What is my point of this? You sit all smug in your computer chair or couch or wherever saying others should 'listen to you'. Guess what you sound like a twat who tells others what to do without realizing you yourself are part of the problem. Want to change peoples minds? Its simple, pollution sucks. People get that. "we might be changing the climate" will get you a yawn and no one will really care. But lets say 100% of everyone gets the point. What is the alternative? The current one on the table (and being implemented) is higher taxes. That helps very little and does not actually make things better. It just means those who can afford to will pollute will while you pick up the tab. As those same companies can afford it (due to many of them being regulated monopolies). And companies will just do what they always do. They will pass down the cost to the consumer. As guess what I can not buy my electricity from someone else I pay a higher price for no change. I need to get to work so I can buy food for my family (so I have a car). Without a radical remaking of our entire society nothing will change.
This is not strictly true. The point of taxes on carbon emissions is that it helps to reduce externalities- costs that party A incurs and party B must pay, without an actual economic link between them. For instance, power plants currently emit pollutants (including greenhouse gases). Those pollutants ultimately result in costs (health care cost increases, infrastructure development to deal with changing climate, environmental reclamation costs) that are not paid by the entity that reaps the benefit from incurring them - the power plant operators. By placing a tax on the polluting activities, we cause those entities to pay for the costs that they are incurring. That cost more fully reflects the actual cost of the good that they are providing- electricity produced from coal, which levels the playing field for alternative energy sources which do *not* incur such external costs. *That* is the point of such taxation- to *level* the playing field by actually making every pay for all of the costs that they incur to society.
This is true, but all major client models take this into account. The cooling effect from particulates is vastly smaller than the warming effect from concurrently emitted greenhouse gases.
I know that there are those of us who like to learn, and therefore use efficient memory techniques, and that there are those who ridicule those of us who learn. On a website for geeks, I had expected to find the former, not the latter.
Some of us like to learn useful concepts, not memorize things that are either useless or better handled by machines. I don't know most of the telephone numbers that I use with any regularity, and I consider that to be a good thing, not an indication of someone who doesn't want to learn.
They might be different in theory; they are not in practice. In addition, in Objective-C, C, and C++, NULL is, in fact, (void *)0L. This is not something that is likely to *ever* change, given the absolutely enormous body of code that assumes that (!pointer) is identical to (pointer == NULL); this is not something limited to x86.
Also, char *pointer = 0; being anything other than 0 is rubbish. There are systems for which 0 can contain valid data, and therefore you must be able to assign 0 to a pointer.
Hmm, yes, that might be a better reading of his intention. That said, it's probably worth pointing out that 'nil' is used *far* more often than 'Nil'; few (if any) standard Cocoa APIs return Nil. The only time I've really seen it used is specifically to be placed into collections.
nil and NULL are identical; they're just casts of 0. The reason that you can send messages to nil is that the objc_msgSend() function (the runtime bit that does the actual message lookup and call on objects) does a NULL check for you and immediately returns 0 if you're messaging nil/NULL.
The beginning of action in the EU to mandate a specific charger is what caused the mobile phone manufactures to agree on such a standard- they decided it would be in their interest to pick one they liked rather than having one forced upon them.
Well, the problem with that argument is that the exact same music player is present on the iPhone- so it's clear that this isn't just a "well, we're just a cell phone, how you can you expect us to play music well?" situation.
Uh, you should check the sales numbers on iPods before claiming that its a dead fad. It might be *dying* (the numbers are generally dropping year over year), but it's far from *dead*. The iPod is remarkably long-lived as far as tech gadgets are concerned, actually.
Oh, I'm not opposed to the briefing at all. I just think that the content needs to be reviewed in light of current society (eg, how to fasten a seat belt).
As for the exits: you don't need a briefing for that if you have any experience- you'll see them as you find your seat. Again, a new flyer could use to have them pointed out, but that's not the part of the briefing that I'd object to.
Err, that's not actually correct. 0.999... !=.A, as you could transform any of those 9s (after the first) into an A to have a number between.999... and.A. This is like trying to say that 0.444... = 0.5, which is clearly wrong.
Also, the original comment mentioned "branches of mathematics", which is what I was curious. Hexadecimal is just a different base.
The problem with this argument is that it's clearly fallacious. I've never been on a flight where someone indicated that reading a hardcover book might be a danger, and yet it'd be far more dangerous as a projectile than my frankly damn light mp3 player.
This may be the rationalized argument that you use to convince yourself that electronics are still dangerous, but it's so full of holes as to not hold any water.
(Oh, and as a side note: You seem bitter about people not paying attention to the safety briefing. The issue is that it a) covers ridiculous things (who doesn't know how to put a seat belt on at this point!? And if they don't, you'll catch that by the pre-takeoff belt check) and b) is repeated verbatim on every single flight. I could probably give the thing as well as the flight attendants on most planes.)
One of the first things I learned is that 0.333... (as an example) is an approximation of 1/3. A fraction such as 1/3 cannot be 100% accurately represented in a decimal system.
This is incorrect, and is apparently the source of most of your confusion. 1/3 = 0.333...; there's no approximation going on. 1/3 is approximated by 0.3, and 0.33, and 0.333, but the infinite decimal is *not* an approximation.
The problem here is that people are generally very ill-equipped to handle the idea of infinity, and a lot of common sense doesn't really work. You can't "tack another 5 on the end" of 0.999... to get a number halfway between 0.999... and 1, as some other poster commented, precisely because there is no end for it to be tacked onto. This is why it's ultimately equal to 1.0.
The issue with this, and the reason why CO2 continues to legitimately get the majority of attention, is that methane's half-life in the atmosphere is much, much, much shorter than CO2. As a result, adjusting methane emissions is less urgent, because the effects of the methane in the atmosphere vanish on much shorter timescales- the CO2 just keeps compounding.
So, while methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas on, say, a 1-year timescale, the comparison is much more complicated averaged over the duration of the substance's lifetime in the atmosphere.
December 28, 2010: I investigate code changes between July and December, and conclude they are unlikely to have a substantial effect. I confirm this by re-running the July 29 fuzzer and hitting the same condition as listed in #5. I notify MSRC and reaffirm my plan to release in the first week of January.
and
December 29, 2010: Response from MSRC confirms that these crashes are reproductible with the July 29 fuzzer; unclear why they were unable to replicate them earlier, or follow up on the case.
Actually, it really depends on the company you're looking at. One of the biggest problems isn't so much the $2000 hammer, but the "not invented here" syndrome that causes it.
The government, and DoD especially, does procurement and research based on contracts. The problem is that the results of contract A are not well shared with the contractor for follow-on contract B- which means that they end up reinventing the wheel, and doing all the same work that A did, just to work on the problem that B was supposed to handle.
Hence, many of the companies that do the work are, in isolation, especially the smaller ones, reasonably efficient. But the system as a *whole* is horribly inefficient, and the *big* companies that are involved in this whole thing can rake in huge profits and support huge bureaucracies in the process, so they have a vested interested in lobbying for the status quo.
That's not necessarily true. A good friend of mine worked in a management position for a few years after college, and one of the stops on his rotations through company departments was shipping. He was expected to be out with the employees he was managing at least part of the time, especially under exceptional circumstances. Just because a job requires a college degree and has excellent compensation (which his did) doesn't meant that it's not going to have its crap moments.
I have not "completely failed to understand it". You have failed to understand my post, and in fact your own examples support my point.
The market has certain inherent biases as a result of the incentives, primarily short-term, built into it. It works very well in many cases, but it is not a panacea and anyone trying to tell you that complete dependence on a completely free market is optimal is lying.
The biggest area in which the market tends to fail is in risk analysis of rare-but-significant events. This is primarily due to the fact that the market can be viewed as a distributed optimization algorithm- and, like any such algorithm, can be caught in local optima. Each player takes an action that is locally rational with respect to his own situation, but is globally suboptimal given more complete knowledge of the system. Another real-world example of this is water rights handling in the western US.
This is where an agent external to the system is beneficial in acting as a globally optimizing force to counter the in-market biases. My point is that with such an agent the supply shocks in the oil market, for instance, could have been avoided- there existed sufficient information over the long term to see that such shocks were coming (and will come again), and though no in-market plan can afford to move the economy in such a direction as to mitigate those shocks (they're too long-term and unpredictable, so the lost opportunity cost is judged to be too high), and external player can and should.
The problem with this is that it assumes that we see the supply shock far enough in advance to reorganize our population for it. That's not necessarily something we can expect to happen. Look at places like LA or NYC: they are wholly dependent on cheap long-distance transportation of goods, and could completely collapse without them.
That's the problem with complete dependence on a market- it'll fix itself in the end, but that interim, while it's doing so, can be incredibly painful if we don't take steps to being heading in that direction ahead of time, especially when the writing is on the wall about what's coming up.
Slashdot Mirror
What is my point of this? You sit all smug in your computer chair or couch or wherever saying others should 'listen to you'. Guess what you sound like a twat who tells others what to do without realizing you yourself are part of the problem. Want to change peoples minds? Its simple, pollution sucks. People get that. "we might be changing the climate" will get you a yawn and no one will really care. But lets say 100% of everyone gets the point. What is the alternative? The current one on the table (and being implemented) is higher taxes. That helps very little and does not actually make things better. It just means those who can afford to will pollute will while you pick up the tab. As those same companies can afford it (due to many of them being regulated monopolies). And companies will just do what they always do. They will pass down the cost to the consumer. As guess what I can not buy my electricity from someone else I pay a higher price for no change. I need to get to work so I can buy food for my family (so I have a car). Without a radical remaking of our entire society nothing will change.
This is not strictly true. The point of taxes on carbon emissions is that it helps to reduce externalities- costs that party A incurs and party B must pay, without an actual economic link between them. For instance, power plants currently emit pollutants (including greenhouse gases). Those pollutants ultimately result in costs (health care cost increases, infrastructure development to deal with changing climate, environmental reclamation costs) that are not paid by the entity that reaps the benefit from incurring them - the power plant operators. By placing a tax on the polluting activities, we cause those entities to pay for the costs that they are incurring. That cost more fully reflects the actual cost of the good that they are providing- electricity produced from coal, which levels the playing field for alternative energy sources which do *not* incur such external costs. *That* is the point of such taxation- to *level* the playing field by actually making every pay for all of the costs that they incur to society.
This is true, but all major client models take this into account. The cooling effect from particulates is vastly smaller than the warming effect from concurrently emitted greenhouse gases.
I know that there are those of us who like to learn, and therefore use efficient memory techniques, and that there are those who ridicule those of us who learn. On a website for geeks, I had expected to find the former, not the latter.
Some of us like to learn useful concepts, not memorize things that are either useless or better handled by machines. I don't know most of the telephone numbers that I use with any regularity, and I consider that to be a good thing, not an indication of someone who doesn't want to learn.
It's easier to hit keys above the "home row" than it is to hit keys below it.
They might be different in theory; they are not in practice. In addition, in Objective-C, C, and C++, NULL is, in fact, (void *)0L. This is not something that is likely to *ever* change, given the absolutely enormous body of code that assumes that (!pointer) is identical to (pointer == NULL); this is not something limited to x86.
Also, char *pointer = 0; being anything other than 0 is rubbish. There are systems for which 0 can contain valid data, and therefore you must be able to assign 0 to a pointer.
Hmm, yes, that might be a better reading of his intention. That said, it's probably worth pointing out that 'nil' is used *far* more often than 'Nil'; few (if any) standard Cocoa APIs return Nil. The only time I've really seen it used is specifically to be placed into collections.
nil and NULL are identical; they're just casts of 0. The reason that you can send messages to nil is that the objc_msgSend() function (the runtime bit that does the actual message lookup and call on objects) does a NULL check for you and immediately returns 0 if you're messaging nil/NULL.
Sure they are. They're interested in low-hanging fruit, and this will catch a whole lot of it.
No. Data suggests that global warming is very real. Models suggest a certain future continued warming.
The two should not be confused. The historical record is not a model.
Not all of us, let me assure you.
The beginning of action in the EU to mandate a specific charger is what caused the mobile phone manufactures to agree on such a standard- they decided it would be in their interest to pick one they liked rather than having one forced upon them.
He fired shots during the standoff, as he reported in one of the status updates.
Well, the problem with that argument is that the exact same music player is present on the iPhone- so it's clear that this isn't just a "well, we're just a cell phone, how you can you expect us to play music well?" situation.
Uh, you should check the sales numbers on iPods before claiming that its a dead fad. It might be *dying* (the numbers are generally dropping year over year), but it's far from *dead*. The iPod is remarkably long-lived as far as tech gadgets are concerned, actually.
Oh, I'm not opposed to the briefing at all. I just think that the content needs to be reviewed in light of current society (eg, how to fasten a seat belt).
As for the exits: you don't need a briefing for that if you have any experience- you'll see them as you find your seat. Again, a new flyer could use to have them pointed out, but that's not the part of the briefing that I'd object to.
Err, that's not actually correct. 0.999... != .A, as you could transform any of those 9s (after the first) into an A to have a number between .999... and .A. This is like trying to say that 0.444... = 0.5, which is clearly wrong.
Also, the original comment mentioned "branches of mathematics", which is what I was curious. Hexadecimal is just a different base.
The problem with this argument is that it's clearly fallacious. I've never been on a flight where someone indicated that reading a hardcover book might be a danger, and yet it'd be far more dangerous as a projectile than my frankly damn light mp3 player.
This may be the rationalized argument that you use to convince yourself that electronics are still dangerous, but it's so full of holes as to not hold any water.
(Oh, and as a side note: You seem bitter about people not paying attention to the safety briefing. The issue is that it a) covers ridiculous things (who doesn't know how to put a seat belt on at this point!? And if they don't, you'll catch that by the pre-takeoff belt check) and b) is repeated verbatim on every single flight. I could probably give the thing as well as the flight attendants on most planes.)
Really? I haven't encounter any of those; can you provide any more information?
One of the first things I learned is that 0.333... (as an example) is an approximation of 1/3. A fraction such as 1/3 cannot be 100% accurately represented in a decimal system.
This is incorrect, and is apparently the source of most of your confusion. 1/3 = 0.333...; there's no approximation going on. 1/3 is approximated by 0.3, and 0.33, and 0.333, but the infinite decimal is *not* an approximation.
The problem here is that people are generally very ill-equipped to handle the idea of infinity, and a lot of common sense doesn't really work. You can't "tack another 5 on the end" of 0.999... to get a number halfway between 0.999... and 1, as some other poster commented, precisely because there is no end for it to be tacked onto. This is why it's ultimately equal to 1.0.
The issue with this, and the reason why CO2 continues to legitimately get the majority of attention, is that methane's half-life in the atmosphere is much, much, much shorter than CO2. As a result, adjusting methane emissions is less urgent, because the effects of the methane in the atmosphere vanish on much shorter timescales- the CO2 just keeps compounding.
So, while methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas on, say, a 1-year timescale, the comparison is much more complicated averaged over the duration of the substance's lifetime in the atmosphere.
Did you actually read the article?
December 28, 2010: I investigate code changes between July and December, and conclude they are unlikely to have a substantial effect. I confirm this by re-running the July 29 fuzzer and hitting the same condition as listed in #5. I notify MSRC and reaffirm my plan to release in the first week of January.
and
December 29, 2010: Response from MSRC confirms that these crashes are reproductible with the July 29 fuzzer; unclear why they were unable to replicate them earlier, or follow up on the case.
He stated it and Microsoft confirmed it.
Actually, it really depends on the company you're looking at. One of the biggest problems isn't so much the $2000 hammer, but the "not invented here" syndrome that causes it.
The government, and DoD especially, does procurement and research based on contracts. The problem is that the results of contract A are not well shared with the contractor for follow-on contract B- which means that they end up reinventing the wheel, and doing all the same work that A did, just to work on the problem that B was supposed to handle.
Hence, many of the companies that do the work are, in isolation, especially the smaller ones, reasonably efficient. But the system as a *whole* is horribly inefficient, and the *big* companies that are involved in this whole thing can rake in huge profits and support huge bureaucracies in the process, so they have a vested interested in lobbying for the status quo.
That's not necessarily true. A good friend of mine worked in a management position for a few years after college, and one of the stops on his rotations through company departments was shipping. He was expected to be out with the employees he was managing at least part of the time, especially under exceptional circumstances. Just because a job requires a college degree and has excellent compensation (which his did) doesn't meant that it's not going to have its crap moments.
I have not "completely failed to understand it". You have failed to understand my post, and in fact your own examples support my point.
The market has certain inherent biases as a result of the incentives, primarily short-term, built into it. It works very well in many cases, but it is not a panacea and anyone trying to tell you that complete dependence on a completely free market is optimal is lying.
The biggest area in which the market tends to fail is in risk analysis of rare-but-significant events. This is primarily due to the fact that the market can be viewed as a distributed optimization algorithm- and, like any such algorithm, can be caught in local optima. Each player takes an action that is locally rational with respect to his own situation, but is globally suboptimal given more complete knowledge of the system. Another real-world example of this is water rights handling in the western US.
This is where an agent external to the system is beneficial in acting as a globally optimizing force to counter the in-market biases. My point is that with such an agent the supply shocks in the oil market, for instance, could have been avoided- there existed sufficient information over the long term to see that such shocks were coming (and will come again), and though no in-market plan can afford to move the economy in such a direction as to mitigate those shocks (they're too long-term and unpredictable, so the lost opportunity cost is judged to be too high), and external player can and should.
The problem with this is that it assumes that we see the supply shock far enough in advance to reorganize our population for it. That's not necessarily something we can expect to happen. Look at places like LA or NYC: they are wholly dependent on cheap long-distance transportation of goods, and could completely collapse without them.
That's the problem with complete dependence on a market- it'll fix itself in the end, but that interim, while it's doing so, can be incredibly painful if we don't take steps to being heading in that direction ahead of time, especially when the writing is on the wall about what's coming up.