"They should just re-label "abusive behaviour" to "whatever we don't like, whenever we don't like it""
It's actually "whatever costs us money", which is why corporations are poor stewards without exception. Trump violates Twitter's ToS almost every time he twats (deliberate fraud, harassment, incitement of violence...) but they'll never terminate his account because it makes them more important. And all because they are beholden to stockholders.
"Texas teachers are required to work six hours a day, 187 days per year."
I actually know a Texas teacher, and she not only has to buy supplies with her own money if she wants to teach effectively, but she also has to do a lot of unpaid work as well. They don't get their summers off scot-free, either. They have continuing education requirements. When you count all of the extra work involved and subtract what's spent on giving paper and pencils to unfortunate students whose parents can't or won't supply them for school (like I was) it doesn't look quite so nice.
"One of the great virtues of Mozilla is that, in addition to being a non-proffit organization, they aren't an operator of any major web properties. As such, they aren't subject to the conflicts of interest that you often see with companies like Google and Microsoft, who are often tempted to tailor their browsers to their commercial interests:"
You mean like that Pocket horse shit that's in every version of Firefox now? So that every time I start Firefox on fire TV, instead of the URL I asked for, I get a quick launch screen so that they can show me whatever Pocket wants me to see? That's a pop-up ad built into the browser! I don't want that kind of crap bloating my browser and increasing its attack surface, period. Mozilla has become a poor steward.
The Amiga was cool but not as easy to deal with out of the box as an ST or Mac.
I don't know STs, but the unboxing experience was similar for Macs and Amigas. Mac gave you System and Hypercard while Amiga gave you Workbench and Amiga [Microsoft] BASIC. Either way you plugged stuff in and switched it on, and followed the directions. There was one notable difference; System 6 was like what, eight floppies counting hypercard? Workbench 1.3 fit on one floppy (Workbench 2 took... 2? 4? I forget) and BASIC was on one more floppy.
If you were trying to do serious things, the Amiga was much easier, because it had a shell. Stuff that was tedious on Macintosh was simple on Amiga, once you figured out their wildcarding system.
The set Macintosh cost and sound, graphics, speed, lack of networking held computing design back for years.
It did nothing of the sort. At its peak Apple had something like 8% of desktop market share. It never held anything back. Microsoft, on the other hand, legitimately did hold back computing by doing things like abusing their monopoly position in a variety of ways, and funding SCO v. Linux.
Speaking of influence, I'd say the single most influential GUI element was the start button. As much as we mocked it when Windows 95 came out, it's been widely copied.
The Start button is just the NeXT Dock menu in the opposite corner, and the taskbar is just the NeXT Dock running left to right instead of top to bottom, plus a notification area. (While we're at it, Microsoft was on the Motif WG, which is why Windows' window manipulation menus and handles are essentially the same as the Motif interface.) So Windows pioneered... the notification area?
I agree though that the general hatred of Monsanto is ridiculous. They're a company providing a useful product that's worth something to farmers.
If I sold grenades to fishermen, you could describe me the same way. And the comparison is apt, since glyphosphate is misused, and it persists in the anaerobic conditions typical of modern factory farming. Monsanto also has a long criminal history — around glyphosphate it's mostly covering up the evidence that it's harmful, but let's not forget their toxic legacy. Monsanto's been poisoning the planet for over a century.
People back then sure as hell took their sweet time getting technology and an industrial base going. (Yes, I understand that it's hard to do that when you're pre-occupied with mere survival, and nobody has the leisure time to geek out.) Why no farming until about 12k ago? Why no cave are until about 40k-50k ago?
Population. It's relevant in a lot of ways. For example only so many people are creative enough to think of new technologies, and only a subset of those people are driven enough to develop them. Or labor, of course. You need a certain number of hands. And then there's specialization. Hunter-gatherers are generalists. Doing complicated things well requires specialists.
If it all comes down to people getting and spreading some software upgrade (i.e. culture as opposed to brains) and if that had an effect on what people were able to intellectually accomplish, I call that intelligence.
Probably both software and wetware. The more you use your brain, the more it can do. If you grow up using your brain more, you'll be able to use it more when you are older, too. And then there's a chance that those who grow up around you will accomplish even more. And these adaptations can actually be passed on to offspring epigenetically, so it's quite likely that modern people actually are smarter than our forebears — at least some of us. And the corollary is that if we go back to living in caves like savages and give up mathematics and so on, we really will get dumber. Or, you know, have generations grow up attached to the glass teat.
A TV didn't prevent you having square pixels, and in fact the Amiga did support them with modes like 640x512 or 320x256.
It didn't prevent them, but it wasn't suited to them. And the Amiga did support them, but they didn't look good. At low resolutions they didn't appear square, and at high resolutions you had to interlace.
The other issue was that TVs needed interlace to do 512 vertical lines, where as monitors could support more than ~250 vertical lines with progressive scan.
Yeah, that. You just couldn't get good high-res video quality out of a TV back then. Today, using a TV as a monitor is a much better strategy.
The PS/2 mouse connector was proprietary, but the keyboard port wasn't. It's just the same old AT keyboard on a Mini-DIN instead of a DIN. Unfortunately, they used the same connector, and you couldn't interchange the connectors on PS/2s, nor their successors (PS/Valuepoint). The only motherboards I know of where they are interchangeable are Intel (as in their own motherboards, not just boards for their CPUs), and I'm not sure which. I remember being able to plug them in wrong and have them work anyway around the Pentium MMX period. But perhaps there are also others, and I just haven't encountered them... I used to work for the county of Santa Cruz and we had an all-IBM network at the time with IBM mainframes which I had nothing to do with in the courthouse basement, and PS/2s at the various sites, naturally all on token ring. Departments used netware 3 for file services. PS/2s sucked rocks and the MCA bus was stupid. Apple had autoconfiguration on NuBus and Amiga had that and a cheap cardedge connector on Zorro, although Zorro was slow AF until Zorro III so maybe I should leave them out of it:)
It's funny, I remember being distinctly unimpressed when I saw the Mac for the first time at a local electronics store.:)
I was super-impressed the first time I saw a Macintosh, but admittedly it was a Mac Plus. I had a C= 16 at home, and had used various Apple IIs at a couple of different schools, as well as the IBM PC Jr. Then I went to Jr. High and they had the one Mac Plus in a lab full of Apple 2s plus one Laser 128k, and the experience of using the GUI was amazing in comparison. Then I got an Amiga 500, and started throwing rocks at Macs...
Yep, the Amiga would have died a heck of a lot sooner if the Mac had been cheaper, but it was ghastly expensive. My mother had a Macintosh IIci for her DTP work, she had got it through an Apple employee so it came at a substantial discount. That meant that for a IIci with no cache card, 5MB RAM, 8*24 non-GC display card, and the Macintosh Two-Page Mono Display it was a bit over $5,000. I (eventually) had an Amiga 2500, while she was still using that. Same MC68030@25, I had 6MB RAM, and my HD controller had both MFM and SCSI interfaces — though you could only boot off the SCSI, not the MFM. Also, my machine had an internal 5.25" half-height bay. That let me use used MFM disks instead of SCSI ones, and since I lived near Seagate I was able to get those at $1/MB.
That two-page mono display was beautiful, though. Square pixels, paper white... Back then you really got more when you bought a Mac. Then PC clone hardware came in a deluge (around the 486 era) and none of that stuff was special any more. You could spend as much as you wanted on a PC, and get the same kind of quality or even better, and it would still be cheaper and faster. And the 68040 was too expensive, and the '060 too late.
Apple should have either switched to x86 much sooner, or gone to ARM instead. POWER turned out to be a waste of time and money. The Newton was ARM6-based, and they probably could have gone down that road for the post-Quadra machines. Apple could have been all-ARM by now. Probably better for all of us that didn't happen though, given what ARM is today.
I never really understood what Jobs insisted on it being portable, but he did.
He insisted on having a built-in display because it made the cost of a computer+display less, and he didn't believe that the experience of using a computer on a television was satisfactory because he wanted square pixels. I tend to agree with that decision, BTW. I was an Amigan for a long time, and rectangular pixels suck rocks. Also, the other machine they were working on at the time was the Lisa, which also had a built-in monitor. (Lisa was later renamed Mac XL, and would run up to IIRC Macintosh System 5.)
Once you build an all-in-one, you're an asshole if you don't put a handle on it. Luggables were also a relatively popular form factor at the time. They too had minuscule screens, my Kaypro 4 had a similar-size screen to a Macintosh... but it was text-only, and the terminal emulation was adm3a at that. It only scrolled in one direction, god it was terrible.
Regular monitors at the time didn't have a way for the monitor to communicate its physical size and supported resolution back to the video card. So sticking with a fixed monitor was pretty much the only way they could do it for the first iteration. This is why Macs became ubiquitous in the publishing industry.
Meh. Apple could have implemented something like DDC in their own monitors, and in the early days almost nobody used an Apple with a non-Apple monitor — even the bulk of Apple 2 systems were topped with an Apple display. They went so far as to reuse the DB15 connector which the rest of the world was using for ethernet (AUI) and then later had to add an expensive new ethernet connector to their machines so they wouldn't have a second DB15 back there (AAUI). If they were going to use a different connector anyway, they might as well use a different signal.
Win95 was big because it revamped the UI, made the first break from Windows being no more than an app on top of MS-DOS and brought in more preemptive multitasking, although things like the resource limitations that made it start behaving weirdly and then crash helped maintain MicrosoftÃ(TM)s reputation for making toy operating systems.
Microsoft loves limitations. While Unix was architected for expansion from the start, DOS and Windows were always written to the limitations of the machine. Why bother to plan for the future when you can just sell the users another version, right? It worked for them, so I guess it was a good plan. Windows NT 3.51 for example only supported filesystems up to 2GB. That was a huge shame, because NT4 was where they merged the kernel and graphics memory spaces in order to improve graphics performance, and that's when NT's reliability went straight to hell since any application which abused the graphics system could crash the machine.
Not to mention it was set up to allow the user to "multitask" but it wouldn't do pre-emptive multitasking itself...
Cooperative multitasking did suck, but it worked most of the time. Besides, home computers of the day didn't have enough RAM for serious multitasking of graphical applications. It wasn't until the next generation of them (Macintosh II, Amiga, 386 PCs) that this changed. Those first machines could only really handle running one "big" (for the time) program anyway. Hell, the Macintosh 128ke could barely handle that, they had to go to extraordinary lengths to accomplish it, coming up with a complicated binary format to permit big pieces of the program to be removed from memory and reloaded as necessary.
And li-liger are fertile, both males and females, and can interbreed. Are tiger and lion the same species, as you can create hybrids that are fertile?
Great question. Here's another one: Is the concept of "species" really going to be useful going forwards, or are we going to have to track DNA? That does tend to get cheaper over time...
Well, at least we know now that everything is Apple's fault.
Nah, they're just one of many culprits, but they exemplify everything that is wrong with the world today. Faster shittier cheaper BUY IT YOU MORONS etc etc. It makes the world burn.
"Installation of APK files is a big security risk. Having an properly manged app market that checks packages are safe is the best way to make sure people don't install malware on their devices. Apple are doing the best job at that bet Google is catching up."
Apple and Google have both delivered malware through their app stores. App stores don't make you safe.
"Sideloading is so fcking dangerous."
Do you need the ghost of Steve jobs to hold your dick for you while you piss, too? Loading software from any source is an inherently risky activity, but taking the ability to sideload away from the user is turning their general purpose computing device into a toaster.
If the patent doesn't tell the story, then it should never have been granted. If he has a patent, then what's the number? Without that, we have nothing to talk about. (I'd try to find it, but I'm on a small and slow tablet.)
That he won't show it off, though, is a good indication that it doesn't actually work. Since he allegedly has a patent on it already, he has nothing to lose by showing it to us. Either he doesn't actually have a patent, or he doesn't actually have a working invention.
"Only white supremacists can destroy humanity if left unchecked"
Bullshit. Any color of people can destroy the biosphere just by continuing to make shit we don't need. Speaking of which, noticed how desperate Apple is getting lately? They have pounded YouTube full of commercials for their garbage. All this crap nobody wants is destroying our home, I can't even enjoy Apple's failing because I know it's built on destruction.
"No, it's people just getting the risks wrong. Lots of fatal and non fatal accidents can be fucking horrible."
No. It's people making a risk assessment that is meaningful to them. The math works a little bit like this: "if I am personally involved in a nuclear disaster, it might cause me to rapidly fall apart from the inside out, with blood coming out of every orifice, while another type of power is either totally safe to be near (PV, or wind so long as you aren't literally under the turbine) or will kill me suddenly." It doesn't matter how large the chance of a disaster is, so long as it's nonzero and there's precedent for it happening.
"And yet you STILL are ignoring my question."
That's because it's stupid. Pick a generally-accepted standard and suck it.
"So no matter how deep and long-sufferig your sighs you still need accessible sea floor to anchor the turbines."
Yes, nearby. So what? Basically every coastal region is suitable for some type of wind power. For those few which aren't, you ship in power on - get this - WIRES.
"The entire discussion is about human nature and how bad humans are at assessing risks which is why humans won't put up with nuclear power. And now you expect them to change their ways that dramatically?"
Most people will mostly follow the law. If you set laws to encourage same, then yes. But really, I expect humanity to fail here. That we could possibly fix these problems doesn't mean we will. In fact, the evidence shows that we likely won't. Throughout history, humanity has tended to use up resources for short term gain. The only people who didn't shit up their home bigly were the "natives" (actually the second wave of migrants) of the North American continent. They had over 10,000 years of relative peace and stewardship before white people showed up to cut everything down and turn it into luxury hotels. Pretty much everyone else used up or all but used up their natural resources warring with one another.
I'm just glad I don't have offspring. If humanity fails, what do I care? On a cosmic scale, all human achievement is irrelevant. And it looks like it's gonna stay that way, especially while people are married to the idea that humans can't do better.
"There's an increase in talk about new nuclear deployments,"
Get ready to watch hundreds of millions of taxpayer money burned in feasibility studies which enrich the usual suspects but produce no reactors. Nuclear is economically a non-starter. Like coal, it is being killed by cost.
Slashdot Mirror
"They should just re-label "abusive behaviour" to "whatever we don't like, whenever we don't like it""
It's actually "whatever costs us money", which is why corporations are poor stewards without exception. Trump violates Twitter's ToS almost every time he twats (deliberate fraud, harassment, incitement of violence...) but they'll never terminate his account because it makes them more important. And all because they are beholden to stockholders.
"Texas teachers are required to work six hours a day, 187 days per year."
I actually know a Texas teacher, and she not only has to buy supplies with her own money if she wants to teach effectively, but she also has to do a lot of unpaid work as well. They don't get their summers off scot-free, either. They have continuing education requirements. When you count all of the extra work involved and subtract what's spent on giving paper and pencils to unfortunate students whose parents can't or won't supply them for school (like I was) it doesn't look quite so nice.
"One of the great virtues of Mozilla is that, in addition to being a non-proffit organization, they aren't an operator of any major web properties. As such, they aren't subject to the conflicts of interest that you often see with companies like Google and Microsoft, who are often tempted to tailor their browsers to their commercial interests:"
You mean like that Pocket horse shit that's in every version of Firefox now? So that every time I start Firefox on fire TV, instead of the URL I asked for, I get a quick launch screen so that they can show me whatever Pocket wants me to see? That's a pop-up ad built into the browser! I don't want that kind of crap bloating my browser and increasing its attack surface, period. Mozilla has become a poor steward.
The Amiga was cool but not as easy to deal with out of the box as an ST or Mac.
I don't know STs, but the unboxing experience was similar for Macs and Amigas. Mac gave you System and Hypercard while Amiga gave you Workbench and Amiga [Microsoft] BASIC. Either way you plugged stuff in and switched it on, and followed the directions. There was one notable difference; System 6 was like what, eight floppies counting hypercard? Workbench 1.3 fit on one floppy (Workbench 2 took... 2? 4? I forget) and BASIC was on one more floppy.
If you were trying to do serious things, the Amiga was much easier, because it had a shell. Stuff that was tedious on Macintosh was simple on Amiga, once you figured out their wildcarding system.
The set Macintosh cost and sound, graphics, speed, lack of networking held computing design back for years.
It did nothing of the sort. At its peak Apple had something like 8% of desktop market share. It never held anything back. Microsoft, on the other hand, legitimately did hold back computing by doing things like abusing their monopoly position in a variety of ways, and funding SCO v. Linux.
Speaking of influence, I'd say the single most influential GUI element was the start button. As much as we mocked it when Windows 95 came out, it's been widely copied.
The Start button is just the NeXT Dock menu in the opposite corner, and the taskbar is just the NeXT Dock running left to right instead of top to bottom, plus a notification area. (While we're at it, Microsoft was on the Motif WG, which is why Windows' window manipulation menus and handles are essentially the same as the Motif interface.) So Windows pioneered... the notification area?
Are you kidding? Android and iOS both allow you to side load.
iOS requires you to jump through hoops, Android doesn't. So no, I'm not kidding.
he opposite of knowing is not "not knowing". The opposite of knowing is believing.
Stahp
Stahp pls
That's not what "believe" means. You can say "gravity works" and I can say "I believe you". Belief can be founded on facts or faith.
I agree though that the general hatred of Monsanto is ridiculous. They're a company providing a useful product that's worth something to farmers.
If I sold grenades to fishermen, you could describe me the same way. And the comparison is apt, since glyphosphate is misused, and it persists in the anaerobic conditions typical of modern factory farming. Monsanto also has a long criminal history — around glyphosphate it's mostly covering up the evidence that it's harmful, but let's not forget their toxic legacy. Monsanto's been poisoning the planet for over a century.
People back then sure as hell took their sweet time getting technology and an industrial base going. (Yes, I understand that it's hard to do that when you're pre-occupied with mere survival, and nobody has the leisure time to geek out.) Why no farming until about 12k ago? Why no cave are until about 40k-50k ago?
Population. It's relevant in a lot of ways. For example only so many people are creative enough to think of new technologies, and only a subset of those people are driven enough to develop them. Or labor, of course. You need a certain number of hands. And then there's specialization. Hunter-gatherers are generalists. Doing complicated things well requires specialists.
If it all comes down to people getting and spreading some software upgrade (i.e. culture as opposed to brains) and if that had an effect on what people were able to intellectually accomplish, I call that intelligence.
Probably both software and wetware. The more you use your brain, the more it can do. If you grow up using your brain more, you'll be able to use it more when you are older, too. And then there's a chance that those who grow up around you will accomplish even more. And these adaptations can actually be passed on to offspring epigenetically, so it's quite likely that modern people actually are smarter than our forebears — at least some of us. And the corollary is that if we go back to living in caves like savages and give up mathematics and so on, we really will get dumber. Or, you know, have generations grow up attached to the glass teat.
A TV didn't prevent you having square pixels, and in fact the Amiga did support them with modes like 640x512 or 320x256.
It didn't prevent them, but it wasn't suited to them. And the Amiga did support them, but they didn't look good. At low resolutions they didn't appear square, and at high resolutions you had to interlace.
The other issue was that TVs needed interlace to do 512 vertical lines, where as monitors could support more than ~250 vertical lines with progressive scan.
Yeah, that. You just couldn't get good high-res video quality out of a TV back then. Today, using a TV as a monitor is a much better strategy.
The Mac didn't multitask though, at least not until later when more memory was common. As such it could get away with less RAM.
128k just wasn't even enough for one halfway decent graphical application, even at 1bpp, and with RLE of your PICTs.
The PS/2 mouse connector was proprietary, but the keyboard port wasn't. It's just the same old AT keyboard on a Mini-DIN instead of a DIN. Unfortunately, they used the same connector, and you couldn't interchange the connectors on PS/2s, nor their successors (PS/Valuepoint). The only motherboards I know of where they are interchangeable are Intel (as in their own motherboards, not just boards for their CPUs), and I'm not sure which. I remember being able to plug them in wrong and have them work anyway around the Pentium MMX period. But perhaps there are also others, and I just haven't encountered them... I used to work for the county of Santa Cruz and we had an all-IBM network at the time with IBM mainframes which I had nothing to do with in the courthouse basement, and PS/2s at the various sites, naturally all on token ring. Departments used netware 3 for file services. PS/2s sucked rocks and the MCA bus was stupid. Apple had autoconfiguration on NuBus and Amiga had that and a cheap cardedge connector on Zorro, although Zorro was slow AF until Zorro III so maybe I should leave them out of it :)
UGH, PS/2s. I need some air.
It's funny, I remember being distinctly unimpressed when I saw the Mac for the first time at a local electronics store. :)
I was super-impressed the first time I saw a Macintosh, but admittedly it was a Mac Plus. I had a C= 16 at home, and had used various Apple IIs at a couple of different schools, as well as the IBM PC Jr. Then I went to Jr. High and they had the one Mac Plus in a lab full of Apple 2s plus one Laser 128k, and the experience of using the GUI was amazing in comparison. Then I got an Amiga 500, and started throwing rocks at Macs...
Yep, the Amiga would have died a heck of a lot sooner if the Mac had been cheaper, but it was ghastly expensive. My mother had a Macintosh IIci for her DTP work, she had got it through an Apple employee so it came at a substantial discount. That meant that for a IIci with no cache card, 5MB RAM, 8*24 non-GC display card, and the Macintosh Two-Page Mono Display it was a bit over $5,000. I (eventually) had an Amiga 2500, while she was still using that. Same MC68030@25, I had 6MB RAM, and my HD controller had both MFM and SCSI interfaces — though you could only boot off the SCSI, not the MFM. Also, my machine had an internal 5.25" half-height bay. That let me use used MFM disks instead of SCSI ones, and since I lived near Seagate I was able to get those at $1/MB.
That two-page mono display was beautiful, though. Square pixels, paper white... Back then you really got more when you bought a Mac. Then PC clone hardware came in a deluge (around the 486 era) and none of that stuff was special any more. You could spend as much as you wanted on a PC, and get the same kind of quality or even better, and it would still be cheaper and faster. And the 68040 was too expensive, and the '060 too late.
Apple should have either switched to x86 much sooner, or gone to ARM instead. POWER turned out to be a waste of time and money. The Newton was ARM6-based, and they probably could have gone down that road for the post-Quadra machines. Apple could have been all-ARM by now. Probably better for all of us that didn't happen though, given what ARM is today.
I never really understood what Jobs insisted on it being portable, but he did.
He insisted on having a built-in display because it made the cost of a computer+display less, and he didn't believe that the experience of using a computer on a television was satisfactory because he wanted square pixels. I tend to agree with that decision, BTW. I was an Amigan for a long time, and rectangular pixels suck rocks. Also, the other machine they were working on at the time was the Lisa, which also had a built-in monitor. (Lisa was later renamed Mac XL, and would run up to IIRC Macintosh System 5.)
Once you build an all-in-one, you're an asshole if you don't put a handle on it. Luggables were also a relatively popular form factor at the time. They too had minuscule screens, my Kaypro 4 had a similar-size screen to a Macintosh... but it was text-only, and the terminal emulation was adm3a at that. It only scrolled in one direction, god it was terrible.
Regular monitors at the time didn't have a way for the monitor to communicate its physical size and supported resolution back to the video card. So sticking with a fixed monitor was pretty much the only way they could do it for the first iteration. This is why Macs became ubiquitous in the publishing industry.
Meh. Apple could have implemented something like DDC in their own monitors, and in the early days almost nobody used an Apple with a non-Apple monitor — even the bulk of Apple 2 systems were topped with an Apple display. They went so far as to reuse the DB15 connector which the rest of the world was using for ethernet (AUI) and then later had to add an expensive new ethernet connector to their machines so they wouldn't have a second DB15 back there (AAUI). If they were going to use a different connector anyway, they might as well use a different signal.
Win95 was big because it revamped the UI, made the first break from Windows being no more than an app on top of MS-DOS and brought in more preemptive multitasking, although things like the resource limitations that made it start behaving weirdly and then crash helped maintain MicrosoftÃ(TM)s reputation for making toy operating systems.
Microsoft loves limitations. While Unix was architected for expansion from the start, DOS and Windows were always written to the limitations of the machine. Why bother to plan for the future when you can just sell the users another version, right? It worked for them, so I guess it was a good plan. Windows NT 3.51 for example only supported filesystems up to 2GB. That was a huge shame, because NT4 was where they merged the kernel and graphics memory spaces in order to improve graphics performance, and that's when NT's reliability went straight to hell since any application which abused the graphics system could crash the machine.
Not to mention it was set up to allow the user to "multitask" but it wouldn't do pre-emptive multitasking itself...
Cooperative multitasking did suck, but it worked most of the time. Besides, home computers of the day didn't have enough RAM for serious multitasking of graphical applications. It wasn't until the next generation of them (Macintosh II, Amiga, 386 PCs) that this changed. Those first machines could only really handle running one "big" (for the time) program anyway. Hell, the Macintosh 128ke could barely handle that, they had to go to extraordinary lengths to accomplish it, coming up with a complicated binary format to permit big pieces of the program to be removed from memory and reloaded as necessary.
And li-liger are fertile, both males and females, and can interbreed. Are tiger and lion the same species, as you can create hybrids that are fertile?
Great question. Here's another one: Is the concept of "species" really going to be useful going forwards, or are we going to have to track DNA? That does tend to get cheaper over time...
Well, at least we know now that everything is Apple's fault.
Nah, they're just one of many culprits, but they exemplify everything that is wrong with the world today. Faster shittier cheaper BUY IT YOU MORONS etc etc. It makes the world burn.
"Installation of APK files is a big security risk. Having an properly manged app market that checks packages are safe is the best way to make sure people don't install malware on their devices. Apple are doing the best job at that bet Google is catching up."
Apple and Google have both delivered malware through their app stores. App stores don't make you safe.
"Sideloading is so fcking dangerous."
Do you need the ghost of Steve jobs to hold your dick for you while you piss, too? Loading software from any source is an inherently risky activity, but taking the ability to sideload away from the user is turning their general purpose computing device into a toaster.
If the patent doesn't tell the story, then it should never have been granted. If he has a patent, then what's the number? Without that, we have nothing to talk about. (I'd try to find it, but I'm on a small and slow tablet.)
That he won't show it off, though, is a good indication that it doesn't actually work. Since he allegedly has a patent on it already, he has nothing to lose by showing it to us. Either he doesn't actually have a patent, or he doesn't actually have a working invention.
"Only white supremacists can destroy humanity if left unchecked"
Bullshit. Any color of people can destroy the biosphere just by continuing to make shit we don't need. Speaking of which, noticed how desperate Apple is getting lately? They have pounded YouTube full of commercials for their garbage. All this crap nobody wants is destroying our home, I can't even enjoy Apple's failing because I know it's built on destruction.
"No, it's people just getting the risks wrong. Lots of fatal and non fatal accidents can be fucking horrible."
No. It's people making a risk assessment that is meaningful to them. The math works a little bit like this: "if I am personally involved in a nuclear disaster, it might cause me to rapidly fall apart from the inside out, with blood coming out of every orifice, while another type of power is either totally safe to be near (PV, or wind so long as you aren't literally under the turbine) or will kill me suddenly." It doesn't matter how large the chance of a disaster is, so long as it's nonzero and there's precedent for it happening.
"And yet you STILL are ignoring my question."
That's because it's stupid. Pick a generally-accepted standard and suck it.
"So no matter how deep and long-sufferig your sighs you still need accessible sea floor to anchor the turbines."
Yes, nearby. So what? Basically every coastal region is suitable for some type of wind power. For those few which aren't, you ship in power on - get this - WIRES.
"The entire discussion is about human nature and how bad humans are at assessing risks which is why humans won't put up with nuclear power. And now you expect them to change their ways that dramatically?"
Most people will mostly follow the law. If you set laws to encourage same, then yes. But really, I expect humanity to fail here. That we could possibly fix these problems doesn't mean we will. In fact, the evidence shows that we likely won't. Throughout history, humanity has tended to use up resources for short term gain. The only people who didn't shit up their home bigly were the "natives" (actually the second wave of migrants) of the North American continent. They had over 10,000 years of relative peace and stewardship before white people showed up to cut everything down and turn it into luxury hotels. Pretty much everyone else used up or all but used up their natural resources warring with one another.
I'm just glad I don't have offspring. If humanity fails, what do I care? On a cosmic scale, all human achievement is irrelevant. And it looks like it's gonna stay that way, especially while people are married to the idea that humans can't do better.
"There's an increase in talk about new nuclear deployments,"
Get ready to watch hundreds of millions of taxpayer money burned in feasibility studies which enrich the usual suspects but produce no reactors. Nuclear is economically a non-starter. Like coal, it is being killed by cost.