No they shouldn't. That would have meant there was a third me-too tablet OS, one with no advantages over Android or iOS.
What Microsoft did was right in principle. What they got wrong (and, to be honest, this bit is hard) was putting together APIs that would make it easier for desktop users and "tablet" users to work in the most optimal way for their interaction system. So instead Windows 8 is, to an end user, two operating systems sharing little but a file system, with entirely different applications working in entirely different worlds.
Would it have been possible for them to make something, instead, that presented tablet user interfaces when a computer was used as a tablet, and desktop user interfaces when used with a keyboard and mouse, while running the same applications? Well, probably. In theory this is the thing MVC is supposed to solve (and virtually never gets used for!) Offer developers a modern MVC API where they're encouraged to create two "Vs".
But that's not where Microsoft went, and I think they'll suffer for the next few point revisions until they can work out how to merge the two "worlds" on a standard Windows 8 system a little better.
1. The article doesn't say the technology is new.
2. The article is about how the techology is being used as an end-run around bans and other restrictions on GM foods.
3. Claims that the technology has been improved hardly negate the notion that this is inherently a less safe technology than standard genetic engineering for the reasons outlined.
4. You're criticizing attacks on alternatives to GM foods, that are being introduced because of a nonsensical fear mongering campaign against GM foods, where those alternatives are objectively not as inherently safe as GM foods, as "fear mongering bullshit". Really? Seriously?
In your knee-jerk rush to defend mutagenesis you've decided to ignore what's being pointed out - that a mindless fear mongering campaign against GM is resulting in use of technologies that more closely fit the complaints made against GM food, you've ignored the article pretending it doesn't state facts that it clearly does, and you've failed to address any of the issues raised.
All because you want to attack critics of the use of mutagenesis (even though in this case we're talking about people who are criticizing its use as an alternative to GMO, not critics of its use overall) as "uninformed".
Well, last weekend I was at BJs (an unfortunately-named warehouse membership store) and they were selling a couple. Today I had to get an oil change, and went to Wal-mart as they're right next door, and was surprised to find three chromebooks sitting next to the Windows 8 laptops.
Those are the only stores I'd expect to sell any kind of laptop in in the last few months with the exception of Target which might sell them but I didn't actually go anywhere near any of the areas where they'd be likely to be sold.
So yeah, they're in the stores.
Like you though, I haven't seen one in the wild, that is, seen one in the hands of a co-worker or heard a friend or co-worker mention they own one. Perhaps though we're not the intended market?
That said, I kinda felt bad slamming JavaScript - I don't mean "Web browser" (which most people who slam JS mean, ie "I hate JS, there' no way to create a file, and manipulating the DOM sucks!" is not a criticism of JavaScript, it's a criticism of web standards that integrate JavaScript) - I think it's a woefully underrated language that gets a bad rap because most people have to use it in conjunction with the aforementioned terrible APIs.
It's clean (mostly), scores well for readability (there's a reason programmers prefer JSON to XML) and allows the kind of casual programming that, say, PHP is famous for without having any of the "features" PHP is infamous for.
I'm glad projects like node.js are taking off, these are giving the language, finally, a chance to shine.
That said, of course, in this case, we're talking about the holy hell that is JS-in-Web-APIs. Even given Google is giving the system additional APIs so it can save files locally, the fact it's going to have to interact with the user through the DOM will ensure the language continues to get slammed for no good reason.
Basically everyone recognizes Eclipse is a load of crap.
Some would say this is because it's a poorly designed mismatch of "integrated modules" written by developers who had half of a good idea, implemented half of it, and then gave up, leaving the rest of us to put up with things like autocompletion systems that physically get in the way, bizarre default file associations, and "features" like network access that are rendered virtually unusable by being buried by several layers of confusing "user friendly" GUIs.
Others, such as Google, however, believe the problem with Eclipse is that it's written in Java. If only it were written in something logical like CSS, maybe coupled with something readable like HTML, perhaps held together with something stable and feature complete like Javascript, which can control the other elements using something intelligently designed, standardized, and completely quirkless like the Document Object Model, you'd have an IDE that would truly shine.
Think level playing fields. Ford can't advertise a rating of 5.4. GM can't. Tesla can because... why?
After that whole "My new supermegatube will do everything your high speed railway does, only cheaper - restrictions apply, supermegatube does not, actually, go to any of the locations served by high speed rail, and actually isn't going to be built anywhere near 50% of the stops" crap from Musk, I do feel the guy isn't always speaking with his honesty valve sealed properly.
I admire what he's doing, I hope he's successful at popularizing the electric car, and building the infrastructure needed to make it a transportation alternative, but the guy needs to knock it off with the exaggerated claims.
Hey, question: Which has sold more, the Chevy Volt, or the Tesla Model S?
That's right. The Volt. (50,000 vs less than 30,000 (forecast.)
Now, given that, the six million dollar question: how many Chevy Volts have caught fire so far?
Disclaimer: I'm a TSLA shareholder. I'm thinking this was a bad investment, but I'll see what happens over the next month.
Hi, it's sfcrazy. Funny story, but after my OpenSuSE submission, I got a job offer from Microsoft. Anyway, Windows 8.2 is out. It's a little more stable than Ubuntu, so if you've been thinking of switching from Ubuntu you might want to give Windows 8.2 a spin. Go on.
(Twelve months from now)
sfcrazy writes:
Hi there, sfcrazy again. Apple's PR department kindly offered me a job a few months ago. Anyway, Mac OS X 10.11 is out, and it's very Unixy. If you're getting fed up with Ubuntu, you might want switch to Mac OS X 10.11 because it's even more Unixy.
The fact they're paid by our taxes is neither here nor there. I wouldn't expect someone whose job it is to manage the payroll for the DMV or who fixes potholes to be forced to be "visible all the time they are on the job".
What matters is that we as a society give police special powers over non-police. That needs oversight. That's not going to change regardless of whether police are taxpayer funded, or in some hypothetical dystopian libertard future, self funding semi-independent officially sanctioned vigilantes. What matters is power, not the way their paycheck is funded.
If you lose sight of that, you lose sight of what constitutes abuse of the uniform.
DVD players are ubiquitous. They're in cars, in bedrooms, in laptops, there are those little portable DVD players with the built-in screens, and they're even built into some TVs. Blu-ray players are in some (most? Hard to tell) living rooms, and the occasional bedroom.
If a content maker was stupid enough to discontinue DVD support in 2013, they'd lose most of their disc-based sales, and probably contribute to the demand for piracy at the same time. And that's not to mention the fact that DVDs are cheap to make, while Blu-ray discs are relatively expensive.
Forget the whole "Using it for VPNs crap", it was designed from the start, originally with IPv6 in mind, for opportunistic encryption-by-default (including "Talking to this host? IPSec or nothing".)
Increase in costs? Maybe, but you're talking marginally more CPU power needed and only a one-off administration overhead. It's not a "drastic increase (in) costs" by any measure, and quite honestly, it should be best practices, and at an Internet company like Google or Yahoo, it probably is already on the agenda.
IPSec isn't perfect, there's way too much that hasn't been standardized yet in terms of standardized public key exchanges (largely, I suspect, because we're still waiting for DNSSEC to actually be widely deployed, and any key exchange mechanism is going to require a secure DNS system), but there's enough standardized to make it deployable for internal networks.
Not so much energy independence as keeping the cost of gasoline low. Decreasing the demand of an ordinary product that is not at the limit of its supply might not affect prices much, but demand for oil is insatiable and supply is limited and expensive to increase.
That is to say, a sudden increase in demand for gasoline right now of 10% may (will) well have a much greater than 10% effect on the price of gasoline. That'd fuck up the economy. The real solution is a complete reversion of 60 years of insane transportation policies within the US, but that's not going to happen overnight.
Diesel-Electric transmissions are very efficient, but they're also not particularly responsive. They work for trains because trains don't have to keep stopping and starting, are slow to move anyway (for a US style feels-like-a-mile-long freight train you'd be surprised how long it takes before the last car starts to move after the locomotive does) and typically, outside of depots, trains in motion are kept around a mile apart.
Truck drivers aren't going to be happy with a truck that moves like a train locomotive. Nor will anyone behind them at a traffic signal that just turned green;-)
Really? So when someone goes to the supermarket, puts 5 oranges in their cart, they wouldn't notice if the store manager were to wait until they're not looking, and replace the oranges with peanuts?
People actually think in types ALL THE TIME. You have to unlearn types as part of the process of learning how to program, learning how to turn real world situations into generic rules.
So no, you have it totally wrong. Yes, type safety trips up many programmers, although for the most part it's not that they can't understand it, or fail to know what to do when their program doesn't compile, it's just annoying being reminded there's a bug in their app.
(And what would that have to do with anything anyway? And actually, the popularity of the phrase "You're comparing apples to oranges!" shows that, actually, people do think in types, and get annoyed when others treat one type as another unthinkingly.
Translation: "We accomplished something in a few weeks that the wastes of flesh in charge of this boondoggle couldn't do in two years and with vastly better access to internal information".
Translation: "I can't read"!
"We accomplished something in a few weeks that the wastes of flesh in charge of this boondoggle couldn't do in two years" - nope, that's not what he's saying. He's saying "We did something different in two weeks, something much simpler but considerably less functional."
"and with vastly better access to internal information" - misleading. He's saying that they was able to build upon the work that the original Healthcare.gov developers had done making the internal information available.
There's no question Heathcare.gov is a fiasco. But this project doesn't prove much, if anything at all. Take some work that's already been done, and build a functional shell that doesn't meet the full requirements? I can do that too. I can do it in two weeks. Given that scope, I'll rewrite Delta's reservation system in one day - sure, you won't be able to book any flights with it, or see what discounts you have available, but, uh, it'll work, save for that reservation thing.
Driving is going down and has been going down, for quite a while, with the lead being taken by those under 30. Meanwhile CAFE standards continue to climb.
Perhaps efficiency isn't the entire picture. CAFE standards do not exist in a vaccuum. On top of the standards requiring upfront investment, and thus increased costs, to implement, they're implemented as part of a general movement towards better efficiency, which includes ending some of the absurd laws that chain modern Americans to cars in the first place, as well as improving other transportation options.
The paradox is no paradox because it ignores context, and it's only through context that you can tell if something is a paradox to begin with. If the aim of CAFE standards had been to make car based transportation cheaper on a per-mile basis, then increased total fuel consumption would not be paradoxical had it happened. Likewise, if the aim of CAFE standards is to slow the rate of increase of fuel consumption, which it is, then because it was part of an overall push towards reducing dependence on oil, rather than the sole tool available, it's been pretty successful.
In short, Jevon's Paradox is bunk and probably always will be.
Poor example. Companies pay to have their logos slapped on cars, with the understanding that virtually anyone seeing the logo will understand that the corporate entity sponsored the racing team.
You, remember, are asking for permission to display a logo where no relationship exists between you and Canonical, and where none is implied. At best, you can pretend it benefits Canonical if people think they sponsored your kites in some way (but, of course, they won't, because CONTEXT) but even if it does, that's for Canonical to decide and not you.
You have no relationship with Canonical. Canonical has every right not to allow others to think that there is some kind of relationship between you and them. It would damage the mark. Their lawyers had sane and sensible reasons for rejecting your request.
Like I said, if the purpose was to support Ubuntu by promoting the operating system, why not actually comment upon the operating system, rather than give the false appearance of a business relationship between the two of you?
Well, the GP's argument was that the savings would pay for it in two years, so presumably those on low incomes would benefit from this.
That said, I live in Florida, have a moderately large home, and my entire electricity bill comes to around $2,000-$2,500 a year. It's hard to see how a better A/C would save me $4,000 over two years, given that's around 80-100% of my electricity bill! 16 SEER would be an improvement over my home's (which is so old I'd assume it's probably a 10 SEER unit or worse) but this would require greater than 100% efficiency out of the unit. Not friggin' likely.
Seems reasonable in this case. You have no affiliation with Canonical, and were not doing anything Ubuntu specific outside of simply printing the logo. I would kinda expect lawyers do be concerned that allowing that would result in trademark dilution.
The funny thing is, if you'd added the words "The Ubuntu Operating System Sucks" underneath the logo, there's a very good chance the lawyers would have felt they couldn't actually stop you from using it. And on that note, "The Ubuntu Operating System is Awesome You Should Check It Out" would have, likewise, resulted in the lawyers feeling they couldn't stop you. At that point, you're (1) using the trademark in its proper context, and (2) using it in protected commentary.
I suspect he's right. While many Slashdotters have experience of being contractors, and setting up a small business to legally manage that, that's not typical of a normal small business which will generally involve: a small number of employees, but more than one; rent; non-trivial supplies; capital costs; etc. A single person business who works out of a laptop and smartphone and has no other costs other than travel isn't unusual but it's not typical.
Think in terms of what it costs to run a pizzaria, one of the classic small businesses. You have yourself, you have a group of employees to the point you generally have a minimum of two on duty (besides yourself) during opening hours, more at busy periods. You need to rent a shop, which doesn't have to be huge, but it'll cost considerably more than those cheap single room "offices" you see advertised as "starting at $500/month!" by the road. And, of course, you need flour, water, anchovies... oh and gas, and electric, and phone service, and advertising and printing...
Now, this doesn't mean going into pizza making forces you to live in poverty or go bankrupt, far from it, because pizza is popular, and people are willing to pay quite a bit for a decent pizza. Or even half decent pizza. That's why there are so many pizza chains. But the question isn't "why doesn't pizza make a profit", it's "How much turnover do you need before Square's monthly rate becomes better and does a typical small business qualify", and it seems hard to believe that an average pizzaria has a turnover so low it wouldn't qualify. Even if the franchisee, at the end of the day, goes home with a salary of $50,000, that's just one small part of the costs.
You're missing the point. It's absurd that the right - even ignoring the reality that he did - considers it a scandal that he didn't condemn the attack by describing it as "terrorism."
That. Is. Not. A. Scandal. Not even if it were true. And neither is me accurately using the term "flawed" and rightly avoiding the term "evil" to describe the NSA. The insistence that you're not pure enough unless you condemn $THING_YOU_DO_NOT_LIKE using terminology that involves words you consider carry the minimum sense of negativity is ridiculous.
Your thought process is exactly the same as Joe Biden's when he describes Snowden as a "terrorist", or when a Slashdotter describes having to pay slightly more than they would want for a piece of music as "being raped". It does not add to discourse, it does not add to the sum of knowledge, and it specifically avoids reason in favor of rhetorical extremism.
Netbeans seems to have better support for it and practically makes installing it mandatory for JEE apps. I actually thought for a while that it was supposed to be Tomcat's successor - Glassfish::Tomcat seemed to be the same as LibreOffice::OpenOffice, but this was not the case.
What about the evidence that the NSA's network is being used for industrial espionage?
What about it? It seems that 90% of the responses to my comment are along the lines of "By saying they're flawed you were saying they're wonderful and perfect." Even when I point this out, by making reference to the absurd "Obama sucks because on hearing about BENGHAZIII!!!! he didn't RIP HIS SHIRT OFF and scream TERRORISM! TERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAA!", I still get responses like yours.
The NSA is trying to gather information to protect American interests. Sometimes it crosses the line. You've just given another example of this. You haven't given an example of the NSA being evil per-se, just flawed.
And yes, I'm aware you're claiming it's different because it's not to protect America's National Security, but I never claimed that the mandate they're trying to follow was purely related to security. Perhaps it should be, it is called the National Security Agency after all, but it isn't. It's mandate is about data interception and collection to protect American interests. That's what it's doing, but it's going too far in many instances.
FWIW, and I'm not justifying it, just pointing out context which is important if you want to understand why an NSA agent might think something we consider crossing the line is standard practice, the NSA is hardly the only governmental agency engaging in industrial espionage. Pro-tip: if you have secrets you want to keep from a French competitor, do NOT, fly Air France (or at least, if you do, take carry-on luggage only and don't let it out of your sight.)
Most of their concerns were about what would happen when the next administration got its hands on the reins.
That would be nice if it happened, but there never was any right wing opposition to the PATRIOT Act.
That means they opposed it blanket out of principle as a bad law, not only because of who's in the white house.
No, actually, were it true, it would mean the opposite. It would mean they were happy with the PATRIOT Act's powers as long as an administration like Bush/Cheney is in power.
So, congratulations, the invisible conservative anti-PATRIOT Act people you're inventing would actually have proven and emphasized my point if they existed, not debunked it.
As it is, Teahadists didn't say a damned thing during the Bush administration. Now they're up in arms simply because Obama's "doing it". And meanwhile liberals like Glenn Greenwald, are leading the charge against the NSA and what it's doing, with Teahadists merely turning up.
Slashdot Mirror
No they shouldn't. That would have meant there was a third me-too tablet OS, one with no advantages over Android or iOS.
What Microsoft did was right in principle. What they got wrong (and, to be honest, this bit is hard) was putting together APIs that would make it easier for desktop users and "tablet" users to work in the most optimal way for their interaction system. So instead Windows 8 is, to an end user, two operating systems sharing little but a file system, with entirely different applications working in entirely different worlds.
Would it have been possible for them to make something, instead, that presented tablet user interfaces when a computer was used as a tablet, and desktop user interfaces when used with a keyboard and mouse, while running the same applications? Well, probably. In theory this is the thing MVC is supposed to solve (and virtually never gets used for!) Offer developers a modern MVC API where they're encouraged to create two "Vs".
But that's not where Microsoft went, and I think they'll suffer for the next few point revisions until they can work out how to merge the two "worlds" on a standard Windows 8 system a little better.
Actually his score is 2.(34) (that is, 2+3.4, which makes 5.4) which means his score is the largest score ever awarded to a Slashdot comment.
Is this a joke response?
I ask because:
1. The article doesn't say the technology is new.
2. The article is about how the techology is being used as an end-run around bans and other restrictions on GM foods.
3. Claims that the technology has been improved hardly negate the notion that this is inherently a less safe technology than standard genetic engineering for the reasons outlined.
4. You're criticizing attacks on alternatives to GM foods, that are being introduced because of a nonsensical fear mongering campaign against GM foods, where those alternatives are objectively not as inherently safe as GM foods, as "fear mongering bullshit". Really? Seriously?
In your knee-jerk rush to defend mutagenesis you've decided to ignore what's being pointed out - that a mindless fear mongering campaign against GM is resulting in use of technologies that more closely fit the complaints made against GM food, you've ignored the article pretending it doesn't state facts that it clearly does, and you've failed to address any of the issues raised.
All because you want to attack critics of the use of mutagenesis (even though in this case we're talking about people who are criticizing its use as an alternative to GMO, not critics of its use overall) as "uninformed".
Well, last weekend I was at BJs (an unfortunately-named warehouse membership store) and they were selling a couple. Today I had to get an oil change, and went to Wal-mart as they're right next door, and was surprised to find three chromebooks sitting next to the Windows 8 laptops.
Those are the only stores I'd expect to sell any kind of laptop in in the last few months with the exception of Target which might sell them but I didn't actually go anywhere near any of the areas where they'd be likely to be sold.
So yeah, they're in the stores.
Like you though, I haven't seen one in the wild, that is, seen one in the hands of a co-worker or heard a friend or co-worker mention they own one. Perhaps though we're not the intended market?
There was more than a dash.
That said, I kinda felt bad slamming JavaScript - I don't mean "Web browser" (which most people who slam JS mean, ie "I hate JS, there' no way to create a file, and manipulating the DOM sucks!" is not a criticism of JavaScript, it's a criticism of web standards that integrate JavaScript) - I think it's a woefully underrated language that gets a bad rap because most people have to use it in conjunction with the aforementioned terrible APIs.
It's clean (mostly), scores well for readability (there's a reason programmers prefer JSON to XML) and allows the kind of casual programming that, say, PHP is famous for without having any of the "features" PHP is infamous for.
I'm glad projects like node.js are taking off, these are giving the language, finally, a chance to shine.
That said, of course, in this case, we're talking about the holy hell that is JS-in-Web-APIs. Even given Google is giving the system additional APIs so it can save files locally, the fact it's going to have to interact with the user through the DOM will ensure the language continues to get slammed for no good reason.
Basically everyone recognizes Eclipse is a load of crap.
Some would say this is because it's a poorly designed mismatch of "integrated modules" written by developers who had half of a good idea, implemented half of it, and then gave up, leaving the rest of us to put up with things like autocompletion systems that physically get in the way, bizarre default file associations, and "features" like network access that are rendered virtually unusable by being buried by several layers of confusing "user friendly" GUIs.
Others, such as Google, however, believe the problem with Eclipse is that it's written in Java. If only it were written in something logical like CSS, maybe coupled with something readable like HTML, perhaps held together with something stable and feature complete like Javascript, which can control the other elements using something intelligently designed, standardized, and completely quirkless like the Document Object Model, you'd have an IDE that would truly shine.
Think level playing fields. Ford can't advertise a rating of 5.4. GM can't. Tesla can because... why?
After that whole "My new supermegatube will do everything your high speed railway does, only cheaper - restrictions apply, supermegatube does not, actually, go to any of the locations served by high speed rail, and actually isn't going to be built anywhere near 50% of the stops" crap from Musk, I do feel the guy isn't always speaking with his honesty valve sealed properly.
I admire what he's doing, I hope he's successful at popularizing the electric car, and building the infrastructure needed to make it a transportation alternative, but the guy needs to knock it off with the exaggerated claims.
Hey, question: Which has sold more, the Chevy Volt, or the Tesla Model S?
That's right. The Volt. (50,000 vs less than 30,000 (forecast.)
Now, given that, the six million dollar question: how many Chevy Volts have caught fire so far?
Disclaimer: I'm a TSLA shareholder. I'm thinking this was a bad investment, but I'll see what happens over the next month.
sfcrazy writes:
Hi, it's sfcrazy. Funny story, but after my OpenSuSE submission, I got a job offer from Microsoft. Anyway, Windows 8.2 is out. It's a little more stable than Ubuntu, so if you've been thinking of switching from Ubuntu you might want to give Windows 8.2 a spin. Go on.
(Twelve months from now)
sfcrazy writes:
Hi there, sfcrazy again. Apple's PR department kindly offered me a job a few months ago. Anyway, Mac OS X 10.11 is out, and it's very Unixy. If you're getting fed up with Ubuntu, you might want switch to Mac OS X 10.11 because it's even more Unixy.
(Continued...)
The fact they're paid by our taxes is neither here nor there. I wouldn't expect someone whose job it is to manage the payroll for the DMV or who fixes potholes to be forced to be "visible all the time they are on the job".
What matters is that we as a society give police special powers over non-police. That needs oversight. That's not going to change regardless of whether police are taxpayer funded, or in some hypothetical dystopian libertard future, self funding semi-independent officially sanctioned vigilantes. What matters is power, not the way their paycheck is funded.
If you lose sight of that, you lose sight of what constitutes abuse of the uniform.
DVD players are ubiquitous. They're in cars, in bedrooms, in laptops, there are those little portable DVD players with the built-in screens, and they're even built into some TVs. Blu-ray players are in some (most? Hard to tell) living rooms, and the occasional bedroom.
If a content maker was stupid enough to discontinue DVD support in 2013, they'd lose most of their disc-based sales, and probably contribute to the demand for piracy at the same time. And that's not to mention the fact that DVDs are cheap to make, while Blu-ray discs are relatively expensive.
The answer is IPSec.
Forget the whole "Using it for VPNs crap", it was designed from the start, originally with IPv6 in mind, for opportunistic encryption-by-default (including "Talking to this host? IPSec or nothing".)
Increase in costs? Maybe, but you're talking marginally more CPU power needed and only a one-off administration overhead. It's not a "drastic increase (in) costs" by any measure, and quite honestly, it should be best practices, and at an Internet company like Google or Yahoo, it probably is already on the agenda.
IPSec isn't perfect, there's way too much that hasn't been standardized yet in terms of standardized public key exchanges (largely, I suspect, because we're still waiting for DNSSEC to actually be widely deployed, and any key exchange mechanism is going to require a secure DNS system), but there's enough standardized to make it deployable for internal networks.
Not so much energy independence as keeping the cost of gasoline low. Decreasing the demand of an ordinary product that is not at the limit of its supply might not affect prices much, but demand for oil is insatiable and supply is limited and expensive to increase.
That is to say, a sudden increase in demand for gasoline right now of 10% may (will) well have a much greater than 10% effect on the price of gasoline. That'd fuck up the economy. The real solution is a complete reversion of 60 years of insane transportation policies within the US, but that's not going to happen overnight.
Diesel-Electric transmissions are very efficient, but they're also not particularly responsive. They work for trains because trains don't have to keep stopping and starting, are slow to move anyway (for a US style feels-like-a-mile-long freight train you'd be surprised how long it takes before the last car starts to move after the locomotive does) and typically, outside of depots, trains in motion are kept around a mile apart.
Truck drivers aren't going to be happy with a truck that moves like a train locomotive. Nor will anyone behind them at a traffic signal that just turned green ;-)
Really? So when someone goes to the supermarket, puts 5 oranges in their cart, they wouldn't notice if the store manager were to wait until they're not looking, and replace the oranges with peanuts?
People actually think in types ALL THE TIME. You have to unlearn types as part of the process of learning how to program, learning how to turn real world situations into generic rules.
So no, you have it totally wrong. Yes, type safety trips up many programmers, although for the most part it's not that they can't understand it, or fail to know what to do when their program doesn't compile, it's just annoying being reminded there's a bug in their app.
3.14 * 10 == 3.140?
(And what would that have to do with anything anyway? And actually, the popularity of the phrase "You're comparing apples to oranges!" shows that, actually, people do think in types, and get annoyed when others treat one type as another unthinkingly.
Translation: "I can't read"!
"We accomplished something in a few weeks that the wastes of flesh in charge of this boondoggle couldn't do in two years" - nope, that's not what he's saying. He's saying "We did something different in two weeks, something much simpler but considerably less functional."
"and with vastly better access to internal information" - misleading. He's saying that they was able to build upon the work that the original Healthcare.gov developers had done making the internal information available.
There's no question Heathcare.gov is a fiasco. But this project doesn't prove much, if anything at all. Take some work that's already been done, and build a functional shell that doesn't meet the full requirements? I can do that too. I can do it in two weeks. Given that scope, I'll rewrite Delta's reservation system in one day - sure, you won't be able to book any flights with it, or see what discounts you have available, but, uh, it'll work, save for that reservation thing.
So the paradox is wrong then?
Driving is going down and has been going down, for quite a while, with the lead being taken by those under 30. Meanwhile CAFE standards continue to climb.
Perhaps efficiency isn't the entire picture. CAFE standards do not exist in a vaccuum. On top of the standards requiring upfront investment, and thus increased costs, to implement, they're implemented as part of a general movement towards better efficiency, which includes ending some of the absurd laws that chain modern Americans to cars in the first place, as well as improving other transportation options.
The paradox is no paradox because it ignores context, and it's only through context that you can tell if something is a paradox to begin with. If the aim of CAFE standards had been to make car based transportation cheaper on a per-mile basis, then increased total fuel consumption would not be paradoxical had it happened. Likewise, if the aim of CAFE standards is to slow the rate of increase of fuel consumption, which it is, then because it was part of an overall push towards reducing dependence on oil, rather than the sole tool available, it's been pretty successful.
In short, Jevon's Paradox is bunk and probably always will be.
Poor example. Companies pay to have their logos slapped on cars, with the understanding that virtually anyone seeing the logo will understand that the corporate entity sponsored the racing team.
You, remember, are asking for permission to display a logo where no relationship exists between you and Canonical, and where none is implied. At best, you can pretend it benefits Canonical if people think they sponsored your kites in some way (but, of course, they won't, because CONTEXT) but even if it does, that's for Canonical to decide and not you.
You have no relationship with Canonical. Canonical has every right not to allow others to think that there is some kind of relationship between you and them. It would damage the mark. Their lawyers had sane and sensible reasons for rejecting your request.
Like I said, if the purpose was to support Ubuntu by promoting the operating system, why not actually comment upon the operating system, rather than give the false appearance of a business relationship between the two of you?
Well, the GP's argument was that the savings would pay for it in two years, so presumably those on low incomes would benefit from this.
That said, I live in Florida, have a moderately large home, and my entire electricity bill comes to around $2,000-$2,500 a year. It's hard to see how a better A/C would save me $4,000 over two years, given that's around 80-100% of my electricity bill! 16 SEER would be an improvement over my home's (which is so old I'd assume it's probably a 10 SEER unit or worse) but this would require greater than 100% efficiency out of the unit. Not friggin' likely.
Seems reasonable in this case. You have no affiliation with Canonical, and were not doing anything Ubuntu specific outside of simply printing the logo. I would kinda expect lawyers do be concerned that allowing that would result in trademark dilution.
The funny thing is, if you'd added the words "The Ubuntu Operating System Sucks" underneath the logo, there's a very good chance the lawyers would have felt they couldn't actually stop you from using it. And on that note, "The Ubuntu Operating System is Awesome You Should Check It Out" would have, likewise, resulted in the lawyers feeling they couldn't stop you. At that point, you're (1) using the trademark in its proper context, and (2) using it in protected commentary.
I suspect he's right. While many Slashdotters have experience of being contractors, and setting up a small business to legally manage that, that's not typical of a normal small business which will generally involve: a small number of employees, but more than one; rent; non-trivial supplies; capital costs; etc. A single person business who works out of a laptop and smartphone and has no other costs other than travel isn't unusual but it's not typical.
Think in terms of what it costs to run a pizzaria, one of the classic small businesses. You have yourself, you have a group of employees to the point you generally have a minimum of two on duty (besides yourself) during opening hours, more at busy periods. You need to rent a shop, which doesn't have to be huge, but it'll cost considerably more than those cheap single room "offices" you see advertised as "starting at $500/month!" by the road. And, of course, you need flour, water, anchovies... oh and gas, and electric, and phone service, and advertising and printing...
Now, this doesn't mean going into pizza making forces you to live in poverty or go bankrupt, far from it, because pizza is popular, and people are willing to pay quite a bit for a decent pizza. Or even half decent pizza. That's why there are so many pizza chains. But the question isn't "why doesn't pizza make a profit", it's "How much turnover do you need before Square's monthly rate becomes better and does a typical small business qualify", and it seems hard to believe that an average pizzaria has a turnover so low it wouldn't qualify. Even if the franchisee, at the end of the day, goes home with a salary of $50,000, that's just one small part of the costs.
You're missing the point. It's absurd that the right - even ignoring the reality that he did - considers it a scandal that he didn't condemn the attack by describing it as "terrorism."
That. Is. Not. A. Scandal. Not even if it were true. And neither is me accurately using the term "flawed" and rightly avoiding the term "evil" to describe the NSA. The insistence that you're not pure enough unless you condemn $THING_YOU_DO_NOT_LIKE using terminology that involves words you consider carry the minimum sense of negativity is ridiculous.
Your thought process is exactly the same as Joe Biden's when he describes Snowden as a "terrorist", or when a Slashdotter describes having to pay slightly more than they would want for a piece of music as "being raped". It does not add to discourse, it does not add to the sum of knowledge, and it specifically avoids reason in favor of rhetorical extremism.
Netbeans seems to have better support for it and practically makes installing it mandatory for JEE apps. I actually thought for a while that it was supposed to be Tomcat's successor - Glassfish::Tomcat seemed to be the same as LibreOffice::OpenOffice, but this was not the case.
What about it? It seems that 90% of the responses to my comment are along the lines of "By saying they're flawed you were saying they're wonderful and perfect." Even when I point this out, by making reference to the absurd "Obama sucks because on hearing about BENGHAZIII!!!! he didn't RIP HIS SHIRT OFF and scream TERRORISM! TERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAA!", I still get responses like yours.
The NSA is trying to gather information to protect American interests. Sometimes it crosses the line. You've just given another example of this. You haven't given an example of the NSA being evil per-se, just flawed.
And yes, I'm aware you're claiming it's different because it's not to protect America's National Security, but I never claimed that the mandate they're trying to follow was purely related to security. Perhaps it should be, it is called the National Security Agency after all, but it isn't. It's mandate is about data interception and collection to protect American interests. That's what it's doing, but it's going too far in many instances.
FWIW, and I'm not justifying it, just pointing out context which is important if you want to understand why an NSA agent might think something we consider crossing the line is standard practice, the NSA is hardly the only governmental agency engaging in industrial espionage. Pro-tip: if you have secrets you want to keep from a French competitor, do NOT, fly Air France (or at least, if you do, take carry-on luggage only and don't let it out of your sight.)
That would be nice if it happened, but there never was any right wing opposition to the PATRIOT Act.
No, actually, were it true, it would mean the opposite. It would mean they were happy with the PATRIOT Act's powers as long as an administration like Bush/Cheney is in power.
So, congratulations, the invisible conservative anti-PATRIOT Act people you're inventing would actually have proven and emphasized my point if they existed, not debunked it.
As it is, Teahadists didn't say a damned thing during the Bush administration. Now they're up in arms simply because Obama's "doing it". And meanwhile liberals like Glenn Greenwald, are leading the charge against the NSA and what it's doing, with Teahadists merely turning up.