Your post doesn't make much sense, and your personal anecdote is trivially countered, sorry.
Why would the phone be subjected to 1/10 of 55 lbs in a back pocket? I'd say for many people it would be subjected to a significant fraction of 200lbs, where 70lbs vs 140lbs required to bend it is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL.
And my (180lb?) coworker already bent his by putting it in his back pocket and sitting down. Now I don't understand WHY someone would put a phone in their back pocket and sit on it, but he said he had done it with his iPhone 5 for years and never had a problem, which pretty much makes the point...
I wouldn't call the 6 a phablet. I'm not really a fan of big phones, but I got the 6 and the advantages of the larger size have (to me) overall outweighed the disadvantages.
Most importantly I can still reasonably fit the iPhone 6 in my front pocket. the 6+, not so much, and the Note 2 would be a ball breaker...
It's basically a trivial fact that could probably have been answered just by ASKING anyone who actually knew about the details of the Z-80 development, but some dude decided to puzzle it out himself, slow/. news day, and bam, here's the article.
Hold on... I just had an epiphany about why manhole covers are round - give me a sec, I think I'm going to submit it...
I didn't say I haven't used obj-C, just not much, not recently and really only to experiment to see if it would be a good choice to use for my particular Python/Fortran based project. It was the Python bindings that made me take a look and I particularly liked how I could use dynamic typing and garbage collection, making it a good 'fit'. I was amazed by the quality of the Apple developer tools too.
Yeah, most of the advantage of Obj-C is in the great tools and libraries. Personally I think someone would be crazy to use it for a project outside of iOS/OSX:)
(well, I am assuming you were not building a new GUI app in Python and Fortran... I'm sure it's been done...)
So... based on your later posts you have never even USED Objective-C but you lucked out on/. First Post. Yay for useless comments!
And trashing Apple in the process, nice.
Objective-C is a semi-painful language but in my experience SO much more efficient than Android's choice of Java. There is a lot of misinformation about Swift but the reality is its development was headed by the lead dev of Clang who was also responsible for a lot of the innovations in Objecive-C. His goal *was* in fact to replace Objective-C with a more modern language, and despite more incorrect claims it is as natively integrated into the Apple toolchain as Objective-C.
That said, I'd compare Swift with early versions of Scala - uses an existing runtime, "modernized", more functional, and dynamic syntax, lots of random bugs and occasional brain farts.
I have only experimented a bit with Swift so far, but that experiment has been that the majority of functionality is much more expressive (like Ruby) than Objective-C, but once in a while you get bitten with something that is a complete PITA to do (because of the language or the bindings to current APIs). Because of that I decided to stick to Objective-C for now - but I'm guessing Swift will become fairly popular in the next year or so...
the valet is just another subcontractor that you hire while he/she works for the hotel / restaurant / wherever you go. Since the valet is an employee you should be able to record them
And at the same time, valet service usually comes with a contract of their service (thank you lawyers!) - all they have to do is put "you can't record our valets without their permission" and bam! Amazing how many rights you can give up via a contract.
"Natural law"? Really? Pretty sure there is no law of nature involved in 99.99999% of laws. And 100% of those involving cars, at least until my "organic car farm" idea takes off...
Even better, why not just state it audibly? I assume the recording is activated by the valet key, why not just play an audio message when it's inserted?
I'd bet the majority of budding iOS developers start their first project using Interface Builder. It works pretty well if you don't stray too far from the Apple "look". But once you want to do something novel, you start spending more and more time working around IB than with it.
And god forbid you want to collaborate with other developers via version control. Having to manually 3-way merge a couple thousand lines of XML causes IB to quickly lose its shine...
I did not see a single logging operation. I did not see a single road being built (we traveled along paths that *might* be called roads to get deep into the forest) nor maintained. The Forest Service employees were mostly Navajo.
Your anecdote, while minority encouraging, it completely unrepresentative of the larger STATISTICS. Doubt there are many Navajo employees outside of New Mexico and Arizona, which in any case are two fairly insignificant logging states. And facts are facts - if the NFS has the 2nd most road construction engineers of any organization in the world and manages the largest network of roads in the world, they clearly build a lot of roads. It's not something that can be debated:)
And it's possible (and common) for good people to work for shitty organizations. I have nothing against the checkers at Walmart, either, they work hard for their paycheck like many other people.
Camping involves setting up a tent in what amounts to a parking lot.
That one is completely untrue. You can do backcountry hiking in many National Parks - and in fact while it does require a permit, it's basically always granted because 99.9% of the tourists (including you, it sounds) don't get more than a couple miles from the trailhead and "campgrounds".
Go on a 3-4 day hike (especially semi-offseason) and halfway through day 1 you may not encounter another human for the rest of the hike.
Second: As someone else pointed out as well, the National Park Service and National Forest Service are two entirely different things. Bryson hates the NFS, but while pointing out flaws thinks very differently of the NPS. It's a major point of the book he goes into at length. I can't believe as a supposed "outdoorsman" you don't even know the different between the NFS and NPS.
And for the most part he loved the Appalachian Trail and what's being done with it. You clearly didn't read the book, so why should I take your post critiquing it with anything more than a grain of salt? If you don't think someone who hiked over 1000 miles on the AT doesn't have the right to have an opinion on it, you are a tool.
And Third: yes, I have done extensive back county hiking, including many multi-day hikes in Yosemite, Big Sur, Big Basin, the Shawnee NF, etc. So please go take your elitist attitude somewhere else.
That's the California Park system. A bunch of corrupt bureaucrats who somehow actually knew how to save money, if hurting their organization in the process.
This is the US Forest Service, one of the most incompetent and inefficient government organizations ever created (and that's saying a lot!)
The Forest Service is still a fucking joke. Read A Walk in the Woods (generally a hilarious and insightful travel book) by Bill Bryston if you want an honest critique of the US Forest Service.
The [U.S.] Forest Service is truly an extraordinary institution. A lot of people, seeing the word forest in the title, assume it has something to do with looking after trees. In fact, no—though that was the original plan.
IIn fact, mostly what the Forest Service does is build roads. I am not kidding. There are 378,000 miles of roads in America’s national forests. That may seem a meaningless figure, but look at it this way—it is eight times the total mileage of America’s interstate highway system. It is the largest road system in the world in the control of a single body. The Forest service has the second highest number of road engineers of any government institution on the planet. To say that these guys like to build roads barely hints at their level of dedication. Show them a stand of trees anywhere and they will regard it thoughtfully for a long while, and say at last, “You know, we could put a road here.” It is the avowed aim of the U.S. Forest Service to construct 580,000 miles of additional forest road by the middle of the next century.
The reason the Forest Service builds these roads, quite apart from the deep pleasure of doing noisy things in the woods with big yellow machines, is to allow private timber companies to get to previously inaccessible stands of trees. By the late 1980s—this is so extraordinary I can hardly stand it—it was the only significant player in the American timber industry that was cutting down trees faster than it replaced them. Moreover, it was doing this with the most sumptuous inefficiency. Eighty percent of its leasing arrangements lost money, often vast amounts. In one typical deal, the Forest Service sold hundred-year-old lodgepole pines in the Targhee National Forest in Idaho for about $2 each after spending $4 per tree surveying the land, drawing up contracts, and, of course, building roads. Between 1989 and 1997, it lost an average of $242 million a year—almost $2 billion all told, according to the Wilderness Society.
So, basically, the forest service is tasked with monetizing the National Forests of the United States, not "preserve the untamed character of the country's wilderness", as the Forest Service "spokeswoman" claims. And they can't even do that right. I guess maybe they know a picture is worth a thousand trees, and they are worried too many pictures will help prove their incompetency to the US population.
I was going to say, Ansel Adams is turning over in his grave... but we'd never know if he really was, since he was cremated and his ashes placed in a Wilderness Area, so you'd probably have to pay $1500 to prove it.
Well, you replied to 3 of my posts without a single more shred of fact than I asked for besides "ZOMG ISN'T IT OBVIOUS!?" - I'll just reply once: any hard evidence for absolutely anything you have ever said? Or has The Man suppressed all of the proof except what's in your head?
Jesus Christ, you watch too many bad movies! Yes, so every boom and bust was triggered on demand by the all-encompasing US government? (or is it the Illuminati? Or Colonel Sanders from a cryostasis tank?)
That explains why we have had half a dozen minor or major recessions in the last 40 years - if I were President apparently in control of every minute event in the Western world, I know I'd love to have a legacy of driving the economy into the shitter.
There is only one type of person worse than predicting the future economy than an economist: a conspiracy theorist.
Are you saying you are a Russian citizen? Or just a Russian apologist? Well, if your livelihood is being impinged by the rest of the world reacting to your dictator invading other countries and lying about it, maybe you should get some balls and speak out against Putin instead of just attacking US sanctions, etc.
Gotta say my Russian friends and coworkers are all pretty embarrassed and against Putin at this point. I guess being in the US they are not scared of imprisonment.
Business and state are clearly highly linked in Russia (Putin claims he is worth what, $200k but he's probably the richest man in the world based on stock in plundered/"privatized" Russian utilities, etc), but not in the US. Wackjob conspiracy theorists like to say this without any real evidence, but it's a pointless trite answer that rarely spurs any useful discussion.
Freezing billions of dollars of Russian capital is a weird way of stimulating cash flow.
And is it any coincidence that those countries that make up most of the US increase in arms sales are the same Arab nations (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait) that now have the balls (or the firepower) to stand up to ISIS and join the offensive today against one of the most evil and barbaric militias of the last few decades?
And economic foreign policy that led directly to allied military action - one that the Republicans have been clamoring for twice as much as the Democrats? I'm sure Fox News will find a way to turn it all into a negative but at least they'll have to get creative.
But anyway, for some reason I'm going to take with a grain of salt a random slashdot poster's explanation of what comes up in US cabinet meetings.
Borders do matter, but not in the way you believe they do. The flight of capital from Russia isn't due to what Putin plans to do or not, but because of the risk of perceived sanctions by the West.
No, that's exactly what I said and meant. *Obviously* the sanctions or threat thereof were the direct cause! That part of your comment doesn't really even make any sense.
There are, however, also some foreign investors, who think this is a buying opportunity.
Uh yeah, that's no different from any other investment. Ever heard of a short sale? But obviously many more investors are bearish here so their economy has plummeted. Again no insight here...
Incidentally, that is why Putin isn't getting a lot in terms of effective sanctions from Western Europe
No, there is ONE big reason Western Europe hasn't come down harder (and they have actually put up a fair amount of sanctions as well, just not enough to make Russia respond in a way that causes a major depression there) - Russian natural gas. The balancing act is to make sanctions mild enough for Russia to continue supplying gas while still causing a noticeable punitive effect on their economy. Right now US & Euoipe is doing a half decent job at that - several of the Russians I know are getting pretty annoyed at Putin because it's affecting their or their family's daily life a lot more than some proxy war in Ukraine.
The state serves the business that props it up. When it fails, it is replaced
Except China (what we were talking about) has mostly worked exactly the *opposite* way.
Just ask Exxon, if you don't want to believe me.
Yeah, really? Did you have a chat with "Exxon" over coffee about this? See - this is the kind of silliness that I was talking about. Hyperbolic conspiracy statements without any actual facts.
Thanks for the conspiracy theorist angle, it's trendy but obviously complete bullshit. If you think borders don't matter look at what's happening in Russia right night. Their President has gone bat shit insane in the name of Nationalism and their "borderless" companies, exchange, and currently has taken a nose dive due to resulting sanctions.
And really, your post is basically arguing opposite points at once. Does the Chinese government have the power to affect an "international" public company? Or is there no concept of "national" companies and investing has no borders?
Slashdot Mirror
Your post doesn't make much sense, and your personal anecdote is trivially countered, sorry.
Why would the phone be subjected to 1/10 of 55 lbs in a back pocket? I'd say for many people it would be subjected to a significant fraction of 200lbs, where 70lbs vs 140lbs required to bend it is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL.
And my (180lb?) coworker already bent his by putting it in his back pocket and sitting down. Now I don't understand WHY someone would put a phone in their back pocket and sit on it, but he said he had done it with his iPhone 5 for years and never had a problem, which pretty much makes the point...
What the hell are you talking about? I have a giant roll of the stuff that I use to wrap food that disproves your silly statement...
I wouldn't call the 6 a phablet. I'm not really a fan of big phones, but I got the 6 and the advantages of the larger size have (to me) overall outweighed the disadvantages.
Most importantly I can still reasonably fit the iPhone 6 in my front pocket. the 6+, not so much, and the Note 2 would be a ball breaker...
It's totally non-news.
It's basically a trivial fact that could probably have been answered just by ASKING anyone who actually knew about the details of the Z-80 development, but some dude decided to puzzle it out himself, slow /. news day, and bam, here's the article.
Hold on... I just had an epiphany about why manhole covers are round - give me a sec, I think I'm going to submit it...
I didn't say I haven't used obj-C, just not much, not recently and really only to experiment to see if it would be a good choice to use for my particular Python/Fortran based project. It was the Python bindings that made me take a look and I particularly liked how I could use dynamic typing and garbage collection, making it a good 'fit'. I was amazed by the quality of the Apple developer tools too.
Yeah, most of the advantage of Obj-C is in the great tools and libraries. Personally I think someone would be crazy to use it for a project outside of iOS/OSX :)
(well, I am assuming you were not building a new GUI app in Python and Fortran... I'm sure it's been done...)
So... based on your later posts you have never even USED Objective-C but you lucked out on /. First Post. Yay for useless comments!
And trashing Apple in the process, nice.
Objective-C is a semi-painful language but in my experience SO much more efficient than Android's choice of Java. There is a lot of misinformation about Swift but the reality is its development was headed by the lead dev of Clang who was also responsible for a lot of the innovations in Objecive-C. His goal *was* in fact to replace Objective-C with a more modern language, and despite more incorrect claims it is as natively integrated into the Apple toolchain as Objective-C.
That said, I'd compare Swift with early versions of Scala - uses an existing runtime, "modernized", more functional, and dynamic syntax, lots of random bugs and occasional brain farts.
I have only experimented a bit with Swift so far, but that experiment has been that the majority of functionality is much more expressive (like Ruby) than Objective-C, but once in a while you get bitten with something that is a complete PITA to do (because of the language or the bindings to current APIs). Because of that I decided to stick to Objective-C for now - but I'm guessing Swift will become fairly popular in the next year or so...
the valet is just another subcontractor that you hire while he/she works for the hotel / restaurant / wherever you go. Since the valet is an employee you should be able to record them
And at the same time, valet service usually comes with a contract of their service (thank you lawyers!) - all they have to do is put "you can't record our valets without their permission" and bam! Amazing how many rights you can give up via a contract.
So when is the last time you read a full valet contract? What if they just put in small print "you can't record the valet without our consent"?
"Natural law"? Really? Pretty sure there is no law of nature involved in 99.99999% of laws. And 100% of those involving cars, at least until my "organic car farm" idea takes off...
Even better, why not just state it audibly? I assume the recording is activated by the valet key, why not just play an audio message when it's inserted?
I'd bet the majority of budding iOS developers start their first project using Interface Builder. It works pretty well if you don't stray too far from the Apple "look". But once you want to do something novel, you start spending more and more time working around IB than with it.
And god forbid you want to collaborate with other developers via version control. Having to manually 3-way merge a couple thousand lines of XML causes IB to quickly lose its shine...
I did not see a single logging operation. I did not see a single road being built (we traveled along paths that *might* be called roads to get deep into the forest) nor maintained. The Forest Service employees were mostly Navajo.
Your anecdote, while minority encouraging, it completely unrepresentative of the larger STATISTICS. Doubt there are many Navajo employees outside of New Mexico and Arizona, which in any case are two fairly insignificant logging states. And facts are facts - if the NFS has the 2nd most road construction engineers of any organization in the world and manages the largest network of roads in the world, they clearly build a lot of roads. It's not something that can be debated :)
And it's possible (and common) for good people to work for shitty organizations. I have nothing against the checkers at Walmart, either, they work hard for their paycheck like many other people.
Camping involves setting up a tent in what amounts to a parking lot.
That one is completely untrue. You can do backcountry hiking in many National Parks - and in fact while it does require a permit, it's basically always granted because 99.9% of the tourists (including you, it sounds) don't get more than a couple miles from the trailhead and "campgrounds".
Go on a 3-4 day hike (especially semi-offseason) and halfway through day 1 you may not encounter another human for the rest of the hike.
First: it's Bryson, not Branson.
Second: As someone else pointed out as well, the National Park Service and National Forest Service are two entirely different things. Bryson hates the NFS, but while pointing out flaws thinks very differently of the NPS. It's a major point of the book he goes into at length. I can't believe as a supposed "outdoorsman" you don't even know the different between the NFS and NPS.
And for the most part he loved the Appalachian Trail and what's being done with it. You clearly didn't read the book, so why should I take your post critiquing it with anything more than a grain of salt? If you don't think someone who hiked over 1000 miles on the AT doesn't have the right to have an opinion on it, you are a tool.
And Third: yes, I have done extensive back county hiking, including many multi-day hikes in Yosemite, Big Sur, Big Basin, the Shawnee NF, etc. So please go take your elitist attitude somewhere else.
Wow, this was one topic I didn't think would get Godwinned.
That's the California Park system. A bunch of corrupt bureaucrats who somehow actually knew how to save money, if hurting their organization in the process.
This is the US Forest Service, one of the most incompetent and inefficient government organizations ever created (and that's saying a lot!)
http://joshuasowin.com/archive...
The Forest Service is still a fucking joke. Read A Walk in the Woods (generally a hilarious and insightful travel book) by Bill Bryston if you want an honest critique of the US Forest Service.
The [U.S.] Forest Service is truly an extraordinary institution. A lot of people, seeing the word forest in the title, assume it has something to do with looking after trees. In fact, no—though that was the original plan.
IIn fact, mostly what the Forest Service does is build roads. I am not kidding. There are 378,000 miles of roads in America’s national forests. That may seem a meaningless figure, but look at it this way—it is eight times the total mileage of America’s interstate highway system. It is the largest road system in the world in the control of a single body. The Forest service has the second highest number of road engineers of any government institution on the planet. To say that these guys like to build roads barely hints at their level of dedication. Show them a stand of trees anywhere and they will regard it thoughtfully for a long while, and say at last, “You know, we could put a road here.” It is the avowed aim of the U.S. Forest Service to construct 580,000 miles of additional forest road by the middle of the next century.
The reason the Forest Service builds these roads, quite apart from the deep pleasure of doing noisy things in the woods with big yellow machines, is to allow private timber companies to get to previously inaccessible stands of trees. By the late 1980s—this is so extraordinary I can hardly stand it—it was the only significant player in the American timber industry that was cutting down trees faster than it replaced them. Moreover, it was doing this with the most sumptuous inefficiency. Eighty percent of its leasing arrangements lost money, often vast amounts. In one typical deal, the Forest Service sold hundred-year-old lodgepole pines in the Targhee National Forest in Idaho for about $2 each after spending $4 per tree surveying the land, drawing up contracts, and, of course, building roads. Between 1989 and 1997, it lost an average of $242 million a year—almost $2 billion all told, according to the Wilderness Society.
So, basically, the forest service is tasked with monetizing the National Forests of the United States, not "preserve the untamed character of the country's wilderness", as the Forest Service "spokeswoman" claims. And they can't even do that right. I guess maybe they know a picture is worth a thousand trees, and they are worried too many pictures will help prove their incompetency to the US population.
I was going to say, Ansel Adams is turning over in his grave... but we'd never know if he really was, since he was cremated and his ashes placed in a Wilderness Area, so you'd probably have to pay $1500 to prove it.
Well, you replied to 3 of my posts without a single more shred of fact than I asked for besides "ZOMG ISN'T IT OBVIOUS!?" - I'll just reply once: any hard evidence for absolutely anything you have ever said? Or has The Man suppressed all of the proof except what's in your head?
Jesus Christ, you watch too many bad movies! Yes, so every boom and bust was triggered on demand by the all-encompasing US government? (or is it the Illuminati? Or Colonel Sanders from a cryostasis tank?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That explains why we have had half a dozen minor or major recessions in the last 40 years - if I were President apparently in control of every minute event in the Western world, I know I'd love to have a legacy of driving the economy into the shitter.
There is only one type of person worse than predicting the future economy than an economist: a conspiracy theorist.
Are you saying you are a Russian citizen? Or just a Russian apologist? Well, if your livelihood is being impinged by the rest of the world reacting to your dictator invading other countries and lying about it, maybe you should get some balls and speak out against Putin instead of just attacking US sanctions, etc.
Gotta say my Russian friends and coworkers are all pretty embarrassed and against Putin at this point. I guess being in the US they are not scared of imprisonment.
Business and state are clearly highly linked in Russia (Putin claims he is worth what, $200k but he's probably the richest man in the world based on stock in plundered /"privatized" Russian utilities, etc), but not in the US. Wackjob conspiracy theorists like to say this without any real evidence, but it's a pointless trite answer that rarely spurs any useful discussion.
Freezing billions of dollars of Russian capital is a weird way of stimulating cash flow.
And is it any coincidence that those countries that make up most of the US increase in arms sales are the same Arab nations (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait) that now have the balls (or the firepower) to stand up to ISIS and join the offensive today against one of the most evil and barbaric militias of the last few decades?
And economic foreign policy that led directly to allied military action - one that the Republicans have been clamoring for twice as much as the Democrats? I'm sure Fox News will find a way to turn it all into a negative but at least they'll have to get creative.
But anyway, for some reason I'm going to take with a grain of salt a random slashdot poster's explanation of what comes up in US cabinet meetings.
Borders do matter, but not in the way you believe they do. The flight of capital from Russia isn't due to what Putin plans to do or not, but because of the risk of perceived sanctions by the West.
No, that's exactly what I said and meant. *Obviously* the sanctions or threat thereof were the direct cause! That part of your comment doesn't really even make any sense.
There are, however, also some foreign investors, who think this is a buying opportunity.
Uh yeah, that's no different from any other investment. Ever heard of a short sale? But obviously many more investors are bearish here so their economy has plummeted. Again no insight here...
Incidentally, that is why Putin isn't getting a lot in terms of effective sanctions from Western Europe
No, there is ONE big reason Western Europe hasn't come down harder (and they have actually put up a fair amount of sanctions as well, just not enough to make Russia respond in a way that causes a major depression there) - Russian natural gas. The balancing act is to make sanctions mild enough for Russia to continue supplying gas while still causing a noticeable punitive effect on their economy. Right now US & Euoipe is doing a half decent job at that - several of the Russians I know are getting pretty annoyed at Putin because it's affecting their or their family's daily life a lot more than some proxy war in Ukraine.
The state serves the business that props it up. When it fails, it is replaced
Except China (what we were talking about) has mostly worked exactly the *opposite* way.
Just ask Exxon, if you don't want to believe me.
Yeah, really? Did you have a chat with "Exxon" over coffee about this? See - this is the kind of silliness that I was talking about. Hyperbolic conspiracy statements without any actual facts.
Thanks for the conspiracy theorist angle, it's trendy but obviously complete bullshit. If you think borders don't matter look at what's happening in Russia right night. Their President has gone bat shit insane in the name of Nationalism and their "borderless" companies, exchange, and currently has taken a nose dive due to resulting sanctions.
And really, your post is basically arguing opposite points at once. Does the Chinese government have the power to affect an "international" public company? Or is there no concept of "national" companies and investing has no borders?