I think that was the rough idea behind creating Africanized honeybees (killer bees). Not so much because of climate change, but just to be able to make honey in the tropics. And it worked, if you ignore the behavioral changes.
I think the idea is "the side with the least political muscle." Although the side in question has a generally effective trade union (if not, then how about a law allowing workers to fire their unions and sign with different unions?).
If I understand this proposed law, that is in fact the idea. Children can go to public schools only if they're vaccinated; but unvaccinated children can go to private schools or be homeschooled. Except, sometimes, when the state sends armed agents to seize homeschooled children because the state doesn't like the curriculum ( http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/police-seize-10-children-from-off-grid-family-because-theyre-homeschooled/ ).
Personally, I don't see how this proposal could survive a freedom of religion challenge. But as far as eliminating the "personal belief" exemption that California's had for decades, I believe it's perfectly Constitutional although a little out of character for the state. Five years from now, I expect that you'll only be able to opt out of vaccinations if you claim that it affects your eternal salvation.
And? Who cares what his motivations are? I mean, I get a chuckle out of the idea because of the motivation, but aside from that. He actually will help people out.
Thinking about it: the committee is based on the assumption that avoiding a climate disaster will require a lot of government intervention. Unless the policy is applied to everybody it will essentially become "people who don't support government intervention or increased government spending must disclose their sources of income before appearing before this committee." I think the result of that approach is pretty obvious.
I would feel a lot better about the disclosure if it were even handed. Instead of saying "those questioning whether climate change will lead to a catastrophe must disclose their sources of income before appearing before this committee" say "anyone appearing before this committee must disclose their sources of income." Full disclosure's a good policy, but it shouldn't be used as some kind of weapon to intimidate people from testifying.
A better example would be to compare Romney's comment about "binders full of women" as part of a (successful) affirmative action plan to Biden's (repeated) inappropriate contact with females -- including several teenagers.
They aren't trying to bypass the review; they're trying to get it done. It's been six years. How much longer will the State Department need to decide what kind of impact the pipeline will have on US-Canadian relations?
To put it another way, imagine trains start derailing, wiping out orphanages and polluting national parks. It doesn't take long for the same experts who criticized the moratorium on Gulf drilling to mention that the trains wouldn't be necessary if the pipeline were approved. If President Obama's popularity started to suffer, how long do you think it would take for John Kerry to deliver a report from the State Department clearing the project?
OK, that's what I get for believing Slashdot: according to a followup comment, the train wasn't carrying *this* oil. But it is certainly true that trains carrying oil do derail, and in fact one derailed in West Virginia recently.
There are quite a few questions about how this will play out, but some things are basically determined already: the oil's coming out of the ground (and getting burned), Canada isn't going to build more refineries to process it, so it's going to get transported. The questions are (1) where will it be sent, and (2) how will it get there?
Obama's spent the last six years saying that he won't approve anything without a review from the State Department. The State Department is made up of people who work for him, but they haven't managed to get that review done. I'm pretty sure "his own timeline" means "only when it becomes politically damaging to continue stalling."
But, as already mentioned, since he vetoed the bill, Congress gets a chance to override (it looks like they'll lose that, once that happens *this* bill is dead). If he hadn't vetoed or signed the bill, it would have died ten days after Congress passed it (not counting Sundays).
So if the President changes his mind, he'll have to ask for another bill. That shouldn't be too hard.
Do you remember in 2008 when Obama took heat for encouraging people to save energy by making sure their car tires were properly inflated? And how he responded by saying he supported an "all of the above" energy policy?
Some media outlets have been hammering on the Keystone pipeline because the "all of the above" strategy looks an awful lot like a "some of the above, if approved by the right interest groups" strategy.
He actually did try creating at least one language: look for "Tecton" on http://www.stepanovpapers.com/ (it's in more than one section).
He also worked in Scheme and Ada before picking C++. He dabbled with early versions of Java, but (I believe) he had already decided "object orientedness is almost as much of a hoax as Artificial Intelligence" so that didn't go anywhere ( http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html for the quote).
You're right. I had just finished writing a message about sorting, which is always O(n log n) for any useful sorting algorithm (even quicksort, if implemented correctly http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rs/talks/QuicksortIsOptimal.pdf ), so I added an extra n.
If you want to do that, ask them to name the algorithms in the STL; there are about 70, and I don't know many people who know them all (although, in "The C++ Programming Language, 3rd edition," Stroustrup says that he's worked with classes that had more than 70 methods).
There aren't that many in the STL: std::deque, std::forward_list (C++11), std::list, std::map, std::multimap, std::set, std::multiset, std::unordered_map (C++11), std::unordered_set (C++11), std::vector. There are some adapters. The next question is normally to explain the differences between them. For instance, std::list is a doubly-linked list, so accessing an arbitrary element is O(n), while std::vector is an array and accessing an arbitrary element is O(1). std::map is a sorted red-black tree; accessing an element is O(n log n); std::unordered_map is a has map, accessing an arbitrary element is O(1). Popping an element off of the front of a std::vector (or, really, off of anywhere but the end) is an O(n) operation because it involves copying things around.
These kinds of questions may not make sense in other languages (although just about every language has a few basic containers, and you shouldn't use a list when you really want a dictionary), but C++ is often used in high performance programs, and it's important to not do silly things, like access arbitrary elements of a linked list.
> There is a big difference between life imprisonment and execution that you are missing.
No, I didn't miss that. That's what I meant by "incomplete." The original statement was this disparity "alone should be enough to rule out capital punishment in the US for the foreseeable future." But that statement missed pointing out why there should be a moratorium on executions compared to a moratorium on prison sentences and fines. It was incomplete.
Revelation 12:7 ( https://en.wikisource.org/wiki... ): "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels [going forth] to war with the dragon; and the dragon warred and his angels;"
It clearly depends on the definition of "tested." My understanding is that most states require a trial run that kills an animal before any execution, so the claim that the drugs were untested is, in fact, false. Unless the definition is "not used in a previous human execution," which simply creates a conundrum that somebody had to be the first human trial.
I'm not clear how the drugs are to blame for the bad execution. Is there some reason to believe that he wouldn't have blown a vein had they used the normal drug combo? And I agree: why go through the trouble of making up a foolproof cocktail? Simply keep adding sedatives until the heart or breathing stop.
This seems like an incomplete argument. If you're convicted of a crime and not given the death penalty, your prison sentence is likely to be much harsher if you're black than if your white. Should I support closing all prisons? If you're convicted of a crime and fined, you're much more likely to receive a larger fine if you're black than if you're white. Should I support abolishing all fines?
It seems to me that it would be logical to support fixing the disparity.
The history of the right to bear arms before the American Revolution is very enlightening. European monarchs had a long history of disarming various groups of people -- usually based on their religion. The English disarmed the Catholics, the French disarmed various Protestants, and just about everybody disarmed Jews. These efforts didn't have a good track record of preventing armed uprisings, but they were very effective at inciting violence against the disarmed "undesirables."
Slashdot Mirror
I think that was the rough idea behind creating Africanized honeybees (killer bees). Not so much because of climate change, but just to be able to make honey in the tropics. And it worked, if you ignore the behavioral changes.
I thought that was funny. I mean, any switch can be used to set off a bomb.
I think the idea is "the side with the least political muscle." Although the side in question has a generally effective trade union (if not, then how about a law allowing workers to fire their unions and sign with different unions?).
If I understand this proposed law, that is in fact the idea. Children can go to public schools only if they're vaccinated; but unvaccinated children can go to private schools or be homeschooled. Except, sometimes, when the state sends armed agents to seize homeschooled children because the state doesn't like the curriculum ( http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/police-seize-10-children-from-off-grid-family-because-theyre-homeschooled/ ).
Personally, I don't see how this proposal could survive a freedom of religion challenge. But as far as eliminating the "personal belief" exemption that California's had for decades, I believe it's perfectly Constitutional although a little out of character for the state. Five years from now, I expect that you'll only be able to opt out of vaccinations if you claim that it affects your eternal salvation.
And? Who cares what his motivations are? I mean, I get a chuckle out of the idea because of the motivation, but aside from that. He actually will help people out.
Thinking about it: the committee is based on the assumption that avoiding a climate disaster will require a lot of government intervention. Unless the policy is applied to everybody it will essentially become "people who don't support government intervention or increased government spending must disclose their sources of income before appearing before this committee." I think the result of that approach is pretty obvious.
I would feel a lot better about the disclosure if it were even handed. Instead of saying "those questioning whether climate change will lead to a catastrophe must disclose their sources of income before appearing before this committee" say "anyone appearing before this committee must disclose their sources of income." Full disclosure's a good policy, but it shouldn't be used as some kind of weapon to intimidate people from testifying.
A better example would be to compare Romney's comment about "binders full of women" as part of a (successful) affirmative action plan to Biden's (repeated) inappropriate contact with females -- including several teenagers.
They aren't trying to bypass the review; they're trying to get it done. It's been six years. How much longer will the State Department need to decide what kind of impact the pipeline will have on US-Canadian relations?
To put it another way, imagine trains start derailing, wiping out orphanages and polluting national parks. It doesn't take long for the same experts who criticized the moratorium on Gulf drilling to mention that the trains wouldn't be necessary if the pipeline were approved. If President Obama's popularity started to suffer, how long do you think it would take for John Kerry to deliver a report from the State Department clearing the project?
OK, that's what I get for believing Slashdot: according to a followup comment, the train wasn't carrying *this* oil. But it is certainly true that trains carrying oil do derail, and in fact one derailed in West Virginia recently.
There are quite a few questions about how this will play out, but some things are basically determined already: the oil's coming out of the ground (and getting burned), Canada isn't going to build more refineries to process it, so it's going to get transported. The questions are (1) where will it be sent, and (2) how will it get there?
A train carrying some of this oil derailed in West Virginia. So it's not like the alternative is all that much better for the environment.
Obama's spent the last six years saying that he won't approve anything without a review from the State Department. The State Department is made up of people who work for him, but they haven't managed to get that review done. I'm pretty sure "his own timeline" means "only when it becomes politically damaging to continue stalling."
But, as already mentioned, since he vetoed the bill, Congress gets a chance to override (it looks like they'll lose that, once that happens *this* bill is dead). If he hadn't vetoed or signed the bill, it would have died ten days after Congress passed it (not counting Sundays).
So if the President changes his mind, he'll have to ask for another bill. That shouldn't be too hard.
Do you remember in 2008 when Obama took heat for encouraging people to save energy by making sure their car tires were properly inflated? And how he responded by saying he supported an "all of the above" energy policy?
Some media outlets have been hammering on the Keystone pipeline because the "all of the above" strategy looks an awful lot like a "some of the above, if approved by the right interest groups" strategy.
He actually did try creating at least one language: look for "Tecton" on http://www.stepanovpapers.com/ (it's in more than one section).
He also worked in Scheme and Ada before picking C++. He dabbled with early versions of Java, but (I believe) he had already decided "object orientedness is almost as much of a hoax as Artificial Intelligence" so that didn't go anywhere ( http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html for the quote).
You're right. I had just finished writing a message about sorting, which is always O(n log n) for any useful sorting algorithm (even quicksort, if implemented correctly http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rs/talks/QuicksortIsOptimal.pdf ), so I added an extra n.
If you want to do that, ask them to name the algorithms in the STL; there are about 70, and I don't know many people who know them all (although, in "The C++ Programming Language, 3rd edition," Stroustrup says that he's worked with classes that had more than 70 methods).
There aren't that many in the STL: std::deque, std::forward_list (C++11), std::list, std::map, std::multimap, std::set, std::multiset, std::unordered_map (C++11), std::unordered_set (C++11), std::vector. There are some adapters. The next question is normally to explain the differences between them. For instance, std::list is a doubly-linked list, so accessing an arbitrary element is O(n), while std::vector is an array and accessing an arbitrary element is O(1). std::map is a sorted red-black tree; accessing an element is O(n log n); std::unordered_map is a has map, accessing an arbitrary element is O(1). Popping an element off of the front of a std::vector (or, really, off of anywhere but the end) is an O(n) operation because it involves copying things around.
These kinds of questions may not make sense in other languages (although just about every language has a few basic containers, and you shouldn't use a list when you really want a dictionary), but C++ is often used in high performance programs, and it's important to not do silly things, like access arbitrary elements of a linked list.
> There is a big difference between life imprisonment and execution that you are missing. No, I didn't miss that. That's what I meant by "incomplete." The original statement was this disparity "alone should be enough to rule out capital punishment in the US for the foreseeable future." But that statement missed pointing out why there should be a moratorium on executions compared to a moratorium on prison sentences and fines. It was incomplete.
Revelation 12:7 ( https://en.wikisource.org/wiki... ): "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels [going forth] to war with the dragon; and the dragon warred and his angels;"
It clearly depends on the definition of "tested." My understanding is that most states require a trial run that kills an animal before any execution, so the claim that the drugs were untested is, in fact, false. Unless the definition is "not used in a previous human execution," which simply creates a conundrum that somebody had to be the first human trial.
I'm not clear how the drugs are to blame for the bad execution. Is there some reason to believe that he wouldn't have blown a vein had they used the normal drug combo? And I agree: why go through the trouble of making up a foolproof cocktail? Simply keep adding sedatives until the heart or breathing stop.
This seems like an incomplete argument. If you're convicted of a crime and not given the death penalty, your prison sentence is likely to be much harsher if you're black than if your white. Should I support closing all prisons? If you're convicted of a crime and fined, you're much more likely to receive a larger fine if you're black than if you're white. Should I support abolishing all fines? It seems to me that it would be logical to support fixing the disparity.
The history of the right to bear arms before the American Revolution is very enlightening. European monarchs had a long history of disarming various groups of people -- usually based on their religion. The English disarmed the Catholics, the French disarmed various Protestants, and just about everybody disarmed Jews. These efforts didn't have a good track record of preventing armed uprisings, but they were very effective at inciting violence against the disarmed "undesirables."