Some journals already require this. Nature Methods, for example requires papers which for example publish a new algorithm to publish the code.
Some code is well published: apparently the researchers (or more likely a group postdoc) had a real calling as a software Engineer and they ensure the code is portable and have irregular releases after to combat bitrot and make sure the code continues to run on reasonably modern systems. Most of the other code...
Remember the bad old days, before version control was common, when VMs were not a thing outside of IBM, computers were expensice and so every one had an utterly unique configuration and so on and so forth. Remember what a pain it was moving a bit of code from one machine to another?
Acacemia is often like that (there is literally 0 money for software engineers) combined with people who are (a) not professional programmers (they do what they need to solve the task, but they're physicists or biologists or chemists etc), (b) have no software engineering experience and (c) have absolutely zero time budget allocated. I'm not criticising academia here, it's just that releasing maintained software is not within the skillset nor the remit of academia.
No he wasn't. Just about everything Hillary was accused of supporting he did or did worse. There was just something about Hillary that meant the minority would rather see the greater of two evils as president than have her in the job.
Or are we not supposed to acknowledge the fact that the US gov't pays people and wages propaganda wars on the Internet?
I think this is one of the things that qualifies as "not even wrong". Even if he's correct (I doubt it), I guess he feels that he'd rather be under the influence of Russian Trolls because someone is under the influence of American ones? I don't know really but it's an oddly common point of view here.
All good ideas, but too soon. You need to have the meat of something before it's worth setting up the company. In other words, it'll have to start by implementing a basic form of the language. Slow, missing features, weaker library, but the design and initial implemention needs to be there.
5. YouTube tutorials, starting
That depends if you want new users or experienced programmers who can help on the project.
I agree, we should have a less powerful centralized government and those different towns and mountains should be able to decide whether they want SSM. Sound good:?
Ultimately, either the majority get their way or the minority get their way. Should we let a group of people vote to make a group less free under the guise of freedom?
No you're greatly oversimplifying. Yeah sure done stuff works like a schoolboys idea of how the founding of the union works, but in some cases there is a dichotomy. And I those cars, the people who have more land get more representation.
And of course you want to see California's power trained: you're a Republican and the Republican solution to just about everything is to try to gerrymander the fuck out of things so they get far more representation than the numbers warrant.
Democracy: an idea so good we should keep it out of the hands of those Californian communist SJWs because they keep voting all wrong and getting left wing cooties all over mah guns.
You erroneously believe that democracy automatically means majoritarianism.
On the other hand you seem to be advocating that people living with lots of empty land around them ought to have vastly more influence than town dwellers presumably because you live there and like having an excess of power.
No it isn't. If ten people live on a forested mountain, the one hundred people in the town in the next valley should not be able to vote to deforest the mountain.
Not only that, the 10 people on the forest should be able to vote to stop the 1000 people in the town from letting gay people marry and chipping in together for healthcare because the 1000 people in the town are basicaly SJW commnuists and don't really count as proper Americans anyway.
I see, so the USs high expentiture on health failing to actually help the majority of the population is... Europe's fault. With that attitude, it's not surprising that the helthcare problem in the US continues.
You clearly do. You claim to do it from example, but then you are very sleective with your examples.
Islam advocates killing homosexuals and apostates.
All the Abrahamic religious texts do. That doesn't mean all their followers do.
If say "I'm a Muslim and my religion teaches that atheists/apostates/homosexuals should be killed.", I risk getting slammed with an anti-discrimination lawsuit if I refuse to serve you.
Technically you risk a lawsuit for simply existing: anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. Whether it has merit or not... I've never heard of someone being successfully sued for refusing service to someone beig homophobic.
Not wasteful, it's the arm of the Liberal Conspiracy which pays for shills to trigger right wingers on the internet. You know we exist: you already accused someone for being a shill for triggering you.
Nothing new about it: progressives favor strict regulations and laws in order to accomplish "progress".
Like I said progrssives (for my own private definition) rarely weigh more than 35 grams and are covered in warm fur. If you invent your own private definitions you sound silly.
But some protected classes advocate murder,
So, er gender advoctes murder? Or do you mean religion advocates murder? perhaps you mean skin colour advocates murder?
here's a free clue: protected class is about a trait not an instance of that trait.
Are you kidding? Progressives love through people in prison.
I mean sure, if you invent a new meaning for progressives then you can say that. Progressives are delicious too as it happens. Also progresives can fly higher than most other birds.
As a gay man, I can't even refuse to serve people who preach that I should be killed.
Advocacy of murder is not as far as I can tell a protected class.
As a more senior member of the liberal consipracy, I can assure you he'll recieve double the usual pay rate for his exceptionally rapid triggering of you.
So Republicans are the only ones left that truly believe in liberal Western values.
No that's bullshit. Just because something is impossible to define perfectly (like life, for example) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And just because you are not in favour of it being banned also does not mean it doesn't exist.
Your arguments sound exactly like a tired retread of some of the some senator wants to ban internet pornography arguments here from a decade ago. Every time someone would ty t oclaim it basically didn't exist becuase it couldn't be defined with perfect accuracy.
That's as much bullshit now as it was then.
If you want to argue it shouldn't be banned, go ahead, you'll get a pretty receptive audience.
If you want to argue that a company should be obligated to host it go ahead, and you'll get a less receptive argument.
If you want to try to pretend it doesn't exist, go ahead but all you'l succeed in doing is looking foolish.
I guess I will be voting Republican from now on then.
Also, it would seem to better explain what we actually observed with the extinction event being discussed than the hypothesis put forward by the submitted article: All of the creatures far beyond a particular weight of around 20,000 lbs completely disappeared, and it would seem that of the creatures that did survive, they became considerably smaller. That's more-or-less precisely what one would expect if gravity was to suddenly change.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We know about gravity from physics, and the laws of gravitation have been measured to the finest accuracy of measurements we can make. Not only that but we can literally see back in time billions of years because light is slow compared to the size of the universe.
You are weighing up the most accurate and thoroughly verified physics agains a hypothesis for which there are plenty of other, more plausible alternatives.
That's more-or-less precisely what one would expect if gravity was to suddenly change.
Sauropods couldn't chew, which likely speaks to a very inefficient digestion system. Coupled with the lack of angiosperms which means here were none of the modern soft, fast growng, easily digestible plants means they likely needed vast bulk to be effective herbivoes.
Being that big comes with huge disadvantages, such as a very long time until sexual maturity and an anatomy designed to supprot large sizes is not very survivable at small ones (the eggs were a mere 5 litres or so). Also, the advanced forms of thermoregulation, i.e. fur, feathers and scales were not there for most of them and sheer bulk allows the maintainance of a reasonable body temperature without excessive energy expenditure because of the square cube law. The feathered dinosaurs at the time were much smaller as far as we know.
Contrast to now: a modern ruminant or even hing gut fermenter with fur and sweat glands (think cow or horse) can maintian a very high metabolic rate for and extended period in a wide variety of conditions. They eat primarily realtively easily digestible grasses and soft leaves, not these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycad) incredibly tough things. Now, the advantages of vast size are very much outweighted by the disadvantages.
Many of those arguments apply to other dinosaurs as well. It's hard to know precisely how dinosaur digestion worked, but based on the morphology we know, the basal digestion systems were very primitive.
As for how the very big flying ones flew... I have personally flown a K21 (wingspan of 17m and a gross weight of around half a ton) for many hours at a time without any engine at all.
The think that distinguished pterasaurs from birds is the arrangement of the wings means they can use the flight muscles to jump as well.
and there would seem to not be any explanation for how former dinosaurs could (1) weigh so much; (2) fly at such large weights; and (3) have such long necks.
None of those things are outside the realms of possibility.
Hobbyist electronics in general has become more about downloading "sketches" and plugging pre-made "shields" into an Arduino than actually hacking hardware.
Arduinos are bloody awesome for hacking, with or without shields. I own a license for IAR embedded (costs about $2000) and yet I still reach for the Arduino with it's little sketches for all the odd jobs. Yes, I know how to load C++ on directly. Yes I have done that, but I still use tha arduino as intended most often.
Slashdot Mirror
Answer is: publish source code with paper
Some journals already require this. Nature Methods, for example requires papers which for example publish a new algorithm to publish the code.
Some code is well published: apparently the researchers (or more likely a group postdoc) had a real calling as a software Engineer and they ensure the code is portable and have irregular releases after to combat bitrot and make sure the code continues to run on reasonably modern systems. Most of the other code...
Remember the bad old days, before version control was common, when VMs were not a thing outside of IBM, computers were expensice and so every one had an utterly unique configuration and so on and so forth. Remember what a pain it was moving a bit of code from one machine to another?
Acacemia is often like that (there is literally 0 money for software engineers) combined with people who are (a) not professional programmers (they do what they need to solve the task, but they're physicists or biologists or chemists etc), (b) have no software engineering experience and (c) have absolutely zero time budget allocated. I'm not criticising academia here, it's just that releasing maintained software is not within the skillset nor the remit of academia.
So yeah the code released...
He _was_ just the lesser of two evils.
No he wasn't. Just about everything Hillary was accused of supporting he did or did worse. There was just something about Hillary that meant the minority would rather see the greater of two evils as president than have her in the job.
Or are we not supposed to acknowledge the fact that the US gov't pays people and wages propaganda wars on the Internet?
I think this is one of the things that qualifies as "not even wrong". Even if he's correct (I doubt it), I guess he feels that he'd rather be under the influence of Russian Trolls because someone is under the influence of American ones? I don't know really but it's an oddly common point of view here.
Well, let's be honest:
In other words, Democracy: it's such a good idea we have to gerrymander the crap out of it os that people who vote all wrong can't have any influence.
In fact, that's one of the arguments you use against free speech
Well, if the facts aren't on your side, just make shit up! That's the Republican way.
So, where will you be going?
London. Actually, I won't so much as be going there as staying there.
There are the countries that have implemented your left-wing systems
Like single payer healthcare, a social safety net and good public transport? Yep I love it!
All good ideas, but too soon. You need to have the meat of something before it's worth setting up the company. In other words, it'll have to start by implementing a basic form of the language. Slow, missing features, weaker library, but the design and initial implemention needs to be there.
5. YouTube tutorials, starting
That depends if you want new users or experienced programmers who can help on the project.
I agree, we should have a less powerful centralized government and those different towns and mountains should be able to decide whether they want SSM. Sound good:?
Ultimately, either the majority get their way or the minority get their way. Should we let a group of people vote to make a group less free under the guise of freedom?
No you're greatly oversimplifying. Yeah sure done stuff works like a schoolboys idea of how the founding of the union works, but in some cases there is a dichotomy. And I those cars, the people who have more land get more representation.
And of course you want to see California's power trained: you're a Republican and the Republican solution to just about everything is to try to gerrymander the fuck out of things so they get far more representation than the numbers warrant.
Democracy: an idea so good we should keep it out of the hands of those Californian communist SJWs because they keep voting all wrong and getting left wing cooties all over mah guns.
You erroneously believe that democracy automatically means majoritarianism.
On the other hand you seem to be advocating that people living with lots of empty land around them ought to have vastly more influence than town dwellers presumably because you live there and like having an excess of power.
No it isn't. If ten people live on a forested mountain, the one hundred people in the town in the next valley should not be able to vote to deforest the mountain.
Not only that, the 10 people on the forest should be able to vote to stop the 1000 people in the town from letting gay people marry and chipping in together for healthcare because the 1000 people in the town are basicaly SJW commnuists and don't really count as proper Americans anyway.
I see, so the USs high expentiture on health failing to actually help the majority of the population is... Europe's fault. With that attitude, it's not surprising that the helthcare problem in the US continues.
I did, that's how I know you have no idea what it means.
So cute!!
Blah blah citation needed bro.
Lol OK, you odn't know what "shill" means then.
I don't "invent definitions"
You clearly do. You claim to do it from example, but then you are very sleective with your examples.
Islam advocates killing homosexuals and apostates.
All the Abrahamic religious texts do. That doesn't mean all their followers do.
If say "I'm a Muslim and my religion teaches that atheists/apostates/homosexuals should be killed.", I risk getting slammed with an anti-discrimination lawsuit if I refuse to serve you.
Technically you risk a lawsuit for simply existing: anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. Whether it has merit or not... I've never heard of someone being successfully sued for refusing service to someone beig homophobic.
So pics or it didn't happen.
Not wasteful, it's the arm of the Liberal Conspiracy which pays for shills to trigger right wingers on the internet. You know we exist: you already accused someone for being a shill for triggering you.
Nothing new about it: progressives favor strict regulations and laws in order to accomplish "progress".
Like I said progrssives (for my own private definition) rarely weigh more than 35 grams and are covered in warm fur. If you invent your own private definitions you sound silly.
But some protected classes advocate murder,
So, er gender advoctes murder? Or do you mean religion advocates murder? perhaps you mean skin colour advocates murder?
here's a free clue: protected class is about a trait not an instance of that trait.
I'll be getting my bonus too! Thatks, you're paying for my kids through college.
Are you kidding? Progressives love through people in prison.
I mean sure, if you invent a new meaning for progressives then you can say that. Progressives are delicious too as it happens. Also progresives can fly higher than most other birds.
As a gay man, I can't even refuse to serve people who preach that I should be killed.
Advocacy of murder is not as far as I can tell a protected class.
Shill -2
As a more senior member of the liberal consipracy, I can assure you he'll recieve double the usual pay rate for his exceptionally rapid triggering of you.
So Republicans are the only ones left that truly believe in liberal Western values.
No that's bullshit. Just because something is impossible to define perfectly (like life, for example) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And just because you are not in favour of it being banned also does not mean it doesn't exist.
Your arguments sound exactly like a tired retread of some of the some senator wants to ban internet pornography arguments here from a decade ago. Every time someone would ty t oclaim it basically didn't exist becuase it couldn't be defined with perfect accuracy.
That's as much bullshit now as it was then.
If you want to argue it shouldn't be banned, go ahead, you'll get a pretty receptive audience.
If you want to argue that a company should be obligated to host it go ahead, and you'll get a less receptive argument.
If you want to try to pretend it doesn't exist, go ahead but all you'l succeed in doing is looking foolish.
I guess I will be voting Republican from now on then.
Yes we already knew that.
Several songs from DJ Snake, Drake, Katy Perry, Selena Gomez, Shakira, and Taylor Swift have also been either deleted
Haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate.
Also, it would seem to better explain what we actually observed with the extinction event being discussed than the hypothesis put forward by the submitted article: All of the creatures far beyond a particular weight of around 20,000 lbs completely disappeared, and it would seem that of the creatures that did survive, they became considerably smaller. That's more-or-less precisely what one would expect if gravity was to suddenly change.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We know about gravity from physics, and the laws of gravitation have been measured to the finest accuracy of measurements we can make. Not only that but we can literally see back in time billions of years because light is slow compared to the size of the universe.
You are weighing up the most accurate and thoroughly verified physics agains a hypothesis for which there are plenty of other, more plausible alternatives.
That's more-or-less precisely what one would expect if gravity was to suddenly change.
Sauropods couldn't chew, which likely speaks to a very inefficient digestion system. Coupled with the lack of angiosperms which means here were none of the modern soft, fast growng, easily digestible plants means they likely needed vast bulk to be effective herbivoes.
Being that big comes with huge disadvantages, such as a very long time until sexual maturity and an anatomy designed to supprot large sizes is not very survivable at small ones (the eggs were a mere 5 litres or so). Also, the advanced forms of thermoregulation, i.e. fur, feathers and scales were not there for most of them and sheer bulk allows the maintainance of a reasonable body temperature without excessive energy expenditure because of the square cube law. The feathered dinosaurs at the time were much smaller as far as we know.
Contrast to now: a modern ruminant or even hing gut fermenter with fur and sweat glands (think cow or horse) can maintian a very high metabolic rate for and extended period in a wide variety of conditions. They eat primarily realtively easily digestible grasses and soft leaves, not these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycad) incredibly tough things. Now, the advantages of vast size are very much outweighted by the disadvantages.
Many of those arguments apply to other dinosaurs as well. It's hard to know precisely how dinosaur digestion worked, but based on the morphology we know, the basal digestion systems were very primitive.
As for how the very big flying ones flew... I have personally flown a K21 (wingspan of 17m and a gross weight of around half a ton) for many hours at a time without any engine at all.
The think that distinguished pterasaurs from birds is the arrangement of the wings means they can use the flight muscles to jump as well.
and there would seem to not be any explanation for how former dinosaurs could (1) weigh so much; (2) fly at such large weights; and (3) have such long necks.
None of those things are outside the realms of possibility.
Hobbyist electronics in general has become more about downloading "sketches" and plugging pre-made "shields" into an Arduino than actually hacking hardware.
Arduinos are bloody awesome for hacking, with or without shields. I own a license for IAR embedded (costs about $2000) and yet I still reach for the Arduino with it's little sketches for all the odd jobs. Yes, I know how to load C++ on directly. Yes I have done that, but I still use tha arduino as intended most often.
Nope, wrong. The answer is because the world has changed.
No, the answer really is google. Here is the evidence:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Da...
This has nothing to do with Google
Except for the bit where google bought the place they're renting and they have to leave.
Um OK...