The problem with that is regulatory capture. It should be illegal for anyone who has ever worked for a regulatory agency to take money or other emolument in any capacity from those they regulated. Perhaps it would be reasonable to allow them to continue to collect a retirement plan that they had qualified for a few years before they became a regulatory, but I don't know....this whole area is so corrupt that even that smells like bribery to me.
They probably actually *can't* make it profitable. If the raise the prices, fewer will be willing to pay for it.
The problem with this is that they accepted money to provide the services, and planned from the beginning to not deliver. So any argument based on the idea that they telecom companies are at all trustworthy is clearly flawed.
Most of the previous presidents didn't go around blatantly lying on national television even before they were elected. (OTOH, I wouldn't deny that you would be justified in doubting the word of every prior spokesman, just that most people didn't. Currently my feeling is that anyone who doesn't doubt every official pronouncement is an idiot...or REALLY ignores politics.)
Umnh.... when the president is known to believe in denying facts, and trying to hinder their spread, and is believed to be a liar, then you shouldn't be surprised if people don't trust what his spokesmen say, especially if it apparently furthers his stated agenda.
So how does that work out when the government keeps (and I'm including via proxy here) records of all your communications? Think about that position a bit more carefully.
That said, certainly THESE records shouldn't be secret and should be retained. I'm willing to accept that perhaps it would be better if they weren't public, but if they aren't, how to you guarantee their retention, and how do you make them available for use in deciding between vendors, or filing a lawsuit? Those are certainly valid uses.
So you believe that cows, chicken, etc. should be made extinct? They sure can't survive on their own anymore...not if predation isn't controlled. Modern sheep can't even defend themselves against parrots.
It's not quite like that. The typical patten is that the Democrats set up a potentially abusive program for good social reasons, and the Republicans then make use of it for abusive purposes. Then when the Democrats get in again "that's just the way the law works", and they set up another.....
There are also occasional instances where the Republicans set up something potentially abusive "for good market reasons" and then the Democrats get in and make use of it for abusive purposes. Then when the Republicans get in again...
When you trust the current office-holder you are more likely to believe that what he's proposing is reasonable, and overlook the objections. Besides, people tend to discount future costs.
I believe that's what they said, and the reason I suggested the phrasing I did is because that's what I got out of a bit of search,
That said, a warmer climate is well-known to be increasing the mobility of the sea ice around Antarctica, and this is known to have an affect on the mobility of the ice shelfs, of which this is one. So "no direct effect" is a reasonable phrasing...though even that is slightly conservative. And saying "has an effect" is not equivalent to "causes", but merely to "acted as a contribution to the causes" or some similar phrasing. Most events in climate and weather are quite complex, and to say of any of them that "climate change had no effect" is almost guaranteed to be wrong. In this particular case one can be rather certain that it facilitated (or, at least, accelerated) this split. Yes, it would have happened eventually anyway, but that it happened this soon is tied into the more rapid movement of the glacier which is tied into....which is tied into the fact that as ice warms it loses strength, and as it melts it becomes a lubricant. One could also tie in the length of a lever arm as the ice extends further over the surface of the sea, but that ties back int the more rapid movement of the glaciers on the land.
P.S.: from the article you linked to:...Luckman says climate change is certainly influencing this region. Larsen C used to have two neighbors to the north, Larsen A and Larsen B. As the...
Depends on exactly how you mean that, and which scientists. Some of them are concerned because it means that walking around where they're studying is a bit dangerous. Others because their climate model didn't predict this happening so soon. Others because when an ice shelf breaks off, it stops slowing down the movement of the glaciers currently on land out onto the ocean. Others because.... well, there are lots of reasons, and lots of degrees of concern. One base/lab/residence had to be dragged a long way to get it off the ice shelf and onto a place that would be relatively safe.
I think you are mistaken. If you had, instead, said "Scientists actually don't believe this particular instance to be directly caused by climate change" then you'd probably have been correct, though even then you'd be better off qualifying which scientists you meant. E.g., I wouldn't count the opinion of a solid-state physics researcher as any more valid than my own. So perhaps a better phrasing would be "Scientists in the field actually don't believe this particular instance to be directly caused by climate change". Even then I'd have suspicions that they were talking about being able to demonstrate a convincing link rather than what their actual beliefs were.
The trouble with C/C++ is the requirement to not break old code. This prevents fixing basic problems. E.g., raw pointers should be eliminated, not just discouraged. Something should be done to allow generation of better error messages. The template system is horribly ugly. Etc.
So sticking with lineal descendants of C/C++ requires embedding lots of really bad decisions into the language. OTOH, people inventing a new language tend to make excessive changes. It always (nearly always) makes sense for some use case, but it lacks the generality. Even D, which I much prefer as a language, lacks the generality of C/C++, to the extent that I'm currently being forced to pick up C++ after staying clear of it for over 2 decades because of various defects. (And I'm really feeling the strain of trying to pick it up. I'd almost rather pick up Ada.)
C and C++ had until recently no standardized concurrency or parallelism primitives. Most systems had non-standardized libraries. Even yet there aren't any standardized methods for handling multiple processes, only multiple threads. But I'm not going to claim any other language is any better.
But there's also a language that the bootstrap C compiler is written in. C is simple enough that this is usually assembler, and the bootstrap C compiler isn't really C, but rather a subset of C.
It may be nothing new, but it's also a weakness (as well as a strength). I've run into multiple languages that went in for self-hosting and eventually became dependent on a binary version because someone lost the full build chain. The solution is to maintain a sub-language that is can be built from something simple, like C.
N.B.: Languages aren't all major languages. One of the languages I'm thinking of was, IIRC, BC-Algol, which was compiled to a reverse-polish intermediate code which was executed by the interpreter. It was never ported off the 7090-7094 DCS system because it wasn't worth rewriting some important part of it. (It *could* have been done, as the lost part was simple enough, but Algol was dying anyway at that time so it was never done.)
But the point is, you've got to maintain the sub-language that your "self-hosting compiler" is written in. If the language becomes popular this isn't a major problem, because you need to use it well with every iteration. If it isn't, though, you can just ignore it until it dies of bit-rot, or you lose the tool-chain, of your backups fail, or... Mozilla is probably a major enough user (now?) that this won't be a big problem, and will be primarily a source of strength, allowing easier porting to alternate systems...but it *is* also a weakness.
Rust *may* be more secure, I haven't used it enough to be sure. It's certainly a lot bigger pain to use, and it only supports *some* mechanisms for secure concurrency. If I wanted to use an actor model I'd need to drop into C, which sort of makes an end-run around their claims of security. Even in there dining philosophers tutorial there's a comment about having to reverse one of the conditions to avoid deadlock. I guess that you can claim deadlock isn't a security problem, but...
OTOH, Swift is still tied heavily to Apple. I know it's been opened, so perhaps in a few years it will be a reasonable choice, but not yet.
You wouldn't believe the amount of effort I've put in trying to avoid using C++, but I've been forced back to it despite everything (including it's horrible travesty of "how to handle unicode").
Well, that is the second reason to vote for Trump I've heard of that seems reasonable. I still don't think it sufficient, and I'll be surprised if he doesn't overrule it...or make a change that's even worse.
Well, the Republicans are in power in both the House and the Senate, so impeachment is quite unlikely no matter how blatant he is. (And he is taking money from foreign governments.)
The ballot box is unavailable for quite some time. Only the House will be available within the next two years, and even that is two years away.
The soap box is being used extensively, but seems to have minor effect. The entire process of the selection of the candidates is so corrupt that it is generally ignored.
OTOH, anything more active is bound to have extensive negative effects. So much so that currently it seems better to let things lie, no matter the costs....which aren't currently quite clear, and are more in prospect than in current presence.
That said, it seems clear that attempts to compromise would be worse than useless, even though the Republicans hold clearly dominant power. If the Democrats could stand unitedly against every encroachment, then the Republicans would need to maintain unity. Unfortunately, much of the Republican plan is tacitly supported by many Democratic legislators, even though most of them won't admit it. (Which explains the selection of Hillary as the Democratic candidate last election cycle.)
There isn't a political party in the country that appears to be worth any trust at all. And this is profoundly discouraging.
Checks and balances are good, but everything has a breaking strain. The presidency has been getting increasingly powerful ever since the Civil War (1865...) and probably before then. (Jackson had some very unpleasant things said about his overreach.) And the current president isn't someone who is reluctant to take chances...so I wouldn't be surprised if he stepped still further into the "Imperial Presidency" role. Perhaps far enough to definitively break the system. The opposition to his doing so is weaker than it has been since FDR. I'm not sure that his meager popularity matters much, as most of those opposed are too far from any levers of power.
I'm really hoping we can avert a replay of Marius vs. Sulla.
My guess is that the problem here is that US school texts don't really cover the rise of Hitler. I went to school in the US 40 years ago. and they didn't cover it then. I pretty much got most of what I learned about it from reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" on my own. Certainly movies didn't help, not even the ones from the late 1940s or early 1950s, when you'd expect them to have access to the facts, sufficient interest, and a knowledgeable audience.
It is my belief that Hitler *was* a socialist, of a rather narrow and peculiar kind, But I've got to admit I don't really understand him, and perhaps he was only a socialist because Bismark was, and only to the extent that Bismark was...or perhaps a bit less. This doesn't imply he wasn't on good terms with the corporate managers. (Not as good as Mussolini, but not far below.) And it seems clear that his real goal was power, whatever he cloaked it with...so he could get along quite well this those powerful entities that facilitated his access to power. I can't even tell whether he like them.
You have more faith that his stated views mean anything than I do. To me is seems as if he just says whatever he things will lead him to more power. When he say the opportunity to gain power by jumping on racism, xenophobia, and "populism", he did so, and ignored his previously stated positions...which were intended to gain power in an environment that was "more liberal".
So, no, I don't think he's a racist. But I also don't think he minds acting like one if he sees that as a way to gain either power or wealth (though I think he just sees wealth as one manifestation of power). And I think he's basically amoral, in a quite thorough way.
The reason that there are so many violent characters on college campuses is that about half of them are young males. Political orientation is nearly irrelevant here.
I wasn't there, I haven't read the coverage, but...
If someone is trying to stir up a mob to kill/molest/injure you or someone you are defending, what do you suggest? Law doesn't enter into this, though ethics and morals do, and reasonable estimation of results.
P.S.: I am opposed to censorship by those with power, but that's because there is so much history where analogous organizations have misused the capability. This doesn't mean I think it should be defensible to, say, publish the simple steps for releasing a dangerous plague...it's that I don't trust the potential regulators.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with that is regulatory capture. It should be illegal for anyone who has ever worked for a regulatory agency to take money or other emolument in any capacity from those they regulated. Perhaps it would be reasonable to allow them to continue to collect a retirement plan that they had qualified for a few years before they became a regulatory, but I don't know....this whole area is so corrupt that even that smells like bribery to me.
They probably actually *can't* make it profitable. If the raise the prices, fewer will be willing to pay for it.
The problem with this is that they accepted money to provide the services, and planned from the beginning to not deliver. So any argument based on the idea that they telecom companies are at all trustworthy is clearly flawed.
Most of the previous presidents didn't go around blatantly lying on national television even before they were elected. (OTOH, I wouldn't deny that you would be justified in doubting the word of every prior spokesman, just that most people didn't. Currently my feeling is that anyone who doesn't doubt every official pronouncement is an idiot...or REALLY ignores politics.)
Umnh.... when the president is known to believe in denying facts, and trying to hinder their spread, and is believed to be a liar, then you shouldn't be surprised if people don't trust what his spokesmen say, especially if it apparently furthers his stated agenda.
So how does that work out when the government keeps (and I'm including via proxy here) records of all your communications? Think about that position a bit more carefully.
That said, certainly THESE records shouldn't be secret and should be retained. I'm willing to accept that perhaps it would be better if they weren't public, but if they aren't, how to you guarantee their retention, and how do you make them available for use in deciding between vendors, or filing a lawsuit? Those are certainly valid uses.
So you believe that cows, chicken, etc. should be made extinct? They sure can't survive on their own anymore...not if predation isn't controlled. Modern sheep can't even defend themselves against parrots.
It's not quite like that. The typical patten is that the Democrats set up a potentially abusive program for good social reasons, and the Republicans then make use of it for abusive purposes. Then when the Democrats get in again "that's just the way the law works", and they set up another.....
There are also occasional instances where the Republicans set up something potentially abusive "for good market reasons" and then the Democrats get in and make use of it for abusive purposes. Then when the Republicans get in again...
When you trust the current office-holder you are more likely to believe that what he's proposing is reasonable, and overlook the objections. Besides, people tend to discount future costs.
So they don't want you to understand what the data retention policy is?
I believe that's what they said, and the reason I suggested the phrasing I did is because that's what I got out of a bit of search,
That said, a warmer climate is well-known to be increasing the mobility of the sea ice around Antarctica, and this is known to have an affect on the mobility of the ice shelfs, of which this is one. So "no direct effect" is a reasonable phrasing...though even that is slightly conservative. And saying "has an effect" is not equivalent to "causes", but merely to "acted as a contribution to the causes" or some similar phrasing. Most events in climate and weather are quite complex, and to say of any of them that "climate change had no effect" is almost guaranteed to be wrong. In this particular case one can be rather certain that it facilitated (or, at least, accelerated) this split. Yes, it would have happened eventually anyway, but that it happened this soon is tied into the more rapid movement of the glacier which is tied into....which is tied into the fact that as ice warms it loses strength, and as it melts it becomes a lubricant. One could also tie in the length of a lever arm as the ice extends further over the surface of the sea, but that ties back int the more rapid movement of the glaciers on the land.
P.S.: from the article you linked to: ...Luckman says climate change is certainly influencing this region. Larsen C used to have two neighbors to the north, Larsen A and Larsen B. As the ...
Depends on exactly how you mean that, and which scientists. Some of them are concerned because it means that walking around where they're studying is a bit dangerous. Others because their climate model didn't predict this happening so soon. Others because when an ice shelf breaks off, it stops slowing down the movement of the glaciers currently on land out onto the ocean. Others because.... well, there are lots of reasons, and lots of degrees of concern. One base/lab/residence had to be dragged a long way to get it off the ice shelf and onto a place that would be relatively safe.
I think you are mistaken. If you had, instead, said "Scientists actually don't believe this particular instance to be directly caused by climate change" then you'd probably have been correct, though even then you'd be better off qualifying which scientists you meant. E.g., I wouldn't count the opinion of a solid-state physics researcher as any more valid than my own. So perhaps a better phrasing would be "Scientists in the field actually don't believe this particular instance to be directly caused by climate change". Even then I'd have suspicions that they were talking about being able to demonstrate a convincing link rather than what their actual beliefs were.
Yeah, but if they *could* validate it, he'd be the person they'd prosecute, so what're the options.
Last time I tried chromium it couldn't properly handle my bookmarks. So far FireFox can, though they keep trying to get rid of them.
The trouble with C/C++ is the requirement to not break old code. This prevents fixing basic problems. E.g., raw pointers should be eliminated, not just discouraged. Something should be done to allow generation of better error messages. The template system is horribly ugly. Etc.
So sticking with lineal descendants of C/C++ requires embedding lots of really bad decisions into the language. OTOH, people inventing a new language tend to make excessive changes. It always (nearly always) makes sense for some use case, but it lacks the generality. Even D, which I much prefer as a language, lacks the generality of C/C++, to the extent that I'm currently being forced to pick up C++ after staying clear of it for over 2 decades because of various defects. (And I'm really feeling the strain of trying to pick it up. I'd almost rather pick up Ada.)
C and C++ had until recently no standardized concurrency or parallelism primitives. Most systems had non-standardized libraries. Even yet there aren't any standardized methods for handling multiple processes, only multiple threads. But I'm not going to claim any other language is any better.
But there's also a language that the bootstrap C compiler is written in. C is simple enough that this is usually assembler, and the bootstrap C compiler isn't really C, but rather a subset of C.
It may be nothing new, but it's also a weakness (as well as a strength). I've run into multiple languages that went in for self-hosting and eventually became dependent on a binary version because someone lost the full build chain. The solution is to maintain a sub-language that is can be built from something simple, like C.
N.B.: Languages aren't all major languages. One of the languages I'm thinking of was, IIRC, BC-Algol, which was compiled to a reverse-polish intermediate code which was executed by the interpreter. It was never ported off the 7090-7094 DCS system because it wasn't worth rewriting some important part of it. (It *could* have been done, as the lost part was simple enough, but Algol was dying anyway at that time so it was never done.)
But the point is, you've got to maintain the sub-language that your "self-hosting compiler" is written in. If the language becomes popular this isn't a major problem, because you need to use it well with every iteration. If it isn't, though, you can just ignore it until it dies of bit-rot, or you lose the tool-chain, of your backups fail, or... Mozilla is probably a major enough user (now?) that this won't be a big problem, and will be primarily a source of strength, allowing easier porting to alternate systems...but it *is* also a weakness.
Rust *may* be more secure, I haven't used it enough to be sure. It's certainly a lot bigger pain to use, and it only supports *some* mechanisms for secure concurrency. If I wanted to use an actor model I'd need to drop into C, which sort of makes an end-run around their claims of security. Even in there dining philosophers tutorial there's a comment about having to reverse one of the conditions to avoid deadlock. I guess that you can claim deadlock isn't a security problem, but...
OTOH, Swift is still tied heavily to Apple. I know it's been opened, so perhaps in a few years it will be a reasonable choice, but not yet.
You wouldn't believe the amount of effort I've put in trying to avoid using C++, but I've been forced back to it despite everything (including it's horrible travesty of "how to handle unicode").
Well, that is the second reason to vote for Trump I've heard of that seems reasonable. I still don't think it sufficient, and I'll be surprised if he doesn't overrule it...or make a change that's even worse.
Well, the Republicans are in power in both the House and the Senate, so impeachment is quite unlikely no matter how blatant he is. (And he is taking money from foreign governments.)
The ballot box is unavailable for quite some time. Only the House will be available within the next two years, and even that is two years away.
The soap box is being used extensively, but seems to have minor effect. The entire process of the selection of the candidates is so corrupt that it is generally ignored.
OTOH, anything more active is bound to have extensive negative effects. So much so that currently it seems better to let things lie, no matter the costs....which aren't currently quite clear, and are more in prospect than in current presence.
That said, it seems clear that attempts to compromise would be worse than useless, even though the Republicans hold clearly dominant power. If the Democrats could stand unitedly against every encroachment, then the Republicans would need to maintain unity. Unfortunately, much of the Republican plan is tacitly supported by many Democratic legislators, even though most of them won't admit it. (Which explains the selection of Hillary as the Democratic candidate last election cycle.)
There isn't a political party in the country that appears to be worth any trust at all. And this is profoundly discouraging.
Checks and balances are good, but everything has a breaking strain. The presidency has been getting increasingly powerful ever since the Civil War (1865...) and probably before then. (Jackson had some very unpleasant things said about his overreach.) And the current president isn't someone who is reluctant to take chances...so I wouldn't be surprised if he stepped still further into the "Imperial Presidency" role. Perhaps far enough to definitively break the system. The opposition to his doing so is weaker than it has been since FDR. I'm not sure that his meager popularity matters much, as most of those opposed are too far from any levers of power.
I'm really hoping we can avert a replay of Marius vs. Sulla.
My guess is that the problem here is that US school texts don't really cover the rise of Hitler. I went to school in the US 40 years ago. and they didn't cover it then. I pretty much got most of what I learned about it from reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" on my own. Certainly movies didn't help, not even the ones from the late 1940s or early 1950s, when you'd expect them to have access to the facts, sufficient interest, and a knowledgeable audience.
It is my belief that Hitler *was* a socialist, of a rather narrow and peculiar kind, But I've got to admit I don't really understand him, and perhaps he was only a socialist because Bismark was, and only to the extent that Bismark was...or perhaps a bit less. This doesn't imply he wasn't on good terms with the corporate managers. (Not as good as Mussolini, but not far below.) And it seems clear that his real goal was power, whatever he cloaked it with...so he could get along quite well this those powerful entities that facilitated his access to power. I can't even tell whether he like them.
You have more faith that his stated views mean anything than I do. To me is seems as if he just says whatever he things will lead him to more power. When he say the opportunity to gain power by jumping on racism, xenophobia, and "populism", he did so, and ignored his previously stated positions...which were intended to gain power in an environment that was "more liberal".
So, no, I don't think he's a racist. But I also don't think he minds acting like one if he sees that as a way to gain either power or wealth (though I think he just sees wealth as one manifestation of power). And I think he's basically amoral, in a quite thorough way.
The reason that there are so many violent characters on college campuses is that about half of them are young males. Political orientation is nearly irrelevant here.
I wasn't there, I haven't read the coverage, but...
If someone is trying to stir up a mob to kill/molest/injure you or someone you are defending, what do you suggest? Law doesn't enter into this, though ethics and morals do, and reasonable estimation of results.
P.S.: I am opposed to censorship by those with power, but that's because there is so much history where analogous organizations have misused the capability. This doesn't mean I think it should be defensible to, say, publish the simple steps for releasing a dangerous plague...it's that I don't trust the potential regulators.