I haven't been to Pittsburgh in many years, but the last time I was there they had just power washed all of the soot off of the buildings downtown and it was indeed very pretty. My uncle had a condo at the top of the incline with a very impressive view.
My father kept saying that he needed to take me to the "new" stadium, which we never did get to. He was of course referring to Three Rivers:) I'm supposed to drive out there this spring to see a game in the "new new" stadium.
I also love hockey - I think it edges out NFL football on my TV sports list. I'm able to separate the entertainment from the entertainers... otherwise I'd have a hard time listening to music or watching films! Baseball is still my favorite stadium experience, and unlike football I can watch just about any level from high school up without losing my mind.
I get your criticisms, except this one. I mean, we are firmly in "subjective" territory here... but the setup-action, setup-action pace of football is fun for me. I like the tension that builds up. I hesitate to ask what you think of the pace of baseball?:)
But Jobs didn't want third party applications on it. There was no App Store. And when prompted about third party apps, Jobs envisioned some kind of web app system. But he didn't want the perfection of the iPhone soiled by third parties.
That is indeed what he said, but I suspect that was just spin. As evidence, I'd point to the yanking of a substantial portion of the OSX team onto iOS development to get those features added. I think he was just putting a positive spin on his not-quite-finished product. "Reality Distortion Field"
No, I think it is completely unacceptable that we don't have a permanent solution in place. I was just responding to TWX's post - which to my reading implied that the spent fuel requires a lot more attention than it actually does.
The pools aren't necessary forever - 5 to 10 years and then they can be moved to dry casks. Already, over 20% of spent fuel is stored this way. Hardly permanent, as the casks need to be reconditioned/rebuilt every 30-100 years - but not the active process that you describe.
I wouldn't invest in any 4-engine aircraft, including the A380. Boeing hedged their bets and kept price pressure on Airbus by keeping the 747 up to date, but neither plane has a chance against 2-engine aircraft unless oil stays low indefinitely.
I like trains and try to keep up with stuff, but there are guys who spend all day on forums arguing about stuff like the look of the front of the train. NYC used to have styled, raked ends - but this limited the flexibility of the trains to be added or removed from sets. When they are all squared-off, it is trivial to link them together. In any event, IIRC the London and NYC trains are all built by the same two manufacturers - Bombardier and Kawasaki. The styling mostly differs in materials used (aluminum vs. stainless) and the look of the fiberglass end caps.
Far more distressing than the look - to me - is the lack of automation. NYC is just now starting to add updated signalling. They still manually close the doors with a conductor!
Yeah, they definitely aren't sleek looking. In general, they are stainless steel for ease of maintenance, and boxy because they don't go very fast.
It's worth noting that the "newest" NYC trains are actually a design from the late 90s. This generation is pretty much done and there is a new design being worked on now. In contrast, the London train you linked to first debuted in 2010 (according to Wikipedia). I suspect the 2016-designed NYC trains will appear more up-to-date. Or not...:)
The cost of fraud is paid by their honest customer's banking fees. Even if you as a customer get refunded by the bank, when a fraudulent transaction occurs on your account, the money has to come from somewhere.
The cost of new ATM machines is paid by the honest customer's banking fees as well. That money also has to come from somewhere. Like most business decisions, it is a cost-benefit calculation.
Sure, why not? As TFA illustrates, sometimes the losses that banks are incurring differs between the US and Europe. No one has (so far) started blowing up ATMs in the US, so why would the banks spend money making them explosion-resistant? Similarly, if the cards aren't being counterfeited at a rate deemed unacceptable by the banks, why should they upgrade all of their ATMs?
As an aside, the big American credit card companies (not the ATM cards) are switching to chip cards. After 2015, if you are a merchant and don't upgrade to a chip reader, you will have to accept responsibility for any fraud. The transition is estimated to cost around $8 billion, so there is pushback from the merchants and it will be interesting to watch it all play out.
It just makes it harder to counterfeit the card. You could put a card reader/keypad reader on an ATM and harvest hundreds of number/PIN combinations and then fabricate fake cards to use those credentials. If there is also a chip, this becomes more difficult. I have to assume that in the US, number/PIN harvesting does not cost the banks enough money to jump on board with the chips, which would require retrofits to their machines (over 2 million in the US) and more expensive cards.
Since the losses due to card fraud are almost entirely borne by the banks, I have to assume it is more cost effective to take the losses than to chip all of the cards.
I'm not sure what you mean regarding the NYC subway - those trains aren't very old. There are some older (1960s-era Budd cars) trains still used on the C line, but they were redone in the late 80s. The J and Z lines have some cars from the early 70s - but again, these were overhauled in the late 80s. Other than that, the oldest cars are from the late 70s - certainly nothing wooden from the 50s. The vast majority of the rolling stock was built by Bombardier, Kawasaki, or perhaps Westinghouse for some of the older 80s trains.
Again, I would tend to agree with you - but this isn't law, it's a private business trying not to piss off their customers. It's great when a business actively works on social issues, but it's also OK when they don't. Sometimes a hot dog vendor is just a hot dog vendor. If Coke ran a promotion where they let people snap photos on their cells and then text them to the big screen at a stadium, do you really have an expectation that these images would go unfiltered? Pissing off the prissy people can be very bad business. (Sea World does this, so I'm not making up an unrealistic example for the purposes of making a point.)
Art is one reason, political commentary is another, historical illustration is another, simple choice is another, and yes, offense is one but that doesn't make it an invalid use.
The choice to use Mohammad in one's art would definitely be used for shock value. Same with the political commentary (see Charlie Hebdo). You raise a good point about historical illlustration, and this use is actually permitted in most Islamic countries - though I can't say that is really something that I see much of on Facebook. I think they made a pragmatic decision. While there is a (large) part of me which really enjoys rabble rousing and taboo breaking, I also understand that people need to actually run a business.
And I want to be clear that I find "hate speech" laws, such as they have in Europe, to be completely unacceptable for the reasons that you laid out.
What offends you may not offend me. And vice-versa.
Yes, I understand that a picture of Mohammad is not universally offensive. But it is deeply offensive to many, and there really isn't any reason to use a picture of him unless your intent is to offend. If your goal is to get as many users as possible in Turkey, then having pictures of Mohammad on there is going to make it hard for you to reach your goal.
Law that bans something based upon the idea that some individual or group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.
I agree with all of what you said, but I wasn't talking about laws. I was saying that it makes a lot of sense for Facebook not to allow pictures of Mohammad in Turkey. Just like they don't allow boobies in the USA.
I'm familiar with it, but I'm not seeing the problem in this particular case. How big of a hardship is it to ask users not to do something that serves no purpose other than to offend? I'd like to see boobies on Facebook, but I'm not unduly burdened by the hardship of finding boobies elsewhere.
Would a whore censor boobies in the US, even though there is no law requiring such censorship?
He just wants to make a mainstream product, which means conforming to the mainstream social norms - no matter what country you are operating in. This is not a big deal.
Well, I was being jocular... but since you did the numbers, it sounds like a 20-year storm (though there have been 3 in the top 10 just in the 2000s). Big and newsworthy, to be sure - but not quite the Armageddon it would be for Boston's southern neighbors.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't been to Pittsburgh in many years, but the last time I was there they had just power washed all of the soot off of the buildings downtown and it was indeed very pretty. My uncle had a condo at the top of the incline with a very impressive view.
My father kept saying that he needed to take me to the "new" stadium, which we never did get to. He was of course referring to Three Rivers :) I'm supposed to drive out there this spring to see a game in the "new new" stadium.
I also love hockey - I think it edges out NFL football on my TV sports list. I'm able to separate the entertainment from the entertainers... otherwise I'd have a hard time listening to music or watching films! Baseball is still my favorite stadium experience, and unlike football I can watch just about any level from high school up without losing my mind.
Dying is for quitters.
and the pace is simply glacial
I get your criticisms, except this one. I mean, we are firmly in "subjective" territory here... but the setup-action, setup-action pace of football is fun for me. I like the tension that builds up. I hesitate to ask what you think of the pace of baseball? :)
Rugby is played by sissies. Hurling is where the real men go to play. They really should rename it "hematoma ball".
But Jobs didn't want third party applications on it. There was no App Store. And when prompted about third party apps, Jobs envisioned some kind of web app system. But he didn't want the perfection of the iPhone soiled by third parties.
That is indeed what he said, but I suspect that was just spin. As evidence, I'd point to the yanking of a substantial portion of the OSX team onto iOS development to get those features added. I think he was just putting a positive spin on his not-quite-finished product. "Reality Distortion Field"
No, I think it is completely unacceptable that we don't have a permanent solution in place. I was just responding to TWX's post - which to my reading implied that the spent fuel requires a lot more attention than it actually does.
The pools aren't necessary forever - 5 to 10 years and then they can be moved to dry casks. Already, over 20% of spent fuel is stored this way. Hardly permanent, as the casks need to be reconditioned/rebuilt every 30-100 years - but not the active process that you describe.
At current rates, with no reprocessing or advances in technology.
I wouldn't invest in any 4-engine aircraft, including the A380. Boeing hedged their bets and kept price pressure on Airbus by keeping the 747 up to date, but neither plane has a chance against 2-engine aircraft unless oil stays low indefinitely.
We are talking ATM cards, are we not?
I like trains and try to keep up with stuff, but there are guys who spend all day on forums arguing about stuff like the look of the front of the train. NYC used to have styled, raked ends - but this limited the flexibility of the trains to be added or removed from sets. When they are all squared-off, it is trivial to link them together. In any event, IIRC the London and NYC trains are all built by the same two manufacturers - Bombardier and Kawasaki. The styling mostly differs in materials used (aluminum vs. stainless) and the look of the fiberglass end caps.
Far more distressing than the look - to me - is the lack of automation. NYC is just now starting to add updated signalling. They still manually close the doors with a conductor!
Yeah, they definitely aren't sleek looking. In general, they are stainless steel for ease of maintenance, and boxy because they don't go very fast.
It's worth noting that the "newest" NYC trains are actually a design from the late 90s. This generation is pretty much done and there is a new design being worked on now. In contrast, the London train you linked to first debuted in 2010 (according to Wikipedia). I suspect the 2016-designed NYC trains will appear more up-to-date. Or not... :)
The cost of fraud is paid by their honest customer's banking fees. Even if you as a customer get refunded by the bank, when a fraudulent transaction occurs on your account, the money has to come from somewhere.
The cost of new ATM machines is paid by the honest customer's banking fees as well. That money also has to come from somewhere. Like most business decisions, it is a cost-benefit calculation.
And somehow they arrived at different answer?
Sure, why not? As TFA illustrates, sometimes the losses that banks are incurring differs between the US and Europe. No one has (so far) started blowing up ATMs in the US, so why would the banks spend money making them explosion-resistant? Similarly, if the cards aren't being counterfeited at a rate deemed unacceptable by the banks, why should they upgrade all of their ATMs?
As an aside, the big American credit card companies (not the ATM cards) are switching to chip cards. After 2015, if you are a merchant and don't upgrade to a chip reader, you will have to accept responsibility for any fraud. The transition is estimated to cost around $8 billion, so there is pushback from the merchants and it will be interesting to watch it all play out.
It just makes it harder to counterfeit the card. You could put a card reader/keypad reader on an ATM and harvest hundreds of number/PIN combinations and then fabricate fake cards to use those credentials. If there is also a chip, this becomes more difficult. I have to assume that in the US, number/PIN harvesting does not cost the banks enough money to jump on board with the chips, which would require retrofits to their machines (over 2 million in the US) and more expensive cards.
Since the losses due to card fraud are almost entirely borne by the banks, I have to assume it is more cost effective to take the losses than to chip all of the cards.
I'm not sure what you mean regarding the NYC subway - those trains aren't very old. There are some older (1960s-era Budd cars) trains still used on the C line, but they were redone in the late 80s. The J and Z lines have some cars from the early 70s - but again, these were overhauled in the late 80s. Other than that, the oldest cars are from the late 70s - certainly nothing wooden from the 50s. The vast majority of the rolling stock was built by Bombardier, Kawasaki, or perhaps Westinghouse for some of the older 80s trains.
it simply retards social progress
Again, I would tend to agree with you - but this isn't law, it's a private business trying not to piss off their customers. It's great when a business actively works on social issues, but it's also OK when they don't. Sometimes a hot dog vendor is just a hot dog vendor. If Coke ran a promotion where they let people snap photos on their cells and then text them to the big screen at a stadium, do you really have an expectation that these images would go unfiltered? Pissing off the prissy people can be very bad business. (Sea World does this, so I'm not making up an unrealistic example for the purposes of making a point.)
Art is one reason, political commentary is another, historical illustration is another, simple choice is another, and yes, offense is one but that doesn't make it an invalid use.
The choice to use Mohammad in one's art would definitely be used for shock value. Same with the political commentary (see Charlie Hebdo). You raise a good point about historical illlustration, and this use is actually permitted in most Islamic countries - though I can't say that is really something that I see much of on Facebook. I think they made a pragmatic decision. While there is a (large) part of me which really enjoys rabble rousing and taboo breaking, I also understand that people need to actually run a business.
And I want to be clear that I find "hate speech" laws, such as they have in Europe, to be completely unacceptable for the reasons that you laid out.
What offends you may not offend me. And vice-versa.
Yes, I understand that a picture of Mohammad is not universally offensive. But it is deeply offensive to many, and there really isn't any reason to use a picture of him unless your intent is to offend. If your goal is to get as many users as possible in Turkey, then having pictures of Mohammad on there is going to make it hard for you to reach your goal.
Law that bans something based upon the idea that some individual or group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.
I agree with all of what you said, but I wasn't talking about laws. I was saying that it makes a lot of sense for Facebook not to allow pictures of Mohammad in Turkey. Just like they don't allow boobies in the USA.
I'm familiar with it, but I'm not seeing the problem in this particular case. How big of a hardship is it to ask users not to do something that serves no purpose other than to offend? I'd like to see boobies on Facebook, but I'm not unduly burdened by the hardship of finding boobies elsewhere.
Would a whore censor boobies in the US, even though there is no law requiring such censorship?
He just wants to make a mainstream product, which means conforming to the mainstream social norms - no matter what country you are operating in. This is not a big deal.
It's not ability, but desire. The countries all want the jobs, so they compete.
Company tax is not based on revenue, it is based on profits.
That's only income tax. There are sales taxes, VAT, tariffs, use taxes, port fees, gas taxes, etc.
Well, I was being jocular... but since you did the numbers, it sounds like a 20-year storm (though there have been 3 in the top 10 just in the 2000s). Big and newsworthy, to be sure - but not quite the Armageddon it would be for Boston's southern neighbors.
Congratulations on your contribution to this discussion.