I was replying to "obody is being so arrogant in their beliefs that they are suggesting locking people in jail for disagreeing here."
Of course that's the agenda. Throwing "climate deniers" in jail has already been proposed several times. That's what happens when people are so convinced they're right that they can't accept that someone could honestly disagree, so someone saying "AWG isn't a big deal" must be doing it for money.
And, again, this was exactly the attitude of the Catholic church in the middle ages, though "money" wasn't the go-to evil back then.
As I weigh this fish scale on my scale, before cleaning the scale off my kettle, while listening to my neighbor play scales, I wonder about the scale of your intoxication: on a scale of one to potato, how high are you right now? Oh well, I'm off to work: I was hoping for better, but it pays scale.
But of course these are all Xeon processors. Those normally have a lower clock rate the more cores the chip has, to limit heat density. The 10-core processors run a bit more than half the speed of the 2-core (IIC, but I could be way off). You don't need to overclock these in the way you do enthusiast parts, when they're underclocked to begin with. You do need prodigious cooling.
I know you understand the idea of diminishing returns. All pollution is bad only in sufficient concentration. Two maxims from environmental engineering: "the solution to pollution is dilution", and "you can't have too little pollution, but you can have to little production". At some point lower emissions cost more than they're worth, and become a net burden on society. I believe we passed that point some time ago.
You seem you not understand the idea of "diminishing returns". It's not always better for society to reduce emissions further, as at some point the added costs overwhelm the ever-less-measurable emissions.
I see this as a good act on the part of the VW engineers myself, giving their customers a better vehicle, in the ways you've noted, while cheating to meet meaningless standards. I see it as civil disobedience, and I think your notion of it killing people in US vehicles is laughable, as we're so far past the point of diminishing returns on tailpipe exhaust regs.
But that's the thing about "ethical concerns": we all have different values, different tradeoffs we see as optimal, and both democracy and "might makes right" have proven poor systems for choosing between sets of values.
Empiricism was the heart of the Enlightenment, and I doubt we'll find something better, but that's a very broad philosophical outlook. It's not "what's a good system of humans to do science", and we're facing some very human problems today. Most published soft science results can't be replicated. Many published biochem results are simply fraudulent - it's so endemic that is may be the majority of result in some journals. Peer review is a joke: not "referees screening initial publication", which is OK, but actual "people working to falsify published results to see if they hold up". We just don't do the latter. It's hard to dismiss the notion that climate science is some grand fraud because we know that kind of thing actually happens. These aren't problems with "empiricism", they're problems with humans, doing science.
The way we do science today is fundamentally flawed. It's hard to believe anything until some sort of engineering is built around it, something that depends on all the results being true, unless like general relativity or the Higgs Boson there's some grand experiment you can run that demonstrates clearly that a long chain of assumptions and reasoning were actually true. Just trusting what humans publish is naive at best, and politics at worst.
Since many fields including climate science aren't really amenable to grand experiments, our best strategy today is to keep intellectual arrogance in check, and take the time to understand the objections and questions and admit we can't be sure of much yet (especially when modeling chaotic dynamic systems with multiple feedback mechanisms, from medicine to climate). I do expect 600 years from now they'll have the human aspects of "doing research" all sorted out, perhaps by not having humans do any of it - who knows.
It's certainly a clever idea. What about power? Is solar power any better at that altitude than on Mars? Likely anything involving heavy lifting to another planet would be "post-fusion" anyhow, but it seems unique in that you could stay "dayside" forever on Venus, if that was desirable.
Wait, when did you twist thist to a "science vs religion" debate? It that some personal bugbear? All I'm saying is that we shouldn't be so arrogant in our beliefs that we lock people in jail for disagreeing, or we'll be making the same mistake the Inquisition did.
What altitude range has survivable conditions? I was under the impression that at any reasonable pressure it would be too hot, but I'm now realizing I've never actually looked into it. Wouldn't the atmosphere chew up equipment quickly, even at altitude? Or can the right materials fix that?
Those guys who dropped $10K on plasma screen? Or any other piece of brand new tech? Nope, sorry... can't even begin to care that the last time I saw any in a store they were being liquidated for $400 or so.
I Spent $3K on a plasma screen ~15 years ago, and it was a great TV for 10+ years: better color than LCD ever managed, no malfunctioning pixels ever, and that price over 10 years isn't bad at all. And it the time, a 42" screen one person could lift was a miracle.
So a couple years ago I replaced it: with a 60" plasma screen, for $3K. Terrific panel, very black blacks, no artifacts even with very fast action, still better color than any LCD screen. I'm sure it will be solid for 10 years as well. And I can lift it myself, which still amazes me,
By then, OLED will finally be consumer grade, and maybe I can get an 80"+ screen in that price range with perfect color.
Not everything expensive is high quality, but many high-quality things are expensive.
Bullshit. Evolution has many decades of solid evidence, and models that prove themselves in the lab every day. Climate change models aren't even mature yet, and haven't made any correct predictions that weren't also predicted by the null hypothesis.
No one can seem to get past the tribal signalling and understand that climate science has a long damn way to go before it has the kind of evidence that evolution and relativity do. Intellectual arrogance in either direction is unfounded, and harmful.
Any doubters are getting really tired of climate scientists constantly altering historical temperature data to synthesize a warming trend that current data doesn't show, and would like an investigation of all that. Until the models prove themselves, which will take many years, the science just isn't to a point where skepticism is inappropriate. The maligning is all over, because this is politics now. When people say "climate change, so give me money", which lots of people are saying these days, skepticism is quite justified for that BS, but tends to spill over into the science.
Sure, religion used one methodology, the best at the time 600 years ago, and so people 600 years ago were very sure of their beliefs, because they answering questions the best way anyone knew how. It was intellectual arrogance to be so sure, and lots of bad things happened as a result.
What we're doing now is answering questions with the best methodology we have today, and people are very sure of their beliefs again. If intellectual arrogance dominates, we will again do great evil in the name of our certainty.
600 years from now they will no doubt point to our beliefs and laugh at our-near-superstitions nonsense, only one step removed from those religious guys. Will they also look back in horror at the evil we did in the name of those beliefs? That's up to us.
Try to get past the simple-minded "science goooood, religion baaaad" tribal signalling here, if you want to think clearly.
Ask again in 600 years, and they'll tell you. That's only fair, if we're comparing the best methodology we have today with the best from 600 years ago.
My point was: intellectual arrogance is unjustified. It's one thing to say "we could be wrong, heck we probably are, but this is the best we can do" and quite another to say "we absolutely correct and anyone who disagrees is as bad as a neo-Nazi holocaust denier! Throw them in jail!". We know a significant percentage of published results aren't reproducible across many scientific fields. People are using sloppy methods, people are falsifying data to avoid getting fired, people are, in short, human.
Science and religion are only "wildly different" if you judge them based on tribal affiliation and signaling (and so many people do). They are both attempts to understand the universe as best we were able at the time. Before the Enlightenment, people were really quite sure about their religion, because it was based on the best methodology around at the time. There was constant scholarly argument about all the details, you know, with quite logical discussions and peer review.
How much of what you believe now do you think people 500 years from now will point at an mock as simple minded, near-superstitions nonsense? Almost everything, of course. Try setting aside your tribal signaling or intellectual arrogance (whichever is at play here), and engaging with the idea that the government dictating what you're supposed to believe has ended in tragedy whenever it's happened.
Sure, I'll buy that, but we know the temperature data has been constantly adjusted in favor of global warming, and we don't call that fraud, because you can't really without a circular argument. The same caution applies in reverse - the bar would be pretty high to prove fraud in the way you suggest (and far higher for RICO).
Wow, you're certain that people that disagree with you publically secretly agree with you? And are just saying things to be evil? That's exactly what the Catholic Church used to claim when it executed people. After all, no one could really disagree with truth so obvious, right?
Now consider: what if you're wrong? It's mathematically possible, right? (Note: the dispute isn't over "how does CO2 work", the dispute is over how much, quantitatively, mankind's actions will actually matter.) The climate models aren't like evolution or relativity, they've hardly distinguished themselves with predictive power yet. Unless you're working in the field, you're just sort of taking it on faith that these guys aren't fudging things just a little, just enough. It's one thing to think "they're likely right", it's another to be certain. Certain to the point you start denying that anyone smart really disagrees with you is a bit beyond sanity, you know.
It's not about what you or I believe: this is a democracy, it's about what's contentious among the voters, and what has near-unanimous support. Frankly, when it comes to the use of force, it doesn't matter why you think you're right, it matters whether almost everyone agrees (and not almost every authority, for that's authoritarianism).
While there's a win to be had by standardization of all the paperwork across insurance providers, it's nowhere near 30%. Something to keep in mind: the "paperwork cost + fraud cost" of private insurance and government systems are about the same - the private insurance forces more paperwork to reduce fraud, while the government tolerates more fraud to reduce paperwork, but it works out at about the same cost on the system. Still, standardization would be wholly positive, and well within the legitimate role of the federal government.
Both i and size were size_t (which is unsigned). The problem was in how size was computed - with the right 2-character string, it was computed as -1, and then that for loop changed the failure mode from a do-nothing bug to a keep-overwriting-memory-until-crash bug.
It's a fundamental security issue in the way the C++ STL containers are implemented, as they all unsigned indexing, leading to this particular failure mode being somewhat common (and memory-overwrite bugs are an attacker's delight).
Slashdot Mirror
And this is why it often seems that 90% of the Java code I read is catching exceptions and doing stuff with them. Normally throwing another exception.
Ahh, Pokemon code! Gotta catch em all!
If you can actually find the program logic hiding in all the Java boilerplate, you're doing Java wrong: moar boilerplate!
I was replying to "obody is being so arrogant in their beliefs that they are suggesting locking people in jail for disagreeing here."
Of course that's the agenda. Throwing "climate deniers" in jail has already been proposed several times. That's what happens when people are so convinced they're right that they can't accept that someone could honestly disagree, so someone saying "AWG isn't a big deal" must be doing it for money.
And, again, this was exactly the attitude of the Catholic church in the middle ages, though "money" wasn't the go-to evil back then.
Well, it's their second major outage in the ~10 years of AWS. Far better than any in-house IT department I've ever seen.
Scale is a verb!
As I weigh this fish scale on my scale, before cleaning the scale off my kettle, while listening to my neighbor play scales, I wonder about the scale of your intoxication: on a scale of one to potato, how high are you right now? Oh well, I'm off to work: I was hoping for better, but it pays scale.
But of course these are all Xeon processors. Those normally have a lower clock rate the more cores the chip has, to limit heat density. The 10-core processors run a bit more than half the speed of the 2-core (IIC, but I could be way off). You don't need to overclock these in the way you do enthusiast parts, when they're underclocked to begin with. You do need prodigious cooling.
I know you understand the idea of diminishing returns. All pollution is bad only in sufficient concentration. Two maxims from environmental engineering: "the solution to pollution is dilution", and "you can't have too little pollution, but you can have to little production". At some point lower emissions cost more than they're worth, and become a net burden on society. I believe we passed that point some time ago.
You seem you not understand the idea of "diminishing returns". It's not always better for society to reduce emissions further, as at some point the added costs overwhelm the ever-less-measurable emissions.
I see this as a good act on the part of the VW engineers myself, giving their customers a better vehicle, in the ways you've noted, while cheating to meet meaningless standards. I see it as civil disobedience, and I think your notion of it killing people in US vehicles is laughable, as we're so far past the point of diminishing returns on tailpipe exhaust regs.
But that's the thing about "ethical concerns": we all have different values, different tradeoffs we see as optimal, and both democracy and "might makes right" have proven poor systems for choosing between sets of values.
Oh, not today, that's next year's agenda. That's the thing about the neo-puritans: they're never content with punishment in the afterlife.
Empiricism was the heart of the Enlightenment, and I doubt we'll find something better, but that's a very broad philosophical outlook. It's not "what's a good system of humans to do science", and we're facing some very human problems today. Most published soft science results can't be replicated. Many published biochem results are simply fraudulent - it's so endemic that is may be the majority of result in some journals. Peer review is a joke: not "referees screening initial publication", which is OK, but actual "people working to falsify published results to see if they hold up". We just don't do the latter. It's hard to dismiss the notion that climate science is some grand fraud because we know that kind of thing actually happens. These aren't problems with "empiricism", they're problems with humans, doing science.
The way we do science today is fundamentally flawed. It's hard to believe anything until some sort of engineering is built around it, something that depends on all the results being true, unless like general relativity or the Higgs Boson there's some grand experiment you can run that demonstrates clearly that a long chain of assumptions and reasoning were actually true. Just trusting what humans publish is naive at best, and politics at worst.
Since many fields including climate science aren't really amenable to grand experiments, our best strategy today is to keep intellectual arrogance in check, and take the time to understand the objections and questions and admit we can't be sure of much yet (especially when modeling chaotic dynamic systems with multiple feedback mechanisms, from medicine to climate). I do expect 600 years from now they'll have the human aspects of "doing research" all sorted out, perhaps by not having humans do any of it - who knows.
It's certainly a clever idea. What about power? Is solar power any better at that altitude than on Mars? Likely anything involving heavy lifting to another planet would be "post-fusion" anyhow, but it seems unique in that you could stay "dayside" forever on Venus, if that was desirable.
Wait, when did you twist thist to a "science vs religion" debate? It that some personal bugbear? All I'm saying is that we shouldn't be so arrogant in our beliefs that we lock people in jail for disagreeing, or we'll be making the same mistake the Inquisition did.
What altitude range has survivable conditions? I was under the impression that at any reasonable pressure it would be too hot, but I'm now realizing I've never actually looked into it. Wouldn't the atmosphere chew up equipment quickly, even at altitude? Or can the right materials fix that?
Those guys who dropped $10K on plasma screen? Or any other piece of brand new tech? Nope, sorry ... can't even begin to care that the last time I saw any in a store they were being liquidated for $400 or so.
I Spent $3K on a plasma screen ~15 years ago, and it was a great TV for 10+ years: better color than LCD ever managed, no malfunctioning pixels ever, and that price over 10 years isn't bad at all. And it the time, a 42" screen one person could lift was a miracle.
So a couple years ago I replaced it: with a 60" plasma screen, for $3K. Terrific panel, very black blacks, no artifacts even with very fast action, still better color than any LCD screen. I'm sure it will be solid for 10 years as well. And I can lift it myself, which still amazes me,
By then, OLED will finally be consumer grade, and maybe I can get an 80"+ screen in that price range with perfect color.
Not everything expensive is high quality, but many high-quality things are expensive.
Eventually they'll be banning them because they will encourage the sexual objectification of robots.
Bullshit. Evolution has many decades of solid evidence, and models that prove themselves in the lab every day. Climate change models aren't even mature yet, and haven't made any correct predictions that weren't also predicted by the null hypothesis.
No one can seem to get past the tribal signalling and understand that climate science has a long damn way to go before it has the kind of evidence that evolution and relativity do. Intellectual arrogance in either direction is unfounded, and harmful.
Any doubters are getting really tired of climate scientists constantly altering historical temperature data to synthesize a warming trend that current data doesn't show, and would like an investigation of all that. Until the models prove themselves, which will take many years, the science just isn't to a point where skepticism is inappropriate. The maligning is all over, because this is politics now. When people say "climate change, so give me money", which lots of people are saying these days, skepticism is quite justified for that BS, but tends to spill over into the science.
Sure, religion used one methodology, the best at the time 600 years ago, and so people 600 years ago were very sure of their beliefs, because they answering questions the best way anyone knew how. It was intellectual arrogance to be so sure, and lots of bad things happened as a result.
What we're doing now is answering questions with the best methodology we have today, and people are very sure of their beliefs again. If intellectual arrogance dominates, we will again do great evil in the name of our certainty.
600 years from now they will no doubt point to our beliefs and laugh at our-near-superstitions nonsense, only one step removed from those religious guys. Will they also look back in horror at the evil we did in the name of those beliefs? That's up to us.
Try to get past the simple-minded "science goooood, religion baaaad" tribal signalling here, if you want to think clearly.
Ask again in 600 years, and they'll tell you. That's only fair, if we're comparing the best methodology we have today with the best from 600 years ago.
My point was: intellectual arrogance is unjustified. It's one thing to say "we could be wrong, heck we probably are, but this is the best we can do" and quite another to say "we absolutely correct and anyone who disagrees is as bad as a neo-Nazi holocaust denier! Throw them in jail!". We know a significant percentage of published results aren't reproducible across many scientific fields. People are using sloppy methods, people are falsifying data to avoid getting fired, people are, in short, human.
Science and religion are only "wildly different" if you judge them based on tribal affiliation and signaling (and so many people do). They are both attempts to understand the universe as best we were able at the time. Before the Enlightenment, people were really quite sure about their religion, because it was based on the best methodology around at the time. There was constant scholarly argument about all the details, you know, with quite logical discussions and peer review.
How much of what you believe now do you think people 500 years from now will point at an mock as simple minded, near-superstitions nonsense? Almost everything, of course. Try setting aside your tribal signaling or intellectual arrogance (whichever is at play here), and engaging with the idea that the government dictating what you're supposed to believe has ended in tragedy whenever it's happened.
Sure, I'll buy that, but we know the temperature data has been constantly adjusted in favor of global warming, and we don't call that fraud, because you can't really without a circular argument. The same caution applies in reverse - the bar would be pretty high to prove fraud in the way you suggest (and far higher for RICO).
Wow, you're certain that people that disagree with you publically secretly agree with you? And are just saying things to be evil? That's exactly what the Catholic Church used to claim when it executed people. After all, no one could really disagree with truth so obvious, right?
Now consider: what if you're wrong? It's mathematically possible, right? (Note: the dispute isn't over "how does CO2 work", the dispute is over how much, quantitatively, mankind's actions will actually matter.) The climate models aren't like evolution or relativity, they've hardly distinguished themselves with predictive power yet. Unless you're working in the field, you're just sort of taking it on faith that these guys aren't fudging things just a little, just enough. It's one thing to think "they're likely right", it's another to be certain. Certain to the point you start denying that anyone smart really disagrees with you is a bit beyond sanity, you know.
It's not about what you or I believe: this is a democracy, it's about what's contentious among the voters, and what has near-unanimous support. Frankly, when it comes to the use of force, it doesn't matter why you think you're right, it matters whether almost everyone agrees (and not almost every authority, for that's authoritarianism).
While there's a win to be had by standardization of all the paperwork across insurance providers, it's nowhere near 30%. Something to keep in mind: the "paperwork cost + fraud cost" of private insurance and government systems are about the same - the private insurance forces more paperwork to reduce fraud, while the government tolerates more fraud to reduce paperwork, but it works out at about the same cost on the system. Still, standardization would be wholly positive, and well within the legitimate role of the federal government.
Both i and size were size_t (which is unsigned). The problem was in how size was computed - with the right 2-character string, it was computed as -1, and then that for loop changed the failure mode from a do-nothing bug to a keep-overwriting-memory-until-crash bug.
It's a fundamental security issue in the way the C++ STL containers are implemented, as they all unsigned indexing, leading to this particular failure mode being somewhat common (and memory-overwrite bugs are an attacker's delight).