So, when you say "CO2 doesn't cause warming", you meant in the past, and not now. You are incorrect about warming since 2000. There is ample evidence that this statement is wrong. Please go and google for it. You didn't refute any things I said, because I haven't commented on this thread before.
Most of what you say is true, of course. CO2 is not a danger to animal life at the levels have now, nor is it going to go up to those levels. But, the fact that you could swim in coca-cola without suffering any immediate damage is not really that relevant. Yes, where there is plant growth are getting greener because CO2 is more readily available to grow on. But other areas are getting drier, so less green.
None of this changes the key reality that CO2 levels are now higher than for, I think 400k years, that global temperatures track very well with CO2 levels. There are a number of ways to establish cause and effect, which is not the way you state. We know why CO2 is increasing, we know how much it is increasing by both as a percentage and an actual amount. And we know where it is coming from, because we can measure the production of it both my humanity and other sources. It's not coming from the ocean. It's coming from fossil fuels.
Your last sentence is the key one. It is wrong and untrue. Sprinkling it at the end of a set of mostly true, but largely unrelated facts does not make it true.
Indeed, and C is for wanna-by coders who can't write reliable, secure assembly.
Curious, though. This is possibly the first time that I have ever heard Rust being called "dumbed-down". Much more common to hear people complain that its too hard.
It's relatively straight forward to implement. Rust has macros which are quite nicely integrated into the language.
My experience of Rust macros is that you can do most things that you want with them, but you can't actually extend the language because they are not that flexible at matching syntax. It's not like lisp where you can't really tell whether you are using a language built-in or a macro.
So, I think that you would find Ruby is more flexible as a language. But it's probably one of the reasons that Rust is very fast.
"It's all the same thing under UK law - pavements are for pedestrians, and anyone riding a bike, scooter or whatever is not a pedestrian."
You are sort of correct. There are a large number of "multiple use" carriage ways in the UK. These for the most are constructed like pavements, but it is legal for cyclists to use them. Likewize, out of town, there are many bridleways -- originally dual use for horses and pedestrians hence the name. Again, cyclists can cycle on these.
Finally, there is official home office guidance which says that cyclists who are using pavements out of fear of traffic should not be prosecuted, obviously with the caveat that they should be cycling carefully and not be a danger to others.
In short, it's a bit more complex that you make out. Bikes are often legal or accepted on pavements.
Yes, it probably would be these days. Ethical standards have changed in many ways. That is why Edward Jenner's would now end up in prison for infecting a child with smallpox.
It is possible to get ethical approval for experiments involving deception. It just takes a lot of work.
Really. But people did read the papers. And they criticised the papers, as having dubious conclusions. And their identities were checked. And there were found to not be real. And then all papers were retracted. Which means that they are marked as retracted and yet still remain on the public web, as part of the scientific evidence. And now the authors who put forward information which was deliberately misleading are facing consequences.
Compare to the real web. Identities are often impossible to validate. Things which are nonsensical can be published. And when they are published, they are often never take down again. Or, alternatively, when content is criticised, it can vanish silently, and the authors can claim never to have said it in the first place.
Of course, the authors of these papers probably expected to get investigated for misconduct; they may even have wanted it, as their work has got far more publicity this way than they might have done otherwise. Perhaps, they even intend to build a career out of it. Quite sincerely, I wish them luck with that.
It is entirely possible to perform research which involves deceiving the participants. But for research of this form, you need ethical approval before starting the research to ensure that the deception is proportionate to the gain and any potential harm to the participants is minimized.
As the wikipedia link you posted states, "human subject research" includes sending a questionnaire to someone, or asking someone to do something within the remit of their normal work. Say, for example, you wanted to perform an experiment asking "how many names does a physic try out in a 10 minute consultation", this would involve them doing their normal work. If you asked their consent, that would be one thing. If you operated as a secret customer and recorded their session without the knowledge that would require quite a different level of consent and examination.
If you don't get your ethical approval, you could try arguing all that you like that you were trying to expose the physic as a fake. It wouldn't work.
Academics operate under strong ethical approval guidelines. I would and have asked for ethical approval even for doing things that most software engineers would consider routine UI/UX testing. Perhaps you could argue that this is too much bureaucracy and perhaps it is; but I think for you to argue that ethical approval is not relevant here is bogus. It clearly is.
If that there was the purpose of their experiment then, okay. But they needed to get ethical approval for it before they started. Getting ethical approval for any research is a standard thing in this day and age and even more so where it involves deliberate falsehood, which they used in this case.
Aside from this, the idea that his "exposes the rot" in academia is complete nonsense. Getting an article published is not, or should not be, the end of the process by which papers are evaluated, it is the beginning. The barrier to publication should be low, because then people can read the paper and criticize or support it.
There is a "rot" in academia and that is that too many people sit on their research, hoarding it, till they can get a "big" publication in a "high impact" journal. This kind of activity will just make that worse. I find it hard to applaud.
Most businesses are in debt. It's a fairly normal cause of events -- you borrow money to cover any capital development that you need. In the case the US 21 trillion, about 5 billion is debt in the form of commitments to pay in the future, and some of it is to other parts of the US government (for example, the states own federal bonds).
None of which is relevant in this case. The shutdown has not happened because the debt is too high, but because the president thinks it should be higher to build a wall/fence/earth works.
"Any success of socialist programs in the Western World is dependent on a Capitalist economy to subsidize them."
And vice versa. Government and "socialism" in the west produces a healthy, mobile, educated population. If you look at the 19th century capitalism, the lack of these things was a major limitation for industrial expansion in the UK. It was at this point that public education was invented, as well as what we would now call social housing.
Public health care came a lot later and required two world wars. And there are still a few hold countries that don't provide it.
> Well you cretin, *I* don't like it. If you fucking believe that I've been rude to you, then you're completely mistaken -- I haven't. > If I'm trying to be rude to you, you'll have absolutely no mistake about it.
The funny thing is that you think that, by being rude to me, you are making your point stronger. I don't think you are although I am not sure, because you are too busy using offensive terminology to actually have much of a point. In the end, though, I think you demonstrate my point; there are plenty of people on the internet happy to use aggressive, rude trolling, for no particular reason at all.
> And some events call for NOT being nice, or even mean, or even hateful.
Apparently, my post was one of them. If mild irony is enough to merit your mean and hateful post, then pretty much anything is.
Or alternatively, this is the first step down the road to having a process which enables decisions to be made about what new features to be bought into python, following the departure of the original language developer from that role.
It's also possible that SJW have managed to introduce their poison, by suggesting that a world where we are nice to each other is more pleasurable to live in than a world where we are not. It's a revolutionary idea and I understand why it has caused such a strong reaction.
Carbon, fossil fuel subsides also. Just for balance. The majority of coal in the US is now uneconomic against green energy but is subsidised so they still buy it.
"Your great grand children are going to look silly when despite all the "breakthroughs" the climate just goes ahead and changes anyway"
Well, it is one possibility. And if that it true, I think, our children will look back on the knowledge that we have now, and understand why we came to the wrong conclusions, and be glad that they are better informed than we are.
Or, alternatively, they will look at the knowledge that we had, that we knew what we are doing, and decided to carry on doing it, because we were too disorganised, too foolish or too careless to stop.
I know which side of history I would rather be on.
That's funny. Most people that I know off worry quite a lot about the future of our planet and what we are doing to it. I do see quite a lot of eye-rolling, but this tends to happen when we hear some nonsense about how "we need more research", or how a government is looking to roll back environmental standards.
We are losing many of the things that make this world valuable. It is not enough to want to be clean. We have to put the (massive) resources into it that it will take.
The Doctor has always had a message behind it. It's from the BBC which has as part of it's charter to educate, inform and entertain. It's been like this for many years. In this sense, it's fit's in with the Star Trek tradition on TV. Using science fiction or fantasy to explore themes about the real world is even older than that.
Perhaps at times this makes is preachy; that has been a bit more apparent with this season, although probably only because you weren't so busy trying to follow some extremely convoluted timey-wimey plot point. But, it's better than an adventure in time and space where people are too busy shooting each other or product placing some manufacturers concept car.
Files in rust and cargo are up to the developer. It has a notion of modules, and you can declare one or many in each file, or you can do file/directory structure reflects module structure. In practice, starting a new file when the old one gets to big seems a reasonable way to go.
In terms of dependency declaration files, this is not actually duplicated information. One is the package import (which is a namespacing thing) and also occurs within a single crate (Rust's name for a package). The other is higher level (i.e. dependency between crates). It also tells you when the dependency is relevant (dev, build, test) and what version is relevant. You certainly don't want the latter everywhere in your source and the former only implicitly so. It seems okay to me.
"I don't see anybody deciding not to buy that beach house because the sea level might eventually rise a little."
Maybe not. But, in my country, many people are deciding not to buy houses because of flash water flooding risks, often in areas considered previously safe. That's changed a lot over the last 20 years.
These are certainly two possibilities. Slashdot is never a particularly good place to present in depth evidence, of course. The increase in extreme weather and changes in the climate are now happening to such an extent that they fall into my and many other peoples personal experience. A small thing, I think, besides the weight of collected evidence, but one that is important to me.
CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up and down over the years with a natural cycle; we should be at a peak now. Looking at the climate on the scales of 10,000's of years, you would predict that it would be getting colder and this is, indeed, what was predicted back in the 70's. However, instead of peaking, CO2 has gone up and up. Hence the predictions have changed. The change caused by human production of CO2 has massively outweighed any natural cycle.
Predictions change as either knowledge or the world changes. Since the 70s, both of these have happened.
The number of extreme weather events has been increasing as has their severity. So the impact is immediate and significant, in terms of flooding, hurricanes, wild fires. Hard really to argue that the impact of climate change is not having enough of an effect, even if you do not care about polar bears or coral reefs.
Probably true (well, not stop signs, because this is the UK where we don't have stop signs).
However, it is worth noting that we only need traffic lights because of the cars. If UK roads and traffic laws were built around cyclists and give them automatic right of way, then we'd be in a much clearer place.
Incidentally, while car drivers kill around 10 pedestrians a year jumping read lights, cyclists do not, which is the key difference.
Slashdot Mirror
So, when you say "CO2 doesn't cause warming", you meant in the past, and not now. You are incorrect about warming since 2000. There is ample evidence that this statement is wrong. Please go and google for it. You didn't refute any things I said, because I haven't commented on this thread before.
Most of what you say is true, of course. CO2 is not a danger to animal life at the levels have now, nor is it going to go up to those levels. But, the fact that you could swim in coca-cola without suffering any immediate damage is not really that relevant. Yes, where there is plant growth are getting greener because CO2 is more readily available to grow on. But other areas are getting drier, so less green.
None of this changes the key reality that CO2 levels are now higher than for, I think 400k years, that global temperatures track very well with CO2 levels. There are a number of ways to establish cause and effect, which is not the way you state. We know why CO2 is increasing, we know how much it is increasing by both as a percentage and an actual amount. And we know where it is coming from, because we can measure the production of it both my humanity and other sources. It's not coming from the ocean. It's coming from fossil fuels.
Your last sentence is the key one. It is wrong and untrue. Sprinkling it at the end of a set of mostly true, but largely unrelated facts does not make it true.
Yep. The RLS is a little bit primitive that way and doesn't have this yet, I think.
Indeed, and C is for wanna-by coders who can't write reliable, secure assembly.
Curious, though. This is possibly the first time that I have ever heard Rust being called "dumbed-down". Much more common to hear people complain that its too hard.
It's relatively straight forward to implement. Rust has macros which are quite nicely integrated into the language.
My experience of Rust macros is that you can do most things that you want with them, but you can't actually extend the language because they are not that flexible at matching syntax. It's not like lisp where you can't really tell whether you are using a language built-in or a macro.
So, I think that you would find Ruby is more flexible as a language. But it's probably one of the reasons that Rust is very fast.
"It's all the same thing under UK law - pavements are for pedestrians, and anyone riding a bike, scooter or whatever is not a pedestrian."
You are sort of correct. There are a large number of "multiple use" carriage ways in the UK. These for the most are constructed like pavements, but it is legal for cyclists to use them. Likewize, out of town, there are many bridleways -- originally dual use for horses and pedestrians hence the name. Again, cyclists can cycle on these.
Finally, there is official home office guidance which says that cyclists who are using pavements out of fear of traffic should not be prosecuted, obviously with the caveat that they should be cycling carefully and not be a danger to others.
In short, it's a bit more complex that you make out. Bikes are often legal or accepted on pavements.
"Sokal's hoax should have been punished."
Yes, it probably would be these days. Ethical standards have changed in many ways. That is why Edward Jenner's would now end up in prison for infecting a child with smallpox.
It is possible to get ethical approval for experiments involving deception. It just takes a lot of work.
"It failed. It failed laughably badly."
Really. But people did read the papers. And they criticised the papers, as having dubious conclusions. And their identities were checked. And there were found to not be real. And then all papers were retracted. Which means that they are marked as retracted and yet still remain on the public web, as part of the scientific evidence. And now the authors who put forward information which was deliberately misleading are facing consequences.
Compare to the real web. Identities are often impossible to validate. Things which are nonsensical can be published. And when they are published, they are often never take down again. Or, alternatively, when content is criticised, it can vanish silently, and the authors can claim never to have said it in the first place.
Of course, the authors of these papers probably expected to get investigated for misconduct; they may even have wanted it, as their work has got far more publicity this way than they might have done otherwise. Perhaps, they even intend to build a career out of it. Quite sincerely, I wish them luck with that.
It is entirely possible to perform research which involves deceiving the participants. But for research of this form, you need ethical approval before starting the research to ensure that the deception is proportionate to the gain and any potential harm to the participants is minimized.
As the wikipedia link you posted states, "human subject research" includes sending a questionnaire to someone, or asking someone to do something within the remit of their normal work. Say, for example, you wanted to perform an experiment asking "how many names does a physic try out in a 10 minute consultation", this would involve them doing their normal work. If you asked their consent, that would be one thing. If you operated as a secret customer and recorded their session without the knowledge that would require quite a different level of consent and examination.
If you don't get your ethical approval, you could try arguing all that you like that you were trying to expose the physic as a fake. It wouldn't work.
Academics operate under strong ethical approval guidelines. I would and have asked for ethical approval even for doing things that most software engineers would consider routine UI/UX testing. Perhaps you could argue that this is too much bureaucracy and perhaps it is; but I think for you to argue that ethical approval is not relevant here is bogus. It clearly is.
If that there was the purpose of their experiment then, okay. But they needed to get ethical approval for it before they started. Getting ethical approval for any research is a standard thing in this day and age and even more so where it involves deliberate falsehood, which they used in this case.
Aside from this, the idea that his "exposes the rot" in academia is complete nonsense. Getting an article published is not, or should not be, the end of the process by which papers are evaluated, it is the beginning. The barrier to publication should be low, because then people can read the paper and criticize or support it.
There is a "rot" in academia and that is that too many people sit on their research, hoarding it, till they can get a "big" publication in a "high impact" journal. This kind of activity will just make that worse. I find it hard to applaud.
Most businesses are in debt. It's a fairly normal cause of events -- you borrow money to cover any capital development that you need. In the case the US 21 trillion, about 5 billion is debt in the form of commitments to pay in the future, and some of it is to other parts of the US government (for example, the states own federal bonds).
None of which is relevant in this case. The shutdown has not happened because the debt is too high, but because the president thinks it should be higher to build a wall/fence/earth works.
"Any success of socialist programs in the Western World is dependent on a Capitalist economy to subsidize them."
And vice versa. Government and "socialism" in the west produces a healthy, mobile, educated population. If you look at the 19th century capitalism, the lack of these things was a major limitation for industrial expansion in the UK. It was at this point that public education was invented, as well as what we would now call social housing.
Public health care came a lot later and required two world wars. And there are still a few hold countries that don't provide it.
> Well you cretin, *I* don't like it. If you fucking believe that I've been rude to you, then you're completely mistaken -- I haven't.
> If I'm trying to be rude to you, you'll have absolutely no mistake about it.
The funny thing is that you think that, by being rude to me, you are making your point stronger. I don't think you are although I am not sure, because you are too busy using offensive terminology to actually have much of a point. In the end, though, I think you demonstrate my point; there are plenty of people on the internet happy to use aggressive, rude trolling, for no particular reason at all.
> And some events call for NOT being nice, or even mean, or even hateful.
Apparently, my post was one of them. If mild irony is enough to merit your mean and hateful post, then pretty much anything is.
Or alternatively, this is the first step down the road to having a process which enables decisions to be made about what new features to be bought into python, following the departure of the original language developer from that role.
It's also possible that SJW have managed to introduce their poison, by suggesting that a world where we are nice to each other is more pleasurable to live in than a world where we are not. It's a revolutionary idea and I understand why it has caused such a strong reaction.
"green energy subsidies"
Carbon, fossil fuel subsides also. Just for balance. The majority of coal in the US is now uneconomic against green energy but is subsidised so they still buy it.
"Your great grand children are going to look silly when despite all the "breakthroughs" the climate just goes ahead and changes anyway"
Well, it is one possibility. And if that it true, I think, our children will look back on the knowledge that we have now, and understand why we came to the wrong conclusions, and be glad that they are better informed than we are.
Or, alternatively, they will look at the knowledge that we had, that we knew what we are doing, and decided to carry on doing it, because we were too disorganised, too foolish or too careless to stop.
I know which side of history I would rather be on.
That's funny. Most people that I know off worry quite a lot about the future of our planet and what we are doing to it. I do see quite a lot of eye-rolling, but this tends to happen when we hear some nonsense about how "we need more research", or how a government is looking to roll back environmental standards.
We are losing many of the things that make this world valuable. It is not enough to want to be clean. We have to put the (massive) resources into it that it will take.
The Doctor has always had a message behind it. It's from the BBC which has as part of it's charter to educate, inform and entertain. It's been like this for many years. In this sense, it's fit's in with the Star Trek tradition on TV. Using science fiction or fantasy to explore themes about the real world is even older than that.
Perhaps at times this makes is preachy; that has been a bit more apparent with this season, although probably only because you weren't so busy trying to follow some extremely convoluted timey-wimey plot point. But, it's better than an adventure in time and space where people are too busy shooting each other or product placing some manufacturers concept car.
Files in rust and cargo are up to the developer. It has a notion of modules, and you can declare one or many in each file, or you can do file/directory structure reflects module structure. In practice, starting a new file when the old one gets to big seems a reasonable way to go.
In terms of dependency declaration files, this is not actually duplicated information. One is the package import (which is a namespacing thing) and also occurs within a single crate (Rust's name for a package). The other is higher level (i.e. dependency between crates). It also tells you when the dependency is relevant (dev, build, test) and what version is relevant. You certainly don't want the latter everywhere in your source and the former only implicitly so. It seems okay to me.
"I don't see anybody deciding not to buy that beach house because the sea level might eventually rise a little."
Maybe not. But, in my country, many people are deciding not to buy houses because of flash water flooding risks, often in areas considered previously safe. That's changed a lot over the last 20 years.
"You're either misinformed or lying."
These are certainly two possibilities. Slashdot is never a particularly good place to present in depth evidence, of course. The increase in extreme weather and changes in the climate are now happening to such an extent that they fall into my and many other peoples personal experience. A small thing, I think, besides the weight of collected evidence, but one that is important to me.
We will and are loosing many things of value.
"CO2 levels over the last 10.000 years according to ice core data"
Yes. Go back a bit further (half a million or so) and you will see cyclicity.
CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up and down over the years with a natural cycle; we should be at a peak now. Looking at the climate on the scales of 10,000's of years, you would predict that it would be getting colder and this is, indeed, what was predicted back in the 70's. However, instead of peaking, CO2 has gone up and up. Hence the predictions have changed. The change caused by human production of CO2 has massively outweighed any natural cycle.
Predictions change as either knowledge or the world changes. Since the 70s, both of these have happened.
The number of extreme weather events has been increasing as has their severity. So the impact is immediate and significant, in terms of flooding, hurricanes, wild fires. Hard really to argue that the impact of climate change is not having enough of an effect, even if you do not care about polar bears or coral reefs.
Probably true (well, not stop signs, because this is the UK where we don't have stop signs).
However, it is worth noting that we only need traffic lights because of the cars. If UK roads and traffic laws were built around cyclists and give them automatic right of way, then we'd be in a much clearer place.
Incidentally, while car drivers kill around 10 pedestrians a year jumping read lights, cyclists do not, which is the key difference.