Only if you reject the concept, that taxes are your due share in being part of a society you profit from.
There is also a difference between possession and ownership: You earn a certain amount of money and possess it. The taxes are your dues, the rest is what you own.
I am missing any reference to mesh networking in the announcement. Come one, it feels like it has been already been decades, that mesh networking is supposed to come with the next release.
> Because of patriarchy, males are the dominant gender, and therefore it is not possible to be sexist against them. Somehow, they managed to make females the minority, even though there's more females than males. This applies similarly to race and sexuality.
You make it out as if it is a man against women thing, which it is not. It is about a society, which has internalised a male dominant role. Strangely enough, that does include women.
Many men profit from that, but also some men suffer from the very same system too. If you are a geek, and were looked down upon in school, because you were not the strong alpha male sporty man, then you have experienced part of that. Except that now, if you are working as a tech, earning a fair salary, you fit into the expectations again. Or If you are a father, who does want to parent your children instead of leaving it to your wife, then you experience it most likely too.
And that pressure, which is placed on you to conform to expected roles in society is coming from women and men, from your friends and family. No one is putting a gun to your breast, but you will hear more likely critical comments, instead of hearing support as when you confirm your "expected role"
Personally, I think that is worth changing, because I do not like experiencing that, and I do not want others experience more extreme forms of prejudice
and that having more diversity in deciding positions (and others too) is a necessary part of breaking those prejudices.
I would say, in that regard, he has good staff. They said, they acted on their own. As the record stands, Sanders can rightfully claim innocence in the matter, and they would possibly take all the blame, if it goes wrong.
If you are running into that issue often, consider the Pimpl-pattern.
As always, C++ doesn't take the decision away from you. If you cannot live with the overhead in runtime from one pointer indirection, you have to live with the other downside.
From my standpoint and experience, most compile time issues were due to people putting things into the headers out of convenience. In order to save some forward declarations or pimpl implementations, things were put into the header, which caused constant recompiles,and long compile times.
Also the same article states that * they were not targeting either officials, but the party they were happening to call. * and were ordered to delete the records, as soon as the involved parties were identified.
Sounds not quite like hiring a double-agent from an allied secret service.
Even if would take your explanation, what kind of mindset would shorten "this lousy excuse for a science" to "science"?
> On the other hand, the entire Heartland anti-AGW fund is smaller than the one bribe, er, "grant" paid to one NASA administrator, and a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the various government pro-AGW propaganda expenditures.
Taking into account the amount of factual results produce, I would say, the Heartland Institute receives a disproportionate amount of money.
Science, it works in the sense, that for example, that it allows us to produce rockets, which got us to the moon. If the Heartland Institute produces something similar, then I would consider it putting it in the same league as a single NASA administrator.
Renaming is O(filename), usually a single table entry. Deleting is probably more along the lines of O(filesize). You have to keep track of the free blocks, too.
With the same application mix, an even distribution of load is not a good sign: You have to wake the sleeping CPUs more often, so they can't switch them to a deeper sleep mode, and probably, the scheduler is switching the threads between processors, which means more cache misses.
So, the load graph alone is not a good indicator. Of course, that doesn't make your observation any less valid.
Exactly for that reason, proving is done by deductive reasoning, not by testing. You are working on a different abstraction level.
For proving, the number of variables or configurations are not a sensible measure of complexity. There are seemingly simple equations, which haven't been proven for decades or even centuries, and there are equations with an infinite number of scalars, which can take an infinite number of values, which are well understood and proven from several different angles and used by undergrad students every day.
The same way it doesn't "take 100 years to" write code, which takes "every possible code path and input" in account, it doesn't take it to verify it. Discovering an algorithm might take 100 years, but not writing the code. Those are separate problems and usually one does the first, not the latter. Especially not in the cited case.
Writing correct code is about implementing an algorithm, which already considers "every possible code path and input" and implementing it correctly. Software verification is purely checking, whether the written code matches the algorithm is tedious and time-consuming and error prone in itself, but only takes a simple factor more time, which it took to write the code. Automated verification is a totally different beast, because there is provably no algorithm for it.
To my understanding, that is the quintessence of the Gödel incompleteness theorems: There are things, which are intractable for automated systems, which aren't for humans.
The size of the "solution space" is mainly important for testing, which seemed to have failed in the cited case.
Some things may be over-engineered. But in my experience, more often it is the case, that people rather re-invent the wheel, than they bother to try to understand, what someone else has done, and how it is supposed to work. And over time, it will bite. Usually not the one who wrote the code, because that person is gone, but the project in whole. And no, I don't see a difference in "own code" and foreign libraries, from a "long" term perspective, it is the same.
> I don't see any reason, why the version would have to change in the middle of a file in any case.
It is probably not due to the fact, that the version might change in the middle of the file, but in case, you only have a part of the file. This makes it more robust, and better suitable for streaming: You can simply start sending from an arbitrary position, and the parser should be able to recover at some point.
Not really. Event driven programming is more about decoupling caller and callee than responsiveness. So, instead of calling the handler directly by function call it either get routed through a message loop, or is fired over a delegate. Just try to handle a complex function in such a handler, and look how responsive the GUI remains. It will become dead. Yes, you can work around it, by loading of the code to OnIdle or Timer event, but that is essentially a poor-man's multi-threading, as now you have to break down your code in smaller interrupt-able chunks yourself. Hence, the standard approach suggested in API documentation is: Use a worker thread.
Yes, you are right, why doesn't the porn industry get the same subventions as the crop industry. How dares the executive to set priorities, instead of spreading the money equally amongst men.
Those sections are referring to disclosure, not "acquiring" information. As paragraph (c) points out, illegal acquired information is not covered.
> Here you go.
Well, that is fairly damning and hardly a moment of glory for the people involved. I have to give you that point. But fortunately, I can still retreat to ad hominem.
> > Which requirements of the FOIA have they supposedly been trying to circumvent?
> The emails referenced in the above link are subject to FOIA requests. Deleting them is a felony.
You keep re-iterating it. I fail to see it written in law.
> Given the title of the leaked file, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the whistleblower was tasked with complying with an FOIA request, and when that request was denied leaked the information compiled to comply with it anyways. And quite rightly so, both as a matter of honour and a matter of law.
Hardly, because if the request was denied, they are de jure not subject to FOIA request. So it is not within his rights to release the mail. That is why the police is investigating that person, instead of the scientists.
Actually, no. Simply thought experiment: What would happen, if you requested your professors correspondence? Personal communications are exempt under Section II, 40, as they are protected by the Data Protection Act 1998, which overrules FOIA as explicitly stated in several places.
Let me reiterate, the FOIA is a personal right in your relation to a public authority, not a person. There is no contradiction in the fact, that a public authority is composed by private persons, it simply makes it more difficult to separate those to.
Strangely enough, the BBC refers to i stolen. The police has been informed and is investigating. Unless you can point out, under which law such an action is legal, my point still stands.
> In fact, *not* revealing it would be a crime!
Hardly, there is no legal requirement to publish ones personal communication, unless there is a court order.
> There is quite clear evidence [...]
I can only reiterate my wish for actual facts, instead of half-baked assertion.
> evade the requirements of the FOIA
Which requirements of the FOIA have they supposedly been trying to circumvent?
> that is a felonious activity, to conceal your knowledge of it is the crime of misprision.
The FOIA is a law pertaining the legal rights of a person in relation to a public authority. I am intrigued, where you derive the legal framework from for judging a person working there. Enlighten me, by pointing out the name of the passed law, and the section.
Even if it were a crime, you seem to claim that the persons in questions are the perpetrators, which in turn would make not publishing it not a crime. The right against self-incrimination is fairly well established.
> Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.
Those, as you called them, "warmers" are actually scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals. Despite the illegal and unethical breach of their private communication, no new facts concerning data and/or methods have been unveiled, only adding further to the list of ad hominem attacks.
Concerning the effect of assumed counter-measurements against climate change, I am astonished, that you can claim to know the economical impact, as at least to my knowledge, economic models are several orders less reliable than climate models, as recent events may indicate.
Care to share your insight, which seems to exceed that of the tree huggers at McKinsey's?
> But once the scientist sees himself as a politician, it is far too easy for ego and self-interest to blind them to what they should be observing, instead of what they wish to observe.
Sorry, that is only an ad hominem argument. A scientist is always challenged by that problem, regardless whether one is politically active or not: You can try to leave out important data to make your methods look more successful or your results more exciting. It happened in the past even if it was not the topic of current events in probably any scientific field.
And why do we know about it? Because other people will scrutinise the results, and the higher the impact of the results, the more scrutinising people will be.
Finally: I'd argue all went down, when people left politics to the politicians. Since when did it become unappropriate for educated persons to act for a change in the field they are actually experts in. Leave it to the politician, yeah, great idea.
> not a big fat swastika but some more obscure symbols. [...] > I know I wouldn't stand for it. I recognize the horrors of my own country and we will forever keep things like slavery and repression in general in front and center of our attention -- a mandatory history lesson -- so that we never repeat those mistakes.
Actually, it was a Swastika. The SS insignia are hardly obscure, especially to Germans, because they learned about those symbols in school in mandatory history lessons, which you so kindly suggested.
May I point out a certain point of the law, which might have slipped your eye:
(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.
> Quite simply the USA's Founding Fathers didn't mean for "general welfare" to be used to get around the limits of the Constitution.
The USA's founding fathers are hardly homogeneous bunch of people, which almost makes "what the founding fathers meant" almost a moot point, especially if you simply refer to one or two people. For the moment, let's disregard that and have a look at your quotes.
The problem is, we were arguing about what the limitations of the Constitution are. Thomas Jefferson's only states, that universal rights granted in the constitution should not be constructed to circumvent specific limits imposed. For example, signing an international treaty, which abolishes Habeas corpus. The spending and taxing clause, however, is a fairly specific clause, it states how the Congress may attain money, and for what reasons. So, can you provide a similar specific law, which actually limits congress from enacting such a law?
From my understanding, James Madison is not arguing against general welfare, or levying taxes for that purpose, but the actual execution of welfare through the federal level:
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare [...]
Congress is not actually meant to spend the money directly, without check and balances. Probably, from his point of view, the states should take care of the actual spending. But he is actually one of the people, which were for a more limiting meaning of the law. For a different point of view, may I refer to Alexander Hamilton.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if you reject the concept, that taxes are your due share in being part of a society you profit from.
There is also a difference between possession and ownership: You earn a certain amount of money and possess it. The taxes are your dues, the rest is what you own.
I am missing any reference to mesh networking in the announcement. Come one, it feels like it has been already been decades, that mesh networking is supposed to come with the next release.
> Because of patriarchy, males are the dominant gender, and therefore it is not possible to be sexist against them. Somehow, they managed to make females the minority, even though there's more females than males. This applies similarly to race and sexuality.
You make it out as if it is a man against women thing, which it is not. It is about a society, which has internalised a male dominant role. Strangely enough, that does include women.
Many men profit from that, but also some men suffer from the very same system too. If you are a geek, and were looked down upon in school, because you were not the strong alpha male sporty man, then you have experienced part of that. Except that now, if you are working as a tech, earning a fair salary, you fit into the expectations again. Or If you are a father, who does want to parent your children instead of leaving it to your wife, then you experience it most likely too.
And that pressure, which is placed on you to conform to expected roles in society is coming from women and men, from your friends and family. No one is putting a gun to your breast, but you will hear more likely critical comments, instead of hearing support as when you confirm your "expected role"
Personally, I think that is worth changing, because I do not like experiencing that, and I do not want others experience more extreme forms of prejudice
and that having more diversity in deciding positions (and others too) is a necessary part of breaking those prejudices.
> If that's the case, maybe it's the women that need to change?
So are you saying, men don't?
I do not see quite the logic conclusion from your first sentence. I would see, that men and women (society) has to change.
I would say, in that regard, he has good staff. They said, they acted on their own. As the record stands, Sanders can rightfully claim innocence in the matter, and they would possibly take all the blame, if it goes wrong.
If you are running into that issue often, consider the Pimpl-pattern.
As always, C++ doesn't take the decision away from you. If you cannot live with the overhead in runtime from one pointer indirection, you have to live with the other downside.
From my standpoint and experience, most compile time issues were due to people putting things into the headers out of convenience.
In order to save some forward declarations or pimpl implementations, things were put into the header, which caused constant recompiles,and long compile times.
If the Paris attacks happened every month in France, then the rate of homocides through guns would still be lower than the one in the US.
Also the same article states that
* they were not targeting either officials, but the party they were happening to call.
* and were ordered to delete the records, as soon as the involved parties were identified.
Sounds not quite like hiring a double-agent from an allied secret service.
Even if would take your explanation, what kind of mindset would shorten "this lousy excuse for a science" to "science"?
> On the other hand, the entire Heartland anti-AGW fund is smaller than the one bribe, er, "grant" paid to one NASA administrator, and a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the various government pro-AGW propaganda expenditures.
Taking into account the amount of factual results produce, I would say, the Heartland Institute receives a disproportionate amount of money.
Science, it works in the sense, that for example, that it allows us to produce rockets, which got us to the moon.
If the Heartland Institute produces something similar, then I would consider it putting it in the same league as a single NASA administrator.
Renaming is O(filename), usually a single table entry. Deleting is probably more along the lines of O(filesize).
You have to keep track of the free blocks, too.
With the same application mix, an even distribution of load is not a good sign: You have to wake the sleeping CPUs more often, so they can't switch them to a deeper sleep mode, and probably, the scheduler is switching the threads between processors, which means more cache misses.
So, the load graph alone is not a good indicator. Of course, that doesn't make your observation any less valid.
Exactly for that reason, proving is done by deductive reasoning, not by testing.
You are working on a different abstraction level.
For proving, the number of variables or configurations are not a sensible measure of complexity.
There are seemingly simple equations, which haven't been proven for decades or even centuries,
and there are equations with an infinite number of scalars, which can take an infinite number of values,
which are well understood and proven from several different angles and used by undergrad students every day.
The same way it doesn't "take 100 years to" write code, which takes "every possible code path and input" in account,
it doesn't take it to verify it. Discovering an algorithm might take 100 years, but not writing the code.
Those are separate problems and usually one does the first, not the latter. Especially not in the cited case.
Writing correct code is about implementing an algorithm, which already considers "every possible code path and input"
and implementing it correctly. Software verification is purely checking, whether the written code matches the algorithm
is tedious and time-consuming and error prone in itself, but only takes a simple factor more time, which it took to write the code.
Automated verification is a totally different beast, because there is provably no algorithm for it.
To my understanding, that is the quintessence of the Gödel incompleteness theorems:
There are things, which are intractable for automated systems, which aren't for humans.
The size of the "solution space" is mainly important for testing, which seemed to have failed in the cited case.
> Most problems in automatic verification are either undecidable, or intractable.
Who was speaking of automatic verification?
Some things may be over-engineered. But in my experience, more often it is the case, that people rather re-invent the wheel,
than they bother to try to understand, what someone else has done, and how it is supposed to work.
And over time, it will bite. Usually not the one who wrote the code, because that person is gone, but the project in whole.
And no, I don't see a difference in "own code" and foreign libraries, from a "long" term perspective, it is the same.
> I don't see any reason, why the version would have to change in the middle of a file in any case.
It is probably not due to the fact, that the version might change in the middle of the file, but in case, you only have a part of the file.
This makes it more robust, and better suitable for streaming: You can simply start sending from an arbitrary position, and the parser should
be able to recover at some point.
Not really. Event driven programming is more about decoupling caller and callee than responsiveness. So, instead of calling the handler directly by function call it either get
routed through a message loop, or is fired over a delegate. Just try to handle a complex function in such a handler, and look how responsive the GUI remains. It will become dead.
Yes, you can work around it, by loading of the code to OnIdle or Timer event, but that is essentially a poor-man's multi-threading, as now you have to break down
your code in smaller interrupt-able chunks yourself. Hence, the standard approach suggested in API documentation is: Use a worker thread.
Yes, you are right, why doesn't the porn industry get the same subventions as the crop industry.
How dares the executive to set priorities, instead of spreading the money equally amongst men.
Maybe equal protection has nothing to do with it?
> Both 43B (1) (a) and (b) are applicable.
Those sections are referring to disclosure, not "acquiring" information. As paragraph (c) points out, illegal acquired information is not
covered.
> Here you go.
Well, that is fairly damning and hardly a moment of glory for the people involved. I have to give you that point.
But fortunately, I can still retreat to ad hominem.
> > Which requirements of the FOIA have they supposedly been trying to circumvent?
> The emails referenced in the above link are subject to FOIA requests. Deleting them is a felony.
You keep re-iterating it. I fail to see it written in law.
> Given the title of the leaked file, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the whistleblower was tasked with complying with an FOIA request, and when that request was denied leaked the information compiled to comply with it anyways. And quite rightly so, both as a matter of honour and a matter of law.
Hardly, because if the request was denied, they are de jure not subject to FOIA request.
So it is not within his rights to release the mail. That is why the police is investigating that person, instead of the scientists.
Actually, no. Simply thought experiment: What would happen, if you requested your professors correspondence?
Personal communications are exempt under Section II, 40, as they are protected by the Data Protection Act 1998,
which overrules FOIA as explicitly stated in several places.
Let me reiterate, the FOIA is a personal right in your relation to a public authority, not a person.
There is no contradiction in the fact, that a public authority is composed by private persons, it simply makes it more difficult to
separate those to.
> Actually, it was neither.
Strangely enough, the BBC refers to i stolen. The police has been informed and is investigating. Unless you can point out, under which law such an action is legal, my point still stands.
> In fact, *not* revealing it would be a crime!
Hardly, there is no legal requirement to publish ones personal communication, unless there is a court order.
> There is quite clear evidence [...]
I can only reiterate my wish for actual facts, instead of half-baked assertion.
> evade the requirements of the FOIA
Which requirements of the FOIA have they supposedly been trying to circumvent?
> that is a felonious activity, to conceal your knowledge of it is the crime of misprision.
The FOIA is a law pertaining the legal rights of a person in relation to a public authority. I am intrigued, where you derive the legal framework from for judging a person working there. Enlighten me, by pointing out the name of the passed law, and the section.
Even if it were a crime, you seem to claim that the persons in questions are the perpetrators, which in turn would make not publishing it not a crime. The right against self-incrimination is fairly well established.
I followed you up to this point:
> Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.
Those, as you called them, "warmers" are actually scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals. Despite the illegal and unethical breach of their private communication, no new facts concerning data and/or methods have been unveiled, only adding further to the list of ad hominem attacks.
Concerning the effect of assumed counter-measurements against climate change, I am astonished, that you can claim to know the economical impact, as at least to my knowledge, economic models are several orders less reliable than climate models, as recent events may indicate.
Care to share your insight, which seems to exceed that of the tree huggers at McKinsey's?
> But once the scientist sees himself as a politician, it is far too easy for ego and self-interest to blind them to what they should be observing, instead of what they wish to observe.
Sorry, that is only an ad hominem argument.
A scientist is always challenged by that problem, regardless whether one is politically active or not:
You can try to leave out important data to make your methods look more successful or your results more exciting.
It happened in the past even if it was not the topic of current events in probably any scientific field.
And why do we know about it? Because other people will scrutinise the results, and the higher the impact of the results, the more scrutinising people will be.
Finally: I'd argue all went down, when people left politics to the politicians.
Since when did it become unappropriate for educated persons to act for a change in the field they are actually experts in.
Leave it to the politician, yeah, great idea.
> not a big fat swastika but some more obscure symbols. [...]
> I know I wouldn't stand for it. I recognize the horrors of my own country and we will forever keep things like slavery and repression in general in front and center of our attention -- a mandatory history lesson -- so that we never repeat those mistakes.
Actually, it was a Swastika.
The SS insignia are hardly obscure, especially to Germans, because they learned about those symbols in school in mandatory history lessons, which you so kindly suggested.
May I point out a certain point of the law, which might have slipped your eye:
> Quite simply the USA's Founding Fathers didn't mean for "general welfare" to be used to get around the limits of the Constitution.
The USA's founding fathers are hardly homogeneous bunch of people, which almost makes "what the founding fathers meant" almost a moot point, especially if you simply refer to one or two people.
For the moment, let's disregard that and have a look at your quotes.
The problem is, we were arguing about what the limitations of the Constitution are. Thomas Jefferson's only states, that universal rights granted in the constitution should not be constructed to circumvent specific limits imposed. For example, signing an international treaty, which abolishes Habeas corpus. The spending and taxing clause, however, is a fairly specific clause, it states how the Congress may attain money, and for what reasons. So, can you provide a similar specific law, which actually limits congress from enacting such a law?
From my understanding, James Madison is not arguing against general welfare, or levying taxes for that purpose, but the actual execution of welfare through the federal level:
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare [...]
Congress is not actually meant to spend the money directly, without check and balances. Probably, from his point of view, the states should take care of the actual spending.
But he is actually one of the people, which were for a more limiting meaning of the law. For a different point of view, may I refer to Alexander Hamilton.