This is actually an economist thing. Pretty much every economists (the lefties and the righties) agree that we would be better off taxing things that we want less of (e.g. pollution) rather than things we want more of (e.g. work). If the tax money has to come from somewhere, changing behavior makes the most sense.
I am an economist. There is really very little difference between a tax and cap and trade. The tax is great if you know the cost of remediation or are pretty sure you know the price of the externality. But if you know your target quantity, then cap (at that target) and trade makes the most sense. The main difference is that in cap and trade you might issue permits instead of charging for them. Simple fix, cap and sell. You could even make it revenue neutral by using the revenue to cut the income tax.
Comcast always wants to increase my cost when I add TV. And they always get personal, "you don't have a TV? What do you do for fun?" me, "read books." or, "what is your favorite show?" me, "[any netflix original]." My favorite was the guy who, after we established that i didn't own a TV and refused to buy one still tried to sell me cable, "just in case."
If you want more than 16 GB on a laptop you're doing it wrong. When I have actual number crunching to do, 64 GB (as much as I've ever seen on a laptop) isn't going to cut it. Plus, laptops are compromised for heat dissipation. I just by a mac laptop every 10 years and put some money in a server that does any actual hard work. The >16 =32 GB crowd is a pretty thin market.
I do development and run large custom code all of the time. My Windows machine has 8 GB of memory and I rarely use it up. When I do I should be on a server anyways--laptops aren't really made to run dead out for hours on end. Plus, my servers have far more cores and memory that you're ever going to see in a laptop. Basically, if you want 32 GB in your laptop you're doing it wrong. Aside from my work stuff, I also have some servers at home. It's far less expensive than updating my laptop every few years.
Honest question, has there been improvements in anything but benchmark performance?
I run code that I write on one core only and it has always scaled directly with GHz only--none of the bells and whistles have ever moved that. And a 2006 computer has about the same GHz per core as a current machine.
A computer is more than four specs. You're missing out on the illuminated KB there, as well as the OLED screen. Also the case on the dell is a piece of junk. My macbook from 2009 is still in good shape. My PC laptops all die within a few years.
30% of the speed? Most everything I do scales with GHz alone (though the P4 broke that, those days are done). There hasn't been a speed boost for over 10 years now.
How is it "showing its age"? Point of reference, I'm on my way towards my second mac lasting 10 years before being replaced. In this way their TCO is way lower than my Windows PCs that last a few years before falling apart / suffering irreparable damage.
I doubt they are keeping him from doing more damage and I doubt they really want to be on the good side of Obama / Clinton. Ecuador goes out of it's way to stick it's thumb in the US's eye every chance it gets--there will be no return for this. Again, reference how it is unlikely to work. Add in how it adds to the mystique of Assange.
Slashdot Mirror
This is actually an economist thing. Pretty much every economists (the lefties and the righties) agree that we would be better off taxing things that we want less of (e.g. pollution) rather than things we want more of (e.g. work). If the tax money has to come from somewhere, changing behavior makes the most sense.
I am an economist. There is really very little difference between a tax and cap and trade. The tax is great if you know the cost of remediation or are pretty sure you know the price of the externality. But if you know your target quantity, then cap (at that target) and trade makes the most sense. The main difference is that in cap and trade you might issue permits instead of charging for them. Simple fix, cap and sell. You could even make it revenue neutral by using the revenue to cut the income tax.
Unless you have something called a model. They're wrong, but some are super useful. It's cool.
It was more for me to get Comcast with cable.
It's quartz, aka a rock.
asphalt shingles are a short term relationship.
Usually you can get last year's used for about 1/2 the cost. I can't imagine that much changes from year to year. Well, traffic updates do.
Comcast always wants to increase my cost when I add TV. And they always get personal, "you don't have a TV? What do you do for fun?" me, "read books." or, "what is your favorite show?" me, "[any netflix original]." My favorite was the guy who, after we established that i didn't own a TV and refused to buy one still tried to sell me cable, "just in case."
subscribers, only you can kill cable.
Makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
I know that e.g. Adobe has an automated multi-platform test system. But does that work for your case?
Why do you need a VM to act as a client?
I'm confused, isn't wikileaks pro-sharing? Isn't that all they do?
Everybody has their own needs, but my bet is that the 16-32 GB requirement crowd is pretty slim.
More durable? have you tried to break a unibody mac?
What is everyone running VMs for? When you do cross platform testing, can you possibly get enough VMs on a laptop?
If you want more than 16 GB on a laptop you're doing it wrong. When I have actual number crunching to do, 64 GB (as much as I've ever seen on a laptop) isn't going to cut it. Plus, laptops are compromised for heat dissipation. I just by a mac laptop every 10 years and put some money in a server that does any actual hard work. The >16 =32 GB crowd is a pretty thin market.
I do development and run large custom code all of the time. My Windows machine has 8 GB of memory and I rarely use it up. When I do I should be on a server anyways--laptops aren't really made to run dead out for hours on end. Plus, my servers have far more cores and memory that you're ever going to see in a laptop. Basically, if you want 32 GB in your laptop you're doing it wrong. Aside from my work stuff, I also have some servers at home. It's far less expensive than updating my laptop every few years.
Honest question, has there been improvements in anything but benchmark performance?
I run code that I write on one core only and it has always scaled directly with GHz only--none of the bells and whistles have ever moved that. And a 2006 computer has about the same GHz per core as a current machine.
Why are you virtualizing on a laptop? Why not use a server?
what are you doing that 16 GB isn't enough? Keep in mind it has an SSD so the swap isn't exactly slow.
A computer is more than four specs. You're missing out on the illuminated KB there, as well as the OLED screen. Also the case on the dell is a piece of junk. My macbook from 2009 is still in good shape. My PC laptops all die within a few years.
30% of the speed? Most everything I do scales with GHz alone (though the P4 broke that, those days are done). There hasn't been a speed boost for over 10 years now.
How is it "showing its age"? Point of reference, I'm on my way towards my second mac lasting 10 years before being replaced. In this way their TCO is way lower than my Windows PCs that last a few years before falling apart / suffering irreparable damage.
Trump has great consultants--you can see them on TV and they obviously write great scripts.
He just doesn't listen to them.
I doubt they are keeping him from doing more damage and I doubt they really want to be on the good side of Obama / Clinton. Ecuador goes out of it's way to stick it's thumb in the US's eye every chance it gets--there will be no return for this. Again, reference how it is unlikely to work. Add in how it adds to the mystique of Assange.