Strange; iOS 11 works well on my 5S, which is a model year older and at least a calendar year older (I bought it when it first came out). The battery usage seems a little flaky, but the performance is fine.
I've got a four-year-old iPhone that is normally plugged in until it records 100% charge at least five days a week. I'm idly wondering if it's time for a new battery, but I'm not certain.
Using some very reasonable assumptions, no resources are worth sending between star systems. It would be cheaper to fabricate them at the other end or use something else. It's also not clear that Earth would have the desired resources; perhaps Jupiter would be the best place to mine. The only things worth shipping will have artificial rarity, information, and possibly people.
Conquerors are possible. It's possible that we're getting to a tech level where it's worth conquering us.
The situation exists because of the pursuer. The situation is what it is because of the pursuer. The action is the pursuer's, and so are the consequences. The pursued will react based on what (typically) she perceives the situation to be, including the possible dangers if she says something the pursuer doesn't like. The pursuer is acting, and the pursued is reacting based on the pursuer's actions. Where is the responsibility supposed to reside, with the person who drives the situation or the person who has no reason to believe that she'll get out fully intact if she just says "no" too forcefully?
Obviously, the pursuer is going to make mistakes, and they may well be honest mistakes. We all screw up now and then. However, the fact that people screw up sometimes with things they're responsible for doesn't mean the responsibility doesn't exist.
Sorry, but I am not assigning motives. I am making statements of fact.
Okay, now let's look at some copy-and-paste quotes from your post that I replied to:
Here's one that should make you happy a man falsely accused of rape.
et us not forget The Rolling Stone's shining moment, when what you probably were partying about, when the Rolling stone and
Not exactly a motive, but
Perhaps you agree that the problem is so awful that innocent men must be destroyed to get rid of this probelm
At least that one had "perhaps". Then again, perhaps you're being paid by some subsidiary of the Koch brothers. Perhaps you just haven't taken your anti-psychotics in too long. "Perhaps" is not, in normal conversation, a neutral and non-accusatory term.
Noted that in another post, you denied what you jiust replied to. Seriously.
That's rather vague for me to review what I said and explain what's wrong (probably your interpretation).
Hey, tell me, why have I enraged you?
You haven't. You have said things that I strongly disagree with, but that doesn't trigger rage in me. I will admit to feeling a bit grumpy recently, but I'm not angry at you. Maybe you should talk to someone to see why you're impelled to project feelings on others. When you find that out, you might be able to make better arguments.
I merely advocate for a very effective cure to the problem of men harassing women.
Here's another effective cure: arm all women, and teach them to shoot men who harass them. Very effective, I think you'll agree, so by that measure it's just as good as your proposal.
Otto von Bismarck said that those who like sausages and laws should watch neither of them being made. This actually applies to lots of things. Research typically involves highly intelligent and argumentative people who sometimes say things that are misleading out of context. Researchers can be jerks (I've known a few) but that doesn't affect the quality of their research.
Therefore, personal emails are irrelevant. If people insist on digging into them, researchers will use private email, and that will be completely opaque to FOIA requests. Private researchers on government grants are not on official business, and Federal records acts do not apply.
Intermediate results can be misleading. It's the job of the researchers to figure out what the observational data is saying. Outliers in the data may be statistically insignificant or problems with data collection or all sorts of other things. If you were collecting readings of what temperature water boils at at sea level, and you got instrument readings mostly ranging from 99-101C with one reading in the thousands, what's the chance that the reading in the thousands is legitimate and needs to be included versus being some sort of error?
Intermediate results being misleading doesn't mean the researchers are misleading. That's from your fevered imagination. Observations need interpretation, and the researchers don't necessarily know how to interpret it at any random stage of an investigation. An interpretation that looks likely from raw data can turn out to be dead wrong. A researcher can try out an interpretation, and it may look good, and then it may fall apart.
Science comes with built-in error correction. If it's a crap paper, either it will be ignored or it will be torn apart. If it's good, people will do other research, and see how consistent it is with the apparently good paper. This is going to work far better than journalists trying to make sense of emails and raw data.
The best thing to do is wait for the paper to reach some sort of final form, and dig from there.
"I don't remember it the same way" is not "you're a dirty lying weasel". People do indeed remember things differently. It's very likely that Franken had dealings with people that he doesn't remember. I can't remember everyone I've talked to or even touched over the past ten-year period. Franken's statements are perfectly consistent with being basically a good man who did a few bad things. You, on the other hand, have convicted him, and therefore have incentive to make up reasons why he isn't.
Meanwhile, I do know that you're misstating the photographic evidence, which you may if you wish interpret as me saying you're a malicious liar, since you don't seem to like to accept words at face value.
Who has accused Franken of raping teenagers? We agree, I suppose, in considering that forced kisses and stalking underage girls for sex are both wrong. I, however, don't see that they're equally wrong, so your false equivalency with Moore falls apart.
He allegedly had sex with young teenagers, which is rape. (He has been banned from at least one mall for being seen stalking teenage women.) This is bad. This is colloquially called pedophilia, although that is not its technical meaning in psychology. Calling him an apparently child rapist would be more accurate, I suppose, but I don't see that changes the negative connotations.
Also, I'm not going to call him a child rapist without proof, but I can look at the evidence myself and decide whether to use "apparently" or not. It seems to me that he's probably guilty.
A legally required open comment period should be paid attention to, which the FCC does not appear to be doing. The government agency isn't required to go with the majority of comments, but it should pay attention and address concerns.
I'm not all that familiar with the program, but I sure wouldn't be surprised. I know that there was at least some consideration at some time of getting pure Aryan children.
Nursing has flexible hours, but they aren't necessarily flexed by the nurse. I lost track of what was happening with a sister-in-law sometimes because I never knew when she'd be working and when she'd be sleeping. Teaching is also more work than it looks. Days are long, adding classroom time, preparation time, and grading time. Summers off are often taken up with additional study to keep one's license.
I have no idea what you would feel bad about. There are a lot of past and present injustices in the world that I had nothing to do with, and I don't feel bad about them. I do things to try to nudge towards remedying those injustices, but it's not my fault and I don't feel bad or guilty.
In the 60s, I went to a child psychologist for stuff that nowadays would be diagnosed as autism spectrum disorder. The psychologist told Mom to go back to working, that she wasn't going to be happy as a housewife and mother. That wasn't typical advice back then. (Mom did rather well by herself in her new career.)
One of the abstract platonic ideals is ease of transaction. If we're in the same place, I can just hand you a couple of twenties and we've had a $40 transaction within seconds at no cost, with no interference from other transactions. If you wanted to send me a couple hundred, and knew my email address, you could send it via Paypal. It's slower and has a small transaction fee, or bank transfer if you had my banking info, much faster and probably also with a fee.
Apparently, with Bitcoin, there are considerable delays in registering a transaction and a considerable cost per transaction. That makes it unsuited to be a currency. The idea behind Bitcoin means that Bitcoin can't possibly be transacted efficiently.
The volatility is another big problem, but that's not inherent to Bitcoin.
I'm young enough to have seen some silver certificates in my youth, along side the much more common federal reserve notes. The silver certificates spent exactly like federal reserve notes, and the money was just as useful with different printing on it.
If you want precious metals, there's plenty of dealers around, so you can still convert US dollars into silver and gold. It's just not automatically done by the government any more.
have seen some friends get in on the action and make some safe cash by exitting precautiously
They didn't make safe profits. They bought in at a time when the value was going up. Nobody knows when the bubble will burst and Bitcoin value falls. Heck, nobody knows what the stable value will be. It could be quite low, as it's only worthwhile as a flaky method of payment and something to invest in.
In the US, if you acquire and hold bitcoins, there are no tax consequences. There are if you cash out, and spending the coins is functionally cashing out.
Slashdot Mirror
Strange; iOS 11 works well on my 5S, which is a model year older and at least a calendar year older (I bought it when it first came out). The battery usage seems a little flaky, but the performance is fine.
I've got a four-year-old iPhone that is normally plugged in until it records 100% charge at least five days a week. I'm idly wondering if it's time for a new battery, but I'm not certain.
Using some very reasonable assumptions, no resources are worth sending between star systems. It would be cheaper to fabricate them at the other end or use something else. It's also not clear that Earth would have the desired resources; perhaps Jupiter would be the best place to mine. The only things worth shipping will have artificial rarity, information, and possibly people.
Conquerors are possible. It's possible that we're getting to a tech level where it's worth conquering us.
Being good to the workers can be a great motivator also.
The situation exists because of the pursuer. The situation is what it is because of the pursuer. The action is the pursuer's, and so are the consequences. The pursued will react based on what (typically) she perceives the situation to be, including the possible dangers if she says something the pursuer doesn't like. The pursuer is acting, and the pursued is reacting based on the pursuer's actions. Where is the responsibility supposed to reside, with the person who drives the situation or the person who has no reason to believe that she'll get out fully intact if she just says "no" too forcefully?
Obviously, the pursuer is going to make mistakes, and they may well be honest mistakes. We all screw up now and then. However, the fact that people screw up sometimes with things they're responsible for doesn't mean the responsibility doesn't exist.
Okay, now let's look at some copy-and-paste quotes from your post that I replied to:
Not exactly a motive, but
At least that one had "perhaps". Then again, perhaps you're being paid by some subsidiary of the Koch brothers. Perhaps you just haven't taken your anti-psychotics in too long. "Perhaps" is not, in normal conversation, a neutral and non-accusatory term.
That's rather vague for me to review what I said and explain what's wrong (probably your interpretation).
You haven't. You have said things that I strongly disagree with, but that doesn't trigger rage in me. I will admit to feeling a bit grumpy recently, but I'm not angry at you. Maybe you should talk to someone to see why you're impelled to project feelings on others. When you find that out, you might be able to make better arguments.
Here's another effective cure: arm all women, and teach them to shoot men who harass them. Very effective, I think you'll agree, so by that measure it's just as good as your proposal.
So, you're willing for me to do anything to you as long as it's perfectly acceptable from my point of view?
Otto von Bismarck said that those who like sausages and laws should watch neither of them being made. This actually applies to lots of things. Research typically involves highly intelligent and argumentative people who sometimes say things that are misleading out of context. Researchers can be jerks (I've known a few) but that doesn't affect the quality of their research.
Therefore, personal emails are irrelevant. If people insist on digging into them, researchers will use private email, and that will be completely opaque to FOIA requests. Private researchers on government grants are not on official business, and Federal records acts do not apply.
Intermediate results can be misleading. It's the job of the researchers to figure out what the observational data is saying. Outliers in the data may be statistically insignificant or problems with data collection or all sorts of other things. If you were collecting readings of what temperature water boils at at sea level, and you got instrument readings mostly ranging from 99-101C with one reading in the thousands, what's the chance that the reading in the thousands is legitimate and needs to be included versus being some sort of error?
Intermediate results being misleading doesn't mean the researchers are misleading. That's from your fevered imagination. Observations need interpretation, and the researchers don't necessarily know how to interpret it at any random stage of an investigation. An interpretation that looks likely from raw data can turn out to be dead wrong. A researcher can try out an interpretation, and it may look good, and then it may fall apart.
Science comes with built-in error correction. If it's a crap paper, either it will be ignored or it will be torn apart. If it's good, people will do other research, and see how consistent it is with the apparently good paper. This is going to work far better than journalists trying to make sense of emails and raw data.
The best thing to do is wait for the paper to reach some sort of final form, and dig from there.
"I don't remember it the same way" is not "you're a dirty lying weasel". People do indeed remember things differently. It's very likely that Franken had dealings with people that he doesn't remember. I can't remember everyone I've talked to or even touched over the past ten-year period. Franken's statements are perfectly consistent with being basically a good man who did a few bad things. You, on the other hand, have convicted him, and therefore have incentive to make up reasons why he isn't.
Meanwhile, I do know that you're misstating the photographic evidence, which you may if you wish interpret as me saying you're a malicious liar, since you don't seem to like to accept words at face value.
Who has accused Franken of raping teenagers? We agree, I suppose, in considering that forced kisses and stalking underage girls for sex are both wrong. I, however, don't see that they're equally wrong, so your false equivalency with Moore falls apart.
He allegedly had sex with young teenagers, which is rape. (He has been banned from at least one mall for being seen stalking teenage women.) This is bad. This is colloquially called pedophilia, although that is not its technical meaning in psychology. Calling him an apparently child rapist would be more accurate, I suppose, but I don't see that changes the negative connotations.
Also, I'm not going to call him a child rapist without proof, but I can look at the evidence myself and decide whether to use "apparently" or not. It seems to me that he's probably guilty.
A legally required open comment period should be paid attention to, which the FCC does not appear to be doing. The government agency isn't required to go with the majority of comments, but it should pay attention and address concerns.
I'm not all that familiar with the program, but I sure wouldn't be surprised. I know that there was at least some consideration at some time of getting pure Aryan children.
Same as your guess, I'd imagine. However, some companies are sanely run.
And, of course, you select for crazy when looking for news about people you don't like.
Nursing has flexible hours, but they aren't necessarily flexed by the nurse. I lost track of what was happening with a sister-in-law sometimes because I never knew when she'd be working and when she'd be sleeping. Teaching is also more work than it looks. Days are long, adding classroom time, preparation time, and grading time. Summers off are often taken up with additional study to keep one's license.
This is about social inequalities that have largely gone away. It's mostly of historic interest.
I have no idea what you would feel bad about. There are a lot of past and present injustices in the world that I had nothing to do with, and I don't feel bad about them. I do things to try to nudge towards remedying those injustices, but it's not my fault and I don't feel bad or guilty.
In the 60s, I went to a child psychologist for stuff that nowadays would be diagnosed as autism spectrum disorder. The psychologist told Mom to go back to working, that she wasn't going to be happy as a housewife and mother. That wasn't typical advice back then. (Mom did rather well by herself in her new career.)
Of course, on television, the part of the breast that's actually useful to a baby must not be shown.
Why bother with reasoning when ideology is easy?
One of the abstract platonic ideals is ease of transaction. If we're in the same place, I can just hand you a couple of twenties and we've had a $40 transaction within seconds at no cost, with no interference from other transactions. If you wanted to send me a couple hundred, and knew my email address, you could send it via Paypal. It's slower and has a small transaction fee, or bank transfer if you had my banking info, much faster and probably also with a fee.
Apparently, with Bitcoin, there are considerable delays in registering a transaction and a considerable cost per transaction. That makes it unsuited to be a currency. The idea behind Bitcoin means that Bitcoin can't possibly be transacted efficiently.
The volatility is another big problem, but that's not inherent to Bitcoin.
I'm young enough to have seen some silver certificates in my youth, along side the much more common federal reserve notes. The silver certificates spent exactly like federal reserve notes, and the money was just as useful with different printing on it.
If you want precious metals, there's plenty of dealers around, so you can still convert US dollars into silver and gold. It's just not automatically done by the government any more.
They didn't make safe profits. They bought in at a time when the value was going up. Nobody knows when the bubble will burst and Bitcoin value falls. Heck, nobody knows what the stable value will be. It could be quite low, as it's only worthwhile as a flaky method of payment and something to invest in.
In the US, if you acquire and hold bitcoins, there are no tax consequences. There are if you cash out, and spending the coins is functionally cashing out.