At the rate things are going, I won't even bother to register to vote, let alone vote for any of them, because I don't think any of them are either qualified, or represent my interests.
I think you'll find that is actually interpreted as "I'm happy for any of them to represent me".
His first argument is that Hilary Clinton is evil because she has "evil eyes". You don't need to have dialogue with such a person, it is a waste of time.
You might be right on the rest, and unlike the AC you managed to make your point without resorting to superstition.
There's a difference between universal health care for congenital disorders (which I said I supported, although I left out a word) and paying for people's risky or chosen behaviours,
This is where your whole segregation falls down, as your own list is pretty bad at idetifying bad behaviour.
like smoking or obesity related diseases,
This is where you're on safest ground, but where do you draw the line, and how are you determining that a disease was caused by smoking or obesity. Lung cancer is also caused by air pollution. Diabetes can be hereditary.
injuries from sports,
Sport that people play to stay healthy. Yes there is risk of injury but most agree that the risk is outweighed by the general health benefits.
pregnancy
You better hope that other people have children or your whole society will fall down, the aged population is supported by the working adults. Their children will be supporting your pension so to decide that you have no responsibility to them now when you can is pretty short sighted.
or sex related disorders, and so on.
Sex is a luxury?
The cause of illness is notoriously hard to determine.
America is a very, very large place with a wide variety of people, culture, geography, and ideologies.
Look at where you are now, draw a two thousand kilometer circle around you, and tell me someone in that circle hasn't done something crazy.
That is all.
You are of course somewhat correct, I was being inflammatory. But I would resist putting this down to "someone crazy". Many people colluded here in this, the teachers that acted together, and the police that continued it. You're talking about quite a few people where none of them went "it's a fucking battery pack, calm down". Add to that that nobody is backing down, what should be happening is an admission that that was a mistaken overreaction, and apology, and this would diffuse. But no, the police are finding absurd things around a laugh to support their actions. And it never seems to happen to someone in the racial majority, it's always someone who is different (but no that's apparently nothing to do with it, again, denials). Everybody denies that there's a problem, and desperately tries to find evidence to support their overreaction.
He provable brought nothing of consequence to school, but was held for 3 days and then made to wear a tracking device. What the fuck.
The scientists are totally distinguishable over time, the method converges on truth.
I agree. And that convergence usually takes around a century. So, for, oh, say, climate models from 2015, we can consider the settled science in about 2115, after plenty of verification and observation.
Brilliant. If the majority opinion on climate change is correct, doing nothing until then will be a disaster. Sometimes you don't get to wait a century until it's someone else's problem.
So, when scientists tell you how to live your life or tell you that the science is settled and you should just do what they tell you,
When the science is settled though - when the vast majority of research is all pointing in one direction, don't ignore it just because it's something you don't want to face. Your freedom is not absolute, other people have to live on this planet with you.
The scientists are totally distinguishable over time, the method converges on truth.
to the improvement of life for millions of people? Tetraethyl lead is a small speedbump on the road to a bright future of advanced chemistry. The global car industry is a marvel. The tree huggers need to bugger off. What Henry Ford said one hundred years ago ring s truer than ever today.
Except that it was the tree huggers who wanted to remove lead from gas for all of the environmental and health reasons. What actually caused the lead to be removed had nothing to do with that. It was the EPA requirement that cars have a catalytic converter to meet emission standards ultimately got rid of leaded fuels since lead ruins the catalytic converter.
You're splitting hairs now - the "tree huggers" would also be responsible for the drive to reduce emissions via catalytic converters. The EPA exists as a result of pressure, it didn't just spring up out of nowhere.
Nope. The whole world has to pull together if we want to reach the targets.
So what's your alternative to an agreement between nations? You said it's completely useless in the root post without saying why, or what the alternative is... so what is your better idea?
You do realise how you lose credibility when you accuse people of lying when you have no evidence that is the case? Have you never heard of popular products selling out? You sound like an entitled arse when you demand everything must be available for your personal use immediately. Earlier in this very thread people have reported getting theirs, so patently it was available.
Goliaths like Google and Apple struggle to get the right amount of stock on release day, because predicting demand is hard, let alone a charity with limited resources like RPi.
"Why isn't it more powerful, I can get a Beaglebone/Banana Pi/Intel board for just a little more money with a faster processor" "Why isn't it less powerful, the Arduino is more efficient" "Why can't I have exactly what I imagine in my head for an impossibly small amount of money" "It doesn't have ethernet/wifi/component video/USB hub so is therefore useless" "The video code isn't free therefore IT IS PURE EVIL"
A computer as a magazine cover freebie is pretty cool...
They demanded plenty, and were a minority partner. You don't get to dictate every piece of policy in that position. At the time the consensus was that they got more than expected. They were hugely naive and let the Tories manipulate the next 5 years away from them, but at the time, they got more than most people thought they would.
If the negotiations had failed then absolutely we would have had a majority Tory government in a second general election within a few months, Labour were hugely unpopular.
What really upset me was that they formed a government with the Tories in the first place. Ideologically they are far closer to Labour, and could have built a working coalition with them. A minority government was even an option. Instead they enabled the Tories.
I don't know how anybody can think this: the maths weren't there. They could form a stable coalition with the Tories, or cobble together a highly fractured coalition with almost everybody that wasn't the Tories, the so-called "rainbow coalition". It would have seemed hugely undemocratic, and allowed a clearly voted-out Prime Minister to stay on. A minority coalition would have lasted 5 minutes - it would have to agree internally and *then* try to find agreements with other parties.
The LibDems are closer to Labour, but they had very little choice. To stay out of coalition would have led to a minority Conservative government that wouldn't have to last long, just long enough for another election when the polls swung slightly their way.
This is not a flamebait question: Isn't this the natural course of socialized medicine? Seriously, when I control your health care, how can you be free to choose the treatment you see best, especially if that "best treatment" is a placebo in the form of meditation and sugar pills? How can anyone expect any other outcome?
Are you for no regulation at all then? Any quack with any random snakeoil cure should be allowed to prey on the desperate? Nothing to do whether it's socalised or private, it's about whether you're going to enforce medical standards.
You can go to a homeopathic fraudster directly if you like, but don't expect to be referred there by a medical professional.
Sorry, should have been more explicit: when I talked about "people not complaining" I mean "developers not complaining" (Well, we do, but dealing with this stuff is part of the job). I feel like you rather prove my point though - whenever you have customisable hardware you have occasional problems and even mature Windows has it.
But you're right in that you have less scope to fix things - atleast there's Cyanogen et al, but still not the same as messing in the registry or Linux scripts to work around an issue. Unfortunately ARM platform isn't as standardised as x86.
My argument boils down to "Programming is difficult". And if you want any sort of variation in hardware then you're going to have to deal with that variation, or is the One True Apple Solution the only thing that we can aspire to, the only possible client device because we programmers want an easy life?
And yet, it's not that difficult, as I've said before I haven't noticed any difference in speed of development (or burden of maintenance) in the projects I've been working on, so the whole thing is moot.
Not denying that it's a valid business choice - just the concept that it's apparently the end of the development world to have to support more devices than you physically can have. That's demonstrably fine for all client development that isn't iOS.
There are 100s of Android devices, all with wildly different hardware specs. Just covering the most popular gives you about 25 devices to test, and every one of them will have family-specific bugs to iron out.
Yeah yeah, change the record. If you think this is a big issue then you have never programmed for Windows / web / any operating system that isn't the very brief device-limited situation that iOS is lucky enough to be in. Think how many devices there is possible on the desktop? But we don't whine about that because it's normal there. I suspect you're not a developer, because there is no way that "every" device has specific bugs to work around. That is entirely the point of an operating system... Device bugs happen occasionally but I can count on one hand in my career the times I've had to do it.
As an Android developer of the last 6 years, my opinion:
Is iOS simply more profitable?
In a word - yes. Android users tend not to buy apps directly, iOS there seems to be an acceptance that most good apps will be paid, and Android most apps are free. If you can get money out of the user in a different way (eg subscriptions made elsewhere) it seems more even, but as for mobile purchases, the culture around Apple is more willing.
Is Android harder to program or support? Is code easily portable?
There are different challenges certainly but all the teams I've worked in have moved at about the same speed. The myth that Android is hard to program doesn't bear-out in reality. I think libraries like Unity mean there are even less platform differences in games than with plan apps.
Do iOS devices have more hardware resources?
No, top-end Androids usually have more power than current iPhones, but iPhones are more homogenous, which makes tuning easier. Also they don't stick around as long (partly because Apple upgrade them into uselessness) so I think the average iPhone is newer than the average Android.
Slashdot Mirror
At the rate things are going, I won't even bother to register to vote, let alone vote for any of them, because I don't think any of them are either qualified, or represent my interests.
I think you'll find that is actually interpreted as "I'm happy for any of them to represent me".
OK, your reply was funnier than mine...
His first argument is that Hilary Clinton is evil because she has "evil eyes". You don't need to have dialogue with such a person, it is a waste of time.
You might be right on the rest, and unlike the AC you managed to make your point without resorting to superstition.
There's a difference between universal health care for congenital disorders (which I said I supported, although I left out a word) and paying for people's risky or chosen behaviours,
This is where your whole segregation falls down, as your own list is pretty bad at idetifying bad behaviour.
like smoking or obesity related diseases,
This is where you're on safest ground, but where do you draw the line, and how are you determining that a disease was caused by smoking or obesity. Lung cancer is also caused by air pollution. Diabetes can be hereditary.
injuries from sports,
Sport that people play to stay healthy. Yes there is risk of injury but most agree that the risk is outweighed by the general health benefits.
pregnancy
You better hope that other people have children or your whole society will fall down, the aged population is supported by the working adults. Their children will be supporting your pension so to decide that you have no responsibility to them now when you can is pretty short sighted.
or sex related disorders, and so on.
Sex is a luxury?
The cause of illness is notoriously hard to determine.
But as bad as Obuma is, Hilary is pure evil. Just look at her eyes.
Yeah I think I have read all I need to to write you off as a nutjob...
Dear rest of the world,
America is a very, very large place with a wide variety of people, culture, geography, and ideologies.
Look at where you are now, draw a two thousand kilometer circle around you, and tell me someone in that circle hasn't done something crazy.
That is all.
You are of course somewhat correct, I was being inflammatory. But I would resist putting this down to "someone crazy". Many people colluded here in this, the teachers that acted together, and the police that continued it. You're talking about quite a few people where none of them went "it's a fucking battery pack, calm down". Add to that that nobody is backing down, what should be happening is an admission that that was a mistaken overreaction, and apology, and this would diffuse. But no, the police are finding absurd things around a laugh to support their actions. And it never seems to happen to someone in the racial majority, it's always someone who is different (but no that's apparently nothing to do with it, again, denials). Everybody denies that there's a problem, and desperately tries to find evidence to support their overreaction.
He provable brought nothing of consequence to school, but was held for 3 days and then made to wear a tracking device. What the fuck.
Dear America,
Please get a grip on yourselves.
Signed,
The Rest of the World.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution does not apply to US citizens who are passing through immigration on a return trip.
Holy shit, really? And that's a good decision, is it?
I agree. And that convergence usually takes around a century. So, for, oh, say, climate models from 2015, we can consider the settled science in about 2115, after plenty of verification and observation.
Brilliant. If the majority opinion on climate change is correct, doing nothing until then will be a disaster. Sometimes you don't get to wait a century until it's someone else's problem.
How about you learn how to apply the scientific method yourself, then stop believing everything some jackass in a white coat tells you.
Yes absolutely, we must all personally verify all science. That is a totally workable system.
So, when scientists tell you how to live your life or tell you that the science is settled and you should just do what they tell you,
When the science is settled though - when the vast majority of research is all pointing in one direction, don't ignore it just because it's something you don't want to face. Your freedom is not absolute, other people have to live on this planet with you.
The scientists are totally distinguishable over time, the method converges on truth.
to the improvement of life for millions of people? Tetraethyl lead is a small speedbump on the road to a bright future of advanced chemistry. The global car industry is a marvel. The tree huggers need to bugger off. What Henry Ford said one hundred years ago ring s truer than ever today.
Except that it was the tree huggers who wanted to remove lead from gas for all of the environmental and health reasons. What actually caused the lead to be removed had nothing to do with that. It was the EPA requirement that cars have a catalytic converter to meet emission standards ultimately got rid of leaded fuels since lead ruins the catalytic converter.
You're splitting hairs now - the "tree huggers" would also be responsible for the drive to reduce emissions via catalytic converters. The EPA exists as a result of pressure, it didn't just spring up out of nowhere.
How about you go look up what communism is first before proclaiming stuff.
Nope. The whole world has to pull together if we want to reach the targets.
So what's your alternative to an agreement between nations? You said it's completely useless in the root post without saying why, or what the alternative is... so what is your better idea?
Hah! :)
You do realise how you lose credibility when you accuse people of lying when you have no evidence that is the case? Have you never heard of popular products selling out? You sound like an entitled arse when you demand everything must be available for your personal use immediately. Earlier in this very thread people have reported getting theirs, so patently it was available.
Goliaths like Google and Apple struggle to get the right amount of stock on release day, because predicting demand is hard, let alone a charity with limited resources like RPi.
"Why isn't it more powerful, I can get a Beaglebone/Banana Pi/Intel board for just a little more money with a faster processor"
"Why isn't it less powerful, the Arduino is more efficient"
"Why can't I have exactly what I imagine in my head for an impossibly small amount of money"
"It doesn't have ethernet/wifi/component video/USB hub so is therefore useless"
"The video code isn't free therefore IT IS PURE EVIL"
A computer as a magazine cover freebie is pretty cool...
They demanded plenty, and were a minority partner. You don't get to dictate every piece of policy in that position. At the time the consensus was that they got more than expected. They were hugely naive and let the Tories manipulate the next 5 years away from them, but at the time, they got more than most people thought they would.
If the negotiations had failed then absolutely we would have had a majority Tory government in a second general election within a few months, Labour were hugely unpopular.
What really upset me was that they formed a government with the Tories in the first place. Ideologically they are far closer to Labour, and could have built a working coalition with them. A minority government was even an option. Instead they enabled the Tories.
I don't know how anybody can think this: the maths weren't there. They could form a stable coalition with the Tories, or cobble together a highly fractured coalition with almost everybody that wasn't the Tories, the so-called "rainbow coalition". It would have seemed hugely undemocratic, and allowed a clearly voted-out Prime Minister to stay on. A minority coalition would have lasted 5 minutes - it would have to agree internally and *then* try to find agreements with other parties.
The LibDems are closer to Labour, but they had very little choice. To stay out of coalition would have led to a minority Conservative government that wouldn't have to last long, just long enough for another election when the polls swung slightly their way.
This is not a flamebait question: Isn't this the natural course of socialized medicine? Seriously, when I control your health care, how can you be free to choose the treatment you see best, especially if that "best treatment" is a placebo in the form of meditation and sugar pills? How can anyone expect any other outcome?
Are you for no regulation at all then? Any quack with any random snakeoil cure should be allowed to prey on the desperate? Nothing to do whether it's socalised or private, it's about whether you're going to enforce medical standards.
You can go to a homeopathic fraudster directly if you like, but don't expect to be referred there by a medical professional.
Sorry, should have been more explicit: when I talked about "people not complaining" I mean "developers not complaining" (Well, we do, but dealing with this stuff is part of the job). I feel like you rather prove my point though - whenever you have customisable hardware you have occasional problems and even mature Windows has it.
But you're right in that you have less scope to fix things - atleast there's Cyanogen et al, but still not the same as messing in the registry or Linux scripts to work around an issue. Unfortunately ARM platform isn't as standardised as x86.
My argument boils down to "Programming is difficult". And if you want any sort of variation in hardware then you're going to have to deal with that variation, or is the One True Apple Solution the only thing that we can aspire to, the only possible client device because we programmers want an easy life?
And yet, it's not that difficult, as I've said before I haven't noticed any difference in speed of development (or burden of maintenance) in the projects I've been working on, so the whole thing is moot.
Not denying that it's a valid business choice - just the concept that it's apparently the end of the development world to have to support more devices than you physically can have. That's demonstrably fine for all client development that isn't iOS.
There are 100s of Android devices, all with wildly different hardware specs. Just covering the most popular gives you about 25 devices to test, and every one of them will have family-specific bugs to iron out.
Yeah yeah, change the record. If you think this is a big issue then you have never programmed for Windows / web / any operating system that isn't the very brief device-limited situation that iOS is lucky enough to be in. Think how many devices there is possible on the desktop? But we don't whine about that because it's normal there. I suspect you're not a developer, because there is no way that "every" device has specific bugs to work around. That is entirely the point of an operating system... Device bugs happen occasionally but I can count on one hand in my career the times I've had to do it.
As an Android developer of the last 6 years, my opinion:
Is iOS simply more profitable?
In a word - yes. Android users tend not to buy apps directly, iOS there seems to be an acceptance that most good apps will be paid, and Android most apps are free. If you can get money out of the user in a different way (eg subscriptions made elsewhere) it seems more even, but as for mobile purchases, the culture around Apple is more willing.
Is Android harder to program or support? Is code easily portable?
There are different challenges certainly but all the teams I've worked in have moved at about the same speed. The myth that Android is hard to program doesn't bear-out in reality. I think libraries like Unity mean there are even less platform differences in games than with plan apps.
Do iOS devices have more hardware resources?
No, top-end Androids usually have more power than current iPhones, but iPhones are more homogenous, which makes tuning easier. Also they don't stick around as long (partly because Apple upgrade them into uselessness) so I think the average iPhone is newer than the average Android.