You can get AirPorts on Amazon cheaper than the router I bought (since I did my research and wanted a quality router to put Tomato on). And the AirPort does a lot of stuff the bargain routers don't do. I don't have one but people I know who did have one always liked how easy it was to set up; you can even set it up from your tablet or phone. And AirPort express seems to be $99.
When AirPort was new it was great. The alternatives were far more clumsy and difficult to use. Sure, it was more expensive, but then most consumer electronic products are cheap in price because they're cheap in quality.
It makes podcasts convenient if you have an ipod. When I lost my ipod I did not find any suitable replacements for the ipod or for a itunes alternative that did convenient podcasts to a generic mp3 player. I would however have suggestions from people about their favorite program which inevitably involved too many manual operations. My solution was to buy an old ipod mini online (newer ipods went downhill).
Jury nullification isn't just deciding that a particular can be ignored, it's rather refuting the entire validity of the legal system. It's not something to be taken lightly.
If the president has almost unchecked powers with national security issues, then they presidents could call every issue a national security issue and become a dictator!
It was clear from the president's actions and statements that national security was partially a smokescreen. Since the president could not just ban all muslims, in order to preserve his campaign promises he cherry picked a few countries that he felt we could piss off safely, while leaving alone other primarily muslim countries that we have strong economic ties to, and then calling it "national security".
The courts are necessary when there is a dispute. The courts never come out of nowhere to make a decision and "usurp power" or "legislate from the bench". Courts only make a decision when they have been asked to resolve a legal dispute. In the vast majority of cases, the dispute is valid and there are indeed two valid arguments to be made that need to be resolved. The executive office is not the one that decide between disputes, especially when the dispute is involve the executive as one of the parties.
Making that decision is hard and involves many factors, such as conflicting laws, laws conflicting with the constitution, vaguely written laws and/or constitution, prior precedent, and so forth. Certainly a lot of people disagree and will claim loudly that "the intent was obvious!" but have they fully read all the arguments or just basing their ideas on what their media bubble tells them to think?
For me, the argument of figuring out what the original intent of the legislators was is irrelevant. Legislators intentionally make laws vague on purpose, rather than spelling out in detail what their intent was. It is much easier to get laws passed if you don't go into specifics and leave a lot of wiggle room for implementation. Legislators are always free to go back and provide additional clarity should they ever get their act together.
Two ideas here. Either they write in typical Microsoft style and bloat up even the simple stuff, ie, programmers who don't know how to write efficient code. Or else they are not listing all the stuff they jettisoned to make space, ie, dishonest marketing. Or maybe it's a mix of both.
Well, Javascript came pretty late. Java was earlier and was relatively heavy on resources when it was new, and smalltalk at the time was even heavier. Imagine runing this on Windows 3.1 and a 286...
What really kicked things into high gear was when ther was a browser PC and Mac. Before then these browsers were common at universities where you had access to computers you could never afford to have at home, whereas the the home computers at the time were relatively simple with dumb operating systems with very limited and proprietary networking. If you weren't playing games or playing with spreadsheets, the web browser actually made a home computer useful.
It was a bit like email. I used it since 1982 and it was very common in universities and tech oriented corporations, but for the mass market they didn't hear of this for another decade.
There's a difference between imposing our cultures on others versus criticizing those cultures. Generally though, if there's money to be made then people look the other way about things they disapprove of.
Oh puhlease, join civilized society already. China is doing this because they're stuck in a highly conservative society that treats women as subservient to men.
Meanwhile chinese students come to the US or US companies where Chinese women are proving just as competitive as Chinese men.
If you have seen how some of these Chinese companies work, women are given substandard jobs and are assumed to be leaving soon as soon as they get married. Other women are hired precisely to provide morale to the men who do the work, which is why the job ads seek attractive women only. It makes the 50's era US seem enlightened in comparison.
Ironic though is that in the recent past China was very insistent about equality between the sexes in all job types, as it is a core fundamental of their communist ideals. It's still illegal to discriminate based on sex in China, but their "central" government is so weak that this is safely ignored by most companies.
Naw, each site is split up. After reading each paragraph you have to click the "next" button and be subjected to another barrage of advertisements. This compensates the web site owner's expense of copying someone else's article and rebranding it.
I had mentioned to a coworker who is a console game user, and he was surprised and taken aback that people who weren't sleazeballs were modding their games on PCs. He thought we were being very risky to change the UI in Skyrim. I think there's been a lot of astroturfing to convince players that only cheaters would modify games.
I wouldn't call this an exploit. I find it bizarre that the world takes these extreme measures to lock down a purchased product as a matter of fact, instead of treating it as a violation of consumer rights. Now there are devices where such paranoia is reasonable, but I don't think this is reasonable in a consumer game market.
And they're notifying that you'll only be offline for 30 minutes while upgrading to this release instead of 51 minutes. They must really think their customers are brainwashed if they expect anyone to cheer over this.
You're assuming we actually have editors on Slashdot. I think there was a lazy editor that wrote a bunch of shell scripts to simpllify the job, that editor was later fired, and now those rogue scripts are now in charge.
First off, the article is pure bullshit. There may be some Windows 95 components, but the satellites don't run off of Windows 95. These are embedded systems running small and tiny operating systems. They need to be light and with low power usage.
If you look at the article, there is one and only one place that says "Windows" or "Windows 95", and that's the intro paragraph. There are not references or annotations supporting this assertion. It's click-bait, and that makes Slashdot a click-bait enabler.
Right. I don't use my work laptop as a "laptop" unless I drag it to a meeting. At that point I'm not working anymore, instead it's just for browsing email while someone boring is talking, or pulling up some data when asked. At the desk, I use the monitors always. I have not seen any laptop ever that I would consider a productive device when it's standalone.
Reading in A4 form is fine and all, but what's that have to do with screens? You can put more than one thing on a screen at a time. We're not still on Mac Classic where you can only do one single thing at a time. Why not put three A4 pages up side by side if you've got the room for it?
I like wide screen because you can put two pages side by side. Or three with a good monitor. Overall, the usage for a laptop should be identical to having monitors. Why treat them differently, except that you're in a meeting with a cramped laptop screen that you have to squint at. If it's a tablet, then tablets are used differently from computers.
I think some of the article's points seem to be about preferences or different ways of using a laptop versus a monitor. I think people who multitask want wider displays to hold more stuff, probably getting two monitors if they can. Single taskers may just want a nice view of the one thing they're doing (an all-in-one IDE).
The old system worked better for me. The use-it-or-lose-it was a good incentive to actually use the vacation. You'd even get a reminder from HR that you have too much vacation on the books. For me it was mostly end of the year, add a week onto the holiday break. And you can always tell the boss you gotta use it NOW instead of waiting until things aren't as hectic. But with off-the-books it removes the incentive, and the boss doesn't feel like she's stealing your vacation if she says no.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get AirPorts on Amazon cheaper than the router I bought (since I did my research and wanted a quality router to put Tomato on). And the AirPort does a lot of stuff the bargain routers don't do. I don't have one but people I know who did have one always liked how easy it was to set up; you can even set it up from your tablet or phone. And AirPort express seems to be $99.
When AirPort was new it was great. The alternatives were far more clumsy and difficult to use. Sure, it was more expensive, but then most consumer electronic products are cheap in price because they're cheap in quality.
It makes podcasts convenient if you have an ipod. When I lost my ipod I did not find any suitable replacements for the ipod or for a itunes alternative that did convenient podcasts to a generic mp3 player. I would however have suggestions from people about their favorite program which inevitably involved too many manual operations. My solution was to buy an old ipod mini online (newer ipods went downhill).
Jury nullification isn't just deciding that a particular can be ignored, it's rather refuting the entire validity of the legal system. It's not something to be taken lightly.
If the president has almost unchecked powers with national security issues, then they presidents could call every issue a national security issue and become a dictator!
It was clear from the president's actions and statements that national security was partially a smokescreen. Since the president could not just ban all muslims, in order to preserve his campaign promises he cherry picked a few countries that he felt we could piss off safely, while leaving alone other primarily muslim countries that we have strong economic ties to, and then calling it "national security".
The courts are necessary when there is a dispute. The courts never come out of nowhere to make a decision and "usurp power" or "legislate from the bench". Courts only make a decision when they have been asked to resolve a legal dispute. In the vast majority of cases, the dispute is valid and there are indeed two valid arguments to be made that need to be resolved. The executive office is not the one that decide between disputes, especially when the dispute is involve the executive as one of the parties.
Making that decision is hard and involves many factors, such as conflicting laws, laws conflicting with the constitution, vaguely written laws and/or constitution, prior precedent, and so forth. Certainly a lot of people disagree and will claim loudly that "the intent was obvious!" but have they fully read all the arguments or just basing their ideas on what their media bubble tells them to think?
For me, the argument of figuring out what the original intent of the legislators was is irrelevant. Legislators intentionally make laws vague on purpose, rather than spelling out in detail what their intent was. It is much easier to get laws passed if you don't go into specifics and leave a lot of wiggle room for implementation. Legislators are always free to go back and provide additional clarity should they ever get their act together.
Two ideas here. Either they write in typical Microsoft style and bloat up even the simple stuff, ie, programmers who don't know how to write efficient code. Or else they are not listing all the stuff they jettisoned to make space, ie, dishonest marketing. Or maybe it's a mix of both.
Well, Javascript came pretty late. Java was earlier and was relatively heavy on resources when it was new, and smalltalk at the time was even heavier. Imagine runing this on Windows 3.1 and a 286...
What really kicked things into high gear was when ther was a browser PC and Mac. Before then these browsers were common at universities where you had access to computers you could never afford to have at home, whereas the the home computers at the time were relatively simple with dumb operating systems with very limited and proprietary networking. If you weren't playing games or playing with spreadsheets, the web browser actually made a home computer useful.
It was a bit like email. I used it since 1982 and it was very common in universities and tech oriented corporations, but for the mass market they didn't hear of this for another decade.
There's a difference between imposing our cultures on others versus criticizing those cultures. Generally though, if there's money to be made then people look the other way about things they disapprove of.
Oh puhlease, join civilized society already. China is doing this because they're stuck in a highly conservative society that treats women as subservient to men.
Meanwhile chinese students come to the US or US companies where Chinese women are proving just as competitive as Chinese men.
If you have seen how some of these Chinese companies work, women are given substandard jobs and are assumed to be leaving soon as soon as they get married. Other women are hired precisely to provide morale to the men who do the work, which is why the job ads seek attractive women only. It makes the 50's era US seem enlightened in comparison.
Ironic though is that in the recent past China was very insistent about equality between the sexes in all job types, as it is a core fundamental of their communist ideals. It's still illegal to discriminate based on sex in China, but their "central" government is so weak that this is safely ignored by most companies.
Naw, each site is split up. After reading each paragraph you have to click the "next" button and be subjected to another barrage of advertisements. This compensates the web site owner's expense of copying someone else's article and rebranding it.
Hard to cheat in MMOs that way, most processing is done server side. And even then it only applies to PvP MMOs.
Well, maybe don't play games with friends you don't trust?
I had mentioned to a coworker who is a console game user, and he was surprised and taken aback that people who weren't sleazeballs were modding their games on PCs. He thought we were being very risky to change the UI in Skyrim. I think there's been a lot of astroturfing to convince players that only cheaters would modify games.
Is that bad?
I wouldn't call this an exploit. I find it bizarre that the world takes these extreme measures to lock down a purchased product as a matter of fact, instead of treating it as a violation of consumer rights. Now there are devices where such paranoia is reasonable, but I don't think this is reasonable in a consumer game market.
And they're notifying that you'll only be offline for 30 minutes while upgrading to this release instead of 51 minutes. They must really think their customers are brainwashed if they expect anyone to cheer over this.
You're assuming we actually have editors on Slashdot. I think there was a lazy editor that wrote a bunch of shell scripts to simpllify the job, that editor was later fired, and now those rogue scripts are now in charge.
First off, the article is pure bullshit. There may be some Windows 95 components, but the satellites don't run off of Windows 95. These are embedded systems running small and tiny operating systems. They need to be light and with low power usage.
If you look at the article, there is one and only one place that says "Windows" or "Windows 95", and that's the intro paragraph. There are not references or annotations supporting this assertion. It's click-bait, and that makes Slashdot a click-bait enabler.
Right. I don't use my work laptop as a "laptop" unless I drag it to a meeting. At that point I'm not working anymore, instead it's just for browsing email while someone boring is talking, or pulling up some data when asked. At the desk, I use the monitors always. I have not seen any laptop ever that I would consider a productive device when it's standalone.
Reading in A4 form is fine and all, but what's that have to do with screens? You can put more than one thing on a screen at a time. We're not still on Mac Classic where you can only do one single thing at a time. Why not put three A4 pages up side by side if you've got the room for it?
I like wide screen because you can put two pages side by side. Or three with a good monitor. Overall, the usage for a laptop should be identical to having monitors. Why treat them differently, except that you're in a meeting with a cramped laptop screen that you have to squint at. If it's a tablet, then tablets are used differently from computers.
I think some of the article's points seem to be about preferences or different ways of using a laptop versus a monitor. I think people who multitask want wider displays to hold more stuff, probably getting two monitors if they can. Single taskers may just want a nice view of the one thing they're doing (an all-in-one IDE).
All I know is that I already have a lot of programmers working for me who don't know how any code.
The old system worked better for me. The use-it-or-lose-it was a good incentive to actually use the vacation. You'd even get a reminder from HR that you have too much vacation on the books. For me it was mostly end of the year, add a week onto the holiday break. And you can always tell the boss you gotta use it NOW instead of waiting until things aren't as hectic. But with off-the-books it removes the incentive, and the boss doesn't feel like she's stealing your vacation if she says no.