Coal ash makes good cheap concrete - why would you waste it in a lake? As far as CO2, you can't expect every culture to share your religious beliefs.
As far as the mining - it's usually cheap and easy at first, becoming ever more difficult and dangerous over time. But in 10 years solar might finally make sense, so a solution that's right for 10 years isn't a bad plan for a developing nation.
I think we're getting close to solar thermal making sense for anywhere land is cheap. There are still some hurdles though: cheap, low-tech energy storage (e.g., molten salts) need to mature, and a better working fluid would be nice: something not too toxic, and non-corrosive (you can use water, of course, but state-change systems are noticeably less efficient).
they'd be competitors for manufacturing, which we can barely do any more as it is.
America's manufacturing capacity is larger than it's ever been - there has never been a decade in which it has fallen. Don't confuse the lack of manufacturing jobs with the lack of manufacturing capacity - automation and technology keep happening.
My larger question is...with our money woes in the US, wtf are we sending money ANYWHERE outside our borders rather than using it to help ourselves of debt, and help our own poor people internally?
What are you smoking? All money is sent to supporters of politicians, internal or external. Old people (some of whom are poor) get the lion's share, of course, but the more poor people dependent on government checks we can create, the better for politicians.
Some crazy people believe in saving for inevitable expenses, rather than begging from society to help you out because you didn't do what was obviously needed of you. What a bunch of whack-job Libertarian Randroids!
As there are no moral "first principles", what else can one do but assert them? I can arbitrarily assert that "stealing is wrong", and hope your intuitions agree, or I can arbitrarily assert something else and try to deduce "stealing is wrong" from it, but that wouldn't change the need,
If I have a DVD player in my car with the screen visible to the driver, that's against CA law. Doesn't matter if it's off. Many states have similar laws, which is why the screen built into my dash can play DVDs, but only when the car is parked - that's the accepted legal work-around.
Oh, I don't doubt your ability to rationalize your behavior - humans can convince ourselves that just about anything is OK if we try hard enough. But you shouldn't.
OK, sounds like a feature request that some compiler vendor might take you up on. But eliminating the conditional is so common that most people wouldn't want that spew. Would you also want a warning that "x *= 8" was optimized into a shift left instruction on one platform, and three add instruction on another? That "(x > 30)" was optimized into a rotate instruction some platform? Heck, half your lines of code won't have 1-for-1 mappings between C operators and opcodes in the object - why the focus on conditionals?
If you don't pay what you should, you are stealing. It really is as simple as that. You might check the batteries on your moral compass, or try one of the analog models, as it seems a bit off.
I really like the way you out that. It's not about "the rich" vs everyone else, because if you're not a part of a powerful clique, your wealth won't help you, and if you know the right people, went to the right schools, and can be useful, wealth will flow your way as a beneficiary of the corruption.
... that your kids/grandkids are paying for your health care? Far too many Boomers are quite OK with that - even if they have money, they try to spend it all before they die, and not give any to their descendants.
Sure, unless you'd like a private practice. You know, get to know your patients and their families over the decades of your career and provide ongoing care to that set of people, and would like the non-money rewards for seeing the results of your care. When the alternative is spending no more than 15 minutes per randomly-selected patient from the queue, it's not just about the money.
But why is that a problem? If you have an expensive ongoing condition, sorry, life's not fair (do adults really need to be told this?). If your ongoing care is beyond what anyone can reasonably pay, then you either pay the high risk pool amount every year, or you just don't get the care (and yes perhaps that means you die) because there are a finite number of doctors and some sort of rationing is eventually necessary. Whatever system you come up with, most people will not be able to get all the care they'd like: just like anything else, supply isn't infinite.
If you have a high-deductible policy (which today are always cheaper in the long run), you pay for most care directly, and insurance is just there for the expenses too large to save for.
Personally, I think handling health insurance the same way most states handle car insurance is the way to go. Most people just shop normally (and yes, based on the assessment of your personal risk, just like car insurance), but the highest risk few pay only the fixed rates of the high-risk pool. Insurers have to take everyone, and take the loss on that pool, as the price of doing business for the rest. IMO it's a proven working model with minimal government involvement.
BTW, "profit" is not a dirty word - it also drives technological innovation, efficiency, and long-term lower prices. A system based on profit-motive is easier to get right, because the corruption is "baked in" upfront, it's part of how and why the system works in an open way, unlike anything decided by a central committee. It can of coruse go wrong in many ways, but it isn't wrong per se.
Hahaha, organic food! It's healthy because it doesn't have chemicals, right?
ACA has one really great idea in it IMO: getting employers out of the healthcare business. The closer we can come to people buying their healthcare directly, the less we'll see insane pricing.
I was never much into pre-purchasing games (D3 is my badge of shame), but kickstarter seems very different to me - I'll pay far more to help kickstart an indie game, with far more chance of epic fail,, just to get the big producers/distributers out of the picture and see what the devs can really do.
Just look at all the morons that bought Diablo 3 giving the green light to 'online only games' f2p, auction house, and SINGLE PLAYER LAG.
None of those were the reason the game was bad, though (well, auction house did hurt a bit, but they're removing it). The game was bad because it was overproduced and uninspired. It's the brainless gaming senior management that's to blame for that one.
Sure, but the only honest response is to skip the second step too. You simply cannot reasonably argue that the product was so bad you had to steal it.
Do people really like these big AAA console-port titles based on their content in the first place? Or is it just a burning need to play what everyone else is playing? The latter makes much more sense as a reason to get a copy by whatever means even if the game is bad.
It's theft of services. Not paying for what you use is stealing, plain and simple. You'll likely do it whatever it's called, and it's no great evil, but let's not kid ourselves about what it is.
Just remember when your healthcare premium triples next year (if you're young): no Republicans voted for it. You can make this ACA system work, but only by pushing the cost of care for older (and on average wealthier) people down onto people in their 20s, who rarely need expensive care. It's really an odd choice to provide for the needy by forcing those earning less to pitch in a significant share, instead of finding a different way to provide, but apparently that's what people want.
Funny how medical tourism turns out to only be available to the wealthy...
No, it's not - the reverse really. If the treatment or surgery is expensive enough in the US, then a flight to Thailand and inpatient hospital care there is cheaper than care in the US. If you're wealthy, you don't go to a country with no medical liability and take your chances for the best care, you just write the check.
OTOH, single payer in the US with certainly create a 2-tier healthcare system, with doctors either working as employees of the hospital system, or working on a cash-only basis for far more money catering to wealthy clients. This has already started happening as doctor compensation is falling within the system. Long waits and second-tier care for the many, immediate boutique care for the few. But apparently that's the system people want.
If a compiler finds itself able to remove my if statement then either it's wrong or far more likely I made a mistake.
You do realize modern optimized object code lacks any straightforward relationship to the source? It can be quite a puzzle sometimes when debugging through the binary. The way instruction pipelining works makes good object code look quite odd sometimes. The instructions corresponding to one line of source might be scattered and mixed with the object from the next 20 lines, depending on what different parts of the CPU are going to be busy doing, and when the result will be needed.
Why would you want your object to map directly to your source, unless you specifically want debuggable object instead of optimized object?
For that matter, do you ever write cross-platform code with #ifdefs? Sometimes blocks can be removed at compile time on one platform and not another, and sometimes it's not obvious that's going to be the case (especially when those #ifdefs are in library code, so that "function call" is inline on one platform but not another).
Slashdot Mirror
Coal ash makes good cheap concrete - why would you waste it in a lake? As far as CO2, you can't expect every culture to share your religious beliefs.
As far as the mining - it's usually cheap and easy at first, becoming ever more difficult and dangerous over time. But in 10 years solar might finally make sense, so a solution that's right for 10 years isn't a bad plan for a developing nation.
I think we're getting close to solar thermal making sense for anywhere land is cheap. There are still some hurdles though: cheap, low-tech energy storage (e.g., molten salts) need to mature, and a better working fluid would be nice: something not too toxic, and non-corrosive (you can use water, of course, but state-change systems are noticeably less efficient).
they'd be competitors for manufacturing, which we can barely do any more as it is.
America's manufacturing capacity is larger than it's ever been - there has never been a decade in which it has fallen. Don't confuse the lack of manufacturing jobs with the lack of manufacturing capacity - automation and technology keep happening.
My larger question is...with our money woes in the US, wtf are we sending money ANYWHERE outside our borders rather than using it to help ourselves of debt, and help our own poor people internally?
What are you smoking? All money is sent to supporters of politicians, internal or external. Old people (some of whom are poor) get the lion's share, of course, but the more poor people dependent on government checks we can create, the better for politicians.
Some crazy people believe in saving for inevitable expenses, rather than begging from society to help you out because you didn't do what was obviously needed of you. What a bunch of whack-job Libertarian Randroids!
As there are no moral "first principles", what else can one do but assert them? I can arbitrarily assert that "stealing is wrong", and hope your intuitions agree, or I can arbitrarily assert something else and try to deduce "stealing is wrong" from it, but that wouldn't change the need,
If I have a DVD player in my car with the screen visible to the driver, that's against CA law. Doesn't matter if it's off. Many states have similar laws, which is why the screen built into my dash can play DVDs, but only when the car is parked - that's the accepted legal work-around.
Oh, I don't doubt your ability to rationalize your behavior - humans can convince ourselves that just about anything is OK if we try hard enough. But you shouldn't.
gah, slashcode blows goats. "(x >> 2) || (x <<30)" into a rotate.
OK, sounds like a feature request that some compiler vendor might take you up on. But eliminating the conditional is so common that most people wouldn't want that spew. Would you also want a warning that "x *= 8" was optimized into a shift left instruction on one platform, and three add instruction on another? That "(x > 30)" was optimized into a rotate instruction some platform? Heck, half your lines of code won't have 1-for-1 mappings between C operators and opcodes in the object - why the focus on conditionals?
If you don't pay what you should, you are stealing. It really is as simple as that. You might check the batteries on your moral compass, or try one of the analog models, as it seems a bit off.
I really like the way you out that. It's not about "the rich" vs everyone else, because if you're not a part of a powerful clique, your wealth won't help you, and if you know the right people, went to the right schools, and can be useful, wealth will flow your way as a beneficiary of the corruption.
Every time you say you don't believe the fine is really a tax, a fairy dies.
If the deal is "you can pay us money to play our game" and you do the latter but not the former, you're stealing, regardless of weasel words.
... that your kids/grandkids are paying for your health care? Far too many Boomers are quite OK with that - even if they have money, they try to spend it all before they die, and not give any to their descendants.
Sure, unless you'd like a private practice. You know, get to know your patients and their families over the decades of your career and provide ongoing care to that set of people, and would like the non-money rewards for seeing the results of your care. When the alternative is spending no more than 15 minutes per randomly-selected patient from the queue, it's not just about the money.
But why is that a problem? If you have an expensive ongoing condition, sorry, life's not fair (do adults really need to be told this?). If your ongoing care is beyond what anyone can reasonably pay, then you either pay the high risk pool amount every year, or you just don't get the care (and yes perhaps that means you die) because there are a finite number of doctors and some sort of rationing is eventually necessary. Whatever system you come up with, most people will not be able to get all the care they'd like: just like anything else, supply isn't infinite.
If you have a high-deductible policy (which today are always cheaper in the long run), you pay for most care directly, and insurance is just there for the expenses too large to save for.
Personally, I think handling health insurance the same way most states handle car insurance is the way to go. Most people just shop normally (and yes, based on the assessment of your personal risk, just like car insurance), but the highest risk few pay only the fixed rates of the high-risk pool. Insurers have to take everyone, and take the loss on that pool, as the price of doing business for the rest. IMO it's a proven working model with minimal government involvement.
BTW, "profit" is not a dirty word - it also drives technological innovation, efficiency, and long-term lower prices. A system based on profit-motive is easier to get right, because the corruption is "baked in" upfront, it's part of how and why the system works in an open way, unlike anything decided by a central committee. It can of coruse go wrong in many ways, but it isn't wrong per se.
Hahaha, organic food! It's healthy because it doesn't have chemicals, right?
ACA has one really great idea in it IMO: getting employers out of the healthcare business. The closer we can come to people buying their healthcare directly, the less we'll see insane pricing.
I was never much into pre-purchasing games (D3 is my badge of shame), but kickstarter seems very different to me - I'll pay far more to help kickstart an indie game, with far more chance of epic fail,, just to get the big producers/distributers out of the picture and see what the devs can really do.
Just look at all the morons that bought Diablo 3 giving the green light to 'online only games' f2p, auction house, and SINGLE PLAYER LAG.
None of those were the reason the game was bad, though (well, auction house did hurt a bit, but they're removing it). The game was bad because it was overproduced and uninspired. It's the brainless gaming senior management that's to blame for that one.
Sure, but the only honest response is to skip the second step too. You simply cannot reasonably argue that the product was so bad you had to steal it.
Do people really like these big AAA console-port titles based on their content in the first place? Or is it just a burning need to play what everyone else is playing? The latter makes much more sense as a reason to get a copy by whatever means even if the game is bad.
It's theft of services. Not paying for what you use is stealing, plain and simple. You'll likely do it whatever it's called, and it's no great evil, but let's not kid ourselves about what it is.
Just remember when your healthcare premium triples next year (if you're young): no Republicans voted for it. You can make this ACA system work, but only by pushing the cost of care for older (and on average wealthier) people down onto people in their 20s, who rarely need expensive care. It's really an odd choice to provide for the needy by forcing those earning less to pitch in a significant share, instead of finding a different way to provide, but apparently that's what people want.
Funny how medical tourism turns out to only be available to the wealthy...
No, it's not - the reverse really. If the treatment or surgery is expensive enough in the US, then a flight to Thailand and inpatient hospital care there is cheaper than care in the US. If you're wealthy, you don't go to a country with no medical liability and take your chances for the best care, you just write the check.
OTOH, single payer in the US with certainly create a 2-tier healthcare system, with doctors either working as employees of the hospital system, or working on a cash-only basis for far more money catering to wealthy clients. This has already started happening as doctor compensation is falling within the system. Long waits and second-tier care for the many, immediate boutique care for the few. But apparently that's the system people want.
If a compiler finds itself able to remove my if statement then either it's wrong or far more likely I made a mistake.
You do realize modern optimized object code lacks any straightforward relationship to the source? It can be quite a puzzle sometimes when debugging through the binary. The way instruction pipelining works makes good object code look quite odd sometimes. The instructions corresponding to one line of source might be scattered and mixed with the object from the next 20 lines, depending on what different parts of the CPU are going to be busy doing, and when the result will be needed.
Why would you want your object to map directly to your source, unless you specifically want debuggable object instead of optimized object?
For that matter, do you ever write cross-platform code with #ifdefs? Sometimes blocks can be removed at compile time on one platform and not another, and sometimes it's not obvious that's going to be the case (especially when those #ifdefs are in library code, so that "function call" is inline on one platform but not another).