That's a completely absurd statement. Any attempt of the sort you describe would backfire appallingly, and the world would live with the bloody consequences for generations.
Unless the responsibility for the discrepancy falls upon incorrect theories / understanding of the observations. In which case dark matter turns out to be an iffy equation. Yes, it still technically exists, but the $2 billion dollar particle detector isn't going to find it.
The question isn't really whether or not prohibition increased or decreased the amount of alcohol consumed. From what I can gather from reading the literature, it's extremely hard to tell. Accurate statistics of how much alcohol was consumed during prohibition are very hard to come by, and studies look at other secondary indicators for their data. It seems that the effect on consumption wasn't enormous, and didn't last long anyway. I'd love to see where your data backing up your claim of a correlation between usage and restrictions comes from.
The issue is what collateral damage prohibition causes, compared with the damage caused by the drug itself. In the case of alcohol prohibition, it created organised crime. In the case of drug prohibition, it exacts terrible consequences upon people who (as in the article) happen to glance at a stash of cash under a seat.
Guns are designed to protect you against oppression, which includes oppression by foreign and domestic tyrants.
This argument is by far my favourite one. Especially as most gun-nuts also support arming their military orders of magnitude beyond what their collection of assault rifles could possible hope to prevail against. It's like they saw "Red Dawn" and thought that's how it would really go down.
Go Wolverines!
Guns are dangerous, largely pointless, and I would guess that the vast majority of them are not used for hunting.
This really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The app store does not give the author the power to revamp the application, or revoke the application, or any other such nonsense. This has never been the case, and I do not believe it will ever become the case in the future. Here's what the appstore does
Centralises purchasing for applications, freeing individual developers from the chore of setting up CC services
Centralises updates, so that when the application you have purchased has an update available, you are informed. This does NOT require you to install the update and has never done so. I don't know where you got this idea from, but certainly not from actually using the app store itself.
Buying apps from the app store is a painless and seamless experience, and I've done so several times. There is no 'online activation' of the app once it's purchased, and although some applications have in-app purchases I have yet to come across any. Interestingly, I had the opposite experience when buying Guitar Pro from their standalone app-store. After laying down my 80 bucks (how much?!?!), I couldn't download it for an entire weekend because their servers were down!
It had nothing to do with performance (which was admittedly terrible).
So the performance was terrible, but that wasn't the reason, it was because you could run apps? Except that Safari shipped with a full javascript engine, which could also run apps, but had pretty good performance?
Doesn't really make sense does it?
FWIW, I used to develop flash too, but I don't think it's ever going to really go away. HTML5 is still a long way from being even as capable as flash, not to mention the thousands of flash games that are still out there.
Ok. And you listen to and organise this music how?
Look, I know there are multiple pretty easy ways of copying music around, and that's fine. The point is that it is now easier to legally buy music that it is to illegally download it. Yes, I know it's really easy to download, but the argument that the record companies have made it hard to legally buy music online is incorrect as of whenever it was that itunes dropped their DRM.
Which obviously doesn't excuse them from fining people hundreds of thousands of dollars for uploading a few megs of data. That is clearly absurd, immoral, unethical, and not in the least bit funny.
but the problem is that the folks who put torrents or downloads online do such a damn good job that is makes competing with them very difficult.
I'm really not sure that this is true anymore. If I use iTunes as an example, I can buy a track on iTunes and it will appear on all my idevices automatically. This is far more convenient than downloading a torrent, hoping its complete, and then copying the files around to the right place. Yes of course this process can be automated, and I did once go to the trouble of automating it on my own system. But the fact is that now, buying music online is a simpler process than downloading it illegally.
This isn't currently true for movies however, and there I agree with you - ethical issues notwithstanding. But for music, perhaps it's time to go back to buying it. I certainly have.
2. Cut and paste are annoying to use (you have to copy, then hold control+option+V, and that only recently became available)
THANK YOU - now I finally know how to do this. I might just have to cut and paste a few files when I get home to celebrate. I've been looking for this feature for years.
4. Typing characters to find what you're looking for in the current folder list never seems to work as expected
I actually find this works better than Explorer, once I got used to it. Actually I think, barring your point 2, that everything in Finder is better. I realised that I had been using Explorer, and FileManager before it, for more years than I care to count. And I was then expecting to become used to Finder within a few months. Now I've had my mac for a couple of years, I find using Explorer (which I only use at work) a real unpleasant chore.
No no, that's not what I meat. I was just venting about how much that irritated me - not offering it as proof of iOS-ification. I don't think they're moving towards iOS on the desktop at all.
Not really. Front Row was hands down the best couch user interface for watching my movie collection. This is the only reason I haven't upgraded my mac mini to Mountain Lion, but I'm sure I'll be unable to put this off indefinitely.
Thing with Front Row was, not only did it integrate with iTunes, but it could also dive into your ~/Movies folder and show you a nice directory listing of everything in there, and it would have a crack at playing any of them. Not iOSsy at all. Nothing else that I have found does this as nicely, Movist has a go - but it is fatally flawed in a number of extremely irritating ways. And it performs terribly if it has a large number of files in the folder, which needless to say, I do.
I love OSX, but I can't argue with any of the above (except spaces - I never used spaces).
I'm pretty sure I don't have applications trying to save to icloud anymore, but I can't remember how I disabled it. Yes, it was super-irritating.
And if the worrisome eventualities you suggest ever, er, eventuate - then I too will try installing Linux on my macbook pro. But I just know it's going to soak up weeks of time, and I'll never get a system quite as lovely to use as the one I have today.
Well, they did remove Front Row too, which really irritated me. I even started to write my own version of it, having found all other replacements wanting (yes, ALL of them), but it's no small task.
Things like that all depend on which distro you're using. If you want something that Just Works, use Ubuntu
Sounds like you use Ubuntu. This is exactly the reason I moved away from Ubuntu (to Arch). It all felt so hackish because....
So which is it boys? Ubuntu or not? And why are there so many distributions in the first place? Linux - nice kernel (I hear), the rest of it though, not so much.
Circumcision is (generally) performed on young children who cannot give informed consent. The law would take a very dim view of parents subjecting their children to plastic surgery if they felt (for instance) that their ears were a bit large. And the law would probably jail for a good long time anyone who performed a vasectomy on a child.
but I knew they were helping pay the bills so I seemed like a fair trade
But remember what you're trading for. Your trading editorial control of whatever it is you happen to be reading to a company that makes, for instance, toothpaste. And remember too that you're the one paying for it in the end. You pay every-so-slightly-more for your toothpaste in order to get your magazine cheaper, and in doing so you hand control of that magazine to the toothpaste company.
I don't see how this is a good thing. And although I am doubtless in a minority here, I would not be happy to see a world in which advertising didn't exist *at all*.
The referrer is a client-side piece of information. Making any serious decision based on client-side data is foolish to begin with.
You mean like determining which page to serve based on the client-side information of which page they want?
It's all very well to get idealistic about what web servers do, but in the end knowing where links came from is valuable information. It's certainly a very long way from 'fascist monitoring', perhaps you should look up the definition of fascist and use the word less in the future.
Yes, in theory HTTP_REFERRER is inaccurate and easily spoofed. But that's not important - because what is important is that the vast majority of people don't spoof it, and therefore you can rely on it to some extent.
Maybe I'm less paranoid than you, but I don't see how HTTP_REFERRER is a bad thing in any sense at all.
Now there's a film adaptation I would pay money to see. Not that anyone has ever even mentioned the remotest possibility of making a film of Blood Music, but man, it needs to be done.
Nor are the senses distinct - they bleed into each other.
I read a fantastic book on the brain once, sadly the name escapes me, that supported this idea with one exception. That of smell. Apparantly the bits of the brain attached to the olfactory system are connected directly to the 'thinking' (whatever that might mean) part of the brain without any of the VR-filtering/generation you talk about.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a completely absurd statement. Any attempt of the sort you describe would backfire appallingly, and the world would live with the bloody consequences for generations.
Unless the responsibility for the discrepancy falls upon incorrect theories / understanding of the observations. In which case dark matter turns out to be an iffy equation. Yes, it still technically exists, but the $2 billion dollar particle detector isn't going to find it.
The question isn't really whether or not prohibition increased or decreased the amount of alcohol consumed. From what I can gather from reading the literature, it's extremely hard to tell. Accurate statistics of how much alcohol was consumed during prohibition are very hard to come by, and studies look at other secondary indicators for their data. It seems that the effect on consumption wasn't enormous, and didn't last long anyway. I'd love to see where your data backing up your claim of a correlation between usage and restrictions comes from.
The issue is what collateral damage prohibition causes, compared with the damage caused by the drug itself. In the case of alcohol prohibition, it created organised crime. In the case of drug prohibition, it exacts terrible consequences upon people who (as in the article) happen to glance at a stash of cash under a seat.
Great. Except don't most of the criminals have guns too?
2. He can fight effectively against the US Army if they turn on the civilian population.
Ha ha. I'm pretty sure the US army are going to win in a firefight against your co-worker.
Guns are designed to protect you against oppression, which includes oppression by foreign and domestic tyrants.
This argument is by far my favourite one. Especially as most gun-nuts also support arming their military orders of magnitude beyond what their collection of assault rifles could possible hope to prevail against. It's like they saw "Red Dawn" and thought that's how it would really go down.
Go Wolverines!
Guns are dangerous, largely pointless, and I would guess that the vast majority of them are not used for hunting.
This really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The app store does not give the author the power to revamp the application, or revoke the application, or any other such nonsense. This has never been the case, and I do not believe it will ever become the case in the future. Here's what the appstore does
Buying apps from the app store is a painless and seamless experience, and I've done so several times. There is no 'online activation' of the app once it's purchased, and although some applications have in-app purchases I have yet to come across any. Interestingly, I had the opposite experience when buying Guitar Pro from their standalone app-store. After laying down my 80 bucks (how much?!?!), I couldn't download it for an entire weekend because their servers were down!
It had nothing to do with performance (which was admittedly terrible).
So the performance was terrible, but that wasn't the reason, it was because you could run apps? Except that Safari shipped with a full javascript engine, which could also run apps, but had pretty good performance?
Doesn't really make sense does it?
FWIW, I used to develop flash too, but I don't think it's ever going to really go away. HTML5 is still a long way from being even as capable as flash, not to mention the thousands of flash games that are still out there.
Ok. And you listen to and organise this music how?
Look, I know there are multiple pretty easy ways of copying music around, and that's fine. The point is that it is now easier to legally buy music that it is to illegally download it. Yes, I know it's really easy to download, but the argument that the record companies have made it hard to legally buy music online is incorrect as of whenever it was that itunes dropped their DRM.
Which obviously doesn't excuse them from fining people hundreds of thousands of dollars for uploading a few megs of data. That is clearly absurd, immoral, unethical, and not in the least bit funny.
Bring back lenslock, that's what I say.
Seriously, as the derisive laugher of the parent means to indicate, there is no such thing as a DRM scheme that cannot be cracked.
but the problem is that the folks who put torrents or downloads online do such a damn good job that is makes competing with them very difficult.
I'm really not sure that this is true anymore. If I use iTunes as an example, I can buy a track on iTunes and it will appear on all my idevices automatically. This is far more convenient than downloading a torrent, hoping its complete, and then copying the files around to the right place. Yes of course this process can be automated, and I did once go to the trouble of automating it on my own system. But the fact is that now, buying music online is a simpler process than downloading it illegally.
This isn't currently true for movies however, and there I agree with you - ethical issues notwithstanding. But for music, perhaps it's time to go back to buying it. I certainly have.
2. Cut and paste are annoying to use (you have to copy, then hold control+option+V, and that only recently became available)
THANK YOU - now I finally know how to do this. I might just have to cut and paste a few files when I get home to celebrate. I've been looking for this feature for years.
4. Typing characters to find what you're looking for in the current folder list never seems to work as expected
I actually find this works better than Explorer, once I got used to it. Actually I think, barring your point 2, that everything in Finder is better. I realised that I had been using Explorer, and FileManager before it, for more years than I care to count. And I was then expecting to become used to Finder within a few months. Now I've had my mac for a couple of years, I find using Explorer (which I only use at work) a real unpleasant chore.
No no, that's not what I meat. I was just venting about how much that irritated me - not offering it as proof of iOS-ification. I don't think they're moving towards iOS on the desktop at all.
Sorry I wasn't more clear.
Not really. Front Row was hands down the best couch user interface for watching my movie collection. This is the only reason I haven't upgraded my mac mini to Mountain Lion, but I'm sure I'll be unable to put this off indefinitely.
Thing with Front Row was, not only did it integrate with iTunes, but it could also dive into your ~/Movies folder and show you a nice directory listing of everything in there, and it would have a crack at playing any of them. Not iOSsy at all. Nothing else that I have found does this as nicely, Movist has a go - but it is fatally flawed in a number of extremely irritating ways. And it performs terribly if it has a large number of files in the folder, which needless to say, I do.
I love OSX, but I can't argue with any of the above (except spaces - I never used spaces).
I'm pretty sure I don't have applications trying to save to icloud anymore, but I can't remember how I disabled it. Yes, it was super-irritating.
And if the worrisome eventualities you suggest ever, er, eventuate - then I too will try installing Linux on my macbook pro. But I just know it's going to soak up weeks of time, and I'll never get a system quite as lovely to use as the one I have today.
Well, they did remove Front Row too, which really irritated me. I even started to write my own version of it, having found all other replacements wanting (yes, ALL of them), but it's no small task.
Things like that all depend on which distro you're using. If you want something that Just Works, use Ubuntu
Sounds like you use Ubuntu. This is exactly the reason I moved away from Ubuntu (to Arch). It all felt so hackish because ....
So which is it boys? Ubuntu or not? And why are there so many distributions in the first place? Linux - nice kernel (I hear), the rest of it though, not so much.
Circumcision is (generally) performed on young children who cannot give informed consent. The law would take a very dim view of parents subjecting their children to plastic surgery if they felt (for instance) that their ears were a bit large. And the law would probably jail for a good long time anyone who performed a vasectomy on a child.
Just sayin.
Assuming your interpretation of that code is correct, how about:
std::set<Foo> foos(vec.begin(), vec.end());
*Much* clearer than either example.
Better examples exist in other languages too I'm sure.
ps, the above code is from Stack Overflow.
but I knew they were helping pay the bills so I seemed like a fair trade
But remember what you're trading for. Your trading editorial control of whatever it is you happen to be reading to a company that makes, for instance, toothpaste. And remember too that you're the one paying for it in the end. You pay every-so-slightly-more for your toothpaste in order to get your magazine cheaper, and in doing so you hand control of that magazine to the toothpaste company.
I don't see how this is a good thing. And although I am doubtless in a minority here, I would not be happy to see a world in which advertising didn't exist *at all*.
The referrer is a client-side piece of information. Making any serious decision based on client-side data is foolish to begin with.
You mean like determining which page to serve based on the client-side information of which page they want?
It's all very well to get idealistic about what web servers do, but in the end knowing where links came from is valuable information. It's certainly a very long way from 'fascist monitoring', perhaps you should look up the definition of fascist and use the word less in the future.
Yes, in theory HTTP_REFERRER is inaccurate and easily spoofed. But that's not important - because what is important is that the vast majority of people don't spoof it, and therefore you can rely on it to some extent.
Maybe I'm less paranoid than you, but I don't see how HTTP_REFERRER is a bad thing in any sense at all.
That's right, go door to door with cookies and ask to speak to children. Good idea.
Now there's a film adaptation I would pay money to see. Not that anyone has ever even mentioned the remotest possibility of making a film of Blood Music, but man, it needs to be done.
Nor are the senses distinct - they bleed into each other.
I read a fantastic book on the brain once, sadly the name escapes me, that supported this idea with one exception. That of smell. Apparantly the bits of the brain attached to the olfactory system are connected directly to the 'thinking' (whatever that might mean) part of the brain without any of the VR-filtering/generation you talk about.
Just thought that was interesting. Carry on.
If she wants to look more glamorous in these things in the future..
The 60's called. It wants your attitudes back.