Still a nope. The secondary position only switches to that band because of the US network. Reread the article and you'll note that pushing the SIM into secondary outside of the US works just fine. The thing to note is that when you push a SIM into the secondary position, the device will attempt to ask the cell service to allow only inbound calls, since all outbound calls are done via the primary. Apparently, US cell networks explode in a puff of "WAAAA??" when asked to do this, and just go lowest common denominator in the confusion.
In short, asking a US carrier to provide an "inbound only" line is witchcraft and the iPhone just deals with the mass pandemonium as best as can be expected.
Pai thinks that since we no longer have net neutrality, the Telco's could monetize the rural areas better with exclusive contents services.
FYI for anyone keeping score, this is exactly what has happened before. A city can't get decent Internet, ISP goes in and says "We'll do it but for a monopoly control". Many folks during the NN debate were like, "well if cities didn't allow Comcast sole control..." Well this is why and Pai wants to go back to more of that. These under served areas will only get Internet if they sign 20-30 year contracts that allow Comcast and only Comcast (or whoever else) to serve the area. So if Comcast brings their service, "oh and by they way we have our own Email/VoIP/TVIP/NBC-Universal programming/Marketplace/...", and then throttles Gmail/Skype/Netflix/CBS All Access/Amazon or Ebay, well those folks don't have another choice.
I mean, we should all ask ourselves this, did anyone here think anything different was going to happen with the repeal of NN? I get that NN didn't force ISPs to build out equally or competitively, but the idea was since we can't force companies, apparently, to have morals when it comes to building out service, we can at the very least expect them to play fair online. But no, that's just too much government overreach apparently. The public (self included) deserves to have every last cent stolen from them. We deserve to have crap Internet. It's clear the US gives less than two shits about the people paying taxes and the people paying taxes are too dim witted to realize they're perpetually being bamboozled.
You assume that the speaker feels pressure to avoid doing those things
Well you're assuming an outcome on incomplete information. This would totally be an outcome for someone who didn't come to debate but to judge their bias, but it is not the only outcome and there example person listening and getting "upset" may be doing so because they don't understand the topic at hand and rather not learn the topic. There's plenty of way for the situation to unfold and you've picked a single one and then turned around and hung it up on PC. But you did mention something there that I'll touch on.
why it doesn't include emotive language or assign blame to an individual
There's always going to be this in that progress isn't happening fast enough or that the degree to which something is presented isn't persuasive enough. You cannot change the mindset of something that is always a constant fixture. But in turn, those folks are going to attempt to hang their disconnect with that which happens to that which they expected on something. That something may or may not have anything to do with the situation, such is the position of humans.
Cognitive dissonance, wherein some one or group tries to justify an illogical conclusion, is always going to find some hangup justifying their indefensible position. At the moment we're selecting political correctness, but there's all kinds of false justifications through out US history and more so in world history. That doesn't mean that they're correct. Or at least I wouldn't think it to be such. For a large amount of time the current party in power has fretted over the budget and mentioned reasons for why we ought to withhold from an action due to budget concerns, but in turn they have also increased the deficit spending. Now here's the thing, I'd like to have an argument not about budgets or if Republican deficit spending is justified because that's detracting from the point here. Cognitive dissonance. There's a lot of contorting that the GOP is doing at the moment to somehow justify their position to the public, and I'm less interested in their specific reasons and more interested in how clever they need to be or at least how clever they feel they need to be.
That's because somewhere deep inside their heads they know that they're having to justify something to which doesn't logically mesh with things they have said before. That same is true for the hyper-PC charged person when they do something like restrict someone's speech in the name of preventing outrage/hate speech/whatever justification they come up with that day. It boils down to this, in my mind, you're saying or doing something that you yourself wouldn't like or have previously stood against. However you're situation has now put you in a contradicting conundrum and you're just grasping for straws to somehow prop your position up. Probably best to realize where you are at the moment in the argument and evaluate what led you here. But in most cases, folks simply double down on their position. People don't like to believe in wrong.
And so that's the thing about your assumed position that the person would take. If they become hyper-PC charged, they began the whole thing not really wanting an honest debate. At the same time, since I don't want anyone to feel that this is a one-way street, there are those who would simply dismiss the argument as being too PC> You can see that in generalized statements where it goes something like "political correctness is killing this country" or whatever. It's simply trying to shutdown a conversation with a preconceived bias, that's all it is. And that happens all the time from both sides. Again, that's mostly because someone has already built a narrative about the workings of the world, their world view so to say, and it's not that they won't hear or listen to the counter view, but they will filter the counter view with their bias to arrive at something that will just solidify their positi
You assume that the speaker feels pressure to avoid doing those things
Sort of, I would assume that the candidate would wish to appeal to as many folks as possible to ensure victory within an election. There isn't any undue pressure other than to appeal to as many folks as possible. So yes there is pressure, but hardly what I would hoped is outside of normal pressure. Public discourse of politics is, well at least should be, a means to which we can openly discuss something. You hear someone say, "we need to start the conversation..." That's kind of where I would assume it would start.
That said, a politician already presenting their message is one thing, openly shutting down anything contrary is polarity and something totally different IMHO. So even if a politician were to indicate, "The current President's nature to alienate foreign nations plays into the continued failed approach that the US has taken with Central and South America." That's not openly shutting down the current President from any future choice, but its not PC in that it's clearly nixing some folks who believe that the current approach is indeed working. Now counter that with something along the same lines but more PC, "The current President's nature to alienate foreign nations has its benefits and its weaknesses. While it has allowed us to shore up trade imbalances, it also continues a defeating policy that the US has taken with Central and South America." Again same premise but indicates that those who would have been off put by the first, are still valid in their thinking but that the thinking just needs to become more surgical, so to say.
I'm just trying to indicate that there's a lot of shades here between statements and that PC isn't so much a shade but a property of a shade, much like if the colors, white and black and all between also had magnetic charge. The magnetic charge is one thing that's unrelated to the shade of gray, but you might find that darker shades do better with one kind of charge versus the other, but that's not because the magnetic charge had anything to do with the shade to begin with, but more so to do with the environment that you were currently in.
And so you dismiss what hey have to say as being PC
I get what you're saying but that's exactly what I'm getting at here. Folks are going to be dismissive if they come into an honest debate strongly biased. They'll reach for whatever justification as an after thought. Which you indicate can be PC and that's absolutely correct, but that's just because they didn't want to listen to begin with. I mean what we're touching on here is cognitive dissonance that's justified by PC, but that doesn't mean that the person using it as a justification is using PC in the correct manner, only in the manner that their mind allows them to think it correct. Likewise, folks will dismiss others stating that they are being too PC as justification for their bias that prevents them from actually entering into a debate. It's important to note that while people abuse on either side the aesthetic of PC or for that matter any word, it doesn't change the underlying meaning unless we all agree for that change to happen. It's literally the question of, is something is what it is because we say it is what it is or is it what it is because of the innate properties of it outside of what we control?
Point being folks not wanting an honest debate are just going to use whatever is convenient to them. The far left become dismissive of the right because they're racist (not enough PC). The far right become dismissive of the left because they're overly protective in what one is permitted to do (too much PC). The question I'll leave you with is this. Does the actual definition of PC change because of how these two side abuse it? Because what ultimately it comes down to, at least to me, is that you have two sides that just don't want to engage with each other and they'll pick random reaso
No. That's how it is being used but it is far from what it means (or perhaps what it used to mean if we're truly that far gone). Likewise, guns are really handy tools, but a few asshats tend to fuck it up for everyone else by killing folks with them.
By designating something political correctness you are saying that it's trivial and unimportant
No, politically correct means a message that doesn't attempt to alienate either side of a debate, allowing an argument to be put forward that can be used to either further one side or the other, but all in how it is spun. However, some have taken that to be that the message has to be ultra-safe, which isn't true. Example of a politically correct statement, "The constant migrations of foreigners to the US is a clear demonstration that past and current foreign policy with Central and South America has failed." No one is being called an illegal, no one is indicating any particular President at fault, and so on. This statement can be spun in either direction depending on present company and at face value is equally palatable by whichever side you want to pick.
The idea is to belittle people's concerns and requests to be treated better by implying that they are so inconsequential that the argument/request is ether absurd or not made in good faith
Which actually gets into the "how's it's being used." Politics has become massively polarized at the moment and I'm pretty sure it'll ultimately swing back to something resembling sanity. However, you have those who'd argue for over-reaching PC because they see the other side's argument (as you say) trivial. You have those who'd argue that PS is a cancer and see the other side's argument as hand-waving. Either way, both sides are simply dismissing the other's because they don't want to actually reach some middle ground, instead they rather have the polarity. Polarized voters are easier to predict voters, polarized voters make stronger safe districts for political parties, and once upon time folks kind of realized that polarized politics meant less actual power in the voter's hands.
It really got going in the 80s when people...(rest of your comment)
No, this has always been a tactic in politics. It's centrist versus polarity, but PC is just the new name for it. And the polarity folks on either side use it as a tool for their narrative. In US politics I always like to apply the accelerator/brake metaphor for the polarity ends. The far left tend to be the accelerator "You're message isn't forceful enough, it needs to explicitly say what CAN and CANNOT be done or else it is just garbage." The far right tend to be the brake "Your group's mission will inevitably lead to everyone being lawsuited to death!" The far right need to allow progress to happen and get over their insecurities. The far left need to just chill the fuck out and stop telling people what they can't do.
Your comment isn't wrong, but it's assuming that PC is strictly defined as how it is being used and that's pretty depressing because it almost foregoes the fact that once upon a time it actually meant holding a centrist view and attempting to be affable to everyone. Maybe I'm naive in holding onto an archaic way of thinking.
You know I miss the days when stories like this would pop up and the first thing everyone would do is produce actual proof. The story literally says that China planted chips in their servers, but since the planted would have happened before the actual knowing where the board was going, they would have had to planted thousands of chips into boards in hopes of hitting a good target. So that said, finding one of these chips out in the wild shouldn't be that difficult and yet, zero people have produced an actual chip to show the story true. We literally have the Fermi paradox here. SMB would have had to produce tens of thousands of these boards that would have ended up everywhere from some CIA bunker to some NAS server in a rando University. At some point, someone, somewhere would have uncovered this and barring some complex and massive cover story conspiracy, would have seen this story and ran to side with Bloomberg to validate their claim. And yet that has not happened
So there is obviously something up here.
One, it isn't as widespread as Bloomberg paints and the Chinese got incredibly lucky with where their hacked boards went in that they're all sitting in Apple/Amazon/CIA places where no one in their right mind would come forward.
Two, it isn't as widespread as Bloomberg paints and there's maybe 1,000 - 100 boards out there and only one actually hit the target and the rest will be like finding a needle in a haystack.
Three, it is as widespread as Bloomberg paints it and everyone is a complete moron at finding these things.
Four, it is as widespread as Bloomberg paints it and the Chinese have invented a completely inconceivable clandestine process for hiding chips that far exceeds anything previously thought possible.
Five, China has somehow invaded every aspect of the reseller market for these boards and anything that's left their intended target has been brought back via these channels to China to prevent the boards from leaking out to other sources.
And hell there's likely more outcomes here than I'm covering but the point remains that given the massive claims that Bloomberg has made, some sort of hard proof should turn up and yet none has. That lack of hard proof makes me seriously question the accuracy of the story. It's an incredible claim, none the less, but count me as non-believer till I see some hard proof here. There's people who will see Cook's request as some sort of "proof" but that's just the deep down cynicism talking. This massive claim has been made, and Bloomberg really needs to back it up with something. And not that weak sauce story they printed about the researcher who found blah-blah-blah on the Ethernet port. Yeah, we all already knew about that trick. No I want to see this duplicitous capacitor or resistor looking chip that's somehow so well made that you can't tell the difference between it and an actual cap/resistor and somehow invades the board enough to leak useful info or make susceptible to an outside actor in a way that's undetectable. Because the engineering feat required to get that done isn't something I would normally attribute to Chinese scientist.
Yes, Apple and Amazon have both sued SMB before for crappy firmware. And if the story said, "They're putting super hidden firmware inside the board" I'll be honest with you, I'd be on the believer side having beers with the buds there. But this chip thing is a whole another level. Bloomberg needs to put up or shut up at this point. I'll be more than happy to eat my words if proof come across the table till then, I just don't buy this story.
Obesity rates are to do an overabundance of food and a lack of self-control. Grown adults filling fridges full of crap. You want to find the cause of that, open your own fridge.
The obesity epidemic and all of the apologist for it are the epitome of unwillingness to accept blame. I say this being that myself was once obese, now just overweight and still working to reach some semblance of normal. I can fully attest that every single bit, every single pound over was without question my own doing.
* ALL the Laws of Physics just "magically" emerged from where again? Or
* They have ALWAYS existed???
The answer is, we don't know at this moment where they came from. Pretending that we do know where they came from is what kids do, let's try to be adults here. We don't know. In the absence of knowing you have a few options, I'll just cover my favorite two, but do know it's not an all inclusive list here.
1. We can just make up whatever the hell we want! There's nothing stopping people from whipping whatever fiction they want in their head as to where everything came up from. What splits science and religion at this point is the underlying question, "Is there some way we can create a predicable model from this? And if so, how do we go about verifying that?" Folks in science make up crap all the time, just like religious folks. So don't think I look at this as some holier than thou kind of thing. Everyone wants 15 minutes of fame and pandering to "understanding deep mysteries" has always been a fan favorite.
2. We can take what we do know and attempt at educated guesses. Once upon we knew the world was flat, then we knew the sun revolved around the Earth, then we knew that electromagnetism had to follow Newtonian mechanics, and we knew that the element was the smallest thing a substance could be split into... We took our previous understanding and used that to understand more about our universe. There's nothing that stops us from doing that exact same thing to what happened at 1x10^-36 seconds and back after the Big Bang and understand from where the Big Bang came from. It just that today, we don't live in that world of understanding and everyone here reading this may never get to see that day, but ultimately we've solved previous mysterious about the Universe it stand a pretty good chance that we'll eventually figure this out too.
Either way, that requires no more, or any less, faith then your standard theist. Atheists LOVE to pretend that their F word is Faith -- but faith is NOT a dirty word -- only blind faith is.
Well what you are talking about confuses prediction with faith. I can toss a ball in the air and I'm pretty sure that the ball will eventually come back down if it is not launched with enough force to obtain escape velocity. That's not faith, that's observation. Likewise, we've eventually unlocked many mysteries about the universe with science and there's not reason to believe that trend will change long term (over the course of the next 10,000 years) unless something else happens (like climate change killing us all or some massive war that hobbles society for the next 5,000 years). However, I'm not holding to it, it just looks like the trajectory that we're on, but it truly is whatever may come. humanity has to honestly take an invested approach to our existence for that to be sustainable. Contrast that to "end times, salvation, etc..." Typically, these become certainties in religion. There is an afterlife, there is some almighty, etc. That's not an observation, that's not "we're on a trajectory of sorts", that's not something that might change. That's a 100% I have zero proof to show and without doubt these things will come to pass. So you have to understand, you are confusing faith and observations.
EVERYONE has Faith -- otherwise what sustains your beliefs in the first place???
And this is where you totally confuse beliefs and observations. We aren't required to have beliefs. Belief in anything isn't a requirement for existence. But understanding that if I walk out in a busy highway the chances of me getting hit, isn't a belief. You can have a completely normal life with zero belief in anything and just a basic understand of cause and effect.
The fundamental problem is that Atheism is based on ignorance. i.e. I have no belief. Ergo, I have no knowledge.
except for the horrific 4.x with the "feature" of its own desktop
Oh I'm pretty sure I'm the odd one out when I say, that I hated that feature, but then it really grew on me. But looking back, I totally understand why everyone hated it. But still, I really started to enjoy it but yeah it was bad. I think it took a special kind of masochist to like it.
States have no authority over interstate commerce.
That's not entirely correct. States may enter into compacts with each other if they so wish. The Federal government may step in at any point, but absent that, States are free to have trade between each other should the Federal government be silent on the matter.
In other words, the Federal government has the "right" to regulate interstate commerce, but it does not have the "imperative" to regulate interstate commerce. The FCC is indicating that the Federal government has not taken any steps at this time to regulate such. Thus, since the Federal government is silent on the matter, by the way of 10th Amendment, the States are free to enter into compacts and regulate as they see fit.
Just to clarify the power for the 14th amendment is Incorporation. States cannot limit Free Speech as the 1st Amendment has been Incorporated into the 14th Amendment in Gitlow v. New York 1925 268 US 652.
LibreOffice has added more Calc functions than AOO. LO also has patched up UNO allowing for faster run and has added wrappers for VBA scripts into UNO calls. OOXML support in AAO is horrible, LO has greatly improved OOXML since the split. The backends for Base in LO is moving away from Java, slowly, but eventually Java will not be needed unless you need JDBC connectivity. LO included recent ODF updates that allow font embedding in documents, AOO lacks this ability. AOO is using the old IBM Symphony libs for the sidebar and some other UI elements. LO has redone these to move away from the dependency on IBM libs. IBM has also deprecated those libs.
So yeah AOO might be finished and focuses on just polishing the features they have, but at the same time LO is adding features which because of the licensing differences between the two any LO updates cannot be imported into AOO. But any AOO updates can be merged into LO.
In all fairness, this bill has been worked on since Bush II days, around 2006-ish. The current President has done literally little to secure the passage of this outside his signature. In fact, both Bush and Obama have done little for this as well. This whole effort has mostly been decided between private parties and a few key congressional representatives.
It's almost like people forget that important law takes years, compromises between a multitude of interested parties, and bipartisanship. But yeah, forget all that, let's wax superiority on how my team is better than yours. *eyeroll*
it would make sense to simply export it to China, India, Pakistan and ACEAN countries who are in dire need of it
Maybe, but there are way better ways that are more than likely to happen long before we get into a friendly market for coal with China. Which before I move on I should say, China is starting to become hostile to US coal, and they've got Australian coal to offset US, but I think we're just at the starting point for this situation. I think we've pissed them off a bit, but that's getting into a whole another topic, I digress.
This administration has become super friendly to the idea of more LNG ports and we're getting them. I'm thinking that LNG exports are going to skyrocket over the next few years, drawing domestic supply of LNG down and increasing the price of LNG to a point where coal becomes somewhat more competitive. "Don't make something cheap to stimulate a market, when you can make something else expensive to stimulate a market."
Yeah but using your graph you can see that the other shares are also growing in size, relative to the fossil fuel. I feel like this is one of those times where you really need to look at the first order derivative of this data to get a feel for hoe things are changing. Hell the 1980 Nuclear to 2010 Nuclear increase is massive compared to 1965 Nuclear to 1980 Nuclear increase. Wind which is non-existent in 2001 to where it is at in 2016 on that graph is a stunning delta to say the least. Going from 0 to about 25% the size of Hydro is the span of 15 years is a massive testament to the investment that's gone into that.
Yeah, we use a lot of fossil fuel, your graph points that out. But the other colors on that chart are getting bigger faster relative to where they were relative to the rate of change fossil fuel is growing relative to it's previous size over a given timescale. I think you'd have an argument if the graph just went up and all the other sources, basically continued to show zero to little growth. But clearly from your graph that's not the case. The delta in growth of any of those other sources over a given timescale is easily larger than the delta of fossil fuels over same timescales.
It took Fossil fuels 1965 to 2001 to move from 4 to 8 billion (double growth in 36 years). It looks like in 2016 it hadn't hit 12 (another 4 billion in growth). So that's 15 years for a 50% growth which it didn't hit. Perhaps it might hit 50% around 2018-2020. That's aiming for another double in growth in about the same delta in time, 36 years.
If you look at Wind though, you can see that in 2010 it's just a few pixels wide and by 2016 (a six year delta) it has almost quadruple in size. If it keeps that rate of growth up, it'll be as big as nuclear by 2024-ish. As big as hydro by 2030-ish. Again, that's a big IF on if wind can sustain that growth.
However, I did want to point out that your graph does show massive changes happening. Yes, we use a lot of fossil fuels, we're not going to turn this ship on a dime. But your same graph shows that diversity in energy mixture is happening at a not seen before pace. It might take a century to turn everything around. We're making changes really freaking fast in the energy sector and your graph clearly shows that. Look at the mixture in the 1960s to 1980s compare that to the mixture in the 2000s to 2016. However, that breakneck pace still is too slow to address climate change.
I'm not saying your original argument is incorrect, but I'd argue that it's not the correct way of looking at the data.
In all fairness though. DDT is a horrible chemical and shouldn't be used in places where people or animals are expected to exists in. I get your point though, people's knee jerks can bring about the end of something before a useful alternative is found. But to be devil's advocate, companies don't seem to ever want to find/use a useful alternative by themselves. It always seems like to get change to happen, it's always got to be this nanny nagging "oh no the world will end" kind of style. That's not true everywhere, granted, but for a lot of industries it doesn't seem like they want to advance until they're forced to do so. Especially in the coal industry.
Don't decide if it is actually true or not until you get it.
The only thing is that what Bloomberg is stating in the first story and to a much lesser degree in this current one are things that are tantamount to massive tectonic accusations. In fact, I'm really under selling it here. These claims are bigger than the second coming. So yeah, you're damn tooting I'm hyper skeptical of this story.
If we get to the end of the story and Bloomberg says "that's all we have,"
No, I think you aren't understanding the gravity of these claims. If we get to the end and Bloomberg has nothing, they need to be sued into a molten crater of nothing. That they published something like this, isn't "Oh ho hum same-o, same-o story." No this is, if this sotry proves to be false, your company is gone and your career as a reporter is ended for all of eternity. Additionally, the editor and everyone else who touched this story before it was actually printed should have their careers ended in the most spectacular way. And trust me I'm still seriously underselling how massive these claims are. If Bloomberg's story is true, they've single handedly uncovered the biggest story in tech/spy since Edward Snowden. And I would dare say that this revelation is bigger than that by several orders, if true.
So yeah, they need to pony up some hard proof ASAP. because I'm pretty sure some atom bomb sized libel suits are going to be coming their way at twenty orders of magnitude faster than Bloomberg is putting out updates. Bloomberg's claims are Earth shattering for the tech industry, there will literally be repercussions that will change things for forever, if ture. Those claims have the potential to end companies (and we've seen supermicro's stocks in free fall) and end them no matter size. So yeah, I'm going to need a lot more than "claims" for this one. This is way, way, way, way, way, way past the threshold of standard level of skepticism. Like we're not even in the same ballpark here, we're not even in the same galactic supercluster here for standard level of skepticism. If the saying is shit just got real, like this is where the shit transcends corporeal existence. And after all of that, I'm still really understating how massive these claims are.
What will you say if the women end up making even WORSE decisions?
I get your argument and it's not wrong except it hinges on a massive "IF". I think that's what people aren't liking about this law. It forces a change into a business when the business is mostly successful as is, so changes *could* mean some sort of disruption. But it could also mean one of the other outcomes. Things get better, things mostly don't change, there is change but the net sum of that change is zero, things only marginally worse, things only get marginally better, the companies find ways to comply with the language of the law but not with the spirit, companies find ways to weasel out of the law, etc...
When you start saying "IF" in a statement, it's worthwhile at the very least stating that, that is one of a multitude of possible outcomes. Yes, if this new law goes into effect and the majority outcome is that companies do worse, then yeah a big mistake has been made and ultimately it'll be up to voters of that state to indicate to law makers that there needs to be a correction. Hopefully everyone will learn from the mistake. However, and it is worth repeating, that's is one of a vast array of possible outcomes.
That's all I'm saying, you're outcome is one and is one to consider, but it ignores the others. And I get why you're ignoring the others because you're making an argument here and asking what say you *IF* this happens. But it is a massive IF and I think it's worthwhile to hold judgement until the law shows us what it ultimately will do. I mean, all of us here are indicating that we're willing to fairly give everything a *fair* chance, right?
This case is specifically aimed at Musk, not the companies. The companies are doing quite fine(ish). Tesla is just hitting every single brick wall that every other car company over the last umpteen decades has hit. So I guess they're notoriously bad at history.
It's even got a built-in cycle, you don't have to tell it to READ a file, that's what it'll do when you give it a file name
Indeed the cycle is still there for OPM, but if you want ILE you have to ditch the cycle. OPM biggest use is exactly what you said, if you want to batch process a massive load of records. Where I'm at there's still some programs that use cycle because we load up data sent in from all the branches, doesn't matter if the file is 1,000 records or 100,000,000 records the batch for each branch is so quick the timing is considered to trivial.
Now, getting it to process things interactively, like a terminal screen
That gets more into where you'd used ILE to break things up into pieces. Granted, there hasn't been any motion to move away from DDS for TN5250, but with PCML and node.js now integrated into the stack, you can code a service program to build JSON and then send that to the IFS and have the UI done up by node.js programmers. Or if JS isn't your thing, there's Zend server that can speak to COBOL or RPG ILE via PCML, again though, you really want to be outside the cycle for any of that to be less than nightmarish.
But biggest thing is that you have a choice in which mode you want to run in, cycle is still king for a ton of ETL. But ILE makes more sense for larger, more complex projects. But it's still good that we have a choice.
But then again, so could almost any other decent general-purpose computer language.
Depends but honestly, not really. I've worked C++, Java, COBOL and RPGLE. Most modern languages are general purpose like you said, and as such have to have libraries and what not added to them to make them SQL/Database/sockets etc aware. COBOL and RPGLE are pretty much specifically written to work with files/tables/transformations. Of course, the trade off is that those two languages become horrible for things outside that task.
Good example. In RPGLE database tables are files (actually the file concept came way before the table concept but I digress). You treat then just like you would any other file. Want a struct that matches the layout of a file (database table) you just define it to be like that file.
dcl-ds SomeStruct likerec( SomeRec : *all ) inz;
That's it. When you update the layout of the table, a quick recompile of the program updates the program too with no code change. You don't have to add getters, you don't have to add setters, none of that stuff that would be needed in Java or C++. If you want to store something from the database in that struct its
read SomeStruct SomeRec;
Change some values and then to update that changes back to the database
COBOL is pretty much the same way except the op-codes are a bit more verbose as you indicated. Again, I'm not saying RPGLE or COBOL are better than C++ or Java or what have you. What I am saying is that they are languages that were developed for a very specific purpose and as such they are incredibly honed into doing that purpose quickly.
COBOL can slice and dice data in ways C and SQL can't even dream of.
I think that's a bit overselling it. Even the best COBOL can be emulated in C++, the catch is that somethings in COBOL are made a lot more complicated in C++. One thing is that COBOL has built-in understanding of how to build reports that will be printed. That's because COBOL was made to specifically address that kind of stuff so it's no wonder that in COBOL you can instruct a report to be printed with a single line of code. You can do roughly the same in C++ or Java but you're pulling in a ton of libraries to get that done.
Again, the folks who have used RPGLE and COBOL all their life, they'll swear by it. And I get it. For things like taking in massive amounts of records and doing the exact same operation on upteen billion records, RPGLE and COBOL cannot be beat because they were written to do exactly that. However, want to do some cool website UI? Yeah, RPGLE and COBOL are horrible choices to do that in. Want to do some sort of RESTful API?.NET/Java/Shit probably an abacus are all going to be way better choices than RPGLE or COBOL. The two are very, very specific languages in what they will and won't do, and processing billions upon billions of records like Charlie Sheen processes lines of cocaine, is exactly what these languages have had the last four to five decades to refine. You'll be incredibly hard pressed to find compiled output that matches their speed, that used a HLL outside of them.
I'm sure everyone can argue the merits of the new Office, hell LibreOffice does everything I need it to, so that's what I use. But the features aside, let's take a moment to remember that no one knew for sure up to a point if Office 2019 was actually going to be a thing or not. Microsoft had indicated that 365 was the future, and if I was a betting person, this 2019 may be the last "retail" version we see. That isn't to say there will never be an offline version, but I feel that the days where Microsoft sells Office to John and Jane Doe are starting to sunset.
That said, I figure I'd point out a few new things for this release. That's not to say any or all of these things justify the price or that this is everything, it's just a list of features I found interesting.
Word 2019
Add the ability to use LaTeX notation to do mathematical equations. Ability to understand SVG with filters, better SVG rendering. Better 4K support. Several accessibility fixes and new features such as configurable audio cues for features and UI theme for hard of seeing.
Excel 2019
New visualizations. Publish to a Power BI server from Excel. Embedded Power Query and Power Pivot into the main product. Namespaces for Excel functions. Some Excel functions can be remoted using a style similar to JS promises. Custom functions for use in Excel can now be written in JavaScript. Excel now offers connectors for Flow. New Insight functionality. Multiple users can edit a workbook if stored on a SharePoint server or in OneDrive.
PowerPoint 2019
New animations, transitions, and so on. (Think copy of all the on-line guys like Perzi and what not). Hardware pens that are used in Windows 10 can now be used to present. Tighter integration between Excel and PowerPoint to allow the same visualizations there to be used in PowerPoint.
That's the big three there and those are just the new features I found to be interesting. There's more. Oh also, the chart engine for MS Access has been completely redone and there's a few new data types added to Access. However all these features said, there are some features in 2019 that won't be there that will only be in 365. An example is the ability to @ anyone anywhere in the big three of Office and it show up in their Outlook.
This article is full of shit. First you have this.
Car-industry employees concerned that robots will put them out of work needn’t worry -- at least for now.
Which, okay Bloomberg, tell me what you got there...
Auto companies are hiring more for software positions than hardware roles to prepare for a future in which more vehicles are communicating with each other and their surroundings, Man said.
...Seriously, what the literally fuck Bloomberg? The folks that are concerned about their job isn't the R&D team, it's the fucking guy who bolts a door onto the car, the folks that make after market shit, and so on, ya know, those hardware people you just fucking glossed over.
The rising popularity of electric cars is also set to cause an upheaval at manufacturers that make parts for internal-combustion engines.
Holy MFing Shit! Bloomberg!? So, there's no need for anyone in the auto industry to worry except the people who were the one worrying to begin with. Got'cha! How fucking disconnected are you from the world? I get that you all deal with numbers and what-not, but I think you're forgetting just because the numbers go up does not mean it's great news for everyone involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Still a nope. The secondary position only switches to that band because of the US network. Reread the article and you'll note that pushing the SIM into secondary outside of the US works just fine. The thing to note is that when you push a SIM into the secondary position, the device will attempt to ask the cell service to allow only inbound calls, since all outbound calls are done via the primary. Apparently, US cell networks explode in a puff of "WAAAA??" when asked to do this, and just go lowest common denominator in the confusion.
In short, asking a US carrier to provide an "inbound only" line is witchcraft and the iPhone just deals with the mass pandemonium as best as can be expected.
Pai thinks that since we no longer have net neutrality, the Telco's could monetize the rural areas better with exclusive contents services.
FYI for anyone keeping score, this is exactly what has happened before. A city can't get decent Internet, ISP goes in and says "We'll do it but for a monopoly control". Many folks during the NN debate were like, "well if cities didn't allow Comcast sole control..." Well this is why and Pai wants to go back to more of that. These under served areas will only get Internet if they sign 20-30 year contracts that allow Comcast and only Comcast (or whoever else) to serve the area. So if Comcast brings their service, "oh and by they way we have our own Email/VoIP/TVIP/NBC-Universal programming/Marketplace/...", and then throttles Gmail/Skype/Netflix/CBS All Access/Amazon or Ebay, well those folks don't have another choice.
I mean, we should all ask ourselves this, did anyone here think anything different was going to happen with the repeal of NN? I get that NN didn't force ISPs to build out equally or competitively, but the idea was since we can't force companies, apparently, to have morals when it comes to building out service, we can at the very least expect them to play fair online. But no, that's just too much government overreach apparently. The public (self included) deserves to have every last cent stolen from them. We deserve to have crap Internet. It's clear the US gives less than two shits about the people paying taxes and the people paying taxes are too dim witted to realize they're perpetually being bamboozled.
You assume that the speaker feels pressure to avoid doing those things
Well you're assuming an outcome on incomplete information. This would totally be an outcome for someone who didn't come to debate but to judge their bias, but it is not the only outcome and there example person listening and getting "upset" may be doing so because they don't understand the topic at hand and rather not learn the topic. There's plenty of way for the situation to unfold and you've picked a single one and then turned around and hung it up on PC. But you did mention something there that I'll touch on.
why it doesn't include emotive language or assign blame to an individual
There's always going to be this in that progress isn't happening fast enough or that the degree to which something is presented isn't persuasive enough. You cannot change the mindset of something that is always a constant fixture. But in turn, those folks are going to attempt to hang their disconnect with that which happens to that which they expected on something. That something may or may not have anything to do with the situation, such is the position of humans.
Cognitive dissonance, wherein some one or group tries to justify an illogical conclusion, is always going to find some hangup justifying their indefensible position. At the moment we're selecting political correctness, but there's all kinds of false justifications through out US history and more so in world history. That doesn't mean that they're correct. Or at least I wouldn't think it to be such. For a large amount of time the current party in power has fretted over the budget and mentioned reasons for why we ought to withhold from an action due to budget concerns, but in turn they have also increased the deficit spending. Now here's the thing, I'd like to have an argument not about budgets or if Republican deficit spending is justified because that's detracting from the point here. Cognitive dissonance. There's a lot of contorting that the GOP is doing at the moment to somehow justify their position to the public, and I'm less interested in their specific reasons and more interested in how clever they need to be or at least how clever they feel they need to be.
That's because somewhere deep inside their heads they know that they're having to justify something to which doesn't logically mesh with things they have said before. That same is true for the hyper-PC charged person when they do something like restrict someone's speech in the name of preventing outrage/hate speech/whatever justification they come up with that day. It boils down to this, in my mind, you're saying or doing something that you yourself wouldn't like or have previously stood against. However you're situation has now put you in a contradicting conundrum and you're just grasping for straws to somehow prop your position up. Probably best to realize where you are at the moment in the argument and evaluate what led you here. But in most cases, folks simply double down on their position. People don't like to believe in wrong.
And so that's the thing about your assumed position that the person would take. If they become hyper-PC charged, they began the whole thing not really wanting an honest debate. At the same time, since I don't want anyone to feel that this is a one-way street, there are those who would simply dismiss the argument as being too PC> You can see that in generalized statements where it goes something like "political correctness is killing this country" or whatever. It's simply trying to shutdown a conversation with a preconceived bias, that's all it is. And that happens all the time from both sides. Again, that's mostly because someone has already built a narrative about the workings of the world, their world view so to say, and it's not that they won't hear or listen to the counter view, but they will filter the counter view with their bias to arrive at something that will just solidify their positi
You assume that the speaker feels pressure to avoid doing those things
Sort of, I would assume that the candidate would wish to appeal to as many folks as possible to ensure victory within an election. There isn't any undue pressure other than to appeal to as many folks as possible. So yes there is pressure, but hardly what I would hoped is outside of normal pressure. Public discourse of politics is, well at least should be, a means to which we can openly discuss something. You hear someone say, "we need to start the conversation ..." That's kind of where I would assume it would start.
That said, a politician already presenting their message is one thing, openly shutting down anything contrary is polarity and something totally different IMHO. So even if a politician were to indicate, "The current President's nature to alienate foreign nations plays into the continued failed approach that the US has taken with Central and South America." That's not openly shutting down the current President from any future choice, but its not PC in that it's clearly nixing some folks who believe that the current approach is indeed working. Now counter that with something along the same lines but more PC, "The current President's nature to alienate foreign nations has its benefits and its weaknesses. While it has allowed us to shore up trade imbalances, it also continues a defeating policy that the US has taken with Central and South America." Again same premise but indicates that those who would have been off put by the first, are still valid in their thinking but that the thinking just needs to become more surgical, so to say.
I'm just trying to indicate that there's a lot of shades here between statements and that PC isn't so much a shade but a property of a shade, much like if the colors, white and black and all between also had magnetic charge. The magnetic charge is one thing that's unrelated to the shade of gray, but you might find that darker shades do better with one kind of charge versus the other, but that's not because the magnetic charge had anything to do with the shade to begin with, but more so to do with the environment that you were currently in.
And so you dismiss what hey have to say as being PC
I get what you're saying but that's exactly what I'm getting at here. Folks are going to be dismissive if they come into an honest debate strongly biased. They'll reach for whatever justification as an after thought. Which you indicate can be PC and that's absolutely correct, but that's just because they didn't want to listen to begin with. I mean what we're touching on here is cognitive dissonance that's justified by PC, but that doesn't mean that the person using it as a justification is using PC in the correct manner, only in the manner that their mind allows them to think it correct. Likewise, folks will dismiss others stating that they are being too PC as justification for their bias that prevents them from actually entering into a debate. It's important to note that while people abuse on either side the aesthetic of PC or for that matter any word, it doesn't change the underlying meaning unless we all agree for that change to happen. It's literally the question of, is something is what it is because we say it is what it is or is it what it is because of the innate properties of it outside of what we control?
Point being folks not wanting an honest debate are just going to use whatever is convenient to them. The far left become dismissive of the right because they're racist (not enough PC). The far right become dismissive of the left because they're overly protective in what one is permitted to do (too much PC). The question I'll leave you with is this. Does the actual definition of PC change because of how these two side abuse it? Because what ultimately it comes down to, at least to me, is that you have two sides that just don't want to engage with each other and they'll pick random reaso
Political correctness is a silencing tactic
No. That's how it is being used but it is far from what it means (or perhaps what it used to mean if we're truly that far gone). Likewise, guns are really handy tools, but a few asshats tend to fuck it up for everyone else by killing folks with them.
By designating something political correctness you are saying that it's trivial and unimportant
No, politically correct means a message that doesn't attempt to alienate either side of a debate, allowing an argument to be put forward that can be used to either further one side or the other, but all in how it is spun. However, some have taken that to be that the message has to be ultra-safe, which isn't true. Example of a politically correct statement, "The constant migrations of foreigners to the US is a clear demonstration that past and current foreign policy with Central and South America has failed." No one is being called an illegal, no one is indicating any particular President at fault, and so on. This statement can be spun in either direction depending on present company and at face value is equally palatable by whichever side you want to pick.
The idea is to belittle people's concerns and requests to be treated better by implying that they are so inconsequential that the argument/request is ether absurd or not made in good faith
Which actually gets into the "how's it's being used." Politics has become massively polarized at the moment and I'm pretty sure it'll ultimately swing back to something resembling sanity. However, you have those who'd argue for over-reaching PC because they see the other side's argument (as you say) trivial. You have those who'd argue that PS is a cancer and see the other side's argument as hand-waving. Either way, both sides are simply dismissing the other's because they don't want to actually reach some middle ground, instead they rather have the polarity. Polarized voters are easier to predict voters, polarized voters make stronger safe districts for political parties, and once upon time folks kind of realized that polarized politics meant less actual power in the voter's hands.
It really got going in the 80s when people...(rest of your comment)
No, this has always been a tactic in politics. It's centrist versus polarity, but PC is just the new name for it. And the polarity folks on either side use it as a tool for their narrative. In US politics I always like to apply the accelerator/brake metaphor for the polarity ends. The far left tend to be the accelerator "You're message isn't forceful enough, it needs to explicitly say what CAN and CANNOT be done or else it is just garbage." The far right tend to be the brake "Your group's mission will inevitably lead to everyone being lawsuited to death!" The far right need to allow progress to happen and get over their insecurities. The far left need to just chill the fuck out and stop telling people what they can't do.
Your comment isn't wrong, but it's assuming that PC is strictly defined as how it is being used and that's pretty depressing because it almost foregoes the fact that once upon a time it actually meant holding a centrist view and attempting to be affable to everyone. Maybe I'm naive in holding onto an archaic way of thinking.
You know I miss the days when stories like this would pop up and the first thing everyone would do is produce actual proof. The story literally says that China planted chips in their servers, but since the planted would have happened before the actual knowing where the board was going, they would have had to planted thousands of chips into boards in hopes of hitting a good target. So that said, finding one of these chips out in the wild shouldn't be that difficult and yet, zero people have produced an actual chip to show the story true. We literally have the Fermi paradox here. SMB would have had to produce tens of thousands of these boards that would have ended up everywhere from some CIA bunker to some NAS server in a rando University. At some point, someone, somewhere would have uncovered this and barring some complex and massive cover story conspiracy, would have seen this story and ran to side with Bloomberg to validate their claim. And yet that has not happened
So there is obviously something up here.
One, it isn't as widespread as Bloomberg paints and the Chinese got incredibly lucky with where their hacked boards went in that they're all sitting in Apple/Amazon/CIA places where no one in their right mind would come forward.
Two, it isn't as widespread as Bloomberg paints and there's maybe 1,000 - 100 boards out there and only one actually hit the target and the rest will be like finding a needle in a haystack.
Three, it is as widespread as Bloomberg paints it and everyone is a complete moron at finding these things.
Four, it is as widespread as Bloomberg paints it and the Chinese have invented a completely inconceivable clandestine process for hiding chips that far exceeds anything previously thought possible.
Five, China has somehow invaded every aspect of the reseller market for these boards and anything that's left their intended target has been brought back via these channels to China to prevent the boards from leaking out to other sources.
And hell there's likely more outcomes here than I'm covering but the point remains that given the massive claims that Bloomberg has made, some sort of hard proof should turn up and yet none has. That lack of hard proof makes me seriously question the accuracy of the story. It's an incredible claim, none the less, but count me as non-believer till I see some hard proof here. There's people who will see Cook's request as some sort of "proof" but that's just the deep down cynicism talking. This massive claim has been made, and Bloomberg really needs to back it up with something. And not that weak sauce story they printed about the researcher who found blah-blah-blah on the Ethernet port. Yeah, we all already knew about that trick. No I want to see this duplicitous capacitor or resistor looking chip that's somehow so well made that you can't tell the difference between it and an actual cap/resistor and somehow invades the board enough to leak useful info or make susceptible to an outside actor in a way that's undetectable. Because the engineering feat required to get that done isn't something I would normally attribute to Chinese scientist.
Yes, Apple and Amazon have both sued SMB before for crappy firmware. And if the story said, "They're putting super hidden firmware inside the board" I'll be honest with you, I'd be on the believer side having beers with the buds there. But this chip thing is a whole another level. Bloomberg needs to put up or shut up at this point. I'll be more than happy to eat my words if proof come across the table till then, I just don't buy this story.
Spot on there. Especially
Obesity rates are to do an overabundance of food and a lack of self-control. Grown adults filling fridges full of crap. You want to find the cause of that, open your own fridge.
The obesity epidemic and all of the apologist for it are the epitome of unwillingness to accept blame. I say this being that myself was once obese, now just overweight and still working to reach some semblance of normal. I can fully attest that every single bit, every single pound over was without question my own doing.
Yeah. It was pretty freaking bad.
As atheist let me address some things here.
* ALL the Laws of Physics just "magically" emerged from where again? Or
* They have ALWAYS existed???
The answer is, we don't know at this moment where they came from. Pretending that we do know where they came from is what kids do, let's try to be adults here. We don't know. In the absence of knowing you have a few options, I'll just cover my favorite two, but do know it's not an all inclusive list here.
1. We can just make up whatever the hell we want! There's nothing stopping people from whipping whatever fiction they want in their head as to where everything came up from. What splits science and religion at this point is the underlying question, "Is there some way we can create a predicable model from this? And if so, how do we go about verifying that?" Folks in science make up crap all the time, just like religious folks. So don't think I look at this as some holier than thou kind of thing. Everyone wants 15 minutes of fame and pandering to "understanding deep mysteries" has always been a fan favorite.
2. We can take what we do know and attempt at educated guesses. Once upon we knew the world was flat, then we knew the sun revolved around the Earth, then we knew that electromagnetism had to follow Newtonian mechanics, and we knew that the element was the smallest thing a substance could be split into... We took our previous understanding and used that to understand more about our universe. There's nothing that stops us from doing that exact same thing to what happened at 1x10^-36 seconds and back after the Big Bang and understand from where the Big Bang came from. It just that today, we don't live in that world of understanding and everyone here reading this may never get to see that day, but ultimately we've solved previous mysterious about the Universe it stand a pretty good chance that we'll eventually figure this out too.
Either way, that requires no more, or any less, faith then your standard theist. Atheists LOVE to pretend that their F word is Faith -- but faith is NOT a dirty word -- only blind faith is.
Well what you are talking about confuses prediction with faith. I can toss a ball in the air and I'm pretty sure that the ball will eventually come back down if it is not launched with enough force to obtain escape velocity. That's not faith, that's observation. Likewise, we've eventually unlocked many mysteries about the universe with science and there's not reason to believe that trend will change long term (over the course of the next 10,000 years) unless something else happens (like climate change killing us all or some massive war that hobbles society for the next 5,000 years). However, I'm not holding to it, it just looks like the trajectory that we're on, but it truly is whatever may come. humanity has to honestly take an invested approach to our existence for that to be sustainable. Contrast that to "end times, salvation, etc..." Typically, these become certainties in religion. There is an afterlife, there is some almighty, etc. That's not an observation, that's not "we're on a trajectory of sorts", that's not something that might change. That's a 100% I have zero proof to show and without doubt these things will come to pass. So you have to understand, you are confusing faith and observations.
EVERYONE has Faith -- otherwise what sustains your beliefs in the first place???
And this is where you totally confuse beliefs and observations. We aren't required to have beliefs. Belief in anything isn't a requirement for existence. But understanding that if I walk out in a busy highway the chances of me getting hit, isn't a belief. You can have a completely normal life with zero belief in anything and just a basic understand of cause and effect.
The fundamental problem is that Atheism is based on ignorance. i.e. I have no belief. Ergo, I have no knowledge.
Wh
except for the horrific 4.x with the "feature" of its own desktop
Oh I'm pretty sure I'm the odd one out when I say, that I hated that feature, but then it really grew on me. But looking back, I totally understand why everyone hated it. But still, I really started to enjoy it but yeah it was bad. I think it took a special kind of masochist to like it.
States have no authority over interstate commerce.
That's not entirely correct. States may enter into compacts with each other if they so wish. The Federal government may step in at any point, but absent that, States are free to have trade between each other should the Federal government be silent on the matter.
In other words, the Federal government has the "right" to regulate interstate commerce, but it does not have the "imperative" to regulate interstate commerce. The FCC is indicating that the Federal government has not taken any steps at this time to regulate such. Thus, since the Federal government is silent on the matter, by the way of 10th Amendment, the States are free to enter into compacts and regulate as they see fit.
Just to clarify the power for the 14th amendment is Incorporation. States cannot limit Free Speech as the 1st Amendment has been Incorporated into the 14th Amendment in Gitlow v. New York 1925 268 US 652.
They will listen in to all conversation for politically incorrect thought.
Won't need to, we already do it freely on the Internet via social media.
Depends on what you mean by finished?
LibreOffice has added more Calc functions than AOO. LO also has patched up UNO allowing for faster run and has added wrappers for VBA scripts into UNO calls. OOXML support in AAO is horrible, LO has greatly improved OOXML since the split. The backends for Base in LO is moving away from Java, slowly, but eventually Java will not be needed unless you need JDBC connectivity. LO included recent ODF updates that allow font embedding in documents, AOO lacks this ability. AOO is using the old IBM Symphony libs for the sidebar and some other UI elements. LO has redone these to move away from the dependency on IBM libs. IBM has also deprecated those libs.
So yeah AOO might be finished and focuses on just polishing the features they have, but at the same time LO is adding features which because of the licensing differences between the two any LO updates cannot be imported into AOO. But any AOO updates can be merged into LO.
better deal for music artists
In all fairness, this bill has been worked on since Bush II days, around 2006-ish. The current President has done literally little to secure the passage of this outside his signature. In fact, both Bush and Obama have done little for this as well. This whole effort has mostly been decided between private parties and a few key congressional representatives.
It's almost like people forget that important law takes years, compromises between a multitude of interested parties, and bipartisanship. But yeah, forget all that, let's wax superiority on how my team is better than yours. *eyeroll*
it would make sense to simply export it to China, India, Pakistan and ACEAN countries who are in dire need of it
Maybe, but there are way better ways that are more than likely to happen long before we get into a friendly market for coal with China. Which before I move on I should say, China is starting to become hostile to US coal, and they've got Australian coal to offset US, but I think we're just at the starting point for this situation. I think we've pissed them off a bit, but that's getting into a whole another topic, I digress.
This administration has become super friendly to the idea of more LNG ports and we're getting them. I'm thinking that LNG exports are going to skyrocket over the next few years, drawing domestic supply of LNG down and increasing the price of LNG to a point where coal becomes somewhat more competitive. "Don't make something cheap to stimulate a market, when you can make something else expensive to stimulate a market."
Yeah but using your graph you can see that the other shares are also growing in size, relative to the fossil fuel. I feel like this is one of those times where you really need to look at the first order derivative of this data to get a feel for hoe things are changing. Hell the 1980 Nuclear to 2010 Nuclear increase is massive compared to 1965 Nuclear to 1980 Nuclear increase. Wind which is non-existent in 2001 to where it is at in 2016 on that graph is a stunning delta to say the least. Going from 0 to about 25% the size of Hydro is the span of 15 years is a massive testament to the investment that's gone into that.
Yeah, we use a lot of fossil fuel, your graph points that out. But the other colors on that chart are getting bigger faster relative to where they were relative to the rate of change fossil fuel is growing relative to it's previous size over a given timescale. I think you'd have an argument if the graph just went up and all the other sources, basically continued to show zero to little growth. But clearly from your graph that's not the case. The delta in growth of any of those other sources over a given timescale is easily larger than the delta of fossil fuels over same timescales.
It took Fossil fuels 1965 to 2001 to move from 4 to 8 billion (double growth in 36 years). It looks like in 2016 it hadn't hit 12 (another 4 billion in growth). So that's 15 years for a 50% growth which it didn't hit. Perhaps it might hit 50% around 2018-2020. That's aiming for another double in growth in about the same delta in time, 36 years.
If you look at Wind though, you can see that in 2010 it's just a few pixels wide and by 2016 (a six year delta) it has almost quadruple in size. If it keeps that rate of growth up, it'll be as big as nuclear by 2024-ish. As big as hydro by 2030-ish. Again, that's a big IF on if wind can sustain that growth.
However, I did want to point out that your graph does show massive changes happening. Yes, we use a lot of fossil fuels, we're not going to turn this ship on a dime. But your same graph shows that diversity in energy mixture is happening at a not seen before pace. It might take a century to turn everything around. We're making changes really freaking fast in the energy sector and your graph clearly shows that. Look at the mixture in the 1960s to 1980s compare that to the mixture in the 2000s to 2016. However, that breakneck pace still is too slow to address climate change.
I'm not saying your original argument is incorrect, but I'd argue that it's not the correct way of looking at the data.
The media induced a panic about DDT
In all fairness though. DDT is a horrible chemical and shouldn't be used in places where people or animals are expected to exists in. I get your point though, people's knee jerks can bring about the end of something before a useful alternative is found. But to be devil's advocate, companies don't seem to ever want to find/use a useful alternative by themselves. It always seems like to get change to happen, it's always got to be this nanny nagging "oh no the world will end" kind of style. That's not true everywhere, granted, but for a lot of industries it doesn't seem like they want to advance until they're forced to do so. Especially in the coal industry.
Don't decide if it is actually true or not until you get it.
The only thing is that what Bloomberg is stating in the first story and to a much lesser degree in this current one are things that are tantamount to massive tectonic accusations. In fact, I'm really under selling it here. These claims are bigger than the second coming. So yeah, you're damn tooting I'm hyper skeptical of this story.
If we get to the end of the story and Bloomberg says "that's all we have,"
No, I think you aren't understanding the gravity of these claims. If we get to the end and Bloomberg has nothing, they need to be sued into a molten crater of nothing. That they published something like this, isn't "Oh ho hum same-o, same-o story." No this is, if this sotry proves to be false, your company is gone and your career as a reporter is ended for all of eternity. Additionally, the editor and everyone else who touched this story before it was actually printed should have their careers ended in the most spectacular way. And trust me I'm still seriously underselling how massive these claims are. If Bloomberg's story is true, they've single handedly uncovered the biggest story in tech/spy since Edward Snowden. And I would dare say that this revelation is bigger than that by several orders, if true.
So yeah, they need to pony up some hard proof ASAP. because I'm pretty sure some atom bomb sized libel suits are going to be coming their way at twenty orders of magnitude faster than Bloomberg is putting out updates. Bloomberg's claims are Earth shattering for the tech industry, there will literally be repercussions that will change things for forever, if ture. Those claims have the potential to end companies (and we've seen supermicro's stocks in free fall) and end them no matter size. So yeah, I'm going to need a lot more than "claims" for this one. This is way, way, way, way, way, way past the threshold of standard level of skepticism. Like we're not even in the same ballpark here, we're not even in the same galactic supercluster here for standard level of skepticism. If the saying is shit just got real, like this is where the shit transcends corporeal existence. And after all of that, I'm still really understating how massive these claims are.
What will you say if the women end up making even WORSE decisions?
I get your argument and it's not wrong except it hinges on a massive "IF". I think that's what people aren't liking about this law. It forces a change into a business when the business is mostly successful as is, so changes *could* mean some sort of disruption. But it could also mean one of the other outcomes. Things get better, things mostly don't change, there is change but the net sum of that change is zero, things only marginally worse, things only get marginally better, the companies find ways to comply with the language of the law but not with the spirit, companies find ways to weasel out of the law, etc...
When you start saying "IF" in a statement, it's worthwhile at the very least stating that, that is one of a multitude of possible outcomes. Yes, if this new law goes into effect and the majority outcome is that companies do worse, then yeah a big mistake has been made and ultimately it'll be up to voters of that state to indicate to law makers that there needs to be a correction. Hopefully everyone will learn from the mistake. However, and it is worth repeating, that's is one of a vast array of possible outcomes.
That's all I'm saying, you're outcome is one and is one to consider, but it ignores the others. And I get why you're ignoring the others because you're making an argument here and asking what say you *IF* this happens. But it is a massive IF and I think it's worthwhile to hold judgement until the law shows us what it ultimately will do. I mean, all of us here are indicating that we're willing to fairly give everything a *fair* chance, right?
This case is specifically aimed at Musk, not the companies. The companies are doing quite fine(ish). Tesla is just hitting every single brick wall that every other car company over the last umpteen decades has hit. So I guess they're notoriously bad at history.
It's even got a built-in cycle, you don't have to tell it to READ a file, that's what it'll do when you give it a file name
Indeed the cycle is still there for OPM, but if you want ILE you have to ditch the cycle. OPM biggest use is exactly what you said, if you want to batch process a massive load of records. Where I'm at there's still some programs that use cycle because we load up data sent in from all the branches, doesn't matter if the file is 1,000 records or 100,000,000 records the batch for each branch is so quick the timing is considered to trivial.
Now, getting it to process things interactively, like a terminal screen
That gets more into where you'd used ILE to break things up into pieces. Granted, there hasn't been any motion to move away from DDS for TN5250, but with PCML and node.js now integrated into the stack, you can code a service program to build JSON and then send that to the IFS and have the UI done up by node.js programmers. Or if JS isn't your thing, there's Zend server that can speak to COBOL or RPG ILE via PCML, again though, you really want to be outside the cycle for any of that to be less than nightmarish.
But biggest thing is that you have a choice in which mode you want to run in, cycle is still king for a ton of ETL. But ILE makes more sense for larger, more complex projects. But it's still good that we have a choice.
But then again, so could almost any other decent general-purpose computer language.
Depends but honestly, not really. I've worked C++, Java, COBOL and RPGLE. Most modern languages are general purpose like you said, and as such have to have libraries and what not added to them to make them SQL/Database/sockets etc aware. COBOL and RPGLE are pretty much specifically written to work with files/tables/transformations. Of course, the trade off is that those two languages become horrible for things outside that task.
Good example. In RPGLE database tables are files (actually the file concept came way before the table concept but I digress). You treat then just like you would any other file. Want a struct that matches the layout of a file (database table) you just define it to be like that file.
dcl-ds SomeStruct likerec( SomeRec : *all ) inz;
That's it. When you update the layout of the table, a quick recompile of the program updates the program too with no code change. You don't have to add getters, you don't have to add setters, none of that stuff that would be needed in Java or C++. If you want to store something from the database in that struct its
read SomeStruct SomeRec;
Change some values and then to update that changes back to the database
SomeStruct.SomeField = 'New Value';
update SomeStruct SomeRec;
COBOL is pretty much the same way except the op-codes are a bit more verbose as you indicated. Again, I'm not saying RPGLE or COBOL are better than C++ or Java or what have you. What I am saying is that they are languages that were developed for a very specific purpose and as such they are incredibly honed into doing that purpose quickly.
COBOL can slice and dice data in ways C and SQL can't even dream of.
I think that's a bit overselling it. Even the best COBOL can be emulated in C++, the catch is that somethings in COBOL are made a lot more complicated in C++. One thing is that COBOL has built-in understanding of how to build reports that will be printed. That's because COBOL was made to specifically address that kind of stuff so it's no wonder that in COBOL you can instruct a report to be printed with a single line of code. You can do roughly the same in C++ or Java but you're pulling in a ton of libraries to get that done.
Again, the folks who have used RPGLE and COBOL all their life, they'll swear by it. And I get it. For things like taking in massive amounts of records and doing the exact same operation on upteen billion records, RPGLE and COBOL cannot be beat because they were written to do exactly that. However, want to do some cool website UI? Yeah, RPGLE and COBOL are horrible choices to do that in. Want to do some sort of RESTful API? .NET/Java/Shit probably an abacus are all going to be way better choices than RPGLE or COBOL. The two are very, very specific languages in what they will and won't do, and processing billions upon billions of records like Charlie Sheen processes lines of cocaine, is exactly what these languages have had the last four to five decades to refine. You'll be incredibly hard pressed to find compiled output that matches their speed, that used a HLL outside of them.
I'm sure everyone can argue the merits of the new Office, hell LibreOffice does everything I need it to, so that's what I use. But the features aside, let's take a moment to remember that no one knew for sure up to a point if Office 2019 was actually going to be a thing or not. Microsoft had indicated that 365 was the future, and if I was a betting person, this 2019 may be the last "retail" version we see. That isn't to say there will never be an offline version, but I feel that the days where Microsoft sells Office to John and Jane Doe are starting to sunset.
That said, I figure I'd point out a few new things for this release. That's not to say any or all of these things justify the price or that this is everything, it's just a list of features I found interesting.
Word 2019
Add the ability to use LaTeX notation to do mathematical equations. Ability to understand SVG with filters, better SVG rendering. Better 4K support. Several accessibility fixes and new features such as configurable audio cues for features and UI theme for hard of seeing.
Excel 2019
New visualizations. Publish to a Power BI server from Excel. Embedded Power Query and Power Pivot into the main product. Namespaces for Excel functions. Some Excel functions can be remoted using a style similar to JS promises. Custom functions for use in Excel can now be written in JavaScript. Excel now offers connectors for Flow. New Insight functionality. Multiple users can edit a workbook if stored on a SharePoint server or in OneDrive.
PowerPoint 2019
New animations, transitions, and so on. (Think copy of all the on-line guys like Perzi and what not). Hardware pens that are used in Windows 10 can now be used to present. Tighter integration between Excel and PowerPoint to allow the same visualizations there to be used in PowerPoint.
That's the big three there and those are just the new features I found to be interesting. There's more. Oh also, the chart engine for MS Access has been completely redone and there's a few new data types added to Access. However all these features said, there are some features in 2019 that won't be there that will only be in 365. An example is the ability to @ anyone anywhere in the big three of Office and it show up in their Outlook.
This article is full of shit. First you have this.
Car-industry employees concerned that robots will put them out of work needn’t worry -- at least for now.
Which, okay Bloomberg, tell me what you got there...
Auto companies are hiring more for software positions than hardware roles to prepare for a future in which more vehicles are communicating with each other and their surroundings, Man said.
...Seriously, what the literally fuck Bloomberg? The folks that are concerned about their job isn't the R&D team, it's the fucking guy who bolts a door onto the car, the folks that make after market shit, and so on, ya know, those hardware people you just fucking glossed over.
The rising popularity of electric cars is also set to cause an upheaval at manufacturers that make parts for internal-combustion engines.
Holy MFing Shit! Bloomberg!? So, there's no need for anyone in the auto industry to worry except the people who were the one worrying to begin with. Got'cha! How fucking disconnected are you from the world? I get that you all deal with numbers and what-not, but I think you're forgetting just because the numbers go up does not mean it's great news for everyone involved.