I have no respect for these guys; they simply use their scientific credentials to promote their own political prejudices. These people are so ignorant, they still believe in a Malthusian catastrophe.
I think The Onion puts it pretty well:
Doomsday Clock Pushed To One Minute To Midnight After Arby’s Threatens Launch Of 3-Cheese Jalapeño Beef ’N Bacon Melt
Draper Labs has been around for nearly a century; it's a nonprofit R&D institution that does defense-related research, often classified. Referring to it as "a company called Draper" means the poster hasn't done their homework. And they aren't using "optoelectronics", they are using "optogenetics".
This project is an academic research project, like literally thousands of others at universities and non-profits funded by the US government. This is no Weyland-Yutani or Tyrell corporation.
All this "free market" and "the market is the most important thing" and "growth must be sustained" are all in essence statements used frequently to justify political actions – self-serving or segment-serving ones – which are at-root fascist in holding the markets as more important than the people.
Sounds like you are just as much of an "anti-fascist" as the guys who said this:
we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.
The US is a (doubly) Representative Republic which is likely on the cusp of diving sharply into fascism, towards which we leaned anyway.
True; but by kicking both Hillary and Sanders to the curb, we have avoided that fate... for now.
The general public are not statisticians and likely not aware of other statistics calculated by the BLS, so reporting the familiar U-3 is simply responsible journalism.
No, it's not. U-3 by itself tells you very little; the number always needs to be used in context and in conjunction with other numbers. Just saying (which in effect the Obama administration and much of the press did) that Obama got the unemployment rate down to 5.6% is highly misleading and deceptive, because it suggests (incorrectly) that Obama's policies worked and that everybody is back to work again as before the recession.
In actual fact, Obama's policies have failed because the unemployment rate recovered far too slowly, and because a lot of that decrease in the unemployment rate isn't due to people returning to work, but due to policies that encourage people to leave the workforce entirely.
Free market conservatives, clean energy conservatives, and basically anyone who is conservative based on pragmatism and principle are sitting in the back of the bus with the rest of us.
No, sorry, we're not on the same bus as progressives or social democrats. In fact, right now, we're still giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, because despite all the pearl clutching and chest thumping by the left, and despite his rather crude demeanor, he actually hasn't done anything that bothers us.
A new Pew Research Center survey finds that 65% of Americans give priority to developing alternative energy sources, compared with 27% who would emphasize expanded production of fossil fuel sources.
The government has little to do with either.
It certainly can't speed up "developing alternative energy sources".
And the only thing it can do with fossil fuel sources is to step out of the way and let companies do what they want to do anyway.
Roughly speaking, modules in C++ are a replacement for include files, not shared libraries, so the limitations of shared libraries aren't relevant. Compiler support for modules is somewhat like a combination of cproto and precompiled headers. Making that work is not rocket science, just a lot of tedious work for all the weird edge cases. VisualStudio, gcc and clang support this already in one form or another. And it needs to happen. It's a lot more important than "concepts".
C++ went out of its way to remain backwards compatible with C because that makes moving from C to C++ easier.
Nim, on the other hand, seems to go out of its way to be different from C/C++ syntax. I merely asked why, and it's becoming apparent that there is no reason; Nim developers simply felt like it.
I find voice very useful. But the current "apps ecosystem" sucks, in addition to being a privacy nightmare. Most voice recognition should probably be on device, not in the cloud. That is, instead of some complex Rube Goldberg contraption springing into action when I say "OK Google, turn on bedroom lights", the bedroom lights should just understand voice directly.
I understand why that isn't working just yet (lightbulbs don't have enough computational power yet), but I expect it won't be long before that's how it works. That will also address privacy and security issues much better.
(Buys new lightbulb, screws it in, turns it on.)
Lightbulb: "Hello! I'm your new lightbulb. What would you like to call me?"
User: "You're one of my 'bedroom' lightbulbs."
Lightbulb: "OK, I'll respond to 'bedroom'. Would you like me to connect to the cloud?"
So? Did I claim anywhere that HOAs were apolitical or functioned perfectly? Private associations and corporations have most of the problems of regular government; but the one problem they eliminate is that people with no skin in the game enrich themselves through political ends.
If you learn how to escape the effects of being an individual among a group of co-equals, then I and many philosophers, political scientists, and people in general will be delighted to hear it.
I don't have an answer to that problem, but that's not the problem private associations answer. Private associations, rather, ensure that you are at least an individual among co-equals, as opposed to an individual subject to arbitrary outside force.
Has America become so mutual back scratchy that we must all live beside each other now? What is keeping all these companies in one place? Tax differences?
The wealthy founders and investors like living in Silicon Valley. In addition, the Bay Area is massively subsidized. Put those two together, and you understand why people aren't leaving in even larger numbers than they are (and they are already leaving).
San Francisco isn't "structurally hostile to families", it's just "hostile". It's full of the mega-wealthy, drug addicts, homeless, sex crazed singles, tech bros, and political extremists. For each of those groups, San Francisco has some attraction, but if you aren't in one of those groups, why would you want to live there?
Smalltalk has been influential, but some of its key ideas have failed. For example, its approach to software development (browsers, images) has largely failed. Its "everything is an object" approach has failed. Its syntax has failed. Object and type systems of major languages (Java, C#, C++, Python, JavaScript) are substantially different. Concurrency has gone in a different direction.
And we're not catching up with the past; Smalltalk has been mined for ideas to death and every idea in it has been tried multiple times. What hasn't caught on by now has failed for a reason.
The OP claimed (in context) that "Smalltalk rules the world". But the fact is that Smalltalk's object system has failed. The object systems that have succeeded are either considerably more efficient and statically typed (Java, C++) or considerably more flexible (Python).
If you see any form of government as you enemy you are clearly not.
Not at all; minimal government is simply a "necessary evil".
But neither are you from that long discussion earlier.
You say that because you live under the delusion that the term "bound by a contract" has a meaning beyond the consequences of breaking the contract. There are no consequences to government for breaking a contract, and the consequences for you breaking a contract with the government can be arbitrarily dire.
Maybe if we take away all their benefits of being part of the US, they'll start giving a shit and living up to some of their responsibilities. I know, it's a concept conservatives can't understand...
Actually, that is the concept conservatives want: a small federal government that limits itself to national defense, protecting our borders, and international treaties, and otherwise doesn't hand out any benefits.
I already exercised my "options" by coming to the US. And I don't want the US to turn into the kind of stagnant, oppressive system that I came from, where ending up "at the wrong end of a weapon" was an actual possibility.
I'm sorry if some pampered, privileged, ignorant Americans like you may not understand. Fortunately, as the election shows, not all Americans share in your delusions.
A trip to Wikipedia before posting is all you need to stop embarrassing yourself.
I don't need to make a trip to Wikipedia, being familiar with the implementation of three of those languages.
Objective-C's object system is indeed based on Smalltalk's.
Java's is not at all: it lacks duck typing, uses interfaces, lacks many of Smalltalk's dynamic features, and has separate value types.
Python's object system is also very different, with its implementation of objects as hash tables, and its use of bound methods.
But, yeah, if you only have a superficial understanding of OOP and those languages, you might erroneously believe that their object systems are all very similar.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no respect for these guys; they simply use their scientific credentials to promote their own political prejudices. These people are so ignorant, they still believe in a Malthusian catastrophe.
I think The Onion puts it pretty well:
Doomsday Clock Pushed To One Minute To Midnight After Arby’s Threatens Launch Of 3-Cheese Jalapeño Beef ’N Bacon Melt
http://www.theonion.com/articl...
Draper Labs has been around for nearly a century; it's a nonprofit R&D institution that does defense-related research, often classified. Referring to it as "a company called Draper" means the poster hasn't done their homework. And they aren't using "optoelectronics", they are using "optogenetics".
This project is an academic research project, like literally thousands of others at universities and non-profits funded by the US government. This is no Weyland-Yutani or Tyrell corporation.
Sounds like you are just as much of an "anti-fascist" as the guys who said this:
True; but by kicking both Hillary and Sanders to the curb, we have avoided that fate... for now.
No, it's not. U-3 by itself tells you very little; the number always needs to be used in context and in conjunction with other numbers. Just saying (which in effect the Obama administration and much of the press did) that Obama got the unemployment rate down to 5.6% is highly misleading and deceptive, because it suggests (incorrectly) that Obama's policies worked and that everybody is back to work again as before the recession.
In actual fact, Obama's policies have failed because the unemployment rate recovered far too slowly, and because a lot of that decrease in the unemployment rate isn't due to people returning to work, but due to policies that encourage people to leave the workforce entirely.
Same thing as before: most of it is garbage even if it isn't manipulated. And for the rest of the data, people disagree over what it means anyway.
Underlying the question is the fundamental misconception that it's the job (or capability) of government to steer and improve the economy.
No, sorry, we're not on the same bus as progressives or social democrats. In fact, right now, we're still giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, because despite all the pearl clutching and chest thumping by the left, and despite his rather crude demeanor, he actually hasn't done anything that bothers us.
That makes no sense.
Greed is, in fact, the reason to favor the cheaper solution. And the cheaper solution at this point is still fossil fuels.
In about 10-20 years, the cheaper solution will be other energy sources, but neither surveys nor government are going to make any difference there.
The government has little to do with either.
It certainly can't speed up "developing alternative energy sources".
And the only thing it can do with fossil fuel sources is to step out of the way and let companies do what they want to do anyway.
Roughly speaking, modules in C++ are a replacement for include files, not shared libraries, so the limitations of shared libraries aren't relevant. Compiler support for modules is somewhat like a combination of cproto and precompiled headers. Making that work is not rocket science, just a lot of tedious work for all the weird edge cases. VisualStudio, gcc and clang support this already in one form or another. And it needs to happen. It's a lot more important than "concepts".
C++ went out of its way to remain backwards compatible with C because that makes moving from C to C++ easier.
Nim, on the other hand, seems to go out of its way to be different from C/C++ syntax. I merely asked why, and it's becoming apparent that there is no reason; Nim developers simply felt like it.
I find voice very useful. But the current "apps ecosystem" sucks, in addition to being a privacy nightmare. Most voice recognition should probably be on device, not in the cloud. That is, instead of some complex Rube Goldberg contraption springing into action when I say "OK Google, turn on bedroom lights", the bedroom lights should just understand voice directly.
I understand why that isn't working just yet (lightbulbs don't have enough computational power yet), but I expect it won't be long before that's how it works. That will also address privacy and security issues much better.
(Buys new lightbulb, screws it in, turns it on.)
Lightbulb: "Hello! I'm your new lightbulb. What would you like to call me?"
User: "You're one of my 'bedroom' lightbulbs."
Lightbulb: "OK, I'll respond to 'bedroom'. Would you like me to connect to the cloud?"
User: "No, thanks."
Lightbulb: "OK."
User: "Turn off bedroom lights."
(Lightbulb switches off.)
So? Did I claim anywhere that HOAs were apolitical or functioned perfectly? Private associations and corporations have most of the problems of regular government; but the one problem they eliminate is that people with no skin in the game enrich themselves through political ends.
I don't have an answer to that problem, but that's not the problem private associations answer. Private associations, rather, ensure that you are at least an individual among co-equals, as opposed to an individual subject to arbitrary outside force.
How about first fixing something much more basic, like modules?
The wealthy founders and investors like living in Silicon Valley. In addition, the Bay Area is massively subsidized. Put those two together, and you understand why people aren't leaving in even larger numbers than they are (and they are already leaving).
Ah, Dunning-Kruger too.
Are you so stupid that you think that's an argument?
So why are you making stupid claims about the relative reliability of Internet connectivity and electricity in the US?
San Francisco isn't "structurally hostile to families", it's just "hostile". It's full of the mega-wealthy, drug addicts, homeless, sex crazed singles, tech bros, and political extremists. For each of those groups, San Francisco has some attraction, but if you aren't in one of those groups, why would you want to live there?
Geez, how economically illiterate can you be? There are plenty of free markets in existence today.
Smalltalk has been influential, but some of its key ideas have failed. For example, its approach to software development (browsers, images) has largely failed. Its "everything is an object" approach has failed. Its syntax has failed. Object and type systems of major languages (Java, C#, C++, Python, JavaScript) are substantially different. Concurrency has gone in a different direction.
And we're not catching up with the past; Smalltalk has been mined for ideas to death and every idea in it has been tried multiple times. What hasn't caught on by now has failed for a reason.
The OP claimed (in context) that "Smalltalk rules the world". But the fact is that Smalltalk's object system has failed. The object systems that have succeeded are either considerably more efficient and statically typed (Java, C++) or considerably more flexible (Python).
You seem to believe that voters can impose whatever they like through voting. That makes you a totalitarian.
I believe in limited government with enumerated powers, where voters can only make decisions within those enumerated powers.
Not at all; minimal government is simply a "necessary evil".
You say that because you live under the delusion that the term "bound by a contract" has a meaning beyond the consequences of breaking the contract. There are no consequences to government for breaking a contract, and the consequences for you breaking a contract with the government can be arbitrarily dire.
Actually, that is the concept conservatives want: a small federal government that limits itself to national defense, protecting our borders, and international treaties, and otherwise doesn't hand out any benefits.
I already exercised my "options" by coming to the US. And I don't want the US to turn into the kind of stagnant, oppressive system that I came from, where ending up "at the wrong end of a weapon" was an actual possibility.
I'm sorry if some pampered, privileged, ignorant Americans like you may not understand. Fortunately, as the election shows, not all Americans share in your delusions.
I don't need to make a trip to Wikipedia, being familiar with the implementation of three of those languages.
Objective-C's object system is indeed based on Smalltalk's.
Java's is not at all: it lacks duck typing, uses interfaces, lacks many of Smalltalk's dynamic features, and has separate value types.
Python's object system is also very different, with its implementation of objects as hash tables, and its use of bound methods.
But, yeah, if you only have a superficial understanding of OOP and those languages, you might erroneously believe that their object systems are all very similar.