I think in the case of the Mac Pro, Apple may be attempting to lead us right down a blind alley.
Pretty sure I'm going for the previous generation, which (perhaps lacking info on the new one) at least at this point seems better designed for a real working environment.
There isn't much to like about the new design, frankly. Not with what they've told us thus far.
The new Mac Pro isn't that great -- and I've been waiting for it. Really had my hopes up.
Flash drives seem to be characterized by very high failure rates. Changing the drive? Unclear this is a user operation. All real drives -- the ones you use for your data -- would have to be external bricks. Whereas standard HD's for the current design go in and out trivially. It's wonderful. Four of 'em.
External drives? External graphics? (3 display max it would seem unless you have external boxes.... yech) Nah.
Best thing right now seems to be the last generation of the big box. 12 cores, 12 more semi-competent hyperthreads, holds four drives, can push six monitors, RAM is (user!) upgradable...
And they finally fixed OSX so it handles multiple monitors correctly, fixed the broken menu paradigm, fixed how full screen apps work... perfect.
The mac pro.... unless there are some real differences between what they say they're making and what they actually make, I think it's the big box for me. My older 8-core can live in the ham shack doing SDR and digi-mode duty.:)
This way I know I can do the big jobs, and without littering my workspace, which I am quite particular about, with bricks and cables. I *really* don't understand what they were thinking.
You want to know why "unreasonable" is in there? They tell you exactly what is reasonable:
1) Probable cause 2) Supported by Oath or Affirmation 3) A description of *exactly* what is being searched for 4) Given 1+2+3, a judge MAY decide to issue a warrant, and IF so, then 5) You can search for those things in 3, and nothing else
And here's the kicker: Having given a positive description of what is reasonable... ANYTHING ELSE IS UNREASONABLE and as the amendment says, the citizens have a right to be secure against the unreasonable.
There's your analysis. That's exactly what they meant to communicate.
I'm a geology freak. I know exactly what subsidence is.
No. Subsidence is not at all the same as sea level rise, nor can you conflate the two and get a bigger number for your warming purposes. You can't blame NY sinking on CO2.
It would appear that the actual number here, relieved of both my fumbling with metric and the hysteria from TFS and TFA is about 9", as opposed to the "over a foot" alarmist claim.
It's just that kind of heavy-handed exaggeration that gets the theorists in trouble with the skeptics. Tell the bloody truth as best you know it. Don't fuck with the numbers. Don't bend the graphs. Don't exaggerate. The more they do that crap, the more the message gets submerged in a shit storm of perfectly correct accusatory incoming.
Prevailing winds push water and create a difference in sea level across oceans.
This is either temporary and not part of sea level rise at all, or not going to vary in amount of increase with sea level. Or in other words, if the sea is at X height, and steady prevailing winds add 3", then they'll still add 3" when the sea is at X+1", so the amount of rise doesn't change.
When those winds change, so does the ocean level.
Then they aren't a permanent input to sea level rise, are they? Instead, they're just weather. Unless you're saying that warming will change the winds permanently in such a way as to make the waters at NY rise? Are you saying that? If you are, how do you know it won't be just the opposite, I wonder? Or that winds that were causing rise, will diminish and/or change direction and/or stability?
Centripetal force has an affect, causing higher levels towards the equator.
Isn't this a constant effect? How would it account for 4" more rise in NYC as opposed to, say, Borneo?
Temperature and salinity also affects water levels.
Agitated molecules take up more room. Yeah, boiling water, convection, etc. Well established. So you're saying there's a larger ocean temperature difference in NY as compared to Borneo... ?
Then as others mention, the land itself changes height with N. America generally still springing back from the weight of the glaciers.
Which has nothing to do with CO2 induced warming or sea level rise. That's like me pushing you under water at the beach and telling the judge it was "sea level rise." The frame of reference matters here: and it isn't continental bobbling. We can't affect that, nor can we use it to put blame on emissions in any way in any time frame that matters in human terms. Sea level rise in the context of warming is about more water in the ocean basins and/or said water consuming more volume and so filling said basins more fully, the direct and indirect human causes of those exact things, and not a darn thing else.
The legitimate issue is: do actions and/or emissions of ours, gas, thermal or otherwise, create a condition wherein the planet will warm? Proponents say yes; skeptics say show me; others say no; there's no sufficiently previous event of a similar nature to draw data from (CO2 rises in the fossil record trail climate warmings, they don't lead them, because they're a consequence of additional vegetation. They also uniformly presage cooling events, which is both interesting and contradictory for the warming theories. Not that cooling would be a good thing, I'd much rather see warming.) Anyway, when outlining the consequences of OUR actions, to claim that the land subsiding represents "global warming making storms worse" is a load of purest poo.
Actually, no, the question is worse: How would the seas rise 4" more in NYC than elsewhere, or the average, or the places on the OTHER side of the average? Are there places where it doesn't rise? Or rises faster than elsewhere? Why? How?
My head hurts.
Not saying it can't be true, just don't understand it at *all*.
ok, I'm thinking about it. Are you saying the oceans, which are all connected, are as much as a constant 4" different in level, say, between NYC and, oh, Denmark or Japan? How would such a difference be created or maintained? Difference in gravity? I guess what I'm asking is, how would NYC have, or maintain, a sea level that's 4" higher than the global average, other than by transitory local effects like weather? The tides go higher and lower in different places based on sea bottom effects on the motion of the water, but they do that *around* the average and so it's still the average... no?
My mind is boggled at the idea that NYC's water, while directly and hugely connected to, for instance, Fort Lauderdale's water, is 4" higher.:/
195mm from 1870 to 2006 is 19.5 cm, isn't it? The nine years from 2006 to 2013, at 3.3mm / year, make 29.7mm or 2.97 cm...so total rise using figures from the Oracle of Wikidelphi:
19.5 + 2.97 = 22.47 cm 2.54 cm / inch, so 22.47 / 2.54 = 8.84 inches since 1870 until today.
Or did I screw it up again?
I got the 3.3mm from Wikipedia at the above link, "since 2006" and counted it from 2006-2013, then added to the figure they give for 1870-2006.
If I got that right, then saying a storm is worse since 1870 seems reasonable; but saying (or implying) it's gotten significantly worse in modern times seems like a stretch.
Of course, I may have horked the math again. Oh, for the days when we measured things in furlongs per fortnight.
Why would anyone become "technologically sophisticated" if that was God's standard response to all threats to particular humans?
Ok, that's just... I'm sorry, it's outright stupid. Do you think the iPad was a response to a natural disaster? Radio? the Leyden jar? The transistor? The wheel? Pythagorean theorem? Realdoll? Do you really believe, that without natural disasters, we would just sit around with our fingers up our noses, drooling? I don't think I've run into as silly an assertion as yours in weeks now. That's some kind of accomplishment, fella.
Like most discussions with the purportedly religious (not all -- I've had discussions with extremely clever and slippery religious types, but this isn't one of them), this has devolved into you saying incredibly ridiculous things to try to bolster an incredibly weak position. I'm done; so are you, if you could only see it. Cheers.
If the "threatening" now-faster-rate of sea level rise is on the order of a 3.3 mm/year, then how is it that the sea levels in NY harbors have "risen more than a foot since the beginning of the 20th century (which would be 1900AD.)
1000mm / cm 2.54 centimeters / inch 12 inches / foot...we're talking 30 centimeters.
Wikipedia (linked above) says the *current rate*, which is *faster* than previous, is 3.3 mm / year. 113 years (since 1900) is 372.9 mm if we count 3.3 mm / year for EVERY year since then. That's a total of 3.72 cm (isn't metric easy?) or between one and two inches.
And actually, Wikipedia reports sea level rise this way: "Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm", which is less than an inch.
honestly, what "files" do you need to share between apps?
Images. RAW images. Text files. Art. Spreadsheets. Email. Source code. Notes. Calendar data. Stats. IQ data. Recordings. Videos. MIDI data. Preferences and other control information. HTML files. CGI. mp3s. tar, zip, dmg, and other compressed data files. Logs (talking ham radio logs, but yeah, program logs as well.) Screen grabs. You know... FILES.
And then there are plugins for apps. How to get a feature in one app to appear in another. We know how, it's a doddle, but under IOS... nope.
Meh, doesn't matter. Know what we're probably going to get? "Flat Icons." Whoopdee farking doo.
Because Apple sees manual management of data files in folders a legacy concept.
They're both wrong, and being disingenuous. IOS uses traditional filesystem organization EVERYWHERE except where the user can get at it. What the user gets are these crippled ass, can't-hold-subfolders, limited-to-few-files abortive pseudo-folders that (barely) act as a filesystem. IF you don't have very many apps. Then your stuff overflows into other folders, you end up with multiple folders containing the same types of things, apps can't share data or features, so every useful feature has to be re-invented and re-implemented by every app that has it... this is toyland. It's viable, sure, because half the population is on the left side of Gaussian. Unfortunately, for the rest of us, it cripples the living hell out of the device.
Apple is skating to where the puck will be
No, Apple has skated back to where the puck was in the late 1970's. Tiny directories that can't have sub-directories. It's not a new idea. It's an idea the entire computing world tried, found wanting, and discarded long ago.
At a minimum, violation of an oath of office, or of such a right, disqualifies any person so doing from holding any position of public trust or responsibility, or engaging in the practice of law, or receiving a pension or other benefit from the government. Attempting to claim a pension is appropriately viewed as criminal fraud, and attempting to continue in office is appropriately viewed as impersonating a government official.
Very serious question: Where is this codified into law that affects officeholders, or even just rules?
In fact his "crowning achievement" is a healthcare bill that is a insurance company wet dream.
In fact congress's "crowning achievement" is a healthcare bill that is an insurance company's wet dream.
FTFY. Obama didn't want what we got from congress. The ACA, as finally configured, came from the usual cronies of the corporations. Even so, availability of medical care to millions more people is an important step forward for a sane society. It just isn't as big a step as the single-payer arrangement Obama was trying for would have been. Perhaps we can go forward from here, though.
If you're a parent, we expect you to protect your progeny from the effects of issues beyond their control. This is quite reasonable; an example is, if you let your kids play in heavy traffic, we take your kids from you and put them somewhere we think is safer. This is because in the role of parent, or more to the point, guardian, we consider the lack of such care to be a clear indication of the lack of love, benevolence, what have you. And rightly so.
An omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent God that cannot be bothered to, for instance, settle down a Tsunami incoming on an island full of technologically unsophisticated natives, or arrange for a more gentle introduction to radioactivity than death by exposure, or protect you from the consequences of a bad engineering decision taken by someone else (eg, you're on a bridge, and the bridge fails), or prevent you from being born with birth defects, or from being stupid, or from being killed by, for example, leukemia, isn't taking very good care of its progeny; that shoots down the whole idea without any doubt whatsoever.
The idea that such a God would entirely recuse itself from affecting *anything* just so people could make choices... that's a non-starter, just as the idea of a parent that would let its kids play in heavy traffic so the kid could "make choices" is a non-starter. Either the benevolent God of the major religious traditions is not paying attention at all, off doing something more interesting perhaps, or it isn't omnipotent, or it isn't benevolent, or it isn't omnipresent, or it simply doesn't exist.
A world in which nothing "bad" happens, unless humans caused it. One paragraph worth of overall description, or of a day of a life of someone living in it. Go.
I'm not sure why you think I should draw your imaginary world for you, but: That'd be the world in which a benevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent God was watching out for its progeny. Where you'd be responsible for your own actions to yourself and to this God, and you'd be protected from the evil intent of others, for which they would be duly taken to task by said God. Which we are not in. Hence, no such God at all.
If your putative God is benevolent and omnipotent, then it isn't omnipresent. If it is omnipresent and omnipotent, it is not benevolent. If it is benevolent and omnipresent, then it isn't omnipotent. No matter what, the ludicrous portrayal of the God in the major religions is faulty.
See, here's the thing. First, the mythology is inconsistent and fails to demonstrate the reality that it claims is extant; second, consensuality and repeatability have never been demonstrated in regard to the claims of these traditions, despite millennia of opportunity; third, the reality that we *do* have has repeatedly and consistently demonstrated one claim after another from all of the major traditions, and their spokespersons, to be false. As science provides us with increasingly usable metaphors to examine our reality, more and more of religion's blind suppositions and assertions are shown to be false (for example, what objects orbit other objects in our solar system, exorcisms, prayer, etc.) This is known as the squeezing out of the "God of the gaps", or in other words, the unknowns that religious chicanery thrives on are continually being reduced, hence the gaps in our knowledge where concepts of imaginary friends can live are less and less habitable for those ideas.
Susceptibility to religion is much higher among the scientifically illiterate than it is among those who are better educated. There are exceptions on both ends, but the stats are pretty clear; the very things that make people gullible, degrade their ability for critical thinking, and reduce the amount of information they have are some of the very things that bring about favorable mental states for buying into the whole imaginary friend scam. There are other factors as well: fear of death, the inability to look at a question and realize "we don't have an answer
...and *particularly* not benevolent, omnipresent, omniscient deities.
Foxholes aside, as a poster above observes, birth defects, infections, cancers, natural disasters, etc., quite often aren't the result of "our choices", and yet clearly this imaginary omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent deity is perfectly happy to let them go on regardless, though ameliorating them would not interfere in the least with our "free will."
It's so obvious that the characterization typical of the major religions cannot be the character of any actual god with those three characteristics it's almost pitiful. Therefore, the major religions are wrong, no matter if there is a god or gods, or not.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism are bunk. Pure, unadulterated bunk. Either there is no god, or gods, or it/they are the very worst kind of turdpockets playing with toys for which they have no concern. And again I find myself in agreement with the poster above who remarked (paraphrasing), "fuck them." But then I relax a bit, as there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that there are, or were, a god or gods of any stripe. One must not mistake the clamoring of a group of the deluded as evidence for anything. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not simply an increase in the loudness of protests.
Absolutely untrue. Artificially: I point at LSD. Involuntarily: I point at dreams. Voluntarily: I point at imagination. "Experience" is a mental state. It's not in any way an assurance that you're perceiving reality. That requires quite a bit more, starting with the basics: consensuality, repeatability, and so forth. Things notably lacking in the realm of superstition.
Some of us have experienced God, yet you're absolutely sure that all those people are insane.
No. Not insane. Are those who dream insane? Are those who alter reality with drugs insane? Are gamers insane? Book readers? Theatergoers? I'm just sure claims of this particular class -- those of a god or gods -- arise from something along the lines of these issues. That doesn't address the class of falsely superstitious people who are engaged in defrauding and otherwise taking advantage of the susceptible; those people are simply despicable, a much simpler and easier to understand proposition.
No, this is just about turning a set of sonic symbols into the equivalent text symbol(s). It's not about understanding in the sense you mean. It's not AI. It's a multi-d form of pattern recognition with contextual cues.
There's no AI yet. First of all, we don't know what I is. If it comes soon, it'll be an accident. Which is perfectly reasonable in terms of "could happen", but probably not likely.
But when you go back far enough, it does requires(sic) the belief that everything which set off the chain of events somehow came into being without an intelligent creator.
Which is certainly better than religion, which requires one to believe that an intelligent creator existed before anything existed at all.
And of course there's the obvious on the science side: Nothing ever "came into being", because it has always been around in one or more forms. This provides the basis for everything we see (although it's worth noting we don't see God or any gods.) It does not, however, in any way explain the ludicrous idea that "a creator" was here before anything else was, because a creator has to be made of something.
'There are no atheists in foxholes,' the saying goes
This is not a flaw with atheists, or in atheism. This is a problem with foxholes, and any other situation where you become so stressed that you can no longer think clearly.
Slashdot Mirror
Not until it has comparable, or better, lifespan, it won't. I'll take a "real" HD any day right now.
I think in the case of the Mac Pro, Apple may be attempting to lead us right down a blind alley.
Pretty sure I'm going for the previous generation, which (perhaps lacking info on the new one) at least at this point seems better designed for a real working environment.
There isn't much to like about the new design, frankly. Not with what they've told us thus far.
The new Mac Pro isn't that great -- and I've been waiting for it. Really had my hopes up.
Flash drives seem to be characterized by very high failure rates. Changing the drive? Unclear this is a user operation. All real drives -- the ones you use for your data -- would have to be external bricks. Whereas standard HD's for the current design go in and out trivially. It's wonderful. Four of 'em.
External drives? External graphics? (3 display max it would seem unless you have external boxes.... yech) Nah.
Best thing right now seems to be the last generation of the big box. 12 cores, 12 more semi-competent hyperthreads, holds four drives, can push six monitors, RAM is (user!) upgradable...
And they finally fixed OSX so it handles multiple monitors correctly, fixed the broken menu paradigm, fixed how full screen apps work... perfect.
The mac pro.... unless there are some real differences between what they say they're making and what they actually make, I think it's the big box for me. My older 8-core can live in the ham shack doing SDR and digi-mode duty. :)
This way I know I can do the big jobs, and without littering my workspace, which I am quite particular about, with bricks and cables. I *really* don't understand what they were thinking.
You want to know why "unreasonable" is in there? They tell you exactly what is reasonable:
1) Probable cause
2) Supported by Oath or Affirmation
3) A description of *exactly* what is being searched for
4) Given 1+2+3, a judge MAY decide to issue a warrant, and IF so, then
5) You can search for those things in 3, and nothing else
And here's the kicker: Having given a positive description of what is reasonable... ANYTHING ELSE IS UNREASONABLE and as the amendment says, the citizens have a right to be secure against the unreasonable.
There's your analysis. That's exactly what they meant to communicate.
The cops are all corrupt
Except for the exception
I don't mean to be abrupt
It's not beyond conception
That somewhere, somehow
locked up in a darkened office
I'm sure some cop's straight up
no lies, no artifice
But for the rest you'd best believe
the rumors all are true
that cop right there is quite unfair
and gets thrills from screwing you
From raising your insurance
to throwing you in jail
just to make their quota
or perhaps, just your bail
Now you need a lawyer
Time to mortgage all you own
The wrongness of your actions
You're about to have well shown
When you get to court
If your lawyer knew the judge
Apply sufficient monies
And out you'll get to trudge
Otherwise you're going down
and they think that's such a hoot
fines and jail and sex with Leroy
who thinks your buns are cute
Then when you get out, if you do
All your stuff is gone
You're a felon now, a perma-freak
unemployable, you're done
But the smiling cop will tell you
Your life's not all bad deal
He knows a guy, who knows a guy
who'll fence anything you can steal
There's just one thing that you should know
Before you steal and destroy
The guy who's known to the other guy
His name... his name is Leroy.
I'm a geology freak. I know exactly what subsidence is.
No. Subsidence is not at all the same as sea level rise, nor can you conflate the two and get a bigger number for your warming purposes. You can't blame NY sinking on CO2.
It would appear that the actual number here, relieved of both my fumbling with metric and the hysteria from TFS and TFA is about 9", as opposed to the "over a foot" alarmist claim.
It's just that kind of heavy-handed exaggeration that gets the theorists in trouble with the skeptics. Tell the bloody truth as best you know it. Don't fuck with the numbers. Don't bend the graphs. Don't exaggerate. The more they do that crap, the more the message gets submerged in a shit storm of perfectly correct accusatory incoming.
Word of the day: ACCURACY.
This is either temporary and not part of sea level rise at all, or not going to vary in amount of increase with sea level. Or in other words, if the sea is at X height, and steady prevailing winds add 3", then they'll still add 3" when the sea is at X+1", so the amount of rise doesn't change.
Then they aren't a permanent input to sea level rise, are they? Instead, they're just weather. Unless you're saying that warming will change the winds permanently in such a way as to make the waters at NY rise? Are you saying that? If you are, how do you know it won't be just the opposite, I wonder? Or that winds that were causing rise, will diminish and/or change direction and/or stability?
Isn't this a constant effect? How would it account for 4" more rise in NYC as opposed to, say, Borneo?
Agitated molecules take up more room. Yeah, boiling water, convection, etc. Well established. So you're saying there's a larger ocean temperature difference in NY as compared to Borneo... ?
Which has nothing to do with CO2 induced warming or sea level rise. That's like me pushing you under water at the beach and telling the judge it was "sea level rise." The frame of reference matters here: and it isn't continental bobbling. We can't affect that, nor can we use it to put blame on emissions in any way in any time frame that matters in human terms. Sea level rise in the context of warming is about more water in the ocean basins and/or said water consuming more volume and so filling said basins more fully, the direct and indirect human causes of those exact things, and not a darn thing else.
The legitimate issue is: do actions and/or emissions of ours, gas, thermal or otherwise, create a condition wherein the planet will warm? Proponents say yes; skeptics say show me; others say no; there's no sufficiently previous event of a similar nature to draw data from (CO2 rises in the fossil record trail climate warmings, they don't lead them, because they're a consequence of additional vegetation. They also uniformly presage cooling events, which is both interesting and contradictory for the warming theories. Not that cooling would be a good thing, I'd much rather see warming.) Anyway, when outlining the consequences of OUR actions, to claim that the land subsiding represents "global warming making storms worse" is a load of purest poo.
Actually, no, the question is worse: How would the seas rise 4" more in NYC than elsewhere, or the average, or the places on the OTHER side of the average? Are there places where it doesn't rise? Or rises faster than elsewhere? Why? How?
My head hurts.
Not saying it can't be true, just don't understand it at *all*.
ok, I'm thinking about it. Are you saying the oceans, which are all connected, are as much as a constant 4" different in level, say, between NYC and, oh, Denmark or Japan? How would such a difference be created or maintained? Difference in gravity? I guess what I'm asking is, how would NYC have, or maintain, a sea level that's 4" higher than the global average, other than by transitory local effects like weather? The tides go higher and lower in different places based on sea bottom effects on the motion of the water, but they do that *around* the average and so it's still the average... no?
My mind is boggled at the idea that NYC's water, while directly and hugely connected to, for instance, Fort Lauderdale's water, is 4" higher. :/
Sorry about that. Derp. Yes, 10 mm / cm.
However, still seems like an exaggeration.
195mm from 1870 to 2006 is 19.5 cm, isn't it? ...so total rise using figures from the Oracle of Wikidelphi:
The nine years from 2006 to 2013, at 3.3mm / year, make 29.7mm or 2.97 cm
19.5 + 2.97 = 22.47 cm
2.54 cm / inch, so 22.47 / 2.54 = 8.84 inches since 1870 until today.
Or did I screw it up again?
I got the 3.3mm from Wikipedia at the above link, "since 2006" and counted it from 2006-2013, then added to the figure they give for 1870-2006.
If I got that right, then saying a storm is worse since 1870 seems reasonable; but saying (or implying) it's gotten significantly worse in modern times seems like a stretch.
Of course, I may have horked the math again. Oh, for the days when we measured things in furlongs per fortnight.
Ok, that's just... I'm sorry, it's outright stupid. Do you think the iPad was a response to a natural disaster? Radio? the Leyden jar? The transistor? The wheel? Pythagorean theorem? Realdoll? Do you really believe, that without natural disasters, we would just sit around with our fingers up our noses, drooling? I don't think I've run into as silly an assertion as yours in weeks now. That's some kind of accomplishment, fella.
Like most discussions with the purportedly religious (not all -- I've had discussions with extremely clever and slippery religious types, but this isn't one of them), this has devolved into you saying incredibly ridiculous things to try to bolster an incredibly weak position. I'm done; so are you, if you could only see it. Cheers.
If the "threatening" now-faster-rate of sea level rise is on the order of a 3.3 mm/year, then how is it that the sea levels in NY harbors have "risen more than a foot since the beginning of the 20th century (which would be 1900AD.)
1000mm / cm ...we're talking 30 centimeters.
2.54 centimeters / inch
12 inches / foot
Wikipedia (linked above) says the *current rate*, which is *faster* than previous, is 3.3 mm / year. 113 years (since 1900) is 372.9 mm if we count 3.3 mm / year for EVERY year since then. That's a total of 3.72 cm (isn't metric easy?) or between one and two inches.
And actually, Wikipedia reports sea level rise this way: "Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm", which is less than an inch.
So, a foot, how? [grumble]
Images. RAW images. Text files. Art. Spreadsheets. Email. Source code. Notes. Calendar data. Stats. IQ data. Recordings. Videos. MIDI data. Preferences and other control information. HTML files. CGI. mp3s. tar, zip, dmg, and other compressed data files. Logs (talking ham radio logs, but yeah, program logs as well.) Screen grabs. You know... FILES.
And then there are plugins for apps. How to get a feature in one app to appear in another. We know how, it's a doddle, but under IOS... nope.
Meh, doesn't matter. Know what we're probably going to get? "Flat Icons." Whoopdee farking doo.
They're both wrong, and being disingenuous. IOS uses traditional filesystem organization EVERYWHERE except where the user can get at it. What the user gets are these crippled ass, can't-hold-subfolders, limited-to-few-files abortive pseudo-folders that (barely) act as a filesystem. IF you don't have very many apps. Then your stuff overflows into other folders, you end up with multiple folders containing the same types of things, apps can't share data or features, so every useful feature has to be re-invented and re-implemented by every app that has it... this is toyland. It's viable, sure, because half the population is on the left side of Gaussian. Unfortunately, for the rest of us, it cripples the living hell out of the device.
No, Apple has skated back to where the puck was in the late 1970's. Tiny directories that can't have sub-directories. It's not a new idea. It's an idea the entire computing world tried, found wanting, and discarded long ago.
Very serious question: Where is this codified into law that affects officeholders, or even just rules?
In fact congress's "crowning achievement" is a healthcare bill that is an insurance company's wet dream.
FTFY. Obama didn't want what we got from congress. The ACA, as finally configured, came from the usual cronies of the corporations. Even so, availability of medical care to millions more people is an important step forward for a sane society. It just isn't as big a step as the single-payer arrangement Obama was trying for would have been. Perhaps we can go forward from here, though.
If you're a parent, we expect you to protect your progeny from the effects of issues beyond their control. This is quite reasonable; an example is, if you let your kids play in heavy traffic, we take your kids from you and put them somewhere we think is safer. This is because in the role of parent, or more to the point, guardian, we consider the lack of such care to be a clear indication of the lack of love, benevolence, what have you. And rightly so.
An omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent God that cannot be bothered to, for instance, settle down a Tsunami incoming on an island full of technologically unsophisticated natives, or arrange for a more gentle introduction to radioactivity than death by exposure, or protect you from the consequences of a bad engineering decision taken by someone else (eg, you're on a bridge, and the bridge fails), or prevent you from being born with birth defects, or from being stupid, or from being killed by, for example, leukemia, isn't taking very good care of its progeny; that shoots down the whole idea without any doubt whatsoever.
The idea that such a God would entirely recuse itself from affecting *anything* just so people could make choices... that's a non-starter, just as the idea of a parent that would let its kids play in heavy traffic so the kid could "make choices" is a non-starter. Either the benevolent God of the major religious traditions is not paying attention at all, off doing something more interesting perhaps, or it isn't omnipotent, or it isn't benevolent, or it isn't omnipresent, or it simply doesn't exist.
I'm not sure why you think I should draw your imaginary world for you, but: That'd be the world in which a benevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent God was watching out for its progeny. Where you'd be responsible for your own actions to yourself and to this God, and you'd be protected from the evil intent of others, for which they would be duly taken to task by said God. Which we are not in. Hence, no such God at all.
If your putative God is benevolent and omnipotent, then it isn't omnipresent. If it is omnipresent and omnipotent, it is not benevolent. If it is benevolent and omnipresent, then it isn't omnipotent. No matter what, the ludicrous portrayal of the God in the major religions is faulty.
See, here's the thing. First, the mythology is inconsistent and fails to demonstrate the reality that it claims is extant; second, consensuality and repeatability have never been demonstrated in regard to the claims of these traditions, despite millennia of opportunity; third, the reality that we *do* have has repeatedly and consistently demonstrated one claim after another from all of the major traditions, and their spokespersons, to be false. As science provides us with increasingly usable metaphors to examine our reality, more and more of religion's blind suppositions and assertions are shown to be false (for example, what objects orbit other objects in our solar system, exorcisms, prayer, etc.) This is known as the squeezing out of the "God of the gaps", or in other words, the unknowns that religious chicanery thrives on are continually being reduced, hence the gaps in our knowledge where concepts of imaginary friends can live are less and less habitable for those ideas.
Susceptibility to religion is much higher among the scientifically illiterate than it is among those who are better educated. There are exceptions on both ends, but the stats are pretty clear; the very things that make people gullible, degrade their ability for critical thinking, and reduce the amount of information they have are some of the very things that bring about favorable mental states for buying into the whole imaginary friend scam. There are other factors as well: fear of death, the inability to look at a question and realize "we don't have an answer
...and *particularly* not benevolent, omnipresent, omniscient deities.
Foxholes aside, as a poster above observes, birth defects, infections, cancers, natural disasters, etc., quite often aren't the result of "our choices", and yet clearly this imaginary omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent deity is perfectly happy to let them go on regardless, though ameliorating them would not interfere in the least with our "free will."
It's so obvious that the characterization typical of the major religions cannot be the character of any actual god with those three characteristics it's almost pitiful. Therefore, the major religions are wrong, no matter if there is a god or gods, or not.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism are bunk. Pure, unadulterated bunk. Either there is no god, or gods, or it/they are the very worst kind of turdpockets playing with toys for which they have no concern. And again I find myself in agreement with the poster above who remarked (paraphrasing), "fuck them." But then I relax a bit, as there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that there are, or were, a god or gods of any stripe. One must not mistake the clamoring of a group of the deluded as evidence for anything. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not simply an increase in the loudness of protests.
Absolutely untrue. Artificially: I point at LSD. Involuntarily: I point at dreams. Voluntarily: I point at imagination. "Experience" is a mental state. It's not in any way an assurance that you're perceiving reality. That requires quite a bit more, starting with the basics: consensuality, repeatability, and so forth. Things notably lacking in the realm of superstition.
No. Not insane. Are those who dream insane? Are those who alter reality with drugs insane? Are gamers insane? Book readers? Theatergoers? I'm just sure claims of this particular class -- those of a god or gods -- arise from something along the lines of these issues. That doesn't address the class of falsely superstitious people who are engaged in defrauding and otherwise taking advantage of the susceptible; those people are simply despicable, a much simpler and easier to understand proposition.
No, this is just about turning a set of sonic symbols into the equivalent text symbol(s). It's not about understanding in the sense you mean. It's not AI. It's a multi-d form of pattern recognition with contextual cues.
There's no AI yet. First of all, we don't know what I is. If it comes soon, it'll be an accident. Which is perfectly reasonable in terms of "could happen", but probably not likely.
No, but there's that thing going on in New Hampshire...
And then she said "Oh... OH!... So that's why people do this!
Which is certainly better than religion, which requires one to believe that an intelligent creator existed before anything existed at all.
And of course there's the obvious on the science side: Nothing ever "came into being", because it has always been around in one or more forms. This provides the basis for everything we see (although it's worth noting we don't see God or any gods.) It does not, however, in any way explain the ludicrous idea that "a creator" was here before anything else was, because a creator has to be made of something.
Religion is faulty thinking, that's all.
This is not a flaw with atheists, or in atheism. This is a problem with foxholes, and any other situation where you become so stressed that you can no longer think clearly.
A front door is not, after all, a back door.