You might be right, but it still sucks. And in the case when all your solutions are crap, I think it's dishonest to present any of them as actual, workable solutions.
After getting a BSEE, I looked for four months for an embedded job which didn't somehow involve blowing up dark-skinned people. No dice. Everywhere, I got punted for having no work experience.
Then I decided to go back to software, and got two jobs within a week. I chose the one a 15min bike ride from my house. The salary is about $20,000 more than I'd be making in EE.
There is a case for forgiving individuals who play a role in the Church of Scientology. They too were lost souls caught in the cult's net. They too may be redeemed.
As for forgiving the Church of Scientology itself... I challenge you to present one scenario in which that could bring about any good at all.
Specifically, go back ten years, pre-Google. Search engines such as Yahoo, Altavista, Lycos, Excite, etc. have been steadily piling more and more bullshit into their search pages -- er, excuse me, INTERNET PORTALS. News, stock quotes, feeble attempts to keep up with What's New! on the web... it's all there on the front page, usually in a sea of frames and/or tables which take 20 seconds to render.
Then Google comes along. Not only does their search absolutely embarrass their competitors', but the search page also loads just about instantly. No front page ads, no attempts to pull your eyes off the prize, no crapping up a perfectly good tool with useless and deleterious ornamentation. A clean search page which performs the best search ever.
At the time of its introduction, Google's spare design screamed anything but "Cheap!" It might have had as much to do with their success, initially, as the tech behind it.
You caught me; I will cross "rational truth" off that list for the Catholic Church. One thing I really like about the Church is its (recent) harmony with science. It is miles ahead of most of American Christianity in this regard.
I agree with your last statement completely. God is truth. I would also invert it; truth is God. There is nothing but what is, and everything else ain't.
Dude. My comment was a rhetorical statement of (lowercase) papal infallibility, not an actual belief that the Pope actually defines any reality other than maybe his own.
Good morning and welcome to America. Sure, the Christian majority here (just like the Muslim majority in many countries) just wants to eat, work and love in peace. However, the Christian majority here (just like the Muslim majority in many countries) aligns itself in a very real way with a very different religious minority which is more interested in power, fear and hate than in peace and prosperity. This Christian (or Muslim) majority then comes a real problem for those who disagree with the bullshit the minority leaders feed them.
Religious movements also have the advantage that they are not constrained by rational truth, observable evidence, or anything but some old books and some loudmouthed, pious windbags.
(Please excuse me for ignoring several of your strawmen; I bet they burn real pretty-like)
1. Anyone who dares tell of unknowable things is a self-deluded liar. Religion, as it purports to know things which humans can't, is a liar too.
2. Just because an idea is unprovable and undisprovable, doesn't mean the idea doesn't suck. Read up on the Flying Spaghetti Monster for an exploration of this concept. Not all ideas should be considered on equal footing.
In his defense, basically everyone was in Hitler Youth. It was the Boy Scouts for Good Germans. Most children didn't have a whole lot of choice regarding their participation.
This guy isn't even relevant to most Catholics. He's basically an interim caretaker, following an important leader who brought much change to an institution which is not ready for any more any time soon.
I gotta say: if this is the first, or second, or tenth issue that "is gonna cause some serious headaches for you at church", you aren't paying very close attention.
Aqua provides a consistent and powerful toolkit for local GUI apps, which is a very nice thing to have. It's also Display PDF on the inside, which is quite convenient for the programmer. X trumps Aqua in a few things such as remote operation, but to ignore Aqua completely is silly. It's a big reason for the success of the OS X platform.
Of course proper shielding is necessary, but if you're in a position to design a cable which will support throughput of 3Gb/s, you are in a position to supply power in the same package. In practice, crosstalk from other data cables is a much greater problem than interference on the power supply rail. (Disclaimer: I'm an analog EE; I think about this crap.)
That's ok; USB isn't designed to power heavy loads. 2.5W (5V x 500mA) is enough to spin a hard drive, light up the Num Lock lamp, illuminate an optical mouse, etc. And no one is saying eSATA power should be as limited as USB. I'm just making the point that a protocol for bus power existed, it is a killer feature for an external HD connection scheme, and the designers of eSATA chose to ignore it. Lazy.
USB has supported bus power forever. There's a protocol (devices can use up to 100mA without asking, up to 500mA with host device permission) and it works. eSATA, a newer spec, did not learn from this??
I've been waiting for a graphics bump in the MB before I replace my beloved iBook G4. Now comes the Air, with the same graphics chipset. This means that the MacBook, rather than having some Real guts, has the same anemic graphics capability as an ultramobile PC.
Alternately, Apple could have released a 12" or 13" version of the MacBook Pro, along the lines of the 12" Powerbook G4 which won so many hearts a few years ago. They skipped that too.
I'm sure there's a target market for the Air, but I'm not a part of it. Unfortunately, I am not currently in the target market for any of Apple's computers right now.
Slashdot Mirror
It's as good a measure as any.
You might be right, but it still sucks. And in the case when all your solutions are crap, I think it's dishonest to present any of them as actual, workable solutions.
After getting a BSEE, I looked for four months for an embedded job which didn't somehow involve blowing up dark-skinned people. No dice. Everywhere, I got punted for having no work experience.
Then I decided to go back to software, and got two jobs within a week. I chose the one a 15min bike ride from my house. The salary is about $20,000 more than I'd be making in EE.
This is why I am not an embedded programmer.
There is a case for forgiving individuals who play a role in the Church of Scientology. They too were lost souls caught in the cult's net. They too may be redeemed.
As for forgiving the Church of Scientology itself... I challenge you to present one scenario in which that could bring about any good at all.
Specifically, go back ten years, pre-Google. Search engines such as Yahoo, Altavista, Lycos, Excite, etc. have been steadily piling more and more bullshit into their search pages -- er, excuse me, INTERNET PORTALS. News, stock quotes, feeble attempts to keep up with What's New! on the web... it's all there on the front page, usually in a sea of frames and/or tables which take 20 seconds to render.
Then Google comes along. Not only does their search absolutely embarrass their competitors', but the search page also loads just about instantly. No front page ads, no attempts to pull your eyes off the prize, no crapping up a perfectly good tool with useless and deleterious ornamentation. A clean search page which performs the best search ever.
At the time of its introduction, Google's spare design screamed anything but "Cheap!" It might have had as much to do with their success, initially, as the tech behind it.
I always look forward to fresh news from my RSS feed of the latest fatwas...
You caught me; I will cross "rational truth" off that list for the Catholic Church. One thing I really like about the Church is its (recent) harmony with science. It is miles ahead of most of American Christianity in this regard.
I agree with your last statement completely. God is truth. I would also invert it; truth is God. There is nothing but what is, and everything else ain't.
Funny; chanting is one of the few components of Catholicism (or any religion) which can be shown to have demonstrable merit...
Hence the "in short" I included, as well as the link to a much better, longer explanation.
/. hands me a better idiot...
No matter how hard I try to idiot-proof my posts,
Dude. My comment was a rhetorical statement of (lowercase) papal infallibility, not an actual belief that the Pope actually defines any reality other than maybe his own.
Good morning and welcome to America. Sure, the Christian majority here (just like the Muslim majority in many countries) just wants to eat, work and love in peace. However, the Christian majority here (just like the Muslim majority in many countries) aligns itself in a very real way with a very different religious minority which is more interested in power, fear and hate than in peace and prosperity. This Christian (or Muslim) majority then comes a real problem for those who disagree with the bullshit the minority leaders feed them.
Religious movements also have the advantage that they are not constrained by rational truth, observable evidence, or anything but some old books and some loudmouthed, pious windbags.
(Please excuse me for ignoring several of your strawmen; I bet they burn real pretty-like)
1. Anyone who dares tell of unknowable things is a self-deluded liar. Religion, as it purports to know things which humans can't, is a liar too.
2. Just because an idea is unprovable and undisprovable, doesn't mean the idea doesn't suck. Read up on the Flying Spaghetti Monster for an exploration of this concept. Not all ideas should be considered on equal footing.
The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility decrees that (in short) when the Pope claims to be speaking the word of God, he is. Period, no discussion.
Wikipedia link. Now you know further.
Direct hit.
He's the fucking Pope. He defines reality.
In his defense, basically everyone was in Hitler Youth. It was the Boy Scouts for Good Germans. Most children didn't have a whole lot of choice regarding their participation.
This guy isn't even relevant to most Catholics. He's basically an interim caretaker, following an important leader who brought much change to an institution which is not ready for any more any time soon.
I gotta say: if this is the first, or second, or tenth issue that "is gonna cause some serious headaches for you at church", you aren't paying very close attention.
Because I consider it pretty weak for a programmer to be restricted to the languages he already knows.
Aqua provides a consistent and powerful toolkit for local GUI apps, which is a very nice thing to have. It's also Display PDF on the inside, which is quite convenient for the programmer. X trumps Aqua in a few things such as remote operation, but to ignore Aqua completely is silly. It's a big reason for the success of the OS X platform.
Of course proper shielding is necessary, but if you're in a position to design a cable which will support throughput of 3Gb/s, you are in a position to supply power in the same package. In practice, crosstalk from other data cables is a much greater problem than interference on the power supply rail. (Disclaimer: I'm an analog EE; I think about this crap.)
That's ok; USB isn't designed to power heavy loads. 2.5W (5V x 500mA) is enough to spin a hard drive, light up the Num Lock lamp, illuminate an optical mouse, etc. And no one is saying eSATA power should be as limited as USB. I'm just making the point that a protocol for bus power existed, it is a killer feature for an external HD connection scheme, and the designers of eSATA chose to ignore it. Lazy.
USB has supported bus power forever. There's a protocol (devices can use up to 100mA without asking, up to 500mA with host device permission) and it works. eSATA, a newer spec, did not learn from this??
No one obligated you to say something that threadbare and devoid of humor. No one. You did it on your own.
Seriously -- it's two more pins. Why wasn't the spec designed right in the first place?
I've been waiting for a graphics bump in the MB before I replace my beloved iBook G4. Now comes the Air, with the same graphics chipset. This means that the MacBook, rather than having some Real guts, has the same anemic graphics capability as an ultramobile PC.
Alternately, Apple could have released a 12" or 13" version of the MacBook Pro, along the lines of the 12" Powerbook G4 which won so many hearts a few years ago. They skipped that too.
I'm sure there's a target market for the Air, but I'm not a part of it. Unfortunately, I am not currently in the target market for any of Apple's computers right now.