said he could write the extensions needed easily in Rust.
This is probably true but its also aggressively stupid. Ruby, Matz Ruby anyway, is a C program, Rubinius is a C++ program, JRuby is Java. The point of writing Ruby extensions obviously is so that you can leverage the expressive power of the high level interpreted language to get stuff done fast and safely while interfacing whatever it is you need to interface.
Your extensions should not be complex. They really should allocate a little memory to store what needs to be stored, and do some type conversions from Ruby's more primitive types to whatever you interface needs to see and not much more. The thinking should happen in Ruby. If you are writing all kinds of smarts and logic into extension itself you are probably doing it wrong.
So why would you introduce a third language technology to the stack? A C extension should be quick to audit and verify. There are also lots and lots of people familiar with writing ruby extensions in C, few in Rust.
I think Rust is cool but this isn't a Job for Rust. Now implementing RRuby might be!
Liberals don't hate poor people the love then. They love how dependent they are, and the love how good hand outs sound to someone struggling to get by, they love the way that buys votes.
The trick is keeping poor people poor while keeping up the appearance of trying to help them. Strategies include.
1) High property taxes ( because it looks like the wealthy pay more but really when you break it out along in come its pretty regressive)
These support expensive but deliberately ineffective education programs where failure is rewarded and indoctrination over independent thought is the order of the day.
2) Secret poor taxes. Taxes on things that the poor spend disproportionate income on, gasoline, heating oil, etc. This also includes Sin taxes, alcohol, cigarets, lotteries.
3) The passage of ever more regulation and barriers to entry. Can't have entrepreneurs, no we need 'workers' who will remain wage slaves to existing business their entire lives.
4) Pushing for inflation to discourage savings, real independence comes from having savings. Ensuring your savings are always loosing value unless you hand them over to someone wealthier to gamble with is a huge part of their game. Don't argue but but they're the ones passing legislation to stop the gambling not they are not. Dodd Frank does exactly nothing, Wall Street played their part and made fuss for the cameras but its totally business as usual. Its lefties that always want to raise the debt ceiling and do more 'stimulus'. Government debt is a big source of money supply expansion the usual driver of inflation. This isn't lost on the PTBs.
The troubling thing is most conservatives and fascists alike have also taken up these strategies as a way to hold onto their own power.
Every day, over 300 children in the United States ages 0 to 19 are treated in an emergency department, and two children die, as a result of being poisoned.
0-19 is a bigher range, but 300 per Friggin DAY! The parent poster is absolutely correct this is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things that threaten the children. Our resources would be better directed elsewhere. The problem is not the guns so much as it is caretakers that are stunningly negligent! In the care of sort of person that could 'accidentally' allow something as obviously dangerous as fire arm to end up in the hands of a child, these same children were almost certain to be severely injured by something else sooner or later. The fact it was a gun is simply coincidence.
The Constitution was interpreted that way in two 5-4 decisions
Its funy how when liberals get their way on something like Obama care they will tell you 'its the law of the land, get over it' but when its a decision they don't like its "not the last word on the matter by any means."
if you're so stupid as to leave anything remotely dangerous where a 2 year old can get to it (especially if it's in the back seat of a car with the child in the back), you should lose right to be a parent
There fixed that for you. Little gits getting hurt with guns and making an issue about it is imply a anti-gun lobby ploy to tug at your heart strings. The fact is two years are injured by all sorts of things all the freaking time. How may two years drink toxic household products each week? I don't imagine they print all those mr.yuck stickers because that does not happen. Yet nobody proposes enhanced background checks to purchase drain cleaner or banning its sale/possession. Instead they propose a simple requirement to have child proof caps on these things. They are not entirely child proof but hey there is very little that will resist a two year old left to have their way with it unattended.
Sensibly we already have rules that require firearms to be locked up where kids can't get them. It still happens just like kids still get poisoned. Anecdotally I bet more of us know someone who has had their stomach pumped, than somone injured while 'playing' with a gun.
How many toddlers are hurt by kitchen knives? electrical outlets? heavy objects knocked of tables? Falls onto hard surface such as stone from furniture?
How often is the relative severity of such injuries greater than those related to their accidents with firearms?
The simple fact is being two years old is very dangerous because two year olds are mobile, curious, but nearly without experience and highly limited in capability for judgement. It strains credibility that a person who could be so negligent as to leave a loaded gun where a two year can get it, is otherwise capable of keeping that child safe. Every responsible parent I know with children that small immediately scan new spaces for anything that could be a potential threat before turning their child loose. If you leaving loaded gun out I am sure there are plenty of things around with the potential to be nearly as dangerous you are doing nothing about.
Oh cut the self righteous bullshit. We risk the lives of others all the time. Do think flying planes over populated areas does not risk the lives of others. Do think driven while not under the influence does not risk the lives of others. Do think any kind of mining, drilling or other other natural resource harvesting does not risk the lives and property of those near by? Do think having a fire in your fire place does not potentially risk setting a neighbors roof on fire and risking their lives?
The only questions are how much are we allowed to endanger each other and under what circumstances. Society has been using alcohol socially for a long damn time, it is very much part of our culture. We also have to get home after dinner, cars are very much part of our culture too. Driving at.08 is perfectly reasonable. I would argue driving at.1 was fine too.
People have such a strong emotional reaction to drunk driving because its one of the few situations where the impaired person is not the one most likely to be hurt or killed. So for that reason yes we set the limit pretty low. Arguments to lower it to.05 though seem downright silly..08 is silly, in terms of risk management. Statistically you are more likely to be hurt or killed drunk walking.
One thing is true about everyone on this earth, none of us getting out alive. Everything is dangerous. Everything caries some risk. Their was a time when drunk driving was an outsized problem. The drinking age, decades of enforcement, low limits have SOLVED IT, to the degree it needed solving. Its time to fucking move on and think about something else.
Its like the gun debate, or terrorism both are statistically not relevant. The 'solution' is just to give these thing a little less news coverage.
it doesn't prevent the police from obtaining a warrant to draw your blood and determine your BAC
True it does not but if you are at all in doubt about as it if its possible you could by right on the edge like you had a couple beers and thought you were legal, its best to force the blood draw.
If you were just over the limit by the time they drive you to a facility where they can take your blood, and get a warrant (which can get done over the phone) there is a good chance you will have dropped just below the limit. Even though they can do this pretty quickly it still gives you the better part of an hour for your body to process some of it out of your system. That could easily be the difference between.09 and.07. If you test under they have no way to prove you were over when you were actually driving. At that point the worst they can probably stick you with is reckless, if you were weaving or whatever reason the pulled you over in the first place. This is the advice I have always heard anyway.
On the other hand I am sure they are keeping that blood for DNA evidence for all future times you could have a run in with the law, so its probably not advisable unless you really think you need to go down this path to beat a DUI wrap.
Plenty of people are asking why we want to fork lift X out for something completely different. Lots of people are arguing the handful of real and actual problems that do exist with X can by solved by adding (some of which has already happened) a few more extensions and that if you don't care about the old X protocol stuff well don't use its mostly harmless to you just sitting there. So yes people are making that argument.
SystemD raised more neck hairs though for more people because, lets face it there just are not that many Linux desktops and nobody really cares much if a desktop PC hickups once and awhile Microsoft has proven that. I'd rather my desktop be rock solid but honestly if it does do something strange fix'ed with a reboot once or twice a year so frigging what.
Severs are different. Servers don't usual get X installer and probably won't get Wayland installed. So right there you have a lot of the most nervous folks not so worried about X / Wayland. Servers it matters a lot if anything goes A) wrong, B) I can't understand it *immediately* get it back up quickly, lastly C) determine a fix I can implement on my own to make sure it does not happen again. SystemD threatens that Wayland does not.
Looking at things from a purely selfish standpoint as an American I absolutely support a policy of denying additional foreign powers entry into the nuclear arms club while actively maintaining our own stock pile of weapons and ability to strike.
In fact nukes are pretty much the only weapons system I am completely okay with the Federal government having all to itself as using even the small ones in sort of domestic conflict either between Feds and the States or government in the more general sense against the public is darn near impossible to imagine. Imagine if Lincoln had the ability to nuke Richmond in 1863. Doing so would not have brought any sort of Union victory it would plunged the country in to even greater chaos, probably destroying support for even the concept of the United States continued existence.
On the other hand our national government having a strong nuclear capability provides the ultimate trump card. It means if we ever did see another Great War style conflict no nation, even the other large nuclear powers, can threaten our home land. If it ever does become a matter of fightin 'them' over here, they know we could push the button. Its nice to live under the safety of the nuclear umbrella.
See if you let more people with less to loose though join the club that is when things get dangerous. All it takes is one religious fanatic to come to power, conclude his dreams of destroying the infidel and creating a world wide caliphate/spaghetti bowl/coven can't be realized as long as we exist *boom* because (s)he might not care what happens in retaliation to their corner of this globe.
There are really thee parts to what most people think of as comp sci - as I see it anyway.
1) Computer Engineering - The design and architecture of machines that do computation 2) Software Engineering - The design of computable algorithms for solving specific problems. 3) Information Theory - Analysis and classification of datums specifically the transmission, processing, utilization, and extraction of information from them. This usually feeds the 'specific problems' the Software Engineering guys are trying to solve.
Really only the last one is a 'science' in its own right. 1) has the sciences of physics under pinning. 2) Is really under pinned by 3 and other branches of mathematics. 3) Means mathematics most of the time but gets a little more science like in the 'scientific method sense' as you move into the quantum world.
No it is illogical. Its absolutely wrong on so many levels and ultimately isn't even good for the vendors.
Think about it for two seconds and it should be obvious why this is deeply stupid.
Enforcement issues: If you haven't the will or ability to enforce a law than its probably not a good law. Maybe because you can't know if the law is being broken without in most cases breaking other laws.
Maybe because its something like this where the practice is common and accepted by the public. Enforcement quickly becomes capricious one guy gets away with the next guy gets tased because the cop doesn't like the look of him.
In both cases the result is loss of respect for the law and office by the public.
Political problems: The negotiations mean nothing if the laws don't actually change. The next time there is a terrorism scare, someone new takes office and decides to get tough on crime etc. They still can prosecute/persecute members of this union because no agreement between individuals even with officials ever really trumps criminal matters. We one entity has the power to seize assets or even jail the other their exists little real leverage.
----- The right way to go about this is change the damn law. Design the law to target the high value targets. That way everyone actually can 'enjoy' the protection of the law. Enforcement won't be arbitrary and when it is recourse will be available.
Only if justice matters to you. Dropping bombs, virtual or physical on the most immediate source of the attack will certainly solve the immediate problem.
Will the attackers find another victim to try and use against you, sure probably and likely sooner rather than later but if you haven't got the ability to locate the real source but have the ability to swat down the intermediaries, unwitting though they may be, what should you do?
Your rant might make more sense if Twitter was profitable. They posted a $137 million loss. So yea I suspect the share holders do think getting EPS (as there are no profits) up by half a percent is pretty important, because I am sure none of them signed up to fund, other people's desire to: "own a house and have a family".
Yes but the 'public' consisting of a relative small number of cellular customers who have a plan that has not been offered in five years or so is a pretty small public. Even if its a public of atypically noisy early adopters.
It sounds like these others are not engaging a "test mode"; but have optimized themselves for conditions that are tested for (at the expense of power and fuel efficiency) while optimized themselves for power and fuel efficiency in conditions that aren't tested for.
Or the tests simply don't reflect the typical driver at all. Look the EPA sticker on my car says 39mph high way. Where I live there isn't much other traffic most of the time. Its pretty rural so the determining factor is more my driving than anything else. Weather and time of year in terms of summer blend vs winter gas probably has an effect as well. If I moderate my driving I can get well over the sticker, I have averaged as high as 42mpg over a tanks. The way I usually drive, I get about 27.
I don't suspect cheating either because I can reproduce the results to my satisfaction. It don't even think its a case of optimizing to the test. I think its just a case of optimizing period. The best fuel economy is observed by traveling at a constant speed and accelerating slowly when that is required. Highway travel is usually constant speed over several miles or more @55-75mph, so that is the behavior that should be targeted. Its pretty easy to work out that is what the car is optimized to do just using your trip odometer and recording how much fuel you buy. Sure you could tune it to deliver better acceleration (just change the gear ratios would be one obvious way) but the cost would probably be economy cruising, anyway you go about it.
As other have pointed out the test has to be specific and control for as many variables as possible, otherwise we can't use it for comparative use cases. So add additional test conditions, maybe publish results and set standards for different driver profiles, aggressive, nominal, hyper miler, and publish them all. Don't develop a new single test case because you will create a perverse incentive to target that use case and it will likely be more distant from actual use than city/highway profiles they have now.
I can't imagine the big auto's pushing for any other policy. What better way to ensure that no new competition ever emerges. No more pesky start ups like Tesla showing up and disrupting things, nope if you are not already established with billions of dollars in assets, you need not apply.
I don't understand why people freak out when a tech vendor releases a new model, as if they are forced to buy it or the one they have is suddenly going to explode. I do think some large vendors are guilty of abandoning support for their legacy products a bit to quickly. Nobody gets all nuts about the fact the Chrysler/Ford/GM/Honda/VW/Mercedes/etc bring out new models every year; often with slight improvements, usually with other changes you may or might not like.
My thoughts would be that any intelligence we could ever recognize and have any communication with would have to work like our own at least in that it seeks out patterns in stimuli.
Even if you communicate ultrasonically, heck even if you see that way you still exist in the same N-dimensional universe we do. So if you are looking at a TV signal that you have notices does not fit the normal background pattern of EM and start trying to make sense of it. Eventually you might be able to work out hey this is a series of half resolution projections from three dimensions onto two over a range of spectrum. Would it be one hell of puzzle, you bet but I think a solvable one for the sufficiently intelligent, interested, advanced extra terrestrial species even if they are quite different from us.
4/3(pi)r^3 describes the volume of a sphere, pi is still the relevant constant. pi describes both circles and spheres nicely with multiplication. 4(pi)r^2 gives you the area of a sphere. Ah but area of a circle (pi)r^2, you think that is more natural and apparent that ((1/2)tau)r^2. Whole number multiplication is a more natural operation than division. I have studied the matter of tau greatly but the equations I can think of off the top of my head let me do more with pi being the only non integer coefficients. Which I think makes it clearer what the 'special' relation is.
Its not quite that simple. So I decide I am going to start making memory. I do all my up front capital investment. Now I have to decide how much of my fixed costs I want to try to recoup per unit. One question I might ask myself in the chip industry is how long will this stuff be in mass market demand. Nobody will want my chips if a new tech comes out that doubles density. My current equipment won't be useful anymore. Now I don't know when this will happen so I am going to probably start off with higher prices, pessimistically assuming the window of viability will be small. My competitors are naturally doing this as well so we can all charge high prices.
Suppose a few years have gone by and there have NOT been any major process improvements. My initial capital investment is paid off. My variable costs have been controlled as well as they can. My contribution margin is maximized fully. I now have every incentive to sell as many units as possible! So its a question of capacity. If can produce 20% more chips running another shift or something I probably will. If I have to cut my prices to sell those chips some, I probably will still do it. On the other hand if I don't have spare capacity, I probably don't want to expand my capital investment into three year old technology. My competition may or may not be in the same position. If all of us are selling all the chips we can produce at current prices, than nobody has any reason to lower prices.
The moment it looks like a new technology is coming down the pike, even if its just a die shrink though suddenly we have inventory to clear..
I don't why so many in the Linux community are so hooked on ZFS. BTRFS has a feature set that is rapidly getting there, its becoming more a more mature in terms of code that is already in the upstream.
Exactly, this isn't news or if it is its only new because Linus has gotten much more open and liberal about what he will except for inclusion these days. In the 2.4.x era there were tons of popular patch sets for Linux. Things like alternative schedulers, IPSec implementations, Access control layers, and customizations for vendor specific architecture variants were downright common to have as patch sets.
There were tons of reasons, code quality, license constraints, conflicts with other subsystems, and more often than not someone on the core team just did not like the engineering decision made around interfaces. That person being Linus himself frequently.
I haven never tried to get a kernel patch included up stream but just as an observer it seems the situation is much better than it used to be. The kernel team is larger, and thru the 2.6.x period kernel internals have improved in terms of coupling, the added flexibility has been used to allow more stuff to flow up stream. Linus does not like the BSD secure level model, this guy disagrees, that is all there is to this. Maybe if people think that functionality is useful and not better met by something else Linus will change his mind. That has happened before too. Especially if somone finds it commercially useful and Red Hat or IBM or someone picks up the patches and starts using them.
Slashdot Mirror
said he could write the extensions needed easily in Rust.
This is probably true but its also aggressively stupid. Ruby, Matz Ruby anyway, is a C program, Rubinius is a C++ program, JRuby is Java. The point of writing Ruby extensions obviously is so that you can leverage the expressive power of the high level interpreted language to get stuff done fast and safely while interfacing whatever it is you need to interface.
Your extensions should not be complex. They really should allocate a little memory to store what needs to be stored, and do some type conversions from Ruby's more primitive types to whatever you interface needs to see and not much more. The thinking should happen in Ruby. If you are writing all kinds of smarts and logic into extension itself you are probably doing it wrong.
So why would you introduce a third language technology to the stack? A C extension should be quick to audit and verify. There are also lots and lots of people familiar with writing ruby extensions in C, few in Rust.
I think Rust is cool but this isn't a Job for Rust. Now implementing RRuby might be!
Slackware...For the masses, LFS for the nerds. Nothing else is really trustworthy IMHO.
That has been true going back at least as far as Win98. Microsoft hard coded IPs for many of the update functions for obvious reasons.
Liberals don't hate poor people the love then. They love how dependent they are, and the love how good hand outs sound to someone struggling to get by, they love the way that buys votes.
The trick is keeping poor people poor while keeping up the appearance of trying to help them. Strategies include.
1) High property taxes ( because it looks like the wealthy pay more but really when you break it out along in come its pretty regressive)
These support expensive but deliberately ineffective education programs where failure is rewarded and indoctrination over independent thought is the order of the day.
2) Secret poor taxes. Taxes on things that the poor spend disproportionate income on, gasoline, heating oil, etc. This also includes Sin taxes, alcohol, cigarets, lotteries.
3) The passage of ever more regulation and barriers to entry. Can't have entrepreneurs, no we need 'workers' who will remain wage slaves to existing business their entire lives.
4) Pushing for inflation to discourage savings, real independence comes from having savings. Ensuring your savings are always loosing value unless you hand them over to someone wealthier to gamble with is a huge part of their game. Don't argue but but they're the ones passing legislation to stop the gambling not they are not. Dodd Frank does exactly nothing, Wall Street played their part and made fuss for the cameras but its totally business as usual. Its lefties that always want to raise the debt ceiling and do more 'stimulus'. Government debt is a big source of money supply expansion the usual driver of inflation. This isn't lost on the PTBs.
The troubling thing is most conservatives and fascists alike have also taken up these strategies as a way to hold onto their own power.
Here is some context from the CDC:
Every day, over 300 children in the United States ages 0 to 19 are treated in an emergency department, and two children die, as a result of being poisoned.
0-19 is a bigher range, but 300 per Friggin DAY! The parent poster is absolutely correct this is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things that threaten the children. Our resources would be better directed elsewhere. The problem is not the guns so much as it is caretakers that are stunningly negligent! In the care of sort of person that could 'accidentally' allow something as obviously dangerous as fire arm to end up in the hands of a child, these same children were almost certain to be severely injured by something else sooner or later. The fact it was a gun is simply coincidence.
The Constitution was interpreted that way in two 5-4 decisions
Its funy how when liberals get their way on something like Obama care they will tell you 'its the law of the land, get over it' but when its a decision they don't like its "not the last word on the matter by any means."
if you're so stupid as to leave anything remotely dangerous where a 2 year old can get to it (especially if it's in the back seat of a car with the child in the back), you should lose right to be a parent
There fixed that for you. Little gits getting hurt with guns and making an issue about it is imply a anti-gun lobby ploy to tug at your heart strings. The fact is two years are injured by all sorts of things all the freaking time. How may two years drink toxic household products each week? I don't imagine they print all those mr.yuck stickers because that does not happen. Yet nobody proposes enhanced background checks to purchase drain cleaner or banning its sale/possession. Instead they propose a simple requirement to have child proof caps on these things. They are not entirely child proof but hey there is very little that will resist a two year old left to have their way with it unattended.
Sensibly we already have rules that require firearms to be locked up where kids can't get them. It still happens just like kids still get poisoned. Anecdotally I bet more of us know someone who has had their stomach pumped, than somone injured while 'playing' with a gun.
How many toddlers are hurt by kitchen knives?
electrical outlets?
heavy objects knocked of tables?
Falls onto hard surface such as stone from furniture?
How often is the relative severity of such injuries greater than those related to their accidents with firearms?
The simple fact is being two years old is very dangerous because two year olds are mobile, curious, but nearly without experience and highly limited in capability for judgement. It strains credibility that a person who could be so negligent as to leave a loaded gun where a two year can get it, is otherwise capable of keeping that child safe. Every responsible parent I know with children that small immediately scan new spaces for anything that could be a potential threat before turning their child loose. If you leaving loaded gun out I am sure there are plenty of things around with the potential to be nearly as dangerous you are doing nothing about.
never an excuse for risking the lives of others
Oh cut the self righteous bullshit. We risk the lives of others all the time. Do think flying planes over populated areas does not risk the lives of others. Do think driven while not under the influence does not risk the lives of others. Do think any kind of mining, drilling or other other natural resource harvesting does not risk the lives and property of those near by? Do think having a fire in your fire place does not potentially risk setting a neighbors roof on fire and risking their lives?
The only questions are how much are we allowed to endanger each other and under what circumstances. Society has been using alcohol socially for a long damn time, it is very much part of our culture. We also have to get home after dinner, cars are very much part of our culture too. Driving at .08 is perfectly reasonable. I would argue driving at .1 was fine too.
People have such a strong emotional reaction to drunk driving because its one of the few situations where the impaired person is not the one most likely to be hurt or killed. So for that reason yes we set the limit pretty low. Arguments to lower it to .05 though seem downright silly. .08 is silly, in terms of risk management. Statistically you are more likely to be hurt or killed drunk walking.
One thing is true about everyone on this earth, none of us getting out alive. Everything is dangerous. Everything caries some risk. Their was a time when drunk driving was an outsized problem. The drinking age, decades of enforcement, low limits have SOLVED IT, to the degree it needed solving. Its time to fucking move on and think about something else.
Its like the gun debate, or terrorism both are statistically not relevant. The 'solution' is just to give these thing a little less news coverage.
it doesn't prevent the police from obtaining a warrant to draw your blood and determine your BAC
True it does not but if you are at all in doubt about as it if its possible you could by right on the edge like you had a couple beers and thought you were legal, its best to force the blood draw.
If you were just over the limit by the time they drive you to a facility where they can take your blood, and get a warrant (which can get done over the phone) there is a good chance you will have dropped just below the limit. Even though they can do this pretty quickly it still gives you the better part of an hour for your body to process some of it out of your system. That could easily be the difference between .09 and .07. If you test under they have no way to prove you were over when you were actually driving. At that point the worst they can probably stick you with is reckless, if you were weaving or whatever reason the pulled you over in the first place. This is the advice I have always heard anyway.
On the other hand I am sure they are keeping that blood for DNA evidence for all future times you could have a run in with the law, so its probably not advisable unless you really think you need to go down this path to beat a DUI wrap.
Plenty of people are asking why we want to fork lift X out for something completely different. Lots of people are arguing the handful of real and actual problems that do exist with X can by solved by adding (some of which has already happened) a few more extensions and that if you don't care about the old X protocol stuff well don't use its mostly harmless to you just sitting there. So yes people are making that argument.
SystemD raised more neck hairs though for more people because, lets face it there just are not that many Linux desktops and nobody really cares much if a desktop PC hickups once and awhile Microsoft has proven that. I'd rather my desktop be rock solid but honestly if it does do something strange fix'ed with a reboot once or twice a year so frigging what.
Severs are different. Servers don't usual get X installer and probably won't get Wayland installed. So right there you have a lot of the most nervous folks not so worried about X / Wayland. Servers it matters a lot if anything goes A) wrong, B) I can't understand it *immediately* get it back up quickly, lastly C) determine a fix I can implement on my own to make sure it does not happen again. SystemD threatens that Wayland does not.
Looking at things from a purely selfish standpoint as an American I absolutely support a policy of denying additional foreign powers entry into the nuclear arms club while actively maintaining our own stock pile of weapons and ability to strike.
In fact nukes are pretty much the only weapons system I am completely okay with the Federal government having all to itself as using even the small ones in sort of domestic conflict either between Feds and the States or government in the more general sense against the public is darn near impossible to imagine. Imagine if Lincoln had the ability to nuke Richmond in 1863. Doing so would not have brought any sort of Union victory it would plunged the country in to even greater chaos, probably destroying support for even the concept of the United States continued existence.
On the other hand our national government having a strong nuclear capability provides the ultimate trump card. It means if we ever did see another Great War style conflict no nation, even the other large nuclear powers, can threaten our home land. If it ever does become a matter of fightin 'them' over here, they know we could push the button. Its nice to live under the safety of the nuclear umbrella.
See if you let more people with less to loose though join the club that is when things get dangerous. All it takes is one religious fanatic to come to power, conclude his dreams of destroying the infidel and creating a world wide caliphate/spaghetti bowl/coven can't be realized as long as we exist *boom* because (s)he might not care what happens in retaliation to their corner of this globe.
There are really thee parts to what most people think of as comp sci - as I see it anyway.
1) Computer Engineering - The design and architecture of machines that do computation
2) Software Engineering - The design of computable algorithms for solving specific problems.
3) Information Theory - Analysis and classification of datums specifically the transmission, processing, utilization, and extraction of information from them. This usually feeds the 'specific problems' the Software Engineering guys are trying to solve.
Really only the last one is a 'science' in its own right. 1) has the sciences of physics under pinning. 2) Is really under pinned by 3 and other branches of mathematics. 3) Means mathematics most of the time but gets a little more science like in the 'scientific method sense' as you move into the quantum world.
No it is illogical. Its absolutely wrong on so many levels and ultimately isn't even good for the vendors.
Think about it for two seconds and it should be obvious why this is deeply stupid.
Enforcement issues:
If you haven't the will or ability to enforce a law than its probably not a good law. Maybe because you can't know if the law is being broken without in most cases breaking other laws.
Maybe because its something like this where the practice is common and accepted by the public. Enforcement quickly becomes capricious one guy gets away with the next guy gets tased because the cop doesn't like the look of him.
In both cases the result is loss of respect for the law and office by the public.
Political problems:
The negotiations mean nothing if the laws don't actually change. The next time there is a terrorism scare, someone new takes office and decides to get tough on crime etc. They still can prosecute/persecute members of this union because no agreement between individuals even with officials ever really trumps criminal matters. We one entity has the power to seize assets or even jail the other their exists little real leverage.
-----
The right way to go about this is change the damn law. Design the law to target the high value targets. That way everyone actually can 'enjoy' the protection of the law. Enforcement won't be arbitrary and when it is recourse will be available.
When you have the capability to drop bombs.
Only if justice matters to you. Dropping bombs, virtual or physical on the most immediate source of the attack will certainly solve the immediate problem.
Will the attackers find another victim to try and use against you, sure probably and likely sooner rather than later but if you haven't got the ability to locate the real source but have the ability to swat down the intermediaries, unwitting though they may be, what should you do?
Your rant might make more sense if Twitter was profitable. They posted a $137 million loss. So yea I suspect the share holders do think getting EPS (as there are no profits) up by half a percent is pretty important, because I am sure none of them signed up to fund, other people's desire to: "own a house and have a family".
Challenge accepted!
Yes but the 'public' consisting of a relative small number of cellular customers who have a plan that has not been offered in five years or so is a pretty small public. Even if its a public of atypically noisy early adopters.
It sounds like these others are not engaging a "test mode"; but have optimized themselves for conditions that are tested for (at the expense of power and fuel efficiency) while optimized themselves for power and fuel efficiency in conditions that aren't tested for.
Or the tests simply don't reflect the typical driver at all. Look the EPA sticker on my car says 39mph high way. Where I live there isn't much other traffic most of the time. Its pretty rural so the determining factor is more my driving than anything else. Weather and time of year in terms of summer blend vs winter gas probably has an effect as well. If I moderate my driving I can get well over the sticker, I have averaged as high as 42mpg over a tanks. The way I usually drive, I get about 27.
I don't suspect cheating either because I can reproduce the results to my satisfaction. It don't even think its a case of optimizing to the test. I think its just a case of optimizing period. The best fuel economy is observed by traveling at a constant speed and accelerating slowly when that is required. Highway travel is usually constant speed over several miles or more @55-75mph, so that is the behavior that should be targeted. Its pretty easy to work out that is what the car is optimized to do just using your trip odometer and recording how much fuel you buy. Sure you could tune it to deliver better acceleration (just change the gear ratios would be one obvious way) but the cost would probably be economy cruising, anyway you go about it.
As other have pointed out the test has to be specific and control for as many variables as possible, otherwise we can't use it for comparative use cases. So add additional test conditions, maybe publish results and set standards for different driver profiles, aggressive, nominal, hyper miler, and publish them all. Don't develop a new single test case because you will create a perverse incentive to target that use case and it will likely be more distant from actual use than city/highway profiles they have now.
There should be one and exactly one principle as far as content blocking:
Block any and only the content the user identifies to the best degree possible.
I can't imagine the big auto's pushing for any other policy. What better way to ensure that no new competition ever emerges. No more pesky start ups like Tesla showing up and disrupting things, nope if you are not already established with billions of dollars in assets, you need not apply.
I don't understand why people freak out when a tech vendor releases a new model, as if they are forced to buy it or the one they have is suddenly going to explode. I do think some large vendors are guilty of abandoning support for their legacy products a bit to quickly. Nobody gets all nuts about the fact the Chrysler/Ford/GM/Honda/VW/Mercedes/etc bring out new models every year; often with slight improvements, usually with other changes you may or might not like.
My thoughts would be that any intelligence we could ever recognize and have any communication with would have to work like our own at least in that it seeks out patterns in stimuli.
Even if you communicate ultrasonically, heck even if you see that way you still exist in the same N-dimensional universe we do. So if you are looking at a TV signal that you have notices does not fit the normal background pattern of EM and start trying to make sense of it. Eventually you might be able to work out hey this is a series of half resolution projections from three dimensions onto two over a range of spectrum. Would it be one hell of puzzle, you bet but I think a solvable one for the sufficiently intelligent, interested, advanced extra terrestrial species even if they are quite different from us.
4/3(pi)r^3 describes the volume of a sphere, pi is still the relevant constant. pi describes both circles and spheres nicely with multiplication. 4(pi)r^2 gives you the area of a sphere. Ah but area of a circle (pi)r^2, you think that is more natural and apparent that ((1/2)tau)r^2. Whole number multiplication is a more natural operation than division. I have studied the matter of tau greatly but the equations I can think of off the top of my head let me do more with pi being the only non integer coefficients. Which I think makes it clearer what the 'special' relation is.
Its not quite that simple. So I decide I am going to start making memory. I do all my up front capital investment. Now I have to decide how much of my fixed costs I want to try to recoup per unit. One question I might ask myself in the chip industry is how long will this stuff be in mass market demand. Nobody will want my chips if a new tech comes out that doubles density. My current equipment won't be useful anymore. Now I don't know when this will happen so I am going to probably start off with higher prices, pessimistically assuming the window of viability will be small. My competitors are naturally doing this as well so we can all charge high prices.
Suppose a few years have gone by and there have NOT been any major process improvements. My initial capital investment is paid off. My variable costs have been controlled as well as they can. My contribution margin is maximized fully. I now have every incentive to sell as many units as possible! So its a question of capacity. If can produce 20% more chips running another shift or something I probably will. If I have to cut my prices to sell those chips some, I probably will still do it. On the other hand if I don't have spare capacity, I probably don't want to expand my capital investment into three year old technology. My competition may or may not be in the same position. If all of us are selling all the chips we can produce at current prices, than nobody has any reason to lower prices.
The moment it looks like a new technology is coming down the pike, even if its just a die shrink though suddenly we have inventory to clear..
I don't why so many in the Linux community are so hooked on ZFS. BTRFS has a feature set that is rapidly getting there, its becoming more a more mature in terms of code that is already in the upstream.
Why not just put your energy there?
Exactly, this isn't news or if it is its only new because Linus has gotten much more open and liberal about what he will except for inclusion these days. In the 2.4.x era there were tons of popular patch sets for Linux. Things like alternative schedulers, IPSec implementations, Access control layers, and customizations for vendor specific architecture variants were downright common to have as patch sets.
There were tons of reasons, code quality, license constraints, conflicts with other subsystems, and more often than not someone on the core team just did not like the engineering decision made around interfaces. That person being Linus himself frequently.
I haven never tried to get a kernel patch included up stream but just as an observer it seems the situation is much better than it used to be. The kernel team is larger, and thru the 2.6.x period kernel internals have improved in terms of coupling, the added flexibility has been used to allow more stuff to flow up stream. Linus does not like the BSD secure level model, this guy disagrees, that is all there is to this. Maybe if people think that functionality is useful and not better met by something else Linus will change his mind. That has happened before too. Especially if somone finds it commercially useful and Red Hat or IBM or someone picks up the patches and starts using them.