The reports say that Bin Laden was actually killed about a week ago by a bomb in Pakistan, and the time taken to confirm his identity via DNA testing helped delay the news.
I couldn't find any reference to this in any of the linked articles, so I'm wondering where the claim came from.
An Abbottabad resident is being credited for inadvertently liveblogging the event as it happened, and his first reference to a helicopter flying over the suburb was 16 hours ago.
So either the claim that Bin Laden died a week ago is false, or the helicopter was brought down in a separate incident. Or the 'liveblog' is a rather elaborate hoax.
That depends. Only a couple of our servers in that availability zone were actually affected, but we're apparently being compensated as though all of them were. Bonus for us.
Dropping a disk in the trash to eject is simply bad UI design. Having other ways to accomplish an eject doesn't change that.
True. But if you're trying to infer that the OS X ejecting UI is bad because a particular method of ejecting is bad, which I think is the implication here, then that's unfair. If you open a finder window and look at the sidebar, you'll see eject icons next to each ejectable volume. That's good UI design.
Personally, I prefer this method of ejecting. I keep my dock positioned on the left side of the screen, and since drive icons typically appear on the right hand side of the desktop, dragging to the trash means dragging them all the way across the screen.
Really, dragging to the trash is a piece of legacy UI that exists for the benefit of Apple's long-standing customers. Too often Apple has removed oddball functionality that users had come to expect and rely on. This is an example of them not doing that.
The only thing I've ever seen this used for in a GUI is the back and forward actions in Opera. These days, Apple trackpads have swipe gestures to perform that function.
The only application I can think of for this is games, and if you're playing games with a trackpad then you're a Damn Fool.
Re:Dramatic effect and scientific precision
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Regarding reducing the number of ads, maybe there's a case for charging a premium for a single two-minute ad that has a two-minute ad break all to itself. Think of the impact that ad could have, as opposed to a 5 minute break with 10 x 30 second ads competing for your attention.
Before the ban, I only had to 'smoke' if I chose to go somewhere that allowed smoking. There were no pubs that prohibited smoking, therefore this meant staying at home.
Now, smokers are only prohibited from smoking if they choose to go somewhere that prohibits smoking. There are no pubs that allow smoking, therefore this means staying at home.
You seem to think that the former is preferable to the latter.
I think the latter is preferable to the former, because smokers only need to nip outside if they want to smoke, and can return once they're finished.
Calling it 'tyranny' is blowing the issue out of all proportion. This is not a form of apartheid. Smokers choose to smoke, and (although it's difficult) they can choose to stop smoking. And it's not like they have to stop smoking altogether to enter a pub, they only have to stop smoking for the duration of their visit (and in most places are free to leave momentarily to enjoy a cigarette).
Well for one, because in Scotland a democratically elected parliament voted in favour of the ban, which has broad public support.
And you think you're being fucked over because you have to go outside for a smoke? Cry me a fucking river. You don't think non-smokers are being fucked over every time a smoker decides to light up and pollute the air for everyone?
Smokers can still smoke in the comfort of their own home. They can still go out to the pub and drink, as long as they take it outside. They're hardly being 'fucked over'.
Restaurants aren't pubs. You go to pubs primarily to drink, whereas you go to restaurants primarily to eat. That makes a difference, because a) you can't drive home after drinking, and b) drinking hours are generally later, which means public transport is less likely to be available (if it was available in the first place).
The result is that you can't rely on the economies of scale in order to service a niche, because if your clientele of non-smoking drinkers is geographically distributed, then it becomes inconvenient for them to come to your pub.
You're also assuming that the market is made up of two classes of people - smokers, and people who would not go to a pub that allowed smoking if a non-smoking one was available. In reality, most people have a friend or friends who smoke, and social pressure means that a group containing a smoker, even a group with a majority of non-smokers, will go to the pub that allows smoking.
Specs are necessary but not sufficient. The software is at least as important as the specs in delivering a product that works.
However, once the specs are sufficient, then you gain very little by adding to them. It's a lazy and ultimately fruitless way to try and differentiate your product when you can't compete on software.
On the other hand, it's a low-pressure environment. The sales staff won't bother you if you just want to try out one of their products without them breathing down your neck.
Contrast that to Nokia's now-closed flagship store in Regent Street in London, which I visited once after I'd been in the Apple Store across the road. The place was almost deserted, the sales staff outnumbered the customers three to one at least, and they bothered me a couple of times as I attempted to try out some of their handsets.
In Scotland we're building (or will soon be building) a large power line through the highlands, in order to link the north (where there is significant potential for wind and tidal power generation) with the major population centres in the Central Belt. The level of opposition has been huge, because it involves building huge pylons in amongst some of our most scenic landscape. Unfortunately, the costs involved in building the line underground are prohibitive.
Our capability to transport crude oil between the north-east (where our oil industry is based) and the refineries in the Central Belt and beyond is actually greater than our ability to transport electricity, because the pipelines are currently already in place.
They'll probably just import electricity from France, where nuclear reactors grow on trees.
The UK imports electricity from France every day at peak times, particularly when the credits roll on Eastenders and the entire working class puts the kettle on.
It depends where you live, I guess. Some places will opt for nuclear in the absence of other options - it might be a tough sell right now but not everywhere is in a subduction zone. Iceland's got ample geothermal and hydro power, and doesn't use fossil fuels for much other than cars at the moment.
Here in Scotland, the geography lends itself to tidal power generation, which unlike wind (which we also have lots of) and solar (one of the cloudiest places on Earth) is regular and predictable. We're told that, if fully utilised, we could be 100% renewable and even a net exporter of energy, although I'm not sure if that takes into account heating (which is predominantly gas and oil based), or makes allowances for increased energy use.
There's no single answer to your question. It really depends on what's available in your part of the world.
You never know. In the UK, cars built before 1973 are exempt from road tax. I reckon the thinking behind it is that there are so few of them on the road that it doesn't make much difference either way.
Multiple studies such as GREET have shown that a petrol-electric or diesel-electric hybrid produces less CO2 from oil well to landfill, than an EV.
Yeah, but the emissions involved in the manufacture and end-of-life recycling and disposal will tend to be released into the atmosphere in comparatively sparsely populated areas, where the impact on human health is minimal. The goal here is to remove emissions from cities, where people live.
EVs also have the advantage that if a better method of power generation comes along in the future, it's relatively easy to replace the centralised power plants compared to replacing every car on the road.
It's true of central banks (Federal Reserve, ECB, Bank of England etc.), who can print as much money as they like. They don't (usually), because of the detrimental effect that it has on the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't find any reference to this in any of the linked articles, so I'm wondering where the claim came from.
An Abbottabad resident is being credited for inadvertently liveblogging the event as it happened, and his first reference to a helicopter flying over the suburb was 16 hours ago.
So either the claim that Bin Laden died a week ago is false, or the helicopter was brought down in a separate incident. Or the 'liveblog' is a rather elaborate hoax.
That depends. Only a couple of our servers in that availability zone were actually affected, but we're apparently being compensated as though all of them were. Bonus for us.
True. But if you're trying to infer that the OS X ejecting UI is bad because a particular method of ejecting is bad, which I think is the implication here, then that's unfair. If you open a finder window and look at the sidebar, you'll see eject icons next to each ejectable volume. That's good UI design.
Personally, I prefer this method of ejecting. I keep my dock positioned on the left side of the screen, and since drive icons typically appear on the right hand side of the desktop, dragging to the trash means dragging them all the way across the screen.
Really, dragging to the trash is a piece of legacy UI that exists for the benefit of Apple's long-standing customers. Too often Apple has removed oddball functionality that users had come to expect and rely on. This is an example of them not doing that.
Yes, you're right, it is a rational argument.
The only thing I've ever seen this used for in a GUI is the back and forward actions in Opera. These days, Apple trackpads have swipe gestures to perform that function.
The only application I can think of for this is games, and if you're playing games with a trackpad then you're a Damn Fool.
Coca Cola uses sugar (so probably sugar beet) in the UK.
It also has GCHQ. You can bet your arse that's not running off a 2.2 Mb/s ADSL connection.
I find the Japanese R sound to be half-way between and English R and D.
I hear the number plates fall off all the time.
And 60 mph is an achievement for a Northern Ireland built DeLorean, a sports car that can be chased down by two Libyans in a VW Van.
GTA 1 and 2 weren't PC only - they were available for the original PlayStation.
By 'high school', do you mean the beginning or end of high school? I sure as hell wouldn't expect an 11 year old to be 'de facto independent'.
Regarding reducing the number of ads, maybe there's a case for charging a premium for a single two-minute ad that has a two-minute ad break all to itself. Think of the impact that ad could have, as opposed to a 5 minute break with 10 x 30 second ads competing for your attention.
Before the ban, I only had to 'smoke' if I chose to go somewhere that allowed smoking. There were no pubs that prohibited smoking, therefore this meant staying at home.
Now, smokers are only prohibited from smoking if they choose to go somewhere that prohibits smoking. There are no pubs that allow smoking, therefore this means staying at home.
You seem to think that the former is preferable to the latter.
I think the latter is preferable to the former, because smokers only need to nip outside if they want to smoke, and can return once they're finished.
Calling it 'tyranny' is blowing the issue out of all proportion. This is not a form of apartheid. Smokers choose to smoke, and (although it's difficult) they can choose to stop smoking. And it's not like they have to stop smoking altogether to enter a pub, they only have to stop smoking for the duration of their visit (and in most places are free to leave momentarily to enjoy a cigarette).
Well for one, because in Scotland a democratically elected parliament voted in favour of the ban, which has broad public support.
And you think you're being fucked over because you have to go outside for a smoke? Cry me a fucking river. You don't think non-smokers are being fucked over every time a smoker decides to light up and pollute the air for everyone?
Smokers can still smoke in the comfort of their own home. They can still go out to the pub and drink, as long as they take it outside. They're hardly being 'fucked over'.
Restaurants aren't pubs. You go to pubs primarily to drink, whereas you go to restaurants primarily to eat. That makes a difference, because a) you can't drive home after drinking, and b) drinking hours are generally later, which means public transport is less likely to be available (if it was available in the first place).
The result is that you can't rely on the economies of scale in order to service a niche, because if your clientele of non-smoking drinkers is geographically distributed, then it becomes inconvenient for them to come to your pub.
You're also assuming that the market is made up of two classes of people - smokers, and people who would not go to a pub that allowed smoking if a non-smoking one was available. In reality, most people have a friend or friends who smoke, and social pressure means that a group containing a smoker, even a group with a majority of non-smokers, will go to the pub that allows smoking.
Specs are necessary but not sufficient. The software is at least as important as the specs in delivering a product that works.
However, once the specs are sufficient, then you gain very little by adding to them. It's a lazy and ultimately fruitless way to try and differentiate your product when you can't compete on software.
On the other hand, it's a low-pressure environment. The sales staff won't bother you if you just want to try out one of their products without them breathing down your neck.
Contrast that to Nokia's now-closed flagship store in Regent Street in London, which I visited once after I'd been in the Apple Store across the road. The place was almost deserted, the sales staff outnumbered the customers three to one at least, and they bothered me a couple of times as I attempted to try out some of their handsets.
David Cameron, is that you?
In Scotland we're building (or will soon be building) a large power line through the highlands, in order to link the north (where there is significant potential for wind and tidal power generation) with the major population centres in the Central Belt. The level of opposition has been huge, because it involves building huge pylons in amongst some of our most scenic landscape. Unfortunately, the costs involved in building the line underground are prohibitive.
Our capability to transport crude oil between the north-east (where our oil industry is based) and the refineries in the Central Belt and beyond is actually greater than our ability to transport electricity, because the pipelines are currently already in place.
Do you want the job of attaching nuclear waste to a rocket that basically propels itself on top of a huge explosion?
They'll probably just import electricity from France, where nuclear reactors grow on trees.
The UK imports electricity from France every day at peak times, particularly when the credits roll on Eastenders and the entire working class puts the kettle on.
It depends where you live, I guess. Some places will opt for nuclear in the absence of other options - it might be a tough sell right now but not everywhere is in a subduction zone. Iceland's got ample geothermal and hydro power, and doesn't use fossil fuels for much other than cars at the moment.
Here in Scotland, the geography lends itself to tidal power generation, which unlike wind (which we also have lots of) and solar (one of the cloudiest places on Earth) is regular and predictable. We're told that, if fully utilised, we could be 100% renewable and even a net exporter of energy, although I'm not sure if that takes into account heating (which is predominantly gas and oil based), or makes allowances for increased energy use.
There's no single answer to your question. It really depends on what's available in your part of the world.
You never know. In the UK, cars built before 1973 are exempt from road tax. I reckon the thinking behind it is that there are so few of them on the road that it doesn't make much difference either way.
Yeah, but the emissions involved in the manufacture and end-of-life recycling and disposal will tend to be released into the atmosphere in comparatively sparsely populated areas, where the impact on human health is minimal. The goal here is to remove emissions from cities, where people live.
EVs also have the advantage that if a better method of power generation comes along in the future, it's relatively easy to replace the centralised power plants compared to replacing every car on the road.
It's true of central banks (Federal Reserve, ECB, Bank of England etc.), who can print as much money as they like. They don't (usually), because of the detrimental effect that it has on the economy.