HN user
In Iran the cause of the water shortage is at least 99.9% the current government's policies. If global warming accelerated matters it was by days or weeks probably.
But you have to admit it would be very funny if a theocracy was forced to abandon it's capital by forces of nature.
My opinion doesn't matter. Anyone who is the least bit capitalist would certainly not see it as abandoning them, of course. It is the opinion of those individuals that matters, and they certainly see things this way.
It is not just not providing a marriage, right. No job, no money, no way to be independent, no meaning in life generally ... combined with a contant barrage of commercials detailing what is important in life, and unreachable to them (think cars, what you might call "nightclub women", and the like). The marriage thing factors pretty highly.
True, of course, but some texts can't reasonably be interpreted not to be violent. About the quran we can have reasonable arguments about who one is supposed to be violent against, when and under what conditions, but you can't reasonably argue it's not calling to fight.
Compare, if you will http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
With http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
And judge for yourself. Take specific note of the big differences, the first link mostly consisting of calls to violence whereas the second link is mostly reports of violence. Also keep in mind that the bible is easily 3 times longer than the quran.
It is generally accepted that Lucas, Matthew, Luke and John were educated Greeks (a publican, student,and a physician), who were educated in the philosophy of reason. So was the council that collected these works into the New Testament.
In contrast islam's holy "books" were mostly orally transmitted for the first ~100 years by soldiers. The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon.
You take some ignorant bigot who has distorted a religious text to create something that most adherants to that religion do not recognise.
Not at all. Here's what I claim :
1) these islamic "holy" texts do indeed say to fight and kill, and a whole lot of other immoral despicable behavior. Islam was created in a war, continued in a war, and the early muslims did not stop fighting and massacring for hundreds of years. This is very well reflected in the religion.
2) most muslims do not believe and do not follow this, BUT DO teach these texts to their children
3) when (and if) society abandons them as young adults, and they search comfort in religion, as one does (and I'm sure you have done on occasion, Lord knows I have), islamic clerics then use these texts to support the case that they need to fight and kill for paradise.
4) That this is a growing phenomenon. Well, not really. If you read history you'll see that this was an extremely common practice even in the Ottoman empire. There's simply been a 100 year near-hiatus in this form of recruiting, and it's actually still at a very, very low level compared to what it was in the 19th century.
5) I claim the problem is that those recruiting clerics are right. That islamic texts do indeed say to fight and kill, very clearly, very directly. Stopping this phenomenon can happen in one of two ways. First, society could choose to simply never abandon anyone, ever. Second we could prevent step 2) from happening. Fighting things at the recruiting stage is an exercise in futility.
Am I being an ignorant bigot ? Perhaps.
His marriage to her was never based on a contract
How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ?
it is sufficient to know that she had already been engaged to another person prior to her marriage to the Prophet
Do you like to tell yourself that that justifies the rape of a 6 year old ? Do you have a daughter ? Do you think an agreement with the girl's father makes paedophilic rape moral ? Because your religion clearly is of that opinion. Note that your prophet has a lot of opinions on what he, personally, should be given, and something to fuck is often among the things he "gets" from his invisible friend, this is not a lone occurence. So answer this simple question : was Muhammad an immoral paedophilic rapist ? Or not ...
And to be honest, since Abu Bakr is a "rightly guided caliph" and made this agreement with the prophet, that means that BOTH the prophet AND the first ever muslim where paedophilic rapists. One organising the rape, one committing it. Muhammad, of course, claims this agreement was blessed by allah : so you can't even make the pathetic argument that it was just him, "not allah". Note that not even Aisha believed the revelations [1]. To be honest, actually reading the hadith you find a lot of that : verses that make it crystal clear none of the muslims with the prophet believed in his revelations. You should try it, reading those texts around book 60.
I fail to see where it says that the death penalty is involved here. Please point out explicitly where it says that the penalty for living in a non-Muslim country is death.
The penalty for consistently refusing to comply with sharia, when you know the law and how it applies to you, is death. As you very well know. Believe it or not, you do not just get to violate sharia whenever you want according to islam. The punishment for violating something haram knowingly, repeatedly or continuously ... is death, because this constitutes apostasy. I can't say I recall the full set of requirements, but do you seriously argue otherwise ?
Knowingly not following sharia is considered apostasy, advocating not following sharia is proselytizing. Do you disagree with that ? Do I really have to dig up fatwas saying so ?
We point out these bad things, and we do not follow their footsteps.
Reading this in a post that starts off by justifying the rape of a 6 year old girl, that is very reassuring.
Exactly. PHP has been "embraced and extended". The essential features of PHP I would say are easy database connectivity, and a built-in templating language.
Both of these features are now present in pretty much every server-side framework and half the client-side ones (both angular and react have it). I would argue that they're both messy, but it's there, and heavily used.
The big feature PHP still has that others are missing is the ease and cheapness of deployment. Any PHP app can be very easily deployed on shared hosting, which isn't true for ruby, asp.net, java, django or any of those. It is "more" true for asp.net and django, but not much more.
This feature is more the result of PHP easily supporting shared hosting, which is something all the others fail at pretty badly (yes, Google and Amazon have implemented it in proprietary form ... that doesn't count. Needs to be open-source, easy to implement for cheap hosters).
And really this boils down to efficiency. As ridiculous as it sounds, PHP is currently by far the most power/money efficient language. Why ? Because of thousands of cheap hosters easily implementing shared PHP hosting which usually works well, certainly well enough for the vast majority of small businesses. Ruby/Python/Go/C++/... none of them have anything like it.
Right now efficient hosting is having a "root" dns entry pointing to Google app engine, and having an ec2/other cloud app that simply checks availability of 2-3 cheap hosters and 403's to one of them. That means you effectively have very cheap bandwidth (WAY cheaper than EC2 or any other cloud hoster), yet retain the reliability/availability you need. Biggest problem is keeping database in sync.
I can't believe companies like Microsoft/Amazon are letting this opportunity slide, but they are (but of course that people use very power/cpu/money inefficient hosting kind of works to their advantage).
It goes without saying that what ISIS is doing is against the teachings of Islam.
Yes and so is everything else muslims do. For instance, there is a death penalty for muslims who choose not to live under islamic rule. And the only thing that qualifies as islamic rule, of course, is a state ruled by a caliph. [1] And no, the law does not mention the case that there is no islamic state. So sharia quite literally states all muslims should kill eachother. For some reason this is not happening. So every muslim on the planet today has committed a sin in islam, punishable by death. Or to take another issue. There is not a single mention of a headscarf anywhere in either the quran or the hadith. It says to wear loose fitting clothes, the actual word used compares the clothes to being inside a tent. Now look around, do young muslim girls wear loose fitting clothes ?
I am making a somewhat disingenuous argument, but the point is that your argument is disingenuous as well, and for the same reason : when comparing reality with a set of laws, reality is found lacking. This goes for ISIS and for every other law, principle, design, guideline, ... on our little blue ball in the dark.
So your argument is wrong. Of course they don't follow islam perfectly, nobody does and everybody knows. The real reason is "goes without saying", of course, means that you're merely pointing out that there is massive social pressure on this board, and in this country, to agree with that assessment. That I am a racist if I think otherwise. But this is a bullshit argument. It is true, because it would be a socially very, VERY uncomfortable situation if it wasn't true ... which of course doesn't change the fact that it's utterly wrong.
So in short, it doesn't go without saying at all. How much does it really match the religion's instructions ? I would argue it matches it pretty well. They've got a caliph and are waging war against anyone and everyone else, just like their prophet did. That is the basic problem with islamic terrorism : the terrorists, while not 100% perfectly right about their ideology, have a very good point. Islamic ideology glorifies this war of the prophet against the Roman Empire, and the Jewish and other states bordering it, and describes it as a war that can and should only end with total worldwide victory of the religion.
This is what muslims are teaching their children (I hope we can at least agree on those basic facts). And like every other sane person on this planet, their children don't believe them. I didn't believe my parents when they talked about this sort of shit, and I've had a few talks with my daughter where she made it very clear she doesn't believe me either. But when they get excluded out of our society, hide in their religion for it's the only thing that hasn't completely rejected them yet (keep in mind that islamic marriages are arranged. If you have no money, no amount of good looks or talking can help you). And then these people who look like clerics read to them from the exact same books their parents are telling them to live by ... and those books say to fight and kill and you'll be rewarded. Those are the books their parents talked about when they were toddlers sitting on daddy's knee, when they were happy and provided for. Now they're criminals who failed with nothing to lose ... and these clerics read from those books, and those books say to fight and kill ...
The reason this works is the ideology. And I don't care how uncomfortable that basic piece of information makes anyone. Fighting the people who are already lost is a loser's game. You must prevent, so to speak, toddlers from being raised with those books anywhere nearby.
And given how this is escalating, it is a matter of time until we all agree on that point. The big question is, how many people need to die before we agree ? As I said, I have kids and find this "let's ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist" attitude EXTREMELY unacceptable.
And yes, this will cost me a lot of karma on this board. Fuck social pressure. I hope everyone who lowers the integer next to my name on an internet server feels really good about themselves and the actions they took.
[1] https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/hijra-in-rev... talks about this issue
It is incredible. The reason they could kill so many is that they were at it for several hundred years and attacked different regions. So the population had some time to replenish before the next series of genocides started. Individual campaigns had death tolls in the 10-50 million range. There were 6 major campaigns. Several had multiple decades of genocide.
And of course, death tolls are a guessing game, as are population figures. So yes there are legitimate arguments about these figures.
I think the contention is that this does not matter - it is an intolerable situation. I think the contention is that having a subgroup in society with 1% of their people willing to kill cannot possibly be contained by a police force, and cannot possibly peacefully exist alongside other groups.
Add to that the fact that 50% or more of those muslims will protect the 1% extremists from the police force in all but the most offensive cases.
Let's face facts here : islam is a religion that was created in a massive war, that is on occasion blamed for starting the dark ages by cutting off all sea based trade in Western Europe and more than half of land based trade. The ideology internalized war during it's formation period. Hell, in the hadith you find plenty of references why the early caliphs "chose" islam, and the reason was they were at war. The religion survived only because it could convince large amounts of people to fight anyone else around them. Further in it's history it spread by war and it is absolutely unique in the sheer amount of genocides that just happened to take place just at the edge of islam, at the point where it was spreading. The biggest slaughter in history, the Mongol conquest of India, with the lower end of death toll estimates at over 3 times the WWII total death toll (over 30 times bigger than the holocaust), and may have killed half a billion (close to 100 holocausts), was an islamic expansion war.
And I wouldn't worry about them going to the middle east - or anywhere - that's temporary. This will spread, and the time will come when the fight is simply local.
THAT is the contention.
Turkey is ruled by what a number of people call a Sunni extremist, who has, for example, on occasion said he wants the position of caliph. The way he sells himself to Turkey's population is fundamentally religious in nature. He has pushed through some of islam's sexist laws, disadvantaging women, ...
They will not be a reliable ally against ISIS.
This story is remniscent of the 1948 Israel war of independance which was also full of stories about neighbours suddenly being given the change to rape, steal and pillage.
One can only hope it ends in exactly the same way : 5 more Israels in the middle east. A Yezidi one. An Assyrian one. A Shi'a one.
You can say whatever you want to say but this islam is an ideology which is centrally focused on it's supposed superiority and the focus is the reason for this superiority : that allah will guarantee military victory. Walk near any large station in a large Western European city and you can find out for yourself (if you look the least bit dark you will find out even if you don't want to, they'll walk up to you and ask). Paris - Gare du Nord, Brussels North, Amsterdam, ... you should go to Syria and fight and kill. Feign minimal intrest and you get to find out more. Why - because allah will make you win and we'll finally punish the infidels, and everybody you hate. They'll provide a wife, and openly talk about their "attitude" to captured women - what allah "allows". The main counterargument you hear on that street - it's not a way to victory, it's a way to death.
I don't know about if this is similar in America. Does anyone have similar experiences in, say, New York ? Given where the recruitment happens in Western Europe and how successful it is in these western states, I find it extremely difficult to believe that this ISIS will remain confined to the middle east. I am terrified what will happen in Western Europe in the large cities if ISIS appears to become more successful.
This ideology needs to die, if we are to have peace.
From reading the reviews, these things are basically tupperware with computer components in it. Do not buy.
Templates are the main thing in C++ that you can easily use everywhere with zero costs in compatibility.
And they certainly beat C's "equivalent", macros.
Here is one of the smallest useful (ie. turing complete) language's full specification :
Subtract and branch if not equal to zero[edit] The SBNZ a,b,c,d instruction ("Subtract and Branch if Not equal to Zero") subtracts the contents at address a from the contents at address b, stores the result at address c, and then, if the result is not 0, transfers control to address d (if the result is equal zero, execution proceeds to the next instruction in sequence).
This is all of it.
Really ? I thought it was limited to something like a fixed number of megabytes increase per call.
Well the problem is that carriers would never agree to such a deal. It would, for instance, make generalized instant-messaging work and destroy their SMS revenue. It would also eat into their "real internet" revenues. I doubt the problem there is Facebook.
I feel a bit that people complaining about this service are self-serving. People here are complaining about things that affect them (potential future internet directions) and because of these effects millions (maybe even a billion) should be denied a free service.
I feel very, very uncomfortable with that viewpoint.
When and how will it end?
The situation is caused by the government attempting to control lending cost. This has happened before and it will happen again. Essentially governments are currently attempting to create a massive wealth transfer from, well mostly everybody, to their favored causes (firstly to government spending, and second to property values, through banks). To do this they are taking out what effectively are huge loans.
So central banks are painting themselves into a corner. They are making it extremely easy for the government to borrow. Why ? Because this will make it easy for those governments to pay off the debt burden that has become too much for them. Of course governments aren't paying off debts at all, rather they are increasing spending (look past the austerity rhetoric to the actual numbers : taking into account that their debt servicing cost is decreasing by a LOT, they're actually increasing spending by over 10%, all of them).
This makes those debt burdens a lot worse, because that cheap borrowing cost is temporary. Debt that is serviceable at 0.2% interest costs double as much in debt service at 0.4%, which is a tiny change.
So the situation becomes more and more unstable. This could last a few years though.
So what will happen next. Most/all of the governments in Europe (and the US) will likely end up in the position Greece was in 2 years ago, or worse, due to a tiny rise in interest rates. Then they will default on at least some debt. This will cause an enormous spike in interest rates, so it will become prohibitively expensive for governments to loan money at all, and they will lose the ability to rollover debt. So they either come up with 100% of GDP without loaning money (ie. massive inflation), or they default on more debt. This will crash banks (but don't worry : government guarantees have been gutted so it won't cost the government anything. Google "bail-in legislation").
At this point interest rates will shoot up to 10%, maybe 20%. All those investment properties in Londen will suddenly be extremely costly to their investors (their monthly payments will double or triple in a year), and go on the market (the problem is not too little housing, the problem is that for the moment it's too valuable to invest in real estate, given the rising prices).
And then we're back in 1992 or so.
buckling themselves in with the student debt and the mortgage to spend their entire adult life under the heel of the capitalists.
Sadly, you can be assured of one thing : when this story has played out, you'll be worse off than today, for at least a few years. And God help those with student debt, or even worse : those with student debt backed by a state (US, UK, Australia, Netherlands all have large amounts of people with lots of student debt backed by the state).
No it doesn't. The proof for amortized O(1) only works if you double the array size on every expansion, which only happens until a "ceiling" gets hit and then the slice expands by less.
This results in O(n) complexity.
And this is assuming absense of memory pressure, if there is memory pressure it will very quickly becomes O(n^2) complexity, and god help you if it hits swap.
Have you thought of making it a bit more hacker friendly ? Having some available GPIO's somehow exposed and documented. A small (optional ?) component to point the camera forward. Something to mount these phones onto a frame in a solid way. An optional way to provide power to the phone without occupying the USB slot.
These phones would make excellent autopilots and controllers for RC cars, quadcopters, even regular helicopters, but there's just a few things missing.
I can't understand what you wrote. Append is linear time. It could have been amortized O(1), but the Go authors decided that used too much memory so it's O(n) instead, with amortized O(1) behaviour for short slices. Amortized meaning that it's O(1) and then suddenly it's O(n) for one of the calls and then it's O(1) again for a while. But because of the size limit in increases, for large arrays it's O(n), and a fair assessment of the function would only mention the largest bound.
What do you mean that the way append functions is obvious ? Because it doesn't seem obvious to me at all. Do you mean it's obvious to C/assembly programmers ? Obvious to someone who's implemented the Go standard library ?
This means slices work well, until the growth of one slice happens too fast and then, suddenly, your program crawls to a halt (and because it's doing more work, likely requests will pile up and make the offending slice grow even faster, resulting in effectively an infinite loop, and behaviour that is indistinguishable from the scheduler freezing, because now there is ridiculous growth in the number of goroutines).
The rule you gave in the other post is that in Go, everything behaves as a value. None of the complex Go datatypes do that. Slices, maps, interfaces, channels, ... all are half-half reference-value, with curious behaviour resulting from that. Go's simplicity comes from the fact that there are very few advanced datatypes to remember, and that the language makes it utterly impossible to implement any new ones in a reasonable way. So on the one hand you don't have idiots using B+trees where an array would have sufficed, but good luck expressing matrix equations in Go.
Then try this one on for size. Very similar, ... but not quite :
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
// Create a slice of length 1 and capacity 2. Note: try changing this to make([]int, 1, 1) ...
a := make([]int, 1, 2)
// b "aliases" a
b := a
fmt.Printf("%v %v\n", a, b)
a = append(a, 2)
fmt.Printf("%v %v\n", a, b)
b = append(b, 5)
// Question : what does a contain now ?
fmt.Printf("%v %v\n", a, b)
}
Run the program, change the capacity in the make call to 1, and re-run.
If they were values, a and b should simply diverge, so the last line should output [0 2] [0 5].
If they were references, then the last line should output [0 2 5] [0 2 5].
So slices (and maps) are neither values nor references. They're "half-references". Their length is passed as a value, their contents as a reference. Sort of like the linux kernel iovec structures, but completely hidden.
I would say this is a bug, as it violates both ways to think about these values. But it can't be changed without changing the complexity of lists in Go ... so this isn't going to change, and therefore will be declared "not a bug".
Large animals that live long lives don't have any real information in their DNA. Essentially every species runs it's own genetic algorithm.
Large animals have a generational gap of, let's say 5-10 years, and have numbers in the tens of thousands. Bacterial generational gaps measure in minutes to hours, and their numbers are so large there are no confident approximations. Unsuccessful bacteria species number in the thousands of trillions. One can only imagine what the numbers are for successful species.
This means that the genetic algorithm running a pathetitc bacterial species has a clock speed something like 100 terahertz. It does 100 trillion calculations per second. The genetic algorithm that runs "on" the human race has a clock speed of around 5 calculations per second. For most animal and plant species, the speed would be significantly less than 1Hz. Guess which of these two makes the discoveries ... (the theory being that viruses, on rare occasions, transplant DNA "discoveries" from bacteria into other species, so while humans do evolve, they rarely, if ever, successfully mutate. Rather we are the product of natural genetic manipulation by viruses and natural selection. The same applies for plants and other animals)
The reason large animals survive at all is that their biomass just does not register on the "success" charts for bacteria. Killing every single plant and animal on the planet and fully converting all that mass into new bacterial biomass would not represent 0.01% change in population size for bacteria. That is the only reason why animals survive : we're simply neither a threat, nor a worthwhile target.
Is it so difficult to see that attitudes toward mocking political/moral systems are simply part of those political/moral systems ?
For instance, communism takes a very dim view of mocking communism. This is extremely well known, and pretty accurately describes the various communist communities' attitudes, even today. Mocking communist ideals or characters will get you at least ostracised from most of those communities. Hell, linking to other's jokes about them is dangerous at best.
By contrast, free market capitalists, their "enemy", are pretty well known for being extremely tolerant of humorous take-downs of their ideology, and engage in it themselves on a regular basis inside their communities. Of course, most leftists then criticize this as indicating they don't believe in the free market after all, which isn't true.
Islam is a political and a moral system. It's attitude towards mocking is defined in writing. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan and you will get a basic idea of how it works.
Christianity is relatively tolerant of criticism. Given how this religion has had it's canonical texts written by Greek philosophers, it's quite easy to understand why this is so. You will find lots of books written by saints, priests, monks, ... that criticize the church and even the faith itself. This is done mostly in self-reflection with the intent to improve matters and not absolutely not meant for wider dissemination (on occasion the wide dissemination of such texts has been fought with violation), but it certainly exists. These books have, on occasion, resulted in large shifts in attitudes within Christianity.
I would recognize that this is effectively restating one of the basic precepts of Christianity (do unto others ...). Islam, and any other religion, are very different (as you would expect, it's a different religion after all).
The Islamic attitude to this can be found by googling "enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil". And it very much disagrees with that statement. Loosely translated, what "God desires" in islam is that you force others - without violence if possible, with violence if necessary - to follow islam's rules, both in positive sense, and the negative sense. There is an entire legal theory around this which you can read if you like. Also, in islam, there is only one state, one law, and the state encompasses all. There is no police force in sharia, everyone is police, there is no-one without personal responsibility for following sharia, and policing others' following of sharia.
Note that in some ways - in theological theory - it is almost the opposite. A Christian should believe in Christ in his/her heart and mind, and outward appearances do not influence his relation with God. From a Muslim, on the other hand, heart and mind don't matter, nor does belief (says so in the quran), but following the rules does.
The thing about the central limit theorem is that violating it's assumptions doesn't really make it no longer apply. There's simply a few pathological cases where it totally breaks down, which violate that assumption and are very hard to state otherwise.
But taking 2 variables that correlate 80% or 20% or even more will not change the outcome. It's just very near the edge that it totally breaks down, or if the number of variables that correlate is really too high, or if they're really chaotic variables, or ...
So one the one hand you're right. But it's not a point that a statistician would make, only a logicist or a rather pedantic mathematician. In the graphs, even if things correlate it will "look okay". Therefore the statement that intelligence is normally distributed along a bell curve is technically correct, but good look finding a large piece of data that doesn't look like a bell curve.
How exactly does paying come into the picture here. I'd bet that, for example, FoundationDB's customers would disagree with you.
Exactly. If they're willing to do this, why would an embassy provide protection ? As several recent incidents illustrated, it is in fact quite possible for armed men to walk into an embassy and do whatever the hell they want inside.
Would Ecuador go to war over such an act ? No way.
What are the independent and identically distributed random variables that are being averaged in this case?
The random variable is simply whether you answered question N on the test correctly or not. For every question there is a probability Pn that any given test taker answers it correctly, and that probability is relatively uniform per-question. (so scores on any test, where the same test is administered to a large numbers of test takers, will be normally distributed. Yes, even if the questions are nonsensical and the answers random)
So an IQ score simply indicates the probability, relative to the general population, whether a test taker will answer simple abstract mathematical questions correctly (where correctly should be understood to have cultural biases).
Here's the thing about IQ curves. Let's assume, for the moment, that we create a new "WQ" (waps quotient). It is 1000 random questions that you either know or don't know, which have absolutely nothing to do with eachother (who is the beatles' lead singer, what is the 7th prime number, did Mr. Garrison ever kill Kenny, is Spam searching related to Bayes' rule ? (nope, it's Bayes theorem), ...
For every question you have right you get +0.1, for every wrong answer you get 0. Obviously this proves nothing about you, except that you've at some point looked up the beatles, or actually looked up history of Thomas Bayes, or ... In other words it's a long list of "do you know trick X" bits.
What would the division of WQ in the population look like ? Exactly like the division of IQ in the population. [1] [2]
Here's a supposition : the IQ stat is exactly that. It's measuring of how many of the "little tricks" known by a test maker you know. The better you match the test maker, the better your score (think mostly cultural, but also whether your parents are academics or not, ...)
Although I must say, teaching kids "tricks" with numbers (e.g. how to tell if a number is divisible by 9 by looking at individual digits) and symbols is a good way to make them good at math over time.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution (read top paragraph, note that n will be a relatively large 1000) [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution#Normal_ap...