Girls are much more social than boys even from a very young age. They have no interest in staring at a screen all day by themself.
The human race would probably be better off if a lot fewer people stared at computers all day. But CS would be better off with more females, if for no other reason than equal opportunity (although I think there are other reasons, it's a touchy subject). Overall, we could use a lot fewer people doing a better job of using computers to accomplish things.
I don't think it takes a Turing-level thinker to see that we need to get away from fossil fuels, produce less waste, and find ways to communicate that are more expressive and less disastrous than guns and money. It used to be, that you could take a job like e.g. killing cows with a sledgehammer, or you could starve or turn to crime in desperation. But these days, we have an over-abundance of most everything. I what the masses can do is push fewer buttons, refuse to participate in this parade of capitalist bullshit, and express their real needs, rather than the sucking up the toxic swill that sociopathic businesses keep pumping into our cages. I think we can expect that much from almost anyone, provided the word gets out.
David Quammen postulated that mosquitoes protect forests from us. According to him, undisturbed forests have few mosquitoes, but once we start fucking them up, they swarm. I think this is all the more reason to poison their bloodline; if their abundance is a side-effect of our habitation, then we should reduce our footprint.
But the market has a solution! It's not as though this is a perfect example of the furtherance of our individual isolation dilemna, or that this is contributing to the consolidation of power at the very highest echelons of society.
print sorted(set(range(2,n+1)).difference(set((p * f) for p in range(2,int(n**0.5) + 2) for f in range(2,(n/p)+1))))
Now do this in VB.
Parent didn't say, "This is beautiful. Do this." Parent said (paraphrasing) Python is powerful. This is a good example of that. It's dense and it's awful, but (nested) list comprehensions are nothing if not powerful.
And its not going to make one iota of difference what language you learned those fundamentals on in high school when you get to university.
If it's not going make a difference, then why use a language that only works on one platform, rather than an open one, like Python or Ruby?
In simple words: decomposing the main issue into subsequent small-ones and providing solutions to the sub-issues, the result taking form of a node tree.
The entire community is going to get stuck on one of those unsolvable graph theory problems.
Nonsense, malarkey, and hocus pocus. That's 5 links to articles, all of which make assertions that are not tested or are too vague to be easily testable.
"Putting chemicals on your skin is actually far worse than ingesting them.
Which chemicals? This statement could be true for some, and patently false for others. Ditto for all the stuff you said about the liver. (IANAD but I've taken biochem, so, come at me if you like)
That Dr. Hyman article is BS.... I can't believe how hard that fucking vaccine myth is to stamp out. THE RESEARCH WAS FRAUDULENT! (and abusive!)
Concerning autism and vitamin D, correlation and causation....
If I seem shrill about this, well, my brother is autistic, and I am extremely BS-averse.
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Scientists who become recognizable have a chance and perhaps even a responsibility, which they have often exploited, to promote science literacy...
I just want to say, that I don't think there's any responsibility implied here. Generally, someone can be as clever as they like, and not do anything for anyone else, and it's not their problem. There's maybe no reason not to, perhaps since they would be promoting the way they make a living; maybe I just don't like the way this was phrased.
Well, lets test that in Venus. But it doesn't matter what we do to the atmosphere, it will be unstable, so long as the planet doesn't rotate. And that's something we can never fix (with the amount of energy needed, it'd make more sense to push Mars into the Asteroid belt to "absorb" all the asteroids there to become more Earthlike in size, then move Mars to a more friendly (closer to the sun) orbit. As much as that'd take, it's still be less energy than spinning Venus to Earth days.
I don't know. I am suspicious of a few things here. Maybe you have a source? I don't see how making a planet spin takes less energy then pushing it into different orbits. Maybe if you want to push Mars around in a very very slow way, this is true, but it would take a looooooong time. Also, any amount of collisions that added substantially to the volume of Mars, would create oceans of molten lava. If we let Mars accrue enough of the asteroids to gain gravity, it would take a long long time to cool off I think...? (It would also build up a lot of carbon dioxide in the process, which is actually a good thing for terraforming purposes, but it would translate into a still longer superhot period).
Another really important question is just how much of the world's creative potential is devoted to creating meta-inventions on top of rulesets intended for something else entirely rather than, say, bringing about world peace, curing cancer, feeding the hungry, or just plain moving out of your mom's basement. Not that I am entirely without sin in this regard myself, but it is a sad commentary on the state of the world (virtual or not) that we appear to live in when solving vast and pointless artificial problems in a virtual reality is more appealing than tackling the real and serious problems that surround us.
Personally, I find that energy devoted to task is nothing like units expended i.e. not at all a zero-sum game. For myself, I can spend a long time working on tough math problems, and indeed feel very exhausted, but then when I turn to something else, like say cleaning up the kitchen, I do very well, in fact I do a better job then I would if I had not been working hard at something else for a while. Also, developing a tolerance to working on something tough translates well into doing (possibly more important) tough things later.
GPS apps allow trips that were impossible before. E.G. I used GPS to navigate a truck out of downtown SF at night, from an apartment building to the freeway to Mountain View, including tons of construction sites, alone. I don't live in SF and I had basically no idea of where I was. I could have memorized the directions and learned a bunch of stuff about SF, which would have been a waste of time (since I don't live near); instead I got to have an interesting conversation about email security on the way. This is, for me, a perfect example of the utility of abstraction that apps allow.
Also, what about the mindset of a weapon-wielder? I for one am shy of guns. I don't even like to see them, much less maintain some proficiencies. If I were a higher-up in the military, I would want my technical staff to at least be able to imagine very very vividly what the grunts were going through. I wouldn't want some kind of gun-shy pacifist making decisions that could have a bearing on the outcome.
There could be caveats to this principle, though, like creating a training environment that somehow prevented my drone pilots from exhibiting PTSD, or some variant of Ender's Game.
To be fair: LOTR and The Hobbit are the best movie-adaptions of Tolkien to date.
I like Ralph Bakshi's cartoon. When I was a kid, I thought it was super-duper cool. He conveyed the feeling of ancient and powerful magic, and retained a feeling of naivete regarding the power of the ring and the involvement of Sauron. The world is much more magical if you are introduced to the ring as a curiousity, and then read LOTR and see how much deeper the world gets.
Jackson messed up some stuff pretty seriously. I hated the first new "Hobbit" movie. I didn't see the other two. I refuse.
I don't recall which book, but in one of the Culture novels, it was stated that swarms that grew exponentially in all directions were always eradicated by other races. It was viewed as a problem that arose from time to time. This is supposing that there are hard limits to all technology, and that many races reach those limits. On the other hand, it seems clear in that world that the Minds are the most advanced known creatures, so machines do win out.
Of course top-down constructed machines, built by other machines, are going to win out. I take that as a given just based on the fact that we can build calculators.
This was absurdly hard to research, because I only needed some specific seemingly simple facts.
It takes an adult about 1 mg of THC to feel subjectively 'high', and even if hash is only 20% THC (it can be upwards of 60%), and even at only 20% delivery efficiency, that's only 25 mg of hash. That would be a very small amount of cocaine.
I *could not* find specific gravity of THC or cocaine. I looked on pubchem and elsewhere
Based on Google images, a kilo of cocaine looks a little bigger than a kilo of hash to me. If cocaine was not ~10 more valuable by weight, then I'm pretty sure that it would not make a difference which one you were smuggling in terms of physics.
It bears responsibility for helping turn the '80s into the "Cocaine Decade" in the U.S. because it became much more difficult to import the the heavy and bulky drug marijuana into the U.S. through Florida...
BS... THC is more psychoactive, by weight, than cocaine. By this logic, why didn't hash win out, or for that matter, heroin, or synthetic opiates active in the lower microgram range? People love coke, simple as that.
I pay for vaccines that are not covered by insurance.
I am speaking for myself and don't want to be construed as speaking for you, but I think this sucks. They ought to be free, considering that most of the people who are most at risk don't want to pay extra for them. I remember working public-facing jobs, not making much money, having to weigh the cost of getting a flu shot (or the extra effort of a free one, which amounted to roughly the same), against the risk of catching the flu (and possibly passing it on to my coworkers or the public).
Slashdot Mirror
Girls are much more social than boys even from a very young age. They have no interest in staring at a screen all day by themself.
The human race would probably be better off if a lot fewer people stared at computers all day. But CS would be better off with more females, if for no other reason than equal opportunity (although I think there are other reasons, it's a touchy subject). Overall, we could use a lot fewer people doing a better job of using computers to accomplish things.
I don't think it takes a Turing-level thinker to see that we need to get away from fossil fuels, produce less waste, and find ways to communicate that are more expressive and less disastrous than guns and money. It used to be, that you could take a job like e.g. killing cows with a sledgehammer, or you could starve or turn to crime in desperation. But these days, we have an over-abundance of most everything. I what the masses can do is push fewer buttons, refuse to participate in this parade of capitalist bullshit, and express their real needs, rather than the sucking up the toxic swill that sociopathic businesses keep pumping into our cages. I think we can expect that much from almost anyone, provided the word gets out.
David Quammen postulated that mosquitoes protect forests from us. According to him, undisturbed forests have few mosquitoes, but once we start fucking them up, they swarm. I think this is all the more reason to poison their bloodline; if their abundance is a side-effect of our habitation, then we should reduce our footprint.
But the market has a solution! It's not as though this is a perfect example of the furtherance of our individual isolation dilemna, or that this is contributing to the consolidation of power at the very highest echelons of society.
Your time will arrive
print sorted(set(range(2,n+1)).difference(set((p * f) for p in range(2,int(n**0.5) + 2) for f in range(2,(n/p)+1)))) Now do this in VB.
Parent didn't say, "This is beautiful. Do this." Parent said (paraphrasing) Python is powerful. This is a good example of that. It's dense and it's awful, but (nested) list comprehensions are nothing if not powerful.
And its not going to make one iota of difference what language you learned those fundamentals on in high school when you get to university.
If it's not going make a difference, then why use a language that only works on one platform, rather than an open one, like Python or Ruby?
In simple words: decomposing the main issue into subsequent small-ones and providing solutions to the sub-issues, the result taking form of a node tree.
The entire community is going to get stuck on one of those unsolvable graph theory problems.
"Putting chemicals on your skin is actually far worse than ingesting them.
Which chemicals? This statement could be true for some, and patently false for others. Ditto for all the stuff you said about the liver. (IANAD but I've taken biochem, so, come at me if you like)
That Dr. Hyman article is BS.... I can't believe how hard that fucking vaccine myth is to stamp out. THE RESEARCH WAS FRAUDULENT! (and abusive!)
Concerning autism and vitamin D, correlation and causation....
If I seem shrill about this, well, my brother is autistic, and I am extremely BS-averse.
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
-Christopher Hitchens
$45 MILLION dollars for annoying phone calls
That's the kind of lawsuit that causes the lobbyists to ride to Washington.
Scientists who become recognizable have a chance and perhaps even a responsibility, which they have often exploited, to promote science literacy...
I just want to say, that I don't think there's any responsibility implied here. Generally, someone can be as clever as they like, and not do anything for anyone else, and it's not their problem. There's maybe no reason not to, perhaps since they would be promoting the way they make a living; maybe I just don't like the way this was phrased.
You just want my bandwidth. sneaky sneaky...
Well, lets test that in Venus. But it doesn't matter what we do to the atmosphere, it will be unstable, so long as the planet doesn't rotate. And that's something we can never fix (with the amount of energy needed, it'd make more sense to push Mars into the Asteroid belt to "absorb" all the asteroids there to become more Earthlike in size, then move Mars to a more friendly (closer to the sun) orbit. As much as that'd take, it's still be less energy than spinning Venus to Earth days.
I don't know. I am suspicious of a few things here. Maybe you have a source? I don't see how making a planet spin takes less energy then pushing it into different orbits. Maybe if you want to push Mars around in a very very slow way, this is true, but it would take a looooooong time. Also, any amount of collisions that added substantially to the volume of Mars, would create oceans of molten lava. If we let Mars accrue enough of the asteroids to gain gravity, it would take a long long time to cool off I think...? (It would also build up a lot of carbon dioxide in the process, which is actually a good thing for terraforming purposes, but it would translate into a still longer superhot period).
Again, not sure.
Another really important question is just how much of the world's creative potential is devoted to creating meta-inventions on top of rulesets intended for something else entirely rather than, say, bringing about world peace, curing cancer, feeding the hungry, or just plain moving out of your mom's basement. Not that I am entirely without sin in this regard myself, but it is a sad commentary on the state of the world (virtual or not) that we appear to live in when solving vast and pointless artificial problems in a virtual reality is more appealing than tackling the real and serious problems that surround us.
Personally, I find that energy devoted to task is nothing like units expended i.e. not at all a zero-sum game. For myself, I can spend a long time working on tough math problems, and indeed feel very exhausted, but then when I turn to something else, like say cleaning up the kitchen, I do very well, in fact I do a better job then I would if I had not been working hard at something else for a while. Also, developing a tolerance to working on something tough translates well into doing (possibly more important) tough things later.
This could just be me.
GPS apps allow trips that were impossible before. E.G. I used GPS to navigate a truck out of downtown SF at night, from an apartment building to the freeway to Mountain View, including tons of construction sites, alone. I don't live in SF and I had basically no idea of where I was. I could have memorized the directions and learned a bunch of stuff about SF, which would have been a waste of time (since I don't live near); instead I got to have an interesting conversation about email security on the way. This is, for me, a perfect example of the utility of abstraction that apps allow.
Also, what about the mindset of a weapon-wielder? I for one am shy of guns. I don't even like to see them, much less maintain some proficiencies. If I were a higher-up in the military, I would want my technical staff to at least be able to imagine very very vividly what the grunts were going through. I wouldn't want some kind of gun-shy pacifist making decisions that could have a bearing on the outcome.
There could be caveats to this principle, though, like creating a training environment that somehow prevented my drone pilots from exhibiting PTSD, or some variant of Ender's Game.
To be fair: LOTR and The Hobbit are the best movie-adaptions of Tolkien to date.
I like Ralph Bakshi's cartoon. When I was a kid, I thought it was super-duper cool. He conveyed the feeling of ancient and powerful magic, and retained a feeling of naivete regarding the power of the ring and the involvement of Sauron. The world is much more magical if you are introduced to the ring as a curiousity, and then read LOTR and see how much deeper the world gets.
Jackson messed up some stuff pretty seriously. I hated the first new "Hobbit" movie. I didn't see the other two. I refuse.
It would be cheaper to buy coffee machines at the thrift store and toss the entire machine out once a week. Not that that makes any sense.
The sceptic system is already clogged up, we can't handle any more!
I don't recall which book, but in one of the Culture novels, it was stated that swarms that grew exponentially in all directions were always eradicated by other races. It was viewed as a problem that arose from time to time. This is supposing that there are hard limits to all technology, and that many races reach those limits. On the other hand, it seems clear in that world that the Minds are the most advanced known creatures, so machines do win out.
Of course top-down constructed machines, built by other machines, are going to win out. I take that as a given just based on the fact that we can build calculators.
I was setting economics aside, because I thought that the parent was too.
This was absurdly hard to research, because I only needed some specific seemingly simple facts.
It takes an adult about 1 mg of THC to feel subjectively 'high', and even if hash is only 20% THC (it can be upwards of 60%), and even at only 20% delivery efficiency, that's only 25 mg of hash. That would be a very small amount of cocaine.
I *could not* find specific gravity of THC or cocaine. I looked on pubchem and elsewhere
Based on Google images, a kilo of cocaine looks a little bigger than a kilo of hash to me. If cocaine was not ~10 more valuable by weight, then I'm pretty sure that it would not make a difference which one you were smuggling in terms of physics.
They can die in storm or turbulence-related accidents, making the whole mission much more dramatic and Hollywood-worthy.
It bears responsibility for helping turn the '80s into the "Cocaine Decade" in the U.S. because it became much more difficult to import the the heavy and bulky drug marijuana into the U.S. through Florida...
BS... THC is more psychoactive, by weight, than cocaine. By this logic, why didn't hash win out, or for that matter, heroin, or synthetic opiates active in the lower microgram range? People love coke, simple as that.
Actually, you have to begin sprouting it in order to make malt, so the grain needs to be relatively fresh.
I pay for vaccines that are not covered by insurance.
I am speaking for myself and don't want to be construed as speaking for you, but I think this sucks. They ought to be free, considering that most of the people who are most at risk don't want to pay extra for them. I remember working public-facing jobs, not making much money, having to weigh the cost of getting a flu shot (or the extra effort of a free one, which amounted to roughly the same), against the risk of catching the flu (and possibly passing it on to my coworkers or the public).