Forgot your password?

Comment: AGW? (Score 1) 76

by ganjadude (#48440787) Attached to: Profanity-Laced Academic Paper Exposes Scam Journal
I wonder if this is where all the anti, and all the pro AGW "studies" are done

What I mean is has anyone actually sourced out all the sources on both sides of the isle? does one side use these shady journals to "prove" the other side wrong? Do both do it? or do the studies we get side come from mostly reputable sources

Comment: Re:I bet Infosys and Tata are dancing in the stree (Score 1) 171

by swb (#48439615) Attached to: Obama's Immigration Order To Give Tech Industry Some, Leave 'Em Wanting More

I'm curious how more competition for entry-level or low skilled jobs helps African Americans. Their unemployment rate is nearly 14%, probably higher in lower age brackets. And given the school "achievement gaps" and lower education attainment for African Americans, these are precisely the jobs they need to work their way out of poverty.

Racism is a common argument for African American unemployment, but how does this stand up when the prime competitors for these jobs are non-white and in many cases marginal English speakers and functionally illiterate in English? Just who are these anti-African American, pro-Latino racists, anyway?

You could make the argument that African Americans don't get hired due to racist criminal justice policies which leave them with criminal records, but again I ask -- who are these people discriminating against African Americans with criminal records yet hiring illegal immigrants with false papers or whose "past" is essentially unavailable because their past is unobtainable in Mexico?

You could make an argument that African Americans don't want to or are incapable of work, but that argument is inherently racist. Their may be qualitative criticisms of entry level jobs (low pay, "jobs nobody wants") but if you buy that argument, then why do Latinos take those jobs? One variant explanation is that African Americans have some moral entitlement to better jobs (eg, due to past discrimination), but I'm not sure how that's supposed to work and the functional equivalent of this argument, affirmative action, hasn't worked and has been mostly discredited.

Comment: Re:Stupid Clickbait Whoring (Score 1) 143

by drinkypoo (#48439551) Attached to: Greenwald Advises Market-Based Solution To Mass Surveillance

IANAL, but it seems to me there's a tendency in the US courts

The problem is that the US can ignore the law when it wants to. Although we're not seeing the average US citizen whisked off to gitmo, the general lack of respect for rights means that you cannot count on yours being protected.

Comment: Re:really? (Score 1) 160

by dissy (#48437829) Attached to: Windows Kernel Version Bumped To 10.0

For what software? Certainly not any I use, nor the various versions of MS-DOS from the company in question I used back in the 80s and 90s.

Back from the 60s one heavily used convention was: [major-version] dot [minor-version] dot [revision]

The dots are separators not unlike those in an IP address, not decimal places (of which more then one of doesn't make much sense)
Within the same major-version number the API would remain backwards compatible. New commands may be added in, but old existing commands should both still exist and still function identically.
Within the same minor-version (rev changes) the API would remain identical and data/file formats would keep the same structure.

This would allow the operator to assume a revision update can be installed at will and not worry much about breaking compatibility for anything not listed in the change log.
One could also assume any additional applications made to work with the upgrading app should still function without modification, at least if you follow the API docs and don't do anything too hacky.

For minor-version updates you assumed API using additions and apps should still work, but anything hacky by-passing the API due to limitations needs revisited and possibly edited.
An example is one program that creates input to the program in question via documented API calls should be fine, but your second program that is run after output being generated that goes to parse internal data files you "shouldn't" be touching likely will break until updated to parse the new data file structure.

For major-version updates, all bets are off. Pretend it is a brand new app and all interaction with it by other system components may need redesigned or be obsoleted.

Of course version numbers are only conventions. Those conventions can be changed to mean something more fitting for your particular software.
Or simplified to "Start at 1.0 and keep adding one" if you can predict not many updates being needed or for very simple one-off script type things.
Dates have turned out to be quite convenient version numbers with the time making a good developer compile/commit identifier that already keeps revisions in the correct order.

The only real rule is "pick a convention and stay consistent for the life of that software, else the wrath of dragons upon your head be"

Comment: Re:Ads (Score 1) 274

by dissy (#48437567) Attached to: Google Launches Service To Replace Web Ads With Subscriptions

So how does this not make you a worthless freeloader?

It makes me not a worthless freeloader in exactly the same way as you using an ad network doesn't make you a script kiddie hacker trying to infect millions of peoples computers with malware viruses and keyloggers deserving of imprisonment.

But if you insist on going there, allow me to remind you that my actions of not watching an ad are perfectly legal (and explicitly stated so in law), while your actions of infecting millions of computers is explicitly a federal criminal offense...

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson