But he's saying that "if microsoft wants" rather than that he wants the microsoft data.
Generally, if I want something in.NET from the microsoft resource, I'll google the class/namespace path. Same with java/oracle. Otherwise I expect I'll get Stack Overflow or someone's blog. Fortunately, that makes it easy to get what I want, because I generally want one of those two categories, specifically.
To an extent... but there's only so much you can do if the tool is pretty screwed up. Fortunately, I don't think there's any major tool out now that is that bad. Though the headaches to get past a bad language/framework are *not fun*
At least it's not full of Expert's Exchange any more. Though the trick with that one, rather than pay, is just keep scrolling down, after a bunch of idiotic links, you'll see the answers they tried to hide below what looked like a footer.
People Google, SO usually comes up first. If I'm fairly API specific, I can generally get something from the manufacturer page. For example, if I have the full path to a calls (or simply a namespace) - I usually get the Microsoft (C#) or Oracle (Java) documentation initially.
About the only time I go and look at the documentation directly is/was in Python, PHP, and LibSDL, who managed to have good organization to their stuff, compared to a lot of other groups. Though for examples in the document, I'd only complain about Java and LibSDL, and in both cases, the descriptions are usually sufficiently clear, except when the quirks aren't mentioned in Java.
And now x86 machines are RISC too. IIRC all the x86 chips translate the x86 instructions into RISC instructions, with a little bit of optimization for their own RISC instruction set. The x86 instruction set, in some ways, simple allows for convenient optimization into the RISC instruction sets, and the option to change them in the background as use priories change. Probably, at least in part, why x86 caught up and surpassed ARM. Then again, you could make such a translator from ARM to arbitrary internal instruction set, but you wouldn't have the nice hints of all the extra instructions, you get with a CISC set - though you also don't get the slight delay of what amounts to a JIT compiler.
Meh. I don't care if x86 or ARM wins. I don't want either to, actually. I like havng options, and ARM for mobile, x86 for desktop.
Actually, I'd like a AMP (Asynchronous Multi Processing) machine, with an ARM core, and x86 (and/or PPC) cores that get turned on as they are needed for brute force tasks, but shut off for power concerns otherwise.
Yellow Page Removal and Protest Don't want the yellow pages? Don't want to be put on a mass marketing mailing list because they want to make a profit from you regardless of not providing a service to you (by the way, that's called extortion)?
We'll take the phone books off you hands. We request a donation of $0.50 to $1.00, but heck, we'll do it for free... We'll use the to inform the phone book companies what we think of their practices...
But generally the yellow pages seem to conveniently come on trash day. I just toss them into my recycle bin, and be done with it. They are becoming irrelevant, and eventually people will stop advertising with them.
Right now they are trying to use what amounts to extortion tactics.
Formerly: OK, we aren't going to use your product, so don't waste your money on giving it to use. Now: OK, you're going to get our product no matter what, unless you want to be annoyed to death.
Tossing it in the recycle/trash bin is less annoying and costs them more money, so I promote that option, since they want to be bastards about it.
OK - it needs to have sufficient software, but aside form that, an much-platform software package manager sounds rather nice, compared to the usual "this is my playground and my playground ONLY" crap.
Nor is snail mail. Nor is public transportation, or are private vehicles (and any particular dealership), nor is any particular brand, etc.
But when everyone is doing the same thing, and nobody stops them, and newcomers in the market can't resist the 'profit' perks from doing it (or can't offer some other nice option that the big names can). You suddenly have little/no choice in the matter, except going without. And this day in age, going without isn't always possible.
And yes, I do host my own email. And I have to deal with servers that block mail from other servers that don't allow reverse DNS lookups, because getting a setup where I have control over the system, and the ability to assign RDNS to my domain, is rather expensive or convoluted.
Yes, I do make more than that (modestly). I have accepted my place in life, and am quite happy about it.
What I do not accept is that there are people who work their asses off with 80+ hours a week to barely survive, and people who probably don't do even that in a month, and make over 100x what I make. I recently saw a CV of someone who had 3-4 CEO/BOD positions at a time, making between 350K and 750K each. Never less than $1M/year. That's absurd, and not horribly uncommon. Such people cannot be putting 40hrs/week in a job. They are certainly not working more than the rest compared to their salary. In a lot of cases, they were in the right place at the right time. Yes, the positioned themselves so that it was more likely, but there's still an element of luck.
If I wanted to, I could make $150k/year without much difficulty, but honestly, half of that would be absurdly comfortable IMO. I'd rather have other benefits.
What bothers me is that there are people who can work hard more than full time and starve (but not to death) because they need to work and it's better than starving to death, while someone else can work less than full time and make enough money to feed and shelter 7+ people.
Me, I'm in the middle. I work hard, but have a somewhat (I admit) cushy job and help people in the processes. I tend to work outside of business hours, but overall the pace is still relaxed, I put in my full work week, and I get paid enough to live quite comfortably on, and have some nice hobbies. I don't care about making $1M/year or even $100k/year - I just think that the people who struggle and make less than $25k/year or so shouldn't have to suffer so these people can make these ridiculous amounts.
If you assume the biomass and metabolisms are roughly equivalent now and then. More biomass, faster metabolism (especially with O2 users vs. producers).
From Wikipedia - Atmospheric O2: 5×10^18 kg x 0.20946 = 1×10^18 kg
For people: http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/respiratory/question98.htm 550 L * Mol/Liter * 0.032kg/mol = 17.6 kg With 365.25 day/year and 7 billion people, this is: 4.5 * 10^13kg/year Humanity, with zero population growth could go for 100,000 years without exhausting the complete O2 supply (though probably more like 25k, if we assume we need O2 levels of at least 15%).
Using the wet biomass, taking out the non-photosynthetics in the table, and assuming the average terrestrial uses the same O2 as humans per kg, aquatic at 50% and 10% for the rest (yes, these percents are out of my ass, though terrestrial should be fairly close). Terrestrial: == 7.6 * 10^14kg/year ( < 2000 years, complete use) Aquatic: (using 3:1 wet:dry weight estimate, since it's not listed. Removing cyanobacteria, and krill, Should be higher, but I'm aiming for a "best case" scenario) == 2.5 * 10^14kg/year Fungal (25% of average, of the rest @ 10% human O2 consumption): == 1.3 * 10^15kg/year
all three together give us 417 years. If we assume humans need 15% O2, that's 104.1 years.
Notice that there are a lot of species not mentioned there, and this doesn't include microbial O2 consumers other than fungi, nor does it include a lot of macroscopic O2 producers. I would be surprised if adding those in didn't decrease the timespan to less than 20 years.
However, the carbon in the asparagus came from the atmosphere. The carbon from non-biofuels has been sequestered from the atmosphere for millions of years.
The former makes a slight fluctuation in overall atmospheric carbon, the latter a huge one.
Also... for a more amusing thought... Could you imagine the smell of the emissions if everyone ate just asparagus? It'd be worse than the buses.
No, no CO2 means none of the O2 is sequestered by carbon - we'll probably breath just fine for a few weeks/months.
This means, however the plants can't photosynthesize. Many large plants will die out and then CO2 will increase and it will swing the other way and most animal life will die out... During the process we'll go through extremes of heat and cold as well. It wouldn't be pleasant.
(1) CO2 is require for plants. Without it, they won't photosynthesize. (2) Without CO2, most of the oxygen in the CO2 would likely be atmospheric - things would more readily burst into flames. (3) Some global warming is useful... Do you think the biota of the planet would be healthier if it were several degrees cooler?
Now, we are actually still in an ice age, just not at a glacial maxima. A little bit of global warming could get us out of it. In fact, given the break up of the ice at the north pole, I'd say we are close to there. This is not necessarily a bad thing like people thing - though slowing it down could be beneficial, due to the slow rate at which plants migrate (literally it's a generational thing - so a couple miles a year). But too far would also be a problem...
That's what I was thinking when I was reading this - by selectively killing the more aggressive wolves, they effectively domesticated dogs, not by nurture, but by "selective breeding" in a primitive sense.
You didn't read the whole TFS, and just jumped to conclusions based on someone expressing a differing opinion than you, didn't you?
Generally these balloons are manned, but not always, even so, if you read a little further down, you'll see.
"Neal Kurk, a Republican member of New Hampshire's House of Representatives knows that those drones present a growing privacy concern, and in response has introduced a bill that would ban all aerial photography in the state. That is, unless you're working for the government. The bill, HB 619-FN (PDF), is blessedly short, and I suggest reading the whole thing for yourself."
for which the GP's post is a perfectly valid response.
If I were more like you, I could probably trail this up with "Republican, I'll bet. Conservative as well." However, there are potentially plenty of other reasons for your assinine behavior.
Independant, I am. Moderate as well. Both parties suck as much ass as these two laws. It's just government fellatio of the corporate world, wasting our money and granting to the rich and powerful in the form or more money or power. Both parties do it, and the general population suffers.
Now, if they banned government an private (but not just hobby) drones, these bills would be ok - but they aren't, they are targeting the least powerful groups to protect the more powerful groups.
Slashdot Mirror
But he's saying that "if microsoft wants" rather than that he wants the microsoft data.
Generally, if I want something in .NET from the microsoft resource, I'll google the class/namespace path. Same with java/oracle. Otherwise I expect I'll get Stack Overflow or someone's blog. Fortunately, that makes it easy to get what I want, because I generally want one of those two categories, specifically.
For those too lazy to look, but strongly curious. It looks like a lot of python with shell scripts.
Didn't notice anything else in my cursory glances.
To an extent... but there's only so much you can do if the tool is pretty screwed up.
Fortunately, I don't think there's any major tool out now that is that bad. Though the headaches to get past a bad language/framework are *not fun*
At least it's not full of Expert's Exchange any more. Though the trick with that one, rather than pay, is just keep scrolling down, after a bunch of idiotic links, you'll see the answers they tried to hide below what looked like a footer.
I'd say that's about right.
People Google, SO usually comes up first. If I'm fairly API specific, I can generally get something from the manufacturer page. For example, if I have the full path to a calls (or simply a namespace) - I usually get the Microsoft (C#) or Oracle (Java) documentation initially.
About the only time I go and look at the documentation directly is/was in Python, PHP, and LibSDL, who managed to have good organization to their stuff, compared to a lot of other groups. Though for examples in the document, I'd only complain about Java and LibSDL, and in both cases, the descriptions are usually sufficiently clear, except when the quirks aren't mentioned in Java.
And now x86 machines are RISC too. IIRC all the x86 chips translate the x86 instructions into RISC instructions, with a little bit of optimization for their own RISC instruction set. The x86 instruction set, in some ways, simple allows for convenient optimization into the RISC instruction sets, and the option to change them in the background as use priories change. Probably, at least in part, why x86 caught up and surpassed ARM. Then again, you could make such a translator from ARM to arbitrary internal instruction set, but you wouldn't have the nice hints of all the extra instructions, you get with a CISC set - though you also don't get the slight delay of what amounts to a JIT compiler.
Meh. I don't care if x86 or ARM wins. I don't want either to, actually. I like havng options, and ARM for mobile, x86 for desktop.
Actually, I'd like a AMP (Asynchronous Multi Processing) machine, with an ARM core, and x86 (and/or PPC) cores that get turned on as they are needed for brute force tasks, but shut off for power concerns otherwise.
Not-for Profit Organization idea
your idea is better than mine. Though I'd drench them first, so that they can't try to reuse them.
in what you say? That's up to the individual, but I live not far from a rather foul smelling river that wouldn't be traceable back to me...
Generally recycle bins don't go to landfills...
But generally the yellow pages seem to conveniently come on trash day. I just toss them into my recycle bin, and be done with it. They are becoming irrelevant, and eventually people will stop advertising with them.
Right now they are trying to use what amounts to extortion tactics.
Formerly: OK, we aren't going to use your product, so don't waste your money on giving it to use.
Now: OK, you're going to get our product no matter what, unless you want to be annoyed to death.
Tossing it in the recycle/trash bin is less annoying and costs them more money, so I promote that option, since they want to be bastards about it.
Yep. MS, does it, I've seen Google, Apple, Oracle, Sun (may it rot in corporate hell), .... [insert company here].
Doesn't make it right. Actually, they are all rather pathetic when they do it, but it's part of the culture :-(
Not being familiar with it - why do you say "no"?
OK - it needs to have sufficient software, but aside form that, an much-platform software package manager sounds rather nice, compared to the usual "this is my playground and my playground ONLY" crap.
Nor is snail mail. Nor is public transportation, or are private vehicles (and any particular dealership), nor is any particular brand, etc.
But when everyone is doing the same thing, and nobody stops them, and newcomers in the market can't resist the 'profit' perks from doing it (or can't offer some other nice option that the big names can). You suddenly have little/no choice in the matter, except going without. And this day in age, going without isn't always possible.
And yes, I do host my own email. And I have to deal with servers that block mail from other servers that don't allow reverse DNS lookups, because getting a setup where I have control over the system, and the ability to assign RDNS to my domain, is rather expensive or convoluted.
Yes, I do make more than that (modestly). I have accepted my place in life, and am quite happy about it.
What I do not accept is that there are people who work their asses off with 80+ hours a week to barely survive, and people who probably don't do even that in a month, and make over 100x what I make. I recently saw a CV of someone who had 3-4 CEO/BOD positions at a time, making between 350K and 750K each. Never less than $1M/year. That's absurd, and not horribly uncommon. Such people cannot be putting 40hrs/week in a job. They are certainly not working more than the rest compared to their salary. In a lot of cases, they were in the right place at the right time. Yes, the positioned themselves so that it was more likely, but there's still an element of luck.
If I wanted to, I could make $150k/year without much difficulty, but honestly, half of that would be absurdly comfortable IMO. I'd rather have other benefits.
What bothers me is that there are people who can work hard more than full time and starve (but not to death) because they need to work and it's better than starving to death, while someone else can work less than full time and make enough money to feed and shelter 7+ people.
Me, I'm in the middle. I work hard, but have a somewhat (I admit) cushy job and help people in the processes. I tend to work outside of business hours, but overall the pace is still relaxed, I put in my full work week, and I get paid enough to live quite comfortably on, and have some nice hobbies. I don't care about making $1M/year or even $100k/year - I just think that the people who struggle and make less than $25k/year or so shouldn't have to suffer so these people can make these ridiculous amounts.
To quote Jeremy Clarkson: "What could possibly go wrong?"
errm read that wrong, nm. I was thinking you were talking about global warming issues.
Did I really write burst into flames. OK, the would more readily combust, but not by much.
Nope, but I didn't say anything remotely like that either.
If you assume the biomass and metabolisms are roughly equivalent now and then.
More biomass, faster metabolism (especially with O2 users vs. producers).
From Wikipedia - Atmospheric O2:
5×10^18 kg x 0.20946 = 1×10^18 kg
For people: http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/respiratory/question98.htm
550 L * Mol/Liter * 0.032kg/mol = 17.6 kg
With 365.25 day/year and 7 billion people, this is: 4.5 * 10^13kg/year
Humanity, with zero population growth could go for 100,000 years without exhausting the complete O2 supply (though probably more like 25k, if we assume we need O2 levels of at least 15%).
Using the wet biomass, taking out the non-photosynthetics in the table, and assuming the average terrestrial uses the same O2 as humans per kg, aquatic at 50% and 10% for the rest (yes, these percents are out of my ass, though terrestrial should be fairly close).
Terrestrial:
== 7.6 * 10^14kg/year ( < 2000 years, complete use)
Aquatic: (using 3:1 wet:dry weight estimate, since it's not listed. Removing cyanobacteria, and krill, Should be higher, but I'm aiming for a "best case" scenario)
== 2.5 * 10^14kg/year
Fungal (25% of average, of the rest @ 10% human O2 consumption):
== 1.3 * 10^15kg/year
all three together give us 417 years. If we assume humans need 15% O2, that's 104.1 years.
Notice that there are a lot of species not mentioned there, and this doesn't include microbial O2 consumers other than fungi, nor does it include a lot of macroscopic O2 producers. I would be surprised if adding those in didn't decrease the timespan to less than 20 years.
However, the carbon in the asparagus came from the atmosphere.
The carbon from non-biofuels has been sequestered from the atmosphere for millions of years.
The former makes a slight fluctuation in overall atmospheric carbon, the latter a huge one.
Also... for a more amusing thought... Could you imagine the smell of the emissions if everyone ate just asparagus? It'd be worse than the buses.
No, no CO2 means none of the O2 is sequestered by carbon - we'll probably breath just fine for a few weeks/months.
This means, however the plants can't photosynthesize. Many large plants will die out and then CO2 will increase and it will swing the other way and most animal life will die out... During the process we'll go through extremes of heat and cold as well. It wouldn't be pleasant.
You are quite "special"...
(1) CO2 is require for plants. Without it, they won't photosynthesize.
(2) Without CO2, most of the oxygen in the CO2 would likely be atmospheric - things would more readily burst into flames.
(3) Some global warming is useful... Do you think the biota of the planet would be healthier if it were several degrees cooler?
Now, we are actually still in an ice age, just not at a glacial maxima. A little bit of global warming could get us out of it. In fact, given the break up of the ice at the north pole, I'd say we are close to there. This is not necessarily a bad thing like people thing - though slowing it down could be beneficial, due to the slow rate at which plants migrate (literally it's a generational thing - so a couple miles a year). But too far would also be a problem...
Indeed. I was amazed by the "special" nature of the original poster. On par with being as special as the congressman in the article.
That's what I was thinking when I was reading this - by selectively killing the more aggressive wolves, they effectively domesticated dogs, not by nurture, but by "selective breeding" in a primitive sense.
You didn't read the whole TFS, and just jumped to conclusions based on someone expressing a differing opinion than you, didn't you?
Generally these balloons are manned, but not always, even so, if you read a little further down, you'll see.
for which the GP's post is a perfectly valid response.
If I were more like you, I could probably trail this up with
"Republican, I'll bet. Conservative as well."
However, there are potentially plenty of other reasons for your assinine behavior.
Independant, I am. Moderate as well. Both parties suck as much ass as these two laws. It's just government fellatio of the corporate world, wasting our money and granting to the rich and powerful in the form or more money or power. Both parties do it, and the general population suffers.
Now, if they banned government an private (but not just hobby) drones, these bills would be ok - but they aren't, they are targeting the least powerful groups to protect the more powerful groups.
Ath leath ith juth hith your footh...
OK, given your anecdote for #1 - I have to wonder, did they just lump it in one sum, or across the board?
Around here we do pay more for low skill government jobs, but less for the higher skill jobs.