with a length of rope.
It's dangerous and futile to assign blame in a suicide to anyone other than a victim. Swartz's death is not MIT's fault.
That doesn't mean that mean that MIT is off the hook for killing a plea bargain deal that JSTOR was happy with. That was wrong, but it would have been wrong even had Swartz not taken his life.
They've furloughed IRS employees. Does *that* make financial sense? They've shut down FDA food inspection. Does *that* make financial sense, if we count the cost to the nation of food borne illness? This shutdown is about many things, but "financial sense" is not one of them.
We live in a country full of idiots who say things like "Keep the government out of my Medicare," without realizing that Medicare *is* a government program. Many more understand that things like the military or NIH cancer research are part of the gummint, but only on an intellectual level. On a visceral level they only associate the government with things they don't like, such as pollution regulation. The stuff they *do* like apparently just happens, as far as they're concerned.
So put yourself in the shoes of the zookeeper who has to take care of the pandas as the National Zoo. Pandas don't stop eating or shitting because Speaker of the House doesn't have the balls to bring a clean continuing resolution bill to the floor. So you've still got to show up to feed them and muck out their enclosure, only now you're not being paid. Your landlord still wants paying; the grocery store still wants paying, the daycare center you leave your kids at so you can go to this job still wants paying, but *you* don't get paid.
Wouldn't *you* pull the plug on the panda-cam? If you *don't*, people *will* say, "look, we shut the government down but things are still working." Yes they *are* that stupid. So you pull the plug so they'll understand that things like the pandas being cared for just don't "happen" on their own. Sure, people get pissed off, but they're not paying for the panda cam so they can lump it. Not seeing Mei Xiang and her cub isn't going to kill anyone. They weren't paying for panda cam anyway; that was paid for with a grant from corporate sponsorship, so if anyone has a beef with this, it'd be Ford Motor Company.
It's your kind of people that continues to fund the drug cartels in central and south america.
No, it's people who believe in drug prohibition who continue to fund drug cartels throughout the world. Are you such a person?
Well, I think gunfire on the capitol. grounds *is* a legitimate news story that Americans need to know about. However it's far too early to have an opinion on the events. What bugs me isn't that the event is *covered*, it's that in lieu of facts news outlets spread speculation. There's very little factual information as of yet to report upon.
I know in the U.S.A. you can barred from being a Police Officer if your I.Q. is to [sic] high.
Whereas you can say condescending things about the intelligence of public employees without suffering the discomfort of ironic self-awareness. Smells like freedom to me.
Simply because you embed your dictionary in something you choose to call a vector doesn't make it any less of a dictionary.
True, but calling a dictionary a vector space doesn't make it so. For example how "close" are the definitions of "happiness" and "joy"? In a dictionary, the only concept of "closeness" is the lexical ordering of the word itself, and in that sense "happiness" and "joy" are quite far apart (as far apart as words beginning h-a are from words beginning with j-o are in the dictionary). But in some kind of adjacency matrix which show how often these words appear in some relation to other words, they might be quite close in vector-space; "guilt" and "shame" might likewise be closer to each other than either is from "happiness", and each of the four words ("happiness", "joy", "guilt", "shame") would be closer to any other of those words than they would be to "crankshaft"; probably close to "crankshaft" (a noun) than they'd be to "chewy" (an adjective).
Anyhow, if you'd read the paper, at least as far as the abstract, you'd see that this is about *generating* likely dictionary entries for unknown words using analysis of some corpus of texts.
Funny how being caught does that to people.
Well, this is somewhat different. Small businesses usually don't have lucrative cash cow businesses that they can use to underwrite strategic efforts.
Microsoft used cashcow funding to crush Palm out of existence, only to be crushed in turn by Apple. Apple beat MS by breaking the cardinal rule of pre-iPhone smartphone market -- focus on making carriers like Sprint happy, rather than users. Apple didn't get into a futile war of attrition with Microsoft across the board, they picked one of the weaker carriers (AT&T) and gave them an exclusive deal in which they brought Apple's fanbase to the table in exchange for control over the platform and secondary markets (iTunes store).
Using a cash cow to underwrite a strategic business isn't necessarily an exercise in futility. It makes sense if you see some strategic vulnerabilty. Palm was vulnerable; because of Moore's law, the price of a standalone PDA was dropping into the throwaway commodity range. In order to maintain their market position, Palm had to convince its users to transition to more complex and therefore more expensive devices. This was an opening and Microsoft established a beachhead with its deep pockets. Then Palm was forced into yet another repositioning by convergence of PDAs and phones, and that's where MS drove a stake through their heart.
Apple and Android on tablets today are a different story. Or at least they may be. They're entrenched competitors. It makes sense to go up against them if you see some disruptive development on the horizon. Offhand, I don't see what that might be, but possibly someone at MS does. "We did it before and we can do it again," in contrast, isn't a strategy.
And the people who are talking the most about the "loss of Arctic sea ice" want to adopt the economic system that created the situation in the Aral Sea.
And that would be
Er... a fish?
What do you mean "out of sync"? You mean it generates the same number twice? Or do you mean it can generate a number that has been assigned by some other mechanism to a primary key field?
If the latter, that's true of database sequences in general, including Oracle RDBMS. Some platforms, such as SQL Server, give you both sequences and autoincrement fields. The reason to have both is that while autoincrement is simpler to use, sequences are more flexible (e.g. you can obtain the key value for a row before the transaction is committed).
In any case, it is bad practice to rely on an auto increment or identity field's magnitude for anything other than identifying a record. For example, developers sometimes use such numbers to order records by when they were created, but auto increment numbers aren't reliable for that purpose. Sequences work just fine for generating numeric primary keys, even though they can pretty much intrinsically get "out of sync" with the keys in a table. "Syncing" is not a feature offered by sequences, period.
I've been there, too, but I couldn't put my hand to my heart and swear that the stuff I produced after twelve hours was any good. I've never looked into it.
But lets assume for sake of argument that "being in the zone" produces top notch code, that you're just as productive after ten or twelve hours in the zone as you are after three or four. You can't *demand* that somebody be in the zone. You can't make it happen by chaining somebody to their workstation for ten hours. In fact, the best thing if you want somebody to be in the zone is to send them home when they don't feel like coding (yeah, like that'll ever happen). What produces the "in the zone" effect is being engaged with the problem, not cracking your head against fatigue.
When I ran a development team I used to make people go home early if I felt they'd been spent the prior day in a marathon coding session. The reason is I had doubts of the quantity of *usable* code they could produce after the first day of a coding binge. I didn't *need* marathon coding sessions because I'd laid out my plans based on reasonable work days. What I did need usable code produced predictably. Sure you might be super-productive on the first day of programming "in the zone", but just using the evidence before my own eyes, coders who've been overworked two or three days in a row aren't in any condition to judge the quality of their own work.
First of all, we know very well that CO2 increases planetary temperatures. For it not to do so, it would have to act differently in Earth's atmosphere than it does in a laboratory, or in Venus's atmosphere for that matter.
You are missing my point. The original poster was in effect arguing that if we don't know *everything*, we essentially know *nothing*. My point is that much of the limitations of our knowledge have to do with precision. What *precisely* will happen if global temperatures increase by, say, 0.8 degrees? It's unknowable *precisely* until it happens. By "precisely" I mean exactly what will happen in every region of the Earth. It's unreasonable to expect a scientific theory to predict *everything*. But one can predict some things, and one can certainly paint a pretty accurate "net" picture well before you can paint a finely detailed one.
As for some of the effects of warming being positive, I'll go further than you do. It will almost certainly include some positive effects, by which I mean effects that will benefit *some* people. But it will also include some effects that are *negative*. If you spent much time in nature studying it, you'd know that the bulk of effects will be unfortunate. It's not because of warmer temperatures per se; it would be true of rapidly cooling temperatures as well. It's rapid widespread change *in itself* that's a problem for the environment, not necessarily the direction of that change.
Life adapts to change; a very gradual warming would only move habitats around, on average to the north in latitude and to higher elevations. The problem with rapid change is that few species can move as rapidly has humans; in fact the differences in adaptability tip the balance of power toward weeds and pests.
For example there's a large grove of magnificent Canadian Hemlocks (Tsuga canadensis) a short walk from my house, many of them well over 30m in height. The milder winters we've been having over the last twenty years isn't a direct problem for these trees, many of which are centuries old and have seen many a mild winter. But a long string of mild winters favors a tiny insect called the wooly adelgid. The adelgid population has exploded after twenty years of unusually warm winters, and the number of them is astonishing. Quite literally every inch of the underside foliage on those giant trees is covered with adelgids.
Twenty years ago you could walk through this grove, look up and see hardly any sky. In mid-summer it was like walking into a refrigerator. Sometimes snow would persist on the ground there until early June. Today the sky is open leading to a weed choked understory where there used to be open old-growth forest floor. At this rate ten or twenty years this grove will be dead, as a secondary result of climate change. It's not the heat that will kill the grove, it's the change in range where it's safe from predation. The predator population can cross the continent in a few years, but it'll take thousands of years for a new grove to become established somewhere else.
Now hemlocks aren't going to go extinct. They'll just become very, very rare, like the American Chestnut. I've never seen an American Chestnut outside of an arboretum, but it was once the most common tree in North America. In its place we have millions of acres of crummy Norway Maples, which will likely replace the great hemlocks of this grove. If current warming trends continue we will see the emergence of larger, more uniform habitats, dominated by weed species.
If your definition is correct, why are the results of every "left wing" government less liberty, greater inequality and more division?
This is why it's almost impossible to have political conversations involving Americans these days. Before you can even start, you first have to face the legions of cultural myths that Americans take as gospel that just have absolutely nothing to do with reality.
Please, nobody is better at ignoring hard evidence than the left. Bad as all politicians are, right wing ones are still a lot less scaring than our new overlords from the left.
Wow. I'm always amazed at how much bullshit and projection rightwingers can compress into such small sentences. It's a sort of awesome literary feat, how you can fit so many completely false world views into so few words. It would be very difficult to write conservative characters with the same convincing density of completely wrong opinions.
System going down in 5 minutes.
