This seems like a false dillema - how much agonizing do you do over whether you'll subscribe to DirecTV or DIsh or both or neither? If you want one you pick one, and if it turns out you don't like it you switch.
Really the music situation is much better than that, there are more choices and none of the awful contracts. You can switch easily if you wish and some of them offer free trials, or even entirely free versions. This is no worse than any other subscription service and better than many. Of course it's different from actually owning the music, but no one has claimed equivalency there. You can always just buy the songs if you want, from many sources.
Is that seriously the logic here? "I saw some random animal doing it, so I'm going to do it too." Cats eat vomit. Rabbits eat shit. (Technically slightly different from their regular shit. Not enough to matter to these unnamed celebrities I'd wager.)
::Sigh:: Fine, whatever. It's probably healthier than most diet fads.
Er, what? There was never any danger of the Fallout franchise being killed, that legal struggle was entirely about Bethesda suing the shit out of Interplay in order to take the rights to the Fallout MMO that Interplay was developing. Without Bethesda's interference the MMO may or may not have been completed, but it had no impact on the rights to the single player games.
What exactly are Harry Reid and Obama doing about the situation? Oh yeah - they're droning on and on about the embarrassment the current Senate majority is
Oh for Pete's sake... BOTH OF THOSE BILLS HAD MAJORITY SUPPORT. How is that not an embarrassment? The very existence of the Patriot Act, now the Freedom Act, is humiliating.
You kidding? It did tons of good. Did you see that thread the other day? People falling over themselves to talk about how great he was and how they wanted to vote for him. Some of those people are going to read this now and realize that the whole thing was just more grandstanding, but some are not. Not everyone sees every story, not everyone gets the whole picture, and as long as some people wind up with a perception of the shining hero then the song and dance has done some good.
If subsidies were removed the US could (easily) produce enough agriculture to feed all 6 billion people on the earth.
Can you back this up? I question the accuracy of this statement, partly because the earth currently has 7.3 billion people (projected to exceed 8 billion in 2025), and partly because the only statistic for this that I can find gives 200 million as the most that the United States could support sustainably at a high standard of living. Now, sustainable support isn't what we're talking about here (though it should be) we're talking about support by any temporary means. Our current extremely high yields are thanks to artificial fertilizer, but if you want to stretch that to 6 billion people (or 7.3 billion) you're talking about an awful lot of fertilizer.
It isn't all about population either, it's also affluence - you've no doubt heard that the average American consumes ~30 times as much energy as the average Indian. In other words, the fact that most of the world is (comparatively) poor is what is allowing us to get by with our current population. So what happens as developing countries develop?
Usually whenever this topic comes up, some yokel will say, "As populations become more affluent, their birthrate goes down. Problem solved." Conveniently overlooking the fact that as populations become more affluent they also consume more, at a faster rate than the birth rate reduction. This is what I meant by something which won't be acted on until it can no longer be denied. There's a lot of denial out there on this subject.
It's necessary now. The laws won't be changed until after it can no longer be denied, long after it's necessary. The choice you describe is not one which people will put up with, and is unenforceable anyway. There's no way to tell whether or not a man has sired a child.
My guess: whether or not the treatment is difficult / expensive to administer, it will be made very expensive to purchase. Prohibitively expensive. So expensive that relatively few people will be able to get it.
There's a book by Jack Vance about this, sorta, called To Live Forever. Like all of Vance's books it's definitely worth a read, though I'm not sure it really grants any insight here.
I don't think so. The links in the summary were to the paper and to explanations of the results of the paper. As it so happens, in the third link in addition to the paper results there was also an explanation of the feature but there was nothing in the summary that said, "This is the link you click on to find out how to do this."
You're right that I didn't click on the links, but since the links didn't give any indication that one of them was providing the information that I was after I'm not willing to take the blame for that one.
there is no persistent menu bar across the top to hide all your features
There used to be. Is that gone? I wouldn't know - I stay as far away from MacOS as I do from GNOME, and for the same reason: if you want to do anything which even slightly deviates from what the UI designers planned for you to do (like enabling tracking protection) then you either know the secret handshake or you're out of luck.
Actually, the thing which has irritated me the most about Firefox lately is the lack of configurability of shortcuts. Ctrl-w closes a tab while Ctrl-q quits the program... right next to one another. Every time I hit Ctrl-q by mistake I get angry and look for the menu option which lets me configure shortcuts, only to smack myself in the head and remember that it isn't there. The secret handshake for that one used to be a plug-in, but that doesn't work with current versions of Firefox. As annoying as the hamburger menu might be, I would be fine with it if it just had the options there for all of this stuff. You should never need to use the about:config tool if you're not a Firefox dev.
I had to look this up. For anyone else wondering: this is one of those hidden FIrefox features which is only available to people who know about it ahead of time, through the about:config interface. If you're one of those people who isn't in the club, the boolean you search for is "privacy.trackingprotection.enabled".
[Insert rant about FIrefox's god-awful UI and severely lacking menu system.]
There is no question that this is coming. Honestly, I'll be surprised if it doesn't happen first - automated planes are much easier than automated road vehicles since the skies are less congested, road conditions are more consistent, there are relatively few take-off and landing areas and all are well known with well established flight paths between them.
Also, who says a plane can't pull over on the outskirts of town to meet its harbor pilot? Military drones are remote controlled, why couldn't you have a few remote pilots in a control tower at any given airport, ready to guide the plane in on its final descent?
I'm not clear on why this thing has requirements at all. Why are the requirements dependent on the hardware and not on whatever game you're playing with this?
I always avoid La Guardia because there's no subway there. If you're Daddy Warbucks and taking taxis everywhere then fine, I can see why you might want La Guardia to freshen up its tophat stand and add a new monocle dispenser. JFK is always the faster and more convenient option for me.
Not for an iPhone 6/7, but possibly for some higher number. That's mostly about marketing though. Hardness effects how easy it is to scratch, but doesn't say much about how likely it is to break. Sapphire is harder than this and was going to be used for iPhones, but as everyone pointed out at the time - that was more about Thinking Different than it was about thinking practical.
The revolving door argument is accurate, not thin at all, and a very important thing to remember when you have fine upstanding citizens like Meredith Baker getting appointed to office. The corruption goes from regulators to industry though, which is not the position that Tom Wheeler is in.
That does not mean that it's safe to appoint former industry lobbyists. Even an honest lobbyist has spent much of their professional life in close contact with, possibly friends with, industry reps, and the lobbyist's job is to regurgitate industry talking points. Believing those talking points, at least in part, makes a better lobbyist. Going from industry to regulation is less dangerous than the other way around, but the fact that Wheeler seems to be working out is likely a fluke. Someone of unusually strong character, at least for a person in his position (this is not a compliment).
As for finding someone without the ties to industry - this isn't as hard as you make it out. For one thing, why do they need to know all the details of the telecommunications industry before they even start the job? We like to pretend that this is a requirement for every position, but we have tons of CEOs, judges, and politicians who don't meet this standard and when they fail people love to jump on this as the reason. A much larger portion though, are successful. A CEO for example, needs to be able to lead first and foremost. If they can do that much very well, then they may not need to know everything about the company's products and practices before they start the job.
It can't really happen that way. At worst it would be during crunch time only - as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, you develop a resistance and it loses its effect over time.
That said, we already live in a world where use of stimulants in the workplace is expected. As the summary points out, 85% of people use caffeine. Personally, I would love to see adderall gain more widespread acceptance as a caffeine alternative. It doesn't make me jittery or hurt my stomach in the way that caffeine does, the only reason that I don't use it now is cost (and legal threats).
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying. Harlem, Jamaica, and Bed-Stuy are the brightest marks there - if stop and frisk was intended to keep poor people inside the poor areas, then it would have to be done more outside those areas than within them.
Slashdot Mirror
"Some people" are wondering things? Who? I see no links to that particular claim.
I seems like the submitter had intended to say "i am wondering" but decided to go all Fox News on it. We can do better than this.
This seems like a false dillema - how much agonizing do you do over whether you'll subscribe to DirecTV or DIsh or both or neither? If you want one you pick one, and if it turns out you don't like it you switch.
Really the music situation is much better than that, there are more choices and none of the awful contracts. You can switch easily if you wish and some of them offer free trials, or even entirely free versions. This is no worse than any other subscription service and better than many. Of course it's different from actually owning the music, but no one has claimed equivalency there. You can always just buy the songs if you want, from many sources.
Is that seriously the logic here? "I saw some random animal doing it, so I'm going to do it too." Cats eat vomit. Rabbits eat shit. (Technically slightly different from their regular shit. Not enough to matter to these unnamed celebrities I'd wager.)
::Sigh:: Fine, whatever. It's probably healthier than most diet fads.
Er, what? There was never any danger of the Fallout franchise being killed, that legal struggle was entirely about Bethesda suing the shit out of Interplay in order to take the rights to the Fallout MMO that Interplay was developing. Without Bethesda's interference the MMO may or may not have been completed, but it had no impact on the rights to the single player games.
What exactly are Harry Reid and Obama doing about the situation? Oh yeah - they're droning on and on about the embarrassment the current Senate majority is
Oh for Pete's sake... BOTH OF THOSE BILLS HAD MAJORITY SUPPORT. How is that not an embarrassment? The very existence of the Patriot Act, now the Freedom Act, is humiliating.
You kidding? It did tons of good. Did you see that thread the other day? People falling over themselves to talk about how great he was and how they wanted to vote for him. Some of those people are going to read this now and realize that the whole thing was just more grandstanding, but some are not. Not everyone sees every story, not everyone gets the whole picture, and as long as some people wind up with a perception of the shining hero then the song and dance has done some good.
If subsidies were removed the US could (easily) produce enough agriculture to feed all 6 billion people on the earth.
Can you back this up? I question the accuracy of this statement, partly because the earth currently has 7.3 billion people (projected to exceed 8 billion in 2025), and partly because the only statistic for this that I can find gives 200 million as the most that the United States could support sustainably at a high standard of living. Now, sustainable support isn't what we're talking about here (though it should be) we're talking about support by any temporary means. Our current extremely high yields are thanks to artificial fertilizer, but if you want to stretch that to 6 billion people (or 7.3 billion) you're talking about an awful lot of fertilizer.
We pay money to farmers in order to keep the supply steady and the price of food consistent, and also lobbying, but not because there's a surplus of food. In fact, quite the opposite. The fact that population growth is slowing in some areas is irrelevant, it's still rising globally.
It isn't all about population either, it's also affluence - you've no doubt heard that the average American consumes ~30 times as much energy as the average Indian. In other words, the fact that most of the world is (comparatively) poor is what is allowing us to get by with our current population. So what happens as developing countries develop?
Usually whenever this topic comes up, some yokel will say, "As populations become more affluent, their birthrate goes down. Problem solved." Conveniently overlooking the fact that as populations become more affluent they also consume more, at a faster rate than the birth rate reduction. This is what I meant by something which won't be acted on until it can no longer be denied. There's a lot of denial out there on this subject.
All it takes is three.
It's necessary now. The laws won't be changed until after it can no longer be denied, long after it's necessary. The choice you describe is not one which people will put up with, and is unenforceable anyway. There's no way to tell whether or not a man has sired a child.
My guess: whether or not the treatment is difficult / expensive to administer, it will be made very expensive to purchase. Prohibitively expensive. So expensive that relatively few people will be able to get it.
There's a book by Jack Vance about this, sorta, called To Live Forever. Like all of Vance's books it's definitely worth a read, though I'm not sure it really grants any insight here.
I don't think so. The links in the summary were to the paper and to explanations of the results of the paper. As it so happens, in the third link in addition to the paper results there was also an explanation of the feature but there was nothing in the summary that said, "This is the link you click on to find out how to do this."
You're right that I didn't click on the links, but since the links didn't give any indication that one of them was providing the information that I was after I'm not willing to take the blame for that one.
Huh. That's smart, thanks.
there is no persistent menu bar across the top to hide all your features
There used to be. Is that gone? I wouldn't know - I stay as far away from MacOS as I do from GNOME, and for the same reason: if you want to do anything which even slightly deviates from what the UI designers planned for you to do (like enabling tracking protection) then you either know the secret handshake or you're out of luck.
Actually, the thing which has irritated me the most about Firefox lately is the lack of configurability of shortcuts. Ctrl-w closes a tab while Ctrl-q quits the program... right next to one another. Every time I hit Ctrl-q by mistake I get angry and look for the menu option which lets me configure shortcuts, only to smack myself in the head and remember that it isn't there. The secret handshake for that one used to be a plug-in, but that doesn't work with current versions of Firefox. As annoying as the hamburger menu might be, I would be fine with it if it just had the options there for all of this stuff. You should never need to use the about:config tool if you're not a Firefox dev.
I had to look this up. For anyone else wondering: this is one of those hidden FIrefox features which is only available to people who know about it ahead of time, through the about:config interface. If you're one of those people who isn't in the club, the boolean you search for is "privacy.trackingprotection.enabled".
[Insert rant about FIrefox's god-awful UI and severely lacking menu system.]
Posting to undo down-mod. Sorry.
There is no question that this is coming. Honestly, I'll be surprised if it doesn't happen first - automated planes are much easier than automated road vehicles since the skies are less congested, road conditions are more consistent, there are relatively few take-off and landing areas and all are well known with well established flight paths between them.
Also, who says a plane can't pull over on the outskirts of town to meet its harbor pilot? Military drones are remote controlled, why couldn't you have a few remote pilots in a control tower at any given airport, ready to guide the plane in on its final descent?
Great. So the question is: why does Tux Racer require 8 GB of RAM, a NVIDIA GTX 970 / AMD 290, etc.?
I'm not clear on why this thing has requirements at all. Why are the requirements dependent on the hardware and not on whatever game you're playing with this?
Fear of swine flu was not the reason, it was the excuse. I'm sure you're right about the event which inspired the rule though.
I always avoid La Guardia because there's no subway there. If you're Daddy Warbucks and taking taxis everywhere then fine, I can see why you might want La Guardia to freshen up its tophat stand and add a new monocle dispenser. JFK is always the faster and more convenient option for me.
Not for an iPhone 6/7, but possibly for some higher number. That's mostly about marketing though. Hardness effects how easy it is to scratch, but doesn't say much about how likely it is to break. Sapphire is harder than this and was going to be used for iPhones, but as everyone pointed out at the time - that was more about Thinking Different than it was about thinking practical.
A usage cap? What do you mean by this? Why would you need a usage cap to do streaming?
The revolving door argument is accurate, not thin at all, and a very important thing to remember when you have fine upstanding citizens like Meredith Baker getting appointed to office. The corruption goes from regulators to industry though, which is not the position that Tom Wheeler is in.
That does not mean that it's safe to appoint former industry lobbyists. Even an honest lobbyist has spent much of their professional life in close contact with, possibly friends with, industry reps, and the lobbyist's job is to regurgitate industry talking points. Believing those talking points, at least in part, makes a better lobbyist. Going from industry to regulation is less dangerous than the other way around, but the fact that Wheeler seems to be working out is likely a fluke. Someone of unusually strong character, at least for a person in his position (this is not a compliment).
As for finding someone without the ties to industry - this isn't as hard as you make it out. For one thing, why do they need to know all the details of the telecommunications industry before they even start the job? We like to pretend that this is a requirement for every position, but we have tons of CEOs, judges, and politicians who don't meet this standard and when they fail people love to jump on this as the reason. A much larger portion though, are successful. A CEO for example, needs to be able to lead first and foremost. If they can do that much very well, then they may not need to know everything about the company's products and practices before they start the job.
It can't really happen that way. At worst it would be during crunch time only - as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, you develop a resistance and it loses its effect over time.
That said, we already live in a world where use of stimulants in the workplace is expected. As the summary points out, 85% of people use caffeine. Personally, I would love to see adderall gain more widespread acceptance as a caffeine alternative. It doesn't make me jittery or hurt my stomach in the way that caffeine does, the only reason that I don't use it now is cost (and legal threats).
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying. Harlem, Jamaica, and Bed-Stuy are the brightest marks there - if stop and frisk was intended to keep poor people inside the poor areas, then it would have to be done more outside those areas than within them.