using dedicated circuits means the functions can be computed polynomially faster than if they were done by a state machine: TRUE.
Implementing dedicated state machines in hardware means the state machine can run polynomially faster than if a software-defined state machine were implemented by a generic hardware-defined state machine: TRUE
These optimizations can now be done as tools and component libraries reach maturity and small fabrication runs become economically viable for a bespoke solution: TRUE.
Go for it!
(I remember having lots of fun doing a multiplier and various other circuits on an FPGA using a user-friendly graphical editor back in 1992 on a small host system for exercises. That was also when the first series of articles about "software-defined hardware" appeared. A prime number generator on a chip was being talked about in BYTE as I remember...)
So they are based in Stockholm?
Ellison stating that people shopping at a competitor need to get their chequebook out ... Good one, Larry!
That's Northrob Gruntman for you.
If that engineering would only bring us closer to starships. It only brings us closer to captainships...
But then when he's back aboard and she's under steam ....
Don't sweat it, it's not a ship, just a wealth-transfer device. Should have been been named USS Pork Barrel.
cemented US naval dominance well into the 21st Century
Fighting the wars of the 1900s is never too late!!!
And who are "the people round here".
As for deaths ... there is only one listed.
In this case, Beexit.
with holes that look like you've been shot with a rifle
I somehow doubt you have ever seen people that have been "shot with a rifle".
Unless this hornet is 2 foot in size and has explodo-venom loaded.
Yes, that sounds fishy..
Not at all.
The only way to transport something realistically in this uinverse seems to be to actually transport from point A to B. There is no use going through the hassle of beaming the whole E=mc² energy bunch...
So crazy glue is made from fast horses?
Actually, special relativity...
I remember the times where the only "paper bags" you ever got while doing shopping were brown and crumply (probably made by people at the local prison, too) and you put meat, bottles and cheese into them. Any other articles you were supposed to put into bags that you damn well brought yourself.
These days, Saturday seems to be the Day Of The Luxuriously-Looking Paperbag Airing. It's weird.
It has more to do with central banking and dumbfuck politicians who should be burned at hastily erected stakes....
That power supply seems pretty dead. Another successful campaign by Galactic Greenpeace.
I for one welcome our new fungal overlords etc etc.
Don't bring US presidency politics in this!
Well, homer17 would have been too hard to crack.
Is this the absolutely catastrophic pratfall of Symantec products discovered two months ago, with potential system takeover due to buggy decompression of incoming mail in kernel mode, or some other thing?
have claimed the Antikythera mechanism was of extraterrestrial origin
I hate this self-hating shit. It's like claiming that only Sun People can be the source of good love and rythmic music and we need wild foreigners to learn how to commune with nature/the universe/leftover marmelade in the fridge.
Not getting satisfaction? Call Jabba & Jubba "The Insurers". Guaranteed Results! More than 100 non-paying low-brow civilizations destroyed!
Left to their own devices for a few minutes, both Easterly and her co-presenter John Mulligan, deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center, start devising how Silicon Valley can help in their fight against groups like ISIL and Al-Qaeda. "We're trying to get the broader ecosystem to reach young people, point out the hypocrisy of the so-called Caliphate"
It would be nice to start looking at oneself before finding "hypocrisy" in others.
The mental and moral corruption, where anything and everything (in particular, wholesale destruction and multi-million ultrakill) can be finagled into a "good thing" sold via trigger words as long as someone is making money on the side, someone's political fantasies are being advanced or Wolf Blitzer types can appear on TV disgusts me. I imagine recruiters of the radical sort can easily exploit the self-contradicting discombobulation of the western self-selecting "elites" to convince interviewees to check out what ISIS can offer.
In this case:
1) Al-Qaeda #1: Currently being helped out in taking over large swathes of Yemen by a frankly evil coalition of the US and Saudi Arabia and where attacking the civilian population has gone to levels where even the UN is emitting farty sounds. Western "decision"-makers should be dragged before war crimes tribunals, again (this must be about the 8th time this century alone). Why is this happening? Well, apparently someone from Iran was at one time seen in Yemen possibly buying shoes, leading to demands by Saudi Arabia to help out against "terrorism", which is always a good reason. Did someome say "28 pages"?
2) Al-Qaeda #2: A potential and likely current ally (under various labels) for meddling in Syria because they want to regime-change the local regime and help out in the fight against ISIS, who are a product of western meddiling in Syria and Iraq, CIA-delivered armements and Saudi-Arabia-delivered doctrine and support. Regime-changing Syria is needed because Syria is part of something called "the Shia crescent" which is apparently scary to Israel and Saudi Arabia, two good allies which we don't want to disappoint. (Israel is now getting 38 billion USD because the US didn't help out enough against scary Iran, which demands adequate compensation be provided, that's definitely not disappointing).
3) ISIS is "not entirely an enemy" of Turkey, a NATO member (these are the US anti-soviet forces in Europe, for those who didn't live through the Cold War, they have nothing to do with Afghanistan or Georgia or even Russia. Oh, wait...). Geniuses in Turkey's byzantine regime apparently think using ISIS as a trump card to get at black market oil and fight against the Kurds and the Syrian government is a good idea. This will evidently lead to blowback of epic proportions because ISIS has no friends and WWII Germans are cultured connaisseurs in comparison. Amazingly the only one who seems to be not ok with this is Russia. Who are then getting scolded by the the US. Who are bombing in Syria. And haven't even been invited to that particular party. WTF!
Number 6 is pushing it.
Better call Rover, then.
".22 is a good caliber for whacking people, you just need to know where to put the round. Do not forget that .223 is..."
Well, .223 is in no way comparable to .22.
Helium and a breathing mask
Unlike first-order classical logic, politics makes no pretense at being consistent. A decision of the ECJ has also scant to do with infrastructure rollout planning.
It's "Juncker" not "Junckers" you dark fart.
Also, I don't see how he is particularly evil.
The text cited just says that IF the network is password secured, then potentially enforcement of the rights of rightsholders may occur, but in that case, the identity of the people using said password must be ascertained first.
None of this is bound to happen to open hotspots soon, and anyway national laws have to be passed first (well, France may already have a law against this, as in France today there is only one thing that is still allowed: paying taxes)