The Swiss?. They are all about letting their corporations do whatever dirty work they want so long as they do it outside their country. Pollution flushed down the Rhein? Fine. Contamination sent over the border into Italy? No problem. Con 3rd world mothers into buying Nestle 'milk'? Bravo and encore! Secure the wealth of arms traders, drug pushers, human traffickers, tyrants, dictators...deal!
Yes! Just a whiff of common sense would reduce the "Defense" department budget by 50%. We spend more than nearly the rest of the world COMBINED and some of them, so far at least, are our friends and allies.
I got a Steelcase Leap chair probably 7+ years ago for my home office and I like it very much. Less expensive than the Aeron but just as well made, reasonably adjustable and with mesh ventilation. Also, definitely get a standing desk, especially if you live where winter restricts your going outside After a particularly rough winter, I got one from Geek Desk (adding a nice wood top from Ikea) that has worked great for 4+ years (after one fix they provided pronto). (Wirecutter has other suggestions: http://thewirecutter.com/revie... )
You credit the environment, which was certainly spectacularly nurturing at Bell Labs. But don't conflate that with the sort of corporate development that produced these new languages (Swift, Go, Hack). Corporate entities may produce invaluable Technical Journals etc. but rarely, if ever, elegant, inspiring ideas, products, or books like K&R.
Bell Labs didn't develop C; in fact I think Bell Labs hardly knew what to do with it. Two (brilliant) people -- Keringhan and Ritchie -- working in Bell Labs wrote C and developed Unix so that they could do what they wanted, better and quicker, on the minicomputers around their labs. Their slim volume "The C Programming Language" is amazingly engaging, concise, and deeply instructive. Modern IDEs are great for many things but they also constitute a significant hurdle to actually coding, which K&R had you doing pronto in a succinct, introductory tutorial chapter.
absolutely -- everything is in the race. It's like suggesting more complex beings (e.g. humans) are "more evolved", when in fact they (we) were pushed out of the simpler niches by "better evolved" organisms. There's virus that uses 5 of the 6 available reading frames along a stretch of its genome... THAT is good coding (humans use 1, very rarely 2, and often none (non-protein coding)).
The B1 was a huge waste of money -- about $100 billion back then, probably over $200 billion in today's dollars. It was obsolete before it was built because low-level (below radar) bombers were impractical. Carter cancelled it and pushed the stealthy B2 but Reagan wanted to buy toys for his "Defense" Department and needed to pay off contractors, mostly in SoCal. The B1 has hardly ever done anything and never anything that couldn't have been done by another plane.
How many Macbook Airs are used as business machines? Less than 2% at a guess..
Yippee! I'm in the 2%!
(Mostly I use Citrix to connect to the corporate environment but also Word and Excel on the Air. Mine is over 3 years old -- (still) a great laptop; instant on/off with the cover, reliable, good keyboard, very light weight.)
...The second worst thing is that it tries to pretend that you can eliminate biased people, rather than acknowledge that bias exists and tackle how to be open about it.
Doesn't the fact that Wikipedia "tries to pretend that you can eliminate biased people" necessarily include that they "acknowledge that bias exists"? Full disclosure: my bias is that I love Wikipedia (and send them money every year).
Similarly, I would recommend David Halberstam's "The Coldest Winter" about the Korean War. Only a few years after the WWII triumph on two fronts, the US was completely unprepared in Korea and woefully led. Military reductions played a role but careerism within the military, and particularly toadyism within MacArthur's staff, was even more to blame. The book helped inform me about this little-remembered war and political era in the US.
same here, iP4.... sloooow since 7. I've tried to turn off layers ("bling"?) but cannot find any options. And it is not just slow on Safari, but seemingly anything. If I feel the need to upgrade, this experience will make me look elsewhere than Apple [motoG?].
You say it's not science because "Science has data and experiments". Permit me to add "hypotheses", which crucially guide the experimental design and the collection and interpretation of data. These elements are obviously integral to the climate change findings. Just because you cannot replicate their "data and experiments" on your lab bench doesn't mean they are not present.
Ok, let's posit that very few of us are climate scientists or in positions to evaluate the raw data. We have to take things on faith to some extent. Should we believe (1) the vast majority of professional climate scientists who have accumulated terabytes of data and analyzed them with many sophisticated models that all lead to a similar conclusion, i.e., anthropogenic global climate change is dangerous, or (2) a few who disagree, with seemingly little factual basis, whose minority opinions are massively promoted by businesspeople with obvious financial interests in stopping or at least slowing the acceptance of the professional's conclusions and recommendations?
Skepticism is healthy but group (1) seems unbiased, very reasonable and well supported by the data whereas group (2) is clearly biased, unsupported by facts, and unreasonable. From first principles, it seems reasonable that rapidly reversing the millennial-long carbon sequestration (producing oil and coal and gas) that changed the atmosphere from reducing to oxidizing *would* cause climate change and ocean changes.
wait a minute "Anonymous Coward", if that is your real name*... are you suggesting this, our beloved/., is not a "professional environment"? *Dr. Strangelove reference
partly true -- the bits about subsidized phones -- and mostly silly -- the bulk comparing the housing bubble to an oversupply of smartphones and criticizing a stimulatory fiscal policy during a deep recession. And all off topic (raging against AT&T, c'mon now)
You calculate that the ratio drops from 7,400:1 currently to 740:1 if everybody lives like a profligate American? Seems like still a pretty healthy margin.
The original article makes many ridiculous extrapolations (emphasis added): "..even with an annual energy growth rate of only 2.3 percent, a civilization powered by solar energy would have to cover every square inch of Earth's land area with 100-percent-efficient solar panels within a few hundred years. Even if we covered the oceans too, and surrounded the sun and other nearby stars with solar panels, eventually there would not be enough energy in the galaxy to meet the growing demand. "
Within a few hundred years of compound growth... sounds like a stock broker. "Eventually", at the current growth rate, the mass of humanity will be expanding outwards at the speed of light... then... faster that that!!!
nice. Probably not many historians (philosophers, political scientists, logicians) on this thread so the reference is lost (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?).
Slashdot Mirror
The Swiss?. They are all about letting their corporations do whatever dirty work they want so long as they do it outside their country. Pollution flushed down the Rhein? Fine. Contamination sent over the border into Italy? No problem. Con 3rd world mothers into buying Nestle 'milk'? Bravo and encore! Secure the wealth of arms traders, drug pushers, human traffickers, tyrants, dictators...deal!
Yes! Just a whiff of common sense would reduce the "Defense" department budget by 50%. We spend more than nearly the rest of the world COMBINED and some of them, so far at least, are our friends and allies.
"He had to tell the system four times to turn the lights off before it got dark."
And *that* time he he called Jarvis by its nickname, "Alexa".
I got a Steelcase Leap chair probably 7+ years ago for my home office and I like it very much. Less expensive than the Aeron but just as well made, reasonably adjustable and with mesh ventilation. Also, definitely get a standing desk, especially if you live where winter restricts your going outside After a particularly rough winter, I got one from Geek Desk (adding a nice wood top from Ikea) that has worked great for 4+ years (after one fix they provided pronto). (Wirecutter has other suggestions: http://thewirecutter.com/revie... )
"roscharc test"? You failed. It's "Rorschach". That and your pitiful apologia for G W Bush and his lying, chickenhawk neocons.
"Critical Reagents Acquisition Program", there, now their acronym is perfect.
You credit the environment, which was certainly spectacularly nurturing at Bell Labs. But don't conflate that with the sort of corporate development that produced these new languages (Swift, Go, Hack). Corporate entities may produce invaluable Technical Journals etc. but rarely, if ever, elegant, inspiring ideas, products, or books like K&R.
Bell Labs didn't develop C; in fact I think Bell Labs hardly knew what to do with it. Two (brilliant) people -- Keringhan and Ritchie -- working in Bell Labs wrote C and developed Unix so that they could do what they wanted, better and quicker, on the minicomputers around their labs. Their slim volume "The C Programming Language" is amazingly engaging, concise, and deeply instructive. Modern IDEs are great for many things but they also constitute a significant hurdle to actually coding, which K&R had you doing pronto in a succinct, introductory tutorial chapter.
you are joking but damn if it doesn't sound pretty interesting...even before you drop a *nix distro on it...
absolutely -- everything is in the race. It's like suggesting more complex beings (e.g. humans) are "more evolved", when in fact they (we) were pushed out of the simpler niches by "better evolved" organisms. There's virus that uses 5 of the 6 available reading frames along a stretch of its genome... THAT is good coding (humans use 1, very rarely 2, and often none (non-protein coding)).
The B1 was a huge waste of money -- about $100 billion back then, probably over $200 billion in today's dollars. It was obsolete before it was built because low-level (below radar) bombers were impractical. Carter cancelled it and pushed the stealthy B2 but Reagan wanted to buy toys for his "Defense" Department and needed to pay off contractors, mostly in SoCal. The B1 has hardly ever done anything and never anything that couldn't have been done by another plane.
How many Macbook Airs are used as business machines? Less than 2% at a guess..
Yippee! I'm in the 2%!
(Mostly I use Citrix to connect to the corporate environment but also Word and Excel on the Air. Mine is over 3 years old -- (still) a great laptop; instant on/off with the cover, reliable, good keyboard, very light weight.)
Yep, higher cost, but the money stayed in the local economy. IMHO, that's the most important aspect of all, even if it had cost more after 5 years.
Companies like SAP, a giant German company that sells software to thousands of American firms, might worry about where that argument leads....
or like Apple puts their proprietary OSX atop the open source Darwin, which they forked from BSD? Self-interested, sure, but hardly "evil".
...The second worst thing is that it tries to pretend that you can eliminate biased people, rather than acknowledge that bias exists and tackle how to be open about it.
Doesn't the fact that Wikipedia "tries to pretend that you can eliminate biased people" necessarily include that they "acknowledge that bias exists"? Full disclosure: my bias is that I love Wikipedia (and send them money every year).
Similarly, I would recommend David Halberstam's "The Coldest Winter" about the Korean War. Only a few years after the WWII triumph on two fronts, the US was completely unprepared in Korea and woefully led. Military reductions played a role but careerism within the military, and particularly toadyism within MacArthur's staff, was even more to blame. The book helped inform me about this little-remembered war and political era in the US.
NY Times review: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/review/Frankel-t.html?pagewanted=all
sigh, Slashdot used to have enough intelligent readers who would moderate such stupidity down where it belongs.
same here, iP4.... sloooow since 7. I've tried to turn off layers ("bling"?) but cannot find any options. And it is not just slow on Safari, but seemingly anything. If I feel the need to upgrade, this experience will make me look elsewhere than Apple [motoG?].
"solar powered CO2 remover" == plants.
And oceans to not remove CO2 from the system they buffer it in a reversible reaction with H2O to produce a weak acid.
You say it's not science because "Science has data and experiments". Permit me to add "hypotheses", which crucially guide the experimental design and the collection and interpretation of data. These elements are obviously integral to the climate change findings. Just because you cannot replicate their "data and experiments" on your lab bench doesn't mean they are not present.
Ok, let's posit that very few of us are climate scientists or in positions to evaluate the raw data. We have to take things on faith to some extent. Should we believe (1) the vast majority of professional climate scientists who have accumulated terabytes of data and analyzed them with many sophisticated models that all lead to a similar conclusion, i.e., anthropogenic global climate change is dangerous, or (2) a few who disagree, with seemingly little factual basis, whose minority opinions are massively promoted by businesspeople with obvious financial interests in stopping or at least slowing the acceptance of the professional's conclusions and recommendations?
Skepticism is healthy but group (1) seems unbiased, very reasonable and well supported by the data whereas group (2) is clearly biased, unsupported by facts, and unreasonable. From first principles, it seems reasonable that rapidly reversing the millennial-long carbon sequestration (producing oil and coal and gas) that changed the atmosphere from reducing to oxidizing *would* cause climate change and ocean changes.
wait a minute "Anonymous Coward", if that is your real name*... are you suggesting this, our beloved /., is not a "professional environment"?
*Dr. Strangelove reference
partly true -- the bits about subsidized phones -- and mostly silly -- the bulk comparing the housing bubble to an oversupply of smartphones and criticizing a stimulatory fiscal policy during a deep recession. And all off topic (raging against AT&T, c'mon now)
You calculate that the ratio drops from 7,400:1 currently to 740:1 if everybody lives like a profligate American? Seems like still a pretty healthy margin.
The original article makes many ridiculous extrapolations (emphasis added): "..even with an annual energy growth rate of only 2.3 percent, a civilization powered by solar energy would have to cover every square inch of Earth's land area with 100-percent-efficient solar panels within a few hundred years. Even if we covered the oceans too, and surrounded the sun and other nearby stars with solar panels, eventually there would not be enough energy in the galaxy to meet the growing demand. "
Within a few hundred years of compound growth... sounds like a stock broker. "Eventually", at the current growth rate, the mass of humanity will be expanding outwards at the speed of light... then... faster that that!!!
nice. Probably not many historians (philosophers, political scientists, logicians) on this thread so the reference is lost (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?).