I'm running El Capitan on a late 2008 MBP with no problems. After seven years of daily use this thing just keeps running. I think too much is made of these kind of announcements.
The difference is that the article frames the situation as taking money from someone and giving it directly to someone else, implicitly welfare when the truth is that the government is taking money and spending it on behalf of someone else. Quite frankly all government spending is on behalf of someone, DOT spending on behalf of travelers, DOE spending on behalf of students, etc. If you don't like the concept of government spending tax dollars on behalf of someone, you need to reexamine the concept of government.
These stories pop-up every year around tax time in order to rile people up about how much taxes they pay. They're passed around a repeated without critical comment and then disappear for another year. A better metric would be to examine the efficiency of our government vis-a-vis comparable developed governments. Is our government spending more efficient or less than Canada, the UK, France, Germany, and Japan? That's the real scandal.
Except that this fact isn't correct, which makes me wonder if anyone bothered to fact check the original article. The article states that 38.6% of 2.6 trillion is transfer payments in the form of medicare and medicaid, that's about 1 trillion for the mathematically challenged. That encompasses basically all medicare and medicaid outlays. The problem is medicare and medicaid outlays are not payments to individuals. For example 26% of medicare outlays are to hospitals, 23% to insurance companies for medicare advantage, 13% to physicians and so on. So the article is factually wrong, a fact that I think will be overlooked by everyone.
Well most statutes contain definitions of key terms, in fact this bill contains some definitions but not of this critical term. So you might define substantial reproduction of results as "results that have been reproduced at least ___% of the time by ____" That would take rid the bill of a considerable amount of ambiguity. And for the record yes I am a lawyer licensed in the not so great state of Tennessee.
This is actually a very short bill which is amazingly easy to read. It looks to me like it would be hard to twist into something that is a bad thing.
On that point you're 100% wrong. In general the shorter and more vaguely written a law is, the easier it is to twist it into something completely unrecognizable. For example the bill prohibits regulations unless based on scientific and technical information that allows "substantial reproduction of results." So what does substantial reproduction of results means, if 50 studies reproduce the results and 10 studies do not, is that substantial? Who will decide? How many lawsuits will be filed over the definition of substantial reproduction. This law really is about stopping the EPA from regulating CO2 but if passed it would essentially prevent new environmental regulations by providing a sure fire basis for challenging any regulation in court. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.
People will always disagree with each other. Learning how to work with those whom you disagree is a fundamental skill often lacking in American's today. Larger states would be able to better balance power vis-a-vie the federal government. Witness that Canada's federalism started off weak and grew stronger, while in the US federalism started off strong and grew weaker.
The US already has too many political subdivisions. We need to combine states into larger political entities (12-15 large states) rather than split the existing ones up.
Let's see the iMac was 1998, OSX Server 1999, the iBook 1999, OSX Developer Preview 2000, iPod 2001, Win-compatiable iPod 2004, then of course the transition to intel. There are plenty of things to criticize Jobs over, his stewardship of Apple from 1997- isn't one of them.
No there simply aren't enough. The Occupational Outlook Handbook estimates a demand for 7,000 new lawyers a year for the next ten years. Every year about 40,000 people graduate from law school.
Here's the thing: Drones are fine until the EM spectrum goes to hell in a hand basket which will happen almost instantly when you're fighting an sophisticated enemy. An designed in the 60s EA-6 could probably bring down a whole squadron of drones or at least render them useless. But drones are the flavor of the month so lets waste a few billion on them.
Of course, but I have the PS3 connected to the big TV in the living room. I want netflix running on this laptop so I watch movies while travelling or at my desk.
If you've ever used any of the online chart apps, you understand what this is all about. They are simply phenomenal and beat the heck out of paper charts that may or may not be up to date. But to be honest they're probably of more use to private pilots who may not be in touch with ATC during every part of their flight.
You like Opera? I love Opera. I've been using Opera since way back at version 2.0. Remember the browser that would fit on a floppy? I even paid for it. Sure, it's not perfect but it's pretty darn good. Now it's endanger of being taken over by a company I personally don't use and can't stand. I would have rather seen it die back in the 90s than to me such an ignominious fate.
Yeah I wonder about why they chose that particular license. I mean it's not a commericially viable product, and if it's meant to spur research and development then why not chose some sort of free software license.
Seconded. You would be surprised how commuting by bike can change your outlook on work and your health. Consider the benefits of getting your daily workout while commuting to work.
Don't be so quick to make assumptions having lived in the country and in the city I can attest that it's definitely easier to ride in rural areas despite the fact the distances are greater. As for shopping on bikes, today it is easier than ever due to some innovative new (and old) designs.
I live in Atlanta which is plenty hot and muggy and commute a total of 21 miles each way everyday. By combining bicycle and bus I spend an extra 30 minutes a day commuting, 65 minutes vs 35 in a car, but I save over $50 a month in gas. I'm not saying everyone can bike commute but a lot more people could and I think society would benefit.
I think that if you try you'll find you can ride a bicycle far further and faster than you imagine. Combine a bicycle with bus and rail service and there are few places that are out of reach.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm running El Capitan on a late 2008 MBP with no problems. After seven years of daily use this thing just keeps running. I think too much is made of these kind of announcements.
The difference is that the article frames the situation as taking money from someone and giving it directly to someone else, implicitly welfare when the truth is that the government is taking money and spending it on behalf of someone else. Quite frankly all government spending is on behalf of someone, DOT spending on behalf of travelers, DOE spending on behalf of students, etc. If you don't like the concept of government spending tax dollars on behalf of someone, you need to reexamine the concept of government.
These stories pop-up every year around tax time in order to rile people up about how much taxes they pay. They're passed around a repeated without critical comment and then disappear for another year. A better metric would be to examine the efficiency of our government vis-a-vis comparable developed governments. Is our government spending more efficient or less than Canada, the UK, France, Germany, and Japan? That's the real scandal.
The problem is the article conflates payments on behalf of individuals like medicare payments and payments to individuals. There's a difference.
Except that this fact isn't correct, which makes me wonder if anyone bothered to fact check the original article. The article states that 38.6% of 2.6 trillion is transfer payments in the form of medicare and medicaid, that's about 1 trillion for the mathematically challenged. That encompasses basically all medicare and medicaid outlays. The problem is medicare and medicaid outlays are not payments to individuals. For example 26% of medicare outlays are to hospitals, 23% to insurance companies for medicare advantage, 13% to physicians and so on. So the article is factually wrong, a fact that I think will be overlooked by everyone.
Well most statutes contain definitions of key terms, in fact this bill contains some definitions but not of this critical term. So you might define substantial reproduction of results as "results that have been reproduced at least ___% of the time by ____" That would take rid the bill of a considerable amount of ambiguity. And for the record yes I am a lawyer licensed in the not so great state of Tennessee.
This is actually a very short bill which is amazingly easy to read. It looks to me like it would be hard to twist into something that is a bad thing.
On that point you're 100% wrong. In general the shorter and more vaguely written a law is, the easier it is to twist it into something completely unrecognizable. For example the bill prohibits regulations unless based on scientific and technical information that allows "substantial reproduction of results." So what does substantial reproduction of results means, if 50 studies reproduce the results and 10 studies do not, is that substantial? Who will decide? How many lawsuits will be filed over the definition of substantial reproduction. This law really is about stopping the EPA from regulating CO2 but if passed it would essentially prevent new environmental regulations by providing a sure fire basis for challenging any regulation in court. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.
People will always disagree with each other. Learning how to work with those whom you disagree is a fundamental skill often lacking in American's today. Larger states would be able to better balance power vis-a-vie the federal government. Witness that Canada's federalism started off weak and grew stronger, while in the US federalism started off strong and grew weaker.
The US already has too many political subdivisions. We need to combine states into larger political entities (12-15 large states) rather than split the existing ones up.
Let's see the iMac was 1998, OSX Server 1999, the iBook 1999, OSX Developer Preview 2000, iPod 2001, Win-compatiable iPod 2004, then of course the transition to intel. There are plenty of things to criticize Jobs over, his stewardship of Apple from 1997- isn't one of them.
No there simply aren't enough. The Occupational Outlook Handbook estimates a demand for 7,000 new lawyers a year for the next ten years. Every year about 40,000 people graduate from law school.
Here's the thing: Drones are fine until the EM spectrum goes to hell in a hand basket which will happen almost instantly when you're fighting an sophisticated enemy. An designed in the 60s EA-6 could probably bring down a whole squadron of drones or at least render them useless. But drones are the flavor of the month so lets waste a few billion on them.
Thank you sir!!!!!
Of course, but I have the PS3 connected to the big TV in the living room. I want netflix running on this laptop so I watch movies while travelling or at my desk.
If you know any site with a walk through to setup Netflix WINE I would greatly appreciate it.
I'm really done with computer gaming. Now if you want to talk about how Netflix keeps me from using Linux, I'll be glad to talk.
Many jurisdictions have a legal newsletter or website for attorneys. They often provide excellent coverage of judicial races.
If you've ever used any of the online chart apps, you understand what this is all about. They are simply phenomenal and beat the heck out of paper charts that may or may not be up to date. But to be honest they're probably of more use to private pilots who may not be in touch with ATC during every part of their flight.
You like Opera? I love Opera. I've been using Opera since way back at version 2.0. Remember the browser that would fit on a floppy? I even paid for it. Sure, it's not perfect but it's pretty darn good. Now it's endanger of being taken over by a company I personally don't use and can't stand. I would have rather seen it die back in the 90s than to me such an ignominious fate.
Yeah I wonder about why they chose that particular license. I mean it's not a commericially viable product, and if it's meant to spur research and development then why not chose some sort of free software license.
Seconded. You would be surprised how commuting by bike can change your outlook on work and your health. Consider the benefits of getting your daily workout while commuting to work.
Like this guy?
Don't be so quick to make assumptions having lived in the country and in the city I can attest that it's definitely easier to ride in rural areas despite the fact the distances are greater. As for shopping on bikes, today it is easier than ever due to some innovative new (and old) designs.
See the Xtracycle, the Dutch Cargo Trike, and the Bakfiet.
I live in Atlanta which is plenty hot and muggy and commute a total of 21 miles each way everyday. By combining bicycle and bus I spend an extra 30 minutes a day commuting, 65 minutes vs 35 in a car, but I save over $50 a month in gas. I'm not saying everyone can bike commute but a lot more people could and I think society would benefit.
I think that if you try you'll find you can ride a bicycle far further and faster than you imagine. Combine a bicycle with bus and rail service and there are few places that are out of reach.
Something that might get more Americans to ride bicycles.