Apple (and the Mac and OS X) has more than once suffered from others having too much control over things. Like Adobe with taking ages to port their apps to Intel Macs because they did not use XCode in the first place.
That's not Apple's problem. That's Adobe's. If Apple was worried about keeping their "best apps" running then they would work towards that goal. However, Apple does not like to constrain themselves in such a way. That has advantages (not tied down to the past) and disadvantages (no guarantee of backwards compatibility).
Adobe supports software across multiple OS's, and therefore relying on the travesty known as XCode is counter-productive, especially since XCode is very rarely updated or up to date. And FSM forbid you want to remain current with java development.
If Apple was really concerned about app portability they would use a VM based language like C# or Java, maybe with some custom libs thrown in. If VM runtimes are not an option, then you're left with adhering strictly to their API and hoping that API does not change, which is no different than programming for any other OS or platform.
There is absolutely no way to port Windows and all applications to another platform. Trapped.
Unless the apps your talking about are written in assembly code, use machine specific features, or otherwise directly accesses low level hardware, then you are not "trapped". If the libs your app relies on have been ported, then your app should require few if any changes to compile and run. There are plenty of open source projects that compile and run on multiple OS's and hardware without issue, including Windows. For example, it's pretty easy to write a Windows app that uses Qt that will work equally well on Linux. If you start using Windows or Linux only APIs, well then you're not going to be portable.
According to articles I have read, the main culprit is two mites. One affects the breathing apparatus of the bee, while the other one sucks it's blood. The blood sucking mite is the more devastating one, since relative to the bee it is fairly large (if you make fist with your hand and place it anywhere one your body, that's the size comparison). Once a couple of those mites attach themselves the bee becomes severely weakened allowing the other bacteria and fungi that the parasite carries to infect the bee.
Currently there is no known effective treatment for the blood sucking mite (it's native to Asia so has no natural predators here).
How exactly do you test solutions for catastrophe of unknown nature a mile underwater, working with wells of unknown pressure filled with oil and gas of unknown composition?
With today's computational power? Easily. The oil industry is no stranger to using fluid and mechanical modeling to see what happens. Testing machined parts with those conditions is also easily done.
But more importantly, if you can't test for a failure condition that would result in massive collateral damage THEN YOU SHOULDN'T FUCKING BE DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
You do understand this was an exploratory well right; the point of this thing was largely to find out what is down there.
I'm sure that comes as a huge comfort to the families of the dead and all the gulf areas that are or will be affected by this.
If you have a solution to this problem of being able to prove catastrophic failure modes can be solved by doing X with all the other unknowns you are clearly way smarted than the rest of us and I welcome our new over lord; otherwise you just another arm chair quarterback here.
Current technology is capable of handling such wells, however it is only as capable as the implementation. New evidence indicates that BP was aware of the problems as far as 11 months in advance. Even in the weeks leading up to the disaster many issues were raised including the fact that the BOP was damaged AND YET THEY STILL PROCEEDED.
So in short, yes there ways to test safety equipment. If there wasn't then wells like this should not be drilled.
Capitalism and individualism should NOT come at the cost of society as a whole.
The number one cause of human suffering is the human race. You might want to keep that in mind when espousing your beliefs about how well an unregulated market will work.
Ah, but there's the rub. Good policy is not always profitable for the people either. So people will actively vote against their best interest to maintain fatter wallets.
In a contest between "What's Best" and "What's Best For Me", "What's Best For Me" is often the winner. At least in the US.
The problem is that scientists will call you ignorant or stupid if you stop believing every word they say just because you know there's a good chance of them saying something different in a short while.
No, they don't. They only start using terms like that if you engage in an active campaign to interfere with their work and research.
Religion on the other hand, rarely changes its story.
Which would make it great for rocks, mountains, and other objects that rarely change if it were true. But it's not. Religion is ALWAYS changing its story. It does so at a slower rate than science, but nevertheless it changes through time. For example, how many branches of Christianity are there?
To further your point, like all such things when it comes to human suffering its not the object but the people who wield it that are the problem.
Religions are powerless without the people you believe in them. People with blind faith are the problem. People who aren't smart enough to question what the leaders are telling are the problem. People who are willing to twist their religion into the mold they want are the problem.
Humans are the number one cause of human suffering.
Your examples easily fail, because religion does not nail anything down.
You followed the eight fold path and you're still suffering? Well you haven't mastered it yet. You believe in God but you can't perform miracles, well you're not believing enough. You cast a love spell and the guy/girl didn't go for you, well then the cat you used wasn't black enough.
There is always some sort of out, or loophole, or SOMETHING that allows a religion to weasel out of its own claims. Or rather, all the successful religions allow that kind of leeway.
You CANNOT construct a falsifiable test where faith is involved. Faith is subjective, not objective. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence you bring to the table. Some people may be swayed, but most people do easily let go of their faith despite whatever evidence you have.
This "story" is either an intentional troll or it was posted by someone who has no clue.
Market capitalization means dick in the overall scheme of things, especially since it can change at the drop of a hat. Changing of the guard? What the hell does market capitalization have to do with that? It might mean something if you had two companies who compete in exactly the same market segments, but Apple and MS only compete in a couple.
You can't compare Apple to Microsoft unless you specify what market segment your talking about. Going strictly by market capitalization alone is idiotic. You might as well compare Boeing to Walmart and then claim there is a changing of the guard.
First you have a severely distorted view of the "Euorpean style welfare state". There is no "European style welfare state". You could try educating yourself before making such ludicrous statements.
Second, there is a huge difference between needs and wants. Human needs are very few, and don't include large screen TVs, iPhones, or SUVs.
You're kind of thinking (valuing the self over the rest of society) eventually leads to social instability. If humans were altruistic then having a government run welfare program would not need to exist. The sad fact is, we aren't.
Welfare programs exist for social stability, to provide at least the basic amenities so we don't suddenly find ourselves with millions of rioters torching cities.
Well, here's the problem. Under normal circumstances you could try all those in rapid succession. However, due to the monumental series of clusterfucks driven by corporate profits, it's not that simple.
The way the well failed with kink/cracked pipes prevents plugging the pipe directly. With the main pipe weakened the last thing you want to do is risk a full scale rupture. Despite what it looks like on video that flow rate is a reduced flow rate due to bent pipes. There's also damage to the BOP, and elsewhere in the assembly. If the damage is too severe and they try to block the flow, the whole thing will go to hell possibly dumping 2 to 3 times more oil than the current rate. Worse, there would be no way to stop it until a relief well is drilled (or nuke is detonated).
'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Doesn't that golden rule clearly lay down an opposition to slavery?
Of course. If you're talking about people. Slaves were not considered people by society nor by religion, and therefore it was OK. See how easy it is to justify something so horrible?
At any rate, the "Christians" like the ones you're thinking of are not really Christians. They are Christians in name only.
Thomas Jefferson was ALMOST EXCLUDED. That's not conservative. That's fucking nuts.
Anyone who followed this sad tale from beginning to end would have their jaws dropping about the ludicrous shit that went on. Not only were the people involved incredibly biased, but they WERE NOT EVEN EXPERTS IN THE MATERIAL THEY WERE REVIEWING. Contract with America vs. Civil Rights Movement? Really?
This had nothing to do with proper education and everything to do with trying to push an agenda. Politics at its most revolting.
Now when people ask me why I'm homeschooling I have a prominent example why public schools are failing. Thanks Texas.
"Cap and trade" is really just a variant of "tax and spend", which inevitably leads to "inflate and borrow".
As opposed to spend and spend, which leads to inflate and borrow much faster?
Your making some mighty big claims. C&T is based on a similar program that was used to reduce SO2 emissions. That seemed to work out well. Can you explain why you think C&T will fail? I'm not saying that C&T is great idea, but I'd like to know why you think it will be a miserable failure.
If this is the best these people can do, their budget should be slashed.
What motivates companies? Profits. What profit is there for a company to control it's pollution? None, unless something else makes it worthwhile to do so. So other than giving the companies an incentive, what other method would propose?
Investigate the National Academy of Science and you will find one of those "think tank" organizations that is funded by the government
Precisely who else would fund such an organization? Private corporations? That really wouldn't be such a good idea, given the long track record of companies fighting tooth and nail against scientific research that didn't show them in the best light.
Our government is elected, which means we have the option to throw the bums out. That's not really an option with private interests.
Hmmm... an organization that gets 85% of its funding from the government is advising the socialist government...
Glen Beck, is that you? Strictly from a spending point of view, our country has been socialist for a long time. But your use of the term demonstrates that you don't know what a true socialist government is. A true socialist government believes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Given our hideously lopsided income distribution in this country, we are no where NEAR socialist yet. We were actually closer in the 50's when the income tax bracket went as high as 90%.
Well that's good for you, however my experience has been somewhat different.
Since Windows XP I have experienced exactly two BSOD's both were on XP and both of those were related to bad drivers. My current windows boxen run primarily Windows 7 and have had zero problems.
My original recent MacBook was running Tiger, which would give me the Grey Screen Of Death approximately every other day. But I was thankfully saved from having to upgrade the OS because the whole machine just died one day (Black Screen of Death) 2 years after I got it. So I got a new machine with Leopard (haven't moved to Snow Leopard yet).
Windows 7 and Mac OS both have irritating quirks about their interfaces. It's something you either have to tweak yourself or get used to. Their is no One True UI, and any discussions of such a thing is mostly subjective.
As far responsiveness goes, again that depends entirely on what you're doing. I'm no stranger to the spinning pinwheel of pain on OSX or the blue ring of waiting on windows 7.
Point being, UI is subjective. I use linux, osx, and windows on a daily basis and they all have their issues, response time or otherwise.
If you understand programming, you can write a program that works. If you understand HOW programming works, you can explain WHY your program works.
The high level languages should be taught AFTER the programmer has an understanding of what the hell the computer is actually doing and how it operates. C is great in that regard, because it's terse enough that you can get down to the metal but high level enough to allow introduction to basic data structures. After that basic mastery, moving on to higher level languages can introduce the more abstract concepts.
I like having people who can both program AND understand what their program is doing.
I always put mine in a bag of numerous, random-length, cat5 cables. Due to various laws governing the universe and IT cabling, after a mere day in that bag separating out ANYTHING out again is nigh impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple (and the Mac and OS X) has more than once suffered from others having too much control over things. Like Adobe with taking ages to port their apps to Intel Macs because they did not use XCode in the first place.
That's not Apple's problem. That's Adobe's. If Apple was worried about keeping their "best apps" running then they would work towards that goal. However, Apple does not like to constrain themselves in such a way. That has advantages (not tied down to the past) and disadvantages (no guarantee of backwards compatibility).
Adobe supports software across multiple OS's, and therefore relying on the travesty known as XCode is counter-productive, especially since XCode is very rarely updated or up to date. And FSM forbid you want to remain current with java development.
If Apple was really concerned about app portability they would use a VM based language like C# or Java, maybe with some custom libs thrown in. If VM runtimes are not an option, then you're left with adhering strictly to their API and hoping that API does not change, which is no different than programming for any other OS or platform.
There is absolutely no way to port Windows and all applications to another platform. Trapped.
Unless the apps your talking about are written in assembly code, use machine specific features, or otherwise directly accesses low level hardware, then you are not "trapped". If the libs your app relies on have been ported, then your app should require few if any changes to compile and run. There are plenty of open source projects that compile and run on multiple OS's and hardware without issue, including Windows. For example, it's pretty easy to write a Windows app that uses Qt that will work equally well on Linux. If you start using Windows or Linux only APIs, well then you're not going to be portable.
You'll need some better excuses than this.
Looks like the old slogan is still true: "AT&T. We don't care. We don't have to."
According to articles I have read, the main culprit is two mites. One affects the breathing apparatus of the bee, while the other one sucks it's blood. The blood sucking mite is the more devastating one, since relative to the bee it is fairly large (if you make fist with your hand and place it anywhere one your body, that's the size comparison). Once a couple of those mites attach themselves the bee becomes severely weakened allowing the other bacteria and fungi that the parasite carries to infect the bee.
Currently there is no known effective treatment for the blood sucking mite (it's native to Asia so has no natural predators here).
How exactly do you test solutions for catastrophe of unknown nature a mile underwater, working with wells of unknown pressure filled with oil and gas of unknown composition?
With today's computational power? Easily. The oil industry is no stranger to using fluid and mechanical modeling to see what happens. Testing machined parts with those conditions is also easily done.
But more importantly, if you can't test for a failure condition that would result in massive collateral damage THEN YOU SHOULDN'T FUCKING BE DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
You do understand this was an exploratory well right; the point of this thing was largely to find out what is down there.
I'm sure that comes as a huge comfort to the families of the dead and all the gulf areas that are or will be affected by this.
If you have a solution to this problem of being able to prove catastrophic failure modes can be solved by doing X with all the other unknowns you are clearly way smarted than the rest of us and I welcome our new over lord; otherwise you just another arm chair quarterback here.
Current technology is capable of handling such wells, however it is only as capable as the implementation. New evidence indicates that BP was aware of the problems as far as 11 months in advance. Even in the weeks leading up to the disaster many issues were raised including the fact that the BOP was damaged AND YET THEY STILL PROCEEDED.
So in short, yes there ways to test safety equipment. If there wasn't then wells like this should not be drilled.
Never underestimate the power of cheap shit over a consumer populace.
Capitalism and individualism should NOT come at the cost of society as a whole.
The number one cause of human suffering is the human race. You might want to keep that in mind when espousing your beliefs about how well an unregulated market will work.
Ah, but there's the rub. Good policy is not always profitable for the people either. So people will actively vote against their best interest to maintain fatter wallets.
In a contest between "What's Best" and "What's Best For Me", "What's Best For Me" is often the winner. At least in the US.
The problem is that scientists will call you ignorant or stupid if you stop believing every word they say just because you know there's a good chance of them saying something different in a short while.
No, they don't. They only start using terms like that if you engage in an active campaign to interfere with their work and research.
Religion on the other hand, rarely changes its story.
Which would make it great for rocks, mountains, and other objects that rarely change if it were true. But it's not. Religion is ALWAYS changing its story. It does so at a slower rate than science, but nevertheless it changes through time. For example, how many branches of Christianity are there?
Can someone please go and tell Chuck Norris to stop terrorizing the sun?
Would that be before or after dropping $45 million on a new cathedral?
As far as social problems go, the church seems to be quite good at causing/contributing to social problems.
To further your point, like all such things when it comes to human suffering its not the object but the people who wield it that are the problem.
Religions are powerless without the people you believe in them. People with blind faith are the problem. People who aren't smart enough to question what the leaders are telling are the problem. People who are willing to twist their religion into the mold they want are the problem.
Humans are the number one cause of human suffering.
Your examples easily fail, because religion does not nail anything down.
You followed the eight fold path and you're still suffering? Well you haven't mastered it yet. You believe in God but you can't perform miracles, well you're not believing enough. You cast a love spell and the guy/girl didn't go for you, well then the cat you used wasn't black enough.
There is always some sort of out, or loophole, or SOMETHING that allows a religion to weasel out of its own claims. Or rather, all the successful religions allow that kind of leeway.
You CANNOT construct a falsifiable test where faith is involved. Faith is subjective, not objective. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence you bring to the table. Some people may be swayed, but most people do easily let go of their faith despite whatever evidence you have.
This "story" is either an intentional troll or it was posted by someone who has no clue.
Market capitalization means dick in the overall scheme of things, especially since it can change at the drop of a hat. Changing of the guard? What the hell does market capitalization have to do with that? It might mean something if you had two companies who compete in exactly the same market segments, but Apple and MS only compete in a couple.
You can't compare Apple to Microsoft unless you specify what market segment your talking about. Going strictly by market capitalization alone is idiotic. You might as well compare Boeing to Walmart and then claim there is a changing of the guard.
First you have a severely distorted view of the "Euorpean style welfare state". There is no "European style welfare state". You could try educating yourself before making such ludicrous statements.
Second, there is a huge difference between needs and wants. Human needs are very few, and don't include large screen TVs, iPhones, or SUVs.
You're kind of thinking (valuing the self over the rest of society) eventually leads to social instability. If humans were altruistic then having a government run welfare program would not need to exist. The sad fact is, we aren't.
Welfare programs exist for social stability, to provide at least the basic amenities so we don't suddenly find ourselves with millions of rioters torching cities.
Well, here's the problem. Under normal circumstances you could try all those in rapid succession. However, due to the monumental series of clusterfucks driven by corporate profits, it's not that simple.
The way the well failed with kink/cracked pipes prevents plugging the pipe directly. With the main pipe weakened the last thing you want to do is risk a full scale rupture. Despite what it looks like on video that flow rate is a reduced flow rate due to bent pipes. There's also damage to the BOP, and elsewhere in the assembly. If the damage is too severe and they try to block the flow, the whole thing will go to hell possibly dumping 2 to 3 times more oil than the current rate. Worse, there would be no way to stop it until a relief well is drilled (or nuke is detonated).
'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Doesn't that golden rule clearly lay down an opposition to slavery?
Of course. If you're talking about people. Slaves were not considered people by society nor by religion, and therefore it was OK. See how easy it is to justify something so horrible?
At any rate, the "Christians" like the ones you're thinking of are not really Christians. They are Christians in name only.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? This is America. We don't believe in that tree hugging hippie crap.
Thomas Jefferson was ALMOST EXCLUDED. That's not conservative. That's fucking nuts.
Anyone who followed this sad tale from beginning to end would have their jaws dropping about the ludicrous shit that went on. Not only were the people involved incredibly biased, but they WERE NOT EVEN EXPERTS IN THE MATERIAL THEY WERE REVIEWING. Contract with America vs. Civil Rights Movement? Really?
This had nothing to do with proper education and everything to do with trying to push an agenda. Politics at its most revolting.
Now when people ask me why I'm homeschooling I have a prominent example why public schools are failing. Thanks Texas.
No one cares as long as they can keep getting shit cheap.
"Cap and trade" is really just a variant of "tax and spend", which inevitably leads to "inflate and borrow".
As opposed to spend and spend, which leads to inflate and borrow much faster?
Your making some mighty big claims. C&T is based on a similar program that was used to reduce SO2 emissions. That seemed to work out well. Can you explain why you think C&T will fail? I'm not saying that C&T is great idea, but I'd like to know why you think it will be a miserable failure.
If this is the best these people can do, their budget should be slashed.
What motivates companies? Profits. What profit is there for a company to control it's pollution? None, unless something else makes it worthwhile to do so. So other than giving the companies an incentive, what other method would propose?
Investigate the National Academy of Science and you will find one of those "think tank" organizations that is funded by the government
Precisely who else would fund such an organization? Private corporations? That really wouldn't be such a good idea, given the long track record of companies fighting tooth and nail against scientific research that didn't show them in the best light.
Our government is elected, which means we have the option to throw the bums out. That's not really an option with private interests.
Hmmm... an organization that gets 85% of its funding from the government is advising the socialist government...
Glen Beck, is that you? Strictly from a spending point of view, our country has been socialist for a long time. But your use of the term demonstrates that you don't know what a true socialist government is. A true socialist government believes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Given our hideously lopsided income distribution in this country, we are no where NEAR socialist yet. We were actually closer in the 50's when the income tax bracket went as high as 90%.
All hail Dear Leader, Steve Jobs Il.
There, that should make sure reasonable discussion won't take place.
Well that's good for you, however my experience has been somewhat different.
Since Windows XP I have experienced exactly two BSOD's both were on XP and both of those were related to bad drivers. My current windows boxen run primarily Windows 7 and have had zero problems.
My original recent MacBook was running Tiger, which would give me the Grey Screen Of Death approximately every other day. But I was thankfully saved from having to upgrade the OS because the whole machine just died one day (Black Screen of Death) 2 years after I got it. So I got a new machine with Leopard (haven't moved to Snow Leopard yet).
Windows 7 and Mac OS both have irritating quirks about their interfaces. It's something you either have to tweak yourself or get used to. Their is no One True UI, and any discussions of such a thing is mostly subjective.
As far responsiveness goes, again that depends entirely on what you're doing. I'm no stranger to the spinning pinwheel of pain on OSX or the blue ring of waiting on windows 7.
Point being, UI is subjective. I use linux, osx, and windows on a daily basis and they all have their issues, response time or otherwise.
If you understand programming, you can write a program that works. If you understand HOW programming works, you can explain WHY your program works.
The high level languages should be taught AFTER the programmer has an understanding of what the hell the computer is actually doing and how it operates. C is great in that regard, because it's terse enough that you can get down to the metal but high level enough to allow introduction to basic data structures. After that basic mastery, moving on to higher level languages can introduce the more abstract concepts.
I like having people who can both program AND understand what their program is doing.
I always put mine in a bag of numerous, random-length, cat5 cables. Due to various laws governing the universe and IT cabling, after a mere day in that bag separating out ANYTHING out again is nigh impossible.
Correction noted. :)
~X~