Wow... nice. No offense, but that really is a dick thing to say, particularly since, as we all know, the plural of anecdote is not data.
In contrast, I went to school with someone who underwent a sex change, and they were, as far as I could tell, quite happy, with a loving husband and a teenaged son (who, I believe, was a result of a relationship prior to her gender change).
** READERS PLEASE NOTE : On eBay you are not obligated to pay your max bid - Your actual bid is whatever is just high enough to be the highest bidder, up to your maximum bid. Please make sure you understand this.
Ahh, now that's a detail I wasn't aware of.
In a pure auction scenario, you're wrong. But if this is the way eBay works, then you're absolutely right (at least, I think you are:). You should just enter your maximum bid, and then allow the auction system to take care of the rest.
Have you not been paying attention? The dispute on the influence of the SUN and whatever is also warming Mars. Sorry, I didn't think it needed spelled out.
And yet, still, no links or references. Just discussion of some mysterious, anonymous "scientists". And you completely ignore the rest of my post, probably because you have no rebuttal.
So, how about *I* provide a link discussing the topic of "warming" on Mars. Oh, and before you start, here's a link discussing the "warming" on Jupiter. Alright, now it's your turn.
Meanwhile, ask yourself: If GW is due to solar forcing, why aren't we seeing the exact same trends on Venus? Or Neptune? Or Saturn? Or Jupiter (no, Jupiter is not experiencing GW, see the preceding link)? Why just Earth and Mars?
Or, maybe it's just the obvious: Earth and Mars are both experiencing independent climate change, but for different reasons, neither of which is related to solar output. But the anti-AGW folks need *some* sort of proof, and so they're cherrypicking their results, and then claiming victory.
It's only called scientific debate if the points being debated are worth discussing. Otherwise it's called manufactured controversy, and it's a pointless waste of energy.
For example, there are those who persist in talking about Mars and Jupiter warming up. Of course, if they were to do just a little research, they'd discover that Jupiter's "warming" is highly localized and probably internally driven, and Mars' "warming" is probably due to regional climate changes to due planetary orbital characteristics. And that's ignoring the fact that some of the most dramatic warming on earth (the last 50 years) has occurred while the climates of both planets have been relatively stable. And yet, surprise surprise, the anti-AGW crowd simply ignores those reasonable scientific conclusions and continues parroting these findings as proof that AGW isn't happening.
Manufactured controversy. The media loves it, as do intelligent design proponents, electric universe wackos, and basically anyone else with crazy, fringe ideas ("teach the *controversy*", they love to shout). But it's a complete waste of time. And it's also really fucking annoying.
However, going with a "safer" language is a form of passing the buck - memory management, pointers and the like haven't disappeared, someone else has just handled them for us.
And that someone has had *far* more hours being exercised than any solution you or I could roll together. Rolling your own just gives you the illusion of safety and accountability, because you believe you can trust yourself above a vendor. But all you're really doing is reinventing the wheel while vastly increasing the chances that you do it wrong.
Besides, GC is but one small example of a whole host of mechanisms that higher-level languages provide to make software development safer. Strong, static type checking, hand-in-hand with generics, design-by-contract, and a wide array of other compile-time features can make for code that you can actually guarantee doesn't have certain classes of bugs. How is that *not* better than C, if what you're shooting for is reliable, bug-free code?
If you do this in violation of the EULA and TOU, which in this case prohibit you from loading the game in to RAM at the same time as running the Glider software, you are not authorized to copy the game.
Close, but not quite (at least as far as I can tell... 'course, I'm not a law student:).
Section 117(a) of the copyright code gives you the right to copy software into RAM for the express purpose of executing/utilizing that software. You don't need a license to perform this act, as the copyright act grants you that right directly. As such, I don't believe EULAs cover simple execution of a program (I have no idea whether they apply to installation, which necessarily requires copying-to-RAM... 'course, I'm willing to bet there's case law on that topic).
*However*, that only covers execution of the software. You do *not* have the right to copy the software into RAM for any other purpose, and that includes hacking it to introduce cheats. And this is where Glider fell afoul of the law (at least, according to the judge).
No, because section 117(a) of the copyright code gives you the right to copy a piece of software into RAM as part of the process of executing/utilizing that software.
That said, what you *can't* do is copy the software into RAM for some other purpose (for example, patching it in order to introduce a cheat).
It's still a ridiculous ruling, at least in my mind, but it's certainly in line with existing law.
Not quite. From what I can tell, they found that if you copy a piece of software into RAM without the express purpose of running that software (as per section 117 of the copyright act), you are performing copyright infringement.
The point is you can write bad software in any language
Well, of course that's true... only an idiot would suggest otherwise.
That said, only an idiot would claim that the language *doesn't* have an effect on errors rates or code quality. The fact is, give a developer more rope, and he/she *will* hang themselves eventually, no matter how good they are. "Safe" languages are just that *because* they take away some of that rope, either by eliminating unsafe features (eg, pointers), providing safe alternatives (eg, a proper high-level string type in lieu of null-terminated character arrays), or introducing new features that improve safety (eg, DBC).
Now, there may be other, very good reasons they opted to go with C instead of a different, safer language. But make no mistake, in doing so, they made a conscious tradeoff between safety and those other requirements.
Most of the studies and scientific conclusions was from grant money.
So? The obvious explanation, here, is that the legitimate scientists, doing high quality work with useful results backed by proper data, also happen to be the ones who attract the grants because, surprise surprise, they're good at their jobs.
And my argument is only strengthened by the fact that entrenched industry, whose interests are very much focused on maintaining the status quo, haven't been able to use their massive cash reserves to fund contradictory science. Care to explain how this fact fits with your theory?
That said, I agree, money in science can be... a challenge, which is why it's vital to focus on the science, and not where it comes from. But to dismiss all of mainstream climate science simply because grants are used to fund the research is throwing the baby out with the bathwater... not to mention exceedingly paranoid.
Independant study most often has other conclusions.
Such as? I mean, that's quite the claim, but strangely, you haven't provided links or references to back it up.
Well, if advertising is voodoo, I think you've just demonstrated the existence of magic... at least, judging by how well Google (and other advertising-based services) have fared.
Did you seriously just refer to advertising as voodoo? The same advertising that's been funding network television since... well... practically since it was invented?
Considering they are the sellers, themselves, how do I know they aren't running a shill bidding program to try to extract a higher price?
Even if they were, what difference does it make to you? As long as you're paying what you consider to be a fair price, you win. If you bid higher than you're willing to pay, or higher than you think you can get on another auction site, it's your own fault.
Ooooh, so it's a conspiracy amongst the media, scientists and governments of the world. Man, why didn't I think of that!
Of course, the alternative is that the dissent is from fringe scientists who don't actually have the data to back their claims, or who's ideas have been debunked, and so they're ignored. But, clearly, that's far less likely...
Well, if you find anything, let us know. I'd be very pleased to discover that AGW is, in fact, a vast scientific conspiracy... but I highly doubt that's the case.
Meanwhile, all you've done is question the IPCC, which is fine, but doesn't change the fact that scientists the world over accept AGW, something simply not true of global cooling, and so to equate the two is simply disingenuous.
Well, for starters, looked at the number of papers published on each topic. Or the number of scientists who believe anthropogenic GW is happening. Or the IPCC report. I'm sure I could go on.
Honestly, if you can't tell the difference, you aren't trying hard enough.
Well, I was 20 at the time. I vividly remember the scare stories in all the newspapers.
I'm sure you do. All that means is the media did a great job blowing up a minority opinion into a global disaster scenario.
In short, there's a huge difference between a false scare perpetuated by the media and a real concern that's held by the majority of scientists. The former characterizes global cooling, the latter is true of global warming.
Umm... those tax subsidies were meant to *prevent* outsourcing. In the absence of those subsidies, this exact same thing would've happened. The only difference is Neilson wouldn't have pocketed the subsidies as a nice little bonus.
Therefore, the GP's point still applies. Outsourcing is the logical outcome of a true, unregulated free market. Don't like it? Then you have a problem with the free market as a concept, which would put you at odds with the majority of the US, whom appear to be adherents to that particular religion.
Has anybody ever observed gravity waves? Or observed gravitons? Yet, scientists all over BELIEVE they exist because they fit someone's mathematical model.
No, they *postulate* they exist based on existing models. Said models then provide tests one can perform (such as the LIGO observatory) to test those models. And if it turns out the waves don't show up? Well, we go back to the drawing board.
Do I really need to illustrate how this is different from faith?
Slashdot Mirror
and from my POV the procedure ruined their life.
Wow... nice. No offense, but that really is a dick thing to say, particularly since, as we all know, the plural of anecdote is not data.
In contrast, I went to school with someone who underwent a sex change, and they were, as far as I could tell, quite happy, with a loving husband and a teenaged son (who, I believe, was a result of a relationship prior to her gender change).
** READERS PLEASE NOTE : On eBay you are not obligated to pay your max bid - Your actual bid is whatever is just high enough to be the highest bidder, up to your maximum bid. Please make sure you understand this.
Ahh, now that's a detail I wasn't aware of.
In a pure auction scenario, you're wrong. But if this is the way eBay works, then you're absolutely right (at least, I think you are :). You should just enter your maximum bid, and then allow the auction system to take care of the rest.
Have you not been paying attention? The dispute on the influence of the SUN and whatever is also warming Mars. Sorry, I didn't think it needed spelled out.
And yet, still, no links or references. Just discussion of some mysterious, anonymous "scientists". And you completely ignore the rest of my post, probably because you have no rebuttal.
So, how about *I* provide a link discussing the topic of "warming" on Mars. Oh, and before you start, here's a link discussing the "warming" on Jupiter. Alright, now it's your turn.
Meanwhile, ask yourself: If GW is due to solar forcing, why aren't we seeing the exact same trends on Venus? Or Neptune? Or Saturn? Or Jupiter (no, Jupiter is not experiencing GW, see the preceding link)? Why just Earth and Mars?
Or, maybe it's just the obvious: Earth and Mars are both experiencing independent climate change, but for different reasons, neither of which is related to solar output. But the anti-AGW folks need *some* sort of proof, and so they're cherrypicking their results, and then claiming victory.
It's only called scientific debate if the points being debated are worth discussing. Otherwise it's called manufactured controversy, and it's a pointless waste of energy.
For example, there are those who persist in talking about Mars and Jupiter warming up. Of course, if they were to do just a little research, they'd discover that Jupiter's "warming" is highly localized and probably internally driven, and Mars' "warming" is probably due to regional climate changes to due planetary orbital characteristics. And that's ignoring the fact that some of the most dramatic warming on earth (the last 50 years) has occurred while the climates of both planets have been relatively stable. And yet, surprise surprise, the anti-AGW crowd simply ignores those reasonable scientific conclusions and continues parroting these findings as proof that AGW isn't happening.
Manufactured controversy. The media loves it, as do intelligent design proponents, electric universe wackos, and basically anyone else with crazy, fringe ideas ("teach the *controversy*", they love to shout). But it's a complete waste of time. And it's also really fucking annoying.
However, going with a "safer" language is a form of passing the buck - memory management, pointers and the like haven't disappeared, someone else has just handled them for us.
And that someone has had *far* more hours being exercised than any solution you or I could roll together. Rolling your own just gives you the illusion of safety and accountability, because you believe you can trust yourself above a vendor. But all you're really doing is reinventing the wheel while vastly increasing the chances that you do it wrong.
Besides, GC is but one small example of a whole host of mechanisms that higher-level languages provide to make software development safer. Strong, static type checking, hand-in-hand with generics, design-by-contract, and a wide array of other compile-time features can make for code that you can actually guarantee doesn't have certain classes of bugs. How is that *not* better than C, if what you're shooting for is reliable, bug-free code?
If you do this in violation of the EULA and TOU, which in this case prohibit you from loading the game in to RAM at the same time as running the Glider software, you are not authorized to copy the game.
Close, but not quite (at least as far as I can tell... 'course, I'm not a law student :).
Section 117(a) of the copyright code gives you the right to copy software into RAM for the express purpose of executing/utilizing that software. You don't need a license to perform this act, as the copyright act grants you that right directly. As such, I don't believe EULAs cover simple execution of a program (I have no idea whether they apply to installation, which necessarily requires copying-to-RAM... 'course, I'm willing to bet there's case law on that topic).
*However*, that only covers execution of the software. You do *not* have the right to copy the software into RAM for any other purpose, and that includes hacking it to introduce cheats. And this is where Glider fell afoul of the law (at least, according to the judge).
No, because section 117(a) of the copyright code gives you the right to copy a piece of software into RAM as part of the process of executing/utilizing that software.
That said, what you *can't* do is copy the software into RAM for some other purpose (for example, patching it in order to introduce a cheat).
It's still a ridiculous ruling, at least in my mind, but it's certainly in line with existing law.
Not quite. From what I can tell, they found that if you copy a piece of software into RAM without the express purpose of running that software (as per section 117 of the copyright act), you are performing copyright infringement.
And *that* strikes me as a dangerous precedent.
The point is you can write bad software in any language
Well, of course that's true... only an idiot would suggest otherwise.
That said, only an idiot would claim that the language *doesn't* have an effect on errors rates or code quality. The fact is, give a developer more rope, and he/she *will* hang themselves eventually, no matter how good they are. "Safe" languages are just that *because* they take away some of that rope, either by eliminating unsafe features (eg, pointers), providing safe alternatives (eg, a proper high-level string type in lieu of null-terminated character arrays), or introducing new features that improve safety (eg, DBC).
Now, there may be other, very good reasons they opted to go with C instead of a different, safer language. But make no mistake, in doing so, they made a conscious tradeoff between safety and those other requirements.
Most of the studies and scientific conclusions was from grant money.
So? The obvious explanation, here, is that the legitimate scientists, doing high quality work with useful results backed by proper data, also happen to be the ones who attract the grants because, surprise surprise, they're good at their jobs.
And my argument is only strengthened by the fact that entrenched industry, whose interests are very much focused on maintaining the status quo, haven't been able to use their massive cash reserves to fund contradictory science. Care to explain how this fact fits with your theory?
That said, I agree, money in science can be... a challenge, which is why it's vital to focus on the science, and not where it comes from. But to dismiss all of mainstream climate science simply because grants are used to fund the research is throwing the baby out with the bathwater... not to mention exceedingly paranoid.
Independant study most often has other conclusions.
Such as? I mean, that's quite the claim, but strangely, you haven't provided links or references to back it up.
Well, if advertising is voodoo, I think you've just demonstrated the existence of magic... at least, judging by how well Google (and other advertising-based services) have fared.
Did you seriously just refer to advertising as voodoo? The same advertising that's been funding network television since... well... practically since it was invented?
Or the third, most obvious option:
* I know how much I'm willing to pay, but I'd love to pay less if I can.
Considering they are the sellers, themselves, how do I know they aren't running a shill bidding program to try to extract a higher price?
Even if they were, what difference does it make to you? As long as you're paying what you consider to be a fair price, you win. If you bid higher than you're willing to pay, or higher than you think you can get on another auction site, it's your own fault.
Ooooh, so it's a conspiracy amongst the media, scientists and governments of the world. Man, why didn't I think of that!
Of course, the alternative is that the dissent is from fringe scientists who don't actually have the data to back their claims, or who's ideas have been debunked, and so they're ignored. But, clearly, that's far less likely...
Well, if you find anything, let us know. I'd be very pleased to discover that AGW is, in fact, a vast scientific conspiracy... but I highly doubt that's the case.
Meanwhile, all you've done is question the IPCC, which is fine, but doesn't change the fact that scientists the world over accept AGW, something simply not true of global cooling, and so to equate the two is simply disingenuous.
Maybe because, among the scientific establishment, there simply isn't one, and people like you are busy manufacturing false controversy?
Well, for starters, looked at the number of papers published on each topic. Or the number of scientists who believe anthropogenic GW is happening. Or the IPCC report. I'm sure I could go on.
Honestly, if you can't tell the difference, you aren't trying hard enough.
Well, I was 20 at the time. I vividly remember the scare stories in all the newspapers.
I'm sure you do. All that means is the media did a great job blowing up a minority opinion into a global disaster scenario.
In short, there's a huge difference between a false scare perpetuated by the media and a real concern that's held by the majority of scientists. The former characterizes global cooling, the latter is true of global warming.
And, shocker of all shockers, the GP is modded up, and you're ignored.
Ahh Slashdot, the new home of the global warming denier. Days like this I wonder why I bother coming by here anymore...
Yeah, but they also pay to receive calls (unless you have a plan that specifically allows unlimited incoming calls).
Welcome to American, land of the sheep, home of the gouged.
Umm... those tax subsidies were meant to *prevent* outsourcing. In the absence of those subsidies, this exact same thing would've happened. The only difference is Neilson wouldn't have pocketed the subsidies as a nice little bonus.
Therefore, the GP's point still applies. Outsourcing is the logical outcome of a true, unregulated free market. Don't like it? Then you have a problem with the free market as a concept, which would put you at odds with the majority of the US, whom appear to be adherents to that particular religion.
Funny, because my m0n0wall router built from spare parts (cheap) took, maybe, an hour to set up (fast), and has *never* crashed on me. Ever. (stable)
then you get what your company wants.
You mean deregulation, which is basically what you guys have today?
Has anybody ever observed gravity waves? Or observed gravitons? Yet, scientists all over BELIEVE they exist because they fit someone's mathematical model.
No, they *postulate* they exist based on existing models. Said models then provide tests one can perform (such as the LIGO observatory) to test those models. And if it turns out the waves don't show up? Well, we go back to the drawing board.
Do I really need to illustrate how this is different from faith?