actually, others with better numbers, say that CHina IS doing around 3-5% GDP AT BEST.
Which is actually growth, not a recession.
More importantly, they expect it to be in a full recession by end of 2016.
That's possible, but again, even if they go into a severe recession, we're looking at it affecting the US GDP around.1-.2%. One of the advantage of not exporting much is that the US doesn't depend on foreign economies to buy their stuff.
I remember in the last debate both he and Romney were arguing about who was going to drill more oil than the other one. That's where I'd look to find such a promise.
have you looked at the stock market recently?
Any idea of what is driving that?
Mostly fear. A severe recession in China should affect the US GDP by less than.2% (and China doesn't seem to be in recession, merely their growth has slowed). Investors are keeping their holdings in cash. Watch for a stock market rebound in a month or so when companies start releasing profit reports (assuming the reports are good, of course).
Oil prices being low are good for the economy.....when you can buy things at a cheaper price, that's good. With the exception of North Dakota and a bit of Texas, the rest of the economy will benefit from that.
With all that going on in different versions, it makes me wonder about the truthfulness of the Anonymous Cowards who supposedly worked at Microsoft and who have been claiming that they had never heard backwards compatibility being mentioned there.
There's an AC who's been posting here for a while who somehow seems to be an expert on every subject. If it's a story about medicine, he says "I'm a doctor and...." If it's a story about law, he says, "I'm a lawyer and....." If it's a story about child abuse, he says, "I was abused as a child and....." But if you read the post carefully, there are frequently mistakes that draw the claims into question.....
Yes, it is worth remembering that the entire reason Microsoft included backwards compatibility was because users demanded it.
The reason OS/2 failed is because it didn't include backwards compatibility, despite being a better operating system.
Since when did MS seriously worry about compatibility between versions?
They made a huge effort in Windows95. You can read about it here (though they've changed somewhat too). Quote:
Raymond Chen writes, "I get particularly furious when people accuse Microsoft of maliciously breaking applications during OS upgrades. If any application failed to run on Windows 95, I took it as a personal failure. I spent many sleepless nights fixing bugs in third-party programs just so they could keep running on Windows 95."
Who said anything about personal responsibility for the victims? The abusers should be prevented from abusing: that is what I said, and I don't think it's unreasonable.
Most children who were sexually abused do not grow up to be abusers. It's still a choice they have to make.
You apparently don't realize that there are differences between the actions of an adult and those of a minor.
I definitely do.
In a sane environment, you would try to teach the latter so they grow out of whatever problem.
How exactly do you teach them that? You don't know, no one knows. You are promoting a solution which would be good if it existed, but it doesn't exist.
Myself, I learned to use emacs, because it had reasonable mouse integration. Then over time, I realized it was faster for making small edits to a file just to use VI.
You're wrong. Even if you were correct in your assumption that large systems can't be secure, then you would still be wrong in saying that such security is good. Bad security is bad security, even if you think it's the best possible. Software with many vulnerabilities is not secure.
If you believe otherwise, you're either clueless or living in a fantasy world.
I like the fact based, well-reasoned argument you have there. It's so convincing.
Slashdot Mirror
I like to remember that cortisol, a stress hormone, is also the one that kills salmon after their long stressful swim to their home river.
PS. Getting an email with that as the subject line is a bit annoying.
It's not too bad, just put seran wrap under the toilet seat.
Thanks for the advice, man. Should I pick the Cardinals for the Superbowl?
I think it is to show how poor people are at making good decisions
FTFY, because we all know men are purely rational when it comes to women, right?
You misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'll try saying it again.
.1-.2% of GDP
If China goes into a deep recession, the effect on America will be between
Mainly I'm just too lazy to do a search for something that you care a lot about, but I care a little about. *shrug*
actually, others with better numbers, say that CHina IS doing around 3-5% GDP AT BEST.
Which is actually growth, not a recession.
More importantly, they expect it to be in a full recession by end of 2016.
That's possible, but again, even if they go into a severe recession, we're looking at it affecting the US GDP around .1-.2%. One of the advantage of not exporting much is that the US doesn't depend on foreign economies to buy their stuff.
I remember in the last debate both he and Romney were arguing about who was going to drill more oil than the other one. That's where I'd look to find such a promise.
have you looked at the stock market recently? Any idea of what is driving that?
Mostly fear. A severe recession in China should affect the US GDP by less than .2% (and China doesn't seem to be in recession, merely their growth has slowed). Investors are keeping their holdings in cash. Watch for a stock market rebound in a month or so when companies start releasing profit reports (assuming the reports are good, of course).
Oil prices being low are good for the economy.....when you can buy things at a cheaper price, that's good. With the exception of North Dakota and a bit of Texas, the rest of the economy will benefit from that.
The source for this is Greenpeace, one of the more fair and balanced sources of information.
That sentence is a perfect illustration of Poe's law.
security depends on preventing people from discovering and exploiting your existing security vulnerabilities.
That's a bandaid that definitely works sometimes.
With all that going on in different versions, it makes me wonder about the truthfulness of the Anonymous Cowards who supposedly worked at Microsoft and who have been claiming that they had never heard backwards compatibility being mentioned there.
There's an AC who's been posting here for a while who somehow seems to be an expert on every subject. If it's a story about medicine, he says "I'm a doctor and...." If it's a story about law, he says, "I'm a lawyer and....." If it's a story about child abuse, he says, "I was abused as a child and....." But if you read the post carefully, there are frequently mistakes that draw the claims into question.....
Yes, it is worth remembering that the entire reason Microsoft included backwards compatibility was because users demanded it.
The reason OS/2 failed is because it didn't include backwards compatibility, despite being a better operating system.
Political donations go to politicians, not to the schools. These articles are talking about donations that actually go to schools.
Or to the web, which is what a lot of companies have done for internal software.
One should be able to apply a kernel patch without wondering if the entire system is going to melt into a puddle as a result.
That's true, especially since the kernel team is really good about maintaining backwards compatibility.
Since when did MS seriously worry about compatibility between versions?
They made a huge effort in Windows95. You can read about it here (though they've changed somewhat too). Quote:
Raymond Chen writes, "I get particularly furious when people accuse Microsoft of maliciously breaking applications during OS upgrades. If any application failed to run on Windows 95, I took it as a personal failure. I spent many sleepless nights fixing bugs in third-party programs just so they could keep running on Windows 95."
Ah yes, personal responsibility for the victims
Who said anything about personal responsibility for the victims? The abusers should be prevented from abusing: that is what I said, and I don't think it's unreasonable.
Most children who were sexually abused do not grow up to be abusers. It's still a choice they have to make.
You apparently don't realize that there are differences between the actions of an adult and those of a minor.
I definitely do.
In a sane environment, you would try to teach the latter so they grow out of whatever problem.
How exactly do you teach them that? You don't know, no one knows. You are promoting a solution which would be good if it existed, but it doesn't exist.
So when does the victim ... become the monster? At 15? 18?
When they start abusing other people.
I'm not saying I agree with what they do, but we can't just keep locking them up.
It's not ideal, but it's better than letting them abuse other people.
Maybe within a few generations the chain of abuse will be broken.
Myself, I learned to use emacs, because it had reasonable mouse integration. Then over time, I realized it was faster for making small edits to a file just to use VI.
Now I use whatever.
That's the most insightful comment you've made so far, and it actually has data in it. So good job.
Utter nonsense.
You're wrong. Even if you were correct in your assumption that large systems can't be secure, then you would still be wrong in saying that such security is good. Bad security is bad security, even if you think it's the best possible. Software with many vulnerabilities is not secure.
If you believe otherwise, you're either clueless or living in a fantasy world.
I like the fact based, well-reasoned argument you have there. It's so convincing.
What if Sanders wins in Iowa? The most recent poll shows he's pulled ahead (and I believe it's beyond the margin of error).
As for me, I'm still holding hope for O'Malley. Go Martin! Move those tortoise legs!!