Because all the kerfuffle here in the Rocky Mountain West the last decade has been hot summers and drought -- AS PROOF -- of global warming.
Absolutely right. And it's wrong when people do that too. Even if this was an especially warm winter it wouldn't mean AGW is real.
What makes AGW real is the global average temperature increasing over long-term trends (30 years). These short-term localized data-points are just noise.
Ah, yes that is true. I was a bit myopic thinking about my specific circumstances there. But you are right - COTS stuff is being sold well after the original development has been done.
The original idea is good - give that monopoly for a fixed period of time. That way "better" art can be more profitable than "crap." The period of time, however, needs to be reasonable and short. Certainly within the creators lifetime and probably a small fraction of that. I don't make money off code I wrote 10 years ago - it's absurd that an artist would expect the same.
That version is coming. It's very buggy though and will take another 2 years to get to alpha. In the mean time enjoy this "working well enough for what the developer wanted" version.
NOTE: may not apply to Javascript - but to say that "garbage collected enviornments" perform worse in this instance is just wrong. Though some may others may not.
"that it can be stolen" is not a "problem" unique to bitcoins. That it is not officially sanctioned does not mean this was not theft. If I had $1,000,000 worth of paintings it would be theft even though the paintings are not currency. Why isn't it the same with BTC?
That's true - technically by numbers of viewers the trolls may be outnumbered. But Slashdot's "value add" has always been the rich discussion and comment system. And in that arena the trolls are definitely more active and visible.
I think it's time Slashdot editors started doing more active culling of posts that will very obviously have no benefit. Give an editor unlimited mod points and mod down off-topic, stupid, etc. posts. The ones that derail any decent conversation right out of the gate *all the f'ing time*.
For example: "What's the point of this? Why not spend more time getting chicks." (just mod it down - nobody cares that some luddite doesn't like new things) "Just use a Mac!" (as answer to every-single-ask slashdot no matter how off-topic). Many many more...
Of course that would mean editors doing *work* so it's bound to fail...
The monoculture in food culture has nothing to do with GMO. In fact there is an issue but it's been caused by more traditional selection which has taken place over thousands of years before GMO was even technically possible.
So - no - you have no sound reasons. Scientific or otherwise.
You've switched arguments. You went right from "it should be banned because it's bad" to "it should be banned because I find it gross and many other people will." The latter has no bearing on the former.
What does it matter whether people would find it gross if they knew what it was? It's not like they're eating soylent green.
It's called "high fructose corn-syrup" because they add fructose to corn syrup (or rather convert some of the sucrose to fructose). It has nothing to do with its relation to sucrose.
The ratios in each is actually quite close. Sucrose in sugar is 50/50 whereas in HFCs it is typically 55/45. This makes HFCs slightly "sweeter" since fructose is much sweeter than glucose and less needs to be used.
The fact is, a lot of research shows that saccharin is bad, yet the lobbies that support it spend a lot of money to keep it on the market.
The FDA has what they call "ADI", acceptable daily intake. In other words, you can eat a little bit of poison and that is ok, just don't eat too much because we're paid to not ban it.
Well, I guess it works for tobacco, that should be banned as well, but it remains legal because of lobbies.
The fact is, lots of stuff is bad for us, but because there is enough money in it, it remains on the market.
That's because the dosage makes the poison. Nothing "is a poison." Everything is a poison at certain doses. Water, oxygen, carbohydrates, anti-oxidents, etc. All of them lethal at some level but quite necessary for survival.
That is why the FDA has a much better standard of "acceptable daily intake" rather than your over-reactionary stance. It turns out that saccharine was bad for rats (which, btw, are not people and do not always react the same as people) at very high doses. But quite safe for humans at "normal" doses. That does not make it a "poison."
I absolutely agree that I don't want this to go all Bloomberg. But I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water just because somebody else may try to push things too far. That would just be going too far in the other direction out of spite. We should aim to do the "right thing" and face the extremists when they come.
"The rest of the pair of nuggets was made up of a hodgepodge of pure fat, blood vessels, pieces of bone, nerves and cartilage."
Some people pay top-dollar for fish eggs. Some cultures eat insects and grubs. Calling such parts of a chicken "not chicken" is just stupid. It may gross out our overly-sensitive and privileged western sensibilities but that alone doesn't make these things bad for you. Overly salting them does but not the fact that it's less "accepted" parts of the chicken.
It would be impossible to pass such legislation. The Tobacco company would rather bankrupt itself fighting it than let that pass since it would put them immediately out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
Climate != Weather
Totally, right?
Because all the kerfuffle here in the Rocky Mountain West the last decade has been hot summers and drought -- AS PROOF -- of global warming.
Absolutely right. And it's wrong when people do that too. Even if this was an especially warm winter it wouldn't mean AGW is real.
What makes AGW real is the global average temperature increasing over long-term trends (30 years). These short-term localized data-points are just noise.
I get pissed when I hear programmers act like raw performance is the sole measurement of the quality of a language.
Remember kids - all programming is high-performance computing!
That's because forgery is a big problem with the Jesus market.
The JVM and C# garbage VMs *are* specialized memory managers. That's why they do work so well. You just get them "for free" with the environment.
Ah, yes that is true. I was a bit myopic thinking about my specific circumstances there. But you are right - COTS stuff is being sold well after the original development has been done.
The original idea is good - give that monopoly for a fixed period of time. That way "better" art can be more profitable than "crap." The period of time, however, needs to be reasonable and short. Certainly within the creators lifetime and probably a small fraction of that. I don't make money off code I wrote 10 years ago - it's absurd that an artist would expect the same.
That version is coming. It's very buggy though and will take another 2 years to get to alpha. In the mean time enjoy this "working well enough for what the developer wanted" version.
NOTE: may not apply to Javascript - but to say that "garbage collected enviornments" perform worse in this instance is just wrong. Though some may others may not.
Actually garbage collecting environments like the JVM deal with lots of small object creation on the heap much faster than compiled C++ for example.
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/208656/java-heap-allocation-faster-than-c
+1 - very cool project.
Massachusetts has its own exchange. You should be able to find out here:
https://www.mahealthconnector.org/
Exactly. Why is this so hard to understand for people?
"that it can be stolen" is not a "problem" unique to bitcoins. That it is not officially sanctioned does not mean this was not theft. If I had $1,000,000 worth of paintings it would be theft even though the paintings are not currency. Why isn't it the same with BTC?
And now I un-did my moderations by posting non-AC. *sigh*
That's true - technically by numbers of viewers the trolls may be outnumbered. But Slashdot's "value add" has always been the rich discussion and comment system. And in that arena the trolls are definitely more active and visible.
I think it's time Slashdot editors started doing more active culling of posts that will very obviously have no benefit. Give an editor unlimited mod points and mod down off-topic, stupid, etc. posts. The ones that derail any decent conversation right out of the gate *all the f'ing time*.
For example:
"What's the point of this? Why not spend more time getting chicks." (just mod it down - nobody cares that some luddite doesn't like new things)
"Just use a Mac!" (as answer to every-single-ask slashdot no matter how off-topic).
Many many more...
Of course that would mean editors doing *work* so it's bound to fail...
The monoculture in food culture has nothing to do with GMO. In fact there is an issue but it's been caused by more traditional selection which has taken place over thousands of years before GMO was even technically possible.
So - no - you have no sound reasons. Scientific or otherwise.
Well yes, but not in "white sugar" and "HFCS". They're nearly the same thing (50/50 fructose/glucose in one and 55/45 fructose/glucose in the other).
You've switched arguments. You went right from "it should be banned because it's bad" to "it should be banned because I find it gross and many other people will." The latter has no bearing on the former.
What does it matter whether people would find it gross if they knew what it was? It's not like they're eating soylent green.
Do you want to ban sausages too?
It's called "high fructose corn-syrup" because they add fructose to corn syrup (or rather convert some of the sucrose to fructose). It has nothing to do with its relation to sucrose.
The ratios in each is actually quite close. Sucrose in sugar is 50/50 whereas in HFCs it is typically 55/45. This makes HFCs slightly "sweeter" since fructose is much sweeter than glucose and less needs to be used.
The FDA tried to ban saccharin and an act of Congress stopped them (food lobby at work)
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/ThisWeek/ucm117882.htm
http://enhs.umn.edu/current/saccharin/fda.html
The fact is, a lot of research shows that saccharin is bad, yet the lobbies that support it spend a lot of money to keep it on the market.
The FDA has what they call "ADI", acceptable daily intake. In other words, you can eat a little bit of poison and that is ok, just don't eat too much because we're paid to not ban it.
Well, I guess it works for tobacco, that should be banned as well, but it remains legal because of lobbies.
The fact is, lots of stuff is bad for us, but because there is enough money in it, it remains on the market.
That's because the dosage makes the poison. Nothing "is a poison." Everything is a poison at certain doses. Water, oxygen, carbohydrates, anti-oxidents, etc.
All of them lethal at some level but quite necessary for survival.
That is why the FDA has a much better standard of "acceptable daily intake" rather than your over-reactionary stance. It turns out that saccharine was bad for rats (which, btw, are not people and do not always react the same as people) at very high doses. But quite safe for humans at "normal" doses. That does not make it a "poison."
And your "scientifically sound" reason that foods which tolerate more herbicide are bad for people is what exactly?
A reasoned response - thank you!
I absolutely agree that I don't want this to go all Bloomberg. But I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water just because somebody else may try to push things too far. That would just be going too far in the other direction out of spite. We should aim to do the "right thing" and face the extremists when they come.
"The rest of the pair of nuggets was made up of a hodgepodge of pure fat, blood vessels, pieces of bone, nerves and cartilage."
Some people pay top-dollar for fish eggs. Some cultures eat insects and grubs. Calling such parts of a chicken "not chicken" is just stupid. It may gross out our overly-sensitive and privileged western sensibilities but that alone doesn't make these things bad for you. Overly salting them does but not the fact that it's less "accepted" parts of the chicken.
"Ewwwww, gross" isn't a valid argument.
It would be impossible to pass such legislation. The Tobacco company would rather bankrupt itself fighting it than let that pass since it would put them immediately out of business.