that all too often gets mistyped into
that all too often gets mistyped into
Why the fuck do we need more? Why does everyone feel the need to crank out new 'languages', when 90% of them are just derivatives of existing stuff and don't actually provide anything of value apart from making things that much more difficult for developers in general?
You answered your own question there. First we need things that are a bit more than derivative. But we also need a language that truly cleans up all the messes of the C/C++/Java family, starting with
Careful since some of those teenagers choose to be unemployed since they live at home. Give higher wages and some of them might voluntarily leave the ranks of the unemployed thus driving total unemployment down. Around here it is very hard to fill McDonald's positions. Kids just rather chill out in the summer. I bet this wouldn't be the case if they offered 30% higher salaries
I've looked into Wayland, and it really does sound like X12. Grab the parts of X11 that are still used, clean them up and ship them.The real question is as you say, why exactly did it take them this long? X11 was long in the tooth by the year 2000.
It seems to be that his definition of "sucks" is "has room for improvement"
The point is we need people like him to remind us that certain things suck and need to be replaced (cough, X11, cough) otherwise we ae stuck with old badly architected technology for decades.
This much I agree with. It will buy you a few months. Thereafter you better have a plan B.
That hasn't really been the case since the invention of the firearm
I must have imagined concrete bunkers and pill boxes all over Europe.
A single person (or a few people) with a bunch of bullets in a reasonably well selected location
Erh, nowadays we have this thing called artillery. A band of marauders is likely to have availed themselves to at least one piece.
Sure, computers can do a lot, and what they DO accomplish, they tend to do very fast. But what they accomplish is not "AI". Even Watson is not "intelligence", it is only the illusion of it.
Since we don't have a clear idea how (human) intelligence operates the statement above is pretty vacuous, and likely not at all relevant.
Sure, cars do not "run" in the literal interpretation of the term, but for all practical purposes they are better than humans at "running". If we end up with computers that effectively outperform humans in most "intelligent activities" how they achieve it would be incredibly irrelevant.
If civilization collapses a few rounds of ammo won't do you any good. Furthermore going alone is the worst plan ever. Band of marauders desperate for food would eventually over run you in no time. The closest thing we have for a guide was the medieval period in which fortified city states were created. Kind of like in Mad Max but each settlement would be substantially larger, in order to assemble a substantive defense force.
Actually when planes stopped flying during 9/11 the temperature drop noticeably. The short term correlation between C02 and temperature is rather weak (this remains a Nobel prize caliber puzzle for whoever can explain this), which also suggests that rapid decreases could potentially be felt rather early.
Climate change is a reality and scientific consensus, long-into-the-future predictions of gloom and doom are speculations over which little is (yet) known.
West Antarctica appears to have begun and is almost certainly unstoppable,
The "unstoppable" part is gratuitous and meant to create a sense of urgency. The melting is supposed to take place over hundreds of years, so if by some miracle of science we could reduce C02 production by 50% in 30 years, likely the melting process would stop. If only we had a clean source(s) of energy growing exponentially that could replace fossil fuels. I don't know something powered by either nuclear fusion on Earth or fission high above in outer space where it is safe to store a massive fission reactor from which we could collect energy in the form of radiation.
Dude, the header is not mine. I wouldn't call it a lie. I would say "often incorrect".
BTW you haven't posted health risks in future for the individuals by whose photographs you declared them non-overweight.
Neither have you posted the contrary. This is just a random request. Anyhow, I've posted links showing that waist to height is preferable and given examples how it is incorrect (estimates range around 5-10%). I'll leave it at that for those who are interested about the facts.
Do you have an alternative ?
Yes, waist to height ratio which is superior. I posted the link elsewhere in this thread.
I'm wondering if you're one of these of people who's in denial about being overweight?
Nope, my body fat percentage is in the lean range and this can easily be glanced from my waist measurements, apropos of which:
Waist to height ratio 'more accurate than BMI'
All programmers are playwrights and all computers are lousy actors.