Funny how things "fall through the cracks" more for straight stuff than for gay stuff. Besides, the whole thing shows how prudish Apple is in general. They can't even be bothered to implement a rating system, and instead reduce everything to the level of a four year old.
And the problem is what? You are willing to do a job at some price, taking into account your skills and expenses, and someone else is willing to offer a certain amount of money to get the job done. Either you match up or you don't. If you don't match up, the job doesn't get done.
I was on rent-a-coder for a while before they changed the name. And the expectations and offered pay were ridiculous.
You make it sound like people posting some sort of low-ball pay for a programming job is some personal insult and injury to you. But if there's nobody to take the job at the given price, the job doesn't get done, simple as that. Doesn't hurt you, doesn't hurt anybody else.
The idea that a salaried employee can have his employers (and optionally tax payers) by his balls and squeeze hard to get paid more is quaint, but doesn't apply in most of the real world. Most people in this world actually have to compete in order to make money. You know: bakers, electricians, computer consultants, personal trainers, hairdressers, etc. They work an hour, they get paid an hour. And if they don't work well, they lose customers.
That graphic only tells me one thing: the people who created it are either profound liars or totally incompetent. Sodium chloride, boric acid, and "non-crystalline silica" are simply not toxic by any reasonable definition.
2. The Sabatier process makes methane, and uses hydrogen. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, because that's just carbon neutral, not actually green.
Carbon neutral is as "green" as it gets (provided you even think that CO2 emissions are a bad thing).
In case you haven't noticed, banking is a cartel. Stop living in dreamland. If one bank raises it's rates the other banks will do the same universally because they can and it's profitable. In reality if a bank gives out too many bad loans, it is bailed out by the state. You should know all too well about that seeing as we and the rest of the West are sitting in a recession as a result of that right now.
So you are saying that it is OK to waste tax payer money on anything because, heck, the government is so corrupt that if it didn't waste it banks would waste it on bad loans anyway. That argument is both stupid and incorrect. Although there is a certain degree of corruption, it is still far from 100%. We're still far better off not having the government waste money on bad investments.
It's all well having businesses like the AC Propulsion that do engine conversion but actually making real EVs that are normal enough to be embraced by the general public is not something that has been done before.
Yes, and for good reason: there is no way of making it economical.
Did you even read what I wrote? I already explained why the Tesla was priced out of most people's range, the tech needs to come down in size, but to do that it needs to be made first
Well, that is assuming that the tech can come down in size, and that it results in cars people actually want. You believe this to be true, but many people don't.
5. Erm, are you trying to suggest that you still own the money in the gov't pocket.. because you don't. It may be 'your' money as far as it having belonged to you once, but it doesn't anymore.
I'm suggesting that as a citizen, I want politicians that spend the tax dollars I pay on useful stuff, instead of enriching their buddies in industry.
If you're suggesting that Tesla etc. are centrally planned companies, then I regret to inform you that Elon Musk still owns around 33% of the business and has already paid back the state.
Central planning is if the government picks winners and losers; it doesn't matter whether its bets work out sometimes.
Of course, in the case of Tesla, its bets haven't worked out, and Musk has not paid back the government and never will, since each of his vehicles are still subsidized with up to $15000 each, plus other indirect subsidies.
A world run by yourself would bee full of slaves and slave masters because wealth naturally grows and has to take from the poorer. Market disruption is the only thing that keeps us from being slaves and slave masters, it also keeps the market from being completely inefficient and run by monopoly.
Market disruption? Are you kidding? You think a government subsidized Tesla is going to result in
RTFA. Apple apparently tolerated straight sex from this publisher, but kicked them out when they put in something gay themed that was much more tame. And the outrage isn't "faux" and it isn't even over discrimination. The outrage is that Apple pretends to be a modern and liberal company, but then behaves like some Christian conservative family organization. And the solution is simply not to buy Apple, for the simple reason that their products are boring, their content is boring, and it is beyond anybody's power to change that.
Is gay porn somehow different and worthy of new nerd rage?
No, but what is worthy of nerd rage is when a company discriminates and prohibits depictions of gay activities when it allows depictions of straight activities. And the "rage" is not so much over the discrimination itself, but over Apple's hypocrisy and pretense of being a liberal and modern organization.
If you poison/drain or do anything to groudwater, most of the time you will get away with it. It's very hard to directly assert that you were the cause, even if it was your fault.
So, in different words, you have no evidence and no ability to prove that fracking kills anybody. You simply don't like fracking, and to argue against it you claim without proof that it kills people.
Chevy was working on it a few years ago, I don't know what happened to that, but it's a daft idea anyway.
The Sabatier process and similar processes have been around for more than a century and they work.
When you make a bet and take out a loan to build a business, then you screw up/have a bad run of luck and go bankrupt, it's my money that bails you out, whether through the gov't administration system or the bank writing off your loans and raising everyone else's premiums and interest rates to compensate.
Nonsense again. If the bank gives out too many bad loans and can't finance itself anymore without "raising rates" (or, in my case, paying less interest), people will switch banks and the bank goes out of business.
If not, Tesla's work alone may still provide them with a flagship product to really open an industry. What iPad was to the tablet market.
The iPad wasn't subsidized, and it was a product people wanted. The Tesla is subsidized, priced out of the reach of most people, and apparently not a product people want because it is less practical than alternatives.
They never subsidized Fisker, nor Tesla or any other EV manufacturer. They subsidized EVs as a whole. EVs are not luxury products. There are some pretty low priced ones, but ultimately the DoE wants to see lots more and that's why they are handing out these loans.
Yes, it's easy to hand out loans with other people's money, if you don't have to suffer the consequences of failure. That's the problem.
Oh and just to add, do you really think the US public would buy cars that they know have nuclear power in them. Many of us still think of 13 legged mutant cows and sci-fi movies when you say nuclear powered car. It's way too scary for most of the public.
Far more damaging than your erroneous beliefs about nuclear power are your erroneous beliefs about the economy. Apparently, you think you're already living under Soviet style central planning.
One study with a significant result isn't sufficient to demonstrate an effect. Lots of other studies have seen no effect on leukemia. The only significant increase seems to be for melanoma (and breast cancer in women).
It's been studied. Airline pilots get more melanoma than the rest of us, probably from hanging out on nice beaches too much. They don't get any of the other cancers you'd predict from large bursts of x-rays or gamma rays any more than anybody else.
People have been flying for many decades. Epidemiologically, there is a significant increase among airline pilots only of melanoma and breast cancer, not of other cancer types. That's not consistent with occasional large bursts of x-ray and gamma radiation (it may be due to leisure activities).
Spending public money on brain research (and other basic research) is a really good thing. However, spending money in this way, by taking a huge chunk of money and dedicating it in some limited way, is not a good way of doing it. This money will likely mostly go to just a few big institutions and a lot of it will be wasted. In fact, people haven't even formulated a clear plan on what to do with the money. Money like this should be spent as a large number of small grants, awarded through many different granting agencies. In different words, Obama should have given more money (in fact, a lot more) to NSF, DARPA, and many other granting agencies. But adding another couple of billions to the science budget would just be a budgetary footnote. Taking the same money, calling it an "initiative" for some topic-du-jour, and then giving it to a bunch of marble-clad institutions is a great publicity stunt and PR opportunity for politicians, even though you'll get much less scientific return on the investment. Just as bad is Obama's attempts to justify basic science with supposedly and fictitious vast financial returns. I think the BRAIN project is a cynical abuse of science for the political process, and it will result in less science being done compared to simply increasing regular funding by the same amount.
Fracking is a terrible technology that kill in droves.
Really? Where are the "droves" of wrongful death judgments?
Nuclear is viable but cannot be a substitute in a car because as it stands most pure electric cars simply don't have the range/price ratio that they need to compete with petrol.
You can use nuclear energy to make methane or hydrogen, which cars can use directly. It requires little change to cars and no electric storage at all.
This is what the DoE wanted to address.
There are lots of people with lots of good intentions all over the government. But they are placing bets with other people's money, and they don't suffer the consequences when they are wrong.
You look in the history books, all revolutionary technology products start as luxury products.
They start off as luxury products because they are not subsidized.
Subsidizing luxury products with tax payer money is unacceptable no matter what your intentions.
Adding Lua to TeX doesn't really fix its problems. Most packages are written in the macro language, and most of what people need to do day to day is to make alterations to those macros. And LuaTeX doesn't change TeX's bizarre processing pipeline (which was probably originally motivated by memory limitations).
Raw TeX is a disaster in terms of usability and extendability. It's like writing your documents in machine language, complete with numbered registers. It doesn't produce usable error messages, doesn't recover from errors like a decent compiler should, and is hell to integrate into any kind of environment. Knuth should permanently lose the right to call himself a "computer scientist" just for producing this monster; it doesn't matter how nice the output looks. True to form and bad taste, his next effort is iTeX, a kind of TeX based on XML. LaTeX is fairly usable, mostly because it hides most of the crap in TeX from you. What you end up with is a simple markup language, a horrific style sheet language, and fairly good looking output (if you don't use Knuth's bad-looking fonts).
Where should TeX/LaTeX go? The way of the dinosaurs. Few people care about the fiddly typographic details that TeX used to worry about (and that it was really doing a half-assed job at anyway). Most "typesetting" these days is done in wiki languages with jsMath, or in simple WYSIWYG editors, using HTML as an intermediate format and PDF as output.
Slashdot Mirror
The Persian empires were even worse.
Funny how things "fall through the cracks" more for straight stuff than for gay stuff. Besides, the whole thing shows how prudish Apple is in general. They can't even be bothered to implement a rating system, and instead reduce everything to the level of a four year old.
Not if you're self-employed.
Your boss must have something you don't, because otherwise you'd just open up your own company and compete with him...
And the problem is what? You are willing to do a job at some price, taking into account your skills and expenses, and someone else is willing to offer a certain amount of money to get the job done. Either you match up or you don't. If you don't match up, the job doesn't get done.
You make it sound like people posting some sort of low-ball pay for a programming job is some personal insult and injury to you. But if there's nobody to take the job at the given price, the job doesn't get done, simple as that. Doesn't hurt you, doesn't hurt anybody else.
The idea that a salaried employee can have his employers (and optionally tax payers) by his balls and squeeze hard to get paid more is quaint, but doesn't apply in most of the real world. Most people in this world actually have to compete in order to make money. You know: bakers, electricians, computer consultants, personal trainers, hairdressers, etc. They work an hour, they get paid an hour. And if they don't work well, they lose customers.
The only thing that matters for toxicity is final concentration when it reaches people, not absolute quantity.
That graphic only tells me one thing: the people who created it are either profound liars or totally incompetent. Sodium chloride, boric acid, and "non-crystalline silica" are simply not toxic by any reasonable definition.
Carbon neutral is as "green" as it gets (provided you even think that CO2 emissions are a bad thing).
So you are saying that it is OK to waste tax payer money on anything because, heck, the government is so corrupt that if it didn't waste it banks would waste it on bad loans anyway. That argument is both stupid and incorrect. Although there is a certain degree of corruption, it is still far from 100%. We're still far better off not having the government waste money on bad investments.
Yes, and for good reason: there is no way of making it economical.
Well, that is assuming that the tech can come down in size, and that it results in cars people actually want. You believe this to be true, but many people don't.
I'm suggesting that as a citizen, I want politicians that spend the tax dollars I pay on useful stuff, instead of enriching their buddies in industry.
Central planning is if the government picks winners and losers; it doesn't matter whether its bets work out sometimes.
Of course, in the case of Tesla, its bets haven't worked out, and Musk has not paid back the government and never will, since each of his vehicles are still subsidized with up to $15000 each, plus other indirect subsidies.
Market disruption? Are you kidding? You think a government subsidized Tesla is going to result in
RTFA. Apple apparently tolerated straight sex from this publisher, but kicked them out when they put in something gay themed that was much more tame. And the outrage isn't "faux" and it isn't even over discrimination. The outrage is that Apple pretends to be a modern and liberal company, but then behaves like some Christian conservative family organization. And the solution is simply not to buy Apple, for the simple reason that their products are boring, their content is boring, and it is beyond anybody's power to change that.
No, but what is worthy of nerd rage is when a company discriminates and prohibits depictions of gay activities when it allows depictions of straight activities. And the "rage" is not so much over the discrimination itself, but over Apple's hypocrisy and pretense of being a liberal and modern organization.
Men sleeping with women is misogynous? Oh dear.
RTFA. Apple let plenty of heterosexual sex pass.
Apparently, the influence of the reality distortion field still hasn't worn off.
So, in different words, you have no evidence and no ability to prove that fracking kills anybody. You simply don't like fracking, and to argue against it you claim without proof that it kills people.
The Sabatier process and similar processes have been around for more than a century and they work.
Nonsense again. If the bank gives out too many bad loans and can't finance itself anymore without "raising rates" (or, in my case, paying less interest), people will switch banks and the bank goes out of business.
The iPad wasn't subsidized, and it was a product people wanted. The Tesla is subsidized, priced out of the reach of most people, and apparently not a product people want because it is less practical than alternatives.
Yes, it's easy to hand out loans with other people's money, if you don't have to suffer the consequences of failure. That's the problem.
Far more damaging than your erroneous beliefs about nuclear power are your erroneous beliefs about the economy. Apparently, you think you're already living under Soviet style central planning.
After Microsoft copied just about everybody in the industry and presented other people ideas as their own... I suppose it's karma.
One study with a significant result isn't sufficient to demonstrate an effect. Lots of other studies have seen no effect on leukemia. The only significant increase seems to be for melanoma (and breast cancer in women).
It's been studied. Airline pilots get more melanoma than the rest of us, probably from hanging out on nice beaches too much. They don't get any of the other cancers you'd predict from large bursts of x-rays or gamma rays any more than anybody else.
People have been flying for many decades. Epidemiologically, there is a significant increase among airline pilots only of melanoma and breast cancer, not of other cancer types. That's not consistent with occasional large bursts of x-ray and gamma radiation (it may be due to leisure activities).
Spending public money on brain research (and other basic research) is a really good thing. However, spending money in this way, by taking a huge chunk of money and dedicating it in some limited way, is not a good way of doing it. This money will likely mostly go to just a few big institutions and a lot of it will be wasted. In fact, people haven't even formulated a clear plan on what to do with the money. Money like this should be spent as a large number of small grants, awarded through many different granting agencies. In different words, Obama should have given more money (in fact, a lot more) to NSF, DARPA, and many other granting agencies. But adding another couple of billions to the science budget would just be a budgetary footnote. Taking the same money, calling it an "initiative" for some topic-du-jour, and then giving it to a bunch of marble-clad institutions is a great publicity stunt and PR opportunity for politicians, even though you'll get much less scientific return on the investment. Just as bad is Obama's attempts to justify basic science with supposedly and fictitious vast financial returns. I think the BRAIN project is a cynical abuse of science for the political process, and it will result in less science being done compared to simply increasing regular funding by the same amount.
Really? Where are the "droves" of wrongful death judgments?
You can use nuclear energy to make methane or hydrogen, which cars can use directly. It requires little change to cars and no electric storage at all.
There are lots of people with lots of good intentions all over the government. But they are placing bets with other people's money, and they don't suffer the consequences when they are wrong.
They start off as luxury products because they are not subsidized.
Subsidizing luxury products with tax payer money is unacceptable no matter what your intentions.
Speak for yourself. I never liked any of their titles.
Actually, I'm someone who uses LaTeX almost every day. I take it you don't.
Adding Lua to TeX doesn't really fix its problems. Most packages are written in the macro language, and most of what people need to do day to day is to make alterations to those macros. And LuaTeX doesn't change TeX's bizarre processing pipeline (which was probably originally motivated by memory limitations).
Raw TeX is a disaster in terms of usability and extendability. It's like writing your documents in machine language, complete with numbered registers. It doesn't produce usable error messages, doesn't recover from errors like a decent compiler should, and is hell to integrate into any kind of environment. Knuth should permanently lose the right to call himself a "computer scientist" just for producing this monster; it doesn't matter how nice the output looks. True to form and bad taste, his next effort is iTeX, a kind of TeX based on XML. LaTeX is fairly usable, mostly because it hides most of the crap in TeX from you. What you end up with is a simple markup language, a horrific style sheet language, and fairly good looking output (if you don't use Knuth's bad-looking fonts).
Where should TeX/LaTeX go? The way of the dinosaurs. Few people care about the fiddly typographic details that TeX used to worry about (and that it was really doing a half-assed job at anyway). Most "typesetting" these days is done in wiki languages with jsMath, or in simple WYSIWYG editors, using HTML as an intermediate format and PDF as output.
They can probably not decrypt iMessage traffic without some other information or hooks; but they almost certainly have that.
(1) People have an irrational fear of radiation and anything "nuclear".
(2) It's damned hard to create a deadly pathogen that's any worse than what already is out there.
(3) Radioactivity is trivial to detect, new pathogens are pretty much impossible to detect, so it's hard to "scrutinize" the work.