Science is not a once and for all deal *ever*. So odd thing to claim.
Climate scientists aren't claiming they've solved the problem once and for all. They are saying that they almost all agree on the basics, which includes AGW. Any alternative theory has to explain the data, and there just isn't one. If detractors had a theory, then they'd talk about it. But instead we get conspiratorial talk about "bad science" trying to, for example, settle things "once and for all".
Any disinterested person reading your argument should see through it on a moments reflection, but we don't get many disinterested people on the AGW issue, because it cuts across the moral concerns of small-government conservatism. I really think conservative philosophy is great, but it has been used by "thought shapers" (like Frank Luntz) to make the discussion fundamentally dishonest.
Oh, I remember Jane Q Public -- the poster child for motivated reasoning. Perhaps she should do an abstract study herself, but that would involve reading actual real climate science papers, which would be too much to ask. So back to the righteous indignation, isn't it Jane.
The Flint water crisis was primarily due to the state and the city of Flint being bankrupt.
If the emergency manager didn't squelch the EPA report, or did just a tiny bit of due diligence, then the water situation would be fine, and a *lot* of money would have been saved.
But if you want to blame the water situation on Flint going bankrupt, then you may as well blame the situation on the big bang. Or the fact the human evolved. Or the derivatives trading that led to the financial crisis. Clutch at straws all day. The emergency manager WASTED money, and seriously poisoned a generation of children. Cognitive dissonance doesn't change the facts on the ground.
In the same way that you can do source-level debugging in C/C++, even though it get preprocessed. Coffeescript has features like this for source-level debugging in webbrowers.
That is actually a good point. I'm not sure whether those two larger-than-life personalities could ever team up, but it would stop the Republican party fracturing even as the Republican establishment continues to be jettisoned.
Personally I think Cruz and Trump are both deeply flawed candidates, and hope they fail miserably, because they would make terrible presidents. Cruz on the supreme court would probably energize democrats and centrists in huge numbers too. If you are a Cruz/Trump fan, then you may not fully realize how reviled they are. There is a big risk there.
Obama was quite clear when he said the problem with SCOTUS nominees did not start with one party. He has put for a centrist that conservatives have supported in the past. The GOP will almost certainly loose the presidential election, which means that the next SCOTUS nomination will not be so centrist. Mitch McConnell painted himself into a corner on this one. I think the two parties should have a dialogue about what a good nomination process should look like.
Actually, he may get appointed. He's basically saying to the Senate, pick this guy, or the next candidate is going to be much more liberal. No matter what the Senate does, it will look pretty bad.
I think it is a really smart move. He will say to them: "this is as conservative as you're going to get". Because "do you think Clinton/Sanders will give you some more conservative?" The Cruz or Trump will probably go down with disastrous losses. But it is not guaranteed. So Obama gives them an moderately attractive candidate, and if they refuse, then the next candidate will be less conservative.
In a parliamentary system, one party simply does "rule", and then they get kicked out of office if they screw it up. It cuts a remarkable amount of bullpucky out of politics. Here, in the USA, politicians take advantage of the information-symmetry to play silly-buggers, and then perpetually point the finger at each other. You cannot play that game in a parliamentary system.
Most people believe that men and women should be treated equally, and have equal opportunities. Feminism goes wrong when it turns in to myopic whining about unequal outcomes. Unfortunately this is what much modern feminism has turned in to. It is not about equality at all.
But of course, monopolies created and enforced by local governments are the norm, which is of course the root problem here
The root problem with ISPs is that the cost of infrastructure creates a huge barrier of entry to new players in the market. This means that, in a perfectly free market, a natural monopoly/duopoly will form, and they will engage in rent seeking behavior. The amount of rent will be precisely that which the barrier to entry allows. The bigger the barrier to entry, the larger the rent. Now, think how many billions it costs to lay fibre-optic cable everywhere. There is a strong argument that the pipes should be managed in the same way as electricity, water, and sewage.
Gee... these measures vary continously between A and B. Therefore there is no A and no B./barf. What would be interesting is if there were no way predict sex (greater than chance) from brain structures. That is a strong result. This is just junk dressed up as a strong result, but it isn't strong at all.
Because Julia is compiled into the same bit code that C is compiled into when compiled with the Clang (Apple) compiler. That means no translation necessary for calling to and from C code (and soon C++). When Julia gets slower it is because: (1) the garbage collector is immature, and (2) you are using facilities that simply aren't there in C.
There will be a big "ease of use" benefit to using Julia though. Julia requires to bindings to run C code (and soon C++ code, including all those fancy templates). That's because Julia doesn't suffer the two-language problem that every other language does. Julia types are LLVM types, and C types are LLVM types. Same with function calls. It's so simple and convenient.
Part of the point of Julia is that you don't have to screw around with different libraries to get things working. Ever done matrix manipulations on Matlab? It is incomparable to anything Python and Numpy can provide. But Julia works the same.
No they are not. Python has a two-language problem, for a starters. Also, Python is a pain in the neck for scientific computing, which is my day job, btw. Also Julia is soon to work seamlessly with both C and C++ (like, include header, load library, and execute code without any bindings or nonsense). Julia has the potential to be properly threaded, but is really aimed at being seamlessly multi-process. That mean seamlessly moving data between processes -- even on different computers and networks. This is seriously useful for scientific computing. Julia is much more like Matlab, and Matlab is much, much, much better for scientific computing than python ever can be. Also, Julia should work faster than python once the garbage collector has been updated.
Julia is revolutionary, and I'm looking forward to it blowing away Matlab. All that's really holding it back is a good garbage collector, and mind-share. The language is truly superior, integrates seamlessly with C (like it is the same language -- there is no two-language problem), and soon C++. Could seriously replace C++ for/most/ things if it were multi-threaded. (There is some work on this, but Julia is designed to be multiprocess -- you can seamlessly shift objects between processes, even if they are on different machines. This is better then threads if you're doing scientific computing.) So Julia even has the potential to be better than D. And it runs as fast C (compiled by clang), and comes with the convenience of a REPL, and a truly beautifully designed.
Julia looks a lot like Matlab, and some Matlab code just runs as is, or requires only minor tweaks. Mathworks has long dominated scientific computing with their awkward and expensive -- but otherwise so convenient -- product. Mathworks is screwed.
The minimum wage in Australia is much higher... about $US15 per hour depending on which "accord" (industry) you are in. Having lived and worked in the US, Canada, and Australia, I can attest that minimum wage earners *work* about 4x harder than they do here. You see, hundreds of people line up for jobs that they then try to *keep*, since you earn about $US30k per year on them. (That is about the median US salary.) And the unemployment rate is comparable or lower, and the debt is less, in part because there is less need for social services. (Australia is one of the lower tax OECD countries.)
This situation arose by a law passed in the early 80s that made it illegal for unions to campaign for pay raises without showing an increase in productivity. Businesses, in turn, had to pass on some of the increased earning from productivity gains. All of a sudden, we have unions and businesses on the same page, with unions responsible for their own worker productivity, and the amount of hours-per-year lost from industrial action was an order of magnitude lower than any other OECD country.
Neoliberal economics gets a lot right, but there is a flaw in its theory surrounding labour law. People are not replaceable units, and workers are "sticky", in that they have families and other commitments. This is not true for some industries (like some types of internet work), but it is mostly true. This sets up a very big power differential between businesses and workers, and a type of "prisoners dilemma" where individual businesses act in a way that is helpful to themselves but detrimental to the aggregate.
Corporations used to fund huge research parks as a symbol of prestige. That was between the 50s and 80s, and those days are long gone. Matt Ridley knows a lot about genetics, but otherwise he is an ideological crank.
If you do a PhD in computer science, you may discover that you/cannot/ know too much math. In fact, a math PhD would be a fantasy prerequisite to solving many important problems in computer science.
Slashdot Mirror
Science is not a once and for all deal *ever*. So odd thing to claim.
Climate scientists aren't claiming they've solved the problem once and for all. They are saying that they almost all agree on the basics, which includes AGW. Any alternative theory has to explain the data, and there just isn't one. If detractors had a theory, then they'd talk about it. But instead we get conspiratorial talk about "bad science" trying to, for example, settle things "once and for all".
Any disinterested person reading your argument should see through it on a moments reflection, but we don't get many disinterested people on the AGW issue, because it cuts across the moral concerns of small-government conservatism. I really think conservative philosophy is great, but it has been used by "thought shapers" (like Frank Luntz) to make the discussion fundamentally dishonest.
Oh, I remember Jane Q Public -- the poster child for motivated reasoning. Perhaps she should do an abstract study herself, but that would involve reading actual real climate science papers, which would be too much to ask. So back to the righteous indignation, isn't it Jane.
The Flint water crisis was primarily due to the state and the city of Flint being bankrupt.
If the emergency manager didn't squelch the EPA report, or did just a tiny bit of due diligence, then the water situation would be fine, and a *lot* of money would have been saved.
But if you want to blame the water situation on Flint going bankrupt, then you may as well blame the situation on the big bang. Or the fact the human evolved. Or the derivatives trading that led to the financial crisis. Clutch at straws all day. The emergency manager WASTED money, and seriously poisoned a generation of children. Cognitive dissonance doesn't change the facts on the ground.
In the same way that you can do source-level debugging in C/C++, even though it get preprocessed. Coffeescript has features like this for source-level debugging in webbrowers.
That is actually a good point. I'm not sure whether those two larger-than-life personalities could ever team up, but it would stop the Republican party fracturing even as the Republican establishment continues to be jettisoned.
Personally I think Cruz and Trump are both deeply flawed candidates, and hope they fail miserably, because they would make terrible presidents. Cruz on the supreme court would probably energize democrats and centrists in huge numbers too. If you are a Cruz/Trump fan, then you may not fully realize how reviled they are. There is a big risk there.
Obama was quite clear when he said the problem with SCOTUS nominees did not start with one party. He has put for a centrist that conservatives have supported in the past. The GOP will almost certainly loose the presidential election, which means that the next SCOTUS nomination will not be so centrist. Mitch McConnell painted himself into a corner on this one. I think the two parties should have a dialogue about what a good nomination process should look like.
Actually, he may get appointed. He's basically saying to the Senate, pick this guy, or the next candidate is going to be much more liberal. No matter what the Senate does, it will look pretty bad.
I think it is a really smart move. He will say to them: "this is as conservative as you're going to get". Because "do you think Clinton/Sanders will give you some more conservative?" The Cruz or Trump will probably go down with disastrous losses. But it is not guaranteed. So Obama gives them an moderately attractive candidate, and if they refuse, then the next candidate will be less conservative.
In a parliamentary system, one party simply does "rule", and then they get kicked out of office if they screw it up. It cuts a remarkable amount of bullpucky out of politics. Here, in the USA, politicians take advantage of the information-symmetry to play silly-buggers, and then perpetually point the finger at each other. You cannot play that game in a parliamentary system.
Most people believe that men and women should be treated equally, and have equal opportunities. Feminism goes wrong when it turns in to myopic whining about unequal outcomes. Unfortunately this is what much modern feminism has turned in to. It is not about equality at all.
But of course, monopolies created and enforced by local governments are the norm, which is of course the root problem here
The root problem with ISPs is that the cost of infrastructure creates a huge barrier of entry to new players in the market. This means that, in a perfectly free market, a natural monopoly/duopoly will form, and they will engage in rent seeking behavior. The amount of rent will be precisely that which the barrier to entry allows. The bigger the barrier to entry, the larger the rent. Now, think how many billions it costs to lay fibre-optic cable everywhere. There is a strong argument that the pipes should be managed in the same way as electricity, water, and sewage.
It is a cultural reference
Gee... these measures vary continously between A and B. Therefore there is no A and no B. /barf. What would be interesting is if there were no way predict sex (greater than chance) from brain structures. That is a strong result. This is just junk dressed up as a strong result, but it isn't strong at all.
Because Julia is compiled into the same bit code that C is compiled into when compiled with the Clang (Apple) compiler. That means no translation necessary for calling to and from C code (and soon C++). When Julia gets slower it is because: (1) the garbage collector is immature, and (2) you are using facilities that simply aren't there in C.
There will be a big "ease of use" benefit to using Julia though. Julia requires to bindings to run C code (and soon C++ code, including all those fancy templates). That's because Julia doesn't suffer the two-language problem that every other language does. Julia types are LLVM types, and C types are LLVM types. Same with function calls. It's so simple and convenient.
Part of the point of Julia is that you don't have to screw around with different libraries to get things working. Ever done matrix manipulations on Matlab? It is incomparable to anything Python and Numpy can provide. But Julia works the same.
No they are not. Python has a two-language problem, for a starters. Also, Python is a pain in the neck for scientific computing, which is my day job, btw. Also Julia is soon to work seamlessly with both C and C++ (like, include header, load library, and execute code without any bindings or nonsense). Julia has the potential to be properly threaded, but is really aimed at being seamlessly multi-process. That mean seamlessly moving data between processes -- even on different computers and networks. This is seriously useful for scientific computing. Julia is much more like Matlab, and Matlab is much, much, much better for scientific computing than python ever can be. Also, Julia should work faster than python once the garbage collector has been updated.
Julia is revolutionary, and I'm looking forward to it blowing away Matlab. All that's really holding it back is a good garbage collector, and mind-share. The language is truly superior, integrates seamlessly with C (like it is the same language -- there is no two-language problem), and soon C++. Could seriously replace C++ for /most/ things if it were multi-threaded. (There is some work on this, but Julia is designed to be multiprocess -- you can seamlessly shift objects between processes, even if they are on different machines. This is better then threads if you're doing scientific computing.) So Julia even has the potential to be better than D. And it runs as fast C (compiled by clang), and comes with the convenience of a REPL, and a truly beautifully designed.
Julia looks a lot like Matlab, and some Matlab code just runs as is, or requires only minor tweaks. Mathworks has long dominated scientific computing with their awkward and expensive -- but otherwise so convenient -- product. Mathworks is screwed.
Java/C#/python will never be what Julia is.
The minimum wage in Australia is much higher... about $US15 per hour depending on which "accord" (industry) you are in. Having lived and worked in the US, Canada, and Australia, I can attest that minimum wage earners *work* about 4x harder than they do here. You see, hundreds of people line up for jobs that they then try to *keep*, since you earn about $US30k per year on them. (That is about the median US salary.) And the unemployment rate is comparable or lower, and the debt is less, in part because there is less need for social services. (Australia is one of the lower tax OECD countries.)
This situation arose by a law passed in the early 80s that made it illegal for unions to campaign for pay raises without showing an increase in productivity. Businesses, in turn, had to pass on some of the increased earning from productivity gains. All of a sudden, we have unions and businesses on the same page, with unions responsible for their own worker productivity, and the amount of hours-per-year lost from industrial action was an order of magnitude lower than any other OECD country.
Neoliberal economics gets a lot right, but there is a flaw in its theory surrounding labour law. People are not replaceable units, and workers are "sticky", in that they have families and other commitments. This is not true for some industries (like some types of internet work), but it is mostly true. This sets up a very big power differential between businesses and workers, and a type of "prisoners dilemma" where individual businesses act in a way that is helpful to themselves but detrimental to the aggregate.
Corporations used to fund huge research parks as a symbol of prestige. That was between the 50s and 80s, and those days are long gone. Matt Ridley knows a lot about genetics, but otherwise he is an ideological crank.
If you do a PhD in computer science, you may discover that you /cannot/ know too much math. In fact, a math PhD would be a fantasy prerequisite to solving many important problems in computer science.
Bringing people out of poverty is part of stabilizing the population. True story.
I see, because one thing happened once in one time, then 99% of scientists are wrong about climate change!!! Genius!!!
Infowars: where the crazies on the left circle around to meet the crazies on the right in an orgy of crank-magnet love.
Every rich person who is not arrogant has to be guilt-ridden.
I don't believe that for a second. I guess I've met non-arrogant rich people who are super lovely and moral people.