The four year old model is the only one with a CD/DVD drive, FireWire, or Ethernet. If you need those archaic technologies, you get the archaic model, kept around just for you.
The rest of the line has had updates to CPU, storage, wireless, screen, etc. since then. Some several times.
Not to mention that the 4 year old model is a legacy model - the only Mac laptop with FireWire, a CD/DVD drive, and an Ethernet port. (As well as a non-Retina screen.) It fills a very specific niche in the Mac market.
Most of the rest of the Mac lineup is closer to a year old. Intel's bobble of the last processor refresh definitely affected Macs - the chips that would likely to be used for most Mac models were delayed (some long enough that Apple has obviously decided to wait for the next generation) or not released at all - and if you're tracking Mac refreshes thinking when's a good time to buy now isn't it, but the only 'seriously old' models are the one Macbook, the Mac Mini, and the Mac Pro. The MacBook is a legacy model kept for specific uses because it doesn't cost them much to keep it in the lineup, and the Mini and Pro are niche models that were scheduled for longer-cycle refresh when Intel bobbled their processors.
I'd argue that that one line is incorrect. TSA's job isn't to make airline passengers feel safer. It's to make them feel like they should feel unsafe except for the fact that the TSA is there.
That is: Their job is to make you think that you need them to do their job, and that without them you would be killed.
BBEdit on Mac (my normal computing platform), in Markdown format. (Usually Pandoc-flavored markdown.) That's if I want the notes to last more than five minutes.
Under five minute notes are often on paper, using either pen or pencil. (Mechanical pencil preferred, but pen's easier to find.)
On other platforms I'll take whatever is the best text editor I can find commonly available - vi or some derivative on most Unix/Linux boxes.
So? They have two industries that are hurting. They can help both with a fairly simple plan. Now, it may be better to send the electricity to a nearby country or something instead of transferring it internally - I don't know who could use it most, or what's most cost-effective - but it seems like a sensible plan either way.
How about they build a massive copper cable to the other regions of the country that don't have as good an electricity source. Then they get to recoup their costs on building the solar plants, and they get to run those copper mines.
There's also the general statistic that women are paid less for the same job on average, no matter the field. So, if you add more women to the field, the average pay for the field decreases because people pay the women less. So this could be just be a methodology problem.
(Well, and the general problem of why the heck we value the work less if it's done by a woman. But that then isn't an issue with the field's gender balance, it's an issue with how we compensate people across all fields.)
You don't need it to be delivered all that quickly, but you do need it to happen within some timeframe. (Important would be that you need to break orbit around the Earth and achieve your orbit to Mars within the same orbit around Earth, or you'll end up having to sped a whole lot more delta-v for the transfer. You can raise the orbit around Earth with a few different burns, so to minimize the delta-v needed for that final burn, but that burn is critical.) If you want to send a ship with a decent mass - like that you need for a manned mission, with habitation space and life support - than you need to have enough thrust to do so.
You typically want the highest ISP with enough thrust to do the job. The middle-ground engines can be useful sometimes then, for places where you need more thrust, but don't need the full lifting thrust of chemical rockets. We haven't done much in that space, as robotic probes can be an order of magnitude or more less massive, and therefore the VASIMR engines and other extremely-high ISPs can give enough thrust.
It's basically been a 'we know it's bad, so we do everything we can to prevent it' type of thing. They're getting to the point where they can afford to risk a craft to see exactly how bad.
Some small scale experiments have been done in the past, of course. And one or two 'uncontrolled experiments' as well...
Because we know generally what types of failures humans have, and can design our tests around what types of competence we know will be required. Autonomous vehicles are a new situation, and have new failure or competence modes. Until we understand those modes, we can't understand what we need to test for correctly.
By letting them on the road with human drivers as overrides, we are limiting the worst-case modes, and allow for more real-world tests is a larger variety of situations so we can understand those modes.
PSTs have a history of getting corrupted and having you lose everything in them - and also have some issues with going to large numbers of files per PST. But it's a solution.
However, it's more complicated than dumping into an IMAP folder for the original requester (as everything would have to be imported into Outlook), and it costs more.
But this isn't particularly clunky or hard to understand - set up a IMAP mail server (like any other, using common and well-documented tools) and transfer the mail to it. (Using the tools of whatever mail service they are in at the moment.) Done. Now you can access it with just about any email program out there - including Outlook, if you so desire.
Sounds like it might be good, if you run Windows. Another option is just to set up a home IMAP server that you can dump into - Dovecot handles large volumes of mail quite effectively, for instance. The mails would get stored in Maildir folders, so you can migrate or hand search if you need to as well.
The only downside is finding an IMAP client that will let you work with it without trying to make a local copy the moment you connect. (Mulberry is good, but hasn't been updated in ages. Or you can set up a webmail client on the 'server' box.)
I'd argue that the 'punctuation gone awry' view of Perl is largely because it was one of the first languages to fully embed regular expressions. While it has a fair number of different punctuation operators on it's own, nearly all are shared by other languages, and most of the rest are because the syntax has to differentiate between different types of variable operations, where more statically typed languages can let the types determine that.
I actually don't see a point in going to any place at all - going down into a gravity well just makes things more expensive, really. The only real argument for anything beyond pure-space habitats (work them close, get them mobile, then take them out to explore...) is that saying 'we're building a colony on X' is an easier way to raise money, in my opinion.
I loved that line. It shows the problem in a nutshell: They compared ad blockers to stealing, and then gave two examples of things a large portion of the public isn't convinced is stealing.
So, yes, it's exactly like it. It's something you need to convince us is stealing, if you want us to act in the way you want us to. In fact, just like in those two cases, your best solution is to change your own actions to help us get what we want, so we can accept your solution.
I currently run adblockers solely because without them my computer was painfully slow to browse the web. The difference in many pages cases for me was in the order of a minute or more per page. Fix that problem, and I might reconsider. (Might. Because, after all, at this point the easiest thing to do is to leave the adblocker on...)
But they (the college) was the one providing most of the grants. So, basically, instead of paying themselves to have students come, they are lowering the price upfront and saving some paperwork.
Or at least are more likely to influence businesses to trade with Germany, either by starting one themselves or by going to work at a big business and having the contacts needed to form the trade.
I used cats as an example because the comment I was replying to and the article I linked to both use cats as a primary example. However, it's only a primary example, and the article does go into a fair amount of detail on why many of the some effects are found in dogs. Please read it to have your questions answered.
You are very wrong. The first cloned cat wasn't even the same official color as their genetic parent - and the researchers considered their personality differences even more pronounced, largely due to how they were raised.
How cats are raised and treated makes a very big difference in their behavior. Even such things as where they were in the womb makes a big difference.
And an identical twin isn't genetically different - that's why you clarify identical vs. fraternal twin. They are very different - both in humans and in animals - but genetically if they aren't the same they aren't an identical twin.
There is a research exception. So doing it to see how it works (which has been done...) or to improve techniques is allowed.
What this law really is preventing is another situation like the collapse of the banana production in the 1950's: Bananas are seedless, so are grown from cuttings - essentially clones of single plant. In the 50's, there was a disease that spread that the then-popular type of banana was very susceptible to, which almost wiped out the entire industry. The industry switched to a different variety, but it's still just a vegetative clone, ready to be hit by one disease and wiped out again. Imagine that happening to chickens or cows, wiping out their respective industries, even for a year or two. It would be chaos.
Most people also have a crazy/wrong idea about what cloning is. It's not going to give you a carbon copy of your pet, all it gives you is an identical twin. I also seem to recall hearing that with some animals a twin won't even look the same due to things like color pattern being influenced by its time in the womb, but I could be completely off in left field with that. Regardless, you're just getting another pet with the same DNA makeup.
You're not off in left field. A cat may not even be the same color, technically. (The first cat cloned was a calico - it's clone was grey and white, no orange; orange is randomly activated during fetal development, and in the clone never activated, by chance.) I don't know if it'll go to that extreme in dogs, but again anything that's not a solid color tends to have color patches randomly distributed during development, so clones won't have the same pattern of colors unless the breed is single-color.
Personality is even more changeable - again the example of the first cloned cat: She was much more friendly to people she didn't know than her clone-mother was. (Probably due to being handled a lot more as a very young kitten.)
Exactly how many people do you think you could scam out of a few thousand dollars by cloning their cat or dog before they realized that? That's your purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
The four year old model is the only one with a CD/DVD drive, FireWire, or Ethernet. If you need those archaic technologies, you get the archaic model, kept around just for you.
The rest of the line has had updates to CPU, storage, wireless, screen, etc. since then. Some several times.
Not to mention that the 4 year old model is a legacy model - the only Mac laptop with FireWire, a CD/DVD drive, and an Ethernet port. (As well as a non-Retina screen.) It fills a very specific niche in the Mac market.
Most of the rest of the Mac lineup is closer to a year old. Intel's bobble of the last processor refresh definitely affected Macs - the chips that would likely to be used for most Mac models were delayed (some long enough that Apple has obviously decided to wait for the next generation) or not released at all - and if you're tracking Mac refreshes thinking when's a good time to buy now isn't it, but the only 'seriously old' models are the one Macbook, the Mac Mini, and the Mac Pro. The MacBook is a legacy model kept for specific uses because it doesn't cost them much to keep it in the lineup, and the Mini and Pro are niche models that were scheduled for longer-cycle refresh when Intel bobbled their processors.
I'd argue that that one line is incorrect. TSA's job isn't to make airline passengers feel safer. It's to make them feel like they should feel unsafe except for the fact that the TSA is there.
That is: Their job is to make you think that you need them to do their job, and that without them you would be killed.
BBEdit on Mac (my normal computing platform), in Markdown format. (Usually Pandoc-flavored markdown.) That's if I want the notes to last more than five minutes.
Under five minute notes are often on paper, using either pen or pencil. (Mechanical pencil preferred, but pen's easier to find.)
On other platforms I'll take whatever is the best text editor I can find commonly available - vi or some derivative on most Unix/Linux boxes.
So? They have two industries that are hurting. They can help both with a fairly simple plan. Now, it may be better to send the electricity to a nearby country or something instead of transferring it internally - I don't know who could use it most, or what's most cost-effective - but it seems like a sensible plan either way.
How about they build a massive copper cable to the other regions of the country that don't have as good an electricity source. Then they get to recoup their costs on building the solar plants, and they get to run those copper mines.
There's also the general statistic that women are paid less for the same job on average, no matter the field. So, if you add more women to the field, the average pay for the field decreases because people pay the women less. So this could be just be a methodology problem.
(Well, and the general problem of why the heck we value the work less if it's done by a woman. But that then isn't an issue with the field's gender balance, it's an issue with how we compensate people across all fields.)
You don't need it to be delivered all that quickly, but you do need it to happen within some timeframe. (Important would be that you need to break orbit around the Earth and achieve your orbit to Mars within the same orbit around Earth, or you'll end up having to sped a whole lot more delta-v for the transfer. You can raise the orbit around Earth with a few different burns, so to minimize the delta-v needed for that final burn, but that burn is critical.) If you want to send a ship with a decent mass - like that you need for a manned mission, with habitation space and life support - than you need to have enough thrust to do so.
You typically want the highest ISP with enough thrust to do the job. The middle-ground engines can be useful sometimes then, for places where you need more thrust, but don't need the full lifting thrust of chemical rockets. We haven't done much in that space, as robotic probes can be an order of magnitude or more less massive, and therefore the VASIMR engines and other extremely-high ISPs can give enough thrust.
It's basically been a 'we know it's bad, so we do everything we can to prevent it' type of thing. They're getting to the point where they can afford to risk a craft to see exactly how bad.
Some small scale experiments have been done in the past, of course. And one or two 'uncontrolled experiments' as well...
Because we know generally what types of failures humans have, and can design our tests around what types of competence we know will be required. Autonomous vehicles are a new situation, and have new failure or competence modes. Until we understand those modes, we can't understand what we need to test for correctly.
By letting them on the road with human drivers as overrides, we are limiting the worst-case modes, and allow for more real-world tests is a larger variety of situations so we can understand those modes.
PSTs have a history of getting corrupted and having you lose everything in them - and also have some issues with going to large numbers of files per PST. But it's a solution.
However, it's more complicated than dumping into an IMAP folder for the original requester (as everything would have to be imported into Outlook), and it costs more.
But this isn't particularly clunky or hard to understand - set up a IMAP mail server (like any other, using common and well-documented tools) and transfer the mail to it. (Using the tools of whatever mail service they are in at the moment.) Done. Now you can access it with just about any email program out there - including Outlook, if you so desire.
Sounds like it might be good, if you run Windows. Another option is just to set up a home IMAP server that you can dump into - Dovecot handles large volumes of mail quite effectively, for instance. The mails would get stored in Maildir folders, so you can migrate or hand search if you need to as well.
The only downside is finding an IMAP client that will let you work with it without trying to make a local copy the moment you connect. (Mulberry is good, but hasn't been updated in ages. Or you can set up a webmail client on the 'server' box.)
Except that they can only advertise the numbers the government gets - which would mean it's from that test.
Unless they have a different test for MPG. Then it's the numbers from that test. Either way, it's not the numbers from outside the lab.
I'd argue that the 'punctuation gone awry' view of Perl is largely because it was one of the first languages to fully embed regular expressions. While it has a fair number of different punctuation operators on it's own, nearly all are shared by other languages, and most of the rest are because the syntax has to differentiate between different types of variable operations, where more statically typed languages can let the types determine that.
I actually don't see a point in going to any place at all - going down into a gravity well just makes things more expensive, really. The only real argument for anything beyond pure-space habitats (work them close, get them mobile, then take them out to explore...) is that saying 'we're building a colony on X' is an easier way to raise money, in my opinion.
I loved that line. It shows the problem in a nutshell: They compared ad blockers to stealing, and then gave two examples of things a large portion of the public isn't convinced is stealing.
So, yes, it's exactly like it. It's something you need to convince us is stealing, if you want us to act in the way you want us to. In fact, just like in those two cases, your best solution is to change your own actions to help us get what we want, so we can accept your solution.
I currently run adblockers solely because without them my computer was painfully slow to browse the web. The difference in many pages cases for me was in the order of a minute or more per page. Fix that problem, and I might reconsider. (Might. Because, after all, at this point the easiest thing to do is to leave the adblocker on...)
But they (the college) was the one providing most of the grants. So, basically, instead of paying themselves to have students come, they are lowering the price upfront and saving some paperwork.
Or at least are more likely to influence businesses to trade with Germany, either by starting one themselves or by going to work at a big business and having the contacts needed to form the trade.
And it appears to be working, so far.
I used cats as an example because the comment I was replying to and the article I linked to both use cats as a primary example. However, it's only a primary example, and the article does go into a fair amount of detail on why many of the some effects are found in dogs. Please read it to have your questions answered.
You are very wrong. The first cloned cat wasn't even the same official color as their genetic parent - and the researchers considered their personality differences even more pronounced, largely due to how they were raised.
How cats are raised and treated makes a very big difference in their behavior. Even such things as where they were in the womb makes a big difference.
And an identical twin isn't genetically different - that's why you clarify identical vs. fraternal twin. They are very different - both in humans and in animals - but genetically if they aren't the same they aren't an identical twin.
There is a research exception. So doing it to see how it works (which has been done...) or to improve techniques is allowed.
What this law really is preventing is another situation like the collapse of the banana production in the 1950's: Bananas are seedless, so are grown from cuttings - essentially clones of single plant. In the 50's, there was a disease that spread that the then-popular type of banana was very susceptible to, which almost wiped out the entire industry. The industry switched to a different variety, but it's still just a vegetative clone, ready to be hit by one disease and wiped out again. Imagine that happening to chickens or cows, wiping out their respective industries, even for a year or two. It would be chaos.
Most people also have a crazy/wrong idea about what cloning is. It's not going to give you a carbon copy of your pet, all it gives you is an identical twin. I also seem to recall hearing that with some animals a twin won't even look the same due to things like color pattern being influenced by its time in the womb, but I could be completely off in left field with that. Regardless, you're just getting another pet with the same DNA makeup.
You're not off in left field. A cat may not even be the same color, technically. (The first cat cloned was a calico - it's clone was grey and white, no orange; orange is randomly activated during fetal development, and in the clone never activated, by chance.) I don't know if it'll go to that extreme in dogs, but again anything that's not a solid color tends to have color patches randomly distributed during development, so clones won't have the same pattern of colors unless the breed is single-color.
Personality is even more changeable - again the example of the first cloned cat: She was much more friendly to people she didn't know than her clone-mother was. (Probably due to being handled a lot more as a very young kitten.)
Exactly how many people do you think you could scam out of a few thousand dollars by cloning their cat or dog before they realized that? That's your purpose.
Because the FBI will argue that's not the contents of the messages - it is something else. So Apple would be resisting the court order anyway.
In fact, Apple may well be doing that, and this is how it's being reported.
By that standard, this post is is in code. English code.