Your example: supposed message boards (of course you ignore years of message boards seeking the assassination of GWB).
There's no ignoring. That's a figment of your imagination. People were far too busy finding photos of chimpanzee dopplegangers to be making death threats.
There is no one true dictionary any more than there is one true god. If you consult definitions in other dictionaries you'll see that there is no standard definition of Zionism that excludes gentiles from it.
My IBM type M has a button labeled print screen. I expected it to work.
You mean you expected a copy of the screen to appear on the printer?
No you didn't. You meant "I expect it to do something that is not what it says on the key, that happens to be the what happens in Linux."
And depending on your Linux, it'll either copy the grabbed image to the clipboard, or it'll save to the file system. It's Linux, no one expects consistency.
Instead I get to press 4 buttons. How is that better?
Well for one thing, it's consistent across all Macs.
For another, depending on the specific key combination you can grab screen, window or custom area, to clipboard or filesystem.
Your problems can be summarised as "I want OSX to behave like Linux". To which the simple answer is, just carry on using Linux.
A far greater number of people like an OS that is easier and more elegant than Linux. They're happy with OSX.
OSX would not be improved by making it more like Linux. Not even by offering options to make it more Linuxy. Every additional option has a usability and reliability cost.
That's funny. I'm regularly accused of being an Apple "fanboy" (or from the mode illiterate: "fanboi"), and yet I've suffered a fair few times from cross-downmodding. There are a minority of jerks on every side of an arguable topic.
the reason Apple gets away with it is a "take it or shove it" attitude where if you want to play in Apple's playground you play by Apple's rules, and they have always made the public subsidize by giving them little to no choice when it comes to screens.
There is choice of screens. There are other MBPs without retina graphics.
The main thing is that fonts are a lot sharper, but only in comparison to non-Retina Macs. Windows just uses fonts optimized for the screen so they look almost as sharp as just as readable, if not more so.
You're trying to claim that the Retina MBP isn't a lot sharper than a Windows Laptop. Bullshit.
More importantly, there are tradeoffs - the various iToys could have had much better battery time and better performance had Apple prioritized other things.
Interesting that you chose to compare the Retina MBP battery life with what it could theoretically be, rather than with other laptops. The reason presumably being that with a battery life of 7 hours, few competitor laptops can compete.
Rather a stupid thing to criticise really.
As to the increased resolution making no difference. Anyone who's got a retina iPhone or iPad knows full well it makes a difference. And you could find it out for yourself too if you got off your ass and visited an Apple Store to see the side by side comparison.
But given the stupid battery criticism, it seems that your post isn't about reality. It's about supporting your own non-Apple choice. Just deny that the other manufacturer's kit is better. That'll make you feel happier about what you bought, won't it.
So either they are using MacOS because that's a better OS for them than Linux or Windows. Or they are choosing Mac hardware to run Linux or Windows. Maybe a bit of both.
You are mistaken, just like this guy, and my reply to him is the same as it is to you. Your insurance is there to cover you, not anybody else.
I'm not mistaken about anything. The topic of who's liability is covered wasn't part of my post. My post was regarding the fact that mandatory third party liability insurance is there to ensure that you can afford to pay when your errors when driving a car cause harm to others.
And in my country at least, the injured party does not sue you. It is you legal duty to provide your insurance details to the other person whenever you are involved in a road traffic accident, and they do indeed claim directly from your insurance. You do not have the option to personally refuse to pay for example. The insurance company pays them directly, not you.
It is your personal responsibility to cover yourself with enough insurance so that if something happens to you, you do not have to worry about paying for your bills and such.
It's more than your personal responsibility. it's your legal duty. The law is there to protect people from idiots that think they don't need insurance, and who then are not able to pay when they cause harm to others.
Your attitude to perfectly reasonable rules of law is more than a little cranky. Fraud? You're nuts.
If a person doesn't have insurance it does not mean he cannot pay for the problems if he causes the problems on the road. What if you don't want to give up your income to an insurance company, instead you have your savings that you can tap into in case of an emergency?
Because the risk is unbounded. You might believe you have enough money to buy a new car for someone when your mistake totals their car. But what if you cause someone permanent handicap such that they need care and treatment for the rest of their lives. What if you handicap a bus load of people? What if you cause a train disaster? Then you're into many millions. Few people could afford to pay the cost of the harm they caused, and no-one would know whether they could or not until after the incident.
Your theory that mandatory insurance means expensive insurance is illogical. Healthy competition exists between insurers, nothing about it being a mandatory requirement removes that competition. Thus good value in insurance is inevitable. If not, then there is something wrong with the capitlist/libertarian belief that competition brings better value.
WW2 did not end great depression, it was the END of WW2 that allowed the Great Depression to end when the government cut the spending by over 60% and cut taxes by over 30%.
The facts don't fit your theory. In America the Great Depression started in 1929 and was over in 1939.
All the "savings" made by the austerity in the UK in the past few years have been eaten by the vast increases in the UK's mandated "contribution" to the EU. That means that the average joe there pays like they're getting socialist benefits while getting fewer and fewer of them.
You could say the same about California and the USA perhaps. Inevitably in a group of states, the richer ones can/will pay more.
The UK is already looking like some Banana Republic if the law is "flexible" so that embassies can be made inexistent overnight.
It's not a matter of the law being "flexible". That law was created after a policewoman (Yvonne Fletcher) was fatally shot from a window of the Libyan Embassy. The shooter was then untouchable because he was within the embassy. The law was created specifically so that criminal suspects couldn't permanently evade the process of law by sheltering in an embassy.
I would hope that the UK government don't exercise the power this law gives them. IMHO, the alleged offence doesn't warrant it, and isn't even a crime in the UK. But they are not bending the law in any way if they do do it.
So, you're browsing the internet and watching the streaming video, as many people do. You inadvertantly find out the result of the 100 meters on facebook/twitter minutes before the race even starts on your video.
No, people won't accept minutes of delay for "live" events. A few seconds, yes, so long as one isn't betting on the event. But a few seconds is useless for torrent type distribution.
The point is they are a long way from being the "Anyone" the previous poster claimed.
As I said, because these are tech start-up businesses, the group is notable for having particularly academic parents, and ones capable of funding an education at the best universities.
In more traditional lines of business, you'd see less importance in intellectual and educational capital, and a higher proportion who are wealthy because they inherited their businesses, or at least the capital that created the business.
Either way, it's a silver spoon.
True average Joe to wealthy business leader tales exist, but they are rare. The biggest predictor of a person's adult wealth is their parent's wealth.
It's symptomatic of Stockholm Syndrome that the sufferer doesn't realise he's got from it.
Don't kid yourself that you are one of the minority that are beneficiaries of all this. Those people aren't spending their time on Slashdot. They're busy enjoying the benefits of power.
Anyone can become wealthy. Look at Zuckerberg, Gates, Bezos, Ellison, Page, and Brin for a few examples. None of these folks were born with a silver spoon in their mouths
Zuckerberg - Son of a dentist and a psychiatrist. Wealthy enough to send him to Harvard.
Gates - Son of a Lawyer and a company director. Wealthy enough to send him to Harvard.
Bezos - Family owned a 39 square mile ranch. Wealthy enough to go to Princeton.
Ellison - OK, a modest background.
Page - Son of 2 computer science professors.
Brin - Son of a mathematics professor and a research scientist.
With the exception of Ellison, these aren't examples of "Anyone" becoming wealthy. They were indeed born with silver spoons in their mouths.
They are also an unusual selection in that they are all tech company founders. Most businesses and businessmen are not that, and are not creating whole new categories of business from exceptional intelligence and education.
Most businesses are set up in existing categories. And require more capital and less intellect than tech start-ups.
There are no guarantees of equal intelligence, equal skills, equal ethics, or equal motivation. It is the latter four that allow an individual to build wealth.
One of these four does not belong. And inherited wealth is missing. Sure there are examples of rich people starting from modest backgrounds. But they are the exception, not the rule.
You're wrong. I followed The Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 as closely as it was possible to in the days before WWW was significant.
Lovelock displays the kind of honesty you never, ever see in the deniers. There is still no doubt that AGW is real, but when increasing knowledge and the collection of more data adjusts the estimates of the timing and details of it's effects, climate scientists say so.
Deniers on the other hand keep on repeating the same old lies.
Slashdot Mirror
Your example: supposed message boards (of course you ignore years of message boards seeking the assassination of GWB).
There's no ignoring. That's a figment of your imagination. People were far too busy finding photos of chimpanzee dopplegangers to be making death threats.
There is no one true dictionary any more than there is one true god. If you consult definitions in other dictionaries you'll see that there is no standard definition of Zionism that excludes gentiles from it.
My IBM type M has a button labeled print screen. I expected it to work.
You mean you expected a copy of the screen to appear on the printer?
No you didn't. You meant "I expect it to do something that is not what it says on the key, that happens to be the what happens in Linux."
And depending on your Linux, it'll either copy the grabbed image to the clipboard, or it'll save to the file system. It's Linux, no one expects consistency.
Instead I get to press 4 buttons. How is that better?
Well for one thing, it's consistent across all Macs.
For another, depending on the specific key combination you can grab screen, window or custom area, to clipboard or filesystem.
Your problems can be summarised as "I want OSX to behave like Linux". To which the simple answer is, just carry on using Linux.
A far greater number of people like an OS that is easier and more elegant than Linux. They're happy with OSX.
OSX would not be improved by making it more like Linux. Not even by offering options to make it more Linuxy. Every additional option has a usability and reliability cost.
That's funny. I'm regularly accused of being an Apple "fanboy" (or from the mode illiterate: "fanboi"), and yet I've suffered a fair few times from cross-downmodding. There are a minority of jerks on every side of an arguable topic.
the reason Apple gets away with it is a "take it or shove it" attitude where if you want to play in Apple's playground you play by Apple's rules, and they have always made the public subsidize by giving them little to no choice when it comes to screens.
There is choice of screens. There are other MBPs without retina graphics.
The main thing is that fonts are a lot sharper, but only in comparison to non-Retina Macs. Windows just uses fonts optimized for the screen so they look almost as sharp as just as readable, if not more so.
You're trying to claim that the Retina MBP isn't a lot sharper than a Windows Laptop. Bullshit.
More importantly, there are tradeoffs - the various iToys could have had much better battery time and better performance had Apple prioritized other things.
Interesting that you chose to compare the Retina MBP battery life with what it could theoretically be, rather than with other laptops. The reason presumably being that with a battery life of 7 hours, few competitor laptops can compete.
Rather a stupid thing to criticise really.
As to the increased resolution making no difference. Anyone who's got a retina iPhone or iPad knows full well it makes a difference. And you could find it out for yourself too if you got off your ass and visited an Apple Store to see the side by side comparison.
But given the stupid battery criticism, it seems that your post isn't about reality. It's about supporting your own non-Apple choice. Just deny that the other manufacturer's kit is better. That'll make you feel happier about what you bought, won't it.
Presumably they created Boot Camp because they were so hostile to non "Mac approved OS changes" (whatever that is.)
Speaking of that, what Linux person would buy an Apple product?!
Scientists tend to use Macs. For example the teams working on the Curiosity Mars rover. http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/mars-curiosity-rover-team-spills-mission-details-on-reddit.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
So either they are using MacOS because that's a better OS for them than Linux or Windows. Or they are choosing Mac hardware to run Linux or Windows. Maybe a bit of both.
You are mistaken, just like this guy, and my reply to him is the same as it is to you. Your insurance is there to cover you, not anybody else.
I'm not mistaken about anything. The topic of who's liability is covered wasn't part of my post. My post was regarding the fact that mandatory third party liability insurance is there to ensure that you can afford to pay when your errors when driving a car cause harm to others.
And in my country at least, the injured party does not sue you. It is you legal duty to provide your insurance details to the other person whenever you are involved in a road traffic accident, and they do indeed claim directly from your insurance. You do not have the option to personally refuse to pay for example. The insurance company pays them directly, not you.
It is your personal responsibility to cover yourself with enough insurance so that if something happens to you, you do not have to worry about paying for your bills and such.
It's more than your personal responsibility. it's your legal duty. The law is there to protect people from idiots that think they don't need insurance, and who then are not able to pay when they cause harm to others.
Your attitude to perfectly reasonable rules of law is more than a little cranky. Fraud? You're nuts.
If a person doesn't have insurance it does not mean he cannot pay for the problems if he causes the problems on the road. What if you don't want to give up your income to an insurance company, instead you have your savings that you can tap into in case of an emergency?
Because the risk is unbounded. You might believe you have enough money to buy a new car for someone when your mistake totals their car. But what if you cause someone permanent handicap such that they need care and treatment for the rest of their lives. What if you handicap a bus load of people? What if you cause a train disaster? Then you're into many millions. Few people could afford to pay the cost of the harm they caused, and no-one would know whether they could or not until after the incident.
Your theory that mandatory insurance means expensive insurance is illogical. Healthy competition exists between insurers, nothing about it being a mandatory requirement removes that competition. Thus good value in insurance is inevitable. If not, then there is something wrong with the capitlist/libertarian belief that competition brings better value.
Just like the police service? The fire service? The public highways? The public education system? The sanitation system?
A public service isn't a "socialist system" just because vested business interests in the US stopped that particular public service being provided.
WW2 did not end great depression, it was the END of WW2 that allowed the Great Depression to end when the government cut the spending by over 60% and cut taxes by over 30%.
The facts don't fit your theory. In America the Great Depression started in 1929 and was over in 1939.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_GDP_10-60.jpg
Government spending does indeed boost the economy. See Keynes.
All the "savings" made by the austerity in the UK in the past few years have been eaten by the vast increases in the UK's mandated "contribution" to the EU. That means that the average joe there pays like they're getting socialist benefits while getting fewer and fewer of them.
You could say the same about California and the USA perhaps. Inevitably in a group of states, the richer ones can/will pay more.
The UK is already looking like some Banana Republic if the law is "flexible" so that embassies can be made inexistent overnight.
It's not a matter of the law being "flexible". That law was created after a policewoman (Yvonne Fletcher) was fatally shot from a window of the Libyan Embassy. The shooter was then untouchable because he was within the embassy. The law was created specifically so that criminal suspects couldn't permanently evade the process of law by sheltering in an embassy.
I would hope that the UK government don't exercise the power this law gives them. IMHO, the alleged offence doesn't warrant it, and isn't even a crime in the UK. But they are not bending the law in any way if they do do it.
Right decision for who? Certainly not the British public. Uninterrupted free broadcast from the BBC vs huge subscriptions from Sky.
So, you're browsing the internet and watching the streaming video, as many people do. You inadvertantly find out the result of the 100 meters on facebook/twitter minutes before the race even starts on your video.
No, people won't accept minutes of delay for "live" events. A few seconds, yes, so long as one isn't betting on the event. But a few seconds is useless for torrent type distribution.
The point is they are a long way from being the "Anyone" the previous poster claimed.
As I said, because these are tech start-up businesses, the group is notable for having particularly academic parents, and ones capable of funding an education at the best universities.
In more traditional lines of business, you'd see less importance in intellectual and educational capital, and a higher proportion who are wealthy because they inherited their businesses, or at least the capital that created the business.
Either way, it's a silver spoon.
True average Joe to wealthy business leader tales exist, but they are rare. The biggest predictor of a person's adult wealth is their parent's wealth.
It's symptomatic of Stockholm Syndrome that the sufferer doesn't realise he's got from it.
Don't kid yourself that you are one of the minority that are beneficiaries of all this. Those people aren't spending their time on Slashdot. They're busy enjoying the benefits of power.
Anyone can become wealthy. Look at Zuckerberg, Gates, Bezos, Ellison, Page, and Brin for a few examples. None of these folks were born with a silver spoon in their mouths
Zuckerberg - Son of a dentist and a psychiatrist. Wealthy enough to send him to Harvard.
Gates - Son of a Lawyer and a company director. Wealthy enough to send him to Harvard.
Bezos - Family owned a 39 square mile ranch. Wealthy enough to go to Princeton.
Ellison - OK, a modest background.
Page - Son of 2 computer science professors.
Brin - Son of a mathematics professor and a research scientist.
With the exception of Ellison, these aren't examples of "Anyone" becoming wealthy. They were indeed born with silver spoons in their mouths.
They are also an unusual selection in that they are all tech company founders. Most businesses and businessmen are not that, and are not creating whole new categories of business from exceptional intelligence and education.
Most businesses are set up in existing categories. And require more capital and less intellect than tech start-ups.
There are no guarantees of equal intelligence, equal skills, equal ethics, or equal motivation. It is the latter four that allow an individual to build wealth.
One of these four does not belong. And inherited wealth is missing. Sure there are examples of rich people starting from modest backgrounds. But they are the exception, not the rule.
Stockholm Syndrome.
Doesn't sound like you were there 20 years ago
You're wrong. I followed The Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 as closely as it was possible to in the days before WWW was significant.
Lovelock displays the kind of honesty you never, ever see in the deniers. There is still no doubt that AGW is real, but when increasing knowledge and the collection of more data adjusts the estimates of the timing and details of it's effects, climate scientists say so.
Deniers on the other hand keep on repeating the same old lies.
Really? You're still hanging on to that old cannard?