unCLog

“I can tell Lisp that it needed allocate the closure on the heap;” should read, I think, “I can tell Lisp that it doesn’t need to allocate the closure on the heap;”

As you might already know, but just in case didn’t, WordPress has a database backup plugin that you can use to create backups that can be downloaded or e-mailed to you. I use it before upgrading all the time and it’s saved my bacon on one occasion.

What if you want to have the variable fun (that is referencing a lambda) on the stack ? In that case the warning would not be legitimate.

Also this form doesn’t produce that said WARNING on sbcl 1.0.22:

(defun a () (let ((f (lambda ()))) (declare (dynamic-extent (function f))) f))

Out of curiosity (I am indifferent), why do women want to post such photos anyway?

To answer a question with a question: why do people want to post photos of anything?! It’s part of their lives; part of being with their kids and family; why shouldn’t they want to post it? Why should they need to censor themselves? etc…

“BTW, I did this to handle the past, but I’d be happy to hear of a different way to avoid history’s nightmare”

for example ignoring it?

that’s what DVCS’es are for: if someone is reluctant to follow sbcl HEAD then they should not pull the relevant patch from moptilities. it’s that simple: if you don’t want to live on the bleeding edge, then don’t…

Unfortunately, on NPR yesterday:

Global Warming Is Irreversible, Study Says

Climate change is essentially irreversible, according to a sobering new scientific study.

As carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, the world will experience more and more long-term environmental disruption. The damage will persist even when, and if, emissions are brought under control, says study author Susan Solomon, who is among the world’s top climate scientists.

“We’re used to thinking about pollution problems as things that we can fix,” Solomon says. “Smog, we just cut back and everything will be better later. Or haze, you know, it’ll go away pretty quickly.”

That’s the case for some of the gases that contribute to climate change, such as methane and nitrous oxide. But as Solomon and colleagues suggest in a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it is not true for the most abundant greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide. Turning off the carbon dioxide emissions won’t stop global warming.

“People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide that the climate would go back to normal in 100 years or 200 years. What we’re showing here is that’s not right. It’s essentially an irreversible change that will last for more than a thousand years,” Solomon says.

This is because the oceans are currently soaking up a lot of the planet’s excess heat — and a lot of the carbon dioxide put into the air. The carbon dioxide and heat will eventually start coming out of the ocean. And that will take place for many hundreds of years.

Solomon is a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Her new study looked at the consequences of this long-term effect in terms of sea level rise and drought.

If we continue with business as usual for even a few more decades, she says, those emissions could be enough to create permanent dust-bowl conditions in the U.S. Southwest and around the Mediterranean.

“The sea level rise is a much slower thing, so it will take a long time to happen, but we will lock into it, based on the peak level of [carbon dioxide] we reach in this century,” Solomon says.

The idea that changes will be irreversible has consequences for how we should deal with climate change. The global thermostat can’t be turned down quickly once it’s been turned up, so scientists say we need to proceed with more caution right now.

“These are all … changes that are starting to happen in at least a minor way already,” says Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University. “So the question becomes, where do we stop it, when does all of this become dangerous?”

The answer, he says, is sooner rather than later. Scientists have been trying to advise politicians about finding an acceptable level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new study suggests that it’s even more important to aim low. If we overshoot, the damage can’t be easily undone. Oppenheimer feels more urgency than ever to deal with climate change, but he says that in the end, setting acceptable limits for carbon dioxide is a judgment call.

“That’s really a political decision because there’s more at issue than just the science. It’s the issue of what the science says, plus what’s feasible politically, plus what’s reasonable economically to do,” Oppenheimer says.

But despite this grim prognosis, Solomon says this is not time to declare the problem hopeless and give up.

“I guess if it’s irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it,” she says. “Because committing to something that you can’t back out of seems to me like a step that you’d want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse.”

Well, yes. But… thats harder for folks that just want to use software via, e.g., a tarball or ASDF-install. I don’t think that everyone who uses moptilities should have to use darcs…

Look at swank-sbcl.lisp.

Hello, yeah that was a little bug we spotted a little while ago, we ended up loosing one of libraries when moving between live and development in our git repository.

You could try giving it another go, and yes agreed computers do still suck

M

Oh, and btw your FOAF URI is :

http://foafbuilder.qdos.com/people/gwking.myopenid.com/foaf.rdf#me, and your FOAF Document URI is: http://foafbuilder.qdos.com/people/gwking.myopenid.com/foaf.rdf

M

Minor and silly point, but “aft” in “aft agley” is sort of the same as “oft” or “often” nowadays. So you’re asking people to let you know if things frequently go wrong…

Now there is a Lisp gap.

That’s so backward! “can’t get the foundational education they need”—assume this is true, why might that be? Could it be because of the unions who control the k-12 education monopoly refuse to adapt their practices to meet the needs of a new economy? Assume it is false, in the sense that they can but will not get a foundational education, what good is a raised minimum wage or larger EITC going to do for someone without a foundational education?

Raising the minimum wage increases the cost of each worker and lowers the relative cost of automation technology that obviates the need for those workers while simultaneously increasing the jobs and income available to mid-income technology professionals, thus widening the income disparity.

Unionized labor forces homogenize employers’ treatment of employees, creating a workplace that is unfair to the best and worst workers: the best because they cannot achieve the compensation, recognition, or advancement they deserve; the worst because they cannot be fired or transitioned in the timely fashion that would allow them to seek more suitable employment. All workers suffer because the homogenous treatment is manifestly unfair and inefficient. This is obvious from situations like schools in california, the american airline industry, and the american automobile manufacturing industry. The UAW as both owner and labor representative for GM and Chrysler has an opportunity to prove this wrong, my bet is they will not and both will be liquidated in a near-future bankruptcy.

Hi stinky (sorry, couldn’t resist the e-mail).

I think you’re oversimplifying.

Whoopts; thanks Zach. I certainly didn’t mean to click the Lisp tag or to spam planet lisp. Of course, now that I’ve untagged it; no one will see my apology! Oh well.

It’s worth noting that pushd without an argument pushds to wherever you just were. So if you are in ~, pushd / will change to /. Then a plain pushd will take you back to ~, another plain pushd will take you to /, and so on. A popd will end the sequence.

Overjoyed at first until phone fizzles and dies damn technology!

Broken markdown (again).

http://weitz.de/cl-ppcre/#regex-apropos

http://weitz.de/cl-ppcre/#regex-apropos