http://www.nerdswithoutborders.com/
That's not the right website for NWB - that's some kind of tech blog with adverts.
The correct site is: http://nerdswithoutborders.net/
"The remaining coefficients are significant and either positive or negative.
For those with positive coefficients we can expect that
the language is associated with
These languages include C, C++, JavaScript, Objective-C, Php, and Python.
The languages Clojure, Haskell, Ruby, Scala, and TypeScript, all have negative coefficients
implying that these languages are less likely than the average to result in defect fixing commits"
Isn't the real message here to choose static typing if you like fixing bugs?
In the bestselling tradition of The Soul of a New Machine, Dealers of Lightning is a fascinating journey of intellectual creation. In the 1970s and '80s, Xerox Corporation brought together a brain-trust of engineering geniuses, a group of computer eccentrics dubbed PARC. This brilliant group created several monumental innovations that triggered a technological revolution, including the first personal computer, the laser printer, and the graphical interface (one of the main precursors of the Internet), only to see these breakthroughs rejected by the corporation. Yet, instead of giving up, these determined inventors turned their ideas into empires that radically altered contemporary life and changed the world.
Why would you want to type at all? There's reasonably good voice recognition now, that's got to be better than trying to finger-paint letters on a tiny watch screen?
The only question I..
Ever thought was hard...
Was do I like Kirk?
Or do I like Picard?
And no, it isn't deep, nor profound. But it is funny.
Just download and install VyOS (fork of Vyatta) if you're building your own firewall.
The numerator above seems off: what is 6445 ?
4.75 tons of petrol is 6445 litres. Since petrol is 85% carbon, we can divide the 6445 litres by 0.85 and we get 7582 litres of petrol containing 4.75 tons of carbon.
For the weight of a big tub of petroleum containing 4.75t carbon, I think you'd have:
4.75 tons of carbon /
Your answer is wrong: 4750 Kg of carbon / 0.85 = 5588 Kg of petrol. It looks like you divided by 0.80 instead of 0.85?
5588 Kg of petrol / 0.737 = 7582 litres of petrol.
Wikipedia says the carbon content of petrol is up to about 85%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
So 6445/0.85 = 7582 litres of petrol contain 4.75t of carbon.
I'll start by saying thank you for the analysis; that was thought provoking.
The numerator above seems off: what is 6445 ?
For the weight of a big tub of petroleum containing 4.75t carbon, I think you'd have:
4.75 tons of carbon /
To see how many Liters of petroleum that would be, we get:
5,938 Kg of petroleum / (
Using that average fuel economy of 5L/100Km yields a range of
8,057L / ( 5L/100Km ) = 1,611 / (1/100km) = 161,100 Km
(Or 100,040 miles for our readers in Burma, Liberia and the United States.)
Which is indeed a LOT of driving in one year.
The oracle of Yahoo Answers suggested that 19,000 to 24,000 km (12,000 to 15,000 miles) is a more reasonable average.
So by carbon weight, yeah... the gp's claim for Carbon is roughly a factor of 8 too high (161,100 km / 20,000 km/yr).
You raise a good point considering whether the gp meant 4.75 tons of CO2 instead of carbon.
To do this I think we need to revise our petroleum footprint.
You'll recall we first derieved that above based on just the target carbon weight.
We'll take the same approach for our target CO2 weight.
So... to get 4,750 KgCO2 emissions we need to burn a certain amount of petroleum.
That works out to 4,750 KgCO2 / (2.331 L/KgCO2) = 2,037.8 L of petroleum.
Which yields an alleged annual distance of:
2,038 L / ( 5L / 100Km )
= 408 / ( 1 / 100Km)
= 408 * 100Km
= 40,800 Km (25,351 miles)
Which is closer, but still off by a factor of at least 2 unless maybe they were talking fleet cars.
*shrug* don't know... it is hard to tell what point they were making.
(and yeah, this was much more fun to do over lunch than reading yawn-inducing project requirements
my work to where I am still around my wife and children so that I can still interact with them and be with my family, but still hit my deadlines
If you want to be with your family, be with your family. Read a book to your children. Play a game. Do something with them.
So... just what kind of interaction are you going to have with your "wife and children" while you're working on a deadline sitting in your recliner? Maybe this will help you more than a recliner: https://www.lifesizecustomcutouts.com/CustomCardboardCutout.
When I want to spend time with my family or my friends, I make it a point to leave my ipad turned off, my smart phone in my pocket, and my laptop closed. If I get a phone call I need to take, I excuse myself and go take the call and come back when I'm done. I find it pretty rude to "spend time" with anyone whose attention isn't there; if I'm putting my tasks and goals aside to spend time with people, I expect them to do the same for me.
And when I need to get work done, I focus on that.
Oh well... at least you've got the whole proximity thing going for you.
If only I had a large enough collection of tinfoil hats to sell to all the posters freaking out over this.
people don't want an intelligent dryer and an intelligent toaster
We need to try to solve the FTL problem.
r.e. FTL research: you raise some good points.
But nobody (except maybe a Comi-Con panel) is going to get behind funding FTL research.
Our species also has some baby steps to work on first: in no particular order... orbital solar power, fusion, space elevators, mars colonies, asteroid mining. *shrug* Let's solve those things first because they will (eventually) set the stage for interstellar work, including FTL research.
As for basic physics research, I would say China is showing some interest in basic research and advancing the state of the art; with any luck that will motivate some other governments to not be left behind. India also seems hungry to establish itself as a prestigious space power; they're doing some cool things - I hope they are successful.
Likewise I'm optimistic about the progress SpaceX has made; I hope they're wildly successful because it will open new doors for humans.
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android
