They can't do that and keep support for developers. I've seen no sign that Apple wants to restrict desktops and laptops to a walled garden. They want to provide one, and they're better at it than Microsoft, but unless they want to remove development software entirely they can't go mandatory walled garden.
AFAICT, the changeover from MacOS to MacOSX was much more of a problem. The classic MacOS interface had a lot of cruft, including four different file managers, so they simplified it to Carbon, which was supported on OSX, but not for all that long. Going from Classic to Cocoa did require significant rewriting.
I live in a flyover state (Minnesota), in the Twin Cities metro area. We're not small-minded, we have a lot of diversity, and have local culture. The big divide is generally not coast vs. flyover, but urban vs. rural. Find a reasonably large metro area with decent tech industry and you'll feel pretty well at home.
In the US, fixed-rate mortgages are very common, although you can get variable-rate mortgages. The fixed-rate will always be higher than the variable-rate when you're doing the mortgage shopping, but it has the potential to go higher than the fixed-rate. We've got a 4.5% fixed-rate thirty-year mortgage, but I don't think we could get a 2% variable rate.
Actually, Infosys is starting to put in development centers around the country, where they will hire US citizens with decent pay and benefits. They're doing that specifically because they don't trust the old business model to keep working. One of the very few things I think Trump did right.
The problem with unseen invisible friends is that people describe them differently. If I ask different Christians about whether certain things are moral, I'm going to get a lot of different answers. If people with different religious backgrounds all agreed on what God wants us to do, it would be reasonable to consider it. As it is, the authorities are individuals and various institutions, who are not actually divine (at least, no more divine than I am)..
I'm willing to accept direction from humans for practical purposes. That's part of the realities of being human. As for evolving your own conscious higher self, there are ways to do that that don't involve accepting a potentially dubious moral code. In the meditation classes I've taken, a certain moral code has been suggested as a good idea, but it's presented as something we could consider.
Cults are the opposite of moral relativism. Cults tend to have strict moral rules covering lots of things. Moral relativism doesn't work unless the person in question is doing their own thinking, which is not something cults encourage. You can't zombify someone who insists on thinking independently about things.
Sentences should stand on their own reasonably well. In the case of that sentence, you supplied no context that would clarify its meaning as something other than the literal meaning. As a reader, I'm forced to the conclusion that you think going into grad school straight from the bachelor's doesn't develop an aim or a work ethic. If that's not what you think, please explain what you do think. We're willing to accept that you miswrote something. We all do that form time to time. However, you're doubling down on it and then saying you're misunderstood.
So, what do you think about going from undergrad studies directly to grad studies, like most people do? Given that the grad students develop work ethics (you need one to survive) and aims (you need one to ever get out of grad school with a degree), why do you think it's bad? I'm not saying that the standard practice can't be bad, but it is a bit of an extraordinary claim and does require support.
A highly intelligent person who had read, say, Childhood's End (also by Clarke) could go into the movie and not understand what was going on. If a movie needs a large amount of written material to get a clue about, it's something of a failure.
I was one of that very first generation of film goers. I didn't understand it.
The extreme slowness in much of the movie shut down my cerebral cortex fairly effectively. Remember the discussions on staying alert in self-driving cars? I couldn't stay alert when things took so long. The space flight visuals were great for the time, and Kubrick lingered on them too long.
I could have gone for a coherent meditation on humanity's place in the Universe. I've studied meditation, philosophy, and to some extent mysticism. I got nothing out of the end. I don't need a guitar solo, but finishing the symphony with random atonal music rather ruined the fourth movement.
Einstein is responsible for Special Relativity, not the mathematics of it. He made the mental leap so daring that it was controversial for decades afterwards, despite the evidence. Had Poincare realized what the math was telling him, it would have been Poincare's Theory of Relativity, and it isn't.
So, how do the scalar components account for galactic rotation, movement of galaxies in clusters, mass distribution in a galactic collision, the gravitational lensing observed in various places, the cosmic microwave background, or the fact that QM considerations say that there wasn't enough normal matter formed in the Big Bang to account for all the gravity?
Okay, let's see aether theory on galactic rotation curves, gravitational lensing, time flow like on GPS satellites, observed expansion of the Universe, etc. I assume it can explain all of those. If not, it hasn't contradicted an observation because it hasn't been tested.
Special and General Relativity have been very well tested over the years. Any replacement theory has to agree with them almost precisely over a very large range of conditions, much like relativity relates to Newtonian mechanics.
Dark Matter stopped being a fudge factor a long time ago. It explains a large number of different phenomena.
What I'm saying is that companies like Microsoft and Apple may be going downhill, but it's a long way, and it's reversible for a long time. Apple isn't doomed yet. Of course, as you say, if they don't notice customer's pain through that thick blanket of money, it can become irreversible.
Depends on how they're made uncomfortable. People who insist on pushing their somewhat misogynous views on others at the workplace, as Damore apparently did, are either deliberately or recklessly making women uncomfortable. That's a workplace problem. Obviously, there's going to be misunderstandings between men and women who are neither person's fault. There's also men who like harassing women while maintaining plausible deniability, and I'm not going to support them. (I appears to be mostly, not completely, one-way.)
Damore's firing was not because of his views. It was about his behavior.
US prisons aren't good either, and includes things like Sheriff Joe's tent cities.
The reason the Soviet Union killed more people than Nazi Germany was that they had longer. Nazi Germany, from my best estimates, murdered at about twice the rate. It was so toxic that we had to end it rather than the Soviet Union, as many people before WWII wanted to do.
Socialism is OK, as long as it's what you call social democracy. The definition of social democracy hasn't changed, but socialism now has it as an alternate meaning. You're reversing what's happening.
I'm a bit of a descriptivist linguist, as opposed to a liar. You're the prescriptivist, and deliberately misunderstanding people.
And I never said I was for actual socialism or communism, with the definitions you use. I'm for what you call social democracy. Any impression you have to the contrary is your misinterpretation.
The fact is that word usage changes, and you're pretending that it doesn't, and that anyone who uses "socialism" in the "social democracy" sense is advocating "socialism" in the 'needs economic inefficiencies and severe authoritarian rule" sense. Words matter, but their meanings change. If you're feeling happy and a bit frivolous, so you call yourself "gay"?
People do object to the word "socialism" all the time, regardless of what is meant by it. When someone proposes something on the social democratic lines, like government-paid college, lots of people call it socialism and say it's putting us on the slippery slope to the Soviet Union.
National Socialism was one of the most toxic ideologies ever. That's why it didn't rack up the megamurders to Soviet or Communist Chinese scales: we took Nazi Germany down fast and hard. Nazi Germany murdered at a much greater rate, but was stopped much earlier.
They've made changes. Not the best changes, and I don't know why.
Private letter delivery needs to be portioned out for much larger regions. Allowing companies to deliver letters only in counties with major cities leaves the taxpayers on the hook for most of the area of the country.
The Post Office does have drives for efficiency. They just can't do a lot about it. They don't need to be profitable, but they do want to stay afloat.
Of course not. He wanted to become President to feed his own ego. Having become President, he's favoring his own businesses and cutting his own taxes and attacking his personal enemies. Unfortunately for him, none of this is going to make him happy.
I do put myself in other's minds to the best of my ability. I can get some good insights that way.
As far as Trump supporters go, they lack such insight, or most of them would have realized that Trump would screw them over.
Really? I think having last-mile service that isn't tied to anything more is an excellent idea. It favors net neutrality, since we can have multiple ISPs. Given enough competition, we don't need regulation. It's only the lack of such service that forces us to push for Net Neutrality.
The referendum did absolutely nothing to the relationship between the UK and the EU. It didn't invoke Article 50. The UK government had the power to do that, nobody else. The government could have ignored the referendum, and there were good reasons to, but didn't. Were I you, I'd refrain from complaining about other people's bad arguments.
Divorces have consequences. The stuff gets split up. Some friends may find it awkward to remain friends with both parties. Neither side is likely to get everything they want. Now, I'm getting benefits from my wife's employment. If we were to divorce, I'd lose those benefits. It wouldn't be a matter of dominance, it would be how the rules were written.
It also seems odd that the EU would be considered totally dominant of a country that didn't even use the euro.
Slashdot Mirror
They can't do that and keep support for developers. I've seen no sign that Apple wants to restrict desktops and laptops to a walled garden. They want to provide one, and they're better at it than Microsoft, but unless they want to remove development software entirely they can't go mandatory walled garden.
AFAICT, the changeover from MacOS to MacOSX was much more of a problem. The classic MacOS interface had a lot of cruft, including four different file managers, so they simplified it to Carbon, which was supported on OSX, but not for all that long. Going from Classic to Cocoa did require significant rewriting.
Does this place have a website? You can get "adult" content on Mobile Safari. I've checked.
I live in a flyover state (Minnesota), in the Twin Cities metro area. We're not small-minded, we have a lot of diversity, and have local culture. The big divide is generally not coast vs. flyover, but urban vs. rural. Find a reasonably large metro area with decent tech industry and you'll feel pretty well at home.
In the US, fixed-rate mortgages are very common, although you can get variable-rate mortgages. The fixed-rate will always be higher than the variable-rate when you're doing the mortgage shopping, but it has the potential to go higher than the fixed-rate. We've got a 4.5% fixed-rate thirty-year mortgage, but I don't think we could get a 2% variable rate.
Actually, Infosys is starting to put in development centers around the country, where they will hire US citizens with decent pay and benefits. They're doing that specifically because they don't trust the old business model to keep working. One of the very few things I think Trump did right.
The problem with unseen invisible friends is that people describe them differently. If I ask different Christians about whether certain things are moral, I'm going to get a lot of different answers. If people with different religious backgrounds all agreed on what God wants us to do, it would be reasonable to consider it. As it is, the authorities are individuals and various institutions, who are not actually divine (at least, no more divine than I am)..
I'm willing to accept direction from humans for practical purposes. That's part of the realities of being human. As for evolving your own conscious higher self, there are ways to do that that don't involve accepting a potentially dubious moral code. In the meditation classes I've taken, a certain moral code has been suggested as a good idea, but it's presented as something we could consider.
Cults are the opposite of moral relativism. Cults tend to have strict moral rules covering lots of things. Moral relativism doesn't work unless the person in question is doing their own thinking, which is not something cults encourage. You can't zombify someone who insists on thinking independently about things.
Sentences should stand on their own reasonably well. In the case of that sentence, you supplied no context that would clarify its meaning as something other than the literal meaning. As a reader, I'm forced to the conclusion that you think going into grad school straight from the bachelor's doesn't develop an aim or a work ethic. If that's not what you think, please explain what you do think. We're willing to accept that you miswrote something. We all do that form time to time. However, you're doubling down on it and then saying you're misunderstood.
So, what do you think about going from undergrad studies directly to grad studies, like most people do? Given that the grad students develop work ethics (you need one to survive) and aims (you need one to ever get out of grad school with a degree), why do you think it's bad? I'm not saying that the standard practice can't be bad, but it is a bit of an extraordinary claim and does require support.
Right. And that's the problem.
A highly intelligent person who had read, say, Childhood's End (also by Clarke) could go into the movie and not understand what was going on. If a movie needs a large amount of written material to get a clue about, it's something of a failure.
I was one of that very first generation of film goers. I didn't understand it.
The extreme slowness in much of the movie shut down my cerebral cortex fairly effectively. Remember the discussions on staying alert in self-driving cars? I couldn't stay alert when things took so long. The space flight visuals were great for the time, and Kubrick lingered on them too long.
What I mostly remember about 2010 was the guy leaning on the console to position a pencil in mid-air. Microgravity fail!
I could have gone for a coherent meditation on humanity's place in the Universe. I've studied meditation, philosophy, and to some extent mysticism. I got nothing out of the end. I don't need a guitar solo, but finishing the symphony with random atonal music rather ruined the fourth movement.
Einstein is responsible for Special Relativity, not the mathematics of it. He made the mental leap so daring that it was controversial for decades afterwards, despite the evidence. Had Poincare realized what the math was telling him, it would have been Poincare's Theory of Relativity, and it isn't.
So, how do the scalar components account for galactic rotation, movement of galaxies in clusters, mass distribution in a galactic collision, the gravitational lensing observed in various places, the cosmic microwave background, or the fact that QM considerations say that there wasn't enough normal matter formed in the Big Bang to account for all the gravity?
Okay, let's see aether theory on galactic rotation curves, gravitational lensing, time flow like on GPS satellites, observed expansion of the Universe, etc. I assume it can explain all of those. If not, it hasn't contradicted an observation because it hasn't been tested.
Special and General Relativity have been very well tested over the years. Any replacement theory has to agree with them almost precisely over a very large range of conditions, much like relativity relates to Newtonian mechanics.
Dark Matter stopped being a fudge factor a long time ago. It explains a large number of different phenomena.
What I'm saying is that companies like Microsoft and Apple may be going downhill, but it's a long way, and it's reversible for a long time. Apple isn't doomed yet. Of course, as you say, if they don't notice customer's pain through that thick blanket of money, it can become irreversible.
Depends on how they're made uncomfortable. People who insist on pushing their somewhat misogynous views on others at the workplace, as Damore apparently did, are either deliberately or recklessly making women uncomfortable. That's a workplace problem. Obviously, there's going to be misunderstandings between men and women who are neither person's fault. There's also men who like harassing women while maintaining plausible deniability, and I'm not going to support them. (I appears to be mostly, not completely, one-way.)
Damore's firing was not because of his views. It was about his behavior.
US prisons aren't good either, and includes things like Sheriff Joe's tent cities.
The reason the Soviet Union killed more people than Nazi Germany was that they had longer. Nazi Germany, from my best estimates, murdered at about twice the rate. It was so toxic that we had to end it rather than the Soviet Union, as many people before WWII wanted to do.
Socialism is OK, as long as it's what you call social democracy. The definition of social democracy hasn't changed, but socialism now has it as an alternate meaning. You're reversing what's happening.
I'm a bit of a descriptivist linguist, as opposed to a liar. You're the prescriptivist, and deliberately misunderstanding people.
And I never said I was for actual socialism or communism, with the definitions you use. I'm for what you call social democracy. Any impression you have to the contrary is your misinterpretation.
The fact is that word usage changes, and you're pretending that it doesn't, and that anyone who uses "socialism" in the "social democracy" sense is advocating "socialism" in the 'needs economic inefficiencies and severe authoritarian rule" sense. Words matter, but their meanings change. If you're feeling happy and a bit frivolous, so you call yourself "gay"?
People do object to the word "socialism" all the time, regardless of what is meant by it. When someone proposes something on the social democratic lines, like government-paid college, lots of people call it socialism and say it's putting us on the slippery slope to the Soviet Union.
National Socialism was one of the most toxic ideologies ever. That's why it didn't rack up the megamurders to Soviet or Communist Chinese scales: we took Nazi Germany down fast and hard. Nazi Germany murdered at a much greater rate, but was stopped much earlier.
I'd be real interested in finding out how you got your conclusion by reading what I wrote.,
They've made changes. Not the best changes, and I don't know why.
Private letter delivery needs to be portioned out for much larger regions. Allowing companies to deliver letters only in counties with major cities leaves the taxpayers on the hook for most of the area of the country.
The Post Office does have drives for efficiency. They just can't do a lot about it. They don't need to be profitable, but they do want to stay afloat.
Of course not. He wanted to become President to feed his own ego. Having become President, he's favoring his own businesses and cutting his own taxes and attacking his personal enemies. Unfortunately for him, none of this is going to make him happy.
I do put myself in other's minds to the best of my ability. I can get some good insights that way.
As far as Trump supporters go, they lack such insight, or most of them would have realized that Trump would screw them over.
Really? I think having last-mile service that isn't tied to anything more is an excellent idea. It favors net neutrality, since we can have multiple ISPs. Given enough competition, we don't need regulation. It's only the lack of such service that forces us to push for Net Neutrality.
The referendum did absolutely nothing to the relationship between the UK and the EU. It didn't invoke Article 50. The UK government had the power to do that, nobody else. The government could have ignored the referendum, and there were good reasons to, but didn't. Were I you, I'd refrain from complaining about other people's bad arguments.
Divorces have consequences. The stuff gets split up. Some friends may find it awkward to remain friends with both parties. Neither side is likely to get everything they want. Now, I'm getting benefits from my wife's employment. If we were to divorce, I'd lose those benefits. It wouldn't be a matter of dominance, it would be how the rules were written.
It also seems odd that the EU would be considered totally dominant of a country that didn't even use the euro.