As I heard it from an ex-manager, the donut building is for the high revenue generating divisions; itunes, iphones, etc. The Mac and OSX people will be in other buildings. I'm not sure what they're going to do with the old campus, but given that they already lease a large number of office buildings in the area it would make sense to move those workers back to there.
That's one reason we are avoiding new Macbooks at work, it means buying all new adapters. Given that the existing ones are three years old maybe it's time to migrate to Linux (surprisingly, the dumbass move to standardize on Microsoft-everything-in-the-cloud at the corporate level means that we can get your corporate stuff done on Linux too).
Macbooks froze with the 2015 model, anything after that time got rid of the precious Esc key, and also changed the finish from everyman brushed metal to hipster brushed metal. Also I use the Mac at work, I only have a 6 figure salary so I can't afford a Mac for home.
I've only ever seen one USB-C cable and the person who uses it finds it annoying (it's not even for an iphone but a raspberry-pi style device). I don't know why someone would have a "ton" of those cables, maybe two if they have a new iphone. Fast charge doesn't matter if you're able to actually let go of the phone and put it down, charging overnight should last all day.
I have now countered and balanced your data point, thus nullifying it.
The US health care system was not dismantled in any way. The system at the time was seriously broken and parts of Obamacare were widely supported by both parties (removing pre-existing conditions as an excuse to deny insurance for example).
Trump was 50% responsible for the shutdown, or had you not noticed that. If you think one party is solely responsible then you are too partisan to make a good argument. I see the Republicans as having lost their minds for doing a 180 on their opposition to Trump to then supporting him in all things. Trump did not fit into what were considered basic Republican ideals at the time and I am still surprised that Republicans did not split over this. I mean, Trump has a worse moral character than Bill Clinton and yet the evangelicals are firmly behind him, if this is not Bizarro-world then what is? I have voted Republican in the past, but I see nothing left there and can't see them being a serious party anymore.
Voters don't understand things like "regulatory capture" and we're in a political climate where too many voters just want to know if someone is for or against regulation. So candidates may understand these issues while not actually voicing it that way.
It would be good to split up companies that own both content and infrastructure, as they have a built in bias that screws up free market competitiveness. But since that is unlikely to happen any time soon, we need to have enforceable net neutrality in the meantime.
I don't want paid prioritization of one entity's service compared to an equivalent service. Ie, Netscape and Hulu should have the same prioritization as all other video streaming services. However it does make sense to prioritize a class of services over a link, as long as it's not done to favor the link owner's own service.
I knew one guy that vaped for awhile who had never smoked previously. Another guy vapes after quitting smoking, and it drives me nuts because he does it inside at work despite being warned (I think he can't smell it so he assumes no one near him will notice).
This is the hard lesson that everyone coming out of school needs to learn: logic and reason aren't used in the real world. The only reason logic and reason are taught in school is so that they can be more easily recognized and avoided.
You can also put that Windows 10 running a Javascript engine running Windows 95 all on a VM running under Windows XP, and then put that on a VM hosted on Linux. It's emulation all the way down, baby!
Well, every programmer probably works on fun projects on the side. Most of them don't submit it to Slashdot hoping to be validated. There should be a "News For Nerds" angle here, not just a "what are you working on this week?" chat over dinner.
They're ALL flawed. Even wanting to be elected could be considered a flaw. The goal of the voter is to decide who can do the job best despite their flaws. You can compare the flaws, some minor that won't get in the way of doing a job no matter how funny they are, or flaws that will seriously impact the job.
This is only because the candidates wimp out and concede early, or the voters are dumb enough that they just go with a frontrunner, or assume that their vote won't matter. Plus, this is only for president which arguably should be the least important ballot choice on election day.
This sounds like most internet sites designed to make money from ads. Content creators are hired because they're cheap not because they're good at writing or that they can understand what they are writing bout. Ars Technica is a thousand times better than the average gaming site for exampoe.
Ultima Thule existed long before a few mystical minded Nazis borrowed this. It's so obscure in Nazi lore that even most neo-Nazis don't know what it is.
Next up, we can't create bad paintings of mountains because that's what Hitler did.
It didn't heal itself while we watched and sat back doing nothing. It healed itself after we restricted use of a large number of ozone depleting chemicals.
It's like Y2K, it didn't happen as predicted not because it was a hoax but because we did something about it. Yet it is not hard to find people who think Y2K was just a hoax to make money.
There's a difference between scientists theorizing about anthropomorphic climate change and politicians devising a cap-and-trade system. If cap-and-trade seems stupid then do not blame the scientists for this. However if you trust the scientists then there should be *some* reasonable political proposal put forward other than "it's a hoax!"
They are stupid when they don't look at the evidence, or dismiss evidence. I went to a creationist museum once, a lot of stupidity there, not ignorance. Start with the conclusion they want then shuffle the evidence around to fit it, then shove a whole lotta proselytizing in with it. (So not only do they believe in creationism, but a form very specific to a literalist Christian bible reading rather than an Aztec, Nordic, or Zoroastrian view of creation.)
With an intelligent person you can have a debate. Now some people may seem quite smart in some areas, but if they are so closed minded that they can't have a proper discussion in some area then they are not intelligent in that area and most likely intentionally so.
One can also use empirical evidence to note that Fox is basing its existence on pushing editorialized news rather than unbiased news. Sure other stations are biased but they strive to make sure the bias is in the editorials.
It's not Fox I worry about though, it's the really extremist sites the push conspiracy theories or click bait viewpoints. World News Daily, Brietbart, Infowars. Even scarier is when the president seems to listen more to those sites than to his advisors.
Slashdot Mirror
As I heard it from an ex-manager, the donut building is for the high revenue generating divisions; itunes, iphones, etc. The Mac and OSX people will be in other buildings. I'm not sure what they're going to do with the old campus, but given that they already lease a large number of office buildings in the area it would make sense to move those workers back to there.
That's one reason we are avoiding new Macbooks at work, it means buying all new adapters. Given that the existing ones are three years old maybe it's time to migrate to Linux (surprisingly, the dumbass move to standardize on Microsoft-everything-in-the-cloud at the corporate level means that we can get your corporate stuff done on Linux too).
Is this a contest?
Macbooks froze with the 2015 model, anything after that time got rid of the precious Esc key, and also changed the finish from everyman brushed metal to hipster brushed metal. Also I use the Mac at work, I only have a 6 figure salary so I can't afford a Mac for home.
My single data point was made to counter the single data point of someone with the other position :-)
I've only ever seen one USB-C cable and the person who uses it finds it annoying (it's not even for an iphone but a raspberry-pi style device). I don't know why someone would have a "ton" of those cables, maybe two if they have a new iphone. Fast charge doesn't matter if you're able to actually let go of the phone and put it down, charging overnight should last all day.
I have now countered and balanced your data point, thus nullifying it.
The US health care system was not dismantled in any way. The system at the time was seriously broken and parts of Obamacare were widely supported by both parties (removing pre-existing conditions as an excuse to deny insurance for example).
Trump was 50% responsible for the shutdown, or had you not noticed that. If you think one party is solely responsible then you are too partisan to make a good argument. I see the Republicans as having lost their minds for doing a 180 on their opposition to Trump to then supporting him in all things. Trump did not fit into what were considered basic Republican ideals at the time and I am still surprised that Republicans did not split over this. I mean, Trump has a worse moral character than Bill Clinton and yet the evangelicals are firmly behind him, if this is not Bizarro-world then what is? I have voted Republican in the past, but I see nothing left there and can't see them being a serious party anymore.
Voters don't understand things like "regulatory capture" and we're in a political climate where too many voters just want to know if someone is for or against regulation. So candidates may understand these issues while not actually voicing it that way.
It would be good to split up companies that own both content and infrastructure, as they have a built in bias that screws up free market competitiveness. But since that is unlikely to happen any time soon, we need to have enforceable net neutrality in the meantime.
I don't want paid prioritization of one entity's service compared to an equivalent service. Ie, Netscape and Hulu should have the same prioritization as all other video streaming services. However it does make sense to prioritize a class of services over a link, as long as it's not done to favor the link owner's own service.
I knew one guy that vaped for awhile who had never smoked previously. Another guy vapes after quitting smoking, and it drives me nuts because he does it inside at work despite being warned (I think he can't smell it so he assumes no one near him will notice).
This is the hard lesson that everyone coming out of school needs to learn: logic and reason aren't used in the real world.
The only reason logic and reason are taught in school is so that they can be more easily recognized and avoided.
Electron is the embodiment of every joke about programmers being lazy ever made.
So it's a web site where you submit some vague requirements and they send you back the code later in the afternoon?
You can also put that Windows 10 running a Javascript engine running Windows 95 all on a VM running under Windows XP, and then put that on a VM hosted on Linux. It's emulation all the way down, baby!
Don't the children in Africa get their food shipped to their doorsteps from Amazon, or are they Luddites?
Well, every programmer probably works on fun projects on the side. Most of them don't submit it to Slashdot hoping to be validated. There should be a "News For Nerds" angle here, not just a "what are you working on this week?" chat over dinner.
Or if the developer used a real programming language...
They're ALL flawed. Even wanting to be elected could be considered a flaw. The goal of the voter is to decide who can do the job best despite their flaws. You can compare the flaws, some minor that won't get in the way of doing a job no matter how funny they are, or flaws that will seriously impact the job.
This is only because the candidates wimp out and concede early, or the voters are dumb enough that they just go with a frontrunner, or assume that their vote won't matter. Plus, this is only for president which arguably should be the least important ballot choice on election day.
This sounds like most internet sites designed to make money from ads. Content creators are hired because they're cheap not because they're good at writing or that they can understand what they are writing bout. Ars Technica is a thousand times better than the average gaming site for exampoe.
Ultima Thule existed long before a few mystical minded Nazis borrowed this. It's so obscure in Nazi lore that even most neo-Nazis don't know what it is.
Next up, we can't create bad paintings of mountains because that's what Hitler did.
It didn't heal itself while we watched and sat back doing nothing. It healed itself after we restricted use of a large number of ozone depleting chemicals.
It's like Y2K, it didn't happen as predicted not because it was a hoax but because we did something about it. Yet it is not hard to find people who think Y2K was just a hoax to make money.
There's a difference between scientists theorizing about anthropomorphic climate change and politicians devising a cap-and-trade system. If cap-and-trade seems stupid then do not blame the scientists for this. However if you trust the scientists then there should be *some* reasonable political proposal put forward other than "it's a hoax!"
They are stupid when they don't look at the evidence, or dismiss evidence. I went to a creationist museum once, a lot of stupidity there, not ignorance. Start with the conclusion they want then shuffle the evidence around to fit it, then shove a whole lotta proselytizing in with it. (So not only do they believe in creationism, but a form very specific to a literalist Christian bible reading rather than an Aztec, Nordic, or Zoroastrian view of creation.)
With an intelligent person you can have a debate. Now some people may seem quite smart in some areas, but if they are so closed minded that they can't have a proper discussion in some area then they are not intelligent in that area and most likely intentionally so.
One can also use empirical evidence to note that Fox is basing its existence on pushing editorialized news rather than unbiased news. Sure other stations are biased but they strive to make sure the bias is in the editorials.
It's not Fox I worry about though, it's the really extremist sites the push conspiracy theories or click bait viewpoints. World News Daily, Brietbart, Infowars. Even scarier is when the president seems to listen more to those sites than to his advisors.