No they aren't, they're constraint based systems. flow of control isn't the focus. You could easily reduce a spreadsheet to a bunch of Prolog or to almost any functional language.
No kidding. Also, it MAY not be that easy to review the code in a spreadsheet, but it is VERY VERY EASY to test it. If you want reliable spreadsheets its PERFECTLY possible to test them to the Nth degree, far more so than with most other code. You have a place to put the tests, and a place to put the expected results, its all rather devilishly simple actually. For that matter you can document the bejeezus out of them too.
I think spreadsheets are like any sort of simple interpreted language. Idiots can easily blow their left foot off. Real software engineers can also do some very cool stuff. Most of the perl code I've seen is ugly as all hell and pretty worthless, but MY perl code is a thing of beauty that people maintain for years. Its all in how you use the tool.
Publisher? Distributor? Retailer? When you are talking about pure e-commerce of digital goods these are distinctions without differences. In the end the guy that has the PDF of Accelerondo gets to decide what it costs and where it gets sold. People will find it and buy it and there are plenty of places that can supply the finding and buying function besides Amazon. They have a viselike grip on nothing.
It doesn't matter. He only has to be the supplier of the market for Charles Stross, that's all. Amazon can't simply watch as every Charles Stross beats a path to some other distribution channel. Every author who does so is devaluing the entire platform that Amazon has built. As I said before the barriers to entry really are pretty low at this point, and getting lower all the time. Certainly to become a business of the size and scale of Amazon is a vast undertaking, but being able to sell novels online is not. Thus again, as I said before, the analogy is more like ESPN and Comcast. Sure, Comcast can try to play chicken and refuse to deal with ESPN, but sooner or later it will boomerang on them. Comcast is actually in a much STRONGER position than Amazon because its unlikely/impossible for customers to go elsewhere. Amazon has no such lock-in. They can lock up their little Kindle walled garden, but Android tables with e-reader software are a commodity. They're sub $100 now and will be a $20 item in a year or two. If Amazon gives people too much hassle they'll just go buy one that can work with generic publisher platforms and that will be it. Google will be happy to show their ads and help people find where to buy.
He's full of it. Charles Stross is an excellent writer, whom I will seek out and read. If he's not on Kindle/Amazon at some reasonable price THEN I WON'T BUY FROM AMAZON. Its just like you say here with buying a paperback, I will buy an iPad or whatever the heck it takes to get Charlie's books.
The TRUE analogy here would be ESPN and Comcast. Every so often ESPN TELLS COMCAST how much they're paying for their channel, AND COMCAST PAYS IT. So, Charles, this is what you do, you tell Amazon what you ARE GOING TO GET for a royalty, and they will pass it on to me, or someone else will. Its just that simple.
Honestly, I don't see how Amazon has more or less leverage than any other publisher has ever had. Publisher's have a good bit of weight in the market and they pretty well dictate what up-and-coming authors are going to get (and hint, it was always crap in case you forgot Chuck). However when you're Charles Stross or Steven King, etc then you pretty much have the shoe on your foot and do the kickin'. Just like Ace is going to suck it up and pay a nice advance and a good royalty or else you'll go to Tor, so Amazon will to or else you'll go to Apple.
As time goes on this becomes less and less of a problem as well because eReaders are now pretty much a generic hardware commodity and little private walled-gardens like Apple and Kindle are really fairly silly. The whole book technology stack just isn't that daunting, In a week a guy like me can have a publisher up and running with an app that will let their customers pay for and access ebooks over the net. Yes, Amazon is big and they are slick and they'll always be an attractive marketplace, but the barriers to entry are now too low to let them rake everyone over the coals and get high monopoly rents.
The difference between propanol and ethanol is trivial in this context. Actually the shorter chain molecule is going to be a slightly better drying agent by mass.
Fuel drying additive IS anhydrous ethyl/methyl alcohol. That's what alcohol does is dissolve the water. The problem is its also hygroscopic, so it will pull water right out of the air. The upshot is the ethyl in E10 can dry out the gas, but it can also attract more moisture. Adding drygas will do the same thing, you don't want either one to sit in your tank for a long time if you can help it.
Lots of factors are involved, but the fundamental weakness is when people haven't been taught how to THINK. Well, thinking is dangerous to the status quo so of course you can trace some things back to various parties. The truth is though, most of it is just human nature. Human society is flawed because human beings aren't well-adapted to participating in a globe-spanning civilization such as our own. Its failure seems almost inevitable really.
And we all know it. Nobody gets to be head of the FCC and is so stupid they cannot understand how ANY PAID PRIORITY invalidates the whole concept of network neutrality. We need to keep hammering on these fuckers until we have (at least) retail ISPs under Title II and that's ALL there is to it.
I've done plenty of dieting and I have enjoyed plenty of meat at earlier times in my life. Really though, admit it, all the "rar I'm a carnivore!" people ARE afraid to validate the contrary finding, that they've been eating badly and hurting themselves and could have enjoyed equally tasty food that was a lot healthier. Its like climate change, all the people driving SUVs want it to not exist. Just the way we humans are.
But you misapprehend me if you think I don't believe that people DO enjoy meat. That's not really a debatable point. Sure they do. They'd just be healthier and get equal enjoyment other ways.
Oh don't be ridiculous. I never claimed that everyone has my tastes etc. that's just your unwarranted assumptions. There is a vast array of foods that fall into the category of vegetarian or vegan, surely everyone's tastes can be accommodated. All I'm really saying is that most people have rejected "pseudo meat", not properly prepared and unabashedly vegetarian food, which they have often never experienced. Imitation hot dogs made of tofu are not the sin-qua-non of vegetarian, they kinda suck if you ask me. OTOH there are very good dishes you can find, IF you know where to look. Sadly in the US all you get are the tofu hot dogs.
Right, the no-meat version is better;) If its cooked well, which the Chinese can do since they've been cooking this way for 1000's of years, then you get a very good result. If your criteria for good food is limited to "It must be meat or exactly like meat to be good" then you're of course setting up nothing but failure. I think people mostly don't want to enjoy their non-meat meals, they COULD, but they'd feel like maybe they weren't eating well before. Its scary.
You can't compare 15 billion of one to 3 billion of the other. Its not at all clear that the Earth can sustain 3 billion or even 1 billion meat eaters. It is absolutely clear that a given number of people will have less impact if they don't eat meat. So I think your 'point' is not meaningful.
The health advantages are entirely clear, there's just a huge business dedicated to meat eating that obscures the facts. Read the survey of health outcomes in China (the 'China Study' as it T Colin Powell calls it). The results are clear, the people NOT EATING MEAT had drastically reduced cardiac disease (about 1/7 as much) as the people who ate meat at all. Most of the benefit arises at basically zero animal protein.
My real point is that if people are feeding you tofu and telling you "this is supposed to be like meat" then they're doing it wrong. It should be its own thing, and in its own right can provide just as much eating pleasure as all these meat products. What I have found is that I can always find some enthusiasm for eating those things, but that once I don't eat the meat products I actually find them unpalatable.
I wouldn't eat test tube meat for the same reason I don't eat 'real' meat, its not healthy. The best available scientific evidence (not opinions, evidence) indicates that health increases as meat intake declines all the way to 0 and most of the benefit happens right near zero.
As for the wonders of this or that hunk of burnt flesh... try eating other things. My real point is that I don't get why people are fixed on trying to imitate food X with food Y when food Y has its own virtues if you just stop fixating on "I must eat something just like X". You really don't. There's a whole world of good food out there that your typical meat-obsessed American is ignorant of that they should be eating and can very much enjoy. There's no need to keep trying to make ersatz hot dogs and chickens out of it.
I don't get the fixation people have with 'tastes like meat' (actually the texture is the tricky part, taste is rather easy). If you actually learn to cook reasonably well then meat dishes actually aren't the most fantastic things around. I find that not eating meat is pretty trivial and given the cost, health, sustainability, and ethical advantages of that choice why not do it? I have yet to meet a person who switched and didn't FEEL much better afterwards. Almost any garden variety restaurant in China can make you a dish that usually can't be distinguished from a meat dish, and if I wish I can make several of them myself. OTOH there are plenty of other ways to enjoy your vegetables more.
Well, this is a good question. Simple models are only possible when there are very limited higher-order effects. Look at climate models, we have vast amounts of data, but the system being modelled contains complex non-linear dynamics. You can make general predictions about the global behavior of such a system, which might be useful in some sorts of social engineering, but you probably can't get a very good handle on the details. This means it may well be impossible to say what sorts of inputs to the system will cause it to move in various directions. That would obviate the possibility of 'engineering' such a system, except perhaps in some very crude ways, which are probably already well within the capabilities of modern politicians.
Gosh, who's feeding you the nuclear propaganda? This is ridiculous, if you want to remain an ignoramus then be my guest. If not then go do some study on the subject and learn that maybe some of the assumptions you're operating on are simply not true or have some exaggeration in them. Nuclear power isn't the worst option, by far, but it isn't the ONLY option by far either. Anyone who believes it is simply isn't in command of all the facts. Your choice, learn or not.
I just disposed of some 90's era monitors that were still working fine. I have a scanner from the 1990s, and a printer from 2003. My keyboard is from 1985. I have some very old mice, a floppy drive that has migrated from homebuild to homebuild for a VERY long time, etc. A lot of stuff doesn't last more than 3-4 years, but your better quality stuff does.
Oh, its possible to use salt water in a properly designed system, but it does have disadvantages as you say. I think the technical feasibility of these reactors is fairly well proven, but its debatable that they are better than ones built on land.
Slashdot Mirror
No they aren't, they're constraint based systems. flow of control isn't the focus. You could easily reduce a spreadsheet to a bunch of Prolog or to almost any functional language.
No kidding. Also, it MAY not be that easy to review the code in a spreadsheet, but it is VERY VERY EASY to test it. If you want reliable spreadsheets its PERFECTLY possible to test them to the Nth degree, far more so than with most other code. You have a place to put the tests, and a place to put the expected results, its all rather devilishly simple actually. For that matter you can document the bejeezus out of them too.
I think spreadsheets are like any sort of simple interpreted language. Idiots can easily blow their left foot off. Real software engineers can also do some very cool stuff. Most of the perl code I've seen is ugly as all hell and pretty worthless, but MY perl code is a thing of beauty that people maintain for years. Its all in how you use the tool.
Publisher? Distributor? Retailer? When you are talking about pure e-commerce of digital goods these are distinctions without differences. In the end the guy that has the PDF of Accelerondo gets to decide what it costs and where it gets sold. People will find it and buy it and there are plenty of places that can supply the finding and buying function besides Amazon. They have a viselike grip on nothing.
It doesn't matter. He only has to be the supplier of the market for Charles Stross, that's all. Amazon can't simply watch as every Charles Stross beats a path to some other distribution channel. Every author who does so is devaluing the entire platform that Amazon has built. As I said before the barriers to entry really are pretty low at this point, and getting lower all the time. Certainly to become a business of the size and scale of Amazon is a vast undertaking, but being able to sell novels online is not. Thus again, as I said before, the analogy is more like ESPN and Comcast. Sure, Comcast can try to play chicken and refuse to deal with ESPN, but sooner or later it will boomerang on them. Comcast is actually in a much STRONGER position than Amazon because its unlikely/impossible for customers to go elsewhere. Amazon has no such lock-in. They can lock up their little Kindle walled garden, but Android tables with e-reader software are a commodity. They're sub $100 now and will be a $20 item in a year or two. If Amazon gives people too much hassle they'll just go buy one that can work with generic publisher platforms and that will be it. Google will be happy to show their ads and help people find where to buy.
He's full of it. Charles Stross is an excellent writer, whom I will seek out and read. If he's not on Kindle/Amazon at some reasonable price THEN I WON'T BUY FROM AMAZON. Its just like you say here with buying a paperback, I will buy an iPad or whatever the heck it takes to get Charlie's books.
The TRUE analogy here would be ESPN and Comcast. Every so often ESPN TELLS COMCAST how much they're paying for their channel, AND COMCAST PAYS IT. So, Charles, this is what you do, you tell Amazon what you ARE GOING TO GET for a royalty, and they will pass it on to me, or someone else will. Its just that simple.
Honestly, I don't see how Amazon has more or less leverage than any other publisher has ever had. Publisher's have a good bit of weight in the market and they pretty well dictate what up-and-coming authors are going to get (and hint, it was always crap in case you forgot Chuck). However when you're Charles Stross or Steven King, etc then you pretty much have the shoe on your foot and do the kickin'. Just like Ace is going to suck it up and pay a nice advance and a good royalty or else you'll go to Tor, so Amazon will to or else you'll go to Apple.
As time goes on this becomes less and less of a problem as well because eReaders are now pretty much a generic hardware commodity and little private walled-gardens like Apple and Kindle are really fairly silly. The whole book technology stack just isn't that daunting, In a week a guy like me can have a publisher up and running with an app that will let their customers pay for and access ebooks over the net. Yes, Amazon is big and they are slick and they'll always be an attractive marketplace, but the barriers to entry are now too low to let them rake everyone over the coals and get high monopoly rents.
The difference between propanol and ethanol is trivial in this context. Actually the shorter chain molecule is going to be a slightly better drying agent by mass.
Fuel drying additive IS anhydrous ethyl/methyl alcohol. That's what alcohol does is dissolve the water. The problem is its also hygroscopic, so it will pull water right out of the air. The upshot is the ethyl in E10 can dry out the gas, but it can also attract more moisture. Adding drygas will do the same thing, you don't want either one to sit in your tank for a long time if you can help it.
Lots of factors are involved, but the fundamental weakness is when people haven't been taught how to THINK. Well, thinking is dangerous to the status quo so of course you can trace some things back to various parties. The truth is though, most of it is just human nature. Human society is flawed because human beings aren't well-adapted to participating in a globe-spanning civilization such as our own. Its failure seems almost inevitable really.
When half the people stopped voting and much of the other half got so poor an education that they can't distinguish between truth and bullshit.
And we all know it. Nobody gets to be head of the FCC and is so stupid they cannot understand how ANY PAID PRIORITY invalidates the whole concept of network neutrality. We need to keep hammering on these fuckers until we have (at least) retail ISPs under Title II and that's ALL there is to it.
This is a nice book
http://www.amazon.com/The-Engi...
I've done plenty of dieting and I have enjoyed plenty of meat at earlier times in my life. Really though, admit it, all the "rar I'm a carnivore!" people ARE afraid to validate the contrary finding, that they've been eating badly and hurting themselves and could have enjoyed equally tasty food that was a lot healthier. Its like climate change, all the people driving SUVs want it to not exist. Just the way we humans are.
But you misapprehend me if you think I don't believe that people DO enjoy meat. That's not really a debatable point. Sure they do. They'd just be healthier and get equal enjoyment other ways.
Oh don't be ridiculous. I never claimed that everyone has my tastes etc. that's just your unwarranted assumptions. There is a vast array of foods that fall into the category of vegetarian or vegan, surely everyone's tastes can be accommodated. All I'm really saying is that most people have rejected "pseudo meat", not properly prepared and unabashedly vegetarian food, which they have often never experienced. Imitation hot dogs made of tofu are not the sin-qua-non of vegetarian, they kinda suck if you ask me. OTOH there are very good dishes you can find, IF you know where to look. Sadly in the US all you get are the tofu hot dogs.
Right, the no-meat version is better ;) If its cooked well, which the Chinese can do since they've been cooking this way for 1000's of years, then you get a very good result. If your criteria for good food is limited to "It must be meat or exactly like meat to be good" then you're of course setting up nothing but failure. I think people mostly don't want to enjoy their non-meat meals, they COULD, but they'd feel like maybe they weren't eating well before. Its scary.
You can't compare 15 billion of one to 3 billion of the other. Its not at all clear that the Earth can sustain 3 billion or even 1 billion meat eaters. It is absolutely clear that a given number of people will have less impact if they don't eat meat. So I think your 'point' is not meaningful.
The health advantages are entirely clear, there's just a huge business dedicated to meat eating that obscures the facts. Read the survey of health outcomes in China (the 'China Study' as it T Colin Powell calls it). The results are clear, the people NOT EATING MEAT had drastically reduced cardiac disease (about 1/7 as much) as the people who ate meat at all. Most of the benefit arises at basically zero animal protein.
Well obviously you didn't do it right! Sheesh! ;) Really though, meat is just not a very useful part of the diet.
Yeah, go to China and try the actual cooking there. Its nothing like what you're probably getting in the US.
My real point is that if people are feeding you tofu and telling you "this is supposed to be like meat" then they're doing it wrong. It should be its own thing, and in its own right can provide just as much eating pleasure as all these meat products. What I have found is that I can always find some enthusiasm for eating those things, but that once I don't eat the meat products I actually find them unpalatable.
I wouldn't eat test tube meat for the same reason I don't eat 'real' meat, its not healthy. The best available scientific evidence (not opinions, evidence) indicates that health increases as meat intake declines all the way to 0 and most of the benefit happens right near zero.
As for the wonders of this or that hunk of burnt flesh... try eating other things. My real point is that I don't get why people are fixed on trying to imitate food X with food Y when food Y has its own virtues if you just stop fixating on "I must eat something just like X". You really don't. There's a whole world of good food out there that your typical meat-obsessed American is ignorant of that they should be eating and can very much enjoy. There's no need to keep trying to make ersatz hot dogs and chickens out of it.
I don't get the fixation people have with 'tastes like meat' (actually the texture is the tricky part, taste is rather easy). If you actually learn to cook reasonably well then meat dishes actually aren't the most fantastic things around. I find that not eating meat is pretty trivial and given the cost, health, sustainability, and ethical advantages of that choice why not do it? I have yet to meet a person who switched and didn't FEEL much better afterwards. Almost any garden variety restaurant in China can make you a dish that usually can't be distinguished from a meat dish, and if I wish I can make several of them myself. OTOH there are plenty of other ways to enjoy your vegetables more.
Well, this is a good question. Simple models are only possible when there are very limited higher-order effects. Look at climate models, we have vast amounts of data, but the system being modelled contains complex non-linear dynamics. You can make general predictions about the global behavior of such a system, which might be useful in some sorts of social engineering, but you probably can't get a very good handle on the details. This means it may well be impossible to say what sorts of inputs to the system will cause it to move in various directions. That would obviate the possibility of 'engineering' such a system, except perhaps in some very crude ways, which are probably already well within the capabilities of modern politicians.
Gosh, who's feeding you the nuclear propaganda? This is ridiculous, if you want to remain an ignoramus then be my guest. If not then go do some study on the subject and learn that maybe some of the assumptions you're operating on are simply not true or have some exaggeration in them. Nuclear power isn't the worst option, by far, but it isn't the ONLY option by far either. Anyone who believes it is simply isn't in command of all the facts. Your choice, learn or not.
I just disposed of some 90's era monitors that were still working fine. I have a scanner from the 1990s, and a printer from 2003. My keyboard is from 1985. I have some very old mice, a floppy drive that has migrated from homebuild to homebuild for a VERY long time, etc. A lot of stuff doesn't last more than 3-4 years, but your better quality stuff does.
true
Oh, its possible to use salt water in a properly designed system, but it does have disadvantages as you say. I think the technical feasibility of these reactors is fairly well proven, but its debatable that they are better than ones built on land.