Actually it would only drive more demand for automation. Putting up protectionist trade barriers (which is inevitably make it harder for us to export our goods) isn't going to make industrialists magically hire Americans back. Instead companies will seek to find ways to replace that labor and we're back to square one again. We're already heading in that direction anyways, but there's just less incentive to do so when you can get cheap foreign labor.
Protectionist policies might give a temporary increase in jobs, but it will also make the country collectively poorer. The only time protectionism makes sense is in response to foreign government subsidization of industry that leads to an uneven playing field. Otherwise if some other country can do something more efficiently or less expensively, it's better to let them do so and let local industry find markets where they can out-compete other countries.
If we want to increase employment in the U.S. we need to find ways to make it easier for people to start new businesses to replace the ones that we've lost.
That's an interesting thought. I wonder if someone could legally change their name to something else, say a person running for election for example, and then invoke their right to be forgotten to completely torpedo all traces of that candidate for a few days in order to throw an election. A bit far-fetched, but I am somewhat curious as to how well it would work out.
I guess someone with a common name could test this out just to see if it removes results for other people as well.
To be fair, I mostly meant the comment in a tongue-in-cheek way. It's pretty absurdest given the post I replied to as well as the jab about it being due to feminist men, so I was expecting people to mod it funny, but instead it received troll (and that's kind of fair in itself) or insightful mods because everyone (including yourself) seems to be too wrapped up in this to take a step back and laugh at a bit of humor.
Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: That's not funny you misogynist!
People are just horrible at fully imagining all of the negative consequences of their actions. We tend to have an optimistic view and tunnel in on how greats things will be when everything goes according to plan instead of thinking about all of the ways our plans might fail. It's a large part of the reason why things are rarely done on time or within budget.
Zika may not be responsible for the microcephaly cases in Brazil. Colombia is reporting no occurrences or indications of problems despite a large number of pregnant women being diagnosed with the Zika virus. I don't know if it's a relief that Zika may not be as bad as feared or if we should be more worried that we don't know what was responsible for the problems in Brazil.
I don't think we have enough data on the Zika virus yet to fully understand what's going on or if it's just one particular strain that is causing these problems.
Is there much of a big difference in terms of what you get? The only real advantage is ECC RAM support for Xeon processors, otherwise the usual higher system memory limitations or dual-socket advantages don't come into play with a notebook. I suppose the Xeon doesn't waste silicon on integrated graphics if you're going to get a professional grade GPU in the system, but that also means more power draw even if you're not actively using the discrete GPU for any purpose beyond driving the display.
Seems to be working for me. I'm using Chrome, so perhaps it's a browser issue.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I tend to lean towards free market policies, but given the attacks on personal liberties that most other candidates have come out in favor of, I'll take economic policies I don't like if it means the government won't by spying on me. Sanders doesn't have the best record as far as I'm concerned when it comes to second amendment rights, but he's not as bad as a lot of Democrats. If nothing else, Sanders seems reasonable enough that he won't just shove whatever crap the big corporations, unions, or his party is pushing.
Aligning yourself with a political party and not being able to look outside of it is fucking stupid no matter who you are. It's a large part of the reason we've ended up with so many shitty candidates and such bitter partisan politics where things largely fall along party lines.
Perhaps it is simply the result of men being good feminists and rejecting pull requests from women in order to promote greater diversity and inclusion in tech. I don't know if the authors of the study also factored in race to their data analysis though.
Re:And there was much rejoicing!
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I wouldn't necessarily cheer. If all of her supporters (only about 4% in NH, and even less in Iowa) went to the candidate you liked least of the remaining and it was close enough to put them in a position to win, you probably would prefer that she stay in the race. Though it this case it's not like it really matters much as the rest of the Republican candidates are so unappealing I'd rather vote for a self-described Socialist than any of the remaining Republican plonkers. At least Sanders is honest (for a politician anyway), but it remains to be seen if he'll get his party's nomination as the establishment seems bent on backing Clinton.
It's a research study. If you have a problem with how the research was conducted or believe that the conclusions which have been drawn from the study are erroneous or the result of a particular methodological flaw feel free to point it out. Dismissing scientific results on the basis that you don't like them or people are using it for some political narrative isn't reasonable.
Also, it doesn't look like anyone here is calling for diversity quotas or any other particular action. I'm sure some people will use this to point out why company X needs some program or some such stuff, but take umbrage with them or their policy, not the scientists who made an observation.
I have slightly different experiences, but I'm not a web developer so this is more of a one off remark.
I ended up getting handed a website some years ago that someone else had done using Django and that was in need of some updates. The version of Django it was using was completely out of date and there were some major changes to the API in between that and the newest stable version which broke a lot of the old site. It was pretty easy to use, but lack of support for a smooth upgrade path was a major pain in the ass and it was easier just to rewrite the whole things from scratch than to muck with fixing all the problems. Conceptually it wasn't that much different from Rails, which I'd previously toyed with one just to see what the fuss was about, but Python is infinitely preferable to Ruby in my opinion so it does have that going for it.
Hopefully they've got a fairly stable API by now, because I'd hate to use it if they're still tweaking things that break backwards compatibility. Perhaps there was something better I could have done at the time, but I wasn't turning up anything online so it seemed like a rewrite was in order. Fairly easy to use, but changing the API and essentially breaking old code left a bad taste in my mouth.
Assuming the output of the plant is relatively fixed throughout the year and the power use isn't (there's some variance in a lot of places depending on the season) there may be times when there's excess capacity that can be sold. It's also possible for them to expand and add additional power plants to the existing grid. I'm assuming they've got some of the better land for solar in terms of efficiency, so it makes more sense to put the production there if the transmission losses aren't excessive. In that case it makes sense to start developing the market and infrastructure now so that when they do build additional plants, the ability to export already exists.
Also, even if they could use all of the power internally, comparative advantage might dictate that it's better to sell some of it in order to import goods that would be even more costly for Morocco to make locally.
I think part of the reason is due to Google having a near monopoly in terms of search and online advertising. There's no competition to drive prices down, but even still the costs are lower for many companies than advertising with traditional media which is why so many companies will gladly line up to let Google make a substantial profit.
I don't even get the point of bots for something like Hearthstone. I can at least understand WoW or Diablo which have a lot of grinding built in to the game play, but what the hell does a bot even get you in a game like this? The only thing you can do (that I'm aware of as I don't play either) is play the card game.
The same goes for card counting apps. Perhaps they can give you a slight edge, but for the professionals they wouldn't be able to use them in tournaments so there's no point at sabotaging your own ability to improve at the expense of gaining nothing of value.
Personally I don't think they should ban the people who use the cheats though. Instead, just put them in a special area where they only get to play other cheaters or they programmatically lose 90% of their games and just end up raging harder.
Even if it didn't go farther, that's a pretty open and shut case of sexual harassment on its own. If something like that happened multiple times, it's pretty obvious that something should have been done a lot sooner.
For someone whose other posts in this thread give the impression that you support this move by Twitter, I find it rather amusing that you're complaining about the moderation system being used to silence you (which it really doesn't since many users browse at -1 and several like myself have troll/flamebait posts set to +5) in this post.
You're a fool if you somehow think the same won't happen at Twitter, or worse yet if you just don't care.
Also, if it turns out to be anything like the healthcare.gov project, I question how effective it would be in terms of improving security.
This sounds like a classic government program designed to funnel public money into the hands of a few private contractors or corporations. Remind me why the Republicans are opposed to this again.
The climate models developed thus far have generally been worthless in terms of prediction after more than a few years. We've got a long way to go with climate science before we can create models that are useful for the types of situations you're describing.
Now we obviously still need to do some funding to reach that point, but if you're country has other needs you can let other countries subsidize all of that learning for you.
Only so far as it relates to their position. Just because you work for the government doesn't mean your personal contact information or medical records should be released to the public.
However, documentation produced as a part of their job should certainly be available to the public and I would argue that we shouldn't need pesky FOIA requests in order to access it. Obviously rough drafts that have not been officially released or cases under active investigation have a reason to be excluded, but beyond those cases, there's no good reason to keep it secret other than the government wanting to keep hidden that which they'd prefer the public not see.
One would assume that after 10 years there would be some study on the effectiveness of the approach or other data available. A quick Google search turned up a government report done in London that measured speed differences both before and after. It doesn't report to the same level as a scientific study, but they did include a control for measurement, so presumably there is a more detailed version of the publication that details the methodology.
This particular study is limited in that it's concerned with roads where the speed limit is 30 mp/h (48 km/h) so it may not be reasonable to conclude it works on roads with higher speed limits, but for lower-speed city roads it does, in fact, appear to result in a natural reduction in traffic speed. They also point out it has the added benefit of reducing city work on roads (the roads don't need to be completely shut off for repainting) which I think some people would agree is worth it for that reason alone.
The report I linked above refers to a few other studies or reports, but does not provide a citation, so I can't look them up directly, but it would seem that there is a fair bit of support for removing the lines, at least in specific circumstances. Whether that holds true for other cases remains to be seen, but there is reasonable empirical support for doing it in urban areas and it would be something to study in more remote roads with higher speed limits.
I'm kind of curious why they decided to release this now instead of at some earlier point. It doesn't seem like it's a massive code base that would be perplexing and most of it looks well enough documented that there's no reason to be ashamed of the code (though I did notice a minor grammatical error in one of the files which had "alread" instead of "already" in a String literal, but hardly a big deal.) that tends to keep people from wanting to share.
I suppose if they are interested in porting it, it's a lot easier if you just open source it and allow someone else who may be interested to take on some of the work. It's well documented enough that a college student could probably do it. It might make a good project for someone interested in learning Ruby (or some other language) and getting involved in the open source community.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it would only drive more demand for automation. Putting up protectionist trade barriers (which is inevitably make it harder for us to export our goods) isn't going to make industrialists magically hire Americans back. Instead companies will seek to find ways to replace that labor and we're back to square one again. We're already heading in that direction anyways, but there's just less incentive to do so when you can get cheap foreign labor.
Protectionist policies might give a temporary increase in jobs, but it will also make the country collectively poorer. The only time protectionism makes sense is in response to foreign government subsidization of industry that leads to an uneven playing field. Otherwise if some other country can do something more efficiently or less expensively, it's better to let them do so and let local industry find markets where they can out-compete other countries.
If we want to increase employment in the U.S. we need to find ways to make it easier for people to start new businesses to replace the ones that we've lost.
That's an interesting thought. I wonder if someone could legally change their name to something else, say a person running for election for example, and then invoke their right to be forgotten to completely torpedo all traces of that candidate for a few days in order to throw an election. A bit far-fetched, but I am somewhat curious as to how well it would work out.
I guess someone with a common name could test this out just to see if it removes results for other people as well.
To be fair, I mostly meant the comment in a tongue-in-cheek way. It's pretty absurdest given the post I replied to as well as the jab about it being due to feminist men, so I was expecting people to mod it funny, but instead it received troll (and that's kind of fair in itself) or insightful mods because everyone (including yourself) seems to be too wrapped up in this to take a step back and laugh at a bit of humor.
Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: That's not funny you misogynist!
People are just horrible at fully imagining all of the negative consequences of their actions. We tend to have an optimistic view and tunnel in on how greats things will be when everything goes according to plan instead of thinking about all of the ways our plans might fail. It's a large part of the reason why things are rarely done on time or within budget.
And then launching the acid into the sun.
Zika may not be responsible for the microcephaly cases in Brazil. Colombia is reporting no occurrences or indications of problems despite a large number of pregnant women being diagnosed with the Zika virus. I don't know if it's a relief that Zika may not be as bad as feared or if we should be more worried that we don't know what was responsible for the problems in Brazil.
I don't think we have enough data on the Zika virus yet to fully understand what's going on or if it's just one particular strain that is causing these problems.
Is there much of a big difference in terms of what you get? The only real advantage is ECC RAM support for Xeon processors, otherwise the usual higher system memory limitations or dual-socket advantages don't come into play with a notebook. I suppose the Xeon doesn't waste silicon on integrated graphics if you're going to get a professional grade GPU in the system, but that also means more power draw even if you're not actively using the discrete GPU for any purpose beyond driving the display.
Seems to be working for me. I'm using Chrome, so perhaps it's a browser issue.
I tend to lean towards free market policies, but given the attacks on personal liberties that most other candidates have come out in favor of, I'll take economic policies I don't like if it means the government won't by spying on me. Sanders doesn't have the best record as far as I'm concerned when it comes to second amendment rights, but he's not as bad as a lot of Democrats. If nothing else, Sanders seems reasonable enough that he won't just shove whatever crap the big corporations, unions, or his party is pushing.
Aligning yourself with a political party and not being able to look outside of it is fucking stupid no matter who you are. It's a large part of the reason we've ended up with so many shitty candidates and such bitter partisan politics where things largely fall along party lines.
Another explanation (at least according to github) is that white women are some of the biggest barriers to progress.
Perhaps it is simply the result of men being good feminists and rejecting pull requests from women in order to promote greater diversity and inclusion in tech. I don't know if the authors of the study also factored in race to their data analysis though.
I wouldn't necessarily cheer. If all of her supporters (only about 4% in NH, and even less in Iowa) went to the candidate you liked least of the remaining and it was close enough to put them in a position to win, you probably would prefer that she stay in the race. Though it this case it's not like it really matters much as the rest of the Republican candidates are so unappealing I'd rather vote for a self-described Socialist than any of the remaining Republican plonkers. At least Sanders is honest (for a politician anyway), but it remains to be seen if he'll get his party's nomination as the establishment seems bent on backing Clinton.
It's a research study. If you have a problem with how the research was conducted or believe that the conclusions which have been drawn from the study are erroneous or the result of a particular methodological flaw feel free to point it out. Dismissing scientific results on the basis that you don't like them or people are using it for some political narrative isn't reasonable.
Also, it doesn't look like anyone here is calling for diversity quotas or any other particular action. I'm sure some people will use this to point out why company X needs some program or some such stuff, but take umbrage with them or their policy, not the scientists who made an observation.
I have slightly different experiences, but I'm not a web developer so this is more of a one off remark.
I ended up getting handed a website some years ago that someone else had done using Django and that was in need of some updates. The version of Django it was using was completely out of date and there were some major changes to the API in between that and the newest stable version which broke a lot of the old site. It was pretty easy to use, but lack of support for a smooth upgrade path was a major pain in the ass and it was easier just to rewrite the whole things from scratch than to muck with fixing all the problems. Conceptually it wasn't that much different from Rails, which I'd previously toyed with one just to see what the fuss was about, but Python is infinitely preferable to Ruby in my opinion so it does have that going for it.
Hopefully they've got a fairly stable API by now, because I'd hate to use it if they're still tweaking things that break backwards compatibility. Perhaps there was something better I could have done at the time, but I wasn't turning up anything online so it seemed like a rewrite was in order. Fairly easy to use, but changing the API and essentially breaking old code left a bad taste in my mouth.
Assuming the output of the plant is relatively fixed throughout the year and the power use isn't (there's some variance in a lot of places depending on the season) there may be times when there's excess capacity that can be sold. It's also possible for them to expand and add additional power plants to the existing grid. I'm assuming they've got some of the better land for solar in terms of efficiency, so it makes more sense to put the production there if the transmission losses aren't excessive. In that case it makes sense to start developing the market and infrastructure now so that when they do build additional plants, the ability to export already exists.
Also, even if they could use all of the power internally, comparative advantage might dictate that it's better to sell some of it in order to import goods that would be even more costly for Morocco to make locally.
I think part of the reason is due to Google having a near monopoly in terms of search and online advertising. There's no competition to drive prices down, but even still the costs are lower for many companies than advertising with traditional media which is why so many companies will gladly line up to let Google make a substantial profit.
Holy crap, an editor that fixed an error in TFS!
That's bigger news than the article itself.
Indeed. You might not get everyone back, but leaving things unchanged would certainly guarantee that you'd get no one back.
I don't even get the point of bots for something like Hearthstone. I can at least understand WoW or Diablo which have a lot of grinding built in to the game play, but what the hell does a bot even get you in a game like this? The only thing you can do (that I'm aware of as I don't play either) is play the card game.
The same goes for card counting apps. Perhaps they can give you a slight edge, but for the professionals they wouldn't be able to use them in tournaments so there's no point at sabotaging your own ability to improve at the expense of gaining nothing of value.
Personally I don't think they should ban the people who use the cheats though. Instead, just put them in a special area where they only get to play other cheaters or they programmatically lose 90% of their games and just end up raging harder.
Even if it didn't go farther, that's a pretty open and shut case of sexual harassment on its own. If something like that happened multiple times, it's pretty obvious that something should have been done a lot sooner.
For someone whose other posts in this thread give the impression that you support this move by Twitter, I find it rather amusing that you're complaining about the moderation system being used to silence you (which it really doesn't since many users browse at -1 and several like myself have troll/flamebait posts set to +5) in this post.
You're a fool if you somehow think the same won't happen at Twitter, or worse yet if you just don't care.
Also, if it turns out to be anything like the healthcare.gov project, I question how effective it would be in terms of improving security.
This sounds like a classic government program designed to funnel public money into the hands of a few private contractors or corporations. Remind me why the Republicans are opposed to this again.
The climate models developed thus far have generally been worthless in terms of prediction after more than a few years. We've got a long way to go with climate science before we can create models that are useful for the types of situations you're describing.
Now we obviously still need to do some funding to reach that point, but if you're country has other needs you can let other countries subsidize all of that learning for you.
Only so far as it relates to their position. Just because you work for the government doesn't mean your personal contact information or medical records should be released to the public.
However, documentation produced as a part of their job should certainly be available to the public and I would argue that we shouldn't need pesky FOIA requests in order to access it. Obviously rough drafts that have not been officially released or cases under active investigation have a reason to be excluded, but beyond those cases, there's no good reason to keep it secret other than the government wanting to keep hidden that which they'd prefer the public not see.
One would assume that after 10 years there would be some study on the effectiveness of the approach or other data available. A quick Google search turned up a government report done in London that measured speed differences both before and after. It doesn't report to the same level as a scientific study, but they did include a control for measurement, so presumably there is a more detailed version of the publication that details the methodology.
This particular study is limited in that it's concerned with roads where the speed limit is 30 mp/h (48 km/h) so it may not be reasonable to conclude it works on roads with higher speed limits, but for lower-speed city roads it does, in fact, appear to result in a natural reduction in traffic speed. They also point out it has the added benefit of reducing city work on roads (the roads don't need to be completely shut off for repainting) which I think some people would agree is worth it for that reason alone.
The report I linked above refers to a few other studies or reports, but does not provide a citation, so I can't look them up directly, but it would seem that there is a fair bit of support for removing the lines, at least in specific circumstances. Whether that holds true for other cases remains to be seen, but there is reasonable empirical support for doing it in urban areas and it would be something to study in more remote roads with higher speed limits.
I'm kind of curious why they decided to release this now instead of at some earlier point. It doesn't seem like it's a massive code base that would be perplexing and most of it looks well enough documented that there's no reason to be ashamed of the code (though I did notice a minor grammatical error in one of the files which had "alread" instead of "already" in a String literal, but hardly a big deal.) that tends to keep people from wanting to share.
I suppose if they are interested in porting it, it's a lot easier if you just open source it and allow someone else who may be interested to take on some of the work. It's well documented enough that a college student could probably do it. It might make a good project for someone interested in learning Ruby (or some other language) and getting involved in the open source community.