I'm sure there are some deregulators who honestly want to eliminate crony capitalism like this. I'm also sure there are a lot who just want free reign to do whatever they like, the rest of us be damned.
I recall from the 1970s concerns that the breadbasket areas of the US were going to be 'exhausted' by the intensive farming (which hasn't happened, but let's go with it)
Google for "california central valley" and "salination". Get back to us.
I looked at trends *and* results. Trends tells us "apple are" is far less common. Results told me that when "apple are" does occur, it's in a context where the antecedant of "are" is something other than Apple. For example, "Notifications developed by Apple are", "businesses like Apple are", and "Shares Of Apple Are Sliding". You do have "Samsung and Apple are", but in that case the antecedant is "Samsung and Apple", not "Apple".
I think this shows that "Apple are" to avoid implications of corporate personhood is linguistic prescription
Just for the heck of it I did a Google trends analysis. Virtually nobody says "Apple are". When you look at the few hits for "Apple are" they are things like, "products from Apple are".
They've been calling it an apology. Now that I've dug into it a bit, it sounds more like a retraction. This might also be yet another case of Americans and British being "divided by a common tongue". Maybe a retraction is called an apology over there.
OK, I think I just answered my own question. "The people who run Apple" would work, or more specificly, "representatives of Apple"; but you know what? It's just not as pithy. This gets us back to something that I've observed over the years and may have attempted to forumulate as "laws":
1. There is no limit to what can be inferred from what you type on the Internet.
2. Any attempt to limit inference will result in lengthy, unappealing prose.
These two "laws" are one of the reasons I've participated less over the years...
"Apple is not sorry" shouldn't imply a belief in corporate personhood either. What's the appropriate grammar for expressing an attitude likely to be held by the members of a group, without implying corporate personhood? "Apple are not sorry"? Meh. Makes them sound like the Borg. It's my understanding that in common usage phrases like "The AARP said", or "Congress ruled" are shorthand for collective action that doesn't imply a belief in corporate personhood. OK folks, what's your suggested phrasing that wouldn't imply a belief in corporate personhood when discussing these matters?
An apology isn't meaningless. It means you are truly sorry for what you did. If you aren't truly sorry, and an authority coerces you to make such a statement, then yes. It's wrong. It looks like that's a lot for people to wrap their heads around here, especially when they don't like the person being coerced.
Do you honestly believe that corporations have feelings?
No. That's why I typed they're which is a contraction of they are. "They" is a gender-neutral plural of he or she, which means that I'm referring to 2 or more people.
If I thought corporations were people, I might have said "Everybody knows he or she is not sorry", or if I were a believer in corporate personhood and a true fan boy I might have typed "Everybody knows He is not sorry".
So two wrongs make a right? Apple's wrong was apparently to make some false statement about Samsung. Actually, now that I've scrolled down (Chrome, 1680 by 1050 when full screen), I see that it's more like a retraction than an apology. Retractions of false statements make good sense. I'm fine with that. Other news stories were calling it an "apology".
Everybody knows they're not sorry. All court-ordered apologies do is remind us that people in authority aren't satisfied unless you agree with them. Then they can go home satisfied, knowing that their world view is intact. All they really did was use coercion to force somebody to lie. Apple is not sorry. Everybody knows it.
Most of what we want on the web is text and static images. Tables are nice. Maybe you need a handful of tags. Let the browser handle layout. That would be much easier to secure than the dynamic fustercluck we have now. There are probably more APIs than there were tags in 1999. There are probably hundreds of functions in your browser that expose security flaws. We could dump all of them and they wouldn't be missed.
Slashdot needs a handful of tags and good old CGI. That's all.
On the 100 acres that is considered farmland I pay about $10/acre for property tax
California actually has this too, if I'm understanding the "considered farmland" part. Google "Williamson Act". It was passed in the early or mid 1960s. You agree to do only certain things on the land (either agriculture or open space) and in exchange you get reduced taxes. I think this is why you don't have to drive too far from the center of San Jose to find cows grazing. It's probably done a lot to prevent farmers from raising what I've heard called "the last crop" back east. "The last crop" is subdividing and putting up cookie-cutter houses. AFAIK, the contract runs with the land and prevents subdividing for a period of time. After the time expires, you can buy your way out of it (obviously for a hefty price) or renew.
That's a good point. I wonder what the tax structure is like on the $2k/acre though. California has prop 13, which can reduce some of your taxes. I think the idea that you have limited taxes helps inflate California real estate. Of course the other thing that inflates it is the aforementioned development restrictions, especially in the desirable coastal areas. For example, Santa Cruz county won't let you build on anything less than an acre, even though there are many subdivided sub-acre (0.14, 0.2 acre are common numbers). Places like Boulder Creek don't have sewer systems. Septic systems installed in the early post-war period are common. Anyway, I digress. Some of the supply constraint in California is natural, due to water supply constraints. Other constraints are man-made. They could probably water all those small lots and build a sewer system. There is plenty of water that comes in massive bursts during the winter, but building large-scale water storage (a big f'n dam) in a seismic mountain area isn't too smart. Distributed water storage with an assload of 5000 gallon storage tanks and smart networked pumps might work, but that brings us back to innovative engineering. Of course, before we had any misgivings about building a big f'n dam in seismicly active mountains, they did exactly that. Santa Cruz (the city) has much of its water supplied by a dam adjacent to Lompico. I've looked at properties near there, and despite some serious discounts have passed them by. Just thinking about that dam during an earthquake, in the winter, with El Nino conditions... well, you get the idea. Some people already blame that dam for saturating a hillside that gave way in the early 80s and killed some people.
Anyway, what was I getting at? Oh yeah. California land is expensive, yes; but it's not scarce. The legal hurdles help make it expensive.
Once again, that's a good thing and a bad thing. You can't preserve the environment without constraining the supply of land, and driving up the price. The real one-time winners are those who built just before that happened.
This happens in Missouri for a reason: lax zoning and a distinct lack of busy-bodies who complain.
This is what California was like 40-50 years when hippies were doing this kind of thing there. Now it's locked up tight. In some cases it's for good reasons. Developers were silting streams and destroying fisheries with ill-advised grading. OTOH, the government is literally telling you where you can poop, which makes doing things like this illegal and/or expensive now. Sometimes it still happens. They can't police communes any better than they can police illegal pot growers; but a project like this out in the open is less likely to happen in CA now, which is a bit sad.
My understanding is that a good chunk of Missouri was depopulated by the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic. I wonder if too many "back to the land" people like this will eventually cause complaints and ruin it like California.
I think it was put best by a former room-mate, back in my college days who said, more or less:
My first car was a gas-guzzling beater of a sedan that I bought from the neighbor's parents when they got a new car. I worked on it myself and it wasn't much to look at, but it was all I could afford with the few hundred dollars I made that Summer. I was young, and just knowing that I could hop in it and go anywhere in the country gave me an incredible sense of freedom and adventure.
$78,000 green-mobiles that force you to spend the night in a motel half-way across one state don't fit the bill.
Obviously I wasn't riding shotgun with a robot. Instead, I was on an airboat in the Florida everglades. The first time the captain pointed us straight at the mangroves and gunned the engine, I freaked. Then I realized that with an airboat, you change the attitude, drift, and then accelerate. This guy was a master. He was able to navigate through the groves with just a couple feet on either side (at slower speeds of course). After the first few high speed turns, I sat back and enjoyed it just like the passengers in those cars.
He took pride in the fact that his boat had no rudder in the water, and thus was less likely to harm the endangered manatees. That first turn around a corner at speed was just one part of the experience. If riding an airboat through the glades isn't on your bucket list, it should be.
Yeah, good point. If we can get rid of the hard drive, then there are no moving parts except butttons which do tend to wear out quickly. Maybe the computer could be a module that slides into the computer, the way my CD drive slides into my laptop. In theory, I could replace the CD with another disk of some kind; but I've never had the need.
My phone won't be my computer either, and the ergonomic issues you touched on dominate that.
I can see us shoehorning all the memory, speed, and price into a tiny package some day. By definition though, they can never give it a full-sized keyboard and monitor without turning it into something other than a phone.
The computer, memory, storage aspect of it will get so small that you can just integrate it into the keyboard (like C64s were!) or the monitor (like iMacs). You won't be able to tell the computer from the keyboard or monitor, except that it will have a few more ports on it and a slightly higher price tag. We might even see "has a computer" as a check-off feature for the monitor or keyboard. Millions of them will be hooked up to the preferred computer and go un-used, or just be there as a backup system in case the main computer starts acting flaky (yeah, I'm running on my monitor today. The keyboard crapped out)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure there are some deregulators who honestly want to eliminate crony capitalism like this. I'm also sure there are a lot who just want free reign to do whatever they like, the rest of us be damned.
I recall from the 1970s concerns that the breadbasket areas of the US were going to be 'exhausted' by the intensive farming (which hasn't happened, but let's go with it)
Google for "california central valley" and "salination". Get back to us.
We is gonna have to agree to disagree on this. Live long and prosper.
Just type apple are into the search field on your browser and watch the completions happen.
Yeah, sure. Then hit ENTER, and read some of the results.
I looked at trends *and* results. Trends tells us "apple are" is far less common. Results told me that when "apple are" does occur, it's in a context where the antecedant of "are" is something other than Apple. For example, "Notifications developed by Apple are", "businesses like Apple are", and "Shares Of Apple Are Sliding". You do have "Samsung and Apple are", but in that case the antecedant is "Samsung and Apple", not "Apple".
I think this shows that "Apple are" to avoid implications of corporate personhood is linguistic prescription
Just for the heck of it I did a Google trends analysis. Virtually nobody says "Apple are". When you look at the few hits for "Apple are" they are things like, "products from Apple are".
They've been calling it an apology. Now that I've dug into it a bit, it sounds more like a retraction. This might also be yet another case of Americans and British being "divided by a common tongue". Maybe a retraction is called an apology over there.
Anyway, stick a fork in me. I'm done. AFK. Lunch.
OK, I think I just answered my own question. "The people who run Apple" would work, or more specificly, "representatives of Apple"; but you know what? It's just not as pithy. This gets us back to something that I've observed over the years and may have attempted to forumulate as "laws":
1. There is no limit to what can be inferred from what you type on the Internet.
2. Any attempt to limit inference will result in lengthy, unappealing prose.
These two "laws" are one of the reasons I've participated less over the years...
"Apple is not sorry" shouldn't imply a belief in corporate personhood either. What's the appropriate grammar for expressing an attitude likely to be held by the members of a group, without implying corporate personhood? "Apple are not sorry"? Meh. Makes them sound like the Borg. It's my understanding that in common usage phrases like "The AARP said", or "Congress ruled" are shorthand for collective action that doesn't imply a belief in corporate personhood. OK folks, what's your suggested phrasing that wouldn't imply a belief in corporate personhood when discussing these matters?
An apology isn't meaningless. It means you are truly sorry for what you did. If you aren't truly sorry, and an authority coerces you to make such a statement, then yes. It's wrong. It looks like that's a lot for people to wrap their heads around here, especially when they don't like the person being coerced.
Do you honestly believe that corporations have feelings?
No. That's why I typed they're which is a contraction of they are. "They" is a gender-neutral plural of he or she, which means that I'm referring to 2 or more people.
If I thought corporations were people, I might have said "Everybody knows he or she is not sorry", or if I were a believer in corporate personhood and a true fan boy I might have typed "Everybody knows He is not sorry".
So two wrongs make a right? Apple's wrong was apparently to make some false statement about Samsung. Actually, now that I've scrolled down (Chrome, 1680 by 1050 when full screen), I see that it's more like a retraction than an apology. Retractions of false statements make good sense. I'm fine with that. Other news stories were calling it an "apology".
Everybody knows they're not sorry. All court-ordered apologies do is remind us that people in authority aren't satisfied unless you agree with them. Then they can go home satisfied, knowing that their world view is intact. All they really did was use coercion to force somebody to lie. Apple is not sorry. Everybody knows it.
Most of what we want on the web is text and static images. Tables are nice. Maybe you need a handful of tags. Let the browser handle layout. That would be much easier to secure than the dynamic fustercluck we have now. There are probably more APIs than there were tags in 1999. There are probably hundreds of functions in your browser that expose security flaws. We could dump all of them and they wouldn't be missed.
Slashdot needs a handful of tags and good old CGI. That's all.
On the 100 acres that is considered farmland I pay about $10/acre for property tax
California actually has this too, if I'm understanding the "considered farmland" part. Google "Williamson Act". It was passed in the early or mid 1960s. You agree to do only certain things on the land (either agriculture or open space) and in exchange you get reduced taxes. I think this is why you don't have to drive too far from the center of San Jose to find cows grazing. It's probably done a lot to prevent farmers from raising what I've heard called "the last crop" back east. "The last crop" is subdividing and putting up cookie-cutter houses. AFAIK, the contract runs with the land and prevents subdividing for a period of time. After the time expires, you can buy your way out of it (obviously for a hefty price) or renew.
That's a good point. I wonder what the tax structure is like on the $2k/acre though. California has prop 13, which can reduce some of your taxes. I think the idea that you have limited taxes helps inflate California real estate. Of course the other thing that inflates it is the aforementioned development restrictions, especially in the desirable coastal areas. For example, Santa Cruz county won't let you build on anything less than an acre, even though there are many subdivided sub-acre (0.14, 0.2 acre are common numbers). Places like Boulder Creek don't have sewer systems. Septic systems installed in the early post-war period are common. Anyway, I digress. Some of the supply constraint in California is natural, due to water supply constraints. Other constraints are man-made. They could probably water all those small lots and build a sewer system. There is plenty of water that comes in massive bursts during the winter, but building large-scale water storage (a big f'n dam) in a seismic mountain area isn't too smart. Distributed water storage with an assload of 5000 gallon storage tanks and smart networked pumps might work, but that brings us back to innovative engineering. Of course, before we had any misgivings about building a big f'n dam in seismicly active mountains, they did exactly that. Santa Cruz (the city) has much of its water supplied by a dam adjacent to Lompico. I've looked at properties near there, and despite some serious discounts have passed them by. Just thinking about that dam during an earthquake, in the winter, with El Nino conditions... well, you get the idea. Some people already blame that dam for saturating a hillside that gave way in the early 80s and killed some people.
Anyway, what was I getting at? Oh yeah. California land is expensive, yes; but it's not scarce. The legal hurdles help make it expensive.
Once again, that's a good thing and a bad thing. You can't preserve the environment without constraining the supply of land, and driving up the price. The real one-time winners are those who built just before that happened.
This happens in Missouri for a reason: lax zoning and a distinct lack of busy-bodies who complain.
This is what California was like 40-50 years when hippies were doing this kind of thing there. Now it's locked up tight. In some cases it's for good reasons. Developers were silting streams and destroying fisheries with ill-advised grading. OTOH, the government is literally telling you where you can poop, which makes doing things like this illegal and/or expensive now. Sometimes it still happens. They can't police communes any better than they can police illegal pot growers; but a project like this out in the open is less likely to happen in CA now, which is a bit sad.
My understanding is that a good chunk of Missouri was depopulated by the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic. I wonder if too many "back to the land" people like this will eventually cause complaints and ruin it like California.
I think it was put best by a former room-mate, back in my college days who said, more or less:
My first car was a gas-guzzling beater of a sedan that I bought from the neighbor's parents when they got a new car. I worked on it myself and it wasn't much to look at, but it was all I could afford with the few hundred dollars I made that Summer. I was young, and just knowing that I could hop in it and go anywhere in the country gave me an incredible sense of freedom and adventure.
$78,000 green-mobiles that force you to spend the night in a motel half-way across one state don't fit the bill.
1. Rent some cars.
2. Employ the same logic.
3. Profit!
Manager (as I hand him a handful of undesirable leftover parts): We expected you to return the car with a full tank of gas.
Me: I bet you expected your cloud-hosted customer data to be private too.
Obviously I wasn't riding shotgun with a robot. Instead, I was on an airboat in the Florida everglades. The first time the captain pointed us straight at the mangroves and gunned the engine, I freaked. Then I realized that with an airboat, you change the attitude, drift, and then accelerate. This guy was a master. He was able to navigate through the groves with just a couple feet on either side (at slower speeds of course). After the first few high speed turns, I sat back and enjoyed it just like the passengers in those cars.
He took pride in the fact that his boat had no rudder in the water, and thus was less likely to harm the endangered manatees. That first turn around a corner at speed was just one part of the experience. If riding an airboat through the glades isn't on your bucket list, it should be.
Telling me something doesn't exist because of a bureaucratic rule is stupid
No it isn't. Thought process now:
We can't (insert evil method here) because it won't be admissible.
Thought process without rule:
We might get a slap on the wrist for (insert evil method here) but we'll get the bad guy.
See the difference? Not having the "bureaucratic rule" in place is objectively favorable to (insert evil method here).
The judge had no choice. There was video of him cheating on his wife with a pig.
available on most moderately disreputable trackers.
You mean, available at most wretched hives of scum and villainy? OK, but you must be cautious.
Yeah, good point. If we can get rid of the hard drive, then there are no moving parts except butttons which do tend to wear out quickly. Maybe the computer could be a module that slides into the computer, the way my CD drive slides into my laptop. In theory, I could replace the CD with another disk of some kind; but I've never had the need.
My phone won't be my computer either, and the ergonomic issues you touched on dominate that.
I can see us shoehorning all the memory, speed, and price into a tiny package some day. By definition though, they can never give it a full-sized keyboard and monitor without turning it into something other than a phone.
The computer, memory, storage aspect of it will get so small that you can just integrate it into the keyboard (like C64s were!) or the monitor (like iMacs). You won't be able to tell the computer from the keyboard or monitor, except that it will have a few more ports on it and a slightly higher price tag. We might even see "has a computer" as a check-off feature for the monitor or keyboard. Millions of them will be hooked up to the preferred computer and go un-used, or just be there as a backup system in case the main computer starts acting flaky (yeah, I'm running on my monitor today. The keyboard crapped out)