> How about the collapse of the ice shelves in Antarctica that later later started growing - oh, melting will be at the north pole and MORE ice will form at the south.
It's very convenient: Whenever arctic ice hits new record lows, denialists can point to Antarctica and say "oh, but THERE it's growing!". It does rely on the audience not remembering the fact that it's winter in the south when it's summer in the north, but that doesn't seem to be a problem!
Point is, you make "stupid" errors when doing something as simple as constructing an English sentence. We all do, on occasion. Yet I am supposed to believe you're good enough to not make errors in a task that's much harder, and where there are far more errors to make?
Security has to rely on something more than "don't make mistakes", because statistically, people will make mistakes. Even the best. Especially when it's easy to do things wrong and there are many opportunities to do so, as is the case with multithreaded programming.
There could be easy environmental savings by making them run on cleaner fuel, possibly. But there are no easy savings by switching to other transport methods, because there's nothing that can remotely compete.
Very sad, and strange that they couldn't get it working in San Francisco of all places. You'd think there was a better market for it there than in Friedrichshafen, where they have been running a similar operation for some 15 years. Maybe Germany just has more airship nuts still.
Airships are still too valuable to be "scrapped" like a regular ship, though. Eureka isn't turning into nails... What's going to happen is that the company in Friedrichshafen will get the dismantled ship back, as they sold all their ships with that stipulation.
These days, PR reasons are probably the best reasons they shouldn't be filled with hydrogen. We know how to build non-flammable hulls, and even on the Hindenburg, most of the passengers survived (compare that to plane crashes).
Cargo ships are extremely efficient at what they do. They may have a large carbon footprint, but they have a very low carbon footprint per kg of goods transported compared to your car.
It is easy to try to villify Apple and MS for their choices and to ascribe all sorts of nefarious motives. I think it's bunk. I think they're primarily interested in making money and the App stores are there to make it convenient and easy for users to get apps without getting any malware.
So you think that if, say, McAfee proved that they did a better job checking for malware, Apple would just turn over the App store to them? With the 30% cut (after all, that's just expenses for checking the app's compatibility and security, right)
Malware protection is a completely transparent excuse for maintaining a monopoly. They do it because a walled garden makes a collossal amount of money for themselves, this is not "ascribing them a nefarious motive", it's plain, obvious fact.
"Attention whore" = He managed to get attention without sucking up to any of the official arbiters of who deserves attention or not.
It's such a predictable smear, playing on the jealousy of people like you (who can't command any attention) and people like journalists (who can command attention, but sold out in order to get the privilege).
For binaries, there are especially many options, most of which are distributed. Just about the only "advantage" Usenet has for those it's that it's relatively inaccessible, and thus hip. I understand some pirate types actually value that.
My torrent client supports downloading segments in order for preview purposes, if I want to do that.
My rar client, however, I can't convince to unpack half a file.
Also, there are often multiple files, and I only want one.
If you want to keep seeding and use an unpacked version, you need to keep two copies around (especially annoying when it is a 1.4 GB video file which wasn't compressed anything whatsoever by winrar). Meaning most people delete the rar junk. Meaning stuff doesn't get seeded.
Compression in torrents should be done on individual files if you have to do it. These archives should not be further split up. And you shouldn't use that proprietary dinosaur winrar.
* In has a distribution model that's suited for extremely slow lines, and less suited for regular ones * It has virtually no spam protection. This has been an issue for a long time. * It's not extensible, it will not improve in these areas.
Other than being a single go-to place, what does Usenet really have over a good web forum these days? It's only nostalgia keeping it going. As long as it's archived (and Google's doing that, although their archiving in this area leaves a lot to be desired), little of value is lost. A few communities will have to move, that's about it.
I wasn't calling cloud cover feedback undeniable. I was more thinking of the water vapor feedback, the ice albedo feedback, the sea temperature feedback etc. Cloud cover was for many years the last refuge of the contrarians, since we didn't understand it very well. But it's increasingly clear it's another net positive feedback.
All climate projections are predicated on feedbacks. Even the ridiculously optimistic projections of the contrarians are predicated on feedbacks - only with dubious negative ones counteracting the undeniable positive ones.
The for-profits are trying to do that, or rather, they're trying to offer placement services, i.e. sell your CV to recruiters. At least the for-profits have every reason to fight for the prestige of their online classes.
However, if they decided to get INTO the mining business, what would be their cost? Land to mine, the exact same tools, decreased market for their existing products, manual labor, expertise in selecting the land, etc...
But that is precisely the point. To actually mine gold efficiently, you need lots of things and skills besides mining equipment. To mine bitcoins, you need virtually nothing except these ASICs and power.
Fun fact: currency was invented by governments, in order to pay for military operations. In an economy where everything operates on credit and trust, it's hard to convince people to support soldiers adequately. What they did instead was to mint coins, give them to their soldiers, and then decree that everyone had to pay a coin in tax (or else, of course). Historically, there's little question: The chartalists were right.
Hoarding is a bad thing in itself, and it's very different from investing, or even having your money in a bank account.
Suppose there's a village with a very simple economy, where people just remember the favors they've done each other and do their best to return them.
Then suppose one villager suddenly decides that yes, he will do favors to others, but he won't accept favors back. At least, the favors people try to do him back he will not really see as equivalent to his own).
Do you think the village has a legitimate reason to be angry with this person's behavior? Then you consider hoarding to be a bad thing.
What would happen in the real world, of course, is that the other villagers would be angry with this guy. Who does he think he is, thinking his own favors are so much more valuable, and that he doesn't need us? Some sort of chief? Simple economy villages will have none of that. Although he has really done other people genuine favors, he will find his social capital devalued.
In a modern economy, it gets a little nastier, because our wealth is denominated in the same units. But it's the same principle: Money is a claim on real-world wealth, but if you're holding on to these claims and refuse to exercise them, then you're placing an unwanted burden on your fellow citizens, who don't want to be in your debt forever. Eventually, they might devalue your claims, or worse ("worse" would probably be the outcome for our hypothetical hoarding villager, too).
Slashdot Mirror
That changes everything right there.
> How about the collapse of the ice shelves in Antarctica that later later started growing - oh, melting will be at the north pole and MORE ice will form at the south.
It's very convenient: Whenever arctic ice hits new record lows, denialists can point to Antarctica and say "oh, but THERE it's growing!". It does rely on the audience not remembering the fact that it's winter in the south when it's summer in the north, but that doesn't seem to be a problem!
Tell you what, why don't you show me some nontrivial multithreaded code you've written.
Point is, you make "stupid" errors when doing something as simple as constructing an English sentence. We all do, on occasion. Yet I am supposed to believe you're good enough to not make errors in a task that's much harder, and where there are far more errors to make?
Security has to rely on something more than "don't make mistakes", because statistically, people will make mistakes. Even the best. Especially when it's easy to do things wrong and there are many opportunities to do so, as is the case with multithreaded programming.
There could be easy environmental savings by making them run on cleaner fuel, possibly. But there are no easy savings by switching to other transport methods, because there's nothing that can remotely compete.
Very sad, and strange that they couldn't get it working in San Francisco of all places. You'd think there was a better market for it there than in Friedrichshafen, where they have been running a similar operation for some 15 years. Maybe Germany just has more airship nuts still.
Airships are still too valuable to be "scrapped" like a regular ship, though. Eureka isn't turning into nails... What's going to happen is that the company in Friedrichshafen will get the dismantled ship back, as they sold all their ships with that stipulation.
These days, PR reasons are probably the best reasons they shouldn't be filled with hydrogen. We know how to build non-flammable hulls, and even on the Hindenburg, most of the passengers survived (compare that to plane crashes).
Regular cargo ships are pretty vulnerable to rough weather too.
Cargo ships are extremely efficient at what they do. They may have a large carbon footprint, but they have a very low carbon footprint per kg of goods transported compared to your car.
With multithreaded programming, there are simply more ways to make mistakes. Far more than in writing a Slashdot post, and yet...
It's almost as hard as writing sentences that don't having grammar errors.
So you think that if, say, McAfee proved that they did a better job checking for malware, Apple would just turn over the App store to them? With the 30% cut (after all, that's just expenses for checking the app's compatibility and security, right)
Malware protection is a completely transparent excuse for maintaining a monopoly. They do it because a walled garden makes a collossal amount of money for themselves, this is not "ascribing them a nefarious motive", it's plain, obvious fact.
"Attention whore" = He managed to get attention without sucking up to any of the official arbiters of who deserves attention or not.
It's such a predictable smear, playing on the jealousy of people like you (who can't command any attention) and people like journalists (who can command attention, but sold out in order to get the privilege).
For binaries, there are especially many options, most of which are distributed. Just about the only "advantage" Usenet has for those it's that it's relatively inaccessible, and thus hip. I understand some pirate types actually value that.
My torrent client supports downloading segments in order for preview purposes, if I want to do that.
My rar client, however, I can't convince to unpack half a file.
Also, there are often multiple files, and I only want one.
If you want to keep seeding and use an unpacked version, you need to keep two copies around (especially annoying when it is a 1.4 GB video file which wasn't compressed anything whatsoever by winrar). Meaning most people delete the rar junk. Meaning stuff doesn't get seeded.
Compression in torrents should be done on individual files if you have to do it. These archives should not be further split up. And you shouldn't use that proprietary dinosaur winrar.
Why not?
* In has a distribution model that's suited for extremely slow lines, and less suited for regular ones
* It has virtually no spam protection. This has been an issue for a long time.
* It's not extensible, it will not improve in these areas.
Other than being a single go-to place, what does Usenet really have over a good web forum these days? It's only nostalgia keeping it going. As long as it's archived (and Google's doing that, although their archiving in this area leaves a lot to be desired), little of value is lost. A few communities will have to move, that's about it.
Now maybe finally we'll see the end of torrents split into hundreds of RAR archives.
I think you mean noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I wasn't calling cloud cover feedback undeniable. I was more thinking of the water vapor feedback, the ice albedo feedback, the sea temperature feedback etc. Cloud cover was for many years the last refuge of the contrarians, since we didn't understand it very well. But it's increasingly clear it's another net positive feedback.
All climate projections are predicated on feedbacks. Even the ridiculously optimistic projections of the contrarians are predicated on feedbacks - only with dubious negative ones counteracting the undeniable positive ones.
The for-profits are trying to do that, or rather, they're trying to offer placement services, i.e. sell your CV to recruiters. At least the for-profits have every reason to fight for the prestige of their online classes.
But that is precisely the point. To actually mine gold efficiently, you need lots of things and skills besides mining equipment. To mine bitcoins, you need virtually nothing except these ASICs and power.
Fun fact: currency was invented by governments, in order to pay for military operations. In an economy where everything operates on credit and trust, it's hard to convince people to support soldiers adequately. What they did instead was to mint coins, give them to their soldiers, and then decree that everyone had to pay a coin in tax (or else, of course). Historically, there's little question: The chartalists were right.
He wrote "Keysian". I think you're being a little optimistic in trying to explain the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money to him.
Hoarding is a bad thing in itself, and it's very different from investing, or even having your money in a bank account.
Suppose there's a village with a very simple economy, where people just remember the favors they've done each other and do their best to return them.
Then suppose one villager suddenly decides that yes, he will do favors to others, but he won't accept favors back. At least, the favors people try to do him back he will not really see as equivalent to his own).
Do you think the village has a legitimate reason to be angry with this person's behavior? Then you consider hoarding to be a bad thing.
What would happen in the real world, of course, is that the other villagers would be angry with this guy. Who does he think he is, thinking his own favors are so much more valuable, and that he doesn't need us? Some sort of chief? Simple economy villages will have none of that. Although he has really done other people genuine favors, he will find his social capital devalued.
In a modern economy, it gets a little nastier, because our wealth is denominated in the same units. But it's the same principle: Money is a claim on real-world wealth, but if you're holding on to these claims and refuse to exercise them, then you're placing an unwanted burden on your fellow citizens, who don't want to be in your debt forever. Eventually, they might devalue your claims, or worse ("worse" would probably be the outcome for our hypothetical hoarding villager, too).