Your thesis is that unless scientists are expert politicians, they'll be accused of being political.
That may or may not be true, but it contains nothing having to do with science, or any argument for a better way for scientists to communicate the science. You're just demanding that they also be politicians, and accusing them of being politicians if they refuse. They're not going to engage you in that discussion, because there is no benefit.
You will call scientists whatever pejoratives you want to. It isn't something they caused, though. It is just you and it is your own responsibility what you say.
You add a caveat to try to make it closer to true, but it is still just horse shit, eg, knowing lies. You set up a straw man about compiling GCC from source, but you already implied that you know you can just install it. But you put a No-True-Scotsman onto the GCC package, to try to hide the straw man.
You seem to be implying that FreeBSD is going to immediately port all their 3rd party software to any new GCC that gets released in the future during the support period, but that is not actually how FreeBSD versions work. The actual reality is that FreeBSD will get most new versions later than even Centos! And no, they don't just slavishly follow the upstream release schedule, they actually couldn't do what you imply if they wanted to because so much of their 3rd party software gets local changes to make it more secure, which then isolates them from upstream and means new versions have to be basically back-ported. So you don't even get all the released versions.
FreeBSD has a slower release cycle. It doesn't have a magically faster-and-also-slower release cycle. It is more stable. Stable means "not changing." "Not changing" means less new stuff.
That isn't what "work-around" means. If you use the correct words and say, "Yes, those features are available," then the rest of your analysis might have a better chance at being internally consistent.
If you want to only use default, easy features, it is up to you to choose the tools that are ubiquitous, which means they will also not be new. If you want the new stuff, it won't be ubiquitous, and you'll have to do work to set it up. That is true on every platform.
Right, but people who actually want a system to get support for 10 years aren't even going to consider something called C++14 until at least 2024.
I code on Centos 7 for exactly this reason, and I'm using C99. C11 will be skipped entirely, there are no significant features added.
I think most people who write their code specifically for *BSD are using ANSI C (C89).
Even on other platforms, few people want to use compiler features that were only released in the past few years. What you call "stale," many of us would consider "new and not yet widely adopted." Using non-ubiquitous compiler features if often considered to be a significant act of folly.
Right, except that when you almost comprehended my point, instead of thinking, "Oh, yeah, you're right" you phrased it as me "fall[ing] flag on [my] face." That's pretty daft. You proved you can count to 5, but why is it that when I talk about what a computer does you start talking about magic pixies?
Are you that context-challenged? You just don't like me, so you presumed that I'm incorrect about everything, so you see me saying something and you just say the opposite. Only you don't realize my level of knowledge on the subject, and don't actually consider the details, so you don't give yourself any chance at all to say something that is even correct, much less interesting.
No, computers aren't magic pixie dust. They're just fancy fucking calculators, "DDDDDUUUUUUUUUH!" Fuck-an-A why do you not know something that basic yet?! A computer model isn't magic pixie dust that might just be a pooly cast spell, no, it is just fucking math. You can work it all out without the computer if you don't trust computers. The computer has absolutely nothing to fucking do with the model, which is actually just a mathematical model. It is like calling algebra a "computer model" because you were using a computerized calculator. It might be a useful description for people who would probably also want to use the computer tool, but it doesn't mean it is some type of new mysterious unknown thing that has to be Trusted.
Come on, they didn't manage to hold the context in their little brains even long enough to directly respond, how can you expect them to keep the context in mind while explaining their counter-point?
If they can't comprehend that a rare thing can be locally common, what can you really expect from them? It is like expecting to be able to send your dog to college, it is just not a realistic expectation to place on them.
They didn't even manage to look up NO2 within the context.
Maybe working in a steel mill doesn't make him a chemist after all?
No, Mr. Potter, that isn't the way farming works. You ask me some questions, there are answers that are very relevant and easy for you to look up. If you're really that ignorant, me explaining things like the "dustbowl" isn't going to make it through your thick skull, so I'll just self-righteously tell you to look it the fuck up.
"That's just math and I question its validity. It doesn't make sense [to me] with what I know."
It always cracks me up to find people on the interwebs who don't even know what a computer is. Don't worry, don't worry, you don't need to know what it all means. You don't need to worry about where pr0n comes from, or how the trucks get the data down the information superhighway. Just trust that there are kittens in the tubes and everything will keep moving, and if not, just click reload for a couple hours.
So basically, global warming is no longer causing droughts, but now 20% more rain.
Earth has more than one place. More than one concurrent weather event. Furthermore, weather and climate are different. And drought and increased rainfall can happen together; less frequent rain, with heavier storms when it does rain. You'll still measure increased plant growth, but it won't be the food plants, it will be the pioneer (weed) plants.
It often seems that things we read a couple years back are a bit fuzzy in our minds. You should check a source when you're going to use it, or else just remember that it was a long time ago when you read it so by now you have no fucking clue. If you presume that you have no clue, then whenever you find having a clue useful you'll realize you have to look the shit up again. So for example when you're about to type some stupid moronic shit with some claim like "that lasted 100 years" you'll realize that "100 years" is a fact, and facts are objective, and since you didn't just look it up to check you have no fucking clue and shouldn't try to state a fact.
Some people will get more rain, mostly places that already get a lot of rain, and other places will get less rain. Mostly places that already only get a little bit.
You're confused because there is more than one place. Sorry it is all so confusing.
"I can't comprehend your words because I'm too much of an expert and you used plain English, which I'm allergic too because I'm so educated."
These people are always running around this place, with their neckbeards all braided into turtlenecks. I always wonder, "Doesn't that itch?"
It doesn't occur to them that if they can't understand the version that uses 10th grade English, they were probably only pretending to understand the college-level English that they're demanding.
Christians are not all created equal, the Parable of the Sower explains that.
They're just not allowed to attempt to weigh themselves in this life.
Also, they have to be able to figure out who was created to be the least deserving, because if they don't treat that person well they can't go to Heaven. That's really the funny part about Christian "Conservatives" and all the groups they hate. If those people are so horrible, you better start loving them because Jesus is measure your love for Him by your love for the people you know are least deserving.
I don't know about those details, I can't imagine choosing *BSD on the same box that I'm using cloud services, but in general it is true that yes, BSD moves that slow and you can't expect support for something just because it has been out for 5 or 10 years.
The thing is, if you're restricting yourself to what is included in the system, you're not running BSD. If you're running BSD, you're expecting to compile a lot of things that you might need. "Supported software" is not really something they're big on.
Well, when the rules that they're dictating are related to being honest about investment, then that is called "Capitalism." It is the very action of the government regulating trust to create a level playing field that allows capital to move freely. Without that regulated trust, established parties or the party controlling the information will conspire to keep new entrants out of the market. That is what Capitalism is all about. Read some Adam Smith sometime.
Slashdot Mirror
What did you think apps were? Video calls to a giant library that holds up the correct 3x5 card depending what button you press?
Well, you're also calling in from a 3rd party site and I have to say, you just look like an AOL user to me. I don't really care which site it is.
If he said Faceslave instead of Birdbrains, it is all the same around here.
I would be inclined to believe you are replying to some completely different post from what you intended, but you quote extensively from my post.
I often feel the same way when he replies to my posts.
Your thesis is that unless scientists are expert politicians, they'll be accused of being political.
That may or may not be true, but it contains nothing having to do with science, or any argument for a better way for scientists to communicate the science. You're just demanding that they also be politicians, and accusing them of being politicians if they refuse. They're not going to engage you in that discussion, because there is no benefit.
You will call scientists whatever pejoratives you want to. It isn't something they caused, though. It is just you and it is your own responsibility what you say.
None of what you said is even true. None of it.
You add a caveat to try to make it closer to true, but it is still just horse shit, eg, knowing lies. You set up a straw man about compiling GCC from source, but you already implied that you know you can just install it. But you put a No-True-Scotsman onto the GCC package, to try to hide the straw man.
You seem to be implying that FreeBSD is going to immediately port all their 3rd party software to any new GCC that gets released in the future during the support period, but that is not actually how FreeBSD versions work. The actual reality is that FreeBSD will get most new versions later than even Centos! And no, they don't just slavishly follow the upstream release schedule, they actually couldn't do what you imply if they wanted to because so much of their 3rd party software gets local changes to make it more secure, which then isolates them from upstream and means new versions have to be basically back-ported. So you don't even get all the released versions.
FreeBSD has a slower release cycle. It doesn't have a magically faster-and-also-slower release cycle. It is more stable. Stable means "not changing." "Not changing" means less new stuff.
That isn't what "work-around" means. If you use the correct words and say, "Yes, those features are available," then the rest of your analysis might have a better chance at being internally consistent.
If you want to only use default, easy features, it is up to you to choose the tools that are ubiquitous, which means they will also not be new. If you want the new stuff, it won't be ubiquitous, and you'll have to do work to set it up. That is true on every platform.
Right, but people who actually want a system to get support for 10 years aren't even going to consider something called C++14 until at least 2024.
I code on Centos 7 for exactly this reason, and I'm using C99. C11 will be skipped entirely, there are no significant features added.
I think most people who write their code specifically for *BSD are using ANSI C (C89).
Even on other platforms, few people want to use compiler features that were only released in the past few years. What you call "stale," many of us would consider "new and not yet widely adopted." Using non-ubiquitous compiler features if often considered to be a significant act of folly.
Right, except that when you almost comprehended my point, instead of thinking, "Oh, yeah, you're right" you phrased it as me "fall[ing] flag on [my] face." That's pretty daft. You proved you can count to 5, but why is it that when I talk about what a computer does you start talking about magic pixies?
Are you that context-challenged? You just don't like me, so you presumed that I'm incorrect about everything, so you see me saying something and you just say the opposite. Only you don't realize my level of knowledge on the subject, and don't actually consider the details, so you don't give yourself any chance at all to say something that is even correct, much less interesting.
No, computers aren't magic pixie dust. They're just fancy fucking calculators, "DDDDDUUUUUUUUUH!" Fuck-an-A why do you not know something that basic yet?! A computer model isn't magic pixie dust that might just be a pooly cast spell, no, it is just fucking math. You can work it all out without the computer if you don't trust computers. The computer has absolutely nothing to fucking do with the model, which is actually just a mathematical model. It is like calling algebra a "computer model" because you were using a computerized calculator. It might be a useful description for people who would probably also want to use the computer tool, but it doesn't mean it is some type of new mysterious unknown thing that has to be Trusted.
Come on, they didn't manage to hold the context in their little brains even long enough to directly respond, how can you expect them to keep the context in mind while explaining their counter-point?
If they can't comprehend that a rare thing can be locally common, what can you really expect from them? It is like expecting to be able to send your dog to college, it is just not a realistic expectation to place on them.
They didn't even manage to look up NO2 within the context.
Maybe working in a steel mill doesn't make him a chemist after all?
No, Mr. Potter, that isn't the way farming works. You ask me some questions, there are answers that are very relevant and easy for you to look up. If you're really that ignorant, me explaining things like the "dustbowl" isn't going to make it through your thick skull, so I'll just self-righteously tell you to look it the fuck up.
"That's just math and I question its validity. It doesn't make sense [to me] with what I know."
It always cracks me up to find people on the interwebs who don't even know what a computer is. Don't worry, don't worry, you don't need to know what it all means. You don't need to worry about where pr0n comes from, or how the trucks get the data down the information superhighway. Just trust that there are kittens in the tubes and everything will keep moving, and if not, just click reload for a couple hours.
Where I live we have increased incidence of toxic algal blooms in mountain lakes that have no upstream agriculture or residences at all.
Having an anecdote provides you with negative knowledge; you didn't learn anything, but you thought you did.
No, that you thought world-wide weather events would result shows you should stop pretending you thought you knew what anything meant.
How do you even put your shoes on in the morning without falling over and hitting your head?!
So basically, global warming is no longer causing droughts, but now 20% more rain.
Earth has more than one place. More than one concurrent weather event. Furthermore, weather and climate are different. And drought and increased rainfall can happen together; less frequent rain, with heavier storms when it does rain. You'll still measure increased plant growth, but it won't be the food plants, it will be the pioneer (weed) plants.
It often seems that things we read a couple years back are a bit fuzzy in our minds. You should check a source when you're going to use it, or else just remember that it was a long time ago when you read it so by now you have no fucking clue. If you presume that you have no clue, then whenever you find having a clue useful you'll realize you have to look the shit up again. So for example when you're about to type some stupid moronic shit with some claim like "that lasted 100 years" you'll realize that "100 years" is a fact, and facts are objective, and since you didn't just look it up to check you have no fucking clue and shouldn't try to state a fact.
Some people will get more rain, mostly places that already get a lot of rain, and other places will get less rain. Mostly places that already only get a little bit.
You're confused because there is more than one place. Sorry it is all so confusing.
Carbon monoxide is rare and called "carbon monoxide" for that reason.
NO2 is called "smog."
Any other ESL questions I can help you with?
"I can't comprehend your words because I'm too much of an expert and you used plain English, which I'm allergic too because I'm so educated."
These people are always running around this place, with their neckbeards all braided into turtlenecks. I always wonder, "Doesn't that itch?"
It doesn't occur to them that if they can't understand the version that uses 10th grade English, they were probably only pretending to understand the college-level English that they're demanding.
OTOH, Jose prefers IBM DOS 3.30 and Maria can't be parted from Apple ProDOS.
Christians are not all created equal, the Parable of the Sower explains that.
They're just not allowed to attempt to weigh themselves in this life.
Also, they have to be able to figure out who was created to be the least deserving, because if they don't treat that person well they can't go to Heaven. That's really the funny part about Christian "Conservatives" and all the groups they hate. If those people are so horrible, you better start loving them because Jesus is measure your love for Him by your love for the people you know are least deserving.
It might even be the most popular OS in the world, how is that for a slow death?
Not really impressed, Centos 7 was released in July 2014 and doesn't hit EOL until 2024.
I don't know about those details, I can't imagine choosing *BSD on the same box that I'm using cloud services, but in general it is true that yes, BSD moves that slow and you can't expect support for something just because it has been out for 5 or 10 years.
The thing is, if you're restricting yourself to what is included in the system, you're not running BSD. If you're running BSD, you're expecting to compile a lot of things that you might need. "Supported software" is not really something they're big on.
Maybe I had a different version, but when I was kid we played AD&D2 and there was no experience for granted for seducing maidens.
Well, when the rules that they're dictating are related to being honest about investment, then that is called "Capitalism." It is the very action of the government regulating trust to create a level playing field that allows capital to move freely. Without that regulated trust, established parties or the party controlling the information will conspire to keep new entrants out of the market. That is what Capitalism is all about. Read some Adam Smith sometime.