You are perhaps confusing Cannabidiol (CBD) with cannabinoid of which THC and CBD are but two examples. There are nearly a hundred cannabinoids, and the human body contains an endocannabinoid system that uses many of them.
Which I totally don't understand. Mind you, this discussion is the first I'm hearing of BitcoinXT, and I don't use any cryptocurrencies. I'm a developer that finds cryptography and currencies interesting. From what I've read it's just a new client that allows larger blocks for more transactions per second using the exact same coins. Is that not the case?
What is the problem here? I am totally baffled why anyone holding coins would care. The only people affected are developers writing clients and servers. But as long as the protocol is still public, there's no reason they can't modify their clients and keep on participating. Miners should be able to install whatever software they like without affecting their operations.
Oh wait. Are the custom hardware solutions (FPGAs) locked into the current block size and cannot be upgraded? That would definitely explain the pushback given how much money that hardware cost. In that sense, the new block size may as well be a new currency. Is this the source of the dustup?
The Bitcoin block chain will be taken over by BitcoinXT once its clients detect the 75% hashing power mark and one larger block gets added to the chain. Any existing Bitcoin clients will be unable to read the larger block and no longer participate in the network because you can't add blocks mid-chain.
However, the ethereal coins themselves are unchanged. Anyone still running the old client can at any time install a BitcoinXT client and continue using their wallet. You won't have to exchange one coin for another. That to me makes the term "altcoin" completely inapplicable.
Note: I'm merely an observer as I find the intersection of coding, cryptography, and currency intriguing.
Doesn't necessarily mean Windows. Most developers I know (ballpark figure from ass: 90%), including myself, code on Linux or OS/X. The only thing that would make me code on Windows is taking a C# project.
By using Linux, I can run our full application stack on my dev box without deploying it to a server. Sure, I could use a VM on Windows to do the same thing, and one developer in my company does, but that creates occasional headaches.
If the developer desktop market were at all big enough to be important to Microsoft, they would maintain their own binaries for the most common tools such as PHP, Subversion, Git, etc. It is a huge pain in the ass to get these to work on Windows. Microsoft could ease that pain with a trivial amount of investment and developer resources, but they don't because it wouldn't make sense to their bottom line.
[Y]ou don't address that maybe it is the dollar that is unstable while BTC remains stable.
Indeed. However, USD has gained value and remained strong over the past two years (witness the withering prices of oil and gold), which shows BTC has increased even more in the past three months than its price in USD indicates. You can compare the gold prices of each to get another perspective: BTC vs. USD.
I'd like to think that my likes and dislikes can be taken into consideration when training for a job.
I haven't seen anyone suggest shoving people into fields they have no interest in and would absolutely argue against it. The problem is when someone does have interest and capability in a field but is turned off by the people in it.
An imbalance in gender/race/etc. merely indicates the possibility of a problem and may warrant further investigation, but it doesn't guarantee it. Likewise, lack of a problem in one field doesn't mean there are no problems in any other field.
I like how the "online survey" purports to sample "general consumers" (unless that was a casualty of editing). I'm sure being online, the survey doesn't carry any bias toward tech-savvy and -dependent consumers.
He cannot and (probably) will not get elected, nor does he have a big enough voice to influence the campaign.
Perhaps, but having him be able to speak his message in the national debate would start the ball rolling. We may not be ready to fix the rotten core of our system this cycle, but it's important to expose the real problem so when the next president manages to fix nothing substantive, people will know why and have possible solutions in mind.
It may take some time, but it has to start somewhere.
So you're saying wanting to keep the money you earn is "exactly" the same as trying to get groups of Americans to hate each other so you can lead one group against another?
No, I said nothing of the sort.
What I do consider divisive is calling the working class "moochers" and "takers," claiming people are trying to steal your money when they're actually trying to build a just society where everyone is compensated fairly for their hard work and children don't starve because their parents can't work enough minimum wage jobs, insisting workers compete on the global job market while capital can flow easily between markets to take advantage of that competition.
BTW, you keep saying "the money you earn" as if people earn money on their own in a vacuum. Imagine passing a law that says all white men get to have two pieces of pie while everyone else gets only one, complaining when some black guy or a woman has the audacity to point out that everyone should get one piece of pie, and shouting that they are trying to steal your hard-earned pie.
If you're going to complain about the Koch brothers or other republican billionaires donating to their politicians or causes, and say that's a bad thing, it is at least reasonable to expect a fair person to be consistent and similarly list Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg and George Soros among the people corrupting the systems.
Well, I do. I guess I have your blessing.;)
If you complain about corporation, the exact same complaints need to be levied against unions.
I disagree here because unions don't have shareholders that expect higher profits each year nor share in those profits. While corporate leaders will claim they speak for all their employees and are, of course, only working in the best interest of said employees, it's hard to believe when they donate to politicians whose platform is dismantling worker and environmental safety protections and pitting domestic and foreign workers against each other in a race to the bottom.
While there are certainly stories of union bosses taking advantage (lavish parties, travel, etc), that happens in corporations as well and boils down to human nature. I'd bet that not every member supports every deal union bosses make, at least the members can elect new bosses. What can workers do when their employer donates to a candidate they don't support? Nothing. And where does that donated money come from? From the products and services the workers make/perform.
"Thank you for your tireless effort making widgets at ACME. As we don't like having to pay disability when our machines chop off your limbs, we've decided to take some of the revenue we earned selling the widgets you built and donating it to a candidate who will work tirelessly to dismantle disability insurance. Game on!"
That being said, I would prefer all campaign contributions be small and individual. There's no reason unions and corporations can't explain why they believe a particular candidate is good for their members/workers and leave it at that. I may feel the "nefarious factor" of union versus corporate donations differ, I'm not in favor of exceptions for certain groups that allow them to donate unlimited, anonymous funds to candidates or issues.
GWB didn't change his position either, even when he was obviously wrong, he preferred consistency to honesty. . . . I just disagree with the whole idea of "staying the course" even when you've been proven wrong.
At least in the U.S., being consistent is not the same as being bull-headed or "staying the course." Someone who is consistent doesn't change their views based on whom they're addressing or what their campaign donors want, but they do change those views when provided with convincing evidence that contradict them.
For example, someone who votes consistently against laws prohibiting cell phone use while driving may change their position after reading studies linking distracted driving to increased accidental deaths. They are still consistent in their view that laws should not be enacted spuriously based on emotion. Once they learned the reasons behind the proposed laws, they change their vote but not their convictions.
This is the consistency Bernie Sanders has demonstrated to me. Unfortunately, I don't know him well enough to think of an example where he changed his position as a better example.
Again, this is class warfare rhetoric. Humanity has always had a small elite in control of an inordinate amount of resources.
This by itself isn't a problem. The problem arises when that elite influences politicians to pass laws and trade treaties that cause wealth to be transferred from the middle class to the elite, widening the gap. Not because they worked harder or with capital, but merely by changing the system to their benefit at the expense of others.
But I think we should expect it to be in the face of intense labor competition from the developing world.
This is indeed a big part of how that wealth was transferred. By using "free trade" corporations in the U.S. can pay foreign labor even less and avoid U.S. regulations around worker safety, pollution, etc. While it may sound warm and fuzzy to say it's simple fair competition between labor markets, given that those same corporations effected changes to increase that competition to their benefit and keep the profits for themselves, it's more than a tad disingenuous.
If only U.S. workers were more willing to work in buildings with suicide nets, they would be better off. Paid time off? Not necessary. Paid sick and family leave? OSHA? Forcing companies not to pollute our drinking water? Psssh, these things are passé, leftovers from a bygone era that didn't respect capital enough.
And rather than adopt policies that make that problem worse.
Those policies were adopted decades ago, and we've been witnessing the effects ever since.
Dividing people into groups, and encouraging and widening the divisions, hyping up the hostility to gain power organizing one group against the other is almost the definition of evil.
And this is exactly what the wealthy are doing—claiming that the poor are trying to steal their hard-earned cash—while the poor are merely arguing for a return to a time when we had a large, healthy middle class. You can lament the use of the term "class" all you want; it's simply a distinction to talk about degrees of wealth and opportunity.
Trying to bring people together, finding common ground, encouraging peace and empathy is the opposite.
And this is what people seeking equality and justice are calling for. Everyone should have an opportunity to make a decent living without working three jobs, to provide a solid education for their children, and start a business if that's what drives them. Unfortunately, too many people don't have access to that life, one which they would have had forty years ago.
And i said absolutly nothing about "hating" others...
Of course not.
But still you decided to say, "Your argument seems to be the opposite: we should hate those other Americans in those other classes" anyway because . . . it's intellectually honest to put words in someone else's mouth as long as you're making a point? Sure, that makes sense, as much as the rest of your argument.
Most in that situation shoot themselves in the foot by spending beyond their means.
That's possible, but I haven't read any studies to assess whether it's most or some or few. The problem is that those families used to be able to work a reasonable amount and still spend the same. And it's not like they're buying yachts when they shouldn't; they're eating at McDonald's instead of cooking at home because they have no time or prioritize having at least some leisure time left after working.
It's phrased as the poor wanting to steal the hard-earned money from the wealthy. But that completely ignores the fact that the wealthy have used their power to alter the system to get more of the income gains over the past few decades. In a sense, they stole the hard-earned money from the middle class to make them poor and now whine that the poor insist on having a decent life and call it class warfare. The class war was forty years ago, and the wealthy won.
I understand class warfare and envy, and how much it annoys people who sit around and watch TV that others have more money than they do.
That's a generalization that is sometimes fair, sometimes not. . . . Anyway, by making this bald generalization, you definitely have the [all wealth is justly earned] shtick down.
And with that first comment, you perfectly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the desire for a just society. Up until the seventies, the blue collar middle class grew and thrived. People could work a single job and buy a house, raise a family, live a modest lifestyle, and be perfectly content. But since then those with wealth used it to undermine that culture, and thus began the decades-long erosion of the middle class and working families, all while those with wealth saw their prospects improve.
Now you have families where both parents work two or three jobs and still can't improve their economic outlook. There's much less opportunity to start a business. I'm not saying none, but much, much less. People just want a chance to give their children more than they had, to take risks to get ahead, to see their labor rewarded. Instead of taxing the rich more I'd much rather see a livable wage—or better still—a basic income guarantee that would bring these opportunities back to all of society.
Democrats also get their money from Billionaires and special interest groups.
Sure, and it is just as bad for democracy as when Republicans or Independents or anyone else in a position of power over others cave to plutocrats. That's when you know someone has no justification or backing for their position: when their sole argument is "The other side does it too!" Luckily, rational people are able to dislike an aspect of something and work to change it, yet still support that something. It's like supporting your friend even though you think they're making a horrible decision.
It's the same problem with addressing climate change: "China isn't doing anything to solve the problem, so neither should we!" Your neighbor doesn't have flood insurance in New Orleans, so neither should you. Unfucking believable.
Have you tried CLion, the C++ IDE from JetBrains? It is built on the same base as IntelliJ and their other IDEs which are all cross-platform and work very well. They also developed the ReSharper refactoring VS plugins for C# and C++, so I gotta figure they know what they're doing with C++.:)
Most of my experience is with PhpStorm and WebStorm as our Java projects were already using Eclipse, and they are very good IDEs. If you haven't, check out CLion and see how it compares to VS.
Common in this context doesn't mean that it happens more than it doesn't happen. If one out of 5-7 cars disregarded red lights it would be real bad.
Don't confuse my disagreement over the use of the word common as condonement of running red lights or arguing that it's not dangerous in many cases. The problem is that people make general statements such as "every cyclist I see runs red lights and blows through stop signs" and then alter their behavior based on that false assumption by either forcing cyclists out of a lane by passing too closely, not looking for them when turning right, turning left in front of them "cause, y'know, they better stop of they'll die too bad for them," etc. If you paint all cyclists as law-breakers, drivers feel they don't have to share the road with them.
If you want truly common rates, look up studies that measure infractions by car drivers. Or you can just trust my friend who claims that "all drivers speed."
I would consider a 21% failure to comply with an unambiguous traffic law about intersections controlled by traffic signals to constitute it as "common" failure.
I consider common to mean widespread, usual, or occurring frequently. While 21% (and 31% see below) is still high, it's not often enough in my book to call common. However, I admit that's subjective. My main goal was to add some actual measurements to the anecdotal claims in most of the comments in this thread.
(Of course, you cherry picked - the actual violation rate seems to be over 30% if one doesn't exclude things that, for some reason, "don't count" even though everyone knows the law and expects others to follow them.)
I tried to choose studies that followed good procedures such as having a good sample size, measuring multiple times during the day (as opposed to another study that looked at each intersection on only two fair-weather days from 4pm-7pm, seriously), multiple intersection types, etc. What did I cherry-pick? . . . *rereads post again* . . . Ah, perhaps you were suckered in by my poor arithmetic! The final sentence should read "16% and 31%."
31% is getting closer, and while I still don't consider it "common", I don't consider it "uncommon" either.:) It would be interesting to compare these rates to law compliance rates of car drivers. Neither excuses the other, but empirical evidence leads to better understanding.
It's quite rare to see a bicyclist come to a complete stop . . . or even slow to walking speed at a stop sign and it's common to see them blow through red lights without even slowing down significantly.
Slashdot Mirror
You are perhaps confusing Cannabidiol (CBD) with cannabinoid of which THC and CBD are but two examples. There are nearly a hundred cannabinoids, and the human body contains an endocannabinoid system that uses many of them.
Which I totally don't understand. Mind you, this discussion is the first I'm hearing of BitcoinXT, and I don't use any cryptocurrencies. I'm a developer that finds cryptography and currencies interesting. From what I've read it's just a new client that allows larger blocks for more transactions per second using the exact same coins. Is that not the case?
What is the problem here? I am totally baffled why anyone holding coins would care. The only people affected are developers writing clients and servers. But as long as the protocol is still public, there's no reason they can't modify their clients and keep on participating. Miners should be able to install whatever software they like without affecting their operations.
Oh wait. Are the custom hardware solutions (FPGAs) locked into the current block size and cannot be upgraded? That would definitely explain the pushback given how much money that hardware cost. In that sense, the new block size may as well be a new currency. Is this the source of the dustup?
The Bitcoin block chain will be taken over by BitcoinXT once its clients detect the 75% hashing power mark and one larger block gets added to the chain. Any existing Bitcoin clients will be unable to read the larger block and no longer participate in the network because you can't add blocks mid-chain.
However, the ethereal coins themselves are unchanged. Anyone still running the old client can at any time install a BitcoinXT client and continue using their wallet. You won't have to exchange one coin for another. That to me makes the term "altcoin" completely inapplicable.
Note: I'm merely an observer as I find the intersection of coding, cryptography, and currency intriguing.
Doesn't necessarily mean Windows. Most developers I know (ballpark figure from ass: 90%), including myself, code on Linux or OS/X. The only thing that would make me code on Windows is taking a C# project.
By using Linux, I can run our full application stack on my dev box without deploying it to a server. Sure, I could use a VM on Windows to do the same thing, and one developer in my company does, but that creates occasional headaches.
If the developer desktop market were at all big enough to be important to Microsoft, they would maintain their own binaries for the most common tools such as PHP, Subversion, Git, etc. It is a huge pain in the ass to get these to work on Windows. Microsoft could ease that pain with a trivial amount of investment and developer resources, but they don't because it wouldn't make sense to their bottom line.
Indeed. However, USD has gained value and remained strong over the past two years (witness the withering prices of oil and gold), which shows BTC has increased even more in the past three months than its price in USD indicates. You can compare the gold prices of each to get another perspective: BTC vs. USD.
I haven't seen anyone suggest shoving people into fields they have no interest in and would absolutely argue against it. The problem is when someone does have interest and capability in a field but is turned off by the people in it.
An imbalance in gender/race/etc. merely indicates the possibility of a problem and may warrant further investigation, but it doesn't guarantee it. Likewise, lack of a problem in one field doesn't mean there are no problems in any other field.
How can it not?
I like how the "online survey" purports to sample "general consumers" (unless that was a casualty of editing). I'm sure being online, the survey doesn't carry any bias toward tech-savvy and -dependent consumers.
Perhaps, but having him be able to speak his message in the national debate would start the ball rolling. We may not be ready to fix the rotten core of our system this cycle, but it's important to expose the real problem so when the next president manages to fix nothing substantive, people will know why and have possible solutions in mind.
It may take some time, but it has to start somewhere.
No, I said nothing of the sort.
What I do consider divisive is calling the working class "moochers" and "takers," claiming people are trying to steal your money when they're actually trying to build a just society where everyone is compensated fairly for their hard work and children don't starve because their parents can't work enough minimum wage jobs, insisting workers compete on the global job market while capital can flow easily between markets to take advantage of that competition.
BTW, you keep saying "the money you earn" as if people earn money on their own in a vacuum. Imagine passing a law that says all white men get to have two pieces of pie while everyone else gets only one, complaining when some black guy or a woman has the audacity to point out that everyone should get one piece of pie, and shouting that they are trying to steal your hard-earned pie.
Well, I do. I guess I have your blessing. ;)
I disagree here because unions don't have shareholders that expect higher profits each year nor share in those profits. While corporate leaders will claim they speak for all their employees and are, of course, only working in the best interest of said employees, it's hard to believe when they donate to politicians whose platform is dismantling worker and environmental safety protections and pitting domestic and foreign workers against each other in a race to the bottom.
While there are certainly stories of union bosses taking advantage (lavish parties, travel, etc), that happens in corporations as well and boils down to human nature. I'd bet that not every member supports every deal union bosses make, at least the members can elect new bosses. What can workers do when their employer donates to a candidate they don't support? Nothing. And where does that donated money come from? From the products and services the workers make/perform.
"Thank you for your tireless effort making widgets at ACME. As we don't like having to pay disability when our machines chop off your limbs, we've decided to take some of the revenue we earned selling the widgets you built and donating it to a candidate who will work tirelessly to dismantle disability insurance. Game on!"
That being said, I would prefer all campaign contributions be small and individual. There's no reason unions and corporations can't explain why they believe a particular candidate is good for their members/workers and leave it at that. I may feel the "nefarious factor" of union versus corporate donations differ, I'm not in favor of exceptions for certain groups that allow them to donate unlimited, anonymous funds to candidates or issues.
At least in the U.S., being consistent is not the same as being bull-headed or "staying the course." Someone who is consistent doesn't change their views based on whom they're addressing or what their campaign donors want, but they do change those views when provided with convincing evidence that contradict them.
For example, someone who votes consistently against laws prohibiting cell phone use while driving may change their position after reading studies linking distracted driving to increased accidental deaths. They are still consistent in their view that laws should not be enacted spuriously based on emotion. Once they learned the reasons behind the proposed laws, they change their vote but not their convictions.
This is the consistency Bernie Sanders has demonstrated to me. Unfortunately, I don't know him well enough to think of an example where he changed his position as a better example.
This by itself isn't a problem. The problem arises when that elite influences politicians to pass laws and trade treaties that cause wealth to be transferred from the middle class to the elite, widening the gap. Not because they worked harder or with capital, but merely by changing the system to their benefit at the expense of others.
This is indeed a big part of how that wealth was transferred. By using "free trade" corporations in the U.S. can pay foreign labor even less and avoid U.S. regulations around worker safety, pollution, etc. While it may sound warm and fuzzy to say it's simple fair competition between labor markets, given that those same corporations effected changes to increase that competition to their benefit and keep the profits for themselves, it's more than a tad disingenuous.
If only U.S. workers were more willing to work in buildings with suicide nets, they would be better off. Paid time off? Not necessary. Paid sick and family leave? OSHA? Forcing companies not to pollute our drinking water? Psssh, these things are passé, leftovers from a bygone era that didn't respect capital enough.
Those policies were adopted decades ago, and we've been witnessing the effects ever since.
And this is exactly what the wealthy are doing—claiming that the poor are trying to steal their hard-earned cash—while the poor are merely arguing for a return to a time when we had a large, healthy middle class. You can lament the use of the term "class" all you want; it's simply a distinction to talk about degrees of wealth and opportunity.
And this is what people seeking equality and justice are calling for. Everyone should have an opportunity to make a decent living without working three jobs, to provide a solid education for their children, and start a business if that's what drives them. Unfortunately, too many people don't have access to that life, one which they would have had forty years ago.
But still you decided to say, "Your argument seems to be the opposite: we should hate those other Americans in those other classes" anyway because . . . it's intellectually honest to put words in someone else's mouth as long as you're making a point? Sure, that makes sense, as much as the rest of your argument.
That's possible, but I haven't read any studies to assess whether it's most or some or few. The problem is that those families used to be able to work a reasonable amount and still spend the same. And it's not like they're buying yachts when they shouldn't; they're eating at McDonald's instead of cooking at home because they have no time or prioritize having at least some leisure time left after working.
It's phrased as the poor wanting to steal the hard-earned money from the wealthy. But that completely ignores the fact that the wealthy have used their power to alter the system to get more of the income gains over the past few decades. In a sense, they stole the hard-earned money from the middle class to make them poor and now whine that the poor insist on having a decent life and call it class warfare. The class war was forty years ago, and the wealthy won.
And of course that makes it all okay.
And with that first comment, you perfectly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the desire for a just society. Up until the seventies, the blue collar middle class grew and thrived. People could work a single job and buy a house, raise a family, live a modest lifestyle, and be perfectly content. But since then those with wealth used it to undermine that culture, and thus began the decades-long erosion of the middle class and working families, all while those with wealth saw their prospects improve.
Now you have families where both parents work two or three jobs and still can't improve their economic outlook. There's much less opportunity to start a business. I'm not saying none, but much, much less. People just want a chance to give their children more than they had, to take risks to get ahead, to see their labor rewarded. Instead of taxing the rich more I'd much rather see a livable wage—or better still—a basic income guarantee that would bring these opportunities back to all of society.
Sure, and it is just as bad for democracy as when Republicans or Independents or anyone else in a position of power over others cave to plutocrats. That's when you know someone has no justification or backing for their position: when their sole argument is "The other side does it too!" Luckily, rational people are able to dislike an aspect of something and work to change it, yet still support that something. It's like supporting your friend even though you think they're making a horrible decision.
It's the same problem with addressing climate change: "China isn't doing anything to solve the problem, so neither should we!" Your neighbor doesn't have flood insurance in New Orleans, so neither should you. Unfucking believable.
Someone ordered this strike, believing there were "terrorists" treated at that facility.
It was a simple mistake. They thought it was the Chinese embassy.
Woah, woah, hold up a sec. Are you saying that Stephen King is married to Michelle Bachmann? His stories make so much sense, now.
Bring on the Later Heavy Bombardment!
Have you tried CLion, the C++ IDE from JetBrains? It is built on the same base as IntelliJ and their other IDEs which are all cross-platform and work very well. They also developed the ReSharper refactoring VS plugins for C# and C++, so I gotta figure they know what they're doing with C++. :)
Most of my experience is with PhpStorm and WebStorm as our Java projects were already using Eclipse, and they are very good IDEs. If you haven't, check out CLion and see how it compares to VS.
Don't confuse my disagreement over the use of the word common as condonement of running red lights or arguing that it's not dangerous in many cases. The problem is that people make general statements such as "every cyclist I see runs red lights and blows through stop signs" and then alter their behavior based on that false assumption by either forcing cyclists out of a lane by passing too closely, not looking for them when turning right, turning left in front of them "cause, y'know, they better stop of they'll die too bad for them," etc. If you paint all cyclists as law-breakers, drivers feel they don't have to share the road with them.
If you want truly common rates, look up studies that measure infractions by car drivers. Or you can just trust my friend who claims that "all drivers speed."
I consider common to mean widespread, usual, or occurring frequently. While 21% (and 31% see below) is still high, it's not often enough in my book to call common. However, I admit that's subjective. My main goal was to add some actual measurements to the anecdotal claims in most of the comments in this thread.
I tried to choose studies that followed good procedures such as having a good sample size, measuring multiple times during the day (as opposed to another study that looked at each intersection on only two fair-weather days from 4pm-7pm, seriously), multiple intersection types, etc. What did I cherry-pick? . . . *rereads post again* . . . Ah, perhaps you were suckered in by my poor arithmetic! The final sentence should read "16% and 31%."
31% is getting closer, and while I still don't consider it "common", I don't consider it "uncommon" either. :) It would be interesting to compare these rates to law compliance rates of car drivers. Neither excuses the other, but empirical evidence leads to better understanding.
A 2007 study of 7,502 cyclists at five random intersections in London concluded that "an average of 16% violated red lights, whilst the remaining 84% obeyed the traffic signals."
A similar study of 2,617 cyclists at seven intersections across in Oregon in 2013 found the red light compliance rate to be 69.1% (89.7% excluding right-turn-on-red which is illegal but generally safer since you're not crossing traffic lanes which was your complaint).
I don't consider 16% and 21% high enough to call "common."