Poor. Intermittent random freezing of kde kwin input, window switching and compositing when hw accel is enabled, plus occasional hard lockups of the whole machine. It's also a really old gl version. Unusable. This is with a well supported radeon RX 580. Spent months of back and forth with their tech "support". They don't seem to care.
Was a waste of money (not cheap) and hard to recommend. The quality tanked when they fired their US team and was offshored. It's a maintenance mode cash cow at this point. I would pay good money for a replacement which worked and was actually developed. Look at what was in Workstation 15, I couldn't justify paying to upgrade from 14 when there was nothing compelling and no real hope the showstopper bugs were fixed.
Actually, they did. They did exactly this on their ARM systems with UEFI. They will do it on x86 when the opportunity arises. It's only the potential for bad publicity and complaints that have kept it open up to this point. I would not assume any good intentions on the part of Microsoft; they hold the keys to the kingdom here, and the hardware is only open due to their choice.
Correct. Think about it, how would you prove it to be safe? You can test it for various things: heavy metals, phosphates, nitrates, salinity, acidity, alkalinity, see if it kills fish (they actually do this, by running the water through a set of fish tanks to pick up on any sources of acute toxicity). But all those tests are checking specific things or conditions. You can't check for every possible contaminant. There are unknowns. It is logically not possible to say that it is safe. It is only possible to say that it is known to have been tested for x, y, and z and shown to have levels below certain acceptable thresholds. And it's not about "chance". It's not probability being considered here. It's simply that it's not logically provable. Have a read of the wikipedia page for Karl Popper. It's taught as part of basic scientific philosophy for all science courses.
"Cell phone radiation safe for humans".
No scientist would ever say that. Science is about falsifying hypotheses, not proving hypotheses. You can prove experimentally that a hypothesis is incorrect, but you can never prove that it is correct. See Karl Popper. So you can never prove that something does no harm, but you can prove that it causes harm under certain conditions. We already know that microwaves are harmful, that's not in question. The question is the degree of harm under certain conditions.
Amazing, these books were my start into computing with my primary school's Amstrad CPC 464 and later my own ZX spectrum. Really well written and pitched to explain all the fundamental concepts to children in a friendly and accessible manner. I wish we had more books at this level today.
It's not the genetic modification or nutritional content which is in question, it's the pesticide use that the modification enables. Are the chemicals in roundup deleterious to health when consumed in small quantities over the long term? That's still an open question, and it wouldn't surprise me if the answer turns out to be that it does raise the likelihood of various cancers. This particularly study might be bad, but we still need some honest answers to the effects of practices such as roundup use as a pre-harvest dessicant. We know there are trace amounts in the harvested seeds and food products, the question is what effect that has in practice.
Are you serious? This meaning is correct, in the field of Chemistry. It has several other meanings in other fields, and "organic farming" is a one of them.
While I have some criticisms of FreeBSD, pkgng isn't one of them. It had some teething troubles to be sure, as did apt-get in its day, but today it seems pretty solid and I've not encountered any bugs in the dependency solver for a good couple of years now. What's conceptually so bad about packaging up the base system? freebsd-update is quite dated, and more fragile. Downloading and applying patches rather than pulling a few packages with atomic updates and rollbacks. I see that as bringing the system up to the level of Debian for robustness and ease of management.
Yes, I want one for exactly this purpose. I won't buy the current one because I refuse to pay full original price for thoroughly underwhelming and obsolete hardware. I'm hoping that they do release an update and that it will be reasonably specified. But I'm not looking for a "Pro" specification; I want a basic system to compile and test stuff. I already have a decent Ryzen 2700X system for Linux/BSD/Windows development, and I'd run MacOS X in a VM on that if it were legal and practical.
I didn't. I said that SJW beliefs are based upon Marxist philosphy, and that I disagree with their cause. That's a long way from badmouthing. However, given the vast suffering and ongoing problems which Marxists have caused over the course of the last century, I think I would be quite justified in doing so should I so choose. But right now, I'm not.
You're making a classic SJW mistake. You're saying that "disagreement" is "hatred". It's not. I don't hate SJWs, but I do disagree with their philosophy and actions. That's not hatred, and it's not tribalistic. It's an opinion. Why jump straight to "hate"? It's like there's zero nuance. The world isn't black and white and only filled with "haters" and "non-haters". You might actually find me perfectly pleasant to be around, if you didn't judge me based upon a single comment on the internet which you didn't like.
It's simple. This rash of CoCs is being pushed in large by third-wave feminists. These feminists are all about Intersectionality, which is essentially Marxist doctrine. The "social justice" brigade is all about pushing Intersectionality. And in consequence, most of the SJWs are soft-pedalling Marxism even though many of them are not self-aware enough to realise this.
With a few exceptions, every single project I've worked in over the course of two decades has been open and welcoming. No code of conduct was required or even on the radar. Do you know what we did if there was an incidence of bad behaviour? We sent them a private email asking them to stop. And if they continued, we sent a more strongly-worded email. And if it still continued we kicked them off the list. It worked. I can count the number of incidents like this across several dozen projects on one hand. They were a rarity. The vast majority of people you encounter are thoroughly decent.
We join projects to collaborate on things of mutual interest with like-minded people, and do productive work, and maybe have some fun as well. If there are people who require a CoC to keep their behaviour in check, then these are the sort of people who you don't want on your project to begin with. They aren't going to result in increased productivity, and they will sap the fun out of it as well. You don't need an SJW CoC to curb bad behaviour.
SJWs are religious. Marxism is their religion, and intersectionality their tenets of faith. They believe in righteousness, sin, and punishment of unbelievers and transgressors (anyone who criticises any aspect of SJW beliefs, including their own). It goes without saying that the beliefs and their behaviour are thoroughly toxic nonsense, which is what makes them so dangerous. So given the choice between an SJW CoC and this set of fairly sensible (albeit religious) rules about living life as a good thoughtful and compassionate person, I think I'd rather be judged by the Benedictines than blue-haired SJW harridans and their enablers. At least the Benedictines allow for the forgiveness of sins and loving their enemies. SJWs don't believe in that sort of compassion, preferring to act like a pack of hyenas around anyone who shows weakness, failing Rule 64 (Hate no one) and a good number of the other rules as well!
A second vote? What do we do if that one is for remain? A third? Best of three? No. The vote has happened, the result is known. 'Keep voting until you give us the "right" answer' is no way to do things. Unless you're Ireland, or another country which returns the "wrong" answer. It's right out of the EU book of anti-democratic tricks.
There were very high turnouts for the referendum. Anyone who didn't turn out to vote has only themselves to blame. If you don't vote you don't get a say, that's how it works. While legally non-binding, in practice it was promised that the result would be upheld. It would be a travesty for democracy were it not. And since it's now enacted into law, it's absolutely binding at this point.
The people who fail to understand how democracy works? They had their vote, same as everyone else. The referendum happened, and their side lost. End of story. No amount of protesting alters that.
Whether or not you like referendums, the whole question of the UK's membership of the EU had been festering since Maastricht. None of us had ever voted to be part of a federal super-state, and it was long past time for there to be a democratic mandate for it. The general election prior to the Brexit vote was won primarily because of a promise to hold a referendum on the matter. The election after was won because of a promise to leave the EU, though they have done their best to prevaricate and dissemble rather than actually doing it so far. The majority of the population never wanted to be part of the EU in the first place, and this referendum was the first time we got to show that in a vote. Even with all the scaremongering, a majority still voted to leave. Unsurprisingly. You think "declaring it null and void" would solve anything? It doesn't even start to address the very real reasons why people wanted to leave the EU. That really would be the end of any pretence of representative democracy.
Most plastics are insert. However, they are usually porous and hydrophobic, so can adsorb oils and those chemical toxins which are soluble in oil. And they can be a surface for bacteria to grow upon and within. So they can lead to bioaccumulation of toxins over time, and these accumulate up the food chain. It's unlikely you will ingest toxic amounts of plastic entirely through sea salt. But what about tuna, cod, haddock and other sea life which have accumulated toxins through their food and so on down the food chain all the way to phytoplankton.
I do wonder about the requirement to keep a lookout at all times. I doubt cameras can substitute, expecially in bad conditions or when there are faults.
The problem wasn't PowerPC hardware. The problem was that the product lines were confusing. They had dozens of models which were all too similar. It made it hard for people to decide what they wanted. Jobs cut that back. How many iMac variants were there? How many iBooks? The bare minimum to differentiate based upon requirements. It made it easy to sell to people, and easy for people to be satisfied they had made the right choice.
Right now, they are reversing that trend. There are increasing numbers of variants for their phones and tablets, and I doubt Jobs would be happy with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Poor. Intermittent random freezing of kde kwin input, window switching and compositing when hw accel is enabled, plus occasional hard lockups of the whole machine. It's also a really old gl version. Unusable. This is with a well supported radeon RX 580. Spent months of back and forth with their tech "support". They don't seem to care. Was a waste of money (not cheap) and hard to recommend. The quality tanked when they fired their US team and was offshored. It's a maintenance mode cash cow at this point. I would pay good money for a replacement which worked and was actually developed. Look at what was in Workstation 15, I couldn't justify paying to upgrade from 14 when there was nothing compelling and no real hope the showstopper bugs were fixed.
Actually, they did. They did exactly this on their ARM systems with UEFI. They will do it on x86 when the opportunity arises. It's only the potential for bad publicity and complaints that have kept it open up to this point. I would not assume any good intentions on the part of Microsoft; they hold the keys to the kingdom here, and the hardware is only open due to their choice.
Correct. Think about it, how would you prove it to be safe? You can test it for various things: heavy metals, phosphates, nitrates, salinity, acidity, alkalinity, see if it kills fish (they actually do this, by running the water through a set of fish tanks to pick up on any sources of acute toxicity). But all those tests are checking specific things or conditions. You can't check for every possible contaminant. There are unknowns. It is logically not possible to say that it is safe. It is only possible to say that it is known to have been tested for x, y, and z and shown to have levels below certain acceptable thresholds. And it's not about "chance". It's not probability being considered here. It's simply that it's not logically provable. Have a read of the wikipedia page for Karl Popper. It's taught as part of basic scientific philosophy for all science courses.
"Cell phone radiation safe for humans". No scientist would ever say that. Science is about falsifying hypotheses, not proving hypotheses. You can prove experimentally that a hypothesis is incorrect, but you can never prove that it is correct. See Karl Popper. So you can never prove that something does no harm, but you can prove that it causes harm under certain conditions. We already know that microwaves are harmful, that's not in question. The question is the degree of harm under certain conditions.
Amazing, these books were my start into computing with my primary school's Amstrad CPC 464 and later my own ZX spectrum. Really well written and pitched to explain all the fundamental concepts to children in a friendly and accessible manner. I wish we had more books at this level today.
It's not the genetic modification or nutritional content which is in question, it's the pesticide use that the modification enables. Are the chemicals in roundup deleterious to health when consumed in small quantities over the long term? That's still an open question, and it wouldn't surprise me if the answer turns out to be that it does raise the likelihood of various cancers. This particularly study might be bad, but we still need some honest answers to the effects of practices such as roundup use as a pre-harvest dessicant. We know there are trace amounts in the harvested seeds and food products, the question is what effect that has in practice.
Are you serious? This meaning is correct, in the field of Chemistry. It has several other meanings in other fields, and "organic farming" is a one of them.
While I have some criticisms of FreeBSD, pkgng isn't one of them. It had some teething troubles to be sure, as did apt-get in its day, but today it seems pretty solid and I've not encountered any bugs in the dependency solver for a good couple of years now. What's conceptually so bad about packaging up the base system? freebsd-update is quite dated, and more fragile. Downloading and applying patches rather than pulling a few packages with atomic updates and rollbacks. I see that as bringing the system up to the level of Debian for robustness and ease of management.
Yes, I want one for exactly this purpose. I won't buy the current one because I refuse to pay full original price for thoroughly underwhelming and obsolete hardware. I'm hoping that they do release an update and that it will be reasonably specified. But I'm not looking for a "Pro" specification; I want a basic system to compile and test stuff. I already have a decent Ryzen 2700X system for Linux/BSD/Windows development, and I'd run MacOS X in a VM on that if it were legal and practical.
I didn't. I said that SJW beliefs are based upon Marxist philosphy, and that I disagree with their cause. That's a long way from badmouthing. However, given the vast suffering and ongoing problems which Marxists have caused over the course of the last century, I think I would be quite justified in doing so should I so choose. But right now, I'm not.
You're making a classic SJW mistake. You're saying that "disagreement" is "hatred". It's not. I don't hate SJWs, but I do disagree with their philosophy and actions. That's not hatred, and it's not tribalistic. It's an opinion. Why jump straight to "hate"? It's like there's zero nuance. The world isn't black and white and only filled with "haters" and "non-haters". You might actually find me perfectly pleasant to be around, if you didn't judge me based upon a single comment on the internet which you didn't like.
It's simple. This rash of CoCs is being pushed in large by third-wave feminists. These feminists are all about Intersectionality, which is essentially Marxist doctrine. The "social justice" brigade is all about pushing Intersectionality. And in consequence, most of the SJWs are soft-pedalling Marxism even though many of them are not self-aware enough to realise this.
With a few exceptions, every single project I've worked in over the course of two decades has been open and welcoming. No code of conduct was required or even on the radar. Do you know what we did if there was an incidence of bad behaviour? We sent them a private email asking them to stop. And if they continued, we sent a more strongly-worded email. And if it still continued we kicked them off the list. It worked. I can count the number of incidents like this across several dozen projects on one hand. They were a rarity. The vast majority of people you encounter are thoroughly decent. We join projects to collaborate on things of mutual interest with like-minded people, and do productive work, and maybe have some fun as well. If there are people who require a CoC to keep their behaviour in check, then these are the sort of people who you don't want on your project to begin with. They aren't going to result in increased productivity, and they will sap the fun out of it as well. You don't need an SJW CoC to curb bad behaviour.
SJWs are religious. Marxism is their religion, and intersectionality their tenets of faith. They believe in righteousness, sin, and punishment of unbelievers and transgressors (anyone who criticises any aspect of SJW beliefs, including their own). It goes without saying that the beliefs and their behaviour are thoroughly toxic nonsense, which is what makes them so dangerous. So given the choice between an SJW CoC and this set of fairly sensible (albeit religious) rules about living life as a good thoughtful and compassionate person, I think I'd rather be judged by the Benedictines than blue-haired SJW harridans and their enablers. At least the Benedictines allow for the forgiveness of sins and loving their enemies. SJWs don't believe in that sort of compassion, preferring to act like a pack of hyenas around anyone who shows weakness, failing Rule 64 (Hate no one) and a good number of the other rules as well!
A second vote? What do we do if that one is for remain? A third? Best of three? No. The vote has happened, the result is known. 'Keep voting until you give us the "right" answer' is no way to do things. Unless you're Ireland, or another country which returns the "wrong" answer. It's right out of the EU book of anti-democratic tricks.
There were very high turnouts for the referendum. Anyone who didn't turn out to vote has only themselves to blame. If you don't vote you don't get a say, that's how it works. While legally non-binding, in practice it was promised that the result would be upheld. It would be a travesty for democracy were it not. And since it's now enacted into law, it's absolutely binding at this point.
The people who fail to understand how democracy works? They had their vote, same as everyone else. The referendum happened, and their side lost. End of story. No amount of protesting alters that.
Whether or not you like referendums, the whole question of the UK's membership of the EU had been festering since Maastricht. None of us had ever voted to be part of a federal super-state, and it was long past time for there to be a democratic mandate for it. The general election prior to the Brexit vote was won primarily because of a promise to hold a referendum on the matter. The election after was won because of a promise to leave the EU, though they have done their best to prevaricate and dissemble rather than actually doing it so far. The majority of the population never wanted to be part of the EU in the first place, and this referendum was the first time we got to show that in a vote. Even with all the scaremongering, a majority still voted to leave. Unsurprisingly. You think "declaring it null and void" would solve anything? It doesn't even start to address the very real reasons why people wanted to leave the EU. That really would be the end of any pretence of representative democracy.
The fact that these models were deliberately and knowingly biased was brought up in parliament just a few weeks back.
Most plastics are insert. However, they are usually porous and hydrophobic, so can adsorb oils and those chemical toxins which are soluble in oil. And they can be a surface for bacteria to grow upon and within. So they can lead to bioaccumulation of toxins over time, and these accumulate up the food chain. It's unlikely you will ingest toxic amounts of plastic entirely through sea salt. But what about tuna, cod, haddock and other sea life which have accumulated toxins through their food and so on down the food chain all the way to phytoplankton.
I do wonder about the requirement to keep a lookout at all times. I doubt cameras can substitute, expecially in bad conditions or when there are faults.
He funded the Allen Institute for Cell Science as well as other specialised institutes for Biological sciences. Full props to him for doing so.
He intentionally prevented any samples of the material from getting out of his hands, so there are no samples to examine as far as I'm aware.
"Just" is a bit dismissive. It was quite an achievement, and one which hasn't been reproduced to date.
Right now, they are reversing that trend. There are increasing numbers of variants for their phones and tablets, and I doubt Jobs would be happy with it.