The chicken little scientists were just drumming up fear off mudslides to ensure their grants would be renewed and the liberals all play along because they hate freedom. There are many scientists who are skeptical of mudslides but the media conspires with the scientific establishment to silence them. It was all an inside job. Mossad.
"We think we speak the English, or French, of today. But our English or French language of today is of yesterday and elsewhere. The miracle is that language has not been cut from its archaic roots -- even if we do not remember, our language remembers, and what we say began to be said three thousand years ago." https://prelectur.stanford.edu...
Anybody remember the publish on demand scare of the 80s? Given the ubiquity of quality printers with finishing capability, book stores would just be a little place with a l out of blank paper, a printer or two, and a lot of books on hard drive that they would print up on demand.
A spreadsheet is "object oriented"? Good grief. Excel VBA is less capable than the first language I learned - PDP-11 BASIC on RSTS/E....
Not vba; the spreadsheet. Each cell is an object which you can do whatever you rent to and all the references to it update on real time. You can drag it around, even move it to a different spreadsheet. Try renaming a directory in Windows and see how far the object orientation goes. And at the end you've got a nice piece of metacode You can run whenever. Imagine the machine code a large spreadsheet generates. It's a program that runs, has inputs and outputs. How'd you like to write that in c++?
Also, here's a hint, when you say 100%, it's math. (explanation: Say something like 'completely' or some other 'non-math' term if you wish to express something that can't be expressed by math.)
In addition, large programs often fail because the focus becomes "develop a program to do this and train the users to use it" rather than "find out what users are doing and see what they think would be helpful"
Of course it's 100% from each. Here: 5 times 7 equals 35. How would you portion out responsibility for the 35? 7/12 and 5/12? Seems wrong. 7/35 and 5/35? Aside from being a tautology, doesn't total 100%. I'd say in this case 100% each is the best answer for most purposes. Back to gender differences: if you raise two kids of different gender absolutely identically, the difference would be 100% nature. If you take two kids of the same sex and raise one as a boy and one as a girl, the differences will be 100% nurture. For anything in between, the differences will be not only anywhere between 0:100 and 100:0, but there will be an interaction which is not necessarily additive, or multiplicative, or well behaved in any way. Could well appear as a lot of random unconnected dotsv all over n- space. (Given that gender difference is not a unidimensional parameter) We've made a huge amount of progress thanks to Cartesian reductionism. That doesn't mean that everything succumbs to it; things are nonlinear, nonmonotonic, full of singular points, and/or just plain holistic. Ask your mother to partition her love for you by % into pride, familiarity, possessiveness, hormonal response, concern, altruism, loyalty, public pressure, whatever else comes to mind. And that's one trouble with programming; applying analytical principles to problems where they don't fit.
Sufficiently advanced programming is indistinguishable from the application. I give you as example, the most successful class of object oriented programming languages: spreadsheets.
Ha, you live somewhere where lights are syncedm Here, by actual experiment, normal driving will get you a green light less than 50% of the time. If you think about it, that means they're synced against the traffic, since random would be 50%. Of course, the way to make the lights is not eco driving, but to floor it to make it before the red. Which probably ends up saving gas over driving economically, stopping for the red, and starting again if you don't have some sort of kinetic energy recovery system.
You liberals are so silly. We just make the reprocessible fuel into more bombs, then we can play chicken with Putin over freedom for Crimea, which we care deeply about having now learned that it exists.
Yeah, you have to be French to not screw it up. Americans would surely screw it up. We don't know anything about nuclear technology. Derp!
.
The French don't screw it up, because like the nuclear navy (aforementioned by myself) they don't believe in the God given right of every human to make a buck by risking other people's lives. Also, I suspect that the fact that you don't see large numbers of French people arguing that scientists are in a giant conspiracy to destroy their society by making up lies about the dangers of perfectly safe CO2 in order to steal grant money, might shed some light on why their industry is a bit safer.
We're descended from tree dwelling primates, who for millions of years could literally make their waste products vanish by just dropping them. It's a miracle we can be toilet trained, let alone deal with industrial wastes. Things might be different, were we descended from denning animals, whose ancestors' survival depended on instinctively keeping the house sanitary.
Turn it over to the Navy submarine command, they seem to be the only ones who give a damn about nuclear safety (the airforce certainly doesn't, between putting warheads on the wrong plane and the rampant cheating in the missile command that's pretty obvious).
The nuclear navy has been successful, because of the culture of absolute responsibility, no buck passing, and extremely heavy hierarchical authority. Which is not going to work well in a civilian world where the rights of private enterprise to construct fertilizer warehouses which spontaneously explode or solvent tanks which contaminate the water supply for nine counties when they spring a leak are seen as more important than "big intrusive onerous government".
AFAIK, the real reason for the Second Amendment isn't personal protection or hunting, but as a final check on the government as a whole by the people.
In that sense, I reject the notion as archaic. In such a scenario, we would have to rely on persuasion to cause mass defection of troops, but that has often been the case anyway.
If that is indeed the purpose of the Second Amendment (which, in my far from expert opinion it is, rather than protection from home invasion or bears etc), then it is the most glaring failure of the Founding Fathers. In the history of the US, the government has indulged in acts of oppression more than once, so it's not much of a deterrent; probably because no freedom loving rifle toting Second Amendment protected citizens ever showed up to defend the Japanese-Americans from internment during WWII, or unarmed college students from being shot by National Guardsmen during the Vietnam War, or black students from being barred from school doorways by state governments after the federal government struck down discriminatory state laws. No matter how much the gun owners sympathized with the oppressed parties. Apparently the only freedom the Second Amendment allows armed citizens to protect is the freedom to be armed, in order that they maintain the freedom to be armed, so that they may maintain the freedom to be armed, and so on. Less valuable as a whole than what the Founding Fathers would have hoped, I suspect.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called OS update
Palin can see Russia from the balloon.
As long as you're generating energy, hot air is an option.
Reminds me of Dmitri Martin's Amoebacorn; a microscopic organism with magical powers that are insignificant because of its size.
The chicken little scientists were just drumming up fear off mudslides to ensure their grants would be renewed and the liberals all play along because they hate freedom. There are many scientists who are skeptical of mudslides but the media conspires with the scientific establishment to silence them.
It was all an inside job. Mossad.
Liberty begins with the determination to injure other people if they get in your way. The guns are just helpful.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, but teach him to 3d print a fish. ...
"We think we speak the English, or French, of today. But our English or French language of today is of yesterday and elsewhere. The miracle is that language has not been cut from its archaic roots -- even if we do not remember, our language remembers, and what we say began to be said three thousand years ago."
https://prelectur.stanford.edu...
Actually, we are talking about Star Trek Replicators, Version 0.8.
100-200 years of development should result in several improvements.
Oh great. I'll go to print up a pair of shoes and there will be a power surge and they'll come out with goatees and be evil.
If it's really analogous to 2d inkjet printing, the widgets coming from your 3d printer will be water soluble.
Anybody remember the publish on demand scare of the 80s? Given the ubiquity of quality printers with finishing capability, book stores would just be a little place with a l out of blank paper, a printer or two, and a lot of books on hard drive that they would print up on demand.
A spreadsheet is "object oriented"? Good grief. Excel VBA is less capable than the first language I learned - PDP-11 BASIC on RSTS/E....
Not vba; the spreadsheet.
Each cell is an object which you can do whatever you rent to and all the references to it update on real time. You can drag it around, even move it to a different spreadsheet. Try renaming a directory in Windows and see how far the object orientation goes.
And at the end you've got a nice piece of metacode You can run whenever. Imagine the machine code a large spreadsheet generates. It's a program that runs, has inputs and outputs. How'd you like to write that in c++?
Also, here's a hint, when you say 100%, it's math. (explanation: Say something like 'completely' or some other 'non-math' term if you wish to express something that can't be expressed by math.)
Good advice, actually.
In addition, large programs often fail because the focus becomes "develop a program to do this and train the users to use it" rather than "find out what users are doing and see what they think would be helpful"
They program best who program least. AKA, don't reinvent the wheel, and adopt standard practice.
Of course it's 100% from each.
Here: 5 times 7 equals 35. How would you portion out responsibility for the 35? 7/12 and 5/12? Seems wrong. 7/35 and 5/35? Aside from being a tautology, doesn't total 100%. I'd say in this case 100% each is the best answer for most purposes.
Back to gender differences: if you raise two kids of different gender absolutely identically, the difference would be 100% nature. If you take two kids of the same sex and raise one as a boy and one as a girl, the differences will be 100% nurture. For anything in between, the differences will be not only anywhere between 0:100 and 100:0, but there will be an interaction which is not necessarily additive, or multiplicative, or well behaved in any way. Could well appear as a lot of random unconnected dotsv all over n- space. (Given that gender difference is not a unidimensional parameter)
We've made a huge amount of progress thanks to Cartesian reductionism. That doesn't mean that everything succumbs to it; things are nonlinear, nonmonotonic, full of singular points, and/or just plain holistic.
Ask your mother to partition her love for you by % into pride, familiarity, possessiveness, hormonal response, concern, altruism, loyalty, public pressure, whatever else comes to mind.
And that's one trouble with programming; applying analytical principles to problems where they don't fit.
Sufficiently advanced programming is indistinguishable from the application.
I give you as example, the most successful class of object oriented programming languages: spreadsheets.
Ha, you live somewhere where lights are syncedm Here, by actual experiment, normal driving will get you a green light less than 50% of the time. If you think about it, that means they're synced against the traffic, since random would be 50%.
Of course, the way to make the lights is not eco driving, but to floor it to make it before the red. Which probably ends up saving gas over driving economically, stopping for the red, and starting again if you don't have some sort of kinetic energy recovery system.
You liberals are so silly. We just make the reprocessible fuel into more bombs, then we can play chicken with Putin over freedom for Crimea, which we care deeply about having now learned that it exists.
Yeah, you have to be French to not screw it up. Americans would surely screw it up. We don't know anything about nuclear technology. Derp!
.
The French don't screw it up, because like the nuclear navy (aforementioned by myself) they don't believe in the God given right of every human to make a buck by risking other people's lives. Also, I suspect that the fact that you don't see large numbers of French people arguing that scientists are in a giant conspiracy to destroy their society by making up lies about the dangers of perfectly safe CO2 in order to steal grant money, might shed some light on why their industry is a bit safer.
Thanks for volunteering your basement! Expect the first shipment next week.
We're descended from tree dwelling primates, who for millions of years could literally make their waste products vanish by just dropping them. It's a miracle we can be toilet trained, let alone deal with industrial wastes. Things might be different, were we descended from denning animals, whose ancestors' survival depended on instinctively keeping the house sanitary.
Turn it over to the Navy submarine command, they seem to be the only ones who give a damn about nuclear safety (the airforce certainly doesn't, between putting warheads on the wrong plane and the rampant cheating in the missile command that's pretty obvious).
The nuclear navy has been successful, because of the culture of absolute responsibility, no buck passing, and extremely heavy hierarchical authority. Which is not going to work well in a civilian world where the rights of private enterprise to construct fertilizer warehouses which spontaneously explode or solvent tanks which contaminate the water supply for nine counties when they spring a leak are seen as more important than "big intrusive onerous government".
AFAIK, the real reason for the Second Amendment isn't personal protection or hunting, but as a final check on the government as a whole by the people.
In that sense, I reject the notion as archaic. In such a scenario, we would have to rely on persuasion to cause mass defection of troops, but that has often been the case anyway.
If that is indeed the purpose of the Second Amendment (which, in my far from expert opinion it is, rather than protection from home invasion or bears etc), then it is the most glaring failure of the Founding Fathers. In the history of the US, the government has indulged in acts of oppression more than once, so it's not much of a deterrent; probably because no freedom loving rifle toting Second Amendment protected citizens ever showed up to defend the Japanese-Americans from internment during WWII, or unarmed college students from being shot by National Guardsmen during the Vietnam War, or black students from being barred from school doorways by state governments after the federal government struck down discriminatory state laws. No matter how much the gun owners sympathized with the oppressed parties.
Apparently the only freedom the Second Amendment allows armed citizens to protect is the freedom to be armed, in order that they maintain the freedom to be armed, so that they may maintain the freedom to be armed, and so on. Less valuable as a whole than what the Founding Fathers would have hoped, I suspect.
Show me a contract where I agreed to do that in return for consideration's. Don't have it then I have NO obligation to do so.
This is just a tax in a thin disguise like when serfs had to work six days each week on the baron's land.
Try to enslave me and the only ground you'll have will be six feet deep and you'll be under neath it, communist asshole.
--
roman_mir
"In Soviet Union, ground is underneath you!"