> The feeling of having a genuinely clean butt gives you the confidence you need to go crush it in the boardroom.
I still laugh about this sometimes.
2,256 karma · joined January 13, 2015
> The feeling of having a genuinely clean butt gives you the confidence you need to go crush it in the boardroom.
I still laugh about this sometimes.
I'm guessing the delay you are referring to is the delay imposed by your terminal emulator (not vim) to detect the Escape key at the end that terminates visual block mode. If I'm right, you can quickly press "j" just after you press ESC, which should cancel the ESC-detection delay and cause your comment characters to appear instantly.
Edit: there's actually a few things that could be at play, including your terminal emulator, your screen/tmux (which is like another terminal editor, really), and vim's timeoutlen and ttimeoutlen settings.
[0] http://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/KimKlone/Kimklone_intr...
Wouldn't that be char ***argv? (with three stars)Plus ca change... https://web.archive.org/web/20151123053907/http://i.dailymai...
[0] http://slashdot.org/story/24258
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20010405175311/http://quantumpic...
And a many-armed one, at that!
This actually describes the R programming language pretty well. A lisp with C-like syntax and vectorized primitives.
Nice. So if the community ultimately succeeds in preventing the "attacker" from withdrawing his funds, which he acquired in perfect accordance with the DAO code, which is the entirety of the agreement, could he publicly bring suit for violation of contract?
This doesn't really address the problem. If god is omnipotent and created the universe, he could have made things so that evil is simply physically impossible, with no contradiction of free will, in the same way that I am physically unable to flap my arms and fly to the moon, and yet I still have free will. The fact that he didn't means he's either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent (a contradiction for those who ascribe both properties to god). The onus would have to be on the theist to show how "no-evil" somehow logically contradicts free will; and it must be a truly logical contradiction if it is to be any constraint on omnipotence.
I'm sorry, but I read TFA and I'm not sure what you could be referring to... is it illegal in most EU countries for an event organizer to pay an honorarium to their invited speakers? Or to pay for speech in general? Consider that many make an honest and honorable living in this way... For example, Stephen King has earned tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars for his speech.
Then again, Zipf's law is known to describe many non-communicative, "natural" distributions like the sizes of grains of sand, the sizes of asteroids, and the populations of cities (one of Herbert Zipf's original objects of study). And conversely, many levels of representation of human communication have non-Zipfian distributions, like phoneme distributions. (See my comment history for references.)
Edit: Book VII, starting at 536d. You can compare against the public domain Jowett translation at http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.8.vii.html (search in the page for "slave")
Completely agreed, and this has been argued since antiquity. In Plato's Republic:
Socrates: Therefore, calculation, geometry, and all the preliminary education required for dialectic must be offered to the future rulers in childhood, and not in the shape of compulsory learning either.
Glaucon: Why's that?
Socrates: Because no free person should learn anything like a slave. Forced bodily labor does no harm to the body, but nothing taught by force stays in the soul.
Glaucon: That's true.
Socrates: Then don't use force to train the children in these subjects; use play instead. That way you'll also see better what each of them is naturally fitted for.
Well, how Hobbesian! Of course, this is not the only possible conception of justice, which is, as Plato put it (in Jowett's translation), "sometimes spoken of as the virtue of an individual, and sometimes as the virtue of a State." But in either case, if we want to get all philosophical about it, I share your skepticism... if justice is a virtue, can we really have a virtue as a service (VaaS)?
Seriously, though, I don't think the OP's point is to propose administration of justice outside the state, but rather that certain tech advances can make it economically feasible for small, individual claims to be given a "fair shake" within the state system; claims which currently are too small to be worth a lawyer's---or even the claimant's---time without said tech.