...Trump keeps saying he'll do something about it.
Yeah, and what he'll do is expand it. Trump loves the whole H-1B idea, and he's said so repeatedly.
Trump: “I’m in favor of people coming into this country legally. And you know what? They can have it any way you want. You can call it visas, you can call it work permits, you can call it anything you want...."
Trump: "We need highly skilled people in this country, and if we can’t do it, we’ll get them in. But, and we do need in Silicon Valley, we absolutely have to have."
Trump’s answer during the Megyn Kelly interview was consistent with his answer during the CNBC debate. He said again that Silicon Valley needs highly skilled workers, and showed his support for the H-1B program. Further, he appeared to support employers sponsoring H-1B workers for green cards, saying, “We absolutely have to be able to keep the brain power in this country.”
Also, he said, “I know the H-1B. I know the H2B. Nobody knows it better than me. I’m a businessman. These are laws. These are regulations. These are rules. We’re allowed to do it. I will take advantage of it; they’re the laws. But I’m the one that knows how to change it. Nobody else on this dais knows how to change it like I do, believe me.”
I'm not sure how you got modded insightful; you do know that one way to stop the H1B abuse would be to "expand" immigration law so that H1B workers are less tied to their employer than currently, right? From what you posted above, it seems you agree with Trump, only you don't realise it.
It started out as "C with classes" in 1979 and by 1985 there was a book called "The C++ Programming Language".
There were lots of code-breaking changes between 1979 and 1985, it just wasn't a widely used language at the time.
I know how it started out, but there wasn't a C++ standard (hence breaking changes between implementations) nor a reference implementation that serves as a standard.
In this case, there is a reference implementation, which is breaking itself between versions. C++ never had a reference implementation or a standard at the time you were referring to.
Some minor tweaks added in '89 (from wikipedia): multiple inheritance, abstract classes, static member functions, const member functions, and protected members.
And even later still were added: templates, exceptions, namespaces, new casts, and a boolean type.
C++ underwent way more fundamental changes in its first 10 years than Swift has undergone in its first 2...so maybe we should all just chill out a little bit.
From what I remember of C++98 (the first C++ ANSI standard; I'm not sure where you got '89 from - perhaps you were thinking of C89 - the first ANSI C standard?), the committee used the standard to merely document the most popular behaviours of the most common compilers, hence by design the C++98 broke no existing code.
And, as far as I can tell, the committee repeats this intention for each new standard - you can be almost guaranteed ("I've not heard of it happening") that a new C++ standard will not break existing code written to the previous standard.
Personally, this feature of the C++ standards committee has always annoyed me - they take such great care to ensure they never break existing code that the end result is a language that is some bastardised unholy mess of its previous incarnations and whatever new fad is going around at the moment. Last I looked, there was what.... 3 different language constructs to iterate across a container?
You can accuse C++ of a lot of things (and I frequently do), but saying that each new C++ standard breaks existing code is 100% inaccurate. They take great care not to do so.
Too bad if you put time into learning Swift 2.0. That knowledge is now obsolete. And when Swift 4.0 comes out, your Swift 3.0 knowledge will be obsolete. My advice to young programmers: avoid languages owned by corporations. They have time and money to waste. You don't.
LOL I take it that you have never looked at C++, an ISO standardized language. Code written in C++98 and C++14 almost appear to be written in different languages.
And actually one of the advantages of a corporate controlled language is you totally avoid the "Designed by committee approach" to things.
You know, I sorta/broadly/ agree, but c'mon - you're comparing differences across 18 years for C++ to differences across 4 months for Swift. Why not compare C++11 and C++14?
Characteristically, the median is lower than the mean. That means that the majority of cars are younger than the mean age. Your statement that it would take at least the mean age (11 years) to replace half the cars is false: 50% replacement time is the median age, which is less.
That assertion is only true if the item being replaced is thrown away; cars are resold, hence the new car that is purchased does not displace the old car from the road.
The other links said MORE than 1 m hybrids were sold, not the exact number.
True, but note that the previous year was a great deal short of 1m. I don't think it jumped from 678k to 679k to 2m. It's more likely to be slightly over the 1m mark, which still makes them around 25% of sales.
I'd really like to see the actual numbers after 2014. A lot of the hyperbole from AmiMoJo is along the lines of "The majority of cars in Japan are hybrids", "Electric likely to be majority by 2025", etc. I seriously doubt *that* claim, seeing as how 2025 is 8.5 years away and even if every single new-car buyer bought an electric car starting today, because people are keeping their cars for 11 years and longer, the majority of owners won't even have purchased a car by then.
How about the average age? From the manufacturers themselves , the average age calculated from the table "vehicles in use by year of first registration as of end of march 2014", works out to between 11 and 12 (average percentage of first registrations in any given year = 5; that puts it squarely between 11 and 12 years old).
So, no, both your assertions are refuted by the manufacturers themselves. The average age of cars on the road in Japan is between 11 and 12, and hybrids account for roughly 1/6th the total registrations.
My maths skills are fine thanks, it's just that you reacted angrily without bothering to check your assumptions.
Me correcting you is not "reacting angrily". Both your assertions are provably and (trivially so) false. I do not understand why you believe that the average age of cars in japan is lower than 11, and I do not understand why the hell you would think hybrids are in the majority if sales.
Someone who assumes the age distribution of motor vehicles is symmetric might want to be a little more cautious accusing others of being bad at math.
I said best-case scenario for parents argument. The age of cars is not symmetric, it's skewed towards older cars: when someone buys a new car their old car does not vanish, it's sold on to someone else, so we're looking at a lot more than 11 years before half the cars are electric.
The true believers keep saying this. What the hell - are you all poor at math?
The average age of cars on the road right now is around 11 years. If every single new car buyer, starting right now, bought an electric car over an ICE car, you have a minimum of 11 years before a mere half the cars on the road are electrics.
Over a decade - that's your best case scenario, where everybody stops buying ICE immediately and buys electric. But that is not what is
happening, is it? So that's your lower bound - 11 years.
Lets look at infrastructure - best case (for your argument) is that every single person can either charge at home or at work - no infrastructure needed because no one drives past the range of their electric (best-case, remember?). So, we are currently at "best-case for infrastructure"; yet what do we see as far as sales are concerned? The best-selling electric is, I believe, the Nissan Leaf - 43k global sales in 2015. Lets compare to an ICE hatchback of similar price - the VW Polo (sells for less, actually); why, the Polo sold R700k units for the same period!
For every person that chose a Leaf, about 16000 chose a Polo. And this is not counting other cars. For every person that chose to buy an electric hatchback, there are about 100k others who chose to buy ICE.
In short, given a best-case scenario for ICE replacements with electric, there is a lower bound of 11 years. There is also poor ICE replacements happening now that can't be explained away by infrastructure. In fact, my thumbsuck calculations say that, given the extremely poor ICE replacement rates in view of all the options, electrics aren't going to replace ICE automobiles on the roads within my lifetime, nor yours.
Your math is exceptionally poor to think otherwise.
I guess we just define freedom differently. To you, freedom is walking down the street feeling safe because you're allowed to carry a firearm. For me, freedom is walking down the street feeling safe without needing to carry a firearm.
As with most things in life, many people would rather have something and not need it than need something and not have it.
Besides, your "freedom" to walk down the street without needing a firearm comes from the fact that men with guns back up your "freedom".
But the new defaults really _is_ best practice. Denying that is like denying that ssh is better than telnet.
Silent failures that lose data is never best practice. Ever heard of the Principle of Least Astonishment? No command or UI action should *ever* be changed so that it looks the same as before, but does the opposite action.
Will you change the "Close" menu entry in an application to simply close with no warning to the user about unsaved work? Why do the same thing with screen?
Your comment would be fair if men and women received similar amounts of online abuse, particularly abused based on their gender. But women do get more harassment, especially harassment based on their gender,
Nope. All studies thus far show that men overwhelming get more harassment, both online and offline. You belief is a myth, and it's an unfortunate one because it reinforces paternalistic sexism ("If we men don't protect women, who will?").
Jesus christ please no. I don't want fat neckbearded activists to use me as a shield while they openly display their batshit insanity and spout extreme bigotry on the internet and call it "progressivism". I don't want women at work to walk on eggshells around me because they're afraid I'll call them "misandrist" and they'll get fired. I don't want the retards to turn on me if I tell them to stop using me as a shield because "I'm in debt to them" and there's nothing a cult hates more than an apostate.
I just want the madness to end, from both sides. Thank god people at least laugh at MRAs, even if they tolerate feminists.
Seconded. I could not have said it better myself (Quoting this in full, because parent is not moderated high enough).
No but I have met a few people who can play just about anything they hear a couple months after buying a guitar with no lessons outside of a basic beginner's book. They are currently playing in fairly good cover bands but have no original music.
That's me, except
a) I never bought the book, only the guitar on a whim,
b) I did do original work; after my first divorce my original lyrics were incredibly powerful:-), and finally
c) I'm not in a band anymore.
Of course, the advantages of using a language that non-programmers can "pick up in a weekend" are mostly lost because you'll be working with programmers who learned to program in a weekend.
Exhibit A: Python. Exhibit B: PHP.
You want to teach coding? How about do it holistically - teach CS, and use a language like Pascal and/or Basic to teach the CS. For teens, perhaps teach from SICP.
No one ever claimed that they did. The claim is "They did material damage to an individual". Peter Thiel funded this individual's claim for restitution. Once again, there is nothing wrong with helping an injured party claim restitution.
He piggybacked on someone else's lawsuit because he wanted to use the power of the government to silence someone he disliked.
Call The Morality Police!!! Someone is donating to a cause I don't agree with!!!
He used government power to silence someone he disliked.
Seems perfectly fair. They posted a sex tape of him doing him material damage. They now have to pay restitution. That the victim got monetary help in presenting his case is irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you drive them legally anywhere (on roads)? Can you fly them legally anywhere (in regular airspace)?
That is exactly the parents point - the existence of flying cars does not in any way mean that we all have one flying car each.
...Trump keeps saying he'll do something about it.
Yeah, and what he'll do is expand it. Trump loves the whole H-1B idea, and he's said so repeatedly.
Trump: “I’m in favor of people coming into this country legally. And you know what? They can have it any way you want. You can call it visas, you can call it work permits, you can call it anything you want...."
Trump: "We need highly skilled people in this country, and if we can’t do it, we’ll get them in. But, and we do need in Silicon Valley, we absolutely have to have."
Trump’s answer during the Megyn Kelly interview was consistent with his answer during the CNBC debate. He said again that Silicon Valley needs highly skilled workers, and showed his support for the H-1B program. Further, he appeared to support employers sponsoring H-1B workers for green cards, saying, “We absolutely have to be able to keep the brain power in this country.”
Also, he said, “I know the H-1B. I know the H2B. Nobody knows it better than me. I’m a businessman. These are laws. These are regulations. These are rules. We’re allowed to do it. I will take advantage of it; they’re the laws. But I’m the one that knows how to change it. Nobody else on this dais knows how to change it like I do, believe me.”
I'm not sure how you got modded insightful; you do know that one way to stop the H1B abuse would be to "expand" immigration law so that H1B workers are less tied to their employer than currently, right? From what you posted above, it seems you agree with Trump, only you don't realise it.
It started out as "C with classes" in 1979 and by 1985 there was a book called "The C++ Programming Language".
There were lots of code-breaking changes between 1979 and 1985, it just wasn't a widely used language at the time.
I know how it started out, but there wasn't a C++ standard (hence breaking changes between implementations) nor a reference implementation that serves as a standard.
In this case, there is a reference implementation, which is breaking itself between versions. C++ never had a reference implementation or a standard at the time you were referring to.
Some minor tweaks added in '89 (from wikipedia): multiple inheritance, abstract classes, static member functions, const member functions, and protected members.
And even later still were added: templates, exceptions, namespaces, new casts, and a boolean type.
C++ underwent way more fundamental changes in its first 10 years than Swift has undergone in its first 2...so maybe we should all just chill out a little bit.
From what I remember of C++98 (the first C++ ANSI standard; I'm not sure where you got '89 from - perhaps you were thinking of C89 - the first ANSI C standard?), the committee used the standard to merely document the most popular behaviours of the most common compilers, hence by design the C++98 broke no existing code.
And, as far as I can tell, the committee repeats this intention for each new standard - you can be almost guaranteed ("I've not heard of it happening") that a new C++ standard will not break existing code written to the previous standard.
Personally, this feature of the C++ standards committee has always annoyed me - they take such great care to ensure they never break existing code that the end result is a language that is some bastardised unholy mess of its previous incarnations and whatever new fad is going around at the moment. Last I looked, there was what.... 3 different language constructs to iterate across a container?
You can accuse C++ of a lot of things (and I frequently do), but saying that each new C++ standard breaks existing code is 100% inaccurate. They take great care not to do so.
Too bad if you put time into learning Swift 2.0. That knowledge is now obsolete. And when Swift 4.0 comes out, your Swift 3.0 knowledge will be obsolete. My advice to young programmers: avoid languages owned by corporations. They have time and money to waste. You don't.
LOL I take it that you have never looked at C++, an ISO standardized language. Code written in C++98 and C++14 almost appear to be written in different languages.
And actually one of the advantages of a corporate controlled language is you totally avoid the "Designed by committee approach" to things.
You know, I sorta /broadly/ agree, but c'mon - you're comparing differences across 18 years for C++ to differences across 4 months for Swift. Why not compare C++11 and C++14?
How the hell does this guy still have credibility after his 100% wrong calls, for years, on SCO's claim on Linux?
Characteristically, the median is lower than the mean. That means that the majority of cars are younger than the mean age. Your statement that it would take at least the mean age (11 years) to replace half the cars is false: 50% replacement time is the median age, which is less.
That assertion is only true if the item being replaced is thrown away; cars are resold, hence the new car that is purchased does not displace the old car from the road.
The other links said MORE than 1 m hybrids were sold, not the exact number.
True, but note that the previous year was a great deal short of 1m. I don't think it jumped from 678k to 679k to 2m. It's more likely to be slightly over the 1m mark, which still makes them around 25% of sales.
I'd really like to see the actual numbers after 2014. A lot of the hyperbole from AmiMoJo is along the lines of "The majority of cars in Japan are hybrids", "Electric likely to be majority by 2025", etc. I seriously doubt *that* claim, seeing as how 2025 is 8.5 years away and even if every single new-car buyer bought an electric car starting today, because people are keeping their cars for 11 years and longer, the majority of owners won't even have purchased a car by then.
It also depends where you are. In Japan the average age of a car is well under 11 years, and the majority sold today are hybrids.
Oh? That's not what the manufacturers say - 6m new cars registered between jan-2014 and jan-2015, of which 1m were hybrids.
How about the average age? From the manufacturers themselves , the average age calculated from the table "vehicles in use by year of first registration as of end of march 2014", works out to between 11 and 12 (average percentage of first registrations in any given year = 5; that puts it squarely between 11 and 12 years old).
So, no, both your assertions are refuted by the manufacturers themselves. The average age of cars on the road in Japan is between 11 and 12, and hybrids account for roughly 1/6th the total registrations.
My maths skills are fine thanks, it's just that you reacted angrily without bothering to check your assumptions.
Me correcting you is not "reacting angrily". Both your assertions are provably and (trivially so) false. I do not understand why you believe that the average age of cars in japan is lower than 11, and I do not understand why the hell you would think hybrids are in the majority if sales.
Someone who assumes the age distribution of motor vehicles is symmetric might want to be a little more cautious accusing others of being bad at math.
I said best-case scenario for parents argument. The age of cars is not symmetric, it's skewed towards older cars: when someone buys a new car their old car does not vanish, it's sold on to someone else, so we're looking at a lot more than 11 years before half the cars are electric.
is
You aren't in a strong position to be mocking people's math abilities. A generation is usually taken as 25 years.
Actually I am, parent said 'by the year 2025'. Perhaps you missed it?
I think it will probably take one generation.
The true believers keep saying this. What the hell - are you all poor at math?
The average age of cars on the road right now is around 11 years. If every single new car buyer, starting right now, bought an electric car over an ICE car, you have a minimum of 11 years before a mere half the cars on the road are electrics.
Over a decade - that's your best case scenario, where everybody stops buying ICE immediately and buys electric. But that is not what is happening, is it? So that's your lower bound - 11 years.
Lets look at infrastructure - best case (for your argument) is that every single person can either charge at home or at work - no infrastructure needed because no one drives past the range of their electric (best-case, remember?). So, we are currently at "best-case for infrastructure"; yet what do we see as far as sales are concerned? The best-selling electric is, I believe, the Nissan Leaf - 43k global sales in 2015. Lets compare to an ICE hatchback of similar price - the VW Polo (sells for less, actually); why, the Polo sold R700k units for the same period!
For every person that chose a Leaf, about 16000 chose a Polo. And this is not counting other cars. For every person that chose to buy an electric hatchback, there are about 100k others who chose to buy ICE.
In short, given a best-case scenario for ICE replacements with electric, there is a lower bound of 11 years. There is also poor ICE replacements happening now that can't be explained away by infrastructure. In fact, my thumbsuck calculations say that, given the extremely poor ICE replacement rates in view of all the options, electrics aren't going to replace ICE automobiles on the roads within my lifetime, nor yours.
Your math is exceptionally poor to think otherwise.
I guess we just define freedom differently. To you, freedom is walking down the street feeling safe because you're allowed to carry a firearm. For me, freedom is walking down the street feeling safe without needing to carry a firearm.
As with most things in life, many people would rather have something and not need it than need something and not have it.
Besides, your "freedom" to walk down the street without needing a firearm comes from the fact that men with guns back up your "freedom".
Yes I am seriously suggesting to edit scripts so they work with new tech.
I would if this was new tech. This isn't new tech, it's old tech (MS-DOS/Win3.1) with a new name.
But the new defaults really _is_ best practice. Denying that is like denying that ssh is better than telnet.
Silent failures that lose data is never best practice. Ever heard of the Principle of Least Astonishment? No command or UI action should *ever* be changed so that it looks the same as before, but does the opposite action.
Will you change the "Close" menu entry in an application to simply close with no warning to the user about unsaved work? Why do the same thing with screen?
What Google's winning this case means is that a proprietary company can now copy portions of GPL'd code under the legal protection of "fair use".
No. It means that they can now copy the function and class declarations, but then again - they always could.
It's the first hot holiday weekend of the summer, so give 'em a break. They've probably been drinking since like 11am.
So? Some people are late wakers.
And likely thousands fewer lines of code. Failure modes don't have to be hardware-related.
No way. It takes way more code to control a gasoline engine than an electric motor. Like, dramatically more.
Maybe it does, but it doesn't take more code to control an ICE than a Tesla. One ECM unit I worked on was a mere 2kb of code.
Your comment would be fair if men and women received similar amounts of online abuse, particularly abused based on their gender. But women do get more harassment, especially harassment based on their gender,
Nope. All studies thus far show that men overwhelming get more harassment, both online and offline. You belief is a myth, and it's an unfortunate one because it reinforces paternalistic sexism ("If we men don't protect women, who will?").
Jesus christ please no. I don't want fat neckbearded activists to use me as a shield while they openly display their batshit insanity and spout extreme bigotry on the internet and call it "progressivism". I don't want women at work to walk on eggshells around me because they're afraid I'll call them "misandrist" and they'll get fired. I don't want the retards to turn on me if I tell them to stop using me as a shield because "I'm in debt to them" and there's nothing a cult hates more than an apostate.
I just want the madness to end, from both sides. Thank god people at least laugh at MRAs, even if they tolerate feminists.
Seconded. I could not have said it better myself (Quoting this in full, because parent is not moderated high enough).
No but I have met a few people who can play just about anything they hear a couple months after buying a guitar with no lessons outside of a basic beginner's book. They are currently playing in fairly good cover bands but have no original music.
That's me, except
:-), and finally
a) I never bought the book, only the guitar on a whim,
b) I did do original work; after my first divorce my original lyrics were incredibly powerful
c) I'm not in a band anymore.
Of course, the advantages of using a language that non-programmers can "pick up in a weekend" are mostly lost because you'll be working with programmers who learned to program in a weekend.
Exhibit A: Python. Exhibit B: PHP.
You want to teach coding? How about do it holistically - teach CS, and use a language like Pascal and/or Basic to teach the CS. For teens, perhaps teach from SICP.
They were political back then, too, even though it was News for Farmers, Stuff that Manures.
It still is "Stuff that Manures"...
No they did not post a sex tape of Peter Thiel.
No one ever claimed that they did. The claim is "They did material damage to an individual". Peter Thiel funded this individual's claim for restitution. Once again, there is nothing wrong with helping an injured party claim restitution.
He piggybacked on someone else's lawsuit because he wanted to use the power of the government to silence someone he disliked.
Call The Morality Police!!! Someone is donating to a cause I don't agree with!!!
He used government power to silence someone he disliked.
Seems perfectly fair. They posted a sex tape of him doing him material damage. They now have to pay restitution. That the victim got monetary help in presenting his case is irrelevant.