Virtually all sexual species exhibit aggression. The problem is war, not mere aggression. And this problem goes beyond mere conflict between human groups. E. O. Wilson's "The Social Conquest of Earth" describes how group selection dominates the environment and, in the case of human eusocial organization, degrades biodiversity.
The price of civilization is eusocial organization and the price of eusocial organization is war.
One way of addressing this failing is to turn civilization outward, away from the biosphere, toward "war" on lifeless rock in space -- converting it to life -- leaving the biosphere free of human eusocial organization.
Is there a place for humans in the biosphere?
Yes, but only if individual sovereignty is ruthlessly enforced.
I would say "sold" but with BTC in the $250 range that works out to roughly $0.000025 so it isn't worth the hassle of setting up an account, and it's too small to withdraw. Besides, agents of His Majesty Felipe VI are the ones who really need to do the collecting.
I hereby declare the number 90185349087539845793845389573985739485739487593857893 in the name of the King of Spain. What will you give me for that?
Performance... you're funny. Tell me about your performance when your server falls over with memory problems and you don't have anything like visualvm to figure out why. Don't get me wrong, Java sucks in its own special ways, but I'd never choose Javascript as my primary language.
Adblock and Ghostery work on an opt-out basis, which is semi-adequate for ads and totally inadequate for tracking. Request Policy is my #1 mandatory extension.
Right. There is a long history of dimensions as after-thought/addon to languages going back to the PLATO system's TUTOR programming language circa 1972. Russell's Relation Arithmetic starts with relational structure and defines equivalence classes of structure as numbers in the arithmetic of relations. Its an entirely different, and correct, approach.
The penultimate paper of "Bit-string Physics: A Finite and Discrete Approach to Natural Philosophy" discusses an attempted revival of "Relation Arithmetic" with which Russell and Whitehead had planned to cap off their Principia Mathematica in its final volume.
Of Relation Arithmetic, Russel said:
"I think relation-arithmetic important, not only as an interesting generalization, but because it supplies a symbolic technique required for dealing with structure. It has seemed to me that those who are not familiar with mathematical logic find great difficulty in understanding what is meant by 'structure', and, owing to this difficulty, are apt to go astray in attempting to understand the empirical world. For this reason, if for no other, I am sorry that the theory of relation-arithmetic has been largely unnoticed."
-- " My Philosophical Development" by Bertrand Russell
An example of going astray in attempting to understand the empirical world is when people attempt to combine incommensurable quantities in their calculations, not understanding the structure of the relations between the quantities.
Ordinarily, programming languages treat units, as I/O formats for dimensions, as an afterthought -- independent of type checking. However, what if we saw numbers themselves as embodying relational structure, as intended by Russell, thereby unifying the notion of "type checking" with the notion of "number"? Might then the power of dimensional analysis be brought to bear, in a mathematically rigorous way, on the relatively ad hoc notions of "type", hence problematic areas such as the object relational impedance mismatch?
Its simple guys... make like Bruce Jenner, only be a better woman driver.
Ditto. Any significant C I've written had "cleanup:" at the end of many functions, and "goto cleanup" wherever you had to bail out of the middle of such functions. Once I got over the "never use goto" mentality that was drilled into my head, I realized it was the most maintainable way of dealing with things that had to be released such as file handles, graphics contexts, memory, etc. Anybody who analyzed my code should have quickly picked up on the fact that this was an idiom for something like destructors in a language that doesn't have them.
Isn't the point of prison to separate criminals from the general population?
This; but with some very important caveats. First, the separation must be as humane as practical. Why? Well there's the obvious "don't be a sicko and mistreat anybody, even a prisoner because it's immoral" argument. There's also the "hey, they might be innocent" argument. Everybody, even the most hardened "tough on crime" person should understand this. Every single one of us is potentially a victim of mistaken imprisonment. What, not me? Yes. You. If you disagree, please refer back to the definition of "mistaken imprisonment". Thus, we all have a personal stake in safe, humane treatment of prisoners.
Second, we should carry out this humane separation only when necessary, and in a way that isn't too costly.
The policy as described in the article summary seems neither humane, nor necessary. In the long run it will be costly too. Extended solitary can lead to severe mental conditions. Severe mental conditions are costly to society, either because of new crimes when released, or the need to turn the prisoner over to an expensive psychiatric facility for the rest of their lives.
If they're concerned about people running gangs from prison, they could monitor their networks. Collect all the information and trade it with your friends... then collect their friends and put them in the same cell. Of course there'd be less of this if we weren't waging a war on drugs; but that's a separate rant.
How come, in Litvinyenko's name, ladoga's post got moderated "troll"? Comrades, didn't you get the memo? The First Secretary is ok with people knowing that. He would use a speeding car or a dose of that invisible "100% natural cardiac event" poison, rather than polonium you can't get without being a state actor. Instead, the message sent means "yes, we did it, and if you fuck with us the same can happen to you".
Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.