From what I can see, it's just a convenient way for politicians to talk about it, because let's be honest, 99% of politicians don't really understand radiative forcing anyway. link to get around paywall.
FWIW the GS economists (who have a decent record predicting such things) expect it to stabilize around $45 a barrel......but because of surplus production, it could drop down to $25 a barrel by spring.
A lot of terror was brought to the society, a lot of innocent people were killed. Just because the shooter wasn't an Islamic radical doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism;
Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
It can't just be "something that scares people" otherwise lightning and thunder would be terrorism. The Sandy Hook shooter was crazy, he didn't seem to have any political motive as far as anyone can tell. Oklahoma City might be called terrorism, since it had a political goal (and indeed, McVeigh even feels his goals were somewhat achieved), but McVeigh wasn't trying to scare or kill average people. He later said he wished he had done targeted assassinations instead of a mass bombing, since it would have avoided needless casualties. So OK city is kind of in a grey area.
I don't know why I am discussing this, an argument about a definition of a word is kind of silly thing to do, but oh well.
SDETs can do unit and white box testing, security testing, performance testing, etc. but they cost as much as a developer, since that's what they really are.
An SDET who is good at hacking will cost more than a developer.
I worked quality assurance at a very-much test level without really delving into code. Programmers can be effin' stupid at times. I was testing daemons for communications protocols. I took four approaches. Verify that it does what it's supposed to do per RFC. Investigate the behavior when confronted with stale RFCs. Investigate the behavior when it's confronted with non-RFC input that is commonly available in end-user applications (ie, non-malicious incorrect use), and investigate the behavior when malicious intent is used
Do you think that users' data security is the proper object of harsh lessons for coders?
If you are depending on QA to make sure user data is secure, you're going to fail. That's not what QA does, and hacking is rarely in their skillset.
When companies start caring about security, they usually start a separate team "Red Team" or something whose entire job is to try to hack and find security holes in the project. (I would argue this is not sufficient, because companies who have done this still fail. If you want secure software, it has to start from the beginning. You need to teach your programmers how to write good code, and security has to be a priority on every line of code that is written. Security can't be tacked on as an afterthought).
Yeap. That's where pushing to live production is going to be your brutal tutor.....if you have cognitive biases that are hiding bugs from your psyche, then the system will show you to them (most likely in the most inconvenient time), and you will learn. It's harsh.
You can get the same experience (but with less harshness) by giving yourself the goal to never let a bug get past you to QA. Then QA will be a kinder tutor that helps you learn.
If all the polls are saying that the side of justice is going to lose, then should you resort to force? After reason has failed, what else can you do against such reckless hate? Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment quoted above?
This is exactly the question Julius Cesar considered himself to be facing when he crossed the Rubicon.
It is also the question Brutus faced when he stabbed Cesar. It's an old question.
Consider though, if someone has enough votes to win an election, they have more people on their side than opposing them, so if you start a war against them, you're probably already in a losing position.
I can give a counter-idea: in my first job, I didn't have QA. It was up to me to make sure my own code was quality enough before releasing it, and that aspect terrified me enough that I did learn to write quality code (which basically means you are testing your own code thoroughly, doing your own QA).
Now, at the time I was working with programmers who were much more skilled than I was, and I learned from them. Yahoo is a much larger company, with a programmers of a more varied skill-set. It is not rational to just assume what happened at my first company would happen at Yahoo, but it did work for me.
If it wasn't for the Guy Fawkes masks and black hoodies I don't think that the mystique surrounding the word would exist at all.
And the fact that they've actually managed to pull of real hacks (as script kiddies or not, doesn't matter......if they hadn't done it, we would all be laughing at them).
Many tech companies already pay more than $100k per employee. Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. Making a minimum wage is a benefit for those companies, because they will be able to get more H1-B visas for themselves, whereas companies in middle-America where cost of living is lower won't be able to afford hiring people on the visa anymore.
If you have an example of that, I'd love to see it (especially if you have a transcript).
I think he got beat down pretty badly here. He was trying to argue on one very narrow aspect of the law, which I think would fail in court (and indeed, he lost the case he did argue before the supreme court). (also, sorry, I don't have a transcript:(
So since he's not arrogant and annoying anymore, are you considering him?
He's still arrogant and annoying. I was trying to point out that other candidates have come along who are more annoying. As for considering him, I've already resigned myself to the fact that we're going to have a lousy president next term, and I'm glad that the US system has shown itself resilient enough to survive that.
He's given some pretty good defenses of the 1st amendment.
Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn from time to time.
I think you misunderstood me. I still consider Cruz to be arrogant and annoying to listen to. Unfortunately, another candidate has arisen who is more arrogant and insufferable. I didn't think it could happen.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an interesting article that discusses the history behind the two degree increase.
From what I can see, it's just a convenient way for politicians to talk about it, because let's be honest, 99% of politicians don't really understand radiative forcing anyway. link to get around paywall.
Oh fucking jesus. If we move to alternatives
No one wants nuclear.
create more carbon sinks
How many of those do we have to create?
FWIW the GS economists (who have a decent record predicting such things) expect it to stabilize around $45 a barrel......but because of surplus production, it could drop down to $25 a barrel by spring.
A lot of terror was brought to the society, a lot of innocent people were killed. Just because the shooter wasn't an Islamic radical doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism;
Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
It can't just be "something that scares people" otherwise lightning and thunder would be terrorism. The Sandy Hook shooter was crazy, he didn't seem to have any political motive as far as anyone can tell. Oklahoma City might be called terrorism, since it had a political goal (and indeed, McVeigh even feels his goals were somewhat achieved), but McVeigh wasn't trying to scare or kill average people. He later said he wished he had done targeted assassinations instead of a mass bombing, since it would have avoided needless casualties. So OK city is kind of in a grey area.
I don't know why I am discussing this, an argument about a definition of a word is kind of silly thing to do, but oh well.
SDETs can do unit and white box testing, security testing, performance testing, etc. but they cost as much as a developer, since that's what they really are.
An SDET who is good at hacking will cost more than a developer.
I worked quality assurance at a very-much test level without really delving into code. Programmers can be effin' stupid at times. I was testing daemons for communications protocols. I took four approaches. Verify that it does what it's supposed to do per RFC. Investigate the behavior when confronted with stale RFCs. Investigate the behavior when it's confronted with non-RFC input that is commonly available in end-user applications (ie, non-malicious incorrect use), and investigate the behavior when malicious intent is used
Wow. You are awesome at QA.
Do you think that users' data security is the proper object of harsh lessons for coders?
If you are depending on QA to make sure user data is secure, you're going to fail. That's not what QA does, and hacking is rarely in their skillset.
When companies start caring about security, they usually start a separate team "Red Team" or something whose entire job is to try to hack and find security holes in the project. (I would argue this is not sufficient, because companies who have done this still fail. If you want secure software, it has to start from the beginning. You need to teach your programmers how to write good code, and security has to be a priority on every line of code that is written. Security can't be tacked on as an afterthought).
Another thing I've learned is that the stereotypical animosity between dev and QA is counterproductive.
Yes. QA is absolutely on your side!! Every time they find a bug for me, I thank them profusely, because better them than a customer.
Yeap. That's where pushing to live production is going to be your brutal tutor.....if you have cognitive biases that are hiding bugs from your psyche, then the system will show you to them (most likely in the most inconvenient time), and you will learn. It's harsh.
You can get the same experience (but with less harshness) by giving yourself the goal to never let a bug get past you to QA. Then QA will be a kinder tutor that helps you learn.
I checked out his donor list. Apparently Goldman has a lot of H1Bs, who get paid just above $100k. Maybe the banks are the ones?
If all the polls are saying that the side of justice is going to lose, then should you resort to force? After reason has failed, what else can you do against such reckless hate? Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment quoted above?
This is exactly the question Julius Cesar considered himself to be facing when he crossed the Rubicon.
It is also the question Brutus faced when he stabbed Cesar. It's an old question.
Consider though, if someone has enough votes to win an election, they have more people on their side than opposing them, so if you start a war against them, you're probably already in a losing position.
I can give a counter-idea: in my first job, I didn't have QA. It was up to me to make sure my own code was quality enough before releasing it, and that aspect terrified me enough that I did learn to write quality code (which basically means you are testing your own code thoroughly, doing your own QA).
Now, at the time I was working with programmers who were much more skilled than I was, and I learned from them. Yahoo is a much larger company, with a programmers of a more varied skill-set. It is not rational to just assume what happened at my first company would happen at Yahoo, but it did work for me.
If it wasn't for the Guy Fawkes masks and black hoodies I don't think that the mystique surrounding the word would exist at all.
And the fact that they've actually managed to pull of real hacks (as script kiddies or not, doesn't matter......if they hadn't done it, we would all be laughing at them).
If we're going to ask "why is it weakest," we ought to also ask, "why does it exist?" Of course down that path lies turtles all the way down.....
It was left ambiguous on purpose.....
Nice article.
Many tech companies already pay more than $100k per employee. Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. Making a minimum wage is a benefit for those companies, because they will be able to get more H1-B visas for themselves, whereas companies in middle-America where cost of living is lower won't be able to afford hiring people on the visa anymore.
FYI, this is where I explain my comment in more detail.
and puts together an argument very coherently.
If you have an example of that, I'd love to see it (especially if you have a transcript). :(
I think he got beat down pretty badly here. He was trying to argue on one very narrow aspect of the law, which I think would fail in court (and indeed, he lost the case he did argue before the supreme court). (also, sorry, I don't have a transcript
So since he's not arrogant and annoying anymore, are you considering him?
He's still arrogant and annoying. I was trying to point out that other candidates have come along who are more annoying. As for considering him, I've already resigned myself to the fact that we're going to have a lousy president next term, and I'm glad that the US system has shown itself resilient enough to survive that.
He's given some pretty good defenses of the 1st amendment.
It's really sad that's even needed.
Changed.....he is now the second-most annoying presidential candidate.
Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn from time to time.
I think you misunderstood me. I still consider Cruz to be arrogant and annoying to listen to. Unfortunately, another candidate has arisen who is more arrogant and insufferable.
I didn't think it could happen.
"Sometimes things change."
Yes, but not politicians.
Sure they do. They flip-flop all the time!
Two people in Congress finally do something that isn't complete self-serving bullshit
Seriously?
I still say Ted Cruz is actually Al Lewis from The Munsters.
And John Kerry is Herman Munster. Illuminati at work?
Probably.