I'm pretty sure he's suggesting that the guy who already bought a Mac, of his own volition, despite knowing his Linux requirements, could just install a VM. That's quite different to saying "You should buy a Mac because you can run Linux in a VM".
Storage infrastructure for wind power is a much bigger issue than your post would imply - it's good for supplementing the grid, as it's used now, but if you're replacing whole nuclear plants with wind then the only practical storage system is to pump water up into reservoirs, which basically means you need to build an entire hydroelectric plant alongside your wind farm.
There's also the fact that wind turbines don't kick out that much power - to replace a 2GW nuclear plant, you'll need about 1000 of the most powerful turbines money can buy; fulfilling an order like that is a much bigger undertaking than just throwing a few out of the factory and into a field somewhere, even without factoring the aforementioned storage system.
Firstly, with regard to your initial post, I think most of us assumed the OP meant that his wife didn't like OSX, not that she had any particularly strong feelings on the hardware - this seems to be supported by the fact that he says she "wants a Windows machine", rather than commenting on any particular deficiency of the device itself.
Care to point out where I actually said that they need to be manipulated.
You didn't say it explicitly, but planning for conflict and specifically choosing your actions to pre-emptively avoid the blame you assume will be coming your way is pretty much the dictionary definition of manipulation: "to negotiate, control, or influence (something or someone) cleverly, skilfully, or deviously". Your post advocates a particular course of action specifically because you think it will influence a person's disposition towards you.
Secondly women are not logical creatures, if you've ever dated one you'd know this.
Again, you seem to be treating life (and more specifically, relationships) as an adversarial encounter. The implicit "us and them" in your language suggests the classification of people into two different but internally homogeneous groups, and to me, at least, that lies somewhere between patronising and confrontational.
Two finger tap to right click - OSX makes just as much use of context menus as Windows does, so it's not like they left the feature out of the hardware.
Indeed, except that all the rest of us have to pick up the tab if you make *no* effort to plan ahead. I know which route I favour you taking...
So if someone is responsible, makes sacrifices, and saves, they are rewarded by having to subsidise those who didn't bother to plan ahead. If, on the other hand, they blow all their money on blackjack and hookers, their retirement is then subsidised by those who still have some money.
Sounds like a system that encourages you to take the trip to Vegas while you're young enough to appreciate it, as far as I can see...
The odd thing is, we have a reason to expect Google to track us - collecting and sorting information is their business model, after all. This, on the other hand, is straight out of left field; how does it benefit the phone companies to spend time, money and storage space tracking the whereabouts of individual customers? At best, I can only imagine aggregate data being useful for planning new cell tower sites.
Data rate isn't everything, remember - you can get better results from an identical drive on a Firewire 400 interface compared to USB2, even though the former is 80Mbps 'slower', thanks to the reduced overhead. I hope the point is moot, since both USB3 and Thunderbolt are modern standards with plenty of headroom - if they're hitting overhead issues at the speed of current hard drives, there's probably a problem - but there's still some possibility that one will outperform the other in real world tests despite running far below the maximum transfer speed of either.
I see it as reasonable to copy some of the common features that people think of when you say 'money', and I think that the fact that he didn't emulate the designs, sizes or weights of existing coins, as well as the fact that his company clearly and publicly stated "[t]he Liberty Dollar never has claimed to be, does not claim to be, is not, and does not purport to be, legal tender.", goes a good distance towards refuting allegations of counterfeiting, in my opinion.
That's really only half the issue, though - if it'd been a simple counterfeiting charge, and the court argued the technicalities to claim that the Liberty Dollar shares too many design features with the US dollar, I'd still be on his side, but I'd understand the government's angle. That's not what happened here: they threw the book at him, declared him a terrorist, and charged him with conspiracy against the US - that seems entirely untrue (the law considers intent, remember), a vast overreaction, and an almost childish gesture of panic from the government, who apparently decided to make an example of him. If anything, all they've done is lower my opinion of them still further, by showing how threatened they felt by a relatively small company (and showing malicious lengths they'll go to to stop him and destroy his reputation). That's what I have a much, much greater problem with.
He was intentionally trying to pass his currency off as Federally-backed and issued tender.
[citation needed]. As far as I can see, the guy went out of his way to say they were not legal tender.
In any case, it seems far more honest than most of the rather dubious dealings which go on in the financial sector, but what's truly amazing is the language used in the case: "a unique form of domestic terrorism", "conspiracy against the United States", "organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government". What the fuck? Whether or not you agree with his right to sell pretty silver coins, there's no way in hell it was a terrorist conspiracy against the government.
Any idea if that was the original image used, or if they changed it after people started laughing at them? The whole 'flying saucer' thing in the text seems like an odd way to put things if they were just talking about a normal drone.
I just did exactly that search - it's used as the cover art on what appears to be a low budget straight-to-DVD documentary from 2008, but I very much doubt that's the original.
...the readers give me a headache if I try to read for too long...
Have you had a chance to try an e-ink device? I understand the price may not be attractive for a single purpose device, and that's a fine point, but I'd be very surprised if they affect you any differently than paper. The image is absolutely static and not backlit, so shouldn't be any different on the eyes; admittedly they tend to be somewhat lower DPI than normal printing, but I can't see that causing a headache.
Absolutely, and for someone new to writing and/or short of capital, the only reasonable way to afford editing, marketing, and so forth is to go with a publisher; thing is, the author is then beholden to the publisher - it's a very old fashioned, paternalistic relationship. Not to mention the fact (brought in to evidence here) that they take a bloody substantial cut of the sales.
If the author has some cash behind them already, and an established 'brand', then paying for an editor and a PR firm up front may well be far easier, more pleasant, and more profitable in the long run, than signing their creation away to someone else. The publisher is just a middle man, working between the retailers, the editors, the printers & distributors, and the author - not to say that a middle man with knowledge and experience doesn't provide value, but they need to learn that they are employed by the author to provide a service, and not a patron to which the author is beholden. Of course, the fact that publishers traditionally act as initial 'investors' in the process muddies the waters a bit, but as I said, that only applies in the case that the author needs that investment, and even if that is so, there's no reason it needs to come from the publisher, nor are the upfront expenses quite so onerous now that the need to predict the market, print, and ship large amounts of physical inventory is diminishing.
I meant it as a friendly but semi-serious question about whether the OP was reading the students correctly or not, but it seems that the wry smile it was said with got lost in the translation to text.
That said, your serious question deserves a serious reply: maybe I had an unusually poor experience in the education system, but my general conversations on the subject lead me to believe it was more or less standard. I met a few good teachers, and they make a wonderful contribution to society, I absolutely agree, but they were by no means the majority, nor would they even come out as 'the average'. Incidentally, most of those I've met who were good were the ones who could be making more money elsewhere but chose to remain in education. There were quite a few who'd ended up in teaching basically by default - the classic "if you can't do, teach" brigade. There were even a few genuinely unpleasant human beings who were essentially on a power trip because they got to tell people what to do. The majority, however, were a random assortment of people who'd started well but long since had all drive knocked out of them by mountainous paperwork, unpleasant parents, and ungrateful, poorly behaved little shits in the classroom; I quite understand why they were bad at their jobs, and there was little motivation for them to be anything else, but the fact remains that most teachers I've come across were functioning largely as state-sponsored childcare.
Those who teach well, and even take a pay cut to do so, have my utmost respect. Although it was just a passing comment, I stand by my statement that they are all too rare.
It sounds like you're motivated and genuinely want to help them learn, which is a great (and all too rare) thing in a teacher, but I'm a born pessimist, so I have to ask: are you sure "anything online" doesn't mean "anything that makes it easy to look like one's working while chatting on Facebook and playing Flash games"?
It may be the signal-to-noise ratio; unless I've been very much misled (not beyond the realms of possibility, I freely admit), Russia/China/Eastern Europe do have a much greater problem with academic dishonesty than the west (and I have also heard it said that they are more accepting of 'success' by dishonesty, but I don't have remotely enough firsthand experience of their cultures to know whether I agree with that), meaning that the work of the many extremely capable scientists they do produce could well be buried among the larger quantity of junk.
Apple have already been blocking apps based on whether they agree with the 'message' or not (or at least based on what they think their customers will find offensive), so whether you consider maturity rated content fundamentally different is actually a moot point here.
I think the acting is spot on for what they are trying to portray; people who only know artificial emotions (genetically manipulated or drug-induced).
Absolutely agreed. For those who just watched the YouTube link: it cuts in about a third of the way through without context, and having watched the whole thing the acting actually seems pretty damn good, so I'd recommend giving it a chance from the start.
I thought that was deliberate - especially the lack of sincerity when she looks at him; as another poster pointed out, it would fit well within the society they're trying to portray. There's also the fact that the male lead's acting is good, so I'd be surprised if they got a female lead that poor.
I can see the logic, but the message wouldn't be "We support free speech from this point onward", it'd be "We support the speech only of certain groups". Selectively allowing controversial content can only really be seen as endorsement of certain groups.
In general, I absolutely agree. In this specific case, Apple have already been censoring content they consider objectionable, and to turn around and cry 'free speech' now would be a blatant double standard.
The very concept flies in the face of generally accepted science - consider the backlash you would (rightly) get if we were talking about race rather than sexuality, for example. That said, I support people's right to do and say whatever the hell they like, however stupid and potentially psychologically harmful, as long as it doesn't directly infringe on the rights and freedoms of others, but Apple are the ones who declared themselves moral arbiters here, and that changes this situation drastically.
By rejecting apps they consider objectionable, they tacitly provide some level of endorsement to apps which are accepted; the have lost the right to claim that they disagree with anything that is said, because they have already taken steps to censor apps they disagree with, thus it is reasonable to deduce that if it is not censored, they do not disagree with it. By allowing this app into their curated "family friendly" store, they are declaring that the concept of homosexuality as a 'disease to be cured' is acceptable to them.
Slashdot Mirror
How about just one citation from a respectable source to back up the opinion which you decided to take the time to share with us?
Ask, and ye shall receive. Very rudimentary testing (compile and read a file) suggests it works unmodified on OSX, too.
I'm pretty sure he's suggesting that the guy who already bought a Mac, of his own volition, despite knowing his Linux requirements, could just install a VM. That's quite different to saying "You should buy a Mac because you can run Linux in a VM".
Written an article explaining that you shouldn't choose OSX when you need to develop for Linux, apparently...
Storage infrastructure for wind power is a much bigger issue than your post would imply - it's good for supplementing the grid, as it's used now, but if you're replacing whole nuclear plants with wind then the only practical storage system is to pump water up into reservoirs, which basically means you need to build an entire hydroelectric plant alongside your wind farm.
There's also the fact that wind turbines don't kick out that much power - to replace a 2GW nuclear plant, you'll need about 1000 of the most powerful turbines money can buy; fulfilling an order like that is a much bigger undertaking than just throwing a few out of the factory and into a field somewhere, even without factoring the aforementioned storage system.
Firstly, with regard to your initial post, I think most of us assumed the OP meant that his wife didn't like OSX, not that she had any particularly strong feelings on the hardware - this seems to be supported by the fact that he says she "wants a Windows machine", rather than commenting on any particular deficiency of the device itself.
Care to point out where I actually said that they need to be manipulated.
You didn't say it explicitly, but planning for conflict and specifically choosing your actions to pre-emptively avoid the blame you assume will be coming your way is pretty much the dictionary definition of manipulation: "to negotiate, control, or influence (something or someone) cleverly, skilfully, or deviously". Your post advocates a particular course of action specifically because you think it will influence a person's disposition towards you.
Secondly women are not logical creatures, if you've ever dated one you'd know this.
Again, you seem to be treating life (and more specifically, relationships) as an adversarial encounter. The implicit "us and them" in your language suggests the classification of people into two different but internally homogeneous groups, and to me, at least, that lies somewhere between patronising and confrontational.
Two finger tap to right click - OSX makes just as much use of context menus as Windows does, so it's not like they left the feature out of the hardware.
Indeed, except that all the rest of us have to pick up the tab if you make *no* effort to plan ahead. I know which route I favour you taking...
So if someone is responsible, makes sacrifices, and saves, they are rewarded by having to subsidise those who didn't bother to plan ahead. If, on the other hand, they blow all their money on blackjack and hookers, their retirement is then subsidised by those who still have some money.
Sounds like a system that encourages you to take the trip to Vegas while you're young enough to appreciate it, as far as I can see...
The odd thing is, we have a reason to expect Google to track us - collecting and sorting information is their business model, after all. This, on the other hand, is straight out of left field; how does it benefit the phone companies to spend time, money and storage space tracking the whereabouts of individual customers? At best, I can only imagine aggregate data being useful for planning new cell tower sites.
Data rate isn't everything, remember - you can get better results from an identical drive on a Firewire 400 interface compared to USB2, even though the former is 80Mbps 'slower', thanks to the reduced overhead. I hope the point is moot, since both USB3 and Thunderbolt are modern standards with plenty of headroom - if they're hitting overhead issues at the speed of current hard drives, there's probably a problem - but there's still some possibility that one will outperform the other in real world tests despite running far below the maximum transfer speed of either.
I see it as reasonable to copy some of the common features that people think of when you say 'money', and I think that the fact that he didn't emulate the designs, sizes or weights of existing coins, as well as the fact that his company clearly and publicly stated "[t]he Liberty Dollar never has claimed to be, does not claim to be, is not, and does not purport to be, legal tender.", goes a good distance towards refuting allegations of counterfeiting, in my opinion.
That's really only half the issue, though - if it'd been a simple counterfeiting charge, and the court argued the technicalities to claim that the Liberty Dollar shares too many design features with the US dollar, I'd still be on his side, but I'd understand the government's angle. That's not what happened here: they threw the book at him, declared him a terrorist, and charged him with conspiracy against the US - that seems entirely untrue (the law considers intent, remember), a vast overreaction, and an almost childish gesture of panic from the government, who apparently decided to make an example of him. If anything, all they've done is lower my opinion of them still further, by showing how threatened they felt by a relatively small company (and showing malicious lengths they'll go to to stop him and destroy his reputation). That's what I have a much, much greater problem with.
He was intentionally trying to pass his currency off as Federally-backed and issued tender.
[citation needed]. As far as I can see, the guy went out of his way to say they were not legal tender.
In any case, it seems far more honest than most of the rather dubious dealings which go on in the financial sector, but what's truly amazing is the language used in the case: "a unique form of domestic terrorism", "conspiracy against the United States", "organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government". What the fuck? Whether or not you agree with his right to sell pretty silver coins, there's no way in hell it was a terrorist conspiracy against the government.
Any idea if that was the original image used, or if they changed it after people started laughing at them? The whole 'flying saucer' thing in the text seems like an odd way to put things if they were just talking about a normal drone.
I just did exactly that search - it's used as the cover art on what appears to be a low budget straight-to-DVD documentary from 2008, but I very much doubt that's the original.
...the readers give me a headache if I try to read for too long...
Have you had a chance to try an e-ink device? I understand the price may not be attractive for a single purpose device, and that's a fine point, but I'd be very surprised if they affect you any differently than paper. The image is absolutely static and not backlit, so shouldn't be any different on the eyes; admittedly they tend to be somewhat lower DPI than normal printing, but I can't see that causing a headache.
Absolutely, and for someone new to writing and/or short of capital, the only reasonable way to afford editing, marketing, and so forth is to go with a publisher; thing is, the author is then beholden to the publisher - it's a very old fashioned, paternalistic relationship. Not to mention the fact (brought in to evidence here) that they take a bloody substantial cut of the sales.
If the author has some cash behind them already, and an established 'brand', then paying for an editor and a PR firm up front may well be far easier, more pleasant, and more profitable in the long run, than signing their creation away to someone else. The publisher is just a middle man, working between the retailers, the editors, the printers & distributors, and the author - not to say that a middle man with knowledge and experience doesn't provide value, but they need to learn that they are employed by the author to provide a service, and not a patron to which the author is beholden. Of course, the fact that publishers traditionally act as initial 'investors' in the process muddies the waters a bit, but as I said, that only applies in the case that the author needs that investment, and even if that is so, there's no reason it needs to come from the publisher, nor are the upfront expenses quite so onerous now that the need to predict the market, print, and ship large amounts of physical inventory is diminishing.
I meant it as a friendly but semi-serious question about whether the OP was reading the students correctly or not, but it seems that the wry smile it was said with got lost in the translation to text.
That said, your serious question deserves a serious reply: maybe I had an unusually poor experience in the education system, but my general conversations on the subject lead me to believe it was more or less standard. I met a few good teachers, and they make a wonderful contribution to society, I absolutely agree, but they were by no means the majority, nor would they even come out as 'the average'. Incidentally, most of those I've met who were good were the ones who could be making more money elsewhere but chose to remain in education. There were quite a few who'd ended up in teaching basically by default - the classic "if you can't do, teach" brigade. There were even a few genuinely unpleasant human beings who were essentially on a power trip because they got to tell people what to do. The majority, however, were a random assortment of people who'd started well but long since had all drive knocked out of them by mountainous paperwork, unpleasant parents, and ungrateful, poorly behaved little shits in the classroom; I quite understand why they were bad at their jobs, and there was little motivation for them to be anything else, but the fact remains that most teachers I've come across were functioning largely as state-sponsored childcare.
Those who teach well, and even take a pay cut to do so, have my utmost respect. Although it was just a passing comment, I stand by my statement that they are all too rare.
It sounds like you're motivated and genuinely want to help them learn, which is a great (and all too rare) thing in a teacher, but I'm a born pessimist, so I have to ask: are you sure "anything online" doesn't mean "anything that makes it easy to look like one's working while chatting on Facebook and playing Flash games"?
It may be the signal-to-noise ratio; unless I've been very much misled (not beyond the realms of possibility, I freely admit), Russia/China/Eastern Europe do have a much greater problem with academic dishonesty than the west (and I have also heard it said that they are more accepting of 'success' by dishonesty, but I don't have remotely enough firsthand experience of their cultures to know whether I agree with that), meaning that the work of the many extremely capable scientists they do produce could well be buried among the larger quantity of junk.
Apple have already been blocking apps based on whether they agree with the 'message' or not (or at least based on what they think their customers will find offensive), so whether you consider maturity rated content fundamentally different is actually a moot point here.
I think the acting is spot on for what they are trying to portray; people who only know artificial emotions (genetically manipulated or drug-induced).
Absolutely agreed. For those who just watched the YouTube link: it cuts in about a third of the way through without context, and having watched the whole thing the acting actually seems pretty damn good, so I'd recommend giving it a chance from the start.
I thought that was deliberate - especially the lack of sincerity when she looks at him; as another poster pointed out, it would fit well within the society they're trying to portray. There's also the fact that the male lead's acting is good, so I'd be surprised if they got a female lead that poor.
I can see the logic, but the message wouldn't be "We support free speech from this point onward", it'd be "We support the speech only of certain groups". Selectively allowing controversial content can only really be seen as endorsement of certain groups.
In general, I absolutely agree. In this specific case, Apple have already been censoring content they consider objectionable, and to turn around and cry 'free speech' now would be a blatant double standard.
The very concept flies in the face of generally accepted science - consider the backlash you would (rightly) get if we were talking about race rather than sexuality, for example. That said, I support people's right to do and say whatever the hell they like, however stupid and potentially psychologically harmful, as long as it doesn't directly infringe on the rights and freedoms of others, but Apple are the ones who declared themselves moral arbiters here, and that changes this situation drastically.
By rejecting apps they consider objectionable, they tacitly provide some level of endorsement to apps which are accepted; the have lost the right to claim that they disagree with anything that is said, because they have already taken steps to censor apps they disagree with, thus it is reasonable to deduce that if it is not censored, they do not disagree with it. By allowing this app into their curated "family friendly" store, they are declaring that the concept of homosexuality as a 'disease to be cured' is acceptable to them.