It would surprise me if any protestors were being paid just to show up. It would not surprise me if people were being paid to help organise the logistics of the protest, because that is a requirement for any sufficiently large protest today.
In case anyone didn't read that story: It doesn't claim that "many of the protesters were proven to be paid". It claims that the organisers accepted donations.
Professional organisation is completely normal on all sides of politics. People are paid to organise both pro-Trump and anti-Trump rallies because they are complex events which require professional expertise to pull off successfully. This is especially true if you're doing it 100% legally, where there are regulations and permits to take care of. As protests scale up, you need people who know what they are doing. That's the nature of the beast.
This is not even remotely the same thing as paying people just to show up.
(Note that professional coordinators are a different issue. Effective protests often need expertise these days. There is a difference between paying people to organise and paying people to show up. That's true no matter what side you're on.)
Sturgeon's Revelation has always been correct. There have always been movies worth watching and there have always been nine times more movies not worth watching.
So that means you missed District 9, Kick-Ass, Exit Through the Gift Shop, The Artist, Skyfall, Snowtown, Boyhood, The Imitation Game, Ex Machina, What We Do in the Shadows, Anomalisa, Kingsman: The Secret Service, and 56 Up. That's just English language.
Now I realise that not everything is for everyone, but good films exist.
Think some retards in an car driving around are smarter than teams of security professionals?
Let me put it this way: I always used to assume the answer was "no".
And lest you think this is an anti-Trump thing, remember that the reason why Clinton had the private email server in the first place was that the State Department's system didn't work and the Secretary herself couldn't persuade anyone to fix it.
You could but if you chose to not bother, you would get a faster executable that doesn't need a boatload software bloat to even run.
I still remember the day when Microsoft C Compiler had an option to compile to bytecode. In the days of 16-bit, it made a certain amount of sense because memory was tight and the code density was so much better.
I am NOT ok with one language for Android apps, another for iOS apps, another for Windows, and yet another for the Linux desktop.
I agree.
Having said that the idioms between in those UI environments are so different that in you need different UI layers on all of them. Anything less is a discourtesy to the users. (Remember Kai Krause interfaces? Yeah, that.) If you could write a small layer of Swift/Obj-C just to handle that in OS X/iOS, C# just to handle that in Windows, etc etc, there wouldn't be so much of an issue.
And in practice, most "apps" are so trivial that the UI is basically the whole problem.
1. It's statically typed. 2. It compiles to JVM and JavaScript. 3. It's nothing at all like Ruby, except to the extent that Ruby borrows from the same languages that Kotlin borrows from.
What the Android community wants is, indeed, a better Java. The rest of the software world knows that this probably isn't a good idea, but the Android community wants that.
Currently, the only language that can do that is Javascript, which sucks.
Kotlin also targets JS, by the way, which also makes it a better GWT. Again, this is not what most of the software world wants, but it's exactly what people who use the Google Platform want.
I know, I know, but I have no other easy point of reference for 6 million deaths. "It's a Napoleonic Wars every year!" or "It's four Great Purges every year!" doesn't have the same ring to it.
And in the same period, how many people died as a result of pollution from ordinary gasoline automotive emissions?
The question you should be asking is: How accurate are the emissions tests for "ordinary" automobiles?
Because that's what the paper is trying to estimate. Not how many people are killed by vehicle emissions, but how many people are killed by inaccurate vehicle emission testing.
The basic idea in the method is that they ran a number of simulations of where diesel vehicles are estimated to be driving in the 11 jurisdictions (based on real-world measurements), where emissions would end up being carried (and dissipated) by the atmosphere, and matching that up with population estimates. This was then applied to the current best estimates of the exposure-response curves to get an estimate of the number of deaths.
They ran with measured emissions to validate that it matches up with measured death rates. Then they reran with "theoretical" emissions (i.e. if the vehicle emissions actually were what they were supposed to be) and subtracted the two. Actually, they probably ran the simulation multiple times to get a confidence interval; more on this later.
NOx, ozone, and PM2.5 ("soot") were accounted for separately. This is clear from the paper, but not clear from the
The model was validated against real-world studies to make sure that it matched what we find in the field.
Now, if you're thinking that's a lot of assumptions, you're right. The 95% confidence interval is 23,000–47,000, which is quite a wide margin of error. Again, that is not clear from the writeup, but it's clear from the paper.
Slashdot Mirror
It would surprise me if any protestors were being paid just to show up. It would not surprise me if people were being paid to help organise the logistics of the protest, because that is a requirement for any sufficiently large protest today.
In case anyone didn't read that story: It doesn't claim that "many of the protesters were proven to be paid". It claims that the organisers accepted donations.
Professional organisation is completely normal on all sides of politics. People are paid to organise both pro-Trump and anti-Trump rallies because they are complex events which require professional expertise to pull off successfully. This is especially true if you're doing it 100% legally, where there are regulations and permits to take care of. As protests scale up, you need people who know what they are doing. That's the nature of the beast.
This is not even remotely the same thing as paying people just to show up.
Who paid him or her?
(Note that professional coordinators are a different issue. Effective protests often need expertise these days. There is a difference between paying people to organise and paying people to show up. That's true no matter what side you're on.)
Yeah there's nothing worth watching.
Sturgeon's Revelation has always been correct. There have always been movies worth watching and there have always been nine times more movies not worth watching.
So that means you missed District 9, Kick-Ass, Exit Through the Gift Shop, The Artist, Skyfall, Snowtown, Boyhood, The Imitation Game, Ex Machina, What We Do in the Shadows, Anomalisa, Kingsman: The Secret Service, and 56 Up. That's just English language.
Now I realise that not everything is for everyone, but good films exist.
I'd argue that my unkempt beard and fedora is far more effective, m'lady.
The pony tattoo helps in your case.
Not to mention the BASIC interpreter.
Most modern applications manage to be bloated even without an interpreter. All that spyware doesn't write itself. The bigger problem is battery life.
Think some retards in an car driving around are smarter than teams of security professionals?
Let me put it this way: I always used to assume the answer was "no".
And lest you think this is an anti-Trump thing, remember that the reason why Clinton had the private email server in the first place was that the State Department's system didn't work and the Secretary herself couldn't persuade anyone to fix it.
You could but if you chose to not bother, you would get a faster executable that doesn't need a boatload software bloat to even run.
I still remember the day when Microsoft C Compiler had an option to compile to bytecode. In the days of 16-bit, it made a certain amount of sense because memory was tight and the code density was so much better.
It's
A) Curly braces
For some reason, the programming world has convinced itself that "C-like" means "curly braces".
B) OO boilerplate
Again, for some reason, the programming world has convinced itself that "OO" means "Simula".
Programmers really don't understand programming languages.
I am NOT ok with one language for Android apps, another for iOS apps, another for Windows, and yet another for the Linux desktop.
I agree.
Having said that the idioms between in those UI environments are so different that in you need different UI layers on all of them. Anything less is a discourtesy to the users. (Remember Kai Krause interfaces? Yeah, that.) If you could write a small layer of Swift/Obj-C just to handle that in OS X/iOS, C# just to handle that in Windows, etc etc, there wouldn't be so much of an issue.
And in practice, most "apps" are so trivial that the UI is basically the whole problem.
There are a few differences:
1. It's statically typed.
2. It compiles to JVM and JavaScript.
3. It's nothing at all like Ruby, except to the extent that Ruby borrows from the same languages that Kotlin borrows from.
Uh... no. C++ was never hot when it was a new language.
What the Android community wants is, indeed, a better Java. The rest of the software world knows that this probably isn't a good idea, but the Android community wants that.
Kotlin also targets JS, by the way, which also makes it a better GWT. Again, this is not what most of the software world wants, but it's exactly what people who use the Google Platform want.
Oh, and it has to run in the browser. And in a kernel-free vmware deployment. Also, it has to make toast.
What you want, what we all want, is a suite of languages, each with their own strengths, which work together seamlessly.
It'd be much easier to get funding if scientists just concluded whatever the Koch Brothers wanted them to.
If you don't know the difference between an estimate and a guess, remind me never to hire you.
These days smoking related illness is mostly self-inflicted thanks to reduced passive smoking.
Not worldwide, it isn't.
I know, I know, but I have no other easy point of reference for 6 million deaths. "It's a Napoleonic Wars every year!" or "It's four Great Purges every year!" doesn't have the same ring to it.
Some legal products are more obvious than others when it comes to their population control function.
I've read Play, Little Victims, too. It was satire.
And in the same period, how many people died as a result of pollution from ordinary gasoline automotive emissions?
The question you should be asking is: How accurate are the emissions tests for "ordinary" automobiles?
Because that's what the paper is trying to estimate. Not how many people are killed by vehicle emissions, but how many people are killed by inaccurate vehicle emission testing.
Here is how this works.
You didn't read the paper. I did.
The basic idea in the method is that they ran a number of simulations of where diesel vehicles are estimated to be driving in the 11 jurisdictions (based on real-world measurements), where emissions would end up being carried (and dissipated) by the atmosphere, and matching that up with population estimates. This was then applied to the current best estimates of the exposure-response curves to get an estimate of the number of deaths.
They ran with measured emissions to validate that it matches up with measured death rates. Then they reran with "theoretical" emissions (i.e. if the vehicle emissions actually were what they were supposed to be) and subtracted the two. Actually, they probably ran the simulation multiple times to get a confidence interval; more on this later.
NOx, ozone, and PM2.5 ("soot") were accounted for separately. This is clear from the paper, but not clear from the
The model was validated against real-world studies to make sure that it matched what we find in the field.
Now, if you're thinking that's a lot of assumptions, you're right. The 95% confidence interval is 23,000–47,000, which is quite a wide margin of error. Again, that is not clear from the writeup, but it's clear from the paper.
To put it in perspective, there are 6 million deaths per year caused by smoking.
That's one Jewish-part-of-the-holocaust every year.
It's 3D printing all over again.
I have 100s of tabs open in Safari and it doesn't have that problem.
I know, Parkinson's Law and all that. Still, I shouldn't need a hardware upgrade because programmers are lazy.