... Come on baby, don't fear the robopocalypse Baby take my hand, don't fear the robopocalypse We'll be able to fly, don't fear the robopocalypse Baby I'm your man
The frameworks arise as members of the community try to implement interesting development ideas or facilitate advanced programming for people with less advanced skills. It may not be the greatest language but the community is a helpful one and the language is one where new users can easily create projects that mean something to them eg. a website. That is why it is popular and appealing. A similar phenomenon can be seen in the scientific community where Python is on the rise even though programming elitists will tout the superiority of FORTRAN or C for number crunching. I would go so far as to say that C/C++ and JAVA will only survive because JS facilitates people getting in to programming, people who as they gain more experience will turn to those other languages as necessity requires and keep them alive. So consider JS a valuable resource in enticing people to take up the profession and the abundance of frameworks a sign that the community is vibrant.
Because they use a technique of determining sex ratios WITHOUT HAVING TO KILL BABY TURTLES! Imagine that, they killed turtles in earlier studies to determine what the sex ratio of the hatchlings was. Mind boggling.
"There are several challenges with directly estimating sex ratio at rookeries. At present, hatchling sex determination can be achieved reliably through histological examination of the gonads, but the sacrifice of live hatchlings carries ethical implications, and there is possible sampling bias in examining dead hatchlings found in nests [2, 22]. "
Also the suggestion is that their technique is much more accurate which implies that prior work is less accurate. Hence it is possible their findings are simply the first correct view of a situation that has existed for millenia and we simply haven't been able to observe it properly. In other words, no doom and gloom and hence a pretty FUD headline.
Really? WRT the article it seems reasonable to ask: why has nature evolved the observed gender bias/temp correlation? does the gender bias plateau? is the gender bias 'fixed' or will it too evolve to the change? Those questions are not answered so a prediction seems more like a linear guess than anything else. For example: If you took a sampling of domesticated chickens from chicken factories over the past three decades you would have noticed a staggering increase in breast size that alarmingly coincides with all the indicators of climate change. The conclusion in the absence of other information is that the two are correlated and that at current rates chicken breast sizes will increase linearly over the coming decades. Preposterous, right? Because you know that there are other factors causing the increase (well studied and bona fide without doubt human caused) and there _is_ a limit to how big a chicken's breast can be before the body can no longer sustain it. So what is it we still don't know about the climate and the turtle gender bias? Right, we don't know what we don't know. So do some more research before grabbing headlines with alarming predictions or (more infuriatingly) calling for a cessation of change (and/or proposing solutions to something marginally understood).
Seriously? They thought they had it all worked out and then this? Fortunately the climate scientists are much better and _they_ have everything figured out. Yeah trollish. But the point is this: there is still a boatload of stuff that remains unknown. Assuming in any scientific discipline that 'we've pretty much got it all figured out' should be interpreted as a sign that they don't.
The system is a grossly inefficient use of resources for the convenience of... charging a device. The environmental impact of the whole system it is meant to fit in to, from the production of batteries of the devices to the inefficient transmission of power charge them is huge. Embracing this means that really, you don't give a damn about how we use our resources, that addressing the human impact on the environment is someone else's problem.
Almost correct except for the 'does everything poorly'. Clearly it doesn't do everything poorly. In fact it does most things as well, a lot of things differently, some things better (package management), and only two things poorly (classes (but not objects) and types). As for the latter two, you have to believe those are important and my experience is that they aren't in most practical cases. Bottom line seems to be that a good programmer will make as many (or few) errors no matter what language they are using. So better to say: Javascript is for people who _can_ code. If you have a problem with Javascript, the problem is actually you.
Most people got taught OO programming so they believe it to be the only way to do things but those of us longer in the tooth (say, started with Fortran and C and now working with JS/Node) realized a while ago that it usually isn't the way to go. Imperative and functional is way better for number crunching, object-based is far better than class-based, etc. And as for typing, well that's supposed to reduce errors and improve security. Maybe a 'yes' to the security bit, but a big 'NO' to errors in coding. The latter seem to be better addressed by teaching people how to code attentively and methodically.
Ontario is an interesting case. Overall, it produces enough electrical to cover all it's power requirements. Unfortunately, it cannot control production sufficiently to follow demand so at peak. Equally unfortunately, it has negligible electric storage capacity and that is everything. No matter how you cut it, 'fossil' fuels still represent the most efficient energy storage at hand, and the means of extracting energy from 'fossil' fuels are well established, increasingly efficient, and cost effective. Build a better battery and they will come, but until then...
Models of unknown accuracy predict dire consequences assuming nothing changes. In what universe does nothing change? Zero. The current environmental challenges are because people are wasteful, steadfastly refusing to use resources efficiently. That's the sum total of the problem and the solution. There will continue to be more people. Their presence will affect the planet as they consume resources. What _can_ be done is consume with least impact and adapt to the changes that will inevitably happen. Anyone who tells you otherwise is doing so for profit. Wake up.
Speed? No idea actually, don't visit sites that need 'speedy' rendering I guess.
But the memory footprint is huge. Right now I have two FF browser instances open with task manager showing 5 FF processes running with their cumulative memory footprint being 800MB and I've had two occurrences of FF using just over 5GB of memory (according to task manager in Win10) which slowed my entire machine to a crawl. Interestingly the page involved in both those occurrences was slashdot! Meanwhile the same layout in Chrome has 11 processes running with a cumulative memory footprint of ~480MB. Not sure what exactly that all means, but pretty sure there's a memory challenge in FF.
Whenever you hear someone crying, "The sky is falling!" take a careful note of who responds and _why_. Whether true or not, climate change has been used increasingly as leverage for people to make personal gains. Nothing wrong with that except when it could cause a greater harm. The politician who leverages the fear with promises to "address the issue" to gain office is disreputable but relatively benign. But the businessman or scientist who comes forward with a claim of being able to actually control/manipulate the climate, well take a careful measure of those claims. It is one thing to be able to observe that a change is taking place, it's another to actually be able to control that change. If science is still surprised by discoveries about the atmosphere and climate, then it probably does not comprehend the climate and atmosphere sufficiently to predict what the results of any manipulation will be. That is dangerous and potentially harmful.
Fact: the climate is changing. It has always been changing and always will. Fact: humans by their numbers and activity do affect the climate in some way. Not fact: humans understand how climate works. We don't. Fact: humans can reduce their impact on the planet by simply being less wasteful, by using resources as efficiently as possible. Why can't that be the message? (Answer: because it's not profitable in any way.)
Unless the 'kill switch' is 100% effective 100% of the time, doesn't that mean that there will be (at some point) one successful survivor that will breed? And like the parent, the offspring won't (all?) be responsive to the kill switch. So until "kill switch" technology is 100% effective 100% of the time...
Extensions disappeared (yeah yeah not FF's fault right?) Weird stuff like history being in 'library' o_0 BUT when I finally closed it late yesterday, it's memory footprint was +5 GB. That was after a day with three open tabs: github, a google search, and youtube (streaming a series of concerts) oh why was it open so long like that? Well I have to work with Chrome but my loyalty to FF means that I (used to) have it open for non-work stuff. It's like Google had a 'mole' in FF to specifically torpedo the rival browser. Success!
So verification simply meant that a tweet was actually from the human it seemed to be from. It was not an endorsement, simply an indication that what you read actually came from who you perceived it was from. Now we can say definitively that verification is actually an endorsement by twitter. It's not censorship unless you believed that twitter was a completely open system. What it is: simply a statement of the obvious, twitter is a for-profit company whose profits are correlated to how it is judged by its clientele. Seems kind of stupid because nobody ever thought otherwise... right?
Comforting: one lab paused it's efforts because someone somewhere raised ethical challenges. Excellent as it indicates someone is giving some thought to what is going on.
Discomforting: these things aren't 'alive' in the same sense as you and I so they can be experimented upon in ways that would be deemed unethical. Chilling that someone somewhere sees this as a loophole.
One of the most frightening developments to appear in/. in a while.
The spin on the story suggests Congress purposely cut funding to that satellite for ideological reasons (in the opinion of 'many' scientists). Go to the link and it becomes clear that the program had been very poorly managed and half a billion had been spent on the satellite PLUS the manager (the Air Force) is already working on follow-on programs.
So really what was the intent of this post? To make it seem like this was part of a Republican anti-science/climate change denial effort? Actually the story should be: under the previous administration the Air Force was permitted to mismanage a publicly funded project to the tune of +$500 million dollars and finally Congress stopped the pouring of more money in to the project.
Look around at the start ups in your area. Many are crying out for skilled workers but can't afford them. You will not initially get the pay you might think you deserve but that is the nature of start up life. Potentially there is a huge reward if the company is successful. Your CV will remain current (bleeding edge) and (likely) interesting. And frankly, working with the very much younger crowd of devs typical of a small start up is inspiring, they're full of ideas, energy, and thirst for knowledge. It rubs off on you. PLUS networking: when they move on, they remember you meaning they can recommend/hire you.
Look at the opening 8 seconds carefully. Look at the texture, how there are bumps that match the 'algae' (seaweed) leaves. Suddenly those leaves 'melt' down to form the smooth body of the octopus... uh, no. The octopus changes color but it does not magically alter its skin texture to produce bumps, etc.
"... crappy PC's..." ? Why would you run R/Matlab/simulation tools on anything but a PC. For any price point I have yet to see a laptop match the performance of PC. Drop $1k on a PC and you can have 6-8 cores, 16 GB RAM, 500 GB HD and a +22" screen. Spend $7k on a laptop and a PC at the same price will outperform it by 2 orders of magnitude.
Likely laptop development has reached it's limit, they all look alike. But this does look like a SurfaceBook but without the very cool, carry friendly hinge that the latter has.
... actually, no. Not at all. It's interesting, it _sounds_ like the ACS is representing beleaguered authors of papers fighting to get their share of profits ($4.8 million in damages). The name includes 'Society' which makes it sound like a professional organization of chemists. But it isn't. It's reasonable to assume that those authors are getting much wider distribution because their (in some cases) publicly funded work isn't hidden behind a pay wall. And that's why they try to get published.
Slashdot Mirror
... Come on baby, don't fear the robopocalypse
Baby take my hand, don't fear the robopocalypse
We'll be able to fly, don't fear the robopocalypse
Baby I'm your man
- New Oyster Cult
The frameworks arise as members of the community try to implement interesting development ideas or facilitate advanced programming for people with less advanced skills. It may not be the greatest language but the community is a helpful one and the language is one where new users can easily create projects that mean something to them eg. a website. That is why it is popular and appealing. A similar phenomenon can be seen in the scientific community where Python is on the rise even though programming elitists will tout the superiority of FORTRAN or C for number crunching. I would go so far as to say that C/C++ and JAVA will only survive because JS facilitates people getting in to programming, people who as they gain more experience will turn to those other languages as necessity requires and keep them alive. So consider JS a valuable resource in enticing people to take up the profession and the abundance of frameworks a sign that the community is vibrant.
Because they use a technique of determining sex ratios WITHOUT HAVING TO KILL BABY TURTLES! Imagine that, they killed turtles in earlier studies to determine what the sex ratio of the hatchlings was. Mind boggling.
"There are several challenges with directly estimating sex ratio at rookeries. At present, hatchling sex determination can be achieved reliably through histological examination of the gonads, but the sacrifice of live hatchlings carries ethical implications, and there is possible sampling bias in examining dead hatchlings found in nests [2, 22]. "
Also the suggestion is that their technique is much more accurate which implies that prior work is less accurate. Hence it is possible their findings are simply the first correct view of a situation that has existed for millenia and we simply haven't been able to observe it properly. In other words, no doom and gloom and hence a pretty FUD headline.
Really?
WRT the article it seems reasonable to ask: why has nature evolved the observed gender bias/temp correlation? does the gender bias plateau? is the gender bias 'fixed' or will it too evolve to the change? Those questions are not answered so a prediction seems more like a linear guess than anything else.
For example:
If you took a sampling of domesticated chickens from chicken factories over the past three decades you would have noticed a staggering increase in breast size that alarmingly coincides with all the indicators of climate change. The conclusion in the absence of other information is that the two are correlated and that at current rates chicken breast sizes will increase linearly over the coming decades.
Preposterous, right? Because you know that there are other factors causing the increase (well studied and bona fide without doubt human caused) and there _is_ a limit to how big a chicken's breast can be before the body can no longer sustain it.
So what is it we still don't know about the climate and the turtle gender bias? Right, we don't know what we don't know. So do some more research before grabbing headlines with alarming predictions or (more infuriatingly) calling for a cessation of change (and/or proposing solutions to something marginally understood).
Seriously? They thought they had it all worked out and then this?
Fortunately the climate scientists are much better and _they_ have everything figured out.
Yeah trollish. But the point is this: there is still a boatload of stuff that remains unknown. Assuming in any scientific discipline that 'we've pretty much got it all figured out' should be interpreted as a sign that they don't.
The system is a grossly inefficient use of resources for the convenience of ... charging a device. The environmental impact of the whole system it is meant to fit in to, from the production of batteries of the devices to the inefficient transmission of power charge them is huge. Embracing this means that really, you don't give a damn about how we use our resources, that addressing the human impact on the environment is someone else's problem.
Almost correct except for the 'does everything poorly'. Clearly it doesn't do everything poorly. In fact it does most things as well, a lot of things differently, some things better (package management), and only two things poorly (classes (but not objects) and types). As for the latter two, you have to believe those are important and my experience is that they aren't in most practical cases. Bottom line seems to be that a good programmer will make as many (or few) errors no matter what language they are using. So better to say: Javascript is for people who _can_ code. If you have a problem with Javascript, the problem is actually you.
Most people got taught OO programming so they believe it to be the only way to do things but those of us longer in the tooth (say, started with Fortran and C and now working with JS/Node) realized a while ago that it usually isn't the way to go. Imperative and functional is way better for number crunching, object-based is far better than class-based, etc. And as for typing, well that's supposed to reduce errors and improve security. Maybe a 'yes' to the security bit, but a big 'NO' to errors in coding. The latter seem to be better addressed by teaching people how to code attentively and methodically.
Ontario is an interesting case. Overall, it produces enough electrical to cover all it's power requirements. Unfortunately, it cannot control production sufficiently to follow demand so at peak. Equally unfortunately, it has negligible electric storage capacity and that is everything. No matter how you cut it, 'fossil' fuels still represent the most efficient energy storage at hand, and the means of extracting energy from 'fossil' fuels are well established, increasingly efficient, and cost effective. Build a better battery and they will come, but until then ...
Models of unknown accuracy predict dire consequences assuming nothing changes. In what universe does nothing change? Zero.
The current environmental challenges are because people are wasteful, steadfastly refusing to use resources efficiently. That's the sum total of the problem and the solution.
There will continue to be more people. Their presence will affect the planet as they consume resources. What _can_ be done is consume with least impact and adapt to the changes that will inevitably happen.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is doing so for profit. Wake up.
Speed? No idea actually, don't visit sites that need 'speedy' rendering I guess.
But the memory footprint is huge. Right now I have two FF browser instances open with task manager showing 5 FF processes running with their cumulative memory footprint being 800MB and I've had two occurrences of FF using just over 5GB of memory (according to task manager in Win10) which slowed my entire machine to a crawl. Interestingly the page involved in both those occurrences was slashdot! Meanwhile the same layout in Chrome has 11 processes running with a cumulative memory footprint of ~480MB. Not sure what exactly that all means, but pretty sure there's a memory challenge in FF.
Whenever you hear someone crying, "The sky is falling!" take a careful note of who responds and _why_.
Whether true or not, climate change has been used increasingly as leverage for people to make personal gains. Nothing wrong with that except when it could cause a greater harm. The politician who leverages the fear with promises to "address the issue" to gain office is disreputable but relatively benign. But the businessman or scientist who comes forward with a claim of being able to actually control/manipulate the climate, well take a careful measure of those claims. It is one thing to be able to observe that a change is taking place, it's another to actually be able to control that change. If science is still surprised by discoveries about the atmosphere and climate, then it probably does not comprehend the climate and atmosphere sufficiently to predict what the results of any manipulation will be. That is dangerous and potentially harmful.
Fact: the climate is changing. It has always been changing and always will.
Fact: humans by their numbers and activity do affect the climate in some way.
Not fact: humans understand how climate works. We don't.
Fact: humans can reduce their impact on the planet by simply being less wasteful, by using resources as efficiently as possible. Why can't that be the message? (Answer: because it's not profitable in any way.)
Unless the 'kill switch' is 100% effective 100% of the time, doesn't that mean that there will be (at some point) one successful survivor that will breed? ...
And like the parent, the offspring won't (all?) be responsive to the kill switch.
So until "kill switch" technology is 100% effective 100% of the time
Cut the funding to this now. It's a stupid idea.
Extensions disappeared (yeah yeah not FF's fault right?)
Weird stuff like history being in 'library' o_0
BUT
when I finally closed it late yesterday, it's memory footprint was +5 GB. That was after a day with three open tabs: github, a google search, and youtube (streaming a series of concerts)
oh why was it open so long like that? Well I have to work with Chrome but my loyalty to FF means that I (used to) have it open for non-work stuff.
It's like Google had a 'mole' in FF to specifically torpedo the rival browser. Success!
So verification simply meant that a tweet was actually from the human it seemed to be from. It was not an endorsement, simply an indication that what you read actually came from who you perceived it was from. ... right?
Now we can say definitively that verification is actually an endorsement by twitter.
It's not censorship unless you believed that twitter was a completely open system.
What it is: simply a statement of the obvious, twitter is a for-profit company whose profits are correlated to how it is judged by its clientele.
Seems kind of stupid because nobody ever thought otherwise
Comforting: one lab paused it's efforts because someone somewhere raised ethical challenges. Excellent as it indicates someone is giving some thought to what is going on.
Discomforting: these things aren't 'alive' in the same sense as you and I so they can be experimented upon in ways that would be deemed unethical. Chilling that someone somewhere sees this as a loophole.
One of the most frightening developments to appear in /. in a while.
The spin on the story suggests Congress purposely cut funding to that satellite for ideological reasons (in the opinion of 'many' scientists). Go to the link and it becomes clear that the program had been very poorly managed and half a billion had been spent on the satellite PLUS the manager (the Air Force) is already working on follow-on programs.
So really what was the intent of this post? To make it seem like this was part of a Republican anti-science/climate change denial effort?
Actually the story should be: under the previous administration the Air Force was permitted to mismanage a publicly funded project to the tune of +$500 million dollars and finally Congress stopped the pouring of more money in to the project.
Look around at the start ups in your area. Many are crying out for skilled workers but can't afford them. You will not initially get the pay you might think you deserve but that is the nature of start up life. Potentially there is a huge reward if the company is successful. Your CV will remain current (bleeding edge) and (likely) interesting. And frankly, working with the very much younger crowd of devs typical of a small start up is inspiring, they're full of ideas, energy, and thirst for knowledge. It rubs off on you. PLUS networking: when they move on, they remember you meaning they can recommend/hire you.
Been there, doing that, loving it.
What more do you need? What could be better?
Look at the opening 8 seconds carefully. Look at the texture, how there are bumps that match the 'algae' (seaweed) leaves. Suddenly those leaves 'melt' down to form the smooth body of the octopus ... uh, no. The octopus changes color but it does not magically alter its skin texture to produce bumps, etc.
"... crappy PC's..." ? Why would you run R/Matlab/simulation tools on anything but a PC. For any price point I have yet to see a laptop match the performance of PC. Drop $1k on a PC and you can have 6-8 cores, 16 GB RAM, 500 GB HD and a +22" screen. Spend $7k on a laptop and a PC at the same price will outperform it by 2 orders of magnitude.
Likely laptop development has reached it's limit, they all look alike.
But this does look like a SurfaceBook but without the very cool, carry friendly hinge that the latter has.
... actually, no. Not at all.
It's interesting, it _sounds_ like the ACS is representing beleaguered authors of papers fighting to get their share of profits ($4.8 million in damages). The name includes 'Society' which makes it sound like a professional organization of chemists. But it isn't.
It's reasonable to assume that those authors are getting much wider distribution because their (in some cases) publicly funded work isn't hidden behind a pay wall. And that's why they try to get published.
Just wouldn't happen.
Right?
Just saying.
First read about this in the 80's but that idea and implementation has been around since the 1920's ie. almost a century.
Rotor ship