235 karma · joined December 20, 2008
Not that such a thing is not desirable for men, but its just that men won't chase it at all.
Give it time for marketing departments to do their jobs...C. P. Scott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._P._Scott
[0 => [4, 5, 6], 1 => [7, 8, 9], 2 => [10, 11, 12]]I suppose this also speaks volumes to you.
We’re keeping them under lock and key though… so don’t worry about your privacy (…until we finish re-formatting them for release)
So, given they really arer LulzSec, they are hinting that they won't publish the data un-redacted.
The difference in the semantics of «==» is an example. Also, it does not have things that JS has, and has other things JS doesn't.
111
948 948
289 => 289
--- ---
1237
thanCMXLVIII plus CCLXXXIX => CMCCXLLXXXIXVIII => MCLLXXIXVIII => MCCXXXVII
but it may be that it's because what I'm used to.
Are you saying that Roman numerals are better for counting than Arabic numerals? I suppose you don't mean count (I, II, III, IIII, V...), but show the number of men in the army. I don't see any advantage in using Roman numerals.
Lets say we divide infantry in XXX maniples of CXX men each, supposing they are complete and you haven't lost people yet in battle. How is that better than 30 maniples of 120 men?
Nope, not necessarily. There are many definitions of socialism, and lots of movements defined as socialists. Many of them don't involve State control of production, eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Broken ideals? Ideals? Tyranny usually rarely have anything to do with ideals.
It's not the same to suspect than to have proof. And this is no little thing: it's another broken international agreement.
-More countries agree with us on Iran and North Korea than I thought (shit, maybe our state department is doing a better job than I thought)
Nope, not really. It has been a surprise (to most, maybe you know more of international politics than nearly everyone else)to know that arab countries wanted the US to go to war with Iran. Not a little thing, too.
This is not watergate. I wish we had half this much attention on other major scandals that have gone on in the last 20 years that were far more important than everything I've seen in here so far.
Let's see a bit... :
- 'Sri Lankan president responsible for massacre of Tamils' http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-sri-la...
- Berlusconi 'profited from secret deals' with Putin http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/wikileaks-cables...
- A bit of corruption in Russia http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cable-... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables...
- Secret deal let Americans sidestep cluster bomb ban http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables...
- US involvement in Spain's national politics and "independent" justice system (with lies of Spanish ministers and all of that stuff) http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/How/US/worked/to/get/...
And many, many more.
Yes, this is not watergate. I doubt watergate was received with people saying, "hey!, this is not big news."
Anyway, I also thing «so what?». Even if you think you've forgotten, things do stay in the head, and next time you pick up the subject everything is quicker. Not to mention when learning in one place helps you in others.
The truth is that many people are politically active independently of wether they vote or not.
An alternative, as it's done in Spain, is to give everyone the right to leave their jobs in order to vote. To alleviate things for businesses, all elections happen on Sundays.
That said, those who don't must understand the implications of their actions (like the example you give).
In Common Lisp and other Lisps, on the other hand you'll usually see «-p» instead of the «?».