Re:If by "looking good", you mean "looking like iO
on
Inside OS X Mavericks
·
· Score: 1
On my end, a lot of businesses I work with are sticking with 10.6 for compatibility with other software. And a few just because things are setup that way, it works, and they don't want to change.
Thank you for the kind words. I do a little political jousting and trolling, mainly fending off wrong-headed comments, but I try to add to the conversation where I can. I know scholars who could offer real insight, but I have some experience in the area and hoped you would appreciate some of the factors that we consider.
Also, FTR, I am not saying the US is entirely good, or that its presence overseas is all altruistic. Just that there are myriad reasons for the number of personnel and facilities the US maintains abroad, and that most of the large bases serve a combination of them. So even if you cut out offensive capabilities or military alliances, the US would still have a significant presence abroad. I do not, however, disagree with the notion that the US should have a lower OCONUS troop count.
The humanitarian stuff is really underpublicized. It's great for the country's image and the recipients of aid, but also extremely rewarding for servicemembers. When we got tasked for that sort of work, everyone got excited. I was elsewhere during Aceh, but I am proud of the great work my coworkers did there.
As you pointed out, the logistics the US military can quickly provide really dwarfs most organizations' capabilities. I would like to see this become a more prominent role, particularly for USN and USAF.
I just read the Snopes article for the first time... I did not know they made the same comparison to Eisenhower and the highway system. I'll give credit where it's due, even though I had not read it before. Maybe that'll prevent the public from insisting I claimed to "invent the analogy".
Al Gore authored the legislation that made Darpanet public, which created the internet thus making his comment which was "I practically invented the internet" correct
That's bullshit. The people writing the code, the people doing the design, the project managers, and maybe even the guys laying some cable, those are the people I would say created the Internet.
Bush didn't start the Iraq war, the soldiers who invaded did!
I agree completely. It's almost as annoying as the public's recollection of the McDonald's "hot coffee" incident or people constantly talking about "ones and zeros" and smugly believing they are informed.
As to the troll above, there is a pretty clear distinction between inventing something and implementing policies that help it develop. You couldn't say Eisenhower invented highways, but he is widely credited with creating America's interstate highway system.
It's hard to take you seriously when the argument you are making has been so thoroughly debunked throughout history. You've surely heard the counter-argument, but you obviously choose to ignore it.
...It's pretty all-encompassing, frankly. It says that... free people are free.
Yes, "free" is such a precise term that we can all agree on what it means in every single circumstance. That's why we are not having this discussion, just as our founding fathers did not.
"congress shall make no laws abridging free speech" or "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude[...] shall exist within the US or any place subject to their jurisdiction"... Damn, what could those possibly mean? They're just so... open for discussion.
They *are* open for discussion. You seriously think the founding fathers meant "free speech" to be unlimited? I think you will find they had laws against sedition, shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, disclosure of troop movements to the enemy, and so forth. The challenge is in determining where those lines should be drawn.
Every single right has conflicts with other rights and responsibilities. "Free speech" doesn't cover slander, sedition, disclosure of confidential information, false testimony, imminently danger to others, etc. because all of those impact rights of others or responsibilities of the state. The right to bear arms has always been limited--prisoners and rebels do not get to keep their weapons.
You are upset because you think you have the correct interpretation and balancing of various rights and responsibilities. You should read some of the landmark decisions on these issues. They aren't difficult to comprehend, but they aren't as black-and-white as you seem to believe.
Putting away money could just as well mean stuffing the pillowcase under his bed. Based on the direction this country is headed, that would be my recommendation.
Most of the people agree with you have been prophesying about inflation and hyperinflation for years. If they are right, this is about the worst thing you can recommend.
June wasn't *that* long ago. Although you do have to go way, way back to 2001 for an annual surplus (though some dispute that and say it was a $16B deficit instead).
"Troops are stationed in friendly countries simply because they are within striking distance of unfriendly countries." is the nut of it.
There are a few other reasons for America's current positioning of military facilities. I have not calculated ratios, but that would be an interesting exercise. I do not believe the bulk of overseas forces are positioned for any sort of offensive capability. Here are a few of the other key reasons for current positioning of these forces:
The reason most often overlooked is as a tripwire. In essence, the logic goes thus: "If you invade this area, you will kill thousands of American soldiers. The American public will be so outraged that the government will have no choice but to fully commit to a massive war against you... and you will ultimately lose." The best current example is the Korean peninsula, but many European bases served this function and, it could be argued, still do.
Another [related] reason is ally protection. Think Taiwan. With or without a tripwire, the US wants to be able to protect its allies globally. The US military is the most incredible logistics machine in the history of the world, but it still can't deploy massive conventional forces overnight (and it needs proximity for quick reaction forces).
A third, which you mentioned, is to delay invading forces until additional allied forces can arrive. Many of these facilities also function as tripwires, though certainly not all. It requires fairly massive complexes, above and beyond the requirements of a tripwire, in order to slow down any advances for a specified time period. These usually entail large numbers of troops and stockpiles of prepositioned armor, air facilities, etc.
There are some additional factors for other bases that don't really serve these three, including political (US bases provide a massive cash influx and some allies want them), logistical (air refueling squadrons, medical facilities within range of active war zones like Afghanistan), and associated global reach (human rights interventions, search and rescue, etc).
It blows their you minds that I am paying for everything in my life plus school, with no help from anyone else, especially the gov't.
You do realize that you are attending a PUBLIC university, don't you? Your professors likely received highly subsidized educations, most of the school's facilities were built by grants or donations from alumni, your professors' research (their real job) is mostly funded by the government, etc... right?
Your post reeks of the "I built that!" attitude that permeates America's highly subsidized baby boomers. You received, and continue to receive, tremendous amounts of help. The least you can do is acknowledge it.
Your post isn't really worth replying to, but for anyone else who thinks it's evidence of a decadent lifestyle, have you considered that increased fast food consumption might be due to the average family needing 2-4 jobs to pay the bills? Moms who have time to cook and can afford to stay home... one of the few relics of the 60s I'd love to be able to experience.
His views have pissed off the liberals and the conservatives, so he doesn't have an ideological screen. He just does whatever the hell he wants regardless of law and Constitution.
We might agree, but I would argue that modern liberals and conservatives have roughly equal constitutional basis, Obama is just a mix of both that pisses off both sides. Republicans don't care about the crap W pulled, and liberals only care about the Bushy stuff Obama is doing. Personally, I think McCain/Palin would have been a lot worse, but that is mainly speculation.
He even violated the War Powers Act in Libya. Response? It doesn't apply. Cue Eddie Murphy, "Wasn't me."
While I see your point (and agree), it's worth noting that waiting for THIS Congress to pass any meaningful legislation isn't a winning proposition. The resulting bill would have repealed Obamacare, banned abortion, and authorized the use of force against Iran, Tajikijikistanstan, and Libya. I don't know if I would have bothered either.
One would had got a Dell machine with less retarded spec and possibility of ordering a higher resolution screen for almost 40% less to.
Apple fanboys gonna hate.
We've all got our anecdotes. From 2004-2008 I went through two higher-end Inspirons. The first one just completely fell apart, the second literally blew up in my lap (smoke and all--I think capacitors popped). It was outside of warranty, and someone talked me into buying an early 2008 MacBook Pro. Worked like a champ for 5 years. I gave it to my niece when I upgraded earlier this year.
IIRC, battery life sucked pretty badly on most laptops back then. My MBP didn't get significantly better or worse battery life, but it did a better job of sleeping and waking than the PCs. I'd say about 2 hours of normal use for me (light browsing and an office application). I did have to replace the battery once after ~300-500 cycles.
I have heard a lot of complaints about MagSafe, but I don't have statistics. My connector worked fine from 2008-Present.
My TCO was higher with Dell than the MBP, and the MBP kept a much higher resale value. I *did* get it on clearance and an education discount, and I upgraded RAM/HDD myself, so that saved a ton of money.
I suspect the biggest problem with the Air is going to be difficulty of replacing the batteries when they inevitably go out.
Given how much Obama is against the Constitution in various ways, I always thought it ironic that he was a constitutional law professor.
Oh, get off it. You sound like a Protestant complaining about how much Catholics hate the bible. People wave the constitution around like it's some sort of all-encompassing document that leaves absolutely no room for interpretation. It's not.
There are legitimate differences in interpretation. There are contradictions. Every politician finds something in the constitution inconvenient and chooses to ignore it.
Glass really reminds me of the book. I see some dangers in it, and the obvious problems it will cause... but there's potential for serious good too. And some potential for outright awesome.
Given the subject, I think it would be quite helpful to post some links about those exercises:)
I use kettle bells and similar at home, and I've done a lot of different types of workouts over the years, but I haven't really found anything that would be easy and non-disruptive in the office
These are the final days of mankind. Not in an apocalyptic sense but in the sense of the end of our reign as the supreme creatures on this planet. Our overlords will be creatures we created, but it won't be robots or Skynet, it'll be virtual entities like corporations, governments and other faceless entities that you can't kill with a shotgun...
I do a lot of storage, PCoIP, and virtualization. There is an enormous potential market of consumers, businesses, and creative professionals out there... just waiting for the right prerequisites: widespread reliable, low-latency, high bandwidth connections.
I know SaaS isn't all that popular on Slashdot, but so many people could save a metric asston of time and money...
Um, I'm going to point out the peeps like Snowden are rare. People are abusing the database, because there is no one to stop them from it. Until Snowden were didn't really know/have proof that it existed. Now we know. A secret DB with info on everyone, that has lax enough security measures that a low level employee walked out with copies of data. So if you have access to it, you have access to information almost no one else has. I would be shocked if there wasn't NSA employes using this to make money/get info they shouldn't.
Is there any evidence whatsoever that Snowden actually walked out with a copy of the DB or any data it contained? Is there any evidence that Snowden actually had *access* to this database? Is there any evidence that every query against it is not logged and subject to internal oversight?
On private property, the owners have control over what can and cannot be filmed/released. "I didn't want to appear in that video" generally doesn't apply, but permission to film on private property may. IIRC, there are some exceptions for journalism. See: case law on slaughter house videos, etc. Video of a murder occurring in public should, IMO, be public.
If the murderer had been advertising for S&W in the film, the publisher would have been liable under misappropriation of image.
There *are* Son of Sam laws on profiting from crime. If the murderer filmed this himself, or a co-conspirator did, I don't see why standard asset forfeiture would not apply.
Slashdot Mirror
On my end, a lot of businesses I work with are sticking with 10.6 for compatibility with other software. And a few just because things are setup that way, it works, and they don't want to change.
Thank you for the kind words. I do a little political jousting and trolling, mainly fending off wrong-headed comments, but I try to add to the conversation where I can. I know scholars who could offer real insight, but I have some experience in the area and hoped you would appreciate some of the factors that we consider.
Also, FTR, I am not saying the US is entirely good, or that its presence overseas is all altruistic. Just that there are myriad reasons for the number of personnel and facilities the US maintains abroad, and that most of the large bases serve a combination of them. So even if you cut out offensive capabilities or military alliances, the US would still have a significant presence abroad. I do not, however, disagree with the notion that the US should have a lower OCONUS troop count.
The humanitarian stuff is really underpublicized. It's great for the country's image and the recipients of aid, but also extremely rewarding for servicemembers. When we got tasked for that sort of work, everyone got excited. I was elsewhere during Aceh, but I am proud of the great work my coworkers did there.
As you pointed out, the logistics the US military can quickly provide really dwarfs most organizations' capabilities. I would like to see this become a more prominent role, particularly for USN and USAF.
I just read the Snopes article for the first time... I did not know they made the same comparison to Eisenhower and the highway system. I'll give credit where it's due, even though I had not read it before. Maybe that'll prevent the public from insisting I claimed to "invent the analogy".
TBF, a lot of people do believe she actually said it... although tbf to that, Tina Fey's parodies did not change all that many of Palin's words.
Al Gore authored the legislation that made Darpanet public, which created the internet thus making his comment which was "I practically invented the internet" correct
That's bullshit. The people writing the code, the people doing the design, the project managers, and maybe even the guys laying some cable, those are the people I would say created the Internet.
Bush didn't start the Iraq war, the soldiers who invaded did!
I agree completely. It's almost as annoying as the public's recollection of the McDonald's "hot coffee" incident or people constantly talking about "ones and zeros" and smugly believing they are informed.
As to the troll above, there is a pretty clear distinction between inventing something and implementing policies that help it develop. You couldn't say Eisenhower invented highways, but he is widely credited with creating America's interstate highway system.
This is a new low.
It's hard to take you seriously when the argument you are making has been so thoroughly debunked throughout history. You've surely heard the counter-argument, but you obviously choose to ignore it.
...It's pretty all-encompassing, frankly. It says that ... free people are free.
Yes, "free" is such a precise term that we can all agree on what it means in every single circumstance. That's why we are not having this discussion, just as our founding fathers did not.
"congress shall make no laws abridging free speech" or "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude[...] shall exist within the US or any place subject to their jurisdiction"... Damn, what could those possibly mean? They're just so... open for discussion.
They *are* open for discussion. You seriously think the founding fathers meant "free speech" to be unlimited? I think you will find they had laws against sedition, shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, disclosure of troop movements to the enemy, and so forth. The challenge is in determining where those lines should be drawn.
Every single right has conflicts with other rights and responsibilities. "Free speech" doesn't cover slander, sedition, disclosure of confidential information, false testimony, imminently danger to others, etc. because all of those impact rights of others or responsibilities of the state. The right to bear arms has always been limited--prisoners and rebels do not get to keep their weapons.
You are upset because you think you have the correct interpretation and balancing of various rights and responsibilities. You should read some of the landmark decisions on these issues. They aren't difficult to comprehend, but they aren't as black-and-white as you seem to believe.
Putting away money could just as well mean stuffing the pillowcase under his bed. Based on the direction this country is headed, that would be my recommendation.
Most of the people agree with you have been prophesying about inflation and hyperinflation for years. If they are right, this is about the worst thing you can recommend.
June wasn't *that* long ago. Although you do have to go way, way back to 2001 for an annual surplus (though some dispute that and say it was a $16B deficit instead).
"Troops are stationed in friendly countries simply because they are within striking distance of unfriendly countries." is the nut of it.
There are a few other reasons for America's current positioning of military facilities. I have not calculated ratios, but that would be an interesting exercise. I do not believe the bulk of overseas forces are positioned for any sort of offensive capability. Here are a few of the other key reasons for current positioning of these forces:
The reason most often overlooked is as a tripwire. In essence, the logic goes thus: "If you invade this area, you will kill thousands of American soldiers. The American public will be so outraged that the government will have no choice but to fully commit to a massive war against you... and you will ultimately lose." The best current example is the Korean peninsula, but many European bases served this function and, it could be argued, still do.
Another [related] reason is ally protection. Think Taiwan. With or without a tripwire, the US wants to be able to protect its allies globally. The US military is the most incredible logistics machine in the history of the world, but it still can't deploy massive conventional forces overnight (and it needs proximity for quick reaction forces).
A third, which you mentioned, is to delay invading forces until additional allied forces can arrive. Many of these facilities also function as tripwires, though certainly not all. It requires fairly massive complexes, above and beyond the requirements of a tripwire, in order to slow down any advances for a specified time period. These usually entail large numbers of troops and stockpiles of prepositioned armor, air facilities, etc.
There are some additional factors for other bases that don't really serve these three, including political (US bases provide a massive cash influx and some allies want them), logistical (air refueling squadrons, medical facilities within range of active war zones like Afghanistan), and associated global reach (human rights interventions, search and rescue, etc).
It blows their you minds that I am paying for everything in my life plus school, with no help from anyone else, especially the gov't.
You do realize that you are attending a PUBLIC university, don't you? Your professors likely received highly subsidized educations, most of the school's facilities were built by grants or donations from alumni, your professors' research (their real job) is mostly funded by the government, etc... right?
Your post reeks of the "I built that!" attitude that permeates America's highly subsidized baby boomers. You received, and continue to receive, tremendous amounts of help. The least you can do is acknowledge it.
Your post isn't really worth replying to, but for anyone else who thinks it's evidence of a decadent lifestyle, have you considered that increased fast food consumption might be due to the average family needing 2-4 jobs to pay the bills? Moms who have time to cook and can afford to stay home... one of the few relics of the 60s I'd love to be able to experience.
His views have pissed off the liberals and the conservatives, so he doesn't have an ideological screen. He just does whatever the hell he wants regardless of law and Constitution.
We might agree, but I would argue that modern liberals and conservatives have roughly equal constitutional basis, Obama is just a mix of both that pisses off both sides. Republicans don't care about the crap W pulled, and liberals only care about the Bushy stuff Obama is doing. Personally, I think McCain/Palin would have been a lot worse, but that is mainly speculation.
He even violated the War Powers Act in Libya. Response? It doesn't apply. Cue Eddie Murphy, "Wasn't me."
While I see your point (and agree), it's worth noting that waiting for THIS Congress to pass any meaningful legislation isn't a winning proposition. The resulting bill would have repealed Obamacare, banned abortion, and authorized the use of force against Iran, Tajikijikistanstan, and Libya. I don't know if I would have bothered either.
One would had got a Dell machine with less retarded spec and possibility of ordering a higher resolution screen for almost 40% less to.
Apple fanboys gonna hate.
We've all got our anecdotes. From 2004-2008 I went through two higher-end Inspirons. The first one just completely fell apart, the second literally blew up in my lap (smoke and all--I think capacitors popped). It was outside of warranty, and someone talked me into buying an early 2008 MacBook Pro. Worked like a champ for 5 years. I gave it to my niece when I upgraded earlier this year.
IIRC, battery life sucked pretty badly on most laptops back then. My MBP didn't get significantly better or worse battery life, but it did a better job of sleeping and waking than the PCs. I'd say about 2 hours of normal use for me (light browsing and an office application). I did have to replace the battery once after ~300-500 cycles.
I have heard a lot of complaints about MagSafe, but I don't have statistics. My connector worked fine from 2008-Present.
My TCO was higher with Dell than the MBP, and the MBP kept a much higher resale value. I *did* get it on clearance and an education discount, and I upgraded RAM/HDD myself, so that saved a ton of money.
I suspect the biggest problem with the Air is going to be difficulty of replacing the batteries when they inevitably go out.
Given how much Obama is against the Constitution in various ways, I always thought it ironic that he was a constitutional law professor.
Oh, get off it. You sound like a Protestant complaining about how much Catholics hate the bible. People wave the constitution around like it's some sort of all-encompassing document that leaves absolutely no room for interpretation. It's not.
There are legitimate differences in interpretation. There are contradictions. Every politician finds something in the constitution inconvenient and chooses to ignore it.
I think you'd definitely enjoy the book, then.
Glass really reminds me of the book. I see some dangers in it, and the obvious problems it will cause... but there's potential for serious good too. And some potential for outright awesome.
Given the subject, I think it would be quite helpful to post some links about those exercises :)
I use kettle bells and similar at home, and I've done a lot of different types of workouts over the years, but I haven't really found anything that would be easy and non-disruptive in the office
> Today we know that the main nutritional problem is excess fructose
...
As for nutrition causing heart disease, wait a few years. I'm afraid the cause will be "discovered" to be something else.
To my knowledge, this is the only experiment that has shown direct observation: Differentiation of multipotent vascular stem cells contributes to vascular diseases. I haven't followed the research lately, so this may have been debunked in the last year.
That said, every other article I have read on the subject seems like purely correlational bullshit.
These are the final days of mankind. Not in an apocalyptic sense but in the sense of the end of our reign as the supreme creatures on this planet. Our overlords will be creatures we created, but it won't be robots or Skynet, it'll be virtual entities like corporations, governments and other faceless entities that you can't kill with a shotgun...
Somebody's a big Daemon fan.
Do you think Google Glass is designed to co-opt or enable the Darknet?
I do a lot of storage, PCoIP, and virtualization. There is an enormous potential market of consumers, businesses, and creative professionals out there... just waiting for the right prerequisites: widespread reliable, low-latency, high bandwidth connections.
I know SaaS isn't all that popular on Slashdot, but so many people could save a metric asston of time and money...
1. Ain't nobody got time for that!
I know it's getting more rare these days, but some of us can still scrape together a 1 week vacation.
2. Who, reading this article on slashdot, would not find a way to plugin and use their electronics while camping for an entire week?
Me. Absolutely no goddamned electronics on while camping. Cell phone stays off and only comes along for emergencies.
No need to track his cell phone, NORAD has been tracking Santa for years.
Um, I'm going to point out the peeps like Snowden are rare. People are abusing the database, because there is no one to stop them from it. Until Snowden were didn't really know/have proof that it existed. Now we know. A secret DB with info on everyone, that has lax enough security measures that a low level employee walked out with copies of data. So if you have access to it, you have access to information almost no one else has. I would be shocked if there wasn't NSA employes using this to make money/get info they shouldn't.
Is there any evidence whatsoever that Snowden actually walked out with a copy of the DB or any data it contained? Is there any evidence that Snowden actually had *access* to this database? Is there any evidence that every query against it is not logged and subject to internal oversight?
To say their reasoning is thinly veiled is to say Santa Claus is alive and well at the North Pole. Tracking "stolen" phones not is it about.
Santa's house was destroyed when the ice melted, you insensitive clod!
Different kinds of property rights apply, really.
On private property, the owners have control over what can and cannot be filmed/released. "I didn't want to appear in that video" generally doesn't apply, but permission to film on private property may. IIRC, there are some exceptions for journalism. See: case law on slaughter house videos, etc. Video of a murder occurring in public should, IMO, be public.
If the murderer had been advertising for S&W in the film, the publisher would have been liable under misappropriation of image.
There *are* Son of Sam laws on profiting from crime. If the murderer filmed this himself, or a co-conspirator did, I don't see why standard asset forfeiture would not apply.