I am not wrong. The Liberals have indeed been in power more than the Conservatives since the second world war. Jim Harris, a millionaire capitalist, was indeed the leader of the Greens. The NDP's origins are indeed founded in union activism. Etc.
But thanks for the awesome response. Lots of facts to support your argument there, kid.
The NDP are nowhere near centrist - give your head a shake. They share little in common with the Greens, for example, who until recently under Jim Harris were what is known as "eco-capitalist". This is the very opposite of the NDP, which is almost wholly beholden to the unions.
And the Liberals, not the Conservatives, are what is known as "Canada's natural governing party", having spent the most time in power since the second world war. They are not considered a right-wing party on any political spectrum.
Unfortunately, the system as proposed in BC would have screwed over rural populations, as STV tends to concentrate power in major centres. It was largely rural/small-town BC that voted against it.
True, but you can't read any of those things outside in full sunlight. I like to read out on my balcony, and using a laptop out there is impossible. Same with on the ferry to work, when I sit by a window. For reading, backlit displays are fundamentally terrible devices.
What people don't understand is that the Kindle is NOT a laptop replacement - it's an e-Ink display device, an electronic book that reads in the same way as the printed page. Either this is meaningful to you as someone who reads a lot, or it isn't, particularly if your "reading" consists of browsing the web and jumping from site to site to get the news or look at Slashdot or whatever.
Do you have some tips on how I can convince a family member who has specified a specific title on a wish list to want a different game instead?
Fair enough. Presumably, if demand is strong enough, a standalone version would be available, but if not, and if their world will end if they don't get a particular game, then life can be hard.
Not necessarily. If I'm in Chicago, and their servers are in Virginia and California, the speed of light establishes a lower bound on the latency between a keypress and its reflection on the client.
Well, the speed of light is pretty fast...like, for all practical purposes instantaneous for the distances we're talking about.
The reality of the non-market for Internet access in the United States is that "early days" will last significantly longer than if there were a market.
Yes, this is a real issue, for sure - infrastructure not keeping up with demand for new services.
Ultimately, I prefer to see the glass as half-full when it comes to new services, and if they end up sucking, then the market will kill them off.
If they release it exclusively, then choose another game that plays locally. The market will provide, if there is demand. The real mitigating factor is piracy, which is the main reason publishers pulled back from the PC in the first place.
As for the rest of your arguments, I share your concerns for the present, but ultimately it boils down to "640k should be enough for anybody" - stuff will only get faster, pipes bigger, etc. These are early days.
No one says you can't still run things locally if you want to. Why do people see something that isn't a good fit for them, and immediately think it's an either/or thing? This whole system is for people who want to play on the go, who don't like to install stuff, who like the convenience, or who are new to a game and want to try it out. It is an expansion to the modern gaming experience, not a replacement, and it's a very positive thing.
Food isn't free. Just because a few people produce something doesn't mean it's abundant. All the usual market forces still apply, and it is just as costly to eat well as it's always been.
Gladwell's article doesn't concern home computers or recycled computers. By "hardware", he means massive infrastructure. He makes this very clear in the article.
Here's a news flash for you buddy. UHC has never worked anywhere in the world as well as the US's private health care. Not that the US's health care system is perfect by any means, but it's way better then any socialist health care that's out there.
And here's a news flash for you: the US spends more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other country in the world (15.9% in 2008). Yet it has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the western world (> 5 per 1000 live births), and the life expectancy is a mere 78.2 years, putting it behind every other western country (not to mention a lot of non-western countries).
Infant mortality and life expectancy are the two main indices used to measure health care performance. Your comment is not only wrong, but grotesquely so.
Fair enough, though "American oil companies" is still misleading, as Shell's behaviour in Nigeria demonstrates. Given the chance, large corporations from anywhere often behave poorly.
I am no huge supporter of oil corporations, believe me. But I do get tired of the monomaniacal obsession with demonstrating how evil the US is in all things. It is frustrating to meet people who honestly believe that the US "steals" all of its oil.
Compared to other countries in the western world (let's compare apples to apples), the UK ranks poorly, or middling at best. Compared to some African hellhole, yes, it's pretty great, but the submitter is looking for another western country for relocation.
The source is actually The Pocket World in Figures, a free book I get with my Economist subscription that summarises the EIU's yearly findings.
Incidentally, the UK also scores 24th in press freedom, just above Mauritius and Namibia.
Actually, only the least-private countries are rated - the top 36 or so (counting ties). So Iceland is a bad pick. You'll notice that Canada isn't on there at all, as it is a relatively non-surveilled society.
If you're counting quality of life, then you have to compare apples to apples. Compared to, say, Gabon, yes, the UK looks pretty sweet. Compared to many other countries in the western world (Canada, NZ, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, etc.), it's not near the top. Sorry. And yes, I'd way rather move to Norway.
Regarding the source: I have a copy of The Pocket World in Figures, which is free for subscribers to The Economist. It is a geopolitically-minded geek's wet dream, and basically summarises the EIU's yearly findings.
UN Human Development Index: UK ranks 17th Human Poverty Index: UK ranks 15th Economic Freedom Index: UK ranks 10th Privacy Index: UK ranks 5th (higher is worse)
All numbers courtesy of The Economist Intelligence Unit. They indicate the UK is nowhere near having one of the highest standards of living in the world.
Exactly. The people who rattle on about how the US invades countries for oil tend to fall silent when they find out that Canada is the largest exporter of oil to the US.
The countries that have converted to SI are the countries that were late to the industrial revolution party.
This is hilariously incorrect. The UK (originators of the industrial revolution), Canada, Australia, all of Scandinavia, etc. converted to metric 30+ years ago. There are vestiges of imperial left here and there, but all industrial processes were converted a generation ago.
I'd like to hear your opinion on it. What is the crucial difference that makes one form of copyright violation okay, and the other not okay? Is it simply the word "profit"?
Slashdot Mirror
OS X is a certified Unix, and it's got little to do with marketing. It was built that way. Read up on the history of OS X's development.
You normally make insightful posts, but this was a really dumb thing for you to say.
I am not wrong. The Liberals have indeed been in power more than the Conservatives since the second world war. Jim Harris, a millionaire capitalist, was indeed the leader of the Greens. The NDP's origins are indeed founded in union activism. Etc.
But thanks for the awesome response. Lots of facts to support your argument there, kid.
The NDP are nowhere near centrist - give your head a shake. They share little in common with the Greens, for example, who until recently under Jim Harris were what is known as "eco-capitalist". This is the very opposite of the NDP, which is almost wholly beholden to the unions.
And the Liberals, not the Conservatives, are what is known as "Canada's natural governing party", having spent the most time in power since the second world war. They are not considered a right-wing party on any political spectrum.
Unfortunately, the system as proposed in BC would have screwed over rural populations, as STV tends to concentrate power in major centres. It was largely rural/small-town BC that voted against it.
Qt absolutely has bindings in other languages. For example, check out PyQt: http://www.riverbankcomputing.co.uk/news
Qt is not just a gui framework. It provides a massive amount of extra stuff. Browse the documentation: http://doc.qtsoftware.com/4.5/index.html/
Note the WebKit integration, multimedia framework (Phonon, which was a part of KDE and later folded into Qt), OpenGL support, etc. etc.
Comparing it to GTK is like comparing a full-fledged desktop like KDE or Gnome to Blackbox.
True, but you can't read any of those things outside in full sunlight. I like to read out on my balcony, and using a laptop out there is impossible. Same with on the ferry to work, when I sit by a window. For reading, backlit displays are fundamentally terrible devices.
What people don't understand is that the Kindle is NOT a laptop replacement - it's an e-Ink display device, an electronic book that reads in the same way as the printed page. Either this is meaningful to you as someone who reads a lot, or it isn't, particularly if your "reading" consists of browsing the web and jumping from site to site to get the news or look at Slashdot or whatever.
Safari is a great browser, at least on the Mac. I much prefer it to Firefox.
Do you have some tips on how I can convince a family member who has specified a specific title on a wish list to want a different game instead?
Fair enough. Presumably, if demand is strong enough, a standalone version would be available, but if not, and if their world will end if they don't get a particular game, then life can be hard.
Not necessarily. If I'm in Chicago, and their servers are in Virginia and California, the speed of light establishes a lower bound on the latency between a keypress and its reflection on the client.
Well, the speed of light is pretty fast...like, for all practical purposes instantaneous for the distances we're talking about.
The reality of the non-market for Internet access in the United States is that "early days" will last significantly longer than if there were a market.
Yes, this is a real issue, for sure - infrastructure not keeping up with demand for new services.
Ultimately, I prefer to see the glass as half-full when it comes to new services, and if they end up sucking, then the market will kill them off.
You'll still be able to buy copies of games. Did you even read my comment, idiot?
If they release it exclusively, then choose another game that plays locally. The market will provide, if there is demand. The real mitigating factor is piracy, which is the main reason publishers pulled back from the PC in the first place.
As for the rest of your arguments, I share your concerns for the present, but ultimately it boils down to "640k should be enough for anybody" - stuff will only get faster, pipes bigger, etc. These are early days.
No one says you can't still run things locally if you want to. Why do people see something that isn't a good fit for them, and immediately think it's an either/or thing? This whole system is for people who want to play on the go, who don't like to install stuff, who like the convenience, or who are new to a game and want to try it out. It is an expansion to the modern gaming experience, not a replacement, and it's a very positive thing.
Food isn't free. Just because a few people produce something doesn't mean it's abundant. All the usual market forces still apply, and it is just as costly to eat well as it's always been.
You mean those fancy clubs that would never allow Cretans like us to bask in the glowing light of their intellectual presence?
Hahaha, this is one of the stupidest/funniest things I have ever read. Weird how both authors are biased against the good people of Crete.
Gladwell's article doesn't concern home computers or recycled computers. By "hardware", he means massive infrastructure. He makes this very clear in the article.
Here's a news flash for you buddy. UHC has never worked anywhere in the world as well as the US's private health care. Not that the US's health care system is perfect by any means, but it's way better then any socialist health care that's out there.
And here's a news flash for you: the US spends more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other country in the world (15.9% in 2008). Yet it has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the western world (> 5 per 1000 live births), and the life expectancy is a mere 78.2 years, putting it behind every other western country (not to mention a lot of non-western countries).
Infant mortality and life expectancy are the two main indices used to measure health care performance. Your comment is not only wrong, but grotesquely so.
Haha, point taken. I actually didn't realise it was that much.
Fair enough, though "American oil companies" is still misleading, as Shell's behaviour in Nigeria demonstrates. Given the chance, large corporations from anywhere often behave poorly.
I am no huge supporter of oil corporations, believe me. But I do get tired of the monomaniacal obsession with demonstrating how evil the US is in all things. It is frustrating to meet people who honestly believe that the US "steals" all of its oil.
By the way, Canada supplies about 23% of US petroleum, and 22% of crude oil, not 9% as you stated: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
I'm not American, in case it matters.
Compared to other countries in the western world (let's compare apples to apples), the UK ranks poorly, or middling at best. Compared to some African hellhole, yes, it's pretty great, but the submitter is looking for another western country for relocation.
The source is actually The Pocket World in Figures, a free book I get with my Economist subscription that summarises the EIU's yearly findings.
Incidentally, the UK also scores 24th in press freedom, just above Mauritius and Namibia.
Actually, only the least-private countries are rated - the top 36 or so (counting ties). So Iceland is a bad pick. You'll notice that Canada isn't on there at all, as it is a relatively non-surveilled society.
If you're counting quality of life, then you have to compare apples to apples. Compared to, say, Gabon, yes, the UK looks pretty sweet. Compared to many other countries in the western world (Canada, NZ, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, etc.), it's not near the top. Sorry. And yes, I'd way rather move to Norway.
Regarding the source: I have a copy of The Pocket World in Figures, which is free for subscribers to The Economist. It is a geopolitically-minded geek's wet dream, and basically summarises the EIU's yearly findings.
UN Human Development Index: UK ranks 17th
Human Poverty Index: UK ranks 15th
Economic Freedom Index: UK ranks 10th
Privacy Index: UK ranks 5th (higher is worse)
All numbers courtesy of The Economist Intelligence Unit. They indicate the UK is nowhere near having one of the highest standards of living in the world.
Exactly. The people who rattle on about how the US invades countries for oil tend to fall silent when they find out that Canada is the largest exporter of oil to the US.
The countries that have converted to SI are the countries that were late to the industrial revolution party.
This is hilariously incorrect. The UK (originators of the industrial revolution), Canada, Australia, all of Scandinavia, etc. converted to metric 30+ years ago. There are vestiges of imperial left here and there, but all industrial processes were converted a generation ago.
I'd like to hear your opinion on it. What is the crucial difference that makes one form of copyright violation okay, and the other not okay? Is it simply the word "profit"?
I saw a documentary called Iron Man where this was done.