DISQUS

Um...neither do I.

I still can't understand how real people use so small smartphone. Give your E71 to any man of normal size (170cm+, 70kg+) and watch how this poor man will handle it. No space for fingers, unacceptable size of screen (for it's resolution)... Looks like Gulliver in the world of Lilliputs.

paz e amor.
Estás desculpado mas não voltes a repetir isso ok?

(:

abr

I mean to say generators with yield/send are not full co-routines. Full co-routines can switch to another thread of execution from anywhere within the call stack and return there later. If you want to do the same with generators, you need to start treating every "call" as an iteration.
Hence generators are very pointless to use as co-routines, and greenlets which are actually co-routines are much better at that capacity.

Without the ability to yield across call stacks, generators as co-routines are useless. I'd suggest using co-routines as co-routines, in this case, which are implemented by stackless, pypy and the greenlet module.

I liked it better when T2 stood for Terminator 2.

That you had to look for this "Class.inherited()" scares me to death. I must admit that I don't consider myself a RoR developer, but I haven't had to look for anything like that in any other language I have used. Lame.

For cryin' out freggin loud. UPS's are NOT BACKUP POWER SOURCES! They are just as the name implies, uninteruptablee power supplies. The primary purpose is to supply an uninterupted source of power when the primary power goes out, giving enough time for systems to be shutdown gracefully or enough time for the circuit to be switched over to generator power.

So for those who are crowing about UPS's, you apparently have never supported a data center before. So just keep your mouths shut about it if you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Krauthammer is right about the "Trust Fund", but the conclusion he draws from it is wrong - and that's precisely because he is right about the Trust Fund. The fact that payroll tax revenues immediately disappear into the general fund means that there is no connection between the "Social Security tax" and the payment of Social Security benefits. Money is fungible; it would be as meaningful to call the income tax the "Social Security tax".

Consequently, the 2009 date is meaningless. The fact that Social Security benefits payable will exceed payroll tax revenues is, by itself, of no more consequence than the fact that they exceed excise tax revenues. There is a genuine crisis - but it's not a Social Security crisis. The crisis (which we are well into now) is that total government revenues are well below total government expenditures, and that (in part because of increased Social Security liabilities) this will only get worse in the future.

There are ways to deal with this problem, but income from the "Social Security tax" is not a magic number that Social Security benefits payable must not exceed.

"In any case, is there any reason, other than an insane conviction in the rottenness of American voters, to buy into the prediction that citizens with unmanipulated political preferences would not support fairly high levels of assistance for the elderly poor?"

Why, people who believe *that* sort of thing might even have the insane idea that the *sick* poor would get their Medicaid cut.

Oops, the House just voted to do that...