Um, OK. Not sure what your point is unless you find yourself continuously uploading your entire drive. I have a few gigs change per day, so not an issue for me. Been doing this for years - even on DSL it took about 30 days for the initial backup, but the connection was more than capable of keeping up with daily changes.
OK, so it's not useful to you. Not all services need to be just for you. I have 150Mbps up, so that changes things a bit, doesn't it? I currently use CrashPlan, but they significantly raised their fees.
Yup, that's what I was thinking. It would also justify electronics in the refills because the machine would need to know to use a lot more of the "organic" chemical.
I know about all that shit, but have plenty of other stuff to do. I mulch, I fertilize. I spot spray glyphosate. I plant non-native species. In troublesome areas, I plant annuals. My yard looks great, and I'm down to just a few hours a week of work. If you enjoy gardening, then by all means go for it - but don't get all sanctimonious when others see it as a chore.
An expensive robot sold at cost with replaceable herbicide canisters could use the razor blade business model. Maybe a cheap "walker" type robot with a dumbed-down imaging system could identify friend from foe and give it a little spot squirt of glyphosate. You could even sell premium "organic" approved canisters.
Your average consumer does not have genomic damaging testing microfluidic arrays.
No, but they do have access to the information from people who do. Right now even the regulatory agencies around the world can't settle on whether or not e-cigs are "safe" or even just "safer than smoking". There is nothing wrong with saying nothing and waiting for more data to roll in before declaring the issue worthy of government interference. Absent any kind of a consensus from regulators, grown adults should probably refrain from an activity that puts foreign material in their lungs unless they are already putting even worse foreign material in their lungs. I have no problem with government's involvement with public health. I don't even mind regulation - make sure what the manufacturers/sellers say is accurate, and make sure the contents are pure and as-advertised. But the knee-jerk response of banning anything new or not fully understood rankles.
What in the world are you talking about? All Trump has to do to see that his words matter is look at the TV where they repeat his every Tweet, deleted or otherwise. Whether some obscure government bureaucrat is also saving his Tweets makes no difference here.
Not the entire program - only the portion that needs to chew on the data you are going to pass it. I mean, it depends on how you do it, but it need not run the entire program in every process.
You are being deliberately obtuse. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of reporters and citizens following Trump and saving every single tweet. They aren't "obligated" to, but they are - and that is what makes the bill useless as a practical matter. It does not solve a problem.
Except that there are millions of eyes already on Trump's Twitter account and so this "bill" (actually just a stunt) would accomplish nothing if signed into law. Well, except set up yet another government group tasked with doing something that adds little or no value.
If we're just haggling over the age of emancipation/consent/whatever, then I'm happy to concede that perhaps 18 isn't the right number. Not sure what the answer is, but at some point we need to stop babysitting people and say they are old enough to look after themselves.
The alternative to a nanny state is a lot more people injuring and killing themselves, and the rest of us having to pay for it in both monetary and non-monetary ways.
Sorry to sound snarky, but "citation needed". Seriously - I've been around long enough to see the "War On Drugs" play out, and billions of government dollars and millions of drug possessors in prison has done squat for addiction rates. Meanwhile, usage of the completely legal cigarettes has been drastically curtailed by simply restricting advertising, improving education. restrictions on second-hand smoke, and taxing them to the hairy edge of a black market.
I'm trying to be clear that we are talking about adults.
If an adult wants to huff stage smoke because a stranger told them to, by all means let them. Your involvement - and my involvement - should only happen when there is a demonstrated public health concern, not just because we disapprove of their life decisions.
I can think of no better way than by monitoring what adults are willfully inhaling and reporting the results. They (or maybe the FTC?) should absolutely come down hard on anyone making a health or other claim not backed up by rigorous study. But, Jesus, this is a vice and adults don't need a babysitter. If research comes in showing it to be a public health threat, then let's talk - but we don't need to ban things proactively, without any science at all.
when that's clearly not the case,
I don't think this is clear at all. It's still under study. It's not "healthy" in any event. Also not sure how liquid, batteries, chargers, the actual douche flute itself, are "easier" than setting fire to a pre-rolled cigarette. I'm sure there are people getting newly-addicted to nicotine, but it seems like most people vaping nicotine are already addicted to cigarettes. Others don't bother with the nicotine.
Clearly there is a "nanny-state" kind of pro-regulation bent in the post - a presumption that the government should vet every product before it is offered for sale. This can only lead to a flame war with the side that government should only be reactive and not proactive.
Both sides have good points... the reactive government is more dangerous, and the nanny-state government squashes innovation and progress. Most of us live in the creamy middle. Personally I did bristle a bit at the post, which revealed that the author just automatically looks to the government to yea/nay life's little decisions. I mean, this is a thing that makes you breath fire like a dragon - if anyone thinks that can be good for them, they have much bigger problems than what sort of approval the government gives. This isn't ratings on car seats, where a consumer has no ability to independently verify the manufacturers' claims. This is something that obviously can't be any good for you and yet adults choose to do it anyway... leave 'em be... where's my beer?
The processes/threads would need to communicate in some form or fashion. That has not been the bottleneck for me so I've never tried to "solve" it (other than trivial stuff like splitting the dataset into bigger chunks). But you are not restricted to the default pickling/unpicking - you can use whatever scheme you dream up for communication. The point is that you don't need to dig this deep unless the communication becomes your bottleneck, and when you do need to optimize communication, there's nothing stopping you (and there are many solutions floating around out there).
I think you have it backwards - by supporting both versions they have managed to do what few other languages have: increased in popularity while correcting defects and inconsistencies in the original design of the language. I still tend to write for both v2 and v3 in my scripts - it's not hard - but you can pretty much ignore v2 now and be in good shape unless you have a dependency on some very niche library.
Others who agree with you wrote mypy which is basically a lint-style checker for type. While I do get the occasional bug when a function supports more than one type - len() on strings and lists, for instance - for the most part the strong typing catches most mistakes, so I don't bother with the added clutter of static typing everything.
It's a wart, but it shouldn't stop you from getting your parallel computing done. You fire up the multiprocessing module, create as many processes as you think you need, and start crunching. I write most of my longer-running programs this way so that I can take advantage of multiple cores. But that's the beauty of Python - it's easy to avoid premature optimization. Write the script the easiest way first, profile it, and then go after the low-hanging fruit. Worst case, you end up with working code written entirely in C that's been thoroughly prototyped in Python.:)
Why would a poor person buy an EpiPen instead of the cheap generic versions that do the same thing? Even Mylan makes a generic version that is exactly the same as the regular EpiPen without the branding.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, OK. Not sure what your point is unless you find yourself continuously uploading your entire drive. I have a few gigs change per day, so not an issue for me. Been doing this for years - even on DSL it took about 30 days for the initial backup, but the connection was more than capable of keeping up with daily changes.
OK, so it's not useful to you. Not all services need to be just for you. I have 150Mbps up, so that changes things a bit, doesn't it? I currently use CrashPlan, but they significantly raised their fees.
That's why he's pointing it at encrypted data (reverse encFS mounts).
weeds are usually good for a garden
Well, not for an ornamental garden.
Yup, that's what I was thinking. It would also justify electronics in the refills because the machine would need to know to use a lot more of the "organic" chemical.
I know about all that shit, but have plenty of other stuff to do. I mulch, I fertilize. I spot spray glyphosate. I plant non-native species. In troublesome areas, I plant annuals. My yard looks great, and I'm down to just a few hours a week of work. If you enjoy gardening, then by all means go for it - but don't get all sanctimonious when others see it as a chore.
Then you just need something to clean up after it and feed it all winter.
An expensive robot sold at cost with replaceable herbicide canisters could use the razor blade business model. Maybe a cheap "walker" type robot with a dumbed-down imaging system could identify friend from foe and give it a little spot squirt of glyphosate. You could even sell premium "organic" approved canisters.
Your average consumer does not have genomic damaging testing microfluidic arrays.
No, but they do have access to the information from people who do. Right now even the regulatory agencies around the world can't settle on whether or not e-cigs are "safe" or even just "safer than smoking". There is nothing wrong with saying nothing and waiting for more data to roll in before declaring the issue worthy of government interference. Absent any kind of a consensus from regulators, grown adults should probably refrain from an activity that puts foreign material in their lungs unless they are already putting even worse foreign material in their lungs. I have no problem with government's involvement with public health. I don't even mind regulation - make sure what the manufacturers/sellers say is accurate, and make sure the contents are pure and as-advertised. But the knee-jerk response of banning anything new or not fully understood rankles.
What in the world are you talking about? All Trump has to do to see that his words matter is look at the TV where they repeat his every Tweet, deleted or otherwise. Whether some obscure government bureaucrat is also saving his Tweets makes no difference here.
Not the entire program - only the portion that needs to chew on the data you are going to pass it. I mean, it depends on how you do it, but it need not run the entire program in every process.
You are being deliberately obtuse. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of reporters and citizens following Trump and saving every single tweet. They aren't "obligated" to, but they are - and that is what makes the bill useless as a practical matter. It does not solve a problem.
Except that there are millions of eyes already on Trump's Twitter account and so this "bill" (actually just a stunt) would accomplish nothing if signed into law. Well, except set up yet another government group tasked with doing something that adds little or no value.
If we're just haggling over the age of emancipation/consent/whatever, then I'm happy to concede that perhaps 18 isn't the right number. Not sure what the answer is, but at some point we need to stop babysitting people and say they are old enough to look after themselves.
The alternative to a nanny state is a lot more people injuring and killing themselves, and the rest of us having to pay for it in both monetary and non-monetary ways.
Sorry to sound snarky, but "citation needed". Seriously - I've been around long enough to see the "War On Drugs" play out, and billions of government dollars and millions of drug possessors in prison has done squat for addiction rates. Meanwhile, usage of the completely legal cigarettes has been drastically curtailed by simply restricting advertising, improving education. restrictions on second-hand smoke, and taxing them to the hairy edge of a black market.
I'm trying to be clear that we are talking about adults.
If an adult wants to huff stage smoke because a stranger told them to, by all means let them. Your involvement - and my involvement - should only happen when there is a demonstrated public health concern, not just because we disapprove of their life decisions.
Ugh, that sounds awful. I think I'll just keep checking types in my code :)
and as such I'd like them to do their job.
I can think of no better way than by monitoring what adults are willfully inhaling and reporting the results. They (or maybe the FTC?) should absolutely come down hard on anyone making a health or other claim not backed up by rigorous study. But, Jesus, this is a vice and adults don't need a babysitter. If research comes in showing it to be a public health threat, then let's talk - but we don't need to ban things proactively, without any science at all.
when that's clearly not the case,
I don't think this is clear at all. It's still under study. It's not "healthy" in any event. Also not sure how liquid, batteries, chargers, the actual douche flute itself, are "easier" than setting fire to a pre-rolled cigarette. I'm sure there are people getting newly-addicted to nicotine, but it seems like most people vaping nicotine are already addicted to cigarettes. Others don't bother with the nicotine.
I'm not sure why this is modded flamebait.
Because where is this going to go?
Clearly there is a "nanny-state" kind of pro-regulation bent in the post - a presumption that the government should vet every product before it is offered for sale. This can only lead to a flame war with the side that government should only be reactive and not proactive.
Both sides have good points... the reactive government is more dangerous, and the nanny-state government squashes innovation and progress. Most of us live in the creamy middle. Personally I did bristle a bit at the post, which revealed that the author just automatically looks to the government to yea/nay life's little decisions. I mean, this is a thing that makes you breath fire like a dragon - if anyone thinks that can be good for them, they have much bigger problems than what sort of approval the government gives. This isn't ratings on car seats, where a consumer has no ability to independently verify the manufacturers' claims. This is something that obviously can't be any good for you and yet adults choose to do it anyway... leave 'em be... where's my beer?
e-cig
You mean a douche flute?
The processes/threads would need to communicate in some form or fashion. That has not been the bottleneck for me so I've never tried to "solve" it (other than trivial stuff like splitting the dataset into bigger chunks). But you are not restricted to the default pickling/unpicking - you can use whatever scheme you dream up for communication. The point is that you don't need to dig this deep unless the communication becomes your bottleneck, and when you do need to optimize communication, there's nothing stopping you (and there are many solutions floating around out there).
I think you have it backwards - by supporting both versions they have managed to do what few other languages have: increased in popularity while correcting defects and inconsistencies in the original design of the language. I still tend to write for both v2 and v3 in my scripts - it's not hard - but you can pretty much ignore v2 now and be in good shape unless you have a dependency on some very niche library.
Others who agree with you wrote mypy which is basically a lint-style checker for type. While I do get the occasional bug when a function supports more than one type - len() on strings and lists, for instance - for the most part the strong typing catches most mistakes, so I don't bother with the added clutter of static typing everything.
It's a wart, but it shouldn't stop you from getting your parallel computing done. You fire up the multiprocessing module, create as many processes as you think you need, and start crunching. I write most of my longer-running programs this way so that I can take advantage of multiple cores. But that's the beauty of Python - it's easy to avoid premature optimization. Write the script the easiest way first, profile it, and then go after the low-hanging fruit. Worst case, you end up with working code written entirely in C that's been thoroughly prototyped in Python. :)
Why would a poor person buy an EpiPen instead of the cheap generic versions that do the same thing? Even Mylan makes a generic version that is exactly the same as the regular EpiPen without the branding.