Wow.... this is way overboard in the other direction.
There is nothing inherently wrong with package managers, the problem is their misuse. You can specify a required version, lock a package, auto-update packages, whatever with any decent package manager. Your problem isn't with the package manager, it's with the people who don't know what they're doing.
And code completion is fantastic! Not only can I use it to find the usable methods names I can't quite remember, but I can actually attach docs to them. That's right, when code completion comes up I can easily read the associated documentation.
Look, there are a lot of developers who don't really know what they're doing. Your beef is with them, not with the available tools. Having good tools and knowing how to use them is one of the essential parts of being a developer- and this includes package managers and code completion.
Did you read what you linked? The projections from 1990 were off because they miscalculated effects of things like dampening feedbacks and radiative forcing.
However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than is currently believed, the actual climate sensitivities were [approximately] 18% lower (for example, the 'Best' model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1C for doubled CO2).
You're reference not only declares itself biased, but the info it presents actually does the opposite of what it intends and *confirms* that IPCC reports have consistently been wrong. I'm not saying they were atrociously wrong, I'm just saying that if you make a bunch of projections to prove something, and the one that proves it the least is 20% off, you can't claim your projections are good.
What if the government builds out the physical infrastructure to store all the wire, and then rents out the space on a per-foot basis? You could have multiple fiber lines per area, this way, and increase both competition and reliability.
And that's why we need to make sure every Congressional Representative and Senator (not to mention the President, the Judges and other officers) has eat off SNAP, has to get their medical care from Medicaid providers or the VA, has to live in public housing, has to ride public transportation, and to send their own children to public schools. Apply to this to state officials as necessary.
"Publicly run stuff is shitty, so let's make public officials use the publicly run stuff!"
They also push certain ideologies: the GOP is anti-abortion, anti-immigration (or at least anti-relaxing of immigration policy), anti-gun control, pro-religion, and get their votes from people who value these issues. The Democrats are pro-choice, pro-open borders, pro-gun control, pro-separation of church and state, and pro-environmentalism, and get their votes from people who value these issues.
You can always tell if someone leans Democrat or Republican depending on how they characterize the positions. If you want to be impartial, you could go with either "pro" for both parties or "anti" for both- i.e.,
They also push certain ideologies: the GOP is pro-life, pro-protected borders (or at least pro-strengthening of immigration policy), pro-gun rights, pro-religion, and get their votes from people who value these issues. The Democrats are pro-choice, pro-open borders, pro-gun control, pro-separation of church and state, and pro-environmentalism, and get their votes from people who value these issues.
Personally, I prefer the description:
They also push certain ideologies: the GOP is pro being bought out by corporate interests, and get their votes from people who they can sucker into believing they actually stand for something. The Democrats are pro being bought out by corporate interests, and get their votes from people who they can sucker into believing they actually stand for something.
I don't know about everyone else, but my hand leaves crap on my mouse that needs to be cleaned regularly. I wouldn't want that stuff getting into the mouse and sticking to the circuits...
I guess as long as they make it really easy to open up and clean, this could be a very cool idea.
Google has been considering satellite-based Internet service for more than a year. In late 2013, it hired satellite-industry veteran Greg Wyler, who at one point last year had more than 10 African-Americans working for him. Mr. Wyler left Google last summer and is now developing his own satellite-Internet venture.
I had to re-read the article about five times trying to figure out what hiring African-Americans had to do with anything else. I still don't know.
Should they? If you're playing an online video game, should your bytes have the same priority as someone who is trying to download a 10Gb file? Or someone who's computer is performing an automatic update? Or someone who's streaming music?
If everyone saw a commercial for a Big Mac at McDonalds for only $1, McDonalds couldn't first make everyone pay for it, and then give everyone their burger- they would run out of burgers, but still have money for unfilled orders.
No matter whether it is a burger or bandwidth, you will have an order of sale and order of fulfillment. For physical goods, fulfillment comes immediately after sale. For something like bandwidth, the current mechanism is to continue to sell even if you cannot fulfill. This is wrong.
It doesn't matter that you receive orders all at the same time, you can only process those orders one at a time. Because of this, you *do* lie as soon as you sell to your second user, because you can no longer fulfill that order.
It all depends on the problem you're trying to solve. You're right- industries would be disrupted. It is an unfortunate side-effect of any industry moving in any direction.
It is my belief that the government has the right to impose taxes to compensate for negative externalities. Pollution and emissions are prime examples of this.
I strongly agree with Milton Friedman on this issue. Primarily, that it isn't simple or easy to solve, but also that when the government intervenes it shouldn't be through regulation or standards, it should be through a straightforward tax to pay for the costs. That's why if you had an emissions tax it would have to follow a number of basic guidelines:
1. It cannot be transferable or creditable. The entity is taxed only for its emissions, and only based upon the quantity of emissions.
2. It must be used for one of two purposes: either mechanisms to clean up the pollution and emissions, or research into more efficient and cleaner sources of energy.
3. The tax should slightly outweigh the cost for companies to reduce their emissions themselves. When a CFO looks at a balance sheet, he should see he can either fork out $50,000 for a much better engine or $51,000 for taxes on the emissions from the worse engine.
The cool thing about economics, however, is that there is enormous economic demand to do so. This means if we can put an emissions tax on airlines, there is an incredible incentive to make technological advances that significantly decrease emissions. When that happens, we will still be able to meet demand for relatively low cost.
It's not that his tweet (or its contents) was (or should be considered) offensive, it's that he couched it in an intentionally obnoxious manner.
It reminds me of this xkcd: http://xkcd.com/169/
Other ways he could have stated this:
We shouldn't forget that Isaac Newton's birthday is Dec. 25th, 1642. His work transformed the world. Happy Birthday!
or
Happy Birthday Isaac Newton, b. Dec 25, 1642. Thank you for the laws of motion, the universal law of gravitation, and calculus.
or
Happy Birthday Isaac Newton (b. Dec 25, 1642)! He did more before age 30 than most of us do in a lifetime. Thanks for transforming the world
Or so many others. If his point was just to alert people that Isaac Newton was born on Dec. 25th and we should celebrate that fact, he wouldn't have phrased it to intentionally mislead people.
But remember, only parts of it are amoral. The people in charge of regulatory agencies and welfare are unicorns and rainbows with everyone's best interest at heart, so we should trust them completely.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm missing something here but why not...
bool success = true;
success =
doSomethingThatMightFail() &&
doSomethingElseThatMightfail() &&
doMoreFailingStuff() &&
yepMoreFailingStuff();
if (!success) {
cleanupWork
}
Maybe I'm missing something here but why not... bool success = true;
success =
doSomethingThatMightFail() &&
doSomethingElseThatMightfail() &&
doMoreFailingStuff() &&
yepMoreFailingStuff();
if (!success) {
cleanupWork
}
Wow.... this is way overboard in the other direction.
There is nothing inherently wrong with package managers, the problem is their misuse. You can specify a required version, lock a package, auto-update packages, whatever with any decent package manager. Your problem isn't with the package manager, it's with the people who don't know what they're doing.
And code completion is fantastic! Not only can I use it to find the usable methods names I can't quite remember, but I can actually attach docs to them. That's right, when code completion comes up I can easily read the associated documentation.
Look, there are a lot of developers who don't really know what they're doing. Your beef is with them, not with the available tools. Having good tools and knowing how to use them is one of the essential parts of being a developer- and this includes package managers and code completion.
XNote also sounds very similar to XPad, which is a really useful note-taking utility.
However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than is currently believed, the actual climate sensitivities were [approximately] 18% lower (for example, the 'Best' model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1C for doubled CO2).
You're reference not only declares itself biased, but the info it presents actually does the opposite of what it intends and *confirms* that IPCC reports have consistently been wrong. I'm not saying they were atrociously wrong, I'm just saying that if you make a bunch of projections to prove something, and the one that proves it the least is 20% off, you can't claim your projections are good.
What if the government builds out the physical infrastructure to store all the wire, and then rents out the space on a per-foot basis? You could have multiple fiber lines per area, this way, and increase both competition and reliability.
And that's why we need to make sure every Congressional Representative and Senator (not to mention the President, the Judges and other officers) has eat off SNAP, has to get their medical care from Medicaid providers or the VA, has to live in public housing, has to ride public transportation, and to send their own children to public schools. Apply to this to state officials as necessary.
"Publicly run stuff is shitty, so let's make public officials use the publicly run stuff!"
.....
Or maybe we just let industries privatize.
They also push certain ideologies: the GOP is anti-abortion, anti-immigration (or at least anti-relaxing of immigration policy), anti-gun control, pro-religion, and get their votes from people who value these issues. The Democrats are pro-choice, pro-open borders, pro-gun control, pro-separation of church and state, and pro-environmentalism, and get their votes from people who value these issues.
You can always tell if someone leans Democrat or Republican depending on how they characterize the positions. If you want to be impartial, you could go with either "pro" for both parties or "anti" for both- i.e.,
They also push certain ideologies: the GOP is pro-life, pro-protected borders (or at least pro-strengthening of immigration policy), pro-gun rights, pro-religion, and get their votes from people who value these issues. The Democrats are pro-choice, pro-open borders, pro-gun control, pro-separation of church and state, and pro-environmentalism, and get their votes from people who value these issues.
Personally, I prefer the description:
They also push certain ideologies: the GOP is pro being bought out by corporate interests, and get their votes from people who they can sucker into believing they actually stand for something. The Democrats are pro being bought out by corporate interests, and get their votes from people who they can sucker into believing they actually stand for something.
I find out Microsoft is busily putting nails in its coffin!
I think GP's point was that often terrible actions are taken under the mantra of Social Justice, having nothing to do with actual social justice.
RIGHT??! Why is that not the standard policy?
I don't know about everyone else, but my hand leaves crap on my mouse that needs to be cleaned regularly. I wouldn't want that stuff getting into the mouse and sticking to the circuits...
I guess as long as they make it really easy to open up and clean, this could be a very cool idea.
Visual Basic was introduced in 1991. Extended support ended in 2008.
Python was implemented in 1989. It is still supported.
Google has been considering satellite-based Internet service for more than a year. In late 2013, it hired satellite-industry veteran Greg Wyler, who at one point last year had more than 10 African-Americans working for him. Mr. Wyler left Google last summer and is now developing his own satellite-Internet venture.
I had to re-read the article about five times trying to figure out what hiring African-Americans had to do with anything else. I still don't know.
You are right. This is off topic, and should be modded as such.
Subjective vs. objective value. Break down for me the objective benefits of art, vs. the objective benefits scientific research.
It seems to me you are the one being obtuse.
Should they? If you're playing an online video game, should your bytes have the same priority as someone who is trying to download a 10Gb file? Or someone who's computer is performing an automatic update? Or someone who's streaming music?
If your answer is yes, I have to ask, why?
If everyone saw a commercial for a Big Mac at McDonalds for only $1, McDonalds couldn't first make everyone pay for it, and then give everyone their burger- they would run out of burgers, but still have money for unfilled orders.
No matter whether it is a burger or bandwidth, you will have an order of sale and order of fulfillment. For physical goods, fulfillment comes immediately after sale. For something like bandwidth, the current mechanism is to continue to sell even if you cannot fulfill. This is wrong.
It doesn't matter that you receive orders all at the same time, you can only process those orders one at a time. Because of this, you *do* lie as soon as you sell to your second user, because you can no longer fulfill that order.
There is this rule where if you detonate nukes on another country, you must retaliate if any of their companies get hacked.
It all depends on the problem you're trying to solve. You're right- industries would be disrupted. It is an unfortunate side-effect of any industry moving in any direction.
It is my belief that the government has the right to impose taxes to compensate for negative externalities. Pollution and emissions are prime examples of this.
I strongly agree with Milton Friedman on this issue. Primarily, that it isn't simple or easy to solve, but also that when the government intervenes it shouldn't be through regulation or standards, it should be through a straightforward tax to pay for the costs. That's why if you had an emissions tax it would have to follow a number of basic guidelines:
1. It cannot be transferable or creditable. The entity is taxed only for its emissions, and only based upon the quantity of emissions.
2. It must be used for one of two purposes: either mechanisms to clean up the pollution and emissions, or research into more efficient and cleaner sources of energy.
3. The tax should slightly outweigh the cost for companies to reduce their emissions themselves. When a CFO looks at a balance sheet, he should see he can either fork out $50,000 for a much better engine or $51,000 for taxes on the emissions from the worse engine.
The cool thing about economics, however, is that there is enormous economic demand to do so. This means if we can put an emissions tax on airlines, there is an incredible incentive to make technological advances that significantly decrease emissions. When that happens, we will still be able to meet demand for relatively low cost.
It reminds me of this xkcd: http://xkcd.com/169/
Other ways he could have stated this:
We shouldn't forget that Isaac Newton's birthday is Dec. 25th, 1642. His work transformed the world. Happy Birthday!
or
Happy Birthday Isaac Newton, b. Dec 25, 1642. Thank you for the laws of motion, the universal law of gravitation, and calculus.
or
Happy Birthday Isaac Newton (b. Dec 25, 1642)! He did more before age 30 than most of us do in a lifetime. Thanks for transforming the world
Or so many others. If his point was just to alert people that Isaac Newton was born on Dec. 25th and we should celebrate that fact, he wouldn't have phrased it to intentionally mislead people.
Man, I wish I had mod points for this.
As someone who was never a major fan of Star Trek, I guess I need this explained. What, in fact, *was* Star Trek intended to be?
But remember, only parts of it are amoral. The people in charge of regulatory agencies and welfare are unicorns and rainbows with everyone's best interest at heart, so we should trust them completely.