People once said that our "toy" microcomputers would never replace the mainframe.
Well, they were right, weren't they? Just not exactly the way they thought, and not on the timescale they thought. Look at how everyone is rushing to put everything in "the cloud". We're very quickly moving from the microcomputer mindset to pushing everything of value to centralized servers.
And if the GOP had nominated a sane and competent Presidential candidate there wouldn't be a need for a filibuster now.
The exact same can be said of the Democrats. They had a great candidate running, but the Party, in league with the media, sabotaged his campaign so they could coronate their warmonger queen instead.
If you want to protect your country then stop trying to craft rules that will stop authoritarians and start focusing on not electing them.
That's some serious hypocrisy there, coming from someone apparently supporting the Democrats and Hillary. It's hard to not elect these people when the elections are rigged and there's massive election fraud going on in the primaries.
In fact, there have been more gun control laws passed these past three years than in the entire history of the nation combined. Are we safer? Definitely not.
Oh please, this is just plain dumb. Obviously, you must be extremely young, because guns are easier to get and much more ubiquitous than they have been in a long time, and the laws are much more relaxed. Go back to the 70s: legal concealed carry didn't exist back then, and states that are now open-carry were not. It's easier and cheaper than ever to get an AR-15 rifle and all the accessories you could possibly want for it. Now they're even trying to legalize suppressors. The variety of guns you can get now is overwhelming too; back then it was mainly just crappy revolvers; now there's an endless array of guns of all types, many specifically designed for concealed-carry.
The problem here is: how many people really care about having those high-end specs, and are willing to pay $$$$ for them? Sure, if you're a professional skier or whatever, you'll want the Rolls-Royce of action cameras, but if you're just a weekend warrior who wants to record his bike ride, a knockoff for a fraction of the price is going to be all you really want or need. It sounds like this company massively overestimated their potential customer base and expanded too much, and are now finding out that high-end equipment with high-end prices can't be sold to average consumers. There's a reason you don't see Rolls-Royce and Ferrari dealerships at every motor mile.
For my own computers, I normally use the trackpoint instead (which means I make sure to only buy laptops with trackpoints, namely Dell Latitudes). I do use the touchpad for scrolling though, but that's about it.
The problem is when I'm expected to use someone else's computer, usually to fix something. Total pain in the ass.
but I have never failed to be annoyed by the "tap to click" feature (enabled by default in mouse emulation mode, so you have to install a driver to turn it off!) giving rogue clicks.
You're the only other person I've ever met who also hates tap-to-click on touchpads. As far as I can tell, we are the only two people in the entire world who don't like this "feature". Everyone else I've talked to thinks I'm crazy because I disable it.
Trump comes off as a moderate with some of the things he casually says, and personally I don't really care much about the PC stuff or locker-room comments. But what contradicts your claims about him being a moderate are the people he surrounds himself with, such as Steve Bannon from Breitbart, and other far-right wackos like that, plus his own running mate, religious wacko Pence.
Yeah, it's really not that different from working in a small company really. If you get a good manager and company, a small company can be great. If you get a bad manager and/or company, it can be hell. A big company is basically like a bunch of small companies all stuck together and sharing an HR department and facilities.
The main advantages I've seen with bigger companies are
1) they tend to be much better about avoiding certain problems that could cost them big in legal fees, namely harassment. You don't hear a lot of off-color jokes at the big companies because employees are thoroughly trained to avoid that behavior, and management will come down strongly on employees for it, whereas at small companies people get away with a lot more, especially management. Closely related, there frequently tends to be more of a boy's club atmosphere at the small companies.
2) in a big company, it's easier to move around. At a small company, if it sucks, you just have to find a new job. But moving around at the big company isn't all that great since your pay doesn't go up, whereas when you change jobs, usually you can look forward to at least a little pay bump.
You don't have materials to build a lathe and saw. You have a piece of lumber, and a hammer, and that's it. Your task is to accurately cut the lumber in half, with the hammer.
Can you do it? No? I guess you're a poor craftsman, blaming your tools.
No, they won't. As the other poster pointed out, during the last big recession, (R) politicians were bemoaning that people were spending their unemployment benefits on new Apple gear. Apple lovers would sell their children if they could to pay for new Apple stuff. In the next recession, I expect Apple to be just as profitable as now, with people going to great extremes to gather the cash for their Apple addictions, including going to all-Ramen diets, starving their children to death (literally), moving into their cars, and becoming criminals. There is simply no end to the extent that an Apple user will go to feed his or her addiction.
I'd say, keep the "MacBook Pro" line, but rename it, and then produce a true "pro" line of machines designed for photographers, musicians, and others who will pay the cash for a machine that has the reasonable ports for the job, so one doesn't have to carry a backpack full of dongles and hubs with them everywhere.
Why should they bother doing this? It'll just cost them more money to have more machines in their line-up. They can just do what they're doing now, keep the number of options very small, to increase profit, because all those people you mention will just buy the port-less machines anyway, plus the overpriced adapters to go with it. Sure, they might complain, but so what? They're not going to forgo buying a Mac.
I would say the Dell XPS 13 and XPS 15 are becoming more "MacBook Pros" than what Apple offers.
Nope, because they aren't Macs, so all those Mac buyers aren't going to even look at them.
Maybe Apple could at least fix the MBPs, so if one uses by accident more than one USB-C device that charges, some e-fuse doesn't blow, preventing anything from charging the battery (as per a YouTube vid showing someone using multiple chargers... result, the MBP just stopped charging for good.)
Why should they bother fixing this? Are they losing any sales due to this? Of course not. So there's no point in lifting a finger to fix it. I really don't see the problem here. If some people manage to mess up their MBPs this way, then they'll just have to buy new MBPs (or pay $$$ to get Apple to repair them), which simply increases Apple's profits even more.
I went the opposite way for the most part: I just use laptops, including at home. I really like big dual monitors, a full-size keyboard, a real mouse, and that's how laptops are. The key phrase here is "docking station". And when I need to take my computer on the road with me, one button converts all this to a portable form factor, though of course I can't use dual monitors and such in a coffee shop.
You know, I almost preferred the Gates-Ballmer Microsoft, because it was brilliantly maniacal. The new Microsoft is just a whining pathetic pack of halfwits who can't really even decide what direction their company should go.
You've got to be kidding. The new Microsoft under Satya is *far* more entertaining: advertising right on the desktop, spyware baked in, forced "upgrades", forced updates and reboots while trying to work... the level of whining from Windows users is higher than ever with this stuff, and it's funny as hell to watch. I'm constantly looking forward to the next way that MS pisses off its users, so when they whine about it I can remind them that they chose this vendor.
That's just plain BS. Aside from the other poster's quip about the South, there's an enormous number of American women these days who are basically sugar mommies for unemployed and underemployed men. There's even a stereotype about these women buying cellphones for these men (and paying their cellular bills).
The Senate still has 2 Senators per state, regardless of the size of the state. So it still serves to give disproportionate power to smaller states. It just isn't as indirect as it used to be when Senators were chosen by state legislatures.
Jimmy Carter seemed pretty honorable. Maybe not so effective, but he didn't seem dishonorable. Ford seemed pretty honorable too, but he was never actually elected. Eisenhower seemed pretty honorable. So did FDR. George Washington was very honorable by most accounts.
If most of the Electors are bog-standard Republicans, then in theory, it should actually be possible for them to elect someone else besides Trump or Hillary, including any Republican candidate of their choice. We could see Jeb! elected President here...
No, you're confused. The reason they charge 30% is because they're Apple and have a captive market full of rubes with their app store, so the 30% is what app developers pay Apple to have access to these customers. The "careful vetting and curating" is what Apple makes the rubes *think* they're doing, even though they're not. No amount of exposure regarding the actual lack of vetting will make the rubes stop buying from Apple and its app store, or even change their perception of Apple.
It's amazing how clueless fools like yourself don't understand the Constitution at all. Why do you think they have human electors in the first place, instead of just automatically giving votes according to the candidate who won that state's popular vote? The whole point of having human electors is as a safety check, so the electors can override the will of the people.
So no, electors voting differently is NOT "rigging the system". That is an utterly moronic statement. Electors voting differently is the system working as designed by the Founders.
No, he hasn't won that contest at all, yet. The rules say the electors can vote for whomever they want. The electors have not voted yet, so who actually wins is still up in the air. Most likely, it'll be Trump because Republican electors have been chosen by the states, but it's not concrete: it's still possible for those electors to change their minds. *Those* are the actual rules, the ones that count.
The further they go left and progressive, the more votes they'll lose.
Bullshit.
The Democratic party lost because they weren't progressive enough. Hillary isn't progressive in the least, she's a right-winger. Bernie was actually popular with the common folk, and didn't take them for granted. It was Hillary's anti-progressive, establishment camp that did that, and lost the election. The progressives and the common people who liked Bernie's message were so turned off by Hillary and her elitism that they either sat out the election, voted third party, or voted Trump.
Leftism and progressivism aren't the problem, it's rich, elitist establishment politicians who've been running the Democratic Party for ages now who are the problem.
Your comments about inclusiveness and looking out for the common folk are 100% correct, but blaming it on progressivism is completely wrong. The ivory tower elites are not progressives.
Not only that, but to my knowledge, no elector has ever been prosecuted by their state for not abiding by their pledge. Any state that did so probably wouldn't get all that far in court anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
People once said that our "toy" microcomputers would never replace the mainframe.
Well, they were right, weren't they? Just not exactly the way they thought, and not on the timescale they thought. Look at how everyone is rushing to put everything in "the cloud". We're very quickly moving from the microcomputer mindset to pushing everything of value to centralized servers.
And if the GOP had nominated a sane and competent Presidential candidate there wouldn't be a need for a filibuster now.
The exact same can be said of the Democrats. They had a great candidate running, but the Party, in league with the media, sabotaged his campaign so they could coronate their warmonger queen instead.
If you want to protect your country then stop trying to craft rules that will stop authoritarians and start focusing on not electing them.
That's some serious hypocrisy there, coming from someone apparently supporting the Democrats and Hillary. It's hard to not elect these people when the elections are rigged and there's massive election fraud going on in the primaries.
In fact, there have been more gun control laws passed these past three years than in the entire history of the nation combined. Are we safer? Definitely not.
Oh please, this is just plain dumb. Obviously, you must be extremely young, because guns are easier to get and much more ubiquitous than they have been in a long time, and the laws are much more relaxed. Go back to the 70s: legal concealed carry didn't exist back then, and states that are now open-carry were not. It's easier and cheaper than ever to get an AR-15 rifle and all the accessories you could possibly want for it. Now they're even trying to legalize suppressors. The variety of guns you can get now is overwhelming too; back then it was mainly just crappy revolvers; now there's an endless array of guns of all types, many specifically designed for concealed-carry.
The problem here is: how many people really care about having those high-end specs, and are willing to pay $$$$ for them? Sure, if you're a professional skier or whatever, you'll want the Rolls-Royce of action cameras, but if you're just a weekend warrior who wants to record his bike ride, a knockoff for a fraction of the price is going to be all you really want or need. It sounds like this company massively overestimated their potential customer base and expanded too much, and are now finding out that high-end equipment with high-end prices can't be sold to average consumers. There's a reason you don't see Rolls-Royce and Ferrari dealerships at every motor mile.
For my own computers, I normally use the trackpoint instead (which means I make sure to only buy laptops with trackpoints, namely Dell Latitudes). I do use the touchpad for scrolling though, but that's about it.
The problem is when I'm expected to use someone else's computer, usually to fix something. Total pain in the ass.
Good to know there's 3 of us out there though!
but I have never failed to be annoyed by the "tap to click" feature (enabled by default in mouse emulation mode, so you have to install a driver to turn it off!) giving rogue clicks.
You're the only other person I've ever met who also hates tap-to-click on touchpads. As far as I can tell, we are the only two people in the entire world who don't like this "feature". Everyone else I've talked to thinks I'm crazy because I disable it.
Trump comes off as a moderate with some of the things he casually says, and personally I don't really care much about the PC stuff or locker-room comments. But what contradicts your claims about him being a moderate are the people he surrounds himself with, such as Steve Bannon from Breitbart, and other far-right wackos like that, plus his own running mate, religious wacko Pence.
Yeah, it's really not that different from working in a small company really. If you get a good manager and company, a small company can be great. If you get a bad manager and/or company, it can be hell. A big company is basically like a bunch of small companies all stuck together and sharing an HR department and facilities.
The main advantages I've seen with bigger companies are
1) they tend to be much better about avoiding certain problems that could cost them big in legal fees, namely harassment. You don't hear a lot of off-color jokes at the big companies because employees are thoroughly trained to avoid that behavior, and management will come down strongly on employees for it, whereas at small companies people get away with a lot more, especially management. Closely related, there frequently tends to be more of a boy's club atmosphere at the small companies.
2) in a big company, it's easier to move around. At a small company, if it sucks, you just have to find a new job. But moving around at the big company isn't all that great since your pay doesn't go up, whereas when you change jobs, usually you can look forward to at least a little pay bump.
BTW, I have a second task for you. I want you to build a chest of drawers. Your tool: a pair of chopsticks.
You don't have materials to build a lathe and saw. You have a piece of lumber, and a hammer, and that's it. Your task is to accurately cut the lumber in half, with the hammer.
Can you do it? No? I guess you're a poor craftsman, blaming your tools.
No, they won't. As the other poster pointed out, during the last big recession, (R) politicians were bemoaning that people were spending their unemployment benefits on new Apple gear. Apple lovers would sell their children if they could to pay for new Apple stuff. In the next recession, I expect Apple to be just as profitable as now, with people going to great extremes to gather the cash for their Apple addictions, including going to all-Ramen diets, starving their children to death (literally), moving into their cars, and becoming criminals. There is simply no end to the extent that an Apple user will go to feed his or her addiction.
I'd say, keep the "MacBook Pro" line, but rename it, and then produce a true "pro" line of machines designed for photographers, musicians, and others who will pay the cash for a machine that has the reasonable ports for the job, so one doesn't have to carry a backpack full of dongles and hubs with them everywhere.
Why should they bother doing this? It'll just cost them more money to have more machines in their line-up. They can just do what they're doing now, keep the number of options very small, to increase profit, because all those people you mention will just buy the port-less machines anyway, plus the overpriced adapters to go with it. Sure, they might complain, but so what? They're not going to forgo buying a Mac.
I would say the Dell XPS 13 and XPS 15 are becoming more "MacBook Pros" than what Apple offers.
Nope, because they aren't Macs, so all those Mac buyers aren't going to even look at them.
Maybe Apple could at least fix the MBPs, so if one uses by accident more than one USB-C device that charges, some e-fuse doesn't blow, preventing anything from charging the battery (as per a YouTube vid showing someone using multiple chargers... result, the MBP just stopped charging for good.)
Why should they bother fixing this? Are they losing any sales due to this? Of course not. So there's no point in lifting a finger to fix it. I really don't see the problem here. If some people manage to mess up their MBPs this way, then they'll just have to buy new MBPs (or pay $$$ to get Apple to repair them), which simply increases Apple's profits even more.
I went the opposite way for the most part: I just use laptops, including at home. I really like big dual monitors, a full-size keyboard, a real mouse, and that's how laptops are. The key phrase here is "docking station". And when I need to take my computer on the road with me, one button converts all this to a portable form factor, though of course I can't use dual monitors and such in a coffee shop.
Your dad was an idiot.
For proof, try this exercise: take a piece of lumber, and cut it accurately in half. You only get one tool to do this job: a hammer.
You know, I almost preferred the Gates-Ballmer Microsoft, because it was brilliantly maniacal. The new Microsoft is just a whining pathetic pack of halfwits who can't really even decide what direction their company should go.
You've got to be kidding. The new Microsoft under Satya is *far* more entertaining: advertising right on the desktop, spyware baked in, forced "upgrades", forced updates and reboots while trying to work... the level of whining from Windows users is higher than ever with this stuff, and it's funny as hell to watch. I'm constantly looking forward to the next way that MS pisses off its users, so when they whine about it I can remind them that they chose this vendor.
That's just plain BS. Aside from the other poster's quip about the South, there's an enormous number of American women these days who are basically sugar mommies for unemployed and underemployed men. There's even a stereotype about these women buying cellphones for these men (and paying their cellular bills).
Wrong.
The Senate still has 2 Senators per state, regardless of the size of the state. So it still serves to give disproportionate power to smaller states. It just isn't as indirect as it used to be when Senators were chosen by state legislatures.
Jimmy Carter seemed pretty honorable. Maybe not so effective, but he didn't seem dishonorable. Ford seemed pretty honorable too, but he was never actually elected. Eisenhower seemed pretty honorable. So did FDR. George Washington was very honorable by most accounts.
Post Carter, I can't really think of any.
If most of the Electors are bog-standard Republicans, then in theory, it should actually be possible for them to elect someone else besides Trump or Hillary, including any Republican candidate of their choice. We could see Jeb! elected President here...
No, you're confused. The reason they charge 30% is because they're Apple and have a captive market full of rubes with their app store, so the 30% is what app developers pay Apple to have access to these customers. The "careful vetting and curating" is what Apple makes the rubes *think* they're doing, even though they're not. No amount of exposure regarding the actual lack of vetting will make the rubes stop buying from Apple and its app store, or even change their perception of Apple.
Perhaps, but they make some great maple syrup and ice cream.
It's amazing how clueless fools like yourself don't understand the Constitution at all. Why do you think they have human electors in the first place, instead of just automatically giving votes according to the candidate who won that state's popular vote? The whole point of having human electors is as a safety check, so the electors can override the will of the people.
So no, electors voting differently is NOT "rigging the system". That is an utterly moronic statement. Electors voting differently is the system working as designed by the Founders.
No, he hasn't won that contest at all, yet. The rules say the electors can vote for whomever they want. The electors have not voted yet, so who actually wins is still up in the air. Most likely, it'll be Trump because Republican electors have been chosen by the states, but it's not concrete: it's still possible for those electors to change their minds. *Those* are the actual rules, the ones that count.
The further they go left and progressive, the more votes they'll lose.
Bullshit.
The Democratic party lost because they weren't progressive enough. Hillary isn't progressive in the least, she's a right-winger. Bernie was actually popular with the common folk, and didn't take them for granted. It was Hillary's anti-progressive, establishment camp that did that, and lost the election. The progressives and the common people who liked Bernie's message were so turned off by Hillary and her elitism that they either sat out the election, voted third party, or voted Trump.
Leftism and progressivism aren't the problem, it's rich, elitist establishment politicians who've been running the Democratic Party for ages now who are the problem.
Your comments about inclusiveness and looking out for the common folk are 100% correct, but blaming it on progressivism is completely wrong. The ivory tower elites are not progressives.
Not only that, but to my knowledge, no elector has ever been prosecuted by their state for not abiding by their pledge. Any state that did so probably wouldn't get all that far in court anyway.