It is a lot harder to build bombs... Guns are a lot more... efficient.
It may be harder to build bombs than to grab some guns, but the guns are not more efficient. The largest school killing in US history was done with explosives.
Judging by how past actions of Pennsylvania HS football players were judged, this is not surprising. Compared to letting them get away with rape, this is downright reasonable.
The raw speed of the code might actually diminish since the.net runtime could have optimized it better for the specific environment (CPU model, available RAM, phase of the moon, etc).
I hate to break it to you, but the original Pentium is now obsolete. Compiling for a specific CPU variant doesn't help much these days. I'm also unaware of any JIT compiler that adjusts the code for available RAM. You might have a point about the phase of the moon.
Basically you're citing the standard tropes used in defense of JIT. Theoretically it can make some difference, but when I ask for benchmarks showing code on a JIT running faster than straight-to-binary, all I hear is crickets.
Federal money comes with restrictions, but there are limits to the control that buys the feds.
Before the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the restriction was that patents that came from federally funded research had to be assigned to the feds. Worked fine. Repeal Bayh-Dole and it will work again. If BU or any other school doesn't like it, they can refuse to accept federal funding. What option do you think they'll choose?
Take your own advice - the appropriate history is before the Bayh–Dole Act. It worked fine before 1980, though according to you, the people who thought it worked fine must have been 12 y.o or idiots. Funny how such people managed to do important academic research.
has the model of 'students pay to attend' no longer enough to keep the uni's afloat?
It hasn't been enough in many years, at least here in the US for research funding. There is loads of federal funding for research, and sometimes from companies and foundations. That's fine by me, but universities using "intellectual property" is exactly the opposite of what they should do.
P.S. What country are you from? "Uni's" isn't American slang, so I'd guess it's not the US. I ask because I'm curious what the situation is in your country.
Blame the Bayh–Dole Act. When it was passed, it seemed to make sense. It had wide support - Bayh and Dole were on very opposite sides of the aisle. In practice it's meant that universities are more worried about protecting their "intellectual property" than about publishing and disseminating research results. For that reason a lot of academic researchers are unhappy about it too. It's time to take what turned out to be a bad ides and ditch it. Universities shouldn't be run the way for-profit companies are.
Apple, Microsoft, Dell, BlackBerry, Nokia, etc. don't make LED's, they buy them . Hence they're customers. Does this mean that the absurd idea of suing customers in addition to manufacturers has been accepted? Patent trolling is bad, but this is just plain nuts.
Screw guillotines - I think the rich who feel they're so entitled should be made to live on a minimum wage income for the rest of their lives. It's less messy, and far more poetic justice.
I wish they'd at least make that harder to do. It's so easy to follow the money that it's insulting. Instead of a "let's try to hide it" approach it's a "fuck you, we don't care what you think".
Free trade is about identifying and exploiting the potential energy of the system, in the process the imbalance is reduced and profits are made
What a clever metaphor. Is it supposed to mean something, or is it just a pathetic way to make your argument seem more scientific? To anybody who is dumb enough to buy it, it also has the propaganda effect of making it seem as inevitable as entropy, when in reality it's just the opposite - a matter of policies conceived by politically powerful people.
deal with it
Why?
You are also totally ignoring the gains in the 3rd world
Another myth comforting to free traders. There is no reason that China, for example, can't grow on the basis of internal consumption, just as the US did. I also find it an astounding coincidence that policies which are supposed to benefit the 3rd world, just happen to do so in a way that benefits the already rich in the developed world. There are other approaches, but I assure you that one which doesn't enrich the wealthy will never be enacted.
it should make sense to at least offer it to American companies rather than foreign
Problem: there really is no such thing as an American company anymore. Also, why should I care whether IBM or Infosys executives and major stock holders get rich? Either way, I'm still out of a job.
The visas issued to Infosys may be used to displace existing US tech workers, but those displaced workers are then available for Facebook to hire.
No, because Infosys uses the H-1B's not just to replace American workers, but to facilitate offshoring. The H-1B's already know how the company works in India, fewer problems from language and cultural differences, etc. Most importantly, the Infosys H-1B's know that if they do a good job on their tour of duty here, they'll be rewarded when they return to India. The Indian Commerce Minister has publicly called the H-1B the "outsourcing visa".
They can start with the CEO's, who are the most globally uncompetitive. Typical American CEO of a large company makes about 400x the average compensation of employees. In the UK it's 45x, and in the rest of the developed world is 10x-20x. Forget about India - just go to Canada and get a CEO for about 5% the cost of a US one. Similar culture, short travel, little time zone difference... what's not to like?
Not the OP here, but the main thing I dislike about git is the UI. The internals may be good, but the UI is a hack, complete with counter-intuitive alternate uses of commands via switches that seem like they should be used elsewhere, etc., etc., etc. Contrast that with Mercurial, which has a much more logical and consistent UI, and UI's are important (command line or of that other trendy variety). People who think the git UI is fine are probably just used to it. If you can get used to the spelling of my mother tongue, English, then you can get used to anything. That doesn't mean it was the best choice though.
As for features and capabilities, it seems to be neck and neck, which of course leads to endless debates about pros and cons. It's interesting that before git was quite so popular, people that actually sat down and compared the two, like FogCreek and Google Code, generally chose Hg. I suspect the main reason that git initially won the popularity contest is that Linus wrote it. Nowadays the choice is a bit different because using anything other than git is trying to swim against the tide, but the initial reason for its success over Hg bugs me.
In your inability to to distinguish between simplistic reasoning and the real world. You're free to accept the wage or not, just as you're free to become destitute. So many choices in a "free" market. Bonus points if you can tell me who has the greater bargaining power in a situation with 10 buyers and 10,000 sellers.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether it's illegal depends on what the bullies specifically did.
The problem is you've got to pay for the lawyer.
It is a lot harder to build bombs ... Guns are a lot more ... efficient.
It may be harder to build bombs than to grab some guns, but the guns are not more efficient. The largest school killing in US history was done with explosives.
I blame that on bad science courses.
Judging by how past actions of Pennsylvania HS football players were judged, this is not surprising. Compared to letting them get away with rape, this is downright reasonable.
for any new development it is literally impossible to recommend C over C++
]
Your rant makes little sense - almost everyone upthread was talking about C/C++, not just C. They were contrasting C/C++ to things like C# and Java.
I have never seen an unintended buffer overflow problem in C# or Java.
So you've seen intended ones?
The raw speed of the code might actually diminish since the .net runtime could have optimized it better for the specific environment (CPU model, available RAM, phase of the moon, etc).
I hate to break it to you, but the original Pentium is now obsolete. Compiling for a specific CPU variant doesn't help much these days. I'm also unaware of any JIT compiler that adjusts the code for available RAM. You might have a point about the phase of the moon.
Basically you're citing the standard tropes used in defense of JIT. Theoretically it can make some difference, but when I ask for benchmarks showing code on a JIT running faster than straight-to-binary, all I hear is crickets.
Federal money comes with restrictions, but there are limits to the control that buys the feds.
Before the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the restriction was that patents that came from federally funded research had to be assigned to the feds. Worked fine. Repeal Bayh-Dole and it will work again. If BU or any other school doesn't like it, they can refuse to accept federal funding. What option do you think they'll choose?
Please educate yourself about similar history.
Take your own advice - the appropriate history is before the Bayh–Dole Act. It worked fine before 1980, though according to you, the people who thought it worked fine must have been 12 y.o or idiots. Funny how such people managed to do important academic research.
has the model of 'students pay to attend' no longer enough to keep the uni's afloat?
It hasn't been enough in many years, at least here in the US for research funding. There is loads of federal funding for research, and sometimes from companies and foundations. That's fine by me, but universities using "intellectual property" is exactly the opposite of what they should do.
P.S. What country are you from? "Uni's" isn't American slang, so I'd guess it's not the US. I ask because I'm curious what the situation is in your country.
Blame the Bayh–Dole Act. When it was passed, it seemed to make sense. It had wide support - Bayh and Dole were on very opposite sides of the aisle. In practice it's meant that universities are more worried about protecting their "intellectual property" than about publishing and disseminating research results. For that reason a lot of academic researchers are unhappy about it too. It's time to take what turned out to be a bad ides and ditch it. Universities shouldn't be run the way for-profit companies are.
Are you referring to the type of public entity that is tax exempt and gets lots of federal funds? Drop that and maybe you have a point.
Apple, Microsoft, Dell, BlackBerry, Nokia, etc. don't make LED's, they buy them . Hence they're customers. Does this mean that the absurd idea of suing customers in addition to manufacturers has been accepted? Patent trolling is bad, but this is just plain nuts.
Screw guillotines - I think the rich who feel they're so entitled should be made to live on a minimum wage income for the rest of their lives. It's less messy, and far more poetic justice.
Thank you for being so honest about this. Seriously - absolutely no snark meant.
Follow the money.
I wish they'd at least make that harder to do. It's so easy to follow the money that it's insulting. Instead of a "let's try to hide it" approach it's a "fuck you, we don't care what you think".
Free trade is about identifying and exploiting the potential energy of the system, in the process the imbalance is reduced and profits are made
What a clever metaphor. Is it supposed to mean something, or is it just a pathetic way to make your argument seem more scientific? To anybody who is dumb enough to buy it, it also has the propaganda effect of making it seem as inevitable as entropy, when in reality it's just the opposite - a matter of policies conceived by politically powerful people.
deal with it
Why?
You are also totally ignoring the gains in the 3rd world
Another myth comforting to free traders. There is no reason that China, for example, can't grow on the basis of internal consumption, just as the US did. I also find it an astounding coincidence that policies which are supposed to benefit the 3rd world, just happen to do so in a way that benefits the already rich in the developed world. There are other approaches, but I assure you that one which doesn't enrich the wealthy will never be enacted.
it should make sense to at least offer it to American companies rather than foreign
Problem: there really is no such thing as an American company anymore. Also, why should I care whether IBM or Infosys executives and major stock holders get rich? Either way, I'm still out of a job.
a lobby group thought scarcity would be a good way to drive up doctors incomes
AMA = Australian Medical Association?
Note to non-Americans: the US AMA is the American Medical Association, which is a union with some peer review journals.
The visas issued to Infosys may be used to displace existing US tech workers, but those displaced workers are then available for Facebook to hire.
No, because Infosys uses the H-1B's not just to replace American workers, but to facilitate offshoring. The H-1B's already know how the company works in India, fewer problems from language and cultural differences, etc. Most importantly, the Infosys H-1B's know that if they do a good job on their tour of duty here, they'll be rewarded when they return to India. The Indian Commerce Minister has publicly called the H-1B the "outsourcing visa".
Good thing you don't generalize. Would you prefer Irish H-1B's to Indian ones? It makes no difference to me.
They can start with the CEO's, who are the most globally uncompetitive. Typical American CEO of a large company makes about 400x the average compensation of employees. In the UK it's 45x, and in the rest of the developed world is 10x-20x. Forget about India - just go to Canada and get a CEO for about 5% the cost of a US one. Similar culture, short travel, little time zone difference ... what's not to like?
Not the OP here, but the main thing I dislike about git is the UI. The internals may be good, but the UI is a hack, complete with counter-intuitive alternate uses of commands via switches that seem like they should be used elsewhere, etc., etc., etc. Contrast that with Mercurial, which has a much more logical and consistent UI, and UI's are important (command line or of that other trendy variety). People who think the git UI is fine are probably just used to it. If you can get used to the spelling of my mother tongue, English, then you can get used to anything. That doesn't mean it was the best choice though.
As for features and capabilities, it seems to be neck and neck, which of course leads to endless debates about pros and cons. It's interesting that before git was quite so popular, people that actually sat down and compared the two, like FogCreek and Google Code, generally chose Hg. I suspect the main reason that git initially won the popularity contest is that Linus wrote it. Nowadays the choice is a bit different because using anything other than git is trying to swim against the tide, but the initial reason for its success over Hg bugs me.
So where is the problem?
In your inability to to distinguish between simplistic reasoning and the real world. You're free to accept the wage or not, just as you're free to become destitute. So many choices in a "free" market. Bonus points if you can tell me who has the greater bargaining power in a situation with 10 buyers and 10,000 sellers.