so... can you explain why they are so determined to not support Win7 and Win8 through their promised lifecycles? See, it is obvious that laying off all Win7 and Win8 devs will save MS money, that isn't really the question. After all, MS has long had a declared support plan.
The real question is, why do they need to save money so badly that they are backing out of their life cycle support?
Maybe its just greed, a desire to increase profits even more
Maybe its because their creative accounting is collapsing
Maybe its because their "diluted shares instead of salary" model is finally collapsing
Maybe its because Android shut them out of the mobile market so they lost expected profits
Maybe its because Apple has been eating into their laptop/desktop market share, reducing expected profits
Maybe its because the presidential candidates are Trump and Hillary
Maybe its because Cthulhu waits in sunken R'leyh
Who knows? But the inescapable fact is that they have a motivation for pushing everyone to Win10 and, being a corporation, that is going to be a financial incentive. One that is compelling enough to field the bad press for their ham-fisted actions. One that is strong enough to risk pushing more users to OSX/linux/Android.
This isn't a matter of believing in silly conspiracy theories, its about not having one's head shoved so deeply into the sand that you cannot see or hear anything.
It doesn't avoid the implicit recursion, but ancient Sumerians addressed this. Essentially, the greater gods created (a larger number of) lesser gods to do the work. Well, they got tired of doing the work so they created (a much larger number of) humans to do the work for them.
It helps to know that it was common in ancient times to believe that the gods were identified with their idols and it was thought that they ate the food that was placed before it (not necessarily literally, but consuming its smell or essence). In other words, humans *did* work for the gods to provide food for them. They also would transport idols from one temple to another in order that the relevant gods could meet.
They also addressed the point of umbilical cords/belly buttons on the first humans. It wasn't just one or two humans, but a dozen that were birthed from clay. Actual birthing, and thus with umbilical cords.
In terms of genesis or creation of all there have, naturally, been many stories created to explain it. But from a human/philosophical perspective there is little difference between hypothesizing a spontaneous origination (perhaps from a formless void) and the Big Bang. Yes, there *is* a difference. But for the vast majority of humanity the math/physics end of things is just so much yammering and devoid of any meaning.
Fun stuff if you are into learning about human faith-systems. (And I'd argue that understanding faith-systems is important if you want to be able to communicate effectively with others.)
I made the mistake of bringing this up to a traffic engineer once. His reaction was to laugh, then seriously point out how -- while it may sound logical -- there is nothing to support it. Which, given how thoroughly traffic accidents are studied, is a fair argument against this appeal to logic.
In other words, yep, I understand what you're saying. But, no, there is no evidence to support it.
oh, so you really subscribe to the urban myth and not just repeating it? Wow. I'm sorry.
If you ever got anywhere near procurement you'd be surprised at how it really works. And federal government procurement is not particularly any worse than anywhere else, but the federal government is a *huge* procurement source which makes it a natural target. But state government procurement is, if anything, worse. And corporate procurements can be quite labyrinthine as well.
While there are a variety of requirements, your statement is false. At best, it is an obscene exaggeration of the truth.
From my experience, and thus IMO, the *real* obnoxious part of procurement are the vendors. Otherwise known as professional liars.
At its core, terrorism is about demonstrating that your government cannot protect you. This is in contrast to the alleged goal of terrorism -- usually to change a policy (such as military intervention in foreign domestic affairs). Governments enjoy this as it gives them an excuse to impose ever more draconian controls (nothing essentially evil there, just a basic truth about consolidation of power).
just to be clear, the *oil* industry funded individuals and groups to pose as "environmentalists" in order to derail nuclear power in this country. Other countries didn't have that sort of opposition because their energy companies were diversified: american oil was looking at being relegated to insignificance and fought back with every thing they could think of.
When I was in high school (oh so many years ago) there was a talk by a nuclear physicist on nuclear power and its problems. They have essentially all been solved for many years except for the political one. Naturally things have improved since then, but it was completely feasible (in a technical sense) twenty years ago to move to nuclear power.
Nice way to conflate the US government with US businesses with the US people. When you say "it outsources more work to China" what you really mean is "US businesses either shutdown local operations or expand new operations overseas, including in China". Don't try to make that "the US government" which, despite being a large, unwieldy and frequently ineffective multi-department entity, does not require US businesses to move production to China.
Trump is *not* an outsider to all of this. Oh, sure, he hasn't been on the public sector side of the fence, but he freely admits to abusing H1b visas. He is all about outsourcing for "exotic" servers in his upscale restaurant, moving production where ever it is cheapest, or abusing foreign workers to the maximum extent possible. He is very familiar with the problem -- you just don't seem to realize that he is, as always, serving his own interests.
question i have is *why* must women be interested in STEM? *why* is it a problem when -- despite all of the many incentives they are supplied -- they *still* prefer other work?
You know what, women are *massively* underrepresented in dangerous work fields (try diving and fishing industries) and yet there doesn't seem to be any hue-and-cry to increase their numbers there.
The university I went to really did have something like a 10% female representation. I think they are higher now, maybe 20% or even 25%. So what? Another factoid, *many* of the ones who attended dropped out before or during the sophomore year having obtained their goal, an "Mrs degree". Those who were interested in the field did well in their coursework and were highly sought after by industry.
Before someone takes issue with the "Mrs degree" consider this: what I described is a symptom -- if you don't like it you need to find the causes and address them. For example, a woman from a middle class family who wants to have a family. Marrying an engineer is a good way to be sure of a high income to support her goals. And she gets her pick from a lot of bright guys, all of whom have different personalities and interests. The odds are pretty good she can find "Mr. Right" and who are you to deny her desire? Should those women be sent to a re-education camp to deny their reproductive desires?
"The reams and reams of Federal Compliance Paperwork that MUST be completed for each one."
If only there were so much bureaucracy. I know this is popular myth, but you just look silly repeating it.
The much more likely reason for cost inflation (outside of the case where NASA is using something that is *overtly* similar to a common item, but is actual not something you could buy off of the shelf) is very simple: quid pro quo. Our government is bought and sold, and one of the ways it pays back its beneficiaries is through overpriced contracts.
Lots of luck getting the corrupt body to police itself, though.
Yep, feel the hate. I know, its fun to hate people. Just hope you never get in a bind and have to make choices between your beliefs and getting fed.
I met people with the same basic attitude in college. Privileged little kids who never met the real world and would go on at length judging other people. Just makes me sad.
I haven't had contact with Microsofts "anti-malware" for some time and apparently things have improved somewhat, but you could hardly do worse. Historically:
Windows Defender will at times not block malware that it detects (submit locally undetected sample, MS response is "definition included for 6+ months"). Submitting unknown (to MS) malware has at times resulted in it being flagged good. Heck, if a vendor of malware notified MS their "product" was being detected it was automatically removed from their detection. Detection of malware often lagged week or months behind other AV. I used to check back periodically on some of my submissions and that were perpetually stuck in "pending evaluation". These are samples that were detected by 20+ other AV vendors (virustotal is your friend) at the time of the incident.
What Microsoft did was buy a product (Giant, IIRC) and then let it languish.
OTOH, even the big name AV vendors are not known for treating the customers well and in general there seems to be lack of quality performance from AV. And, if you're unlucky and are one of the ones to get hit by a sample during its first week the odds are not in your favor.
Realistically, you are better off ensuring Java, Flash and Adobe Reader are not installed, using an Adblocker and disabling Javascript in your browser. And, on Windows, configuring policy to prevent execution from temp folders, etc.
Of course, you will have broken a lot of the Internet. And both Chrome and Firefox rely on execution from temp folders (e.g., for updates).
As a home schooler I'm interested in some of your claims. You have actually had contact with home schoolers? Their children? If so, how many? Was it just in a small area? Or spread out? You make some broad claims without any citation and it seems rather unlikely that you have broad experience on the subject.
First, lets take your claim that it "comes out equal" when "adjusting for income". Some home schoolers I know are well off (middle class), but most are -- at best -- in the lower portion of the middle class if not lower class. As families, the ones I am familiar with, put a greater emphasis on the family rather than status or money -- which is why they home school and often have lower income than other families in the area.
Second, you echo a broadly held belief that home schoolers are religious nutters. And it is certainly true that the people you find actively defending parental rights are often christian. But so is a lot of the rest of the population. For those families I'm familiar with they are as likely to be atheist or wiccan as christian, and the population at large here is *definitely* conservative christian. Go to the public schools and you will be around far more conservative christians than the home schoolers.
Third, there are certainly some home schooled children who do not benefit from it. Bordering on teenager and still unable to write their names or do simple arithmetic. And that is sad and disturbing. Same area, much the same can be said of graduates from the public high school -- in other words children who are even older and cannot subtract, much less divide or multiply. The real reason home schoolers do better on average is most likely the vastly better student/teacher ratio.
Fourth, it isn't as simple as home schooling vs public education. I am a firm supporter of public education -- but I am exercising my right to educate my children at home. It isn't easy -- to actually educate someone takes time, effort and money. I am supporting public education through property taxes (which, again, I support and approve of), but on top of that I am researching and obtaining educational materials (for the same reasons I support public education, I feel that educational materials should be provided to the public free of charge -- that is, subsidized as necessary for production). Then there has to be time to spend with the children to teach them *and* patience to go along with that. It isn't easy: sending your children to public school? *That* is easy.
Finally, not all home schoolers are the same so unless you have some meaningful study or verifiable facts to back up your assertion then it is likely to be inaccurate generalizations brought on by prejudice.
I knew someone who worked at Sprint's telemarketing center in Georgia. Stress is high, pay is low, and, naturally, turnover is high. People don't tend to stay at those places long, but if you haven't been able to get other work it can help pay bills until you can.
Hating on the people making the calls is wrong, hate the companies who pay the telecoms to do it for them. Hate the telecoms for double dipping (taking money for a number to be unlisted, then taking money to provide lists that include unlisted numbers, then taking money for a number to be unpublished, etc.). Hate on the companies that use robocallers that spoof the source.
But please realize that not everyone can have a desirable job.
I know, replying to an AC, but your comment is just a little strange.
I don't understand why you would say "he was the darling of the establishment". Is that because the leaks embarrassed the US or UK governments so much that they loved him? Or do you have some pet definition for "the establishment"?
On the other hand, "he's just an arrogant little toerag" seems about spot on. If there really is a US-backed conspiracy to disappear him that is pretty bad, but Assange's mental and emotional stability seem to certainly have arrogance as a component. It reminds me of the saying, "just because they're out to get you doesn't mean your not paranoid".
I buy movies and shows, but I rip them, each and every one. Why? The advertising on media you've purchased is not disgraceful, its disgusting.
Let me be clear: I *enjoy* watching trailers for movies that I might remotely have an interest in. What I don't want is to have to sit through fifteen minutes of them before I can watch the movie that I wanted to watch. I tolerate it in the theater, but when I sit down to enjoy Iron Monkey I want to watch it -- not wait for anti-piracy blurbs and trailers I've already seen numerous times.
So I rip the movie, along with alternate audio tracks and subtitling. MKV is a great format. If they don't make it too obnoxious, I'll also rip the trailers.
Now, as a consumer, would I rather pick up the movie file for free or pay for a disk and have to fight with industry efforts to prevent me from ripping it? I mean, c'mon, this isn't really much of a contest. If I could download a legal DRM-free copy of a movie with extras for retail price then the equation flips back the other way. The added benefit of having a disk is for backup purposes -- but for most people that is outweighed by the hassle of defeating DRM. Which they then "outsource" to the pirates.
But oh noes! the pirates would take such a DRM-free copy and share it with the world! Except that they *already* do that, stripping the DRM from the DRM laden version or an internal leak. Sometimes you can even watch a movie before its theatrical release.
Piracy exists, deal with it. Allow legal online distribution where a non-streaming non-DRM version reduced for bandwidth and storage is available at reduced price with a full non-DRM version available at retail prices. The studio will make more money via direct sales cutting out the middleman, but people who have bandwidth/storage concerns can go the traditional optical disk route or use a reduced version.
You are correct about there not being anything binding. And, contrary to what I'd thought, no one really knows what speed makes a roadway safer. When I mentioned the "greater the speed delta the greater the risk" to a traffic engineer I was set straight. That's a bit of urban folklore with no basis in scientific study. It may be true, but it is not *known* to be true.
And there is precious little interest in setting speed limits for any scientific or engineering reason. Anyone who has driven for any length of time has come across gems -- like reverse banked curves that do not have a reduced speed, but nice, gentle curves in farmland with excellent visibility for miles that have substantially lowered speed.
It isn't just speed limits, either, but passing zones as well. No passing in areas of perfect visibility, with passing allowed in areas with poor or deceptive visibility.
No, unfortunately the rules of the road are made by politicians who order traffic engineers to produce data to support what they want.
I know a traffic engineer who works for [censored] and is [censored]. Speed limits are essentially never set based on an analysis of roadway and traffic other than to estimate how much revenue will be gained. If the limit is absurdly low, there's a politician behind it. If the limit is absurdly high, there's a politician (and possibly the same one) behind it.
Part of the job of a traffic engineer is to produce studies supporting a politician's stance. Failure to do so can cause tension in the workplace. Which is really fun when two politicians are aiming for opposite goals for the same section of roadway.
how dare you interfere in Darwin's Great Work! You must expunge children who have not had a fear of the roadway deeply ingrained to them!
And how moronic to drive 15mph in a 30mph zone! Why, its only natural that a normal driver would be doing at least 35mph there, if not 40mph or more, and how dare *you* slow them down? Can't you think of others you selfish get?
But its more fun to drag race on the side streets. If you haven't done it, then you wouldn't know.
Why can't you think of me and my need for speed? I'm an adrenaline junky whose too important to be slowed down by some laws and crap-trap about other people's safety.
Holy cow. Those are actually comments from the article pimping this? \me checks. Crap, he's right.
Now, in Apple's defense, I think their use of "do" reads well and is a nice way to introduce a scope block. I mean, you could just use the curly braces (like C), but I can kinda see the point of putting a keyword there. And repeat/while similarly makes sense. And I don't think the argument that "everyone else does it this way" automatically outweighs other concerns.
But, damn, to put statements like those in an article *supporting* swift's syntax? Acknowledge that its different? Sure. But phrased the way those comments are, positioned in the article how those comments are, it comes across as hostile. Wow.
Slashdot Mirror
not that TensorFlow is necessarily spyware (I have no idea), but what "Apple spyware" are you referring to?
so... can you explain why they are so determined to not support Win7 and Win8 through their promised lifecycles? See, it is obvious that laying off all Win7 and Win8 devs will save MS money, that isn't really the question. After all, MS has long had a declared support plan.
The real question is, why do they need to save money so badly that they are backing out of their life cycle support?
Maybe its just greed, a desire to increase profits even more
Maybe its because their creative accounting is collapsing
Maybe its because their "diluted shares instead of salary" model is finally collapsing
Maybe its because Android shut them out of the mobile market so they lost expected profits
Maybe its because Apple has been eating into their laptop/desktop market share, reducing expected profits
Maybe its because the presidential candidates are Trump and Hillary
Maybe its because Cthulhu waits in sunken R'leyh
Who knows? But the inescapable fact is that they have a motivation for pushing everyone to Win10 and, being a corporation, that is going to be a financial incentive. One that is compelling enough to field the bad press for their ham-fisted actions. One that is strong enough to risk pushing more users to OSX/linux/Android.
This isn't a matter of believing in silly conspiracy theories, its about not having one's head shoved so deeply into the sand that you cannot see or hear anything.
that was my thought
It doesn't avoid the implicit recursion, but ancient Sumerians addressed this. Essentially, the greater gods created (a larger number of) lesser gods to do the work. Well, they got tired of doing the work so they created (a much larger number of) humans to do the work for them.
It helps to know that it was common in ancient times to believe that the gods were identified with their idols and it was thought that they ate the food that was placed before it (not necessarily literally, but consuming its smell or essence). In other words, humans *did* work for the gods to provide food for them. They also would transport idols from one temple to another in order that the relevant gods could meet.
They also addressed the point of umbilical cords/belly buttons on the first humans. It wasn't just one or two humans, but a dozen that were birthed from clay. Actual birthing, and thus with umbilical cords.
In terms of genesis or creation of all there have, naturally, been many stories created to explain it. But from a human/philosophical perspective there is little difference between hypothesizing a spontaneous origination (perhaps from a formless void) and the Big Bang. Yes, there *is* a difference. But for the vast majority of humanity the math/physics end of things is just so much yammering and devoid of any meaning.
Fun stuff if you are into learning about human faith-systems. (And I'd argue that understanding faith-systems is important if you want to be able to communicate effectively with others.)
I made the mistake of bringing this up to a traffic engineer once. His reaction was to laugh, then seriously point out how -- while it may sound logical -- there is nothing to support it. Which, given how thoroughly traffic accidents are studied, is a fair argument against this appeal to logic.
In other words, yep, I understand what you're saying. But, no, there is no evidence to support it.
oh, so you really subscribe to the urban myth and not just repeating it? Wow. I'm sorry.
If you ever got anywhere near procurement you'd be surprised at how it really works. And federal government procurement is not particularly any worse than anywhere else, but the federal government is a *huge* procurement source which makes it a natural target. But state government procurement is, if anything, worse. And corporate procurements can be quite labyrinthine as well.
While there are a variety of requirements, your statement is false. At best, it is an obscene exaggeration of the truth.
From my experience, and thus IMO, the *real* obnoxious part of procurement are the vendors. Otherwise known as professional liars.
At its core, terrorism is about demonstrating that your government cannot protect you. This is in contrast to the alleged goal of terrorism -- usually to change a policy (such as military intervention in foreign domestic affairs). Governments enjoy this as it gives them an excuse to impose ever more draconian controls (nothing essentially evil there, just a basic truth about consolidation of power).
just to be clear, the *oil* industry funded individuals and groups to pose as "environmentalists" in order to derail nuclear power in this country. Other countries didn't have that sort of opposition because their energy companies were diversified: american oil was looking at being relegated to insignificance and fought back with every thing they could think of.
When I was in high school (oh so many years ago) there was a talk by a nuclear physicist on nuclear power and its problems. They have essentially all been solved for many years except for the political one. Naturally things have improved since then, but it was completely feasible (in a technical sense) twenty years ago to move to nuclear power.
Nice way to conflate the US government with US businesses with the US people. When you say "it outsources more work to China" what you really mean is "US businesses either shutdown local operations or expand new operations overseas, including in China". Don't try to make that "the US government" which, despite being a large, unwieldy and frequently ineffective multi-department entity, does not require US businesses to move production to China.
Trump is *not* an outsider to all of this. Oh, sure, he hasn't been on the public sector side of the fence, but he freely admits to abusing H1b visas. He is all about outsourcing for "exotic" servers in his upscale restaurant, moving production where ever it is cheapest, or abusing foreign workers to the maximum extent possible. He is very familiar with the problem -- you just don't seem to realize that he is, as always, serving his own interests.
question i have is *why* must women be interested in STEM? *why* is it a problem when -- despite all of the many incentives they are supplied -- they *still* prefer other work?
You know what, women are *massively* underrepresented in dangerous work fields (try diving and fishing industries) and yet there doesn't seem to be any hue-and-cry to increase their numbers there.
The university I went to really did have something like a 10% female representation. I think they are higher now, maybe 20% or even 25%. So what? Another factoid, *many* of the ones who attended dropped out before or during the sophomore year having obtained their goal, an "Mrs degree". Those who were interested in the field did well in their coursework and were highly sought after by industry.
Before someone takes issue with the "Mrs degree" consider this: what I described is a symptom -- if you don't like it you need to find the causes and address them. For example, a woman from a middle class family who wants to have a family. Marrying an engineer is a good way to be sure of a high income to support her goals. And she gets her pick from a lot of bright guys, all of whom have different personalities and interests. The odds are pretty good she can find "Mr. Right" and who are you to deny her desire? Should those women be sent to a re-education camp to deny their reproductive desires?
"The reams and reams of Federal Compliance Paperwork that MUST be completed for each one."
If only there were so much bureaucracy. I know this is popular myth, but you just look silly repeating it.
The much more likely reason for cost inflation (outside of the case where NASA is using something that is *overtly* similar to a common item, but is actual not something you could buy off of the shelf) is very simple: quid pro quo. Our government is bought and sold, and one of the ways it pays back its beneficiaries is through overpriced contracts.
Lots of luck getting the corrupt body to police itself, though.
now lets not bring reason into this discussion. Didn't you notice he said "Koran" and "smite the necks"?
Android, the choice of the open source aficionados and the Taliban
(politics makes for strange bedfellows)
Yep, feel the hate. I know, its fun to hate people. Just hope you never get in a bind and have to make choices between your beliefs and getting fed.
I met people with the same basic attitude in college. Privileged little kids who never met the real world and would go on at length judging other people. Just makes me sad.
says the person who is not going hungry and has a roof over his head.
Yep, some people are judgemental assholes. I know that, I don't need reminding.
I haven't had contact with Microsofts "anti-malware" for some time and apparently things have improved somewhat, but you could hardly do worse. Historically:
Windows Defender will at times not block malware that it detects (submit locally undetected sample, MS response is "definition included for 6+ months"). Submitting unknown (to MS) malware has at times resulted in it being flagged good. Heck, if a vendor of malware notified MS their "product" was being detected it was automatically removed from their detection. Detection of malware often lagged week or months behind other AV. I used to check back periodically on some of my submissions and that were perpetually stuck in "pending evaluation". These are samples that were detected by 20+ other AV vendors (virustotal is your friend) at the time of the incident.
What Microsoft did was buy a product (Giant, IIRC) and then let it languish.
OTOH, even the big name AV vendors are not known for treating the customers well and in general there seems to be lack of quality performance from AV. And, if you're unlucky and are one of the ones to get hit by a sample during its first week the odds are not in your favor.
Realistically, you are better off ensuring Java, Flash and Adobe Reader are not installed, using an Adblocker and disabling Javascript in your browser. And, on Windows, configuring policy to prevent execution from temp folders, etc.
Of course, you will have broken a lot of the Internet. And both Chrome and Firefox rely on execution from temp folders (e.g., for updates).
As a home schooler I'm interested in some of your claims. You have actually had contact with home schoolers? Their children? If so, how many? Was it just in a small area? Or spread out? You make some broad claims without any citation and it seems rather unlikely that you have broad experience on the subject.
First, lets take your claim that it "comes out equal" when "adjusting for income". Some home schoolers I know are well off (middle class), but most are -- at best -- in the lower portion of the middle class if not lower class. As families, the ones I am familiar with, put a greater emphasis on the family rather than status or money -- which is why they home school and often have lower income than other families in the area.
Second, you echo a broadly held belief that home schoolers are religious nutters. And it is certainly true that the people you find actively defending parental rights are often christian. But so is a lot of the rest of the population. For those families I'm familiar with they are as likely to be atheist or wiccan as christian, and the population at large here is *definitely* conservative christian. Go to the public schools and you will be around far more conservative christians than the home schoolers.
Third, there are certainly some home schooled children who do not benefit from it. Bordering on teenager and still unable to write their names or do simple arithmetic. And that is sad and disturbing. Same area, much the same can be said of graduates from the public high school -- in other words children who are even older and cannot subtract, much less divide or multiply. The real reason home schoolers do better on average is most likely the vastly better student/teacher ratio.
Fourth, it isn't as simple as home schooling vs public education. I am a firm supporter of public education -- but I am exercising my right to educate my children at home. It isn't easy -- to actually educate someone takes time, effort and money. I am supporting public education through property taxes (which, again, I support and approve of), but on top of that I am researching and obtaining educational materials (for the same reasons I support public education, I feel that educational materials should be provided to the public free of charge -- that is, subsidized as necessary for production). Then there has to be time to spend with the children to teach them *and* patience to go along with that. It isn't easy: sending your children to public school? *That* is easy.
Finally, not all home schoolers are the same so unless you have some meaningful study or verifiable facts to back up your assertion then it is likely to be inaccurate generalizations brought on by prejudice.
I knew someone who worked at Sprint's telemarketing center in Georgia. Stress is high, pay is low, and, naturally, turnover is high. People don't tend to stay at those places long, but if you haven't been able to get other work it can help pay bills until you can.
Hating on the people making the calls is wrong, hate the companies who pay the telecoms to do it for them. Hate the telecoms for double dipping (taking money for a number to be unlisted, then taking money to provide lists that include unlisted numbers, then taking money for a number to be unpublished, etc.). Hate on the companies that use robocallers that spoof the source.
But please realize that not everyone can have a desirable job.
I know, replying to an AC, but your comment is just a little strange.
I don't understand why you would say "he was the darling of the establishment". Is that because the leaks embarrassed the US or UK governments so much that they loved him? Or do you have some pet definition for "the establishment"?
On the other hand, "he's just an arrogant little toerag" seems about spot on. If there really is a US-backed conspiracy to disappear him that is pretty bad, but Assange's mental and emotional stability seem to certainly have arrogance as a component. It reminds me of the saying, "just because they're out to get you doesn't mean your not paranoid".
I buy movies and shows, but I rip them, each and every one. Why? The advertising on media you've purchased is not disgraceful, its disgusting.
Let me be clear: I *enjoy* watching trailers for movies that I might remotely have an interest in. What I don't want is to have to sit through fifteen minutes of them before I can watch the movie that I wanted to watch. I tolerate it in the theater, but when I sit down to enjoy Iron Monkey I want to watch it -- not wait for anti-piracy blurbs and trailers I've already seen numerous times.
So I rip the movie, along with alternate audio tracks and subtitling. MKV is a great format. If they don't make it too obnoxious, I'll also rip the trailers.
Now, as a consumer, would I rather pick up the movie file for free or pay for a disk and have to fight with industry efforts to prevent me from ripping it? I mean, c'mon, this isn't really much of a contest. If I could download a legal DRM-free copy of a movie with extras for retail price then the equation flips back the other way. The added benefit of having a disk is for backup purposes -- but for most people that is outweighed by the hassle of defeating DRM. Which they then "outsource" to the pirates.
But oh noes! the pirates would take such a DRM-free copy and share it with the world! Except that they *already* do that, stripping the DRM from the DRM laden version or an internal leak. Sometimes you can even watch a movie before its theatrical release.
Piracy exists, deal with it. Allow legal online distribution where a non-streaming non-DRM version reduced for bandwidth and storage is available at reduced price with a full non-DRM version available at retail prices. The studio will make more money via direct sales cutting out the middleman, but people who have bandwidth/storage concerns can go the traditional optical disk route or use a reduced version.
You are correct about there not being anything binding. And, contrary to what I'd thought, no one really knows what speed makes a roadway safer. When I mentioned the "greater the speed delta the greater the risk" to a traffic engineer I was set straight. That's a bit of urban folklore with no basis in scientific study. It may be true, but it is not *known* to be true.
And there is precious little interest in setting speed limits for any scientific or engineering reason. Anyone who has driven for any length of time has come across gems -- like reverse banked curves that do not have a reduced speed, but nice, gentle curves in farmland with excellent visibility for miles that have substantially lowered speed.
It isn't just speed limits, either, but passing zones as well. No passing in areas of perfect visibility, with passing allowed in areas with poor or deceptive visibility.
No, unfortunately the rules of the road are made by politicians who order traffic engineers to produce data to support what they want.
I know a traffic engineer who works for [censored] and is [censored]. Speed limits are essentially never set based on an analysis of roadway and traffic other than to estimate how much revenue will be gained. If the limit is absurdly low, there's a politician behind it. If the limit is absurdly high, there's a politician (and possibly the same one) behind it.
Part of the job of a traffic engineer is to produce studies supporting a politician's stance. Failure to do so can cause tension in the workplace. Which is really fun when two politicians are aiming for opposite goals for the same section of roadway.
Yay politics.
how dare you interfere in Darwin's Great Work! You must expunge children who have not had a fear of the roadway deeply ingrained to them!
And how moronic to drive 15mph in a 30mph zone! Why, its only natural that a normal driver would be doing at least 35mph there, if not 40mph or more, and how dare *you* slow them down? Can't you think of others you selfish get?
But its more fun to drag race on the side streets. If you haven't done it, then you wouldn't know.
Why can't you think of me and my need for speed? I'm an adrenaline junky whose too important to be slowed down by some laws and crap-trap about other people's safety.
Holy cow. Those are actually comments from the article pimping this? \me checks. Crap, he's right.
Now, in Apple's defense, I think their use of "do" reads well and is a nice way to introduce a scope block. I mean, you could just use the curly braces (like C), but I can kinda see the point of putting a keyword there. And repeat/while similarly makes sense. And I don't think the argument that "everyone else does it this way" automatically outweighs other concerns.
But, damn, to put statements like those in an article *supporting* swift's syntax? Acknowledge that its different? Sure. But phrased the way those comments are, positioned in the article how those comments are, it comes across as hostile. Wow.