Err, waitaminute... assuming you're not talking about Cisco IOS, there is no such thing as an "iOS" box from Apple. There is an iOS emulation environment within OSX (comes with XTools), but that's a totally different thing.
Second, the number of iOS devices out there number in the hundreds of millions - iPhones, iPads, now the iWatch thingy... so, well, what do you mean "a lot less"?
Also consider that any development box, of any OS brand or type, is going to need periodic cleanups, because the typical developer is banging out code in the thing. This is (depending on the languages used) oftentimes a very messy process, mostly due to the shit-ton of custom/devel libraries, packages, builds that fail spectacularly, and a whole host of other elements that introduce instability.
there isn't much reason to dig into the registry unless you can't find off the shelf util's to do it for you.
That's the thing... I don't even have to do/use that. No need for CCleaner or any such utility. Sure, OSX has OS-level utilities (see also the old Onyx utility), but nearly all of them are either for performance-tweaking or Hackintoshing, not day-to-day cleanup/maintenance.
Unlike Windows, the *nix-like nature of OSX keeps it pretty damned clean. Aside from the rare "Repair Permissions" run in Disk Utility to fix something that opens funny, you shouldn't have to do anything on a Mac for OS maintenance. Hell, I had a dual G5 PowerMac that ran 10.3 for years on end w/o any kind of OS-level maintenance, yet it never slowed down.
Now that's funny, because my non-tech missus has/uses a laptop running Linux Mint (Rebecca build), she's been using it quite extensively of late, and I haven't even touched the thing since I installed the OS.
But you know, to each their own...
Re:Why not go back to consumer sorting.
on
Recycling Is Dying
·
· Score: 1
Dude - where I live (Western Oregon) we do triple-streaming - trash, recyclables, and yard waste (compostable organic matter).
Bastards are picky about it too. For example, if you so much as accidentally leave one plastic grocery bag in the recyclables bin, they'll refuse the whole frickin' can that week, so you get to wait two weeks for the next pickup. Little wonder most folks say 'fsck it' and jam the trash can full of anything that's not an uber-obvious recyclable.
Re:Good governance would make sure recycling is do
on
Recycling Is Dying
·
· Score: 1
Garbage man has been a good union living wage job for a century.
Wait, no it hasn't. (Hell, Dr. Martin Luther King was *killed* during that particular strike...)
Lush is a cosmetics company that positions itself as the uber-hippie, swears itself against animal testing and such, and promotes pretty much every costmetics-related left-leaning cause you can imagine...
...all while charging about the same prices per gram of product as, oh, I dunno... cocaine.
You still have not demonstrated why buying a vote should not be protected speech, if money=speech and voting=speech, assuming the Citizens United rationale.
Money is not literal speech - this is where you stumble. Money is a tool, and nothing more. Using money to buy groceries? Legal. Using money to buy child porn? Illegal.
I think their idea may be that the OS is no longer relevant (you know, thanks to Docker or similar)?
BTW, the "A" in LAMP is allegedly to be replaced by the "N" (as in, node.js), which IMHO is cute, but damned sure not as flexible a solution that Apache, nginx, or even (*ducks*) Tomcat provides.
Not impossible, but definitely doable. Just needs a couple of items in place to make it less tempting to use the office as a platform for corruption:
1) Start with hard term limits for all national offices that aren't the Supreme Court. If a congresscritter can only stay in office for no more than, say 12 years as a senator or 6 years as a rep (and make it retroactive come the next election)? All the sudden that whole entrenched money-machinery thing tends to rinse itself out after 6 years at the most.
2) Restructure the tax code to make it either a flat tax, or a national consumption/sales tax for all non-food goods - but no loopholes of any kind no matter which direction you take. I'm willing to wager that a huge percentage of the lobbyist money in DC goes towards favors that involve tinkering with tax codes - remove that, and you remove a lot of incentives. It has the added benefit of simplifying the whole shebang, and cutting the number of IRS employees by like 75-80%.
3) No government contractor of any kind is to contribute any money, goods, or services towards any political, ideological, or social cause, campaign, or advertisement. This is actually the easiest to implement.
I'm sure there are lots of other ideas that can come up without violating existing rights.
As the siblings have said... DeBeers gets away with it because it is a highly protected trade of legal products that is fiercely enforced by a cartel.
Nowadays, many (if not most) lab-grown gem-quality diamonds are almost perfectly indistinguishable from the ones dug out of the Earth. Only a very small handful of human beings could even halfway consistently tell the difference between such diamonds in general, if not already informed of their respective origins. In some cases, the only real difference is the microscopic serial number that the lab diamonds are required to etch onto their wares. TBH, it would only take a small handful of labs to start growing a few on the side and quietly 'corrupt' the market to take that particular cartel down - especially if the truth only came out years/decades (and thousands of lab diamonds) later. The jewelry stores won't give a damn and would happily pitch in on the scheme - they normally mark-up their gems at some obscene rate then 'cut' the 'retail price' by half to make you think you're getting a great deal anyway... they'd have no compunction against selling lab-grown diamonds at the same 'retail' prices (but paying something like 20-40% less to the supplier).
But, all that said, there is another aspect to it - people buy gem-quality** diamonds due to perceived aesthetic value alone, and for no other reason. They know it won't cure any ailment, and what physical properties it does have (e.g. it won't rot, rust, etc) are well known and prove, but are incidental at most.
On the other hand, rhino horns, tiger penises, and similar are bought/sold based on perceived medicinal properties, which is measured by a whole different metric of demand, valuation, and economics.
** gem-quality as opposed to industrial, obviously.
It's up to you to give them a sufficient reason to care. The incapable or the apathetic can find another career field, and the defiant can go spend their careers at McDonald's.
They are.
No, in general they are not: ignorance != idiocy.
They have none
So teach them how to gain the ability to think critically, and then show them how to use it. The sufficiently clueful will put it to use, and the others are no longer your problem.
They won't.
...so long as you give them the impression that they shouldn't, they won't. One of the first things I warned new students about was that the learning never ends, but the rewards can more than make up for it. I also told them point-blank that if they didn't want to buy into a lifetime of learning, they would be better served by transferring to another class immediately.
Out of the couple of thousand students, most likely never got far in CompSci. Of those that did, they're doing extremely well nowadays, if their LinkedIn profiles are any indication. It's been 10 years since I left academia, and seeing a decent number of formerly snot-nosed high-school-aged kids raking in six-figure salaries? It's pretty damned satisfying.
Typically when dealing with NTP you do not want big swings.
This is a solved problem, though (sibling points out the reason why: slew.) In practice, this is also a known conditions, especially with virtual machines (doubly so with VMWare-hosted VMs). This is because VM's time-slice the physical CPU, so the keeping time on the VM's OS clock is very imperfect anyway.
Thinking the same thing here. Most time-sensitive systems outside of the stock market do allow for a little slop (even Active Directory allows a 5-minute slip betwixt client and AD Domain Controller before it refuses logins), so I'm not seeing too much of a problem with a temporary 1-second lag, let alone incremental millisecond lags between refreshes.
TBH, in most commodity systems, a few milliseconds here and there would be the easiest, since most of them slide that far one way or the other...
...and don't get me started on virtual machines, which notoriously suck at internal/machine timekeeping.
I appreciate that you put so much thought into your argument, but really, it reduces to just that. Take the first example - dude wasn't *shooting* anyone in the airport, and he wasn't pointing the weapon at anyone. So aside from your fear, what else is there?
Here's the trick - instead of clamoring the government to protect you from feeling frightened, just ignore the guy. Said "loser" (if he is intending to provoke) will realize that he got no reaction, and will simply go about his business. Win-win.
Realize that (at least conceptually) you should never get to control others' behavior via governmental force, so long as that behavior does not constitute a direct and obvious threat to persons or property.
You go out of your way to denigrate the persons who do the open-carry thing. In some cases, fair enough, it is stupid in some situations, depending on the person's demeanor and actions while doing so. However, three things come up:
1) it's legally none of your business 2) if you think it's done out of ego or inadequacy, then why do you feed that by reacting to it so fearfully? 3) most folks who carry firearms (concealed or not) do not go out of their way to draw attention to themselves as any sort of wannabe badass, perception/assertion be damned. A firearm is a responsibility, not a dildo - and all but a very small percentage of firearm owners bear themselves fully on this fact (which is why in nearly all cases, said firearms are unloaded and/or properly holstered with the safety on unless being used).
If he can actually afford to purchase and maintain one, why not?
I'll explain: There are less than a dozen or so individuals on this *planet* who could afford the cash to purchase/build a working nuclear weapon and its delivery system... let alone maintain it it in working order (trust me - you likely have no idea how much work and expense that a working weapon with a highly radioactive core and volatile/toxic propellant entails. Fail to maintain it properly, and you end up with a non-working pile of crap that will probably turn your liver into mush should you come too close to it.) We're talking someone with at least Elon Musk's amount of money, and they'll spend the majority of that dosh on the acquisition - then spend the rest on maintenance.
Oh, a SAM? Yeah, much cheaper on the scale, but still a headache, well above the reach of the average rich man, and still a lot of expense to procure and maintain... with no real guarantee that you'll actually hit anything with it - assuming that you actually get around to trying.
You see, that's the problem with hyperbole - once you suss it out technically, the examples make zero sense in the real world.
I mean seriously, if I were some megalomaniacal putz with a ton of money who wanted to do mass destruction, I'd just rig up a bio-weapons lab - it'd be a frigload cheaper, and much easier to keep on the down-low, even upon deployment. But then, that's way beyond the scope of the fevered demands for 'gun control', isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
I still don't get why this isn't filtered / stopped on a national level. Surely the cost would be justified in savings to the masses.
Protocol spoofing, VPNs... yeah, good luck with that.
Err, waitaminute... assuming you're not talking about Cisco IOS, there is no such thing as an "iOS" box from Apple. There is an iOS emulation environment within OSX (comes with XTools), but that's a totally different thing.
Second, the number of iOS devices out there number in the hundreds of millions - iPhones, iPads, now the iWatch thingy... so, well, what do you mean "a lot less"?
Also consider that any development box, of any OS brand or type, is going to need periodic cleanups, because the typical developer is banging out code in the thing. This is (depending on the languages used) oftentimes a very messy process, mostly due to the shit-ton of custom/devel libraries, packages, builds that fail spectacularly, and a whole host of other elements that introduce instability.
there isn't much reason to dig into the registry unless you can't find off the shelf util's to do it for you.
That's the thing... I don't even have to do/use that. No need for CCleaner or any such utility. Sure, OSX has OS-level utilities (see also the old Onyx utility), but nearly all of them are either for performance-tweaking or Hackintoshing, not day-to-day cleanup/maintenance.
Exactly.
Unlike Windows, the *nix-like nature of OSX keeps it pretty damned clean. Aside from the rare "Repair Permissions" run in Disk Utility to fix something that opens funny, you shouldn't have to do anything on a Mac for OS maintenance. Hell, I had a dual G5 PowerMac that ran 10.3 for years on end w/o any kind of OS-level maintenance, yet it never slowed down.
Stupid Registry BS...
To be fair, this may be largely due to the whole culture-change thing going on there at the moment.
Times like this that I kind of miss Mini MSFT... yeah he works for the Borg, but his insights are pretty excellent.
Now that's funny, because my non-tech missus has/uses a laptop running Linux Mint (Rebecca build), she's been using it quite extensively of late, and I haven't even touched the thing since I installed the OS.
But you know, to each their own...
Dude - where I live (Western Oregon) we do triple-streaming - trash, recyclables, and yard waste (compostable organic matter).
Bastards are picky about it too. For example, if you so much as accidentally leave one plastic grocery bag in the recyclables bin, they'll refuse the whole frickin' can that week, so you get to wait two weeks for the next pickup. Little wonder most folks say 'fsck it' and jam the trash can full of anything that's not an uber-obvious recyclable.
Garbage man has been a good union living wage job for a century.
Wait, no it hasn't. (Hell, Dr. Martin Luther King was *killed* during that particular strike...)
Count yourself lucky it wasn't a dupe article.
(...now wait for a day or two, and...)
My wife is addicted to the damned stuff.
Lush is a cosmetics company that positions itself as the uber-hippie, swears itself against animal testing and such, and promotes pretty much every costmetics-related left-leaning cause you can imagine...
You still have not demonstrated why buying a vote should not be protected speech, if money=speech and voting=speech, assuming the Citizens United rationale.
Money is not literal speech - this is where you stumble. Money is a tool, and nothing more.
Using money to buy groceries? Legal. Using money to buy child porn? Illegal.
As long as they don't replace it with Erlang, because then it would just be LAME.
I think their idea may be that the OS is no longer relevant (you know, thanks to Docker or similar)?
BTW, the "A" in LAMP is allegedly to be replaced by the "N" (as in, node.js), which IMHO is cute, but damned sure not as flexible a solution that Apache, nginx, or even (*ducks*) Tomcat provides.
...at all.
But you know, it's totally cool to run your tiny startup's auth DB on its own multi-box sharded cluster... n' stuff. Bragging rights and all that.
Not impossible, but definitely doable. Just needs a couple of items in place to make it less tempting to use the office as a platform for corruption:
1) Start with hard term limits for all national offices that aren't the Supreme Court. If a congresscritter can only stay in office for no more than, say 12 years as a senator or 6 years as a rep (and make it retroactive come the next election)? All the sudden that whole entrenched money-machinery thing tends to rinse itself out after 6 years at the most.
2) Restructure the tax code to make it either a flat tax, or a national consumption/sales tax for all non-food goods - but no loopholes of any kind no matter which direction you take. I'm willing to wager that a huge percentage of the lobbyist money in DC goes towards favors that involve tinkering with tax codes - remove that, and you remove a lot of incentives. It has the added benefit of simplifying the whole shebang, and cutting the number of IRS employees by like 75-80%.
3) No government contractor of any kind is to contribute any money, goods, or services towards any political, ideological, or social cause, campaign, or advertisement. This is actually the easiest to implement.
I'm sure there are lots of other ideas that can come up without violating existing rights.
The slope is even slipperier when you consider that most regional and national media outlets are... *drum roll please* ...corporations.
That's because you misconstrue the whole thing. Let me help:
* spending gobs of money to provide a platform from which a candidate gets his/her message across is not the act of buying a vote, so it is legal.
* spending gobs of money in an attempt to literally purchase individual votes for a candidate is illegal.
1) your friends are idiots if they let their intentions change due to what some poll says.
2) This ain't a new phenomenon, at all
3) A poll result does not necessarily mean that it matches the election result. See also "Dewey Defeats Truman"
3) Reagan won by a frickin' landslide in both elections, so it's not as if the media outlet had jumped any guns.
As the siblings have said... DeBeers gets away with it because it is a highly protected trade of legal products that is fiercely enforced by a cartel.
Nowadays, many (if not most) lab-grown gem-quality diamonds are almost perfectly indistinguishable from the ones dug out of the Earth. Only a very small handful of human beings could even halfway consistently tell the difference between such diamonds in general, if not already informed of their respective origins. In some cases, the only real difference is the microscopic serial number that the lab diamonds are required to etch onto their wares. TBH, it would only take a small handful of labs to start growing a few on the side and quietly 'corrupt' the market to take that particular cartel down - especially if the truth only came out years/decades (and thousands of lab diamonds) later. The jewelry stores won't give a damn and would happily pitch in on the scheme - they normally mark-up their gems at some obscene rate then 'cut' the 'retail price' by half to make you think you're getting a great deal anyway... they'd have no compunction against selling lab-grown diamonds at the same 'retail' prices (but paying something like 20-40% less to the supplier).
But, all that said, there is another aspect to it - people buy gem-quality** diamonds due to perceived aesthetic value alone, and for no other reason. They know it won't cure any ailment, and what physical properties it does have (e.g. it won't rot, rust, etc) are well known and prove, but are incidental at most.
On the other hand, rhino horns, tiger penises, and similar are bought/sold based on perceived medicinal properties, which is measured by a whole different metric of demand, valuation, and economics.
** gem-quality as opposed to industrial, obviously.
As a former teacher, the following is in order:
They don't.
It's up to you to give them a sufficient reason to care. The incapable or the apathetic can find another career field, and the defiant can go spend their careers at McDonald's.
They are.
No, in general they are not: ignorance != idiocy.
They have none
So teach them how to gain the ability to think critically, and then show them how to use it. The sufficiently clueful will put it to use, and the others are no longer your problem.
They won't.
...so long as you give them the impression that they shouldn't, they won't. One of the first things I warned new students about was that the learning never ends, but the rewards can more than make up for it. I also told them point-blank that if they didn't want to buy into a lifetime of learning, they would be better served by transferring to another class immediately.
Out of the couple of thousand students, most likely never got far in CompSci. Of those that did, they're doing extremely well nowadays, if their LinkedIn profiles are any indication. It's been 10 years since I left academia, and seeing a decent number of formerly snot-nosed high-school-aged kids raking in six-figure salaries? It's pretty damned satisfying.
Dude - it's not the person you're showing fear of, it's fear of the object that person is carrying.
Think this one through for a minute, and I suspect you'll discover that the fear is in 99.999% of cases an irrational thing.
Typically when dealing with NTP you do not want big swings.
This is a solved problem, though (sibling points out the reason why: slew.) In practice, this is also a known conditions, especially with virtual machines (doubly so with VMWare-hosted VMs). This is because VM's time-slice the physical CPU, so the keeping time on the VM's OS clock is very imperfect anyway.
Thinking the same thing here. Most time-sensitive systems outside of the stock market do allow for a little slop (even Active Directory allows a 5-minute slip betwixt client and AD Domain Controller before it refuses logins), so I'm not seeing too much of a problem with a temporary 1-second lag, let alone incremental millisecond lags between refreshes.
TBH, in most commodity systems, a few milliseconds here and there would be the easiest, since most of them slide that far one way or the other...
TL;DR - "It scares me, so it should be banned."
I appreciate that you put so much thought into your argument, but really, it reduces to just that. Take the first example - dude wasn't *shooting* anyone in the airport, and he wasn't pointing the weapon at anyone. So aside from your fear, what else is there?
Here's the trick - instead of clamoring the government to protect you from feeling frightened, just ignore the guy. Said "loser" (if he is intending to provoke) will realize that he got no reaction, and will simply go about his business. Win-win.
Realize that (at least conceptually) you should never get to control others' behavior via governmental force, so long as that behavior does not constitute a direct and obvious threat to persons or property.
You go out of your way to denigrate the persons who do the open-carry thing. In some cases, fair enough, it is stupid in some situations, depending on the person's demeanor and actions while doing so. However, three things come up:
1) it's legally none of your business
2) if you think it's done out of ego or inadequacy, then why do you feed that by reacting to it so fearfully?
3) most folks who carry firearms (concealed or not) do not go out of their way to draw attention to themselves as any sort of wannabe badass, perception/assertion be damned. A firearm is a responsibility, not a dildo - and all but a very small percentage of firearm owners bear themselves fully on this fact (which is why in nearly all cases, said firearms are unloaded and/or properly holstered with the safety on unless being used).
If he can actually afford to purchase and maintain one, why not?
I'll explain: There are less than a dozen or so individuals on this *planet* who could afford the cash to purchase/build a working nuclear weapon and its delivery system... let alone maintain it it in working order (trust me - you likely have no idea how much work and expense that a working weapon with a highly radioactive core and volatile/toxic propellant entails. Fail to maintain it properly, and you end up with a non-working pile of crap that will probably turn your liver into mush should you come too close to it.) We're talking someone with at least Elon Musk's amount of money, and they'll spend the majority of that dosh on the acquisition - then spend the rest on maintenance.
Oh, a SAM? Yeah, much cheaper on the scale, but still a headache, well above the reach of the average rich man, and still a lot of expense to procure and maintain... with no real guarantee that you'll actually hit anything with it - assuming that you actually get around to trying.
You see, that's the problem with hyperbole - once you suss it out technically, the examples make zero sense in the real world.
I mean seriously, if I were some megalomaniacal putz with a ton of money who wanted to do mass destruction, I'd just rig up a bio-weapons lab - it'd be a frigload cheaper, and much easier to keep on the down-low, even upon deployment. But then, that's way beyond the scope of the fevered demands for 'gun control', isn't it?