Sounds like an idiot who can't setup a VM. I mean really: "I need to run Linux, whhaaa!!!!" - set up a VM, you utter muppet. What a total retard. And "emacs" OK fine, but does he not know about Coda?
Excellent advice, and exactly right. The makers of Dr Who expected that a large part of their audience would be in this camp - so it's written with that in mind. Plus hardly anyone likes Sylvester McCoy as Dr Who (I do, but I know I'm in a vanishing minority) so unless you want to watch that, then you're kinda starting here anyway. Also the DVD's from this time are really easy to get hold of.
And as the Man said, it's time travel, you can "jump back" if you wish. (Personally I'd want to see the Tom Baker, but that's my age talking...)
I dunno, if you're being crowded by characters in the pub I think it only makes sense to hit the space beer...
(Sorry... I thought it was funny. It should be noted I was insert mode when I thought of that joke [sorry, I stop now before I need braces {sorry - I'm done now}])
The thing is Apple buyers do spend more on their kit than PC buyers (there is variation - I'm talking "on average"). So if you're making some pricey device you are likely to find that a disproportionate number of your customers are Mac owners. Now if you're going to tell me that you won't see devices with ONLY a Thunderbolt port - I'd agree with you. There are plenty of peripheral makers who make most of their money from Apple owners (LaCie spring to mind).
Plus this is a rumour, it may not be true. I actually don't see why it would be true - there is no real benefit to Apple in it being exclusive.
Are you sure? You say banning the Kindle but not the Nook would be problematic. I see banning the Kindle and not the paperback as problematic. Are our views quite as far apart as they seem? I just see books. If the electronic book made noise, or was larger than a paperback - I could see a clear difference. As others have suggested, you put it in a binder and from a few feet away it's hard to tell them apart. If you accept that, why is one customer banned and the other is not - isn't that prejudice?
That's why I see this as "the thin end of the wedge", can we really allow minor prejudice, won't that lead to escalation? What happens when someone want to ban customers for some other BS reason? Like "no tattoos",
Let's not forget companies has (tried) some pretty reprehensible prejudices. Abercrombie & Fitch who told a worker with one arm that she's have to work in the back room because her physical disability "wasn't consistent with our brand". Or BA who told a worker she couldn't wear a crucifix. Now sure these are far worse, but you start banning stuff for random BS reasons and someone will use this precedent to do something that actually matters. So you ban a kind of clothing (say no "GAP hoodies" and someone will use that to suggest they can ban people with Christian themed garments "because it might upset some other religion". If you've allowed the "no GAP" to stand, then how do you say the other ban is wrong? You've set a dangerous precedent.
Sounds like the middle ages. I see no possible justification, if the electronic device emits no sound, and no light - well I'm at a loss. Sounds like pointless discrimination to me. And I don't see why In can't ban reading the Bible, but banning a Kindle is fine.
What about religion? Or sexual orientation? What about someone from a different city? What if I banned anyone who'd served in the US military? Or wearing a US military uniform? (Remember we're talking about a coffee shop - though I think a solder in his own country should never is turned out for wearing his/her uniform, but that's probably just me)
I see this as the thin edge of the wedge, if this stands then what else can stand - where is "too far"?
Is it? I'm sure the US Constitution prevents one group (business owners) oppressing or discriminating against another. This isn't the coffee shop owners house, there he can admit or not anyone he chooses. I mean, could I seriously open a shop in the US then choose not to serve blacks? (I know it isn't the same thing)
If that's right, then I really don't understand your freedom at all.
But you can't. You are not allowed to discriminate against a group, imagine if someone banned you from reading a Bible, but reading the Koran was acceptable (or vice-versa). You cannot do this, it is discrimination.
Your home is a totally different thing... If you want to ban anyone for any reason (or indeed no reason at all) you're free to do so. Business doesn't work like your home. The same rules don't apply.
No, that isn't the point at all. Cafe X cannot have a policy which is discriminatory then turn around and say "no, the people I'm discriminating are welcome somewhere else". That argument doesn't follow at all. If you want to argue this you have to say that the policy isn't discriminatory - and if other customers are allowed to read (books, newspapers etc.) then I honestly think it is.
Exactly! Someone can disbar themselves by their conduct, not some arbitrary nonsense. You want to make the coffee shop a "no reading zone" then fine (good luck with that by the way) but otherwise? I can't see that's right.
But your banning someone based on something other than their conduct! If I can read a book, why not a Kindle? I am doing anything different? Am I really any different to the guy with the paperback or newspaper? Look you want to ban someone because of unacceptable conduct, that's your right. You want to just ban someone because you feel like it? That's wrong. What's next? Seriously, can I ban someone because they are reading a particular newspaper?! Or because of something they are wearing (especially something with religious significance)?
If someone is actually DOING something wrong, fine. If they are reading the Kindle for hours taking the seat - fine eject them for hogging the seat.
I can agree with that, you might well ask a customer who's been sat there for an excessive time to either buy something else or leave... Especially at busy times. But someone reading while drinking a coffee, just because they happen to be reading a Kindle?!
But this isn't a "reading ban", the conduct of these customers din't different to others. If someone reading a newspaper or a paperback is OK, why not a Kindle? If you banned reading, that would be weird, but not discriminatory, but to ban someone because they are reading something different?
It is the thin edge of the wedge (okay, very thin I grant you). If you want to ban customers for some kind of conduct, that's one thing, but this isn't that... Am I really missing something?
Err, is could it just be you have a "OS image" on your own server (probably a flippin' Mac Mini given how Apple think) that you boot all your systems from? (Well assuming they have half-eaten fruit on them) Apple have been showing "NetBoot" for a while, actually the idea is quite nice, especially if you can "Time Machine" it. Everyone like to think Apple want to "control" users. I don't see this, Apple want to make users happy to buy more stuff from them. This isn't such a bad goal, and indeed they do pretty well at it - how many people just buy a new iPod every couple of years independent of need?
This idea that Steve Jobs wants to enslave mankind is stupid. He wants mankind to keep buying successive generations of his product, he thinks he knows better than us what we want (and if he wasn't right so often that might seem arrogant). I don't think the big scary cloud is really in Apple's playbook; they want us to keep buying shiny things. I'm pretty sure Apple would rather sell you a disk drive than rent you space in the cloud - sure they will rent you space, but they still WANT to sell your that disk drive.
Are we sure we want Android taking over all of that? I don't. I think a single OS dominating is a bad idea - like growing nothing but potatoes. I'd like to see Android doing SOME of that.
Infinity is an abstract idea, you can't do mathematics on an abstract idea. For example is infinity odd or even? Is it prime? I'll agree that 0.(9) is practically 1 - they clearly can't be resolved. Consider:
0.(9)+x=1
What's x? A quantity so small it cannot be expressed. Clearly a representation problem.
10 isn't a number - it's a representation of a number. Clearly there is such a thing as "ten" but 10 is not it - just a representation.
The problem is largely philosophical are two points that are infinitely close in face the same point? For all practical purposes they are - but as the premiss started with "two points" are can hardly end up with a single point can I? I have two points that cannot be resolved.
Or to look at it another way - 0.(3) is a third. if I add three thirds I get 1. If I multiply 0.(3) by 3 then I get 0.(9) - the problem is representational I can't express a third as a decimal this 0.(3) stuff is just a fudge, and at the limit it breaks.
The point is that no matter how many "9"s you write you're not expressing the number exactly - hence subtracting "a" (which is inexactly expressed) has no real meaning. As soon as we introduce a number of decimals then the whole thing falls down. It's a representation problem. That most people can understand.
Clearly 1 isn't the same as 9.999... but the difference is too small to represent with a decimal. This makes sense as everyone can accept they are ALMOST the same (for practical purposes).
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like an idiot who can't setup a VM. I mean really: "I need to run Linux, whhaaa!!!!" - set up a VM, you utter muppet. What a total retard. And "emacs" OK fine, but does he not know about Coda?
Excellent advice, and exactly right. The makers of Dr Who expected that a large part of their audience would be in this camp - so it's written with that in mind. Plus hardly anyone likes Sylvester McCoy as Dr Who (I do, but I know I'm in a vanishing minority) so unless you want to watch that, then you're kinda starting here anyway. Also the DVD's from this time are really easy to get hold of.
And as the Man said, it's time travel, you can "jump back" if you wish. (Personally I'd want to see the Tom Baker, but that's my age talking...)
Do we have an ISBN for that? (or a link the Amazon's page?)
Ta :-)
I think the spoiler was when Han didn't shoot first...
I dunno, if you're being crowded by characters in the pub I think it only makes sense to hit the space beer...
(Sorry... I thought it was funny. It should be noted I was insert mode when I thought of that joke [sorry, I stop now before I need braces {sorry - I'm done now}])
The thing is Apple buyers do spend more on their kit than PC buyers (there is variation - I'm talking "on average"). So if you're making some pricey device you are likely to find that a disproportionate number of your customers are Mac owners. Now if you're going to tell me that you won't see devices with ONLY a Thunderbolt port - I'd agree with you. There are plenty of peripheral makers who make most of their money from Apple owners (LaCie spring to mind).
Plus this is a rumour, it may not be true. I actually don't see why it would be true - there is no real benefit to Apple in it being exclusive.
Are you sure? You say banning the Kindle but not the Nook would be problematic. I see banning the Kindle and not the paperback as problematic. Are our views quite as far apart as they seem? I just see books. If the electronic book made noise, or was larger than a paperback - I could see a clear difference. As others have suggested, you put it in a binder and from a few feet away it's hard to tell them apart. If you accept that, why is one customer banned and the other is not - isn't that prejudice?
That's why I see this as "the thin end of the wedge", can we really allow minor prejudice, won't that lead to escalation? What happens when someone want to ban customers for some other BS reason? Like "no tattoos",
Let's not forget companies has (tried) some pretty reprehensible prejudices. Abercrombie & Fitch who told a worker with one arm that she's have to work in the back room because her physical disability "wasn't consistent with our brand". Or BA who told a worker she couldn't wear a crucifix. Now sure these are far worse, but you start banning stuff for random BS reasons and someone will use this precedent to do something that actually matters. So you ban a kind of clothing (say no "GAP hoodies" and someone will use that to suggest they can ban people with Christian themed garments "because it might upset some other religion". If you've allowed the "no GAP" to stand, then how do you say the other ban is wrong? You've set a dangerous precedent.
Thin edge of the wedge...
Sounds like the middle ages. I see no possible justification, if the electronic device emits no sound, and no light - well I'm at a loss. Sounds like pointless discrimination to me. And I don't see why In can't ban reading the Bible, but banning a Kindle is fine.
What about religion? Or sexual orientation? What about someone from a different city? What if I banned anyone who'd served in the US military? Or wearing a US military uniform? (Remember we're talking about a coffee shop - though I think a solder in his own country should never is turned out for wearing his/her uniform, but that's probably just me)
I see this as the thin edge of the wedge, if this stands then what else can stand - where is "too far"?
Is it? I'm sure the US Constitution prevents one group (business owners) oppressing or discriminating against another. This isn't the coffee shop owners house, there he can admit or not anyone he chooses. I mean, could I seriously open a shop in the US then choose not to serve blacks? (I know it isn't the same thing)
If that's right, then I really don't understand your freedom at all.
But this is reading a book... not checking email (though why's that a problem... never mind, I don't even care).
But you can't. You are not allowed to discriminate against a group, imagine if someone banned you from reading a Bible, but reading the Koran was acceptable (or vice-versa). You cannot do this, it is discrimination.
Your home is a totally different thing... If you want to ban anyone for any reason (or indeed no reason at all) you're free to do so. Business doesn't work like your home. The same rules don't apply.
No, that isn't the point at all. Cafe X cannot have a policy which is discriminatory then turn around and say "no, the people I'm discriminating are welcome somewhere else". That argument doesn't follow at all. If you want to argue this you have to say that the policy isn't discriminatory - and if other customers are allowed to read (books, newspapers etc.) then I honestly think it is.
Exactly! Someone can disbar themselves by their conduct, not some arbitrary nonsense. You want to make the coffee shop a "no reading zone" then fine (good luck with that by the way) but otherwise? I can't see that's right.
But your banning someone based on something other than their conduct! If I can read a book, why not a Kindle? I am doing anything different? Am I really any different to the guy with the paperback or newspaper? Look you want to ban someone because of unacceptable conduct, that's your right. You want to just ban someone because you feel like it? That's wrong. What's next? Seriously, can I ban someone because they are reading a particular newspaper?! Or because of something they are wearing (especially something with religious significance)?
If someone is actually DOING something wrong, fine. If they are reading the Kindle for hours taking the seat - fine eject them for hogging the seat.
I can agree with that, you might well ask a customer who's been sat there for an excessive time to either buy something else or leave... Especially at busy times. But someone reading while drinking a coffee, just because they happen to be reading a Kindle?!
But this isn't a "reading ban", the conduct of these customers din't different to others. If someone reading a newspaper or a paperback is OK, why not a Kindle? If you banned reading, that would be weird, but not discriminatory, but to ban someone because they are reading something different?
It is the thin edge of the wedge (okay, very thin I grant you). If you want to ban customers for some kind of conduct, that's one thing, but this isn't that... Am I really missing something?
What about disabled people with their large clumsy wheelchairs? Or non-white people? Or Women? What about Muslims? What they have one down the street?
I know the Nazis burned the books, so modern fascists burn Kindles?
Still feel like a free country?
Err, is could it just be you have a "OS image" on your own server (probably a flippin' Mac Mini given how Apple think) that you boot all your systems from? (Well assuming they have half-eaten fruit on them) Apple have been showing "NetBoot" for a while, actually the idea is quite nice, especially if you can "Time Machine" it. Everyone like to think Apple want to "control" users. I don't see this, Apple want to make users happy to buy more stuff from them. This isn't such a bad goal, and indeed they do pretty well at it - how many people just buy a new iPod every couple of years independent of need?
This idea that Steve Jobs wants to enslave mankind is stupid. He wants mankind to keep buying successive generations of his product, he thinks he knows better than us what we want (and if he wasn't right so often that might seem arrogant). I don't think the big scary cloud is really in Apple's playbook; they want us to keep buying shiny things. I'm pretty sure Apple would rather sell you a disk drive than rent you space in the cloud - sure they will rent you space, but they still WANT to sell your that disk drive.
Err, no that would just be a different crime.
Are we sure we want Android taking over all of that? I don't. I think a single OS dominating is a bad idea - like growing nothing but potatoes. I'd like to see Android doing SOME of that.
Anything involving multiplication??
Infinity is an abstract idea, you can't do mathematics on an abstract idea. For example is infinity odd or even? Is it prime? I'll agree that 0.(9) is practically 1 - they clearly can't be resolved. Consider:
0.(9)+x=1
What's x? A quantity so small it cannot be expressed. Clearly a representation problem.
10 isn't a number - it's a representation of a number. Clearly there is such a thing as "ten" but 10 is not it - just a representation.
The problem is largely philosophical are two points that are infinitely close in face the same point? For all practical purposes they are - but as the premiss started with "two points" are can hardly end up with a single point can I? I have two points that cannot be resolved.
Or to look at it another way - 0.(3) is a third. if I add three thirds I get 1. If I multiply 0.(3) by 3 then I get 0.(9) - the problem is representational I can't express a third as a decimal this 0.(3) stuff is just a fudge, and at the limit it breaks.
The point is that no matter how many "9"s you write you're not expressing the number exactly - hence subtracting "a" (which is inexactly expressed) has no real meaning. As soon as we introduce a number of decimals then the whole thing falls down. It's a representation problem. That most people can understand.
Clearly 1 isn't the same as 9.999... but the difference is too small to represent with a decimal. This makes sense as everyone can accept they are ALMOST the same (for practical purposes).
Ah right, I don't quite understand the US legal system (not being in the US).
I see that (we're assuming the lawyers executed this part correctly). But what about everyone else?!