It's not the same problem because they're not advertising their products as Apple products. As for what Apple should do when someone shows up at the Genius Bar, they do the same thing they would if someone showed up with a Dell: point them to the manufacturer. This wasn't counterfeit; not even close.
I'm about 3/4ths through the Omnibus Edition right now, and while it's not bad, it hasn't been particularly gripping IMO. It could just be the monotony of the environment of, or maybe, finally, just the hint of character development now, but I've found most of it rather plodding. And without giving any spoilers, I was sorely disappointed by the first plot line, and then the second, which made it hard to get emotionally invested in any of the subsequent ones. It looks a bit more promising at this point, and I've read this much so I'll finish, but my expectations are tempered, to say the least.
While his writing style is more spartan, I enjoyed Jeff Carlson's Plague Year a bit more as an indie post-apocalyptic thriller. I think some of it could be expectations, however. I approached Wool expecting the second coming of Christ given what I'd heard, while I was expecting Plague Year to be a rehash of Michael Chrichton's Prey.
Maybe, if it's worn constantly, and only if the compression is high enough to prevent blood flow. Using sufficiently weak magnets would probably be no more restrictive to circulation than wearing a standard watch. And absent a serious opiate habit, pain would probably cause most people to remove a device long before there was real damage.
I'd tell you whether 22nd is better or worse than 1st, but unfortunately we're 27th in math so you'll have to ask the Slovak Republic, or maybe Denmark.
You obviously weren't looking very hard. (WARNING: Do not click if you do not want to see Objective-C code with partially digested bits of dinner in it.) http://i47.tinypic.com/nyzl28.png
What more surprises does this venerable language have up its sleeve?
Theres only one way to find out, and it involves wading through extraordinarily long, unintuitive, and overly verbose object, property, and method names until, Surprise!, you find yet another feature of limited utility.
Well, right, you hit the nail on the head with that last part. As long as there are manual overrides -- and there will *always* be manual overrides -- there will be people who use it to game the system. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if human drivers actually drive more recklessly because they know that the automated vehicles around them will always yield, always be aware of the vehicles around them, and always avoid collisions. This would provide a huge disincentive for people to use automated vehicles, especially in rush hour traffic where they're needed most, because the automated vehicle wouldn't be aggressive enough, and the manual driver wouldn't be hindered by the same set of programmed restrictions as the automated vehicle. If people see a measurable advantage to driving manually, they will continue to do it.
In light of that, I can only think of one way this will work long-term and large-scale, and that's by making manual driving illegal on public roads except in emergency situations. (The penalties for noncompliance could be much more stringent than they are for reckless driving today, because intent would be a given.) I'm afraid anything less will only encourage people to drive like even bigger assholes than they already do.
I will say that I tend to eat more when I'm tired, and a biological clock that's out of sync is one reason for being tired, but I'm not sure that being tired necessarily leads to weight gain by itself. I think it's more useful to separate the phenomena than to construct a Rube Goldberg or Toshiba-like chain of cause and effect.
That said, my biological clock is closer to a 32-36 hour cycle than 24, which sucks. I went to bed at a respectable 10PM last night, so I probably won't start getting tired until around 4AM tomorrow morning.
Not necessarily. Sukhoi could call for something known as the "do over," where, under international convention, everyone pretends the first attempt and resulting catastrophic failure never occurred.
From the video they were showing, it looked like it wasn't just a demo; they were performing hard banks (for an airliner) and who knows what else. If they were indeed showing off at the time, it's not hard to imagine them bleeding off too much airspeed and stalling without enough altitude to recover.
So what? Any animal that plays dead is being deceptive. Any that uses camouflage or mimicry is being deceptive. Cats use deception to fool their prey into believing they aren't paying attention. Deception isn't in short supply in the animal kingdom.
don't you think it's kind of weird that the guy who lied gets to keep his job as CEO, yet this director is being made a scapegoat?
Speaking as someone with a Masters of Social Science, Juris Doctor, and PhD in Theoretical Particle Physics/Cosomolgy, I see no problem with this whatsoever. After all, if someone who's qualified to issue himself a degree isn't good enough to be CEO, then who is?
Did you read TFA? (Rhetorical question, sorry, you obviously didn't.) TFA claims "Pharmacists and doctors have lined up on opposite sides of the issue," and quotes one as saying "medicine is just not that simple. You canâ(TM)t just follow rules and weigh all the pros and cons. It needs to be individualized."
Which is conflating two ideas and obvious horseshit. Of course you follow rules and weigh pros and cons. That's all anyone of competence does. That + patient history + family history = individualized care. Sorry, but that's it. Doctors are not superhuman; they are simply exposed to a larger quantity of specialized knowledge than the layman, and that knowledge is not irreplaceable.
But the obvious tip off here is that physicians are claiming that, regardless of the drug, people should not have access to it except by prescription. Nevermind the fact that a lot of drugs end up going OTC on their own. Nevermind the fact that the whole point of pharmacists is ostensibly to help patients choose the correct medicine. Pharmacists are still trained thoroughly for this role, but today they're basically glorified soda jerks in the US.
Now, I'm not going to claim that ALL physicians are opposing this -- my old man's a doc and he supports this idea -- but it's clear that those who are fighting this are doing so for the money, not for their concerns about the patient.
Look, you're really taking the wrong approach here. The way to deal with corruption is avoidance, backup, and corrective action.
1) Avoidance. This is the generally the role of the filesystem and the underlying hardware, each of which have methods for preventing and correcting data corruption without ever involving the user. The user has a small part to play by doing things like shutting down instead of turning off whenever possible, though journaling filesystems (i.e., all modern filesystems) will know when a file operation was interrupted prematurely and check the integrity automatically. Also try not to put different file systems and OSes on the same drive, since there's the possibility that one OS may not respect the FS or limits of another (typically/historically, Windows has been the culprit here, but not always, and not so much anymore.) Any OS will generally leave an unrecognized drive alone unless you tell it to do otherwise, but the system drive has often been considered fair game.
2) Backups (optional). Once you have a known-good (or believed good) installation, create your backup. Repeat somewhere between often (if your data is important) and never (if it's not).
3) Correction. If and when you come across data corruption, that's not a sign that you're wasting space on your hard drive; it's a sign that something is seriously wrong. The proper course of action is to identify the underlying cause and correct it, not to delete the files to free up space. If you're experiencing corruption on only one drive regardless of channel and cable, replace the drive. If you're consistently having problems on a given channel, then don't use that channel. If you're having random issues across all drives on all channels, then the chipset is bad and the motherboard should be replaced. Basic troubleshooting.
Technically you *could* take a checksum of all of your files and update the database every time a file is changed. Some antivirus systems already do this to detect infections, but it would also detect incidental changes as well. The problem is that constantly verifying the integrity of your files will only hasten the demise of your storage medium. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
When taken together with his prior claim that someone needs to shoot Obama, it actually does come off that way. Were they unrelated statements? Maybe. Was he trying to carefully thread the needle between legal expression and incitement to violence? Probably. Does he really believe someone should kill the President? I doubt it.
And look, that was just a recent popular example. I'm sure you can find more, less well known (though equally as obscure as cpu6502's) examples of people making exaggerated claims about the opposition. Turn on FOX News for any given 5 minutes if you need help finding them.
Yeah, yeah, and Ted Nugent got unanimous applause for insinuating that he or someone else would assassinate the President. Hyperbole often tends to cross lines of appropriate discussion, sometimes causing actual offense, but let's not give credence to it by pretending it's more than it is.
Artists, in general, must either work for nothing, or sign away their rights as part of getting distribution.
I get where you're going, and I agree that the music industry is exploitative, but artists will continue to starve with or without them, because here's the things about art: anyone can make it, and great artists aren't in short supply. This is especially evident when you examine the self-masturbatory nature of art critics (and indeed artists) who find validation mainly through concurrence, because of course there are no objective measurements for the quality of a work of art. A pompous art critic fills the vacuum of objectivity with fallacious and circular appeals to authority, and, conveniently, they are the authority. And by getting people to go along with their self-asserted expertise, which is more objectively an expertise in building social connections to gain influence so people will listen to their opinions, they create artificial restrictions on the supply of "good art."
The publishing industry, by positioning itself as the gatekeeper between artist and audience, has conned artists and audiences alike into believing that not only does it know what good art is, but that artists can and will be rewarded with great fortunes. But while there have been a few artists to land lucrative commissions prior to the recording industry, and more notably, prior to the invention of technology and techniques to make virtually any audio, visual, or literary creation one can conceive, most artists have to work just as hard, or harder, to make ends meet as any other schmuck.
My point in this is not that art doesn't have value, but that the supply is so vast that the only way to really capitalize on it, to not be a starving artist, is to artificially limit supply in some way. And the only way to do that, short of stifling expression (which I would argue only has the opposite effect), is with the system we have now. I sincerely believe the publishing industry as we know it needs to fail, but artists shouldn't be expecting an automatic windfall in the absence of Big Pub. On the contrary, the competition will be as stiff as ever.
The article isn't about whether evolution happened, but whether the trait known as intelligence was the result of a specific error which created an extra copy of a specific gene. It's the difference between saying "I missed the target," and "I missed the target by 2 inches because of a 6 MPH crosswind as opposed to a misaligned sight,"
Chaps, I hate to say it, but I'm going to need another 1B pounds sterling. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that if you don't come up with the money, you're in danger of missing out on the economic and social benefits of superfast broadband. Those are some fantastic knees, by the way.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like the human body, you blow away both kidneys or a liver it ain't gonna work that well anymore.
Pfft. If you lose one of your livers, the other one will compensate, just like our hearts.
You mean like this?
It's not the same problem because they're not advertising their products as Apple products. As for what Apple should do when someone shows up at the Genius Bar, they do the same thing they would if someone showed up with a Dell: point them to the manufacturer. This wasn't counterfeit; not even close.
If they are minors, then they are not using anything in theory; it's all their legal guardians' doing.
I'm about 3/4ths through the Omnibus Edition right now, and while it's not bad, it hasn't been particularly gripping IMO. It could just be the monotony of the environment of, or maybe, finally, just the hint of character development now, but I've found most of it rather plodding. And without giving any spoilers, I was sorely disappointed by the first plot line, and then the second, which made it hard to get emotionally invested in any of the subsequent ones. It looks a bit more promising at this point, and I've read this much so I'll finish, but my expectations are tempered, to say the least.
While his writing style is more spartan, I enjoyed Jeff Carlson's Plague Year a bit more as an indie post-apocalyptic thriller. I think some of it could be expectations, however. I approached Wool expecting the second coming of Christ given what I'd heard, while I was expecting Plague Year to be a rehash of Michael Chrichton's Prey.
Stainless steel seems like the obvious choice.
Maybe, if it's worn constantly, and only if the compression is high enough to prevent blood flow. Using sufficiently weak magnets would probably be no more restrictive to circulation than wearing a standard watch. And absent a serious opiate habit, pain would probably cause most people to remove a device long before there was real damage.
You mean there are other ways to wear a watch?!
There's a reason we're 22nd in science.
I'd tell you whether 22nd is better or worse than 1st, but unfortunately we're 27th in math so you'll have to ask the Slovak Republic, or maybe Denmark.
You obviously weren't looking very hard. (WARNING: Do not click if you do not want to see Objective-C code with partially digested bits of dinner in it.) http://i47.tinypic.com/nyzl28.png
What more surprises does this venerable language have up its sleeve?
Theres only one way to find out, and it involves wading through extraordinarily long, unintuitive, and overly verbose object, property, and method names until, Surprise!, you find yet another feature of limited utility.
Well, right, you hit the nail on the head with that last part. As long as there are manual overrides -- and there will *always* be manual overrides -- there will be people who use it to game the system. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if human drivers actually drive more recklessly because they know that the automated vehicles around them will always yield, always be aware of the vehicles around them, and always avoid collisions. This would provide a huge disincentive for people to use automated vehicles, especially in rush hour traffic where they're needed most, because the automated vehicle wouldn't be aggressive enough, and the manual driver wouldn't be hindered by the same set of programmed restrictions as the automated vehicle. If people see a measurable advantage to driving manually, they will continue to do it.
In light of that, I can only think of one way this will work long-term and large-scale, and that's by making manual driving illegal on public roads except in emergency situations. (The penalties for noncompliance could be much more stringent than they are for reckless driving today, because intent would be a given.) I'm afraid anything less will only encourage people to drive like even bigger assholes than they already do.
I will say that I tend to eat more when I'm tired, and a biological clock that's out of sync is one reason for being tired, but I'm not sure that being tired necessarily leads to weight gain by itself. I think it's more useful to separate the phenomena than to construct a Rube Goldberg or Toshiba-like chain of cause and effect.
That said, my biological clock is closer to a 32-36 hour cycle than 24, which sucks. I went to bed at a respectable 10PM last night, so I probably won't start getting tired until around 4AM tomorrow morning.
Not necessarily. Sukhoi could call for something known as the "do over," where, under international convention, everyone pretends the first attempt and resulting catastrophic failure never occurred.
From the video they were showing, it looked like it wasn't just a demo; they were performing hard banks (for an airliner) and who knows what else. If they were indeed showing off at the time, it's not hard to imagine them bleeding off too much airspeed and stalling without enough altitude to recover.
So what? Any animal that plays dead is being deceptive. Any that uses camouflage or mimicry is being deceptive. Cats use deception to fool their prey into believing they aren't paying attention. Deception isn't in short supply in the animal kingdom.
don't you think it's kind of weird that the guy who lied gets to keep his job as CEO, yet this director is being made a scapegoat?
Speaking as someone with a Masters of Social Science, Juris Doctor, and PhD in Theoretical Particle Physics/Cosomolgy, I see no problem with this whatsoever. After all, if someone who's qualified to issue himself a degree isn't good enough to be CEO, then who is?
Did you read TFA? (Rhetorical question, sorry, you obviously didn't.) TFA claims "Pharmacists and doctors have lined up on opposite sides of the issue," and quotes one as saying "medicine is just not that simple. You canâ(TM)t just follow rules and weigh all the pros and cons. It needs to be individualized."
Which is conflating two ideas and obvious horseshit. Of course you follow rules and weigh pros and cons. That's all anyone of competence does. That + patient history + family history = individualized care. Sorry, but that's it. Doctors are not superhuman; they are simply exposed to a larger quantity of specialized knowledge than the layman, and that knowledge is not irreplaceable.
But the obvious tip off here is that physicians are claiming that, regardless of the drug, people should not have access to it except by prescription. Nevermind the fact that a lot of drugs end up going OTC on their own. Nevermind the fact that the whole point of pharmacists is ostensibly to help patients choose the correct medicine. Pharmacists are still trained thoroughly for this role, but today they're basically glorified soda jerks in the US.
Now, I'm not going to claim that ALL physicians are opposing this -- my old man's a doc and he supports this idea -- but it's clear that those who are fighting this are doing so for the money, not for their concerns about the patient.
Look, you're really taking the wrong approach here. The way to deal with corruption is avoidance, backup, and corrective action.
1) Avoidance. This is the generally the role of the filesystem and the underlying hardware, each of which have methods for preventing and correcting data corruption without ever involving the user. The user has a small part to play by doing things like shutting down instead of turning off whenever possible, though journaling filesystems (i.e., all modern filesystems) will know when a file operation was interrupted prematurely and check the integrity automatically. Also try not to put different file systems and OSes on the same drive, since there's the possibility that one OS may not respect the FS or limits of another (typically/historically, Windows has been the culprit here, but not always, and not so much anymore.) Any OS will generally leave an unrecognized drive alone unless you tell it to do otherwise, but the system drive has often been considered fair game.
2) Backups (optional). Once you have a known-good (or believed good) installation, create your backup. Repeat somewhere between often (if your data is important) and never (if it's not).
3) Correction. If and when you come across data corruption, that's not a sign that you're wasting space on your hard drive; it's a sign that something is seriously wrong. The proper course of action is to identify the underlying cause and correct it, not to delete the files to free up space. If you're experiencing corruption on only one drive regardless of channel and cable, replace the drive. If you're consistently having problems on a given channel, then don't use that channel. If you're having random issues across all drives on all channels, then the chipset is bad and the motherboard should be replaced. Basic troubleshooting.
Technically you *could* take a checksum of all of your files and update the database every time a file is changed. Some antivirus systems already do this to detect infections, but it would also detect incidental changes as well. The problem is that constantly verifying the integrity of your files will only hasten the demise of your storage medium. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
When taken together with his prior claim that someone needs to shoot Obama, it actually does come off that way. Were they unrelated statements? Maybe. Was he trying to carefully thread the needle between legal expression and incitement to violence? Probably. Does he really believe someone should kill the President? I doubt it.
And look, that was just a recent popular example. I'm sure you can find more, less well known (though equally as obscure as cpu6502's) examples of people making exaggerated claims about the opposition. Turn on FOX News for any given 5 minutes if you need help finding them.
Yeah, yeah, and Ted Nugent got unanimous applause for insinuating that he or someone else would assassinate the President. Hyperbole often tends to cross lines of appropriate discussion, sometimes causing actual offense, but let's not give credence to it by pretending it's more than it is.
Good thing, then, that we have a body of text following the title to make it all clear.
And a copying error is but one potential source for genetic mutations, so it's still more specific than saying "Is evolution?"
Artists, in general, must either work for nothing, or sign away their rights as part of getting distribution.
I get where you're going, and I agree that the music industry is exploitative, but artists will continue to starve with or without them, because here's the things about art: anyone can make it, and great artists aren't in short supply. This is especially evident when you examine the self-masturbatory nature of art critics (and indeed artists) who find validation mainly through concurrence, because of course there are no objective measurements for the quality of a work of art. A pompous art critic fills the vacuum of objectivity with fallacious and circular appeals to authority, and, conveniently, they are the authority. And by getting people to go along with their self-asserted expertise, which is more objectively an expertise in building social connections to gain influence so people will listen to their opinions, they create artificial restrictions on the supply of "good art."
The publishing industry, by positioning itself as the gatekeeper between artist and audience, has conned artists and audiences alike into believing that not only does it know what good art is, but that artists can and will be rewarded with great fortunes. But while there have been a few artists to land lucrative commissions prior to the recording industry, and more notably, prior to the invention of technology and techniques to make virtually any audio, visual, or literary creation one can conceive, most artists have to work just as hard, or harder, to make ends meet as any other schmuck.
My point in this is not that art doesn't have value, but that the supply is so vast that the only way to really capitalize on it, to not be a starving artist, is to artificially limit supply in some way. And the only way to do that, short of stifling expression (which I would argue only has the opposite effect), is with the system we have now. I sincerely believe the publishing industry as we know it needs to fail, but artists shouldn't be expecting an automatic windfall in the absence of Big Pub. On the contrary, the competition will be as stiff as ever.
The article isn't about whether evolution happened, but whether the trait known as intelligence was the result of a specific error which created an extra copy of a specific gene. It's the difference between saying "I missed the target," and "I missed the target by 2 inches because of a 6 MPH crosswind as opposed to a misaligned sight,"
Chaps, I hate to say it, but I'm going to need another 1B pounds sterling. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that if you don't come up with the money, you're in danger of missing out on the economic and social benefits of superfast broadband. Those are some fantastic knees, by the way.