Even as a proponent of clean minimalist design, I actually started to come around to the skeumorphic concepts in iOS. It does give it some charisma compared to Android and Metro UI.
Some things were absolutely horrible & offensive, like Game Center, but other things are subtly brilliant, like the coherent jewel themes on the icons and buttons.
I look forward to the next chapter from Apple. I hope they don't lose the goofy charm that iOS has.
If you are claiming that only "tech geeks" could possibly appreciate unrestricted freedom of choice, that is interesting.
"Freedom of choice" is actually a bad thing.
The more freedom you provide, the more work must be done.
The goal of software isn't "freedom". The goal of software is to get things done. Freedom just adds an additional degree of complexity.
Why have "freedom" when you can have "done"? I don't want to waste time picking among different apps that do the same thing, I just want the end result done.
The problem is that geeks exist for the computing environment. To them the computer is the end, not the means.
Most people use computing as something transitory, and not as the end result. I can't imagine a fashion illustrator caring about linux, for example, when Adobe's software on a Mac works just fine.
Please help support closed environments. They are better for computing.
First, a question: why should foreign nationals working on behalf of an international organization have more access to proceedings than United States citizens - whether civilian, or state or federal authorities -- are currently allowed by law?
Because all treaties signed by US are defined to be US laws, according to the Constitution..
If you didn't want international monitors in your elections, then perhaps you shouldn't have made it the law to do so.
Frankly, anyone working (or able to work) should be working AND...have to pay SOME federal tax..I don't care if it is $10 or so....just as long as everyone has some skin in the game, eh?
There are people that don't pay taxes? I'd like to live in a place with no payroll tax or sales tax or other tolls and fees. Please point those places to me.
I don't like it that a large block of people are just voting themselves more money out of the general tax fund.
It's mostly the wealthy that provide these benefits to the poor, so that their money eventually goes back to the rich.
You don't think welfare/food stamps/unemployment money are meant for those people only, do you?
The buck doesn't stop with the poor. If the poor ended up with the money, they wouldn't be poor.
So, Government takes my money under penalty of violence and then spends it asking "So, uh, what exactly should we do with all this money?"
Solutions are best found through variation and selection, processes that are quashed and stifled by central planning; the power structure should be decentralized and localized as much as possible, and that is precisely the point of the Free Market.
Still amazes me that there are people that still think that the "free market" is capable of doing anything.
Government is far more efficient than private industry at doing things.
It is why mail costs 50 cents to deliver via government, instead of $15 via UPS.
Solutions are best found centrally, through planned governments activities. The only thing the "free market" does is introduce inefficiencies through profit. Variation and selection are economic wastes, when you can just arrive at the solution directly.
Let's NEVER speak of the "free market" ever again. It is just a simple idea from people that never went to college and do not know anything about economics.
The more government control, the better. We statists always cause the economy to expand.
The fact is taxes have to go up for the middle class if he is going to be revenue neutral. So, either he is lying about being revenue neutral, or lying about not raising taxes on the middle class. Can't have it both ways.
And, you do need to raise taxes in the middle of a recession to grow an economy. The GDP is the sum of all spending, and it/the economy only grows when everybody spends more.
If people do not spend more (for whatever reason, maybe they fear for their future and want to save, or maybe they're now turned off by products produced by sellers, such as Samsung Galaxy's or real estate) then it is up to government to increase that total spending, in a way that causes money to flow through the economy. Normally that's done by lowering interest rates, but they can't possibly go any lower, and now government has to directly spend - take money from the public, spend it.
Economically, the government is just another person, that's really really rich. This person can cause the economy to jumpstart, by influencing the economy's spending habits directly, instead of indirectly through interest rate reduction.
The worst thing you can do in a recession is NOT SPEND. This is why conservatives are fucking clueless at growing an economy, because they like to do the exact opposite of what you need to do.
Additionally, conservatives are horrible at influencing others to spend money. When was the last time a conservative made you WANT to buy something? Liberals do it all the time - and they magically produce value out of nothing. Entertainment, fashion, higher-education, and the arts are industries that actually cause people to WANT to spend money, and produce value from nothing, because liberals have the power to produce value intellectually that conservatives do not.
Conservatives can never produce value intellectually - they're conservatives after all, and are incapable of pushing the state-of-the-art in intellectual fields. They're always stuck with industries that are based on NEED, such as real-estate, energy, etc, and can only produce value from physical resources.
Exactly how would this be a detriment to the users?
Because when a young fashionable female visits a website, they'll get ads for DKNY, instead of Just Tires or Mutual of Omaha.
Remember, people buy magazines like Vogue BECAUSE OF THE ADS.
It's only dorks that hate ads, because they visit terrible websites in the first place where ads are terrible, instead of going to sites where ads are actually.. beautiful.
There's definitely a "nerd-centric" influence for klout. It really measures online activity more than real-world influence. A big problem with it is that it doesn't account for non-measurable factors, such as power and art direction. In the industry I'm in, fashion, art direction determines your overall influence . And its editors figure out who have the best art direction, since the public trusts their editing skills more than computer algorithms.
And you don't even need to be on the internet to be taken seriously. Karl Lagerfeld doesn't use the web- he still sends "email" via fax machines. The top fashion magazines barely have usable websites, yet they'll always remain far more influential than any blogger ever will, because Klout can't actually measure influence, because, again, computers are never going to be able to replace human editors at that.
Klout really is fundamentally doomed. Klout can only work as a paid service if they can hire paid & specialized editors that measure influence of each property, which is an expensive business plan.
The bigger problem I see is that too many Venture Capitalists are trying to find cheap computer profits to problems only solvable by expensive human experts. Sorry Venture Capitalist, it's just not going to happen. Go back to making money the old-fashioned way, by earning it.
The other aspect is his European origin. Politicians like Romney would not be capable of giving satisfaction over here. They are simply too far off. The reason for this is that Republicans are not conservatives in the European sense.
You say that, but this IS the same Europe that gave the world the Nazi party and is currently going through a lot of right-wing racism in their governments RIGHT NOW.
European conservatives and American conservatives are no different. They're both racist. And their economic policies would be equal if Europe had a mixed raced environment. American conservatives would love to have high taxes to pay for their healthcare and other social services just like in Europe, they just can't do that because America has too many brown/black people that would benefit if they actually did so, so American conservatives cover their racism with an economic argument that Europeans can't make because Europe doesn't have a multicultural society.
But yah, both European conservatives and American conservatives are equally racist.
It's entirely possible that they use a datapath place-and-route software to achieve this layout pattern over traditional quadratic standard-cell placement.
I don't hate the post office or anything, but before pointing to them as a shining example? At least remember that unlike their competition, the USPS gets to start the race quite a few strides ahead of the competition.
Great. Now apply this logic to other services, such as internet, and you'll see why government-run services are a lot better than private services.
I disagree. Although your monthly bill will disappear, the massive agency that will run the federal ISP will need funding. Where does that money come from in your equation?
Like with everything else in government: through taxes, with rich people paying more.
Add the gross inefficiencies, waste, and abuse that are rife in government agencies and contracting, and you'll be paying more in the end.
That's ok. I prefer government inefficiencies, waste, and abuse over private inefficiencies, waste, and abuse.
Or do you think private inefficiencies, waste, and abuse is better?
There is no room for libertarianism in America. America need more government, not less. A strong, authoritative central government is best.
The best part? You get to pay for it through your tax dollars.
Communications is a basic service provided by government. It's defined in the US constitution as well, as the Postal service.
There's no reason for private internet providers to exist.
Get rid of them, implement a government-designed system, like the roads. It would be far cheaper than building the highway system.
The best part of government ISP is that it has to follow constitutional freedom-of-speech rights, whereas a private ISP can shut down any message critical of the company, since private organizations don't have to follow the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they mean the number of anti-fur ad campaigns that somehow backfired per second?
that's because we liberals can do whatever we want and you conservatives can't!
ha ha! sucks to be you!
Even as a proponent of clean minimalist design, I actually started to come around to the skeumorphic concepts in iOS. It does give it some charisma compared to Android and Metro UI.
Some things were absolutely horrible & offensive, like Game Center, but other things are subtly brilliant, like the coherent jewel themes on the icons and buttons.
I look forward to the next chapter from Apple. I hope they don't lose the goofy charm that iOS has.
If you are claiming that only "tech geeks" could possibly appreciate unrestricted freedom of choice, that is interesting.
"Freedom of choice" is actually a bad thing.
The more freedom you provide, the more work must be done.
The goal of software isn't "freedom". The goal of software is to get things done. Freedom just adds an additional degree of complexity.
Why have "freedom" when you can have "done"? I don't want to waste time picking among different apps that do the same thing, I just want the end result done.
The problem is that geeks exist for the computing environment. To them the computer is the end, not the means.
Most people use computing as something transitory, and not as the end result. I can't imagine a fashion illustrator caring about linux, for example, when Adobe's software on a Mac works just fine.
Please help support closed environments. They are better for computing.
Consider that they used to sell Imageons (ARM CPU + ATI GPU), which they sold off.
Let's hope this time it works out for them. Power optimization is now important, unlike the Imageon days..
Are they bringing back the Imageon line now? (ARM + ATI GPU on die?)
But the graphics are better outside.
No. The federal government has rule over all things in the US.
The federal government can dismiss state laws if it wishes.
First, a question: why should foreign nationals working on behalf of an international organization have more access to proceedings than United States citizens - whether civilian, or state or federal authorities -- are currently allowed by law?
Because all treaties signed by US are defined to be US laws, according to the Constitution..
If you didn't want international monitors in your elections, then perhaps you shouldn't have made it the law to do so.
That's actually part of the constitution. All treaties are considered US law, per the Constitution.
Sucks to be the Texas Attorney General, but this treaty is the law of the USA.
Is this one where he talks about when his wife & daughter died: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GwZ6UfXm410
His humanity is the opposite of Robomittens. /stupid onions.
Frankly, anyone working (or able to work) should be working AND...have to pay SOME federal tax..I don't care if it is $10 or so....just as long as everyone has some skin in the game, eh?
There are people that don't pay taxes? I'd like to live in a place with no payroll tax or sales tax or other tolls and fees. Please point those places to me.
I don't like it that a large block of people are just voting themselves more money out of the general tax fund.
It's mostly the wealthy that provide these benefits to the poor, so that their money eventually goes back to the rich.
You don't think welfare/food stamps/unemployment money are meant for those people only, do you?
The buck doesn't stop with the poor. If the poor ended up with the money, they wouldn't be poor.
So, Government takes my money under penalty of violence and then spends it asking "So, uh, what exactly should we do with all this money?"
Solutions are best found through variation and selection, processes that are quashed and stifled by central planning; the power structure should be decentralized and localized as much as possible, and that is precisely the point of the Free Market.
Still amazes me that there are people that still think that the "free market" is capable of doing anything.
Government is far more efficient than private industry at doing things.
It is why mail costs 50 cents to deliver via government, instead of $15 via UPS.
Solutions are best found centrally, through planned governments activities. The only thing the "free market" does is introduce inefficiencies through profit. Variation and selection are economic wastes, when you can just arrive at the solution directly.
Let's NEVER speak of the "free market" ever again. It is just a simple idea from people that never went to college and do not know anything about economics.
The more government control, the better. We statists always cause the economy to expand.
"I really want this multi-million dollar yacht but I don't think I can pay the 10% luxury tax" said no one ever.
Yah, rich people don't care about luxury tax. No rich person has ever worried about taxes. Ever.
Sorry, but try another excuse to attempt to justify your libertarian tax cuts.
The fact is taxes have to go up for the middle class if he is going to be revenue neutral. So, either he is lying about being revenue neutral, or lying about not raising taxes on the middle class. Can't have it both ways.
I think we can all agree that Romney is lying. That was his debate strategy, after all, to lie about his positions. He knows that his pro-CEO position is untenable if the public knew about it. Also, he's not a smart person anyways, if he was, he'd be worth far more than $250 million and into the billions that his capital management peers are worth, or he's lying about his assets. see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-is-worth-250-million-why-so-little/2012/10/05/64128882-0c20-11e2-a310-2363842b7057_story.html
And, you do need to raise taxes in the middle of a recession to grow an economy. The GDP is the sum of all spending, and it/the economy only grows when everybody spends more.
If people do not spend more (for whatever reason, maybe they fear for their future and want to save, or maybe they're now turned off by products produced by sellers, such as Samsung Galaxy's or real estate) then it is up to government to increase that total spending, in a way that causes money to flow through the economy. Normally that's done by lowering interest rates, but they can't possibly go any lower, and now government has to directly spend - take money from the public, spend it.
Economically, the government is just another person, that's really really rich. This person can cause the economy to jumpstart, by influencing the economy's spending habits directly, instead of indirectly through interest rate reduction.
The worst thing you can do in a recession is NOT SPEND. This is why conservatives are fucking clueless at growing an economy, because they like to do the exact opposite of what you need to do.
Additionally, conservatives are horrible at influencing others to spend money. When was the last time a conservative made you WANT to buy something? Liberals do it all the time - and they magically produce value out of nothing. Entertainment, fashion, higher-education, and the arts are industries that actually cause people to WANT to spend money, and produce value from nothing, because liberals have the power to produce value intellectually that conservatives do not.
Conservatives can never produce value intellectually - they're conservatives after all, and are incapable of pushing the state-of-the-art in intellectual fields. They're always stuck with industries that are based on NEED, such as real-estate, energy, etc, and can only produce value from physical resources.
Exactly how would this be a detriment to the users?
Because when a young fashionable female visits a website, they'll get ads for DKNY, instead of Just Tires or Mutual of Omaha.
Remember, people buy magazines like Vogue BECAUSE OF THE ADS.
It's only dorks that hate ads, because they visit terrible websites in the first place where ads are terrible, instead of going to sites where ads are actually.. beautiful.
There's definitely a "nerd-centric" influence for klout. It really measures online activity more than real-world influence. A big problem with it is that it doesn't account for non-measurable factors, such as power and art direction. In the industry I'm in, fashion, art direction determines your overall influence . And its editors figure out who have the best art direction, since the public trusts their editing skills more than computer algorithms.
And you don't even need to be on the internet to be taken seriously. Karl Lagerfeld doesn't use the web- he still sends "email" via fax machines. The top fashion magazines barely have usable websites, yet they'll always remain far more influential than any blogger ever will, because Klout can't actually measure influence, because, again, computers are never going to be able to replace human editors at that.
Klout really is fundamentally doomed. Klout can only work as a paid service if they can hire paid & specialized editors that measure influence of each property, which is an expensive business plan.
The bigger problem I see is that too many Venture Capitalists are trying to find cheap computer profits to problems only solvable by expensive human experts. Sorry Venture Capitalist, it's just not going to happen. Go back to making money the old-fashioned way, by earning it.
The other aspect is his European origin. Politicians like Romney would not be capable of giving satisfaction over here. They are simply too far off. The reason for this is that Republicans are not conservatives in the European sense.
You say that, but this IS the same Europe that gave the world the Nazi party and is currently going through a lot of right-wing racism in their governments RIGHT NOW.
European conservatives and American conservatives are no different. They're both racist. And their economic policies would be equal if Europe had a mixed raced environment. American conservatives would love to have high taxes to pay for their healthcare and other social services just like in Europe, they just can't do that because America has too many brown/black people that would benefit if they actually did so, so American conservatives cover their racism with an economic argument that Europeans can't make because Europe doesn't have a multicultural society.
But yah, both European conservatives and American conservatives are equally racist.
Eurostile is a pretty terrible font.
It's entirely possible that they use a datapath place-and-route software to achieve this layout pattern over traditional quadratic standard-cell placement.
I don't hate the post office or anything, but before pointing to them as a shining example? At least remember that unlike their competition, the USPS gets to start the race quite a few strides ahead of the competition.
Great. Now apply this logic to other services, such as internet, and you'll see why government-run services are a lot better than private services.
I agree.
Government is best at essential services. Private industry is largely useless at that.
I think we can all agree that private industry is too inefficient. They are not as efficient as government.
The more government control we implement, the better society will be.
I disagree. Although your monthly bill will disappear, the massive agency that will run the federal ISP will need funding. Where does that money come from in your equation?
Like with everything else in government: through taxes, with rich people paying more.
Add the gross inefficiencies, waste, and abuse that are rife in government agencies and contracting, and you'll be paying more in the end.
That's ok. I prefer government inefficiencies, waste, and abuse over private inefficiencies, waste, and abuse.
Or do you think private inefficiencies, waste, and abuse is better?
There is no room for libertarianism in America. America need more government, not less. A strong, authoritative central government is best.
The best part? You get to pay for it through your tax dollars.
You'll thank us pro-government types later.
Communications is a basic service provided by government. It's defined in the US constitution as well, as the Postal service.
There's no reason for private internet providers to exist.
Get rid of them, implement a government-designed system, like the roads. It would be far cheaper than building the highway system.
The best part of government ISP is that it has to follow constitutional freedom-of-speech rights, whereas a private ISP can shut down any message critical of the company, since private organizations don't have to follow the constitution.
What's wrong with pledging allegiance to the Queen? She's pretty cool and chill.
Would you rather pledge allegiance to 350 million random other people?
Democracy is overrated. Monarchies are always better.