And the background colour of your chat was See you later!an, and for some reason, no philaughing out loudogists would discuss chlorolling on the floor laughinguorcarbons in it.
Didn't you read what I said? Blinding sucks for so-called recreational drugs, because people who use them are intimately familiar with them.
It's even possible that they recognize them subconsciously. A familiar scent can make you feel a certain way, without you even being conscious of it being there at all - why should the internal cues from a drug be less potent?
(But yes, studies CAN be blinded. Especially for alcohol, it has been done many times. But then we are talking small doses, doses far below what people take to get drunk. Plenty of more recent studies also have poor blinding.)
One thing about recreational drugs is that you can't generally separate out the placebo effect. At common doses, they give strong enough internal cues ("buzz" etc.) that you can't help knowing what you're getting, even if you get it in a tasteless and scent-less capsule, if you're familiar with it at all (If you want to study cannabis on people who don't want it and don't know what they're getting, then the ethics board will come knocking, and the police too!)
Of all the things people stuff themselves with and believe in, I can't think of anything with more magical, far-fetched, and wildly contradictory notions attached than recreational drugs. If there's anything that has a placebo effect...
Ironic example, given that alcohol does not in fact impair judgment in the way people imagine, and that it still appears to do is a consequence of the placebo effect.
Yes, Chinese Viagra alternatives! Made with parts of soon-to-be-extinct animals, and contaminated with real pharmaceuticals of unknown type and quantity. Really tempting.
Oh, I didn't say it wasn't (and yes, I was being sarcastic). I'm just pointing out that as long as there are flamewars about hg, git and bzr, enough developers will hear about it that it won't fade into obscurity. All publicity is good publicity and all that.
I think the flame wars could even be limited to hg/git. If they lasted long enough, someone would probably be so convinced by their respective lists of each other's weaknesses, that they would look around for a "third way". For a revision system like bzr to actually fade away, something would need to happen of similar magnitude to what happened to old GNU Arch (abandonment by project initiator for personal reasons + mass migration to sister project, etc.)
Where do you draw the line between editor and IDE? If you want something sufficiently in between, some commercial editors have better solutions, yes. But there aren't all that many situations where you benefit from a code browser, but not from full-blown language support and systems that catch type/compile errors as soon as you edit the line.
> One of the main reasons why I stick to, in my case Emacs, mutt & similar tools is the extra options storing everything as (more or less) plain text gives me.
Since this is about editors and revision control... One little hack I did with my editor was to make it save all backups in a separate directory tree, make that a version control repository, and re-bind save so that it was save + commit. Crude, but it works. I don't like throwing things away:-) Scales just fine so far.
What's the vcs and editor? Mercurial and... JEdit! (JEdit is actually pretty sweet. Like Emacs, it has plugins for everything under the sun, and it has common bindings, so unlike emacs, you don't have to mentally task-switch when using a non-emacs editor/text field/moon phase indicator.
bzr has been sponsored by canonical for ages. It grew out of Tom Lord's Arch project, which was the first serious attempt at an open source distributed VCS.
> And we didn't become immune to plague or tuberculosis
Not immune, but very resistant. To see just how much crowd disease resistance we have gained, look at what happened to native Americans once us Eurasians came over.
All primitive medicine was moving the live/die border a little bit - some might live that would otherwise die, but still innate resistance to disease or better adaption to diet (such as the ability to digest milk efficiently) would help your survival chances a lot.
> "Regular" flu still takes around 500.000 lives each year globally - that is quite a bit for such a common disease.
First, mostly mature people die from regular flu - people who've had their kids. Second, flu in humans depends on very high population densities, so it's pretty new as diseases go. Third, flu adapts as well. (Fourth, where did you get that number from anyway?)
> We are not limited to a single location, way of life or a food source - as a species. That is why there is no such thing as a "pure" human.
> claimed to have extremist ties and said the explosive device "was acquired in Yemen along with instructions as to when it should be used,"... but that, along with the "firecracker" comment, made me wonder: Who says there are only terrorists in Jemen? Who says there aren't also extremely mean pranksters?
"we didn't really evolve that much since we got ourselves these big brainy things that we use for thinking."
This isn't true, actually. We did evolve, and a lot too (because although not much time has passed, populations are much higher). The thing is, it's not the "evolution" of racial theorists, of bigger brains or better skills. It's mostly resistance to disease, and adaption to more monotonous diets. When you have a population of half a billion, and half of them die from disease and/or malnutrition before reaching maturity, there's a lot of selection pressure, even over a few generations. Especially since we're talking about new diseases (big crowd diseases) and new diets ("high carb"...) that we haven't already spent millions of years adapting to. (I guess disease and malnutrition is what keeps seagull population stable as well, but there it is in the form it has always been - they're probably pretty well optimized to it already)
It's not that simple either: One man that look real different from yourself: "Oooh, look, fresh genetic material for to help our tribe surivive!" Ten men that look different from you "Aaaaah, they're going to wipe out our tribe!"
"Let me invest that tax money the way I see fit in my 401k and I guarantee you I will do better than the SS program will do for me."
I just don't get such statements. How old are you, 65? Me, I have about 40 years until retirement. You think you know which investements will pay off in 40 years? I certainly don't; I couldn't have told you 40 years ago if you asked me, and the world is changing faster (and there is more uncertainty in other ways) today. Looking at the "best" fund managers, the ones that did best one year will be all over the map in the next. Even short term, there's just too many uncertainties. And in 40 years? So much can change in 40 years, I don't like thinking about it. Them raising the retirement age is the least of my worries.
Ripe for abusive political accusations, at least. If the typical shareholder was as old-testament jealous as politicians wanting to appear "tough on government waste", then CEO live expectancy would be measured in weeks.
Slashdot Mirror
Why yes! I apparently am not up to date with all the slang words for genitals.
And the background colour of your chat was See you later!an, and for some reason, no philaughing out loudogists would discuss chlorolling on the floor laughinguorcarbons in it.
It's called mescalin. It's the best WTF.
I think you mean "where a full stop usually may be found lololol"
Didn't you read what I said? Blinding sucks for so-called recreational drugs, because people who use them are intimately familiar with them.
It's even possible that they recognize them subconsciously. A familiar scent can make you feel a certain way, without you even being conscious of it being there at all - why should the internal cues from a drug be less potent?
(But yes, studies CAN be blinded. Especially for alcohol, it has been done many times. But then we are talking small doses, doses far below what people take to get drunk. Plenty of more recent studies also have poor blinding.)
One thing about recreational drugs is that you can't generally separate out the placebo effect. At common doses, they give strong enough internal cues ("buzz" etc.) that you can't help knowing what you're getting, even if you get it in a tasteless and scent-less capsule, if you're familiar with it at all (If you want to study cannabis on people who don't want it and don't know what they're getting, then the ethics board will come knocking, and the police too!)
Of all the things people stuff themselves with and believe in, I can't think of anything with more magical, far-fetched, and wildly contradictory notions attached than recreational drugs. If there's anything that has a placebo effect...
From our evil jedi overlords, I respectfully request a refere*urk*
Ironic example, given that alcohol does not in fact impair judgment in the way people imagine, and that it still appears to do is a consequence of the placebo effect.
Yes, Chinese Viagra alternatives! Made with parts of soon-to-be-extinct animals, and contaminated with real pharmaceuticals of unknown type and quantity. Really tempting.
Oh, I didn't say it wasn't (and yes, I was being sarcastic). I'm just pointing out that as long as there are flamewars about hg, git and bzr, enough developers will hear about it that it won't fade into obscurity. All publicity is good publicity and all that.
I think the flame wars could even be limited to hg/git. If they lasted long enough, someone would probably be so convinced by their respective lists of each other's weaknesses, that they would look around for a "third way". For a revision system like bzr to actually fade away, something would need to happen of similar magnitude to what happened to old GNU Arch (abandonment by project initiator for personal reasons + mass migration to sister project, etc.)
Because developers never have time to hang around on tech sites to watch the flamewars over which version control system is best?
Where do you draw the line between editor and IDE? If you want something sufficiently in between, some commercial editors have better solutions, yes. But there aren't all that many situations where you benefit from a code browser, but not from full-blown language support and systems that catch type/compile errors as soon as you edit the line.
> One of the main reasons why I stick to, in my case Emacs, mutt & similar tools is the extra options storing everything as (more or less) plain text gives me.
Since this is about editors and revision control... One little hack I did with my editor was to make it save all backups in a separate directory tree, make that a version control repository, and re-bind save so that it was save + commit. Crude, but it works. I don't like throwing things away :-) Scales just fine so far.
What's the vcs and editor? Mercurial and ... JEdit!
(JEdit is actually pretty sweet. Like Emacs, it has plugins for everything under the sun, and it has common bindings, so unlike emacs, you don't have to mentally task-switch when using a non-emacs editor/text field/moon phase indicator.
> Emacs' UI is very discoverable. It has a menu bar by default these days.
You're not exactly setting the bar very high here...
As they are in Mercurial.
bzr has been sponsored by canonical for ages. It grew out of Tom Lord's Arch project, which was the first serious attempt at an open source distributed VCS.
The definition of vodka is water + alcohol. Anything more makes it less of a vodka. The only thing sillier than a wine snob is a vodka snob.
> And we didn't become immune to plague or tuberculosis
Not immune, but very resistant. To see just how much crowd disease resistance we have gained, look at what happened to native Americans once us Eurasians came over.
All primitive medicine was moving the live/die border a little bit - some might live that would otherwise die, but still innate resistance to disease or better adaption to diet (such as the ability to digest milk efficiently) would help your survival chances a lot.
> "Regular" flu still takes around 500.000 lives each year globally - that is quite a bit for such a common disease.
First, mostly mature people die from regular flu - people who've had their kids. Second, flu in humans depends on very high population densities, so it's pretty new as diseases go. Third, flu adapts as well. (Fourth, where did you get that number from anyway?)
> We are not limited to a single location, way of life or a food source - as a species. That is why there is no such thing as a "pure" human.
Who said we were? Who said there was?
Yeah, you've got a point. From TFA:
> claimed to have extremist ties and said the explosive device "was acquired in Yemen along with instructions as to when it should be used," ... but that, along with the "firecracker" comment, made me wonder: Who says there are only terrorists in Jemen? Who says there aren't also extremely mean pranksters?
"we didn't really evolve that much since we got ourselves these big brainy things that we use for thinking."
This isn't true, actually. We did evolve, and a lot too (because although not much time has passed, populations are much higher). The thing is, it's not the "evolution" of racial theorists, of bigger brains or better skills. It's mostly resistance to disease, and adaption to more monotonous diets. When you have a population of half a billion, and half of them die from disease and/or malnutrition before reaching maturity, there's a lot of selection pressure, even over a few generations. Especially since we're talking about new diseases (big crowd diseases) and new diets ("high carb"...) that we haven't already spent millions of years adapting to.
(I guess disease and malnutrition is what keeps seagull population stable as well, but there it is in the form it has always been - they're probably pretty well optimized to it already)
It's not that simple either: One man that look real different from yourself: "Oooh, look, fresh genetic material for to help our tribe surivive!" Ten men that look different from you "Aaaaah, they're going to wipe out our tribe!"
> With a mass of 6x earth, there technically _should_ be a diameter at which the planet actually has a surface gravity similar to earth.
Now we're talking Goldilocks.
"Let me invest that tax money the way I see fit in my 401k and I guarantee you I will do better than the SS program will do for me."
I just don't get such statements. How old are you, 65? Me, I have about 40 years until retirement. You think you know which investements will pay off in 40 years? I certainly don't; I couldn't have told you 40 years ago if you asked me, and the world is changing faster (and there is more uncertainty in other ways) today. Looking at the "best" fund managers, the ones that did best one year will be all over the map in the next. Even short term, there's just too many uncertainties.
And in 40 years? So much can change in 40 years, I don't like thinking about it. Them raising the retirement age is the least of my worries.
wohoo, I was waiting for this post!
> They're too ripe for abuse.
Ripe for abusive political accusations, at least. If the typical shareholder was as old-testament jealous as politicians wanting to appear "tough on government waste", then CEO live expectancy would be measured in weeks.