Thanks for posting that, I've been looking into Haskell lately. I think though that an arguably better example might be J or APL. I'm not sure if those qualify entirely as functional? But they're expressive enough to be used as code golf languages. Here's an implementation of Conway's Game of Life in some forty-odd characters.(see also) I'm pretty sure it will take me years to be able to write anything like that.
The tradeoff with the functional languages of course is that reasoning about the code becomes more difficult, and mathematical elegance doesn't always translate into reasonable runtime requirements. But otherwise your point is pretty well demonstrated. One certainly *can* build higher level constructs out of simpler ones, or use explicit loops. But if your language does not let you easily manipulate lazily-evaluated infinite lists of integers, you're probably not going to go to the trouble of using those.
For most computing tasks the performance differences are pretty trivial, at least if the programming language benchmarks are any judge, and the performance of C comes with the cost of security issues. Yes, I'm sure that you write bulletproof code all day every day, but other people seem to have a problem with it. And I'm not sure you're aware, but most applications these days are written for the web or mobile environments, or both, and C is nowhere to be found in those markets. Many things are written in other languages today where once C was dominant or the only option.
I think there's a multi-decadal trend away from C, but let's agree to disagree for the moment, and we'll see where things are at in another couple decades.
Of course, most "learn to code" victims will just become technician-level coders and they basically have their time wasted. Better to become a carpenter, plumber or the like, then at least you have some real skills.
Do you not know that you're being something of a jerk when saying this, or not care?
necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW
I went over historical and potential future avenues to falsification a few posts ago. I don't know how you're translating "AGW was considered conclusively falsified at one point" to "no one has given criteria under which AGW could be falsified".
As for the projections, if you have the ability to criticize them then I look forward to reading your publication.
I find that the link you posted leads to a blog post, not a peer-reviewed journal article. I am sure you meant to link to one of Dr Spencer's published works. But again, the source of the CO2 is irrelevant. There is lots of evidence to suggest that the excess carbon is manmade, but whether or not it is, the effects of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere will be the same.
This is the last time I'm going to repeat myself in this thread. If you're going to ask questions and ignore the answers you can pretty much just fuck off.
As for any existence of any CO2 warming in a laboratory setting as being conclusive to establishing AGW, I'll agree, in the most trivial sense of having non-zero impact
At which point we reach the end of the discussion. If you're not arguing that there will be an impact, then you have some complaint about the projections, and the IPCC report will be your best source of information.
As to the separate issue of measuring human contributions, there was some interesting data collected on 9/11 with the ban on air travel, but generally it's pretty easy to track oil shipments and figure out what's being burned where. This correlates well with measures of the C12/C14 ratios indicating that the bulk of excess carbon is quite old. And yes, volcanic emissions have also been studied. This is all in the IPCC report. Stop trying to insist that your ignorance is valid and read the damn thing. I'm certain that you have nothing to add to this discussion, but at this point we'll never know since you're refusing to acquire basic knowledge of the subject.
P.S. whether or not the excess carbon is from human emissions is shockingly irrelevant to whether the excess carbon is a problem.
Nice try at moving the goalposts. Why don't you go read the IPCC report, it has answers to these questions. Kinda what it's for. Alternately, you could read more about the history of the discoveries here.
That you think this facile objection was somehow overlooked by the scientific community heretofore speaks volumes. You've demonstrated that you can read: why don't you apply yourself to some education rather than trying to insist on the validity of your ignorance.
However, to address your specific concern regarding natural warming, it is actually sufficient to demonstrate that there is CO2-induced warming. I don't know why you think postulating additional natural warming helps that situation. If you were going to postulate a natural cooling trend, my comments on negative feedbacks apply.
The research paper I mentioned goes over exactly that topic, why it was considered disproven and what observations were changing that view. However, since you insist on being spoon fed:
The fundamental driver of climate change is the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide. Any change in our understanding of how thermal radiation operates in atmospheres could potentially disprove AGW. Unfortunately that's a pretty easy topic to study and by this point we have ruled out essentially all alternatives.
It was known since Tyndall (1856) that atmospheric gases absorbed heat in differing amounts. It was also becoming widely accepted that great shifts in climate (ice ages) had happened in the past. Despite that, it was widely assumed that climate was stable or cyclical and that warm years would be equally balanced with cool ones in the long run. There were a few people looking for mechanisms by which climate might change, and one of them (Arrhenius) used Tyndall's data to determine that halving or doubling the amount of carbonic acid in the atmosphere could produce a temperature change of around 4-6 degrees C. This agrees relatively well with the modern figure.*
Arrhenius was immediately discredited for a number of reasons. Firstly it was noted that the absorption spectrum of CO2 overlapped with that of H2O, and of the two H2O was far stronger, so it was reasoned that CO2 could not have any effect. Also, the concentration of CO2 was high enough for it to be optically opaque, so adding more was not thought to have any effect. Lastly, after the invention of soda water someone had done a back of the envelope calculation about how much carbonic acid the oceans could hold, and found some number large enough to be able to write off any potential human impact.
As I said, this remained the dominant view until the 1950s, when a number of observations were made. People made measurements of ocean turnover, and discovered that the oceans mixed far more slowly than had been thought, which provided a mechanism for CO2 to build up in the atmosphere. Further spectral analyses showed gaps in the H2O spectrum which enabled CO2 to capture solar radiation. Airplanes, sounding rockets, and high-altitude balloons allowed better observations of the Earth's atmosphere, and in particular it was realized that the effect of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations was to push the edge of the CO2-rich layer further into space, which lengthens the path taken by outgoing long-wave radiation.
There are a few more details in the evidentiary chain, of course, but those were the points the initial refutation hinged on. Another notable attempt at disproof was the IRIS hypothesis involving cloud cover. If you wanted to speculate about new physics, you might invent another means of energy transfer from Earth to space. You'd have a job to do matching that to our observations of other planetary and stellar atmospheres, but you could try it. Alternately, some very large negative feedback loop might be discovered, but then you have to explain why it hasn't been observed until now, explain why it's not just as much of a problem, account for all known historical data, and account for extraterrestrial atmospheric observations as well. That's all that comes to mind other than the directly unphysical -- asserting greenhouse gases don't exist, say. Otherwise I hope we may consider your objection to be quite settled.
* He was correct about the magnitude and distribution of the temperature changes but his calculations were a bit flawed/oversimplified.
There are any number of observations which would disprove AGW, and in point of fact it was considered completely falsified through the first half of the 20th Century. For a good summary you might read Callendar 1949. I mean, let's not be silly, there are all sorts of sources for high quality information on the topic, and you've managed to preserve your ignorance thus far: you'll keep rationalizing your biases no matter what.
The simple truth is that AGW is at least as well establishes as Relativity and predates it, and any arguments about it are political and not scientific. The scientific argument was settled in the middle of last century.
You can always tell the ones who know nothing about climate science, because they fixate on the accuracy of GCMs instead of the actual evidence for AGW. Why don't you go read Arrhenius, Callendar, Keeling, Hansen, and the IPCC report, and then we can have a logical debate about it.
If you understood the models well enough to say anything about their accuracy or utility, you would be expressing your concerns in a journal publication. You're merely trying to discredit settled science. It doesn't work that way. If your epidemiological model is insufficiently predictive, one does not assume that the germ theory of disease is wrong.
And it's pretty ludicrous, because your questions are exactly the topic of the IPCC report. Do you have some intelligent criticism of that work, or were you just going to ignore it and sit polishing your own ignorance?
Does anyone seriously think she's going to support Science when the evidence says that it's a mental illness, not just an opinion?
Just an opinion? What? I don't know what you've been reading, but why don't you give this a skim and then maybe you can speak a little more sensibly on the topic.
The problem is the expectation that Linux is like Mac or Windows. The entire point of open source is to be able to make your own changes to the software and redistribute that. If that is not what you want, use a commercial OS.
I like how straightforward things are in your world. I'm afraid it bears little resemblance to our own. In the real world the immigration courts are already backlogged and underfunded. But hey, I guess you can just wave a little fairy dust on all this stuff and these people will all get rounded up and whisked away using no more resources than currently allocated. Brilliant. You should be President. Take a few more hits off that crack pipe and see if that will do it.
If "net lifetime output" includes social welfare spending on them, it is absolutely true.
Prove it, if you can.
Deportation isn't a criminal punishment and doesn't deprive people of life, liberty, or property, so different "due process" standards apply.
The due process is different but not nonexistent. I am going to assume that you have not been involved in any deportation proceedings. If you give people the opportunity to produce documentation then you have to allow them some time to actually get that, and for birth records from foreign countries it takes a while. Not doing so would unjustly target persons of various categories and risk deporting citizens. The ACLU probably has the lawsuit prepped already. Not giving people the opportunity to prove they live here legally is of course an even worse idea.
Ultimately this is a nation where we have rule of law, and the law does not currently allow for a "streamlined" deportation procedure, and the chances of that changing are nil, especially when coupled with a hundred-billion-dollar price tag. No matter how much you want this, it is not going to happen.
Your rationalization of your hatred is exactly as tortured as one could have imagined. You're proposing a police state on a scale that would make Stalin smile, and you say this is okay because the government is bad in other ways. I wonder what else we could justify in the same manner?
The cost in 2016 was around $10k and that comes down as the process becomes more efficient and streamlined. Many of these people can be brought to self-deport by going after employers and businesses that deal with them. And even $30k would still be cheap compared to the lifetime cost of admitting this large, uneducated, unskilled population
Streamlining that process means eliminating due process. Americans won't stand for that. And as for self-deportation, frankly that's the sort of comment that betrays a complete ignorance of the social conditions of being an illegal immigrant. You are welcome to provide statistics which show that that has ever happened to any notable degree. You also didn't bother to multiply umpteen thousand dollars by eleven million (or you know that that kind of funding levels are a non-starter), nor to consider the required police forces, nor to consider that the amount of administration and overhead required would also scale up (and poorly). Arguing that the net lifetime output of these people is less than the cost of deporting them is farcical. And as a supposed libertarian, how you reconcile this massive expansion of government with your own ideals is painful to imagine. Turns out you're just a misanthropic liar -- I'm sure that no one will be shocked to hear it.
If we had a free market, that would be true. But given the large degree of redistribution in our current welfare and tax system, letting in low skill workers is a huge net cost.
You should probably clear up this confusion with a local economics professor, although in your case a mental health professional may also be advisable.
If there is a standard Linux right now, it is probably Ubuntu, and specifically whatever their latest LTS happens to be. Which is to say that if you as J. Random Developer are going to pick a Linux to dev against, it will probably be that.
Linux is not just the thing you use when you get tired of what Microsoft does. It is its own separate ecosystem with distinct principles of operation, tradition, and even philosophy. People have been trying to make Unix into a desktop operating system for decades, and as it happens there has been an extremely successful OS vendor selling a polished Unix desktop experience -- you may have heard of this company called Apple.
No one is pulling a bait-and-switch on you here, you simply missed the point. Linux is the product of an entirely different system of software development, and when you choose F/OSS software that's exactly what you get. If it were not open source, there would not be fragmentation. However, the world at large has a great (business-driven) need for some sort of free open source Unix, so we have collectively put a lot of work into creating and maintaining that. Other people have needed other tools and libraries and created those, and still others package up those libraries and distribute them. Creating a distro is really just creating a public repository and maybe slapping some artwork in it. You can't take away the ability to do that without taking away access to the source code, which is the whole point of having this ecosystem in the first place.
Linux does not have a fragmentation problem, because Linux cannot be a problem with Linux. You may want Linux to be different. Most people do, which is why we have so many distros. You don't get to take the Linux out of it though. And beyond that, there is also no fragmentation problem in Linux: pretty much all the same software gets packaged for all distros, and for OSX too for that matter.
Use whichever Linux you would like. The differences are mostly superficial. If you can't deal with the number of choices out there, feel free to choose another OS. The rest of us will be using Linux because of that freedom of choice.
For the record, I don't like you. However, I am pretty sure that Perl is dying and that its niche as a scripting language has mostly evaporated or been filled with other things. Also, that particular AC is a fuckwit, and you responded well.
Whether or not technologies are still in wide use isn't necessarily the best measure of health for the technology. WordPress is widely used, but technologically it's horrifically obsolete. It's written in a declarative style, and can't be converted to an object-oriented codebase without destroying the software ecosystem that makes it useful. For its part, Perl still exists, but the kind of system automation that it has historically been most useful for has taken a bit of a back seat to other technologies which deal with operating systems as containers. It's an indelible part of the Unix toolchain, but other things tend to work just as well and have nicer syntax.
I see C being replaced with Go or Rust over the next few decades. I'm not sure what you might mean by 'custom security filter component' but it doesn't immediately sound like an appropriate domain for C.
(which makes all these "learn to code" initiatives so braindead)
The learn-to-code initiatives are trying to bring more people into the pipeline, since the industry isn't good about training people. Yes, it takes years to become competent as a programmer, but the point of these bootcamps is not to teach people how to be competent programmers but to teach people how to learn how to program.
The way the industry is structured currently is just plain bizarre. We have university CS programs where you will learn algorithmic analysis but the daily practice of programming is only included by accident, and we have coding bootcamps which will churn out semi-literate web monkeys who have never heard of Turing or Knuth. Neither is a particularly good path to becoming a good programmer, but what else is there?
And as an aside, I think you disrespect junior/novice programmers unduly. There's nothing wrong with being green, or even just being a hobbyist programmer. Where else are our greybeards going to come from? And don't we want other people to become involved in this activity that we enjoy? (We do enjoy programming, right? That's why we do this, right? I'm sure I'm debugging this misbegotten legacy junk because I enjoy it...) Anyway, I think it's worthwhile just for more people to learn to think programmatically.
We don't talk about JS in polite company, other then to note that there's no such thing as good JS.
If you're talking more about the ecosystem than the language, I would find it hard to argue. The language itself isn't that bad though. That is to say, if you pretend that classes don't exist (because they fundamentally do not), never use the new keyword, and learn its quirky scope rules it's not bad. It's kinda fun to be able to just glom together objects and methods into whatever shape you like.
That cheap labor is largely supplied by illegal immigration. Meaning, if you don't want so much cheap labor and more automation, just deport illegal immigrants.
As I recall, the cost to deport someone is in the neighborhood of $30k. There are 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. The right move economically is to pardon these people and make them participate in the legal economy like everyone else. There is zero economic justification for deportation; I'm surprised you would bother to make the argument.
I tend to prefer reduce(+) rather than sum(). The Java code example was taken from Stack Overflow. Perhaps you should add your answer there. However, while I appreciate that it is possible in this instance to write a relatively concise version of the code in question in Java, the point does not generalize: Java is verbose. I'm sorry you have trouble with that fact.
As it happens, I'm forgetting that in Ruby zero isn't falsy like in Javascript. The code should actually be:
Which looks more or less identical. I would also like to point out that the code you supplied does not constitute a valid Java program. Which was rather the point, that Java lacks both an easy syntax and an absolute performance edge. It's good at what it does, but one could say the same about COBOL, Fortran, and PHP.
But for line noise I'll refer you to my favorite FizzBuzz one-liner:
Percent operator does double duty as string substitution and modulus, and the arrays act as conditional statements. Rather a creative abuse of the language, IMO.
I disagree. The skill being taught is the ability to learn programming. I'm attending a coding academy at the moment (for reasons which are becoming increasingly obscure) and no one could possibly mistake the curriculum for a complete education, but unfortunately there's essentially no place offering anything better. CS grads can probably be trusted to have learned either Java, Python, or perhaps Javascript. They can probably discuss a bit about algorithmic complexity and may know something about compilers, parsers, and lexers. They may know something about OS design or circuit design. They may or may not have learned anything about source control. Unit testing is less likely. The actual day-to-day practice of programming will be pretty obscure. I'm betting that the average coding school graduate will have a much better handle on whether they have an affinity for programming than your average CS grad, and if there are "skills needed to succeed" they're not going to be taught at either place.
We likely need a further bridge between the coding school and the real world (some sort of apprenticeship, say), but providing these services is pretty expensive. The industry isn't stepping up. The private sector is finding it difficult (from conversations and observing a few schools go under). Does government have a role to play here?
To answer my own rhetorical question to some degree, the DoL is actually running a study to see if it's worthwhile to give veterans and people who suffered from the 2008 crash (career-wise) grants to attend coding school. It's called Reboot Northwest. So, whilst we argue, others are gathering data, but there are of course both philosophical and practical matters at stake.
First we need a "coding school" that is worth a damn. For the rest of this post I am going to say programming and not coding.
No, these people are certainly turning out coders and not programmers. They will know git and unit testing, but they won't know Knuth or Turing from a hole in the ground.
If such a program is to be instituted, It's going to have to be designed by the likes of Google, Canonical, and even Microsoft.
The industry is not interested in training its own. Otherwise there wouldn't need to be these programs. But I'm taking the words "self paced" and "internship" to mean that you haven't seriously thought about this issue. Internships are not replacements for classroom instruction, and getting someone from being a complete novice to the point where it's even worth it to pair them with a more senior dev takes quite a lot of instruction.
The point of the coding school cannot be to learn how to code to a professional standard, because that takes years no matter how you approach it -- it's why we have the concept of a junior developer. The point of the coding school must be to learn how to learn how to program.
Maybe this little snowflake should grow up and realize millions of people actually work there way through college studying late at night after working an 8 hour shift and then taking care of there kids.
Your attitude is crap, and this statement is just as applicable to any coding school attendee. Do you imagine that it takes no time or money to attend those?
Personally I'm not in a hurry to judge people for their choices, or to say that people can't be programmers. Yes, this profession requires a lot of continuing education. I don't see why this should be more concerning to the boot camp grad than the CS grad.
Don't get me started! Ever thought that some might not even WANT cgroups support in their system?
In an embedded system maybe. Otherwise I'm sure I'd be thrilled to hear a non-stupid reason for that.
systemd mandating it is a PITA!
Because you'd rather not run a recent kernel? Either you'll never know that cgroups are there or you've already recompiled both your kernel and systemd/OpenRC to disable them.
Just like relying on journalctl program running on a working booted system to diagnose in log why same system didn't boot.
The binary logs contain the normal text that any other log would have, plus a short checksum or somesuch that serves as an integrity check. They're legible with or without journalctl. However, journalctl is a rather nice way to dig into said logs.
And suggesting to use gcc to adjust a system's boot behavior you must be kidding me.
Outside of sysvinit pretty much all init systems are written in C. None require you to use anything but a text editor to change process behavior.
...veterans...have chosen shellscripting -- not bash! -- since it is the best tool for the job at hand.
Again, I literally wrote a book on the subject, and I beg to differ. However, if you have some argument to support the notion that process management is best done with shell scripts, you'd do a lot better to actually make that argument instead. Relying solely on argument from authority is not going to get you very far. Generally, you seem to be ignorant of the many reasons and methods which have led to sysvinit's replacement, so I can't imagine you have much of an argument to make, but do knock yourself out.
While C is faster in some cases, java is faster in other cases starting with Android 6.0.
As a falsehood this is fairly outrageous. Real benchmarks are available here.
Java must be considered good in its niche. Despite that, it's apparently necessary for you and others to write apologetics for it. As a language, it's verbose and unlovely. Worse than that, it's boring. Which of course makes it all the more suited for its purpose: most applications are boring. Boring code does what it's supposed to do in ways that are easy to understand.
Programming has two inheritances. The first is the theoretical foundation, stemming from the lambda calculus and that Turing guy. The second inheritance is that of the circuit and the capacitor: the actual mechanics of slinging bits around. It's probably fair enough to suggest that languages tend to favor either performance and bit-slinging or functional purity. Java occupies an uncomfortable niche in the sense that it is very much on the performance side of things rather than the functional, and yet it consistently falls short of C, and for that matter Rust and Erlang seem to stack up pretty well.
To borrow from Alan Perlis, "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing." Java may even be the perfect language of its category. It never goes on any adventures or does anything unexpected, and its performance is just fine, thank you. But you'll pardon me if I prefer
public static void main(String[] args) {
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 3; i < 1000; i++) {
if (i % 3 == 0 || i % 5 == 0) {
sum += i;
}
}
System.out.println(sum); }
Anything political parties do is either corrupt or can be painted as such. The details tend not to be important. Arrest whomever you like but then we have a more general hacking issue to attend to.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for posting that, I've been looking into Haskell lately. I think though that an arguably better example might be J or APL. I'm not sure if those qualify entirely as functional? But they're expressive enough to be used as code golf languages. Here's an implementation of Conway's Game of Life in some forty-odd characters.(see also) I'm pretty sure it will take me years to be able to write anything like that.
The tradeoff with the functional languages of course is that reasoning about the code becomes more difficult, and mathematical elegance doesn't always translate into reasonable runtime requirements. But otherwise your point is pretty well demonstrated. One certainly *can* build higher level constructs out of simpler ones, or use explicit loops. But if your language does not let you easily manipulate lazily-evaluated infinite lists of integers, you're probably not going to go to the trouble of using those.
For most computing tasks the performance differences are pretty trivial, at least if the programming language benchmarks are any judge, and the performance of C comes with the cost of security issues. Yes, I'm sure that you write bulletproof code all day every day, but other people seem to have a problem with it. And I'm not sure you're aware, but most applications these days are written for the web or mobile environments, or both, and C is nowhere to be found in those markets. Many things are written in other languages today where once C was dominant or the only option.
I think there's a multi-decadal trend away from C, but let's agree to disagree for the moment, and we'll see where things are at in another couple decades.
Of course, most "learn to code" victims will just become technician-level coders and they basically have their time wasted. Better to become a carpenter, plumber or the like, then at least you have some real skills.
Do you not know that you're being something of a jerk when saying this, or not care?
necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW
I went over historical and potential future avenues to falsification a few posts ago. I don't know how you're translating "AGW was considered conclusively falsified at one point" to "no one has given criteria under which AGW could be falsified".
As for the projections, if you have the ability to criticize them then I look forward to reading your publication.
I find that the link you posted leads to a blog post, not a peer-reviewed journal article. I am sure you meant to link to one of Dr Spencer's published works. But again, the source of the CO2 is irrelevant. There is lots of evidence to suggest that the excess carbon is manmade, but whether or not it is, the effects of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere will be the same.
This is the last time I'm going to repeat myself in this thread. If you're going to ask questions and ignore the answers you can pretty much just fuck off.
As for any existence of any CO2 warming in a laboratory setting as being conclusive to establishing AGW, I'll agree, in the most trivial sense of having non-zero impact
At which point we reach the end of the discussion. If you're not arguing that there will be an impact, then you have some complaint about the projections, and the IPCC report will be your best source of information.
As to the separate issue of measuring human contributions, there was some interesting data collected on 9/11 with the ban on air travel, but generally it's pretty easy to track oil shipments and figure out what's being burned where. This correlates well with measures of the C12/C14 ratios indicating that the bulk of excess carbon is quite old. And yes, volcanic emissions have also been studied. This is all in the IPCC report. Stop trying to insist that your ignorance is valid and read the damn thing. I'm certain that you have nothing to add to this discussion, but at this point we'll never know since you're refusing to acquire basic knowledge of the subject.
P.S. whether or not the excess carbon is from human emissions is shockingly irrelevant to whether the excess carbon is a problem.
Nice try at moving the goalposts. Why don't you go read the IPCC report, it has answers to these questions. Kinda what it's for. Alternately, you could read more about the history of the discoveries here.
That you think this facile objection was somehow overlooked by the scientific community heretofore speaks volumes. You've demonstrated that you can read: why don't you apply yourself to some education rather than trying to insist on the validity of your ignorance.
However, to address your specific concern regarding natural warming, it is actually sufficient to demonstrate that there is CO2-induced warming. I don't know why you think postulating additional natural warming helps that situation. If you were going to postulate a natural cooling trend, my comments on negative feedbacks apply.
The research paper I mentioned goes over exactly that topic, why it was considered disproven and what observations were changing that view. However, since you insist on being spoon fed:
The fundamental driver of climate change is the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide. Any change in our understanding of how thermal radiation operates in atmospheres could potentially disprove AGW. Unfortunately that's a pretty easy topic to study and by this point we have ruled out essentially all alternatives.
It was known since Tyndall (1856) that atmospheric gases absorbed heat in differing amounts. It was also becoming widely accepted that great shifts in climate (ice ages) had happened in the past. Despite that, it was widely assumed that climate was stable or cyclical and that warm years would be equally balanced with cool ones in the long run. There were a few people looking for mechanisms by which climate might change, and one of them (Arrhenius) used Tyndall's data to determine that halving or doubling the amount of carbonic acid in the atmosphere could produce a temperature change of around 4-6 degrees C. This agrees relatively well with the modern figure.*
Arrhenius was immediately discredited for a number of reasons. Firstly it was noted that the absorption spectrum of CO2 overlapped with that of H2O, and of the two H2O was far stronger, so it was reasoned that CO2 could not have any effect. Also, the concentration of CO2 was high enough for it to be optically opaque, so adding more was not thought to have any effect. Lastly, after the invention of soda water someone had done a back of the envelope calculation about how much carbonic acid the oceans could hold, and found some number large enough to be able to write off any potential human impact.
As I said, this remained the dominant view until the 1950s, when a number of observations were made. People made measurements of ocean turnover, and discovered that the oceans mixed far more slowly than had been thought, which provided a mechanism for CO2 to build up in the atmosphere. Further spectral analyses showed gaps in the H2O spectrum which enabled CO2 to capture solar radiation. Airplanes, sounding rockets, and high-altitude balloons allowed better observations of the Earth's atmosphere, and in particular it was realized that the effect of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations was to push the edge of the CO2-rich layer further into space, which lengthens the path taken by outgoing long-wave radiation.
There are a few more details in the evidentiary chain, of course, but those were the points the initial refutation hinged on. Another notable attempt at disproof was the IRIS hypothesis involving cloud cover. If you wanted to speculate about new physics, you might invent another means of energy transfer from Earth to space. You'd have a job to do matching that to our observations of other planetary and stellar atmospheres, but you could try it. Alternately, some very large negative feedback loop might be discovered, but then you have to explain why it hasn't been observed until now, explain why it's not just as much of a problem, account for all known historical data, and account for extraterrestrial atmospheric observations as well. That's all that comes to mind other than the directly unphysical -- asserting greenhouse gases don't exist, say. Otherwise I hope we may consider your objection to be quite settled.
* He was correct about the magnitude and distribution of the temperature changes but his calculations were a bit flawed/oversimplified.
There are any number of observations which would disprove AGW, and in point of fact it was considered completely falsified through the first half of the 20th Century. For a good summary you might read Callendar 1949. I mean, let's not be silly, there are all sorts of sources for high quality information on the topic, and you've managed to preserve your ignorance thus far: you'll keep rationalizing your biases no matter what.
The simple truth is that AGW is at least as well establishes as Relativity and predates it, and any arguments about it are political and not scientific. The scientific argument was settled in the middle of last century.
You can always tell the ones who know nothing about climate science, because they fixate on the accuracy of GCMs instead of the actual evidence for AGW. Why don't you go read Arrhenius, Callendar, Keeling, Hansen, and the IPCC report, and then we can have a logical debate about it.
If you understood the models well enough to say anything about their accuracy or utility, you would be expressing your concerns in a journal publication. You're merely trying to discredit settled science. It doesn't work that way. If your epidemiological model is insufficiently predictive, one does not assume that the germ theory of disease is wrong.
And it's pretty ludicrous, because your questions are exactly the topic of the IPCC report. Do you have some intelligent criticism of that work, or were you just going to ignore it and sit polishing your own ignorance?
Does anyone seriously think she's going to support Science when the evidence says that it's a mental illness, not just an opinion?
Just an opinion? What? I don't know what you've been reading, but why don't you give this a skim and then maybe you can speak a little more sensibly on the topic.
The problem is the expectation that Linux is like Mac or Windows. The entire point of open source is to be able to make your own changes to the software and redistribute that. If that is not what you want, use a commercial OS.
I like how straightforward things are in your world. I'm afraid it bears little resemblance to our own. In the real world the immigration courts are already backlogged and underfunded. But hey, I guess you can just wave a little fairy dust on all this stuff and these people will all get rounded up and whisked away using no more resources than currently allocated. Brilliant. You should be President. Take a few more hits off that crack pipe and see if that will do it.
If "net lifetime output" includes social welfare spending on them, it is absolutely true.
Prove it, if you can.
Deportation isn't a criminal punishment and doesn't deprive people of life, liberty, or property, so different "due process" standards apply.
The due process is different but not nonexistent. I am going to assume that you have not been involved in any deportation proceedings. If you give people the opportunity to produce documentation then you have to allow them some time to actually get that, and for birth records from foreign countries it takes a while. Not doing so would unjustly target persons of various categories and risk deporting citizens. The ACLU probably has the lawsuit prepped already. Not giving people the opportunity to prove they live here legally is of course an even worse idea.
Ultimately this is a nation where we have rule of law, and the law does not currently allow for a "streamlined" deportation procedure, and the chances of that changing are nil, especially when coupled with a hundred-billion-dollar price tag. No matter how much you want this, it is not going to happen.
Your rationalization of your hatred is exactly as tortured as one could have imagined. You're proposing a police state on a scale that would make Stalin smile, and you say this is okay because the government is bad in other ways. I wonder what else we could justify in the same manner?
The cost in 2016 was around $10k and that comes down as the process becomes more efficient and streamlined. Many of these people can be brought to self-deport by going after employers and businesses that deal with them. And even $30k would still be cheap compared to the lifetime cost of admitting this large, uneducated, unskilled population
Streamlining that process means eliminating due process. Americans won't stand for that. And as for self-deportation, frankly that's the sort of comment that betrays a complete ignorance of the social conditions of being an illegal immigrant. You are welcome to provide statistics which show that that has ever happened to any notable degree. You also didn't bother to multiply umpteen thousand dollars by eleven million (or you know that that kind of funding levels are a non-starter), nor to consider the required police forces, nor to consider that the amount of administration and overhead required would also scale up (and poorly). Arguing that the net lifetime output of these people is less than the cost of deporting them is farcical. And as a supposed libertarian, how you reconcile this massive expansion of government with your own ideals is painful to imagine. Turns out you're just a misanthropic liar -- I'm sure that no one will be shocked to hear it.
If we had a free market, that would be true. But given the large degree of redistribution in our current welfare and tax system, letting in low skill workers is a huge net cost.
You should probably clear up this confusion with a local economics professor, although in your case a mental health professional may also be advisable.
If there is a standard Linux right now, it is probably Ubuntu, and specifically whatever their latest LTS happens to be. Which is to say that if you as J. Random Developer are going to pick a Linux to dev against, it will probably be that.
Linux is not just the thing you use when you get tired of what Microsoft does. It is its own separate ecosystem with distinct principles of operation, tradition, and even philosophy. People have been trying to make Unix into a desktop operating system for decades, and as it happens there has been an extremely successful OS vendor selling a polished Unix desktop experience -- you may have heard of this company called Apple.
No one is pulling a bait-and-switch on you here, you simply missed the point. Linux is the product of an entirely different system of software development, and when you choose F/OSS software that's exactly what you get. If it were not open source, there would not be fragmentation. However, the world at large has a great (business-driven) need for some sort of free open source Unix, so we have collectively put a lot of work into creating and maintaining that. Other people have needed other tools and libraries and created those, and still others package up those libraries and distribute them. Creating a distro is really just creating a public repository and maybe slapping some artwork in it. You can't take away the ability to do that without taking away access to the source code, which is the whole point of having this ecosystem in the first place.
Linux does not have a fragmentation problem, because Linux cannot be a problem with Linux. You may want Linux to be different. Most people do, which is why we have so many distros. You don't get to take the Linux out of it though. And beyond that, there is also no fragmentation problem in Linux: pretty much all the same software gets packaged for all distros, and for OSX too for that matter.
Use whichever Linux you would like. The differences are mostly superficial. If you can't deal with the number of choices out there, feel free to choose another OS. The rest of us will be using Linux because of that freedom of choice.
For the record, I don't like you. However, I am pretty sure that Perl is dying and that its niche as a scripting language has mostly evaporated or been filled with other things. Also, that particular AC is a fuckwit, and you responded well.
Whether or not technologies are still in wide use isn't necessarily the best measure of health for the technology. WordPress is widely used, but technologically it's horrifically obsolete. It's written in a declarative style, and can't be converted to an object-oriented codebase without destroying the software ecosystem that makes it useful. For its part, Perl still exists, but the kind of system automation that it has historically been most useful for has taken a bit of a back seat to other technologies which deal with operating systems as containers. It's an indelible part of the Unix toolchain, but other things tend to work just as well and have nicer syntax.
I see C being replaced with Go or Rust over the next few decades. I'm not sure what you might mean by 'custom security filter component' but it doesn't immediately sound like an appropriate domain for C.
(which makes all these "learn to code" initiatives so braindead)
The learn-to-code initiatives are trying to bring more people into the pipeline, since the industry isn't good about training people. Yes, it takes years to become competent as a programmer, but the point of these bootcamps is not to teach people how to be competent programmers but to teach people how to learn how to program.
The way the industry is structured currently is just plain bizarre. We have university CS programs where you will learn algorithmic analysis but the daily practice of programming is only included by accident, and we have coding bootcamps which will churn out semi-literate web monkeys who have never heard of Turing or Knuth. Neither is a particularly good path to becoming a good programmer, but what else is there?
And as an aside, I think you disrespect junior/novice programmers unduly. There's nothing wrong with being green, or even just being a hobbyist programmer. Where else are our greybeards going to come from? And don't we want other people to become involved in this activity that we enjoy? (We do enjoy programming, right? That's why we do this, right? I'm sure I'm debugging this misbegotten legacy junk because I enjoy it...) Anyway, I think it's worthwhile just for more people to learn to think programmatically.
We don't talk about JS in polite company, other then to note that there's no such thing as good JS.
If you're talking more about the ecosystem than the language, I would find it hard to argue. The language itself isn't that bad though. That is to say, if you pretend that classes don't exist (because they fundamentally do not), never use the new keyword, and learn its quirky scope rules it's not bad. It's kinda fun to be able to just glom together objects and methods into whatever shape you like.
That cheap labor is largely supplied by illegal immigration. Meaning, if you don't want so much cheap labor and more automation, just deport illegal immigrants.
As I recall, the cost to deport someone is in the neighborhood of $30k. There are 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. The right move economically is to pardon these people and make them participate in the legal economy like everyone else. There is zero economic justification for deportation; I'm surprised you would bother to make the argument.
I tend to prefer reduce(+) rather than sum(). The Java code example was taken from Stack Overflow. Perhaps you should add your answer there. However, while I appreciate that it is possible in this instance to write a relatively concise version of the code in question in Java, the point does not generalize: Java is verbose. I'm sorry you have trouble with that fact.
As it happens, I'm forgetting that in Ruby zero isn't falsy like in Javascript. The code should actually be:
Which looks more or less identical. I would also like to point out that the code you supplied does not constitute a valid Java program. Which was rather the point, that Java lacks both an easy syntax and an absolute performance edge. It's good at what it does, but one could say the same about COBOL, Fortran, and PHP.
But for line noise I'll refer you to my favorite FizzBuzz one-liner:
Percent operator does double duty as string substitution and modulus, and the arrays act as conditional statements. Rather a creative abuse of the language, IMO.
I disagree. The skill being taught is the ability to learn programming. I'm attending a coding academy at the moment (for reasons which are becoming increasingly obscure) and no one could possibly mistake the curriculum for a complete education, but unfortunately there's essentially no place offering anything better. CS grads can probably be trusted to have learned either Java, Python, or perhaps Javascript. They can probably discuss a bit about algorithmic complexity and may know something about compilers, parsers, and lexers. They may know something about OS design or circuit design. They may or may not have learned anything about source control. Unit testing is less likely. The actual day-to-day practice of programming will be pretty obscure. I'm betting that the average coding school graduate will have a much better handle on whether they have an affinity for programming than your average CS grad, and if there are "skills needed to succeed" they're not going to be taught at either place.
We likely need a further bridge between the coding school and the real world (some sort of apprenticeship, say), but providing these services is pretty expensive. The industry isn't stepping up. The private sector is finding it difficult (from conversations and observing a few schools go under). Does government have a role to play here?
To answer my own rhetorical question to some degree, the DoL is actually running a study to see if it's worthwhile to give veterans and people who suffered from the 2008 crash (career-wise) grants to attend coding school. It's called Reboot Northwest. So, whilst we argue, others are gathering data, but there are of course both philosophical and practical matters at stake.
First we need a "coding school" that is worth a damn. For the rest of this post I am going to say programming and not coding.
No, these people are certainly turning out coders and not programmers. They will know git and unit testing, but they won't know Knuth or Turing from a hole in the ground.
If such a program is to be instituted, It's going to have to be designed by the likes of Google, Canonical, and even Microsoft.
The industry is not interested in training its own. Otherwise there wouldn't need to be these programs. But I'm taking the words "self paced" and "internship" to mean that you haven't seriously thought about this issue. Internships are not replacements for classroom instruction, and getting someone from being a complete novice to the point where it's even worth it to pair them with a more senior dev takes quite a lot of instruction.
The point of the coding school cannot be to learn how to code to a professional standard, because that takes years no matter how you approach it -- it's why we have the concept of a junior developer. The point of the coding school must be to learn how to learn how to program.
Maybe this little snowflake should grow up and realize millions of people actually work there way through college studying late at night after working an 8 hour shift and then taking care of there kids.
Your attitude is crap, and this statement is just as applicable to any coding school attendee. Do you imagine that it takes no time or money to attend those?
Personally I'm not in a hurry to judge people for their choices, or to say that people can't be programmers. Yes, this profession requires a lot of continuing education. I don't see why this should be more concerning to the boot camp grad than the CS grad.
Don't get me started! Ever thought that some might not even WANT cgroups support in their system?
In an embedded system maybe. Otherwise I'm sure I'd be thrilled to hear a non-stupid reason for that.
systemd mandating it is a PITA!
Because you'd rather not run a recent kernel? Either you'll never know that cgroups are there or you've already recompiled both your kernel and systemd/OpenRC to disable them.
Just like relying on journalctl program running on a working booted system to diagnose in log why same system didn't boot.
The binary logs contain the normal text that any other log would have, plus a short checksum or somesuch that serves as an integrity check. They're legible with or without journalctl. However, journalctl is a rather nice way to dig into said logs.
And suggesting to use gcc to adjust a system's boot behavior you must be kidding me .
Outside of sysvinit pretty much all init systems are written in C. None require you to use anything but a text editor to change process behavior.
...veterans...have chosen shellscripting -- not bash! -- since it is the best tool for the job at hand.
Again, I literally wrote a book on the subject, and I beg to differ. However, if you have some argument to support the notion that process management is best done with shell scripts, you'd do a lot better to actually make that argument instead. Relying solely on argument from authority is not going to get you very far. Generally, you seem to be ignorant of the many reasons and methods which have led to sysvinit's replacement, so I can't imagine you have much of an argument to make, but do knock yourself out.
While C is faster in some cases, java is faster in other cases starting with Android 6.0.
As a falsehood this is fairly outrageous. Real benchmarks are available here.
Java must be considered good in its niche. Despite that, it's apparently necessary for you and others to write apologetics for it. As a language, it's verbose and unlovely. Worse than that, it's boring. Which of course makes it all the more suited for its purpose: most applications are boring. Boring code does what it's supposed to do in ways that are easy to understand.
Programming has two inheritances. The first is the theoretical foundation, stemming from the lambda calculus and that Turing guy. The second inheritance is that of the circuit and the capacitor: the actual mechanics of slinging bits around. It's probably fair enough to suggest that languages tend to favor either performance and bit-slinging or functional purity. Java occupies an uncomfortable niche in the sense that it is very much on the performance side of things rather than the functional, and yet it consistently falls short of C, and for that matter Rust and Erlang seem to stack up pretty well.
To borrow from Alan Perlis, "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing." Java may even be the perfect language of its category. It never goes on any adventures or does anything unexpected, and its performance is just fine, thank you. But you'll pardon me if I prefer
to
Java borrowed from stack overflow
Anything political parties do is either corrupt or can be painted as such. The details tend not to be important. Arrest whomever you like but then we have a more general hacking issue to attend to.