I am not opposed to Hilary because she is a woman. I am opposed to Hilary because she has a decades long record of making horrible decision, which often result in the unnecessary deaths of civilians and other non-combatants.
Australia also doesn't share borders with countries that have rampant illegal drug trade going on. It's isolated pretty well, and having a limited number of locations where entry is possible makes it difficult to smuggle conspicuous things in. America has Mexico and a whole bunch of nearby island nations in the Caribbean where all sorts of crazy shit is going down. Whether it's a matter of catapulting a package across a relatively unpatrolled part of the border, or discretely landing a motorboat on a Southern beach, people bring weapons here both for their own use, and also to sell. What worked in Australia isn't likely to work very well, here.
People generally don't use their legally owned and registered guns to commit crimes. That'd be like a burglar removing his gloves and making sure he fondles every glass surface in the house he's robbing, before he leaves.
When the state of Florida introduced requirements for registered gun ownership, they started a program to keep track of gun-related crimes involving registered gun owners. They discontinued the program after several years because there just weren't enough incidents to justify spending money on tracking them. A fair number of the incidents they did document involved a registered gun owner using his gun to save the life of a police officer.
The incident I think GP is talking about was one of the copycats following Columbine, and it was, in fact, a teacher who went out to his car, and obtained his gun, then proceeded to end the situation.
Wide-spread legal gun ownership really does make people generally safer.
I was diagnosed in 1993, so I came in some time after human-based insulin hit the market. Never saw humalog until I got an insulin pump, but I find that it offers somewhat tighter control over my blood sugar. Surviving diabetes is about getting insulin in your system, but controlling it is really about getting the right amount of insulin in your system all the time.
Open source is important to the process of innovation otherwise type 1 diabetics would still be using needles and fingerstick meters alone to manage a disease that by using those tools is in a word unmanageable.
I, too, am a type 1 diabetic. I've used an insulin pump in the past, and I use needles and "fingerstick" meter, now. I don't want to put down the insulin pump, as it really is a very potent means for managing the disease. It just didn't work for me; I'm a fat, sweaty Norwegian living in California's San Joaquin Valley, and that catheter just doesn't have any chance of staying put.
That said, using Humalog and Lantus, I've got my A1C down to 6.5. Needles and a conventional glucometer are sufficient to the task, so long as you put forth the effort to keep track of what you're eating, and how much you need to take for it; which you should really be doing with an insulin pump, anyway.
Having a smart phone app dedicated to crunching the numbers and keeping record for you rather helps, too.
What you describe is fascinating, and I'd love to read more.
That said, because quantum physics seems to tie reality to perception, doesn't that suggest that only the paths of photons which are perceived need to be computed? That's kind of what Schrodinger's Cat is trying to tell us, isn't it? Detailed computations for the unobserved are unnecessary, but some bulk calculation will have to be made, when they become observed. A cat in a box remains in its living state, until the box is opened, at which point, the computations for both the cat and the inside of the box are done, determining not just the state of the cat, but also the evidence of what the cat has done, up until its death.
What I'm trying to understand, is how this mega-app becomes usefully different from the OS, itself. I'm guessing that the app needs to switch modes to go from one function to the next, thereby requiring the user to open up a menu of some variety. I'm thinking that this is pretty much how the interface for both Android and iOS already work. Now, I'm no fan of Apple, but I just don't seem to be able to wrap my head around why this guy thinks Apple is a fool for not building in a redundant interface over the existing and completely serviceable interface.
Your shit doesn't get covered with other people's ads unless you check the checkbox agreeing with YouTube to monetize your video, or if someone proves a copyright claim on your content, and chooses to monetize it, over taking it down. The point of the ads is to pay for the content, not the bandwidth.
This is the sort of irrational behavior that makes me want to support Trump. How can I be in agreement with such irrationality? If it were just the occasional whack job it could be dismissed, but the abundance of unbridled crazy in Trump's naysayers makes me think that Trump must be on the right track.
There's actually quite a lot of metaphor in the Old Testament which lines up quite nicely with the New Testament. Consider, for example, Christ's sacrifice, when contrasted with Abraham's sacrifice in Genesis 22. It really puts a perspective on Christ that might not be apparent, otherwise.
The Bible doesn't really instruct people to worship God, so much as it asks us to love Him. The church as configured in the New Testament results in a support group of sorts for believers; the idea is that if you are surrounded by people who believe the same way you do, then you'll be less likely to decide that you're crazy for your beliefs, and abandon them.
That's not really the important part of the whole book, though. The one thing the entire Bible, old and new testaments, alike, really keeps coming back to, is that God loves us. That is the singular important message of the whole collection.
As a draftsman, I find myself using the Caps lock key quite a bit. Without it, I'd be sitting on the Shift key for pretty much of the day. No, the Caps lock key is quite useful, thank you very much.
There are two sides of this issue. On the one hand, piracy of this definition is inescapable. As you say, it is very easy to accomplish, and as I pointed out, it is very simply justified. It is very easy to convince oneself that there is no immorality involved. On the other hand, if the artist is to be able to survive on his art, then he really must be compensated for his work.
Don't get me wrong, here. The system currently in place, the music industry in particular, is a broken mess. The industry stifles progress in multiple directions, and completely incentivizes the wrong things. An artist's work results in a great deal of income, but the artist really only receives a relatively small cut. I suppose that those who are deeply successful still receive enough money that perhaps they just don't care, but it's a harrowing ride for those at the beginning of a career which may or may not get anywhere. The music industry doesn't only treat their consumer base with inhuman disregard, but their talent, both musical and technical, really gets abused, too.
I don't think it's wrong to implement copyright. It does have a purpose: to enable artists to be properly compensated for their work. It's been ravenously abused, though. There's way too much money involved, and the length of copyright in the modern world is outrageous. The continuous push to extend the term further toward doomsday and exaggerate the penalties for violations is an absurdity that needs to stop. You're right about one thing at least: it's harmful on a cultural level.
The lawsuits in particular, I find ridiculous. I'd wager that the music industry has lost a great deal more money as a direct result of their campaign of civil suits (both in paying lawyers and resulting boycotts), than they ever could possibly have lost to the original piracy.
Let's understand something. It doesn't matter what you do. You can implement draconian DRM measures. You can wave subpoenas around like a gun at a bank robbery. You can bribe congressmen until your overt suggestions are made law. None of these things will stop piracy. It's too easy to do, and it's too easy for an individual to justify to himself. You can never stop to piracy. The best that can be hoped for, is to mitigate it. It's better for the entertainment industry to widely express disapproval of piracy, while serenely accepting its reality in secret, than to set about wrecking the lives of individuals via law suits, and dirtying themselves by associating with politicians.
My point is this: Copyright isn't the problem. Those who would abuse copyright are the problem. As pirates and consumers, we're all up Shit Creek here, and while the artists aren't really in the same boat as us, it remains that they're still as lost in want of a paddle as we are. Without the copyright laws, they wouldn't really even have YouTube as an option.
Those who pirate their entertainment tend not to be likely to spend money on the content, to begin with. While I have no doubt that there are a good deal of jerks out there that could easily afford to pay for their consumption, the majority, I suspect, would do without, if no avenue existed to obtain the works without fee. That's really just the way the market works out. The impression I get, is that people tend to be willing to part with otherwise unallocated personal funds in exchange for such things that they like, but many just don't have those unallocated personal funds available to spend. Thus, Napster-like services are born and continue to mutate and propagate.
Downloading these things is easy for people to justify to themselves. They weren't possibly going to spend money on it, anyway; or the original copy still exists where it was to begin with, so it isn't really like actually sneaking a CD in your jacket pocket from a rack at Sam Goody at the mall. The store still has their copy to sell, you now have what you wanted, and nobody's poorer for it. See? Very easy.
Meanwhile, all the other kiddies in the class are asking each other if they've seen the new and hot feature film, or heard Taylor Swift's new album. Not being one with the tide is somewhat more difficult to justify, as that attaches more directly to one's identity. If you can't obtain or experience the cultural icons, then you may have to detach from your preferred social grouping, and toss in with some sort of hipsters or curmudgeons. This may be downright unthinkable to a lot of social drones, especially when they are very young, and as yet lack the experience needed to carve out an identity of their own. So abstaining from these musics, books and movies due to lack of funding becomes overwhelmingly more difficult to justify than obtaining copies from a faceless stranger in the night.
It's a cultural pressure we have, to consume, and the aggressive hyping and advertising the entertainment industry rains down upon us strangely promote it. The advertisements call an individual's attention to it, he tells his friend and his friend tells him back. Now it's a thing to both of them. They've connected on it. They connect with others on it. Some will have the capacity to pay for it, others won't. Those that can pay for it, by and large, do. Those that can't either get copies from those who can, or begrudgingly go without. Those who go without loose their connection with those who didn't, and become a lower caste in the social hierarchy (despite their greater integrity than the second group, which I suspect sometimes makes them spiteful-- thus: hipsters). Those who got their copies for free are then threatened by the industry over their life choices, and therefore, the cries of entitlement begin.
The problem is that Star Trek isn't a very good science fiction premise.
Really good science fiction isn't really about the space exploration or the robots, or the time travel, or what have you. Really good science fiction uses those features to make you think about things that you might not otherwise have context to think about.
When you watch Star Trek, the original series especially, you really need to take it in with the culture of the time. It was a time when racism was normal, and women were treated as second-class citizens. Star Trek presented a scenario where men and women, whether they be white, black or not even human, were all treated by each other as equals. What made it especially classy, is that this was done without any characters getting preachy. They simply went on about their business, as well they should. To characters on Star Trek, working together in harmony was a given, and that a man should think women lesser than he, or that a white man should be somehow superior to a black man was more alien than the strange creatures they met. It was so many generations lost to their culture, that it was no longer even a thing. This is what Gene Roddenberry presented to us with Star Trek. In creating this series, he meant to show us that this is what we can become, if we abandon these notions of hate and inherent superiority, and just work together. Infinite diversity, in infinite combinations.
Roddenberry couldn't have expressed that in a modern scenario, nor would it have worked so well in an historical scenario. A military starship three hundred years in the future, on the other hand? It was a pretty damned elegant fit, and frankly, I think that makes it a pretty worthy work of science fiction.
I don't think that's what Mashiki meant. 64-bit versions of Windows run 32-bit applications just fine, and the mere virtue of being 64-bit does not require 4GB of RAM or more. It just doesn't make much sense anymore, to continue making a specific version of the OS to support a hardware standard that's been obsolete for a decade, give or take a year.
That's technically true, but cbiltcliffe also makes the point that it's not his responsibility. cbiltcliffe doesn't care about the US postal service's fee. The Canadian postal service has given him a price for delivery of his letter, and he pays said price. His end of the transaction is done, and whatever agreement the Canadian postal service has with the US postal service is, that is the Canadian postal service's problem, not his. Whether or not the Canadian postal service's fee includes the US postal service's fee is not guaranteed, and any additional fee for international shipping may indeed be considerably greater than the US postal service's fee to complete the delivery.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not opposed to Hilary because she is a woman. I am opposed to Hilary because she has a decades long record of making horrible decision, which often result in the unnecessary deaths of civilians and other non-combatants.
Australia also doesn't share borders with countries that have rampant illegal drug trade going on. It's isolated pretty well, and having a limited number of locations where entry is possible makes it difficult to smuggle conspicuous things in. America has Mexico and a whole bunch of nearby island nations in the Caribbean where all sorts of crazy shit is going down. Whether it's a matter of catapulting a package across a relatively unpatrolled part of the border, or discretely landing a motorboat on a Southern beach, people bring weapons here both for their own use, and also to sell. What worked in Australia isn't likely to work very well, here.
If you could make a thing go away by making it illegal, why wouldn't you just make murder illegal?
People generally don't use their legally owned and registered guns to commit crimes. That'd be like a burglar removing his gloves and making sure he fondles every glass surface in the house he's robbing, before he leaves.
When the state of Florida introduced requirements for registered gun ownership, they started a program to keep track of gun-related crimes involving registered gun owners. They discontinued the program after several years because there just weren't enough incidents to justify spending money on tracking them. A fair number of the incidents they did document involved a registered gun owner using his gun to save the life of a police officer.
The incident I think GP is talking about was one of the copycats following Columbine, and it was, in fact, a teacher who went out to his car, and obtained his gun, then proceeded to end the situation.
Wide-spread legal gun ownership really does make people generally safer.
The caveat here, is that the European countries with the lowest crime rates have the highest rates of gun ownership, as well.
I find that very interesting. If it works as well as you imply, I may be keen to go back to using a pump.
I was diagnosed in 1993, so I came in some time after human-based insulin hit the market. Never saw humalog until I got an insulin pump, but I find that it offers somewhat tighter control over my blood sugar. Surviving diabetes is about getting insulin in your system, but controlling it is really about getting the right amount of insulin in your system all the time.
Open source is important to the process of innovation otherwise type 1 diabetics would still be using needles and fingerstick meters alone to manage a disease that by using those tools is in a word unmanageable.
I, too, am a type 1 diabetic. I've used an insulin pump in the past, and I use needles and "fingerstick" meter, now. I don't want to put down the insulin pump, as it really is a very potent means for managing the disease. It just didn't work for me; I'm a fat, sweaty Norwegian living in California's San Joaquin Valley, and that catheter just doesn't have any chance of staying put.
That said, using Humalog and Lantus, I've got my A1C down to 6.5. Needles and a conventional glucometer are sufficient to the task, so long as you put forth the effort to keep track of what you're eating, and how much you need to take for it; which you should really be doing with an insulin pump, anyway.
Having a smart phone app dedicated to crunching the numbers and keeping record for you rather helps, too.
What you describe is fascinating, and I'd love to read more.
That said, because quantum physics seems to tie reality to perception, doesn't that suggest that only the paths of photons which are perceived need to be computed? That's kind of what Schrodinger's Cat is trying to tell us, isn't it? Detailed computations for the unobserved are unnecessary, but some bulk calculation will have to be made, when they become observed. A cat in a box remains in its living state, until the box is opened, at which point, the computations for both the cat and the inside of the box are done, determining not just the state of the cat, but also the evidence of what the cat has done, up until its death.
Just a thought.
What I'm trying to understand, is how this mega-app becomes usefully different from the OS, itself. I'm guessing that the app needs to switch modes to go from one function to the next, thereby requiring the user to open up a menu of some variety. I'm thinking that this is pretty much how the interface for both Android and iOS already work. Now, I'm no fan of Apple, but I just don't seem to be able to wrap my head around why this guy thinks Apple is a fool for not building in a redundant interface over the existing and completely serviceable interface.
Your shit doesn't get covered with other people's ads unless you check the checkbox agreeing with YouTube to monetize your video, or if someone proves a copyright claim on your content, and chooses to monetize it, over taking it down. The point of the ads is to pay for the content, not the bandwidth.
This is the sort of irrational behavior that makes me want to support Trump. How can I be in agreement with such irrationality? If it were just the occasional whack job it could be dismissed, but the abundance of unbridled crazy in Trump's naysayers makes me think that Trump must be on the right track.
There's actually quite a lot of metaphor in the Old Testament which lines up quite nicely with the New Testament. Consider, for example, Christ's sacrifice, when contrasted with Abraham's sacrifice in Genesis 22. It really puts a perspective on Christ that might not be apparent, otherwise.
The Bible doesn't really instruct people to worship God, so much as it asks us to love Him. The church as configured in the New Testament results in a support group of sorts for believers; the idea is that if you are surrounded by people who believe the same way you do, then you'll be less likely to decide that you're crazy for your beliefs, and abandon them.
That's not really the important part of the whole book, though. The one thing the entire Bible, old and new testaments, alike, really keeps coming back to, is that God loves us. That is the singular important message of the whole collection.
As a draftsman, I find myself using the Caps lock key quite a bit. Without it, I'd be sitting on the Shift key for pretty much of the day. No, the Caps lock key is quite useful, thank you very much.
One question: Can this model of operation continue indefinitely?
Yes. Yes, it can.
There are two sides of this issue. On the one hand, piracy of this definition is inescapable. As you say, it is very easy to accomplish, and as I pointed out, it is very simply justified. It is very easy to convince oneself that there is no immorality involved. On the other hand, if the artist is to be able to survive on his art, then he really must be compensated for his work.
Don't get me wrong, here. The system currently in place, the music industry in particular, is a broken mess. The industry stifles progress in multiple directions, and completely incentivizes the wrong things. An artist's work results in a great deal of income, but the artist really only receives a relatively small cut. I suppose that those who are deeply successful still receive enough money that perhaps they just don't care, but it's a harrowing ride for those at the beginning of a career which may or may not get anywhere. The music industry doesn't only treat their consumer base with inhuman disregard, but their talent, both musical and technical, really gets abused, too.
I don't think it's wrong to implement copyright. It does have a purpose: to enable artists to be properly compensated for their work. It's been ravenously abused, though. There's way too much money involved, and the length of copyright in the modern world is outrageous. The continuous push to extend the term further toward doomsday and exaggerate the penalties for violations is an absurdity that needs to stop. You're right about one thing at least: it's harmful on a cultural level.
The lawsuits in particular, I find ridiculous. I'd wager that the music industry has lost a great deal more money as a direct result of their campaign of civil suits (both in paying lawyers and resulting boycotts), than they ever could possibly have lost to the original piracy.
Let's understand something. It doesn't matter what you do. You can implement draconian DRM measures. You can wave subpoenas around like a gun at a bank robbery. You can bribe congressmen until your overt suggestions are made law. None of these things will stop piracy. It's too easy to do, and it's too easy for an individual to justify to himself. You can never stop to piracy. The best that can be hoped for, is to mitigate it. It's better for the entertainment industry to widely express disapproval of piracy, while serenely accepting its reality in secret, than to set about wrecking the lives of individuals via law suits, and dirtying themselves by associating with politicians.
My point is this: Copyright isn't the problem. Those who would abuse copyright are the problem. As pirates and consumers, we're all up Shit Creek here, and while the artists aren't really in the same boat as us, it remains that they're still as lost in want of a paddle as we are. Without the copyright laws, they wouldn't really even have YouTube as an option.
Those who pirate their entertainment tend not to be likely to spend money on the content, to begin with. While I have no doubt that there are a good deal of jerks out there that could easily afford to pay for their consumption, the majority, I suspect, would do without, if no avenue existed to obtain the works without fee. That's really just the way the market works out. The impression I get, is that people tend to be willing to part with otherwise unallocated personal funds in exchange for such things that they like, but many just don't have those unallocated personal funds available to spend. Thus, Napster-like services are born and continue to mutate and propagate.
Downloading these things is easy for people to justify to themselves. They weren't possibly going to spend money on it, anyway; or the original copy still exists where it was to begin with, so it isn't really like actually sneaking a CD in your jacket pocket from a rack at Sam Goody at the mall. The store still has their copy to sell, you now have what you wanted, and nobody's poorer for it. See? Very easy.
Meanwhile, all the other kiddies in the class are asking each other if they've seen the new and hot feature film, or heard Taylor Swift's new album. Not being one with the tide is somewhat more difficult to justify, as that attaches more directly to one's identity. If you can't obtain or experience the cultural icons, then you may have to detach from your preferred social grouping, and toss in with some sort of hipsters or curmudgeons. This may be downright unthinkable to a lot of social drones, especially when they are very young, and as yet lack the experience needed to carve out an identity of their own. So abstaining from these musics, books and movies due to lack of funding becomes overwhelmingly more difficult to justify than obtaining copies from a faceless stranger in the night.
It's a cultural pressure we have, to consume, and the aggressive hyping and advertising the entertainment industry rains down upon us strangely promote it. The advertisements call an individual's attention to it, he tells his friend and his friend tells him back. Now it's a thing to both of them. They've connected on it. They connect with others on it. Some will have the capacity to pay for it, others won't. Those that can pay for it, by and large, do. Those that can't either get copies from those who can, or begrudgingly go without. Those who go without loose their connection with those who didn't, and become a lower caste in the social hierarchy (despite their greater integrity than the second group, which I suspect sometimes makes them spiteful-- thus: hipsters). Those who got their copies for free are then threatened by the industry over their life choices, and therefore, the cries of entitlement begin.
That's my guess at it, anyway.
Rubber. It's on Netflix, if you've not discovered it.
The problem is that Star Trek isn't a very good science fiction premise.
Really good science fiction isn't really about the space exploration or the robots, or the time travel, or what have you. Really good science fiction uses those features to make you think about things that you might not otherwise have context to think about.
When you watch Star Trek, the original series especially, you really need to take it in with the culture of the time. It was a time when racism was normal, and women were treated as second-class citizens. Star Trek presented a scenario where men and women, whether they be white, black or not even human, were all treated by each other as equals. What made it especially classy, is that this was done without any characters getting preachy. They simply went on about their business, as well they should. To characters on Star Trek, working together in harmony was a given, and that a man should think women lesser than he, or that a white man should be somehow superior to a black man was more alien than the strange creatures they met. It was so many generations lost to their culture, that it was no longer even a thing. This is what Gene Roddenberry presented to us with Star Trek. In creating this series, he meant to show us that this is what we can become, if we abandon these notions of hate and inherent superiority, and just work together. Infinite diversity, in infinite combinations.
Roddenberry couldn't have expressed that in a modern scenario, nor would it have worked so well in an historical scenario. A military starship three hundred years in the future, on the other hand? It was a pretty damned elegant fit, and frankly, I think that makes it a pretty worthy work of science fiction.
Ah, but they know why they want their privacy, and are concerned that you might want yours for the same sorts of purposes.
It wasn't enough to wake us up, here in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley (about halfway between Modesto and Fresno on 99, where I am).
I don't think that's what Mashiki meant. 64-bit versions of Windows run 32-bit applications just fine, and the mere virtue of being 64-bit does not require 4GB of RAM or more. It just doesn't make much sense anymore, to continue making a specific version of the OS to support a hardware standard that's been obsolete for a decade, give or take a year.
That's technically true, but cbiltcliffe also makes the point that it's not his responsibility. cbiltcliffe doesn't care about the US postal service's fee. The Canadian postal service has given him a price for delivery of his letter, and he pays said price. His end of the transaction is done, and whatever agreement the Canadian postal service has with the US postal service is, that is the Canadian postal service's problem, not his. Whether or not the Canadian postal service's fee includes the US postal service's fee is not guaranteed, and any additional fee for international shipping may indeed be considerably greater than the US postal service's fee to complete the delivery.