Most Linux programs use the getopt() function from the C library. getopt() in glibc treats -A -B as two switches. -B can never be interpreted as an argument to -A. On the other hand, -AB DOES set B as the argument to -A, if -A can take an argument. -AB is two arguments IF -A can't take an argument. So on Linux, -AB can have two different meanings. -A -B has only one meaning, it's always two switches. http://linux.die.net/man/3/get...
X is a protocol for graphical interface elements, such as application windows. With remote X, the application's window IS on your local screen, using the remote cpu and fileystem. It's part of your local desktop, a real, local window.
VNC is a highly compressed PICTURE of a remote desktop.
Since X is the real thing, and VNC is a low quality PICTURE of what X is actually doing, it's just like you're saying that a porno mag is better than an actual girlfriend. Your comment is THAT ridiculous.
Besides the fact that you seemingly don't know the difference between an application and a desktop environment.
If you ever want to stop masturbating with VNC and try the real thing, use vnc -Y -C . Y is a better version of -X, and -C enables lossless compression, which is very useful on most networks.
You might be right, I was/am split. 3-way, he wins
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 0
You might be right, I hope so. A solution assumes that sufficient candidates drop out, though. Two or three reasonable candidates may split the reasonable vote all the way to the end. Cruz and Rubio are similar enough that they could stay in to the end and have 40% for Trump, 60% of voters who'd prefer EITHER Cruz or Rubio. In which case Trump wins the nomination, even though 60% wouldn't have picked him in any two-way race.
Trump has been loud enough that everyone either likes him or doesn't, by now. Not a lot of people are going to change (much like Ron Paul was). I don't like him all, but I'm not sure which of the other candidates I'd choose yet. Except for Rubio's stance on domestic surveillance, I could easily vote either Rubio or Cruz, and Kasich may be okay (I haven't checked him out much).
Obviously I meant to write "have to PASS it to find out what's in it". Apparently I have trouble saying something so Pelostupid even when I'm trying to.
This bill is written like a state bill - you can read it. It's only a few sentences. This isn't 1,000+ pages "we have to read it to find out what's in it" Obamacare.
Look up what that means before you say it again. Are you using the "random Al Gore quote machine"? You picked a rather irrelevant quote. Hint - weather systems are SMALLER than solar systems.
Mars is of course getting a lot of attention lately, so the Mars section on NASA.gov is pretty good. Most of it in the Mars is pretty straight, without arguing about global warming, adding adjustments to make the data fit the model or whatever.
I'm sure you can find your way around mars.jpl.nasa.gov, but here's one page to start with. Many people are rightfully concerned about measuring the polar ice caps on earth. When reductions were measured in the north* that was considered major evidence of global warming. Here NASA talks about the same thing happening at a much faster rate on Mars. NASA measured the reduction at 3 meters per Mars year.
Note again I'm not saying this effect accounts for ALL or even MOST of the warming on earth. It seems to account for between 15%-60% of it, probably close to 30%. The majority is very likely carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, with deforestation being a problem we should keep in mind.
* Some say we should ignore the 30% INCREASE in polar ice on the south pole. Polar ice only matters when it fits your campaign pitch, perhaps.
Exactly. One big reason is that some of the stable, reliable sources aren't as clean as we'd like (coal, natural gas, nuclear), while the clean sources are either not as reliable (wind, solar) or available only in very limited locations and amounts (hydro, geothermal).
The mix allows us to use the cleanest stuff when and where it's available, then throttle the slightly less-clean stuff like natural gas to meet demand, with something very steady like nuclear providing a base level that meets minimum demand.
If you're interested in the mix, here's a paper that may interest you. Of course all figures in the paper are cited to reliable sources. It seems like _maybe_ you don't care for math at all, and if that's the case this paper isn't for you. If you don't mind just a little math, this paper goes over many different sources in the mix, discussing the costs and benefits of each, and how they can be combined.
The figures for solar-electric have improved a bit in the last 2-5 years, so the solar-electric number in the paper are very slightly outdated. The conclusion hasn't changed though - solar electric is a good supplemental source, not a reliable inexpensive source capable of providing the bulk of of energy needs.
Your journal entry and some of your other posts indicate that you're an intelligent person.
I'm intrigued why it's hard for you to understand that Y = X^3 means that as X changes, Y changes a LOT. That when Y equals X cubed, a large value X means a VERY large Y, and conversely a small value for X means a comparatively tiny value for Y.
Really, your other posts seem like this arithmetic shouldn't be hard for you. A strong wind has a LOT of power. A light wind has almost no power in comparison. It makes wind farm design a bit tricky. It also means that wind can be a really good way to reduce natural gas generation when the wind is good, and doesn't provide significant power when it's not windy. I'm really surprised you're having trouble with this, you're definitely not stupid.
Yes, the Mars orbiter from 2005 has data and photos of the same areas as the 1999 data. The principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera, Michael Malin, says the martian polar ice cap is shrinking at "a prodigious rate."
I've gotta run, but I'm sure you want have too much trouble finding tabular data if you want, NASA has a Mars section on their site. Also, various people arguing global warming have cherry-picked data points and argue about them, but I prefer NASA.
As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, it seems like whatever is affecting the other planets (the sun) would probably explain about 30% of the warning on the earth. That's a really rough estimate it could be 15% or 60%; we can reasonably say it's significant, but not the sole cause.
Add in what we know about C02 and the two probably explain the observed trends pretty well. Of course the C02 data varies wildly, with "highly respected" organizations estimating global C02 by measuring it ON A VOLCANO that's spewing tons of C02, but anyway we know C02 has an effect, and we know there's an effect that's more than just on earth.
Here's some information from NASA. (Nasa.gov link below.) Many people are rightfully concerned about measuring the polar ice caps on earth. When reductions were measured in the north* that was considered major evidence of global warming. Here NASA talks about the same thing happening at a much faster rate on Mars. NASA measured the reduction at 3 meters per Mars year.
Again, because I think peoples passions make it hard for them to actually pay attention to what they read: this solar-system-wide phenomenon seems to account for perhaps 30% of the warming on earth, not all of it. You can still feel good about recycling paper bags.
* on the other hand, 30% MORE ice at the south pole means nothing at all, some say. Pay attention only to the one that supports your team's politics.;)
What, exactly, do you think would cause the other planets to warm, and not have the same effect on earth?
> Delete your account you stupid fuck.
I certainly understand that it can be quite uncomfortable, once you've picked a team and become a fan, to have clear, indisputable facts get in the way of your team's political puffery; you've invested some significant self-esteem into the idea that Al Gore was telling you the truth. Unfortunately, facts are what they are.
If -something- is warming the other planets, is there any reason earth should be special and be unaffected? Or is it more likely that earth, just like the rest of the solar system, is affected too, and a politician exaggerated the human-caused portion for -gasp- political purposes.
I kind of feel for you, for what you'll likely go through soon, because I think you're too smart to be a lemming to Gore and now Hilary. I don't think they'll keep you fooled for much longer, because you're not stupid. That will be painful, though, coming to accept that just as Santa Claus doesn't exist, Gore and Clinton are just another pair of wealthy politicians, who say whatever polls well with the masses.
This will probably be good for me and for people I know, since I'm in the information security field.
That said, I hope the republicans take a look at what exactly he wants to spend yet another $19 billion on each year (assuming none of it goes over budget). Another healthcare.gov type government IT project isn't what we need, obviously. Even liberals could probably come up with better uses for those billions of dollars than cybercare.gov.;)
We'll see what all he wants to do. Hiring a CSO for the federal government might be a good idea. If he wants Brian Harrison and Chris Gronet to run it, each with a $20 million / year salary, that's probably a bad idea.
I'll never understand why people would rather make up numbers than look them up. As I told you, road transportation expenditures by government in the US are about 70% of the revenue they get from consumer gas taxes. In other words, for every $70, gas tax in the amount of $100 is collected from consumers. gas tax pays for transportation infrastructure plus a lot more.
Sales taxes don't pay for roads, they just don't. Wish it all you want, that's not what happens, not in the US.
The fact is, the ice caps are Mars are indeed melting. Look at the data yourself. You're entitled to your own opinion about what we should do about that, if anything, but the fact is each time we send a probe to Mars, the ice caps there are smaller. The principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera, Michael Malin, says the martian polar ice cap is shrinking at "a prodigious rate." You can look for yourself and compare the pictures even from 1999-2005; it's visibly noticeable even in that short time frame.
We also know that Jupiter, Titan, and Pluto are warming.
So again, the question is "how much of the long-term trend on earth is attributable to the same causes that are occurring throughout the rest of the solar system?" the best estimate I know of is "probably about 30%, but maybe half that, maybe twice that."
> Sure, we know the answer is "The world is getting hotter and it's all our fault" - but there are still a heck of a lot of questions that need to be answered.
And, since we know Mars and Venus are also getting warmer, it must be the Martian's fault. Indeed there are "still a heck of a lot of questions that need to be answered", including these two:
A) How much of the change is likely to be caused by which of the several known factors, and potentially unknown factors?
B) What is the long-term temperature trend, based on long-term actual data (as opposed to COUGH corrections COUGH made up on the spot and added to the data).
An example of (A) is what I referenced in my subject line - to the extent that other planets are ALSO warming, that portion must be caused by something outside of the earth (basically, that portion must be sun cycles, because that's what earth, mars, and venus all have in common).
Possibly the biggest questions, which I've never seen anyone attempt an honest answers for, concern the degree of effects on people via the environment. You have one group running around screaming that California will be underwater by 2010 and another group saying it's chilly today, nobody even trying to get objective answers, as far as I can tell.
>So you reduced my final estimate with that correction by what ? 1% ? 1.5% in some regions ?
What final estimate? You said train riders pay for cars, when it's the other way around. 1%, you ask? Your claim was 100% wrong.
> what the hell is your alternative explanation for traffic jams ?
If you use Google maps much, or any traffic app really, you may have noticed that most major traffic jams occur at traffic accidents and construction blocking a lane. We COULD build four lanes of freeway where we only need three during rush hour, in order to reduce traffic problems when accidents occur, but a) that's expensive and b) rubber-neckers slow down to 20 MPH on both sides of the freeway whether their lane is clear or not, so the extra lane wouldn't really solve the problem. You'd need entire spare freeways. We're not willing to double our freeway cost in order to reduce traffic jams.
In fact, we're not even willing to come in to work an hour earlier and leave a few minutes earlier in order to avoid most of the rush-hour traffic.
> Even if you only ride tge train your taxes still help pay for roads - so they cost more.
In actuality it's the other way around. Of every $100 in gas taxes, about $70 pays for roads, $20 pays for mass transit, and $10 goes elsewhere. Train tickets cover 10%-20% of the cost of trains in the US.
Additionally, the above figures (gas taxes pay for roads + trains) considers only the gas taxes paid directly by consumers. Gas taxes paid by producers, refiners, distributors, etc add substantially more - covering more than 100% of the cost of mass transit in the states I checked.
Obviously you can have your opinions about how you wish things were, but your trying to make up your own mathematics. That doesn't fly.
There is a similar variable for "this program's installation directory", I believe. Generally, though, your DLLs should go where DLLs belong. Fighting against the design of the OS tends in increase the risk of a security exposure, in general.
> So as a user you downloaded a suspect binary but it's the OS that's at fault?
Yes, it's a security flaw in the OS. I should be able to download fdisk.exe (as an unprivileged user) without the OS running fdisk.exe/wipe c: (as admin). Downloading as a user shouldn't mean executing as admin.
Slashdot Mirror
An example might be helpful. These two commands mean completely different things:
perl -i -w
perl -iw
The first means both -i (inplace edit, do not create backup files) and -w (show warnings)
The second means inplace edit, with backup files named "w". (Do NOT show warnings. )
If you mean to pass two flags, -x -y will always do that. -xy sometimes will, but sometimes it has a completely different meaning.
Most Linux programs use the getopt() function from the C library.
getopt() in glibc treats -A -B as two switches. -B can never be interpreted as an argument to -A. On the other hand, -AB DOES set B as the argument to -A, if -A can take an argument. -AB is two arguments IF -A can't take an argument. So on Linux, -AB can have two different meanings. -A -B has only one meaning, it's always two switches.
http://linux.die.net/man/3/get...
Yeah, that should be ssh -YC or ssh -Y -C, not vnc.
(By habit I normally seperate my flags since -AB can mean -A B, with B being an argument to A).
X is a protocol for graphical interface elements, such as application windows. With remote X, the application's window IS on your local screen, using the remote cpu and fileystem. It's part of your local desktop, a real, local window.
VNC is a highly compressed PICTURE of a remote desktop.
Since X is the real thing, and VNC is a low quality PICTURE of what X is actually doing, it's just like you're saying that a porno mag is better than an actual girlfriend. Your comment is THAT ridiculous.
Besides the fact that you seemingly don't know the difference between an application and a desktop environment.
If you ever want to stop masturbating with VNC and try the real thing, use vnc -Y -C . Y is a better version of -X, and -C enables lossless compression, which is very useful on most networks.
You might be right, I hope so. A solution assumes that sufficient candidates drop out, though. Two or three reasonable candidates may split the reasonable vote all the way to the end. Cruz and Rubio are similar enough that they could stay in to the end and have 40% for Trump, 60% of voters who'd prefer EITHER Cruz or Rubio. In which case Trump wins the nomination, even though 60% wouldn't have picked him in any two-way race.
Trump has been loud enough that everyone either likes him or doesn't, by now. Not a lot of people are going to change (much like Ron Paul was). I don't like him all, but I'm not sure which of the other candidates I'd choose yet. Except for Rubio's stance on domestic surveillance, I could easily vote either Rubio or Cruz, and Kasich may be okay (I haven't checked him out much).
Obviously I meant to write "have to PASS it to find out what's in it". Apparently I have trouble saying something so Pelostupid even when I'm trying to.
This bill is written like a state bill - you can read it. It's only a few sentences. This isn't 1,000+ pages "we have to read it to find out what's in it" Obamacare.
I just ripped on your other reply to me (GP to this one), so I should say this post is thoughtful. Thanks.
Look up what that means before you say it again. Are you using the "random Al Gore quote machine"? You picked a rather irrelevant quote. Hint - weather systems are SMALLER than solar systems.
Mars is of course getting a lot of attention lately, so the Mars section on NASA.gov is pretty good. Most of it in the Mars is pretty straight, without arguing about global warming, adding adjustments to make the data fit the model or whatever.
I'm sure you can find your way around mars.jpl.nasa.gov, but here's one page to start with. Many people are rightfully concerned about measuring the polar ice caps on earth. When reductions were measured in the north* that was considered major evidence of global warming. Here NASA talks about the same thing happening at a much faster rate on Mars. NASA measured the reduction at 3 meters per Mars year.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...
Note again I'm not saying this effect accounts for ALL or even MOST of the warming on earth. It seems to account for between 15%-60% of it, probably close to 30%. The majority is very likely carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, with deforestation being a problem we should keep in mind.
* Some say we should ignore the 30% INCREASE in polar ice on the south pole. Polar ice only matters when it fits your campaign pitch, perhaps.
> There's an energy mix for a variety of reasons.
Exactly. One big reason is that some of the stable, reliable sources aren't as clean as we'd like (coal, natural gas, nuclear), while the clean sources are either not as reliable (wind, solar) or available only in very limited locations and amounts (hydro, geothermal).
The mix allows us to use the cleanest stuff when and where it's available, then throttle the slightly less-clean stuff like natural gas to meet demand, with something very steady like nuclear providing a base level that meets minimum demand.
If you're interested in the mix, here's a paper that may interest you. Of course all figures in the paper are cited to reliable sources. It seems like _maybe_ you don't care for math at all, and if that's the case this paper isn't for you. If you don't mind just a little math, this paper goes over many different sources in the mix, discussing the costs and benefits of each, and how they can be combined.
The figures for solar-electric have improved a bit in the last 2-5 years, so the solar-electric number in the paper are very slightly outdated. The conclusion hasn't changed though - solar electric is a good supplemental source, not a reliable inexpensive source capable of providing the bulk of of energy needs.
The paper, if you're interested and don't mind some fairly easy math:
https://docs.google.com/docume...
Your journal entry and some of your other posts indicate that you're an intelligent person.
I'm intrigued why it's hard for you to understand that Y = X^3 means that as X changes, Y changes a LOT. That when Y equals X cubed, a large value X means a VERY large Y, and conversely a small value for X means a comparatively tiny value for Y.
Really, your other posts seem like this arithmetic shouldn't be hard for you. A strong wind has a LOT of power. A light wind has almost no power in comparison. It makes wind farm design a bit tricky. It also means that wind can be a really good way to reduce natural gas generation when the wind is good, and doesn't provide significant power when it's not windy. I'm really surprised you're having trouble with this, you're definitely not stupid.
Okay, so you're explanation is that all of the other planets have big forest forest fires over the last few decades. Okay.
Or are you saying that the rest of the planets (and their moons) have volcanoes, which cause them to warm up? Which do you think best fits the data?
Yes, the Mars orbiter from 2005 has data and photos of the same areas as the 1999 data. The principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera, Michael Malin, says the martian polar ice cap is shrinking at "a prodigious rate."
I've gotta run, but I'm sure you want have too much trouble finding tabular data if you want, NASA has a Mars section on their site. Also, various people arguing global warming have cherry-picked data points and argue about them, but I prefer NASA.
As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, it seems like whatever is affecting the other planets (the sun) would probably explain about 30% of the warning on the earth. That's a really rough estimate it could be 15% or 60%; we can reasonably say it's significant, but not the sole cause.
Add in what we know about C02 and the two probably explain the observed trends pretty well. Of course the C02 data varies wildly, with "highly respected" organizations estimating global C02 by measuring it ON A VOLCANO that's spewing tons of C02, but anyway we know C02 has an effect, and we know there's an effect that's more than just on earth.
That's interesting, thanks.
Here's some information from NASA. (Nasa.gov link below.) Many people are rightfully concerned about measuring the polar ice caps on earth. When reductions were measured in the north* that was considered major evidence of global warming. Here NASA talks about the same thing happening at a much faster rate on Mars. NASA measured the reduction at 3 meters per Mars year.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...
Again, because I think peoples passions make it hard for them to actually pay attention to what they read: this solar-system-wide phenomenon seems to account for perhaps 30% of the warming on earth, not all of it. You can still feel good about recycling paper bags.
* on the other hand, 30% MORE ice at the south pole means nothing at all, some say. Pay attention only to the one that supports your team's politics. ;)
What, exactly, do you think would cause the other planets to warm, and not have the same effect on earth?
> Delete your account you stupid fuck.
I certainly understand that it can be quite uncomfortable, once you've picked a team and become a fan, to have clear, indisputable facts get in the way of your team's political puffery; you've invested some significant self-esteem into the idea that Al Gore was telling you the truth. Unfortunately, facts are what they are.
If -something- is warming the other planets, is there any reason earth should be special and be unaffected? Or is it more likely that earth, just like the rest of the solar system, is affected too, and a politician exaggerated the human-caused portion for -gasp- political purposes.
I kind of feel for you, for what you'll likely go through soon, because I think you're too smart to be a lemming to Gore and now Hilary. I don't think they'll keep you fooled for much longer, because you're not stupid. That will be painful, though, coming to accept that just as Santa Claus doesn't exist, Gore and Clinton are just another pair of wealthy politicians, who say whatever polls well with the masses.
This will probably be good for me and for people I know, since I'm in the information security field.
That said, I hope the republicans take a look at what exactly he wants to spend yet another $19 billion on each year (assuming none of it goes over budget). Another healthcare.gov type government IT project isn't what we need, obviously. Even liberals could probably come up with better uses for those billions of dollars than cybercare.gov. ;)
We'll see what all he wants to do. Hiring a CSO for the federal government might be a good idea. If he wants Brian Harrison and Chris Gronet to run it, each with a $20 million / year salary, that's probably a bad idea.
I'll never understand why people would rather make up numbers than look them up. As I told you, road transportation expenditures by government in the US are about 70% of the revenue they get from consumer gas taxes. In other words, for every $70, gas tax in the amount of $100 is collected from consumers. gas tax pays for transportation infrastructure plus a lot more.
Sales taxes don't pay for roads, they just don't. Wish it all you want, that's not what happens, not in the US.
The fact is, the ice caps are Mars are indeed melting. Look at the data yourself. You're entitled to your own opinion about what we should do about that, if anything, but the fact is each time we send a probe to Mars, the ice caps there are smaller. The principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera, Michael Malin, says the martian polar ice cap is shrinking at "a prodigious rate." You can look for yourself and compare the pictures even from 1999-2005; it's visibly noticeable even in that short time frame.
We also know that Jupiter, Titan, and Pluto are warming.
So again, the question is "how much of the long-term trend on earth is attributable to the same causes that are occurring throughout the rest of the solar system?" the best estimate I know of is "probably about 30%, but maybe half that, maybe twice that."
> Sure, we know the answer is "The world is getting hotter and it's all our fault" - but there are still a heck of a lot of questions that need to be answered.
And, since we know Mars and Venus are also getting warmer, it must be the Martian's fault. Indeed there are "still a heck of a lot of questions that need to be answered", including these two:
A) How much of the change is likely to be caused by which of the several known factors, and potentially unknown factors?
B) What is the long-term temperature trend, based on long-term actual data (as opposed to COUGH corrections COUGH made up on the spot and added to the data).
An example of (A) is what I referenced in my subject line - to the extent that other planets are ALSO warming, that portion must be caused by something outside of the earth (basically, that portion must be sun cycles, because that's what earth, mars, and venus all have in common).
Possibly the biggest questions, which I've never seen anyone attempt an honest answers for, concern the degree of effects on people via the environment. You have one group running around screaming that California will be underwater by 2010 and another group saying it's chilly today, nobody even trying to get objective answers, as far as I can tell.
>So you reduced my final estimate with that correction by what ? 1% ? 1.5% in some regions ?
What final estimate? You said train riders pay for cars, when it's the other way around. 1%, you ask? Your claim was 100% wrong.
> what the hell is your alternative explanation for traffic jams ?
If you use Google maps much, or any traffic app really, you may have noticed that most major traffic jams occur at traffic accidents and construction blocking a lane. We COULD build four lanes of freeway where we only need three during rush hour, in order to reduce traffic problems when accidents occur, but a) that's expensive and b) rubber-neckers slow down to 20 MPH on both sides of the freeway whether their lane is clear or not, so the extra lane wouldn't really solve the problem. You'd need entire spare freeways. We're not willing to double our freeway cost in order to reduce traffic jams.
In fact, we're not even willing to come in to work an hour earlier and leave a few minutes earlier in order to avoid most of the rush-hour traffic.
> Even if you only ride tge train your taxes still help pay for roads - so they cost more.
In actuality it's the other way around. Of every $100 in gas taxes, about $70 pays for roads, $20 pays for mass transit, and $10 goes elsewhere. Train tickets cover 10%-20% of the cost of trains in the US.
Additionally, the above figures (gas taxes pay for roads + trains) considers only the gas taxes paid directly by consumers. Gas taxes paid by producers, refiners, distributors, etc add substantially more - covering more than 100% of the cost of mass transit in the states I checked.
Obviously you can have your opinions about how you wish things were, but your trying to make up your own mathematics. That doesn't fly.
There is a similar variable for "this program's installation directory", I believe. Generally, though, your DLLs should go where DLLs belong. Fighting against the design of the OS tends in increase the risk of a security exposure, in general.
> So as a user you downloaded a suspect binary but it's the OS that's at fault?
Yes, it's a security flaw in the OS. I should be able to download fdisk.exe (as an unprivileged user) without the OS running fdisk.exe /wipe c: (as admin). Downloading as a user shouldn't mean executing as admin.