I remember, oh, around 1995, when people were proclaiming "Linux is ready for the desktop" ! I was a full-time user myself and was in full disagreement with that idea too. Yes, some users can adapt and would do okay, but not the business world, average office workers, and so on.
I have seen a number of offices with employees ranging from superuser to imbecile. These days, even the imbecile level users are not afraid to poke the computer various ways until it does what they want. A decade of smart phones has given them confidence that they can't really break it, and in the few cases where you have an employee that just can't hack it, hiring a replacement that can, costs less than a windows license... For almost everyone else, you put icons on the desktop for the things they would normally need, and they wont even care what the OS is, they'll be able to just use it. Hell, most of them even know how to save their own bookmarks to the desktop *in any OS* because chrome / firefox / safari already do that from within the browser. That is the fundamental reason why MS pushed the new user interface with win 8 and 10, and has been trying to push the surface. If they can get the users used to an interface that is fundamentally incompatible with other OS's, then the value proposition for switching away from windows is far less attractive. The problem they have is that they screwed the pooch, and the majority of users have seen IOS and android, and they don't like windows 8 or 10. That means that the entire employee base has already grown up knowing how to use alternative operating systems and have no fundamental love of windows like Gen Y did. It's over now, and all that is left is watching Microsoft die by inches the way IBM has been doing for the last 30 years.
Computers tend to be bigger and more powerful than we actually need, and sacrificing raw efficiency for things like readability, maintainability, etc., is completely standard in most cases.
That is absolutely not true. The difference between a 50 mips processsor and a 100 mips processor is about $0.50. If you are shipping a million units a year, that is half a million dollars a year you just wasted. I've worked places where co-workers were fired for wasting less money. I get paid *very* good money because I don't waste money. That "processor power is cheap" mentality is the reason why I have a desktop CPU that is 75x faster than the one I had 15 years ago, and everything runs *slower* today than ever as measured in the time it takes to perform basic tasks. Programmers need to get it through their heads that CPU cycles cost money, and wasting other peoples money is not a good way to run a business and by extension produce code for one. Some small degree of waste is acceptable, but wasting cycles by using a programming construct that is not as good, for reasons touching on ignorance is simply unacceptable, especially when there are any number of standards groups that have condemned recursion.
You can't make blanket statements like that. It all depends on the recursion depth, your embedded platform, and the requirements of an alternative solution.
Yes, you can make blanket statements like that. *Every* embedded software design standard expressly forbids recursion. There is 50 years of experience with these kinds of systems that pretty conclusively condemns recursion.
You can have embedded platforms with 100 bytes or with 100 MB, with or without virtual memory and possible dynamically growing stacks. Also, if you need to build your own stack to avoid recursion,
If you are building a stack to avoid recursion, then you haven't thought through the problem very well, and are just trying to emulate recursion without recursion. The problem space can always be transformed into one that does not require recursion, and it is that transformation that is critical, because it is what changes the problem from one that is effectively unbounded to one that is provably bounded. Embedded systems (especially safety critical systems) *must* be bounded. If you want to write programs without understanding the fundamentals of computer science then go be a windows programmer, but don't be too shocked when your software is bloated, slow, and prone to crash
Am I not supposed to use recursion? Am I missing something?
Recursion has a whole host of negative consequences that make it an undesirable programming construct. The most basic ones don't apply universally, but are nonetheless relevant.
The number one reason not to use recursion is because it is very easy to exhaust the stack in system with more limited memory like embedded systems.
The next most important reason to not use recursion is because it is slower. Iterative loops are easy for a compiler to optimize, and the branch instructions used for iterative loops are single cycle (or on some architectures less than 1 cycle) instructions. This makes them fast. Compare that with function calls which are always more than 1 cycle per call (at least 1 cycle for the call, and another one for the return). It is also extremely difficult for a compiler to unroll a recursive calling structure whereas loop unrolling is almost trivial. Compiler that can do recursion unrolling will hate you if the recursion depth is greater than about a thousand levels deep, as the compiler will eventually exhaust memory and fail.
Recursion is a maintenance nightmare. Trying to ferret out what a recursive function is doing can be difficult even in relatively trivial implementations. The maintenance phase of the software lifecycle is more than half of the total effort, so give those guys a fighting chance and avoid "elegant" solutions unless you have an overriding reason, which you will never have when it comes to recursion.
Recursion uses more memory. Each pass through the recursive function, you have to pile return vectors and function parameters into new locations on the stack. These data have nothing to do with your algorithm and represent pure overhead. iterative loops do not have this overhead penalty.
In the end, recursion is one of those things that makes a great teaching tool, because it forces programmers to think about the consequences in non-linear program space. In practice it is a bad idea and will get you into trouble sooner or later. It is in fact so troublesome that recursion is expressly forbidden in safety critical systems.
Take a look at the college campuses and realize that the American kids are rioting or hiding in their safe spaces, instead of learning.
That is because when it comes to the smart ones, classes can't teach them anything they cant learn in a small fraction of the time from google. That leaves them with a lot of free time...
The dumb ones don't have a prayer so they party up till they fail out. I feel bad for the ones that haven't managed to learn the magic of self directed learning by way of a search engine, and stubbornly keep showing up to class every day to earn their degree the hard way. Those are the ones that H1B visa are decimating.
But you wouldn't get an equivalent of a college BS in machine learning. My BS in Computer Science was 120 credit hours. Semesters were approximately 4 months long. You'd have to take 27 credit hours a semester for 4 1/2 semesters in order to get the equivalent amount of just class time let alone the requirements out of class. You'd also be jamming so much through that the retention on a lot of it would be minimal.
The problem with that sentiment is two fold: First, that 120 credit hours included a significant amount of material that may be useful in general, but is pretty useless for the tech work being performed: I'm looking at you English Comp. At least you could make an argument for the usefulness of freshman chem or physics...
My second issue with the assertion is that the pace of classes is typically all wonky. There are parts that end up going by too slowly because other student(s) are stuck on some particular thing, and parts that go too fast because you are the one stuck. If the curriculum were paced for each individual, the pace would be twice as fast or better. OJT is almost by definition paced for the particular individual.
For any individual who is destined to be better than mediocre, Google is by far and gone the best teacher out there. The most valuable thing we can teach our children is how to effectively search and assimilate information from multiple sources. Once they have that skillset, it takes an act of god to *prevent* that person from being successful at anything they choose to do.
This has everything to do with IoT. Its the same principles being used to design hardware and software that gets connected to the Internet. The root of the problem here is that the IoT is entirely unregulated. Anyone who wants to know what unregulated industry looks like: This is it. The free market simply will not correct this situation, because it has no mechanism to do so. Until the IoT is regulated, shit like this is just going to keep happening and escalating until something truly lethal happens, and then, *then* people will go "Oh my god, this needs some kind of regulation!".
How true! Now, a mind-reading device for a cat...that's something I would help crowd fund. Then again, if you are going to crowd fund something, it should at least be possible to build, so maybe not.
Building it is the easy part.
Getting the cat to wear it while retaining all of your limbs: Now thats hard!
I would suggest reconsidering the BeagleBone. Although not well advertised, it also contains two dedicated 200MHz cores that have full access to the main memory, and IO space as well as having their own cache. Unless you absolutely need 4 full cores of a Pi2/Pi3, I think you will find the BBB to be an excellent choice. It is also 100% open. I have a copy of the PCB designs tucked away and if it ever becomes necessary, I can have justa bout any PCB shop make them for me.
Also get a look at that last list, there are a bunch of options all over the spectrum of price, CPU performance and IO options, so there is likely to be something for everyone.
I would also like to note that the RPi foundation has caused me personal grief once already by EOLing the original Pi B and B+. We used to use hundreds of those things, but when they stopped making them, we had to switch to the Pi2 / Pi3. For most things that isn't a big deal, but these were part of a CE compliant device, and when we switched to the Pi3 we had to redo the compliance which cost $220K. We use about 5,000 per year, so it effectively added $40 to every unit we sell if we amortize it over a single year. Pretty shitty deal. All of our new designs are dual use, so we can continue using the Pi3s, but when they get EOLed, we are going BBB, or whatever they come out with for the next rev. In short, the RPi is a neat toy, but that is all it will ever be. There are plenty of other options that are in it for the long haul.
If you work hard, you will do better than your parents.
Both of my parents earned 6 figures in 1975. I have an equal level of education as they do, and am capable of doing the jobs that they were (and in one case still is) doing. I am in the same industry as them. I had an opportunity to go work for the company my father works for, but the starting salary would have been lower than my father was paid when he started there in '72. I have spent the last decade working 70+ hour weeks for a fortune 500 company and in the end, all I really got was fucked for the trouble (Fuckers eliminated my pension). I have quit and moved on, but I have yet to earn as much today as either of my parents were earning 40 years ago, in spite of working nearly the same number of hours as the two of them combined. Hard work is not rewarded in this country anymore, and hasn't been since before I entered the work force.
The article is saying the kids whine because they really are getting less income and they have more debt.
The issue is they are getting less income for the same amount of work, and having to go vastly deeper into debt just to get the job in the first place.
There is a perception that Millennials are lazier and or less qualified than their predecessors. Having seen the quality of resumes coming in the door, I fully understand that conclusion even though it is incorrect. The reality is that 50 years ago, there were vast numbers of jobs that any idiot could do, and thanks to the new deal and unions, those jobs paid well enough to live on. Today, those jobs pay significantly less than they did, and there are fewer of them. Inflation adjusted, the jobs on the bottom pay 30% less than they did in 1970, and many of them are being lost to automation. Its small wonder no one wants those jobs. So now all Millennials, not just the qualified ones are submitting resumes in the "shotgun blast" approach to job hunting. There are plenty of jobs at the top of the spectrum that pay decent, but all the qualified people are already employed, and much as anyone would like to pretend, you just can't take someone with a 90 IQ and teach them to be a programmer. It just ain't gonna happen. Millennials are not any more or less capable, its just Millennials are the first generation where the inept ones don't exercise any restraint in applying for jobs they are absolutely unqualified for, so now you get buried in resumes from unqualified applicants because the same inept 10,000 are applying for every god-damn job. In the end, the same 10% that was always capable is still out there, just they are no longer a significant fraction of the applicants floating around, the 50% that used to settle for a job as a ditch digger, suddenly find themselves in a world where there are far fewer ditch digging jobs, and the jobs that are available, they don't have a prayer of being able to do.
If they are comparing salaries for the same age, then if more people are spending longer in college, that will delay their entrance into the workforce, putting them close to entry level salaries and thus drive the average down.
If you had read the article, or even a significant fraction of the posts so far, you would have learned that those with college degrees earn *more* than those without, meaning that if there were fewer with degrees, then the average would be *lower*, That is in spite of the effect your theoretical delays would have on salaries. The reality is that people today are making significantly less for the same amount of work. I'm sorry that doesn't jibe with your world view, but reality is reality, take it up with your deity of choice, but stop trying to pretend like it ain't really happening.
Calling out MSVC as the reference C compiler for execution speed is like calling out a parade float as the performance reference for internal combustion powered vehicles.
It works just fine, and is taylored to people who like to see large numbers in their benchmarks: "This compiler over here has a performance rating of 72 MSVCs, this other one has a rating of 104 MSVCs, and then there is clang with a whopping 463 MSVCs."
That is pretty bollocks. The way how Plutonium "kills" is well researched in animal experiments. A 30kg dog dies from something like 40micrograms, roughly 1microgram per kilogram weight. Considering that a dog barely lives 10 years, I think it is safe to conclude that humans suffer in the same way as dogs.
Those tests were performed by injecting The Pu directly into the animals, which is tantamount to a 100% absorption rate. Ingested or Inhaled Pu has a much lower absorption rate. Either way, Lethal dose is much, much higher than cancer causing dose, and as I stated, the toxic chemical effects are more immediately lethal than the toxic radiological effects, so it is not the radiation that kills.
It should also be noted that Leukemia has a less than 50% fatality rate, and falling all the time as medicine advances. Cancer is quickly approaching a state where it can be considered a non-lethal disease.
Some micrograms inhaled or otherwise get into your system are deadly.
No, 200 micro grams would likely be needed to cause cancer. Far more would be needed to kill you, and it would be the chemical toxicity of the plutonium that killed you long before the cancer. Plutonium is not very volatile, so it is far from the real dangerous stuff in these reactors. The odds of dying by cancer caused by plutonium are much lower than your odds of dying in a fireball generated by a plutonium bomb (think several orders of magnitude difference).
The real danger at a nuclear accident site comes from the iodine, cesium, strontium and other fission products that have relatively short half lives. These produce the vast majority of the ionizing radiation at an accident site, and within 100 years, they will have reduced to just 5% of the levels immediately following the accident. The real danger there will come from increased cancer risks, and a general shortening of life expectancy by a few years for people who are exposed to those levels their entire lives. There are already people living well within the exclusion zone, and there are large numbers of people who regularly work within a few hundred meters of the sarcophagus.
Ultimately nuclear materials are no more dangerous than many other industrial chemicals until and unless you get enough of them together in such a configuration as to create a supercriticality that results in significant instantaneous fuel burnup (a nuclear explosion), and even then it is just as likely to be the extreme heat that kills you. Even then, there are some pretty nasty chemicals out there: Think fertilizer.
That is *not* a bad thing. OO is not a good solution for every problem. Neither is procedural programming, nor functional programming. A good language is whichever one allows you to solve the problem at hand in the most optimal way. The kinds of problems that Lisp is good a solving, C is not. The kinds of problems that C is good at solving, Smalltalk is not, etc. C++ is an extremely capable language because, while it is not optimal for solving most types of problems, it is workable, and not badly suboptimal. This means that as a programmer, if you are choosing a language for a new project, and you don't fully understand the project, you are almost certainly not shooting yourself in the foot by choosing C++. The same cannot be said for the majority of languages out there. If you are not working close to the metal, then choosing C is going to make your life miserable down the road with no real ebenfit, especially if you have to do any higher level work or UI work. If you need performance at all costs, and you have chosen Python, Lisp, Smalltalk, or the vast majority of other languages, you have made a very serious error. With C++, you can achieve excellent performance, rivaling, and in some cases even exceeding C, but you still have the *option* of using an object oriented model, if that turns out to be useful.
I saw an insightful sign in my sons elementary school:
Fair is not everyone getting the same thing
Fair is everyone getting what they need to succeed
It reminded me that everyone has a very warped view of fair, and that ultimately, our system of economy is inherently unfair, as Capitalism gives to those who can take what they want, and screws those that can't. Socialism gives to all in equal measure (Theoretically). Both are fundamentally unfair, but at opposite extremes. It seems like there should be something in the middle that can satisfy this enlightened definition of fair.
They are the same thing. The only way to ensure that there are no tax dodges out there is to simplify the tax code, and eliminate the words: "except", "but", "excluding", "omitting", "minus", "exempt", "without", and any other words to those same effects.
Americans are too stupid to ever vote for a poltiician that states they will raise taxes. This means that either politicians lie, or they actively undermine the tax base. Both of those situations are bad for the majority of americans, but they vote for the same scumbags over and over, and will soundly reject any politician who openly advocates tax increases. The result is a race to the bottom. Welcome to reaping what you sow, brought to you by Democracy(tm).
That's because there are stores all over that are in short range of many people, that would probably gladly welcome drone delivery of small items - like a cup of coffee or a Big Gulp or a burrito.
Now They can pursue even lower standards of service: A hot cup of coffee dumped on you from 300 ft up!
What, the Russians showed us the TRUTH about Hillary!
No doubt, but notice that they waited until after Sanders lost the primary to out Clinton. Of the almost 2 dozen contestants in this race, why did it end up being a selection between two of the worst imbeciles ever to grace the presidential podium?
Slashdot Mirror
I remember, oh, around 1995, when people were proclaiming "Linux is ready for the desktop" ! I was a full-time user myself and was in full disagreement with that idea too. Yes, some users can adapt and would do okay, but not the business world, average office workers, and so on.
I have seen a number of offices with employees ranging from superuser to imbecile. These days, even the imbecile level users are not afraid to poke the computer various ways until it does what they want. A decade of smart phones has given them confidence that they can't really break it, and in the few cases where you have an employee that just can't hack it, hiring a replacement that can, costs less than a windows license... For almost everyone else, you put icons on the desktop for the things they would normally need, and they wont even care what the OS is, they'll be able to just use it. Hell, most of them even know how to save their own bookmarks to the desktop *in any OS* because chrome / firefox / safari already do that from within the browser. That is the fundamental reason why MS pushed the new user interface with win 8 and 10, and has been trying to push the surface. If they can get the users used to an interface that is fundamentally incompatible with other OS's, then the value proposition for switching away from windows is far less attractive. The problem they have is that they screwed the pooch, and the majority of users have seen IOS and android, and they don't like windows 8 or 10. That means that the entire employee base has already grown up knowing how to use alternative operating systems and have no fundamental love of windows like Gen Y did. It's over now, and all that is left is watching Microsoft die by inches the way IBM has been doing for the last 30 years.
Computers tend to be bigger and more powerful than we actually need, and sacrificing raw efficiency for things like readability, maintainability, etc., is completely standard in most cases.
That is absolutely not true. The difference between a 50 mips processsor and a 100 mips processor is about $0.50. If you are shipping a million units a year, that is half a million dollars a year you just wasted. I've worked places where co-workers were fired for wasting less money. I get paid *very* good money because I don't waste money. That "processor power is cheap" mentality is the reason why I have a desktop CPU that is 75x faster than the one I had 15 years ago, and everything runs *slower* today than ever as measured in the time it takes to perform basic tasks. Programmers need to get it through their heads that CPU cycles cost money, and wasting other peoples money is not a good way to run a business and by extension produce code for one. Some small degree of waste is acceptable, but wasting cycles by using a programming construct that is not as good, for reasons touching on ignorance is simply unacceptable, especially when there are any number of standards groups that have condemned recursion.
You can't make blanket statements like that. It all depends on the recursion depth, your embedded platform, and the requirements of an alternative solution.
Yes, you can make blanket statements like that. *Every* embedded software design standard expressly forbids recursion. There is 50 years of experience with these kinds of systems that pretty conclusively condemns recursion.
You can have embedded platforms with 100 bytes or with 100 MB, with or without virtual memory and possible dynamically growing stacks. Also, if you need to build your own stack to avoid recursion,
If you are building a stack to avoid recursion, then you haven't thought through the problem very well, and are just trying to emulate recursion without recursion. The problem space can always be transformed into one that does not require recursion, and it is that transformation that is critical, because it is what changes the problem from one that is effectively unbounded to one that is provably bounded. Embedded systems (especially safety critical systems) *must* be bounded. If you want to write programs without understanding the fundamentals of computer science then go be a windows programmer, but don't be too shocked when your software is bloated, slow, and prone to crash
Am I not supposed to use recursion? Am I missing something?
Recursion has a whole host of negative consequences that make it an undesirable programming construct. The most basic ones don't apply universally, but are nonetheless relevant.
The number one reason not to use recursion is because it is very easy to exhaust the stack in system with more limited memory like embedded systems.
The next most important reason to not use recursion is because it is slower. Iterative loops are easy for a compiler to optimize, and the branch instructions used for iterative loops are single cycle (or on some architectures less than 1 cycle) instructions. This makes them fast. Compare that with function calls which are always more than 1 cycle per call (at least 1 cycle for the call, and another one for the return). It is also extremely difficult for a compiler to unroll a recursive calling structure whereas loop unrolling is almost trivial. Compiler that can do recursion unrolling will hate you if the recursion depth is greater than about a thousand levels deep, as the compiler will eventually exhaust memory and fail.
Recursion is a maintenance nightmare. Trying to ferret out what a recursive function is doing can be difficult even in relatively trivial implementations. The maintenance phase of the software lifecycle is more than half of the total effort, so give those guys a fighting chance and avoid "elegant" solutions unless you have an overriding reason, which you will never have when it comes to recursion.
Recursion uses more memory. Each pass through the recursive function, you have to pile return vectors and function parameters into new locations on the stack. These data have nothing to do with your algorithm and represent pure overhead. iterative loops do not have this overhead penalty.
In the end, recursion is one of those things that makes a great teaching tool, because it forces programmers to think about the consequences in non-linear program space. In practice it is a bad idea and will get you into trouble sooner or later. It is in fact so troublesome that recursion is expressly forbidden in safety critical systems.
Take a look at the college campuses and realize that the American kids are rioting or hiding in their safe spaces, instead of learning.
That is because when it comes to the smart ones, classes can't teach them anything they cant learn in a small fraction of the time from google. That leaves them with a lot of free time...
The dumb ones don't have a prayer so they party up till they fail out. I feel bad for the ones that haven't managed to learn the magic of self directed learning by way of a search engine, and stubbornly keep showing up to class every day to earn their degree the hard way. Those are the ones that H1B visa are decimating.
But you wouldn't get an equivalent of a college BS in machine learning. My BS in Computer Science was 120 credit hours. Semesters were approximately 4 months long. You'd have to take 27 credit hours a semester for 4 1/2 semesters in order to get the equivalent amount of just class time let alone the requirements out of class. You'd also be jamming so much through that the retention on a lot of it would be minimal.
The problem with that sentiment is two fold: First, that 120 credit hours included a significant amount of material that may be useful in general, but is pretty useless for the tech work being performed: I'm looking at you English Comp. At least you could make an argument for the usefulness of freshman chem or physics...
My second issue with the assertion is that the pace of classes is typically all wonky. There are parts that end up going by too slowly because other student(s) are stuck on some particular thing, and parts that go too fast because you are the one stuck. If the curriculum were paced for each individual, the pace would be twice as fast or better. OJT is almost by definition paced for the particular individual.
For any individual who is destined to be better than mediocre, Google is by far and gone the best teacher out there. The most valuable thing we can teach our children is how to effectively search and assimilate information from multiple sources. Once they have that skillset, it takes an act of god to *prevent* that person from being successful at anything they choose to do.
This has nothing to do with IoT.
This has everything to do with IoT. Its the same principles being used to design hardware and software that gets connected to the Internet. The root of the problem here is that the IoT is entirely unregulated. Anyone who wants to know what unregulated industry looks like: This is it. The free market simply will not correct this situation, because it has no mechanism to do so. Until the IoT is regulated, shit like this is just going to keep happening and escalating until something truly lethal happens, and then, *then* people will go "Oh my god, this needs some kind of regulation!".
How true! Now, a mind-reading device for a cat...that's something I would help crowd fund. Then again, if you are going to crowd fund something, it should at least be possible to build, so maybe not.
Building it is the easy part.
Getting the cat to wear it while retaining all of your limbs: Now thats hard!
I would suggest reconsidering the BeagleBone. Although not well advertised, it also contains two dedicated 200MHz cores that have full access to the main memory, and IO space as well as having their own cache. Unless you absolutely need 4 full cores of a Pi2/Pi3, I think you will find the BBB to be an excellent choice. It is also 100% open. I have a copy of the PCB designs tucked away and if it ever becomes necessary, I can have justa bout any PCB shop make them for me.
Also get a look at that last list, there are a bunch of options all over the spectrum of price, CPU performance and IO options, so there is likely to be something for everyone.
I would also like to note that the RPi foundation has caused me personal grief once already by EOLing the original Pi B and B+. We used to use hundreds of those things, but when they stopped making them, we had to switch to the Pi2 / Pi3. For most things that isn't a big deal, but these were part of a CE compliant device, and when we switched to the Pi3 we had to redo the compliance which cost $220K. We use about 5,000 per year, so it effectively added $40 to every unit we sell if we amortize it over a single year. Pretty shitty deal. All of our new designs are dual use, so we can continue using the Pi3s, but when they get EOLed, we are going BBB, or whatever they come out with for the next rev. In short, the RPi is a neat toy, but that is all it will ever be. There are plenty of other options that are in it for the long haul.
Any other SoC provider is free to offer a comparable cheap option. Let me know when that happens, OK?
TI does
Samsung does
There are a Whole slew of them
By your logic, the US will only be safe when purged of Americans.
Given recent events, that very well might be true...
If you work hard, you will do better than your parents.
Both of my parents earned 6 figures in 1975. I have an equal level of education as they do, and am capable of doing the jobs that they were (and in one case still is) doing. I am in the same industry as them. I had an opportunity to go work for the company my father works for, but the starting salary would have been lower than my father was paid when he started there in '72. I have spent the last decade working 70+ hour weeks for a fortune 500 company and in the end, all I really got was fucked for the trouble (Fuckers eliminated my pension). I have quit and moved on, but I have yet to earn as much today as either of my parents were earning 40 years ago, in spite of working nearly the same number of hours as the two of them combined. Hard work is not rewarded in this country anymore, and hasn't been since before I entered the work force.
The article is saying the kids whine because they really are getting less income and they have more debt.
The issue is they are getting less income for the same amount of work, and having to go vastly deeper into debt just to get the job in the first place.
There is a perception that Millennials are lazier and or less qualified than their predecessors. Having seen the quality of resumes coming in the door, I fully understand that conclusion even though it is incorrect. The reality is that 50 years ago, there were vast numbers of jobs that any idiot could do, and thanks to the new deal and unions, those jobs paid well enough to live on. Today, those jobs pay significantly less than they did, and there are fewer of them. Inflation adjusted, the jobs on the bottom pay 30% less than they did in 1970, and many of them are being lost to automation. Its small wonder no one wants those jobs. So now all Millennials, not just the qualified ones are submitting resumes in the "shotgun blast" approach to job hunting. There are plenty of jobs at the top of the spectrum that pay decent, but all the qualified people are already employed, and much as anyone would like to pretend, you just can't take someone with a 90 IQ and teach them to be a programmer. It just ain't gonna happen. Millennials are not any more or less capable, its just Millennials are the first generation where the inept ones don't exercise any restraint in applying for jobs they are absolutely unqualified for, so now you get buried in resumes from unqualified applicants because the same inept 10,000 are applying for every god-damn job. In the end, the same 10% that was always capable is still out there, just they are no longer a significant fraction of the applicants floating around, the 50% that used to settle for a job as a ditch digger, suddenly find themselves in a world where there are far fewer ditch digging jobs, and the jobs that are available, they don't have a prayer of being able to do.
If they are comparing salaries for the same age, then if more people are spending longer in college, that will delay their entrance into the workforce, putting them close to entry level salaries and thus drive the average down.
If you had read the article, or even a significant fraction of the posts so far, you would have learned that those with college degrees earn *more* than those without, meaning that if there were fewer with degrees, then the average would be *lower*, That is in spite of the effect your theoretical delays would have on salaries. The reality is that people today are making significantly less for the same amount of work. I'm sorry that doesn't jibe with your world view, but reality is reality, take it up with your deity of choice, but stop trying to pretend like it ain't really happening.
Two generations without a real increase in income while those at the top get richer will eventually result in more than whining.
That's how we got Trump. If the powers that be don't see that for the warning it is, then they deserve what comes next.
Calling out MSVC as the reference C compiler for execution speed is like calling out a parade float as the performance reference for internal combustion powered vehicles.
It works just fine, and is taylored to people who like to see large numbers in their benchmarks: "This compiler over here has a performance rating of 72 MSVCs, this other one has a rating of 104 MSVCs, and then there is clang with a whopping 463 MSVCs."
It works for me...
That is pretty bollocks. The way how Plutonium "kills" is well researched in animal experiments. A 30kg dog dies from something like 40micrograms, roughly 1microgram per kilogram weight. Considering that a dog barely lives 10 years, I think it is safe to conclude that humans suffer in the same way as dogs.
Those tests were performed by injecting The Pu directly into the animals, which is tantamount to a 100% absorption rate. Ingested or Inhaled Pu has a much lower absorption rate. Either way, Lethal dose is much, much higher than cancer causing dose, and as I stated, the toxic chemical effects are more immediately lethal than the toxic radiological effects, so it is not the radiation that kills.
It should also be noted that Leukemia has a less than 50% fatality rate, and falling all the time as medicine advances. Cancer is quickly approaching a state where it can be considered a non-lethal disease.
Take your own advice asshole
Some micrograms inhaled or otherwise get into your system are deadly.
No, 200 micro grams would likely be needed to cause cancer. Far more would be needed to kill you, and it would be the chemical toxicity of the plutonium that killed you long before the cancer. Plutonium is not very volatile, so it is far from the real dangerous stuff in these reactors. The odds of dying by cancer caused by plutonium are much lower than your odds of dying in a fireball generated by a plutonium bomb (think several orders of magnitude difference).
The real danger at a nuclear accident site comes from the iodine, cesium, strontium and other fission products that have relatively short half lives. These produce the vast majority of the ionizing radiation at an accident site, and within 100 years, they will have reduced to just 5% of the levels immediately following the accident. The real danger there will come from increased cancer risks, and a general shortening of life expectancy by a few years for people who are exposed to those levels their entire lives. There are already people living well within the exclusion zone, and there are large numbers of people who regularly work within a few hundred meters of the sarcophagus.
Ultimately nuclear materials are no more dangerous than many other industrial chemicals until and unless you get enough of them together in such a configuration as to create a supercriticality that results in significant instantaneous fuel burnup (a nuclear explosion), and even then it is just as likely to be the extreme heat that kills you. Even then, there are some pretty nasty chemicals out there: Think fertilizer .
C++ is basically not very object oriented
That is *not* a bad thing. OO is not a good solution for every problem. Neither is procedural programming, nor functional programming. A good language is whichever one allows you to solve the problem at hand in the most optimal way. The kinds of problems that Lisp is good a solving, C is not. The kinds of problems that C is good at solving, Smalltalk is not, etc. C++ is an extremely capable language because, while it is not optimal for solving most types of problems, it is workable, and not badly suboptimal. This means that as a programmer, if you are choosing a language for a new project, and you don't fully understand the project, you are almost certainly not shooting yourself in the foot by choosing C++. The same cannot be said for the majority of languages out there. If you are not working close to the metal, then choosing C is going to make your life miserable down the road with no real ebenfit, especially if you have to do any higher level work or UI work. If you need performance at all costs, and you have chosen Python, Lisp, Smalltalk, or the vast majority of other languages, you have made a very serious error. With C++, you can achieve excellent performance, rivaling, and in some cases even exceeding C, but you still have the *option* of using an object oriented model, if that turns out to be useful.
Yup. That seems fair.
I saw an insightful sign in my sons elementary school:
Fair is not everyone getting the same thing
Fair is everyone getting what they need to succeed
It reminded me that everyone has a very warped view of fair, and that ultimately, our system of economy is inherently unfair, as Capitalism gives to those who can take what they want, and screws those that can't. Socialism gives to all in equal measure (Theoretically). Both are fundamentally unfair, but at opposite extremes. It seems like there should be something in the middle that can satisfy this enlightened definition of fair.
It's a scam - not a loophole.
They are the same thing. The only way to ensure that there are no tax dodges out there is to simplify the tax code, and eliminate the words: "except", "but", "excluding", "omitting", "minus", "exempt", "without", and any other words to those same effects.
Americans are too stupid to ever vote for a poltiician that states they will raise taxes. This means that either politicians lie, or they actively undermine the tax base. Both of those situations are bad for the majority of americans, but they vote for the same scumbags over and over, and will soundly reject any politician who openly advocates tax increases. The result is a race to the bottom. Welcome to reaping what you sow, brought to you by Democracy(tm).
Dear Matthew, No.
Where is The Donald on this one? He's going to have a lot of these to deal with, so he best roll up his sleeves and get started.
That's because there are stores all over that are in short range of many people, that would probably gladly welcome drone delivery of small items - like a cup of coffee or a Big Gulp or a burrito.
Now They can pursue even lower standards of service: A hot cup of coffee dumped on you from 300 ft up!
They haven't caused a major oil or chemical spill, so strictly speaking they haven't failed in every conceivable way!
They haven't reported having had a major spill, but that apparently doesn't mean much...
What, the Russians showed us the TRUTH about Hillary!
No doubt, but notice that they waited until after Sanders lost the primary to out Clinton. Of the almost 2 dozen contestants in this race, why did it end up being a selection between two of the worst imbeciles ever to grace the presidential podium?