Forgot your password?

Comment: Functional Programming? (Score 3, Insightful) 309

by cforciea (#47561177) Attached to: Programming Languages You'll Need Next Year (and Beyond)

A functional language is one whereby the functions themselves can be stored in variables and passed around as parameters to other languages.

What in the actual fuck. That may be the worst definition of a functional language I've ever heard. Even if I try to interpret it as something that could make any sort of sense, I just get that storing functions in variables makes a language functional, which the author goes on to debunk by pointing out that C++ isn't a functional language. Why bother even trying to describe them if you have no idea what the hell they are?

Comment: Re:Yes, Perl is indeed dead and rotting (Score 2) 283

by cforciea (#47303909) Attached to: Perl Is Undead
From the benchmark you linked:

String manipulation is the core functionality for all languages so this allows to compare languages fairly.

If that doesn't clue you in on how utterly full of shit he is, I'm not sure what will. I mean, Java Strings are immutable. This test is just about adding strings together. That's pretty much the worst possible case for trying to benchmark Java. So if you're coding Java and adding a bunch of strings together, you use a StringBuilder and not a String. Only you can go look at the source code, and whoever wrote it didn't. Not only that, but how much memory Java would use during the run would depend pretty much entirely on flags given to the JVM, because it would just keep eating up space copying the immutable String over and over until it was forced to garbage collect. And that's all just a quick inspection of the Java comparison. I am pretty confident without looking that that margin of difference between C and C++ is entirely due to pathological C++ code.

I mean really, if you think that your interpreted language is comparable to any major compiled language in performance, you're an idiot. Sabotaged test results (whether the result of duplicity or incompetence) don't change that.

Comment: Re:They are ridiculing you (Score 0, Troll) 382

by cforciea (#45872299) Attached to: US Coast Guard Ship To Attempt Rescue of 2 Icebreakers In Antarctica
I followed the shitty blogs linking to shitty blogs all the way down to watch Al Gore's "predictions". It's funny how saying things like that he was told some models show a 75% chance that all polar icecaps will be melted by x date gets translated to "Al gore's expert opinion". I notice the other trend there is to use words like "scientist" when talking about Al Gore, even though he is clearly no such thing, to set up a false relationship between him and actual people doing science, so that whenever he does say something stupid, a bunch of people like you can dance around and pretend that he is representational of the climate science community.

So yes, you "make fun" of people like us by trying to find examples of people who happen to agree with us for whatever reason on this particular issue, and then pouring on ad hominem attacks against them. And not only that, you have to make shit up because otherwise the ad hominem attacks aren't even compelling enough. I suspect you sound a lot smarter in your head than you do to the rest of us. Maybe you should spend a little more time getting your facts in places other than blogspot.

Comment: Re:The $5,000 gets you... (Score 3, Insightful) 196

by cforciea (#45114593) Attached to: Cadillac Unveils Pricier Alternative To Tesla Model S
That article is awesome. You know that somebody is being extra fair with their comparisons when they start adding things like payroll tax and unemployment insurance to the cost of an employee to inflate the number, as if that has anything to do with unions. And my heart just breaks for the auto manufacturers that they pay a third more than base salaries because their workers have to work on average hundreds of hours of overtime per year.

Here's the real takeaway from that article for me: base wages are $30/hr, the effective wage due to the overtime ends up being $40/hr, and the general rule of thumb for the fully loaded cost of a worker is usually 150%-200% of salary, so they are right on target. Remember that, for instance, 4 weeks total of vacation and sick leave costs 7.7%, unemployment insurance costs another few percent, payroll tax is another 6.8%, throw in a few more percent for worker's comp. You're north of 20% before you even start paying for health insurance and retirement.

If you think that's too much compensation for somebody working in a factory, you don't believe that the United States should have a middle class.

Comment: Altenrative to the Model S? (Score 5, Interesting) 196

by cforciea (#45114353) Attached to: Cadillac Unveils Pricier Alternative To Tesla Model S
It looks like news outlets all over the place are comparing this to the Model S, but then like 2 sentences later point out how it is mechanically basically a Volt. How does that make it an alternative to the Model S at all? Doesn't that just make it an alternative to the Volt? Was the Volt an alternative to the Model S?

Comment: Re:We're in a major hurricane "drought" (Score 3, Insightful) 385

by cforciea (#44968291) Attached to: What the Insurance Industry Thinks About Climate Change
I find that a kind of odd statement. First of all, I wonder what you mean by "major" hurricanes and making landfall. Is "major" category 3, 4, or 5? Does it take into account things like diameter? Is that ever, or just when it makes landfall in the US? I mean, it sure seems like you are carefully crafting you wording to exclude some pretty notable storms, like Dean, Felix, and Ike. And Sandy is a pretty dubious non-major hurricane, given that it had the largest diameter of any Atlantic cyclone, which was a large contributing factor to how damaging it was. And what's with the US mainland only caveat? Climate change only counts if the hurricanes happen to make landfall within artificial boundaries on a map? Felix didn't turn north after slamming into the Yucatan the same way WIlma did, so it didn't happen? Besides, I think if you actually applied your criteria prior to 2005, you'll find that it eliminates so many hurricanes that an 8 year gap isn't statistically anomalous at all.

When you have to get that oddly specific, you should be at least a little worried that you are cherry picking data to create "proof" of your already decided upon conclusion. If you instead just look at more general trends in quantity and strength of storms, it's pretty clear that we have had more and stronger hurricanes over time.

Comment: Re:there's always Joda Time... (Score 1) 405

by cforciea (#43945733) Attached to: Oracle Discontinues Free Java Time Zone Updates
+1 for joda-time. They effectively solved the entire problem domain of date manipulation for all of the use cases that have come up for me.
Presumably, they are affected by this change, as well, but the good news is that I'm confident that they'll do something to handle it without my having to do anything besides tick up a dependency version.

Comment: Re:Climate change is funded by MORE corp/gov grant (Score 1) 848

by cforciea (#42929503) Attached to: Billionaires Secretly Fund Vast Climate Denial Network
Be honest. Climategate is the only example you can think of.

I'll go ahead and hop on past the probable distinction between what you think "climategate" was, and what actual negative behavior was revealed to have occurred in that particular incident and move right on past to the fact that even if I give climategate to you, it does not support your premise. Your claim wasn't that there exists some instance of corruption in the scientific community. It was that there was more there than there is from parties funding warming deniers.

I don't claim to be a high priest of anything. I just know that morons like you tend to be perfectly happy latching on to whatever anecdotal evidence matches your "humble opinion" and assuming that means your belief is backed by some sort of empirical process. You've more or less made my point for me.

Comment: Re:Free Speech (Score 2) 848

by cforciea (#42928757) Attached to: Billionaires Secretly Fund Vast Climate Denial Network
You don't have to silence anybody to solve the problem. The Koch brothers can say whatever they want. There is a whole lot of room between letting some random billionaire tell people that global warming is a hoax and letting that same billionaire secretly fund organizations designed entirely to trick people into thinking there is a global conspiracy of people who go to school to become climatologists in order that they can destroy our freedoms for some extra grant money. I bet we can draw a line someplace in between. I'd personally start by taking away the word "secretly" and demanding that the whole process be more transparent so that people can more easily see the conflicts of interest. Unless you can show me the part of the first amendment that guarantees the right to anonymous donations to propaganda organizations?

Comment: Re:Political Science (Score 1) 848

by cforciea (#42928093) Attached to: Billionaires Secretly Fund Vast Climate Denial Network
There is obviously bias in the scientific process, but you aren't talking about some amount of bias inherent in the system. You are talking about a vast international conspiracy of climate scientists, all with different funding sources and backgrounds, nearly universally colluding to manipulate their findings and their stated beliefs to manipulate the system to get more some more grant money, even though it has been repeatedly shown that they could get more income by flipping and taking funding from fossil fuel companies.

The whole issue has definitely become political football, but it definitely isn't the science that's leading us there.

Comment: Re:Climate change is funded by MORE corp/gov grant (Score 3, Insightful) 848

by cforciea (#42928029) Attached to: Billionaires Secretly Fund Vast Climate Denial Network

IMHO, more graft and corruption on the pro-manmade climate change side.

Luckily for me, there is actual data to examine, so I can safely ignore your humble opinion.

Unluckily for me, there are millions of tools just like you who are perfectly happy to eyeball it and trust their gut reaction when there is perfectly good data around to examine, and you all get to vote, too.

Nobody's gonna believe that computers are intelligent until they start coming in late and lying about it.