Yup, that's life, and people can't necessarily use their favorite OSes and are sometimes forced to use ones they dislike, and so it's not helpful to tell people not to use MS Windows.
If you don't use MS Windows, there's a whole lot of software you aren't going to be able to use. MS isn't issuing any more W7 licenses, and there's a finite amount left. Most individual people who have W7 have an EOM license, which may not be transferred to another computer, so they lose it when they replace their system. Lots of people pretty much have to run W10.
I may have missed something, but is there decent evidence that (a) Chrome spies on something and reports to Google, and (b) Edge and IE and Firefox and Opera don't spy and report to their mothership? Is there any reason for someone already using Windows 10 to worry about this?
Apple is not required to implement every patent on every device it makes where the patent might be applicable. People can patent things without figuring out how to make them economical, or even acceptable to customers.
The doctors doing their best to give me a slight chance at a life I don't want to live could be treating someone else. The ER bed I'm occupying could go to someone who's actually got a decent chance of recovery. "Their best" is always relative.
All health care providers have limits at which they will just give up on a patient. A system to specifically ask for a greater attempt to save one's life sounds reasonable to me.
Thing is, if you give up on consequentialist ethics, where do you get your ethics from, and why should I give a rat's ass what your ethics are? People who base their ethics on firm principles that don't account for consequences scare the heck out of me.
My thinking on the slight danger of doctors screwing up my care for my organs is that it isn't worth worrying about. I drive to work every day, and I don't worry about threats that are a lot less significant than that.
Inflation has nothing to do with real wages and prices or the distribution of goods, because at any specific time they're all measured in the same dollars. If the value of the dollar remained steady, wages would tend to go down as employees were less necessary for production.
The US has excellent health care for those with the group insurance or money to afford it. That's not the question. It's also really expensive. For the last year I could get figures for, the second most expensive health care system in the world was Switzerland's, at well over $3K per capita annually less expensive than the US system. For what we're paying, we should have our excellent level of health care for everyone, at less cost. There are countries besides the US and Cuba, and some of them have very high standards of living.
For those of you upset about the F-35 program cost, the per capita difference between the US health care system and Switzerland's would more than make up for that in two years.
It's good that the person you know with no money or insurance and the $1M health costs (which would probably be far less in any other country, including those with really good health care) got treated. That isn't universal. Many people go without health care or drugs they really need because they don't have the money or the insurance.
When I started in this business, software development was to a large extent automating the company's manual systems, keeping quirks and idiosyncrasies. There was very little general-purpose business software.
Fast forward more than forty years. Most businesses no longer have their own individual payroll systems, for example. Either they contract that function out or they buy canned software to run it. Instead of creating software to match the company's existing systems (which is bloody expensive nowadays), the company adapts its systems to the available software and services.
Companies do have to be unique in their core competencies or they're history, but they're willing to drop what makes them unique in everything else. Most companies don't have accounting as a core competency, and so they aren't going to insist on being unique there.
Yup. A relative of mine has an autistic child, and it took a long time to point out to her that her family was using a lot of government services because of that. Being a liberal, I thought helping said child become productive was an excellent use of my tax money, which is possibly why I was more realistic than my relative was.
First, some stuff will remain just as scarce as ever. Assuming I can demolish and rebuild my house and furnishings for $4.95, I still need the land to make this work, and automation will not crank out new land.
Second, if it's possible to live comfortably on $10/week, there's still the necessity of getting that $10. If I'm not employable, where do I get that kind of money?
Sure. If a rich person keeps lots of dollars around, for some reason, those dollars will be in a bank and therefore most will be usable in the economy. The BTC 1% are that way because they got BTC when they were cheap (in money or computrons) and sat on them. One big problem with a deflationary currency is that the holder can stuff the currency into a safe place where it will be unused and gain wealth, meaning that currency is driven out of circulation. These 1%ers generally have a decent income in dollars, and don't have any pressure to spend their BTC. These really are digital Scrooge McDuck vaults.
One possible reason for weeding science libraries more than others is that science books become obsolete. Take a decent novel from the mid-1800s: it's probably still readable and enjoyable. Take a decent science book from the 1850s: it's probably of historical interest only. Science books become obsolete much faster than other books.
When the big Barnes & Noble superstores opened, one of their attractions was that they had depth, not just blockbusters. Their sheer size meant that they could have a lot of different books.
While it's fairly easy to go through alleged news items and pick out many that are legitimate (if possibly mistaken) and many that are fake, it's not possible to classify all alleged news items. It's entirely possible for the MSM as a whole to unite in a claim that turns out to be false, and entirely possible for an individual or small organization to stumble on an overlooked significant truth.
So, I want to know what the criteria are and whether they'll lean to claiming that some legit news is fake or claiming that some fake news is legit.
The MSM is not Democrat-controlled, although there are good MSM sources that lean left. The journalists tend to be Democrats, but the owners tend to be Republicans. Fox News is certainly part of the MSM, and isn't Democrat-controlled.
There is evidence that the Russians did at least some of the hacking. The FBI has said they did, and has withheld much of the evidence (as law enforcement agencies tend to do with open cases).
You seem to argue that, even if foreign intervention cost Clinton the election, she lost the election, and therefore it's irrelevant. It seems to me that something that might have had an illegal significant effect on the election should be investigated. You also call Clinton a corrupt, lying, scumbag without much evidence, ignoring the fact that Trump is more corrupt, a much bigger liar, and more of a scumbag than the right-wing propaganda machine painted Clinton.
even to a liberal like me.
OK, that makes it very clear that you're dishonest.
Slashdot has published articles about Russian actions, like their Anschluss of the Crimea, shooting down the airliner, etc. There are normally several unfamiliar posters making lots of lame arguments in favor of Russia. It seems like an unlikely venue for this, but I believe there are some Russian shills here.
Clinton was against the TPP as it turned out, although she liked it in the early stages. She's a lot friendlier to free trade treaties than Trump, but she wouldn't automatically support any garbage as long as it included freer trade.
Comey didn't lie to give Clinton a pass. I don't remember him saying it was good or legal, just that no prosecutor would prosecute on that basis.
There is no evidence that Clinton deliberately mishandled classified material. Having looked at several cases of intentional and unintentional mishandling of classified material, it became clear that nobody gets criminally prosecuted for unintentional mishandling. There was one case of a guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but in the end he didn't have to. Most but not all people who intentionally mishandled it faced criminal charges.
This is not a statement of law. This is a statement of practice. Prosecuting Clinton criminally for untintentional mishandling of classified material would have been unprecedented.
There was no reason Comey shouldn't have looked at new data at any time. His duty was to keep his big mouth shut about it that close to the election. He should face charges for that.
C++ doesn't do a bitwise copy unless you specify one (memcpy() is still there if you want it). It copies primitives and calls copy constructors etc. on class members. This is usually what you want in the first place unless the class owns some external resource, in which case you need to decide how deep you want the copy to go. The compiler-generated copy assignment operator doesn't have to check for self-assignment, because it will get the right answer in either case. Trying to be too clever can cause trouble for self-assignment (much like the XOR trick for swapping), but most of the time checking for self-assignment is just an optimization.
The fact that C++ does things in a generally practically useful way may explain why it stays high in measures of programming language use.
It's been a long time since a language became widely used without a good generally available free implementation. Was Pascal the last widely used language that relied on people buying it?
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't say it would allow passengers to use those functions.
Yup, that's life, and people can't necessarily use their favorite OSes and are sometimes forced to use ones they dislike, and so it's not helpful to tell people not to use MS Windows.
That particular argument died with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. Federal income taxes were unconstitutional until then, but not now.
If you don't use MS Windows, there's a whole lot of software you aren't going to be able to use. MS isn't issuing any more W7 licenses, and there's a finite amount left. Most individual people who have W7 have an EOM license, which may not be transferred to another computer, so they lose it when they replace their system. Lots of people pretty much have to run W10.
I may have missed something, but is there decent evidence that (a) Chrome spies on something and reports to Google, and (b) Edge and IE and Firefox and Opera don't spy and report to their mothership? Is there any reason for someone already using Windows 10 to worry about this?
Apple is not required to implement every patent on every device it makes where the patent might be applicable. People can patent things without figuring out how to make them economical, or even acceptable to customers.
Does the patent say anything about detecting whether the driver is using the device?
The doctors doing their best to give me a slight chance at a life I don't want to live could be treating someone else. The ER bed I'm occupying could go to someone who's actually got a decent chance of recovery. "Their best" is always relative.
All health care providers have limits at which they will just give up on a patient. A system to specifically ask for a greater attempt to save one's life sounds reasonable to me.
Thing is, if you give up on consequentialist ethics, where do you get your ethics from, and why should I give a rat's ass what your ethics are? People who base their ethics on firm principles that don't account for consequences scare the heck out of me.
My thinking on the slight danger of doctors screwing up my care for my organs is that it isn't worth worrying about. I drive to work every day, and I don't worry about threats that are a lot less significant than that.
Inflation has nothing to do with real wages and prices or the distribution of goods, because at any specific time they're all measured in the same dollars. If the value of the dollar remained steady, wages would tend to go down as employees were less necessary for production.
The US has excellent health care for those with the group insurance or money to afford it. That's not the question. It's also really expensive. For the last year I could get figures for, the second most expensive health care system in the world was Switzerland's, at well over $3K per capita annually less expensive than the US system. For what we're paying, we should have our excellent level of health care for everyone, at less cost. There are countries besides the US and Cuba, and some of them have very high standards of living.
For those of you upset about the F-35 program cost, the per capita difference between the US health care system and Switzerland's would more than make up for that in two years.
It's good that the person you know with no money or insurance and the $1M health costs (which would probably be far less in any other country, including those with really good health care) got treated. That isn't universal. Many people go without health care or drugs they really need because they don't have the money or the insurance.
When I started in this business, software development was to a large extent automating the company's manual systems, keeping quirks and idiosyncrasies. There was very little general-purpose business software.
Fast forward more than forty years. Most businesses no longer have their own individual payroll systems, for example. Either they contract that function out or they buy canned software to run it. Instead of creating software to match the company's existing systems (which is bloody expensive nowadays), the company adapts its systems to the available software and services.
Companies do have to be unique in their core competencies or they're history, but they're willing to drop what makes them unique in everything else. Most companies don't have accounting as a core competency, and so they aren't going to insist on being unique there.
Yup. A relative of mine has an autistic child, and it took a long time to point out to her that her family was using a lot of government services because of that. Being a liberal, I thought helping said child become productive was an excellent use of my tax money, which is possibly why I was more realistic than my relative was.
First, some stuff will remain just as scarce as ever. Assuming I can demolish and rebuild my house and furnishings for $4.95, I still need the land to make this work, and automation will not crank out new land.
Second, if it's possible to live comfortably on $10/week, there's still the necessity of getting that $10. If I'm not employable, where do I get that kind of money?
Sure. If a rich person keeps lots of dollars around, for some reason, those dollars will be in a bank and therefore most will be usable in the economy. The BTC 1% are that way because they got BTC when they were cheap (in money or computrons) and sat on them. One big problem with a deflationary currency is that the holder can stuff the currency into a safe place where it will be unused and gain wealth, meaning that currency is driven out of circulation. These 1%ers generally have a decent income in dollars, and don't have any pressure to spend their BTC. These really are digital Scrooge McDuck vaults.
One possible reason for weeding science libraries more than others is that science books become obsolete. Take a decent novel from the mid-1800s: it's probably still readable and enjoyable. Take a decent science book from the 1850s: it's probably of historical interest only. Science books become obsolete much faster than other books.
When the big Barnes & Noble superstores opened, one of their attractions was that they had depth, not just blockbusters. Their sheer size meant that they could have a lot of different books.
While it's fairly easy to go through alleged news items and pick out many that are legitimate (if possibly mistaken) and many that are fake, it's not possible to classify all alleged news items. It's entirely possible for the MSM as a whole to unite in a claim that turns out to be false, and entirely possible for an individual or small organization to stumble on an overlooked significant truth.
So, I want to know what the criteria are and whether they'll lean to claiming that some legit news is fake or claiming that some fake news is legit.
The MSM is not Democrat-controlled, although there are good MSM sources that lean left. The journalists tend to be Democrats, but the owners tend to be Republicans. Fox News is certainly part of the MSM, and isn't Democrat-controlled.
There is evidence that the Russians did at least some of the hacking. The FBI has said they did, and has withheld much of the evidence (as law enforcement agencies tend to do with open cases).
You seem to argue that, even if foreign intervention cost Clinton the election, she lost the election, and therefore it's irrelevant. It seems to me that something that might have had an illegal significant effect on the election should be investigated. You also call Clinton a corrupt, lying, scumbag without much evidence, ignoring the fact that Trump is more corrupt, a much bigger liar, and more of a scumbag than the right-wing propaganda machine painted Clinton.
OK, that makes it very clear that you're dishonest.
Slashdot has published articles about Russian actions, like their Anschluss of the Crimea, shooting down the airliner, etc. There are normally several unfamiliar posters making lots of lame arguments in favor of Russia. It seems like an unlikely venue for this, but I believe there are some Russian shills here.
Clinton was against the TPP as it turned out, although she liked it in the early stages. She's a lot friendlier to free trade treaties than Trump, but she wouldn't automatically support any garbage as long as it included freer trade.
Comey didn't lie to give Clinton a pass. I don't remember him saying it was good or legal, just that no prosecutor would prosecute on that basis.
There is no evidence that Clinton deliberately mishandled classified material. Having looked at several cases of intentional and unintentional mishandling of classified material, it became clear that nobody gets criminally prosecuted for unintentional mishandling. There was one case of a guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but in the end he didn't have to. Most but not all people who intentionally mishandled it faced criminal charges.
This is not a statement of law. This is a statement of practice. Prosecuting Clinton criminally for untintentional mishandling of classified material would have been unprecedented.
There was no reason Comey shouldn't have looked at new data at any time. His duty was to keep his big mouth shut about it that close to the election. He should face charges for that.
C++ doesn't do a bitwise copy unless you specify one (memcpy() is still there if you want it). It copies primitives and calls copy constructors etc. on class members. This is usually what you want in the first place unless the class owns some external resource, in which case you need to decide how deep you want the copy to go. The compiler-generated copy assignment operator doesn't have to check for self-assignment, because it will get the right answer in either case. Trying to be too clever can cause trouble for self-assignment (much like the XOR trick for swapping), but most of the time checking for self-assignment is just an optimization.
The fact that C++ does things in a generally practically useful way may explain why it stays high in measures of programming language use.
It's been a long time since a language became widely used without a good generally available free implementation. Was Pascal the last widely used language that relied on people buying it?