The Economist is regarded as fairly right leaning in Canada, having blasted the previous Liberal prime minister and endorsing the current Conservative one (Harper) for years.
All that says is that Canadians are just as prone to partisan bias as Americans. It may just be that the Economist thought Martin was a lousy prime minister and Harper is a good one.
Personally, though I think it's a little bit of a stretch to call the Economist "liberal," its views have little in common with those of American conservatives. It consistently favors relaxed immigration laws, equality for all regardless of social class, universal healthcare, less war, more economic mobility, social justice, etc. Actually, I wouldn't mind at all if some independent panel judged the Economist to be "right leaning" -- because if so, it would expose the shame of the American right.
Is the agent groping me with one hand with his other on his erect penis? No. Are they penetrating me for their own sexual gratification? No. Are they enjoying it in a sexual nature? No.
I think you might need to do a little more research there, yourself. A rapist often does not rape someone for his own sexual gratification. There are lots of men walking around out there who are sexually frustrated (I'm looking at you,/.) but they don't rape people. Rape is about power and control, and in some cases pure sadism. It's seldom really about sex.
Try calling an extension in a contact whos number is formatted as 111-222-3333 x444
That does seem like an annoying bug. To its credit (I guess), my phone does not allow you to enter any characters into the phone field that don't belong there, e.g. an X. If you try to paste in a number from the clipboard, all the alpha characters get stripped out. In the email app, only the first seven digits of that phone number are highlighted, so if you tap on it, it will dial correctly, but you'll have to enter the extension yourself.
And you have a hang-up button or a mute button?
If you mean hardware buttons, then no. I guess I just don't struggle with them. It doesn't take me seconds to answer a phone and the onscreen "hang up" button is larger than my finger, so it's not hard to touch. I don't have the problem with the "wake up" button that you describe, because my phone doesn't go to sleep while I'm on calls. It dims the screen, but as soon as I move it away from my face it comes back on again.
And I would be interested to know if you have the ability to search by company name in your contacts with the stock app.
I don't know if it's the stock app, i.e. if it's the one that ships with a generic Android build. But yes, I can do that with the contact app that came with my phone. The contacts are filtered as I type, so if I type "G-O-O" I'll see "Jim Goodman" as well as any contacts who work at Google.
My phone is a Motorola Defy, BTW, currently with Android 2.2.1.
Yeah, I think their definition of a "systems language" is broader than that. Maybe on Plan 9/Inferno, the predecessors of Go qualified as systems languages, because the OS provided a lot of the infrastructure for what they did. On other operating systems, the language itself has to provide that same infrastructure (e.g. garbage collection), so to call Go a strict systems language is a little specious.
If I were acting as a rational self-interested economic actor, though, the last thing I'd want is more competition, because that reduces the value of my skillset.
But in practice, competition is generally good for markets, because it encourages the competitors to strive for excellence/innovation, and the best performers can charge more money for their goods/services.
Whenever someone says they'd like to do what I do, I always encourage them. If there's actually so little work out there that I can handle it all by myself, I worry that I'm in an unhealthy/moribund market.
The only catch being, if they honestly want to compete with me, they have to either be at least as good as me, or else charge a lot less. It's called "paying your dues."
On the other hand, if my skillset was so commoditized that anyone could walk in off the street and do the same thing, reducing my own value, then I'd figure it was time to step up my game.
Maybe I'm too old-school, but when I think "systems language", I think about something that would be good for embedded devices or kernel device drivers, stuff that's pretty close to the metal. I wouldn't use Go for that, garbage-collection and concurrency mean there's heap traffic and IPC signaling under the hood that I probably want to control.
Java is used in a lot of embedded systems, and it has garbage collection and concurrency.
Unlike Java, though, Go compiles to native binaries, rather than running on a VM (though maybe the real difference is debatable with modern JITs).
A high school buddy of mine made good friends in college with a guy who went on to become a public defender. This guy worked hard, got good grades, went to a good school. He chose to be a public defender on principle and to get good experience for becoming a criminal defense attorney. He has said that his experience with the courts has shaken his confidence in the legal system, and this coming from a guy who has one of the highest acquittal rates in the history of that office.
So? I can watch the Al Pacino movie And Justice For All and it shakes my faith in the legal system, and that's just a movie. Did your high school buddy honestly graduate law school thinking being a public defender was going to be a cake walk?
You do also realize that not everybody who gets assigned a public defender is innocent of their crimes, right? His faith might have been shaken by the fact that his acquittal rate was due to the number of guilty people he let walk. How should I know?
You then go on to say you don't advocate violence, but at some point there's no other option -- no other option than to do what? Start shooting public defenders? Judges? I really don't understand where you're going with your little anecdote.
Well, lucky you're not Google, then, because Google films all of the sessions and makes the content free within a couple months. I dunno, getting free stuff is nice, and it makes a big PR splash for Google, but at the end of the day you're paying $900 plus travel costs for the free stuff, and everything else you get for free.
100K attendees at a keynote makes the company throwing the event look good, but Google I/O isn't really that kind of event. It really is all developer-oriented content, and a lot of it involves code walk-throughs and the like. Panels and workshops like those don't necessarily scale. If attendees can't even ask questions, they don't see the content as being as valuable as at a smaller event.
I attended Google I/O last year. From what I can remember of the people I spoke to at the mixer event, one was building Web apps for a major university, and most of the rest were eager Android developers from small shops. They tended to skew young. I definitely did not see many of the classic blue shirt/khaki corporate developer types.
What I said was that parents should be the final arbiters of what their children are taught because the state ought to have no right to impose much beyond standards of minimum education on children.
Yes, I know you said that but you seem to be contradicting yourself. You claim to believe in "minimum standards of education" and yet you also feel that parents should be able to tell schools what they can and cannot teach. That is contradictory. Being a parent doesn't make you any less ignorant, bigoted, or stupid than anyone else. It doesn't qualify you to be an educator. And it certainly doesn't qualify you to tell an entire school full of educators -- or an entire school district or an entire state, for that matter -- what your kids should learn. If you want to control that, then by all means, home school your kids. Or pull them out of public school and put them in a private school that teaches your beliefs. Either way, though, you are going to pick up the tab for that. My tax dollars go to my state schools, which teach a minimum standard of education and hopefully much further than that.
There are more than enough truly homophobic people in the world without attempting to dilute the term. I'm pretty sure Card is also against M-F sex outside of marriage. This doesn't make him afraid of 80% of the general public though, does it?
I think you're redefining the term "homophobia" to mean "afraid of gays," which is usually what homophobic people do so they can reassure themselves and reaffirm their own beliefs. As in: "I'm not lashing out at gay people, it's really the gays who are attacking me, my beliefs, and my way of life, by virtue of the very fact that they exist, but even though they keep attacking me, I'm not afraid of them, therefore I'm not homophobic. QED."
Be that as it may, if you're asking whether Orson Scott Card has as much disgust and contempt for 80 percent of the general public as he has for gays, I really couldn't say, not knowing the man. I haven't read his beliefs on the subject. But if he believes as you say he does, then I guess so.
Like who? River Song, my favorite Doctor Who character of all time?
and less men in rubber suits.
Which episode was that? You're not talking about the Silence, or the terrible CG on the Rebel Flesh episodes, so you must mean the one that rehashed the Weeping Angels, which are so cheap they're actually stationary props. (They're coming back next season, BTW... again.)
in particular I think he tries to resolve far too many things in the big epic end of series specials, and they end up looking messy with too many scenes
That's kinda what I mean by "incomprehensible," especially since the scenes don't really add up to much. Even if they seem to be adding up to something, you know that a few episodes later, the Doctor will just wave his magic screwdriver and everything will be back to normal again. "Oh gosh, I forgot Rory and now he's dead again! Right, let's just fix that... and, fine. Good."
...but the last season of Doctor Who stunk so bad that I almost completely lost interest.
When Steven Moffat was first announced as the new show-runner, he gave a bunch of interviews about how the best Doctor Whos were the old ones where things were scary, and all these plans he had that sounded really great and like he could save the show from the worst aspects of Russell T. Davies' cloying writing.
Well, scrap all that, because he gave us an even younger Doctor, companions straight out of Australian soaps, even more of Davies' deus ex machina solutions, even more of the Doctor waving his sonic screwdriver around like it's Harry Potter's want (they destroyed it in the old show for a reason), incomprehensible stories full of characters you can't identify and don't care about, and he actually made the Doctor the sidekick in his own show. I never really got to the point where I thought New Who was better than the original, but now I think it's really much, much worse than the old shows, warts, cheap budgets and all.
2010? Have you watched that movie lately? It's brutally bad. It took everything that was beautiful and prescient and optimistic about 2001 and threw it in the trash. All of a sudden, we're back in the Cold War with spaceships that look grimier than the ones in Alien, and they make a rumbling noise as they fly through space. HAL has a keyboard and an 8-bit screen -- and they've apparently abandoned the technology, because the new ship doesn't even have one. Everyone is incompetent. They act like they've never had any training at all. The plot itself is stupid. That movie really should have never been made (and Clarke's sequel novels were even worse).
Man, people go apeshit on the whole "Sulu was a sword fighter" thing. There was exactly one (1) episode where Sulu expresses an interest in fencing as a hobby. Then he gets wasted and chases some crewmembers around with a sword. Nobody ever said he was an "expert," and the sword fighting was never used as a plot device in any other story. He never actually fought anybody with a sword, even though plenty of stories had opportunities for him to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
The Economist is regarded as fairly right leaning in Canada, having blasted the previous Liberal prime minister and endorsing the current Conservative one (Harper) for years.
All that says is that Canadians are just as prone to partisan bias as Americans. It may just be that the Economist thought Martin was a lousy prime minister and Harper is a good one.
Personally, though I think it's a little bit of a stretch to call the Economist "liberal," its views have little in common with those of American conservatives. It consistently favors relaxed immigration laws, equality for all regardless of social class, universal healthcare, less war, more economic mobility, social justice, etc. Actually, I wouldn't mind at all if some independent panel judged the Economist to be "right leaning" -- because if so, it would expose the shame of the American right.
Is the agent groping me with one hand with his other on his erect penis? No. Are they penetrating me for their own sexual gratification? No. Are they enjoying it in a sexual nature? No.
I think you might need to do a little more research there, yourself. A rapist often does not rape someone for his own sexual gratification. There are lots of men walking around out there who are sexually frustrated (I'm looking at you, /.) but they don't rape people. Rape is about power and control, and in some cases pure sadism. It's seldom really about sex.
Travel is a right. If you want to travel anywhere farther than Iowa, you have to fly. There's not much choice. (Unless, perhaps, you're unemployed?)
Saying "if you want to teach the TSA a lesson, don't fly" is kinda like saying "if you want to teach the FDA a lesson, don't buy food."
Not every problem has a market-based solution, particularly where governance is concerned.
Too soon.
Over a decade later is too soon? OK, I guess I'll switch to Pearl Harbor jokes.
Try calling an extension in a contact whos number is formatted as 111-222-3333 x444
That does seem like an annoying bug. To its credit (I guess), my phone does not allow you to enter any characters into the phone field that don't belong there, e.g. an X. If you try to paste in a number from the clipboard, all the alpha characters get stripped out. In the email app, only the first seven digits of that phone number are highlighted, so if you tap on it, it will dial correctly, but you'll have to enter the extension yourself.
And you have a hang-up button or a mute button?
If you mean hardware buttons, then no. I guess I just don't struggle with them. It doesn't take me seconds to answer a phone and the onscreen "hang up" button is larger than my finger, so it's not hard to touch. I don't have the problem with the "wake up" button that you describe, because my phone doesn't go to sleep while I'm on calls. It dims the screen, but as soon as I move it away from my face it comes back on again.
And I would be interested to know if you have the ability to search by company name in your contacts with the stock app.
I don't know if it's the stock app, i.e. if it's the one that ships with a generic Android build. But yes, I can do that with the contact app that came with my phone. The contacts are filtered as I type, so if I type "G-O-O" I'll see "Jim Goodman" as well as any contacts who work at Google.
My phone is a Motorola Defy, BTW, currently with Android 2.2.1.
FWIW, I have an Android phone and it has none of the problems you describe. I think you must have picked the wrong phone. They aren't all the same.
Yeah, I think their definition of a "systems language" is broader than that. Maybe on Plan 9/Inferno, the predecessors of Go qualified as systems languages, because the OS provided a lot of the infrastructure for what they did. On other operating systems, the language itself has to provide that same infrastructure (e.g. garbage collection), so to call Go a strict systems language is a little specious.
If I were acting as a rational self-interested economic actor, though, the last thing I'd want is more competition, because that reduces the value of my skillset.
But in practice, competition is generally good for markets, because it encourages the competitors to strive for excellence/innovation, and the best performers can charge more money for their goods/services.
Whenever someone says they'd like to do what I do, I always encourage them. If there's actually so little work out there that I can handle it all by myself, I worry that I'm in an unhealthy/moribund market.
The only catch being, if they honestly want to compete with me, they have to either be at least as good as me, or else charge a lot less. It's called "paying your dues."
On the other hand, if my skillset was so commoditized that anyone could walk in off the street and do the same thing, reducing my own value, then I'd figure it was time to step up my game.
Maybe I'm too old-school, but when I think "systems language", I think about something that would be good for embedded devices or kernel device drivers, stuff that's pretty close to the metal. I wouldn't use Go for that, garbage-collection and concurrency mean there's heap traffic and IPC signaling under the hood that I probably want to control.
Java is used in a lot of embedded systems, and it has garbage collection and concurrency.
Unlike Java, though, Go compiles to native binaries, rather than running on a VM (though maybe the real difference is debatable with modern JITs).
A high school buddy of mine made good friends in college with a guy who went on to become a public defender. This guy worked hard, got good grades, went to a good school. He chose to be a public defender on principle and to get good experience for becoming a criminal defense attorney. He has said that his experience with the courts has shaken his confidence in the legal system, and this coming from a guy who has one of the highest acquittal rates in the history of that office.
So? I can watch the Al Pacino movie And Justice For All and it shakes my faith in the legal system, and that's just a movie. Did your high school buddy honestly graduate law school thinking being a public defender was going to be a cake walk?
You do also realize that not everybody who gets assigned a public defender is innocent of their crimes, right? His faith might have been shaken by the fact that his acquittal rate was due to the number of guilty people he let walk. How should I know?
You then go on to say you don't advocate violence, but at some point there's no other option -- no other option than to do what? Start shooting public defenders? Judges? I really don't understand where you're going with your little anecdote.
Well, lucky you're not Google, then, because Google films all of the sessions and makes the content free within a couple months. I dunno, getting free stuff is nice, and it makes a big PR splash for Google, but at the end of the day you're paying $900 plus travel costs for the free stuff, and everything else you get for free.
I tried it in IE9 and it told me it wouldn't work because my browser didn't support Web Sockets.
100K attendees at a keynote makes the company throwing the event look good, but Google I/O isn't really that kind of event. It really is all developer-oriented content, and a lot of it involves code walk-throughs and the like. Panels and workshops like those don't necessarily scale. If attendees can't even ask questions, they don't see the content as being as valuable as at a smaller event.
I dunno. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
I attended Google I/O last year. From what I can remember of the people I spoke to at the mixer event, one was building Web apps for a major university, and most of the rest were eager Android developers from small shops. They tended to skew young. I definitely did not see many of the classic blue shirt/khaki corporate developer types.
56 bytes of assembly language source code? I highly doubt it.
Bullshit. Pics or it didn't happen.
What I said was that parents should be the final arbiters of what their children are taught because the state ought to have no right to impose much beyond standards of minimum education on children.
Yes, I know you said that but you seem to be contradicting yourself. You claim to believe in "minimum standards of education" and yet you also feel that parents should be able to tell schools what they can and cannot teach. That is contradictory. Being a parent doesn't make you any less ignorant, bigoted, or stupid than anyone else. It doesn't qualify you to be an educator. And it certainly doesn't qualify you to tell an entire school full of educators -- or an entire school district or an entire state, for that matter -- what your kids should learn. If you want to control that, then by all means, home school your kids. Or pull them out of public school and put them in a private school that teaches your beliefs. Either way, though, you are going to pick up the tab for that. My tax dollars go to my state schools, which teach a minimum standard of education and hopefully much further than that.
There are more than enough truly homophobic people in the world without attempting to dilute the term. I'm pretty sure Card is also against M-F sex outside of marriage. This doesn't make him afraid of 80% of the general public though, does it?
I think you're redefining the term "homophobia" to mean "afraid of gays," which is usually what homophobic people do so they can reassure themselves and reaffirm their own beliefs. As in: "I'm not lashing out at gay people, it's really the gays who are attacking me, my beliefs, and my way of life, by virtue of the very fact that they exist, but even though they keep attacking me, I'm not afraid of them, therefore I'm not homophobic. QED."
Be that as it may, if you're asking whether Orson Scott Card has as much disgust and contempt for 80 percent of the general public as he has for gays, I really couldn't say, not knowing the man. I haven't read his beliefs on the subject. But if he believes as you say he does, then I guess so.
he gave us plot threads that ran a whole series
...but went nowhere.
and characters with depth
Like who? River Song, my favorite Doctor Who character of all time?
and less men in rubber suits.
Which episode was that? You're not talking about the Silence, or the terrible CG on the Rebel Flesh episodes, so you must mean the one that rehashed the Weeping Angels, which are so cheap they're actually stationary props. (They're coming back next season, BTW... again.)
in particular I think he tries to resolve far too many things in the big epic end of series specials, and they end up looking messy with too many scenes
That's kinda what I mean by "incomprehensible," especially since the scenes don't really add up to much. Even if they seem to be adding up to something, you know that a few episodes later, the Doctor will just wave his magic screwdriver and everything will be back to normal again. "Oh gosh, I forgot Rory and now he's dead again! Right, let's just fix that... and, fine. Good."
...but the last season of Doctor Who stunk so bad that I almost completely lost interest.
When Steven Moffat was first announced as the new show-runner, he gave a bunch of interviews about how the best Doctor Whos were the old ones where things were scary, and all these plans he had that sounded really great and like he could save the show from the worst aspects of Russell T. Davies' cloying writing.
Well, scrap all that, because he gave us an even younger Doctor, companions straight out of Australian soaps, even more of Davies' deus ex machina solutions, even more of the Doctor waving his sonic screwdriver around like it's Harry Potter's want (they destroyed it in the old show for a reason), incomprehensible stories full of characters you can't identify and don't care about, and he actually made the Doctor the sidekick in his own show. I never really got to the point where I thought New Who was better than the original, but now I think it's really much, much worse than the old shows, warts, cheap budgets and all.
I would Like this comment if it was on Facebook.
Well then I guess you'll be disappointed to learn that Thundercats has already been remade.
2010? Have you watched that movie lately? It's brutally bad. It took everything that was beautiful and prescient and optimistic about 2001 and threw it in the trash. All of a sudden, we're back in the Cold War with spaceships that look grimier than the ones in Alien, and they make a rumbling noise as they fly through space. HAL has a keyboard and an 8-bit screen -- and they've apparently abandoned the technology, because the new ship doesn't even have one. Everyone is incompetent. They act like they've never had any training at all. The plot itself is stupid. That movie really should have never been made (and Clarke's sequel novels were even worse).
Man, people go apeshit on the whole "Sulu was a sword fighter" thing. There was exactly one (1) episode where Sulu expresses an interest in fencing as a hobby. Then he gets wasted and chases some crewmembers around with a sword. Nobody ever said he was an "expert," and the sword fighting was never used as a plot device in any other story. He never actually fought anybody with a sword, even though plenty of stories had opportunities for him to do so.
Sorry fellow ST fans, but there's lots of people out there now who didn't grow up with TOS, and those new generations need to be considered
Why? Seriously -- why make a nostalgic franchise reboot and target it at the people who don't give a shit about the franchise?
Why not think up something original?
Answer: Cash grab. You need to piggyback onto the franchise to kick start your marketing campaign.