I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, but if that's the study that was quoted in the WSJ, it was definitely lacking. It was comparing the environmental cost of building rail tracks plus fuel consumption of the trains, but only the fuel consumption of the planes but not the environmental cost of building the airports -- and those things take up a LOT of space, esp. if you take into account the amount of real estate that gets depreciated because of the noise.
In any case, you can power trains by nuclear power, but also wind mills or solar -- can't do that with planes. Also trains can do regenerative breaking, and inject back power when decelerating.
Yes Mr Pedantic, I meant the "implementations of the JavaScript language are faster than any other implementation of other scripting languages." It's called a synecdoche.
v8, Tracemonkey and Safari's JS engine run circle around Python, Perl and, needless to say, Ruby.
- It's the fastest scripting language around. - There's plenty of doc and examples - It's on every computer - It's useful right away - It has some very interesting constructs such as closures - The OP mentioned Basic -- even if you take those tired old cliches about JS at face value, it can't possibly be worse than Basic. No fucking way.
Most managers couldn't be fucked to tell a top programmer from a potted plant.
This also applies for many technical positions. I've witnessed complete retards having been hired for support or QA positions that were so utterly and obviously incompetent that made me stand speechless for 10 seconds. Really it took a few minutes to find it out, but the manager responsible for them still hadn't figured it out after a month.
To explain away the lack of women in IT, the only explanation given is always one that is even more sexist, ie that the environment is not girly enough. Supposedly all those Star Trek posters are driving them away, so the answer's got to be Hello Kitty stickers or something... right.
I currently work in a publicly traded multinational corporation. The ratio of women to men in non-IT positions in middle management is roughly 50%. In upper management it's much lower for some reason, and I can suspect you can find some fault there. However for IT it's below 1%, and that's in line with the job applications we get. There is no late pizza+coke coding at night sessions. We have 35 h work week with plenty of vacation and flexible work hours, as every one else.
Women just don't want to do that kind of work. It's a good question as to why they don't want to, but they don't want.
Just look at traditionally male jobs, such as police. Women nowadays are the majority of qualified applicants for police jobs -- largely because policemen wannabe are often too dumb to pass the tests, I shit you not. It's a real problem here, well not a problem for me but a problem for the administration for some reason. Contrast this with IT. I've heard several time recruiters say that being a woman was a plus for a candidate -- except that there aren't any!
So you can try to find hidden disincentives all you want. Somehow someone is being mean to them -- I know, all those hormone driven geeks, overflowing with testosterone... ah ah ah let me catch my breath. No, seriously. They don't want those jobs. Period.
Let me put it another way. Transgendered people are very rare in the population. Much rarer than women, obviously. I know only two personally, (formerly) men who want to be women. They're both in IT -- and I wasn't acquainted to them through work. I don't personally know any woman working in IT.
My personal conclusion: women with an interest in IT careers are biologically rarer than women with penises.
You do realize that Doctorow used to earn a living as a sysadmin, don't you? Or did I miss something about Ms. Ray working in a technical capacity for General Electric?
The EU has funded tons of development projects for formerly economically lagging countries; the result is increase trade within the EU, and the money spent benefits all member states, not just those who received the money.
It might be hard to believe but 30 or even just 20 years ago, countries like Ireland, Spain, Portugal or Greece only had a fraction of the economic output; today their GDP/inhabitant (for lack of a better metric) has approached or surpassed in some cases that of the larger countries. And studies show that their economic vitality also benefit the other member states.
In Europe this kind of thing is seen as helping the development of economically challenged regions. The EU has been spending lots of money on that kind of things for a while, and it started long before broadband. But BB is obviously now a part of the solution.
The power delivered to the ears depends on the headphones. I don't know how they plan to do anything meaningful here, they would have to set the limit based on the most "powerful" headphones, which means that the lesser ones will be inaudible. I already had that kind of problem on Nokia phones, you can't hear for shit with them, the max volume is ridiculously low, esp. with their utterly failtastic brand headphones with their annoying 2.5mm jacks. I'm certain nobody will harm their eardrums with that, but I'm equally certain that I'm not buying a Nokia ever again to listen to podcasts.
And BTW, it's not noise moronmitter, it's power. You can have lots of noise in very low power.
If you look at the website of actual scientists, and in particular, if you want to weed out the crap, science bloggers who haven't created a web site solely to peddle their American Enterprise Institute-sponsored, Fox New-inspired, American Petroleum Institute-approved AGW denialism crap, they all (99%) support the consensus.
In other words, if you find an AGW denialist website, it's one of the following: - political rag (no scientific credentials) - industry-sponsored self-serving outlet (scientific creds tainted by obvious conflict of interest when it's not 100% PR) - denialist scientist with nothing else to tell the public but denialism
Look at scienceblogs.com. Not one denialist. Or maybe 1 in 100. Look at all the publically speaking scientists; no, I'm not asking you to trust them more for that, I'm asking you to look at them because they spoke to the public before talking of GW. They don't just talk of that. The occasional scientist denialist only creates his blog to speak of that.
An amazing number of poorly educated Fox News watchers like yourself stunned scientists worldwide by coming up with such an objection. They never thought about it, them fancy pansy learned people! That'll learn them!
Who says that fellow Newton was right? Why are the so-called "scientists" believing his "theories" (they're just theories, people, wake up!) blindly? Just yesterday I saw an apple floating UP instead of down as Mr Newton claims. Surely if one apple does not move down, why should we believe him as far as the movement of heavenly bodies are concerned?
I've seen a dozen blog posts in my reader about this, and I have been unable to far to figure out WTF that thing is supposed to do. Is it a remote display protocol? If so, how does it differ from RDP or NX?
The advice to call the FBI and turn yourself in is the MOST RIDICULOUS I've seen in all that ridiculous case. They're either going to laugh at you or sue you like that poor guy. And the real advice is: never admit having done anything. Even doing something by mistake. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Remember the magic words: "I don't recall." Those words sufficed to get a few war criminals off the hook. McKinnon is getting the same kind of bullshit -- and it would never have happened had he not admitted doing anything wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
in 2007, for the record.
The top commercial speed is 320 km/h, not 380.
bogies on each side of every wagon, instead of having just one in between two wagons like on the TGV?
Looking at a derailed TGV vs a derailed ICE makes me wonder about that 350 km/h figure.
I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, but if that's the study that was quoted in the WSJ, it was definitely lacking. It was comparing the environmental cost of building rail tracks plus fuel consumption of the trains, but only the fuel consumption of the planes but not the environmental cost of building the airports -- and those things take up a LOT of space, esp. if you take into account the amount of real estate that gets depreciated because of the noise.
In any case, you can power trains by nuclear power, but also wind mills or solar -- can't do that with planes. Also trains can do regenerative breaking, and inject back power when decelerating.
Yes Mr Pedantic, I meant the "implementations of the JavaScript language are faster than any other implementation of other scripting languages." It's called a synecdoche.
v8, Tracemonkey and Safari's JS engine run circle around Python, Perl and, needless to say, Ruby.
- It's the fastest scripting language around.
- There's plenty of doc and examples
- It's on every computer
- It's useful right away
- It has some very interesting constructs such as closures
- The OP mentioned Basic -- even if you take those tired old cliches about JS at face value, it can't possibly be worse than Basic. No fucking way.
Most managers couldn't be fucked to tell a top programmer from a potted plant.
This also applies for many technical positions. I've witnessed complete retards having been hired for support or QA positions that were so utterly and obviously incompetent that made me stand speechless for 10 seconds. Really it took a few minutes to find it out, but the manager responsible for them still hadn't figured it out after a month.
is always more sexism?
To explain away the lack of women in IT, the only explanation given is always one that is even more sexist, ie that the environment is not girly enough. Supposedly all those Star Trek posters are driving them away, so the answer's got to be Hello Kitty stickers or something ... right.
I currently work in a publicly traded multinational corporation. The ratio of women to men in non-IT positions in middle management is roughly 50%. In upper management it's much lower for some reason, and I can suspect you can find some fault there. However for IT it's below 1%, and that's in line with the job applications we get. There is no late pizza+coke coding at night sessions. We have 35 h work week with plenty of vacation and flexible work hours, as every one else.
Women just don't want to do that kind of work. It's a good question as to why they don't want to, but they don't want.
Just look at traditionally male jobs, such as police. Women nowadays are the majority of qualified applicants for police jobs -- largely because policemen wannabe are often too dumb to pass the tests, I shit you not. It's a real problem here, well not a problem for me but a problem for the administration for some reason. Contrast this with IT. I've heard several time recruiters say that being a woman was a plus for a candidate -- except that there aren't any!
So you can try to find hidden disincentives all you want. Somehow someone is being mean to them -- I know, all those hormone driven geeks, overflowing with testosterone ... ah ah ah let me catch my breath. No, seriously. They don't want those jobs. Period.
Let me put it another way. Transgendered people are very rare in the population. Much rarer than women, obviously. I know only two personally, (formerly) men who want to be women. They're both in IT -- and I wasn't acquainted to them through work. I don't personally know any woman working in IT.
My personal conclusion: women with an interest in IT careers are biologically rarer than women with penises.
You do realize that Doctorow used to earn a living as a sysadmin, don't you? Or did I miss something about Ms. Ray working in a technical capacity for General Electric?
The EU has funded tons of development projects for formerly economically lagging countries; the result is increase trade within the EU, and the money spent benefits all member states, not just those who received the money.
It might be hard to believe but 30 or even just 20 years ago, countries like Ireland, Spain, Portugal or Greece only had a fraction of the economic output; today their GDP/inhabitant (for lack of a better metric) has approached or surpassed in some cases that of the larger countries. And studies show that their economic vitality also benefit the other member states.
Very insightful objections you have here ...
Isn't it interesting, though, that *all* over developed nations don't seem to have those problems? How d'you explain that away, I wonder ...
In Europe this kind of thing is seen as helping the development of economically challenged regions. The EU has been spending lots of money on that kind of things for a while, and it started long before broadband. But BB is obviously now a part of the solution.
A poor one, giving incidental credence to the assertion that you folks be poorly educated Fox News gobblers.
The power delivered to the ears depends on the headphones. I don't know how they plan to do anything meaningful here, they would have to set the limit based on the most "powerful" headphones, which means that the lesser ones will be inaudible. I already had that kind of problem on Nokia phones, you can't hear for shit with them, the max volume is ridiculously low, esp. with their utterly failtastic brand headphones with their annoying 2.5mm jacks. I'm certain nobody will harm their eardrums with that, but I'm equally certain that I'm not buying a Nokia ever again to listen to podcasts.
And BTW, it's not noise moronmitter, it's power. You can have lots of noise in very low power.
don't ever cross a bridge because bridge designers never take special or general relativity into account. Only good ole' Newton.
An ad hominem is saying "you're a bad person therefore you're wrong".
I'm just saying "you're wrong and you're a bad person". In very technical terms (pardon the jargon) it's called an "insult."
I studied both newtonian mechanics and special relativity in college, so I'm perfectly aware of its limits, fuckyouverymuch.
It is still used today by scientists and engineers most of the time. It's merely imprecise when you approach relativistic speed and/or huge masses.
If you look at the website of actual scientists, and in particular, if you want to weed out the crap, science bloggers who haven't created a web site solely to peddle their American Enterprise Institute-sponsored, Fox New-inspired, American Petroleum Institute-approved AGW denialism crap, they all (99%) support the consensus.
In other words, if you find an AGW denialist website, it's one of the following:
- political rag (no scientific credentials)
- industry-sponsored self-serving outlet (scientific creds tainted by obvious conflict of interest when it's not 100% PR)
- denialist scientist with nothing else to tell the public but denialism
Look at scienceblogs.com. Not one denialist. Or maybe 1 in 100. Look at all the publically speaking scientists; no, I'm not asking you to trust them more for that, I'm asking you to look at them because they spoke to the public before talking of GW. They don't just talk of that. The occasional scientist denialist only creates his blog to speak of that.
An amazing number of poorly educated Fox News watchers like yourself stunned scientists worldwide by coming up with such an objection. They never thought about it, them fancy pansy learned people! That'll learn them!
Who says that fellow Newton was right? Why are the so-called "scientists" believing his "theories" (they're just theories, people, wake up!) blindly? Just yesterday I saw an apple floating UP instead of down as Mr Newton claims. Surely if one apple does not move down, why should we believe him as far as the movement of heavenly bodies are concerned?
Sure, and all biologists should spend time repeating the same arguments proving that earth is over 6000 years old instead of doing science.
No matter what is said and done, denialists will deny, it's a genetic disorder, nothing can be done about it.
You people are just as retarded as the Apollo denialists.
Just a theory. Why should we believe it more than Intelligent Falling?
I've seen a dozen blog posts in my reader about this, and I have been unable to far to figure out WTF that thing is supposed to do. Is it a remote display protocol? If so, how does it differ from RDP or NX?
They seem to think otherwise.
The advice to call the FBI and turn yourself in is the MOST RIDICULOUS I've seen in all that ridiculous case. They're either going to laugh at you or sue you like that poor guy. And the real advice is: never admit having done anything. Even doing something by mistake. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Remember the magic words: "I don't recall." Those words sufficed to get a few war criminals off the hook.
McKinnon is getting the same kind of bullshit -- and it would never have happened had he not admitted doing anything wrong.