Mac's are fine for web development. Mac's are unwise for developing data processing software, which naturally run on Linux, or end user applications, which naturally run on Windows.
AddressBook, iCal, and iChat are all kinda light weight for business needs, but MS Office et al. exists for Mac OS X. Mac's are suboptimal though if you need more specialized business software than MS Office.
We should declare that Raptor Jesus Day, or equivalent VelociRapture Day, shall henceforth be the day & month of the last rapture prediction that obtained significant lulz. In other words, we celebrate Raptor Jesus again next 21 May unless another bigish rapture prediction occurs between then & now.
I'm posponed buying one for some time, but my four year old macbook pro needs some rest. It's buried maybe six hard drives over it's lifespan, three external power supplies, a main board, and its CD drive.. and who knows how many external drives. Intrestingly, I've never seen a LaCie drive fail.
In fact, the new drive I just installed myself in February started, in March, giving spinning beach balls, I/O errors in dmesg, and corrupting files. I've thus far held the disk corruption at bay by manually moving all unreadable files into/.badblocks, but you seemingly free the corruption to impact other files if you simply delete those files. At this point, the SMART status is still marked verified despite considerable data lose. I've found that's par for the course for an apple laptop though, maybe all laptops. I should probably erase & format the failing internal drive two or three times, see if it'll catch all those bad sectors, and mark the smart status as failed.
In any case, I've found that basically all laptops require the maximum warranty duration offered because they'll fail more than once per year. I'd resisted buying an Air only because they naively appeared unserviceable after warranty expiration. I was sold on the Air when I found out that's not true : iFixIt's guide to replacing the Air's SSD drive is only 3 pages vs. the 7 pages required for my MacBook Pro. There are also many fewer parts to replace in an Air, although god only knows how much they cost.
I donno whether it's worth waiting for the next Air revision, or if the next Air revision will make the machine less user serviceable, or whatever.
If the raptor comes, I don't think those he takes will simply disappear cleanly, probably very messy instead. How do you think the raptor actually gets to your soul?
As I understand it, all this raptor mythology arose among evangelic protestants who believe most people are too sinful to be taken. Even a divinely hungry raptor driving around on Santa's sleigh just doesn't take all that many people. In Catholicism, there are many more people who've been resolved of their sins by confession, meaning catholics believe that God will take far more people.
I've been pretty happy with wikipedias decisions on contentious issues, although I don't spend any time editing there. For example, they still show the cartoons here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
As an outsider, my principle objections have always been when some really awesome & informative article gets scrubbed useless by astroturffers, BLP fags, deletionists, agenda pushing asshats, or simply idiots that don't understand the subject matter. I've usually seen this on more fringe articles however.
There is a small problem that all those "dollars" aren't held in vaults until their owners retire, they're simply lent back out by the banks that hold them for people. In other words, you shouldn't hoard your bitcoins in your wallet, you should lend them to a bitcoin bank.
There is also the issue that speculative price spikes, like the current $7 one, retard their development as a practical currency, however high & long the speculators build the bubble, that's how far it must return and how long it'll take to do so.
There isn't any reason for bitcoin to replace other currencies, just provide an alternative currency for people who prefer volatility to inflation. That said, I'd agree the 21 million limit appears way too low.
As I understand it, bitcoins exist to facilitate internet commerce, not as some hyper-volatile speculative investment vehicle. If too many people treat them as investments, then bitcoins might become very valuable, making the currency useless for the ordinary internet transactions for which it was designed, maybe even harming liquidity.
If that happens, there might need to be some decision to inflate the currency by "printing more", effectively agreeing to modify the protocol to allow more bitcoins, i.e. one big nasty open source fork war that directly impacts people's bank accounts.
I'd agree that "corporate personhood" yields numerous "bad things", but corporations are owned and made up of people. Ergo, you need some alternative legal theory to gain acceptance, which might take a while. How long have people been campaigning for IRV?
If you nixed corporate personhood for speech abridging cases, you'd still face issues like the union for the chemical workers asking for an injunction "on behalf of the employees blah blah" when in-fact the company just asked them to.
There are otoh strong free speech laws in the U.S. that work just dandy for most situations. At the same time, there is a strong movement towards libel reform in the U.K. and considerable foreign pressure to stop libel tourism there. And foreigners spitting this judges gag order back in his face will help push that along.
If we ignore the corporate malfeasance, we'll still find reprehensible gag orders on behalf of politicians and business men. I'd frankly rather they outed people like Ted Haggard than worry about Terry Schiavo anyways.
Btw, U.K. police employ rather despicable tactics that pretty effectively prevent demonstrations from actually inconveniencing anyone important, presumably a hospital could get the protestors contained pretty easily.
There isn't much substance about reporting requirements or analysis of how companies will comply in the article.
It sounds like healthy experimentation frankly. If companies still make more money there, then we'll know these laws were perfectly reasonable. If specific industries like dating sites or banks stop placing call enters in India, or if Facebook pulls out of China, then we'll see the exact consequences.
Umm, Hempel and Trafigura are chemical corporations that've used the exact same gag order system to silence environmentalists, not parties to the present case. In fact, they were given much stronger injunctions :
There are even now "hyper-injunction" that does nothing but limit the public's ability to influence parliament while still granting the company full access.
There isn't any effective legal way to distinguish between the evil injunctions sought by corporations vs. the harmless injunction sought here. In fact, U.K. judges already reject many evil gag orders by companies like Trafigura, but they cannot block them all with such twisted legal precedent. And even one does infinitely more damage than hundreds of Terry Schiavo cases.
We should therefore out all the subject matter of all injunctions that go beyond parties to a criminal case, or even that pertain to parties to a libel case, as a matter of principle.
All this depends upon what level people you're talking about, but..
An undergrad degree isn't "overqualified" for any vaguely related job. It might be that all MIT C.S. grads who want leadership roles in tech companies get them, but that's not true for the other high level engineering schools, like CalTech, Berkley, and Georgia Tech.
There is even an "abstract thinking gradient" for above average but not necessarily stellar people where you want people trained for some higher level of abstraction than their job actually requires, i.e. mathematicians, physicists, and electrical engineers routinely make solid developers, but computer science majors aren't easily convertible into those disciplines.
There was even a joke at Georgia Tech that CSs ended up in IT while the CompEs and EEs ended up as developers.
This ceased to be about pro-life protesters, or even gun toting pro-lifers, the moment they applied for an injunction on people not currently involved in any related court proceedings. It's now only about the gag order.
I think people should die whenever they damn well feel like it. If their brain has been fried badly enough that they no longer have any opinions about anything, then their family should decide.. and pay for the life support after some reasonable period. If there isn't anyone to decide, then the hospital should humanely terminate them, and spend it's resources on people with working brains.
All that's irrelevant now though, British libel & gag laws are a despicable manifestation of that country's historical class system, originally designed to protect the toffs from the plebs papers. Yet, today they protect companies like Hempel and Trafigura who're busy poisoning people.
England's ridiculous libel & public discours laws & judicial precedents are archaic relics of their class system. And these injunctions they produce are a fundamental affront to modern civilized society.
There simply aren't enough Terry Schiavo cases that anyone should give a shit. Yes, pro-lifers, the WBC, etc. are all assholes, heck a few are even dangerous. Fine, we should confront the pro-lifers in public.
We should not perpetuate the insanity that protects companies like Hempel and Trafigura from media exposure while they're busy poisoning people.
Do you prefer a couple silly Terry Schiavo cases or thousands of new cancer patients? That's the choice we're actually discussing here.
There is a place for gag orders covering the parties, lawyers, especially lawyers, jurors, and witnesses involved in an existing criminal trial, as well as penalties for violating NDAs, but simply seeking a gag order against the whole world is beyond the pale.. and anyone who does so deserves to have it thrown back in their face.
It wasn't a free speech issue until the judge granted the gag order, just an "oh yeah pro-lifers are shit stains" issue. By applying for the gag order, the family created a free speech issue and painted targets on their foreheads. And yes I'd indirectly help people I loath do despicable things simply to make that point.
England's ridiculous libel & public discours laws are archaic relics of their class system that have no place in the modern world.
Yes, if you buy the whole company, obviously. If you only buy part, the minority stock holders have rights, which complicate things. I donno about paying for other people's lawsuits or talent poaching.
Not necessarily, but their defeat has little bearing on the google case since they didn't. And that'll help google's lawyers can drag the case out as long as they like. It'd've been too late by the time mp3.com got sued anyways, btw.
Slashdot Mirror
Mac's are fine for web development. Mac's are unwise for developing data processing software, which naturally run on Linux, or end user applications, which naturally run on Windows.
AddressBook, iCal, and iChat are all kinda light weight for business needs, but MS Office et al. exists for Mac OS X. Mac's are suboptimal though if you need more specialized business software than MS Office.
We should declare that Raptor Jesus Day, or equivalent VelociRapture Day, shall henceforth be the day & month of the last rapture prediction that obtained significant lulz. In other words, we celebrate Raptor Jesus again next 21 May unless another bigish rapture prediction occurs between then & now.
I'm posponed buying one for some time, but my four year old macbook pro needs some rest. It's buried maybe six hard drives over it's lifespan, three external power supplies, a main board, and its CD drive.. and who knows how many external drives. Intrestingly, I've never seen a LaCie drive fail.
In fact, the new drive I just installed myself in February started, in March, giving spinning beach balls, I/O errors in dmesg, and corrupting files. I've thus far held the disk corruption at bay by manually moving all unreadable files into /.badblocks, but you seemingly free the corruption to impact other files if you simply delete those files. At this point, the SMART status is still marked verified despite considerable data lose. I've found that's par for the course for an apple laptop though, maybe all laptops. I should probably erase & format the failing internal drive two or three times, see if it'll catch all those bad sectors, and mark the smart status as failed.
In any case, I've found that basically all laptops require the maximum warranty duration offered because they'll fail more than once per year. I'd resisted buying an Air only because they naively appeared unserviceable after warranty expiration. I was sold on the Air when I found out that's not true : iFixIt's guide to replacing the Air's SSD drive is only 3 pages vs. the 7 pages required for my MacBook Pro. There are also many fewer parts to replace in an Air, although god only knows how much they cost.
I donno whether it's worth waiting for the next Air revision, or if the next Air revision will make the machine less user serviceable, or whatever.
Is that the basis for this imagery? There is however a left behind story that describes the the VelociRapture very differently.
If the raptor comes, I don't think those he takes will simply disappear cleanly, probably very messy instead. How do you think the raptor actually gets to your soul?
As I understand it, all this raptor mythology arose among evangelic protestants who believe most people are too sinful to be taken. Even a divinely hungry raptor driving around on Santa's sleigh just doesn't take all that many people. In Catholicism, there are many more people who've been resolved of their sins by confession, meaning catholics believe that God will take far more people.
It's more a choice between an Air and a non-Apple ultraportable, no reason lugging around a DVD drive.
Does this mean I can quit waiting for Apple to upgrade the MacBook Air and just pick one up?
What's wrong with Jitsi? It looks good to me.
There is a much better link fest on this subject over at metafilter, maybe more informed comments too. ;)
Can you point out some specific articles?
I've been pretty happy with wikipedias decisions on contentious issues, although I don't spend any time editing there. For example, they still show the cartoons here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
As an outsider, my principle objections have always been when some really awesome & informative article gets scrubbed useless by astroturffers, BLP fags, deletionists, agenda pushing asshats, or simply idiots that don't understand the subject matter. I've usually seen this on more fringe articles however.
I'd imagine wikipedia will happily accept 200k usd from the U.S. and 200k eur from the E.U. just to keep doing exactly what they're doing.
Yeah, but through people choosing other currencies for their transactions.
There is a small problem that all those "dollars" aren't held in vaults until their owners retire, they're simply lent back out by the banks that hold them for people. In other words, you shouldn't hoard your bitcoins in your wallet, you should lend them to a bitcoin bank.
There is also the issue that speculative price spikes, like the current $7 one, retard their development as a practical currency, however high & long the speculators build the bubble, that's how far it must return and how long it'll take to do so.
There isn't any reason for bitcoin to replace other currencies, just provide an alternative currency for people who prefer volatility to inflation. That said, I'd agree the 21 million limit appears way too low.
As I understand it, bitcoins exist to facilitate internet commerce, not as some hyper-volatile speculative investment vehicle. If too many people treat them as investments, then bitcoins might become very valuable, making the currency useless for the ordinary internet transactions for which it was designed, maybe even harming liquidity.
If that happens, there might need to be some decision to inflate the currency by "printing more", effectively agreeing to modify the protocol to allow more bitcoins, i.e. one big nasty open source fork war that directly impacts people's bank accounts.
I'd agree that "corporate personhood" yields numerous "bad things", but corporations are owned and made up of people. Ergo, you need some alternative legal theory to gain acceptance, which might take a while. How long have people been campaigning for IRV?
If you nixed corporate personhood for speech abridging cases, you'd still face issues like the union for the chemical workers asking for an injunction "on behalf of the employees blah blah" when in-fact the company just asked them to.
There are otoh strong free speech laws in the U.S. that work just dandy for most situations. At the same time, there is a strong movement towards libel reform in the U.K. and considerable foreign pressure to stop libel tourism there. And foreigners spitting this judges gag order back in his face will help push that along.
If we ignore the corporate malfeasance, we'll still find reprehensible gag orders on behalf of politicians and business men. I'd frankly rather they outed people like Ted Haggard than worry about Terry Schiavo anyways.
Btw, U.K. police employ rather despicable tactics that pretty effectively prevent demonstrations from actually inconveniencing anyone important, presumably a hospital could get the protestors contained pretty easily.
There isn't much substance about reporting requirements or analysis of how companies will comply in the article.
It sounds like healthy experimentation frankly. If companies still make more money there, then we'll know these laws were perfectly reasonable. If specific industries like dating sites or banks stop placing call enters in India, or if Facebook pulls out of China, then we'll see the exact consequences.
Umm, Hempel and Trafigura are chemical corporations that've used the exact same gag order system to silence environmentalists, not parties to the present case. In fact, they were given much stronger injunctions :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura#Super-injunction
There are even now "hyper-injunction" that does nothing but limit the public's ability to influence parliament while still granting the company full access.
There isn't any effective legal way to distinguish between the evil injunctions sought by corporations vs. the harmless injunction sought here. In fact, U.K. judges already reject many evil gag orders by companies like Trafigura, but they cannot block them all with such twisted legal precedent. And even one does infinitely more damage than hundreds of Terry Schiavo cases.
We should therefore out all the subject matter of all injunctions that go beyond parties to a criminal case, or even that pertain to parties to a libel case, as a matter of principle.
All this depends upon what level people you're talking about, but ..
An undergrad degree isn't "overqualified" for any vaguely related job. It might be that all MIT C.S. grads who want leadership roles in tech companies get them, but that's not true for the other high level engineering schools, like CalTech, Berkley, and Georgia Tech.
There is even an "abstract thinking gradient" for above average but not necessarily stellar people where you want people trained for some higher level of abstraction than their job actually requires, i.e. mathematicians, physicists, and electrical engineers routinely make solid developers, but computer science majors aren't easily convertible into those disciplines.
There was even a joke at Georgia Tech that CSs ended up in IT while the CompEs and EEs ended up as developers.
This ceased to be about pro-life protesters, or even gun toting pro-lifers, the moment they applied for an injunction on people not currently involved in any related court proceedings. It's now only about the gag order.
I think people should die whenever they damn well feel like it. If their brain has been fried badly enough that they no longer have any opinions about anything, then their family should decide.. and pay for the life support after some reasonable period. If there isn't anyone to decide, then the hospital should humanely terminate them, and spend it's resources on people with working brains.
All that's irrelevant now though, British libel & gag laws are a despicable manifestation of that country's historical class system, originally designed to protect the toffs from the plebs papers. Yet, today they protect companies like Hempel and Trafigura who're busy poisoning people.
England's ridiculous libel & public discours laws & judicial precedents are archaic relics of their class system. And these injunctions they produce are a fundamental affront to modern civilized society.
There simply aren't enough Terry Schiavo cases that anyone should give a shit. Yes, pro-lifers, the WBC, etc. are all assholes, heck a few are even dangerous. Fine, we should confront the pro-lifers in public.
We should not perpetuate the insanity that protects companies like Hempel and Trafigura from media exposure while they're busy poisoning people.
Do you prefer a couple silly Terry Schiavo cases or thousands of new cancer patients? That's the choice we're actually discussing here.
There is a place for gag orders covering the parties, lawyers, especially lawyers, jurors, and witnesses involved in an existing criminal trial, as well as penalties for violating NDAs, but simply seeking a gag order against the whole world is beyond the pale.. and anyone who does so deserves to have it thrown back in their face.
Free speech is infinitely more important.
It wasn't a free speech issue until the judge granted the gag order, just an "oh yeah pro-lifers are shit stains" issue. By applying for the gag order, the family created a free speech issue and painted targets on their foreheads. And yes I'd indirectly help people I loath do despicable things simply to make that point.
England's ridiculous libel & public discours laws are archaic relics of their class system that have no place in the modern world.
I'd fully support not identifying her. if there was no gag order, well pro-lifers are asshats. All over-broad gag orders must be defied.
Valve's Steam lets people play games offline.
Yes, if you buy the whole company, obviously. If you only buy part, the minority stock holders have rights, which complicate things. I donno about paying for other people's lawsuits or talent poaching.
Not necessarily, but their defeat has little bearing on the google case since they didn't. And that'll help google's lawyers can drag the case out as long as they like. It'd've been too late by the time mp3.com got sued anyways, btw.