I had a feeling that the majority of responses to this would come from people who wouldn't bother understanding my post first.
We can only respond to what you write. What you wrote I disagree with. Your thesis was that spies should be able to monitor privileged communications and gave some proposed restrictions. I disagree with your thesis.
You think conversations between lawyers and clients aren't picking hoovered up by some of the drag net data capture already being done?
I do not think that lawyer client privilege is routinely violated here in the US. I know it does happen from time to time and I'm sure the NSA has picked up some phone calls and other communications but for the most part the available evidence shows that most of the time it is respected. I'm not particularly worried about my discussions with my lawyer being bugged by the government.
You think in the world of Gitmo what the laws 'say' is what matters?
Yes I think they matter very much. It is the laws that allow Gitmo to exist in the first place. Congress could eliminate Gitmo with the stroke of the figurative pen if they were inclined to do so.
Even our most abusive laws are nothing in comparison to the abuses that happen outside them or in secret outright ignoring them.
???? Yes bad things happen when laws are ignored. So what?
All of those are features, not bugs for the government.
Untrue. If you remove the protections of those relationships then the government will eventually pay the price. The government that is strongest is the one that is trusted by the people. A government removes that trust at its own peril.
The only remedy is going to the court. Not the court of public opinion, but a court of law.
Disagree. Vox populi, vox Dei. If the citizens are sufficiently outraged then they will remove the leaders from office. A courtroom might help but a ballot box can fix the problem far more effectively than a jury box.
You forgot to mention that we can't even do a proper revolution now because the government took all our guns away.
Guns aren't required for a revolution to occur. India kicked out the British largely without guns. The Civil Rights movement in the 1960s-70s was accomplished without guns. The USSR fell apart without civil war. If enough of the citizenry decides to force a change then change will happen no matter what weapons the government happens to have. Certainly you can have a revolution with guns but the notion that your little peashooter is what is keeping the most powerful military on the planet in check is pretty much laughable.
If you violate lawyer client privilege you remove someone's ability to get a fair trial. If you violate doctor patient privilege you endanger public health as well as potentially the health of that person. If you violate journalist source relationships you enable corruption by the state.
We protect these relationships because any minor benefit to the state achieved by violating the sanctity and trust in these relationships has follow on consequences that endanger the well being of a democratic society. Public health, fair trials, government accountability. All these things are kept in check in large part because we protect certain relationships between professionals and the groups they work with.
Yet on the other I don't see why, if you were trying to stop a serious threat
What serious threat are you stopping by spying on the communications of journalists and lawyers? We protect the professional actions of those groups for VERY good reasons. Reasons which far outweigh any information that might be gleaned from violating their confidential relationship. If a client cannot trust their communications to be confidential between themselves and their lawyer then there is no possible way for them to have a fair trial.
1/ If the information gathered by spying was specifically barred from being used in court
You don't need to involve a court to ruin someone's life. See Guantanamo Bay. Plenty of evidence there that would be inadmissible but the government is keeping people locked up indefinitely without charge or any opportunity to seek redress.
2/ If additional authority had to be granted by the judiciary for the act
Which results in a rubber stamp kangaroo court like the FISA court.
3/ If there were clear checks and balances in place to deal with abuse.
Checks and balances require a separate party with equal power. No such entity exists if actions like these are perfectly legal.
Why the premium? Is it just because of the history?
Because they are idiots who have more money than sense. The game was crap 30 years ago and I don't think time has improved it any. I'm old enough to remember when it was being sold the first time and have actually played this game. Anyone who buys this game is an imbecile and if you pay more than $1 for it you need to wear a helmet to protect your soft skull.
Why would anyone pay $1 much less $50 for a game that was known to be complete crap. The game didn't get any better in the last 30 years and they buried it the first time for a reason. Now that they've dug it up it doesn't even have the benefit of being relatively rare.
The US legal process is so unreasonably complicated.
No more so than any other major industrialized country.
Every region not only has it's own laws, but its own constitution defining how laws are passed and structured.
Every state has a constitution because they are by definition sovereign over that region. It's in the name: United STATES of America. The constitutions of each state are required to be compatible with the federal constitution and if there is a conflict the federal constitution wins. Local governments do not have constitutions typically though there are some exceptions. It's actually pretty straightforward in concept though law making everywhere is a bit messy in practice.
But the independent recruiters are all scum, and I choose that characterization carefully, I've never met one that was not, though interestingly they all swear they are different than the others.
I can introduce you to several independent recruiters that are most definitely not scum. A few I've worked with for years on both sides of the recruiting process and I know a few personally. *Some* are pretty good folks. BUT you aren't entirely wrong either. Most recruiters I've met are little more than commission whores who won't give you the time of day unless you are the perfect fit for whatever job they are currently trying to fill.
I'm working on a form letter to send to the scum recruiters, but I'm too nice to actually send it, so I'll just continue to ignore them.
Probably a good idea. It costs nothing to be polite and ignore them and it doesn't cause you heartburn later on.
I run a recruiting company. And, I am genuinely sorry to hear such criticisms.
I hope you are better than most but with most recruiters unless you are a perfect on paper fit you will not get the time of day from them. I've dealt with a LOT of them over the years both as an employer and a job candidate. Recruiters ONLY want people with very deep and narrow domain expertise and (ex: 5 years experience accounts payable with a Fortune 500 manufacturing company) and make no effort whatsoever to figure out whether a person can actually do a job if they are the slightest bit non-traditional for the role. They also rarely understand anything with any significant technical content that isn't really well defined and industry standard. Worse they don't even give you the respect of telling you why they are ignoring you and most of the time they do ignore you.
Now this shouldn't be surprising because the recruiter almost always gets paid by the hiring firm so they have no incentive to give job applicants any respect unless it results in them getting a position filled. They'll be polite enough to you but mostly they will ignore you unless you happen to be the person they need right at that moment. For example I am an engineer and a certified accountant (not as weird as it sounds like). I have a resume with very diverse experience and my skill set is that of a generalist which means recruiters have NO idea what to do with me. In years past I've been blown off by more recruiters than I care to think about.
Foisting your politics on your customers, eh? Stripe was one of my favorite services - to the point I never even thought about using any other payment processor. I see that may need to change...
Who said it has anything to do with politics? I support gun rights and I probably would have made the same decision. The potential liability and government oversight is simply not worth it. They are making a very sane and reasonable business decision. Just because it conflicts with your political beliefs doesn't mean it is a political decision. They might even share your political beliefs but still have come to the same reasoned business decision that the downside outweighs the upside.
Plus I should point out that you are trying to foist your politics off on Stripe. Why should they be forced to share your political beliefs? Why should they be forced to pick a side?
In response to the claim that more than 30 customers are considering their position in the aftermath of the crash, a spokesperson for Virgin Galactic admitted a number of people have asked for their money back.
So they are cowards who were dumb enough to think this wasn't genuinely dangerous?
You think they lose? Let me introduce you to a little concept called contingent liability. They are making the perfectly sane decision that the potential liability and government scrutiny that could arise from facilitating these payments is not worth it. Honestly I might have made the same decision. Has nothing to do with approving or disapproving of the product being sold. It's simply an actuarial analysis that says the costs outweigh the benefits. They are in business to make money, not to facilitate business models that could cause them legal heartburn later.
Given that I am a physicist and work on Dark Matter I *very* strongly doubt that.
Really? You work in physics and have never even heard the name Neil deGrasse Tyson even in casual conversation. Perhaps he isn't so famous outside the US but he is very well known even to people with no connection with physics at all. Granted he's known more for his efforts as a science communicator than for his physics work but that's important too. Carl Sagan was well known for similar reasons. Or maybe you think explaining science to the general public is not important? Anyway he's legit even if he isn't "hard core" enough for you. He certainly understands what dark matter and dark energy are. (for the record I get it too - the terms are misleading but I get what they mean)
I'm not in the US, have never seen or heard of that TV program and while I'm not an astrophysicist I can name quite a few and he would not be one of them.
So because you haven't heard of him, he isn't famous? Curious logic you have there.
The fact that I am a physicist, talk everyday to physicists and go to conferences with physicists and I know only one physicist who reportedly believes that DM is likely to be due to a MOND-like effect
The fact that you are a physicist means precisely nothing in this context and you should know that. Appeals to authority don't mean a thing in science. I'm an engineering and an accountant but that doesn't mean I'm always right. The number of people working on one theory versus another means (almost) nothing. That easily could mean a lot of smart people are working on a dead end. That's happened before and will happen again. Show me the evidence (for or against) dark matter being matter versus it being a modeling problem. I don't have any invested interest either way so you won't hurt my feelings. But I'm pretty sure you cannot. Unless it is being kept a secret we don't actually know precisely what is causing the phenomena we call "dark matter" is, not yet anyway. Strong possibility it is matter (obviously) and our models are fine but we can't prove it either way just yet. We simply don't have the evidence as far as I can tell.
Actually, most cities in the eastern half of the US are close enough to support high-speed rail between them.
There are plenty of places where high speed rail is a possibility but there are lots of economic and logistical problems. The problem is that the supporting infrastructure just isn't there. You need to have basically all the amenities of an airport at both ends for it to be viable. (Parking, ground transportation, etc) After all, what good does high speed rail do you if you are stuck at the terminal at the other end of the trip? Passenger rail depots have been mostly neglected and/or dismantled in the US. I used to live in Saint Louis and the train station there is now a mall. Good luck converting it back for high speed rail use.
High-speed rail already exists over much longer distances in countries like France, Spain, and Russia.
France is almost exactly the same size as the state of Texas. Big area but WAY smaller than the US. Russia is far more similar and they have a few high speed lines but not many. I'd love to see some high speed rail lines but I don't really see it happening in a meaningful way in most of the US. Too much cost for the right-of-ways, too little political will, neglected infrastructure at the destinations, etc. I'm sure we'll see one here or there but mostly I think the US will continue to rely on cars and airplanes for better or worse.
The current China is more capitalistic than the United States of America
I've been to China. They are quite entrepreneurial, I'll grant you that. I wouldn't go so far as your statement but the impulse is certainly there.
you won't see nonsense like the Obamacare because, according to the Chinese culture everyone is supposed to taking care of one's own life, and health
Even if that were true (which I doubt) that won't fly in the face of economic and political reality. You really think the emerging Chinese middle class will not demand some form of health care program (private or public)? If you have a heart attack and have no health care then you'll either be dead or bankrupt and possibly both. It will be virtually impossible for the government to deny the people some form of health care if they wish to remain in power. I'm sure it will be a uniquely Chinese system but there will have to be something.
Both of which in my experience are flakey as hell. For example right now Chrome will display the print preview on any PDF as a blank page. There is nothing wrong with the PDF and it will print fine but you can't see it. I've had an assortment of problems with both browser's PDF readers. Chrome especially tends to break things on a semi-regular basis in our company necessitating workarounds. Chrome sometimes will display a PDF and sometime forces you to download it with no rhyme or reason why. I'd say it was just my experience but the other folks in my company tend to see pretty much the same bugs at the same time.
Not saying Adobe Reader is great or anything but at least it works in spite of its other warts. I'm optimistic that the browsers will work out the kinks in due time but they don't work properly 100% of the time just yet.
Why does it need a foldable tail? Its not like it reenters at orbital velocities...
Because it assists with the descent. The craft falls back to earth something like a badminton shuttlecock. Not a perfect analogy but it's a fairly clever way to ensure flight stability in a very simple manner.
I thought linux is like 20%. One percent is sort of like "other" in my book.
Linux's market share in desktop PCs is pretty much a rounding error. Always has been and that isn't likely to change soon. You'll find plenty of linux in mobile and servers but not in desktop or laptop PCs.
You'd struggle to get me back to 7 now. And no, I don't use a start menu addon.
Well that puts you firmly in the minority then. I have a Windows 8 machine at work and I absolutely hate the interface. Clumsy, non-intuitive, and obviously designed for a tablet rather than a keyboard and mouse. Hides stuff off screen when it isn't necessary and provides no hints that it is there. I'm perfectly happy trying something different so long as it is an improvement. Windows 8 most definitely is not an improvement. Microsoft is trying to mash together tablet and PC interfaces which in principle is fine but they really, really struck out on this attempt. Maybe they'll get it right in a future version.
I wonder how many of Windows 8.X's sales are "forced", IE, preinstalled on a PC that a consumer bought because they needed a PC, not because the
Pretty much any purchase that isn't a Mac or a chromebook. Yeah there are few linux folks out there but they are pretty much a rounding error in the pre-install desktop market which accounts for the vast majority of machines sold.
According to New Zealand's current Trade Minister, Tim Groser, full disclosure of what is being discussed would likely lead to "public debate on an ill-informed basis before the deal has been done.
So instead we get backroom deals that favor narrow interests over the public interest.
There is a nugget of truth in his argument in that sometimes having every aspect of a deal hammered out in public results in a worse outcome. This is well understood by professional negotiators. Sometimes a public debate forces politicians to take a position earlier than they would otherwise not take based on early proposals even though these early proposals will never make it into the finished agreement. Once they say they are against something it's hard for them to switch even if switching is the right thing to do. However I have a VERY hard time thinking how that applies here. In this case we get a bunch of special interests trying to get a bunch of deals done that to all appearances do not serve the public interest at all.
We are no longer the agrarian society that was in place when DST was put in place to appease the farming community.
DST never had anything to do with farms. Farms operate when the sun is up which is unaffected by DST. In fact farmers have often opposed DST for fairly minor but practical reasons.
Got any other nonsense arguments?
For the same reason, schools should not have "summer holidays" -- the farm kids no longer work the farm in the summer
Apparently you do. What does that have to do with DST? That's a completely separate issue.
The earlier you go to bed, the *less* of a problem it is.
??? That makes no sense. Going to bed earlier doesn't affect the amount of daylight available to me between the end of work and sundown. I do not control either when sunrise or sundown occurs nor when my shift at work starts or ends. The only thing going to be earlier might accomplish is to help me be more rested but the only impact it could have on the amount of daylight available to me is to reduce the amount of time I enjoy it.
But most people go to bed somewhere around midnight or a little before.
Most adult people I know go to bed somewhere between 9-11PM because, you know... jobs. Not sure what orifice you pulled the "around midnight" bit from. Doesn't describe very many people I know who are past college age.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a feeling that the majority of responses to this would come from people who wouldn't bother understanding my post first.
We can only respond to what you write. What you wrote I disagree with. Your thesis was that spies should be able to monitor privileged communications and gave some proposed restrictions. I disagree with your thesis.
You think conversations between lawyers and clients aren't picking hoovered up by some of the drag net data capture already being done?
I do not think that lawyer client privilege is routinely violated here in the US. I know it does happen from time to time and I'm sure the NSA has picked up some phone calls and other communications but for the most part the available evidence shows that most of the time it is respected. I'm not particularly worried about my discussions with my lawyer being bugged by the government.
You think in the world of Gitmo what the laws 'say' is what matters?
Yes I think they matter very much. It is the laws that allow Gitmo to exist in the first place. Congress could eliminate Gitmo with the stroke of the figurative pen if they were inclined to do so.
Even our most abusive laws are nothing in comparison to the abuses that happen outside them or in secret outright ignoring them.
???? Yes bad things happen when laws are ignored. So what?
All of those are features, not bugs for the government.
Untrue. If you remove the protections of those relationships then the government will eventually pay the price. The government that is strongest is the one that is trusted by the people. A government removes that trust at its own peril.
The only remedy is going to the court. Not the court of public opinion, but a court of law.
Disagree. Vox populi, vox Dei. If the citizens are sufficiently outraged then they will remove the leaders from office. A courtroom might help but a ballot box can fix the problem far more effectively than a jury box.
You forgot to mention that we can't even do a proper revolution now because the government took all our guns away.
Guns aren't required for a revolution to occur. India kicked out the British largely without guns. The Civil Rights movement in the 1960s-70s was accomplished without guns. The USSR fell apart without civil war. If enough of the citizenry decides to force a change then change will happen no matter what weapons the government happens to have. Certainly you can have a revolution with guns but the notion that your little peashooter is what is keeping the most powerful military on the planet in check is pretty much laughable.
If you violate lawyer client privilege you remove someone's ability to get a fair trial.
If you violate doctor patient privilege you endanger public health as well as potentially the health of that person.
If you violate journalist source relationships you enable corruption by the state.
We protect these relationships because any minor benefit to the state achieved by violating the sanctity and trust in these relationships has follow on consequences that endanger the well being of a democratic society. Public health, fair trials, government accountability. All these things are kept in check in large part because we protect certain relationships between professionals and the groups they work with.
Yet on the other I don't see why, if you were trying to stop a serious threat
What serious threat are you stopping by spying on the communications of journalists and lawyers? We protect the professional actions of those groups for VERY good reasons. Reasons which far outweigh any information that might be gleaned from violating their confidential relationship. If a client cannot trust their communications to be confidential between themselves and their lawyer then there is no possible way for them to have a fair trial.
1/ If the information gathered by spying was specifically barred from being used in court
You don't need to involve a court to ruin someone's life. See Guantanamo Bay. Plenty of evidence there that would be inadmissible but the government is keeping people locked up indefinitely without charge or any opportunity to seek redress.
2/ If additional authority had to be granted by the judiciary for the act
Which results in a rubber stamp kangaroo court like the FISA court.
3/ If there were clear checks and balances in place to deal with abuse.
Checks and balances require a separate party with equal power. No such entity exists if actions like these are perfectly legal.
Why the premium? Is it just because of the history?
Because they are idiots who have more money than sense. The game was crap 30 years ago and I don't think time has improved it any. I'm old enough to remember when it was being sold the first time and have actually played this game. Anyone who buys this game is an imbecile and if you pay more than $1 for it you need to wear a helmet to protect your soft skull.
Why would anyone pay $1 much less $50 for a game that was known to be complete crap. The game didn't get any better in the last 30 years and they buried it the first time for a reason. Now that they've dug it up it doesn't even have the benefit of being relatively rare.
The US legal process is so unreasonably complicated.
No more so than any other major industrialized country.
Every region not only has it's own laws, but its own constitution defining how laws are passed and structured.
Every state has a constitution because they are by definition sovereign over that region. It's in the name: United STATES of America. The constitutions of each state are required to be compatible with the federal constitution and if there is a conflict the federal constitution wins. Local governments do not have constitutions typically though there are some exceptions. It's actually pretty straightforward in concept though law making everywhere is a bit messy in practice.
But the independent recruiters are all scum, and I choose that characterization carefully, I've never met one that was not, though interestingly they all swear they are different than the others.
I can introduce you to several independent recruiters that are most definitely not scum. A few I've worked with for years on both sides of the recruiting process and I know a few personally. *Some* are pretty good folks. BUT you aren't entirely wrong either. Most recruiters I've met are little more than commission whores who won't give you the time of day unless you are the perfect fit for whatever job they are currently trying to fill.
I'm working on a form letter to send to the scum recruiters, but I'm too nice to actually send it, so I'll just continue to ignore them.
Probably a good idea. It costs nothing to be polite and ignore them and it doesn't cause you heartburn later on.
I run a recruiting company. And, I am genuinely sorry to hear such criticisms.
I hope you are better than most but with most recruiters unless you are a perfect on paper fit you will not get the time of day from them. I've dealt with a LOT of them over the years both as an employer and a job candidate. Recruiters ONLY want people with very deep and narrow domain expertise and (ex: 5 years experience accounts payable with a Fortune 500 manufacturing company) and make no effort whatsoever to figure out whether a person can actually do a job if they are the slightest bit non-traditional for the role. They also rarely understand anything with any significant technical content that isn't really well defined and industry standard. Worse they don't even give you the respect of telling you why they are ignoring you and most of the time they do ignore you.
Now this shouldn't be surprising because the recruiter almost always gets paid by the hiring firm so they have no incentive to give job applicants any respect unless it results in them getting a position filled. They'll be polite enough to you but mostly they will ignore you unless you happen to be the person they need right at that moment. For example I am an engineer and a certified accountant (not as weird as it sounds like). I have a resume with very diverse experience and my skill set is that of a generalist which means recruiters have NO idea what to do with me. In years past I've been blown off by more recruiters than I care to think about.
Foisting your politics on your customers, eh? Stripe was one of my favorite services - to the point I never even thought about using any other payment processor. I see that may need to change...
Who said it has anything to do with politics? I support gun rights and I probably would have made the same decision. The potential liability and government oversight is simply not worth it. They are making a very sane and reasonable business decision. Just because it conflicts with your political beliefs doesn't mean it is a political decision. They might even share your political beliefs but still have come to the same reasoned business decision that the downside outweighs the upside.
Plus I should point out that you are trying to foist your politics off on Stripe. Why should they be forced to share your political beliefs? Why should they be forced to pick a side?
In response to the claim that more than 30 customers are considering their position in the aftermath of the crash, a spokesperson for Virgin Galactic admitted a number of people have asked for their money back.
So they are cowards who were dumb enough to think this wasn't genuinely dangerous?
The only people who lose here are stripe
You think they lose? Let me introduce you to a little concept called contingent liability. They are making the perfectly sane decision that the potential liability and government scrutiny that could arise from facilitating these payments is not worth it. Honestly I might have made the same decision. Has nothing to do with approving or disapproving of the product being sold. It's simply an actuarial analysis that says the costs outweigh the benefits. They are in business to make money, not to facilitate business models that could cause them legal heartburn later.
Given that I am a physicist and work on Dark Matter I *very* strongly doubt that.
Really? You work in physics and have never even heard the name Neil deGrasse Tyson even in casual conversation. Perhaps he isn't so famous outside the US but he is very well known even to people with no connection with physics at all. Granted he's known more for his efforts as a science communicator than for his physics work but that's important too. Carl Sagan was well known for similar reasons. Or maybe you think explaining science to the general public is not important? Anyway he's legit even if he isn't "hard core" enough for you. He certainly understands what dark matter and dark energy are. (for the record I get it too - the terms are misleading but I get what they mean)
I'm not in the US, have never seen or heard of that TV program and while I'm not an astrophysicist I can name quite a few and he would not be one of them.
So because you haven't heard of him, he isn't famous? Curious logic you have there.
The fact that I am a physicist, talk everyday to physicists and go to conferences with physicists and I know only one physicist who reportedly believes that DM is likely to be due to a MOND-like effect
The fact that you are a physicist means precisely nothing in this context and you should know that. Appeals to authority don't mean a thing in science. I'm an engineering and an accountant but that doesn't mean I'm always right. The number of people working on one theory versus another means (almost) nothing. That easily could mean a lot of smart people are working on a dead end. That's happened before and will happen again. Show me the evidence (for or against) dark matter being matter versus it being a modeling problem. I don't have any invested interest either way so you won't hurt my feelings. But I'm pretty sure you cannot. Unless it is being kept a secret we don't actually know precisely what is causing the phenomena we call "dark matter" is, not yet anyway. Strong possibility it is matter (obviously) and our models are fine but we can't prove it either way just yet. We simply don't have the evidence as far as I can tell.
Actually, most cities in the eastern half of the US are close enough to support high-speed rail between them.
There are plenty of places where high speed rail is a possibility but there are lots of economic and logistical problems. The problem is that the supporting infrastructure just isn't there. You need to have basically all the amenities of an airport at both ends for it to be viable. (Parking, ground transportation, etc) After all, what good does high speed rail do you if you are stuck at the terminal at the other end of the trip? Passenger rail depots have been mostly neglected and/or dismantled in the US. I used to live in Saint Louis and the train station there is now a mall. Good luck converting it back for high speed rail use.
High-speed rail already exists over much longer distances in countries like France, Spain, and Russia.
France is almost exactly the same size as the state of Texas. Big area but WAY smaller than the US. Russia is far more similar and they have a few high speed lines but not many. I'd love to see some high speed rail lines but I don't really see it happening in a meaningful way in most of the US. Too much cost for the right-of-ways, too little political will, neglected infrastructure at the destinations, etc. I'm sure we'll see one here or there but mostly I think the US will continue to rely on cars and airplanes for better or worse.
The current China is more capitalistic than the United States of America
I've been to China. They are quite entrepreneurial, I'll grant you that. I wouldn't go so far as your statement but the impulse is certainly there.
you won't see nonsense like the Obamacare because, according to the Chinese culture everyone is supposed to taking care of one's own life, and health
Even if that were true (which I doubt) that won't fly in the face of economic and political reality. You really think the emerging Chinese middle class will not demand some form of health care program (private or public)? If you have a heart attack and have no health care then you'll either be dead or bankrupt and possibly both. It will be virtually impossible for the government to deny the people some form of health care if they wish to remain in power. I'm sure it will be a uniquely Chinese system but there will have to be something.
Chrome has a read built in. Firefox too?
Both of which in my experience are flakey as hell. For example right now Chrome will display the print preview on any PDF as a blank page. There is nothing wrong with the PDF and it will print fine but you can't see it. I've had an assortment of problems with both browser's PDF readers. Chrome especially tends to break things on a semi-regular basis in our company necessitating workarounds. Chrome sometimes will display a PDF and sometime forces you to download it with no rhyme or reason why. I'd say it was just my experience but the other folks in my company tend to see pretty much the same bugs at the same time.
Not saying Adobe Reader is great or anything but at least it works in spite of its other warts. I'm optimistic that the browsers will work out the kinks in due time but they don't work properly 100% of the time just yet.
Underwater windmills, the BBC notes, have the benefit of invisibility—a common objection to wind turbines being how unsightly they are to human eyes.
Beauty in the eye of the beholder I guess but I've always found wind turbines to be beautiful. I could seriously watch them for hours.
Why does it need a foldable tail? Its not like it reenters at orbital velocities...
Because it assists with the descent. The craft falls back to earth something like a badminton shuttlecock. Not a perfect analogy but it's a fairly clever way to ensure flight stability in a very simple manner.
I thought linux is like 20%. One percent is sort of like "other" in my book.
Linux's market share in desktop PCs is pretty much a rounding error. Always has been and that isn't likely to change soon. You'll find plenty of linux in mobile and servers but not in desktop or laptop PCs.
You'd struggle to get me back to 7 now. And no, I don't use a start menu addon.
Well that puts you firmly in the minority then. I have a Windows 8 machine at work and I absolutely hate the interface. Clumsy, non-intuitive, and obviously designed for a tablet rather than a keyboard and mouse. Hides stuff off screen when it isn't necessary and provides no hints that it is there. I'm perfectly happy trying something different so long as it is an improvement. Windows 8 most definitely is not an improvement. Microsoft is trying to mash together tablet and PC interfaces which in principle is fine but they really, really struck out on this attempt. Maybe they'll get it right in a future version.
I wonder how many of Windows 8.X's sales are "forced", IE, preinstalled on a PC that a consumer bought because they needed a PC, not because the
Pretty much any purchase that isn't a Mac or a chromebook. Yeah there are few linux folks out there but they are pretty much a rounding error in the pre-install desktop market which accounts for the vast majority of machines sold.
According to New Zealand's current Trade Minister, Tim Groser, full disclosure of what is being discussed would likely lead to "public debate on an ill-informed basis before the deal has been done.
So instead we get backroom deals that favor narrow interests over the public interest.
There is a nugget of truth in his argument in that sometimes having every aspect of a deal hammered out in public results in a worse outcome. This is well understood by professional negotiators. Sometimes a public debate forces politicians to take a position earlier than they would otherwise not take based on early proposals even though these early proposals will never make it into the finished agreement. Once they say they are against something it's hard for them to switch even if switching is the right thing to do. However I have a VERY hard time thinking how that applies here. In this case we get a bunch of special interests trying to get a bunch of deals done that to all appearances do not serve the public interest at all.
We are no longer the agrarian society that was in place when DST was put in place to appease the farming community.
DST never had anything to do with farms. Farms operate when the sun is up which is unaffected by DST. In fact farmers have often opposed DST for fairly minor but practical reasons.
Got any other nonsense arguments?
For the same reason, schools should not have "summer holidays" -- the farm kids no longer work the farm in the summer
Apparently you do. What does that have to do with DST? That's a completely separate issue.
The earlier you go to bed, the *less* of a problem it is.
??? That makes no sense. Going to bed earlier doesn't affect the amount of daylight available to me between the end of work and sundown. I do not control either when sunrise or sundown occurs nor when my shift at work starts or ends. The only thing going to be earlier might accomplish is to help me be more rested but the only impact it could have on the amount of daylight available to me is to reduce the amount of time I enjoy it.
But most people go to bed somewhere around midnight or a little before.
Most adult people I know go to bed somewhere between 9-11PM because, you know... jobs. Not sure what orifice you pulled the "around midnight" bit from. Doesn't describe very many people I know who are past college age.