More importantly, I wouldn't say that the 32GB model is 8x slower, but that the 128/256GB models are 8x faster. The article makes it seem like those getting less memory are screwed, which isn't the case. You just get the performance improvements of a better, parallel write architecture if you get the model with more memory.
No, I specifically said federal income tax. Correct, Idaho can't do that, and neither can Ireland do what they did. A "higher" authority (U.S. Gov / EU) then steps in to correct the situation. There's nothing retroactive about this. Apple simply isn't following the law, incorrectly thinking that Ireland/Idaho has the authority to give them a discount. But, they can still be held accountable despite being ignorant of the law. Anyway, that's the EU side and obviously the courts will make the final decision whether Ireland can do what they did (my take is no).
....and also focused on the insult at the beginning. The claim from the EU is that Ireland illegally gave Apple a tax break, which itself does not absolve Apple. A better analogy to the U.S. would be like the state of Idaho trying to reduce your federal income tax rate to attract more businesses. They can't do that. And, a business that buys into that sales pitch is not absolved from paying the proper amount of federal income tax.
Is Facebook simply trying to cover their ass for a lawsuit?
Note that FB has usage rights and they could censor stuff, and they do. They block terrorist propaganda, for example. The question here is should it be an all or nothing, or as-decided-by-FB? Regarding the lawsuits, note that in the U.S. there are number of protections on media reporting of minors (as an example). If FB allows such reporting unfiltered, can they be held accountable? I would hope not, but it depends on what the court would agree.
You can take liberties, but it still has to pass the sniff test and yours doesn't. You can't NOT truncate in the actual computation if you're truncating in the display. That's false advertising.
You are simply being ignorant. You have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly haven't even looked at the popup in question nor do you understand what is happening. The upgrade was forcefully scheduled by Microsoft (this is the issue, in case you can't figure it out). You have to read the fine print in the center and click a link ("Click here") to go do a bunch of more work to cancel something I never fucking scheduled in the first place. By all means, start clicking all the "click here" messages you see. Keep defending this practice, you shill.
"Within the law" should include civil penalties and not just criminal. So, I dismiss your counter-strawman.:-) A well-written law is a red-herring. You may say that Libertarians are well-meaning and that they do not skirt laws or use them to their advantage, but that's not true. Nothing about being libertarian means that they're righteous. If they can screw others over within the law (criminal or civil), then they will because it's up to each individual to protect themselves and their families.
Bullshit. I wouldn't even have noticed it and don't give me more bullshit about being some sort of non-technical guy. That isn't the problem here. I wouldn't have read the fucking the popup and neither would you. You're full of shit if you say otherwise. A popup shows up, you hit X and you're fine. Except in this case where Microsoft fucks you over like malware. You don't need admin privileges or anything. He simply got on the computer after finishing his homework and eating his vegetables, hit the X, played Pirate 101, and then got off a half hour later. I never got on the computer and in the morning, boom.
Agreed. Fortunately, he doesn't get on the internet unsupervised. He was playing Pirate 101 or Autcraft. Both have been vetted. Is it possible he's surfing while I'm not there? Perhaps, but I check the browsers' histories regularly. He either doesn't browse the internet or he's good enough to clear the history or run in private mode, in which case he should not have fucking installed Windows 10 when I told him not to. Windows 10 is functional, and I don't plan to take the time to roll it back or risk that it will puck the remaining life of my already-old PC.
Agreed. Fuck you, Microsoft. I had already trained my 9yo son to press the X to close the upgrade window whenever he might see it (he uses my computer more than I). Saturday morning, Windows 10 was installed. Goddamn it.
Exactly. This is libertarianism in its purest form, but using your privately gained power/money to do whatever the fuck you want within the law. Even better, don't let the fucking government legislators create laws that stifle your private tyranny.
Going through a black hole will destroy you, much like a sphere of annihilation. This article reminds me of one of my favorite D&D stories. As relayed by another DM of a group of relatively inexperienced (new) players, they had encountered a sphere of annihilation. One player touched it and promptly vaporized into nothingness. One of the remaining party members said, "Oh, it must be a portal! Quick, everyone, jump in!" Four more pops later and the DM had to decide between a TPK or a new adventure in some otherworldly plane.
It is true it is relative, and a "power user" so to speak will always use more. The average in Q1 2015 was 2.5GB/month but as we all know, streaming will cause that value to sky rocket. In that same link, Cisco estimates it'll be 11GB/month in 2019. My plan is 15GB/month (with rollover) for 6 people. However, as I'm sure everyone is aware, these values are somewhat bogus because these cell phone data users mostly also use wired/wifi (non-phone network data plans). If they have no wifi, what is the usage? My contention would be that those people who can only afford one service (not two), as my original post suggests, would find a way to reduce data usage over the phone network to stay within the cap. They would go to cafes, or hang out near free service hotels, or Denny's, crap like that. Moreover, regarding speed, they will choose based on price, not necessarily service. And, I have found that at least in our area, phone data service is sufficient for all normal uses (e.g., games, streaming). However, I don't have an HD device connected to phone data service, so I would defer to someone with more experience in that. However, I will also point out that people with less money to spend are far more forgiving to bad service. So, comments like "they won't stand for buffering issues" are false, I think they will suffer through a lot if it means they pay less, because they really have no choice. (sorry for the long-winded reply)
Yes, but unless the usage is very large, it's generally cheaper to just buy the mobile data plan and not also have a home ISP. And, most people will never give up their mobile data access.
Zoos that collect animals from the wild for display are terrible places. Zoos that "buy" animals from people that abuse them or collect (illegally or not) are generally terrible, because they basically encourage continued behavior. Zoos that run like wildlife refuges that give animals a home that otherwise would be unable to exist in the wild (either the animal is disabled to some extent, too dependent on humans, or has no habitat to return to) are not horrible places if they are well maintained (which requires funding). I think zoos in general are tending towards this latter aspect and I there are zoos that have "lost" exhibits willingly because they were able to return the animals to the wild. The problem is that there are not enough philanthropic people to adequately fund what you would want to see.
Huh ? Does that mean that right now, code that is developed for one agency, doesn't get reused by another ?
In many cases, yes, though I'm not sure of the number of cases in each. For example, most code developed by the DoD is by default Distribution D, which doesn't allow distribution to other (non-DoD) government agencies.
Slashdot Mirror
No it wasn't, but AC empowers people to let their inner dick shine through.
More importantly, I wouldn't say that the 32GB model is 8x slower, but that the 128/256GB models are 8x faster. The article makes it seem like those getting less memory are screwed, which isn't the case. You just get the performance improvements of a better, parallel write architecture if you get the model with more memory.
It's in the Oxford dictionary, run by the English. Seriously, though, you couldn't even be bothered to look it up before commenting?
Why is this troll given insightful +5? The Pats aren't even in the TOP HALF of the league for cheating.
No, I specifically said federal income tax. Correct, Idaho can't do that, and neither can Ireland do what they did. A "higher" authority (U.S. Gov / EU) then steps in to correct the situation. There's nothing retroactive about this. Apple simply isn't following the law, incorrectly thinking that Ireland/Idaho has the authority to give them a discount. But, they can still be held accountable despite being ignorant of the law. Anyway, that's the EU side and obviously the courts will make the final decision whether Ireland can do what they did (my take is no).
....and also focused on the insult at the beginning. The claim from the EU is that Ireland illegally gave Apple a tax break, which itself does not absolve Apple. A better analogy to the U.S. would be like the state of Idaho trying to reduce your federal income tax rate to attract more businesses. They can't do that. And, a business that buys into that sales pitch is not absolved from paying the proper amount of federal income tax.
Hey, fuck you, I live in Florida! :-)
It was a correct copy/paste. That sentence is as-is in TFA. So, he didn't fuck it up, he just didn't fix the typo from TFA.
There are two distinct parts to this topic:
Note that FB has usage rights and they could censor stuff, and they do. They block terrorist propaganda, for example. The question here is should it be an all or nothing, or as-decided-by-FB? Regarding the lawsuits, note that in the U.S. there are number of protections on media reporting of minors (as an example). If FB allows such reporting unfiltered, can they be held accountable? I would hope not, but it depends on what the court would agree.
I can't find it either. I bet it's something else edited out.
You can take liberties, but it still has to pass the sniff test and yours doesn't. You can't NOT truncate in the actual computation if you're truncating in the display. That's false advertising.
You are simply being ignorant. You have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly haven't even looked at the popup in question nor do you understand what is happening. The upgrade was forcefully scheduled by Microsoft (this is the issue, in case you can't figure it out). You have to read the fine print in the center and click a link ("Click here") to go do a bunch of more work to cancel something I never fucking scheduled in the first place. By all means, start clicking all the "click here" messages you see. Keep defending this practice, you shill.
"Within the law" should include civil penalties and not just criminal. So, I dismiss your counter-strawman. :-) A well-written law is a red-herring. You may say that Libertarians are well-meaning and that they do not skirt laws or use them to their advantage, but that's not true. Nothing about being libertarian means that they're righteous. If they can screw others over within the law (criminal or civil), then they will because it's up to each individual to protect themselves and their families.
Bullshit. I wouldn't even have noticed it and don't give me more bullshit about being some sort of non-technical guy. That isn't the problem here. I wouldn't have read the fucking the popup and neither would you. You're full of shit if you say otherwise. A popup shows up, you hit X and you're fine. Except in this case where Microsoft fucks you over like malware. You don't need admin privileges or anything. He simply got on the computer after finishing his homework and eating his vegetables, hit the X, played Pirate 101, and then got off a half hour later. I never got on the computer and in the morning, boom.
Agreed. Fortunately, he doesn't get on the internet unsupervised. He was playing Pirate 101 or Autcraft. Both have been vetted. Is it possible he's surfing while I'm not there? Perhaps, but I check the browsers' histories regularly. He either doesn't browse the internet or he's good enough to clear the history or run in private mode, in which case he should not have fucking installed Windows 10 when I told him not to. Windows 10 is functional, and I don't plan to take the time to roll it back or risk that it will puck the remaining life of my already-old PC.
Agreed. Fuck you, Microsoft. I had already trained my 9yo son to press the X to close the upgrade window whenever he might see it (he uses my computer more than I). Saturday morning, Windows 10 was installed. Goddamn it.
Exactly. This is libertarianism in its purest form, but using your privately gained power/money to do whatever the fuck you want within the law. Even better, don't let the fucking government legislators create laws that stifle your private tyranny.
...anybody in technology can go to work looking like shit.
Yeah, honestly I don't know what he decided to do. But, either Dark Sun or Hollow World are good choices if he went that route.
Going through a black hole will destroy you, much like a sphere of annihilation. This article reminds me of one of my favorite D&D stories. As relayed by another DM of a group of relatively inexperienced (new) players, they had encountered a sphere of annihilation. One player touched it and promptly vaporized into nothingness. One of the remaining party members said, "Oh, it must be a portal! Quick, everyone, jump in!" Four more pops later and the DM had to decide between a TPK or a new adventure in some otherworldly plane.
It is true it is relative, and a "power user" so to speak will always use more. The average in Q1 2015 was 2.5GB/month but as we all know, streaming will cause that value to sky rocket. In that same link, Cisco estimates it'll be 11GB/month in 2019. My plan is 15GB/month (with rollover) for 6 people. However, as I'm sure everyone is aware, these values are somewhat bogus because these cell phone data users mostly also use wired/wifi (non-phone network data plans). If they have no wifi, what is the usage? My contention would be that those people who can only afford one service (not two), as my original post suggests, would find a way to reduce data usage over the phone network to stay within the cap. They would go to cafes, or hang out near free service hotels, or Denny's, crap like that. Moreover, regarding speed, they will choose based on price, not necessarily service. And, I have found that at least in our area, phone data service is sufficient for all normal uses (e.g., games, streaming). However, I don't have an HD device connected to phone data service, so I would defer to someone with more experience in that. However, I will also point out that people with less money to spend are far more forgiving to bad service. So, comments like "they won't stand for buffering issues" are false, I think they will suffer through a lot if it means they pay less, because they really have no choice. (sorry for the long-winded reply)
Yes, but unless the usage is very large, it's generally cheaper to just buy the mobile data plan and not also have a home ISP. And, most people will never give up their mobile data access.
100% agreement.
Zoos that collect animals from the wild for display are terrible places. Zoos that "buy" animals from people that abuse them or collect (illegally or not) are generally terrible, because they basically encourage continued behavior. Zoos that run like wildlife refuges that give animals a home that otherwise would be unable to exist in the wild (either the animal is disabled to some extent, too dependent on humans, or has no habitat to return to) are not horrible places if they are well maintained (which requires funding). I think zoos in general are tending towards this latter aspect and I there are zoos that have "lost" exhibits willingly because they were able to return the animals to the wild. The problem is that there are not enough philanthropic people to adequately fund what you would want to see.
Huh ? Does that mean that right now, code that is developed for one agency, doesn't get reused by another ?
In many cases, yes, though I'm not sure of the number of cases in each. For example, most code developed by the DoD is by default Distribution D, which doesn't allow distribution to other (non-DoD) government agencies.