That article is over 7 years old! The first clue was mentioning at the bottom, "You can also check planned electronics purchases for the Energy Star approval sticker." Virtually everything is Energy Star certified these days, and uses a *LOT* less electricity. (There's no date on the article itself, but the first comment is 2569 days old.)
Because vaccines aren't always effective for everyone, and some people (e.g. immunocompromised individuals) can't get vaccines. But these people rely on herd immunity, which is depending on enough people being vaccinated that any disease that shows up isn't transmitted through the whole community. It's not the kids who don't get vaccinated that the legislators are worried about, it's everyone else.
And the rate of vaccinations in parts of California are so low that health officials are seeing the effects of lack of herd immunity.
Actually, the classic Mac OS just considered extensions as part of the file name, and used Type and Creator codes to associate a file with an application. When OS X came out, the Type and Creator codes were phased out, and now the extensions are used the same way as on Windows.
Just like the song says, "you have to be carefully taught." If an AI isn't carefully taught to believe in God, it certainly won't come to the conclusion that God exists by logic alone.
Most people forget that religion is virtually brainwashed into most people at an age when they're too young to question authority. An AI isn't going to have that experience, unless the AI's creator intentionally puts it there.
This is exactly what I did. I measured the distance from my eyes to each of the three monitors on my desk. My optometrist made me a single-vision pair of glasses that was appropriate for that range of distances, but not for anything else. I got a second pair of progressives for everything else.
The author writes " It's 1920 x 1920 pixel square resolution is said to offer 78 per cent more pixels than a traditional Full HD monitor." Is it so hard to calculate the number of pixels in a traditional HD monitor and divide the number of pixels in this monitor by that number to actually *confirm* the fact?
Apple loves their walled garden, but doesn't make decisions like this capriciously. Until we know *why* Apple's doing this, it's hard to judge the situation. They may have a reason that seems insignificant to the end user, but you don't get to be the biggest company on the planet by making decisions like this for no reason.
Basically if you display 80 or even 120 lines of code it does not matter if the monitor is 1080 pixels or 2160 pixels in height. Sure the higher resolution will display a well designed highly detailed font better than a lower resolution font but that is all, however programmers normally use a mono-spaced font like "Courier" so a fine detailed font is pointless.
Spoken by one who hasn't done much programming on a HiDPI monitor. I can tell you from first-hand experience that the higher resolution display significantly reduces eye fatigue. I have two 24" 1920x1080 external displays connected to my 15" rMBP. I always put my main window on the small 15" screen because the text is much easier on the eyes at 220 dpi. In matter of fact, text is the only thing that looks dramatically better on the retina display than a standard display. Images and icons may be more detailed, but it's not nearly as noticeable as the improvements in the display of text.
I'd rather give up my external monitors than my retina display.
Because that was the argument that Woolworth's used to keep black people from eating at their lunch counter. Woolworth's claimed that blacks could eat somewhere else, but virtually everyone else said the same thing. If you're a public accommodation, you accommodate *all* of the public, or none. They're called public accommodation laws for a reason.
Even the National Organization for Marriage, an extremely anti-gay organization...
Is that really true? I don't think so. As far as I know they only want to maintain the definition of marriage that has existed in all the states only what, 10-15 years ago? That is the same definition that existed since well before the republic was formed.
First off, you think the definition of marriage hasn't changed "since well before the republic was formed"? Back when women were chattel, and people of different races were prohibited from marrying? Or when polygamy was practiced? Or when women could only get a divorce when the man agreed to it? Which republic are you referring to? One that formed 20 years ago?
And furthermore, NOM does NOTHING for anybody's marriage. They're not anti-divorce, they're not anti-polygamy, they're not concerned about people who are unable or choose not to have children getting married. They've completely ignored every other issue related to marriage, and laser-focused on LGBT people exclusively. They've also weighed in very heavily against the repeal of DOMA and DADT, which have absolutely nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with gay people.
If anybody's using loaded language to mischaracterize their intent, NOM could be their poster boy. Absolutely nothing to do marriage, and everything to do with keeping LGBT people second-class citizens.
You may think that people throw the term homophobia around as a political ploy, but from your very words it seems that you've never been on the receiving end of it, and just think it's one more thing liberals and conservatives argue about.
First off, why be so pedantic about the word homophobia?I don't see you or anyone else complaining that the word hydrophobia doesn't mean that someone has a phobia about water, it just means that their throat is becoming paralyzed and it's becoming difficult to drink. There are lots of words in the English language that don't mean exactly what you'd think they mean by comparing them to other words.
Second off, the people boycotting this movie don't just think that OSC doesn't share their views or beliefs. He's gone on the record saying some outrageous things about LGBT people, not the least of which is claiming that homosexuality should be made a felony, and concentration camps should be set up to imprison them. Even the National Organization for Marriage, an extremely anti-gay organization, has tried to distance themselves from him, and he used to be a prominent member of their board of directors.
I have no difficulty separating art from the creator. I *loved* reading Ender's Game, it was a brilliant book. But I can't abide putting one cent into OSC's pocket no matter how much I may want to see it, and if I had known at the time what kind of person OSC was, I never would have purchased any of his books either.
The last time people thought Apple was making a huge mistake and cannibalizing their own sales was with the iPod nano replacing the iPod mini, and we saw what a *disaster* that was.
Steve Jobs even said that if Apple doesn't cannibalize their own sales, somebody else will. This is such a non-issue that it's laughable.
"*I* find it much more telling that people feel the need to *insist* that the federal government grant gay people these rights, merely because *their* personal beliefs say that gay people are entitled to acceptance by society."
Nobody's asking for acceptance by society. Gay people are demanding that they be treated as equals in the eye of the law. It seems that 99% of this battle is due to the people who oppose equal rights trying to make the fight about something it's not.
Of course, telling me that *my* religious beliefs cannot, repeat *cannot* be considered a valid for my opinion on this topic, and so invalidates my opinion in their opinion, is hypocritical, but winning in court should soothe their souls.
Nobody's telling you that your religious beliefs are not a valid basis for your opinion, but they sure as hell aren't valid as a defense for passing laws propagating discrimination against an entire class of people.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet I killed at least that many by installing AdBlock.
I don't know what kind of moths you hang out with, but my moths are *huge* gossips. I'd hardly call them discreet.
That article is over 7 years old! The first clue was mentioning at the bottom, "You can also check planned electronics purchases for the Energy Star approval sticker." Virtually everything is Energy Star certified these days, and uses a *LOT* less electricity. (There's no date on the article itself, but the first comment is 2569 days old.)
I'd think to ensure accuracy, they'd wind back their clocks 60 years.
You forgot "Hey you kids, get off of my lawn!"
Because vaccines aren't always effective for everyone, and some people (e.g. immunocompromised individuals) can't get vaccines. But these people rely on herd immunity, which is depending on enough people being vaccinated that any disease that shows up isn't transmitted through the whole community. It's not the kids who don't get vaccinated that the legislators are worried about, it's everyone else.
And the rate of vaccinations in parts of California are so low that health officials are seeing the effects of lack of herd immunity.
You pan with your finger, and zoom with the crown. Seems to me like an easier way to find the right app than paging through many screensful of icons.
Let me give you a hint: take statistics.
Actually, the classic Mac OS just considered extensions as part of the file name, and used Type and Creator codes to associate a file with an application. When OS X came out, the Type and Creator codes were phased out, and now the extensions are used the same way as on Windows.
Yes, it's | sed s/\.[^\.]*$//
Just like the song says, "you have to be carefully taught." If an AI isn't carefully taught to believe in God, it certainly won't come to the conclusion that God exists by logic alone.
Most people forget that religion is virtually brainwashed into most people at an age when they're too young to question authority. An AI isn't going to have that experience, unless the AI's creator intentionally puts it there.
Christianity is a buffet. Each denomination chooses different fixin's from the salad bar.
Why not adopt the new standard, jump your major revision number to 10, and then leave it there forever; just like Apple and Microsoft?
This is exactly what I did. I measured the distance from my eyes to each of the three monitors on my desk. My optometrist made me a single-vision pair of glasses that was appropriate for that range of distances, but not for anything else. I got a second pair of progressives for everything else.
The author writes " It's 1920 x 1920 pixel square resolution is said to offer 78 per cent more pixels than a traditional Full HD monitor." Is it so hard to calculate the number of pixels in a traditional HD monitor and divide the number of pixels in this monitor by that number to actually *confirm* the fact?
I swear journalists get lazier every day.
Apple loves their walled garden, but doesn't make decisions like this capriciously. Until we know *why* Apple's doing this, it's hard to judge the situation. They may have a reason that seems insignificant to the end user, but you don't get to be the biggest company on the planet by making decisions like this for no reason.
SoC is system on a chip.
Basically if you display 80 or even 120 lines of code it does not matter if the monitor is 1080 pixels or 2160 pixels in height. Sure the higher resolution will display a well designed highly detailed font better than a lower resolution font but that is all, however programmers normally use a mono-spaced font like "Courier" so a fine detailed font is pointless.
Spoken by one who hasn't done much programming on a HiDPI monitor. I can tell you from first-hand experience that the higher resolution display significantly reduces eye fatigue. I have two 24" 1920x1080 external displays connected to my 15" rMBP. I always put my main window on the small 15" screen because the text is much easier on the eyes at 220 dpi. In matter of fact, text is the only thing that looks dramatically better on the retina display than a standard display. Images and icons may be more detailed, but it's not nearly as noticeable as the improvements in the display of text.
I'd rather give up my external monitors than my retina display.
Because that was the argument that Woolworth's used to keep black people from eating at their lunch counter. Woolworth's claimed that blacks could eat somewhere else, but virtually everyone else said the same thing. If you're a public accommodation, you accommodate *all* of the public, or none. They're called public accommodation laws for a reason.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Chip+and+Pin
Even the National Organization for Marriage, an extremely anti-gay organization...
Is that really true? I don't think so. As far as I know they only want to maintain the definition of marriage that has existed in all the states only what, 10-15 years ago? That is the same definition that existed since well before the republic was formed.
First off, you think the definition of marriage hasn't changed "since well before the republic was formed"? Back when women were chattel, and people of different races were prohibited from marrying? Or when polygamy was practiced? Or when women could only get a divorce when the man agreed to it? Which republic are you referring to? One that formed 20 years ago?
And furthermore, NOM does NOTHING for anybody's marriage. They're not anti-divorce, they're not anti-polygamy, they're not concerned about people who are unable or choose not to have children getting married. They've completely ignored every other issue related to marriage, and laser-focused on LGBT people exclusively. They've also weighed in very heavily against the repeal of DOMA and DADT, which have absolutely nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with gay people.
If anybody's using loaded language to mischaracterize their intent, NOM could be their poster boy. Absolutely nothing to do marriage, and everything to do with keeping LGBT people second-class citizens.
You may think that people throw the term homophobia around as a political ploy, but from your very words it seems that you've never been on the receiving end of it, and just think it's one more thing liberals and conservatives argue about.
First off, why be so pedantic about the word homophobia?I don't see you or anyone else complaining that the word hydrophobia doesn't mean that someone has a phobia about water, it just means that their throat is becoming paralyzed and it's becoming difficult to drink. There are lots of words in the English language that don't mean exactly what you'd think they mean by comparing them to other words.
Second off, the people boycotting this movie don't just think that OSC doesn't share their views or beliefs. He's gone on the record saying some outrageous things about LGBT people, not the least of which is claiming that homosexuality should be made a felony, and concentration camps should be set up to imprison them. Even the National Organization for Marriage, an extremely anti-gay organization, has tried to distance themselves from him, and he used to be a prominent member of their board of directors.
I have no difficulty separating art from the creator. I *loved* reading Ender's Game, it was a brilliant book. But I can't abide putting one cent into OSC's pocket no matter how much I may want to see it, and if I had known at the time what kind of person OSC was, I never would have purchased any of his books either.
The last time people thought Apple was making a huge mistake and cannibalizing their own sales was with the iPod nano replacing the iPod mini, and we saw what a *disaster* that was.
Steve Jobs even said that if Apple doesn't cannibalize their own sales, somebody else will. This is such a non-issue that it's laughable.
Maybe HP will buy them. It worked out so well for them last time.
"*I* find it much more telling that people feel the need to *insist* that the federal government grant gay people these rights, merely because *their* personal beliefs say that gay people are entitled to acceptance by society."
Nobody's asking for acceptance by society. Gay people are demanding that they be treated as equals in the eye of the law. It seems that 99% of this battle is due to the people who oppose equal rights trying to make the fight about something it's not.
Of course, telling me that *my* religious beliefs cannot, repeat *cannot* be considered a valid for my opinion on this topic, and so invalidates my opinion in their opinion, is hypocritical, but winning in court should soothe their souls.
Nobody's telling you that your religious beliefs are not a valid basis for your opinion, but they sure as hell aren't valid as a defense for passing laws propagating discrimination against an entire class of people.