Mine freezes a lot. I think it's getting close to dying though as it's overheating a lot. Macbook is nice to use but really not designed for long term reliability, rather designed to be replaced often and generate profits.
I had to do this a couple times this month so far. If the software locks up so badly that even the mouse won't work, then it's practically guaranteed that the new specialized touch enabled strip isn't going to work either. Of course, if they had user replaceable batteries you could just power the thing down that way, but no...
It is actually more convenient than the screw up by IBM to move the control key in an unnatural position. For Emacs you don't need escape if you've got a handy Meta key (which also inconvenient if you use Alt to be Meta, although the useless Windows key is in a good position for Meta).
Internet pricing that varies by time or demand? On-demand streaming is not very good for the internet because it doesn't balance out the load over time. Everyone wants to watch during evening peak periods.
Obviously it can be worse! Did you not go to school, did you drop out early or play too much hookey or go to class stoned? What's worse? Fascism (the real kind not the American insults made to conservatives), communism (the real kind not the American insults to liberals), dictatorships (the real ones, not the insults make to Bush or Obama), anarchy (not the libertarian dream but the stuff you see in Somalia, Libya, etc), or a military coup every time there's a new election, and so forth. What about real stuff in America that's worse - rampant racism, sexism, violence in the South in 1940s and 50s (as well as much of the north); the civil war, the lawless West post civil war; genocide of native Americans; fatal duels between members of congress (and you thought today's didn't know how to get along).
The devils we know from history are worse than either Trump or Hillary.
As individuals they have so little power when elected, and yet so many voters act as if the president has dictatorial powers, and so many candidates act as if they have such power ("on my first day in office I will overturn fill-in-the-blank"). Even appointing 3 supreme court justices will not change that much - maybe rules of abortion will change, maybe some regulations get strengthened or weakened, but the overall effects will not cause the disasters (unless you're the sort who believes God will destroy the planet if gays can get married or we don't return to the gold standard). If you want change then you have to get that squabbling bunch of legislators nationally and locally to do stuff and that means voting down the ballot instead of just looking at the dog and pony show for president.
Media doesn't relay much truth about anyone. The modern media is an entertainment service and not an information service. The modern media is Trump's *best* friend because they gave him an unprecedented amount of free coverage in exchange for the year's best entertainment. Hillary isn't as entertaining so she gets less coverage.
Affordable day care is also for men. It's a good benefit for a company so that women AND men can afford to have children and be happier at work. If you think child rearing is only the woman's job then you may be a part of the problem.
Meritocracy is a myth. Just look around at all the mediocre men in the workplace and ask whether morons were the best of the bunch. Why does the below average male get a job in computing or engineering but the few women who get hired are above average? Because there's a different set of standards being applied. People don't hire based only on skills, abilities, and experience, they have biases. I hear those in candidate reviews sometimes: "I didn't really get along with so-and-so", "he seemed like a nice guy, I liked him", or "he had good skills but didn't seem like he would fit into our group". Hiring decisions are more emotional than logical, and that in itself is a problem.
If I was the one in a hostile environment, I'd change instead of sticking it out. That's human nature. Which is a great excuse if it's only *other* people who have to put up with it. Lack of empathy showing here I think. It means that only those with the most endurance to stick it out get represented, which really is not a fair representation. A guy that shows up that doesn't want to make waves and just wants a conflict free work space has a much easier time than a woman who doesn't want to make waves and have a conflict free work space.
Men don't have to be better than average to get hired, but it seems that women do. Just look around at all the male idiots who get hired and retain their job. Much higher proportion of mediocre males than mediocre females in computing and engineering from what I've seen.
Of course you don't have to be in the majority to set the tone. You could have the tone set for you by HR or management (oh, but then the whining starts that they can't joke around anymore, have to watch what they say in the hallways, or otherwise behave like human beings).
Recruiting doesn't start at the corporation. It should start in grade school. Stop telling girls and boys about which jobs are for girls and which jobs are for boys. Retention is a problem because there are workplaces that are just too uncomfortable if you don't like a frat boy style of work, but the numbers are women going into computer science have been declining over time and that's long before retention should start being an issue.
I don't understand why people don't see this as a problem. Why don't we have a 50% representation, like the demographics suggest, without resorting to lame "girls don't like tech" excuses?
More importantly, why are the numbers *declining* over the years? If there was some innate bias like some here insist, then why is it changing? Are our genes changing and mutating that much in only a few short decades? Or perhaps there are other factors at work,.
Yes. Though it wasn't a reinstall, it was a rollback in time machine. I think problem was that unlike native OSX apps, Microsoft kept some vital data outside of the applications folder.
Zimmerman was a murderer who killed someone just to look tough. Best to say about him is that maybe he panicked and now he's just trying to cover up his mistake. Meanwhile someone utterly innocent is dead because some dude thought that neighborhood watch was all about shooting people.
A good way to judge a debate is how well you swayed the audience to change their opinions. Trump did a good job of keeping is staunch supporters happy, but I don't think he made even one undecided voter switch to his side. Clinton probably got many voters to switch to her side.
If he had said "nasty man" under his breath it would be just as bad. His damn microphone was on! This was not a boxing competition, it was a debate. The constant muttering when it wasn't his turn was highly annoying. Though it may depend upon the listener - someone who wants aggressiveness probably loves a candidate who insults everyone at the drop of the pin, whereas others who want civil discourse finds this style appalling.
We've seen this in every debate going back many years now. Someone takes a potshot trying to get the opponent to lose their cool and fumble a bit. It's usually phrased in a somewhat innocuous way rather than an outright attack, usually somewhere in the center though ("you're no Jack Kennedy", a famous practiced line). However it doesn't always work well, the most you get is laughs from the audience but the opponent picks up and carries on. It really doesn't provide any new information about a candidate's political positions or views except to show how catty they are.
This time around though... the standard goading actually worked as candidate A loses his composure and forgets all the practiced "stay cool" advice. Now candidate B's campaign knows exactly where the red buttons are to push during the next two elections. And they get pushed again, and again. Even the most novice of political candidates usually trains how to do a debate properly, how to give a speech that sounds like he's got a highschool diploma, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! Why is this not modded funny?
Mine freezes a lot. I think it's getting close to dying though as it's overheating a lot. Macbook is nice to use but really not designed for long term reliability, rather designed to be replaced often and generate profits.
I had to do this a couple times this month so far. If the software locks up so badly that even the mouse won't work, then it's practically guaranteed that the new specialized touch enabled strip isn't going to work either. Of course, if they had user replaceable batteries you could just power the thing down that way, but no...
It is actually more convenient than the screw up by IBM to move the control key in an unnatural position. For Emacs you don't need escape if you've got a handy Meta key (which also inconvenient if you use Alt to be Meta, although the useless Windows key is in a good position for Meta).
Internet pricing that varies by time or demand? On-demand streaming is not very good for the internet because it doesn't balance out the load over time. Everyone wants to watch during evening peak periods.
You want somebody unexciting as POTUS.
Same for the majority of Senators, the majority of Representatives, all of SCOTUS, etc.
Very true. As the mythical Chinese curse says, "may you live in interesting times". Boring is a very good thing.
Obviously it can be worse! Did you not go to school, did you drop out early or play too much hookey or go to class stoned? What's worse? Fascism (the real kind not the American insults made to conservatives), communism (the real kind not the American insults to liberals), dictatorships (the real ones, not the insults make to Bush or Obama), anarchy (not the libertarian dream but the stuff you see in Somalia, Libya, etc), or a military coup every time there's a new election, and so forth. What about real stuff in America that's worse - rampant racism, sexism, violence in the South in 1940s and 50s (as well as much of the north); the civil war, the lawless West post civil war; genocide of native Americans; fatal duels between members of congress (and you thought today's didn't know how to get along).
The devils we know from history are worse than either Trump or Hillary.
As individuals they have so little power when elected, and yet so many voters act as if the president has dictatorial powers, and so many candidates act as if they have such power ("on my first day in office I will overturn fill-in-the-blank"). Even appointing 3 supreme court justices will not change that much - maybe rules of abortion will change, maybe some regulations get strengthened or weakened, but the overall effects will not cause the disasters (unless you're the sort who believes God will destroy the planet if gays can get married or we don't return to the gold standard). If you want change then you have to get that squabbling bunch of legislators nationally and locally to do stuff and that means voting down the ballot instead of just looking at the dog and pony show for president.
Media doesn't relay much truth about anyone. The modern media is an entertainment service and not an information service. The modern media is Trump's *best* friend because they gave him an unprecedented amount of free coverage in exchange for the year's best entertainment. Hillary isn't as entertaining so she gets less coverage.
As they say, it's better to live every day in mortal terror than to be forced to treat others as equals.
Affordable day care is also for men. It's a good benefit for a company so that women AND men can afford to have children and be happier at work. If you think child rearing is only the woman's job then you may be a part of the problem.
Meritocracy is a myth. Just look around at all the mediocre men in the workplace and ask whether morons were the best of the bunch. Why does the below average male get a job in computing or engineering but the few women who get hired are above average? Because there's a different set of standards being applied. People don't hire based only on skills, abilities, and experience, they have biases. I hear those in candidate reviews sometimes: "I didn't really get along with so-and-so", "he seemed like a nice guy, I liked him", or "he had good skills but didn't seem like he would fit into our group". Hiring decisions are more emotional than logical, and that in itself is a problem.
If I was the one in a hostile environment, I'd change instead of sticking it out. That's human nature. Which is a great excuse if it's only *other* people who have to put up with it. Lack of empathy showing here I think. It means that only those with the most endurance to stick it out get represented, which really is not a fair representation. A guy that shows up that doesn't want to make waves and just wants a conflict free work space has a much easier time than a woman who doesn't want to make waves and have a conflict free work space.
Men don't have to be better than average to get hired, but it seems that women do. Just look around at all the male idiots who get hired and retain their job. Much higher proportion of mediocre males than mediocre females in computing and engineering from what I've seen.
Of course you don't have to be in the majority to set the tone. You could have the tone set for you by HR or management (oh, but then the whining starts that they can't joke around anymore, have to watch what they say in the hallways, or otherwise behave like human beings).
Recruiting doesn't start at the corporation. It should start in grade school. Stop telling girls and boys about which jobs are for girls and which jobs are for boys. Retention is a problem because there are workplaces that are just too uncomfortable if you don't like a frat boy style of work, but the numbers are women going into computer science have been declining over time and that's long before retention should start being an issue.
I don't understand why people don't see this as a problem. Why don't we have a 50% representation, like the demographics suggest, without resorting to lame "girls don't like tech" excuses?
More importantly, why are the numbers *declining* over the years? If there was some innate bias like some here insist, then why is it changing? Are our genes changing and mutating that much in only a few short decades? Or perhaps there are other factors at work,.
Ok, I'll confess. I'm a tightwad.
Yes. Though it wasn't a reinstall, it was a rollback in time machine. I think problem was that unlike native OSX apps, Microsoft kept some vital data outside of the applications folder.
Zimmerman was a murderer who killed someone just to look tough. Best to say about him is that maybe he panicked and now he's just trying to cover up his mistake. Meanwhile someone utterly innocent is dead because some dude thought that neighborhood watch was all about shooting people.
Times changing? Companies used to generate angry protests merely by suggesting smart guns.
When were they ever neutral once Assange took over as sole leader?
Agreed. We currently don't have a ruling party. We have a president of one party and a legislature with a majority from a different party.
A good way to judge a debate is how well you swayed the audience to change their opinions. Trump did a good job of keeping is staunch supporters happy, but I don't think he made even one undecided voter switch to his side. Clinton probably got many voters to switch to her side.
If he had said "nasty man" under his breath it would be just as bad. His damn microphone was on! This was not a boxing competition, it was a debate. The constant muttering when it wasn't his turn was highly annoying. Though it may depend upon the listener - someone who wants aggressiveness probably loves a candidate who insults everyone at the drop of the pin, whereas others who want civil discourse finds this style appalling.
We've seen this in every debate going back many years now. Someone takes a potshot trying to get the opponent to lose their cool and fumble a bit. It's usually phrased in a somewhat innocuous way rather than an outright attack, usually somewhere in the center though ("you're no Jack Kennedy", a famous practiced line). However it doesn't always work well, the most you get is laughs from the audience but the opponent picks up and carries on. It really doesn't provide any new information about a candidate's political positions or views except to show how catty they are.
This time around though... the standard goading actually worked as candidate A loses his composure and forgets all the practiced "stay cool" advice. Now candidate B's campaign knows exactly where the red buttons are to push during the next two elections. And they get pushed again, and again. Even the most novice of political candidates usually trains how to do a debate properly, how to give a speech that sounds like he's got a highschool diploma, and so on.
He wants a new reality TV show. Presidential Apprentice. His tag line will be "You're impeached!"
I'd probably vote for him over Trump.
I checked, it's still up.