That doesn't answer the question. Obviously that's how you would have to design it. The question is what code would you have to write to accomplish what GCD with blocks allowed.
I mean, programmers execute something on a separate thread and then make notifications on the main the thread all the time. The beauty in GCD with blocks is what little code you have to write to accomplish that task. Having your code stay contextual (like in the wikipedia example) is far better than splitting it across multiple functions. Additionally, that concurrent task was automatically handed to a system-wide load balanced thread pool.
So, to answer the question just show the equivalent code in Java that maintains the same benefits that GCD does.
On top of that, Apple will be including DRM on some eBooks and other iPad content.
Oh, that's fantastic! You mean the Linux versions will offer the same books without DRM?
Didn't think so.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur? I know Google's ads do this.
RTFA. From the THIRD and FOURTH sentences in the article,
There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong.
When you disable Flash completely, we serve up static backup ads. Flashblock, however, breaks this so it's effectively the same as running a dedicated ad blocker. It's more a technical problem with Flashblock, though.
That's a really annoying answer, but completely correct.
The math classes aren't just about learning the topics, but learning how to approach a problem. I think your goal should be to have strong enough fundamentals in mathematics that when you encounter a math problem in a topic you haven't seen before, you are comfortable pulling out a book and figuring out how to solve it. It sounds like you're not very comfortable with mathematics, so a good solution is to take enough classes that you do become comfortable.
Fair enough that's where we disagree. I think if you don't have the time or ability to investigate and decide for yourself you shouldn't be acting in that sphere for fear of doing more harm that good.
That's completely unavoidable. For example, politicians must decide
These policy makers can't be expected to be experts in all of these fields. I don't actually expect Senator Lisa Murkowski to understand enough immunology to look at the lab notebooks of the scientists and know whether or not the H1N1 vaccination they created will kill you outright. What I do expect her to know, is who's opinion she should trust. When the scientists at the CDC tell her its perfectly safe and will actually prevent infection, she's just gonna have to believe that and make policy choices based on that information.
As for paragraph 2 if you have read a 100 scientists opinions refuting Joe Blogger and you agree with their analysis isn't this educating yourself?
No, it's not. How can I even know if I agree with their analysis? For example, if these scientists are telling me that adding GFP to tomatoes that I eat won't cause cancer, I'm not going to take the time (years!) to learn about details of molecular biology in order to evaluate the biochemical pathways they used to back their claims. I'm just going to trust that they know what they're saying. Even if Joe Blogger tells me they will cause cancer because genetic engineer is bad, I'm also going to just have to trust that when the scientists tell me his claim is bogus, that they actually listened to what he had to say.
The thing that scares me is the don't believe him or even take the time to look at his stuff because he's not part of the club mentality.
Yes! If the scientists won't even listen to the claims, then they're not doing their job. We definitely agree here. That's the scientists responsibility to listen to them. But, I sure as hell don't want Senator Lisa Murkowski giving this other guy equal credence if the scientists have already refuted the claims. The politician and the layperson should not simply assume that there are two sides to this story and consider both claims. Neither is actually equipped to evaluate the claims; they simply aren't experts and haven't invested the time.
In my reading of the original article, the author decided to go the route of giving both the scientists and the blogger equal credibility. He took the time to investigate the claims a little deeper (as deep as his understanding would go) and then found that in the end scientists were likely right. His conclusion was simply that he wasted his time and should have stuck with believing the expert. He's not arguing the other guy is automatically wrong just because he's not an expert, but he is arguing he, a layperson, should have stuck with believing the experts; the system worked.
The broader conclusion, from my perspective, is that this is generally going to be the case. Even if I invest 10 years of my life educating myself such that I completely understand the intricacies of some scientific field of study, I'm pretty sure I'll likely agree with the general consensus in that field as it currently stands. This is why I don't actually need to educate myself about everything; I can evaluate claims simply by considering the source. In the case of a general consensus amongst scientists, I trust that the scientific process was followed when evaluating those claims.
Anytime someone tells me that I should let someone else decide the validity of any opinion for me I find it very frightening.
Yeah, see, this is where we disagree -- I don't find that frightening at all. As a practical matter I can't take the time to investigate all the claims people make, so sometimes I need a way to relatively quickly place my bets. In the case of science, there's a reasonable system in place whereby erroneous hypotheses eventually get weeded out and a consensus of what is true is formed. So I do immediately assume that claims resulting from scientists in their field are more likely correct than someone not in the field.
If there are 100 scientists who have spent their lives studying a particular subject telling me that Joe Blogger's claim about their particular field isn't true, who do you think I'm going to believe? I really do think you have to sometimes trust other people's opinions -- let them 'decide' for you.
They see, somebody laying out refuting the points of the AGW crowd, which then responds with basically "U STUPID", that isn't going to gain any more fans.
Here's the problem: the Economist article actually responded to the various claims by checking out sources, while Mr Eschenbach's reply ignores the informative responses to his questions from scientists and he doesn't actually show the statistics were bad (he just claims it's obvious they must be). YET, Mr Eschenbach continue to spout out his claims.
So what now? Should the scientists continue to repeat the same thing over and over again back to Mr Eschenbach until he finally decides to spend a few weeks/months/years of his time actually trying to understand the issue? If they do keep responding, then it suggests there's real debate going on here. There isn't. The debate ended when Mr Eschenbach couldn't respond with actual science.
Should you're words carry more weight because you have been trained in an area you are speaking on?...yep. Should you be completely dismissed because you don't have a PhD?...no and to suggest it is irresponsible and idiotic.
I largely agree with the spirit of what you're saying here, but you're conflating two issues. The author of the Economist article claims to not have the expertise to judge all of the scientific claims made in various quoted articles; so from his perspective, the smart thing to do is to believe the peer-reviewed consensus. That's all he's saying. However, this is NOT to say that global climate scientists within the field should do the same (and I think this is your point). They *do* need to listen to people outside their field and keep and open mind. It's their job.
To also suggest that someone not so decorated by academia can never show statistical manipulation is stupid as well.
You're absolutely correct, but the problem is that Mr Eschenbach *hasn't* shown such manipulation. Actually, the real problem is that Mr Eschenbach *thinks* that he has, but doesn't actually know what he doesn't know. In fact, in Mr Eschenbach's response to the Economist article, he states the following:
The question is, should temperatures more than a thousand km away from Darwin be used to arbitrarily adjust Darwin’s temperature by a huge amount? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
This quote demonstrates exactly why someone like Mr Eschenbach should be ignored by most people. First, the "arbitrarily adjust" comment reveals that he didn't even understand the explanations given for how things were adjusted (they weren't arbitrary, and that was wells stated). But second, he simply dismisses out-of-hand the possibility that two datasets separated by 1000 km can't be correlated!!! Uh, whoops.
This pretty much proves that Mr Eschenbach is wasting our time. He hasn't taken his own time to understand the arguments the scientists are making (or even basic statistics) and simply continues to repeat his claims.
So the fact that he isn't "decorated by academia" certainly doesn't mean we should dismiss his claims outright, but it probably does mean we should be a little bit more skeptical of his claims that are so far outside of his knowledge base.
"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson