Comment Re:The big advantage of XOR (Score 1) 277
You're missing something. Hint: just try it with a few characters.
Israel cannot be trusted to uphold peace, but I'm surprised they haven't used their nukes on Iran yet.
Why would they? Their own spies tell them Iran is years away from a bomb; their generals have been pretty open about that. And even it Iran were close, it is far better to let the US fight Israel's war for them. The US may even elect a fool that will give them that present. They got close with McCain and Miss Alaska.
MAD only worked because both sides of the conflict were rational and relatively sane. Iran has no such encumbrance.
There are no signs the Iranian leadership is irrational or insane; far from it. Considering the snake pit of the middle east, I would say that they have played the game about as well as they possibly could. That doesn't make them nice people, but being nice doesn't get you points in this game.
So yes, they know about MAD, and they are motivated by it. It is more their opponents I'm worried about.
Ah fuck.......leaving slashdot until April2. fuck ^*&((^&*(^*&Y&* SUHRUISHUIPY&Y&*)^6
That last sound is you being eaten by Mozilla, right?
Or you're fighting a garbage compactor without the help of that #$%^ princess?
Incoming call from Capt. Sheridan?
I'm curious. What is it about solar energy that spurs such surprising anger among this segment of Slashdot readers? What did solar energy do to you?
My theory is that admitting that solar energy works means admitting that those g_dd_mn hippies were right. After all, hippies are never right, so solar energy cannot work.
Q.E.D.
Replace 'hippies' with 'Al Gore', 'leftards', 'commies', 'alarmists' or a similar label according to taste.
Did these "many people" ever look at the offerings of Khan academy? That's not academic stuff.
Kahn academy is early academic level at most, it is true. But it is good at what it does.
And Coursera lacks serious cohesion and supervision.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Both Coursera and edX offer courses of a wide range of qualities. There are good to very good courses on both of them, there are very bland ones on both of them. Some of them even leave out the l and the n.
But university is about more than learning some formula by heart or reading a book. You need to get an understanding of the context of the theories, the process of discovery, and be guided through the history and current practices. It's not for everyone, but it's certainly not something an online course can provide.
Why not? Plenty of courses are close to identical to traditional courses taught at the university, going as far as using footage from those courses or even student discussions and exams. Good online courses provide lots of context, background, history, and development. I don't see what the problem is and why MOOCs would be inherently inferior in some way.
You mean where people artificially tried to change the environment and now are losing the battle?
Artificially changing the environment is almost the definition of civilisation. That's what humans do, no? Even by putting on a coat you do that. And yes, next to climate change, there can also be other reasons that people have to retreat in this battle.
I just don't buy iPhones because I don't agree with the poor working conditions in Apple factories.
Very principled of you, AC! So which brand of phone do you buy then?
A theory is supposed to make predictions that can be tested. Have any testable predictions been made that have since been proved true?
Yes of course. In this case the theory is just elementary high-school chemistry and physics. Burn something -> more CO2 in atmosphere -> more heat absorbed -> global warming.
Anyone filling a greenhouse (the real ones with the transparent roofs) with CO2 routinely uses this theory on a small scale. Successfully. This is not controversial.
Another discovery we made this winter is that AGW produces more precipitation in places where that would be bad (Boston, Buffalo, Bangladesh) and at the same time less precipitation in places where that would be bad (California, Australia). We never knew that the global climate system had a brain capable of forming moral judgements about different parts of the planet.
How about: in all those places people had learned over the centuries to live with the climate, but now that the climate is changing, those people have problems. Isn't that a far more rational explanation?
Yes, but the fact that the data matches the theory...
That's not at all surprising, because the theory was developed to explain the data.
So what? The theory does what it is supposed to do: explain the data.
And you think someone on a suicide death dive with 200 people into a mountain is going to sit there quietly, breathing *normally*? Unless they are a complete and utter psychopath they will surely be in a heightened emotional state, crying, screaming, blaming anyone and everyone, not casually watching the altimeter spin down.
This is the main reason I have my doubts about this theory. The world is a large and strange enough place that it can happen, but it doesn't seem plausible on the face of it.
Then I have fantastic news for you: not all that new money is used to boost diversity!
Don't believe me? Just read the summary.
Happy now?
If only Bill Gates was a Billionaire, then he could spend money to implement his ideas instead of criticizing others.
I fail to see why he deserves this. He is asked what he thinks went wrong with the Ebola crisis. He gives a very sensible answer. That's called discussion. It is essential for a functioning society, and there is far too little of it, as opposed to scare-mongering and partisan sniping.
Perceived and real evils from Mr. Gates' past are irrelevant to this discussion. The man has a sensible opinion, he is in a position to know about the subject, so his contribution to the discussion is valuable. If someone disagrees he should refute the arguments rather than the person.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
