Endowments come with many strings attached. Just because they have $13B USD doesn't mean they are allowed to spend it anyway they like. Most of the funds are earmarked for specific purposes. Additionally it must be invested to ensure future returns.
It's not like they could just cut a check for $13B...
Just because an idea is stupid today doesn't mean it won't be a everyday thing tomorrow.
And just because "they all laughed at Einstein" doesn't mean that your stupid idea is correct.
I highly doubt you would be all for spending this money researching whether we can create roads out of ice cream simply because "it might work!". You'll go broke very fast funding every crackpot with an idea.
Plausibility MUST be a factor in determining where to put money and time. And solutions that are already better in EVERY way already exist (just put tilted panels along the side of the roads). And those options will always be better since they don't need to work around the constraints.
Or... It's just a stupid idea that everyone should know will fail from the start? I don't need to put my cat in the stove to know it's a bad idea anymore than I need to spend millions on solar panels in the road to know that's a bad idea.
I think it just turns out that most guys are just assholes. Look at the Slashdot community as an example. You're about to get a *ton* of knee-jerk insults from the gaggle of dicks who frequent this site. If you were a woman the insults would likely be worse. "You can't tell me I'm not perfect" is the standard ideology around these parts.
Perhaps it's Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad[1] theory at work? Maybe we need to teach proper philosophy in school? I dunno. But humanity in general is a major let-down.
How do you know that science produces something that is true? How do you know what you are doing *is* science?
That is where philosophy of science lives. It guides the scientific method. Just because science has made wonderful advances doesn't mean that it has out-lived the need to discuss what science is and how to apply it or approve it.
Science and philosophy still haven't solved the "demarcation problem" for example. And "science" can't. It's a philosophical question.
The two don't compete - they work together. Though for some reason modern scientists seem to think they can do without the philosophy...
The earlier the system crashes, the more damage can be avoided. Possibly a civil war in Europe. Not to mention the loss of our European genetic and cultural heritage.
Most voice-mails are of *terrible* quality (listen to them sometime - people mumble, etc.). But even still GV does a pretty good job. And it does a very good job with numbers. So it's great for that person who left you a long rambling voice-mail with their phone-number half-way through. Oh - and the phone number will be "clickable" in GV to boot.
I always thought/.'s moderation system was pretty clever like that. It rewards commitment. Stackexchange has taken it a bit further and limits the type of things you can do until you gain some "creds" by participating on the site (can only mod up until you get the "right" to mod down). I don't know why these systems aren't more common? The childish trolls don't have the patience to gain trust and those who commit to a site are the sort of community you want to foster.
What are you talking about and do you have a source for what you're talking about?
Raw data is available and has been used. For example the Berkley Earth project re-analyzed the data starting with raw data and addressing concerns about heat islands, bad sources, etc.
"Kalia himself indicates the study refers to popular music and not specific genres or time periods with the title of his analysis: “Music was better back then: When do we stop keeping up with popular music?” It’s not that you stop listening to new artists or even discovering new styles as you age, just that you won’t care as much who is taking home platinum records and leading the iTunes downloads race."
I'm in my late 30's (*sigh*) and my music tastes have only expanded. Thing is - they expanded into areas that still aren't the current "popular music." It's difficult to tell how that would be represented in this report.
Granted I'm likely an outlier of sorts but it's not clear that the methodology would consider me such.
GitHub negates the decentralization of git in order to make it practical for real world use.
Negates? No - it just provides a single location through with to share code. You're confusing "using a central repository" with "requiring a central repository." It is just above trivial for any git project to switch to a new "central" server through with to share code.
You're not going to do that with Subversion anytime soon. Sorry - I like SVN. But to claim that having a central repository is anything like *requiring* a central repository is just missing the point.
Which makes it very strange that they would think to write a paper on it. It's not even worth a blog post.
Not to mention that in the Java implementation they're writing to a BufferedWriter. So even with the StringBuilder they're comparing "concatenating a string, writing it to a buffer and writing that to disk" to "copying strings to a buffer then writing that to disk."
In the Java application they're using a BufferedWriter as well - so they're buffering before the OS buffer.
It seems pretty clear to me that "concatenating a string then writing it to a buffer and flushing that to disk" would be faster than "writing a bunch of strings to a buffer then flush that to disk." They're basically copying that data around at least twice.
Slashdot Mirror
Endowments come with many strings attached. Just because they have $13B USD doesn't mean they are allowed to spend it anyway they like. Most of the funds are earmarked for specific purposes. Additionally it must be invested to ensure future returns.
It's not like they could just cut a check for $13B...
Just because an idea is stupid today doesn't mean it won't be a everyday thing tomorrow.
And just because "they all laughed at Einstein" doesn't mean that your stupid idea is correct.
I highly doubt you would be all for spending this money researching whether we can create roads out of ice cream simply because "it might work!". You'll go broke very fast funding every crackpot with an idea.
Plausibility MUST be a factor in determining where to put money and time. And solutions that are already better in EVERY way already exist (just put tilted panels along the side of the roads). And those options will always be better since they don't need to work around the constraints.
Solar roadways is not an experiment - it's a con.
Or... It's just a stupid idea that everyone should know will fail from the start? I don't need to put my cat in the stove to know it's a bad idea anymore than I need to spend millions on solar panels in the road to know that's a bad idea.
And the theme song will be stuck in my head for hours...
Some people like to test their fixes a bit before releasing them to production systems.
What's the difference?
This guy/gal gets it.
"Unsolicited advice of almost any kind has always been a socially inept move."
Do we really live in a society where that isn't obvious??? Telling some coworker they need to lose weight is NOT being helpful - it's being a dick.
I think it just turns out that most guys are just assholes. Look at the Slashdot community as an example. You're about to get a *ton* of knee-jerk insults from the gaggle of dicks who frequent this site. If you were a woman the insults would likely be worse. "You can't tell me I'm not perfect" is the standard ideology around these parts.
Perhaps it's Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad[1] theory at work? Maybe we need to teach proper philosophy in school? I dunno. But humanity in general is a major let-down.
[1] https://www.penny-arcade.com/c...
How do you know that science produces something that is true? How do you know what you are doing *is* science?
That is where philosophy of science lives. It guides the scientific method. Just because science has made wonderful advances doesn't mean that it has out-lived the need to discuss what science is and how to apply it or approve it.
Science and philosophy still haven't solved the "demarcation problem" for example. And "science" can't. It's a philosophical question.
The two don't compete - they work together. Though for some reason modern scientists seem to think they can do without the philosophy...
The earlier the system crashes, the more damage can be avoided. Possibly a civil war in Europe. Not to mention the loss of our European genetic and cultural heritage.
What about our precious bodily fluids?
Fanboi alert.
Like I tell my kids - it doesn't matter what other people are doing if what you are doing is wrong.
Most voice-mails are of *terrible* quality (listen to them sometime - people mumble, etc.). But even still GV does a pretty good job. And it does a very good job with numbers. So it's great for that person who left you a long rambling voice-mail with their phone-number half-way through. Oh - and the phone number will be "clickable" in GV to boot.
I always thought /.'s moderation system was pretty clever like that. It rewards commitment. Stackexchange has taken it a bit further and limits the type of things you can do until you gain some "creds" by participating on the site (can only mod up until you get the "right" to mod down). I don't know why these systems aren't more common? The childish trolls don't have the patience to gain trust and those who commit to a site are the sort of community you want to foster.
What are you talking about and do you have a source for what you're talking about?
Raw data is available and has been used. For example the Berkley Earth project re-analyzed the data starting with raw data and addressing concerns about heat islands, bad sources, etc.
http://berkeleyearth.org/about....
Exactly.
The rest are mostly just crap, only of value to the people that shot them. Not really worth sharing to the public.
You mean like most vacation photos ever taken?
Ah, and *now* I find this paragraph:
"Kalia himself indicates the study refers to popular music and not specific genres or time periods with the title of his analysis: “Music was better back then: When do we stop keeping up with popular music?” It’s not that you stop listening to new artists or even discovering new styles as you age, just that you won’t care as much who is taking home platinum records and leading the iTunes downloads race."
That's a long way from calcifying...
I'm in my late 30's (*sigh*) and my music tastes have only expanded. Thing is - they expanded into areas that still aren't the current "popular music." It's difficult to tell how that would be represented in this report.
Granted I'm likely an outlier of sorts but it's not clear that the methodology would consider me such.
Thanks! Now can you define "colloquial" for us all too?
Pffft. *I* don't even own a TV.
GitHub negates the decentralization of git in order to make it practical for real world use.
Negates? No - it just provides a single location through with to share code. You're confusing "using a central repository" with "requiring a central repository." It is just above trivial for any git project to switch to a new "central" server through with to share code.
# git remote add newupstream git://new.server/my-project
# git push master newupstream
Aaaaand, done.
You're not going to do that with Subversion anytime soon. Sorry - I like SVN. But to claim that having a central repository is anything like *requiring* a central repository is just missing the point.
Which makes it very strange that they would think to write a paper on it. It's not even worth a blog post.
Not to mention that in the Java implementation they're writing to a BufferedWriter. So even with the StringBuilder they're comparing "concatenating a string, writing it to a buffer and writing that to disk" to "copying strings to a buffer then writing that to disk."
If you do more work it takes longer. QED.
In the Java application they're using a BufferedWriter as well - so they're buffering before the OS buffer.
It seems pretty clear to me that "concatenating a string then writing it to a buffer and flushing that to disk" would be faster than "writing a bunch of strings to a buffer then flush that to disk." They're basically copying that data around at least twice.
Didn't read the paper eh?