It's alright as a joke. But of course, people trying to do just that is the main cause of war in the world. You got lebensraum, I want it, conflict ensues.
The earth is 22,500 times as old as the human race. (200,000 vs 4,500,000,000 years). And for most of the 200,000 years in which people have existed, they (we) lived only in Africa.
So, almost all of what has happened to the earth's climate over geological time is irrelevant to human existence.
The problem for Apple management is, how to justify sitting on a vast hoard of cash instead of returning it to shareholders. There is simply no defensible way to spend $160BN developing the next generation of iDevices. Apple is currently getting rid of some of it through dividends and stock repurchases. But most major investors don't really want dividends nor to sell back their shares; they already have capital they don't know what to do with and just want it to grow as fast as possible. I am largely agreeing with your comment, except "don't do anything with the money" isn't really an option, let alone the best option. Personally I think it's endemic to our economy - wealth has become so concentrated that those who have it can't figure out any useful way to spend it, and those who would spend it don't have it, resulting in economic slowdown.
Here is how google assembled the team for its self-driving car initiative:
Within a few months, Page and Brin had called Thrun to green-light a driverless-car project. "They didn't even talk about budget," Thrun says. âoeThey just asked how many people I needed and how to find them. I said, 'I know exactly who they are.'"
If this is any example, top tier companies putting together a hit squad don't look at resumes. They first make a key hire by making a can't-say-no offer to a professor at a top university, then he cherry-picks people with a name in the field.
I like the idea of owning a smaller car and renting a bigger one for trips. The problem I have found in trying to do this is that most people want a big vehicle around the same time, in the summer, and prices spike. Perhaps towable range extenders would alleviate this a bit because overcapacity could be stored more efficiently (tilting them up on end) and they would have less routine maintenance.
I thought at the end you were about to say this shows that sport is still about athletic performance and not just money after all. That's what I think. And I don't the US should be allowed to change equipment during the competition either. Even though I'm skeptical it would matter.
The amount of whining I've heard about these Olympics in general is pathetic. So transparent. Even though the games themselves have been not bad at all IMHO.
Similarly it was pretty lame to listen to the announcers bend over backwards to excuse the mistakes of the US snowboard halfpipe team on the bad snow or the design of the pipe itself - then Shaun White said, "yeah, well, everybody was on the same course." I've been seeing some articles lately about him being a dick but that bumped him up a couple notches in my book.
Oilfields and strip mines aren't particularly attractive either, and the problem faced by the Germans in the path of this power line are no different than those in the path of the new Keystone XL pipeline, except that a power line can't burst open and flood your property with flammable toxins. I happened to be visiting Canada last year when this happened and people were not amused.
It's true that solar and wind aren't very dense, on the other hand you can use the same plot of land indefinitely instead of stripping it and moving on to consume yet more land, and solar can use rooftops that are wasted space (in fact we pay good money to get rid of the heat they collect). This also generates power onsite so their is no long-haul infrastructure. Here in New Mexico a lot of people are putting up solar panels on their homes. It is real.
"Germany's Renewable Plan Faces Popular Resistance" implies that Germans in general are opposing renewables. In fact it is a simple case of objection to a particular development project by the specific people who live in its path. It's no different than if somebody were building a shopping mall or a road; some people are adversely impacted and they want to be compensated or block the development altogether.
Because once Stephen Elop got in there, he took what was a profitable company and turned it into a dog by changing their focus.
Almost all cellphone makers are losers:
A new report from Raymond James analyst Tavis McCourt has some bad news for the smartphone industry. McCourt forecast that in 2014, non-Chinese smartphone markers will see zero growth while Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Samsung (SSNLF.PK) continue to suck up over 100 percent of the industryâ(TM)s profits, according to a research note seen by Investors Business Daily.
And, yes, "over 100%" of profits going to just two companies is well defined in this case - everybody else is losing money.
Until and unless some new device displaces iPhone-like-phones the same way the iPhone displaced the blackberry, the smartphone market is all locked up.
With its long cylindrical shape, WorldView-3 looks more like a telescope than a camera and it works on the same principle. The light comes in through a barrel structure, pointed at the Earth, and is bounced around by a series of mirrors, before being focused onto a CCD sensor.
To date, global warming isn't the biggest factor how humans have impacted wildlife. The bigger impact so far is simply the fact that we're everywhere, hunting big game to extinction and devouring all habitat, to the point where we pat ourselves on the back if we preserve one plot of land that is suitable for some particular species.
No, because the disappearance of the ice bridges in recent years is due to human disruption of the ecosystem in the first place. With this many people having this much impact on the planet the idea of "letting nature do its thing" is, unfortunately, out the window at this point. We are the cause of, and now living in, a mass extinction of a scale that has only occurred a couple times during the earth's existence. At this point the question is whether to mitigate our impact at least a little, or continue to do it unwittingly.
How did we get this far in the discussion until somebody bothered to post real-world observed fraud rates for the various technologies in question? This whole discussion is completely speculative and none of us even notices or cares, we just carry on...
At least the article presents a host of other possible reasons before conveniently dismissing them to move on to the unfounded assumption that "it must be regulation." But then the only regulation they can come up with is the requirement for a health checkup every other year if you're over 40? A checkup costs as much as how many flight hours? Approximately 0.
It is a marvellous feat of engineering to build 20 new roads, bridges, train line and station, international airport, olympic venues and a ski resort that is climate change proof in such a short time.
And why is the coverage on the huge sum of money the spent to do it universally negative? Let them debate internally whether it was too much, or corrupt. As an outsider who does not pay Russian taxes, my response is, "thanks for the party!"
And who in their right mind wants Windows on their phone?
Since this is a reader application, I would say the same about reading on a phone. It can be done, but it's not a good fit.
On a convertible laptop/tablet (Surface Pro), on the other hand, making Windows 8 flexible enough to handle both settings well actually makes sense. Especially for a reader - you might be using it as a tablet (sitting on the couch reading), or you might be referring to a textbook while doing homework using the keyboard.
So, yeah, "windows everywhere" was an overreach. But "windows for both touch and pointer/keyboard-driven interfaces", on the other hand, is a worthwhile goal.
It is working out well for the Olympics though. I was watching it yesterday, there's plenty of snow and it was a bright, beautiful day. Didn't match the tone of all these relentlessly whiny articles at all.
If X doesn't have many limitations it is because it doesn't specify very much. Its concept is too modular. What people needed was a UI, not just a way to draw a few basic shapes on a screen. Granted, I am sort of demanding that Qt should somehow have appeared fully formed 20 years early. But as contemporary examples, Windows and Mac were running circles around X throughout the 90's and 00's (including, yes, having to be re-written multiple times) while we were stuck with Athena widgets because they were available and sort of worked for basic things.
I suppose it was a "great" improvement at the time. In retrospect, the lack of ability to even migrate an X Client from one display to another sure feels like a glaring limitation.
What's funny is that the worst part of X11 is how badly it does exactly what it was designed to do - remote display - because it is so slow if the network has any latency (too many synchronous calls). You certainly can't imagine something from 25(?) years ago bombing today because its RAM or CPU or bandwidth requirements are too high. Clearly, latency is not riding that curve, and must instead be designed around.
Slashdot Mirror
It's alright as a joke. But of course, people trying to do just that is the main cause of war in the world. You got lebensraum, I want it, conflict ensues.
So, almost all of what has happened to the earth's climate over geological time is irrelevant to human existence.
More like vice-versa.
The problem for Apple management is, how to justify sitting on a vast hoard of cash instead of returning it to shareholders. There is simply no defensible way to spend $160BN developing the next generation of iDevices. Apple is currently getting rid of some of it through dividends and stock repurchases. But most major investors don't really want dividends nor to sell back their shares; they already have capital they don't know what to do with and just want it to grow as fast as possible. I am largely agreeing with your comment, except "don't do anything with the money" isn't really an option, let alone the best option. Personally I think it's endemic to our economy - wealth has become so concentrated that those who have it can't figure out any useful way to spend it, and those who would spend it don't have it, resulting in economic slowdown.
If this is any example, top tier companies putting together a hit squad don't look at resumes. They first make a key hire by making a can't-say-no offer to a professor at a top university, then he cherry-picks people with a name in the field.
I like the idea of owning a smaller car and renting a bigger one for trips. The problem I have found in trying to do this is that most people want a big vehicle around the same time, in the summer, and prices spike. Perhaps towable range extenders would alleviate this a bit because overcapacity could be stored more efficiently (tilting them up on end) and they would have less routine maintenance.
I like the idea of towable range extenders, but if you're renting one, what are the advantages over automated battery swapping instead?
Egads, you keep wrestling, I'll take beach volleyball.
The amount of whining I've heard about these Olympics in general is pathetic. So transparent. Even though the games themselves have been not bad at all IMHO.
Similarly it was pretty lame to listen to the announcers bend over backwards to excuse the mistakes of the US snowboard halfpipe team on the bad snow or the design of the pipe itself - then Shaun White said, "yeah, well, everybody was on the same course." I've been seeing some articles lately about him being a dick but that bumped him up a couple notches in my book.
Even so, he is late to the party. Smartphone mania has crested. I would say with the iPhone 4.
It's true that solar and wind aren't very dense, on the other hand you can use the same plot of land indefinitely instead of stripping it and moving on to consume yet more land, and solar can use rooftops that are wasted space (in fact we pay good money to get rid of the heat they collect). This also generates power onsite so their is no long-haul infrastructure. Here in New Mexico a lot of people are putting up solar panels on their homes. It is real.
"Germany's Renewable Plan Faces Popular Resistance" implies that Germans in general are opposing renewables. In fact it is a simple case of objection to a particular development project by the specific people who live in its path. It's no different than if somebody were building a shopping mall or a road; some people are adversely impacted and they want to be compensated or block the development altogether.
Almost all cellphone makers are losers:
And, yes, "over 100%" of profits going to just two companies is well defined in this case - everybody else is losing money.
Until and unless some new device displaces iPhone-like-phones the same way the iPhone displaced the blackberry, the smartphone market is all locked up.
To date, global warming isn't the biggest factor how humans have impacted wildlife. The bigger impact so far is simply the fact that we're everywhere, hunting big game to extinction and devouring all habitat, to the point where we pat ourselves on the back if we preserve one plot of land that is suitable for some particular species.
No, because the disappearance of the ice bridges in recent years is due to human disruption of the ecosystem in the first place. With this many people having this much impact on the planet the idea of "letting nature do its thing" is, unfortunately, out the window at this point. We are the cause of, and now living in, a mass extinction of a scale that has only occurred a couple times during the earth's existence. At this point the question is whether to mitigate our impact at least a little, or continue to do it unwittingly.
How did we get this far in the discussion until somebody bothered to post real-world observed fraud rates for the various technologies in question? This whole discussion is completely speculative and none of us even notices or cares, we just carry on...
Meanwhile the number of private jets has quadrupled since 1996 globally. So why did the regulators forget to quash that one, too, if that's the explanation?
And why is the coverage on the huge sum of money the spent to do it universally negative? Let them debate internally whether it was too much, or corrupt. As an outsider who does not pay Russian taxes, my response is, "thanks for the party!"
Since this is a reader application, I would say the same about reading on a phone. It can be done, but it's not a good fit.
On a convertible laptop/tablet (Surface Pro), on the other hand, making Windows 8 flexible enough to handle both settings well actually makes sense. Especially for a reader - you might be using it as a tablet (sitting on the couch reading), or you might be referring to a textbook while doing homework using the keyboard.
So, yeah, "windows everywhere" was an overreach. But "windows for both touch and pointer/keyboard-driven interfaces", on the other hand, is a worthwhile goal.
It is working out well for the Olympics though. I was watching it yesterday, there's plenty of snow and it was a bright, beautiful day. Didn't match the tone of all these relentlessly whiny articles at all.
If X doesn't have many limitations it is because it doesn't specify very much. Its concept is too modular. What people needed was a UI, not just a way to draw a few basic shapes on a screen. Granted, I am sort of demanding that Qt should somehow have appeared fully formed 20 years early. But as contemporary examples, Windows and Mac were running circles around X throughout the 90's and 00's (including, yes, having to be re-written multiple times) while we were stuck with Athena widgets because they were available and sort of worked for basic things.
I almost admire your optimism.
I suppose it was a "great" improvement at the time. In retrospect, the lack of ability to even migrate an X Client from one display to another sure feels like a glaring limitation.
What's funny is that the worst part of X11 is how badly it does exactly what it was designed to do - remote display - because it is so slow if the network has any latency (too many synchronous calls). You certainly can't imagine something from 25(?) years ago bombing today because its RAM or CPU or bandwidth requirements are too high. Clearly, latency is not riding that curve, and must instead be designed around.