Pretty much a zero sum equation as far as I see it. Trump uses the same speech tactics that Hitler did.
My dad hates Obama, and calls him a communist. That is, of course, absurd.
Calling Trump a Nazi is equally absurd. I don't like the guy, and I am not voting for him, but comparing him to Hitler is just silly, and you lose your credibility by making that comparison. You need to read a history book.
Actually, they are in place for several reasons: 1. Greed 2. Cronyism 3. Corruption
skipping the dealer allows the manufacturer to set the price
Saturn used fixed prices, despite using dealerships, so this seems like a bogus argument. Dealerships are just another layer of inefficiency, adding delay and expense.
My state, California, allows direct sales by manufacturers. How do people in Michigan benefit by having fewer choices than I have?
Perhaps nulls are used in RDBMS because it's not easy to use conditionals or error handlers in queries to deal with an empty structure or no rows.
The problem with RDDMSs is that allowing null is the default, and you have to explicitly declare a column as "not null". It should be the other way around. Uninitialized data should be an error unless you explicitly allow it. This problem is exacerbated because many people writing SQL don't have a strong background in programming, and often don't really know what they are doing.
Javascript has the same problem. It is very forgiving of crappy code, which makes it a terrible language for beginners. For instance, many Javascript programmers don't understand the differences between "null" , "undefined", '', 0, and '0'.
Would you not want to run a real RTOS on an embedded system?
Many embedded applications are not "real time". Even those that are, will often offload the RT functionality to an 8-bit AVR or PIC, or an FPGA, and then run Linux to handle the high level stuff on the ARM or x86. I have developed embedded systems, including mission critical hard real-time, for more than 20 years, and I have never used an RTOS in a final product. They raise the cost, reduce reliability, and are hard to debug.
No, the system is PV, not thermal. Thermal is okay if you want hot water, but for electricity, it just doesn't work on the small scale. You need pipes, pumps, turbines, etc. Even on the large scale, electricity from thermal is not keeping up with the falling price of PV.
but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?
Yes. Look at Detroit. The population there has collapsed from 1.8M in 1950, to less than 700k today. There are vast tracts of empty houses, and abandoned strip malls. An influx of 600,000 Syrians, who tend to be educated and hard-working, would do wonders for Detroit's economy, and would almost certainly be an improvement over the type of people living there now. Just require them to stay put in Detroit for 5 years. By the end of that time, there would be thriving Syrian neighborhoods and shopping centers, and they will be happy to stay.
The mayor of Baltimore, another city in decline, has said she would welcome Syrian refugees.
Disclaimer: I live in San Jose, California, which has an extremely high percentage of immigrants. There are several muslim families in my neighborhood. They are just normal people going about their lives.
Because the people with power don't want the war to end.
Who wants the war to end: The refugees (obviously), but they have no power. The EU, but they are too politically impotent to do anything.
Who wants the war to continue: The Russians, because they benefit from the chaos. America, because an end to the war would mean politically unpopular compromise. The Turks, because they can use it as leverage to get what they want from the EU. The Kurds, because they can keep their autonomy while the war sputters on. ISIS, because the war is their only reason for existing. Israel, because it divides and weakens the Arabs. Iran, because the war gives them influence. Assad, because he is winning.
I would bet on the war continuing for a long time.
A good first start would be for America to stop sabotaging every attempt to end the conflict. America has consistently insisted that Assad has to go as a precondition to even talking about ending the war. Of course, Assad controls the most powerful army in Syria, has no reason whatsoever to agree to that, and America has no willpower to get engaged enough to force him out. So the war goes on, and on, and on.
If you want to get something (in this case, peace), you have to give something up (Assad stays on in at least the Alawi Shia rump of Syria). That is the way negotiations work. You can't just demand everything you want, up-front, as a precondition to talking.
When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.
Indeed. Nowhere else in the world has the robust guarantees of free speech that America has. The Brits have their libel laws, the French have their "religious symbols" bans. Many EU countries outlaw holocaust denial and/or hate speech.
I finally agree with Donald on something. Has Hillary taken an official stance on this issue.
Can you ascertain from this article if Zuckerberg did anything at all?
Can you ascertain from this article if Zuckerberg isn't a hologram?
Possibly went to a meeting and instructed people to reallocate the money in a way that it wouldn't affect him in the end.
Possibly. But the important thing is that by the clever use of cynical innuendo, totally unsupported by any evidence, you have firmly established that you are a morally superior person, because you just sit on your ass and do nothing for anyone rather than making donations that are not provably pure.
Why "instead"? Can't we give credit to all donors?
I can't recall seeing an article on slashdot about such donors, so apparently not.
There are no articles giving "credit" to big donors either. Rather there are snarky articles attacking them for their hubris and questioning their motivations.
Should we denigrate charity organizations that give 1% to charity and 99% to themselves?
If they are diverting contributions from more worthy charities, then they are causing real harm and of course they should be criticized.
But there is no evidence whatsoever than Zuck is doing that, or anything like that. The GPP was criticizing him for his impure motives, and not because of any actual consequences of his actions. If humanity benefits from this contribution, we don't benefit any less because of the motivations of the donor. If the donation can be a win-win, that is even better.
Do we really need to attack everyone who tries to do something good?
I suspect Zuckerberg is the first person to seriously think he could cure, prevent or manage all diseases for just $3 billion.
He doesn't think that, and he didn't say that. The quote about "curing all diseases" is taken out of context. If you look at what he actually said, it is clear that he meant that as an aspiration for all of humanity over the next century, not just for his project. So the headline, summary, and TFA are yet more examples of garbage journalism. They are are more than just distorted and misleading, they are outright lies.
... give them a prison sentence of 15 years hard labor.
North Korea imprisons about 600 out of every 100k population. That is a horrific number, and is far worse than the world average. In fact, there is only one other country that imprisons a greater proportion of citizens: The United States of America, at about 700 per 100k.
the kids that did something after school like play sports or sing in a chorus or anything else were the ones who now succeeded.
Correlation is not causation. The popular, successful, and socially engaged kids are more likely to participate in these activities than the misfits and kids that need to work after school to help their single mom with the rent. But that doesn't mean that these activities caused them to be successful.
My teenage daughter was told by her HS counselor that she had to do at least two extracurricular activities, to be even considered by a good college, and it would help a lot if she has a leadership position in at least one of them. This demand for "leadership positions" had led to fragmentation of extracurriculars into a lot of tiny groups where everyone can be a president, VP, treasurer, etc. All of this is being driven by pressure (or perceived pressure) from above, not by what the kids actually care about.
It was in the 80s when everyone started wetting the bed about kidnappings and child safety.
It was much more than that. The 1980s were also the time of Satanic Ritual Abuse when the nightly news reports were filled with stories of thousands or even millions of children being tortured and murdered. Thousands were accused, and hundreds of people were prosecuted for these crimes.
Of course, the number of known victims was later revised down to zero, but there was no way to know that at the time, unless you actually considered the lack of any actual evidence, but you don't get votes and ratings by pleading with people to stop and think in the middle of a moral panic.
Slashdot Mirror
we need no one to get 270 and then we will see some real shit like maybe an Hillary / Pence or an Trump / Kaine.
For neither to get to 270, a 3rd party would need to win at least one state. The chance of that happening is near zero.
Pretty much a zero sum equation as far as I see it. Trump uses the same speech tactics that Hitler did.
My dad hates Obama, and calls him a communist. That is, of course, absurd.
Calling Trump a Nazi is equally absurd. I don't like the guy, and I am not voting for him, but comparing him to Hitler is just silly, and you lose your credibility by making that comparison. You need to read a history book.
We want a learning curve, not a learning wall.
The problem with JavaScript is that the learning curve bends in the wrong direction.
these old laws were in place for a reason.
Actually, they are in place for several reasons:
1. Greed
2. Cronyism
3. Corruption
skipping the dealer allows the manufacturer to set the price
Saturn used fixed prices, despite using dealerships, so this seems like a bogus argument. Dealerships are just another layer of inefficiency, adding delay and expense.
My state, California, allows direct sales by manufacturers. How do people in Michigan benefit by having fewer choices than I have?
How on earth could we do this? Those languages that utilize the null paradigm can't be changed now, or else they become different languages.
Some languages do it by having an optional "strict" mode that can be invoked for new code. Javascript has "use strict" and so does Perl.
Perhaps nulls are used in RDBMS because it's not easy to use conditionals or error handlers in queries to deal with an empty structure or no rows.
The problem with RDDMSs is that allowing null is the default, and you have to explicitly declare a column as "not null". It should be the other way around. Uninitialized data should be an error unless you explicitly allow it. This problem is exacerbated because many people writing SQL don't have a strong background in programming, and often don't really know what they are doing.
Javascript has the same problem. It is very forgiving of crappy code, which makes it a terrible language for beginners. For instance, many Javascript programmers don't understand the differences between "null" , "undefined", '', 0, and '0'.
Would you not want to run a real RTOS on an embedded system?
Many embedded applications are not "real time". Even those that are, will often offload the RT functionality to an 8-bit AVR or PIC, or an FPGA, and then run Linux to handle the high level stuff on the ARM or x86. I have developed embedded systems, including mission critical hard real-time, for more than 20 years, and I have never used an RTOS in a final product. They raise the cost, reduce reliability, and are hard to debug.
It's shingles that incorporate PV cells.
Here is a better article with a picture of the panels.
I imagine solar thermal panels.
No, the system is PV, not thermal. Thermal is okay if you want hot water, but for electricity, it just doesn't work on the small scale. You need pipes, pumps, turbines, etc. Even on the large scale, electricity from thermal is not keeping up with the falling price of PV.
but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?
Yes. Look at Detroit. The population there has collapsed from 1.8M in 1950, to less than 700k today. There are vast tracts of empty houses, and abandoned strip malls. An influx of 600,000 Syrians, who tend to be educated and hard-working, would do wonders for Detroit's economy, and would almost certainly be an improvement over the type of people living there now. Just require them to stay put in Detroit for 5 years. By the end of that time, there would be thriving Syrian neighborhoods and shopping centers, and they will be happy to stay.
The mayor of Baltimore, another city in decline, has said she would welcome Syrian refugees.
Disclaimer: I live in San Jose, California, which has an extremely high percentage of immigrants. There are several muslim families in my neighborhood. They are just normal people going about their lives.
How about they fix their own goddam house?
Because the people with power don't want the war to end.
Who wants the war to end:
The refugees (obviously), but they have no power.
The EU, but they are too politically impotent to do anything.
Who wants the war to continue:
The Russians, because they benefit from the chaos.
America, because an end to the war would mean politically unpopular compromise.
The Turks, because they can use it as leverage to get what they want from the EU.
The Kurds, because they can keep their autonomy while the war sputters on.
ISIS, because the war is their only reason for existing.
Israel, because it divides and weakens the Arabs.
Iran, because the war gives them influence.
Assad, because he is winning.
I would bet on the war continuing for a long time.
How about just fixing where they live?
A good first start would be for America to stop sabotaging every attempt to end the conflict. America has consistently insisted that Assad has to go as a precondition to even talking about ending the war. Of course, Assad controls the most powerful army in Syria, has no reason whatsoever to agree to that, and America has no willpower to get engaged enough to force him out. So the war goes on, and on, and on.
If you want to get something (in this case, peace), you have to give something up (Assad stays on in at least the Alawi Shia rump of Syria). That is the way negotiations work. You can't just demand everything you want, up-front, as a precondition to talking.
When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.
Indeed. Nowhere else in the world has the robust guarantees of free speech that America has. The Brits have their libel laws, the French have their "religious symbols" bans. Many EU countries outlaw holocaust denial and/or hate speech.
I finally agree with Donald on something. Has Hillary taken an official stance on this issue.
Can you ascertain from this article if Zuckerberg did anything at all?
Can you ascertain from this article if Zuckerberg isn't a hologram?
Possibly went to a meeting and instructed people to reallocate the money in a way that it wouldn't affect him in the end.
Possibly. But the important thing is that by the clever use of cynical innuendo, totally unsupported by any evidence, you have firmly established that you are a morally superior person, because you just sit on your ass and do nothing for anyone rather than making donations that are not provably pure.
You should be very proud of yourself!
Why "instead"? Can't we give credit to all donors?
I can't recall seeing an article on slashdot about such donors, so apparently not.
There are no articles giving "credit" to big donors either. Rather there are snarky articles attacking them for their hubris and questioning their motivations.
And that is far from what they did. They get something for that money, somehow. It's not unconditional.
Will the cancer treatments work better if their development is funded with "unconditional" money?
It's always "they just need to ..." or "all you have to ...", it's never in the first person.
Except "they" will be paid by "him", so it is reasonable for "him" to say what "they" need to do.
All I mean to say is, don't act like they open their wallets and take 3 billion out and give it away.
Why not? That is what they did.
Instead, give more credit to all the people our there who make $20K a year and do give $50 out of their wallets.
Why "instead"? Can't we give credit to all donors?
Should we denigrate charity organizations that give 1% to charity and 99% to themselves?
If they are diverting contributions from more worthy charities, then they are causing real harm and of course they should be criticized.
But there is no evidence whatsoever than Zuck is doing that, or anything like that. The GPP was criticizing him for his impure motives, and not because of any actual consequences of his actions. If humanity benefits from this contribution, we don't benefit any less because of the motivations of the donor. If the donation can be a win-win, that is even better.
Do we really need to attack everyone who tries to do something good?
I suspect Zuckerberg is the first person to seriously think he could cure, prevent or manage all diseases for just $3 billion.
He doesn't think that, and he didn't say that. The quote about "curing all diseases" is taken out of context. If you look at what he actually said, it is clear that he meant that as an aspiration for all of humanity over the next century, not just for his project. So the headline, summary, and TFA are yet more examples of garbage journalism. They are are more than just distorted and misleading, they are outright lies.
This works out in their favor somehow. Almost guaranteed.
So? If people cancer victims benefit from this, they don't somehow benefit less just because Mark and Priscilla also benefit.
Do you really need to denigrate the efforts of others, just so you can feel smug about doing nothing?
Or those That would buy an Activity Tracker to lose weight are not as committed as those who don't?
Nope. The activity trackers were randomly assigned to study participants. They were not self selecting. RTFA.
... give them a prison sentence of 15 years hard labor.
North Korea imprisons about 600 out of every 100k population. That is a horrific number, and is far worse than the world average. In fact, there is only one other country that imprisons a greater proportion of citizens: The United States of America, at about 700 per 100k.
the kids that did something after school like play sports or sing in a chorus or anything else were the ones who now succeeded.
Correlation is not causation. The popular, successful, and socially engaged kids are more likely to participate in these activities than the misfits and kids that need to work after school to help their single mom with the rent. But that doesn't mean that these activities caused them to be successful.
My teenage daughter was told by her HS counselor that she had to do at least two extracurricular activities, to be even considered by a good college, and it would help a lot if she has a leadership position in at least one of them. This demand for "leadership positions" had led to fragmentation of extracurriculars into a lot of tiny groups where everyone can be a president, VP, treasurer, etc. All of this is being driven by pressure (or perceived pressure) from above, not by what the kids actually care about.
It was in the 80s when everyone started wetting the bed about kidnappings and child safety.
It was much more than that. The 1980s were also the time of Satanic Ritual Abuse when the nightly news reports were filled with stories of thousands or even millions of children being tortured and murdered. Thousands were accused, and hundreds of people were prosecuted for these crimes.
Of course, the number of known victims was later revised down to zero, but there was no way to know that at the time, unless you actually considered the lack of any actual evidence, but you don't get votes and ratings by pleading with people to stop and think in the middle of a moral panic.