So, not hypothetically, I've got a Cortex-M series chip with 20K of RAM and 128K of code space, and you don't want me to use C on it. What language do you suggest that more than 3 people in the world know?
And yet C++ has ways to avoid all that. The snag is that they come with overhead so there are times when there is a need to bypass the safety features just to get the job done. If you use a higher level language for the same purpose, there will still be times that you need to break out and call the C or assembler routine. Under the hood of most popular languages you will find C because it's the only widely available and and widely portable low level language out there; so where in the past you'd find assembler comprising the run time libraries or kernels, today you find C.
Ada is nice. The snag though is that while it is difficult to find good C programmers, it's even more difficult to find Ada programmers in the numbers necessary to keep your company afloat.
These languages are used in places where performance is important. The key feature of most languages with strict array and memory safety is that they're much slower and larger than C/C++. So the solution here is to abandon C and go straight to assembler?
The biggest problem I see with C/C++ is that the developers are aging out. Newer programmers may be more familiar with computer security issues, but they're also avoiding lower level languages.
Also note that there are a vast number of security issues in high level languages as well. Pointing to C/C++ as the problem is very short sighted. I think much more malware gets distributed from web sites using Javascript or other high level languages than from applications or operating system kernels.
We can control how we deal with the effects even if we can't control the effects. Ie, put in earthquake codes for new buildings even if you can't prevent earthquakes.
But we know that human activity is indeed contributing to the climate, no one with a brain should be denying that, the disagreement should only be over how much we are affecting it. Which means that limiting greenhouse gases is a good idea even if it is only a small contributor to the overall warming.
Natural effects most certainly can be controlled by people. Ie, if there's going to be flooding then it makes sense to plan for flooding, put in flooding control, stuff like that, no matter if it's man-made or natural flooding. The attitude that we don't do anything if climate change is natural is very fatalistic.
The trouble is that by saying China is the biggest culprit that people think they don't have to do anything until China moves first. That's stupid. Start the move now while also pressuring China to follow along. This reminds me too much of the old nuclear weapons theory where we can reduce our weapon numbers until they reduce their weapon numbers. Nobody wins by delaying.
Are you really saying you think this is all a hoax? How can anybody still think that it's a plot to get funding if they're smart enough figure out how to login to slashdot?
Why do you say this is political? What evidence do you have except that you don't agree with them? Their paper even after correcting still indicates that there is heating, it does not refute the climate change theories, all it means is that their "it's accelerating faster than expected" conclusion is now "it's still accelerating".
No, they claimed that the evidence they saw could occur with a probability different than what it should have been. They claimed that the apple was was redder than it actually was.
For the standard auto analogy, they handed out a ticket for going 50MPH over the limit when it should have only been for 25MPH over the limit.
Doesn't always find mistakes? This paper is relatively new. Is there a time limit that science puts in place before errors can be found? We have found errors in papers that are a century old. About the only time that mistakes aren't found given enough time is when a paper is ignored and no one looks at it, in which case an unread paper with errors isn't much of a problem.
Ah, but it's a political agenda also to claim that there is a political agenda. If you yank the politics out of it, then there is still science occuring here. Whether or not the conclusions hold up over time has nothing to do with politics except for those intent on creating and inflaming culture wars.
Peer review is about reviewing the articles, the methodology, etc. It is not fool proof which is why you wait for later papers that help to improve the knowledge. Few papers stand on their own. Many of them just present evidence and are intended to encourage others to use that evidence or add to it.
If you wait until 100% certainty of conclusions before any paper is published then no papers will ever be published.
I think a key difference is that after paying taxes in Europe you generally have something to show for it - education, healthcare, economic safety nets, and a higher standard of living. In the US you don't see as much coming back to you.
RINO is an odd term. Nothing defines what a Republican really is, so we have today a president with almost zero resemblance to classical Republicans with fans who accuse everyone who disagrees with him to not be a real Republican. Ronald Reagan would be a RINO in your eyes I suspect.
The economy is based upon the previous decade for the most part. In two years nobody can turn an economy around. It started bad at the start of Obama's presidency and was slowly making gains through today. When the economy looks good, Trump makes tax cuts which is bizarre because that's something done when times are bad to give a short term boost. But the cuts just aren't very large and there's no way to pay for them (tariffs may do this in a roundabout way but will hurt the economy in turn). And the economy is not the best in 50 years, the economy sucks unless you only look at official figures which discount a lot of real world effects - homelessness seems to be up and salaries have stayed stagnant in relation to inflation.
I think there's been a bit of shift from blue collar workers who were traditionally pro-union, and unions were traditionally pro-Democrat. The shift is towards Republicans. This is the group that has a strong interest in job protection and trade protection. So protectionist tariffs have left the Democratic camp and ended up in the Republican camp. And go back a century and it was flipped again.
This is one reason why having only two viable parties leads to a total mess because those two parties feel compelled to cover every single political issue. It is frankly unnatural to assume that every voter can be divided into one of two groups with which they feel comfortable on the majority of issues. It should be absurd if you can look at someone's views on abortion and then predict how they will stand on trade issues, and yet that's the situation we seem to have in the US.
Look at the steel tariffs. The US exports steel while also importing steel. Why? Because not all steel is the same. The US does not manufacture steel of the quality and quantity needed for a lot of domestic industries. The demand for foreign steel is high. These industries are then forced to pay tariffs or apply for an exclusion which is a random process. Meanwhile it takes years for domestic steel production to revamp itself to make the types of steel that are needed. So steel industry gains some jobs, while other industries lose jobs, and meanwhile prices of goods go up so the economy is not any better for the tariffs.
Also, note that there is a difference between tariffs and boycotts. Tariffs are economic tools, boycotts are political tools. They shouldn't be used interchangeably.
Tariffs may work if they're tightly focused. This current round of tariffs are broad based and of the sort that have been discredited economically for longer than most of us have been alive.
Slashdot Mirror
So, not hypothetically, I've got a Cortex-M series chip with 20K of RAM and 128K of code space, and you don't want me to use C on it. What language do you suggest that more than 3 people in the world know?
And yet C++ has ways to avoid all that. The snag is that they come with overhead so there are times when there is a need to bypass the safety features just to get the job done. If you use a higher level language for the same purpose, there will still be times that you need to break out and call the C or assembler routine. Under the hood of most popular languages you will find C because it's the only widely available and and widely portable low level language out there; so where in the past you'd find assembler comprising the run time libraries or kernels, today you find C.
Ada is nice. The snag though is that while it is difficult to find good C programmers, it's even more difficult to find Ada programmers in the numbers necessary to keep your company afloat.
I'm waiting for someone who is not a part of the cult to describe why it's good.
These languages are used in places where performance is important. The key feature of most languages with strict array and memory safety is that they're much slower and larger than C/C++. So the solution here is to abandon C and go straight to assembler?
The biggest problem I see with C/C++ is that the developers are aging out. Newer programmers may be more familiar with computer security issues, but they're also avoiding lower level languages.
Also note that there are a vast number of security issues in high level languages as well. Pointing to C/C++ as the problem is very short sighted. I think much more malware gets distributed from web sites using Javascript or other high level languages than from applications or operating system kernels.
Most people's ideas of the "world" at the time probably involved a 50 mile radius.
Scientists.
We can control how we deal with the effects even if we can't control the effects. Ie, put in earthquake codes for new buildings even if you can't prevent earthquakes.
But we know that human activity is indeed contributing to the climate, no one with a brain should be denying that, the disagreement should only be over how much we are affecting it. Which means that limiting greenhouse gases is a good idea even if it is only a small contributor to the overall warming.
Natural effects most certainly can be controlled by people. Ie, if there's going to be flooding then it makes sense to plan for flooding, put in flooding control, stuff like that, no matter if it's man-made or natural flooding. The attitude that we don't do anything if climate change is natural is very fatalistic.
The trouble is that by saying China is the biggest culprit that people think they don't have to do anything until China moves first. That's stupid. Start the move now while also pressuring China to follow along. This reminds me too much of the old nuclear weapons theory where we can reduce our weapon numbers until they reduce their weapon numbers. Nobody wins by delaying.
Bah, next you're also going to be saying that the earth is a globe!
Are you really saying you think this is all a hoax? How can anybody still think that it's a plot to get funding if they're smart enough figure out how to login to slashdot?
Why do you say this is political? What evidence do you have except that you don't agree with them? Their paper even after correcting still indicates that there is heating, it does not refute the climate change theories, all it means is that their "it's accelerating faster than expected" conclusion is now "it's still accelerating".
No, they claimed that the evidence they saw could occur with a probability different than what it should have been. They claimed that the apple was was redder than it actually was.
For the standard auto analogy, they handed out a ticket for going 50MPH over the limit when it should have only been for 25MPH over the limit.
Doesn't always find mistakes? This paper is relatively new. Is there a time limit that science puts in place before errors can be found? We have found errors in papers that are a century old. About the only time that mistakes aren't found given enough time is when a paper is ignored and no one looks at it, in which case an unread paper with errors isn't much of a problem.
Ah, but it's a political agenda also to claim that there is a political agenda. If you yank the politics out of it, then there is still science occuring here. Whether or not the conclusions hold up over time has nothing to do with politics except for those intent on creating and inflaming culture wars.
Peer review is about reviewing the articles, the methodology, etc. It is not fool proof which is why you wait for later papers that help to improve the knowledge. Few papers stand on their own. Many of them just present evidence and are intended to encourage others to use that evidence or add to it.
If you wait until 100% certainty of conclusions before any paper is published then no papers will ever be published.
I think a key difference is that after paying taxes in Europe you generally have something to show for it - education, healthcare, economic safety nets, and a higher standard of living. In the US you don't see as much coming back to you.
RINO is an odd term. Nothing defines what a Republican really is, so we have today a president with almost zero resemblance to classical Republicans with fans who accuse everyone who disagrees with him to not be a real Republican. Ronald Reagan would be a RINO in your eyes I suspect.
The economy is based upon the previous decade for the most part. In two years nobody can turn an economy around. It started bad at the start of Obama's presidency and was slowly making gains through today. When the economy looks good, Trump makes tax cuts which is bizarre because that's something done when times are bad to give a short term boost. But the cuts just aren't very large and there's no way to pay for them (tariffs may do this in a roundabout way but will hurt the economy in turn). And the economy is not the best in 50 years, the economy sucks unless you only look at official figures which discount a lot of real world effects - homelessness seems to be up and salaries have stayed stagnant in relation to inflation.
Netflix is not taking away the content, instead the content owners are taking the content away from Netflix.
I think there's been a bit of shift from blue collar workers who were traditionally pro-union, and unions were traditionally pro-Democrat. The shift is towards Republicans. This is the group that has a strong interest in job protection and trade protection. So protectionist tariffs have left the Democratic camp and ended up in the Republican camp. And go back a century and it was flipped again.
This is one reason why having only two viable parties leads to a total mess because those two parties feel compelled to cover every single political issue. It is frankly unnatural to assume that every voter can be divided into one of two groups with which they feel comfortable on the majority of issues. It should be absurd if you can look at someone's views on abortion and then predict how they will stand on trade issues, and yet that's the situation we seem to have in the US.
Look at the steel tariffs. The US exports steel while also importing steel. Why? Because not all steel is the same. The US does not manufacture steel of the quality and quantity needed for a lot of domestic industries. The demand for foreign steel is high. These industries are then forced to pay tariffs or apply for an exclusion which is a random process. Meanwhile it takes years for domestic steel production to revamp itself to make the types of steel that are needed. So steel industry gains some jobs, while other industries lose jobs, and meanwhile prices of goods go up so the economy is not any better for the tariffs.
Also, note that there is a difference between tariffs and boycotts. Tariffs are economic tools, boycotts are political tools. They shouldn't be used interchangeably.
Tariffs may work if they're tightly focused. This current round of tariffs are broad based and of the sort that have been discredited economically for longer than most of us have been alive.
What if somebody lives in China, should they also be boycotting China?
Free-range?