Can't find much trace of it, but the optimal solution in this case would probably be surge pricing, but only in the immediate area of the hazard. Drivers who are willing to face the hazard would get the hazard pay, and they could maximize the hazard pay by getting as many people as possible outside of the risk zone as quickly as possible, taking them to the edge of the safe zone and turning around to pick up more.
Actually, they should have an evacuation mode beyond surge mode to pack the cars as much as possible. The surge pricing would also help pay for extra computing power to help plot optimized evacuation routes as the drivers in the hazard zones pick up full loads of passengers on their ways to the border.
Outside the high risk area, hazard fares might or might not be in effect. Probably yes, but that is just the normal market mechanism and it is justified in the usual way, by the need to attract more drivers into the area that has a flood of customers.
Anyway, it seems as usual to be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, but none of the "insightful" comments offered a natural hook. More disappointing, there weren't any "funny" comments. At least not visible and modded that way.
Good question, but I can't write the book this morning unless some techie gives me a time warp machine. If I only had the focus and sustained motivation, then it would probably take me several months.
Short answer is that most of them are nice people and would like to, but they respond to the economic pressures to do otherwise. The economic rules of the business game (especially in America) focus on the single metric of money, so maximizing that single dimension results in cancerous growth that doesn't consider such trivialities as making the world better or even the long-term survival of humanity. The only thing that matters is a bigger profit number next quarter unless the thinking is shortened down to today's stock price. Both stupid numbers.
Time to flog my dead horse again:
I think we should have a kind of charity share brokerage for people who are willing to try to make the world better 10 bucks at a time. It could even be used here on Slashdot. After an article that describes a problem, there would be several links to proposed solution projects. If enough readers decide to support it, then it would get the money and of course Slashdot would be able to report on how well it worked.
Detailed suggestions available upon polite request.
Well, many years ago I would get them from time to time, but never often. At some point I stopped getting any.
More subjective, but my impression is that there are fewer mod points being given out these years, too. In particular, "funny" posts seem much scarcer. Or maybe the real world has gotten sadder?
Interesting topic, but my initial reaction is that they seem to approaching the topic sideways, focusing on some weird trivialities of the current implementations. Is there a label for a Hobson's choice with two options?
There are lots of good first languages for programming, and the focus should be on the outcomes. Actually, that would probably mean that different first languages will help different kinds of students become better programmers, and the apparent premise of one and only one as a standard first language is already fatally flawed.
My Subject: promised a defense of Python, but I'm not really qualified to give it... I like it and see it as a good first language, but I've been around for a long time and I've seen so many first languages come and mostly go over the years. Is anyone still starting with BASIC these days? I'm pretty sure that Fortran and Pascal have mostly faded into the mists of time, and I'm sure there were others that have faded so much I can't even remember their use as first languages.
Bottom line is that I'd already decided I don't want another Galaxy smartphone, though my overall feelings are mixed. This battery fiasco is liable to make my wants moot vis a vis buying anything from Samsung. In accord with the brokenness of today's stock market, the overreactions and spasms of the stock price may destroy the company. Stock price is just a matter of opinion, and it's usually stupid opinion, especially when it's a computer's. What matters is the visibility of the fiasco, and this one is way too visible.
Now about my own experiences... It was mostly the mismatch between international support and national marketing that made my Galaxy so unpleasant to own. In theory Samsung is an international company and support in English should be a sine qua non, the natural basis since Korean is not a widely used language. In practice, the local business partners handle most of the sales and are the direct customers Samsung is dealing with. The result in my case was a localized model that can't even be clearly identified in terms of the original Samsung model that had English manuals, and of course the local-origin software wrapped into the Android-OS level can't be touched and never had English support to obscure. The almost inevitable result was that my purchase-time hopes of falling back on English were almost inevitably blocked, creating anger and frustration that are only compounded when I scour the English manuals and discover things that are close without cigars...
The quality of the English manuals from Samsung was quite good, and I'm convinced that they understand the importance of support, but if you try to get support for a localized model, their response (in accord with the bean counters' orders) is "You need to ask your local carrier." My local carrier? Such a buffoon I don't want to give them the free publicity of a mention. (The rise of Trump has proven once again that there is no such thing as bad publicity, eh?)
Rather a shame. In many ways a good phone, but I've decided "No thanks" on a second. About the only hardware brand that I've had repeatedly good experiences with these days is Huawei, even though their stuff may have commie back doors in it. Also it might be my lack of any expectations of English support, so I wasn't disappointed, but mostly because their devices haven't needed much support. (One of them did get replaced due to a bad switch, but it was free warranty work and I was given a loaner immediately.)
By the way, the topic is target rich, and I hope we see some actually funny comments this time around... (Too fresh a topic as I write.)
Higher probability of the mod point, but the artificial scarcity of mod points is one of the problems of slashdot. Apparently rather than fix the underlying design and conceptual problems of moderation, they've mostly nuked it by restricting the mod points to some secret elite?
I'm blanking on the title of the book, but it was about the internal problems of the CIA. Many of the problems involved moles, paranoia about moles, and meta-paranoia about the paranoia about the moles, double agents, triple agents, ad infinitum. My fuzzy memory is that one of the top spies in charge of finding leaks was actually revealed to be a leaker or mole...
If the NSA has any trace of similar paranoia, they certainly must be looking for potential Snowdens. It seems that your position is that no one within the NSA has that much competence to play the grandmaster, whereas my position is that the NSA is desperately seeking such people and probably has one or more of them. That is not to deny that even the grandmaster might fall from the tree (as the Japanese proverb says).
I might give you a mod point if I ever got one. Then again, it's rather obvious, isn't it?
The muddying-the-waters strategy is especially popular with the Chinese communists. You know about the 50-cent Party, right? I'm convinced that some of the trolls around here are working for Trump's 50-cents-promised-but-never-paid Party. Hard to believe anyone could be really be so ignorant or insane, but there appear to be plenty of people who will fake it for some reason or other. (Maybe I'm projecting my excessive reductionism to monetary motivations?)
Your fantasy is quite strained. Actually it's pretty ridiculous. It is certain that there was no low-level immigration officer who was discussing the matter with Snowden, and if you remember the actual history of the incident, Snowden was actually trapped in transit in the airport when his passport was revoked. There was actually a protracted period of negotiations and Snowden had plenty of opportunities to divest himself of any data he might have insanely been traveling with.
Actually, I think we do know most of the story. He did not have time to read and study everything he was collecting, and he has entrusted it to journalists for analysis to determine what parts can and should be disclosed. This is actually going into an extremely difficult area for actual investigative journalists, because their work may well involve crimes and criminals and they may discover information that the police or other authorities want to know. Yet if they disclose all of their sources whenever asked, then the First Amendment would be greatly weakened, if not destroyed.
Not sure of your context, but I recently read Inside WikiLeaks, which is largely about Assange, and I don't see much similarity between him and Snowden. Can you clarify what you mean? The main similarity I can see is their involvement in disclosing data that powerful people do not want disclosed, but all the details are pretty much different.
Okay, I see how you got confused, and I think it is mostly my fault. I basically took "Powell" as the primary focus of this branch of the thread, but the Subject: line is not always noticed and the context had become ambiguous there.
It does raise an interesting point of confusion, but I don't see how to unravel it. I still can't understand how or why Trump got into this politics thing in the first place. One somewhat persuasive theory says it started as a publicity stunt or negotiating tactic that went pear shaped.
I am absolutely unable to believe that his [Trump's] campaign reflects any ideological or philosophical positions. Near as I can tell, he's been on every side of every issue at some point, sometimes spanning years, but there are times he reverses himself within seconds... Pretty clear that the reports of him repeating whatever he heard last make sense, and there is also his apparent tendency to say anything that is audience wants to hear.
Naw, that's just ridiculous. Snowden is not stupid and he did not keep the stuff with him. Nor can he possibly recall everything he saw, though he would make up some great stuff with a bit of torture.
Putin likes Snowden on the loose because that embarrasses the heck out of America. (Well, more like a leash than the loose.) His intelligence value is negligible, but the political embarrassment is priceless.
If Snowden became a nuisance to Putin, then he would be disposed of instantly, and without any regard to possible gratitude for any information he had brought with him. You can bet Snowden is smart enough to know that and is not going to do anything to piss off Putin. He may still get thrown back to the States if Putin decides it is politically expedient.
Yeah, Snowden's stuff is probably ripe with falsehoods because it was a setup. If the NSA didn't figure out what kind of person he was and start watching him long ago, then they are completely incompetent as well as criminals. My level of paranoia has concluded that Snowden was fed more or less exactly what they wanted to leak and the real goal was to scare the sheeple into submission. The really nasty stuff was kept far away from Snowden (and from anyone remotely like him) and some of the stuff he was fed was just diversionary. Plenty of falsehoods to ripen.
Okay, maybe "criminal" is unfair. Do the NSA spooks even swear to defend and uphold the Constitution? Even if they do, the meaning of "defend and uphold" remains quite ambiguous, and the bottom line is that they are not now and never will be convicted of any actual crime for abusing our Constitutional rights.
My main use for my MacBook Pro is actually dictation, but that topic is not mentioned anywhere in the large number of visible comments. My initial reaction is that it isn't directly relevant, but my second reaction is that maybe I should be using the headphone jack to get better dictation results. Perhaps some of the problems are related to limitations in the echo cancellation, and using headphones might be worth it.
Having said that, I'd be delighted to see any tips or URLs on the topic of better dictation, though I am acknowledging it seems to be mostly off topic right now. My ignorance is showing as usual, or it might be my Olympian skills at jumping to the wrong conclusions. I would certainly be more likely to buy a new MacBook Pro if I thought they had improved the dictation results, though the inconvenience of needing to wear headphones (even if they are USB or wireless) for best results would certainly count against the machine...
Now about those funny comments. Not so much. And the insightful ones? Rather less. Failure of moderation or dearth of interesting posters? I wish I cared more, but even better if I could help support features that would make things better.
Actually, my main beef with my MacBook Pro is the lack of a security slot on my model. I knew that the previous model had a slot for the Kensington lock, but if I had noticed that it was missing from the new model, then perhaps I wouldn't have bought it. Even though I live in a fairly secure area and there is relatively little theft here, the point of a highly portable computer is to take it to many places, and some of them might be less secure. It was often convenient to lock the computer in place before going to the bathroom, but now the Mac has to go with me.
The excuse Apple gave was that the new model was too thin to put the slot on the side. Okay, then think differently and put the slot on the top or the bottom. (They might prefer to put it on the bottom for esthetic reasons? Even though it would require propping the locked computer up, perhaps on books...)
Anyway, as regards this topic, I'm kind of indifferent. As long as the built in speakers don't die, they usually suffice for my purposes. As regards design changes, it strikes me as trivial and the biggest problem remains the potential for the MacBook to grow legs.
As often happens with topics Apple, I suspect the main volume is religious warfare, but I'll look it over for funny or insightful comments... My initial dry searches were for topics related to physical security.
I'm not sure they would have been able to stop him. Powell has the overwhelmingly most important characteristic that ought to be required for the job of president: He doesn't want it.
Too bad that's not how it works these days. Now personally wanting the presidential powers seems to be the #1 trait of all of the serious candidates (with the apparent exception of Bernie).
However, when you do the math, I don't think the superdelegates would have been sufficient to stop him. If Powell had a more flexible (AKA less military) mindset, then I think he would have been an overwhelmingly attractive ex-Republican candidate for a lot of unhappy Democrats and crossover Republicans. The 3-way debates with him, Bernie, and Hillary would have been especially entertaining and quite competitive with Trump's antics and tantrums. Actually, if Powell were more true to his sound principles, then he's had plenty of good reasons and opportunities to leave the so-called Republican Party going back many years.
Perhaps the sad part is that a relatively nice guy like Powell would have had no chance running for the nomination of today's so-called Republican Party. Powell is no part of that brand hijack, but he is too inflexible to give up the meaningless label, and even though it is abundantly clear he has no constructive influence there. He let Dubya use him up, and I would wager that most of the so-called Republican voters now view him with disdain or even contempt.
I am unable to understand how Powell can still identify himself as a member of today's so-called Republican Party. How can Con Man Donald pretend to lead the party originally led by Honest Abe? Even more distance between the pragmatic governing GOP of Teddy and Ike and the absolute obstructionists claiming the label today. As proven again by his email, Powell is pretty realistic, and yet he evidently cannot accept the reality that it's just a brand hijack and his principles have no place in that party.
Oh, and by the way, no way he could have gotten their nomination, but if he had crossed over to the Democratic side, I think he could have beaten Hillary for the Democratic nomination. He obviously doesn't want the job.
You are lying, but rather than trying to clarify the lies so you can repeat them more loudly, I'll just ask the only question of relevance to a Trump supporter:
Who do you hate most?
I think such hate-filled people are rather deplorable, but I can only pity them and hope they grow up to become less full of hate.
Your comment has a false subject. Powell has said he will not yet say who he is voting for.
Your body is also highly questionable. I remember watching at least one speech in which Powell endorsed then-Senator Obama, but I don't remember anything that approximated "enthusiastic supporter". Nor do I recall any of the marks of enthusiasm such as actively campaigning for Obama or speaking at the Democratic convention. According to my research just now, Powell only made his endorsement two weeks before the election in 2008.
One obvious lie and a highly questionable comment in such a short comment? Let me predict you are a Trump supporter, and in that case the only relevant question is "Who do you hate most?" Every Trump supporter I've met so far has been a deplorable hater, and I can only pity them. Maybe some of them can grow into less hate-filled people?
Powell is a realist. His assessment of Hillary was not particularly favorable, though I'm not sure how they compare with his personal assessment of Obama. However, it is clear that his personal assessment of Trump is extremely negative. He personally might well prefer the positions of Johnson on many issues, but he knows America has a winner-take-all system, so I predict that he will ultimately endorse Hillary or say nothing.
Is the moderation system disabled? That one deserved a "good question" mod, but the closest approximation here would be "insightful". Not only that post, but no "insightful" mods yet. That led me to check for "funny" mods, too, and couldn't find any. Anyway, I can't give you a mod point since I never get any. Many years now...
I still think that most of the spam and scams are motivated by profit, and most of the time the way to fix the problem is to figure out the business model and break it. Unfortunately, only one major success story I can think of: The demise of the pump-and-dump spam scams. After several research papers proved the scammers were essentially printing their own money, they changed the rules of the game to stop it, and the stock-touting spam went away.
Focusing on your narrow question about the presidential election, the answer is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. America has real enemies and all of them benefit from the effective paralysis of the American government. That means ALL of America's enemies and wannabe enemies are looking at the problem in terms of their OWN profits. Some of them (like Russia) are playing short-term games for money to be harvested next week, but many (like China) are playing for the long-term, seeking power that will later translate into money.
Their calculus is not limited to your "Internet black out" (sic) scenario, but would include all sorts of attack scenarios. However, I think it is obvious that a large-scale Internet blackout extremely close to the election would help Trump because it would probably cripple the Democratic GOTV efforts.
I'm more concerned with why Windows 10 is so great for pwning. Hint: Microsoft has no financial liability and the ISPs don't care as long as you pay your bill.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't find much trace of it, but the optimal solution in this case would probably be surge pricing, but only in the immediate area of the hazard. Drivers who are willing to face the hazard would get the hazard pay, and they could maximize the hazard pay by getting as many people as possible outside of the risk zone as quickly as possible, taking them to the edge of the safe zone and turning around to pick up more.
Actually, they should have an evacuation mode beyond surge mode to pack the cars as much as possible. The surge pricing would also help pay for extra computing power to help plot optimized evacuation routes as the drivers in the hazard zones pick up full loads of passengers on their ways to the border.
Outside the high risk area, hazard fares might or might not be in effect. Probably yes, but that is just the normal market mechanism and it is justified in the usual way, by the need to attract more drivers into the area that has a flood of customers.
Anyway, it seems as usual to be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, but none of the "insightful" comments offered a natural hook. More disappointing, there weren't any "funny" comments. At least not visible and modded that way.
If it were convenient for you to bid your time to help solve a major world problem, would you be likely to get involved?
Would you want your full market value, or would you be willing to accept a discount in exchange for controlling your own work?
If you would be willing to accept a discount, how much would you consider?
Perhaps you have an alternative idea? For example, some kind of bonus based on the favorable evaluation of the results?
Good question, but I can't write the book this morning unless some techie gives me a time warp machine. If I only had the focus and sustained motivation, then it would probably take me several months.
Short answer is that most of them are nice people and would like to, but they respond to the economic pressures to do otherwise. The economic rules of the business game (especially in America) focus on the single metric of money, so maximizing that single dimension results in cancerous growth that doesn't consider such trivialities as making the world better or even the long-term survival of humanity. The only thing that matters is a bigger profit number next quarter unless the thinking is shortened down to today's stock price. Both stupid numbers.
Time to flog my dead horse again:
I think we should have a kind of charity share brokerage for people who are willing to try to make the world better 10 bucks at a time. It could even be used here on Slashdot. After an article that describes a problem, there would be several links to proposed solution projects. If enough readers decide to support it, then it would get the money and of course Slashdot would be able to report on how well it worked.
Detailed suggestions available upon polite request.
Well, many years ago I would get them from time to time, but never often. At some point I stopped getting any.
More subjective, but my impression is that there are fewer mod points being given out these years, too. In particular, "funny" posts seem much scarcer. Or maybe the real world has gotten sadder?
Interesting topic, but my initial reaction is that they seem to approaching the topic sideways, focusing on some weird trivialities of the current implementations. Is there a label for a Hobson's choice with two options?
There are lots of good first languages for programming, and the focus should be on the outcomes. Actually, that would probably mean that different first languages will help different kinds of students become better programmers, and the apparent premise of one and only one as a standard first language is already fatally flawed.
My Subject: promised a defense of Python, but I'm not really qualified to give it... I like it and see it as a good first language, but I've been around for a long time and I've seen so many first languages come and mostly go over the years. Is anyone still starting with BASIC these days? I'm pretty sure that Fortran and Pascal have mostly faded into the mists of time, and I'm sure there were others that have faded so much I can't even remember their use as first languages.
Bottom line is that I'd already decided I don't want another Galaxy smartphone, though my overall feelings are mixed. This battery fiasco is liable to make my wants moot vis a vis buying anything from Samsung. In accord with the brokenness of today's stock market, the overreactions and spasms of the stock price may destroy the company. Stock price is just a matter of opinion, and it's usually stupid opinion, especially when it's a computer's. What matters is the visibility of the fiasco, and this one is way too visible.
Now about my own experiences... It was mostly the mismatch between international support and national marketing that made my Galaxy so unpleasant to own. In theory Samsung is an international company and support in English should be a sine qua non, the natural basis since Korean is not a widely used language. In practice, the local business partners handle most of the sales and are the direct customers Samsung is dealing with. The result in my case was a localized model that can't even be clearly identified in terms of the original Samsung model that had English manuals, and of course the local-origin software wrapped into the Android-OS level can't be touched and never had English support to obscure. The almost inevitable result was that my purchase-time hopes of falling back on English were almost inevitably blocked, creating anger and frustration that are only compounded when I scour the English manuals and discover things that are close without cigars...
The quality of the English manuals from Samsung was quite good, and I'm convinced that they understand the importance of support, but if you try to get support for a localized model, their response (in accord with the bean counters' orders) is "You need to ask your local carrier." My local carrier? Such a buffoon I don't want to give them the free publicity of a mention. (The rise of Trump has proven once again that there is no such thing as bad publicity, eh?)
Rather a shame. In many ways a good phone, but I've decided "No thanks" on a second. About the only hardware brand that I've had repeatedly good experiences with these days is Huawei, even though their stuff may have commie back doors in it. Also it might be my lack of any expectations of English support, so I wasn't disappointed, but mostly because their devices haven't needed much support. (One of them did get replaced due to a bad switch, but it was free warranty work and I was given a loaner immediately.)
By the way, the topic is target rich, and I hope we see some actually funny comments this time around... (Too fresh a topic as I write.)
Higher probability of the mod point, but the artificial scarcity of mod points is one of the problems of slashdot. Apparently rather than fix the underlying design and conceptual problems of moderation, they've mostly nuked it by restricting the mod points to some secret elite?
Just agreeing and don't you wish slashdot would let you fix typos like "password" for "passport"?
I'm blanking on the title of the book, but it was about the internal problems of the CIA. Many of the problems involved moles, paranoia about moles, and meta-paranoia about the paranoia about the moles, double agents, triple agents, ad infinitum. My fuzzy memory is that one of the top spies in charge of finding leaks was actually revealed to be a leaker or mole...
If the NSA has any trace of similar paranoia, they certainly must be looking for potential Snowdens. It seems that your position is that no one within the NSA has that much competence to play the grandmaster, whereas my position is that the NSA is desperately seeking such people and probably has one or more of them. That is not to deny that even the grandmaster might fall from the tree (as the Japanese proverb says).
I might give you a mod point if I ever got one. Then again, it's rather obvious, isn't it?
The muddying-the-waters strategy is especially popular with the Chinese communists. You know about the 50-cent Party, right? I'm convinced that some of the trolls around here are working for Trump's 50-cents-promised-but-never-paid Party. Hard to believe anyone could be really be so ignorant or insane, but there appear to be plenty of people who will fake it for some reason or other. (Maybe I'm projecting my excessive reductionism to monetary motivations?)
Your fantasy is quite strained. Actually it's pretty ridiculous. It is certain that there was no low-level immigration officer who was discussing the matter with Snowden, and if you remember the actual history of the incident, Snowden was actually trapped in transit in the airport when his passport was revoked. There was actually a protracted period of negotiations and Snowden had plenty of opportunities to divest himself of any data he might have insanely been traveling with.
Actually, I think we do know most of the story. He did not have time to read and study everything he was collecting, and he has entrusted it to journalists for analysis to determine what parts can and should be disclosed. This is actually going into an extremely difficult area for actual investigative journalists, because their work may well involve crimes and criminals and they may discover information that the police or other authorities want to know. Yet if they disclose all of their sources whenever asked, then the First Amendment would be greatly weakened, if not destroyed.
Not sure of your context, but I recently read Inside WikiLeaks , which is largely about Assange, and I don't see much similarity between him and Snowden. Can you clarify what you mean? The main similarity I can see is their involvement in disclosing data that powerful people do not want disclosed, but all the details are pretty much different.
Okay, I see how you got confused, and I think it is mostly my fault. I basically took "Powell" as the primary focus of this branch of the thread, but the Subject: line is not always noticed and the context had become ambiguous there.
It does raise an interesting point of confusion, but I don't see how to unravel it. I still can't understand how or why Trump got into this politics thing in the first place. One somewhat persuasive theory says it started as a publicity stunt or negotiating tactic that went pear shaped.
I am absolutely unable to believe that his [Trump's] campaign reflects any ideological or philosophical positions. Near as I can tell, he's been on every side of every issue at some point, sometimes spanning years, but there are times he reverses himself within seconds... Pretty clear that the reports of him repeating whatever he heard last make sense, and there is also his apparent tendency to say anything that is audience wants to hear.
Naw, that's just ridiculous. Snowden is not stupid and he did not keep the stuff with him. Nor can he possibly recall everything he saw, though he would make up some great stuff with a bit of torture.
Putin likes Snowden on the loose because that embarrasses the heck out of America. (Well, more like a leash than the loose.) His intelligence value is negligible, but the political embarrassment is priceless.
If Snowden became a nuisance to Putin, then he would be disposed of instantly, and without any regard to possible gratitude for any information he had brought with him. You can bet Snowden is smart enough to know that and is not going to do anything to piss off Putin. He may still get thrown back to the States if Putin decides it is politically expedient.
Yeah, Snowden's stuff is probably ripe with falsehoods because it was a setup. If the NSA didn't figure out what kind of person he was and start watching him long ago, then they are completely incompetent as well as criminals. My level of paranoia has concluded that Snowden was fed more or less exactly what they wanted to leak and the real goal was to scare the sheeple into submission. The really nasty stuff was kept far away from Snowden (and from anyone remotely like him) and some of the stuff he was fed was just diversionary. Plenty of falsehoods to ripen.
Okay, maybe "criminal" is unfair. Do the NSA spooks even swear to defend and uphold the Constitution? Even if they do, the meaning of "defend and uphold" remains quite ambiguous, and the bottom line is that they are not now and never will be convicted of any actual crime for abusing our Constitutional rights.
"Baaa baaa." So speaketh the sheeple.
My main use for my MacBook Pro is actually dictation, but that topic is not mentioned anywhere in the large number of visible comments. My initial reaction is that it isn't directly relevant, but my second reaction is that maybe I should be using the headphone jack to get better dictation results. Perhaps some of the problems are related to limitations in the echo cancellation, and using headphones might be worth it.
Having said that, I'd be delighted to see any tips or URLs on the topic of better dictation, though I am acknowledging it seems to be mostly off topic right now. My ignorance is showing as usual, or it might be my Olympian skills at jumping to the wrong conclusions. I would certainly be more likely to buy a new MacBook Pro if I thought they had improved the dictation results, though the inconvenience of needing to wear headphones (even if they are USB or wireless) for best results would certainly count against the machine...
Now about those funny comments. Not so much. And the insightful ones? Rather less. Failure of moderation or dearth of interesting posters? I wish I cared more, but even better if I could help support features that would make things better.
Actually, my main beef with my MacBook Pro is the lack of a security slot on my model. I knew that the previous model had a slot for the Kensington lock, but if I had noticed that it was missing from the new model, then perhaps I wouldn't have bought it. Even though I live in a fairly secure area and there is relatively little theft here, the point of a highly portable computer is to take it to many places, and some of them might be less secure. It was often convenient to lock the computer in place before going to the bathroom, but now the Mac has to go with me.
The excuse Apple gave was that the new model was too thin to put the slot on the side. Okay, then think differently and put the slot on the top or the bottom. (They might prefer to put it on the bottom for esthetic reasons? Even though it would require propping the locked computer up, perhaps on books...)
Anyway, as regards this topic, I'm kind of indifferent. As long as the built in speakers don't die, they usually suffice for my purposes. As regards design changes, it strikes me as trivial and the biggest problem remains the potential for the MacBook to grow legs.
As often happens with topics Apple, I suspect the main volume is religious warfare, but I'll look it over for funny or insightful comments... My initial dry searches were for topics related to physical security.
Was that a confession? If so, typical incoherence from a Trump supporter, and I still want to know who you hate most.
(Not really, but it's the closest approach to a polite conversation that is possible with a devout Trumpist.)
I'm not sure they would have been able to stop him. Powell has the overwhelmingly most important characteristic that ought to be required for the job of president: He doesn't want it.
Too bad that's not how it works these days. Now personally wanting the presidential powers seems to be the #1 trait of all of the serious candidates (with the apparent exception of Bernie).
However, when you do the math, I don't think the superdelegates would have been sufficient to stop him. If Powell had a more flexible (AKA less military) mindset, then I think he would have been an overwhelmingly attractive ex-Republican candidate for a lot of unhappy Democrats and crossover Republicans. The 3-way debates with him, Bernie, and Hillary would have been especially entertaining and quite competitive with Trump's antics and tantrums. Actually, if Powell were more true to his sound principles, then he's had plenty of good reasons and opportunities to leave the so-called Republican Party going back many years.
Perhaps the sad part is that a relatively nice guy like Powell would have had no chance running for the nomination of today's so-called Republican Party. Powell is no part of that brand hijack, but he is too inflexible to give up the meaningless label, and even though it is abundantly clear he has no constructive influence there. He let Dubya use him up, and I would wager that most of the so-called Republican voters now view him with disdain or even contempt.
Thanks for compiling all of that in one place, and I'd give you an "informative" mod point if I ever got one to give.
I am unable to understand how Powell can still identify himself as a member of today's so-called Republican Party. How can Con Man Donald pretend to lead the party originally led by Honest Abe? Even more distance between the pragmatic governing GOP of Teddy and Ike and the absolute obstructionists claiming the label today. As proven again by his email, Powell is pretty realistic, and yet he evidently cannot accept the reality that it's just a brand hijack and his principles have no place in that party.
Oh, and by the way, no way he could have gotten their nomination, but if he had crossed over to the Democratic side, I think he could have beaten Hillary for the Democratic nomination. He obviously doesn't want the job.
You are lying, but rather than trying to clarify the lies so you can repeat them more loudly, I'll just ask the only question of relevance to a Trump supporter:
Who do you hate most?
I think such hate-filled people are rather deplorable, but I can only pity them and hope they grow up to become less full of hate.
Your comment has a false subject. Powell has said he will not yet say who he is voting for.
Your body is also highly questionable. I remember watching at least one speech in which Powell endorsed then-Senator Obama, but I don't remember anything that approximated "enthusiastic supporter". Nor do I recall any of the marks of enthusiasm such as actively campaigning for Obama or speaking at the Democratic convention. According to my research just now, Powell only made his endorsement two weeks before the election in 2008.
One obvious lie and a highly questionable comment in such a short comment? Let me predict you are a Trump supporter, and in that case the only relevant question is "Who do you hate most?" Every Trump supporter I've met so far has been a deplorable hater, and I can only pity them. Maybe some of them can grow into less hate-filled people?
Powell is a realist. His assessment of Hillary was not particularly favorable, though I'm not sure how they compare with his personal assessment of Obama. However, it is clear that his personal assessment of Trump is extremely negative. He personally might well prefer the positions of Johnson on many issues, but he knows America has a winner-take-all system, so I predict that he will ultimately endorse Hillary or say nothing.
Is the moderation system disabled? That one deserved a "good question" mod, but the closest approximation here would be "insightful". Not only that post, but no "insightful" mods yet. That led me to check for "funny" mods, too, and couldn't find any. Anyway, I can't give you a mod point since I never get any. Many years now...
I still think that most of the spam and scams are motivated by profit, and most of the time the way to fix the problem is to figure out the business model and break it. Unfortunately, only one major success story I can think of: The demise of the pump-and-dump spam scams. After several research papers proved the scammers were essentially printing their own money, they changed the rules of the game to stop it, and the stock-touting spam went away.
Focusing on your narrow question about the presidential election, the answer is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. America has real enemies and all of them benefit from the effective paralysis of the American government. That means ALL of America's enemies and wannabe enemies are looking at the problem in terms of their OWN profits. Some of them (like Russia) are playing short-term games for money to be harvested next week, but many (like China) are playing for the long-term, seeking power that will later translate into money.
Their calculus is not limited to your "Internet black out" (sic) scenario, but would include all sorts of attack scenarios. However, I think it is obvious that a large-scale Internet blackout extremely close to the election would help Trump because it would probably cripple the Democratic GOTV efforts.
I'm more concerned with why Windows 10 is so great for pwning. Hint: Microsoft has no financial liability and the ISPs don't care as long as you pay your bill.