DDT is human safe. DDT is in fact environmentally safe, the scares were pure hype. Look it up! DDT would have saved 60 million third-worlders from malaria and death. For scale, that's approximately 200 tsunamis, one after the other. The worldwide DDT ban is the greens' holocaust.
- The theory that genetic characteristics, not acquired characteristics, are what is inherited (ie: no Lamarckism). - The theory that the mutations are random and undirected.
Any new and useful tech attracts luddites bearing scare stories. I don't use my mobile much, but that's because I'm an uncommunicative grouch. I certainly don't fear for my life when using it. Show me the casualty list! Or else, quit harping on what-ifs.
It's to save effort in by reducing repetition
on
Aspect-Oriented PHP
·
· Score: 2, Informative
IANAAOP but I think I get it enough to explain.
The purpose of AOP is to reduce repetition. Rather than writing repetitious tasks (like eg: security permission checking) into each function over and over, you write it once and attach it to all affected functions.
Taking that example of security, you can do it in non-AOP by just inserting a checkSecurity() call in front of each function - but you might miss some out and it's hard to maintain all that scattered code.
So, the big difference in AOP that I've noticed is: you can define this sort of "cross cutting" task in one place - and "push" it onto all the relevant functions from that same one place, rather than "pulling" it from each function with a call. This is IIRC usually done with some sort of regex, so you can say "all functions called security_foo (for any foo) get permission checked. Then if you add the new security_wibble() function, it will get checked without need to add or maintain checking code. Similarly, pre-existing functions that match the regex will be drawn into the checking too - you don't need to hunt them all up and make alterations in each.
Yes, the reasons were grubby and political. In fact, your denial listed most of them, omitting only the part where the manufacture and assembly is scattered around as congressional pork.
"The largest economy in the world can't afford a space program"? No, the contrary is exactly my point. The economy - the private sector - can afford it. The government cannot.
The government can only take - politics aside, that's a fact. So, it's limited to a "thief's budget". There is a limit to what it can politically plausibly tax (and it's already pegged on the red line in regard of that limit). And there's a limit to what it can tax at all - the money that everyone else has produced to date. Because of the first limit, the private sector already - by unavoidable necessity - dwarfs the government's purchasing power. But in addition the private sector is not bounded by the second limit. It can actually create new wealth via profits and invest it to fund new ventures.
NASA has all the budget it's likely to ever get, give or take inflation and growth of the tax base.
In a century's time, even if NASA is maintained gung-ho, full steam ahead, it will be the smallest of small fry compared to the private space sector, because it cannot grow. Realistically, "NASA" will probably end up being a logo stamped on cargo crates, carried by private firms.
What's wrong with giving Russia an 8 year contract or whatnot for Soyuz use so that they can ramp up production while we work on our next generation craft?
The fact that 8 years would stretch into 16 as the beast and its requirements grew ever more complex (for much the same grubby political reasons as before). Then into "we're working on it but we can't say when it'll be ready". And finally the funding would be pulled and the project shelved alongside Bush's Mars mission.
The thing is, the US government can't really afford a space program. That's the core of the tax vs. private argument. It's not who builds it, it's not even who pays the bills, it's how the money's gathered together to pay them. Government is limited to a thief's budget: it can't make more than it can take. Private industry, which funds new investment from profit, can scale as large as it pleases, seeding each new project from the proceeds of the previous.
The next reusable orbiter will be built by Rutan. Because, only he can afford it.
What you just saw was a typical example of the "romantic primitivism" meme. Blame any unexplained problem on the sin of thinking and its byproduct, technology. All that manmade stuff is icky and polluting and makes people squint and go blind, because it's not "natural".
Slapping such idiocy down in the name of real science is doing the world a favour.
Here's how to make this a lot more useful
on
Bayesian Tail
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Step 1: Allow the option to automatically discover and load canned training packages, eg: a directory under/etc. Make it automatically pick the right training file to use when called with a logfile (so eg: btail httpd.conf knows to look for the training for httpd.conf files).
Step 2: Include btail with major distros
Step 3: Any package for an app that generates logs can come with a ready-made canned training package, which gets dropped into the/etc directory.
That way, you could apt-get a package, start btail-ing its logfiles immediately without the need to tediously train the filter first. Training would still be possible, to personalise the filter.
Slashdot: - once you post it's set in stone - everything is moderated by default - mods have low power as individuals - moderation is recursively cliqueish; moderator approval feeds back into modpoints - system designed to force some semblance of signal into a high-noise community - unavoidably encourages groupthink and modwhoring
Wikipedia - everything is mutable - moderator intervention is rare, the normal way problems are resolved is via discussion and edits - moderation is a private club with significant power - system assumes most people are "signal" and that "noise" is rare - encourages discussion, reason, and NPOV
"Regardless of how much you earn, I see blowing money on a frivoulous project as feeding an economy with much needed money."
You're only creating wealth if the transaction is (a) mutually voluntary (b) spending your money how you'd prefer. If both those conditions apply, then both parties make a subjective profit, and total wealth rises. There is a real difference between spending and wasting money, but by "waste" I mean spending money on something you don't want, like eg: being forced to hire "department of homeland security" to spy upon you. Or being forced to buy a shelter cat when you'd prefer a clone.
BTW, those idiots who would force or guilt "altruistic" purchases upon you, fail to consider that first-world nations can support free-riders such as a huge population of pet animals, solely because of our huge economic productivity. That we cannot support more, is due to economic bleeding wounds such as taxation and red-tape. Both partners working long hours to keep heads above water, cramped n'th floor apartment = can't keep pets. Every kitten put down in a shelter should have stamped upon its cold furry forehead "killed by the IRS*".
...get the code, read, and compile it yourself. Do likewise for extensions. Then sign them yourself. Then code up an extension to check new extensions for your signature.
Firefox may look like a browser, but it's really a platform. If you think the default sucks, change it.
...which is why it's good to get this app out there and in common use. That will then enable actual plausibility. You can say "y'honour, I just use this program because my lawyer recommended it, I'm sure ten-thousand other people out there do too, This pack of lies they call evidence could have been made up about any of them."
...I would randomly scatter simple and cheap locator beacons beforehand, measuring their coordinates with GPS. Then I could later return to that general area and dynamically triangulate my position with GPS accuracy regardless of GPS availability.
- Recovery of costs has to be weighed against the huge expense if they lose the case. Unless (spoils of victory * victory probability) - (cost of loss * loss probability) is positive, suing is a bad gamble.
- The whack-a-mole problem: if you target small fry, you could be winning cases wholesale and yet be losing the war to sheer numbers. Bittorrent allows everybody to be small fry.
To achieve an appearance of speed, you move physical matter? Your Geek-fu is sadly lacking, young padawan.
Copy data to clone the phone to people nationwide, and you can flip nodes on and off to simulate cell-boundary crossing. With prearrangement, you could make the phone appear to break lightspeed.
Prefab is not the only cheap house-building technique. Damp-proof courses are not the only solution to rising damp. Eg:
- Cob (build walls with mud/straw/sand). Damp proofed by building a short "stem wall" of low permeability materials (eg: stone) and by the ability of cob walls to "breathe" and evaporate moisture rather than trapping it.
- Segal method. Wooden post-and-infill carefully pre-sized to use retail materials in whole uncut scheets. Ends up looking kind of like prefab, but the house stands some distance off the ground on wooden "stilts" rather than having a foundation. This makes it impossible for damp to rise.
The main disadvantage of all cheap housebuilding methods is that they're largely wall-building methods. Making roofs remains a hard problem, and the solutions (truss, ridge beam, insulate inside, insulate outside, etc) all suck for various reasons.
It's not a matter of preventing change, but managing it.
Analogy: when some plaster falls off your wall, do you pick up the original plaster and grain-by-grain reassemble it into the original? Or do you mix a new batch and plug the hole?
Genes that go wrong will likely be detected ad-hoc via symptoms, and repaired to an assumed safe state, not to the original. As for changes without symptoms, the Spock quote applies: "a difference that makes no difference is no difference".
Utterly ignoring the question of whether you ought, can you prevent it?
Or, would it be more the case that, as with guns, were longevity science to be outlawed, only outlaws would have longevity?
Would you really like to bequeath to your hypothetical descendants, a world where the least ethical are likely to have the largest accumulated influence?
Well, first, the existing leechers can failover to the new seeder/tracker, and that's still useful to let them all finish even if nothing else.
Second, whichever seeder is elected as tracker can advertise itself for indexing onto the "tracker search" network I proposed in my upthread post. So then new searches find the new tracker.
Third, the web pages or whatever that are linking the torrent can (manually?) re-link a generated new torrent for the new seed, which has meanwhile kept the torrent alive rather than letting it all fall to pieces.
I don't agree with the all-in-one idea. It seems to me the problem would be better solved in a more modular way.
(1) having a search that only indexes trackers, and can then launch an external app of your choice to do the torrent download
(2) improving the bittorrent protocol so anybody with a seed can failover as the tracker
When I want to download torrents, I want to use Azureus, regardless of whether it was a P2P searched torrent or one off a website. I don't want to have to use some all-in-one app that decides for me the One True Way that downloads shall be handled, merely because it implemented the search to find them.
Slashdot Mirror
DDT is human safe. DDT is in fact environmentally safe, the scares were pure hype. Look it up! DDT would have saved 60 million third-worlders from malaria and death. For scale, that's approximately 200 tsunamis, one after the other. The worldwide DDT ban is the greens' holocaust.
- The theory that genetic characteristics, not acquired characteristics, are what is inherited (ie: no Lamarckism).
- The theory that the mutations are random and undirected.
Any new and useful tech attracts luddites bearing scare stories. I don't use my mobile much, but that's because I'm an uncommunicative grouch. I certainly don't fear for my life when using it. Show me the casualty list! Or else, quit harping on what-ifs.
IANAAOP but I think I get it enough to explain.
The purpose of AOP is to reduce repetition. Rather than writing repetitious tasks (like eg: security permission checking) into each function over and over, you write it once and attach it to all affected functions.
Taking that example of security, you can do it in non-AOP by just inserting a checkSecurity() call in front of each function - but you might miss some out and it's hard to maintain all that scattered code.
So, the big difference in AOP that I've noticed is: you can define this sort of "cross cutting" task in one place - and "push" it onto all the relevant functions from that same one place, rather than "pulling" it from each function with a call. This is IIRC usually done with some sort of regex, so you can say "all functions called security_foo (for any foo) get permission checked. Then if you add the new security_wibble() function, it will get checked without need to add or maintain checking code. Similarly, pre-existing functions that match the regex will be drawn into the checking too - you don't need to hunt them all up and make alterations in each.
Yes, the reasons were grubby and political. In fact, your denial listed most of them, omitting only the part where the manufacture and assembly is scattered around as congressional pork.
"The largest economy in the world can't afford a space program"? No, the contrary is exactly my point. The economy - the private sector - can afford it. The government cannot.
The government can only take - politics aside, that's a fact. So, it's limited to a "thief's budget". There is a limit to what it can politically plausibly tax (and it's already pegged on the red line in regard of that limit). And there's a limit to what it can tax at all - the money that everyone else has produced to date. Because of the first limit, the private sector already - by unavoidable necessity - dwarfs the government's purchasing power. But in addition the private sector is not bounded by the second limit. It can actually create new wealth via profits and invest it to fund new ventures.
NASA has all the budget it's likely to ever get, give or take inflation and growth of the tax base.
In a century's time, even if NASA is maintained gung-ho, full steam ahead, it will be the smallest of small fry compared to the private space sector, because it cannot grow. Realistically, "NASA" will probably end up being a logo stamped on cargo crates, carried by private firms.
The thing is, the US government can't really afford a space program. That's the core of the tax vs. private argument. It's not who builds it, it's not even who pays the bills, it's how the money's gathered together to pay them. Government is limited to a thief's budget: it can't make more than it can take. Private industry, which funds new investment from profit, can scale as large as it pleases, seeding each new project from the proceeds of the previous.
The next reusable orbiter will be built by Rutan. Because, only he can afford it.
What you just saw was a typical example of the "romantic primitivism" meme. Blame any unexplained problem on the sin of thinking and its byproduct, technology. All that manmade stuff is icky and polluting and makes people squint and go blind, because it's not "natural".
Slapping such idiocy down in the name of real science is doing the world a favour.
Step 1: Allow the option to automatically discover and load canned training packages, eg: a directory under /etc. Make it automatically pick the right training file to use when called with a logfile (so eg: btail httpd.conf knows to look for the training for httpd.conf files).
/etc directory.
Step 2: Include btail with major distros
Step 3: Any package for an app that generates logs can come with a ready-made canned training package, which gets dropped into the
That way, you could apt-get a package, start btail-ing its logfiles immediately without the need to tediously train the filter first. Training would still be possible, to personalise the filter.
They're at least as interesting as the article.
Slashdot:
- once you post it's set in stone
- everything is moderated by default
- mods have low power as individuals
- moderation is recursively cliqueish; moderator approval feeds back into modpoints
- system designed to force some semblance of signal into a high-noise community
- unavoidably encourages groupthink and modwhoring
Wikipedia
- everything is mutable
- moderator intervention is rare, the normal way problems are resolved is via discussion and edits
- moderation is a private club with significant power
- system assumes most people are "signal" and that "noise" is rare
- encourages discussion, reason, and NPOV
"Regardless of how much you earn, I see blowing money on a frivoulous project as feeding an economy with much needed money."
You're only creating wealth if the transaction is (a) mutually voluntary (b) spending your money how you'd prefer. If both those conditions apply, then both parties make a subjective profit, and total wealth rises. There is a real difference between spending and wasting money, but by "waste" I mean spending money on something you don't want, like eg: being forced to hire "department of homeland security" to spy upon you. Or being forced to buy a shelter cat when you'd prefer a clone.
BTW, those idiots who would force or guilt "altruistic" purchases upon you, fail to consider that first-world nations can support free-riders such as a huge population of pet animals, solely because of our huge economic productivity. That we cannot support more, is due to economic bleeding wounds such as taxation and red-tape. Both partners working long hours to keep heads above water, cramped n'th floor apartment = can't keep pets. Every kitten put down in a shelter should have stamped upon its cold furry forehead "killed by the IRS*".
(*or local equivalent).
...get the code, read, and compile it yourself. Do likewise for extensions. Then sign them yourself. Then code up an extension to check new extensions for your signature.
Firefox may look like a browser, but it's really a platform. If you think the default sucks, change it.
...which is why it's good to get this app out there and in common use. That will then enable actual plausibility. You can say "y'honour, I just use this program because my lawyer recommended it, I'm sure ten-thousand other people out there do too, This pack of lies they call evidence could have been made up about any of them."
...I would randomly scatter simple and cheap locator beacons beforehand, measuring their coordinates with GPS. Then I could later return to that general area and dynamically triangulate my position with GPS accuracy regardless of GPS availability.
It's a swanky mail merge for sure, but don't kid yourself, lest karmic punishment force you to dev a real database in it!
- Recovery of costs has to be weighed against the huge expense if they lose the case. Unless (spoils of victory * victory probability) - (cost of loss * loss probability) is positive, suing is a bad gamble.
- The whack-a-mole problem: if you target small fry, you could be winning cases wholesale and yet be losing the war to sheer numbers. Bittorrent allows everybody to be small fry.
To achieve an appearance of speed, you move physical matter? Your Geek-fu is sadly lacking, young padawan.
Copy data to clone the phone to people nationwide, and you can flip nodes on and off to simulate cell-boundary crossing. With prearrangement, you could make the phone appear to break lightspeed.
Prefab is not the only cheap house-building technique. Damp-proof courses are not the only solution to rising damp. Eg:
- Cob (build walls with mud/straw/sand). Damp proofed by building a short "stem wall" of low permeability materials (eg: stone) and by the ability of cob walls to "breathe" and evaporate moisture rather than trapping it.
- Segal method. Wooden post-and-infill carefully pre-sized to use retail materials in whole uncut scheets. Ends up looking kind of like prefab, but the house stands some distance off the ground on wooden "stilts" rather than having a foundation. This makes it impossible for damp to rise.
The main disadvantage of all cheap housebuilding methods is that they're largely wall-building methods. Making roofs remains a hard problem, and the solutions (truss, ridge beam, insulate inside, insulate outside, etc) all suck for various reasons.
It's not a matter of preventing change, but managing it.
Analogy: when some plaster falls off your wall, do you pick up the original plaster and grain-by-grain reassemble it into the original? Or do you mix a new batch and plug the hole?
Genes that go wrong will likely be detected ad-hoc via symptoms, and repaired to an assumed safe state, not to the original. As for changes without symptoms, the Spock quote applies: "a difference that makes no difference is no difference".
Utterly ignoring the question of whether you ought, can you prevent it?
Or, would it be more the case that, as with guns, were longevity science to be outlawed, only outlaws would have longevity?
Would you really like to bequeath to your hypothetical descendants, a world where the least ethical are likely to have the largest accumulated influence?
Let's execute him!
To demonstrate this, please commit suicide.
Well, isn't that what you're asking everyone else to do, by wilfully forgoing life-extension technology?
Well, first, the existing leechers can failover to the new seeder/tracker, and that's still useful to let them all finish even if nothing else.
Second, whichever seeder is elected as tracker can advertise itself for indexing onto the "tracker search" network I proposed in my upthread post. So then new searches find the new tracker.
Third, the web pages or whatever that are linking the torrent can (manually?) re-link a generated new torrent for the new seed, which has meanwhile kept the torrent alive rather than letting it all fall to pieces.
I don't agree with the all-in-one idea. It seems to me the problem would be better solved in a more modular way.
(1) having a search that only indexes trackers, and can then launch an external app of your choice to do the torrent download
(2) improving the bittorrent protocol so anybody with a seed can failover as the tracker
When I want to download torrents, I want to use Azureus, regardless of whether it was a P2P searched torrent or one off a website. I don't want to have to use some all-in-one app that decides for me the One True Way that downloads shall be handled, merely because it implemented the search to find them.