It's also worth pointing out that the biggest concern with tyre particles comes from inhalation. Thankfully, tyre particles are much heavier than air, so they tend to fall to the ground almost immediately (i.e. within a few dozen yards). While you can measure their presence on the ground near major roads, particles on the ground are of essentially no concern from what I understand, though I'll admit I may be mistaken, so if someone has contradictory information, I'd welcome the correction.
Ehh, depending on your needs, Intel can still make a lot of sense. If single or low-threaded performance is more important to you (e.g. a lot of gaming, sadly), Intel still has the lead in terms of per-core performance. And from what I've gathered (admittedly, I haven't investigated either side much), AMD's integrated video performance lags behind Intel's, so if you're forgoing the video card, Intel may make more sense (again, take that with a massive grain of salt). But if you're going to be using it for well-parallelized tasks, AMD is a VERY strong contender, given that it packs more cores in at the same price points. That said, if Coffee Lake really does bump Intel's standard offering up to 6 cores, Intel would have eliminated that advantage.
All of which is to say, it's finally an exciting time in the industry again, and I'm quite happy for it.
As a tendency hardware H.264 encoding is inferior in terms of quality and bitrate compared to software encoding
While you're technically correct, that's a rather poor way of phrasing the actual situation: that the algorithms implemented in hardware are generally worse than the ones implemented in software. The way you've phrased things, it makes it sound like there's something inherently wrong with hardware that makes it produce worse results, but that isn't the case in the slightest. Rather, the problem is that hardware implementations will nearly always lag behind software implementations by anywhere from a few months to a few years, and that's why the "tendency" you're talking about holds true.
But for any given algorithm, it's worth pointing out that you'll get the same results regardless of where it's implemented, though you'll be able to do so far more efficiently in hardware.
I already responded to someone else regarding this topic, but the short version is that cable was only available in half the markets in the US by the mid-70s, and it was only in 20% of households (16M) by the end of the '70s.
Nope, I'm in my forties and cable has been available for as long as I can remember.
I never said it was unavailable. I said it wasn't widely available and I was correct in saying so.
It wasn't until the mid-1970s that cable finally passed the milestone of being available in half of the markets being served by OTA TV. By the end of that decade (when this woman would've been about 10), cable was just shy of being into 16 million homes (20%). Cable didn't get its big break until the Cable Act of 1984, which is about the time that I'd guess this woman would have been entering high school. By the end of the 1980s cable was in 53 million households (58%), so while it's entirely probable that her family had cable by the time she graduated high school, it's unlikely that she grew up with it.
I'll grant that I should have phrased it as "this woman was old enough that she likely wouldn't have grown up with cable TV in her home", but otherwise, I stand by what I said. Even if we ignore the fact that she grew up in a small town (rural markets were generally the last to be served), the odds of her having cable on her tenth birthday would still only be around 20%.
Or are people really stupid enough to not know about broadcast fucking TV?
Sadly, this is a real phenomenon, and it isn't limited to Millennials.
My folks had a couple in their mid-40s over for dinner a few years back (2014ish, I think). At some point during the conversation it came up that my parents used an antenna to watch TV, rather than subscribing to cable. The wife insisted that TV channels aren't available for free, so no matter what my parents called it, what they were really doing was stealing TV from the cable companies. It took my parents and her husband a good 20 minutes to convince her that it was not, in fact, a form of theft and that OTA TV is, in fact, freely available to anyone willing to put up an antenna.
Mind you, this woman was old enough that she wouldn't have grown up with cable TV in her home, since it wasn't widely available during her childhood. The fact that she didn't remember that or know that it was still a thing was astounding.
So yes, these sorts of people really exist, and it's not just MBAs.
Or maybe I'm just unaware of the fact that people browsing the web, HBO's employees, and people who use smart devices aren't real people? Because that's the alternative explanation here, I suppose...
I don't think the current administration is going to last 6 more months, much less 3.5 more years. Do you? If so, why?
I think most reasonable people would be willing to agree that, given enough time, the Trump administration would eventually collapse in on itself. But in the next 6 months? I find that highly unlikely. It's lasted through 7 months already and doesn't display any visible indications of being nearer to collapse than when it started, given that the shenanigans we're seeing now aren't really any worse than what we saw from the start. Why would you expect it to fall apart within 6 months?
Even if you think it's likely he'll be impeached for something or other, impeachment doesn't necessarily mean he's out, let alone immediately out. Nixon was never actually impeached (though they began the impeachment process), but he resigned anyway since he knew where things were going. In contrast, I'd wager Trump would hang onto the office until the bitter end. Conversely, Bill Clinton was impeached, but he didn't resign and the Senate didn't achieve the 2/3 majority necessary to remove him from office, so he kept his office.
But even if you ignore that impeachment doesn't mean he's out, you'd still need something for which to impeach him, and the investigations that might lead to an impeachment for Trump are, at their earliest, almost certainly still 6 months to a year away from their conclusion. Once they wrap up, then you can begin the impeachment process, which itself can take several months. By the time it's all said and done, even if you think he'll be ousted by the majority-Republican Senate (not likely), you're still looking at the earliest date being sometime in mid-2018, which is quite a bit more than 6 months out.
Agreed. If nothing else, it raises the property value for future owners. In the meantime though, he can run an OTA antenna signal over those cables. Or if he or the next owner uses cable Internet, they have a choice of where to locate the modem within the home.
If it's an emergency phone call to the Coast Guard, they could just use the GPS support like E911 so they get a location from the cell phone. Surely, that's the only type of phone being used on a boat these days.
Even if they had location data, that wouldn't necessarily help them much. The caller could claim to be on the shore witnessing a problem, and the location data may very well back that statement up, since the article indicated that a lot of the pranksters like to post pictures of the helicopters and boats responding to their prank calls.
Moreover, even with calls, you can't count on location data being present. For instance, satellite phones are not exactly uncommon in remote locations, but from what I can gather, they're exempt from providing location information (emphasis mine):
The FCC's wireless 911 rules apply to all wireless licensees, broadband Personal Communications Service licensees and certain Specialized Mobile Radio licensees. Mobile Satellite Service providers, however, are currently excluded.
There is no current requirement that Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) user terminals provide automatic position location.
So far as I know, there's no way to distinguish between a spoofed call coming from Skype and an actual call lacking location data coming from a satellite phone, but I don't profess to have any sort of special knowledge in this area, so I could be mistaken. But, as I said, even if they had location data (which can be spoofed), it wouldn't necessarily solve anything, though it may help them to eliminate some calls as pranks if they see, for instance, a call about an emergency on the Atlantic coast from a caller in California.
Going back to the original article, it sounds less like a black box that produces a Prank/No Prank decision, and more like a complex program that produces a list of characteristics present in the call, which the Coast Guard can then use to make the decision themselves.
For instance, it can match voices and even the sound of one's breath to previous calls, allowing the Coast Guard to recognize repeat pranksters. It can tell from the sound of a voice what sort of room the caller is in (e.g. lots of windows), enabling them to get a sense for whether the person might be lying about their location (e.g. "We're capsizing in this storm!" is a lot less believable if the person is in a concrete room).
In the meantime though, the Coast Guard indicated they're responding to about 99% of calls that they believe are pranks, despite believing they're pranks. As you said, the risk to not respond is too high. Thankfully, this software is giving them more tools to help in the post-prank investigation and enforcement side of things.
There are IRC clients on his platform that perform just fine. I used to regularly use Colloquy on OS X for my IRC needs and I never observed any of the issues the author is describing. Moreover, while Slack basically boils down to a prettified version of IRC, I don't think I've ever seen it suggested that it's "based on IRC" in any way other than in concept. If it shares any internals, I've love more info. After all, I wouldn't mind being able to connect to Slack channels using a standard IRC client.
in fact it was shown to be even more toxic to the smoker and for the second hand smoke.
Citation?
As a lifelong asthmatic, I take this sort of stuff pretty seriously. Secondhand smoke from cigarettes was the bane of my existence for much of my life. When it comes to e-cigs, however, I have yet to see data suggesting they are anywhere close to as dangerous as traditional cigarettes, either to the person vaping or to those around them. The only legitimate complaint I've been able to formulate so far is that the odor from some vaping liquids, flavored ones in particular, may act as an irritant to asthmatics, in much the same way that strong perfumes or potpourri can cause some of us to have breathing problems.
While it's true that various studies have found toxic substances in the vapors produced by e-cigs, the data I saw suggested that the levels present were mostly orders and orders of magnitude below those seen in traditional firsthand and secondhand smoke. Even in e-cigs operating outside of "safe" temperature bounds, the toxins (if they were detectable at all) were oftentimes nearly indistinguishable from trace quantities already present in the air. We know that burning things--whether we're talking about mesquite wood in a BBQ smoker or the liquid used in an e-cig--oftentimes produces carcinogenic vapors, but the actual risks involved are thought to be relatively low at this point, and we don't have any long-term studies disputing that notion at this point.
That said, with the market largely unregulated there are a lot of vendors selling vaping liquids with unknown contents, so we can't dismiss the notion that they may be putting dangerous substances in their products. Moreover, routinely scalding your mouth or throat by vaping has (I believe) been shown to increase your risk for cancer in those areas, in much the same way that you run the same risk if you drink scalding tea or coffee on a regular basis (more or less, by damaging your cells with heat, you're increasing the likelihood that you'll suffer from a cancer-causing transcription error during cellular reproduction).
If you have information to the contrary, I'd love to see it, since I am unabashedly biased against e-cigs and would love to have ammunition in the fight against them. I also need to be intellectually honest with myself, however, and that means being willing to admit that I don't have anything substantive against them at this point.
Simple math tells us that if couples don't have at least two kids, population will decline. Having just one more kid than that shouldn't be a problem. If it is, then that's a problem.
I was transiting through Frankfurt a few weeks back on my first trip to Europe and had to do exactly this, which caught me by surprise since I had never heard of a policy like it before. I watched this one police officer's facial expression change from curiosity to mild horror to amusement at the absurdity of the situation as I pulled a laptop, two tablets, three handheld gaming systems, and a few other random electronics from my laptop bag alone. I imagine that to him it looked a bit like clowns getting out of a car at the circus.
Spoiler: yes, he did it, and the rest of the article is pontification about the meaninglessness of it and various charitable causes that raise support by engaging in similarly meaningless activities in video games.
To me, it's more a question of where your attention should be. The recent design trend across the industry towards "flatter" designs is intended to put more emphasis on the content itself, rather than the window chrome around it. I'm fully in support of that notion, so long as the designers exercise the restraint necessary to prevent it from becoming a noisy, cluttered mess (e.g. Windows' live tiles). Towards that end, de-emphasizing everything else makes a lot of sense, which Apple and others have been doing by relying on more muted tones, more subtle gradients, and a reduced use of color so that (when done correctly) your eye is drawn towards the most important parts of the screen.
I'll let you judge the extent to which you think Apple et al. have succeeded (though your opinion seems to be fairly evident). For my part, while it admittedly took some getting used to, and while there were certainly some misses along the way (iOS 7 sacrificed A LOT of usability for the sake of aesthetics, but iOS has since recovered) I've come to enjoy the current design trend, and find that whenever I have to go back to earlier designs that had more texture, depth, gloss, glow, or gradient, it feels like taking a step in the wrong direction. While they weren't as bad as the spinning construction light GIFs and marquee text on websites in the '90s, the translucency effects, 3D-ness, and embossed text from just a few years ago have not aged well.
Also worth pointing out: UI design has been heading this direction for years, though it hit quite a few speed bumps along the way (e.g. brushed aluminum, green felt, stitched leather, fogged glass windows, other skeuomorphisms). For example, just look at how the translucency, pinstriping, and text shadows changed in pulldown menus in just the first few years of OS X: Mac OS X 10.0, Mac OS X 10.2, and Mac OS X 10.4. Transparency was decreased without being eliminated, pinstriping was nearly eliminated (and later was), and text shadows were greatly reduced, all of which point in the direction of the flatter designs we see now.
All of which is to say, the Yosemite "redesign" wasn't a sudden one, but it was a bigger step in the direction they were already heading than some of the previous steps had been.
Reading the article, it turns out that it wasn't just moot on account of none of the domains still being with CloudFlare at the time of the RIAA's request for an injunction against CloudFlare, it was also the case that 7 of the 20 domains were owned by Sony, a member of the RIAA, at the time the request was made. If you already own a third of the domains because of a prior court order, there's nothing "urgent" about your "emergency" request for an injunction.
You lost me at Texas. I lived in Texas for many years. It's a racist, redneck backwater, lacking both culture and world perspective.
No thanks.
Some parts are, sure. Most isn't any better or worse than anywhere else. Having lived in California, (south) Florida, and Texas, I'd take Texas any day. Even so, you don't have to choose to live here. There are plenty of other places with similar costs of living and similar job opportunities. Choose any of them. The point is just that you don't choose a crazy expensive place.
Exactly. I paid $163,000 in 2013 for a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1768 sqft home on a third of an acre. I have a 7 minute commute at 30 mph to get to work, the software company I work for has for the last several years been rated as one of the best places to work in Texas, and I make enough that my family can live quite comfortably off my salary alone, despite only being in the workforce for a few years.
Why would I move to a place where the same home on less land with a worse commute could cost me upwards of 8x what I paid here, but wouldn't come with a salary to match? What with the startup culture of workaholism on top of that, I see those tech hubs as only being for uninformed people who want to play the startup unicorn lottery or those who are willing to sacrifice a lot in order to work on a particular problem or at a particular company. Otherwise, I just don't get it.
As always, there's a link next to the headline, but the "article" is little more than a worthless summary of the original article. The original article has quite a bit more information, with the headlining statistic being their breakdown of the share of tech job listings that each of eight regions has:
San Jose: 19.2%, -5.9% from 2016
Washington D.C.: 17.4%, +4.5% from 2016
Baltimore: 12.8%, +3.4% from 2016
Seattle: 12.5%, +10.7% from 2016
Raleigh: 11.1%, -14.6% from 2016
San Francisco: 10.9%, -7.8% from 2016
Austin: 9.9%, -0.3% from 2016
Boston: 9.4%, -6.8% from 2016
So, the San Jose region's share of tech job listings is 19.2% this year, which is a decrease of 5.9% from last year, and so on.
[I]t could be fun having the Roomba send data that indicates: [...] - My workroom contains nuclear materials
It's only fun and games until SWAT breaks down your door in the middle of the night, shoots your dog, and leaves your children traumatized because of the CYA mentality that prevents people from leaving things that are obviously jokes alone, just in case they end up being credible threats.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. With regular contact, you'd expect this sort of thing, particularly if they're also sharing a bed for sleeping in addition to coupling.
It's also worth pointing out that the biggest concern with tyre particles comes from inhalation. Thankfully, tyre particles are much heavier than air, so they tend to fall to the ground almost immediately (i.e. within a few dozen yards). While you can measure their presence on the ground near major roads, particles on the ground are of essentially no concern from what I understand, though I'll admit I may be mistaken, so if someone has contradictory information, I'd welcome the correction.
I was thinking specifically of Iris Pro, but thanks for calling me on that. I always welcome corrections when I get things wrong.
Ehh, depending on your needs, Intel can still make a lot of sense. If single or low-threaded performance is more important to you (e.g. a lot of gaming, sadly), Intel still has the lead in terms of per-core performance. And from what I've gathered (admittedly, I haven't investigated either side much), AMD's integrated video performance lags behind Intel's, so if you're forgoing the video card, Intel may make more sense (again, take that with a massive grain of salt). But if you're going to be using it for well-parallelized tasks, AMD is a VERY strong contender, given that it packs more cores in at the same price points. That said, if Coffee Lake really does bump Intel's standard offering up to 6 cores, Intel would have eliminated that advantage.
All of which is to say, it's finally an exciting time in the industry again, and I'm quite happy for it.
As a tendency hardware H.264 encoding is inferior in terms of quality and bitrate compared to software encoding
While you're technically correct, that's a rather poor way of phrasing the actual situation: that the algorithms implemented in hardware are generally worse than the ones implemented in software. The way you've phrased things, it makes it sound like there's something inherently wrong with hardware that makes it produce worse results, but that isn't the case in the slightest. Rather, the problem is that hardware implementations will nearly always lag behind software implementations by anywhere from a few months to a few years, and that's why the "tendency" you're talking about holds true.
But for any given algorithm, it's worth pointing out that you'll get the same results regardless of where it's implemented, though you'll be able to do so far more efficiently in hardware.
I already responded to someone else regarding this topic, but the short version is that cable was only available in half the markets in the US by the mid-70s, and it was only in 20% of households (16M) by the end of the '70s.
Nope, I'm in my forties and cable has been available for as long as I can remember.
I never said it was unavailable. I said it wasn't widely available and I was correct in saying so.
It wasn't until the mid-1970s that cable finally passed the milestone of being available in half of the markets being served by OTA TV. By the end of that decade (when this woman would've been about 10), cable was just shy of being into 16 million homes (20%). Cable didn't get its big break until the Cable Act of 1984, which is about the time that I'd guess this woman would have been entering high school. By the end of the 1980s cable was in 53 million households (58%), so while it's entirely probable that her family had cable by the time she graduated high school, it's unlikely that she grew up with it.
I'll grant that I should have phrased it as "this woman was old enough that she likely wouldn't have grown up with cable TV in her home", but otherwise, I stand by what I said. Even if we ignore the fact that she grew up in a small town (rural markets were generally the last to be served), the odds of her having cable on her tenth birthday would still only be around 20%.
Or are people really stupid enough to not know about broadcast fucking TV?
Sadly, this is a real phenomenon, and it isn't limited to Millennials.
My folks had a couple in their mid-40s over for dinner a few years back (2014ish, I think). At some point during the conversation it came up that my parents used an antenna to watch TV, rather than subscribing to cable. The wife insisted that TV channels aren't available for free, so no matter what my parents called it, what they were really doing was stealing TV from the cable companies. It took my parents and her husband a good 20 minutes to convince her that it was not, in fact, a form of theft and that OTA TV is, in fact, freely available to anyone willing to put up an antenna.
Mind you, this woman was old enough that she wouldn't have grown up with cable TV in her home, since it wasn't widely available during her childhood. The fact that she didn't remember that or know that it was still a thing was astounding.
So yes, these sorts of people really exist, and it's not just MBAs.
Indeed. As I sit here reading through the last day's worth of RSS headlines from Slashdot, I see things like It Is Easy To Expose Users' Secret Web Habits, Say Researchers, Hackers Break Into HBO's Networks, May Have Leaked 'Game of Thrones' Script, and US Senators To Introduce Bill To Secure 'Internet of Things', I'm dumbstruck by the incongruity. Here's a person saying "real people" don't need encryption, but then here are three headlines (with summaries and articles I've admittedly not yet read) detailing security issues being faced by real people who would likely benefit from the use of end-to-end encryption.
Or maybe I'm just unaware of the fact that people browsing the web, HBO's employees, and people who use smart devices aren't real people? Because that's the alternative explanation here, I suppose...
Nonsense. If CSI has taught me anything, it's that they just need to press the Enhance button a few times to get great results.
I don't think the current administration is going to last 6 more months, much less 3.5 more years. Do you? If so, why?
I think most reasonable people would be willing to agree that, given enough time, the Trump administration would eventually collapse in on itself. But in the next 6 months? I find that highly unlikely. It's lasted through 7 months already and doesn't display any visible indications of being nearer to collapse than when it started, given that the shenanigans we're seeing now aren't really any worse than what we saw from the start. Why would you expect it to fall apart within 6 months?
Even if you think it's likely he'll be impeached for something or other, impeachment doesn't necessarily mean he's out, let alone immediately out. Nixon was never actually impeached (though they began the impeachment process), but he resigned anyway since he knew where things were going. In contrast, I'd wager Trump would hang onto the office until the bitter end. Conversely, Bill Clinton was impeached, but he didn't resign and the Senate didn't achieve the 2/3 majority necessary to remove him from office, so he kept his office.
But even if you ignore that impeachment doesn't mean he's out, you'd still need something for which to impeach him, and the investigations that might lead to an impeachment for Trump are, at their earliest, almost certainly still 6 months to a year away from their conclusion. Once they wrap up, then you can begin the impeachment process, which itself can take several months. By the time it's all said and done, even if you think he'll be ousted by the majority-Republican Senate (not likely), you're still looking at the earliest date being sometime in mid-2018, which is quite a bit more than 6 months out.
Agreed. If nothing else, it raises the property value for future owners. In the meantime though, he can run an OTA antenna signal over those cables. Or if he or the next owner uses cable Internet, they have a choice of where to locate the modem within the home.
If it's an emergency phone call to the Coast Guard, they could just use the GPS support like E911 so they get a location from the cell phone. Surely, that's the only type of phone being used on a boat these days.
Even if they had location data, that wouldn't necessarily help them much. The caller could claim to be on the shore witnessing a problem, and the location data may very well back that statement up, since the article indicated that a lot of the pranksters like to post pictures of the helicopters and boats responding to their prank calls.
Moreover, even with calls, you can't count on location data being present. For instance, satellite phones are not exactly uncommon in remote locations, but from what I can gather, they're exempt from providing location information (emphasis mine):
The FCC's wireless 911 rules apply to all wireless licensees, broadband Personal Communications Service licensees and certain Specialized Mobile Radio licensees. Mobile Satellite Service providers, however, are currently excluded.
Here's Globalstar's take on the policy:
There is no current requirement that Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) user terminals provide automatic position location.
So far as I know, there's no way to distinguish between a spoofed call coming from Skype and an actual call lacking location data coming from a satellite phone, but I don't profess to have any sort of special knowledge in this area, so I could be mistaken. But, as I said, even if they had location data (which can be spoofed), it wouldn't necessarily solve anything, though it may help them to eliminate some calls as pranks if they see, for instance, a call about an emergency on the Atlantic coast from a caller in California.
Going back to the original article, it sounds less like a black box that produces a Prank/No Prank decision, and more like a complex program that produces a list of characteristics present in the call, which the Coast Guard can then use to make the decision themselves.
For instance, it can match voices and even the sound of one's breath to previous calls, allowing the Coast Guard to recognize repeat pranksters. It can tell from the sound of a voice what sort of room the caller is in (e.g. lots of windows), enabling them to get a sense for whether the person might be lying about their location (e.g. "We're capsizing in this storm!" is a lot less believable if the person is in a concrete room).
In the meantime though, the Coast Guard indicated they're responding to about 99% of calls that they believe are pranks, despite believing they're pranks. As you said, the risk to not respond is too high. Thankfully, this software is giving them more tools to help in the post-prank investigation and enforcement side of things.
There are IRC clients on his platform that perform just fine. I used to regularly use Colloquy on OS X for my IRC needs and I never observed any of the issues the author is describing. Moreover, while Slack basically boils down to a prettified version of IRC, I don't think I've ever seen it suggested that it's "based on IRC" in any way other than in concept. If it shares any internals, I've love more info. After all, I wouldn't mind being able to connect to Slack channels using a standard IRC client.
in fact it was shown to be even more toxic to the smoker and for the second hand smoke.
Citation?
As a lifelong asthmatic, I take this sort of stuff pretty seriously. Secondhand smoke from cigarettes was the bane of my existence for much of my life. When it comes to e-cigs, however, I have yet to see data suggesting they are anywhere close to as dangerous as traditional cigarettes, either to the person vaping or to those around them. The only legitimate complaint I've been able to formulate so far is that the odor from some vaping liquids, flavored ones in particular, may act as an irritant to asthmatics, in much the same way that strong perfumes or potpourri can cause some of us to have breathing problems.
While it's true that various studies have found toxic substances in the vapors produced by e-cigs, the data I saw suggested that the levels present were mostly orders and orders of magnitude below those seen in traditional firsthand and secondhand smoke. Even in e-cigs operating outside of "safe" temperature bounds, the toxins (if they were detectable at all) were oftentimes nearly indistinguishable from trace quantities already present in the air. We know that burning things--whether we're talking about mesquite wood in a BBQ smoker or the liquid used in an e-cig--oftentimes produces carcinogenic vapors, but the actual risks involved are thought to be relatively low at this point, and we don't have any long-term studies disputing that notion at this point.
That said, with the market largely unregulated there are a lot of vendors selling vaping liquids with unknown contents, so we can't dismiss the notion that they may be putting dangerous substances in their products. Moreover, routinely scalding your mouth or throat by vaping has (I believe) been shown to increase your risk for cancer in those areas, in much the same way that you run the same risk if you drink scalding tea or coffee on a regular basis (more or less, by damaging your cells with heat, you're increasing the likelihood that you'll suffer from a cancer-causing transcription error during cellular reproduction).
If you have information to the contrary, I'd love to see it, since I am unabashedly biased against e-cigs and would love to have ammunition in the fight against them. I also need to be intellectually honest with myself, however, and that means being willing to admit that I don't have anything substantive against them at this point.
Simple math tells us that if couples don't have at least two kids, population will decline. Having just one more kid than that shouldn't be a problem. If it is, then that's a problem.
I was transiting through Frankfurt a few weeks back on my first trip to Europe and had to do exactly this, which caught me by surprise since I had never heard of a policy like it before. I watched this one police officer's facial expression change from curiosity to mild horror to amusement at the absurdity of the situation as I pulled a laptop, two tablets, three handheld gaming systems, and a few other random electronics from my laptop bag alone. I imagine that to him it looked a bit like clowns getting out of a car at the circus.
To anyone behind me in line, I apologize.
Spoiler: yes, he did it, and the rest of the article is pontification about the meaninglessness of it and various charitable causes that raise support by engaging in similarly meaningless activities in video games.
To me, it's more a question of where your attention should be. The recent design trend across the industry towards "flatter" designs is intended to put more emphasis on the content itself, rather than the window chrome around it. I'm fully in support of that notion, so long as the designers exercise the restraint necessary to prevent it from becoming a noisy, cluttered mess (e.g. Windows' live tiles). Towards that end, de-emphasizing everything else makes a lot of sense, which Apple and others have been doing by relying on more muted tones, more subtle gradients, and a reduced use of color so that (when done correctly) your eye is drawn towards the most important parts of the screen.
I'll let you judge the extent to which you think Apple et al. have succeeded (though your opinion seems to be fairly evident). For my part, while it admittedly took some getting used to, and while there were certainly some misses along the way (iOS 7 sacrificed A LOT of usability for the sake of aesthetics, but iOS has since recovered) I've come to enjoy the current design trend, and find that whenever I have to go back to earlier designs that had more texture, depth, gloss, glow, or gradient, it feels like taking a step in the wrong direction. While they weren't as bad as the spinning construction light GIFs and marquee text on websites in the '90s, the translucency effects, 3D-ness, and embossed text from just a few years ago have not aged well.
Also worth pointing out: UI design has been heading this direction for years, though it hit quite a few speed bumps along the way (e.g. brushed aluminum, green felt, stitched leather, fogged glass windows, other skeuomorphisms). For example, just look at how the translucency, pinstriping, and text shadows changed in pulldown menus in just the first few years of OS X: Mac OS X 10.0, Mac OS X 10.2, and Mac OS X 10.4. Transparency was decreased without being eliminated, pinstriping was nearly eliminated (and later was), and text shadows were greatly reduced, all of which point in the direction of the flatter designs we see now.
All of which is to say, the Yosemite "redesign" wasn't a sudden one, but it was a bigger step in the direction they were already heading than some of the previous steps had been.
Reading the article, it turns out that it wasn't just moot on account of none of the domains still being with CloudFlare at the time of the RIAA's request for an injunction against CloudFlare, it was also the case that 7 of the 20 domains were owned by Sony, a member of the RIAA, at the time the request was made. If you already own a third of the domains because of a prior court order, there's nothing "urgent" about your "emergency" request for an injunction.
Shameless.
You lost me at Texas. I lived in Texas for many years. It's a racist, redneck backwater, lacking both culture and world perspective.
No thanks.
Some parts are, sure. Most isn't any better or worse than anywhere else. Having lived in California, (south) Florida, and Texas, I'd take Texas any day. Even so, you don't have to choose to live here. There are plenty of other places with similar costs of living and similar job opportunities. Choose any of them. The point is just that you don't choose a crazy expensive place.
Exactly. I paid $163,000 in 2013 for a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1768 sqft home on a third of an acre. I have a 7 minute commute at 30 mph to get to work, the software company I work for has for the last several years been rated as one of the best places to work in Texas, and I make enough that my family can live quite comfortably off my salary alone, despite only being in the workforce for a few years.
Why would I move to a place where the same home on less land with a worse commute could cost me upwards of 8x what I paid here, but wouldn't come with a salary to match? What with the startup culture of workaholism on top of that, I see those tech hubs as only being for uninformed people who want to play the startup unicorn lottery or those who are willing to sacrifice a lot in order to work on a particular problem or at a particular company. Otherwise, I just don't get it.
As always, there's a link next to the headline, but the "article" is little more than a worthless summary of the original article. The original article has quite a bit more information, with the headlining statistic being their breakdown of the share of tech job listings that each of eight regions has:
So, the San Jose region's share of tech job listings is 19.2% this year, which is a decrease of 5.9% from last year, and so on.
[I]t could be fun having the Roomba send data that indicates: [...]
- My workroom contains nuclear materials
It's only fun and games until SWAT breaks down your door in the middle of the night, shoots your dog, and leaves your children traumatized because of the CYA mentality that prevents people from leaving things that are obviously jokes alone, just in case they end up being credible threats.