The first generation of desktops booted right into a programming environment. Later on languages were just a subset of the default operating system, but eventually they werent included at all with most operating system and so they must be specifically sought after. Add to this that beginner programming just isnt as fun as it used to be.
Now the beginning programmer has to learn a fairly deep api that they dont really understand (..beginners..) just to do something simple like draw some pixels. For a beginning programmer all the code necessary to get to drawing pixels is just incantation, so todays deep incantations are just another barrier to entry. There are languages that get the boiler plate down to reasonably small amounts yet when prospective new programmer ask what language to learn first, the fun ones dont even make the list that people will give them, even though the list is often annotated to some degree with reasonable reasons: C, C++, Java, C#, Python,..
Now, honestly I dont see a downside to a world where the only people programming had had to put in some significant initiative to start with. Just recognizing that things arent all that great in terms of promoting entry into programming.
They are also strip-mining their own country. Its easy to sustain a lot of growth as long as you can mobilize ever larger amounts of resources. This is in fact how the soviet union was able to compete for so long, but eventually it could not keep increasing the amount of resources that it mobilized.
The western world also fuels growth in part through resource mobilization, but a non-trivial amount of that growth is also from pure value creation. Most people don't know that gasoline started as a waste product. It is capitalism that more effectively makes better and better uses of the resources that are available, and its driven by greed.
When your first shallow attempt to cast a bad light on the car manufacturer failed ("..defective, period."), you just went ahead and tried a different shallow method ("..then you have to ask.."), yet amazingly its not you thats the asshole, its other people.
Here is the thing. When you pick a theory first, and then just keep manufacturing more and more arguments in the hopes that one of them will stick, YOU are the asshole. You are the asshole because you are literally hoping that the car manufacturer did something wrong.
I'm actually curious to know why that was modded down. It's a point that many have made.
Because half of slashdotters lose their god damned minds as soon as the belief system that they put only shallow thought in proves to be completely irrational even at a shallow level.
There is no "correct" gender. There are different genders, each with their own privileges.
..and each with their own tendencies.
The feminists would have you believe that men keep women down because they dominate politics/etc: The Patriarchy.
This is however quite a bit backward. Men do not dominate politics because they keep women down. Men dominate these things because men have always been the primary protectors and women the primary caregivers. Men build the defenses. Men go to war. The feminists institution present the cause and effect backwards, and they know it but would rather be dishonest. Greed.
1918 - Arver v. United States - The Supreme Court upheld that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience. Their reasoning was that men are given the right to vote so therefore they have a responsibility to defend society, and thus the draft in the united states was held as constitutional.
One year later, in 1919, women were given the right to vote but were not told that they too had such a responsibility as men had for their right to vote.
This has stood not because its right or fair, but because men and women really are different, that men are still primary protectors and women are still primary caregivers.
Fast forward to today, and Hillary Clinton gets away with claiming that the primary victims of war are women. That when a man dies on the battlefield it is his wife that is the primary victim. She gets away with this because the fact remains that men and women are different, so the two levels of victim-hood (death vs widow) are not directly comparable.
We need to cut federal funding for all feminist issues. Their bullshit has gone way past rationality.
The problem we see in the EU is that it has become a bureaucratic, intransparent, undemocratic monster with a far too wide mandate.
Welcome to the machine. America is the same. Remember that we were a Union of States too, and then the Federal Government grew. Eventually the E.U. budget will be larger than all of its member States budgets combined, just like in America.
While I'm proud of my Senator (Wyden) and Paul for attempting to shine a spotlight on the "USA Freedom Act", they accomplished very little. A symbolic gesture for the Congressional records at most.
They accomplished: shine a spotlight on the "USA Freedom Act"
This has to do with knowledge.
Consider the case where I know that something is bad, and you know that something is bad, but neither of us know that the other also thinks its bad. In this case we are effectively loners even though we are not really alone.
Now the case where I know that something is bad, and you know that something is bad, and I know that you know that something is bad, and you know that I know that something is bad. In this case we are not loners by any measure.
Personally I like {}'s
Its the;'s that I could do without.
I actually think VB got this one almost right, with linebreaks separating statements, but has both an operator (:) to separate statements within a line when thats advantageous, as well as an operator (_) to continue statements onto the next line when thats advantageous.
Its really easy to write a bunch of C-style code and miss a semicolon. Its really hard to write a bunch of VB code and miss a linebreak, or have an erroneous line continuation or line separator. One of these is obviously better overall.
In the case of small bodies (such as spacecraft) the atmosphere can substitute for the third body.
No, it can't.
You have found a way to lose enough energy for the object to remain in the system, but have not found a way to then add the energy necessary to put the object into a stable orbit (one that doesnt intersect your "solution" atmosphere.)
To be quite clear: If the orbit intersects the atmosphere this time around, and you dont add energy at some point immediately after that, then it will again intersect the atmosphere the next time around, and the time after that.... it will only take a few orbits until your "captured" object slams into the planet/moon that you claim is "capturing" it.
But why would one small object not simply leave the planet again?
There is no reason that doesnt defy physics for stable orbits to form in the manner suggested for "capture" of single bodies. A force other than gravity needs to be applied.
Not sure why it is so often suggested that "captures" work. They don't unless there is a 3rd body that can be given the energy difference. If this 3rd body then leaves the system then a stable orbit is possible for the "captured" object, but if it doesnt leave the system then its a 3 body problem where the initial conditions preclude the possibility of a stable orbit.
Your password must be at least 6 characters and contain at least one of each of the following: The letter "q", the letter "w", the letter "e", the letter "r", the letter "t", and the letter "y".
For a couple of hours after being washed with a detergent? No, it doesn't.
I know science is hard and all, so you might be surprised that detergent doesnt kill any molds.
Detergent is not a disinfectant.
Now explain to us why you are acting like an expert when both we and you know that you arent one? You don't get to claim that you mistakenly thought you were an expert... you knew you weren't...
Ok, since you have such a great understanding of economics, please explain to me how it's a good thing that the Walton family has more wealth than 40% of Americans (that's 129 Million Americans) combined, yet pays their full-time workers so little that they can't afford food or a place to live without welfare and foodstamps?
The Waltons wealth did not come from their employees payroll. The Waltons wealth is in shares of the company. The company is worth a lot of money and because the Waltons own a lot of the company that makes them very wealthy.
Your argument seems to be: Owners of a valuable company should sell the company and give the money to the employees. Except who is going to buy the company if they too must then sell it and give the money to the employees?
The reason you made this argument is because you are an ignorant fuck that doesnt understand the difference between wealth and income.
When California falls completely apart and run out of water we'll see who was right....
Their water situation is going to turn out the same way their energy situation did... with someone outside the State in partnership with someone inside the State exploiting the fact that Californias water isnt priced correctly... Enron 2.0
The only way this could be a more blatant "Conservative" Propaganda site is if they named it Hitler Youth Life
Funny that Nazi Germany had declared that they too wanted to abolish class struggle, played games with a minimum wage, and had the full financial support of the labor unions.
Look up "Labour Front" and you will find the Nazi's, with a high minimum wage, job security, etc..
Yes we do manufacture things still, but we are predominately a services economy now. This is a critical point most people do not understand.
Yes and the thing about service economies is that the claim of a "shrinking middle class" goes out the window. An average person (aka middle class) can always trade a days worth of their labor (directly, or via proxy like money) for a days worth of another average persons (aka middle class) labor.
Of course, it doesnt work so well if you dont have a skill that other people want to trade for. Thats the actual problem. Raising the minimum wage doesnt increase the value of peoples skills. The least skilled have to perform more labor for the same benefits as more skilled people have to perform.
Raising the minimum wage doesnt change the facts, but it seems to trick a lot of dumb fucks.
As far as cooling, note that the ram is also clocked "much lower" than traditional gddr and uses less power. In practical terms this means "this ram solves heat issues."
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if Bill was doing any high-fives before the failure: high fiven white guys
The first generation of desktops booted right into a programming environment. Later on languages were just a subset of the default operating system, but eventually they werent included at all with most operating system and so they must be specifically sought after. Add to this that beginner programming just isnt as fun as it used to be.
..
Now the beginning programmer has to learn a fairly deep api that they dont really understand (..beginners..) just to do something simple like draw some pixels. For a beginning programmer all the code necessary to get to drawing pixels is just incantation, so todays deep incantations are just another barrier to entry. There are languages that get the boiler plate down to reasonably small amounts yet when prospective new programmer ask what language to learn first, the fun ones dont even make the list that people will give them, even though the list is often annotated to some degree with reasonable reasons: C, C++, Java, C#, Python,
Now, honestly I dont see a downside to a world where the only people programming had had to put in some significant initiative to start with. Just recognizing that things arent all that great in terms of promoting entry into programming.
And they'll be busy strip-mining the third world
They are also strip-mining their own country. Its easy to sustain a lot of growth as long as you can mobilize ever larger amounts of resources. This is in fact how the soviet union was able to compete for so long, but eventually it could not keep increasing the amount of resources that it mobilized.
The western world also fuels growth in part through resource mobilization, but a non-trivial amount of that growth is also from pure value creation. Most people don't know that gasoline started as a waste product. It is capitalism that more effectively makes better and better uses of the resources that are available, and its driven by greed.
...you're just another asshole.
When your first shallow attempt to cast a bad light on the car manufacturer failed ("..defective, period."), you just went ahead and tried a different shallow method ("..then you have to ask.."), yet amazingly its not you thats the asshole, its other people.
Here is the thing. When you pick a theory first, and then just keep manufacturing more and more arguments in the hopes that one of them will stick, YOU are the asshole. You are the asshole because you are literally hoping that the car manufacturer did something wrong.
but then you have to ask whether the driver reasonably understands how the assistive technology works well enough to be able to supervise it
No, you dont have to ask that. You choose to ask that just like this driver chose to jump on the gas peddle with pedestrians in the way.
Both of you are idiots.
I'm actually curious to know why that was modded down. It's a point that many have made.
Because half of slashdotters lose their god damned minds as soon as the belief system that they put only shallow thought in proves to be completely irrational even at a shallow level.
I'm sure the feminists will find a way to spin this so that its the fathers fault.
The EU budget is a lot of money but a small fraction of the combined national budgets.
The EU is young. That budget will only grow, and its powers and influence will only expand. Look west across the ocean. Thats your future.
There is no "correct" gender. There are different genders, each with their own privileges.
The feminists would have you believe that men keep women down because they dominate politics/etc: The Patriarchy.
This is however quite a bit backward. Men do not dominate politics because they keep women down. Men dominate these things because men have always been the primary protectors and women the primary caregivers. Men build the defenses. Men go to war. The feminists institution present the cause and effect backwards, and they know it but would rather be dishonest. Greed.
1918 - Arver v. United States - The Supreme Court upheld that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience. Their reasoning was that men are given the right to vote so therefore they have a responsibility to defend society, and thus the draft in the united states was held as constitutional.
One year later, in 1919, women were given the right to vote but were not told that they too had such a responsibility as men had for their right to vote.
This has stood not because its right or fair, but because men and women really are different, that men are still primary protectors and women are still primary caregivers.
Fast forward to today, and Hillary Clinton gets away with claiming that the primary victims of war are women. That when a man dies on the battlefield it is his wife that is the primary victim. She gets away with this because the fact remains that men and women are different, so the two levels of victim-hood (death vs widow) are not directly comparable.
We need to cut federal funding for all feminist issues. Their bullshit has gone way past rationality.
Did you do what the people suggested which was NOT to update the drivers but instead to ROLL THEM (way the hell) BACK?
Clearly not, since you are going on about updates and claiming "that was fixed" (but then detail how it wasn't.)
Reading comprehension score, 1st test: 0
Reading comprehension score, 2nd test: 0
The problem we see in the EU is that it has become a bureaucratic, intransparent, undemocratic monster with a far too wide mandate.
Welcome to the machine. America is the same. Remember that we were a Union of States too, and then the Federal Government grew. Eventually the E.U. budget will be larger than all of its member States budgets combined, just like in America.
Funny that in what you link to it turns out to be a problem with Intels video drivers, but hey...
While I'm proud of my Senator (Wyden) and Paul for attempting to shine a spotlight on the "USA Freedom Act", they accomplished very little. A symbolic gesture for the Congressional records at most.
They accomplished: shine a spotlight on the "USA Freedom Act"
This has to do with knowledge.
Consider the case where I know that something is bad, and you know that something is bad, but neither of us know that the other also thinks its bad. In this case we are effectively loners even though we are not really alone.
Now the case where I know that something is bad, and you know that something is bad, and I know that you know that something is bad, and you know that I know that something is bad. In this case we are not loners by any measure.
You can't change things when you are a loner.
Personally I like {}'s ;'s that I could do without.
Its the
I actually think VB got this one almost right, with linebreaks separating statements, but has both an operator (:) to separate statements within a line when thats advantageous, as well as an operator (_) to continue statements onto the next line when thats advantageous.
Its really easy to write a bunch of C-style code and miss a semicolon. Its really hard to write a bunch of VB code and miss a linebreak, or have an erroneous line continuation or line separator. One of these is obviously better overall.
In the case of small bodies (such as spacecraft) the atmosphere can substitute for the third body.
No, it can't.
You have found a way to lose enough energy for the object to remain in the system, but have not found a way to then add the energy necessary to put the object into a stable orbit (one that doesnt intersect your "solution" atmosphere.)
To be quite clear: If the orbit intersects the atmosphere this time around, and you dont add energy at some point immediately after that, then it will again intersect the atmosphere the next time around, and the time after that.... it will only take a few orbits until your "captured" object slams into the planet/moon that you claim is "capturing" it.
But why would one small object not simply leave the planet again?
There is no reason that doesnt defy physics for stable orbits to form in the manner suggested for "capture" of single bodies. A force other than gravity needs to be applied.
Not sure why it is so often suggested that "captures" work. They don't unless there is a 3rd body that can be given the energy difference. If this 3rd body then leaves the system then a stable orbit is possible for the "captured" object, but if it doesnt leave the system then its a 3 body problem where the initial conditions preclude the possibility of a stable orbit.
Your password must be at least 6 characters and contain at least one of each of the following: The letter "q", the letter "w", the letter "e", the letter "r", the letter "t", and the letter "y".
Smiley faces don't make you right.
For a couple of hours after being washed with a detergent? No, it doesn't.
I know science is hard and all, so you might be surprised that detergent doesnt kill any molds.
Detergent is not a disinfectant.
Now explain to us why you are acting like an expert when both we and you know that you arent one? You don't get to claim that you mistakenly thought you were an expert... you knew you weren't...
Ok, since you have such a great understanding of economics, please explain to me how it's a good thing that the Walton family has more wealth than 40% of Americans (that's 129 Million Americans) combined, yet pays their full-time workers so little that they can't afford food or a place to live without welfare and foodstamps?
The Waltons wealth did not come from their employees payroll. The Waltons wealth is in shares of the company. The company is worth a lot of money and because the Waltons own a lot of the company that makes them very wealthy.
Your argument seems to be: Owners of a valuable company should sell the company and give the money to the employees. Except who is going to buy the company if they too must then sell it and give the money to the employees?
The reason you made this argument is because you are an ignorant fuck that doesnt understand the difference between wealth and income.
When California falls completely apart and run out of water we'll see who was right....
Their water situation is going to turn out the same way their energy situation did... with someone outside the State in partnership with someone inside the State exploiting the fact that Californias water isnt priced correctly... Enron 2.0
Just pay their executives a little less.
Run the numbers, dumbfuck.
The only way this could be a more blatant "Conservative" Propaganda site is if they named it Hitler Youth Life
Funny that Nazi Germany had declared that they too wanted to abolish class struggle, played games with a minimum wage, and had the full financial support of the labor unions.
Look up "Labour Front" and you will find the Nazi's, with a high minimum wage, job security, etc..
Still want to call the conservatives Nazis?
Yes we do manufacture things still, but we are predominately a services economy now. This is a critical point most people do not understand.
Yes and the thing about service economies is that the claim of a "shrinking middle class" goes out the window. An average person (aka middle class) can always trade a days worth of their labor (directly, or via proxy like money) for a days worth of another average persons (aka middle class) labor.
Of course, it doesnt work so well if you dont have a skill that other people want to trade for. Thats the actual problem. Raising the minimum wage doesnt increase the value of peoples skills. The least skilled have to perform more labor for the same benefits as more skilled people have to perform.
Raising the minimum wage doesnt change the facts, but it seems to trick a lot of dumb fucks.
As far as cooling, note that the ram is also clocked "much lower" than traditional gddr and uses less power. In practical terms this means "this ram solves heat issues."