ROFL, so instead of "The Devil made me do it." the new ridiculous defense will be "My iPad made me do it."
did you even reread your post and notice how stupid it is? Nobody's iProduct tells them what to do. People get them because they do what the user wants it to do. If it doesn't do what you want it to do then don't get one.
I don't think many IPad users really sat down and analysed what they needed, came to the conclusion that the ipad best satisfied that need, and bought it. Oooh shiny is probably more likely:) And I can understand the GP frustration at people giving up freedom for convenience/shinyness/hipness or even functionality. Note that I don't blame anyone, I am merely dissatisfied with the human race's mental faculties;)
Even 15 minutes, even for an infant, would not be enough to cause heat stroke. And the weather you mention is not exactly extreme, just uncomfortable. But seriously, if you really have 15 minutes stoplights (or queues regularly) you should do something about it: build a railroad, more road, something:)
The idea is, as I said, completely broken. By the time this is implemented, most cars do this anyway (many modern car stop the engine completely when standing still, voiding any benefit.)
Are there places in the country where you can freeze to death if your car stops? yes. Are there places in the country where infants can die of heat stroke if your car stops? Yes. those places just don't happen to be in California/NY.
I'm all for ridiculing this idea, but having the A/C turned off for 5 minutes (an unrealistically long light) really should not alter the temperature in the car enough to kill anyone, even an infant, in 5 minutes. Assuming you don't have the A/C on and the windows down, and least;)
Yes, but they don't use ECC or disk scrubbing which is why I would never use them. The random error rate on non-ECC ram is way too high to trust with anything of value let alone SATA drives without background data checks.
Hm, according to wikipedia, the jury is still out on that. The rate of errors has been found to vary several order of magnitudes, giving the figures
roughly one bit error, per hour, per gigabyte of memory to one bit error, per century, per gigabyte of memory.
The only one slightly positive about wp in this thread was the OP, and me, and neither was wikipedian. While of course anyone, you included, could be an Apple fanboy, the fact that noone expressed sentiments such as might come from an Apple fanboy, wikipedians or libertarian, means your epic fail remains high and good:) And there was very little holier than thou in this thread, either, unless you want to go to siblings (and if you wanted this, you replied to the wrong parent). So that would be another fail, though not exactly epic:P
Look, don't take it personally. There are just certain groups, such as wikipedians, libertarians, and Apple fans, that I can't help but troll mercilessly. It's an addiction, but I have not found a self help group for those addicted to offending the easily offended.
Very good. Did you notice that, as far as I can see, there are no wikipedians, libertarians or Apple fans in the above thread? Are you familiar with the term "epic fail"?;)
Mistakes happen over and over again with regularity, and calls to fix these mistakes are met with paranoia and outright hostility. Any normal people were driven out of wikipedia long ago, all that are left are vicious, petty, power hungry control freaks. I don't take it personally, crazy people can't really be held accountable for their craziness. I just don't interact with them.
That is not my experience. I still contribute occasionally (maybe 10 times a year?) and read frequently. But maybe the math+science sections are more sane than whatever you interests are.
A free bit of advice: Almost *any* call for changes and fixes are going to be met with paranoia and outright hostility almost anywhere. Basic fact of life. So if you really want to change something, you either have to learn to insist and be convincing enough to actually convince people, or learn to just do rather than calling out. Or both. If you ever get in a position where you are administering something, you'll learn why hostility and paranoia is almost a sane response to fixes and changes:o)
Clearly. So I guess you're, like, a senior editor?
I'm 35 and I have an account... so maybe?;) Nah, though I did once start an article (on reduced cost in linear programming).
I have had bad experiences on the Danish wikipedia, but in my experience, the english one comes to each sense eventually. Well, at least the science&math section, which is where I occasionally prowl.
Mostly. However, there are 2 central themes: Be positive, and be energetic. That means saying "Good morning!" enthusiastically, and smile. That means going at tasks and problems with a can-do attitude, while of course still (gently) warning when you think it is impossible. Participate at least occasionally in Friday beer or whatever. Do smalltalk, and do it positively. Strive to attack and eliminate sourness and discontent among colleges. Help out as you can.
Read the papers then, and judge yourself. The basics are not very hard to understand, even with a modest background in physics or chemistry. Who cares about Al Gore? Besides, the ocean might at worst raise about 1 meter in 2100. I think Al Gore will be beyond caring by then.
Maybe you are putting too much into a word? Climate sceptics (as I believe they style themselves) do indeed have a streak of denial about them, and thus they easily become climate deniers, senseless as the word is. "Climate believers" is just as bad: it is not a religion, just an (oldish) theory with a small mountain of evidence in support.
But then, I am in the odd category off having read some of it, being convinced that the globe is warming due to increase in carbon dioxide, and not believing we can do anything effectively about it. Well, we could in theory, but I don't think it is politically possible.
I'm an idiot. They were stored in SHA-512 hashes, since they were passwords for JIRA, but the likelihood of the passwords breaking on a dictionary attack is apparently high.
It's high because they chose to store the hashes unsalted. Not a good move.,
That makes no sense. Why would you make your child genetically incompatible? As for the rest, there are 2 cases to consider. Either the improvements propagates, or they don't. If they do, the advantage will trickle down, allowing even the poorest better genes in the long run. Or it doesn't, in which case the advantage is no different from the advantages of better diet, education and resources in general. I'd even bet that a poor man can take a chance and sign up for experimental treatment;)
Tragic story:) For C++ (also Java these days) knowing and researching what libraries are available is more than half the battle. I was readíng the list of what he was doing, and Qt provides at least he beginning of everything there in the language he wanted (C++), excepting the garbage collection (which makes little sense in GUI programming in general and especially none in Qt). That that was what they ended up with was even more funny in a tragic kind of way.
3) How about portability, since you didn't put Java on the list? And yes, I know Java isn't 100% portable depending on what you are doing or if you are running certain dependencies, but which of the languages you listed is more portable than Java?
We constantly upgrade our tech to make things go faster and work easier. Honestly, you don't think that'll EVER happen with programming languages?
Almost every programming language on that list is more portable than Java.... with C being the king when it comes to portability. What Java offers (really, the JVM) is a portable runtime, which is a different beast (a property it shares with virtually (hah!) all other virtual machines.) In principle, I think it would be possible to write a C compiler that could output Java bytecode.
But the OP is missing stuff like objects support, functional programming support, generic programming support and a host of other features that that generation did not support. Then there is stuff like context free LALR grammars, dynamic typing, operator overloading and various syntactic sugar that makes things go sooo much faster when coding.
There is no such thing as instant in physics. For the temperature equivalance to occur, the CO2 has to collide with it's surrounding molecules, probably several times. Well before that happens, the excited state might decay remitted the (almost exact) same wavelength, where the almost is a function of the speed of the CO2 due to redshift. You know, it seems to be a fundamental property that anything that can absorb a photon can emit a photon at the same wavelength. This is all in correspondance with Planck's law, which is about black body radiation.
You seem to know what you are talking about. Can you point to a demonstration that shows CO2 increases temperature? Simple experiment will do.
I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. CO2 doesn't warm as such, it is more like a blanket that traps heat, keeping the earth from loosing heat. The heat itself comes from the sun (mostly) and a bit from radioactive decay in the earth itself. I suppose there is a tiny contribution from cosmic rays.
As for an experiment, try this (alternative link: here. Sorry for the snarky links:o)
First you say "by 30%". This is often misunderstood. While accurate, it makes it seem that what is being increased in relation to the total. This is not the case as there is no fixed number of molecules in the atmosphere. What you have to realize is CO2 makes up 338 out of every 1,000,000 molecules (today). A 30% increase adds ~100 more molecules for 438 out of 1,000,000 molecules. It still remains a trace element.
Noone would understand a 30% increase as anything but what you say there. At least, noone able to attend whatever basic schooling is available in any civilized country. If a company states that its revenue is increased by 30%, do you really think people would go "oh, now they have 30% of the worlds revenue"?
Another problem is you assume CO2 is well-mixed, as the IPCC does. The data from the NASA AIRS satellite and subsequent validation by plane measurements, shows it is not well-mixed and that the northern and southern hemispheres have separate carbon cycles. (Due to land mass vs ocean, and land mass distribution)
I have never heard anyone assumes this, except as a simplification. I am no expert, but I would be very surprised if it moved anything qualitative. It might change a few decimals here and there, that's all.
Another problem is that you assume the forcing is linear, or worse.
Huh? Where the heck did I write that?
There is quite a bit of data that suggests it is logarithmic. The observation that CO2 "warms" is done in a closed laboratory environment. (a 1L bottle of 100% CO2)
I feel like crying now. The absorbtion mechanism, it's exponential law is well understood and is part of basic science teaching all over the world. The absortion follows Beer-Lambert's law and is propertional to the concentration of the absorbant in the mixture.
Another problem is that while you concede temperature rises first, you fail to account for water vapor forcings, which is a much worse GHG, which we can't control. What if we could dehumidify the atmosphere at a fraction of the cost of controlling CO2? Why would that not be a more appropriate avenue?
Did I say it was not? Did I in any way suggest we do something about the CO2 emissions at all? In *general*, I would be wary of terraforming on the only planet we live on. Also, considering the wast amount of oceans that we enjoy, I doubt dehumidifying would be simpler than building windmills and nuclear power plants, IF we want to go that route. Personally, I would want to focus on replacing oil and gas, since those two are predominately from countries I do not wish to be forced to deal with on their terms, but I only have one vote in one small country.
Slashdot Mirror
The myth is that it is especially so. Most languages are crossplatform to the same degree, including C, Python, Haskell and ECMAscript.
ROFL, so instead of "The Devil made me do it." the new ridiculous defense will be "My iPad made me do it."
did you even reread your post and notice how stupid it is? Nobody's iProduct tells them what to do. People get them because they do what the user wants it to do. If it doesn't do what you want it to do then don't get one.
I don't think many IPad users really sat down and analysed what they needed, came to the conclusion that the ipad best satisfied that need, and bought it. Oooh shiny is probably more likely :) And I can understand the GP frustration at people giving up freedom for convenience/shinyness/hipness or even functionality. Note that I don't blame anyone, I am merely dissatisfied with the human race's mental faculties ;)
Actually, I would be fine without any items on that list :)
Though I run my own DNS server. Not sure if that clashes with the CDNs, but I think not.
Even 15 minutes, even for an infant, would not be enough to cause heat stroke. And the weather you mention is not exactly extreme, just uncomfortable. But seriously, if you really have 15 minutes stoplights (or queues regularly) you should do something about it: build a railroad, more road, something :)
The idea is, as I said, completely broken. By the time this is implemented, most cars do this anyway (many modern car stop the engine completely when standing still, voiding any benefit.)
Are there places in the country where you can freeze to death if your car stops? yes. Are there places in the country where infants can die of heat stroke if your car stops? Yes. those places just don't happen to be in California/NY.
I'm all for ridiculing this idea, but having the A/C turned off for 5 minutes (an unrealistically long light) really should not alter the temperature in the car enough to kill anyone, even an infant, in 5 minutes. Assuming you don't have the A/C on and the windows down, and least ;)
Yes, but they don't use ECC or disk scrubbing which is why I would never use them. The random error rate on non-ECC ram is way too high to trust with anything of value let alone SATA drives without background data checks.
Hm, according to wikipedia, the jury is still out on that. The rate of errors has been found to vary several order of magnitudes, giving the figures
The only one slightly positive about wp in this thread was the OP, and me, and neither was wikipedian. While of course anyone, you included, could be an Apple fanboy, the fact that noone expressed sentiments such as might come from an Apple fanboy, wikipedians or libertarian, means your epic fail remains high and good :) And there was very little holier than thou in this thread, either, unless you want to go to siblings (and if you wanted this, you replied to the wrong parent). So that would be another fail, though not exactly epic :P
Enjoy!
Look, don't take it personally. There are just certain groups, such as wikipedians, libertarians, and Apple fans, that I can't help but troll mercilessly. It's an addiction, but I have not found a self help group for those addicted to offending the easily offended.
Very good. Did you notice that, as far as I can see, there are no wikipedians, libertarians or Apple fans in the above thread? Are you familiar with the term "epic fail"? ;)
Mistakes happen over and over again with regularity, and calls to fix these mistakes are met with paranoia and outright hostility. Any normal people were driven out of wikipedia long ago, all that are left are vicious, petty, power hungry control freaks. I don't take it personally, crazy people can't really be held accountable for their craziness. I just don't interact with them.
That is not my experience. I still contribute occasionally (maybe 10 times a year?) and read frequently. But maybe the math+science sections are more sane than whatever you interests are.
A free bit of advice: Almost *any* call for changes and fixes are going to be met with paranoia and outright hostility almost anywhere. Basic fact of life. So if you really want to change something, you either have to learn to insist and be convincing enough to actually convince people, or learn to just do rather than calling out. Or both. If you ever get in a position where you are administering something, you'll learn why hostility and paranoia is almost a sane response to fixes and changes :o)
Clearly. So I guess you're, like, a senior editor?
I'm 35 and I have an account... so maybe? ;) Nah, though I did once start an article (on reduced cost in linear programming).
I have had bad experiences on the Danish wikipedia, but in my experience, the english one comes to each sense eventually. Well, at least the science&math section, which is where I occasionally prowl.
I also removed from vandalism from a page once and was *accused* of posting that particular vandalism.
Oh really. Mistakes happens, don't take it personally.
That is a concern for vehicles, certainly. Not so much for buried tanks.
It probably isn't so bad with proper engineering. And I like the idea of having a local reservoir of energy.
Mostly. However, there are 2 central themes: Be positive, and be energetic. That means saying "Good morning!" enthusiastically, and smile. That means going at tasks and problems with a can-do attitude, while of course still (gently) warning when you think it is impossible. Participate at least occasionally in Friday beer or whatever. Do smalltalk, and do it positively. Strive to attack and eliminate sourness and discontent among colleges. Help out as you can.
Read the papers then, and judge yourself. The basics are not very hard to understand, even with a modest background in physics or chemistry. Who cares about Al Gore? Besides, the ocean might at worst raise about 1 meter in 2100. I think Al Gore will be beyond caring by then.
Maybe you are putting too much into a word? Climate sceptics (as I believe they style themselves) do indeed have a streak of denial about them, and thus they easily become climate deniers, senseless as the word is. "Climate believers" is just as bad: it is not a religion, just an (oldish) theory with a small mountain of evidence in support.
But then, I am in the odd category off having read some of it, being convinced that the globe is warming due to increase in carbon dioxide, and not believing we can do anything effectively about it. Well, we could in theory, but I don't think it is politically possible.
I'm an idiot. They were stored in SHA-512 hashes, since they were passwords for JIRA, but the likelihood of the passwords breaking on a dictionary attack is apparently high.
It's high because they chose to store the hashes unsalted. Not a good move.,
C# is very close to Java, especially in spirit, so that does not seem far-fetched at all.
That makes no sense. Why would you make your child genetically incompatible? As for the rest, there are 2 cases to consider. Either the improvements propagates, or they don't. If they do, the advantage will trickle down, allowing even the poorest better genes in the long run. Or it doesn't, in which case the advantage is no different from the advantages of better diet, education and resources in general. I'd even bet that a poor man can take a chance and sign up for experimental treatment ;)
Great, so instead of a new windshield costing $100-$200, you'd have to pay $2000 to get one from a dealer.
Yes, I live in Utah where the endless road construction has cracked two of my windshields in the last year so this is a concern for me.
Damn, wish windshields were that cheap around here. No way I'd get a windshield for less than €300.
Tragic story :) For C++ (also Java these days) knowing and researching what libraries are available is more than half the battle. I was readíng the list of what he was doing, and Qt provides at least he beginning of everything there in the language he wanted (C++), excepting the garbage collection (which makes little sense in GUI programming in general and especially none in Qt). That that was what they ended up with was even more funny in a tragic kind of way.
3) How about portability, since you didn't put Java on the list? And yes, I know Java isn't 100% portable depending on what you are doing or if you are running certain dependencies, but which of the languages you listed is more portable than Java?
We constantly upgrade our tech to make things go faster and work easier. Honestly, you don't think that'll EVER happen with programming languages?
Almost every programming language on that list is more portable than Java.... with C being the king when it comes to portability. What Java offers (really, the JVM) is a portable runtime, which is a different beast (a property it shares with virtually (hah!) all other virtual machines.) In principle, I think it would be possible to write a C compiler that could output Java bytecode.
But the OP is missing stuff like objects support, functional programming support, generic programming support and a host of other features that that generation did not support. Then there is stuff like context free LALR grammars, dynamic typing, operator overloading and various syntactic sugar that makes things go sooo much faster when coding.
There is no such thing as instant in physics. For the temperature equivalance to occur, the CO2 has to collide with it's surrounding molecules, probably several times. Well before that happens, the excited state might decay remitted the (almost exact) same wavelength, where the almost is a function of the speed of the CO2 due to redshift. You know, it seems to be a fundamental property that anything that can absorb a photon can emit a photon at the same wavelength. This is all in correspondance with Planck's law, which is about black body radiation.
You seem to know what you are talking about. Can you point to a demonstration that shows CO2 increases temperature? Simple experiment will do.
I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. CO2 doesn't warm as such, it is more like a blanket that traps heat, keeping the earth from loosing heat. The heat itself comes from the sun (mostly) and a bit from radioactive decay in the earth itself. I suppose there is a tiny contribution from cosmic rays.
As for an experiment, try this (alternative link: here. Sorry for the snarky links :o)
There are several flaws in your argument.
First you say "by 30%". This is often misunderstood. While accurate, it makes it seem that what is being increased in relation to the total. This is not the case as there is no fixed number of molecules in the atmosphere. What you have to realize is CO2 makes up 338 out of every 1,000,000 molecules (today). A 30% increase adds ~100 more molecules for 438 out of 1,000,000 molecules. It still remains a trace element.
Noone would understand a 30% increase as anything but what you say there. At least, noone able to attend whatever basic schooling is available in any civilized country. If a company states that its revenue is increased by 30%, do you really think people would go "oh, now they have 30% of the worlds revenue"?
Another problem is you assume CO2 is well-mixed, as the IPCC does. The data from the NASA AIRS satellite and subsequent validation by plane measurements, shows it is not well-mixed and that the northern and southern hemispheres have separate carbon cycles. (Due to land mass vs ocean, and land mass distribution)
I have never heard anyone assumes this, except as a simplification. I am no expert, but I would be very surprised if it moved anything qualitative. It might change a few decimals here and there, that's all.
Another problem is that you assume the forcing is linear, or worse.
Huh? Where the heck did I write that?
There is quite a bit of data that suggests it is logarithmic. The observation that CO2 "warms" is done in a closed laboratory environment. (a 1L bottle of 100% CO2)
I feel like crying now. The absorbtion mechanism, it's exponential law is well understood and is part of basic science teaching all over the world. The absortion follows Beer-Lambert's law and is propertional to the concentration of the absorbant in the mixture.
Another problem is that while you concede temperature rises first, you fail to account for water vapor forcings, which is a much worse GHG, which we can't control. What if we could dehumidify the atmosphere at a fraction of the cost of controlling CO2? Why would that not be a more appropriate avenue?
Did I say it was not? Did I in any way suggest we do something about the CO2 emissions at all? In *general*, I would be wary of terraforming on the only planet we live on. Also, considering the wast amount of oceans that we enjoy, I doubt dehumidifying would be simpler than building windmills and nuclear power plants, IF we want to go that route. Personally, I would want to focus on replacing oil and gas, since those two are predominately from countries I do not wish to be forced to deal with on their terms, but I only have one vote in one small country.