Slashdot Mirror

We do count those stats.

Doubt it.

Luckily those numbers are way lower for nuclear.

Of course they are, as there are far fewer nuclear plants than coal/solar/wind/hydro.

There have been more accidental electrocutions from solar and wind than nuclear.

Regular, vanilla industrial accidents don't count as they distort the real issue, which is the safety of the technology in question. If Homer trips on the stairs at the local nuclear power plant, that's not a failure of nuclear energy, as opposed to getting cancer from a containment leak. By the same token, if Homer slips and falls off a wind tower, that's not a failure of wind energy.

When solar panels create an Archimedes ray and set someone on fire, or wind turbines create a mini-tornado that crushes someone, then we can start comparing the safety of renewable energy technology to nuclear power.

The origin of 1 (noun and verb) is from "hack saw". The verb "hack" means literally to use the hack saw. It then was used to mean doing a simple ugly fix using the hack saw, a kludge,or a bodge.

Students at MIT were hacking and bodging things in the real world to commit practical pranks that modified something at the campus.
These pranks (with hack saw or not) were called "hacks" and clever pranksters at MIT were called "hackers". Later such hackers from MIT were influential on early personal computing as we know it.

So, I would argue that the use of "life hack" to mean "bodging something in a clever but ugly way" is closer to the original meaning of the word than to mean breaking into a system.

BTW. Practical jokes have a long history at universities around the world and they are still called "hacks" over at MIT.
The second noun use ("unqualified person") has a completely different etymology (origin of words) than the first and is not related but it does give the word a negative connotation in general doesn't it ...

The MIT Museum, in Cambridge, Massachusetts has a good hall of good hacks. It's described at http://hacks.mit.edu/exhibits/..., but the web page does *not* do it justice. I was involved in a few of them, back in the 80's, and MIT's hacks have a proud tradition.

ROFL ! remember 'too cheap to meter' ? fusion will not in a thousand years be cheaper than solar (or wind)

I do agree that solar and wind are some of the most viable renewable sources right now. But the sun goes down and the wind does stop, so rechargeable batteries are in high demand. Consider Tesla's Powerwall. Along with the supporting hardware, it costs over $6,500.00 grand, and that's not including installation fees. Brand new, the Powerwall stores about 13.5 kWh of usable electricity, slightly more than I use now, which is good. And it comes with a 10 year warranty. But Tesla does not offer any coverage related to how much capacity the battery will lose during that time. Kachink!

Don't get me wrong, I'm for renewable energy, solar, wind, hydro-power, geothermal, biomass, Jatropha curcas, microbial fuel cells, artificial photosynthesis, whatever. And I'm good with the government paying for research into such things.

Hell, if the Higgs field and virtual particles were potential viable energy sources, I say check 'em out too. Just be careful, I hear they can make a big bang. (For the uninitiated, that's called "sarcasm".)

MIT thinks they can make affordable, scalable fusion power plants. The likelihood is so real, MIT is getting money from venture capitalists via a newly formed company. They plan on having a working fusion power plant within 15 years. It's still a crap shoot, but the ROI prospects are beaucoup times better than average biotech company. And MIT is just one example. There are plenty of other universities, companies, and countries are into fusion research big time. The potential is that good.

BTW, Popular ingredients for fusion reaction include lithium (the stuff found in some batteries), deuterium (distillable from water) and tritium. I think it's cool that, after the initial supply, the fusion process breeds its own tritium.

Fusion can make electricity 24/7, whether or not the sun is out or the wind blows. And in about 20 years there's a good chance it will be overall cheaper than wind or solar. But hey, I could be wrong and often am. So I diversify. We should all hedge our bets.

http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-formed-company-launch-novel-approach-fusion-power-0309

You are in luck.

/. has both men with breasts and men who swallow cum. So elements of this population can test if swallowing cum prevents breast cancer in men, like it does in women.

http://web.mit.edu/zoz/Public/...

The Dividend is a unique solution. It's similar to a Universal Basic Income and a social insurance (like Social Security Retirement Pensions, Disability Insurance, or Unemployment), as well as to a Keynesian stimulus (that $300 check you got back in 2009 when Obama signed a huge stimulus into law to halt the recession).

It's not global, but national; yet the protections against damage from structural change and the maximization of gains from such structural change allow us to take full advantage of global trade and labor movement. This is fundamental in Nordic nations, and is studied extensively.

It's really weird being an economist because you basically just have to sound like one to qualify. Economists are well-aware of this fact.

This is super obvious. A direct and rational cause and effect.

It's only as obvious as that mice are spontaneously created by the conditions of placing grain wrapped in a shirt. People believed that for a long time; they reasoned that they saw no mice, then there were mice, thus the mice must have been spontaneously created. Where there is grain, there are mice--they don't come, breed, and spread, but rather appear from the ether.

Your information is limited, and your conclusions are thus imprecise. What happens if you compare trade deficits to unemployment? And no, the conclusion is not that a falling trade deficit causes rising unemployment, either, even though the chart appears to show that (the correlation is the other way around: less capacity to buy, thus less importing).

Some folks have studied this in other nations, and written interesting things about such.

If Paul CREATES and sells $50 of potatoes in a primary industry, but BUYS $60 of mexican melons, where's the fucking wealth going?

This is a micro-economics question. Paul is of course operating on credit.

Shut down trade and Paul would then have to buy $120 of US melons or something.

It's more that, between Paul, Mike, and Brian, the US CREATES and sells $60 of potatoes, and CREATES and sells $120 of melons. In doing so, they exercise 6,000 hours of US productive labor.

Instead, Paul CREATES and sells $60 of potatoes. Meanwhile, people IMPORT $60 of Mexican melons. Now Mike and Brian have 4,000 hours to expend on CREATING chairs or wheat or cars.

There's an interesting issue here: the US consumers can now spend $60 on US goods and purchase 2,000 hours of labor (yeah it's like, 1790, no inflation yet). That can employ Mike but not Brian.

Here's the thing: people retire somewhere between 66 and 74. Jim was going to retire at 74, but he's got his Social Security going on (just ignore the anachronism) and a technological change has improved the farm work for keeping cows. Jim could go fight with Brian for that new chicken farm job that's opened up since folks are buying more eggs with the money they're saving on milk, but he retires at 72 instead of trying to get a job for the next 2 years.

Now Paul, Mike, and Brian all have jobs; Jim retired.

This is actually a hell of a lot more complex today: we bring in nearly 300,000 H-1B Visa permanent workers each year; college students go to grad school or drop out based on job availability; and, again, you've got the whole thing with people not retiring exactly at 66 1/2. You also have some funky thing that caused something called "Baby Boomers" that one time, where continued high employment availability leads to continued population growth until the job market slows down; the opposite is also true.

Long story short, we have high labor force participation and low unemployment. Our labor markets have shifted around structural change and continue to do so. Meanwhile, we all get more for every hour we work.

I explicitly said our economy is growing enough that it's not a problem. You talk a lot but you don't listen well.

Sorry, I assumed too much about your knowledge of macroeconomics. Let me remedy this.

Economies grow in two major ways. The lesser growth effect is the accumulation of factors of production: more population, more factories, and so forth. That kind of growth doesn't increase standards of living; it only increases GDP. In numerical terms, GDP-per-Capita and GNI-per-Capita stay the same.

The other type of growth is structural change. Structural change involves technical progress (the wooden shipping pallet eliminated 92% of labor in loading and unloading goods d

If I were a better fundraiser, I'd probably be sitting on an easy win. ;) People seem to know who I am wherever I go, though, which is uh. Interesting. Now the question is do voters know who I am?

I might start a lobbying organization and publish a policy handbook whether I win or lose. It may contain some radical ideas.

If you like reading economics lit, I'm pulling in data from the Nordic model among other places. There's another book on the same topic. I don't always agree with their conclusions, and sometimes they don't make conclusions (e.g. they point out that indefinite unemployment insurance is easy to game and that people stay on it not-as-long when it's limited to 2 years, and also point out that this doesn't necessarily mean more employment because these people may be trading into jobs other people were getting and so the unemployment rate can stay the same either way--a deficiency I've commented on in our 6-month system here: it relies on people floating in and out, not on reducing actual unemployment).

wrongo, dumbass.

https://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.857/2017/project/8.pdf

Notably, we saw most of the packets being transferred when we interacted with the Echo device;however, there were still packets being sent when we were not interacting with the device.

Got it. Every software in "the field of user-behavior analytics" works exactly the same.

BTW I have written a search engine for my 23.2 MB personal notes. That qualifies me to comment on how Google works internally. Source code shmource code - what matters is that I comment on it with confidence.

https://www.theguardian.com/co...
http://ide.mit.edu/news-blog/b...

Or invade another planet:

FAST, CHEAP AND OUT OF CONTROL: A ROBOT INVASION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM

https://people.csail.mit.edu/b...

That was written in 1989. I am sure it is going to happen any time now though. After all these guys went to MIT and we all know how smart those people are.

What it doesn't do is email across all your devices and it does seem to occasionally lose my email box completely, which is why I'm not using it now, but I'm starting to get the itch to dust it off and try it again.

Hillary was trying to make black mad with #BLM stuff.

Oh bullshit. Fuck your RWNJ projection.
Right-wing identity politics are all about excluding anyone who isn't white, evangelical, straight and male from from full citizenship. The list of examples is endless - "war on christmas", Nixon's "silent majority", birtherism, democrats are the enemy of americans, "liberalism is a disease", Falwell's "moral majority", "feminazis", arizona "show-your-papers" law, crisis actors, muslim brotherhood has infiltrated the government, support for Sherif Arpaio, "Obamaphones", etc, etc.

Left-wing identity politics are all about including those people. It's not about making them mad, its about welcoming them as full participants in society by acknowledging their cares and concerns. Much like Dr King said: "Integration...is the welcome participation of Negroes into the total range of human activities."

They want Mexicans coming in waving the Mexican flag chanting "Viva Mexico" while working-class Americans get angry and scared.

The russians and the GOP absolutely want that. While they conveniently ignore identical celebrations of foreign roots like all of the St Patrick's day parades, polish fairs and polka festivals, german oktoberfests, etc because those immigrants are now considered fully "white" (when they originally were half-castes like white hispanics are today).

And then again, no.

>Yes CO2 has been higher in the past, no all lfe didn't die then

Yeah...about that...

This is a step in the right direction. Instead of relying on ultrahigh precision LIDAR maps, they now rely on basic map data your GPS nav unit would have + LIDAR for local information. What this really means is that the level of reliance on LIDAR has dropped significantly. Elon musk called LIDAR a crutch and this, for the most part, ditches that crutch because it's capable of operating in an "unstructured area" (place that hasn't previously been mapped) by using it's "local" sensor (LIDAR in this case) to determine the edges of the road. It's now a matter of implementing a similar sensing system using RADAR and computer vision and your Tesla can autonomously drive you around, disregard and run into pedestrians too! ;)

link to the the paper describing the system.

I'm curious what your results on the self-driving car quiz would be. Hey, if you do well enough, they could use you to program the next generation of self-driving algorithms! Probably on the 'criminally insane' setting.

Actually scratch.mit.edu uses flash still.

Try Scratch 3 Preview.

Not complete, but the core is there and works really well.

Actually scratch.mit.edu uses flash still.

MIT Random Paper Generator for computer science papers
https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/arc...

Mathgen for Math Papers
http://thatsmathematics.com/ma...

Seriously, does anyone even read the paper anymore? I read the abstract and possibly the method.

At the end of the day, it is just an academic echo chamber where every paper references each other and none of it is very earth shattering. You should read the dissertations that don't make it into journals, those are really sad. For example, "Analysis of Socioeconomic Status and Student Achievement", or in other words, "Poor kids don't get good grades.", most papers could classified as Ric Romero papers where the outcome is obvious or in some cases statistically insignificant such that more papers need to be written with new experimental methods.

But for those of your writing papers, I leave you with my favorite research design song.
https://youtu.be/Hxbz656Euyw

Every year a good percentage of computer science and computer engineering undergrads write a small kernel for their coursework. It's not hard to write a kernel that solves a narrow set of requirements. When you have an every expanding scope, like in the Linux world, it gets hard. Linux has to run kiosks, mobile phones, desktops and supercomputers. And it's probably not the best possible kernel for any one of those problems, and certainly more complex than a kernel designed for a single specific purpose.

Why do we need Google Fuchsia? We don't really. But a whole lot of people leverage Little Kernel for their projects (my own company is using LK in 3 totally different ways). I blame LK for projects like Fuschia as it has turned into sort of a DIY Operating System kit.

If Linux and the BSDs are too complicated or you're just looking for some kernel you can hack up to meet your own special needs:
* NewOS
* Xv6 - a teaching OS. but people have patches for virtual memory and other goodies
* LK (little kernel) and for an example of a fork TLK (Trusted Little Kernel). LK is quite a good starting place for an aspiring osdev'r
* basekernel - rough starting place for making your own kernel
* FUZIX - a UNIX-like kernel geared toward 8-bit CPUs. but can be ported to bigger CPUs (there is a 68K port for example)
* TinyOS
* Femto OS - a kernel suitable for multitasking on small microcontrollers
* PonyOS - a graphical OS for people who love ponies (OMG Ponies). If you're looking for a more serious version see Toaruos.

There are hundreds of these hobby and learning OSes and several more complete and better established ones (like FreeRTOS).

Hmmm... Well, I'll just suggest that you brush up on your technical skills. Here is a list of suggested materials that cover the topic:
https://css.csail.mit.edu/6.85...

Pay particular attention to pages 106-128 which discusses the protection mechanisms, 145-149 which discusses I/O privileges, and 152-172 which describes interrupts and exceptions.

If you don't have the time, or the topics are too technical for you, then you can just read this, which granted, has a few faults, but from a high level, it's describes things pretty well without getting overly technical:
https://blog.codinghorror.com/...

As for the second part of my quote, you can read this: https://www.microsoftpressstor... please pay attention to the section labeled "Quantum" (about 1/3rd of the way through the document). That describes in further detail the differences between desktop and server optimizations. Again, old information, but it still applies today.

Enjoy!

The header of the summary is MISLEADING big time. The word "Earn $3.37 per hour" is not equivalent to "the median profit is $3.37 per hour" in TFA. If you are interest in the MIT paper, you can read it here.

In other words, the header makes people think that Uber drivers are earning only $3.37 per hour, but in fact they earn more. Also, the chief economist of Uber, Jonathan Hall, is stupid and completely misunderstood it wrong as well. His number is for "earning" and not "profit" which is similar to comparing an apple to an orange. The guy doesn't care for what expenses drivers have to put up anyway. Seriously, how could I trust Uber when their chief economist himself is like this (can't do reading and comprehension).

http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/pap...

Pre-industrial revolution, the 40 hour work week was an absurd fantasy. A lazy slacker would only work 100 hours a week, and that was minimal subsistence living.

No. You're making the eronious assumption that Victorian working conditions were an improvement on what came before. The average pre-industrial worked less hours than we do now.

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ma...

Pre-industrial revolution, the 40 hour work week was an absurd fantasy. A lazy slacker would only work 100 hours a week, and that was minimal subsistence living.

Not true on that. A lazy slacker might only work 60 hours/week when harvest/etc came up. Generally that minimal subsistence living most people worked 20-30hrs/week or less as there were other things that were required. Even people who were in highly skilled jobs could work less then 10hrs/week.

A 40hr work week was common even ~80 years ago, that's not really the last few decades by any stretch. If it wasn't for the fact there was basically a giant pissing match between workers, businesses and government it likely never would have happened anyway. On top of that the entire history of the 40hr work week stretches back to the 1860's, prior to that people simply worked the required hours for the job for the given day. That might be a 10hr day today, it might only be 2hrs tomorrow. A flat 40hr/week didn't exist.

People from the 50s would say the same thing about your life and not knowing how woodworking, plumbing, electrical wiring, cars, etc worked.

Your life is built on abstraction. How well do you know how most of the machines that run your life work?

I'm sure some polymath will come in here proclaiming they own a homestead, repair their own cars, build their own silicon chips, et al but the reality is that for you to get any depth in a subject you have to neglect the depth in others.

I learned to program on Hypercard at ~14. Scratch and NodeRed look like great modern day equivalents for the same age. A 14 year old doesn't need to know how to bit bang with assembly but a high level introduction may lead them down the road of wanting to know.

C. elegans, a tiny worm about a millimeter long, doesn’t have much of a brain, but it has a nervous system — one that comprises 302 nerve cells, or neurons, to be exact. In the 1970s, a team of researchers at Cambridge University decided to create a complete “wiring diagram” of how each of those neurons are connected to one another. Such wiring diagrams have recently been christened “connectomes,” drawing on their similarity to the genome, the total DNA sequence of an organism. The C. elegans connectome, reported in 1986, took more than a dozen years of tedious labor to find.

Obviously much progress has been made since 1986. Your reflexive response to any AI article is quite amusing. It's like you have some dogmatic aversion to the idea that turns off your ability to reason.

TSMC's SiGe process is an alternative to GaAs. They use SiGe crystals.

http://www.tsmc.com/english/de...

TSMC's Silicon Germanium (SiGe) BiCMOS technology delivers higher performance, faster time-to-market, lower power consumption, more competitive manufacturing costs, and superior manufacturing reliability than Gallium Arsenide technology.

Silicon Germanium BiCMOS technology includes a deep trench approach for bipolar device isolation, multiple Ft bipolar devices, deep N-well, multiple Vt devices, precision MiM capacitors, precision high poly resistors, thick-metal inductors, and high-quality varactors and diodes. CMOS devices are compatible with the TSMC's standard logic platform. Power amplifier applications have been added to the 0.18-micron SiGe technology platform to enable the integration of a power amplifier and RF transceiver front-end for WLAN applications.

Combining the integration and cost benefits of silicon with the speed of more esoteric and expensive technologies such as Gallium Arsenide, makes Silicon Germanium an ideal process for wireless/wired communication applications. Products designed for and manufactured with TSMC Silicon Germanium processes demonstrate dramatically improved functionality at a lower cost

Sounds pretty different from the proposed process where they're depositing SiGe to create defects in a Si crystal

https://news.mit.edu/2018/engi...

Instead of using amorphous materials as an artificial synapse, Kim and his colleagues looked to single-crystalline silicon, a defect-free conducting material made from atoms arranged in a continuously ordered alignment. The team sought to create a precise, one-dimensional line defect, or dislocation, through the silicon, through which ions could predictably flow.

To do so, the researchers started with a wafer of silicon, resembling, at microscopic resolution, a chicken-wire pattern. They then grew a similar pattern of silicon germanium - a material also used commonly in transistors - on top of the silicon wafer. Silicon germanium's lattice is slightly larger than that of silicon, and Kim found that together, the two perfectly mismatched materials can form a funnel-like dislocation, creating a single path through which ions can flow.

Both use SiGe, but they're using it in very different ways.

To be fair, the ability to left pad a string was only added to the JavaScript standard last year. Although Array.isArray has existed for quite a while now.

As for why you need a special function to determine if something is an array, MDN links to this article.

Note that one context in which you will never need to use Array.isArray over instanceof Array is inside a Node.js program, as it doesn't run in a browser context.

Although even then, isArray probably doesn't work the way most people would expect: certain "array-like" things aren't arrays, such as arguments. JavaScript is fun.

"Literal trillions of dollars as calculated by whom? You magnify the "subsidies" of fossil fuels while handwaving over alternatives."

If you're going to persistently refuse to understand the subject whilst insisting you're right regardless I'm going to stop wasting my time. As I said - a simple Google search will find you hundreds of results, so to answer your question in terms of whom, literally every journalist and scientist that's ever objectively studied the subject. As Google is apparently way too confusing for you though, I'll make it easier:

The IMF: https://www.wsj.com/articles/i...

National Academy of Sciences: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10...

Side note on the above: "The damages are caused almost equally by coal and oil, according to the study, which was ordered by Congress." - you argue oil is better than coal, it's really not, presumably when you say you like fossil fuels what you really mean is that you're an oil man if you believe what you said.

Forbes Journalist: https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

MIT Economics Prof: http://news.mit.edu/2016/carbo...

World Nuclear Association: http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...

Union of Concerns Scientists: https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-e...

Skeptical Science: https://skepticalscience.com/p...

Cambridge University: https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/bus...

How long do you want me to keep going before you decide to stop being in denial? You can't pretend this is bias or partisanism - as I've said all along, there's a reason why left and right come to the same conclusions when they study this. You cannot pretend the likes of Forbes to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the US government to the IMF, and Cambridge University to the World Nuclear Association are somehow bedfellows that all sit on the exact same end of the political spectrum - they don't, that's nonsense - they all agree because it's true, and if you disagree it's because you're being irrational.

I did as you said regarding earthquakes from dams, and yes, whilst I'm willing to admit I hadn't appreciated quite how harmful some of them had been, I think you still fundamentally fail to understand the differences in scale - we're talking less than a million deaths from them across all time, and yet fossil fuels kill tens (possibly squeezing into hundreds) of millions globally not just in one off incidents, but on an ongoing basis every year. There's still not even a remotely equivalent comparison - the externalities of fossil fuels are still many orders of magnitude higher on healthcare alone - even if you reject the global warming argument, and ignore the geopolitical strife caused by fighting over fossil fuels, you're still seeing orders of magnitude more externalities (and deaths) on fossil fuels based just on the topic of healthcare and nothing more alone. When you factor in the other realities - war, climate change and so forth, it's like comparing a spec of sand to the size of the plant and saying the two are equivalent.

I've Google'd the shit out of trying to find any kind of study showing that other fuels externalities are equivalent to fossil fuels. Guess what? Nothing, whilst it's consistently poss

"Oh, my, some student has handed in his "study" and it made the papers."

On reading the Wired article, and searching for the person quoted in the article, it turns out that "some student" is Berthold Horn - Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at MIT and Liang Wang, a post-doc associate in the CSAI Lab at MIT, supervised by Horn.

"Oh, my, some student has handed in his "study" and it made the papers."

On reading the Wired article, and searching for the person quoted in the article, it turns out that "some student" is Berthold Horn - Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at MIT and Liang Wang, a post-doc associate in the CSAI Lab at MIT, supervised by Horn.

Let me introduce you to my little friend the Shannon–Hartley theorem. This is information theory's corollary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics".

Channel capacity = bandwidth * log2 (1+S/N).

Simply put, more data means vastly reduced range. And in this house we obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics".

“The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
Sir Arthur Eddington (The Nature of the Physical World, 1915)

Europe is 55% of the UK exports, Asia is 22% and NA is 18%.
Europe is 61% of the UK imports, Asia is 22% and NA is 12%.
Data : https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/
Norway pays about 2/3 the single-market contribution per capita than the UK (£140 in Norway, £220 in the UK).

How much environmental damage did this cause? Quantify it. If you're going to assert that he should be killed for his crime, you should be able to identify exactly what his crime was.

To expect a random slashdotter to quantify it is unreasonable. Luckily someone has done part of the work, however. 29,000 years of life lost or 4.1 billion Euros of damage. Based on a European average life expectancy of 80.2 years that's equivalent to killing a bit over 361 people.

In the USA the pollution is probably more distributed but, due to worse public health, life is shorter at around 78.88 so it's probably something around 300 people (equivalent) killed. Looking around VoX estimates it at about 5-27 additional deaths per year, so over e.g. a 10 year car lifetime that's getting close to the 300 number.

Now, this actually only quantifies the environmental impact on people and ignores e.g. the health of wild animals that live next to roads, so it provides a very minimal lower bound. Still it shows that the environmental impact can be real and serious.

Some people are working on such things as the propagator model of computation, which basically packages something very much Excel-like (but better) in a more general programming environment.

Nitrogen must indeed be 'fixed' but the raw material **is** available from the air. Phosphorus, not so much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/pdf/scientificamerican0609-54.pdf

I'm not a minimum wage expert, but assuming an average 60 hour work week they're paid around $11/hr. Certainly above the bare minimum unless they're pulling 80 hour weeks ever week. I agree it's low. Lower than it should be for sure. https://gradadmissions.mit.edu...

MIT's current endowment is $14.8 billion. They can afford it.

http://news.mit.edu/2017/endow...

> No offence but I can tell you are not a C programmer.

Been programming in C since the 1980s. 20 years industrial C++ experience, most of it working on Gecko which is a multimillion-line C++ project. PhD in computer science from Carnegie Mellon. Mozilla Distinguished Engineer.

> In C with a few years of experience and study you can know everything there is to know.

Well I guess I'm good to go then.

> There are no obscure undefined behaviours,

Really, so when these MIT researchers write "Unfortunately, the rules for what is undefined behavior are subtle" and "tricky", you think they're just idiots?
https://people.csail.mit.edu/n...

Unions impose no relationship between the variants and the tag, and are therefore bug-prone.

Boost is a C++ library. Are you confused?

> Any "replacement" for C is going to have to work in environments with memory measured in bytes.

I agree. I use Rust as much as possible now, and it can target 8-bit microcontrollers, so we're good. I don't want C# or Java (although they're fine for many use-cases, as is Go).

Not only because it's an obvious shill for their particular technology

Like Google providing materials and lesson plans based on Scratch, "a project of the Lifelong Kindergarten group at the MIT Media Lab. It is available for free at http://scratch.mit.edu/"? Those monsters!

in some instances politically charged

Yeah, the example they give of changing the color of a letter in the logo. Obviously racist, right?

Damn big businesses, offering free educational resources to teachers and schools. What kind of world are we creating when we expose kids to STEM concepts at a young age? Oh, the humanities!

Fingerprints are easily forged. The excellent paper http://web.mit.edu/6.857/OldSt... covered the issue 15 years ago and remains valid with even the best modern fingerprint scanners.

https://engineering.mit.edu/en...

Only if "real science" is a bunch of blog posts by know-nothing trolls, and "not real science" is what is practised by every known physicist in the world.

Think so? Here is a REAL scientist that has been practicing REAL WEATHER for decades and founded the weather channel - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

BTW, He's willing to talk to you about it. He's willing to bring in other real scientists to prove it to you. He has shot down people on CNN with science over this.
Other planets - let's look at Pluto - http://news.mit.edu/2002/pluto . Hardly a blog. Hardly someone that knows nothing.

Funny you should mention physicists. Physicists say it's not due to man. Here is a good article by a physicist - http://www.earth-climate.com/ . He goes over and you can see from his graph about the Roman period - which you can look up in your history book showing that it was so warm in England during Roman times that they were able to grow grapes. The sea level was also much higher during Roman time. When you look at the real data, Man Made global warming is clearly just a scheme to separate us from our money. They're duping a lot of people. Good people. People like you.

As for "the greatest benefit to mankind" that Nobel wanted to recognize, the list of Turing Award winners includes those who brought us personal computing, the internet, and the world wide web.

Source - http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/...

Probably not, but the more complicated problem you're trying to solve, the bigger the chance that your code base will turn into ravioli code instead of having nice source-code-level abstractions, often for the dearth of concepts in the base language. Certainly various knowledge base systems greatly profit from very expressive object systems that Java or C++ don't have. Then you hit abstraction levels like these and not even CLOS may be enough.

As inequality of income increase around the world, I thought let's read some initial concept of economics. Hence reading these books 1. https://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/14... (Principle of Economics) 2. https://www.deeplearningbook.o... (Deep learning)

The top export destinations of North Korea are China ($2.34B), India ($97.8M), Pakistan ($43.1M), Burkina Faso ($32.8M) and Other Asia ($26.7M). The top import origins are China ($2.95B), India ($108M), Russia ($78.2M), Thailand ($73.8M) and the Philippines ($53.2M).

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/prk