"Market competition does not address this issue since purveyors of electronics are not using "wall-wart power efficiency" in their sales campaigns"
Don't confuse "does not address" with "cannot address". It does not address the issue -now- because the issue is trivial. People don't care about a few dozen watts being wasted as heat - especially in winter time.
They were using this argument to rule out reverse discrimination - i.e., the hypothesis that maintainers might be more inclined to merge from people they believe are female.
"Research suggests that, indeed, gender bias pervades open source. The most obvious illustration is the underrepresentation of women in open source;"... which is a fashionable non sequitur.
And as for the reverse-discrimination claim, they define a "gender-neutral" profile where they could not tell gender immediately from the github profile only. But that's not evidence that the person merging the patch could not know. They could have done the same sort of auxiliary social-networking/google search that the researchers themselves did to build up their userid->gender mapping tables. IOW, they're assuming the maintainer is more naive about searching for information than they themselves are.
A great many people home-school their kids, even in technical subjects. A great many people have self-taught even technical subjects. It's not rocket science (until it is).
No, not if it's a tax break. But many solar installations are tied to the grid, and the owner receives an inflated - subsidized! - feed-in-tariff for the electricity their system generates.
It took only twenty seconds of flipping through your misi-net reference to find a glaring flaw in the calculations. Namely, those "incentives" or what you call "subsidies" are on the whole not subsidies at all. There are tax credits, regulatory effects ("gains realized by energy businesses when they are exempt from federal requirements that raise costs or limit prices", etc.).
A lot of it is BS, and >>90% is stuff other than "subsidy", i.e., a payment to someone. Whoa, it even says so on page 9:
"F. Disbursements This category involves direct financial subsidies such as grants. Since 1950, direct federal grants and subsidies have played a very small role in energy policy, accounting for â"$6 billion, a negligible fraction of total incentives."
See that word, negligible? In your own source? Grok it.
"They effectively have prohibited solar. If I understand what they've done correctly, they've set a ridiculously high grid-tie charge with a ridiculously-low kWh payout, such that it is impossible to even break-even. "
No one owes you a break-even on a harebrained scheme. You are free to power your own house with solar. No one will prohibit it or care. But your insistence on a break-even means you're wanting someone else to subsidize your hobby.
I'd have to see something better cited. I've seen far too many re-re-re-re-adjusted time lines (history changed multiple times) to accept at face value that this particular chart is "unadjusted".
It's endearing how so many commenters are discovering elementary facts of hundreds-of-years-old economics. ("People need money to spend." "There could be enough work, if we could sell it" "we need people to actually get money from working" You don't say!)
If only they'd take some basic education in the subject, so they don't have to reinvent all this elementary stuff from pieties and memes.
Can you explain the apparent discord between your first comment and your second?
Your first accepts that emergency assistance cannot be relied upon: i.e., the state's emergency apparatus is imperfect. The second assumes that self-help will be possible with "smart guns", i.e., the gun computer will be perfect.
A merely lexical analysis of your sentence contradicts your claim of non-existence of races. (If they didn't exist, you couldn't differentiate diversity within / between them.)
And if you retreat to word games ("race" didn't mean "race"), then note that the existence of "far more diversity" with respect to some genes says nothing whatsoever about the existence of less-diverse shared other genes in various populations.
"That's why humans don't *have* "races" in the biological sense, we do have what biologists call "klines". The difference is important."
Please explain why the difference is important. One sounds like the normal civilian language and the other professional jargon, but both have the same meaning & effect.
"There is no trait or collection of traits that correlates with whatever "race" means this decade."
Haha, ok, then y'all modern types are trying to redefine the word "race", and not claiming that the normal, plain meaning of the word has no biological basis. That's circular reasoning. #wrongskin
Slashdot Mirror
"Market competition does not address this issue since purveyors of electronics are not using "wall-wart power efficiency" in their sales campaigns"
Don't confuse "does not address" with "cannot address". It does not address the issue -now- because the issue is trivial. People don't care about a few dozen watts being wasted as heat - especially in winter time.
They were using this argument to rule out reverse discrimination - i.e., the hypothesis that maintainers might be more inclined to merge from people they believe are female.
Meh. TL;DR types might also find such gems:
"Research suggests that, indeed, gender bias pervades open source. The most obvious illustration is the underrepresentation of women in open source;" ... which is a fashionable non sequitur.
And as for the reverse-discrimination claim, they define a "gender-neutral" profile where they could not tell gender immediately from the github profile only. But that's not evidence that the person merging the patch could not know. They could have done the same sort of auxiliary social-networking/google search that the researchers themselves did to build up their userid->gender mapping tables. IOW, they're assuming the maintainer is more naive about searching for information than they themselves are.
A great many people home-school their kids, even in technical subjects. A great many people have self-taught even technical subjects. It's not rocket science (until it is).
"So is my tax break a subsidy?"
No, not if it's a tax break.
But many solar installations are tied to the grid, and the owner receives an inflated - subsidized! - feed-in-tariff for the electricity their system generates.
Money taken from someone and paid to you is different from money you earned and kept.
It took only twenty seconds of flipping through your misi-net reference to find a glaring flaw in the calculations. Namely, those "incentives" or what you call "subsidies" are on the whole not subsidies at all. There are tax credits, regulatory effects ("gains realized by energy businesses when they are exempt from federal requirements that raise costs or limit prices", etc.).
A lot of it is BS, and >>90% is stuff other than "subsidy", i.e., a payment to someone. Whoa, it even says so on page 9:
"F. Disbursements
This category involves direct financial subsidies such as grants. Since 1950, direct federal grants and subsidies have played a very small role in energy policy, accounting for â"$6 billion, a negligible fraction of total incentives."
See that word, negligible? In your own source? Grok it.
"Your decision to smoke, drive a car, or buy power from a coal-fired plant impacts me."
We're not going to get anywhere if such minuscule degrees of impact connectivity get you all atwitter.
"And yet I'm required to subsidize health care for smokers,
alcoholics, drug users and the obese"
One solution to that conundrum is to change the laws so you're no longer required to subsidize others' health care.
"They effectively have prohibited solar. If I understand what they've done correctly, they've set a ridiculously high grid-tie charge with a ridiculously-low kWh payout, such that it is impossible to even break-even. "
No one owes you a break-even on a harebrained scheme. You are free to power your own house with solar. No one will prohibit it or care. But your insistence on a break-even means you're wanting someone else to subsidize your hobby.
OTOH, a deal is a deal.
"the unadjusted record"
I'd have to see something better cited. I've seen far too many re-re-re-re-adjusted time lines (history changed multiple times) to accept at face value that this particular chart is "unadjusted".
and record-shattering historical data rerererereadjustments
Good point, thanks.
Maybe not much. Each 200m-diameter mirror illuminating a 5700m-diameter area on the ground implies a 1:28 reduction of light intensity right there.
The same bug would have existed without the goto business:
if (keyring == new->session_keyring) {
key_put(...)
mutex_unlcok(...)
abort_creds(...)
return 0;
}
would have been just as buggy without the key_put(). The goto was neither necessary nor sufficient for this bug.
"And the funny thing is? The guilty line is a fucking GOTO."
No; the goto wouldn't have mattered - the missing key_put() could have been put at either location, with or without the goto.
It's endearing how so many commenters are discovering elementary facts of hundreds-of-years-old economics. ("People need money to spend." "There could be enough work, if we could sell it" "we need people to actually get money from working" You don't say!)
If only they'd take some basic education in the subject, so they don't have to reinvent all this elementary stuff from pieties and memes.
More specifically, by what metric was there a hiatus until December (?).
"there's no "hiatus" any more"
What's your definition of "hiatus"?
Can you explain the apparent discord between your first comment and your second?
Your first accepts that emergency assistance cannot be relied upon: i.e., the state's emergency apparatus is imperfect.
The second assumes that self-help will be possible with "smart guns", i.e., the gun computer will be perfect.
A merely lexical analysis of your sentence contradicts your claim of non-existence of races. (If they didn't exist, you couldn't differentiate diversity within / between them.)
And if you retreat to word games ("race" didn't mean "race"), then note that the existence of "far more diversity" with respect to some genes says nothing whatsoever about the existence of less-diverse shared other genes in various populations.
"That's why humans don't *have* "races" in the biological sense, we do have what biologists call "klines". The difference is important."
Please explain why the difference is important. One sounds like the normal civilian language and the other professional jargon, but both have the same meaning & effect.
"There is no trait or collection of traits that correlates with whatever "race" means this decade."
Haha, ok, then y'all modern types are trying to redefine the word "race", and not claiming that the normal, plain meaning of the word has no biological basis. That's circular reasoning. #wrongskin
"Your gender is a political view?"
Of course. Read any gender studies literature.
"Race is a load of meaningless crap. Humans like to fark too much for it to exist. It has no concept in biology"
The first and third parts of that are a lie.
That interbreeding occurs does not diminish the concept. It just means that the concept doesn't apply as cleanly to as many individuals as it used to.