That summary is utterly meaningless without a scale factor.
In that case you'll want to look at the far right hand column. It lists bird deaths per GWh. Now: what is your preferred source of power. Nuclear? That kills 1.5 times as many birds as wind power. Or fossil fuel? Twenty times as many.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning so let me paraphrase: There were no clean coal plants in 2008, therefore these folks shouldn't even try.
I get it that the old gasification and flue cleaning efforts are proving to be duds. But Ohio State's effort is not so much an ill-conceived megaproject trumpeted by vested interests, than it is good basic science.
It is hard to make an accurate progress bar because it shouldn't be a bar at all - it should be a graph.
Consider the humble download: bytewise, it might be 97 percent complete, but at the last moment, the bps rate has fallen.
With a progress bar indicating a percentage and an estimated time, it might say 97% complete, 3 seconds to go.
If the progress indicator was a graph, you could tell that the bps rate has fallen, and that the 3 seconds to go estimate (probably based on a linear extrapolation of progress to date) does not apply.
I have never seen it done though. Partly, because I have never done it.
Although there seems to be some overlap between the era of scientists answering really tough questions, and the era of journalists asking really dumb questions.
What do code wizards have to do with debugging? I thought they were for coding, and my experience with them has been rather unpleasant.
Some years ago, a Windows/COM expert showed me how to add a method to an interface using a Visual C++ wizard. We went into a labyrinth of dialog boxes, setting properties and meticulously adding each and every parameter and type. At the end, I ran cvs diff to find it had added one line to the program:
We then had to run a different wizard to add a corresponding method to a subclass. After all that, we ended up with three copies of the interface. Oh! And, they had to be in the same order, because whereas DLL COM uses ordinary name linkage, interprocess COM uses numbers to identify methods. I eventually boiled down the number of copies to two.
as a programmer myself, when coding something and a harmless and not completely unexpected input occurs, your program shouldn't crash, due to any reason, asserts included. Such a failure is sign of nothing but lazy programming and even lazier unit testing.
Whoa there!
1. Don't worry about the harmless. WORRY about the HARMFUL
2. Don't worry about the "not completely unexpected". That is, of course, the expected. WORRY about the UNEXPECTED
3. "your program shouldn't crash"... thank you Capt'n Obvious. Now quick: think of three things a program can do that are worse than crashing.
Bzzzt. Time's up. Did you get: (1) Have exploitable security flaws; (2) Corrupt or delete data; (3) Hang or livelock. There are others.
Login first... That's an increasingly common request. But frankly, I don't understand it. Why do you say that? I see several problems:
1. You can't mod up a login.
2. You can mod up an anonymous post. And, doing so may be good for the/. readership.
3. Maybe one of the following is going on: AC doesn't have an account / AC doesn't want an account / has his own mod points / would prefer to post anonymously this time only / just doesn't play the karma game.
Isnt this the group that was funded by the Koch brothers and hand picked with denialist?
Muller was rather more of a skeptic than a denialist.
I'm not aware of David and Charle's Koch specific opinions on the BEST results, but in the denialist blogosphere, Muller and BEST went from white knights to treacherous scum overnight. Compare Anthony Watt's comments before the announcements:
I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing... I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.
And still, he hasn’t published anything and his papers have not passed peer review, but the political apparatchik wants to showcase the incomplete and rushed, non quality controlled, error riddled BEST science as if it were factual enough to kill off “denialism” worldwide. That’s political desperation in my opinion.
An impressive number of interrelated questions for an Ask Slashdot! Let's start by dispensing with the red herring that a bewildering
number of commenters have seized on: commenting out code versus deleting code. If you have source control, then from
a point of view of history as well as a point of view of executable / deliverable, commenting
out code is exactly the same as deleting code.
Right! Now for your questions:
The answers may be somewhat language-dependent...
1. No, there is no language dependency.
What best practices do/.'s use when they modify production code?
2. (For beginners) Don't.
3. (For experts only!) Before it goes to production, test your code or (better) have someone else test your code.
4. If it is a complete crock of shift, rewrite it.
5. If it is only mostly shit with some gems mixed in, refactor it instead.
Generally-accepted best-practice documents regarding code deletion / What are the unwritten rules of deleting code?
This is a special case of code modification, with a large number of possible reasons why it might be the right thing to do:
6. If it is not linked in, delete it.
7. If it is never called, delete it.
8. If it has conditions that are never met, delete it.
9. If it has no purpose, worth or value, delete it.
10. If it has too little purpose, worth or value compared to the cost of maintenance it imposes, delete it.
11. If it is performance code and it has no associated performance test, it has too little purpose: see point 10.
12. If you change your mind, put it back.
13. If your fellow programmer objects, then state your reasoning, but give them permission to put it back.
It's a Microsoft device. It was designed to run Win RT. This is quite clearly marked on the box and the device itself.
Correction: It was designed to not run Linux or BSD or anything Microsoft can't charge for. Secure Boot is doublespeak for Secure Cashflow.
No, instead, we're going to dump all our time and effort into making a device that was NEVER DESIGNED TO RUN LINUX, well, run Linux.
Well, I won't. Clearly you won't. But someone will try, and history (IOS jailbreaking, console modding) suggests they might succeed. But in general, I suspect people are going to avoid this device in droves.
This is almost as stupid as buying an iPad or iPhone and attempting to run Android on it.
Actually Microsoft selling these this is stupider than Apple selling a locked down iPad for three reasons: (1) Microsoft don't have the industrial design skills of Apple; (2) Microsoft don't have the good will / fanboism of Apple, and (3) every locked down design that Apple produces gets jailbroken anyway.
Mobile equipment like this is marketed and sold as an end-to-end solution... If you want a tablet to run Linux on, buy a tablet that runs Linux... No shit Microsoft has locked the thing up, they're subsidizing the damned hardware by assuming that you'll run Windows on it and buy applications through the Windows App Store.
As a potential buyer, I don't give a flying fuck how it is marketed or sold. As a potential buyer, I only care what I can do with it. And with it's current feature set, at it's current price, OS locked... I'd much rather buy a Linux or Android tablet than a Microsoft Surface.
Slashdot Mirror
That summary is utterly meaningless without a scale factor.
In that case you'll want to look at the far right hand column. It lists bird deaths per GWh. Now: what is your preferred source of power. Nuclear? That kills 1.5 times as many birds as wind power. Or fossil fuel? Twenty times as many.
No no. Jeff Cogswell first man ever whip MongoDB. MongoDB impressed.
Actually capturing is the key. A carbon capturing plant is always going to be less efficient than a non-capturing plant. Try looking at it this way:
36.43% Non-capturing plant
29.14% Post-combustion capturing plant (36.43/1.25)
33.93% This thing
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning so let me paraphrase: There were no clean coal plants in 2008, therefore these folks shouldn't even try.
I get it that the old gasification and flue cleaning efforts are proving to be duds. But Ohio State's effort is not so much an ill-conceived megaproject trumpeted by vested interests, than it is good basic science.
It's crap all right. Not enough Bothans died to bring us this information.
Because proving there is a creator still doesn't mean you can tell me how to live my life.
Careful. IDers absolutely DO want to make science teachers teach shit.
Holy crap, there it is: http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3456137&cid=42879657. Thank you, PlusFiveTroll!!! Thank you Windows 8!!!
It is hard to make an accurate progress bar because it shouldn't be a bar at all - it should be a graph.
Consider the humble download: bytewise, it might be 97 percent complete, but at the last moment, the bps rate has fallen. With a progress bar indicating a percentage and an estimated time, it might say 97% complete, 3 seconds to go. If the progress indicator was a graph, you could tell that the bps rate has fallen, and that the 3 seconds to go estimate (probably based on a linear extrapolation of progress to date) does not apply.
I have never seen it done though. Partly, because I have never done it.
weary of ...
To tired to change your spell checker?
Too weary to check your dictionary?
The author would like to thank J. E. Karlin for his advice in conducting the latter phases of the program and in writing this report.
Nup. No way. Not with the name 'Lernstift'.
Although there seems to be some overlap between the era of scientists answering really tough questions, and the era of journalists asking really dumb questions.
What do code wizards have to do with debugging? I thought they were for coding, and my experience with them has been rather unpleasant.
Some years ago, a Windows/COM expert showed me how to add a method to an interface using a Visual C++ wizard. We went into a labyrinth of dialog boxes, setting properties and meticulously adding each and every parameter and type. At the end, I ran cvs diff to find it had added one line to the program:
virtual HRESULT STDMETHODCALLTYPE GetSensorStatus(BSTR device, ARGOUT BSTR *status, ARGOUT long *result) = 0;
We then had to run a different wizard to add a corresponding method to a subclass. After all that, we ended up with three copies of the interface. Oh! And, they had to be in the same order, because whereas DLL COM uses ordinary name linkage, interprocess COM uses numbers to identify methods. I eventually boiled down the number of copies to two.
as a programmer myself, when coding something and a harmless and not completely unexpected input occurs, your program shouldn't crash, due to any reason, asserts included. Such a failure is sign of nothing but lazy programming and even lazier unit testing.
Whoa there!
1. Don't worry about the harmless. WORRY about the HARMFUL ... thank you Capt'n Obvious. Now quick: think of three things a program can do that are worse than crashing.
2. Don't worry about the "not completely unexpected". That is, of course, the expected. WORRY about the UNEXPECTED
3. "your program shouldn't crash"
Bzzzt. Time's up. Did you get: (1) Have exploitable security flaws; (2) Corrupt or delete data; (3) Hang or livelock. There are others.
Cheers.
It wouldn't be a bit damning to their case. CBS would simply have to tell the judge "CNet has editorial independence".
The current situation is far more damning.
And yes TFS can scale.
And at US$499 per user Cal, so can its price.
Login first ... That's an increasingly common request. But frankly, I don't understand it. Why do you say that? I see several problems:
1. You can't mod up a login. /. readership.
2. You can mod up an anonymous post. And, doing so may be good for the
3. Maybe one of the following is going on: AC doesn't have an account / AC doesn't want an account / has his own mod points / would prefer to post anonymously this time only / just doesn't play the karma game.
I see it clearly - the new election slogan!
"VOTE LIBERAL. WE'VE GOT YOUR PHOBIA".
Isnt this the group that was funded by the Koch brothers and hand picked with denialist?
Muller was rather more of a skeptic than a denialist.
I'm not aware of David and Charle's Koch specific opinions on the BEST results, but in the denialist blogosphere, Muller and BEST went from white knights to treacherous scum overnight. Compare Anthony Watt's comments before the announcements:
I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing ... I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.
and after:
And still, he hasn’t published anything and his papers have not passed peer review, but the political apparatchik wants to showcase the incomplete and rushed, non quality controlled, error riddled BEST science as if it were factual enough to kill off “denialism” worldwide. That’s political desperation in my opinion.
... as the slashdot moderation control.
I thought Apple was Microsoft Research.
Yes, there are indeed two Microsoft Research centers. Recall that this theft was from Microsoft R&D in Mountain View.
An impressive number of interrelated questions for an Ask Slashdot! Let's start by dispensing with the red herring that a bewildering number of commenters have seized on: commenting out code versus deleting code. If you have source control, then from a point of view of history as well as a point of view of executable / deliverable, commenting out code is exactly the same as deleting code.
Right! Now for your questions:
The answers may be somewhat language-dependent ...
1. No, there is no language dependency.
What best practices do /.'s use when they modify production code?
2. (For beginners) Don't.
3. (For experts only!) Before it goes to production, test your code or (better) have someone else test your code.
Generally-accepted best-practice documents regarding code rewrites.
4. If it is a complete crock of shift, rewrite it.
5. If it is only mostly shit with some gems mixed in, refactor it instead.
Generally-accepted best-practice documents regarding code deletion / What are the unwritten rules of deleting code?
This is a special case of code modification, with a large number of possible reasons why it might be the right thing to do:
6. If it is not linked in, delete it.
7. If it is never called, delete it.
8. If it has conditions that are never met, delete it.
9. If it has no purpose, worth or value, delete it.
10. If it has too little purpose, worth or value compared to the cost of maintenance it imposes, delete it.
11. If it is performance code and it has no associated performance test, it has too little purpose: see point 10.
12. If you change your mind, put it back.
13. If your fellow programmer objects, then state your reasoning, but give them permission to put it back.
Generally-accepted best-practice documents regarding code modification.
14. See point 3 above.
15. If your tester objects, you screwed up mildly.
16. If your user objects, you screwed up badly.
17. Don't screw up badly.
Fascinating story - please post a link.
On second thoughts, make that a hardcopy citation.
So much free time, so little sense:
It's a Microsoft device. It was designed to run Win RT. This is quite clearly marked on the box and the device itself.
Correction: It was designed to not run Linux or BSD or anything Microsoft can't charge for. Secure Boot is doublespeak for Secure Cashflow.
No, instead, we're going to dump all our time and effort into making a device that was NEVER DESIGNED TO RUN LINUX, well, run Linux.
Well, I won't. Clearly you won't. But someone will try, and history (IOS jailbreaking, console modding) suggests they might succeed. But in general, I suspect people are going to avoid this device in droves.
This is almost as stupid as buying an iPad or iPhone and attempting to run Android on it.
Actually Microsoft selling these this is stupider than Apple selling a locked down iPad for three reasons: (1) Microsoft don't have the industrial design skills of Apple; (2) Microsoft don't have the good will / fanboism of Apple, and (3) every locked down design that Apple produces gets jailbroken anyway.
Mobile equipment like this is marketed and sold as an end-to-end solution ... If you want a tablet to run Linux on, buy a tablet that runs Linux ... No shit Microsoft has locked the thing up, they're subsidizing the damned hardware by assuming that you'll run Windows on it and buy applications through the Windows App Store.
As a potential buyer, I don't give a flying fuck how it is marketed or sold. As a potential buyer, I only care what I can do with it. And with it's current feature set, at it's current price, OS locked ... I'd much rather buy a Linux or Android tablet than a Microsoft Surface.
Have a nice day.
I was disappointed to find out this was about computer viruses.
That's nothing. I momentarily thought "Malware - now there's an apt metaphor for rogue DNA".