Well, everyone not in the line of a hurricane. Trump is now trying to revise the death toll from the storm in Puerto Rico and may well restrict aid to the Carolinas and Virginia once we know the damage. After all, he proclaimed everything would be fine.
Making kids "the customers" was tried in Britain. Standards have collapsed, costs have skyrocketed, the teaching profession has gone from being respected to being scorned.
Academies in Britain are amongst the worst schools. Even allowing for their efforts to rig exam rankings, they're still behind state schools. And this is to be expected, education is either about money or it is about learning. It cannot be about both. And if it is about money, it will always be inferior.
48% of the doctors WERE immigrants. You've halved the number of doctors by eliminating them. Congratulations.
The money coming in from health tourism exceeded the cost of the care, releasing more money into the NHS for actually PROVIDING that care.
These are established facts. Your fiction is of no interest to me.
Let me guess, England - you know, the country that invented English - is not your home country. I'm British, going back to before the Romans, not these Anglo-Saxon foreigners. They can go back to where they came from, in Scandinavia! They never assimilated, neither did the Norman French. Yes, FRENCH!
That's the equivalent of saying that energy is created when you raise an object in the air because you can do useful work when it falls. In reality, the conservation of energy hasn't been breached at all.
Had an excellent series of short stories. One was on robot war. Nations would declare war on each other all the time, robots would fight it out, everyone would watch the monitors and cheer on their side.
Only this time, the robots on the allied side started failing for no apparent reason. By the time anyone realized what was actually happening, it was too late.
This is the best possible outcome. War becomes trivialized and a spectator sport because nobody is hurt, someone finds an exploit, Everyone Dies(tm).
That's the best.
The worst is a lot worse. When war and peace become difficult to distinguish, permanent war and unimaginable suffering are inevitable.
You can peg whatever you like to the dollar. It means you exchange X tokens for 1 dollar.
Zimbabwe and China peg their currency to the dollar. The gold standard worked by pegging one ounce of gold to some number of dollars and then having everyone peg their currency to the dollar.
So in 1920, almost every currency on Earth was pegged to the dollar and none of them were the U.S. government.
Come on, exchange rate mechanisms aren't that hard.
What you do is you buy/sell tokens to artificially regulate demand to stabilize currency value at the price you want. Europe tried this with the ERM before switching to the Euro.
The key problem is the assumption that blockchain and currency are linked.
Blockchain is a revision control system with support for branches and merging. It can be used anywhere a revision control system can be used.
It is also a logging system and can be used anywhere you create logs
That basically covers incremental backups, version control in documents and software, profiling of non-uniform resources and probably many other things, all of which are more interesting than money. Money is a means to an end, it has no value in itself.
Are used as a matter of simplification. There is no clean boundary, only a continuum where the classical states (solid, liquid, gas, plasma) are specific islands.
Quantum doesn't mean magical, it just means something with discrete states rather than continuous states. QM is a quantum theory that mostly applies to the very small but can scale up to objects of a few millimetres under some conditions. Actually, some aspects - such as the Schrodinger Equation - applies to planetary rings, asteroid belts and accretion disks.
The first question is whether it's useful to talk of states of matter. If it is, is it useful to use traditional ones or should we decompose phenomena into the raw properties and then compose a new set of states that reduces the need for weird overlaps and talk of mysteries beyond the ken of man?
The second question (or third, if you go with the option above) is whether something that is apparently orthogonal to the original list is a state in the original sense? The original sense is a linear continuum, not a set of sets. This new thing is apparently not on that line. If matter's state is multidimensional, our naming should reflect that.
The new Microsoft isn't your father's Microsoft. They lied in court, illegally bundled and sought to undermine rival technology. The new Microsoft does all that and spams you too. Definitely not the same. The old Microsoft never stopped that low.
The majority of Trump supporters have no problem with the fact that the American economy isn't stronger but is in fact considerably weaker with ever-more industries moving manufacturing offshore because it's no longer viable due to Trump's policies, and that the tax cuts have benefited the rich only. I simply cannot accept that they voted for a better economy because a far worse one isn't fazing them in the least. They're proud of it.
As for Brexit, sorry, the EU paid Britain more than Britain paid the EU, once all subsidies and access rights (such as to EU scientific facilities, EU contracts, EU airports, EU shipping lanes, EU crime databases, and so on) are taken into consideration. So it wasn't about ceding billions of pounds. Ceding laws? There's never been a single case of a law ceded to Europe. On the contrary, their data protection laws are taken from Britain, their Constitution is taken from Britain, their government structure is based on Britain, it's all Britain. And everyone knew this.
But wait, there's more! Buy one example, get one absolutely free! Fact is, once Britain's financial collapse became obvious, companies moved out -- into Europe, and the British government stated austerity would worsen after leaving, the overwhelming majority of Brexit supporters specifically stated that it didn't matter, that money had nothing to do with it. Hey, their words not mine, Again, it's simply not possible for me to accept two contradictory statements, I have to accept the one that is based on observations of fact not theory.
Won't work. Immigration actually reduces the strain, as shown by the collapse of the NHS due to the ban on health tourism and foreign doctors.
Immigration actually raises wages by producing a richer culture and thus greater diversity in employment and therefore a stronger economy, as demonstrated by Britain.
Protective tariffs actually hurt social welfare programs by raising costs and reducing the supply of skilled workers and necessary gear.
You heard that platform, yes, but not from anyone I would consider to be competent at business.
Productivity and profitability skyrocketed and accidents plummeted when factories moved to the 40 hour week because it's much closer to the total number of hours the human brain and body can work at something without fatigue totally destroying any value in that work.
A lot of this was discovered by people like Sir Titus Salt, Joseph Rountree, Robert Owen, Samuel Oldknow and other such thinkers of the time, but practical understanding of both the strengths and limitations of various work weeks through modern formal experimentation has produced a clearer picture.
Yes, they can work 60 hours. And after 35 hours, the cost of the mistakes exceeds the value of the work. So all you've achieved is 25 hours of negative work at the same cost per hour as the positive work. You can't just subtract, as fatigue isn't symmetric, so it's more than a total of 10 hours of actual useful work per week that you're paying for, but it's unlikely to be more than 20.
Hiring two people at 30 hours a week each at the same pay rate would therefore give you three times the productivity of that one person from China. Even if you paid them as if they were working a 40 hour week, you're still making money off the deal.
You cannot simply add up hours and assume it means anything.
Productivity actually goes up as you reduce from 40 hours. You achieve maximum productivity over a given workday if the workday is around 7 hours in length. You start losing, due to mental and physical fatigue, after that to the point where it costs businesses money to repair the damage caused in the 8th hour in addition to the cost of wages.
Having immigrants won't change that. Businesses on a 35-hour week will simply out-compete those working on a 40-hour week, even if both paid identically per year. It's not about willingness, it's about fundamental constraints in neurology and human biology.
There's another consideration. Long work hours is extremely harmful to brain and body. Give people slightly shorter hours, provided they don't veg out in front of the TV, and they'll fall sick less often, will suffer fewer workplace accidents and will be capable of working for many more years with all of the added value of their acquired skills and experience.
Many people have worked on optimizing this, over the past 150 years. This isn't a new idea, there's lots of data out there, the question is what do you decide the optimal value is once you understand that the 40 hour week is suboptimal because it's excessive.
First problem is that humans have evolved to work. Like certain types of engine, if you don't put them under some load, they simply destroy themselves. This is what you see in humans who don't need to work, it's why the mega-rich are the most suicidal, most delinquent elements in society.
Second problem is that robots simply can't ever be made to do as good a job at some tasks. That's a serious problem. People of the future, if they've any brains, won't place themselves in a situation where they get inferior results.
Third problem is that this requires a stagnant society. An evolving society will always have new lines of work that robots/computers simply don't know how to do. The more people you have out of work, provided the education is any good, the more such lines of work will appear. The rate of change is a power function of the number of minds you have freed up to do the thinking, whereas robot development is strictly a linear function of the number of groups working on the problem. Stagnant societies are walking dead, so the only ones that matter are the progressive societies.
You're assuming that productivity per person is fixed. In reality, we know it isn't. It's extremely variable and fatigue lowers it. Indeed, it can push productivity into negative territory.
Certainly with a 7-hour day at 8-hour day pay, companies will actually get more work done per unit of pay than they currently do. This is because the 8th hour has negative productivity. It's money spent on wages plus clearing up mistakes, with essentially nothing being made for it. Switching to a 7 hour week at the same take-home pay often, although not always, results in the company becoming more profitable. That this isn't intuitive is irrelevant, it's simply what's observed in the field.
After the first seven hours, the number of mistakes made in a typical workplace exceed the typical added value of working that extra hour. It would therefore, in many industries, be more profitable to work 5 hours less a week. Not for all industries, but for many.
That's only five hours. To bring it up to 8, and thus give you effectively one day less, you'd have to do half-day on one of the work days - a very common arrangement in the trades until very recently.
However, to have a strict four day work week, you'd need a different sort of arrangement because you've still got negative productivity on the eighth hour. Maybe less negative production, because greater rest will presumably help to some degree, provided it's coupled with increased mental stimulation. Couch potatoes are your problem. An extra day of vegging out won't help anyone other than Harley Street doctors.
49% of America believed the same claims about the Mexicans. 52% Britain believed the same claims about the Europeans.
Stupidity is not, apparently, terribly territorial. And whilst there are good reasons for thinking good education would help, nobody is willing to pay for it. It's like vaccines, unless 95% or more are inoculated against ignorance, there's no herd immunity and everyone becomes infected with stupid. And that requires a total rejection of the theory that people should be responsible for their own education, it has to be collective and most societies can't handle that.
Ok, I would agree with that. So, license check then a benchtest. IANAL, but I can do the latter adequately even if I can only do a cursory skim for the former.
In the case of Verified C, it's slightly different - they've proven the optimizer will generate code that is functionally identical to the source, so you can't be sure if another compiler will generate equivalent binary.
However, whether talking about Checked C, Verified C, SAFERCode or any other validation system, validated source is validated. Furthermore, once you've done any runtime testing and shown no errors occur when in operation, that should hold true for compiled code from any compiler. Green Hills, Portland Compiler Group, Intel, etc.
So this would be a great environment for continuous integration and alpha testing, but you needn't use it for beta tests or an official release.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody has silenced Republicans, save Trump himself. He is the only censor you need to consider.
Well, everyone not in the line of a hurricane. Trump is now trying to revise the death toll from the storm in Puerto Rico and may well restrict aid to the Carolinas and Virginia once we know the damage. After all, he proclaimed everything would be fine.
Making kids "the customers" was tried in Britain. Standards have collapsed, costs have skyrocketed, the teaching profession has gone from being respected to being scorned.
Academies in Britain are amongst the worst schools. Even allowing for their efforts to rig exam rankings, they're still behind state schools. And this is to be expected, education is either about money or it is about learning. It cannot be about both. And if it is about money, it will always be inferior.
48% of the doctors WERE immigrants. You've halved the number of doctors by eliminating them. Congratulations.
The money coming in from health tourism exceeded the cost of the care, releasing more money into the NHS for actually PROVIDING that care.
These are established facts. Your fiction is of no interest to me.
Let me guess, England - you know, the country that invented English - is not your home country. I'm British, going back to before the Romans, not these Anglo-Saxon foreigners. They can go back to where they came from, in Scandinavia! They never assimilated, neither did the Norman French. Yes, FRENCH!
That's the equivalent of saying that energy is created when you raise an object in the air because you can do useful work when it falls. In reality, the conservation of energy hasn't been breached at all.
Had an excellent series of short stories. One was on robot war. Nations would declare war on each other all the time, robots would fight it out, everyone would watch the monitors and cheer on their side.
Only this time, the robots on the allied side started failing for no apparent reason. By the time anyone realized what was actually happening, it was too late.
This is the best possible outcome. War becomes trivialized and a spectator sport because nobody is hurt, someone finds an exploit, Everyone Dies(tm).
That's the best.
The worst is a lot worse. When war and peace become difficult to distinguish, permanent war and unimaginable suffering are inevitable.
You can peg whatever you like to the dollar. It means you exchange X tokens for 1 dollar.
Zimbabwe and China peg their currency to the dollar. The gold standard worked by pegging one ounce of gold to some number of dollars and then having everyone peg their currency to the dollar.
So in 1920, almost every currency on Earth was pegged to the dollar and none of them were the U.S. government.
Come on, exchange rate mechanisms aren't that hard.
What you do is you buy/sell tokens to artificially regulate demand to stabilize currency value at the price you want. Europe tried this with the ERM before switching to the Euro.
The market value of flint today is considerably higher than it was in the Neolithic. And?
The key problem is the assumption that blockchain and currency are linked.
Blockchain is a revision control system with support for branches and merging. It can be used anywhere a revision control system can be used.
It is also a logging system and can be used anywhere you create logs
That basically covers incremental backups, version control in documents and software, profiling of non-uniform resources and probably many other things, all of which are more interesting than money. Money is a means to an end, it has no value in itself.
The negative and positive cancel out, so nothing has been created or destroyed in your example, only converted.
Are used as a matter of simplification. There is no clean boundary, only a continuum where the classical states (solid, liquid, gas, plasma) are specific islands.
Quantum doesn't mean magical, it just means something with discrete states rather than continuous states. QM is a quantum theory that mostly applies to the very small but can scale up to objects of a few millimetres under some conditions. Actually, some aspects - such as the Schrodinger Equation - applies to planetary rings, asteroid belts and accretion disks.
The first question is whether it's useful to talk of states of matter. If it is, is it useful to use traditional ones or should we decompose phenomena into the raw properties and then compose a new set of states that reduces the need for weird overlaps and talk of mysteries beyond the ken of man?
The second question (or third, if you go with the option above) is whether something that is apparently orthogonal to the original list is a state in the original sense? The original sense is a linear continuum, not a set of sets. This new thing is apparently not on that line. If matter's state is multidimensional, our naming should reflect that.
The new Microsoft isn't your father's Microsoft. They lied in court, illegally bundled and sought to undermine rival technology. The new Microsoft does all that and spams you too. Definitely not the same. The old Microsoft never stopped that low.
That's been said, but it doesn't add up.
The majority of Trump supporters have no problem with the fact that the American economy isn't stronger but is in fact considerably weaker with ever-more industries moving manufacturing offshore because it's no longer viable due to Trump's policies, and that the tax cuts have benefited the rich only. I simply cannot accept that they voted for a better economy because a far worse one isn't fazing them in the least. They're proud of it.
As for Brexit, sorry, the EU paid Britain more than Britain paid the EU, once all subsidies and access rights (such as to EU scientific facilities, EU contracts, EU airports, EU shipping lanes, EU crime databases, and so on) are taken into consideration. So it wasn't about ceding billions of pounds. Ceding laws? There's never been a single case of a law ceded to Europe. On the contrary, their data protection laws are taken from Britain, their Constitution is taken from Britain, their government structure is based on Britain, it's all Britain. And everyone knew this.
But wait, there's more! Buy one example, get one absolutely free! Fact is, once Britain's financial collapse became obvious, companies moved out -- into Europe, and the British government stated austerity would worsen after leaving, the overwhelming majority of Brexit supporters specifically stated that it didn't matter, that money had nothing to do with it. Hey, their words not mine, Again, it's simply not possible for me to accept two contradictory statements, I have to accept the one that is based on observations of fact not theory.
Won't work. Immigration actually reduces the strain, as shown by the collapse of the NHS due to the ban on health tourism and foreign doctors.
Immigration actually raises wages by producing a richer culture and thus greater diversity in employment and therefore a stronger economy, as demonstrated by Britain.
Protective tariffs actually hurt social welfare programs by raising costs and reducing the supply of skilled workers and necessary gear.
You heard that platform, yes, but not from anyone I would consider to be competent at business.
Productivity and profitability skyrocketed and accidents plummeted when factories moved to the 40 hour week because it's much closer to the total number of hours the human brain and body can work at something without fatigue totally destroying any value in that work.
A lot of this was discovered by people like Sir Titus Salt, Joseph Rountree, Robert Owen, Samuel Oldknow and other such thinkers of the time, but practical understanding of both the strengths and limitations of various work weeks through modern formal experimentation has produced a clearer picture.
Yes, they can work 60 hours. And after 35 hours, the cost of the mistakes exceeds the value of the work. So all you've achieved is 25 hours of negative work at the same cost per hour as the positive work. You can't just subtract, as fatigue isn't symmetric, so it's more than a total of 10 hours of actual useful work per week that you're paying for, but it's unlikely to be more than 20.
Hiring two people at 30 hours a week each at the same pay rate would therefore give you three times the productivity of that one person from China. Even if you paid them as if they were working a 40 hour week, you're still making money off the deal.
You cannot simply add up hours and assume it means anything.
Productivity actually goes up as you reduce from 40 hours. You achieve maximum productivity over a given workday if the workday is around 7 hours in length. You start losing, due to mental and physical fatigue, after that to the point where it costs businesses money to repair the damage caused in the 8th hour in addition to the cost of wages.
Having immigrants won't change that. Businesses on a 35-hour week will simply out-compete those working on a 40-hour week, even if both paid identically per year. It's not about willingness, it's about fundamental constraints in neurology and human biology.
There's another consideration. Long work hours is extremely harmful to brain and body. Give people slightly shorter hours, provided they don't veg out in front of the TV, and they'll fall sick less often, will suffer fewer workplace accidents and will be capable of working for many more years with all of the added value of their acquired skills and experience.
Many people have worked on optimizing this, over the past 150 years. This isn't a new idea, there's lots of data out there, the question is what do you decide the optimal value is once you understand that the 40 hour week is suboptimal because it's excessive.
First problem is that humans have evolved to work. Like certain types of engine, if you don't put them under some load, they simply destroy themselves. This is what you see in humans who don't need to work, it's why the mega-rich are the most suicidal, most delinquent elements in society.
Second problem is that robots simply can't ever be made to do as good a job at some tasks. That's a serious problem. People of the future, if they've any brains, won't place themselves in a situation where they get inferior results.
Third problem is that this requires a stagnant society. An evolving society will always have new lines of work that robots/computers simply don't know how to do. The more people you have out of work, provided the education is any good, the more such lines of work will appear. The rate of change is a power function of the number of minds you have freed up to do the thinking, whereas robot development is strictly a linear function of the number of groups working on the problem. Stagnant societies are walking dead, so the only ones that matter are the progressive societies.
You're assuming that productivity per person is fixed. In reality, we know it isn't. It's extremely variable and fatigue lowers it. Indeed, it can push productivity into negative territory.
Certainly with a 7-hour day at 8-hour day pay, companies will actually get more work done per unit of pay than they currently do. This is because the 8th hour has negative productivity. It's money spent on wages plus clearing up mistakes, with essentially nothing being made for it. Switching to a 7 hour week at the same take-home pay often, although not always, results in the company becoming more profitable. That this isn't intuitive is irrelevant, it's simply what's observed in the field.
After the first seven hours, the number of mistakes made in a typical workplace exceed the typical added value of working that extra hour. It would therefore, in many industries, be more profitable to work 5 hours less a week. Not for all industries, but for many.
That's only five hours. To bring it up to 8, and thus give you effectively one day less, you'd have to do half-day on one of the work days - a very common arrangement in the trades until very recently.
However, to have a strict four day work week, you'd need a different sort of arrangement because you've still got negative productivity on the eighth hour. Maybe less negative production, because greater rest will presumably help to some degree, provided it's coupled with increased mental stimulation. Couch potatoes are your problem. An extra day of vegging out won't help anyone other than Harley Street doctors.
49% of America believed the same claims about the Mexicans.
52% Britain believed the same claims about the Europeans.
Stupidity is not, apparently, terribly territorial. And whilst there are good reasons for thinking good education would help, nobody is willing to pay for it. It's like vaccines, unless 95% or more are inoculated against ignorance, there's no herd immunity and everyone becomes infected with stupid. And that requires a total rejection of the theory that people should be responsible for their own education, it has to be collective and most societies can't handle that.
But it's not just that. I suggest reading through Tacitus' book A Dialogue Concerning Oratory, or the Causes of Corrupt Eloquence.
Agreed. And quite a few studies of MISRA say likewise.
There's probably a subset that is genuinely useful, simply because it does seem to work when selectively applied.
Ok, I would agree with that. So, license check then a benchtest. IANAL, but I can do the latter adequately even if I can only do a cursory skim for the former.
You are correct.
In the case of Verified C, it's slightly different - they've proven the optimizer will generate code that is functionally identical to the source, so you can't be sure if another compiler will generate equivalent binary.
However, whether talking about Checked C, Verified C, SAFERCode or any other validation system, validated source is validated. Furthermore, once you've done any runtime testing and shown no errors occur when in operation, that should hold true for compiled code from any compiler. Green Hills, Portland Compiler Group, Intel, etc.
So this would be a great environment for continuous integration and alpha testing, but you needn't use it for beta tests or an official release.
How is vi the least bit related to the compiler?
I assume people understand clang is a compiler, not a text editor. Or maybe I'm assuming too much.