The OP is wrong, I think. It's sodium chloride that they heat up, not sodium. It reacts with water in the sense of dissolving, rather than exploding. As far as I know, it's used for concentrated solar power sources, and rather than photovoltaic cells.
There is actually good research on this. In the UK, the cycling position that is recommended by the Department of Transport as a result of, you know, actually looking systematically at the evidence is called "primary position" which is well out from the left, near the middle of the lane. It massively increases your visibility, although it does sometimes cause irritation to drivers.
So, the OP is probably correct that this works in the US as well, except that you should be well out from the right. The space you need is the space that is necessary to keep you safe, and nothing at all to do with the space you need to manoeuvre.
Still don't let evidence stand in the way of your good anecdotes which are, I am sure, a far better basis for public policy.
Actually, I don't think he said he was a victim -- quite the opposite. He said "now I have used the system to my advantage". He got an education, and avoided paying for it.
And he has. If he was richer, of course, people would say "you're just criticising because you are jealous". But because he only gained enough to allow him to spend time as a writer, he will be portrayed as a scrounger.
Struggling to see how a "ton of travel" makes up for a fringe benefit. Sitting in an airplane for hours, so that you can get to the hotel from where you commute to the conference venue then back again. Depends on whether you have a life or not, of course, but the travel is a substantial cost for many people, hardly a fringe benefit.
Capitalism also requires the approval of government. It's largely through the government that ownership is defined in the first place. Without this, you have nothing to trade.
What is wrong with it? Well, the problem seems to be that those with large amounts of capital can use this to buy time from other people. And, over time, the rate at which the large capital blocks gain wealth is greater than the rate at which the overall economy grows. Eventually, we move into a situation were most of the wealth is in the hands of very few individuals, at which point, they control society and any notion of democracy disappears.
Don't worry about it, though, I am sure it will be a long time before we have such enormous disparities of wealth that we have to worry about this.
Perhaps the pollution in the US has been reduced by 50% as a result of government action, using their democratic mandate, while the increase in CO2 in China has come about as a result of their "free market" (i.e. capitalist) reforms.
MySQL is the obvious example, I think. It can happen with GPL, but it can only happen with the agreement of all the copyright holders, which is, in practice, unlikely. So, for instance, the linux kernel is unlikely to ever be released under any license other than GPL because there are so many copyright holders. Projects with a single copyright holder, usually through a copyright assignment policy could be relicensed.
Your grammar is wrong here. They were spreading propaganda, yes. And they did deface an ancient monument. But this was not their intention which you are implying.
Screw up, yes. Hooliganism, no. There is a difference.
The disadvantage with a Mac is if any of the hardware breaks you are stuffed. Macshop replacements are slow, expensive and inflexible.
The second problem I know many bioinformaticians (which is what I do) have, is that most of the scientific software is in one of the numerous non-mac packaging systems. And of different ones. So you end up with three copies of basic tools like python.
It's a good point, but then the CO2 emissions have consistently gone up for years, so even if there is a margin for error and they get close enough to be within the margin for error, then it's interesting.
Of course, it could also be just total nonsense, and the result of some strange statistical blip. Another possibility, is that it's the measurement of economics which is wrong -- after this is "the first time out of a recession" not "the first time". When I look at economics, I still get pretty depressed, so perhaps that it is the broken measurement.
Unfortunately you do become eligible for US taxes. As the OP says, capital gains for example on the sale of a first house. This is not taxable in many EU countries, but is taxable in the US. So, you have to give that cash to the US government when you sell a house because the US has a tax that the EU does not. Of course, if there is a European tax that the US does not have, you have to pay that as well.
Like all things to do with immigration, it's pretty unclear what the best option is here. No wonder the OP is confused.
Yes, but around Swansea, and in the Bristol Channel, the tidal range is around 4-5m -- that's the second highest tidal range in the world. The channel is around over a km across and many km long. That's an awful lot of water. If a barrier were placed across the channel, it would produce something like 25% of the energy requirements of the UK. Even these lagoons are likely to produce a significant percentage of demand. Pretty significant as far as I can see.
Of course, this may not be so significant on a global basis, but really all that this is saying is that renewables are multi-modal, so no form is going to be dominant in the way coal, oil and gas are. In the UK, we have lots of wind, and lots of coast with big tides. But we are never going to rival Germany for solar power, and it's nothing to do with German engineering.
As the article points out, this is not a big cost for the companies involved. Unionisation of the buses is not going to make the slightest bit of difference whatsoever to Google's desire to generate a self-driving vehicle. The market is enormous, so they have all the incentive in the world.
What is going to make a difference to these companies is some degree of collective action. We know that many SV companies have been involved in collection action in the past, with non-compete agreements to keep wages of high-skilled workers low. It is a good thing if the shoe is on the other foot for a while. The only real sad thing is that this is unlikely to spread to where it is really needed -- in the third world sweat shop supply chains.
Nice idea, I suppose, but unfortunately working out whether you really have come up with the goods is complex. Nor is it something that happens all at once; you have many stages of clinical trials, and even after release drugs can get pulled at a later date when we discover that they are not so effective.
So, in practice, there would still be a whole lot of annual reports on how well you're progressing anyway. It's basically the same thing.
TRO I would guess stands for Tail Recursion Optimisation, which is a special case of the Tail Call Optimisation. It is always possible to drop state for the stack after a tail call, even if it not recursive. This allows, for example, implementing mutually recursive functions without blowing up the stack.
Both Scala and Clojure only implement the self-recursive TCO. In general, they both try to compile into Java in a naturalistic way -- so a function call in either compiles to a byte code method call. The JVM is Turing complete, so they could implement anything that they want, but they'd have to loose the close relationship between their language and the JVM. So, they only do this for the tail recursion call. This gets 90% of the benefit for the least effort.
That TCO is implemented by both Scala and Clojure sort of demonstrates the point really. I mean, why would they bother if the Java Compiler did it already?
In fact, both Scala and Clojure implement it in the same way -- they remove the function (method) recursive call. In otherwords, you see a recursive call in Clojure/Scala but there is not one in the byte code. Method calls in Java consume stack. Try the answer that I gave you earlier. Otherwise, can you please show me the part of the JVM spec which describes TCO on the JVM. It has to be there, because TCO changes the way that you program.
There is a nice write-up on Java and how it does not implement TCO here at DrDobbs.
Nope. It's just not there. I think you mean JVM, anyway, rather than "java language implementation" which is rather ambiguous.
It's not a surprise. Java was never functional. Why have an optimisation which essentially rewrites recursion as a form of iteration, when the programmer is going to use iteration anyway?
This is changing now, I think, that the JVM is becoming more important than Java.
Strictly, Java would never have TCO. It would have to be the JVM. And, no it doesn't have TCO, although, I do believe that there are plans for it. I don't remember where I read that, so don't quote me.
It is for this reason that, for instance, Scala and Clojure both implement their own limited form of TCO (the self-recursive tail-call), which they do by compiling to an iterative form.
It is easy to demonstrate this with a method that calls itself. In java, it will crash with a stack overflow error. With TCO, it should loop indefinately.
Would a) not have combined a recursion with a side-effect, b) we have been sure to make a tail call and c) probably used higher-order functions anyway.
None of which is relevant. This is poor coding style because this is Java which isn't functional and has no tail call optimisation. But, this is a standard problem with assessment; it can be very hard to come up with good and realistic examples, while limited to the knowledge that the students have at the current time. Try and you might, at times, you show less than optimal code, because to write better code you have to teaching something else entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
The OP is wrong, I think. It's sodium chloride that they heat up, not sodium. It reacts with water in the sense of dissolving, rather than exploding.
As far as I know, it's used for concentrated solar power sources, and rather than photovoltaic cells.
Or the engineers could read the article. It says "one atom thick is all you need", not "one atom thick is all we are planning".
Then the engineer would say "oh, good, it can be as thin as we like, because graphene is expensive".
There is actually good research on this. In the UK, the cycling position that is recommended by the Department of Transport as a result of, you know, actually looking systematically at the evidence is called "primary position" which is well out from the left, near the middle of the lane. It massively increases your visibility, although it does sometimes cause irritation to drivers.
So, the OP is probably correct that this works in the US as well, except that you should be well out from the right. The space you need is the space that is necessary to keep you safe, and nothing at all to do with the space you need to manoeuvre.
Still don't let evidence stand in the way of your good anecdotes which are, I am sure, a far better basis for public policy.
You are making the mistake of assuming that the government is a consistent whole.
There is a fairly high chance that the people who are spying on your email are also spying on those in whitehall who are deleting their email.
Actually, I don't think he said he was a victim -- quite the opposite. He said "now I have used the system to my advantage". He got an education, and avoided paying for it.
And he has. If he was richer, of course, people would say "you're just criticising because you are jealous". But because he only gained enough to allow him to spend time as a writer, he will be portrayed as a scrounger.
Struggling to see how a "ton of travel" makes up for a fringe benefit. Sitting in an airplane for hours, so that you can get to the hotel from where you commute to the conference venue then back again. Depends on whether you have a life or not, of course, but the travel is a substantial cost for many people, hardly a fringe benefit.
Capitalism also requires the approval of government. It's largely through the government that ownership is defined in the first place. Without this, you have nothing to trade.
What is wrong with it? Well, the problem seems to be that those with large amounts of capital can use this to buy time from other people. And, over time, the rate at which the large capital blocks gain wealth is greater than the rate at which the overall economy grows. Eventually, we move into a situation were most of the wealth is in the hands of very few individuals, at which point, they control society and any notion of democracy disappears.
Don't worry about it, though, I am sure it will be a long time before we have such enormous disparities of wealth that we have to worry about this.
Perhaps the pollution in the US has been reduced by 50% as a result of government action, using their democratic mandate, while the increase in CO2 in China has come about as a result of their "free market" (i.e. capitalist) reforms.
"How many times has this happened"
MySQL is the obvious example, I think. It can happen with GPL, but it can only happen with the agreement of all the copyright holders, which is, in practice, unlikely. So, for instance, the linux kernel is unlikely to ever be released under any license other than GPL because there are so many copyright holders. Projects with a single copyright holder, usually through a copyright assignment policy could be relicensed.
I think by "how restricted speech is in the UK by comparison to the US", what you mean is that in the UK we value politeness.
Freedom of speech is not the same as the right to be listened to.
Your grammar is wrong here. They were spreading propaganda, yes. And they did deface an ancient monument. But this was not their intention which you are implying.
Screw up, yes. Hooliganism, no. There is a difference.
The disadvantage with a Mac is if any of the hardware breaks you are stuffed. Macshop replacements are slow, expensive and inflexible.
The second problem I know many bioinformaticians (which is what I do) have, is that most of the scientific software is in one of the numerous non-mac packaging systems. And of different ones. So you end up with three copies of basic tools like python.
It's a good point, but then the CO2 emissions have consistently gone up for years, so even if there is a margin for error and they get close enough to be within the margin for error, then it's interesting.
Of course, it could also be just total nonsense, and the result of some strange statistical blip. Another possibility, is that it's the measurement of economics which is wrong -- after this is "the first time out of a recession" not "the first time". When I look at economics, I still get pretty depressed, so perhaps that it is the broken measurement.
Unfortunately you do become eligible for US taxes. As the OP says, capital gains for example on the sale of a first house. This is not taxable in many EU countries, but is taxable in the US. So, you have to give that cash to the US government when you sell a house because the US has a tax that the EU does not. Of course, if there is a European tax that the US does not have, you have to pay that as well.
Like all things to do with immigration, it's pretty unclear what the best option is here. No wonder the OP is confused.
The reasons are simple: high capital costs, the requirement for a big tidal range and cheap fossil fuels.
Yes, but around Swansea, and in the Bristol Channel, the tidal range is around 4-5m -- that's the second highest tidal range in the world. The channel is around over a km across and many km long. That's an awful lot of water. If a barrier were placed across the channel, it would produce something like 25% of the energy requirements of the UK. Even these lagoons are likely to produce a significant percentage of demand. Pretty significant as far as I can see.
Of course, this may not be so significant on a global basis, but really all that this is saying is that renewables are multi-modal, so no form is going to be dominant in the way coal, oil and gas are. In the UK, we have lots of wind, and lots of coast with big tides. But we are never going to rival Germany for solar power, and it's nothing to do with German engineering.
As the article points out, this is not a big cost for the companies involved. Unionisation of the buses is not going to make the slightest bit of difference whatsoever to Google's desire to generate a self-driving vehicle. The market is enormous, so they have all the incentive in the world.
What is going to make a difference to these companies is some degree of collective action. We know that many SV companies have been involved in collection action in the past, with non-compete agreements to keep wages of high-skilled workers low. It is a good thing if the shoe is on the other foot for a while. The only real sad thing is that this is unlikely to spread to where it is really needed -- in the third world sweat shop supply chains.
Nice idea, I suppose, but unfortunately working out whether you really have come up with the goods is complex. Nor is it something that happens all at once; you have many stages of clinical trials, and even after release drugs can get pulled at a later date when we discover that they are not so effective.
So, in practice, there would still be a whole lot of annual reports on how well you're progressing anyway. It's basically the same thing.
TRO I would guess stands for Tail Recursion Optimisation, which is a special case of the Tail Call Optimisation. It is always possible to drop state for the stack after a tail call, even if it not recursive. This allows, for example, implementing mutually recursive functions without blowing up the stack.
Both Scala and Clojure only implement the self-recursive TCO. In general, they both try to compile into Java in a naturalistic way -- so a function call in either compiles to a byte code method call. The JVM is Turing complete, so they could implement anything that they want, but they'd have to loose the close relationship between their language and the JVM. So, they only do this for the tail recursion call. This gets 90% of the benefit for the least effort.
That TCO is implemented by both Scala and Clojure sort of demonstrates the point really. I mean, why would they bother if the Java Compiler did it already?
In fact, both Scala and Clojure implement it in the same way -- they remove the function (method) recursive call. In otherwords, you see a recursive call in Clojure/Scala but there is not one in the byte code. Method calls in Java consume stack. Try the answer that I gave you earlier. Otherwise, can you please show me the part of the JVM spec which describes TCO on the JVM. It has to be there, because TCO changes the way that you program.
There is a nice write-up on Java and how it does not implement TCO here at DrDobbs.
http://www.drdobbs.com/jvm/tai...
RMS never believed this. What he believed is that proprietary desktops would always be less free than Gnu. He's right about this.
I think he is wrong about gud.el, though.
"Stefan"
Nope. It's just not there. I think you mean JVM, anyway, rather than "java language implementation" which is rather ambiguous.
It's not a surprise. Java was never functional. Why have an optimisation which essentially rewrites recursion as a form of iteration, when the programmer is going to use iteration anyway?
This is changing now, I think, that the JVM is becoming more important than Java.
Strictly, Java would never have TCO. It would have to be the JVM. And, no it doesn't have TCO, although, I do believe that there are plans for it. I don't remember where I read that, so don't quote me.
It is for this reason that, for instance, Scala and Clojure both implement their own limited form of TCO (the self-recursive tail-call), which they do by compiling to an iterative form.
It is easy to demonstrate this with a method that calls itself. In java, it will crash with a stack overflow error. With TCO, it should loop indefinately.
"Some one raised in functional programming"
Would a) not have combined a recursion with a side-effect, b) we have been sure to make a tail call and c) probably used higher-order functions anyway.
None of which is relevant. This is poor coding style because this is Java which isn't functional and has no tail call optimisation. But, this is a standard problem with assessment; it can be very hard to come up with good and realistic examples, while limited to the knowledge that the students have at the current time. Try and you might, at times, you show less than optimal code, because to write better code you have to teaching something else entirely.